PDA

View Full Version : G10, G14, K4 tested at 100% RAD 4, Manual pitch



XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 09:44 PM
Salute all

There have been a creshendo of complaints that I am not doing my testing according to the Luftwaffe criteria.

Well, to respond, I AM and WILL continue doing the tests with manual pitch, since the issue is how much performance a good flyer can get out of his plane in FORGOTTEN BATTLES. Not how much performance he can get out of his plane when he deliberately cripples the aircraft by using a undermodelled Auto prop system.

To continue:

I did another series of tests, this time with the G10, G14 and K4 since they seem to be "hot button" planes. Unlike my first series of tests, in which I tested each plane 3 times for climbrate, and then averaged the results, I only did one test per plane this time. I feel pretty confident that I would get similar results by repeating the tests.

I used the following test criteria:

1) 100% fuel

2) Default loadout.

3) Online Dogfight server, small map of Finnish Gulf, no wind.

4) Record Flight

5) Takeoff with radiator fully open, fly to over water, then drop down to wavetop.

6) Starting speed 300 Kph, Rad position 4, Throttle position 100%

7) Climb to 5,000 meters. Set RPM at 2800. As soon as engine overheats, open radiator to fully open, reduce revs to 2700 to cool engine. By the time the climb ends at 5,000 ft, engine is at normal temperature.


I got the following results:


109G10

1000 meters: :49 seconds Initial climb from Sea Level 20.04 Meter/sec or 4017 ft/min

2000 meters: 1:58

3000 meters: 3:09

5000 meters: 5:55


109G14

1000 meters: :51 Initial climb from Sea Level 19.6 meters per second or 3859 ft/min

2000 meters: 1:57

3000 meters: 3:06

5000 meters: 5:55


109K4

1000 meters: 45 seconds Initial climb from Sea Level 22.22 m/sec or 4373 ft/min

2000 meters: 1:41

3000 meters: 2:35

5000 meters: 4:20


Compare the sea level climb figures I recorded with Butch 2K's data, (posted on my other thread) on the G10, G14 and K4 at 100% throttle:

-----------Butch's data-----------My results----------


G10---------14.2 m/sec-------------20.04 m/sec

G14---------16.0 m/sec-------------19.6 m/sec

K4----------14.1 m/sec*-------------22.22 m/sec


*This figure likely obtained with an engine tuned for high altitude performance.


It's clear that the FB planes are performing much better than the historical variants.

Another interesting thing is that when you compare the test of the K4 with my original tests at 110%, you discover this plane does not suffer a lot from the reduced throttle and open radiator when you calculate time to higher altitudes. Unlike the other two planes, which overheated even with RAD 4 at around 3000 meters, the K4 did not overheat until 4200 meters. and immediately cooled down again.

A note about using Manual pitch to obtain maximum climb:

The optimum pitch setting in order to obtain 2800 rpm in a steep climb varies from plane to plane. The K4 for example seems to use around 87% pitch, while the G10 and G14 use 92%.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 09:44 PM
Salute all

There have been a creshendo of complaints that I am not doing my testing according to the Luftwaffe criteria.

Well, to respond, I AM and WILL continue doing the tests with manual pitch, since the issue is how much performance a good flyer can get out of his plane in FORGOTTEN BATTLES. Not how much performance he can get out of his plane when he deliberately cripples the aircraft by using a undermodelled Auto prop system.

To continue:

I did another series of tests, this time with the G10, G14 and K4 since they seem to be "hot button" planes. Unlike my first series of tests, in which I tested each plane 3 times for climbrate, and then averaged the results, I only did one test per plane this time. I feel pretty confident that I would get similar results by repeating the tests.

I used the following test criteria:

1) 100% fuel

2) Default loadout.

3) Online Dogfight server, small map of Finnish Gulf, no wind.

4) Record Flight

5) Takeoff with radiator fully open, fly to over water, then drop down to wavetop.

6) Starting speed 300 Kph, Rad position 4, Throttle position 100%

7) Climb to 5,000 meters. Set RPM at 2800. As soon as engine overheats, open radiator to fully open, reduce revs to 2700 to cool engine. By the time the climb ends at 5,000 ft, engine is at normal temperature.


I got the following results:


109G10

1000 meters: :49 seconds Initial climb from Sea Level 20.04 Meter/sec or 4017 ft/min

2000 meters: 1:58

3000 meters: 3:09

5000 meters: 5:55


109G14

1000 meters: :51 Initial climb from Sea Level 19.6 meters per second or 3859 ft/min

2000 meters: 1:57

3000 meters: 3:06

5000 meters: 5:55


109K4

1000 meters: 45 seconds Initial climb from Sea Level 22.22 m/sec or 4373 ft/min

2000 meters: 1:41

3000 meters: 2:35

5000 meters: 4:20


Compare the sea level climb figures I recorded with Butch 2K's data, (posted on my other thread) on the G10, G14 and K4 at 100% throttle:

-----------Butch's data-----------My results----------


G10---------14.2 m/sec-------------20.04 m/sec

G14---------16.0 m/sec-------------19.6 m/sec

K4----------14.1 m/sec*-------------22.22 m/sec


*This figure likely obtained with an engine tuned for high altitude performance.


It's clear that the FB planes are performing much better than the historical variants.

Another interesting thing is that when you compare the test of the K4 with my original tests at 110%, you discover this plane does not suffer a lot from the reduced throttle and open radiator when you calculate time to higher altitudes. Unlike the other two planes, which overheated even with RAD 4 at around 3000 meters, the K4 did not overheat until 4200 meters. and immediately cooled down again.

A note about using Manual pitch to obtain maximum climb:

The optimum pitch setting in order to obtain 2800 rpm in a steep climb varies from plane to plane. The K4 for example seems to use around 87% pitch, while the G10 and G14 use 92%.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 09:50 PM
Why don't you test the planes with automatical pitch ?

There is no sense in testing them with the wrong settings, which haven't been used in reality !

-------------------
http://320015073007-0001.bei.t-online.de/il2-forum/signatur.gif
JG51_Atze

JG51 (http://www.jg51.de)
Virtual Online War (http://www.s-driess.de/vow/index.php?page=homeÔžion=home)
"Ich bin ein Wurgerwhiner"

Message Edited on 09/21/0310:53PM by Atzebrueck

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 09:53 PM
You see they are way off even with your very "advantaged" test settings.

Are u all think i m talking BS /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

ZG77_Nagual
09-21-2003, 09:55 PM
I'd like to see auto a man pitch settings side by side too.
Though I appreciate your time and sanity Buzz. I've also noticed many people post test results run in accelerated time - Not sure what impact this has, but it does introduce another variable and it seems unwise to assume it has no effect.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 09:55 PM
Salute

By the way, couple comments on how much time it takes to test:

First of all you need to set up a server, with the planes and conditions.

Then you need to do the tests. I do my tests and record them, focusing on getting optimum performance. Then I go back to the recorded track and using a stopwatch, time the climbs. Plus you get situations whereby a test doesn't go correctly and you need to repeat it, or your stopwatch doesn't start when it should etc.

Then you have to write up the post, with all the details, check references, etc.

I spent 5 hours last night doing my first test. I spent 1:45 this morning doing this test.

In all it is a considerable investment in time to do the tests, and like everyone else, I have better things to do with my time.

I would suggest that those who are so vocal on the issue of aircraft performance, should invest some of their own time and test the aircraft they are so concerned about.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 09:57 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:

It's clear that the FB planes are performing much better than the historical variants.

What ??? LOL now cmon you are joking right, you joking.
Tell me u do.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 09:57 PM
Salute Nagual

I didn't do these tests offline. I did them ONLINE, so that the conditions we experience on dogfight servers can be recreated.

Online testing can NEVER be done in time accelerated mode.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:02 PM
go above 5k

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:04 PM
Time compression or acceleration doesn't affect the test !.

But Buzz, please use the following settings:
- FR setting (except cockpit, wind and external views)
- run the engine at 100% power with automatical pitch
- summer map (online summer)
- fly behind the edge of the map (where the ground is constantly at 0m altitude /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )
- 12 o'clock
- clear weather
- climbspeed 270 km/h IAS, which can be decreased to ~250 km/h IAS at very high altitudes (I guess there is somebody, who can provide the exact climbspeeds for each altitude)
- start your test with 270 km/h IAS at sealevel
- radiator half opened (vary between 4 and 6) (IIRC the radiator has been set to "full open" at a certain altitude)
- record a track and make it available to the forumusers
- climb up to 10000m
- ...

Otherwise your tests are not comparable to reality /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif .

-------------------
http://320015073007-0001.bei.t-online.de/il2-forum/signatur.gif
JG51_Atze

JG51 (http://www.jg51.de)
Virtual Online War (http://www.s-driess.de/vow/index.php?page=homeÔžion=home)
"Ich bin ein Wurgerwhiner"

Message Edited on 09/21/0311:05PM by Atzebrueck

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:04 PM
He is not joking. My understanding is that he says we have to use a pitch exploit to get decent performance, and use a radiator exploit to keep the engine from going kablooey.

Neither of those things should be necessary (or even posible for that matter, as they are bugs in their own right). They should climb correctly with the automatic pitch, and should stay sufficiently cool with the specified radiator settings.

Plenty of other planes have pitch exloits as well. For example, the FW-190, which goes faster than historical speeds if you use manual pitch.

So, for one, the pitch exploits need to be fixed, because they give an advantage to those who would abuse them. Two, correct performance should be attained with automatic pitch. Three, the engine should stay cool in situations described by the historical tests. These top speeds and climb rates are irrelevant if the engine breaks down in the process of achieving them, as happens in 1.1 and 1.11.


Thank you for the test Buzzsaw. Now I know how to cheat /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Message Edited on 09/21/0303:05PM by StG77_Fennec

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:05 PM
I'll grab a chair , some chips and the beer now...

<center>http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bjorta/F19-Orheim-IDCard-sm.gif

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_hawkeye.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)



http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bjorta/F19%20VS%20banner%20B.jpg (http://www.f19vs.tk)

</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:05 PM
Don't forget the popcorn.

ZG77_Nagual
09-21-2003, 10:08 PM
S! Buzzsaw - and thanks for your reply. I know in another thread Huckebein remarked that he was using time accleration - which invalidates the results to my mind on account of we don't really know how it works altogether.

I hope you've sent your tracks in to Oleg.



http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:12 PM
Yes send it to Oleg with the remark the late 109s climp like the 109D /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Nice final patch a true masterpiece.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:20 PM
Salute Fennec

You are completely correct. It does seem that a pilot has to use ahistorical engine management to get maximum performance.

That's the way it is, and the fact is, in computer games, people will use whatever techique the can to get an edge.

Your comment that we should be able to get historical performance from auto is correct also. However, if the current 109 flight model was improved to the degree that historical performance could be achieved with auto pitch, then that would also mean that someone who switched to manual would then get ridiculously overmodelled performance from his aircraft. Climbrates in the area of 6000 ft/min would be likely.

Let's face it: The game as currently designed, has flaws.

You can learn to live with them, or you can get Oleg to change the modelling so that auto pitch works at its correct level of efficiency.

Keeping the current manually attainable level of performance in the 109 series, and modifying the auto system for improved performance would seem to be one solution. The other would be eliminating the manual control system, and bringing auto performance up to spec.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:25 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute Fennec
-
- You are completely correct. It does seem that a
- pilot has to use ahistorical engine management to
- get maximum performance.

Then please don't compare your results with the data of real tests of the 109 versions !
Or do you know how the real 109 performed with manual prop pitch ? No ?!? ... so, you have to use the settings, which have been used in the real tests !

-------------------
http://320015073007-0001.bei.t-online.de/il2-forum/signatur.gif
JG51_Atze

JG51 (http://www.jg51.de)
Virtual Online War (http://www.s-driess.de/vow/index.php?page=homeÔžion=home)
"Ich bin ein Wurgerwhiner"

Message Edited on 09/21/0311:30PM by Atzebrueck

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:32 PM
This getting the correct climb to 5000m is bullpoop anyway.If you look at 2-C youll realize that the game does a weird speed up of climb rates and im thinking that its so the listed Climb to altitudes are met.To tell you the truth I dont care about the listed climbs to alt ,instead give me proper roc for each plane with no jimmys to hit the climb to alt.I want a plane that is a better climber to be a better climber!

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:40 PM
Salute Atzebruek

Sorry, but the fact is there is a difference in the efficiency of the historical Auto prop setting for the 109 series, and the efficiency of the Auto prop setting in FB.

Historically, pilots said there was no real gain to be had from going manual.

Clearly in FORGOTTEN BATTLES, there is a huge advantage to be gained from going manual.

It is not acceptable to set climbrate in FB using an auto system which is not nearly as efficient as the historical auto system. This would lead to performance in FB's manual setting which would far exceed the historical performance which could be gained by going to Manual setting in the historical aircraft.

That would result in a ahistorical performance advantage for the 109's.

The bottom line is how well does the aircraft climb. And does it meet its maximum climbrate specs.

Any careful examination of the original documents will indicate the 109's in FB can achieve historical performance. (in fact easily exceed it)

Here is a site which has the documents in question. Study them and then compare the historical test results with those I got using manual pitch.

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/lw/109_projekt.pdf

RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:43 PM
Any careful examination of the original documents will indicate the 109's in FB can achieve historical performance. (in fact easily exceed it) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Oh GOD i quit playing this freaking game.
I ll go to LOCK ON.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:53 PM
pipgig wrote:

-
- Oh GOD i quit playing this freaking game.
- I ll go to LOCK ON.
-
Ô┬┤

you are welcome to...!!

I myself find this intriguing /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
If Maddox adjust the auto efficiency to the level of Buzzsaw results with manual, I think everybody will be happy, except those who lke to argue. But then again we have the VVS for that, I guess thats the next area of combat /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I'll grab a chair , some chips and the beer again....

<center>http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bjorta/F19-Orheim-IDCard-sm.gif

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_hawkeye.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)



http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bjorta/F19%20VS%20banner%20B.jpg (http://www.f19vs.tk)

</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 11:11 PM
Buzzaw, don't get me wrong as I'm just playing 'devils advocate' here, but I remember you were Quite vocal on the P47 rollrate issue, and also how you dis-allowed those that used Rudder to increase FB rollrates. Really this seams like the same thing that some are trying to point out to you (some being vulgar and not very nice) about the 'manual'/'auto' pitch adjustments.

Really, it is fair for them to ask (ask nicely) that the 109's have historic performance through historic procedures. Is it possible? Maybe not, but Oleg (and Company) is the only one who knows, it certainly may cause many more problems than it solves to 'correct' the auto-pitch function on the Bf109s. Nothing is ever perfect.

I completely agree that the "109 is porked, this game sucks" threads are useless, worse than useless in fact, glad you have brought these things up so maybe something usefull will happen, or if nothing can be done it will be dropped (god forbid we have another FW190 view debacle)

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 11:13 PM
Did you use this setup AGAIN? (taken from your previous thread)

--------

Before I started my engine, I went into CONTROLS and remapped my HOTAS setup so that my throttle control now controlled pitch, and my mouse wheel now controlled throttle. It seemed to work perfectly. I was able to keep the revs under control.

--------

I mean this is great! (!)LW-WHINER(!) has to map his joystick like this and use unhistorically manual prop pitch to get his performance "100% correct" as in your privious thread. Kind of an laboratory setup... Try dogfighting with this HOTAS setting!!! Great! Surely LW-boys are whining without reason!

What kind of mystic setup VVS-boys have to do to get best out of their planes? Lets see; aah map supercharger to some button that they can switch it to second stage at 3000m. Shouldn't they too logically have to map magnetos to x-axis, superchager to y-axis, prop pitch to rudder and so on? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

This sort of laboratory test has almost no value whatsoever.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 11:13 PM
"This would lead to performance in FB's manual setting which would far exceed the historical performance which could be gained by going to Manual setting in the historical aircraft."

Yes, it exceeds the advantage, for about a minute and a half until it reaches over 1000m.

What you have noted is true, the Bf109 does climb too fast, at sea-level. However, there is a larger context which must not be left out - the climb rate falls off much too rapidly with altitude. In a loose analysis, it can be said the Bf109s climbs too fast at very low altitudes, and begins to climb too slow once it reaches over 1000m. The fall of climbrate is nothing like I've seen in any suggested ROC charts concerning the Bf109s.

It is fair to say parts and bits of individual test factors shown here are correct - on an individual level. However, As Ugly_Kid mentioned in the other post, in the long run it's a losing game.

What good is a 26m/s climb at 0m when the ROC falls off by 1.2 ~ 2.0m/s every 1000m alt gained?

..

Facing the facts only, we're all open to lowering the low-alt, short initial advantage at sea level, if we can get back the overall performance over long-run.

1) bring the auto management to its full efficiency
2) set the limits of manual system near the same level as auto





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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 12:19 AM
hey make it fair test the VVS planes also to see what affect you get and use your same manual prop pitch settings then maybe just maybe you will have a point.



"Of all my accomplishments I may have achieved during the war, I am proudest of the fact that I never lost a wingman. It was my view that no kill was worth the life of a wingman. . . . Pilots in my unit who lost wingmen on this basis were prohibited from leading a [section]. They were made to fly as wingman, instead."
Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann "Karaya One"

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 12:57 AM
VVS planes don't have that problem Icarp. The settings control the set engine RPM, and not the actual prop pitch. The propeller pitch adjusts itself automatically, and VVS planes don't have any sort of possible manual prop pitch control.

Not to mention VVS planes are to be mentioned at a separate discussion. We're talking about the 109s right now.

Let's try to keep the discussion fair and relevant on current issue.



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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 02:00 AM
Salute Lignite

In regards to your bringing up my opposition to the use of rudder to assist rollrate in the P-47 testing:

Rudder can be used by ANY aircraft to improve the basic rolling moment.

By Luftwaffe, USAAF, RAF, VVS etc.

If tests were done on the P-47's rollrate using rudder assist, then it would be logical to also expect tests to be done on the other aircraft also using rudder assist. A rudder assisted roll in a 190 would allow a 360 degree roll in 1.5 seconds, which is a rollrate of 240 degrees per second. That would mean that the current roll of the 190 at low speeds would be rated too high.

In actual fact, the rollrate of the 190 at low speeds is accurate, being 165 degrees per second WITHOUT rudder assist.

All the aircraft shown in the multi aircraft chart I posted were tested WITHOUT rudder assist on their rollrate. Including the P-47, the 190, the Spitfire, etc etc.



On the other hand, if we look at the question of pitch there is a whole different set of parameters.

The Luftwaffe aircraft are the ONLY aircraft which can go to manual pitch control and therefore gain an additional advantage in climb, acceleration and top speed.

None of the VVS or Allied aircraft can gain this advantage.

The Allied/VVS aircraft are essentially ALWAYS in auto mode. They can't ever switch to manual to gain extra performance.

I'd be quite happy in my P-47 to be able to do what the Luftwaffe pilots can, ie. switch to manual and gain another 500 ft/min to my climbrate.

But it can't be done. Unlike the Luftwaffe planes.

If the Luftwaffe climbrates were set now, so they performed at the maximum historical rate while in auto, that would mean that any Luftwaffe pilot who switched to manual would have an aircraft which performed way over its rated specifications.

And you know that pilots would do that to gain an advantage. I know plenty of pilots who use manual now so they can get the best performance.

The issue is how the aircraft's performance tests out. The question of whether it is obtained with manual pitch control or auto pitch control is irrelevant.

As I have said several times, it is up to you guys to lobby Oleg for a better auto pitch efficiency for the 109's, so auto mode performs closer to what can be achieved in manual pitch.

In the meantime you will have to learn to use manual pitch. There is a phrase which is often used in these types of games: "Adapt or die". Until you can get Oleg to make changes, you have those choices.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 02:05 AM
Hey I just took an LA7 to 5000M at a time of 3.8 minutes.Thats worse than what they are getting in the VOW forums at3.43 for the LA7 compared to its listed 4.5.But I did the climb at 100%percent instead of 110% power.

ZG77_Nagual
09-22-2003, 02:06 AM
Buzzsaw - I think the term "adapt or die" has somewhat broader applications than that. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 02:17 AM
Why is this posted in ORR? Are you bringing to Oleg's attention the problem with the 109's climbrates?

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 02:29 AM
Yes Buzzsaw.

But you didn't andwer the actual question.

Would you settle if the P-47s roll rate was only accurate when the pilot would need to use the rudder to attain a rate, which is commented in test figures of a rate that was for unassisted?

Wait.

Come to think of the repeated discussions on the P-47 roll rates prior to patch, its obvious you didn't choose to just "adapt", nor did you "die". You guys chose to object and make a point, and rightfully so. So then the same would be expected for the 109 climb rates, would it be not?

becareful of the double standard, Buzz.









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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 03:12 AM
Salute Kweassa

My answer is yes I would settle for that, if all the other planes in the game ALSO could not attain their listed rollrates without rudder being used.

So I will put the question right back at you:

Would you accept the 190 rollrate being reduced at low speeds since a rudder assisted roll would be 240 degrees per second?

That would give you a rollrate of around 100 degrees a second without rudder assist.

I think you are the one who is insisting on a double standard.

You are asking for a 109 which performs right up to standard in auto pitch, and overperforms in manual.

That is very clear.

You guys who fly Luftwaffe amaze me sometimes.

For the longest time in IL-2 and FB the 109's were extrodinarily overmodelled, with top speed, high speed maneuverability, turnrate etc. etc.

Now you get a few handicaps and the world is ending...

Hey, I'd like to see your auto pitch system improved by Oleg. But until then... live with it.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 03:19 AM
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

ZG77_Nagual
09-22-2003, 03:23 AM
Hey! I fly mostly luftwaffle and I ain't complaining.
Flyin them yaks and las reduces my sperm count.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 03:27 AM
S! Buzzsaw

"You are asking for a 109 which performs right up to standard in auto pitch, and overperforms in manual."

I don't think this is the picture some are trying to draw. Rather, auto-pitch should more or less MATCH performance of manual pitch. It's a not an "add to" situtation. I SHOULD be able to get the same basic level of performance if I am in auto or manual. That is the purpose of autopitch, it was to remove something from the pilot's "to do" list in combat. Manual pitch isn't there to give some kind of turbo boost, although I could see how it could provide an "edge" at some points much like the difference between and auto and manual transmission in a car (with the accepted risk of overreving the engine).

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 03:38 AM
kweassa wrote:
-
- VVS planes don't have that problem Icarp. The
- settings control the set engine RPM, and not the
- actual prop pitch. The propeller pitch adjusts
- itself automatically, and VVS planes don't have any
- sort of possible manual prop pitch control.


Yes i know that kweassa but that is what auto pitch is supposed to simulate. So basically when in auto pitch it should preform as well as if using maual pitch but thats not the case. And if you over rev for 2 seconds you get overheated and your motors screwed.



"Of all my accomplishments I may have achieved during the war, I am proudest of the fact that I never lost a wingman. It was my view that no kill was worth the life of a wingman. . . . Pilots in my unit who lost wingmen on this basis were prohibited from leading a [section]. They were made to fly as wingman, instead."
Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann "Karaya One"

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 04:24 AM
"My answer is yes I would settle for that, if all the other planes in the game ALSO could not attain their listed rollrates without rudder being used."

Adding conditions, are we?

Let's make this clear, without twisting the words to hide the obvious.

1. You would not accept test results being unachievable by historical conditions.

2. You would accept it only if all the other comparable planes would be put in the same condition, thus, the disadvantages coming from the inaccuracy is neutralized through relative performance.

In short, you don't want the P-47 roll rates being wrong, when other planes don't have the same problem. It's much the same with the Bf109 climb rates. We don't want Bf109s being unable to achieve certain rate of climb at certain historical settings, when other planes don't suffer from this problem.

....


"You are asking for a 109 which performs right up to standard in auto pitch, and overperforms in manual.

That is very clear."

Excuse me? Am I actually hearing this? Or did you choose to ignore me when I admitted people were exploiting the manual pitch in version 1.0? Read again what I suggested, please.

1) bring up the automatic management to full efficiency
2) the limit of manual management should be the same as auto

Read also about my comments on 1.1 "final" version.

People still thought the manual management of pitch offered better performance than automatic, and argued that 1) manual engine management is porked since it overheated way too much, or 2) manual management still offered better performance.

In each of those arguments I've proved that it was not the case - the automatic management provided same performance as manual, and the result of exploiting manual would lead to quick and hazardous overheats - which is as it should be. That was how it was in v1.1"F", in short, the way you would think, and I would agree, it should have been. Ofcourse, things have changed since 1.11.

You're putting words in my mouth, Buzz. Ofcourse, you probably did not pay attention to what we had to say since you probably, automatically assumed we're the Luftweenies. Pretty obvious from your following statement:

"You guys who fly Luftwaffe amaze me sometimes.

For the longest time in IL-2 and FB the 109's were extrodinarily overmodelled, with top speed, high speed maneuverability, turnrate etc. etc.

Now you get a few handicaps and the world is ending... "

Now the sudden cynicism towards us 'amazing guys who fly Luftwaffe'?

That 'extraordinarily long time' in FB, is merely a single version FB1.1, and people have both admitted to the speeds of late-model 109s were too fast, and should be corrected.

The planes not suffering from heavy control at high-speed was also noted. Some disagreed, but some, including me, supported the controls getting heavier at high speeds, as per shown in v1.1"F" and 1.11.

Turnrate, according to your logic of accepting things when it was relatively neutralized, is a non-issue. The 109s were turning too good? So were the VVS planes.


Stereotyping 'Luftwhiners' and making comments based on a few people you've had bad experiences with, really can hurt your credibility, mate. Not to mention expose your intent on proving "Oleg is right", for the purpose of showing "Luftwhiners are again asking for a increase in performance without any basis", which it is clearly not. Even if it means carrying on the weak logic of "when the end result is right, the procedure does not matter".

....

"Hey, I'd like to see your auto pitch system improved by Oleg. But until then... live with it."

However, despite all that(I'm the one having the double standard? *snicker*), where you would actually come up openly and admit to having wrong methods of testing, but still it did not matter because the end result was as reported, it is good to hear you would want to see the auto pitch system fixed as it was. Ofcourse, we'd want that too, and the exploitation with manual also addressed.


So then, what's the deal?

You agree that it would have to be fixed.. then why are you posting in such a manner? There seems to be only one intention, and I think I can guess.

But ofcourse, the P-47 pilots 'filed a complaint' on and on, rightfully so, as it was historically wrong in the previous versions. You didn't just live with it, did you?

Why should we?








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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 04:40 AM
kweassa wrote:
-
-
- becareful of the double standard, Buzz.
-
Buzz doesn't have a double standard so much as he has a single purpose. That is to continually seek improvements to allied planes while pointing out the over-modelling of LW planes.

Buzz, your name can be added to a growing list of forum contributors whose biases are laid so bare it's embarassing.
That's why I'm glad to see you've finally dropped the personae of being objective and owned up to your agenda.

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 05:00 AM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
-- You are asking for a 109 which performs right up to
- standard in auto pitch, and overperforms in manual.
-
- That is very clear.
-
- You guys who fly Luftwaffe amaze me sometimes.
-
- RAF74 Buzzsaw
-
-
-

1. This luftwhiners BS is really starting to wear thin, as it has become a standard, and very widespread, ad hominem attack on anyone who offers a perceived "pro-Luftwaffe" argument, regardless of their information or politeness. Some perhaps deserve this, but not all do. I, for example, typically fly LW aircraft online, although not religiously. I was also one of the most vocal critics of the problems with the automatic radiator system that were providing an unrealistic, ahistorical advantage over the allied aircraft. I, and others, conducted hours of tests to isolate and document the problem. It was subsequently fixed, and as a result, the performance of LW aircraft was degraded.

2. Buzz, you are speaking as if the climbrate is contained in an excel spreadsheet, and that increasing the value for X will automatically increase the value for Y. I don't think that's how the sim works. I think people are questioning how automatic control is modelled.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 07:19 AM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- I got the following results:
-
-
- 109G10
-
- 5000 meters: 5:55
-
-
- 109G14
-
- 5000 meters: 5:55
-

- It's clear that the FB planes are performing much
- better than the historical variants.
-

Sure is,

You haven't even started yet you persist to draw a conclusion. For your information:

http://test.equitatura.de/109tests.zip



-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 08:01 AM
sorry buzzsaw, again an failur in your conclusions/tests.

you compared average climb you achived with tweaked flight settings to 1000m, with AVERAGE original climb to 6000!!!!m.
all butch wrote was to 6000m! (i have the charts too)
btw..the vvs planes can use "tweak" settings too, so the delta X is the same.

109G6 from 0m stating speed 280IAS to 6000m with climbspeed 280IAS, power at 100%, autopitch, rads 6 should need 6mins
to that alt. in fb we have more than 8mins.

wastel

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 08:07 AM
Salute

Here's what Butch posted:

>>>


According to GL/C-E2 docs dated 1st November 1944 and 13th August 1944.

G-10
weight : 3297kg
max speed@alt :
- 562@SL
- 690@7.5km
RoC@SL@100% : 14.2 m/s

G-10/U4
weight : 3343kg
max speed@alt :
- 562@SL
- 690@7.5km
RoC@SL@100% : 14 m/s

G-14
weight : 3247kg
max speed@alt :
- 568@SL
- 665@5.0km
RoC@SL@100% : 16 m/s

G-14/U4
weight : 3318kg
max speed@alt :
- 568@SL
- 665@5.0km
RoC@SL@100% : 15 m/s


G-14/AS
weight : 3272kg
max speed@alt :
- 560@SL
- 680@7.5km
RoC@SL@100% : 15.4 m/s


K-4
weight : 3362kg
max speed@alt :
- 580@SL
- 710@7.5km
RoC@SL@100% : 14.1 m/s

Butch

<<<<<<<

Funny seems to me that his figures are for S.L.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 08:28 AM
hi buzzsaw,

yes i know what he hast posted, but i know the charts too.

the climbspeed there is the average to 6000m.
otherwise, all the given times would be wrong.

if 14m/s would be the best climb at sealevel..the G6
would not climb better than an Emil :-)

sorry, i'm at work currently and have no chace to get to my documents at home.

it the average climb to 6000m that is written down.
it is confirmable with other climbcharts that are out.
they show for example an starting climbspeed of an G6 at
100% of i think 17m/s...this will go up litten, but then
fall down.
so an average of 15 or 16 m/s form the g6 to 6000m is achived.

wastel

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 08:31 AM
hi buzzsaw,

yes i know what he hast posted, but i know the charts too.

the climbspeed there is the average to 6000m.
otherwise, all the given times would be wrong.

if 14m/s would be the best climb at sealevel..the G6
would not climb better than an Emil :-)

sorry, i'm at work currently and have no chace to get to my documents at home.

it the average climb to 6000m that is written down.
it is confirmable with other climbcharts that are out.
they show for example an starting climbspeed of an G6 at
100% of i think 18 to 19m/s...this will go up littel, but then falls down.
so an average of 16 or 17 m/s form the g6 to 6000m is achived.

wastel

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 08:57 AM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute
-
- Here's what Butch posted:
-
- >>>
-
-
- According to GL/C-E2 docs dated 1st November 1944
- and 13th August 1944.
-
- G-10
- weight : 3297kg
- max speed@alt :
-- 562@SL
-- 690@7.5km
- RoC@SL@100% : 14.2 m/s
-
-..........
-
- Butch
-
- <<<<<<<
-
- Funny seems to me that his figures are for S.L.


Is this your latest trolling attempt?
Those climb rates are for 1275-1310PS, 1.30ata (planes are heavier with 150-250kg than G2).
Should we expect higher climb rate values?

You are so bitter in hatred that your elementary judgement is completely strangled.



<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 09:15 AM
Sometimes it's what isn't noted that's most interesting.

I don't see the climb times beyond 1000m being noted as too high.

And what the H is a manual pitch "exploit"? The choice is a badly modelled auto pitch that runs the engine far too slow and a historically used at least sometimes manual pitch that can overperform some of the time if carefully used and blow the engine if not.

What "exploits" are used to turn and climb the La's? Oh, there's no choice so it must be okay then, STFU whiners!

5 mins 55 secs to 5km -- just over 14m/s. Certainly not going to hit 6km in any 6 mins! Instead of pointing at one end of a climb curve and saying it's too steep so the planes are overmodelled, how about saying the curve is not as real?

How close are the top speeds at SL and alts?

And from the LW fan camp... how about some La tests?

I got a nice chair and peanuts to go with the popcorn.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 09:34 AM
I think I've had enough, this isn't productive at all. No use feeding a troll. Even according to G-6 pilot's handbook, it managed 8km in 10 min. Now Buzzsaw, go ahead make my day. Show the same treat with G-10 or G-14 with lousy 1800 HP, you may use MW-50, any manual control you wish. IRC, you may even switch off the overheating. Go ahead.

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 11:24 AM
A.K.Davis wrote:
-
- RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
--- You are asking for a 109 which performs right up to
-- standard in auto pitch, and overperforms in manual.
--
-- That is very clear.
--
-- You guys who fly Luftwaffe amaze me sometimes.
--
-- RAF74 Buzzsaw
--
--
--
-
1. This luftwhiners BS.???? I was also one of the most vocal
- critics of the problems with the automatic radiator
- system that were providing an unrealistic,
- ahistorical advantage over the allied aircraft.


You Hero, that was a general bug and also some "allied aircraft" had it. (Las, yaks)

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 11:24 AM
Could we just agree that the auto pitch should be corrected?

<center>http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bjorta/F19-Orheim-IDCard-sm.gif

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_hawkeye.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)



http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bjorta/F19%20VS%20banner%20B.jpg (http://www.f19vs.tk)

</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 11:50 AM
" Could we just agree that the auto pitch should be corrected?"

Wisdom, Orheim /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif !

As Ugly_Kid said, it won't be productive to go on further. In the end, if we take out the mutual teeth-gritting and snarling, everyone in this thread seems to agree the automatic management is porked, and should be addressed, despite differing opinions on biases and Luftwhining and keeping quiet and etc etc /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ...

I agree. I think there's nothing more to post about. Can't agree with any of your major points, Buzzsaw /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif but thx for doing the tests anyway.







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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 11:52 AM
Now ,this is funny.German planes had auto pitch since the beggining of the war,Allies had it long past the half of it.In the game,German planes present all the shortcomings from this technology, while Allies planes practicly have a perfectly functioning auto pitch.Yaks, Migs, Laggs, even Hurricanes and Rattas present max speed with 100% trim and best climb rate with the same setting.Which one of the VVS pilots EVER touches the trim button in game? Noone, there is really no need to it,adversatively with what a pilot should do in one of these planes. This is , in the best case ODD- in the worse is ufo technology !On the other hand , a OKL pilot- in any of these German planes- apart from FW- has to search the game's engine characteristics to find out which position suits everytime.In later Bf's case to make the most out of the engine, in Emil and Brewster just to manage to stay on the air , having the fear of braking his engine, pitcing from 50% to 100%!I mean, it should be better for OKL's to have the Allies's "auto-manual-Il2FB-prop pitch /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif . A very peculiar contradiction to me ,that is /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif .Another "Better game balance compromise?" /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif


http://www.loggia.com/myth/images/medusa02.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 01:00 PM
You still dont seem to get it do you Buzz? You are proving our points totally, while you THINK you prove yours.

No Luftwaffe pilots wants his plane to fly better than the original. They merely want what was original. They dont want any trickery devised by a manual pitch "bug" - as you call it. The auto settings were there to keep the engine from overrevving and breaking it. Not to nerf the speeds you could fly. If you could only hear yourself, you would realize how stupid you sound. It's like having an automatic transmission in a car so that you have to work harder at driving? Not to mention you lose 20% of your power by using it. (And yes, I know that you do actually lose power in an automatic transmission car because of friction, fluid, more reciprocating weight, etc.) But not on a prop driven plane when the whole reason the auto settings were there was to make the life of the pilot EASIER not deadlier if he chose to use them.

Thanks for proving the LW point of view. You refuse to use auto settings because you know you cant match the climb speeds. You also conviently chose to stop your tests at the magical 5000 meters because you know that the data, even in your scewed test, will not match historical values. Funny how the auto settings, that were designed to give the OKL pilot an advantage over his adversaries actually cripples them now. Now that is a funny way to rewrite history.

Why dont you stick to something you at least have some reputable information about like your darling P47 and stop playing graba$$ with us.

Just another "Feed the monkey, watch him $hit" thread.

BTW, why did all that change so drastically from patch to patch again? Which is the "I is correct" one? Oh dont answer we all know...

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 01:58 PM
Buzz,

After thinking about it some more, I decided that my post was a bit out of line. I have to appologize for the name calling, it is not productive, nor does it serve this community or the issue at hand any service.

I have been getting tired of all the point - counterpoint concerning the 109's, and it's pretty obvious by now that there IS something wrong. It may be the excessive drag caused by the radiators, it may be engines that are too quick to overheat, it may be the auto setting are porked, I really dont know at this point.

Why the developers dont just come here and say that something was wrong with the original FM and we are still working on repairs is beyond me. Obviously CEM is not working like it should, and currently from a LW point of perspective, it's hindering "Us", but in all actuality it's hindering the entire community, because in the end, we all want all the planes to be as realistic as possible (I would think) - otherwise we would all go play BF 1942 or some other arcade game.

I decided to leave my original post as I wrote it however because I do feel strongly about the issue since "We" LW pilots only really have two choices to fly 190 or 109, and the 109 really seems weirded out now. There are still some problems with the 190, but overall it's gotten better since IL2. But why? Why was it not done correctly from the start? And I think that single question has been the SOLE source of the frustration in the "LW Camp".

Make em right, and let us fly. No un-historical advantages, no bugs, no tricks or cheats, just make em right. Give us realistic planes and let us have fun. That's what we all bought this game for in the first place.

Again, I am sorry for the bashing. It was not well placed. And thanks for doing your tests, I think they were actually done with "Fact finding" in mind.

P.S. Try those tests with auto pitch and see how the plane fairs. It is far easier for you to do and match against your own data than it is for me to try and meet your test criteria.

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 02:09 PM
Good for you Fehler, that you apologize for the namecallings. Shows great personality! Cheers mate!

In my opinon there is TOO much of this in this Forum. At the end all of us really like this game A LOT, thus the hot tempered posts. However, beeing rude does not help the community, rather the opposite, as many people get sick of the "tone" in here, and refrain from visiting it.

Isn't this forum here to improve the commmunication between gamers and developers? As one can see in many posts here, people ask themselves why the developers don't show up here. Concidering the harsh tone in here, I say: "No wonder!".

So please guys, we are here to enjoy a common interest; flight sims, and especially IL2 FB. be civil to each other, even if we have different opinions.
It should be a "fun" place, not a place where you get abused.

Cheers mates.

<center>http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bjorta/F19-Orheim-IDCard-sm.gif

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_hawkeye.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)



http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bjorta/F19%20VS%20banner%20B.jpg (http://www.f19vs.tk)

</center>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 02:15 PM
This test only proves that the auto system is a handicap.And Wastel also clarified what the numbers from butch2k mean.I'm not a 109 flyer, but I still think that it suffers from an unfair and not historical disadvantage.

It should be corrected.And 1c also knows that the auto system is not beyond question because they said it may be revised with further documentation in the last read-me.

In real life the manual system was for the most part a back-up system in case of damage to the auto.Its ridiculous to expect the 109 flyers to screw around with manual prop adjustments that the auto system was designed to eliminate for good reason.

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 02:23 PM
hi guys,

the autopitch produces the exact RMP,ATA settings
at the given power settings at least in the 109G2
to G6.(other i have to check, don't know right now)
like it should.

at least the gauges are correct.
so is it really the pitch? i think not.

with manual pitch you were able to get some extra HP out
of the engine, but it was NEVER used in combat.
only for extremely emergencys liek starts on small,short fields. and then only for some seconds.

wastel

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 06:20 PM
little engine test , Fb and reality:
checking 100% and 1105(+mw50) rpm's and boost settings
to look IF THE AUTO PITCH IS SO WRONG.

G2 ok
G6 ok
G6late ok
G6asm,on 100%, 200rpm to less
G14 on 100% 200rpm to less, 0.2-0,15 ata boost to less
(in FB, 110% is real 100%)

G10,K4...depends on engine.

we have for both, 110%+MW50, 2800rpm and 1.8ata
(thats ok)
on 100% we have for both 2400RPM, 1,35ata...very strange
settings.
-> 200rpm to less, but ata depends on used engine.


wastel

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 06:34 PM
update

G10 and K4 should have around 1.45ata at 2600rpm with 100%

wastel

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 07:08 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute Atzebruek
-
- Sorry, but the fact is there is a difference in the
- efficiency of the historical Auto prop setting for
- the 109 series, and the efficiency of the Auto prop
- setting in FB.
-
- Historically, pilots said there was no real gain to
- be had from going manual.
-
- Clearly in FORGOTTEN BATTLES, there is a huge
- advantage to be gained from going manual.
-
- It is not acceptable to set climbrate in FB using an
- auto system which is not nearly as efficient as the
- historical auto system. This would lead to
- performance in FB's manual setting which would far
- exceed the historical performance which could be
- gained by going to Manual setting in the historical
- aircraft.
-
- That would result in a ahistorical performance
- advantage for the 109's.
-
(...)
-
- RAF74 Buzzsaw
-

Now you see thats exactly a wrong conclusion. Nobody here ask MANUAL to be better from AUTO prop pitch. We ask to have an AUTO prop pitch w/o power punishments. Now in FB to achieve the IRL AUTO results you have to go in MANUAL, which isnt historically correct and it has more risks to damage the engine.

AUTO prop pitch should be not better, not worse than MANUAL. Then your tests would have sense compared to IRL ones.




http://membres.lycos.fr/messzer/avatar/mahgar8.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 10:53 AM
I would welcome a reduction in FW190 roll-rate /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
I also requested a reduction in the Emils climbrate and we got that sorted out.

The 103% throttle bug needed fixing - I backed that one too. Quit with the "Luftwafe People" BS Buzz - some of us want to make the SIM better, not just our 'SIDE' better.

JG5_UnKle

"Know and use all the capabilities of your airplane. If you don't sooner or later, somebody who does, will kick your ***"


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 12:25 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:


- The Luftwaffe aircraft are the ONLY aircraft which
- can go to manual pitch control and therefore gain an
- additional advantage in climb, acceleration and top
- speed.
-
- None of the VVS or Allied aircraft can gain this
- advantage.
-
- The Allied/VVS aircraft are essentially ALWAYS in
- auto mode. They can't ever switch to manual to gain
- extra performance.
-
- I'd be quite happy in my P-47 to be able to do what
- the Luftwaffe pilots can, ie. switch to manual and
- gain another 500 ft/min to my climbrate.
-
- But it can't be done. Unlike the Luftwaffe planes.


You must be the most biased tester I have ver seen! Facts that you deny:

1. 109 does not get an advantage from using manual pitch, it is closer to correlate with RL results.

2. 109 is penalised by use of autopitch which other planes are not.

3. P-47 has much higher climbing performance than shown in any RL tests, but you fail to note that.


Would you like to have P-47 that couldn't reach it's RL specs with auto pitch and have a possibility to do that in manual pitch but risk blowing your engine in doing so? You seem to be rather content with that kind of performance with 109.

I'm sorry but your test try prove an agenda you have chosen before doing the tests, and you even fail in that.

I personally cannot take your tests seriously anymore because you are just driving your own purposes, and do not seek to improve the game. This is just too much!


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 12:32 PM
Well Buzz, thanks for the info anyway. I still thought auto was as good as manual, (doh!) like it was in 1.1f or whatever. At least I'll be able to get more out of my 109s now. But I'd rather they climbed properly with the historical engine management. It still seems I'll lose out at any sort of alt tho /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I know how exhausting testing can be; I did many tests on all the flyable IL-2 ac. Never risked using time compression, just in case...

If anyone wants the figs for auto-prop go ahead and do it yourself. It's fairly simple, but tedious. And we know the answer already: 'RoC is porked' /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif




Kernow
249 IAP


Kernow
249 IAP

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 12:50 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Study them and then compare the historical test
- results with those I got using manual pitch.
-
- <a
- href="http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft
- /lw/109_projekt.pdf"
- target=_blank>http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/
- aircraft/lw/109_projekt.pdf</a>
-
-
- RAF74 Buzzsaw
-
-

Where do you read historically test results? Those curves are calculated ones from the department of flight performance. With safety factors. With wing gondolas.

Inform yourself before you write such a BS.

About the 14.2m/s for the G-10: The Docuemnt GL/C-E2 clearly states wing gondolas as a additional armment. The performance is given for a G-10 with wing gondolas! The weight influence, however, is not listed in the table. But check the bottom line.

And Huckebein is 100% correct: You canÔ┬┤t compare IL-2 to real life tests because 100% power in IL-2 is a different power output (higher) than 1.30 ata in the documents.

niklas

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 02:34 PM
at the moment,

100% in fb is less power than 1.3ata in real life.

with 100% the planes climb worser and are slower than
the real 109G's with 100.

thats the big problem..the top speeds are ok, but the gap between 100 and 110% power is much to big in il2

wastel

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 11:22 PM
What....in...hell.... are you talking about??????

Atzebrueck wrote:
- Time compression or acceleration doesn't affect the
- test !.
-

What, did you fly up at 8x times time acceleration and multiply the climb time by 8? Whats to say that time acceleration is 8x exactly?

Explain this logic too me?

You accelerate time to 8x when testing? Was that part of Luftwaffe testing? SO when the German were working on the V2 rocket, and the Me-262, they also had time to work on Time machine airplanes?

Now I know why you guys whine so much... No time machine airplanes. OLEG! Fix this immediatly!

Explain to me how you think in any way accelerating time by 8x, like you're the freaking Flash, is able to give you a REALISTIC result?????

*SLAP*

Please... Explain?

Everythign was pretty rational in this post until about

Atzebrueck wrote:
- Time compression or acceleration doesn't affect the
- test !.
-

RIGHT there.


?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????

:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+

"Flying is more than a sport and more than a job; flying is pure passion and desire, which fill a lifetime."

RAF74_JazzMan
RAF No.74 Squadron
http://www.aircombat.ca/RAF74/

http://www.hotel.wineasy.se/ipms/photos/profile_74sqn_06.gif


"Individual victories in the air should be subordinate to the overall sucess of the group....The most important principle is to insure that those under you feel that their commander understands their worries; that the commander can be approached by anyone in the group; that what he demands of the group is necessary, and that you would never demand of them more that what you are willing to demand of yourself."

:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 11:29 PM
It doesnt affect the test because its accelerated time.So in the game the manifold pressure,rpm,speed,EVERYTHING is accelerated.

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 11:43 PM
You've completely missed my point.

The MATH is affected... Time acceleration means that you reach X altitude X times faster, so you have to multiply your stopwatch results by X in order to get a result. Considering I doubt how EXACT 2x/4x/8x time acceleration (IE, maybe 4x time acceleration is slightly more compressed then that, maybe you misscue your stop watch...) really are, the results of any test that uses Time acceleration, a completely UNREALISTIC feature, when claiming a REALISTIC test, should be called into question.

IE : Buzzsaw is replicating real life. Those tests in time compression are in no way representitive of real life, unless, as I said, the Germans had time machine planes... And if someone produces solid evidence to THAT fact, then I will eat my hat, personally fly to RUSSIA, meet with Oleg, and plop those documents down on his desk, chain myself to his leg, until the Luftwaffe has been vindicated for his heinous ommission.

Satisfied?

:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+

"Flying is more than a sport and more than a job; flying is pure passion and desire, which fill a lifetime."

RAF74_JazzMan
RAF No.74 Squadron
http://www.aircombat.ca/RAF74/

http://www.hotel.wineasy.se/ipms/photos/profile_74sqn_06.gif


"Individual victories in the air should be subordinate to the overall sucess of the group....The most important principle is to insure that those under you feel that their commander understands their worries; that the commander can be approached by anyone in the group; that what he demands of the group is necessary, and that you would never demand of them more that what you are willing to demand of yourself."

:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+