PDA

View Full Version : P47 ALTIMETER STILL NOT WORKING! Who is beta-testing this plane?



XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 02:20 AM
Someone, please explain to Oleg, in the P47, there is no way to determine if you are 3k, 13k, 23k, 33k, or 43k, in altitude. The P47 is missing the TEN THOUSAND FOOT MARKER. I've whined on and on about this.

Also, the roll-rate on the P47 doesn't appear to have been adjusted any...who's beta-testing the P47?


--
Surgeon General

Executive Officer 56th Fighter Group
61st Fighter Squadron
Zemke's Wolfpack
CAVE TONITRUM

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 02:20 AM
Someone, please explain to Oleg, in the P47, there is no way to determine if you are 3k, 13k, 23k, 33k, or 43k, in altitude. The P47 is missing the TEN THOUSAND FOOT MARKER. I've whined on and on about this.

Also, the roll-rate on the P47 doesn't appear to have been adjusted any...who's beta-testing the P47?


--
Surgeon General

Executive Officer 56th Fighter Group
61st Fighter Squadron
Zemke's Wolfpack
CAVE TONITRUM

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 02:22 AM
The D10 rollrate has been corrected,I think....

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 02:24 AM
Use the speed bar Dave /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<center>http://www.gamespy.com/legacy/top10/movievillains/hal9000.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 02:29 AM
I don't want to use the freakin' speed-bar...I want the plane corrected...so, please, insert your quarter and try again.

Perhaps, I need to find someone that speaks Russian to explain to Oleg what is wrong. Perhaps, something is getting lost in the translation.

Who are the beta-testers? Perhaps, they need to find new ones. If they never noticed anything like the altimeter being wrong...they need to beta-test other games like Donkey-Kong, or Pong, etc. This simulation is just too complicated for them.

I haven't tried the D10.

I do have video of Jeff Ethel flying the P47, and he even rolls the plane faster than in the game. His plane WAS REAL -- not a fake...So, what's the problem in here?

--
Surgeon General

Executive Officer 56th Fighter Group
61st Fighter Squadron
Zemke's Wolfpack
CAVE TONITRUM

Message Edited on 09/08/0308:30PM by FG56th-S.G.

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 02:30 AM
The D-10 and D-22 roll rates have indeed been fixed, they are almost correct and quite nice. However I agree the altimeter is still missing the 10K marker and need's to be addressed, I noted this in the great 1.1B email to no effect. At least we do have the speed-bar to fall back on. The D-27 is still quite a ways off for roll-rate, but again I hope Oleg will fix it.
~S!
Eagle
CO 361st vFG

<center>----------------------------------------------------------------------------</center> <center> www.361stvfg.com</center> (http://www.361stvfg.com</center>)
<center>
http://home.comcast.net/~smconlon/wsb/media/245357/site1003.jpg

</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 02:31 AM
Okay, I'll try the D10 and the D22. D27 still is very lacking, however.


--
Surgeon General

Executive Officer 56th Fighter Group
61st Fighter Squadron
Zemke's Wolfpack
CAVE TONITRUM

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 02:33 AM
You're absolutely right.

"As a P-47 pilot, you'll use your pilot's intuition to tell you at what altitude the aircraft is operating at. A good rule of thumb is, if you can see individual blades of grass, the altimeter is saying "30 feet". If you can see an entire forest, the altimeter means "30,000 feet". Use your best judgement to decipher the somewhat cryptic altimeter indications".

- from the Official FB Pilots Manual-

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

http://members.cox.net/miataman1/WAR-08.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 02:43 AM
The D27 roll-rate wasn't anything to brag about. I think the current FM is fairly accurate. Historically,the D10 and D22 had better roll-rates than the D27....

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 02:45 AM
Interesting, ...also the little turbo/boost gauge on the right hand side is still perpetually reading zero. No one ever thought to correct this either, even after many whines. Why on earth would the D-10 and D-22 be fixed but not the D-27? I tried them all...the 10 and 22 are a dream but the 27 still rolls as slow as Rosie O'Donnel in a velcro Mumu. What gives?

_____________________________________
Proud flyer of IL2 Forgotten Battles: The home of the first, and only fully Kevlar covered airplanes...the Lagg 3 and I16 Rata.

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 04:00 AM
I think the roll rate on the P47's is a little better now.
Althought I did a few speed tests using only 25% fuel loadout, no ammo and cowl flaps closed at 100% throttle.

P47-D27
1000m 480kph(300mph)
2000m 470kph(293mph)
5000m 450kph(281mph)
8000m 429kph(268mph)
10000m 380kph (237mph) 60% Mix

Historically, 10000m was supposed where its best speed was at.

Now looking at my "American Warplanes of World War II" - Edited by David Donald
He gave the P47D a top speed of 697Kph(clean). No Alt given , but I assume 30000 feet.
Looking at a few credible sources on the net.
They all gave roughly about 426 mph (681kph) at 30,000 ft.(~10000m). Its a huge difference to my results. Maybe I was doing something wrong.

Anyone know where Oleg got his performance info from ? It seems incorrect by a huge margin.

I tend to agree though, they didn't beta test this one well or even bothered to research it properly.


xPolarisx

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 07:01 AM
Also isn't the engine model porked in the 47 as well. The combat settings for prop are supposed to be 3000 RPM and I can't gat it much past 26k.

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 07:40 AM
"Historically, 10000m was supposed where its best speed was at.

Now looking at my "American Warplanes of World War II" - Edited by David Donald He gave the P47D a top speed of 697Kph(clean). No Alt given , but I assume 30000 feet. Looking at a few credible sources on the net.

They all gave roughly about 426 mph (681kph) at 30,000 ft.(~10000m). Its a huge difference to my results. Maybe I was doing something wrong.

Anyone know where Oleg got his performance info from ? It seems incorrect by a huge margin. I tend to agree though, they didn't beta test this one well or even bothered to research it properly"

...

How about taking note of the possibilty your test method was wrong, rather than pointing out Oleg's stupidity in handling data? It's really alarming that even with no ill-intention, people still automatically bring up the fault of the system before thinking that there might be an error in trial.

Your mixture setting is way too high.

30~40% mixture gives the P-47 best performance at altitudes over 8000m. With that settings I achieved practically identitcal speeds which you have brought up.

Consult the thread "P-47 underpowered?" in ORR.

-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 08:23 AM
http://www.boardy.de/images/smilies/kopfpatsch.gif



-- Oleg, in the P47, there is no way to determine if you are
-- 3k, 13k, 23k, 33k, or 43k, in altitude.

If you see a pancake down there, you are at 13k.

If you are at 23k, you are playing LOMAC.



Now, we all wish for technical accuracy on the altimeter. If so we post that instead of claiming we can't tell 3k and 13k (very embarassing). However, on the other hand, if we really can't tell this difference, we don't need to be simming any FB aircraft. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Nobody whined about Yak~3 compass mounted backwards cos nobody can see any compass. Or did 1.11 Patch make the Yak3 compass visible?

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 09:45 AM
How do you know that the altimeter bug was not reported? do you think for one minute that every reported bug is fixed?

You slam the beta testers without knowing squat.......

Jeeeez this forum!!

BC

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 09:55 AM
30000 feet is 9000m, not 10000m

my 2c

<center><img src=http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg></center>

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 10:32 AM
As per the previous post, my mistake, it is 9000m. Just did some tests at that alt.

9000 20%mix 380kph(237.5mph)
9000 40%mix 400kph(250mph)

Still shows they screwed the engine performance modelling on this one.

Its such a huge variation from the recorded stats. That why I was so interested as to where he might have got his figures from. Nothing wrong with that.


xPolarisx

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 10:47 AM
you are making a mistake

you are giving us the IAS instead of the TAS...

you should convert your speed in TAS, as it is the speed given by external source 95% of the time...

<center><img src=http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg></center>

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 11:01 AM
I thought there are no headwinds modelled in IL2fb, so I can only assume that IAS would equally TAS in this sim. Unless someone can correct me ?

regards
xPolarisx

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 11:06 AM
I can

this chart is in a pdf in the manual folder of CD2 of FB :

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/ias_tas.jpg


as you can see, it make a big difference...

<center><img src=http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg></center>

Hunter82
09-09-2003, 11:45 AM
It was an open beta..so you were testing it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Did you send in a bug report?

=======================================
Ubisoft IL2/Lock On Moderator
ATI Catalyst Driver Beta Tester
Hunter82 wrote:"I did not have technical relations with that question"
Mudmovers (http://www.mudmovers.com/) </center>
=======================================

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 11:51 AM
Hi,

TAS has not much to do with headwinds. This would be ground speed.

It has mainly to do with air density.

Some people should get a little bit more into the topic.

Carsten

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 12:06 PM
Ground Speed (GS) - speed of craft over ground

Indicated Air Speed (IAS) - value on airspeed indicator

Calibrated Air Speed (CAS) - IAS corrected for positional error (also know as RAS or Rectified Air Speed)

Eqauivalent Air Speed (EAS) - CAS corrected for compressibility error

True Air Speed (TAS) - EAS corrected for air density (pressure and temperature).


Then again, the subject of this thread is altimeters and not ASIs.

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 12:14 PM
At full speed - nose down & impact is within a few seconds then you´re not flying high. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

S!

M0NS



"Blow up the outside world"

http://www.flugwerk.de/images/01k.jpg
My garage!

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 12:59 PM
Actually, yes. I did send in a BUG REPORT. Nothing was done.

We are the last line of defense. I'm sure OLEG has REAL beta-testers. I'm surprised they never caught this bug. It's the same as the artificial horizon, but they actually took care of that one.

If I am a "beta-tester" for Oleg, why am I not getting all the updates? I only get the "open betas". That tells me he does have beta-testers close to him.

All I want is the p47 to be fixed. The reason I stated I couldn't tell the difference between 3k, 13k, 23k, 33k, and 43k is because I wanted them to understand what's wrong.

Someone stated if you were flying above 23k, you were flying LOMAC? When P47s escorted bombers, they were usually WELL ABOVE that altitude. Read some history!


--
Surgeon General

Executive Officer 56th Fighter Group
61st Fighter Squadron
Zemke's Wolfpack
CAVE TONITRUM

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 01:09 PM
OK then,

Using the chart for the 9000m level, my 400kph IAS gets converted to about 476kph TAS. Still short by about 200kph.
Or did I do the conversion wrong?

xPolarisx

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 01:16 PM
Eagle......I'm a Jug flyer and I love the plane. But...if it hasn't been fixed yet (D27) I kinda doubt that it will be now that teh latest greatest patch is out. I would love to see it all fixed but I kinda doubt it. I fly teh 27 almost all teh time and I have just accepted it teh way it is and go with it. Maybe someone can convince Oleg to fix it. I'm not whining jsut saying. I'll keep flying it teh way it is.

Hawgdog
09-09-2003, 01:25 PM
FG56th-S.G. wrote:
...who's beta-testing the P47?

A guy named Doug who works part-time at the quickie lube in town. The would have picked me but I can't spell too well and they had so many screw-ups on my P.11 report (i.e. paper wing skin looked teflon kelvar..) so you see why it wasn't me this time.

http://www.thesafehouse.org/~fricka/Offline/zooms/betatester_zoom.jpg



<center></script>The original HawgDog, dont be fooled by fneb imitations
Vulching can be a contact sport
When you get to hell, tell 'em Hawgdog sent you
http://users.zoominternet.net/~cgatewood/assets/images/sharkdog.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 01:51 PM
Jesus people. i've never seen so much whinning. Even in a hospital nursery there's not this much whinning.

Come on folks.. they are not going to get every little nit picky thing fixed per your specifications and wants. At some point they have to put things like teh "altimeter bug" by the wayside.

Come on folks!

Happy holidays...

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 01:56 PM
yes polaris, you made a mistake

after finding the line corresponding at your altitude, you follow it until you arrive at the column indicating your IAS at its top...

in our case, your 9000m at 400kph give us a TAS of 636 kph...

you see?

The higher you are, the bigger the difference between your IAS and your TAS...

<center><img src=http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg></center>

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 02:01 PM
oh, and BTW, don't bother at making measures by yourself...

this chart was done using the in game FM infos...

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/comp_p47.jpg


i already posted it elsewhere...

The author of the program sayed the values indicated are precise at + or - 5%...



<center><img src=http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg></center>

Hawgdog
09-09-2003, 02:21 PM
Hoarmurath wrote:
-


How do you read this chart- I'm an artist not a engineer LOL
The graph in the bottom right- landing flaps in the D is the tightest turn at 1000 meters, the numbers on the left and bottom are?
thanks-



<center></script>Your Post Could Not Be Completed Because:

Board is busy currently unable to post.

Please make any needed corrections and try again.

When you get to hell, tell 'em Hawgdog sent you
http://users.zoominternet.net/~cgatewood/assets/images/sharkdog.gif





Message Edited on 09/09/0309:21AM by Hawgdog

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 02:26 PM
speed chart :

vertical : altitude in meters
horizontal : speed in kph (TAS)

climb chart :

vertical : altitude in meters
horizontal : vertical speed in meters/second

speed-climb chart :

vertical : vertical speed in meters/second
horizontal : speed in kph (TAS)

speed-turn chart :

vertical : sustained 360? turn time in seconds
horizontal : speed in kph (TAS)

wonderful tool from Youss.... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center><img src=http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg></center>

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 02:38 PM
It's already been pointed out in this thread, but some of you need to brush up on your aeronautical knowledge before telling the dev team/beta testers how stupid they are. TAS/IAS and mixture settings are abolutely critical in these kinds of tests where there is a huge altitude differential.

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 02:51 PM
well, this game is not intended to be played only by people knowing very well aeronautics...

as long as the debate stay polite, i'm always glad to help those who haven't read or studied as much as me to understand how it works, and what it means...

Polaris made some mistakes, but i think he now have better understanding about the flight mechanics, and hopefully those reading this post had the occasion to learn something as well if they didn't know about TAS and IAS as well...

In order to know how it works, you have to get someone to explain you...



<center><img src=http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg></center>

Message Edited on 09/09/0301:51PM by Hoarmurath

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 04:28 PM
Hoarmurath wrote:
- well, this game is not intended to be played only by
- people knowing very well aeronautics...

Agreed, obviously there would not be a market for the game if that were the case. I'm not trying to be some kind of elitist by saying what I did.

- as long as the debate stay polite, i'm always glad
- to help those who haven't read or studied as much as
- me to understand how it works, and what it means...

Of course. The distinction comes when the polite criticism turns into namecalling and accusations that the developers "don't know what they're doing" which is all too commonplace, it seems.

- Polaris made some mistakes, but i think he now have
- better understanding about the flight mechanics, and
- hopefully those reading this post had the occasion
- to learn something as well if they didn't know about
- TAS and IAS as well...

Agreed.

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 05:17 PM
super looking program...where can we get it at???


Hoarmurath wrote:
- oh, and BTW, don't bother at making measures by
- yourself...
-
- this chart was done using the in game FM infos...
-
http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/comp_p47.jpg
-
-
- i already posted it elsewhere...
-
- The author of the program sayed the values indicated
- are precise at + or - 5%...
-
-
-
-
- <center><img
- src=http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg><
- /center>

Hunter82
09-09-2003, 05:33 PM
on check six website Scott... I also answered your post in Tech /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



=======================================
Ubisoft IL2/Lock On Moderator
ATI Catalyst Driver Beta Tester
Hunter82 wrote:"I did not have technical relations with that question"
Mudmovers (http://www.mudmovers.com/) </center>
=======================================

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 06:02 PM
Youss posted a link on the vow forum as well for its program...


/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center><img src=http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg></center>

XyZspineZyX
09-09-2003, 06:50 PM
Thanks again Hunter...wow ur everywhere today aren't u? aren't u supposed to be working or something? I saw ur answer on the Tech page. thanks.