PDA

View Full Version : 4.08 Bf-109K-4 1.80ata ROC testing



Pages : [1] 2

AKA_TAGERT
03-31-2007, 11:23 PM
What with all the att the P-47D 1944 is getting I thought it only fair to start looking at some of the Lw planes again..

Here is the first of more to come.

http://www.airwarfare.com (http://www.airwarfare.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=8021#8021)

Enjoy!

PS I want to thank Viper2005 for sparking my interest in all this again! I had kind of gave up on testing stuff.. but his 'methods' motivated me to start doing it again.

ElAurens
04-01-2007, 12:31 AM
Pretty much what I would have expected.

Over modeled at the altitudes where most combat in the game takes place.

FritzGryphon
04-01-2007, 01:08 AM
Very nice again.

Though I feel I should point out something, again. Though Target was admirable enough not to make any conclusions, others may not be so wise.

This RWD chart neither has a source, nor does it specify any power settings. Obviously no such real climb test would be done for 9 minutes at war emergency power, nor is that implied by the test.

I'm not referring to anyone anyone when I say that, sometimes the absolutist , irrationalist fervor to believe certain planes 'overmodeled' or 'undermodeled', usually according to a nationalist bias, with little or no specific information, hasn't been seen in such force before scriptural literalistism.

I think the 20 page flame threads are beneath most of the people that write here, and most don't try to be drawn into emotionally motivated arguments on vague information. So lets all try to be reasonable, and not entertain those who might not choose to be. There are nice things to discuss here, and learn about history and aircraft. We all lose if this forum, if not the game, becomes as 'mainstream' as WoW and Counterstrike. Thank you.

anarchy52
04-01-2007, 04:38 AM
Most if not all planes can climb better then their historical counterpart, however some climb 5% better, some 10%, some climb 30% better.

For example, the much feared 109G2 climbs better then russian test of captured example suggests, however, since all russian fighters climb better then even the most optimistic factory data (!), in the end we get a realistic situation - G2 is superior in climb and can use it to dictate the fight.

Turn rates are much more difficult to express in precise numbers simply because there isn't enough data. We do have *some* comparative tests,but unfortunately not all of them are valid.
When it comes to turning fights, unlike ROC performance where most planes outperform their historical counterparts here we have a much different situation.

AKA_TAGERT
04-01-2007, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
Very nice again.

Though I feel I should point out something, again. Though Target was admirable enough not to make any conclusions, others may not be so wise. Well Clint said it best..

Ah man got to know his limitations!

Thus..

I am just the messenger! (read no 109 expert!)

For 109 experts on 'this' subject you need to talk to Butch2k, Mike Williams, hop2002 and last but not least Kurfurst! This was all discussed back during the 4.02 testing when the 1.80ata K4 had the performance of a 1.98 on C3 fuel.

From that I learned one thing for sure.. That I am NOT sure! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But..

IMHO Butch2k, Mike Williams and hop2002 made very good cases that the power settings are to be 110% with WEP. So that is what I used for a comparison to the real game data. Now I know Butch2k, Mike Williams and hop2002 are above getting sucked into some trivial hair splitting contest like this, but maybe if you ask them nicely they will weigh in on this again.

If new information has come up since 4.02 or if I miss-understood something than I will update my charts at airwarfare to reflect that. Also note, that my plan is to do more than just ROC testing, so expect to see those charts at airwarfare get updated with more info as time goes by. Ill post a note here, much like this one, when something new gets added.


Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
This RWD chart neither has a source, nor does it specify any power settings.
Part of the problem is.. the way I understand it.. Is the real world data was provided to Kurfurst in private. Kurfurst than posted that original real world data chart.

But..

He was than asked to remove it, which he did, in that it is to be part of a book that is due to come out. But an EXCEL copy of those figures was made and is in the link I provided. Again, if you have any doubt I would recommend you contact Butch2k or Mike Williams or hop2002 or Kurfurst.


Originally posted by FritzGryphon:
Obviously no such real climb test would be done for 9 minutes at war emergency power, nor is that implied by the test.

I'm not referring to anyone anyone when I say that, sometimes the absolutist , irrationalist fervor to believe certain planes 'overmodeled' or 'undermodeled', usually according to a nationalist bias, with little or no specific information, hasn't been seen in such force before scriptural literalistism.

I think the 20 page flame threads are beneath most of the people that write here, and most don't try to be drawn into emotionally motivated arguments on vague information. So lets all try to be reasonable, and not entertain those who might not choose to be. There are nice things to discuss here, and learn about history and aircraft. We all lose if this forum, if not the game, becomes as 'mainstream' as WoW and Counterstrike. Thank you.
Which is why I don't even bother trying to post anything here anymore wrt testing that I start. The nice thing about airwarfare is the MODS there won't put up with someone dropping their virtual zipper and taking a wizz on it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Which is not meant as a dig on the MODS here.. Here they are very busy and have ubi rules to contend with which ties their hands on some matters as to what they can do.

AKA_TAGERT
04-01-2007, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
Most if not all planes can climb better then their historical counterpart, however some climb 5% better, some 10%, some climb 30% better.
Can you do me a favor and contact Viper2005 with that info? In that he is loosing sleep at night over a 2% error in P47 speed! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BBB_Hyperion
04-02-2007, 04:10 AM
Hopefully it is no 1st april joke as your post is from 1st.)
Some questions for the testing methods.
Is there any reason you use 110% and then reduce to 103 % there is no proof that the radiator function is modeled like it should. Further the plane is cold when you start from runway so overheating appears later.

Seems like you use inital climb from method roc described to pull into best climb . Is best climb best climb speed for il2 or real plane ?

The filter function used is described where ?

AKA_TAGERT
04-02-2007, 07:34 AM
Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Hopefully it is no 1st april joke as your post is from 1st.)
It is not.


Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Some questions for the testing methods.
Ok


Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Is there any reason you use 110% and then reduce to 103 %
To keep the engine from over heating.


Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
there is no proof that the radiator function is modeled like it should.
Agreed I don't have any radiator data to compare to say eitherway.


Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Further the plane is cold when you start from runway so overheating appears later.
Ah.. did I miss something? Or is this the point where I say "DUH"?


Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Seems like you use inital climb from method roc described to pull into best climb . Is best climb best climb speed for il2 or real plane ?
I don't have any real world BCS data for the 109K so I did a few tests above and below the BCS and found the one I used to be the best for the ingame 109K


Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
The filter function used is described where ?
In the manual and help file that comes with the $800 software I used. It is just for show really, that and to make the values I use in the tables a little more reasonable. If it bothers you feel free to ignore it completely and just focus on the raw data provided in the full analysis pdf file.

tilltoppen1955
04-04-2007, 07:10 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif Three things, AKA_TAGERT is infamous red team Troll, in game flight-testing along with data someone has made up is worthless, I take what I have and fight what ever is there

AKA_TAGERT
04-04-2007, 07:34 PM
Poor Nancy

tilltoppen1955
04-04-2007, 08:12 PM
What is Nancy? I am reading all your post with great interest and am happy to report am getting my custom TP any day now! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

AKA_TAGERT
04-04-2007, 09:10 PM
Sad Sally

BigKahuna_GS
04-05-2007, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by anarchy52:
Most if not all planes can climb better then their historical counterpart, however some climb 5% better, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">some 10%, some climb 30% better</span>.

AKA_TAGERT -Can you do me a favor and contact Viper2005 with that info? In that he is loosing sleep at night over a 2% error in P47 speed!

LOL!

Hya Tagert--nice job testing. Read the first few pages of the Viper P47 thread--he just needed to keep it going and nueter, I mean "cough" fix "cough" the 47D for good. I asked him if he was going to be as objective about the 103%throttle/WEP non-overheat bug on the 190D-9. Now there is
this with the 109K.

I'm sure Viper will get right on these major Luft plane problems http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif---right after he fixes that dang +2mph error on the Jug.

AKA_TAGERT
04-05-2007, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
LOL!

Hya Tagert--nice job testing. Read the first few pages of the Viper P47 thread--he just needed to keep it going and nueter, I mean "cough" fix "cough" the 47D for good. I asked him if he was going to be as objective about the 103%throttle/WEP non-overheat bug on the 190D-9. Now there is
this with the 109K.

I'm sure Viper will get right on these major Luft plane problems http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif---right after he fixes that dang +2mph error on the Jug. Well.. Don't hold your breath! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Viper2005_
04-06-2007, 07:49 AM
Well this is amusing.

Tagert draws a graph comparing the performance of the 109K with some test data that we aren't allowed to see, and concludes that its performance is incorrect.

That's not very scientific. Assuming that we believe in Tagert's line, obvious questions are raised about the test aircraft. For example,

- What weight was it at?
- What loadout was it equipped with?
- Was it a standard K4?

Unless Tagert was comparing like with like, it's quite difficult to draw meaningful conclusions. Given the data presented, we have no way of telling if he is comparing like with like, so we're left with red vs blue dogma...

Kurfurst's website has some 109K performance data.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Performance_tests/1...n/Leist_109K_EN.html (http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Performance_tests/109K_PBLeistungen/Leist_109K_EN.html)

It is worth pointing out that this performance data appears to be the result of calculations rather than flight tests...

Anyway, it's data, and it's capable of answering at least some of the questions raised above, so it's a step in the right direction.

AKA_TAGERT
04-06-2007, 09:42 AM
So what part of contact Butch2k, Mike Williams, hop2002, or Kurfurst did you not understand?

Viper2005_
04-06-2007, 01:25 PM
Why couldn't you do what I just did and link to original source material?

AKA_TAGERT
04-06-2007, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Why couldn't you do what I just did and link to original source material? So what part of..


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Part of the problem is.. the way I understand it.. Is the real world data was provided to Kurfurst in private. Kurfurst than posted that original real world data chart.

But..

<span class="ev_code_yellow">He was than asked to remove it, which he did,</span> in that it is to be part of a book that is due to come out. But an EXCEL copy of those figures was made and is in the link I provided. Again, if you have any doubt I would recommend you contact Butch2k or Mike Williams or hop2002 or Kurfurst.


Did you not understand?

Viper2005_
04-06-2007, 03:51 PM
The part explaining why this unavailable and unreferenced report was the only report upon which you could base your analysis when there is primary source material available on Kurfurst's website.

AKA_TAGERT
04-06-2007, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
The part explaining why this unavailable and unreferenced report was the only report upon which you could base your analysis when there is primary source material available on Kurfurst's website.
So what part of..


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Part of the problem is.. the way I understand it.. Is the real world data was provided to Kurfurst in private. Kurfurst than posted that original real world data chart.

But..

He was than asked to remove it, which he did, in that it is to be part of a book that is due to come out. But an EXCEL copy of those figures was made and is in the link I provided. <span class="ev_code_yellow">Again, if you have any doubt I would recommend you contact Butch2k or Mike Williams or hop2002 or Kurfurst.</span>
Did you not understand?

Viper2005_
04-06-2007, 07:05 PM
<span class="ev_code_red">The part explaining why this unavailable and unreferenced report was the only report upon which you could base your analysis when there is primary source material available on Kurfurst's website.</span>

SlowBurn68
04-06-2007, 07:25 PM
That 109 should have never been included in this sim. I'm by no means a 109 expert - but I could never find a solid reference theses engines ever saw nothing more than a trial flight. With that said - I don't care anymore - I just hope BoB is historically accurate and stays that way.

AKA_TAGERT
04-06-2007, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
<span class="ev_code_red">The part explaining why this unavailable and unreferenced report was the only report upon which you could base your analysis when there is primary source material available on Kurfurst's website.</span> So what part of..


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Part of the problem is.. the way I understand it.. Is the real world data was provided to Kurfurst in private. Kurfurst than posted that original real world data chart.

But..

He was than asked to remove it, which he did, in that it is to be part of a book that is due to come out. But an EXCEL copy of those figures was made and is in the link I provided. Again, if you have any doubt I would recommend you contact Butch2k or Mike Williams or hop2002 or <span class="ev_code_yellow">Kurfurst.</span>
Did you not understand?

Viper2005_
04-06-2007, 09:53 PM
What exactly is wrong with the primary source data available on Kurfurst's website?

Why do you feel obliged to base your analysis upon a "private" report?

What purpose is served by conducting tests & posting tracks if nobody else can make a reasonable comparison between your tests and the R/L data?

The data available on Kurfurst's site would likely support your conclusions, so I don't understand why you have taken such a bone-headed attitude to this simple point of constructive criticism regarding your application of the Scientific Method.

AKA_TAGERT
04-06-2007, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
What exactly is wrong with the primary source data available on Kurfurst's website?

Why do you feel obliged to base your analysis upon a "private" report?

What purpose is served by conducting tests & posting tracks if nobody else can make a reasonable comparison between your tests and the R/L data?

The data available on Kurfurst's site would likely support your conclusions, so I don't understand why you have taken such a bone-headed attitude to this simple point of constructive criticism regarding your application of the Scientific Method. So what part of..


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Well Clint said it best..

Ah man got to know his limitations!

Thus..

<span class="ev_code_yellow">I am just the messenger!</span> (read no 109 expert!)

For 109 experts on 'this' subject you need to talk to Butch2k, Mike Williams, hop2002 and last but not least Kurfurst! This was all discussed back during the 4.02 testing when the 1.80ata K4 had the performance of a 1.98 on C3 fuel.
Did you not understand?

JG14_Josf
04-07-2007, 08:03 AM
Viper,

I certainly do not want to take your side on anything after your misrepresentations of me on this forum (was it you who blamed me for trying to increase your insurance premiums?); however testing one of the game's airplanes from a cold start against a blind reference is a compound error on at least two significant trajectories. It works. I mean the desired effect does help apologize for any game errors and the posters credit is raised above mere troll (abuser of other posters for the entertainment value).

The compound error (cold start blind reference errors) works at accomplishing something. It works. I get that part. I understand that part. I don't think you need any company. I don't think that you need any support in exposing the folly of this test as being anything more than a cold start climb to maximum altitude in the shortest time in the game compared to a blind reference testing something similar. Anyone with a brain can see exactly what it is in reality.

I post because I learn and this banter teaches, again, how argumentation for the sake of argumentation can go on for as long a at least one person is willing to continue arguing and so long as at least one other person is willing to continue learning.

Note: The person arguing will not ask questions or if a question is asked it will be a rhetorical question uses as a tactic to set up another argument. The person trying to learn will ask an honest question seeking an honest answer.

Example:

A,
Did the game test start climbing with a cold engine?

B.
Did the real test start climbing with a cold engine?

Note: One of the questions above is an example of an honest question seeking an honest answer. The other question is a set-up.

Both questions can lead to learning. Both questions can lead to argumentation.

Which do you prefer?

AKA_TAGERT
04-07-2007, 08:40 AM
What he said..

I think?

As for my short blunt answers to Viper..

I have learned in the past in my dealings with Viper that it is not worth giving him the long answer.. In that he will just switch to another point after receiving the answer. In that his goal is not to get the answer, his goal is to try and discredit the work that indicates the in-game 109K-C3 has a much higher ROC at mid altitudes than the real thing. To take the focus off of that by trying to muddy the waters with endless questions geared to try and discredit the results.

Proof of that is in this thread (and others). Note he starts off tying to imply that I am hiding something by saying


Originally posted by Viper2005_:
we aren't allowed to see

Even though I clearly pointed out that Kurfurst was kind enough to pull the data when asked, and that if there were any question he could contact one of several people.

So when I pointed that out AGAIN.. i.e. gave him the answer to his.. 'question' what did he do next? Move onto his next muddy water tactic question where he said.


Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Why couldn't you do what I just did and link to original source material?

As you can see he has switched from trying to imply that I was hiding something, to why I could not provide a link to the original that was pulled. Which really points out his true purpose.. muddy water.

In that I clearly stated that Kurfurst was kind enough to remove that chart when asked. So either he did not read that, or he did read it but ignored it because to address it would take some of the mud out of his water.

Yet when I pointed that out AGAIN.. i.e. gave him the answer to his.. 'question' what did he do next? Move onto his next muddy water tactic question where he said.


Originally posted by Viper2005_:
The part explaining why this unavailable and unreferenced report was the only report upon which you could base your analysis when there is primary source material available on Kurfurst's website

As you can see he has switched from trying to imply that I was hiding something, to why I could not provide a link to the original that was pulled, to that I should have used some 'other' reference that may or may not apply.

So as you can see.. his goal is not knowledge, in that the answers to his questions where there before he asked them, and each time I pointed that out his simply moved onto another question.

Thus the short blunt answers. In that muddy water tactics don't deserve any more than that.

Viper2005_
04-07-2007, 09:09 AM
Tagert, for somebody who doesn't know very much about aircraft performance, you certainly make a lot of noise.

As I have repeatedly stated, since there is primary source material on Kurfurst's website, I can't see why you feel the need to rely upon this private test report. Doing so makes it impossible for your work to be sensibly reviewed. You have produced tracks, but without primary source material they are worthless since we have nothing to compare them with.

Here is some primary source material for you, taken from Kurfurst's website.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Performance_tests/109K_PBLeistungen/files/5026_28_DBSonder_MW_steig.jpg

AKA_TAGERT
04-07-2007, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Tagert, for somebody who doesn't know very much about aircraft performance, you certainly make a lot of noise.
Looks like me pointing out the FACT that all the answers to your questions where there before you asked them stuck a nerve?


Originally posted by Viper2005_:
As I have repeatedly stated, since there is primary source material on Kurfurst's website, I can't see why you feel the need to rely upon this private test report. Doing so makes it impossible for your work to be sensibly reviewed. You have produced tracks, but without primary source material they are worthless since we have nothing to compare them with.

Here is some primary source material for you, taken from Kurfurst's website.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Performance_tests/1...BSonder_MW_steig.jpg (http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Performance_tests/109K_PBLeistungen/files/5026_28_DBSonder_MW_steig.jpg)
So what part of..


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Part of the problem is.. the way I understand it.. Is the real world data was provided to Kurfurst in private. Kurfurst than posted that original real world data chart.

But..

He was than asked to remove it, which he did, in that it is to be part of a book that is due to come out. But an EXCEL copy of those figures was made and is in the link I provided. <span class="ev_code_yellow">Again, if you have any doubt I would recommend you contact Butch2k or Mike Williams or hop2002 or Kurfurst.</span>
Did you not understand?

Brain32
04-07-2007, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by SlowBurn68:
That 109 should have never been included in this sim. I'm by no means a 109 expert - but I could never find a solid reference theses engines ever saw nothing more than a trial flight. With that said - I don't care anymore - I just hope BoB is historically accurate and stays that way.
First read the topic title, it's about regular 109K4 not the 1.98ATA one.
As for the 1.98ATA one I saw as much data as I saw for the "25lBS Spitfire a.k.a the clown wagon" and some other allied wonders http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Aaron_GT
04-07-2007, 10:26 AM
Tagert: GOT CHART?

AKA_TAGERT
04-07-2007, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT (aka johnny come lately):
Tagert: GOT CHART?
So what part of..


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Part of the problem is.. the way I understand it.. Is <span class="ev_code_yellow">the real world data was provided to Kurfurst in private. Kurfurst than posted that original real world data chart.

But..

He was than asked to remove it, which he did, in that it is to be part of a book that is due to come out. But an EXCEL copy of those figures was made and is in the link I provided.</span> Again, if you have any doubt I would recommend you contact Butch2k or Mike Williams or hop2002 or Kurfurst.
Did you not understand?

Aaron_GT
04-07-2007, 01:02 PM
I understood what you originally wrote, but...

You always say 'Got track' and it seems insufficient if people have a track and haven't posted it a link right in the thread. What is good for the goose...

The problem is, Tagert, you do good testing work, then ruin your good efforts with a bad and unncessarily argumentative and stubborn attitude which pretty much immediately undoes the good work. If you'd improve your interpersonal skills people would be much more receptive to what you have to say, but instead you plough in with the 'Agree/Disagree 100%' or 'Got track' nonsense and piss everyone. It's sad, because the testing work obviously takes a lot of effort and is valuable.

I say this as someone who can see the value in what you do, and as someone who would like to see people get along a bit better.

In the end you seem to end up attacking and in arguments with people who are trying to provide additional information that can possibly help with better testing, and I don't understand the need to be quite so antagonistic to them. It seems rather self-defeating to be honest.

AKA_TAGERT
04-07-2007, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I understood what you originally wrote, but...
So..

Just trolling than?

That thing you accuse me of doing and get so upset about.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
You always say 'Got track' and it seems insufficient if people have a track and haven't posted it a link right in the thread. What is good for the goose...
Ah.. You were wrong above when you said you 'understood'!

In that I did post a link to the data..

A copy of the original data..

With a note with who you can contact if you have 'issues' with the copy.

This is good news that you did not understand..

Because I would hate to think you just pop in toll like to stir things up.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The problem is, Tagert, you do good testing work, then ruin your good efforts with a bad and unncessarily argumentative and stubborn attitude which pretty much immediately undoes the good work. IYHO not IMHO

The 'real' problem is there are certain folks that get upset when ever something negative of a blue plane is pointed out. I simply give back what I receive.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
If you'd improve your interpersonal skills people would be much more receptive to what you have to say, but instead you plough in with the 'Agree/Disagree 100%' or 'Got track' nonsense and piss everyone. It's sad, because the testing work obviously takes a lot of effort and is valuable.
Thing is I could care less what those folks I described above think.. Or anyone that would be fooled by what they say.. I do this testing for the silent majority that get something out of it.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I say this as someone who can see the value in what you do, and as someone who would like to see people get along a bit better.
Than you may want to reconsider your own 'good for the goose' attitude?

Or is it ok when you do it, but not when someone else does?


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
In the end you seem to end up attacking and in arguments with people who are trying to provide additional information that can possibly help with better testing, and I don't understand the need to be quite so antagonistic to them. It seems rather self-defeating to be honest.
Because your passing judgment on a snap shot and not the whole story.

JG14_Josf
04-07-2007, 10:38 PM
In that I did post a link to the data..

A copy of the original data..

Is this the "Real World Data"? (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ROC/408/BF109KC3/ME_00/HOP2002S_CHART_OF_ISEGRIMS_DATA.jpg)

Pollack2006
04-08-2007, 04:47 AM
F*ck me, this thread is hilarious.

DIRTY-MAC
04-08-2007, 06:30 AM
He is just extreemly childish, there is absolutely no point discussing with him.
He will always pic a fight, and throw pies at you.
Its silly

AKA_TAGERT
04-08-2007, 04:19 PM
Poor Nancy

AKA_TAGERT
04-08-2007, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In that I did post a link to the data..

A copy of the original data..

Is this the "Real World Data"? (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ROC/408/BF109KC3/ME_00/HOP2002S_CHART_OF_ISEGRIMS_DATA.jpg) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes

Or should I say.. what part of..

Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Part of the problem is.. the way I understand it.. Is the real world data was provided to Kurfurst in private. Kurfurst than posted that original real world data chart.

But..

He was than asked to remove it, which he did, in that it is to be part of a book that is due to come out. But an EXCEL copy of those figures was made and is in the link I provided. <span class="ev_code_yellow">Again, if you have any doubt I would recommend you contact Butch2k or Mike Williams or hop2002 or Kurfurst.</span>
Did you not understand?

JG14_Josf
04-09-2007, 07:42 AM
Did you not understand?

Tagert,

Are you talkin' to me?

I, the person you quoted, went to find "the original data" linked. I found a home made chart (made by Hop?). I understand that much. Hop is a troll. I can trust his home made chart as much as I can trust your sincerity concerning good will. Trust has nothing to do with the information recorded on a WWII era primary source' document. The information on the document is on "the original" copy. The information copied from the document, or documents, is, ahhhhhh, selective.

Poor me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I'm not Nancy, or Sue, or anyone other than me.

WWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AKA_TAGERT
04-09-2007, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Tagert,

Are you talkin' to me?
Yes


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
I, the person you quoted, went to find "the original data" linked. I found a home made chart (made by Hop?). I understand that much.

Home made?

So what part of..


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Part of the problem is.. the way I understand it.. Is the real world data was provided to Kurfurst in private. Kurfurst than posted that original real world data chart.

But..

He was than asked to remove it, which he did, in that it is to be part of a book that is due to come out. <span class="ev_code_yellow">But an EXCEL copy of those figures was made and is in the link I provided.</span> Again, if you have any doubt I would recommend you contact Butch2k or Mike Williams or hop2002 or Kurfurst.

Did you not understand?


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Hop is a troll. I can trust his home made chart as much as I can trust your sincerity concerning good will.
Can trust?

I think you ment to say can NOT trust?

What with the tone' that follows.

With that assumption in place..

What part of..


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Part of the problem is.. the way I understand it.. Is the real world data was provided to Kurfurst in private. Kurfurst than posted that original real world data chart.

But..

He was than asked to remove it, which he did, in that it is to be part of a book that is due to come out. But an EXCEL copy of those figures was made and is in the link I provided. Again, if you have any doubt I would recommend you contact <span class="ev_code_yellow">Butch2k or Mike Williams or hop2002 or Kurfurst. </span>

Did you not understand? In that I clearly provided more than one point of contact. So if you and HOP have issues, please feel free to contact one of the others listed.


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Trust has nothing to do with the information recorded on a WWII era primary source' document. The information on the document is on "the original" copy. The information copied from the document, or documents, is, ahhhhhh, selective.
Well in light of the fact that you are now the second person (Viper being the first) not capable of reading what I wrote, let alone reading between the lines I guess I will have to spell it out for you and yours.

I AM NOT GOING TO POST A LINK TO A DOCUMENT THAT THE ORGINAL PROVIDER ASK PEOPLE NOT TO POST.

The copy is not an issue' in that it does not take away from the book said person is working on. Now with that said, Kurfurst originally removed that' chart, but it appears that he changed his mind and is now posting it again at his sight. I don't know if he just did it, or if he worked it out with the originator of the chart to allow him to post it. Either way, I am not going to promote it in that the last I heard we were ask not to display it.

SAVVY?


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Poor me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
Don't be so hard on yourself! I know you have trouble working with people, I am sure that HOP does not hold any ill feelings towards you in that it would be a silly childish thing to do.


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
I'm not Nancy, or Sue, or anyone other than me.
Poor Nancy


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
WWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Ah.. you poor thing.. If it makes you feel better.. You type very nicely!

Aaron_GT
04-09-2007, 11:46 AM
He was than asked to remove it, which he did, in that it is to be part of a book that is due to come out. But an EXCEL copy of those figures was made and is in the link I provided.

It isn't possible for us to verify that the excel copy matches that original material, though, without contacting Kurfurst, butch2k, etc.

If someone else said "I have derived some data from a track but I have decided to make the track only available should you email Kurfurst" it would get short shrift from you. Now I can appreciate in this case the availability is for reasons of copyright, but going through the whole "Which bit don't you understand mantra" each time (which I tried a bit when trying to educate you about statistics to no avail) is tiresome.

As I said before, you tend to shoot your own good work in the foot by being so abrasive and stubborn. If you calmed down a bit people would not be so quick to dismiss your contribution, and some of your contributions are very valuable.

No doubt you will attack me for this and not bother to take on board the fact that I support your testing, just not your presentation...

AKA_TAGERT
04-09-2007, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
It isn't possible for us to verify that the excel copy matches that original material, though, without contacting Kurfurst, butch2k, etc.
Bingo


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
If someone else said "I have derived some data from a track but I have decided to make the track only available should you email Kurfurst" it would get short shrift from you.
Yes in that thier is nothing about a track file that can impact a book that you have been working on for years, nor did you have to spend allot of time and/or money to obtain the track file only to have someone else post it for free. Long story short, you analogy does not apply here.. in that the leg work to obtain those real world data charts is far more work than generating a track file. Than there is the FACT that I don't really give a rip of you and yours belives the data! I provided you and yours links to people who can verify the data.. if you don't want to go that route, fine, no skin off my back.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Now I can appreciate in this case the availability is for reasons of copyright, but going through the whole "Which bit don't you understand mantra" each time (which I tried a bit when trying to educate you about statistics to no avail) is tiresome.
So is answering the same question over and over, especially when it was provided before the question was even asked.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
As I said before, you tend to shoot your own good work in the foot by being so abrasive and stubborn.
And like I said before, I don't give a rip about anyone that would allow my personality to affect what they believe in one way or the other, in that the truth speaks for itself. Liking me or disliking me should not even factor into it. The point is I did not do this for the whinine few, but the many that make up the silent majority.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
If you calmed down a bit people would not be so quick to dismiss your contribution, and some of your contributions are very valuable. No need to calm down, in that I am not upset! Doing the cut-n-paste reply is actually very easy to do. Where as if I actully did waste my time trying to re-word it for you only to have you all miss it again, now that would be a little upsetting. But, I have learned over the years that if they don't get it the first time, they probably wont the second time, thus the cut-in-paste of the first.


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
No doubt you will attack me for this and not bother to take on board the fact that I support your testing, just not your presentation...
Doubt it. The good news is the actual presentation is fine.. the one at airwarfare. It is all the ubi zoo crew here that has issues.. Thank god the airwarfare mods will just del anyone who pulled the stuff they try here.

JG14_Josf
04-09-2007, 02:08 PM
In that I did post a link to the data..

A copy of the original data..

Tagert,

When someone posts a reference to 'a copy of the original data...', and then someone else asks if the link is, in fact, THE 'copy of the original data...", and, that 'copy of the original data' turns out to be a home made chart done by Hop, then, and this is the easy part - the reference to 'a copy of the original data' is, in fact, a home made chart made by Hop.

I understand that and I really don't see a need to understand whatever it is you are going on about.

I'd rather browse a copy of the original data' and see if your tests (cold start?) were comparable to the copy of the original data. If I wanted to look at stuff made by Hop, then, I could Google for stuff made by Hop.

As for trust: I trust Hop and your sincerity about the same. I do trust Hop and your sincerity about the same. Trust is a funny thing innocent until proven guilty.

Your ability to twist my inquiry around into you having a superior intellect and me having a lack of understanding despite your sincere efforts to enlighten me (the hopelessly ignorant) is an astonishing power of will. What can I say? Your words are inspiring.

Did you ever confirm that Hop's work is the copy of the original data' that you were referencing?

A. Was that Hop's work?
B. Are you claiming that Hop's work is a copy of the original data'?


In that I did post a link to the data..

A copy of the original data..

I'm trying to confirm if the above was a reference to Hop's work.

My guess is that the answer is yes; however your repetitive and thinly veiled accusations of stupidity don't quite confirm my questions exactly.

Is this (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ROC/408/BF109KC3/ME_00/HOP2002S_CHART_OF_ISEGRIMS_DATA.jpg) the copy of the original data' that you refer and is it Hop's work?

OK, it is a given, I'm too stupid to know if that (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ROC/408/BF109KC3/ME_00/HOP2002S_CHART_OF_ISEGRIMS_DATA.jpg) is the copy of the original data' that you linked and I also don't know for sure if that (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ROC/408/BF109KC3/ME_00/HOP2002S_CHART_OF_ISEGRIMS_DATA.jpg) is Hop's work.

This:
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ROC/408/BF109KC3/ME_00/HOP2002S_CHART_OF_ISEGRIMS_DATA.jpg

Is that Hop's work?

Is that what you have referred to as: a copy of the original data'?

I'm guessing, based upon what you have written, that it is, in fact not a copy of the original data as the quote suggests i.e. the following quote:


In that I did post a link to the data..

A copy of the original data..

Here it is in greater context:


Ah.. You were wrong above when you said you 'understood'!

In that I did post a link to the data..

A copy of the original data..

With a note with who you can contact if you have 'issues' with the copy.

This is good news that you did not understand..

Because I would hate to think you just pop in toll like to stir things up.


I don't want to take sides on this and being lumped into a category with Viper is about as good for me as him being dumped in the same category as me on this forum. I'm just trying to find out if that chart is THE copy of the original data', and if possible, to find out if that copy of the original data' is Hop's work.

Hop and I go way back as you know. The world didn't start this morning. You can trust Hop's work. You can equate Hop's work with original data' whereas my experience suggests a tad more skepticism. Don't call me Shirley http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

hop2002
04-09-2007, 03:22 PM
I have no idea why my name keeps coming up in this. I'm also confused over who is claiming what.

As to the various charts, this:
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ROC/408/BF109KC3/ME_00/HOP2002S_CHART_OF_ISEGRIMS_DATA.jpg

is one of Isegrim's. You can tell by the silly examples used for Spitfires. (the 18 lbs figure is actually an estimate, rather than one of the flight tests, and Isegrim himself admits the estimate was likely wrong, but because it's the lowest figure, it gets used)

The 109K4 figures at 1.98 ata on this chart fit the ones on the German original that Butch briefly posted on this forum. I'm surprised no one seems to have saved that original chart.

The 1.8 ata figures appear on other German charts that are more widely posted.

Aaron_GT
04-10-2007, 01:51 AM
Thank, Hop - that sort of makes my point, I think. Tagert's link was to a chart of unknown provenance, and perhaps now the provenance is a little clearer, but it is no substitute for links to original WW2 data, scans of the original, where the provenance tends to be a bit clearer (although I suppose in theory someone could fake something to look like a WW2 chart). Kurfurst also sometimes presents some good information but again his presentational style leaves something to be desired on occasion so I am not sure quite how much I trust a Kurfurst graph, to be honest.

So now I am not sure what is the best data to compare Tagert's in-game data with actually is... So back at square one...

Kurfurst__
04-10-2007, 02:13 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
is one of Isegrim's. You can tell by the silly examples used for Spitfires. (the 18 lbs figure is actually an estimate, rather than one of the flight tests, and Isegrim himself admits the estimate was likely wrong, but because it's the lowest figure, it gets used)

Hoppian half truth, as usual. The 18 lbs figures are actually interpolated from the actual test figures at 25 lbs boost (in the Hop/mike williams vocabulary, 'estimated' usually means 'tests we want to dismiss') tested towards the end of 1943, on Spitfire IX LF, serial no. JL 165. They simply made the tests at +25, and then re-drawn the curves from the +18 boost points to get the climb at +18. It's very simple to do, a no-brainer, and with very little room for error, simply draw a parallel line to the higher boost curve, but starting from the lower boost's rated altitude.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165climb.gif

And I am using it because that's only known serial production Spitfire IXLF flight test available. Despite Hop's attempts at badmouthing, he can't show any other test available for a fully loaded, serial production LF Mark IX. That's what we have to work with, if there's other representative data, then it's so much better! But actually, there are not even calculated curves available. There are some other, but those are all done with either experimental aircraft or with lightly loaded serial production aircraft. That's what we have for serial production LF Mk IXs. Hop usually prefers the values of a Spit prototype, which had an experimental propellor fitted, and was running at too rich mixture which resulted in too high powers at low alititudes, and too low power near the ceiling. It also had an abnormally high rated altitude, 2-2500 feet above all the others, perhaps rooting in the mixture, or having an early prototype engine with different supercharger gearing. Of course it's the resulting extra performance at low altitudues he's concentrating at. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But he told at least part of the truth, he doesn't like the serial production test results because he doesn't like any but the highest figures for the Spitfire, no matter what odd conditions they were achieved it. But, I am entirely open to any new Spitfire data, should Hop be able to provide curves for calculated or tested figures under known conditions for serial production standard. Of course if anyone wants to rely on experimental plane data with a new, never standardized carburrator, or a prototype with a never serialized propellor, running at too rich mixture, as Hop does purely for the sake of working up Spitfire performance, and dismiss the actual tested figures for serial production Spitfires... if you're a narrow minded Spit-zealot, then by all means do so and cherish the highest figures you can find! But why should I do (or people simply interested in the actual facts) do that silly business as well, I cannot imagine.

Me readily admitting it's wrong - how and when..? The curve was done years ago by Hop's own request, who was claiming even JL 165 was climbing better than the much hated 109K (you see, Spitfires doing everything so much better is one of his fixations), so I plotted it for him, and ever since he waves that XLS graph around either claiming it's his, or that it's mine and it's silly because it lists the climb tests results of the only known serial prod. IXLF test at full weight, power etc. It's sometimes difficult to follow Hop's stories you know. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Now, enough of Hop's sillyness, that graph is a bit of biting into lime for him appearantly, so let's just leave him alone with his precciouss, 'proper' charts of prototypes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



As for Tagert's test, it's interesting but as long as it doesn't made under the same conditions as that the original German papers specify, you're comparing apples and oranges.

Ie. the primary source material, already posted by Viper 2005 :

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Performance_tests/109K_PBLeistungen/files/5026_28_DBSonder_MW_steig.jpg

This can be used to compare to the 1.8ata in-game Bf 109K performance, provided it's compared under the same conditions

Ie. tagert's test :

IN GAME Bf-109K-4 TEST CONFIGURATION:
MAP: Crimea
WEATHER: Clear
TIME: 12:00PM
FUEL: 100%
WEAPON LOAD OUT: DEFAULT
RAD: AUTO up to ~20ft than OPEN
POWER: 110% THROTTLE for ~2min after the overheat msg appears than switch to 103%
POWER: 103% THROTTLE until overheat msg disappears and than back to 110%

First of all the power should be 110% + MW-50 all the way, as in the German papers.

Second, the radiator position should comply with German standards : up to rated alt, apprx. half open, then above rated altitutude up to cealing gradually closing. For example, starting with AUTO would somewhat increase ROC at the start of the climb, as the engine is very cool and needs no wide-open radiators.

Something is fishy with MAP, as 1.8ata MAP should be able to be kept up till at least 6000m alt, in climbing conditions.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ROC/408/BF109K/ME_00/TABLE.JPG

I suspect the sim engine's handling of radiator drag and cooling capacity is very poor. From my own tests it's appearant that the radiator position do not effect climb performance much, as opposed to real life where it had a very pronounced effect - see for example, the Spit JL 165 figures at same supercharger gear with closed/open radiators. Neither the radiators effect much the cooling capacity, the engine boils very quick compared to the steady 80-90-100 C* temperatures the 109 would witness during climb with full open radiators.

In brief, in the sim it very much looks like you're always climbing with the conditions that would refer to real-life climbing with almost closed radiators, you get a boost in climb rate, but also overheat rather fast. In contrast, there's not much difference in the game climbing with open or closed radiators. The game seem

I suggest to re-run the tests with fully open and fully closed radiators, then to the German standard described above, in each case at constant 110% + MW-50 as described in German tests. Oil and Coolant temperature should be recorded.

ImpStarDuece
04-10-2007, 04:07 AM
Curious.

According to Kurfurst, then, the tests of normally performing serial production HF Mk IXs indicate that it then should outclimb the LF Mk IXs (~4500 ft/min vs ~4100 ft/min). Strange, when it has less power and different gearing for the climb.

Whats also strange is that another test of the same LF Mk IX (JL. 165) with +25lbs, conducted some four months earlier, would climb approximately 600-700 ft minute better than the later tests. (~5100 ft min vs ~5750 ft min)

Further to my interest is the fact that production LF Mk VIIIs, which are some 350 lbs heavier than Mk IXs, would then outclimb production Mk IXs (~4,600 ft min vs ~4,100 ft min)

Amazing. Either JL 165 defies the laws of physics, or it was underperforming in that particular test, and the data is being cherry picked.

I encourage you all to make up your own minds, though.

Brain32
04-10-2007, 05:21 AM
Kurfurst just provided a non-specially prepared Spitfire chart, he or anybody else did not say that standard serial production SpitMkIXLF couldn't possibly do better, merely that there are simply no data for it.
If you guys have some normal data, why don't you show it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

hop2002
04-10-2007, 05:24 AM
Because this is way off topic for this thread, I'll keep it brief.


Amazing. Either JL 165 defies the laws of physics, or it was underperforming in that particular test, and the data is being cherry picked.

This is what Isegrim had to say about the JL 165 figure some time ago:


The results from the other mid-1944 JL 165 report are ESTIMATES for +18lbs, worked out from +25lbs results. Previously MW and Nashwan claimed the JL 165 was "underperforming", pointing to these estimated figures in comparison with results obtained with experimental spitfires such as BS 543.

They believed the raise was far greater than actually, but this reports clearly points out the propellor could not take all the advanatage the increased power offered*, therefore their estimates for +18lbs understate the real speed of the aircraft.

As is usual with Isegrim, he changes his position on the data according to the argument he wants to make. When he was claiming JL165 was performing properly at 25lbs, he argued the 18lbs estimates are wrong.

Now, when he wants to claim the 18lbs estimates are correct, he claims such estimates are simple and cannot really be wrong.


As to the data itself, just note that the figure Isegrim is using is the lowest you will find for a Spitfire LF, and it isn't a flight test, it's an extrapolation from a test at a different power setting.

As ImpStarDuece said, tests of Spitfire HF IXs, which had a bit less power at lower altitudes, showed much higher climb rates, as did tests of Spitfire VIIIs, which weighed slightly more.

Brain32
04-10-2007, 05:33 AM
Do I hear an air raid siren in the Spitfire camp? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

hop2002
04-10-2007, 05:41 AM
If you guys have some normal data, why don't you show it
The "normal" data is with the metal prop. Kurfurst of course assumes that this prop magically added 600ft/min to the climb rate, but for some reason wasn't used. The truth is different props were often experimented with, they were usually abandoned as not being worth while.

As to other data, it was very common to test several different things on one test, because they were concerned with actual performance, not people 60 years later trying to invalidate their tests based on minor differences.

Note this:
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/proptypes.jpg

The "prototype" prop, as Isegrim describes it, actually became the production metal prop, and is "as good" as the wooden prop.

luftluuver
04-10-2007, 05:41 AM
And I am using it because that's only known serial production Spitfire IXLF flight test available. I see Kurfurst is learning his lawyer's trade very well. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

JL165 was <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">NOT</span> a serial production Mk IX but a re-engined Mk V (M45 to M66). It was part of the 6th order for Spitfire Vs built between Dec 42 and Apr 43 with serial numbers using the prefix JG and JL. There is <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">NO</span> production Spitfire IXs with the prefix JL. JL165 was used in 2 speed/climb tests.

One can always compare the numbers for JL165 with the numbers for BS543,
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bs543climb.gif

As for Kurfurst's Mtt graph, I see no WNrs for the tested 109s.


if you're a narrow minded Spit-zealot, then by all means do so and cherish the highest figures you can find! But why should I do (or people simply interested in the actual facts) do that silly business as well, I cannot imagine. LOL, this by the thee MOST narrow minded 109 zealot!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Note Kurfurst the use of the word estimate in the dictionary's 'interpolate'.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">estimate</span> - To calculate approximately (the amount, extent, magnitude, position, or value of something).

interpolate - Mathematics: To <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">estimate</span> a value of (a function or series) between two known values.

Kurfurst__
04-10-2007, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:

According to Kurfurst, then, the tests of normally performing serial production HF Mk IXs indicate that it then should outclimb the LF Mk IXs (~4500 ft/min vs ~4100 ft/min). Strange, when it has less power and different gearing for the climb.

Rhetorics, and piss poor at that. However what is clear is that, according ImpStarDuece, there's no difference between test conditions, ever, and every single Spitfire performed exactly to the 'official' specs, not one mph slower or faster. Of course for some reason they had a 3% tolerance on performance, and several hundred fpm on climb.

Regarding the 'special comparisons' ImpStarDeuce is making for the Merlin 70 engined HF IX, it's worth pointing out that he as usual picked 'special conditions'. The test report says of the Merlin 70 test :

"..................Another point of note is that the performance of Spitfire IX BS.551, bfitted with the improved high altitude Merlin 70 engine, has a lower ceiling by about 3000 feet than the standard Merlin 61 engined aircraft and subsequently the fall off in rate of climb and level speed is greater than would be anticipated. This rapid fall off is attributed to carburettor richness at altitude, and it is hoped that at a later date further tests with an adjusted carburettor may be made."


The particular engine had too rich carburattor settings, resulting in above-normal low-alt performance but fall in high altitude performance, as you'd imagine from such improper settings... mystery solved!


Whats also strange is that another test of the same LF Mk IX (JL. 165) with +25lbs, conducted some four months earlier, would climb approximately 600-700 ft minute better than the later tests. (~5100 ft min vs ~5750 ft min)

You should be always be mindful of what ImpStarDuece tells and what he holds back. Indeed, JL 165 was tested twice. The first time it would climb approximately 600-700 ft minute better than the later tests. True.

What ImpStarDuece does not tell, is that in those first, performed at Rolls-Royce, Ltd Hucknall 8 October 1943, better tests, they note :

"The aircraft was flown at a weight of 7,234 lbs".

The second time JL 165 was tested, it was loaded up to full take off weight, 7450 lbs.
Ie. it was lightly loaded, missing ittle more than 200 lbs of it's a 7450 lbs take off weight. And it climbed better. Amazing.
I find it extremely ironic that ImpStarDuece goes on talking about 'cherry picking' and 'defying the laws of physics'.

Or maybe he is just blessed with a very, very thick skin.



Further to my interest is the fact that production LF Mk VIIIs, which are some 350 lbs heavier than Mk IXs, would then outclimb production Mk IXs (~4,600 ft min vs ~4,100 ft min)

By now, we know that when ImpStarDeuce speaks of facts, he means the ones fabricated by himself, as seen above. There's of course a spread in performance for all WW2 fighters, that's why it they had, for example, 3% tolerance on the achieved speeds.

ImpStarDeuce interprets that in his own a special way.
For British aircraft, it's only the upper 3% that is representative for performance, irrespective of the conditions of the test - aircraft being lightly loaded, running on too rich mixture, being of experimental nature. In other words, only the best figures.

For German aircraft OTOH, it's only the lower 3% that is representative for performance, irrespective of the conditions of the test - aircraft being burdened with gondolas, having documented engine problems, or being the manufacturers 'test-hack' aircraft that they worn out in half a dozen of other experiments earlier. In other words, only the worst figures.

luftluuver
04-10-2007, 06:15 AM
"This rapid fall off is attributed to carburettor richness at altitude, and it is hoped that at a later date further tests with an adjusted carburettor may be made."

The particular engine had too rich carburattor settings, resulting in above-normal low-alt performance but fall in high altitude performance

Now that is an interesting interpretation. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif I see no statement that the carb was too rich at lower altitudes. Oh yes forgot, it is Kurfurst interpretation. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Kurfurst__
04-10-2007, 06:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hop2002:
Because this is way off topic for this thread, I'll keep it brief.

[QUOTE]Amazing. Either JL 165 defies the laws of physics, or it was underperforming in that particular test, and the data is being cherry picked.

This is what Isegrim had to say about the JL 165 figure some time ago:


The results from the other mid-1944 JL 165 report are ESTIMATES for +18lbs, worked out from +25lbs results. Previously MW and Nashwan claimed the JL 165 was "underperforming", pointing to these estimated figures in comparison with results obtained with experimental spitfires such as BS 543.

They believed the raise was far greater than actually, but this reports clearly points out the propellor could not take all the advanatage the increased power offered*, therefore their estimates for +18lbs understate the real speed of the aircraft.

As is usual with Isegrim, he changes his position on the data according to the argument he wants to make. When he was claiming JL165 was performing properly at 25lbs, he argued the 18lbs estimates are wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, that the normal procedure with Hop. Hop would generally make up the facts, state something absurd hoping you don't catch him. If you do, he pretends he wasn't caught and moves to the next subject without . Claim follows claim, and the slippery cheat moves to the next claim and away from the old one, as in this case. In this case, he is using a strawmen arguement (well, it's hard to find a post from Hop where he doesn't).

Originally Hop posted a rate of climb graphs, and claimed I already admitted the climb figures are too low and probably wrong.

In connection to climb graph, Hop noted


Originally posted by hop2002:

"Isegrim himself admits the estimate was likely wrong

Then he was challenged to show where and how I stated the climb figures were wrong. He goes switching the argument, and brings up a quote where I say the speed estimates may be wrong because of the prop's handling at high speeds.

"...their estimates for +18lbs understate the real speed of the aircraft...."

Notice I no-where said anything about the climb rate being wrong or their climb estimates being wrong.
Hop made up all that.




Now, when he wants to claim the 18lbs estimates are correct, he claims such estimates are simple and cannot really be wrong.

Well, Mike Williams makes several estimates on his site about +12 performance of the Spitfire I or +21 of the Spitfire XIV.
Usually Mike William's 'estimates' have a sort of goodwill built-in, anbd are much higher than the actually measured +12 or +21 figures.

I've never seen Hop complaining about those estimates made by a fanboi and not by a respected aviation organization's professional engineers like R-R.



As to the data itself, just note that the figure Isegrim is using is the lowest you will find for a Spitfire LF, and it isn't a flight test, it's an extrapolation from a test at a different power setting.

Well, first extrapolation would be esimating values outside the known datarange. That would be, say, estimating the performance at +30 based on tests at +25. Intrapolation would be estimating values within the known data range, like estimating +18 values based on +25 values, as in this test.

It's pity you're not even familiar with the basic terms while you're trying to dismiss result prepeared by engineers who were far more familiar with those terms than you.

Of course you were asked to show us 'proper' flight test results of serial production IX LFs, but you failed to do so, instead you erect a smokescreen and try to dismiss the only serial production IX LF test we know, just because it doesn't fit your uber-Spitfire agenda.

That alone puts the case to rest.


As ImpStarDuece said, tests of Spitfire HF IXs, which had a bit less power at lower altitudes, showed much higher climb rates, as did tests of Spitfire VIIIs, which weighed slightly more.

The problem is that both ImpStarDuece and Hop is making up fiction. Neither the HF IXs showed 'much higher climb rates', neither they did have significantly less power.

The Merlin 66 had 1,720 @ 5,750',
the Merlin 70 had 1,710 @ 11,000 according to their respective datasheets. Obviously the Merlin 66 had less power at 10000 feet than than the Merlin 70. 10000 feet is fairly low altitude.

LF IX, JL 165, fully loaded, was estimated to do ~4280 fpm at +18 lbs boost, 10 000 feet.
HF IX, EN 524, fully loaded, was tested to do 4310 fpm at +18.3 lbs boost, at 10 000 feet.
Note the IX HF is running slightly higher boost.

As we recall the original claim was '....tests of Spitfire HF IXs, which had a bit less power at lower altitudes, showed much higher climb rates'

Fiction of course.

luftluuver
04-10-2007, 06:40 AM
quote:
As ImpStarDuece said, tests of Spitfire HF IXs, which had a bit less power at lower altitudes, showed much higher climb rates, as did tests of Spitfire VIIIs, which weighed slightly more.

The problem is that both ImpStarDuece and Hop is making up fiction. Neither the HF IXs showed 'much higher climb rates', neither they did have significantly less power.

LOL, 'a bit' (a small amount) is now 'significant' (a large amount). Is that like your 2 ships is 'quite a few' statement?

stathem
04-10-2007, 06:41 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Well, first extrapolation would be esimating values outside the known datarange. That would be, say, estimating the performance at +30 based on tests at +25. Intrapolation would be estimating values within the known data range, like estimating +18 values based on +25 values, as in this test.

Actually, no. That's interpolation.


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

It's pity you're not even familiar with the basic terms while you're trying to dismiss result prepeared by engineers who were far more familiar with those terms than you.



Best to get the terms right when you're abusing someone over them getting the terms wrong, eh, Kurfurst?

Kurfurst__
04-10-2007, 06:43 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you guys have some normal data, why don't you show it
The "normal" data is with the metal prop. Kurfurst of course assumes that this prop magically added 600ft/min to the climb rate, but for some reason wasn't used. The truth is different props were often experimented with, they were usually abandoned as not being worth while. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Take a look on the 'normal data', as Hop calls it :

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bs543climb.gif

A few facts to consider.

This is a test was done from November 1942. The IXLF did not see service until March 1943. The aircraft's are prototypes. BS.354 has the Merlin 66 engine, still called at this early stage 'RM-10SM'.

The IX LF is using an experimental prop, not the standard one. It's duralumin Rotol XH54D-RM-S5. Hop of course is always very loud about experimental props on the Me 109K are not representative for the type's performance. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Experimental Spitfire props, OTOH, are. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

The report notes the Merlin 66 engined aircraft, despite it had nominally 50 HP less power than the other, was performing much better for some fishy reason - most likely the Merlin 66 was producing more power in the test than it should :

..................It is a matter of interest that at sea level, Spitfire BS.354 with the RM-9SM engine, although nominally develping 50 B.H.P. more power than the Merlin 66 engines BS.543, is 7 m.p.h. slower, indicating either that the nominal powers were not realized and/or that there was a considerable difference between the drags of the two aircraft.
..................The powers of the RM-9SM and the Merlin 66 engines in F.S. gear should be identical, since the high speed supercharger gear ratio is the same. It will be seen that on the climb, the performance and boost pressures were similar, within the limits of experimental error, but in level flight above the full throttle height the Merlin 66 engine was developing about 1 lb/sq.inch higher boost pressure than the 9 SM engine, with a consequent higher full throttle height and improved performance. This discrepancy must be due to variations in the manufacture of the engines and possibly of the air intakes, but it should be borne in mind that any small differences in performance of a high compression ratio supercharger or of the intake will be more noticeable at high speeds because of the increase in the dynamic head.


The most telling part of the abnormal engine powers is the sudden break in the curve above 36 000 feet, reducing ceiling. It's not present on any other Spitfire test, but here it's present on all planes, including the Merlin 66.

6. Further developments.

..................An accident to Spitfire BS.551 interrupted a series of tests with a modified carburettor setting. The engine has been returned to the makers for installation in another aircraft, and it is hoped to continue the flight tests with this engine in due course.

The cause is stated in the next follow-up report :

"..................It was stated in the report mentioned above that further tests were to be carried out with a modified carburettor setting as it was hoped to improve the performance of the Merlin 70 at altitude. It is understood that EN.524 incorporated this modification and a comparison of the two sets of results shows a considerable improvement has been made. The absolute ceiling is now about 2,500 feet higher than that obtained on BS.551, although the rate of climb below 37,000 ft. is less.

Actually, the carburrator setting in the first test was likely wrong. Such curve would results from having too rich fuel mixture setting, which means more power at low altitude, but results a marked drop of power at high altitude as shown on the climb curve above 36 000 feet. It's simply a wrong setting that results abnormal performance. Of course Hop is only interested at the area where it shows a marked performance increase in performance, and forget about 2500 feet loss of ceiling. Of course he would quote the greater ceiling figures with the normal carburrator setting when it comes to an arguement on ceiling. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Lastly, the rated altitudes of the prototype Merlin 66 IXLF are clearly abberant, 2000 feet higher than the Merlin 66's actual rammed rated altitude, ie. 407 m.p.h.at 22,000 ft was measured. Compare to the 20 000 feet rated altitude of the Merlin 66 at 400 mph ram/+18 lbs here :http://www.spitfireperformance.com/merlin66hpchart.jpg

The reason is stated in the report :

...but in level flight above the full throttle height the Merlin 66 engine was developing about 1 lb/sq.inch higher boost pressure than the 9 SM engine, with a consequent higher full throttle height and improved performance. This discrepancy must be due to variations in the manufacture of the engines and possibly of the air intakes, but it should be borne in mind that any small differences in performance of a high compression ratio supercharger or of the intake will be more noticeable at high speeds because of the increase in the dynamic head.


In short, what Hop and ISD is trying to sell as representative performance, is the prototype of the LF IX from November 1942, fitted with an experimental propeller, running at abberant carburrator settings that boosted it's low altitude performance and rated altitude, and were revised by later tests - and btw, the results never accepted as 'Official Specifications' by the British. The revised figures, however, were.

The problem is of course that Hop and ISD would always want to the best and highest figures for Spitfires, no matter what the context. ISD would happily take the 700 fpm higher figures of JL 165, for the sole reason they're higher, and regardless of the fact that they are higher because the aircraft was tested some 200 lbs lighter.. Hop would happily take the results the prototype BS 543, again simply because those figures are higher, regardless they were revised later by the British themselves who note that something was fishy with engine settings, most likely the carburrator was set to too rich fuel settings that boosted low-medium alt performance, and wronged high altitude performance.

Apart from that, they are of course unable to provide any serial production IX LF dataset or test, simply because neither them or me ever seen one, apart from JL 165, but JL 165 is of course wrong (except when it's 200 lighter and higher) because it isn't high enough for them.

And make no mistake, they're perfectly aware what they are doing. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Viper2005_
04-10-2007, 07:37 AM
ROC is directly related to Specific Excess Power.

Fighter aircraft generally have lots of excess power at climb speed, and so it is a reasonable first order approximation to state that climb performance varies directly with weight and power.

So, when tested at RR Hucknall at 7234 lb, and then tested at Boscombe at 7400 lb, one would expect the ROC at 7400 lb to be (7234/7400)*ROC@7234 lb

ie about 5600 fpm.

However, this is not the case; based upon the weight difference one would be forced to conclude that the aircraft was under-performing when tested at Boscombe Down, since it only managed 5080 fpm.

The majority of the difference is likely to be the result of Boscombe Down testing the a/c with open radiators; in FS gear, Boscombe Down's tests show that the a/c could lose over 400 fpm when the radiators were opened.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/jl165.html

It is worth noting that JL165 was not in a fully combat-ready condition during these tests:


Two 20 mm. Hispano guns with <span class="ev_code_red">sealed muzzles</span>.
Two 20 mm. gun stubs with hemispherical fairings.
Four .303" Browning guns, ports sealed. <span class="ev_code_red">Ejection chutes sealed</span>.
Internal bullet-proof windscreen.
Circular rear view mirror, with hemispherical fairing.
Multi-ejector exhaust manifolds.
Aerial mast.
New tropical pattern air intake without gauze, but blanking plate installed.
No ice guard fitted in air intake.

OTOH, Rolls-Royce state that JL165's engine probably has low full throttle heights, which considerably hurts its altitude performance in both climb and level speed.

IMO it would have been more consistent to model the +25 Spitfire based upon the performance improvements noted in JL165 rather than absolute figures (ie take the standard LF.IX and apply ~ 24 mph increase in speed below FTH, ~ 800 fpm increase in ROC). I also have never understood why the in-game +25 Spitfire does not have clipped wings...

As has already been stated, BS543 seems to have rather better performance at +18 than JL165:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/bs543.html

It is interesting to compare this performance with that specified in the datasheet for the LF.IX...

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-lfix-ads.jpg

BTW, the difference between +18 and +18.3 psi boost is just under 1%, or around 16 bhp. Spread that out over 7400 lb or so and it amounts to around 60 fpm.

The argument over the difference between production Mk.IXs and re-engined Mk.Vs is something of a red-herring IMO because all aircraft leaving the factory as Spitfire LF.IXs had to pass the same production tests, irrespective of whether they had started life as Mk.IXs or were conversions.

But anyway, aren't we supposed to be talking about the K4?

ImpStarDuece
04-10-2007, 07:48 AM
Known peak climb rates of Merlin 66 powered Spitfires:

Mk VIIIs:

JF. 275 (7,770 lbs): 4,610 ft/min @ +18 lbs
JF 934 (7,690 lbs): 4,600 ft/min @ +18 lbs

MK IXs

BS. 543 (7,485 lbs): 4,700 ft/min "corrected to 18.0 lb/sq.in. boost"
JL. 165 (7,234 lbs): 5,740 ft/min @ 25lbs boost, "Improvement over climb at +18 lbs. Boost: 780 feet/min" Inference: RoC @ +18 lbs = 4,960 ft/min
JL. 165 (7,400 lbs): 5,080 ft/min @ +25lbs boost "An increase of about 950 ft/min in rate of climb and about 30 mph in all-out level speed is achieved by the increase of boost from +18 lb/sq.in. to +25 lb/sq.in" Inference: RoC @ +18 lbs = 4,030 ft/ min

Merlin 70 powered Spitfires:

Mk IXs

BS 551 (7,485 lbs): 4,530 ft/min "corrected to 18.0 lb/sq.in. boost"
EN.524 (7,470 lbs): 4,310 ft/min @ 18.3 lbs "477:1 reduction gear 10'9" diameter propeller results"
BS.310 (7,320 lbs): 4,470 ft/min "corrected to 18.0 lb/sq.in. boost"

Kurfurst__
04-10-2007, 07:57 AM
Devil lays in the details. It's simply amazing though that half-laden aircraft with their radiators closed, or aircraft with super-rich fuel mixture climb better than fully loaded aircraft with their radiators open or at normal fuel mixture.

It's pity we don't have the details for the corresponding conditions for this bunch of numbers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
04-10-2007, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
When someone posts a reference to 'a copy of the original data...', and then someone else asks if the link is, in fact, THE 'copy of the original data...", and, that 'copy of the original data' turns out to be a home made chart done by Hop, then, and this is the easy part - the reference to 'a copy of the original data' is, in fact, a home made chart made by Hop.
Which by definition still qualifies as a copy' of the original data.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
I understand that and I really don't see a need to understand whatever it is you are going on about.
I don't think you do understand that. In that a copy is a copy be it done at home' or at work' it is still a copy and not the original. You seem to think that if the copy' was not done by a team of experts with lawyers looking over their shoulder that it would than be invalid.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
I'd rather browse a copy of the original data' and see if your tests (cold start?) were comparable to the copy of the original data. If I wanted to look at stuff made by Hop, then, I could Google for stuff made by Hop.
See Aaron_GT! This is why I seldom bother re-wording my answers to questions and simply cut-n-paste the same answer over and over.

In that even after I spelled out the reason why I did not provide a link to the original (that I have in my archive by the way) guys like Josf still don't get it!

How hard of a concept is it to respect the wishes of someone to not post the original data that they themselves went to great lengths and expense to obtain and are planning on using it in book they are writing?


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
As for trust: I trust Hop and your sincerity about the same. I do trust Hop and your sincerity about the same. Trust is a funny thing innocent until proven guilty.
I'm sorry, were you operating under the impression that I give a rip about what you think about me or Hop? If so, please know that I don't!


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Your ability to twist my inquiry around into you having a superior intellect and me having a lack of understanding despite your sincere efforts to enlighten me (the hopelessly ignorant) is an astonishing power of will. What can I say? Your words are inspiring.
It's a gift!


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Did you ever confirm that Hop's work is the copy of the original data' that you were referencing?
A. Was that Hop's work?
B. Are you claiming that Hop's work is a copy of the original data'?
Yes


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
In that I did post a link to the data.. A copy of the original data..
I'm trying to confirm if the above was a reference to Hop's work.

My guess is that the answer is yes; however your repetitive and thinly veiled accusations of stupidity don't quite confirm my questions exactly.

Is http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSI...OF_ISEGRIMS_DATA.jpg (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ROC/408/BF109KC3/ME_00/HOP2002S_CHART_OF_ISEGRIMS_DATA.jpg) the copy of the original data' that you did post a link to the data and is that copy of the original data' Hop's work? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That may be what your asking for NOW, i.e. HOP or NOT. But that is NOT what you initially asked! What you initially ask was..


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Is this the "Real World Data"?

To which I responded with pointing out the FACT that I already said it was a COPY by asking you what part of COPY did you NOT understand?

Now as for it being HOP's chart or not, I would think' the file name would have clused you in, i.e.

HOP2002S_CHART_OF_ISEGRIMS_DATA.jpg

Even if you missed that there was still suggesting by me to contact one of four people who could validate that chart for you. Note that HOP was one of the four, if you don't trust him you could have contacted one of the other three. But did you do that? No! You ask silly questions that the answers to were provided before you even asked.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
OK, it is a given, I'm too stupid to know if http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSI...OF_ISEGRIMS_DATA.jpg (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ROC/408/BF109KC3/ME_00/HOP2002S_CHART_OF_ISEGRIMS_DATA.jpg)

is the copy of the original data' that you linked and I also don't know for sure if

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSI...OF_ISEGRIMS_DATA.jpg (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ROC/408/BF109KC3/ME_00/HOP2002S_CHART_OF_ISEGRIMS_DATA.jpg)

is Hopes work.
Agreed 100%


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
This:

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSI...OF_ISEGRIMS_DATA.jpg (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ROC/408/BF109KC3/ME_00/HOP2002S_CHART_OF_ISEGRIMS_DATA.jpg)

Is that Hop's work?

Is that what you have referred to as: a copy of the original data'?
YES!


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
I'm guessing, based upon what you have written, that it is, in fact not a copy of the original data as the quote suggests i.e. the following quote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
In that I did post a link to the data..

A copy of the original data..
Ah now I see what your trying to do! Taking what I said out of context in the hopes that no one will notice! You left the part out where I said it was an EXCEL copy of the real data!

Nice try Nancy!

But NO SALE!

Or should I say..

What part of..


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Part of the problem is.. the way I understand it.. Is the real world data was provided to Kurfurst in private. Kurfurst than posted that original real world data chart.

But..

He was than asked to remove it, which he did, in that it is to be part of a book that is due to come out. But <span class="ev_code_yellow">an EXCEL copy</span> of those figures was made and is in the link I provided. Again, if you have any doubt I would recommend you contact Butch2k or Mike Williams or hop2002 or Kurfurst.

Did you not understand?

Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Here it is in greater context:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Ah.. You were wrong above when you said you 'understood'!

In that I did post a link to the data..

A copy of the original data..

With a note with who you can contact if you have 'issues' with the copy.

This is good news that you did not understand..

Because I would hate to think you just pop in toll like to stir things up.

I don't want to take sides on this and being lumped into a category with Viper is about as good for me as him being dumped in the same category as me on this forum. I'm just trying to find out if that chart is THE copy of the original data', and if possible, to find out if that copy of the original data' is Hop's work. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well as for COPY or not, no need to ask in that I already said it was, as for being Hop's chart, note, you switch to that only after I pointed out that I already stated it was a COPY before you asked if it was a COPY. Which is also the point where you proceeded to try and discreted Hop and his chart by saying you don't trust him and that if the COPY was made at home (instead of work or some other place) that it was not valid. All the while knowing there were three other people you could have asked to validate the data for you.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Hop and I go way back as you know.
Not true! I don't know! Why? Because I don't care! Just to be clear, you are not important enough to me to devote gray matter to remember who you are, let alone your relationship with Hop.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
The world didn't start this morning.
True, but for some reason you seem to think it revolves around you.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
You can trust Hop's work. You can equate Hop's work with original data' whereas my experience suggests a tad more skepticism. Don't call me Shirley
So what part of..


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Part of the problem is.. the way I understand it.. Is the real world data was provided to Kurfurst in private. Kurfurst than posted that original real world data chart.

But..

He was than asked to remove it, which he did, in that it is to be part of a book that is due to come out. But an EXCEL copy of those figures was made and is in the link I provided. <span class="ev_code_yellow">Again, if you have any doubt I would recommend you contact Butch2k or Mike Williams or hop2002 or Kurfurst. </span>

Did you not understand?

AKA_TAGERT
04-10-2007, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by hop2002:
I have no idea why my name keeps coming up in this. I'm also confused over who is claiming what.

As to the various charts, this:
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ROC/408/BF109KC3/ME_00/HOP2002S_CHART_OF_ISEGRIMS_DATA.jpg

is one of Isegrim's. You can tell by the silly examples used for Spitfires. (the 18 lbs figure is actually an estimate, rather than one of the flight tests, and Isegrim himself admits the estimate was likely wrong, but because it's the lowest figure, it gets used)
Ah! My bad than!

Sorry hop2002! In that I have a copy of this picture in my data base and with a note to myself that I recived it from you! I guess over time I forgot that Isegrim (Kurfurst) made it and that you simply provided me a copy of it. Thus recently when I pulled it out of my data base I thought you made it!

Again, sorry! The good news is JG14_Josf will be very happy now, in that he was saying the data was not to be trusted if you made he chart, but now that Kurfurst made it he should sleep better at night! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by hop2002:
The 109K4 figures at 1.98 ata on this chart fit the ones on the German original that Butch briefly posted on this forum. I'm surprised no one seems to have saved that original chart.

The 1.8 ata figures appear on other German charts that are more widely posted.
Actully I saved a copy, but, last I heard Butch ask that it not be posted.

AKA_TAGERT
04-10-2007, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
As for Tagert's test, it's interesting but as long as it doesn't made under the same conditions as that the original German papers specify, you're comparing apples and oranges.

Ie. the primary source material, already posted by Viper 2005 :

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Performance_tests/1...BSonder_MW_steig.jpg (http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Performance_tests/109K_PBLeistungen/files/5026_28_DBSonder_MW_steig.jpg)

This can be used to compare to the 1.8ata in-game Bf 109K performance, provided it's compared under the same conditions

Ie. tagert's test :

IN GAME Bf-109K-4 TEST CONFIGURATION:
MAP: Crimea
WEATHER: Clear
TIME: 12:00PM
FUEL: 100%
WEAPON LOAD OUT: DEFAULT
RAD: AUTO up to ~20ft than OPEN
POWER: 110% THROTTLE for ~2min after the overheat msg appears than switch to 103%
POWER: 103% THROTTLE until overheat msg disappears and than back to 110%

First of all the power should be 110% + MW-50 all the way, as in the German papers.
Agreed 100%!

But many of the ingame planes overheat sooner than they should!

Therefore me having to cut back on the power could explain why the in-game 109K has a LOWER ROC at higher altitudes.

But..

That does NOT explane why the in-game 109K has a MUCH HIGHER ROC at lower altitudes.

Where the throttle was at 110% and the engine had yet to over heat


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Second, the radiator position should comply with German standards : up to rated alt, apprx. half open, then above rated altitutude up to cealing gradually closing. For example, starting with AUTO would somewhat increase ROC at the start of the climb, as the engine is very cool and needs no wide-open radiators.
Ill have to check, but I am pretty sure I had the RAD full open all the way? I know I did it both ways but I can not remember which way I did it the last time I did it. My goal was to try and not over heat it, but no mater what I did it would and thus I had to cut back on the power setting to let it cool off. But, in my straigh line fit of the ROC I accounted for those points (ie removed them)

But it is not a big deal to re-do the test! I want to do it as realisticly as I can! But before I do.. tell me exactally what settings to use!

Questions
1) What alt is the 'rated alt'?
2) What in-game setting equates to RAD being half open


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Something is fishy with MAP, as 1.8ata MAP should be able to be kept up till at least 6000m alt, in climbing conditions.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSI...109K/ME_00/TABLE.JPG (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ROC/408/BF109K/ME_00/TABLE.JPG)
Well don't put too much into the MAP values in that Oleg himself has said they are just for show and do not factor into the performace.


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I suspect the sim engine's handling of radiator drag and cooling capacity is very poor.
Agreed 100%! Many of the planes in IL2 suffer from this! The P38 for example can barly meet its ROC values without buring the engines up.


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
From my own tests it's appearant that the radiator position do not effect climb performance much, as opposed to real life where it had a very pronounced effect - see for example, the Spit JL 165 figures at same supercharger gear with closed/open radiators. Neither the radiators effect much the cooling capacity, the engine boils very quick compared to the steady 80-90-100 C* temperatures the 109 would witness during climb with full open radiators.
Agreed 100%! The in-game RAD do not seem to affect the performance much.

Which brings us back to square one..

Why is the in-game ROC much beter than real life?

That is to say, alot of what you said here could explane why the ROC is lower than it should be hat mid to high altitudes, but it does NOT expalne why it is so much better than it should be at low altitudes. As a mater of fact, if what you saying is true, than the in-game test should have been LOWER than the real life values, yet, we got HIGHE values.

Which for online play is a good thing for the 109K in that the majority of the fights take place at low to mid altitudes, which is where this in-game 109K ie exceeding it's real world counterpart.


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
In brief, in the sim it very much looks like you're always climbing with the conditions that would refer to real-life climbing with almost closed radiators, you get a boost in climb rate, but also overheat rather fast. In contrast, there's not much difference in the game climbing with open or closed radiators. The game seem
Agreed 100%


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I suggest to re-run the tests with fully open and fully closed radiators, then to the German standard described above, in each case at constant 110% + MW-50 as described in German tests. Oil and Coolant temperature should be recorded.
No problem!

Just tell me what settings to use and at what altitude should I start closing the RAD.

That and the real world data that is really good to have is the Best Climb Speeds per alt! So if you have those, that would be great and make for a real good test of the in-game 109 to the real world one.

PS MW-50 was on the whole time during the tests, the only thing I adj was the power setting from 110% down to ~105% to allow the engine to cool off, but those low points are accounted for in the best fit ROC charts I made.

ElAurens
04-10-2007, 10:58 AM
Glad to see all the "original suspects" at each other's throats again.

Pure comedy gold.

Thanks for all the laughs.

The UBI-ZOO lives!!!!

Carry on!!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

JG14_Josf
04-10-2007, 11:17 AM
Edit:


Why is the in-game ROC much beter than real life?

Please define "much better" more accurately.

AKA_TAGERT
04-10-2007, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<nothing new>
Thus no need to re-state the answers to your questions agian, in that they have allready been answered.. As a mater of fact, the answers where there before you ask the qustion(s) the first time.

Kurfurst__
04-10-2007, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Second, the radiator position should comply with German standards : up to rated alt, apprx. half open, then above rated altitutude up to cealing gradually closing. For example, starting with AUTO would somewhat increase ROC at the start of the climb, as the engine is very cool and needs no wide-open radiators.



Ill have to check, but I am pretty sure I had the RAD full open all the way? I know I did it both ways but I can not remember which way I did it the last time I did it. My goal was to try and not over heat it, but no mater what I did it would and thus I had to cut back on the power setting to let it cool off. But, in my straigh line fit of the ROC I accounted for those points (ie removed them)

But it is not a big deal to re-do the test! I want to do it as realisticly as I can! But before I do.. tell me exactally what settings to use!

Questions
1) What alt is the 'rated alt'?
2) What in-game setting equates to RAD being half open

1, The alt up to which the supercharger can keep up MAP. It would be ca 6 km in climb for the DB 605D at max output.



Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Something is fishy with MAP, as 1.8ata MAP should be able to be kept up till at least 6000m alt, in climbing conditions.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSI...109K/ME_00/TABLE.JPG (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/TEST_TYPE/ROC/408/BF109K/ME_00/TABLE.JPG)

Well don't put too much into the MAP values in that Oleg himself has said they are just for show and do not factor into the performace.

Oh, I see. I thought it has some use anyway, the sim engine seems to take into account ram effects, to my delight. Though the power would be based on a MAP x rpm formula or something..


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I suspect the sim engine's handling of radiator drag and cooling capacity is very poor.
Agreed 100%! Many of the planes in IL2 suffer from this! The P38 for example can barly meet its ROC values without buring the engines up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Possible for the same reason. If you look at my site, you will find climbs of a 109G-2 (G-1, actually) where radiator temperature and position was recorded. It barely goes above 90 degrees during the climb in RL.


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
From my own tests it's appearant that the radiator position do not effect climb performance much, as opposed to real life where it had a very pronounced effect - see for example, the Spit JL 165 figures at same supercharger gear with closed/open radiators. Neither the radiators effect much the cooling capacity, the engine boils very quick compared to the steady 80-90-100 C* temperatures the 109 would witness during climb with full open radiators.


Agreed 100%! The in-game RAD do not seem to affect the performance much.

Which brings us back to square one.. Why is the in-game ROC much beter than real life?

That is to say, alot of what you said here could explane why the ROC is lower than it should be hat mid to high altitudes, but it does NOT expalne why it is so much better than it should be at low altitudes. As a mater of fact, if what you saying is true, than the in-game test should have been LOWER than the real life values, yet, we got HIGHE values.

It explains it, my theory about the rads and climb, simplified : regardless of the rad setting in game, the radiators work pretty much as if they were almost closed in real life. That means, they produce very little drag (=big boost in ROC) and very little cooling. And you can't effect that much. Which would explain why we have almost all planes climbing way too good, and overheat way too fast. It would also explain why we get higher values at low alts. At low alts, the RL German data shows radiators half-open, vs. what we have effectively is radiators near-closed in-game. at high altitudes, the RL German data shows radiators almost closed, whereas in the game we habe again what we have effectively is radiators near-closed. So it's a closer match at high alt to historical radiator conditions that at low alt.


Which for online play is a good thing for the 109K in that the majority of the fights take place at low to mid altitudes, which is where this in-game 109K ie exceeding it's real world counterpart.

I don't think it's exceeding it's RL counterpart. It's exceeding it's real life counterpart which had it's radiator flaps half-open, but if the real life counterpart would have it's radiators just opened, or in other words almost closed, with little drag and little cooling, like in effect most our planes do, the performance would be very similiar. Closing the rads would mean at least 2-3 m/sec boost, this is supported by RL tests.


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
In brief, in the sim it very much looks like you're always climbing with the conditions that would refer to real-life climbing with almost closed radiators, you get a boost in climb rate, but also overheat rather fast. In contrast, there's not much difference in the game climbing with open or closed radiators. The game seem
Agreed 100%


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I suggest to re-run the tests with fully open and fully closed radiators, then to the German standard described above, in each case at constant 110% + MW-50 as described in German tests. Oil and Coolant temperature should be recorded.
No problem!


Just tell me what settings to use and at what altitude should I start closing the RAD.

That and the real world data that is really good to have is the Best Climb Speeds per alt! So if you have those, that would be great and make for a real good test of the in-game 109 to the real world one.

Well, I'd suggest to use Rad 6 up to 6000m, then say 4 up to 7500, 2 up to 9000, and Closed above that. This would be close to the typical German test conditions. Use 110% + MW-50 all they way up, and 100% fuel and ammo.

As for climb speeds, use the Rechlin 109G-1 trial on my site, this should give some guidelines for climb speed per alt! Typically, 270-280 kph IAS.

Preferably, do a seperate climb at Closed rads all the way up, and if possible, a Open rads all the way up test to see if there's much difference.


PS MW-50 was on the whole time during the tests, the only thing I adj was the power setting from 110% down to ~105% to allow the engine to cool off, but those low points are accounted for in the best fit ROC charts I made.

Perhaps turning off overheating would solve it to climb at full power? In any case, we're not particularly interested in coolant temps anyway.

AKA_TAGERT
04-10-2007, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Orginally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Why is the in-game ROC much beter than real life?
Please define "much better" more accurately. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For you?

No problem!

My pleasure even!

To give you an feel for my definition of much' we will compare two IL2 planes to their real world counterparts.

Let's start off taking a look at the Bf-109

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm

Percent error = 100 x abs[(real-game)/real]
Percent error = 100 x abs[(4200fpm 4950fpm)/4200fpm]
Percent error = 100 x abs[ 750fpm/4200fpm]
Percent error = 100 x abs[0.17857142857142857142857142857143]
Percent error = 100 x 0.17857142857142857142857142857143
Percent error = 17.857142857142857142857142857143 %
Percent error = ~18 %</pre>

The IL2 simulation goal is 5%, thus the Bf-109K-C3 ROC is about 4 times that!

Anything that is above a factor of two from the goal is something I would refer to as much. Since the IL2 Bf-109K-4C3 ROC is above the factor of 2 I would refer to it's ROC as much' larger than it should be.

Now let's take a look at the TEMPEST Mk. V

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
GAME TEMPEST Mk. V @ 1.5kft has an ROC of ~3000fpm
REAL TEMPEST Mk. V @ 1.5kft has an ROC of ~2750fpm

Percent error = 100 x abs[(real-game)/real]
Percent error = 100 x abs[(2750fpm-3000fpm)/2750fpm]
Percent error = 100 x abs[-250fpm/2750fpm]
Percent error = 100 x abs[-0.090909090909090909090909090909091]
Percent error = 100 x -0.090909090909090909090909090909091
Percent error = 9.0909090909090909090909090909091%
Percent error = ~9 %</pre>

The IL2 simulation goal is 5%, thus the TEMPEST Mk. V ROC is almost 2 times that!

Anything that is above a factor of two from the goal is something I would refer to as much. Since the IL2 TEMPEST Mk. V ROC is below the factor of 2 I would NOT refer to it's ROC as much' larger than it should be, but getting close to it!

SAVVY?

BOA_Allmenroder
04-10-2007, 02:02 PM
Let me just chime in here with the comment that I'm truely shocked at the turn this thread has taken........ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

AKA_TAGERT
04-10-2007, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
But it is not a big deal to re-do the test! I want to do it as realisticly as I can! But before I do.. tell me exactally what settings to use!

Questions
1) What alt is the 'rated alt'?
2) What in-game setting equates to RAD being half open

1, The alt up to which the supercharger can keep up MAP. It would be ca 6 km in climb for the DB 605D at max output. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok, but the switching of the MAP is auto anyways, so I don't have to concern myself with it.

The reason I wanted to know the rated alt' is that I got the impression that you said that is the alt where you start to close the RAD?

So, with that said..

What RAD setting did the REAL test have at sea level (START) and at what altitude did they start closing it, and how much.

Than IYHO what in-game RAD settings best match those real world settings.


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Oh, I see. I thought it has some use anyway,
Well, useful in that it gives us insight as to what Oleg thinks' it should be, but, Oleg says what ever it is, it does not really factor into the performance. Thus he might not have put too much effort into insure it was displaying reasonable numbers.


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
the sim engine seems to take into account ram effects, to my delight. Though the power would be based on a MAP x rpm formula or something..
If you say so, I have personally have never tested that, nor have I seen any testing here to support it. I must have missed it when you posted your test results.


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Possible for the same reason. If you look at my site, you will find climbs of a 109G-2 (G-1, actually) where radiator temperature and position was recorded. It barely goes above 90 degrees during the climb in RL. Interesting.. I wonder if Oleg decided to just fudge this aspect of the sim? In that all the real life time-to-climb data is hard to match due to the over heating of the planes, even when their ROC values are pretty good! I guess what I am saying is if the ROC value is good, the TTC value should be good too.. Unless the plane over heats too quickly and you have to reduce power. As I had to do. On that note, I can account for that and remove those points from the ROC curves, but I can not account for the effect on the TTC values. In that TTC value is depended on how ROC value and how consistent it is.


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
It explains it, my theory about the rads and climb, simplified : regardless of the rad setting in game, the radiators work pretty much as if they were almost closed in real life. That means, they produce very little drag (=big boost in ROC) and very little cooling. Ah, ok I see what your saying.

But..

Now I am confused, in that I thought you just said that the real 109 test started out with the RAD about half open, not fully open. If so than your saying the 18% increase in ROC at 15kft is due to a RAD open difference of half vs. what?

So in essence, the in-game 109 is climbing like a real 109 with the RAD closed because the drag due to the RAD is not modeled?

The question now stands is the drag due to any RAD modeled? I think it is in that it seems to effect the top speeds of planes.. So maybe the drag of the RAD on the 109 is the bug that needs to be fixed. And if not a bug, and the drag of the RAD is not modeled in any plane than it is the ROC that has a bug and should be fixed.

Either way, I think you would agree that an 18% increase in ROC should be fixed.


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
And you can't effect that much. Which would explain why we have almost all planes climbing way too good, and overheat way too fast.
That might be it! But.. than again I have not tested all the planes. The one that I did do a lot of testing on was the P38J and it had an ROC that was barley meeting the real world numbers. So that is one plane that does not climb way too good. Note that was also back in version 4.04 so maybe now it does?


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
It would also explain why we get higher values at low alts. At low alts, the RL German data shows radiators half-open, vs. what we have effectively is radiators near-closed in-game. at high altitudes, the RL German data shows radiators almost closed, whereas in the game we habe again what we have effectively is radiators near-closed. So it's a closer match at high alt to historical radiator conditions that at low alt.
Yes, I see what your saying and that does theory does fit the case! The only thing I am not sure of if it is for all planes or just the 109 and a few others.


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I don't think it's exceeding it's RL counterpart. It's exceeding it's real life counterpart which had it's radiator flaps half-open, but if the real life counterpart would have it's radiators just opened, or in other words almost closed, with little drag and little cooling, like in effect most our planes do, the performance would be very similiar. Closing the rads would mean at least 2-3 m/sec boost, this is supported by RL tests.
That much? Well that theory does seem to fit this case than.

But..

If the 109 is not going to model the drag do to the RAD open and thus have a better ROC than wouldn't you agree that all planes should enjoy this perk?

I know you said all do, but, I don't know if that is the case. I would have to do a few more tests before I believe that all do enjoy this perk (i.e. limitation of the simulation)


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I suggest to re-run the tests with fully open and fully closed radiators, then to the German standard described above, in each case at constant 110% + MW-50 as described in German tests. Oil and Coolant temperature should be recorded.

Orginally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
No problem!

Just tell me what settings to use and at what altitude should I start closing the RAD.

That and the real world data that is really good to have is the Best Climb Speeds per alt! So if you have those, that would be great and make for a real good test of the in-game 109 to the real world one.

Well, I'd suggest to use Rad 6 up to 6000m, then say 4 up to 7500, 2 up to 9000, and Closed above that. This would be close to the typical German test conditions. Use 110% + MW-50 all they way up, and 100% fuel and ammo.[/quote]
Ok sounds good!


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
As for climb speeds, use the Rechlin 109G-1 trial on my site, this should give some guidelines for climb speed per alt! Typically, 270-280 kph IAS.
Ok sounds good!


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Preferably, do a seperate climb at Closed rads all the way up, and if possible, a Open rads all the way up test to see if there's much difference.
Ok sounds good!


Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
PS MW-50 was on the whole time during the tests, the only thing I adj was the power setting from 110% down to ~105% to allow the engine to cool off, but those low points are accounted for in the best fit ROC charts I made.
Perhaps turning off overheating would solve it to climb at full power? In any case, we're not particularly interested in coolant temps anyway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well.. I will do the full open RAD and full closed RAD test with the engine over heat turned off. Just to see if there is any drag effect.

But..

The reason I do them with engine over heat on is to see if the ROC is met..

AND..

If the TTC is met!

That is to say, we might fool ourselves into think the plane is simulate correctly if the ROC matches..

But..

If the plane falls way short of it's TTC times due to engine over heats, which cause me to use less than 110% power than the plane's over all endurance is NOT simulated very well!

Think of it in a dog fight.. You might be able to out climb someone as the real thing could, but not as long as the real thing could.

With that said, do you have any real world TTC data? In that the in-game TTC values didn't look that good to me with regards to some other 109 TTC values.

Thus, the ROC of the 109s may be in excess of 18% in some cases, but, due to the poor over heat modling it is getting bad representation due to the fact that it can not operate it's engine at those high MEP values as long' as the real thing could!

To put it in on-line dog fighter tersm..

You got better than real ROC, but you better make use of it fast because you can not operate at those values for very long.

In English.. Kill him quick or he may kill you! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG14_Josf
04-10-2007, 05:17 PM
GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm

Tagert,

I asked a simple question and I received an answer. That's great however your answer is not at all accurate.

You say game' has a ROC of some number without stating how that number was arrived at as if the notion concerning accuracy is pliable.

You could make your accurate statement more accurate by saying something along the lines of the following:

I, with my set-up, can maximize the games version clime rate of the 109K-4C3 to 4950 fpm.

Is that not more accurate?

You could add: I got track.

Someone could add: My track is bigger than your track.

The guy with the track file that can make the game version of that plane climb faster can stand as the maximum rate of climb for that game plane.

If everyone can repeat that maximum climb rate with their computers and no one can make that plane climb any faster, then, that will pretty much prove, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the game has a maximum climb rate for that plane (short of having Oleg hand down the fact with a silver spoon).

What happens if someone is trying to repeat your maximum climb rate test and they can't?

Your test can be made more accurate with a note saying something like this:

Starting with a cold engine at the spawn point the plane is started and flown at maximum engine RPM while switching on and off the manual prop cheat toggle.

Of course you may not run your test that way and of course someone might find another way to find a way to increase the climb rate in the game for that plane.

That is the game.

On to what you term to be "REAL Bf109K-4C3":

You could make your statement of fact more accurate.

A. Name the actual real airplane that can climb at the rate stated and avoid any assumptions that may lead someone to believe that the one real' airplane tested somehow proves that all the other production run aircraft with that model designation are just as capable in climb rate as that one plane with that one test on that one day with that one pilot under those conditions and configurations during that one test.
B. State the test procedure used to arrive at that climb rate.

If I didn't know any better I'd assume that your statement...

This statement:


GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm

Along with this statement:


Percent error = ~18 %


If I didn't know any better I'd think that you think that one test of one real plane compared to your game climb rate number proves that the game is modeling the 109K with an 18% error in climb rate.

I do know better and such a leap of faith is unfounded therefore:


Please define "much better" more accurately.

Blutarski2004
04-10-2007, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Tagert,

Are you talkin' to me?



..... The role of JG14_Josf on this thread is being played by Robert de Niro.


( Relax, J. Just a bit of movie humor. )


;-]

AKA_TAGERT
04-10-2007, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Tagert,
Josf


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
I asked a simple question and I received an answer.
As always.. As a mater of fact sometimes the answer is there before you ask the question. As was the case with the 'copy' of the real world data being a 'copy'


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
That's great
What can I say.. it's a gift of mine!


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
however your answer is not at all accurate.
Not true..

Well.. TRUE to the TRULY CONFUSED

But..

As for the rest.. Not true, Sorry.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
You say game' has a ROC of some number without stating how that number was arrived at as if the notion concerning accuracy is pliable.
So what part of..


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT at airwarfare with link on page 1 of this thread:
<span class="ev_code_black">IN GAME Bf-109K-4C3 TEST CONFIGURATION:
MAP: Crimea
WEATHER: Clear
TIME: 12:00PM
FUEL: 100%
WEAPON LOAD OUT: DEFAULT
RAD: AUTO up to ~20ft than OPEN
POWER: 110% THROTTLE for ~2min after the overheat msg appears than switch to 103%
POWER: 103% THROTTLE until overheat msg disappears and than back to 110%

ROC TEST METHOD:
The ground start method begins at a stop on the runway with the brakes on. The time to climb (TTC) stats when the brakes are released. The pilot completes a normal takeoff with rapid gear and flap retraction. The airplane is allowed to accelerate at low altitude to a speed somewhat below the speed for best climb speed (BCS). The pilot then performs a fairly abrupt pull-up and attempts to stabilize on the BCS schedule at the lowest practical altitude. Once stabilized on the climb schedule the pilot will adjust speed as the airplane climbs so that the schedule of best-climb speed is maintained as the altitude increases. The check climb ends when the rate of climb drops below 100 feet per minute or when a pre-established maximum altitude has been reached. Depending on the plane type, the time it takes from brakes released to lift off vary from about 20 to 40sec for a fighter. For graphing purposes, and to give the in game plane the best chance of meeting it's TTC values I removed the time between the brakes released and lift off (i.e. ROC > 0). This can cause a shift in the TTC times at alt by about 20 to 30sec. </span>

Did you not understand, WRT how 'that number' was arrived at?


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
You could make your accurate statement more accurate by saying something along the lines of the following:

I, with my set-up, can maximize the games version clime rate of the 109K-4C3 to 4950 fpm.

Is that not more accurate?
Actually no, it is less accurate in that you failed to mention at what altitude the max ROC occurs at as I did.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
You could add: I got track.

Here is a link to the track file

So what part of..


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT at airwarfare with link on page 1 of this thread:
<span class="ev_code_black">Here is a link to the track file</span>
Did you not understand?


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Someone could add: My track is bigger than your track.
You could!

To which I would have to respond..

<span class="ev_code_yellow">Thanks Josf! I am flattered, but I don't swing that way! Sorry</span>

NOT THAT THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT.. Just stay away from me! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
The guy with the track file that can make the game version of that plane climb faster can stand as the maximum rate of climb for that game plane.

If everyone can repeat that maximum climb rate with their computers and no one can make that plane climb any faster, then, that will pretty much prove, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the game has a maximum climb rate for that plane (short of having Oleg hand down the fact with a silver spoon). So?

Are you trying to imply that the existence or absence of 'another' track file invalidates the one I did?

Or are you operating under the FALSE impression that I said you can NOT make a track file of your own and do the test for yourself?


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
What happens if someone is trying to repeat your maximum climb rate test and they can't?
Simple!

They send me their track file and by analyzing the user inputs I can show them where they made their mistakes and thus why they could not obtain the values I did.

Or they can DL my track file and analyses my inputs to see how I did it.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Your test can be made more accurate with a note saying something like this:

Starting with a cold engine at the spawn point the plane is started and flown at maximum engine RPM while switching on and off the manual prop cheat toggle.
So what part of..

Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT at airwarfare with link on page 1 of this thread:
<span class="ev_code_black">IN GAME Bf-109K-4C3 TEST CONFIGURATION:
MAP: Crimea
WEATHER: Clear
TIME: 12:00PM
FUEL: 100%
WEAPON LOAD OUT: DEFAULT
RAD: AUTO up to ~20ft than OPEN
POWER: 110% THROTTLE for ~2min after the overheat msg appears than switch to 103%
POWER: 103% THROTTLE until overheat msg disappears and than back to 110%

ROC TEST METHOD:
The ground start method begins at a stop on the runway with the brakes on. The time to climb (TTC) stats when the brakes are released. The pilot completes a normal takeoff with rapid gear and flap retraction. The airplane is allowed to accelerate at low altitude to a speed somewhat below the speed for best climb speed (BCS). The pilot then performs a fairly abrupt pull-up and attempts to stabilize on the BCS schedule at the lowest practical altitude. Once stabilized on the climb schedule the pilot will adjust speed as the airplane climbs so that the schedule of best-climb speed is maintained as the altitude increases. The check climb ends when the rate of climb drops below 100 feet per minute or when a pre-established maximum altitude has been reached. Depending on the plane type, the time it takes from brakes released to lift off vary from about 20 to 40sec for a fighter. For graphing purposes, and to give the in game plane the best chance of meeting it's TTC values I removed the time between the brakes released and lift off (i.e. ROC > 0). This can cause a shift in the TTC times at alt by about 20 to 30sec. </span>

Did you not understand, WRT TEST CONFIGURATION?


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Of course you may not run your test that way and of course someone might find another way to find a way to increase the climb rate in the game for that plane.

That is the game.
So?

What part of me trying to match the real world test method and conditions did you not understand?


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
On to what you term to be "REAL Bf109K-4C3":

You could make your statement of fact more accurate.

A. Name the actual real airplane that can climb at the rate stated and avoid any assumptions that may lead someone to believe that the one real' airplane tested somehow proves that all the other production run aircraft with that model designation are just as capable in climb rate as that one plane with that one test on that one day with that one pilot under those conditions and configurations during that one test.
When I have that kind of information I provide it. For example, the TEMPEST Mk. V test provides the best climb speed, so I used that in my testing, and provided it in the form of a link and as an overlay in my pdf file analysis that I provided a link to. A for the best climb speed of the 109K it was not provided in the 109K test data, thus I did not provide it! To account for this I did several ROC tests to determine what the best climb speed is.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
B. State the test procedure used to arrive at that climb rate.

So what part of..

Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT at airwarfare with link on page 1 of this thread:
<span class="ev_code_black">IN GAME Bf-109K-4C3 TEST CONFIGURATION:
MAP: Crimea
WEATHER: Clear
TIME: 12:00PM
FUEL: 100%
WEAPON LOAD OUT: DEFAULT
RAD: AUTO up to ~20ft than OPEN
POWER: 110% THROTTLE for ~2min after the overheat msg appears than switch to 103%
POWER: 103% THROTTLE until overheat msg disappears and than back to 110%

ROC TEST METHOD:
The ground start method begins at a stop on the runway with the brakes on. The time to climb (TTC) stats when the brakes are released. The pilot completes a normal takeoff with rapid gear and flap retraction. The airplane is allowed to accelerate at low altitude to a speed somewhat below the speed for best climb speed (BCS). The pilot then performs a fairly abrupt pull-up and attempts to stabilize on the BCS schedule at the lowest practical altitude. Once stabilized on the climb schedule the pilot will adjust speed as the airplane climbs so that the schedule of best-climb speed is maintained as the altitude increases. The check climb ends when the rate of climb drops below 100 feet per minute or when a pre-established maximum altitude has been reached. Depending on the plane type, the time it takes from brakes released to lift off vary from about 20 to 40sec for a fighter. For graphing purposes, and to give the in game plane the best chance of meeting it's TTC values I removed the time between the brakes released and lift off (i.e. ROC > 0). This can cause a shift in the TTC times at alt by about 20 to 30sec. </span>

Did you not understand, WRT ROC TEST METHOD?


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
If I didn't know any better
Agreed 100%


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
I'd assume that your statement...

This statement:

GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm

Along with this statement:

Percent error = ~18 %
You assume what?


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
If I didn't know any better
Agreed 100% still


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
I'd think that you think that one test of one real plane compared to your game climb rate number proves that the game is modeling the 109K with an 18% error in climb rate.
Well look at the bright side!

You got the 'assume' part right!

As with the REAL testing they typically only show one result..

But that does not mean they only did one test!

Same goes for me and my testing!

I did several tests at varying values of best climb speed, RAD settings, etc. And some combinations more than once to make sure there was no method/pilot error.

Out of those I picked the most reasonable and repeatable one.

So the moral of this story..

<span class="ev_code_yellow">DON'T ASSUME JUST ASK!</span>


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
I do know better and such a leap of faith is unfounded therefore:
No..

You 'assume' better than anyone here I know..

But..

You don't know better!


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Please define "much better" more accurately.

So what part of..


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT just a few posts ago:
To give you an feel for my definition of much' we will compare two IL2 planes to their real world counterparts.

Let's start off taking a look at the Bf-109

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm

Percent error = 100 x abs[(real-game)/real]
Percent error = 100 x abs[(4200fpm 4950fpm)/4200fpm]
Percent error = 100 x abs[ 750fpm/4200fpm]
Percent error = 100 x abs[0.17857142857142857142857142857143]
Percent error = 100 x 0.17857142857142857142857142857143
Percent error = 17.857142857142857142857142857143 %
Percent error = ~18 %</pre>

The IL2 simulation goal is 5%, thus the Bf-109K-C3 ROC is about 4 times that!

Anything that is above a factor of two from the goal is something I would refer to as much. Since the IL2 Bf-109K-4C3 ROC is above the factor of 2 I would refer to it's ROC as much' larger than it should be.

Now let's take a look at the TEMPEST Mk. V

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
GAME TEMPEST Mk. V @ 1.5kft has an ROC of ~3000fpm
REAL TEMPEST Mk. V @ 1.5kft has an ROC of ~2750fpm

Percent error = 100 x abs[(real-game)/real]
Percent error = 100 x abs[(2750fpm-3000fpm)/2750fpm]
Percent error = 100 x abs[-250fpm/2750fpm]
Percent error = 100 x abs[-0.090909090909090909090909090909091]
Percent error = 100 x -0.090909090909090909090909090909091
Percent error = 9.0909090909090909090909090909091%
Percent error = ~9 %</pre>

The IL2 simulation goal is 5%, thus the TEMPEST Mk. V ROC is almost 2 times that!

Anything that is above a factor of two from the goal is something I would refer to as much. Since the IL2 TEMPEST Mk. V ROC is below the factor of 2 I would NOT refer to it's ROC as much' larger than it should be, but getting close to it!

SAVVY?
Did you not understand, WRT a percent error larger than 10% (twice IL2's goal of 5%) is where I draw the line of 'much'?

PS note all black text is from airwarfare.com where both of the 109K, TEMPEST, and Ta-152 test results reside. Just encase some others here are as confused as Josf is.. Here is a link http://www.airwarfare.com (http://www.airwarfare.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=8&sid=ac25763975115f18c41f8cd1c0ce2ff9)

FluffyDucks2
04-11-2007, 05:09 AM
Does ANYONE other than the knobs that have no life in the real world ACTUALLY read all this BS? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Xiolablu3
04-11-2007, 05:25 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif GUYS! they are questioning the Bf109 and may find out the truth!!

Get out the smoke, mirrors and turn it into a Spitfire slating topic QUICK! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BTW most of the ROC's of the Bf109's are overmodelled in the sim, whereas the SPitfires are almost dead on, even the 'clownwagon' 25lbs boost model fits its numbers almost exactly, and which there were far more of these than 109K4 1.98 ATAs in WW2.

Tagerts findings, even IF they are not completely correct, show the general state of things. Hopefully BOB will be more accurate.

Diablo310th
04-11-2007, 06:32 AM
seems to me that with changes in Rads modeling most if not all ROC and overheat problems could be corrected. That is if I'm reading these tests and comments correctly. Maybe Tagert and Kurffie's tests have found the true problem and with FM changes in the next path we could ahve more true to life FM's for all ac. I sure hope that this is being sent to Oleg or at least read by him.. I kinda doubt he is reading any of this tho. Anyways.. ~S~ guys for all the hard work here. For all those with problems with the personal accusations...do as I do...look over it and look for the real data being presented.

AKA_TAGERT
04-11-2007, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Neither the radiators effect much the cooling capacity, the engine boils very quick compared to the steady 80-90-100 C* temperatures the 109 would witness during climb with full open radiators.
I missed this the first time you said it.

I think you/me/we may be confusing the ENGINE OVERHEAT message to mean the WATER TEMP?

The ENGINE OVERHEAT message is a combination of things..

NOT just the WATER temp..

It is Oleg's way of saying the engine endurance is reaching it's limit..

How he comes up with that? I don't know!

If you look at my pdf analysis file you will see that the WATER temp peaks at about 92?C about 3min into the climb.

Than..

At the 5min mark it starts to DROP and eventually gets down to 65?C at the end of the test.

So, what does seem to be driving the ENGINE OVERHEAT message is the OIL TEMP!

In that it gets up to 126?C and never really comes down!

Except for where I cut back on the throttle (see the throttle vs. oil temp graph near the end of the doc).

So I guess my point is the WATER TEMP seems to be spot on with your REAL WORLD DATA that you were referring to..

But..

The OIL TEMP seems to be the main player that causes engine damage and the ENGINE OVERHEAT message.

Feathered_IV
04-11-2007, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Tagert,
Josf


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
I asked a simple question and I received an answer.
As always.. As a mater of fact sometimes the answer is there before you ask the question. As was the case with the 'copy' of the real world data being a 'copy'


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
That's great
What can I say.. it's a gift of mine!


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
however your answer is not at all accurate.
Not true..

Well.. TRUE to the TRULY CONFUSED

But..

As for the rest.. Not true, Sorry.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
You say game' has a ROC of some number without stating how that number was arrived at as if the notion concerning accuracy is pliable.
So what part of..


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT at airwarfare with link on page 1 of this thread:
<span class="ev_code_black">IN GAME Bf-109K-4C3 TEST CONFIGURATION:
MAP: Crimea
WEATHER: Clear
TIME: 12:00PM
FUEL: 100%
WEAPON LOAD OUT: DEFAULT
RAD: AUTO up to ~20ft than OPEN
POWER: 110% THROTTLE for ~2min after the overheat msg appears than switch to 103%
POWER: 103% THROTTLE until overheat msg disappears and than back to 110%

ROC TEST METHOD:
The ground start method begins at a stop on the runway with the brakes on. The time to climb (TTC) stats when the brakes are released. The pilot completes a normal takeoff with rapid gear and flap retraction. The airplane is allowed to accelerate at low altitude to a speed somewhat below the speed for best climb speed (BCS). The pilot then performs a fairly abrupt pull-up and attempts to stabilize on the BCS schedule at the lowest practical altitude. Once stabilized on the climb schedule the pilot will adjust speed as the airplane climbs so that the schedule of best-climb speed is maintained as the altitude increases. The check climb ends when the rate of climb drops below 100 feet per minute or when a pre-established maximum altitude has been reached. Depending on the plane type, the time it takes from brakes released to lift off vary from about 20 to 40sec for a fighter. For graphing purposes, and to give the in game plane the best chance of meeting it's TTC values I removed the time between the brakes released and lift off (i.e. ROC > 0). This can cause a shift in the TTC times at alt by about 20 to 30sec. </span>

Did you not understand, WRT how 'that number' was arrived at?


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
You could make your accurate statement more accurate by saying something along the lines of the following:

I, with my set-up, can maximize the games version clime rate of the 109K-4C3 to 4950 fpm.

Is that not more accurate?
Actually no, it is less accurate in that you failed to mention at what altitude the max ROC occurs at as I did.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
You could add: I got track.

Here is a link to the track file

So what part of..


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT at airwarfare with link on page 1 of this thread:
<span class="ev_code_black">Here is a link to the track file</span>
Did you not understand?


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Someone could add: My track is bigger than your track.
You could!

To which I would have to respond..

<span class="ev_code_yellow">Thanks Josf! I am flattered, but I don't swing that way! Sorry</span>

NOT THAT THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT.. Just stay away from me! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
The guy with the track file that can make the game version of that plane climb faster can stand as the maximum rate of climb for that game plane.

If everyone can repeat that maximum climb rate with their computers and no one can make that plane climb any faster, then, that will pretty much prove, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the game has a maximum climb rate for that plane (short of having Oleg hand down the fact with a silver spoon). So?

Are you trying to imply that the existence or absence of 'another' track file invalidates the one I did?

Or are you operating under the FALSE impression that I said you can NOT make a track file of your own and do the test for yourself?


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
What happens if someone is trying to repeat your maximum climb rate test and they can't?
Simple!

They send me their track file and by analyzing the user inputs I can show them where they made their mistakes and thus why they could not obtain the values I did.

Or they can DL my track file and analyses my inputs to see how I did it.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Your test can be made more accurate with a note saying something like this:

Starting with a cold engine at the spawn point the plane is started and flown at maximum engine RPM while switching on and off the manual prop cheat toggle.
So what part of..

Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT at airwarfare with link on page 1 of this thread:
<span class="ev_code_black">IN GAME Bf-109K-4C3 TEST CONFIGURATION:
MAP: Crimea
WEATHER: Clear
TIME: 12:00PM
FUEL: 100%
WEAPON LOAD OUT: DEFAULT
RAD: AUTO up to ~20ft than OPEN
POWER: 110% THROTTLE for ~2min after the overheat msg appears than switch to 103%
POWER: 103% THROTTLE until overheat msg disappears and than back to 110%

ROC TEST METHOD:
The ground start method begins at a stop on the runway with the brakes on. The time to climb (TTC) stats when the brakes are released. The pilot completes a normal takeoff with rapid gear and flap retraction. The airplane is allowed to accelerate at low altitude to a speed somewhat below the speed for best climb speed (BCS). The pilot then performs a fairly abrupt pull-up and attempts to stabilize on the BCS schedule at the lowest practical altitude. Once stabilized on the climb schedule the pilot will adjust speed as the airplane climbs so that the schedule of best-climb speed is maintained as the altitude increases. The check climb ends when the rate of climb drops below 100 feet per minute or when a pre-established maximum altitude has been reached. Depending on the plane type, the time it takes from brakes released to lift off vary from about 20 to 40sec for a fighter. For graphing purposes, and to give the in game plane the best chance of meeting it's TTC values I removed the time between the brakes released and lift off (i.e. ROC > 0). This can cause a shift in the TTC times at alt by about 20 to 30sec. </span>

Did you not understand, WRT TEST CONFIGURATION?


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Of course you may not run your test that way and of course someone might find another way to find a way to increase the climb rate in the game for that plane.

That is the game.
So?

What part of me trying to match the real world test method and conditions did you not understand?


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
On to what you term to be "REAL Bf109K-4C3":

You could make your statement of fact more accurate.

A. Name the actual real airplane that can climb at the rate stated and avoid any assumptions that may lead someone to believe that the one real' airplane tested somehow proves that all the other production run aircraft with that model designation are just as capable in climb rate as that one plane with that one test on that one day with that one pilot under those conditions and configurations during that one test.
When I have that kind of information I provide it. For example, the TEMPEST Mk. V test provides the best climb speed, so I used that in my testing, and provided it in the form of a link and as an overlay in my pdf file analysis that I provided a link to. A for the best climb speed of the 109K it was not provided in the 109K test data, thus I did not provide it! To account for this I did several ROC tests to determine what the best climb speed is.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
B. State the test procedure used to arrive at that climb rate.

So what part of..

Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT at airwarfare with link on page 1 of this thread:
<span class="ev_code_black">IN GAME Bf-109K-4C3 TEST CONFIGURATION:
MAP: Crimea
WEATHER: Clear
TIME: 12:00PM
FUEL: 100%
WEAPON LOAD OUT: DEFAULT
RAD: AUTO up to ~20ft than OPEN
POWER: 110% THROTTLE for ~2min after the overheat msg appears than switch to 103%
POWER: 103% THROTTLE until overheat msg disappears and than back to 110%

ROC TEST METHOD:
The ground start method begins at a stop on the runway with the brakes on. The time to climb (TTC) stats when the brakes are released. The pilot completes a normal takeoff with rapid gear and flap retraction. The airplane is allowed to accelerate at low altitude to a speed somewhat below the speed for best climb speed (BCS). The pilot then performs a fairly abrupt pull-up and attempts to stabilize on the BCS schedule at the lowest practical altitude. Once stabilized on the climb schedule the pilot will adjust speed as the airplane climbs so that the schedule of best-climb speed is maintained as the altitude increases. The check climb ends when the rate of climb drops below 100 feet per minute or when a pre-established maximum altitude has been reached. Depending on the plane type, the time it takes from brakes released to lift off vary from about 20 to 40sec for a fighter. For graphing purposes, and to give the in game plane the best chance of meeting it's TTC values I removed the time between the brakes released and lift off (i.e. ROC > 0). This can cause a shift in the TTC times at alt by about 20 to 30sec. </span>

Did you not understand, WRT ROC TEST METHOD?


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
If I didn't know any better
Agreed 100%


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
I'd assume that your statement...

This statement:

GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm

Along with this statement:

Percent error = ~18 %
You assume what?


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
If I didn't know any better
Agreed 100% still


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
I'd think that you think that one test of one real plane compared to your game climb rate number proves that the game is modeling the 109K with an 18% error in climb rate.
Well look at the bright side!

You got the 'assume' part right!

As with the REAL testing they typically only show one result..

But that does not mean they only did one test!

Same goes for me and my testing!

I did several tests at varying values of best climb speed, RAD settings, etc. And some combinations more than once to make sure there was no method/pilot error.

Out of those I picked the most reasonable and repeatable one.

So the moral of this story..

<span class="ev_code_yellow">DON'T ASSUME JUST ASK!</span>


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
I do know better and such a leap of faith is unfounded therefore:
No..

You 'assume' better than anyone here I know..

But..

You don't know better!


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Please define "much better" more accurately.

So what part of..


Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT just a few posts ago:
To give you an feel for my definition of much' we will compare two IL2 planes to their real world counterparts.

Let's start off taking a look at the Bf-109

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm

Percent error = 100 x abs[(real-game)/real]
Percent error = 100 x abs[(4200fpm 4950fpm)/4200fpm]
Percent error = 100 x abs[ 750fpm/4200fpm]
Percent error = 100 x abs[0.17857142857142857142857142857143]
Percent error = 100 x 0.17857142857142857142857142857143
Percent error = 17.857142857142857142857142857143 %
Percent error = ~18 %</pre>

The IL2 simulation goal is 5%, thus the Bf-109K-C3 ROC is about 4 times that!

Anything that is above a factor of two from the goal is something I would refer to as much. Since the IL2 Bf-109K-4C3 ROC is above the factor of 2 I would refer to it's ROC as much' larger than it should be.

Now let's take a look at the TEMPEST Mk. V

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
GAME TEMPEST Mk. V @ 1.5kft has an ROC of ~3000fpm
REAL TEMPEST Mk. V @ 1.5kft has an ROC of ~2750fpm

Percent error = 100 x abs[(real-game)/real]
Percent error = 100 x abs[(2750fpm-3000fpm)/2750fpm]
Percent error = 100 x abs[-250fpm/2750fpm]
Percent error = 100 x abs[-0.090909090909090909090909090909091]
Percent error = 100 x -0.090909090909090909090909090909091
Percent error = 9.0909090909090909090909090909091%
Percent error = ~9 %</pre>

The IL2 simulation goal is 5%, thus the TEMPEST Mk. V ROC is almost 2 times that!

Anything that is above a factor of two from the goal is something I would refer to as much. Since the IL2 TEMPEST Mk. V ROC is below the factor of 2 I would NOT refer to it's ROC as much' larger than it should be, but getting close to it!

SAVVY?
Did you not understand, WRT a percent error larger than 10% (twice IL2's goal of 5%) is where I draw the line of 'much'?

PS note all black text is from airwarfare.com where both of the 109K, TEMPEST, and Ta-152 test results reside. Just encase some others here are as confused as Josf is.. Here is a link http://www.airwarfare.com (http://www.airwarfare.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=8&sid=ac25763975115f18c41f8cd1c0ce2ff9) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder what the longest qoute/quip/quote post of all time is? Quick. Anyone got a chart????

Brain32
04-11-2007, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
BTW most of the ROC's of the Bf109's are overmodelled in the sim...
You tested most of the 109's in the game so you know that for sure right?


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
...whereas the SPitfires are almost dead on...
You tested the Spitfires in the game so you know that for sure right?


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
...even the 'clownwagon' 25lbs boost model fits its numbers almost exactly...
You tested the Spit 25lbs boost model so you know that for sure right?


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
...and which there were far more of these than 109K4 1.98 ATAs in WW2.
Ofcourse you have all the data to support this ridiculous statement right?


Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Tagerts findings, even IF they are not completely correct, show the general state of things.
Funnay, I would say that in game 109K4 might(I say "might" because of possible errors in test method and condition of the plane in real testing) be climbing too good at some altitudes.


Originally posted by Xiolablu3: Hopefully BOB will be more accurate.
Me too, gettin' kinda' tired of won t3h war aproach towards modelling of Allied planes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG14_Josf
04-11-2007, 09:58 AM
Did you not understand, WRT how 'that number' was arrived at?

Tagert,

Which number? Do you see a problem at all?

I can help you.

If you refer to something ambiguously, then, there is room for confusion.

You can remove all the confusion (or wiggle room) with a simple procedure.

If you say that number' you can instead say this:


GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm


One is better than the other (more accurate).

Instead of that number' there is an actual number.

Even better; you can refer to "GAME Bf-109K-4C3" as My tests of GAME Bf-109K-43C"

You can even add an link (somehow) that refers to the exact test that you did to arrive at your rate of climb number and avoid some guy asking for got track'. Forums, you see, involve people who just pop in and read the last few posts, perhaps, as flame fest fuel or whatever turns them on go figure.

Anyway; having the accuracy goal in mind can tend to improve your posts to offer an accurate presentation that is 'stand alone' kind of like the method Viper was using with his P-47 post where he readjusted the first page presentation.

When you wrote this:


GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm


I didn't know if you were refereeing to the "Game" as your test or a combination of tests done by other people or the results from IL2compare or even the Game's own published performance data (if it exists somewhere). "Game" means, ahhhhh, "Game". Game does not mean "Tagert's test results".

Can you see what I'm driving at now?
As for the "REAL" I suppose there is a need to continue reading your post to find out what else you are going on about explaining this:


GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm


What is "REAL" according to you? I'll read on and comment after reading your goings on'.


Actually no, it is less accurate in that you failed to mention at what altitude the max ROC occurs at as I did.

Are we now trying to compute a NET accuracy rating? My point was to identify "GAME" as "Your test" and in that way "GAME" will be defined accurately as "Your test". Of course the addition of an altitude value for MAX ROC (Maximum Rate of Climb) increases accuracy. Are you now suggesting that I think the addition of an altitude value for MAX ROC does not increase accuracy or are you simply diverting the topic away from the fact that you wrote GAME and failed to identify "GAME" as your test of the game on your computer?


You could!

To which I would have to respond..

Thanks Josf! I am flattered, but I don't swing that way! Sorry

NOT THAT THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT.. Just stay away from me!

That is funny. Is it a form of comic relief? Not that being gay is comical of course.


So?

Are you trying to imply that the existence or absence of 'another' track file invalidates the one I did?

Or are you operating under the FALSE impression that I said you can NOT make a track file of your own and do the test for yourself?


"That" was an attempt to communicate how accuracy can be improved. If Oleg were to publish something similar to IL2compare with an official' stamp of official ness, then, we can all point to the "GAME" ROC for any plane at any altitude and say, with authority, that the "GAME" simulates a MAX ROC at x altitude with authority because that is what the game simulates (your mileage may vary).
I fly with a few friends often and we don't all get the same altitude at the same time and we race to it often. File that under practical experience concerning relative climb rates from different computers connected via a network (having fun).


Simple!

They send me their track file and by analyzing the user inputs I can show them where they made their mistakes and thus why they could not obtain the values I did.

Or they can DL my track file and analyses my inputs to see how I did it.

Simpler:

They can't and you can. The official' authority on who can get the most out of the game would by you not the poor Nancy Boyz.


Did you not understand, WRT TEST CONFIGURATION?


This part is not understood:


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Your test can be made more accurate with a note saying something like this:

Starting with a cold engine at the spawn point the plane is started and flown at maximum engine RPM while switching on and off the manual prop cheat toggle.

Suppose that the guy you are so willing to help submits to you a track file where his plane is sitting on the runway at an idle for 30 minutes before starting the test or the player is on the runway before starting the test doing play run ups with the engine to get a feel for reality. Perhaps he checks for rpm drop while switching on an off the two magnetos.

In his test the engine starts out at operating temperature. Perhaps his test results in engine damage. You could accurize your test procedure write up with a note to warn any repeat testers (per reviewers) to avoid starting the test with a warm engine such as:


ROC TEST METHOD:
The ground start method begins at a (cold) stop on the runway with the brakes on. The time to climb (TTC) stats when the brakes are released.

You can also change your whole routine to one more similar to the REAL methods of testing climb performance if the idea is to test the game climb performance against the REAL climb performance rather than making up your own test procedure.


So?

What part of me trying to match the real world test method and conditions did you not understand?

The part where you select your personal test procedure and your personal test results and then you match that single result to something that you ambiguously claim to be REAL as:


GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm

We are being far from accurate here, for example, there is no mention of climb angle or climb speed.

Do you understand my concerns at all?

This may help: climb test proceedures (http://flighttest.navair.navy.mil/unrestricted/FTM108/c7.pdf)


When I have that kind of information I provide it. For example, the TEMPEST Mk. V test provides the best climb speed, so I used that in my testing, and provided it in the form of a link and as an overlay in my pdf file analysis that I provided a link to. A for the best climb speed of the 109K it was not provided in the 109K test data, thus I did not provide it! To account for this I did several ROC tests to determine what the best climb speed is.

A ray of hope? You are catching onto my concerns? How about this angle of view:

Does your GAME' test results measure up to IL2comapare climb performance data? IL2compare is a handy tool. I think there is (somewhere) another form of comparative performance analysis software available for IL2. How does your results measure up to any of the other (per review) results? Is your method and result the most accurate representation of the GAME performance that can stand as the official' ROC performance number like this:


GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm


Did you not understand, WRT ROC TEST METHOD?

I do not understand what WRT means and I really don't have a desire to know. My question concerning your test method was and remains concerned about many obvious variables such as the initial game clock concerning heat induced engine damage i.e. did your tests start with a cold engine. My experience is such that the game allows the player to maximize climb rate if the player spawns and begins climbing immediately because it takes longer for the game to damage the engine from a cold start compared to, say, starting a climb with an engine at the operating temperature (such as what must be done in REAL tests to avoid damage from running the engine without proper lubrication).

Can that be understood or not?


Did you not understand, WRT a percent error larger than 10% (twice IL2's goal of 5%) is where I draw the line of 'much'?

If you do not listen to what my concern is, then, you may confuse my concern with your ignorance and then you blame me for your ignorance concerning my concern.

Is that too complicated?

How about this (you have to actually read what I write to get it'):

You post a claim that goes like this:


GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm

There is a word in that claim that is this:

"REAL"

If by "REAL" you mean this:


PS note all black text is from airwarfare.com where both of the 109K, TEMPEST, and Ta-152 test results reside. Just encase some others here are as confused as Josf is.. Here is a link http://www.airwarfare.com

If by "REAL" you mean a climb rate number for a specific airplane that was tested in WWII and that specific airplane test number can be found on a copy of an original document posted on a web page, then, "REAL" actually means something more than just "REAL".

Someone reading "REAL", like me, may not quite understand exactly (here is the accuracy thing again) what you mean by "REAL" even if someone has actually read the whole thread.

I still don't know what "REAL" means. I suppose I could go to the site linked and start looking for "REAL" but why not just do this:


DON'T ASSUME JUST ASK!

Suppose I browse the site linked and I find the number you report on a document for maximum rate of climb at a specific altitude for a 109K-4. Suppose that I find this exact number that you post thusly:


GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm

Suppose I do that and I link that document here to confirm, by asking, that, in fact, that document is the precise source of your claim concerning "REAL". Now, supposing that this is no longer ambiguous, and we arrive on the same confirmed page.

How did that "REAL" climb rate number come into being? What was their test procedure in WWII? Most importantly: Was that one test a representative test of "THE REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5ft ROC of ~4200fpm" or was that one test a representation of "ONE REAL Bf-109K-4C3..."?

That is just one question concerning that one test if that one test is the one test that you utilize in the following:


GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm

Example: Your test, in the game, is conducted on a simulated day with simulated atmospheric conditions. The "REAL" test was conducted on a real day with real atmospheric conditions. Was the real day comparable with the simulated day?

Example 2 (three questions total now):

Did the German Military publish a REAL Maximum ROC for that altitude for that plane?
If so, then, why not use that number rather than one number from one plane on one day? Why not use an average (mean, median, etc.) between the German Military published performance number and the one test?

4 questions already exist concerning your REAL number. What exactly do you mean when you write REAL? The impression communicated to me is such that I think that you think that your REAL number is the official and authoritative number for "THE" 109K-4C3.

Even your version of the model designation appears to be somewhat ambiguous. When you write 109K-4C3 do you mean to imply that the REAL designation for the plane tested in WWII on one day (and the results of that test are posted on the web site linked) was designated as a Bf-109K-4C3?

It is my understanding that airplanes have serial numbers or Werk numbers and each plane is not the same as the next plane in design or performance. Many planes are nearly the same in design and performance. That is how they leave the factory. 500 may leave the factory with the same design as a BLOCK of Werk numbers. A design change may be introduced into the production run and 500 more may leave the factory with a new design change.

Those planes eventually arrive at the combat air fields and a plane may be assigned to a particular pilot and a particular maintenance crew. Good ones, no doubt, go to good pilots. There are many references confirming this type of selection process on all sides of any conflict. Bad examples (planes made on Tuesday after a three day weekend) go to a motor pool' or are assigned as Spare planes. Towards the end of the war, as the historical record confirms, at least on the German side, the planes arriving at the combat airfields were taken apart and put back together as the mechanics looked for sabotage production irregularities. I can post a quote on that from Green Hearts by Axle Urbanke. This post is already too long.

The "REAL" Bf109K -4C3" flown by Eric Hartmann (or the REAL P-47C flown by Robert S. Johnson), after the pilot's personal mechanics were done with tuning it up' may not perform as "REAL" as the "REAL" plane piloted by Hans Shultz or John Doe after their mechanics left that lemon "as is".

My diatribe may or may not add or subtract from the ambiguity embodied into your term "REAL".

My suggestion is for more accuracy. If you don't get it', then, you don't. That is simple.

Blutarski2004
04-11-2007, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
The "REAL" Bf109K -4C3" flown by Eric Hartmann (or the REAL P-47C flown by Robert S. Johnson), after the pilot's personal mechanics were done with tuning it up' may not perform as "REAL" as the "REAL" plane piloted by Hans Shultz or John Doe after their mechanics left that lemon "as is".


..... However, Oleg does not accept unofficial field modifications as valid performance models for the sim - for example, the boost overrides on TBolts, which are fairly well documented in the personal reminiscences of wartime pilots and mechanics.

JG14_Josf
04-11-2007, 11:00 AM
Oleg does not accept unofficial field modifications as valid performance models for the sim

Blutarski2004,

Perhaps you missed my point.

Robert S. Johnson and Eric Hartmann were THE official authorities concerning maximum performance capabilities of specific airplanes. Those specific airplanes even had names and scores painted on them.

Oleg has an official performance capability number for every plane he has modeled and if anyone wants to find out that number, well, they can get the game and find it. There may even be an official published number of GAME performances somewhere. My skepticism concerning Tagert's official version of GAME performance is as keen as my skepticism concerning IL2compare's official version of GAME performance. IL2compare happens to have a neat way of comparing planes in the game. Tagert's presentations, on the other hand, could use some work, in my opinion, when comparing the game performance.

If Oleg did publish an official' number for the GAME performance, well, I missed it.

I can't link where, for example, the official GAME climb rate for the 109K can be found at any specific altitude. I can probably find a link to IL2compare which is somewhat more official' than Tagert's cold (is it cold?) start tests.

I can't link to where Oleg publishes the official' REAL performance numbers that can be found that links the REAL numbers used by Oleg. I can't even link to a calculation process where Oleg averages out a number of REAL official performance numbers for REAL documents from WWII. The official' REAL performance capabilities remain ambiguous. Perhaps that is a reflection of REALITY. Is that my point?

If a person is to compare something REAL to something simulated, then, there is a need to define REAL more accurately. The GAME performance is fixed as a program to be measured by each individual computer hooked up to a network (In my opinion the game simulates human beings challenging human beings and not human beings challenging artificial intelligence).

The official and authoritative' REALITY is not fixed by each pilot/plane/flight in REALITY and each pilot/plane/flight will be different and not fixed; therefore any measure of REALITY will be either ONE pilot/plane/flight or REALITY will be an average of more than ONE pilot/plane/flight. In this official and authoritative' fixation of performance variables there is a HUGE difference between REALITY and Simulation where Simulation is FIXED for every single plane model that represents something in REALITY that is not and never can be fixed in any official or authoritative capacity whatsoever. Someone somewhere must either pick one pilot/plane/flight to be the official and authoritative' example to be simulated or someone somewhere must average out more than one pilot/plane/flight to be the official and authoritative' example to be fixed into the simulation.

Without an official and authoritative' fixed REAL performance TARGET for the GAME from the producers of the game (the only one's who can know the official and authoritative' method of identifying REALITY) there is no official and authoritative' performance number. It exists. This idea that the GAME is ONLY a computation of physical reality and once the sizes, shapes, power and weights of particular planes are entered into the computation the chips fall as they may, this idea, is not the official and authoritative reality' although it was a good selling pitch and remains to be a rather stubborn myth.

IL2compare proves something. You can be your own official and authoritative' entity interpreting exactly what IL2compre proves.


Oleg does not accept unofficial field modifications as valid performance models for the sim

What Oleg does, as has been confirmed on this forum and then removed from this forum, is get tired of the whining and then caves in to silence the whining. How does that happen if the sizes, shapes, powers and weights are punched into a number cruncher letting the chips fall as they may? Does Oleg make something smaller, more efficient, more powerful, and lighter to please the vocal majority on occasion?

If so, then, making a plane lighter will increase Power Required and therefore change more than one performance variable in ways that degrade some performance while increases other performances such as the rate of deceleration and the rate of acceleration.

Once the squeaky wheels are greased there can be no end to the squeaking.

You can take that to the bank as an official and authoritative reality.

NancyBoyOnYer6
04-11-2007, 11:26 AM
The only way to shut up all the Allied loving trolls that post here is to make each and every German Fighter plane weigh in at 20,000. Lbs. + Look at what they have done to most of the 109''s in the game, they cried and cried until they were porked. Sad cry baby red/allied side trolls http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

AKA_TAGERT
04-11-2007, 12:22 PM
Pooor Nancy..

boy..

on..

my..

six..

Sucking my wind

AKA_TAGERT
04-11-2007, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Did you not understand, WRT how 'that number' was arrived at?

Tagert,

Which number? Do you see a problem at all?

I can help you.

If you refer to something ambiguously, then, there is room for confusion.

You can remove all the confusion (or wiggle room) with a simple procedure.

If you say that number' you can instead say this:


GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm


One is better than the other (more accurate).

Instead of that number' there is an actual number.

Even better; you can refer to "GAME Bf-109K-4C3" as My tests of GAME Bf-109K-43C"

You can even add an link (somehow) that refers to the exact test that you did to arrive at your rate of climb number and avoid some guy asking for got track'. Forums, you see, involve people who just pop in and read the last few posts, perhaps, as flame fest fuel or whatever turns them on go figure.

Anyway; having the accuracy goal in mind can tend to improve your posts to offer an accurate presentation that is 'stand alone' kind of like the method Viper was using with his P-47 post where he readjusted the first page presentation.

When you wrote this:


GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm


I didn't know if you were refereeing to the "Game" as your test or a combination of tests done by other people or the results from IL2compare or even the Game's own published performance data (if it exists somewhere). "Game" means, ahhhhh, "Game". Game does not mean "Tagert's test results".

Can you see what I'm driving at now?
As for the "REAL" I suppose there is a need to continue reading your post to find out what else you are going on about explaining this:


GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm


What is "REAL" according to you? I'll read on and comment after reading your goings on'.


Actually no, it is less accurate in that you failed to mention at what altitude the max ROC occurs at as I did.

Are we now trying to compute a NET accuracy rating? My point was to identify "GAME" as "Your test" and in that way "GAME" will be defined accurately as "Your test". Of course the addition of an altitude value for MAX ROC (Maximum Rate of Climb) increases accuracy. Are you now suggesting that I think the addition of an altitude value for MAX ROC does not increase accuracy or are you simply diverting the topic away from the fact that you wrote GAME and failed to identify "GAME" as your test of the game on your computer?


You could!

To which I would have to respond..

Thanks Josf! I am flattered, but I don't swing that way! Sorry

NOT THAT THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT.. Just stay away from me!

That is funny. Is it a form of comic relief? Not that being gay is comical of course.


So?

Are you trying to imply that the existence or absence of 'another' track file invalidates the one I did?

Or are you operating under the FALSE impression that I said you can NOT make a track file of your own and do the test for yourself?


"That" was an attempt to communicate how accuracy can be improved. If Oleg were to publish something similar to IL2compare with an official' stamp of official ness, then, we can all point to the "GAME" ROC for any plane at any altitude and say, with authority, that the "GAME" simulates a MAX ROC at x altitude with authority because that is what the game simulates (your mileage may vary).
I fly with a few friends often and we don't all get the same altitude at the same time and we race to it often. File that under practical experience concerning relative climb rates from different computers connected via a network (having fun).


Simple!

They send me their track file and by analyzing the user inputs I can show them where they made their mistakes and thus why they could not obtain the values I did.

Or they can DL my track file and analyses my inputs to see how I did it.

Simpler:

They can't and you can. The official' authority on who can get the most out of the game would by you not the poor Nancy Boyz.


Did you not understand, WRT TEST CONFIGURATION?


This part is not understood:


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Your test can be made more accurate with a note saying something like this:

Starting with a cold engine at the spawn point the plane is started and flown at maximum engine RPM while switching on and off the manual prop cheat toggle.

Suppose that the guy you are so willing to help submits to you a track file where his plane is sitting on the runway at an idle for 30 minutes before starting the test or the player is on the runway before starting the test doing play run ups with the engine to get a feel for reality. Perhaps he checks for rpm drop while switching on an off the two magnetos.

In his test the engine starts out at operating temperature. Perhaps his test results in engine damage. You could accurize your test procedure write up with a note to warn any repeat testers (per reviewers) to avoid starting the test with a warm engine such as:


ROC TEST METHOD:
The ground start method begins at a (cold) stop on the runway with the brakes on. The time to climb (TTC) stats when the brakes are released.

You can also change your whole routine to one more similar to the REAL methods of testing climb performance if the idea is to test the game climb performance against the REAL climb performance rather than making up your own test procedure.


So?

What part of me trying to match the real world test method and conditions did you not understand?

The part where you select your personal test procedure and your personal test results and then you match that single result to something that you ambiguously claim to be REAL as:


GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm

We are being far from accurate here, for example, there is no mention of climb angle or climb speed.

Do you understand my concerns at all?

This may help: climb test proceedures (http://flighttest.navair.navy.mil/unrestricted/FTM108/c7.pdf)


When I have that kind of information I provide it. For example, the TEMPEST Mk. V test provides the best climb speed, so I used that in my testing, and provided it in the form of a link and as an overlay in my pdf file analysis that I provided a link to. A for the best climb speed of the 109K it was not provided in the 109K test data, thus I did not provide it! To account for this I did several ROC tests to determine what the best climb speed is.

A ray of hope? You are catching onto my concerns? How about this angle of view:

Does your GAME' test results measure up to IL2comapare climb performance data? IL2compare is a handy tool. I think there is (somewhere) another form of comparative performance analysis software available for IL2. How does your results measure up to any of the other (per review) results? Is your method and result the most accurate representation of the GAME performance that can stand as the official' ROC performance number like this:


GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm


Did you not understand, WRT ROC TEST METHOD?

I do not understand what WRT means and I really don't have a desire to know. My question concerning your test method was and remains concerned about many obvious variables such as the initial game clock concerning heat induced engine damage i.e. did your tests start with a cold engine. My experience is such that the game allows the player to maximize climb rate if the player spawns and begins climbing immediately because it takes longer for the game to damage the engine from a cold start compared to, say, starting a climb with an engine at the operating temperature (such as what must be done in REAL tests to avoid damage from running the engine without proper lubrication).

Can that be understood or not?


Did you not understand, WRT a percent error larger than 10% (twice IL2's goal of 5%) is where I draw the line of 'much'?

If you do not listen to what my concern is, then, you may confuse my concern with your ignorance and then you blame me for your ignorance concerning my concern.

Is that too complicated?

How about this (you have to actually read what I write to get it'):

You post a claim that goes like this:


GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm

There is a word in that claim that is this:

"REAL"

If by "REAL" you mean this:


PS note all black text is from airwarfare.com where both of the 109K, TEMPEST, and Ta-152 test results reside. Just encase some others here are as confused as Josf is.. Here is a link http://www.airwarfare.com

If by "REAL" you mean a climb rate number for a specific airplane that was tested in WWII and that specific airplane test number can be found on a copy of an original document posted on a web page, then, "REAL" actually means something more than just "REAL".

Someone reading "REAL", like me, may not quite understand exactly (here is the accuracy thing again) what you mean by "REAL" even if someone has actually read the whole thread.

I still don't know what "REAL" means. I suppose I could go to the site linked and start looking for "REAL" but why not just do this:


DON'T ASSUME JUST ASK!

Suppose I browse the site linked and I find the number you report on a document for maximum rate of climb at a specific altitude for a 109K-4. Suppose that I find this exact number that you post thusly:


GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm

Suppose I do that and I link that document here to confirm, by asking, that, in fact, that document is the precise source of your claim concerning "REAL". Now, supposing that this is no longer ambiguous, and we arrive on the same confirmed page.

How did that "REAL" climb rate number come into being? What was their test procedure in WWII? Most importantly: Was that one test a representative test of "THE REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5ft ROC of ~4200fpm" or was that one test a representation of "ONE REAL Bf-109K-4C3..."?

That is just one question concerning that one test if that one test is the one test that you utilize in the following:


GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm

Example: Your test, in the game, is conducted on a simulated day with simulated atmospheric conditions. The "REAL" test was conducted on a real day with real atmospheric conditions. Was the real day comparable with the simulated day?

Example 2 (three questions total now):

Did the German Military publish a REAL Maximum ROC for that altitude for that plane?
If so, then, why not use that number rather than one number from one plane on one day? Why not use an average (mean, median, etc.) between the German Military published performance number and the one test?

4 questions already exist concerning your REAL number. What exactly do you mean when you write REAL? The impression communicated to me is such that I think that you think that your REAL number is the official and authoritative number for "THE" 109K-4C3.

Even your version of the model designation appears to be somewhat ambiguous. When you write 109K-4C3 do you mean to imply that the REAL designation for the plane tested in WWII on one day (and the results of that test are posted on the web site linked) was designated as a Bf-109K-4C3?

It is my understanding that airplanes have serial numbers or Werk numbers and each plane is not the same as the next plane in design or performance. Many planes are nearly the same in design and performance. That is how they leave the factory. 500 may leave the factory with the same design as a BLOCK of Werk numbers. A design change may be introduced into the production run and 500 more may leave the factory with a new design change.

Those planes eventually arrive at the combat air fields and a plane may be assigned to a particular pilot and a particular maintenance crew. Good ones, no doubt, go to good pilots. There are many references confirming this type of selection process on all sides of any conflict. Bad examples (planes made on Tuesday after a three day weekend) go to a motor pool' or are assigned as Spare planes. Towards the end of the war, as the historical record confirms, at least on the German side, the planes arriving at the combat airfields were taken apart and put back together as the mechanics looked for sabotage production irregularities. I can post a quote on that from Green Hearts by Axle Urbanke. This post is already too long.

The "REAL" Bf109K -4C3" flown by Eric Hartmann (or the REAL P-47C flown by Robert S. Johnson), after the pilot's personal mechanics were done with tuning it up' may not perform as "REAL" as the "REAL" plane piloted by Hans Shultz or John Doe after their mechanics left that lemon "as is".

My diatribe may or may not add or subtract from the ambiguity embodied into your term "REAL".

My suggestion is for more accuracy. If you don't get it', then, you don't. That is simple. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So what part of my last post that answered all of your questions did you not understand?

Manu-6S
04-11-2007, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by NancyBoyOnYer6:
The only way to shut up all the Allied loving trolls that post here is to make each and every German Fighter plane weigh in at 20,000. Lbs. + Look at what they have done to most of the 109''s in the game, they cried and cried until they were porked. Sad cry baby red/allied side trolls http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

I can't fly them anymore after the 4.08... I really feel them as heavier and I can't fly them like I did before... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

luftluuver
04-11-2007, 12:42 PM
Even your version of the model designation appears to be somewhat ambiguous. When you write 109K-4C3 do you mean to imply that the REAL designation for the plane tested in WWII on one day (and the results of that test are posted on the web site linked) was designated as a Bf-109K-4C3?
Are you really that dense Joke? Let me explain the C3 designation used by Tagert. The 109K-4 could use B4 or C3 fuel, with B4 being the usual fuel used. When the boost was increased to 1.98ata, C3 fuel was required. The C3 in Tagert's designation is to indicate the 1.98ata boosted K-4. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Blutarski2004
04-11-2007, 01:36 PM
I actually agree with you, Josf. Whatever particular set of performance values has been adopted by Oleg, it must by definition be considered as "arbitrarily selected". There is no SINGLE set of performance numbers which can be considered "real" for any given a/c model.

ploughman
04-11-2007, 02:01 PM
To further muddy the waters, it's my understanding that OM's FMs are designed to represent the typical characteristics and performance of a type in the field rather than factory fresh. Of course, I might be wrong.

JG14_Josf
04-11-2007, 02:24 PM
I actually agree with you, Josf. Whatever particular set of performance values has been adopted by Oleg, it must by definition be considered as "arbitrarily selected". There is no SINGLE set of performance numbers which can be considered "real" for any given a/c model.

Blutarski2004,

Thanks and I do not intend to be argumentative for the sake of argumentation when I add:

The arbitrary' selection process can be as methodical as a gathering up of every possible performance document, throwing out the highest and lowest, averaging the remaining, and identifying a calculated arbitrary selection' among a competing arbitrary selection' process such as:

Gathering only the available' factory data and using only the available factory data regardless of any obvious differences in how one Focke-Wulf factory arrived at factory data compared to how another Focke-Wulf factory arrived at factory data and picking the lowest performing factory data and/or the highest performing factory data and/or going back to some calculated average of only factory data.

The obvious connection between this line of thinking' and this thread is that, apparently, Tagert is claiming that "GAME" performance is defined by him with his procedure (cold start?) and REAL performance is defined by some ambiguous test that can or cannot be found on a web link (I trust that it can eventually be identified exactly as A particular werk number performing a particular test and/or a calculation based loosely upon a particular werk number performing a particular test on one day at one time by one pilot in history where those REAL tests results and/or calculations were copied upon a piece of paper).

That is quite a leap of faith when all that arrives at a claim that the game is wrong by 18%.

That is a leap of faith that fails the reality check in my opinion.

I'm just asking for clarification to find out if someone, anyone, else has made that same leap as Tagert has obviously made (if I get his goings-on' accurately).

The game is 18% wrong?

Being more specific is being more accurate' no?

I have to check before posting to see if I have the percentage right:


For you?

No problem!

My pleasure even!

To give you an feel for my definition of much' we will compare two IL2 planes to their real world counterparts.

Let's start off taking a look at the Bf-109


GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm

Percent error = 100 x abs[(real-game)/real]
Percent error = 100 x abs[(4200fpm 4950fpm)/4200fpm]
Percent error = 100 x abs[ 750fpm/4200fpm]
Percent error = 100 x abs[0.17857142857142857142857142857143]
Percent error = 100 x 0.17857142857142857142857142857143
Percent error = 17.857142857142857142857142857143 %
Percent error = ~18 %


The IL2 simulation goal is 5%, thus the Bf-109K-C3 ROC is about 4 times that!

If I didn't know better then I would assume that the GAME is off by 18% as the GAME models a plane that is 18% better than REAL.

In fact, as it turns out, the reality of the claim is that under certain conditions (cold start?) the game can out perform the data recorded on a WWII era flight test (and/or calculation) chart by 18% according to a player of the game who conducted the game test and according to a player who picks out the REAL data to arrive at the 18% error between his GAME test and the REAL data.

Is that not an inaccurate way of doing things?

To claim that GAME means: My tests and REAL means what I say is REAL; therefore the game is off by 18%?

18% is a considerable error in any case as if there is practically no relation between simulation and what is being simulated. One might as well pick a number out of a hat or a cherry from a tree?

AKA_TAGERT
04-11-2007, 02:30 PM
Poooor Nancy

Diablo310th
04-11-2007, 03:25 PM
If tagert is using his autopilot utility and devicelink to gather his data for in game it is by far more accurate than any one person trying to fly the tests. The autopilot from what I understand will take out most human error in flying for tests purposes. Am i wrong?

AKA_TAGERT
04-11-2007, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by Diablo310th:
If tagert is using his autopilot utility and devicelink
I am!

But..

Just to be clear I did not make the autopilot util!

LesniHU made that and it took alot of work! We should all thank him!

In that without the autopilot util, this testing would take 10 times longer, and be about 1/10th as good!

As for DeviceLink, there are a few out now to choose from that will log the data to a file.


Originally posted by Diablo310th:
to gather his data for in game it is by far more accurate than any one person trying to fly the tests.
Agreed 100%


Originally posted by Diablo310th:
The autopilot from what I understand will take out most human error in flying for tests purposes.
Exactally!


Originally posted by Diablo310th:
Am i wrong?
No your are right IMHO.

ElAurens
04-11-2007, 03:46 PM
You know what's really funny?

If Tagert had tested an American aircraft (pick any one you like) and his tests showed it to climb 18% better than it's real life counterpart, all you guys with a "JG" in your handle would be in here and "Agree 100%" with those findings. There would not be 5+ pages of trying to obfiscate the 109 test by turning it into a Spitfire bash, or a test method critique.

You guys are way too transparent.

I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad.

M_Gunz
04-11-2007, 03:48 PM
His data will be more consistent.
With enough runs at increasing settings he will be able to find very close to best possible
of many basic maneuvers and data points and other interesting results. It is a matter of
much time, effort and imagination required to think of ways to try those maneuvers.

AKA_TAGERT
04-11-2007, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
You know what's really funny?

If Tagert had tested an American aircraft (pick any one you like) and his tests showed it to climb 18% better than it's real life counterpart, all you guys with a "JG" in your handle would be in here and "Agree 100%" with those findings. There would not be 5+ pages of trying to obfiscate the 109 test by turning it into a Spitfire bash, or a test method critique.
Good point!


Originally posted by ElAurens:
You guys are way too transparent.

I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad. Agreed 100%

M_Gunz
04-11-2007, 03:53 PM
I like the part where every lightweight jr. reader with a favorite set of charts thinks that
they can announce their data as real and what actual professionals produce as seriously flawed.

John_Wayne_
04-11-2007, 05:03 PM
This thread needs more babes.

tilltoppen1955
04-11-2007, 05:13 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Yah! Bikini Babes are the shinizzle be sure!

NancyBoyOnYer6
04-11-2007, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Pooor Nancy..

boy..

on..

my..

six..

Sucking my wind

Ha ha, too bad the truth hurts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

AKA_TAGERT
04-11-2007, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by NancyBoyOnYer6:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Pooor Nancy..

boy..

on..

my..

six..

Sucking my wind

Ha ha, too bad the truth hurts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which part? The part about you being behind, or you sucking, or both?

Feathered_IV
04-11-2007, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I like the part where every lightweight jr. reader with a favorite set of charts thinks that
they can announce their data as real and what actual professionals produce as seriously flawed.

Indeed! Master whiners only I say. These young upstarts could never hope to ascend to such a higher level of idiocy as the "big six'. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

FluffyDucks2
04-11-2007, 06:30 PM
I take it none of you sad gits have time to actually play this GAME http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

You really do have too much spare time guys, maybe you should just accept the game as is and try actually enjoying playing it rather than trying to prove how terribly clever you all are, and how terribly dumb the rest of us are http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

Frankly...life is too short to waste on the BS you guys put out http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

AKA_TAGERT
04-11-2007, 07:14 PM
Yet another unsatisfied blue customer.

NancyBoyOnYer6
04-11-2007, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NancyBoyOnYer6:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Pooor Nancy..

boy..

on..

my..

six..

Sucking my wind

Ha ha, too bad the truth hurts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which part? The part about you being behind, or you sucking, or both? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The part that your a red/allied whiney troll trying to make this game your own. It's obvious to all who read your fairy tales http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Blutarski2004
04-11-2007, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by NancyBoyOnYer6:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NancyBoyOnYer6:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Pooor Nancy..

boy..

on..

my..

six..

Sucking my wind

Ha ha, too bad the truth hurts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which part? The part about you being behind, or you sucking, or both? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The part that your a red/allied whiney troll trying to make this game your own. It's obvious to all who read your fairy tales http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Wow - terrific to have you aboard making such great contributions to our hobby. Really looking forward to seeing your performance testing reports.

ElAurens
04-11-2007, 08:18 PM
Everyone knows the best fairy tales come in blue covers.

And I thought posting under an alias was verboten,ja?

Feathered_IV
04-11-2007, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

..... Wow - terrific to have you aboard making such great contributions to our hobby.

FM whining is a hobby now? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

M_Gunz
04-11-2007, 10:57 PM
I see whining about every major plane included regardless of side or nation.
There are even those that have said the 109G-2 ain't all it "really" was.
All you need is a 'relative to' POV and *anything* can be stated "wrong"!

Here is some of reality:
There are companies that make combat flight sims. There used to be many more of both.
The sims are based on history which makes them quite subjective. Nothing like full condition
data of more than a few primary performance curves is available from those times and even those
are disputed as in "Did the British test fly 109 turns with the slats out and even if there is
actual historic text saying so then because they are British they must not have gone to the edge."
kind of refutations, *again* that same logic used in every direction. Add to that the 'cherry-
picked' data sets of best known to worst known (knowns only, again 'history' vs all of reality)
and the impression-driven and desire-driven exercises in 'debate' of various degrees of dishonesty.

So what was real to the small percents is lost behind the data and the people that shift and
add in and discount depending on their own view. The REALITY being recorded as SUBJECTIVE and
being decades later reinterpreted in SUBJECTIVE fashion is not some solid shaped thing except
to individuals that have their own fixed versions in mind. Small groups even get together and
agree on what to believe with a few making the final picture for the rest. And that was true
even during the war which is why there are legends passed down right from time of history...
P-51 Mustang legend, anyone? How many other planes have the same except less followers?

You shoot at shadows and claim accuracy of information measured against your own data only,
don't expect majority consensus except within your own group.

So we have a physics-based combat flight sim that tries to meet historic specs rather than a
sim that works from tables backwards to get flight handling. It is not the first BTW, just the
latest of two that I know of and by far the less primitive.
No matter though, the method gives a looser fit to _desired_ data (impossible to shape just so)
while delivering far superior handling to sims that fit to tables in various strongly predictable
ways.
Big deal. How many people are STUPID enough to think that in reality a well flown Plane-X in
good condition would always get speed A at altitude B and climb at rate C and turn 360 degrees
in D secs or meet ANY of those thin lined curves so many love to show? The sim differs from the
reality there in that our planes of any one model are the same.

The people that shaped and built this sim include professionals in aircraft design. They have
not only gone out and gathered data at COST but have also measured the data against what they
know can be real not only by equation but by dynamic modeling in pursuit of of whatever final
data they decided to attempt to support in the best way they could.

It cannot be perfect. It cannot be totally tight at every point someone would care to bring up.
Someone can find a sim where the -points- alone fit their ideas better and if that makes their
day then they should spend their time playing at that. I'd rather have this one that flies more
true to real, thank you. For some reason I seem to think that handling is a bigger part of
reality than all Plane-X's meeting exactly or even very close to data *averaged* from some test
and forget totally excursions into "relative performance based on (incomplete) accounts".

What kicks me severly are the people that discount all logic above, which has been raised by
many even long before Oleg Maddox thought to go into simulation as a business (I did not invent
it, the understanding is older by far than I am.) ... they discount all that and come up with
accusations against the sim makers yet they STAY with the sim itself even while WHINING like
little kids AS IF THEY HAVE NO CHOICE.

They do have choice. Start and end of day IL2 is a product and not the only one out there.
You have an issue with the product then it is fine to take the issue to the makers. When they
give an answer or have made answer before and the answer is 'not acceptable' then how the person
that does not accept what they have behaves is a personal choice.

You can be an adult and accept the product for what it is. Either stick with it, good and bad,
or if you really can't stand some parts then find something you can live with.
Perhaps at some point you may find better data than what you had and re-engage with the makers
in a controlled and polite manner, there may come about a change depending on IF they have the
time to bring it about and agree to your new findings. This HAS happened even in the midst of
raging "noise" of the forums with of course the ones against the change accusing the makers of
caving in to complaints alone or as a factor in the decision to change. NO GOOD DEED GOES
UNPUNISHED. If the FM gets improved then that change becomes proof all was and is wrong!

You can be less than adult about it. You can whine and pressure and enlist or join others like
minded and rag on endlessly in your effort to push the makers to your will. In doing so all you
do is show as another reason to not make these kinds of products at all. Why provide good to
a bunch of spoiled children?

So far the whiners are losing. SOW is being made and we may have the next generation sim.

M_Gunz
04-11-2007, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by FluffyDucks2:
maybe you should just accept the game as is and try actually enjoying playing it

I agree fully with that part. Not so sure where you are aiming the rest of that post.

Is someone proving you wrong and terribly dumb?

Feathered_IV
04-11-2007, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Did you not understand, WRT how 'that number' was arrived at?

Tagert,

Which number? Do you see a problem at all?

I can help you.

If you refer to something ambiguously, then, there is room for confusion.

You can remove all the confusion (or wiggle room) with a simple procedure.

If you say that number' you can instead say this:


GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm


One is better than the other (more accurate).

Instead of that number' there is an actual number.

Even better; you can refer to "GAME Bf-109K-4C3" as My tests of GAME Bf-109K-43C"

You can even add an link (somehow) that refers to the exact test that you did to arrive at your rate of climb number and avoid some guy asking for got track'. Forums, you see, involve people who just pop in and read the last few posts, perhaps, as flame fest fuel or whatever turns them on go figure.

Anyway; having the accuracy goal in mind can tend to improve your posts to offer an accurate presentation that is 'stand alone' kind of like the method Viper was using with his P-47 post where he readjusted the first page presentation.

When you wrote this:


GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm


I didn't know if you were refereeing to the "Game" as your test or a combination of tests done by other people or the results from IL2compare or even the Game's own published performance data (if it exists somewhere). "Game" means, ahhhhh, "Game". Game does not mean "Tagert's test results".

Can you see what I'm driving at now?
As for the "REAL" I suppose there is a need to continue reading your post to find out what else you are going on about explaining this:


GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm


What is "REAL" according to you? I'll read on and comment after reading your goings on'.


Actually no, it is less accurate in that you failed to mention at what altitude the max ROC occurs at as I did.

Are we now trying to compute a NET accuracy rating? My point was to identify "GAME" as "Your test" and in that way "GAME" will be defined accurately as "Your test". Of course the addition of an altitude value for MAX ROC (Maximum Rate of Climb) increases accuracy. Are you now suggesting that I think the addition of an altitude value for MAX ROC does not increase accuracy or are you simply diverting the topic away from the fact that you wrote GAME and failed to identify "GAME" as your test of the game on your computer?


You could!

To which I would have to respond..

Thanks Josf! I am flattered, but I don't swing that way! Sorry

NOT THAT THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT.. Just stay away from me!

That is funny. Is it a form of comic relief? Not that being gay is comical of course.


So?

Are you trying to imply that the existence or absence of 'another' track file invalidates the one I did?

Or are you operating under the FALSE impression that I said you can NOT make a track file of your own and do the test for yourself?


"That" was an attempt to communicate how accuracy can be improved. If Oleg were to publish something similar to IL2compare with an official' stamp of official ness, then, we can all point to the "GAME" ROC for any plane at any altitude and say, with authority, that the "GAME" simulates a MAX ROC at x altitude with authority because that is what the game simulates (your mileage may vary).
I fly with a few friends often and we don't all get the same altitude at the same time and we race to it often. File that under practical experience concerning relative climb rates from different computers connected via a network (having fun).


Simple!

They send me their track file and by analyzing the user inputs I can show them where they made their mistakes and thus why they could not obtain the values I did.

Or they can DL my track file and analyses my inputs to see how I did it.

Simpler:

They can't and you can. The official' authority on who can get the most out of the game would by you not the poor Nancy Boyz.


Did you not understand, WRT TEST CONFIGURATION?


This part is not understood:


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Your test can be made more accurate with a note saying something like this:

Starting with a cold engine at the spawn point the plane is started and flown at maximum engine RPM while switching on and off the manual prop cheat toggle.

Suppose that the guy you are so willing to help submits to you a track file where his plane is sitting on the runway at an idle for 30 minutes before starting the test or the player is on the runway before starting the test doing play run ups with the engine to get a feel for reality. Perhaps he checks for rpm drop while switching on an off the two magnetos.

In his test the engine starts out at operating temperature. Perhaps his test results in engine damage. You could accurize your test procedure write up with a note to warn any repeat testers (per reviewers) to avoid starting the test with a warm engine such as:


ROC TEST METHOD:
The ground start method begins at a (cold) stop on the runway with the brakes on. The time to climb (TTC) stats when the brakes are released.

You can also change your whole routine to one more similar to the REAL methods of testing climb performance if the idea is to test the game climb performance against the REAL climb performance rather than making up your own test procedure.


So?

What part of me trying to match the real world test method and conditions did you not understand?

The part where you select your personal test procedure and your personal test results and then you match that single result to something that you ambiguously claim to be REAL as:


GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm

We are being far from accurate here, for example, there is no mention of climb angle or climb speed.

Do you understand my concerns at all?

This may help: climb test proceedures (http://flighttest.navair.navy.mil/unrestricted/FTM108/c7.pdf)


When I have that kind of information I provide it. For example, the TEMPEST Mk. V test provides the best climb speed, so I used that in my testing, and provided it in the form of a link and as an overlay in my pdf file analysis that I provided a link to. A for the best climb speed of the 109K it was not provided in the 109K test data, thus I did not provide it! To account for this I did several ROC tests to determine what the best climb speed is.

A ray of hope? You are catching onto my concerns? How about this angle of view:

Does your GAME' test results measure up to IL2comapare climb performance data? IL2compare is a handy tool. I think there is (somewhere) another form of comparative performance analysis software available for IL2. How does your results measure up to any of the other (per review) results? Is your method and result the most accurate representation of the GAME performance that can stand as the official' ROC performance number like this:


GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm


Did you not understand, WRT ROC TEST METHOD?

I do not understand what WRT means and I really don't have a desire to know. My question concerning your test method was and remains concerned about many obvious variables such as the initial game clock concerning heat induced engine damage i.e. did your tests start with a cold engine. My experience is such that the game allows the player to maximize climb rate if the player spawns and begins climbing immediately because it takes longer for the game to damage the engine from a cold start compared to, say, starting a climb with an engine at the operating temperature (such as what must be done in REAL tests to avoid damage from running the engine without proper lubrication).

Can that be understood or not?


Did you not understand, WRT a percent error larger than 10% (twice IL2's goal of 5%) is where I draw the line of 'much'?

If you do not listen to what my concern is, then, you may confuse my concern with your ignorance and then you blame me for your ignorance concerning my concern.

Is that too complicated?

How about this (you have to actually read what I write to get it'):

You post a claim that goes like this:


GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm

There is a word in that claim that is this:

"REAL"

If by "REAL" you mean this:


PS note all black text is from airwarfare.com where both of the 109K, TEMPEST, and Ta-152 test results reside. Just encase some others here are as confused as Josf is.. Here is a link http://www.airwarfare.com

If by "REAL" you mean a climb rate number for a specific airplane that was tested in WWII and that specific airplane test number can be found on a copy of an original document posted on a web page, then, "REAL" actually means something more than just "REAL".

Someone reading "REAL", like me, may not quite understand exactly (here is the accuracy thing again) what you mean by "REAL" even if someone has actually read the whole thread.

I still don't know what "REAL" means. I suppose I could go to the site linked and start looking for "REAL" but why not just do this:


DON'T ASSUME JUST ASK!

Suppose I browse the site linked and I find the number you report on a document for maximum rate of climb at a specific altitude for a 109K-4. Suppose that I find this exact number that you post thusly:


GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm

Suppose I do that and I link that document here to confirm, by asking, that, in fact, that document is the precise source of your claim concerning "REAL". Now, supposing that this is no longer ambiguous, and we arrive on the same confirmed page.

How did that "REAL" climb rate number come into being? What was their test procedure in WWII? Most importantly: Was that one test a representative test of "THE REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5ft ROC of ~4200fpm" or was that one test a representation of "ONE REAL Bf-109K-4C3..."?

That is just one question concerning that one test if that one test is the one test that you utilize in the following:


GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm

Example: Your test, in the game, is conducted on a simulated day with simulated atmospheric conditions. The "REAL" test was conducted on a real day with real atmospheric conditions. Was the real day comparable with the simulated day?

Example 2 (three questions total now):

Did the German Military publish a REAL Maximum ROC for that altitude for that plane?
If so, then, why not use that number rather than one number from one plane on one day? Why not use an average (mean, median, etc.) between the German Military published performance number and the one test?

4 questions already exist concerning your REAL number. What exactly do you mean when you write REAL? The impression communicated to me is such that I think that you think that your REAL number is the official and authoritative number for "THE" 109K-4C3.

Even your version of the model designation appears to be somewhat ambiguous. When you write 109K-4C3 do you mean to imply that the REAL designation for the plane tested in WWII on one day (and the results of that test are posted on the web site linked) was designated as a Bf-109K-4C3?

It is my understanding that airplanes have serial numbers or Werk numbers and each plane is not the same as the next plane in design or performance. Many planes are nearly the same in design and performance. That is how they leave the factory. 500 may leave the factory with the same design as a BLOCK of Werk numbers. A design change may be introduced into the production run and 500 more may leave the factory with a new design change.

Those planes eventually arrive at the combat air fields and a plane may be assigned to a particular pilot and a particular maintenance crew. Good ones, no doubt, go to good pilots. There are many references confirming this type of selection process on all sides of any conflict. Bad examples (planes made on Tuesday after a three day weekend) go to a motor pool' or are assigned as Spare planes. Towards the end of the war, as the historical record confirms, at least on the German side, the planes arriving at the combat airfields were taken apart and put back together as the mechanics looked for sabotage production irregularities. I can post a quote on that from Green Hearts by Axle Urbanke. This post is already too long.

The "REAL" Bf109K -4C3" flown by Eric Hartmann (or the REAL P-47C flown by Robert S. Johnson), after the pilot's personal mechanics were done with tuning it up' may not perform as "REAL" as the "REAL" plane piloted by Hans Shultz or John Doe after their mechanics left that lemon "as is".

My diatribe may or may not add or subtract from the ambiguity embodied into your term "REAL".

My suggestion is for more accuracy. If you don't get it', then, you don't. That is simple. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So what part of my last post that answered all of your questions did you not understand? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Uh, I forgot what I was going to say.

ElAurens
04-12-2007, 05:23 AM
Great post M_Gunz.

S!

Blutarski2004
04-12-2007, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:

..... Wow - terrific to have you aboard making such great contributions to our hobby.

FM whining is a hobby now? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... Good point. Maybe that's HIS hobby.

NancyBoyOnYer6
04-12-2007, 07:10 AM
I say let a few crybabies have their way,let them make up some fantasy specs on certain planes. That way, the game will be WHAT THEY WANT IT TO BE.It's happened before, why not let it happen now. I vote for all german aircraft to have 500 HP, surely that will make all the whiney red trolls happy as can be http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

AKA_TAGERT
04-12-2007, 07:12 AM
Poooooooooooooor Nancy Boy!

You seem pretty upset about the 1.98ata Bf-109K-4C3 18% ROC error at 15kft?

Well than you better sit down before reading beyond this point..
<span class="ev_code_black">
GAME 1.80ata Bf-109K-4 @15kft has an ROC of ~4600fpm
REAL 1.80ata Bf-109K-4 @15kft has an ROC of ~3800fpm

Percent error = 100 x abs[(real-game)/real]
Percent error = 100 x abs[(3800fpm 4600fpm)/3800fpm]
Percent error = 100 x abs[800fpm/3800fpm]
Percent error = 100 x abs[0.21052631578947368421052631578947]
Percent error = 100 x 0.21052631578947368421052631578947
Percent error = 21.052631578947368421052631578947 %
Percent error = </span><span class="ev_code_yellow">~21 %</span>

The IL2 simulation goal is 5%, thus the 1.80ata Bf-109K-4 ROC is over 4 times that!

So.. How does that grab yah?

PS That is at 15kft.. The error is even larger at higher altitudes, but, I did the 1.98ata Bf-109K-4C3 and Tempest Mk. V at 15kft so to keep apples to apples I did the 1.80ata Bf-109K-4 at 15kft too. Another reason for the 15kft is that 'mid' alt where most of the online dog fighting seems to take place. Also note, in my earlier posts I had a type-o, I typed 1.5kft instead of 15kft. Can you find it in your blue hart to forgive me for that mistake?

AKA_TAGERT
04-12-2007, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Did you not understand, WRT how 'that number' was arrived at?

Tagert,

Which number? Do you see a problem at all?

I can help you.

If you refer to something ambiguously, then, there is room for confusion.

You can remove all the confusion (or wiggle room) with a simple procedure.

If you say that number' you can instead say this:


GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm


One is better than the other (more accurate).

Instead of that number' there is an actual number.

Even better; you can refer to "GAME Bf-109K-4C3" as My tests of GAME Bf-109K-43C"

You can even add an link (somehow) that refers to the exact test that you did to arrive at your rate of climb number and avoid some guy asking for got track'. Forums, you see, involve people who just pop in and read the last few posts, perhaps, as flame fest fuel or whatever turns them on go figure.

Anyway; having the accuracy goal in mind can tend to improve your posts to offer an accurate presentation that is 'stand alone' kind of like the method Viper was using with his P-47 post where he readjusted the first page presentation.

When you wrote this:


GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm


I didn't know if you were refereeing to the "Game" as your test or a combination of tests done by other people or the results from IL2compare or even the Game's own published performance data (if it exists somewhere). "Game" means, ahhhhh, "Game". Game does not mean "Tagert's test results".

Can you see what I'm driving at now?
As for the "REAL" I suppose there is a need to continue reading your post to find out what else you are going on about explaining this:


GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm


What is "REAL" according to you? I'll read on and comment after reading your goings on'.


Actually no, it is less accurate in that you failed to mention at what altitude the max ROC occurs at as I did.

Are we now trying to compute a NET accuracy rating? My point was to identify "GAME" as "Your test" and in that way "GAME" will be defined accurately as "Your test". Of course the addition of an altitude value for MAX ROC (Maximum Rate of Climb) increases accuracy. Are you now suggesting that I think the addition of an altitude value for MAX ROC does not increase accuracy or are you simply diverting the topic away from the fact that you wrote GAME and failed to identify "GAME" as your test of the game on your computer?


You could!

To which I would have to respond..

Thanks Josf! I am flattered, but I don't swing that way! Sorry

NOT THAT THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT.. Just stay away from me!

That is funny. Is it a form of comic relief? Not that being gay is comical of course.


So?

Are you trying to imply that the existence or absence of 'another' track file invalidates the one I did?

Or are you operating under the FALSE impression that I said you can NOT make a track file of your own and do the test for yourself?


"That" was an attempt to communicate how accuracy can be improved. If Oleg were to publish something similar to IL2compare with an official' stamp of official ness, then, we can all point to the "GAME" ROC for any plane at any altitude and say, with authority, that the "GAME" simulates a MAX ROC at x altitude with authority because that is what the game simulates (your mileage may vary).
I fly with a few friends often and we don't all get the same altitude at the same time and we race to it often. File that under practical experience concerning relative climb rates from different computers connected via a network (having fun).


Simple!

They send me their track file and by analyzing the user inputs I can show them where they made their mistakes and thus why they could not obtain the values I did.

Or they can DL my track file and analyses my inputs to see how I did it.

Simpler:

They can't and you can. The official' authority on who can get the most out of the game would by you not the poor Nancy Boyz.


Did you not understand, WRT TEST CONFIGURATION?


This part is not understood:


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Your test can be made more accurate with a note saying something like this:

Starting with a cold engine at the spawn point the plane is started and flown at maximum engine RPM while switching on and off the manual prop cheat toggle.

Suppose that the guy you are so willing to help submits to you a track file where his plane is sitting on the runway at an idle for 30 minutes before starting the test or the player is on the runway before starting the test doing play run ups with the engine to get a feel for reality. Perhaps he checks for rpm drop while switching on an off the two magnetos.

In his test the engine starts out at operating temperature. Perhaps his test results in engine damage. You could accurize your test procedure write up with a note to warn any repeat testers (per reviewers) to avoid starting the test with a warm engine such as:


ROC TEST METHOD:
The ground start method begins at a (cold) stop on the runway with the brakes on. The time to climb (TTC) stats when the brakes are released.

You can also change your whole routine to one more similar to the REAL methods of testing climb performance if the idea is to test the game climb performance against the REAL climb performance rather than making up your own test procedure.


So?

What part of me trying to match the real world test method and conditions did you not understand?

The part where you select your personal test procedure and your personal test results and then you match that single result to something that you ambiguously claim to be REAL as:


GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm

We are being far from accurate here, for example, there is no mention of climb angle or climb speed.

Do you understand my concerns at all?

This may help: climb test proceedures (http://flighttest.navair.navy.mil/unrestricted/FTM108/c7.pdf)


When I have that kind of information I provide it. For example, the TEMPEST Mk. V test provides the best climb speed, so I used that in my testing, and provided it in the form of a link and as an overlay in my pdf file analysis that I provided a link to. A for the best climb speed of the 109K it was not provided in the 109K test data, thus I did not provide it! To account for this I did several ROC tests to determine what the best climb speed is.

A ray of hope? You are catching onto my concerns? How about this angle of view:

Does your GAME' test results measure up to IL2comapare climb performance data? IL2compare is a handy tool. I think there is (somewhere) another form of comparative performance analysis software available for IL2. How does your results measure up to any of the other (per review) results? Is your method and result the most accurate representation of the GAME performance that can stand as the official' ROC performance number like this:


GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm


Did you not understand, WRT ROC TEST METHOD?

I do not understand what WRT means and I really don't have a desire to know. My question concerning your test method was and remains concerned about many obvious variables such as the initial game clock concerning heat induced engine damage i.e. did your tests start with a cold engine. My experience is such that the game allows the player to maximize climb rate if the player spawns and begins climbing immediately because it takes longer for the game to damage the engine from a cold start compared to, say, starting a climb with an engine at the operating temperature (such as what must be done in REAL tests to avoid damage from running the engine without proper lubrication).

Can that be understood or not?


Did you not understand, WRT a percent error larger than 10% (twice IL2's goal of 5%) is where I draw the line of 'much'?

If you do not listen to what my concern is, then, you may confuse my concern with your ignorance and then you blame me for your ignorance concerning my concern.

Is that too complicated?

How about this (you have to actually read what I write to get it'):

You post a claim that goes like this:


GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm

There is a word in that claim that is this:

"REAL"

If by "REAL" you mean this:


PS note all black text is from airwarfare.com where both of the 109K, TEMPEST, and Ta-152 test results reside. Just encase some others here are as confused as Josf is.. Here is a link http://www.airwarfare.com

If by "REAL" you mean a climb rate number for a specific airplane that was tested in WWII and that specific airplane test number can be found on a copy of an original document posted on a web page, then, "REAL" actually means something more than just "REAL".

Someone reading "REAL", like me, may not quite understand exactly (here is the accuracy thing again) what you mean by "REAL" even if someone has actually read the whole thread.

I still don't know what "REAL" means. I suppose I could go to the site linked and start looking for "REAL" but why not just do this:


DON'T ASSUME JUST ASK!

Suppose I browse the site linked and I find the number you report on a document for maximum rate of climb at a specific altitude for a 109K-4. Suppose that I find this exact number that you post thusly:


GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm

Suppose I do that and I link that document here to confirm, by asking, that, in fact, that document is the precise source of your claim concerning "REAL". Now, supposing that this is no longer ambiguous, and we arrive on the same confirmed page.

How did that "REAL" climb rate number come into being? What was their test procedure in WWII? Most importantly: Was that one test a representative test of "THE REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5ft ROC of ~4200fpm" or was that one test a representation of "ONE REAL Bf-109K-4C3..."?

That is just one question concerning that one test if that one test is the one test that you utilize in the following:


GAME Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4950fpm
REAL Bf-109K-4C3 @1.5kft has an ROC of ~4200fpm

Example: Your test, in the game, is conducted on a simulated day with simulated atmospheric conditions. The "REAL" test was conducted on a real day with real atmospheric conditions. Was the real day comparable with the simulated day?

Example 2 (three questions total now):

Did the German Military publish a REAL Maximum ROC for that altitude for that plane?
If so, then, why not use that number rather than one number from one plane on one day? Why not use an average (mean, median, etc.) between the German Military published performance number and the one test?

4 questions already exist concerning your REAL number. What exactly do you mean when you write REAL? The impression communicated to me is such that I think that you think that your REAL number is the official and authoritative number for "THE" 109K-4C3.

Even your version of the model designation appears to be somewhat ambiguous. When you write 109K-4C3 do you mean to imply that the REAL designation for the plane tested in WWII on one day (and the results of that test are posted on the web site linked) was designated as a Bf-109K-4C3?

It is my understanding that airplanes have serial numbers or Werk numbers and each plane is not the same as the next plane in design or performance. Many planes are nearly the same in design and performance. That is how they leave the factory. 500 may leave the factory with the same design as a BLOCK of Werk numbers. A design change may be introduced into the production run and 500 more may leave the factory with a new design change.

Those planes eventually arrive at the combat air fields and a plane may be assigned to a particular pilot and a particular maintenance crew. Good ones, no doubt, go to good pilots. There are many references confirming this type of selection process on all sides of any conflict. Bad examples (planes made on Tuesday after a three day weekend) go to a motor pool' or are assigned as Spare planes. Towards the end of the war, as the historical record confirms, at least on the German side, the planes arriving at the combat airfields were taken apart and put back together as the mechanics looked for sabotage production irregularities. I can post a quote on that from Green Hearts by Axle Urbanke. This post is already too long.

The "REAL" Bf109K -4C3" flown by Eric Hartmann (or the REAL P-47C flown by Robert S. Johnson), after the pilot's personal mechanics were done with tuning it up' may not perform as "REAL" as the "REAL" plane piloted by Hans Shultz or John Doe after their mechanics left that lemon "as is".

My diatribe may or may not add or subtract from the ambiguity embodied into your term "REAL".

My suggestion is for more accuracy. If you don't get it', then, you don't. That is simple. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So what part of my last post that answered all of your questions did you not understand? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Uh, I forgot what I was going to say. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sounds personal?

tomtheyak
04-12-2007, 08:43 AM
http://www.nobodyasked.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/WindowsLiveWriter/Pandiculation_498F/yawn5%5B3%5D.jpg

YAAAWWWN!

Brain32
04-12-2007, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by tomtheyak:
http://www.nobodyasked.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/WindowsLiveWriter/Pandiculation_498F/yawn5%5B3%5D.jpg

YAAAWWWN!
Together with the first one, this is my favourite post in this thread http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Blutarski2004
04-12-2007, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by NancyBoyOnYer6:
I say let a few crybabies have their way,let them make up some fantasy specs on certain planes. That way, the game will be WHAT THEY WANT IT TO BE.It's happened before, why not let it happen now. I vote for all german aircraft to have 500 HP, surely that will make all the whiney red trolls happy as can be http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


..... What a COOL idea! But won't the whiney blue trolls feel left out?

FluffyDucks2
04-12-2007, 09:42 AM
http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/wuerg/vomit-smiley-026.gif

This thread has run its own sad and predictable course...I say put it out of its misery now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

AKA_TAGERT
04-12-2007, 09:47 AM
Yet another unsatisfied blue customer

Viper2005_
04-12-2007, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Diablo310th:
If tagert is using his autopilot utility and devicelink to gather his data for in game it is by far more accurate than any one person trying to fly the tests. The autopilot from what I understand will take out most human error in flying for tests purposes. Am i wrong?

Autopilot test results really represent a performance floor: with careful tuning of the gains it may be possible to extract more performance, but the available performance is at least equal to the performance demonstrated in any given autopilot test flight.

AKA_TAGERT
04-12-2007, 11:02 AM
The worst autopilot ROC results I have seen are far better than the best real pilot ROC results I have seen

JG14_Josf
04-12-2007, 02:33 PM
The worst autopilot ROC results I have seen are far better than the best real pilot ROC results I have seen

Tagert,

Do you have any interest in comparing either of the above to the IL2compare numbers?

Aaron_GT
04-12-2007, 03:50 PM
The worst autopilot ROC results I have seen are far better than the best real pilot ROC results I have seen

Got track?

Sorry - hard to resist!

AKA_TAGERT
04-12-2007, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The worst autopilot ROC results I have seen are far better than the best real pilot ROC results I have seen

Tagert, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Josf,


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Do you have any interest in comparing either of the above to the IL2compare numbers?
No.

Why?

Allow me to clear a few things up for you first..

When I said 'autopilot' I was talking about LesniHU 'autopilot' util. Which is just a fancy way of saying 'control loop(s)' in that you simply command the 'set point' and the PID loop reads the 'feed back' via DeviceLink and calculates a new 'command' and sends that command to IL2 via DeviceLink.

Thus LesniHU's 'autopilot' is using/commanding the same FM code that the sim pilot is using/commanding. The only difference is we send joystick commands/inputs to the FM using a joystick where as LesniHU's 'autopilot' sends joystick commands to the FM via the joystick interface of DeviceLink.

Which is very different from, and should not be confused with the way the Artificial Inelegance (AI) does it! AI has allot more going on than a 'control loop(s)' to control the plane.. AI has to take a look at what your doing and determine it's next best move. That and recently folks have presented some very convincing proof that the AI does not use the same FM the PC pilots use. That or definitely a different DM! In that there is an interesting track file that shows an AI pilot diving a ZERO at much higher speeds than a PC sim pilot can fly.

Now back to your question and why I said NO.

The results in IL2C are collected from AI flying the planes. Not just a control loop maintaining a set point vis the sim pilot interface and using the sim pilots FM and DM.

That is why I would not be interested in comparing IL2C to sim pilots or LesniHU's autopilot results.

In that Oleg and the maker of IL2C both say that the values in IL2C are just for reference and to be taken with a grain of salt.

My guess as to why they say that is because they know that the AI has a different FM and/or DM to contend with, thus different results than what a sim pilot or LesniHU's autopilot can obtain.

SAVVY?

AKA_TAGERT
04-12-2007, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The worst autopilot ROC results I have seen are far better than the best real pilot ROC results I have seen

Got track? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes! How many would you like?


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Sorry
Agreed 100%! You Are!


Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
- hard to resist!
Same here!

JG14_Josf
04-12-2007, 05:00 PM
SAVVY?

Tagert,

I do savvy but not in the way you may savvy. Being ignorant concerning how well your results stack up against the IL2compare results is being ignorant. I have an interest in finding out how well your results stack up against the IL2comapre results.

A. Your results and the IL2compare results are the same.
B. Your results are higher than the IL2compare results.
C. Your results are lower than the IL2compare results.
D. Your results are known.
E. The Il2comapre results are known.

Ignoring IL2compare results ignores one form of check upon your results.

If, for example, your results have no basis in reality concerning any other result by any other means whatsoever, then, what does that say about your results?

Your results would be unique.

That is something.

AKA_TAGERT
04-12-2007, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Tagert,
Josf,


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
I do savvy but not in the way you may savvy. Being ignorant concerning how well your results stack up against the IL2compare results is being ignorant. I have an interest in finding out how well your results stack up against the IL2comapre results.

A. Your results and the IL2compare results are the same.
B. Your results are higher than the IL2compare results.
C. Your results are lower than the IL2compare results.
D. Your results are known.
E. The Il2comapre results are known.

Ignoring IL2compare results ignores one form of check upon your results.

If, for example, your results have no basis in reality concerning any other result by any other means whatsoever, then, what does that say about your results?

Your results would be unique.

That is something. So what part of..

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/ANALYSIS/ILC2NOTE.JPG

Do you NOT understand?

JG14_Josf
04-12-2007, 09:52 PM
Tagert,

You may think that your authority is real. That is fine by you; I understand that part.

My interest was in checking your data with another source. That is a simple thing to understand.

AKA_TAGERT
04-12-2007, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Tagert,

You may think that your authority is real. That is fine by you; I understand that part.

My interest was in checking your data with another source. That is a simple thing to understand. Nice try spin doctor!

But..

NO SALE!

You did NOT say you were interested in checking my results against IL2C!

You 'asked' me if 'I' was interested in checking my results against IL2C!

To which I not only answered you with, NO, but went on to explain to you why my answer is NO.

Now..

NOW that I have explained it to you as to why it would be a waste of time to check it aginst IL2C you want to 'spin it' and pretend that your 'question' was NOT a 'question' at all! But a 'statement' that 'you' are interested in checking my results against IL2C!

PLEASE!

That might work on the new guys here who don't know you very well, but this is me son! I know all about your tangent topic spin tactics you employ when you find yourself in a corner and/or realize you are wrong!

GOLD TROLL STAR FOR EFFORT! BUT NO SALE!

On that note I am not the only one catching on to your little games. Your credibility is all but gone son! So, run along now! I got better things to do that repeat myself to you every 2nd post!

JG14_Josf
04-13-2007, 10:19 AM
On that note I am not the only one catching on to your little games. Your credibility is all but gone son! So, run along now! I got better things to do that repeat myself to you every 2nd post!

Tagert,

You are going on again. That is both expected and tolerable; even if unnecessary from my viewpoint.

When you admit to having no interest in checking your work with other references, then, you admit to it. I can move on from that knowledge. You can go back and rationalize your ignorance publicly. That is fine.

Eventually someone may come up with a number from IL2compare (I don't have the latest version on my hard drive) and post that number here so everyone can see if your work arrives at higher, lower, or the same numbers as IL2compare. If and when that happens there will be more knowledge here in this thread and less (as a percentage) of goings-on' about rationalizations for a preferred ignorance.

The self-proclaimed authorities (as far as my historical understanding goes) have a history of preferring ignorance. You see (and I know you do) that they' know everything.

AKA_TAGERT
04-13-2007, 12:06 PM
Poooor Nancy

MEGILE
04-13-2007, 12:19 PM
Josf, when you post, then you post.
And when you make a point, then you make a point.
And when you post nonsense, then you post nonsense.

Monty_Thrud
04-13-2007, 12:24 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

JG14_Josf
04-13-2007, 01:59 PM
Josf, when you post, then you post.
And when you make a point, then you make a point.
And when you post nonsense, then you post nonsense.

Megile,

And you can ignore what I write. When you elect to act as my critic, then, you do, in fact, elect to act as my critic. Did you take a number?

AKA_TAGERT
04-13-2007, 02:41 PM
sounds like someone needs a hug?

MEGILE
04-13-2007, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:


Megile,

And you can ignore what I write. When you elect to act as my critic, then, you do, in fact, elect to act as my critic. Did you take a number?

and when you then you, then you when you then you.

AKA_TAGERT
04-13-2007, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:


Megile,

And you can ignore what I write. When you elect to act as my critic, then, you do, in fact, elect to act as my critic. Did you take a number?

and when you then you, then you when you then you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
ROTFL

MEGILE
04-13-2007, 04:06 PM
Is this guy for real, or is it a very elabourate joke?

M_Gunz
04-13-2007, 04:21 PM
There is the forum and members and Public discussions and then; there is Jokf who is Special
in this World and wants his own Special Corner without the intolerable pro bono critics who
are not simply other members of the board past sick of reams and reams of nonsense -either-
trying to show that the FM is majorly whacked long after his arguments have been disproved,
in most cases for the nth time (n > 1, most often n > 5) -or- trying to redefine any posts
either disproving his arguments or asking him to stop or taking him up on his own offer made
on this forum that he would leave and never come back.

Jokes Own Little Corner where what he says is truth, which includes threads he starts and any
thread he posts on. He can say whatever he wants and no one should disagree. Not in PM-land
but right on The Zoo including GD and ORR.

Will he 'tolerate' it? And what if he don't? Tanks, Scuds, Planes and/or Submarines?
Or will it be the black vans parked right outside?

EDIT - changed some pronouns

Gibbage1
04-13-2007, 05:20 PM
Why is this thread still unlocked? Any and all valuable information has been successfully diluted by the blues brothers in a "Your stupid" pissing contest to mask any usefull data.

JG14_Josf
04-13-2007, 05:49 PM
"Your stupid"

Is that a self confession?

Despite the critics to my efforts to learn here on this forum there remain a few unanswered questions concerning the validity of the claims made in this thread.

Such as:

1. Can a cold start climb test skew the results in the test?
2. Does the one 109K climb test represent 109K performance accurately?
3. Is climb angle and climb speed accurately modeled in the game relative to REAL performance?
4. Do trolls actually have any regard for facts whatsoever?

AKA_TAGERT
04-13-2007, 05:56 PM
Poooooor Nancy

Gibbage1
04-13-2007, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:

Is that a self confession?

Despite the critics to my efforts to learn here on this forum there remain a few unanswered questions concerning the validity of the claims made in this thread.

Such as:

1. Can a cold start climb test skew the results in the test?
2. Does the one 109K climb test represent 109K performance accurately?
3. Is climb angle and climb speed accurately modeled in the game relative to REAL performance?
4. Do trolls actually have any regard for facts whatsoever?

Its simple. If an aircraft out-performs its historical counter-part, its wrong.

I do have a question. People seem to really hold onto this cold start therie. From my understanding, only the US did its climb test's from a stopped position. The rest started the test in-flight. Well if your flying, how COLD can your engine be? Heck, be the time your done with the takeoff roll, your engine should be rather warm! Also, most pilots taxi with the rads and cooling flaps CLOSED too WARM UP the engine. So I dont see how this cold start therie holds much water. If it effected performance much, it would noly be a small % and not the 20% Tag found.

So please. Explain this cold start therie a little more.

AKA_TAGERT
04-13-2007, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Also, most pilots taxi with the rads and cooling flaps CLOSED too WARM UP the engine. So I dont see how this cold start therie holds much water. If it effected performance much, it would noly be a small % and not the 20% Tag found. Exactally!

The IL2 engine modeling is not all that detailed anyways. For example, like you pointed out, in RL they would allow the engine to warm up to operating temps before taking off.. Oleg's engine simulation start off at the operating temps, so no need to wait!

That and if the Josf would bother to look at the pdf file he would see that the inital water and oil temps are listed. But realism is not his goal, his goal is to try and discreted anything that shows the 109 out preforming it's real world counterpart.

On that note of data, don't you find it funny that the same 'data' the blues used to get the 1.98ata included in the game is now not good enough to compare too?

Funny how guys like Josf can flip flop like that!

I don't know what is funnier..

Them doing it..

OR

Them doing it and thinking nobody notices.

tilltoppen1955
04-13-2007, 09:13 PM
One thing I don't understand about AKA_TAGERT testing is that apparently he is
using the in game AI to fly the Bf-109K-4 from takeoff to some fixed altitude at some fixed distance from the airfield? Also using some third party utility to record the data to a log file? I though the in game AI has some 20% better performance than human controlled aircraft to begin with? Please post the mission files, your procedures, any outside software and any other information so interested parties can confirm your findings.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

ElAurens
04-13-2007, 09:20 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

How about some reading for comprehension?

IL2compare uses the AI for it's figures, not Tagert. IL2compare's figures are by and large inaccurate, as they use the AI's "cheater" flight models and in no way represent the aircraft as flown by human pilots.

Like I said earlier, if Tagert had found an Allied plane over performing by as much as the K4-C3 in this test you blue fanbois would be pinning a medal on him and not trying to disprove his proceedures.

You are a loathsome bunch you are.

Be sure.

AKA_TAGERT
04-13-2007, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by tilltoppen1955:
One thing I don't understand about AKA_TAGERT testing is that apparently he is using the in game AI to fly the Bf-109K-4 from takeoff to some fixed altitude at some fixed distance from the airfield?
game AI?

No.

That is what IL2C uses.

I use the autopilot developed by LesniHU. Here is a link if you would like to read more about it.

LesniHU's autopilot (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=13359)


Originally posted by tilltoppen1955:
Also using some third party utility to record the data to a log file?
Yes and No.

Third party software that makes use of DeviceLink interface to extract in game variables.

DeviceLink is part of IL2 and was intended to be used by 3rd party software.

Here is a link about some of the 3rd party software at your disposal

DeviceLink FAQ (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/49310655/m/7201027043)


Originally posted by tilltoppen1955:
I though the in game AI has some 20% better performance than human controlled aircraft to begin with?
Never heard that one before?

But that may explain why some of the IL2C results don't match up with what the real pilot interface can obtain.


Originally posted by tilltoppen1955:
Please post the mission files, your procedures, any outside software and any other information so interested parties can confirm your findings.
That is all provided at the link on page one.

tilltoppen1955
04-13-2007, 09:28 PM
If the theory is sound it will hold up to scrutiny by other people if not well...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

AKA_TAGERT
04-13-2007, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by tilltoppen1955:
If the theory is sound it will hold up to scrutiny by other people if not well...

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif So what part of "That is all provided at the link on page one" did you not understand?

tilltoppen1955
04-13-2007, 09:36 PM
OK I downloaded the autopilot program and will take a look at it next week when I'm off. I'll report back the results I get.

AKA_TAGERT
04-13-2007, 09:37 PM
cool

Ratsack
04-13-2007, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
... IL2compare's figures are by and large inaccurate....

No. That's not correct.

They are very accurate for things like top speed and rate of climb. They are less accurate for turn performance. The problem - according to the maker of IL2C - is getting the AI to perform some of the tests at sufficiently low speeds. This means that the IL2C results are likely to be off for turns (or anything else) in the very low-speed end of the spectrum.

It is otherwise very good. It is certainly not inaccurate 'by and large'.

cheers,
Ratsack

Whirlin_merlin
04-14-2007, 03:38 AM
If the question is the question then the question is, if the question is then the questioner questions, but if the question is not the question that the question is then is the questioner not, or is the questioner questioning?

ElAurens
04-14-2007, 04:53 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
It is certainly not inaccurate 'by and large'.

cheers,
Ratsack

IL2C uses the AI, hence it is largely innacurate. The AI cheat, and grossly so.

In any straight line test between humans and AI, or in climbs at any speed or altitude the AI win, every time.

IL2C in no way reflects the reality of the game.

FluffyDucks2
04-14-2007, 04:53 AM
Or put another way...yet another load of old bollox by people that really do have too much free time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Eight pages of dross so far..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

When o when is this useless thread going to be locked?

I do predict that the obnoxious self opinionated, self promoting egomaniac, that tries to assume some sort of authority from his lickspittle peers on this board, will chime in as usual with a childish comment like..."poor nancy" or "poor blue.... " http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

What a sad little insecure man he must be http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Ratsack
04-14-2007, 05:03 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
It is certainly not inaccurate 'by and large'.

cheers,
Ratsack

IL2C uses the AI, hence it is largely innacurate. The AI cheat, and grossly so.

In any straight line test between humans and AI, or in climbs at any speed or altitude the AI win, every time.

IL2C in no way reflects the reality of the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's folklore. The data in IL2C is nowhere near as bad as you are contending. Do some speed / altitude tests and find out for yourself.

cheers,
Ratsack

Manu-6S
04-14-2007, 05:23 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Its simple. If an aircraft out-performs its historical counter-part, its wrong.


I totally agree. I would like to see 109s that climb less if their climb is overmodelled.

I would like to have elevators to become useless over 650km/h and not 450km/h too.

And I would like to see some planes flying like planes, and not like antigrav machines.

But this game is over... lets wait for SoW.

La7_brook
04-14-2007, 05:44 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Its simple. If an aircraft out-performs its historical counter-part, its wrong.


I totally agree. I would like to see 109s that climb less if their climb is overmodelled.

I would like to have elevators to become useless over 650km/h and not 450km/h too.

And I would like to see some planes flying like planes, and not like antigrav machines.

But this game is over... lets wait for SoW. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>too true http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

JG14_Josf
04-14-2007, 06:49 AM
I do have a question. People seem to really hold onto this cold start therie.

To people using their own brain,

Asking a question so as to find an answer is asking a question so as to find an answer. Spinning a yarn or tall tale, on the other hand, is a clue exposing some strange imaginary boogey man or Straw-Man in the works.

I am learning more about the meaning of "Poor Nancy".

A simple test can confirm the effect of a cold start on a climb performance test. If the cold start test delays the onset of overheat and thereby engine damage compared to a test that is not a cold start test, then, the cold start test delays the onset of overheat and thereby the onset of engine damage compared to a test that is not a cold start test.

Such a test can be conducted side by side where one player flies around with a full tank of gas and lands next to someone spawning with 75% gas (like some of these trolls on this board = too much gas). Then both players race to see who can arrive at the higher altitude sooner.

Players who play this game and team-up for formation flights, at least the people I find teaming up, tend to race here and there in formation so it doesn't take long to figure out who can maximum performance and who needs to adjust their methods.

"Long" is a relative term of course.

Example: How long will I maintain an entourage of pro bono critics?

So...the question concerning how a cold start climb test effects climb test results is as unknown as: how well Tagert's climb test stacks up to the IL2compare results. My guess is that Tagert's climb test results will be almost the same as the IL2 compare results since my experience with IL2compare and relative climb rates has been a confirming of the accuracy of the IL2compare utility (a very well done program to be sure).

As to the ability of anyone to judge how well the game stacks up to one climb test of one example of one plane on a historical document there remains another few unknowns concerning those tests (unless I've browsed the wrong test used in this reference) such as:

1. Was their test done the same way as the IL2 test and therefore the results are comparable?
2. What was the climb angle on the REAL plane?
3. What was the climb speed on the REAL plane?
4. What was the climb angle on the simulated plane?
5. What was the climb speed on the simulated plane?

Again: If Tagert's tests suggest that the game in inaccurate by 18%, then, the game can hardly be called accurate since an error of 18% is a long way away from accurate relatively speaking.

This whole Blue versus Red garbage is about as old as my fingers are long. Who has a vested interest in such yarn spinning?

What is the pay off?

AKA_TAGERT
04-14-2007, 08:09 AM
Poooor Nancy

AKA_TAGERT
04-14-2007, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by FluffyDucks2:
Or put another way...yet another load of old bollox by people that really do have too much free time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Eight pages of dross so far..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

When o when is this useless thread going to be locked?

I do predict that the obnoxious self opinionated, self promoting egomaniac, that tries to assume some sort of authority from his lickspittle peers on this board, will chime in as usual with a childish comment like..."poor nancy" or "poor blue.... " http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

What a sad little insecure man he must be http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Yet another unsatisfied blue customer..

Oh and Poooor Blue Nancy

AKA_TAGERT
04-14-2007, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
As to the ability of anyone to judge how well the game stacks up to one climb test of one example of one plane on a historical document
The same types of documents the blue members used to petition Oleg to add the 1.98ata Bf-109K-4C3


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
there remains another few unknowns concerning those tests (unless I've browsed the wrong test used in this reference) such as:
Only unknown (selectivly choose to not know) to the the ones trying discredit any testing that shows the 109Ks climbing better than they should at mid altitudes. In that all of the following answers have already been answered in this thread and/or in my original test results posted at airwarfare.

Granted..

For some things like climb speed vs. angle a little common since and/or understanding of how climb speed and angle are related is required 'prior' to reading this thread and/or my original test results.

Something you clearly don't understand based on your previous questions, but maybe after this post you will? But I doubt it.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
1. Was their test done the same way as the IL2 test and therefore the results are comparable?
The only possible difference is if it was a ground start or an air start. But that only affects the time-to-climb (TTC) values, not the Rate-of-Climb (ROC) values. In that the TTC is altitude per time, therefore how much time it took for the plane to get off the ground is the difference. Which for a fighter is about 20 to 30 seconds. The best possible TTC values are obtained by ignoring the time it took for the plane to get off the ground. As noted in my original test results that is what I do.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
2. What was the climb angle on the REAL plane?
This is that part where a little common since and/or understanding of how the climb speed and angle are related is required in advance. That being that climb speed dictates the climb angle, or vice versa.

I have yet to see real world data that records the climb angle, in that they most likely understood that the climb speed will dictate the climb angle.

In laymen terms, in the hopes that you will understand.

<LI>In a ROC/TTC test if you fly a constant PITCH, the IAS will have to vary to maintain the PITCH
<LI>In a ROC/TTC test if you fly a constant IAS, the PITCH will have to vary to maintain the IAS

SAVVY?


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
3. What was the climb speed on the REAL plane?
So what part of Kurfurst himself providing that on page 4 did you not understand?


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
4. What was the climb angle on the simulated plane?
See answer to question 2. But if you are interested than what part of PITCH being recorded in my pdf file do you not understand?

On that note, since you like IL2C so much, what was the climb angle used in that test?


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
5. What was the climb speed on the simulated plane?
So what part of IAS being recorded in my pdf file do you not understand?

On that note, since you like IL2C so much, what was the climb speed used in that test?


Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Again: If Tagert's tests suggest that the game in inaccurate by 18%, then, the game can hardly be called accurate since an error of 18% is a long way away from accurate relatively speaking.
On that note, since you like IL2C so much, I thought I would do you a little favor!

With regards to the 1.80ata 109K-4

In my test the max ROC at ~5000m is about ~23m/s.
In IL2C the max ROC at ~5000m is about ~24.5m/s.

Now via my test that came out to about a 21% error.. but via IL2C that comes out to..

(24.5 - 19)/19 = 0.28947368421052631578947368421053 ~ <span class="ev_code_yellow">29% error</span>

Feel better?

Still want to use IL2C results over mine?

PS welcome to my rope-a-dope

Aaron_GT
04-14-2007, 10:24 AM
Its simple. If an aircraft out-performs its historical counter-part, its wrong.

I agree. It requires finding the right data (maybe several versions of) and then reproducing the tests the data used as closely as possible. Some data lacks the methodology, unfortunately, and there is constant debate over some charts, whether the data is accurate, manufacturer's hype etc. Different air forces tested the same machines with different resultant figures, and so on. It's a far from trivial task.

With regard to warming engines up before flight this wasn't the issue in real life - if anything it was keeping the engines sufficient cool during taxying.

M_Gunz
04-14-2007, 12:22 PM
Tagert, you might as well wave shiny bling at cretins as to demonstrate error scaling to Jokf.
Neither understands what they are looking at and both resent your tone while crediting their
own as fully justified.

Jokf's not looking for answers. Jokf is looking for words to twist around and weave BS into.
The answers were given years ago and he don't wike dem!

DFTT!

AKA_TAGERT
04-14-2007, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Tagert, you might as well wave shiny bling at cretins as to demonstrate error scaling to Jokf.
Neither understands what they are looking at and both resent your tone while crediting their own as fully justified.

Jokf's not looking for answers. Jokf is looking for words to twist around and weave BS into.
The answers were given years ago and he don't wike dem!

DFTT! Agreed 100%

JG14_Josf
04-14-2007, 01:29 PM
The same types of documents the blue members used to petition Oleg to add the 1.98ata Bf-109K-4C3

Tagert,

Spinning again? You are an industrious spider no? I'm not sure how or why you have connected the past efforts by some players to do something on this forum with me and then place me and them in a Blue category.

A. I had nothing to do with that past effort.
B. I am not blue.

What is your pay off on this spin?

Let me guess.

First be certain that I know my guess is a guess. The only one who knows what your pay off is with your web spinning is you.

By associating my questions concerning your tests with some known past history of argument you lump me into that argument almost effortlessly. I become the bad, bad, blue, Nancy BOYZ because you say so. Therefore my questions can be further avoided and misdirected.

How did my guess turn out?


Only unknown (selectivly choose to not know) to the the ones trying discredit any testing that shows the 109Ks climbing better than they should at mid altitudes. In that all of the following answers have already been answered in this thread and/or in my original test results posted at airwarfare.

Granted..

For some things like climb speed vs. angle a little common since and/or understanding of how climb speed and angle are related is required 'prior' to reading this thread and/or my original test results.

Something you clearly don't understand based on your previous questions, but maybe after this post you will? But I doubt it.

Have you been taking lessons from Hop? Your construction nearly equals his ability to spread falsehood into an art form. To me such devices are a challenging opportunity to learn.

I must take time and effort to dissect the goings-on'.


Only unknown (selectivly choose to not know) to the the ones trying discredit any testing that shows the 109Ks climbing better than they should at mid altitudes. In that all of the following answers have already been answered in this thread and/or in my original test results posted at airwarfare.


The above beginning of the yarn was posted after quoting my introduction to some remaining questions. The yarn merely suggests that my questions were answered. The yarn doesn't even repost my questions never mind answer them.

These:


1. Was their test done the same way as the IL2 test and therefore the results are comparable?
2. What was the climb angle on the REAL plane?
3. What was the climb speed on the REAL plane?
4. What was the climb angle on the simulated plane?
5. What was the climb speed on the simulated plane?

Number one on the list is a matter of fact check upon the scientific method.

Example:

Hypothesis:
The GAME is not REAL

Test A:
Described by Tagert using the Game

Test B:
Described by a WWII era Document

If test A spawns a plane at 2000 meters and dives that plane into the ground in the shortest period of time, then, the climb rate will be a negative number.

If test B does something different, then, the hypothesis is proven with a little imagination working.

REAL: Climb rate is positive
GAME: Climb rate is negative

Conclusion: The GAME is not REAL

Anyone can duplicate the tests in the game to retest and confirm TEST A and send your findings to TAGERT for official approval.

Test B is another matter. Who knows the actual procedure used in finding the climb rate, climb angle, climb speed, engine settings, atmospheric conditions, etc. during the WWII test results documented? Who knows if those are the official' climb performance capabilities of that plane? I don't so you can blame me but your efforts will be akin to blaming a Straw-Man.

Hopism's student:


Granted..


Is that the voice of the final authority' granted in a official' manner thank you very much; or is that just another case of Poor Nancy calling the kettle black?

I'm just asking.



For some things like climb speed vs. angle a little common since and/or understanding of how climb speed and angle are related is required 'prior' to reading this thread and/or my original test results.


Since common sense is so, ahhhhh, common on this forum there can be no need to ask a simple question seeking a simple answer?

Example of a simple answer:

WWII "REAL" climb angle equals: x degrees
Tagerts in "GAME" test climb angle: x degrees

Therefore Climb angle is 100% accurate in simulation.

As common as sense may be, here and now, I'm finding a general lack of answers to my questions even while the official authority' insists that my questions have been answered. Perhaps it is uncommon to actually have a simple answer to a simple question. Perhaps it is more common to have a simple question responded to with a giant wall of text that says nothing.

Perhaps there is a message written in between the lines?


hidden message in between the lines



Something you clearly don't understand based on your previous questions, but maybe after this post you will? But I doubt it.

I am relatively certain that the game does not accurately simulate climb speeds and climb angles relative to many of the planes simulated in the game. The most obvious example of this inability to accurately simulate relative climb rates, angles, and speeds concerns the Spitfire and FW190s and perhaps the latest model of 109K or even the P-47D. I don't know since the historical record is rather sparse on all but the early Spitfire versus 190 relative performances.



Something you clearly don't understand based on your previous questions, but maybe after this post you will? But I doubt it.

What I clearly do not understand and what someone else wishes are two different things. Having doubt concerning your wishes is probably inevitable for all but a very few gifted' individuals.


The only possible difference is if it was a ground start or an air start. But that only affects the time-to-climb (TTC) values, not the Rate-of-Climb (ROC) values. In that the TTC is altitude per time, therefore how much time it took for the plane to get off the ground is the difference. Which for a fighter is about 20 to 30 seconds. The best possible TTC values are obtained by ignoring the time it took for the plane to get off the ground. As noted in my original test results that is what I do.

Above is false. Note the use of the words "only possible" as if, for example, atmospheric conditions could not possibly affect performance at all. The rest of the spin is matter of fact and therefore merely repetitive. At no time have I contended that a test done by Tagert has not shown something specific relative to a test number documented on a WWII era chart. To suggest that I have done something specific begs to be quoted exactly as such. A Straw-Man having my name placed upon it may be guilty of doing just about anything imaginable.

When a moving object is at a known altitude and a known time later the object is at a higher altitude, then, a rate of climb is known simply. Who, but the Staw-Man, does not understand that simple relationship? In who's interest is it to blame a living person for the incompetence of a constructed Straw-Man? What is the pay off?

Rome and Straw-Men are not built in one day (or load of ****):

This is that part where a little common since and/or understanding of how the climb speed and angle are related is required in advance. That being that climb speed dictates the climb angle, or vice versa.

I have yet to see real world data that records the climb angle, in that they most likely understood that the climb speed will dictate the climb angle.

In laymen terms, in the hopes that you will understand.


In a ROC/TTC test if you fly a constant PITCH, the IAS will have to vary to maintain the PITCH

In a ROC/TTC test if you fly a constant IAS, the PITCH will have to vary to maintain the IAS

SAVVY?

The simple answer to the simple question is:

A. The WWII era document did not specify the climb speed or climb angle.
B. The WWII era document specified the climb speed as x and the climb angle as y.
C. The game test was conducted at x climb speed and y climb angle.

The Straw-Man may have an interest in all the lessons being taught by the official authority on this matter inspired by someone somewhere who may or may not look like me.



SAVVY?

If the Staw-Man can respond, then, the creator of the Staw-Man will hear that response.

One might have to put common since aside.


So what part of Kurfurst himself providing that on page 4 did you not understand?

The simple answer to the simple question is:

Tagert's climb speed test is x
WWII era document used by Tagert to compare REAL and GAME is y

If x is the same as y, then, hmmmmmmmm how can I make this as clear as possible?

If x is the same as y, then, x is the same as y.

That is simple.

Going's on:

See answer to question 2. But if you are interested than what part of PITCH being recorded in my pdf file do you not understand?

On that note, since you like IL2C so much, what was the climb angle used in that test?

The simple answer is:

Tagert's climb speed @Tagert's climb rate @Tagert's climb rate altitude = Tagert's game climb angle.

Or even simpler:

GAME climb speed is x
REAL climb speed is y
IL2comapre climb speed is z

If x, y, and z are all the same, then, x, y, and z are all the same, if not, then, not.

My simple question remains:

What is x?
What is y"
What is z?

I get the part where you find the climb rate for a specific altitude for a specific plane in the game as you conduct your test with a game utility and then you compare that climb rate with a REAL climb rate and then you come up with a percentage of error where the GAME is not REAL by the percentage that you publish on this forum.

I do get that part.

What is the climb speed of your test?
What is the climb speed of the REAL climb rate?

Those are two questions that have an answer that can be a 3 digit number for each question, or, the answer can be a giant wall of text. Which do you prefer?

See how things can spin out of control? Now there are three questions.

What is the climb speed of your test?
What is the climb speed of the REAL climb test?
Which do you prefer?

Perhaps, and what I am about to say is purely speculative due to a lack of actual information, perhaps the game simulates the climb speed accurately and the game is only off on the climb rate?! Note the exclamation point. I had an idea all on my own. WOOOHOOO

The dope is roping a Straw-Man:

On that note, since you like IL2C so much, I thought I would do you a little favor!

With regards to the 1.80ata 109K-4

In my test the max ROC at ~5000m is about ~23m/s.
In IL2C the max ROC at ~5000m is about ~24.5m/s.

Now via my test that came out to about a 21% error.. but via IL2C that comes out to..

(24.5 - 19)/19 = 0.28947368421052631578947368421053 ~ 29% error

Feel better?

Still want to use IL2C results over mine?

PS welcome to my rope-a-dope

Since IL2compare is a very good tool for judging relative performance in the game, then, I will choose the IL2compare results over Tagert's results (cold start stuff = blah) and I do like it MUCHO. That 109K, in the game, looks like it can climb like a sick angel. WTG Oleg!

Relatively speaking the 109K should climb well no?

I'd prefer accuracy in simulation and when a more accurate simulation is available, then, I will prove my preference by purchasing that product. Until then I guess this inaccurate game will have to do. Perhaps the 29% error number can be improved upon with this product. Experience suggests that moving one error, in this game, pushes another error somewhere else. Go figure.

AKA_TAGERT
04-14-2007, 01:37 PM
Poooor Nancy

ElAurens
04-14-2007, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Since IL2compare is a very good tool for judging relative performance in the game,

Well, there is your first mistake.

JG14_Josf
04-14-2007, 01:49 PM
Jokf,

Why do you have all those trolls propping you up?

Possible answers:


----------------climb rate----------climb angle-----------climb speed-----------altitude/Density
GAME------------ ? ------------------- ? ------------------------ ? ------------------- ?
REAL------------- ? ------------------- ? ------------------------ ? ------------------- ?


Continues:

------------------- Manifold pressure -------------- RPM ----------------- Radiator position
GAME------------------ ? --------------------------- ? ---------------------------- ?
REAL------------------- ? --------------------------- ? ---------------------------- ?

REAL = werk number/model
GAME = Actual plane modeled according to the producer

I added the last request for information due to a few inconsistencies between what the GAME information publishes and what the vocal majority says concerning what is supposed' to be simulated in the game.

Examples:

Spitfire VB (1941)
Fw190A-4
P-47D

Of the three planes above there has been a few reports on this forum that can be quoted concerning what exactly is being simulated in the game as opposed to what is designated by those labels. This may be a similar request to asking what the manifold pressure is for any plane in the game. In other words what you see is not necessarily what you get.

JG14_Josf
04-14-2007, 01:53 PM
Well, there is your first mistake.

Opinions are like...

Perhaps a poll is in order. I can't speak for anyone else. IL2compare is almost as good as my sustained turn technique test which I perform while playing the game. My experience has been conclusive enough for me. If IL2compare reports one plane having superior performance, then, that does, in fact, prove out to be true in the game.

Your mileage may vary.

AKA_TAGERT
04-14-2007, 01:54 PM
Pooor talking to himself Nancy

AKA_TAGERT
04-14-2007, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I don't think it's exceeding it's RL counterpart. It's exceeding it's real life counterpart which had it's radiator flaps half-open, but if the real life counterpart would have it's radiators just opened, or in other words almost closed, with little drag and little cooling, like in effect most our planes do, the performance would be very similiar. Closing the rads would mean at least 2-3 m/sec boost, this is supported by RL tests.
Hey Kurfurst!

check this out!

4.08 Bf-109K-4 Radiator Drag Effects (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/4321051155)

Enjoy!

ploughman
04-14-2007, 03:56 PM
I did a bit of testing on the same patch the 1.98ata C3 came out on and it appearred radiators were causing about 30% of the ammount of cut in speed you'd really expect, I think it's in the same thread as the one you and Tagert posted the data about the 1.8 (turned out to be the 1.98) Drag's a drag.

M_Gunz
04-14-2007, 07:13 PM
Youze guys are the Strawmen - snips from The Zoo Joke

Hypothesis:
The GAME is not REAL

Test A:
Described by Tagert using the Game

Test B:
Described by a WWII era Document

If test A spawns a plane at 2000 meters and dives that plane into the ground in the shortest period of time, then, the climb rate will be a negative number.

If test B does something different, then, the hypothesis is proven with a little imagination working.

REAL: Climb rate is positive
GAME: Climb rate is negative

Conclusion: The GAME is not REAL

Anyone can duplicate the tests in the game to retest and confirm TEST A and send your findings to TAGERT for official approval.



Real creative.


Example of a simple answer:

WWII "REAL" climb angle equals: x degrees
Tagerts in "GAME" test climb angle: x degrees

Hey Joke, why don't you PLOT the climb angle from the climb data and tell us the difference?
And not come back until you CAN?


Therefore Climb angle is 100% accurate in simulation.

Instead of that insane all or nothing statement.


As common as sense may be, here and now, I'm finding a general lack of answers to my questions even while the official authority' insists that my questions have been answered.

Only the questions that could be taken seriously were answered, Tagert has taken the time
saving steps of referring to where the answers have already been posted or published rather
than paste the same thing over and over which is more your style.

If you don't see the answers then hey, I can't get dogs to tell time either; watches have no
meaning to them just like those answers have no meaning to you. I think you're just stubborn
as well as (self?) handicapped and would rather play stupid word games.


Who, but the Staw-Man, does not understand that simple relationship?

Yours or someone elses? Not every metaphor is a Straw-Man. You don't deal with much but all or
nothing in a "your way" sense, it's all your way or argue about nonsense while making nonsense
claims.


The simple answer to the simple question is:

A. The WWII era document did not specify the climb speed or climb angle.
B. The WWII era document specified the climb speed as x and the climb angle as y.
C. The game test was conducted at x climb speed and y climb angle.

The Straw-Man may have an interest in all the lessons being taught by the official authority on this matter inspired by someone somewhere who may or may not look like me.

[QUOTE]

Since at a set climb speed (IAS btw) the angle of climb will decrease with altitude, don't you
think that case B. is not exactly possible? But that don't cover your mistakes and it don't
support your foregone conclusions either. Ohhhhh wellllll!

M_Gunz
04-14-2007, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
I did a bit of testing on the same patch the 1.98ata C3 came out on and it appearred radiators were causing about 30% of the ammount of cut in speed you'd really expect, I think it's in the same thread as the one you and Tagert posted the data about the 1.8 (turned out to be the 1.98) Drag's a drag.

What's the most the rads could close? With Spitfire closed still left half the gap open.
And just because the flaps are so much closed, aren't they on the rear of the cavity?
Are there front doors as well and really how well do they streamline the rads? There is
still some intrusion in the airflow.

So maybe the range of loss open to closed is depending on the radiator and airspeed as well
as flaps? But we have been given figures in some cases, so many kph, etc. Just maybe you
can't lose =all= of the radiator drag by closing the flaps.

AKA_TAGERT
04-14-2007, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I can't get dogs to tell time either
ROTFL!

Man.. I had to clean the screen off after reading that! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

NancyBoyOnYer6
04-14-2007, 09:54 PM
Tagert,
I have a wonderful idea, you go develop your own game. Make it just the way YOU WANT IT, then play to your hearts content. That way, you can leave us alone to play OUR game. Oh BTW, I'm one and only, don't have any other handles or nics. Just been getting a kick out of YOUR frustration all these years. You would think someone with your so called education would know better http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

AKA_TAGERT
04-14-2007, 10:16 PM
Yet another unsatisfied blue customer

Blutarski2004
04-15-2007, 06:19 AM
Originally posted by NancyBoyOnYer6:
Oh BTW, I'm one and only, don't have any other handles or nics. Just been getting a kick out of YOUR frustration all these years. You would think someone with your so called education would know better

..... Wow. You've been reading this forum for all these years, have had only this handle and no other during all that time, have made only 13 posts, and almost all of them have been made over the past week or two to flame AKA TAGERT??? What compelled you to break your long silence?

And what ever inspired you to adopt your one and only Ubi Forum handle of "NancyBoyOnYer6" those many years ago - a time well before AKA TAGERT ever deployed his now notorious "Nancy Boy" term???

Just asking because I'm curious .........

AKA_TAGERT
04-15-2007, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... Wow. You've been reading this forum for all these years, have had only this handle and no other during all that time, have made only 13 posts, and almost all of them have been made over the past week or two to flame AKA TAGERT??? What compelled you to break your long silence?

And what ever inspired you to adopt your one and only Ubi Forum handle of "NancyBoyOnYer6" those many years ago - a time well before AKA TAGERT ever deployed his now notorious "Nancy Boy" term???

Just asking because I'm curious ......... He didn't fool you either? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Blutarski2004
04-15-2007, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... Wow. You've been reading this forum for all these years, have had only this handle and no other during all that time, have made only 13 posts, and almost all of them have been made over the past week or two to flame AKA TAGERT??? What compelled you to break your long silence?

And what ever inspired you to adopt your one and only Ubi Forum handle of "NancyBoyOnYer6" those many years ago - a time well before AKA TAGERT ever deployed his now notorious "Nancy Boy" term???

Just asking because I'm curious ......... He didn't fool you either? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... Well, let's be fair here TAG .... ;-]

It's conceivable that he MIGHT have a reasonable explanation, although I have to admit that I can't imagine what it could possibly be.

MEGILE
04-15-2007, 10:17 AM
The ex-wife?

tilltoppen1955
04-15-2007, 12:18 PM
OK I checked out the theory put forward by AKA_TAGERT and found I can get similar results using the LesniHU autopilot program. I also made four attempts piloting the aircraft myself using two different loadouts, empty and default with 50% and 100% fuel but was not able to match the autopilot program in rate of climb.

What does all this mean? Well I'm not sure. There are just to many variables to come to any definite conclusions.

It may be that some blue team players will exploit this bug to good advantage? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Unless the developer makes a change in the next patch red team guys are stuck fighting this bird.

AKA_TAGERT
04-15-2007, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by tilltoppen1955:
OK I checked out the theory put forward by AKA_TAGERT and found I can get similar results using the LesniHU autopilot program.
Nice! Confirmation is allays a good thing! On that note, neat program LesniHU made isn't it? Makes testing so much easier, and the results so standardized.


Originally posted by tilltoppen1955:
I also made four attempts piloting the aircraft myself using two different loadouts, empty and default with 50% and 100% fuel but was not able to match the autopilot program in rate of climb.
Well don't feel bad! In that some pilots can and some can not! At one point I too thought real pilots could not come close to the autopilot results.. But I was proved wrong and realized there are real pilots out there better than me and as good as the autopilot!


Originally posted by tilltoppen1955:
What does all this mean? Well I'm not sure. There are just to many variables to come to any definite conclusions.
Not really.. The two variables at play here is

one.. the 109K 1.80ata climbs about 25% better than it should at mid altitudes
two.. some sim pilots are better than others! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by tilltoppen1955:
It may be that some blue team players will exploit this bug to good advantage? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Bet! That and you wont see them talk about it much either.. As was the case with the old prop pitch cheat. They used it for a long time before most knew it was there. Thank goodness Oleg fixed that bug and hopefully he will fix this one too! And the 109K-4C3 that climbs about 18% better than it should at mid altitudes.


Originally posted by tilltoppen1955:
Unless the developer makes a change in the next patch red team guys are stuck fighting this bird.
Bingo!

JG4_Helofly
04-15-2007, 03:53 PM
It would be nice to see the 109 performe like in RL, but you can not decrease the performance of only one plane. If such a "RL patching" would happened, programmers would have to do it with all planes. We all know that some blue and red planes are under or over modeled in different performance areas, but if only one is corrected it will have a hard time against its enemys which are still better than they should be.

AKA_TAGERT
04-15-2007, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
It would be nice to see the 109 performe like in RL, but you can not decrease the performance of only one plane. If such a "RL patching" would happened, programmers would have to do it with all planes. True.. IF all planes had an 24%+ better ROC than they should have.

But..

That is not the case!

Take the F6F-3 or TEMPEST for example, at 15kft the have a 5% and 9% better ROC than they should have (respecfully).

IMHO it would be ok, 'RELITIVLY' speaking if all the planes were off by the same percentage, but that is not the cause, thus it is not ok in my book. Oleg has stated that his goal is an error of 5% in any performance number. I am even ok with a 10% error.. but 25%? No, that should be fixxed! Just like the F6F's 23% better ROC at 20kft should be fixxed!


Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
We all know that some blue and red planes are under or over modeled in different performance areas, but if only one is corrected it will have a hard time against its enemys which are still better than they should be.
Where were you when I was begging to get the P38J to 'meet' it's real life ROC at ANY altitude? In that prior to the fix the P38 ROC was lower than it should be at ALL altitudes! After the fix it would just barely meet it's ROC values! That is to say it has a 0% better ROC than it should have at all altitudes.

M_Gunz
04-16-2007, 03:52 AM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
We all know that some blue and red planes are under or over modeled in different performance areas,

I think that you do but what people seem to not understand is that attempts to make natural FM
running on limited parameters compared to real, limited effects (most not all) and limited speed
(real is always full speed all at once) that the FM will vary as to charts as it does, must vary
to the real. That is true of all PC simulators.

Trying to tune parameters to change the model FM has got to be an art and extreme exercise in
patience. Weeks worth just to get so much close. Times over 200 flyables. Yeah, real soon
now.

Manu-6S
04-16-2007, 06:35 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Trying to tune parameters to change the model FM has got to be an art and extreme exercise in
patience. Weeks worth just to get so much close. Times over 200 flyables. Yeah, real soon
now.

I think only a minor part of players here wants a "perfect" sim with planes that are 100% similar to their real counterparts. The famous error of 3-5% in performance should be right, but there are planes who don't reach that performance error.

Manu-6S
04-16-2007, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
IMHO it would be ok, 'RELITIVLY' speaking if all the planes were off by the same percentage, but that is not the cause, thus it is not ok in my book. Oleg has stated that his goal is an error of 5% in any performance number. I am even ok with a 10% error.. but 25%? No, that should be fixxed! Just like the F6F's 23% better ROC at 20kft should be fixxed!

I agree. But we should remember that a 10% overmodelled plane compared a 10% undermodelled one gives a great difference in performance.

AKA_TAGERT
04-16-2007, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
I agree. But we should remember that a 10% overmodelled plane compared a 10% undermodelled one gives a great difference in performance. Agreed 100%!

That can result is a 20% spread!

But, just looking at the percent errors can be a little misleading and gives us a false since of securty.

Say all planes were perfically off by 10%!

Good right?

Well sort of!

In that 10% of 50 is less than 10% of 100.

Which is why the Bf-109K-4 1.80ata is such a big deal!

The Bf-109K-4 already has a large ROC, thus a large percent of a large value is a large number.

For example, Say..

plane A has a ROC of 1,000fpm
plane B has a ROC of 700fpm

Now say the simulations of these two planes both have a 20% error in ROC.

More specifically, a 20% better than they should ROC, therefore

sim plane A has a ROC of 1,200fpm (200fpm better)
sim plane B has a ROC of 840fpm (140fpm better)

Both have the same percent error from this real world counter part, but, because plane A had a larger ROC from the start, it's 20% error results in a much bigger ROC increase, 200fpm vs. 140fpm.

Say instead of looking at the perecnt error.. what if we said all planes can be off by 200fpm?

That would result in..

sim plane A with a 20% ROC error results in a 200fpm error
sim plane B with a 29% ROC error results in a 200fpm error

So sim plane B can be off by 29% and sim plane A can be off by 20%.

So maybe now folks can see why it is so important that the high performance planes have more att devoted to their specs than say the P11! Which is why I find the Bf-109K-4 so interesting!

Well that and because Viper2005 was having fits over the P47D 1944's 0.2% error in top speed! I just wanted to point out there are bigger fish to fry when it comes to percent errors! I was rather un-motivated prior to Viper2005s efforts on the P47D 1944, so, don't thank me for looking into the Bf-109K-4 1.80ata! Thank Viper2005 for motivating me to show him that there are bigger offenders than the P47D 1944! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG4_Helofly
04-16-2007, 09:05 AM
Talking about huge % error.

What about the ability of the spit IX+25lbs to sustain a 480km/h 180? turn in 27 sec? In real life it should be about 44s.

There are some huge problems, but is it fair to say: tune down plane xy but not plane yz?

AKA_TAGERT
04-16-2007, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Talking about huge % error.

What about the ability of the spit IX+25lbs to sustain a 480km/h 180? turn in 27 sec? In real life it should be about 44s.
Two words..

Got Track?

Next two words

Got Data?


Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
There are some huge problems, but is it fair to say: tune down plane xy but not plane yz?
Fair?

I don't get into adj this for that with regards to 'game balance' issues..

I just call them as I see them.

The Bf-109K-4 has a ~25% better ROC than it should have..

29% if you use IL2C values (thanks for pointing that out Josf)

As for the Spit sustained turn rate.. I would have to see it to belive it, hence the Got Track question. Next I would have to see some real world data that says what it's actual turn rate was. In that this would not be the first time someone said some plane was doing something that it wasnt.. Based on the way it 'FEELS' to them, only to find out that when tested correctly it was nothing like what they thought it was.

Viper2005_
04-16-2007, 09:16 AM
Tagert, as ever you oversimplify a complex problem.

Until we can compare apples with apples the idea of % errors is premature. We haven't got that far with the P-47 yet. However, a comparison between the 44-1 test and tests conducted with the autopilot reveal errors rather larger than the 0.2% figure you're claiming.

The K4 probably climbs too well and if so this should be fixed, along with the climb rates of various other a/c.

As you point out, higher performance a/c have larger absolute performance errors at any given % error standard, and therefore perhaps it might be argued that higher standards are appropriate?

If as has been postulated by several in this thread there is a general problem with the climb performance of most aircraft then perhaps this points to a wider modelling issue?

JG4_Helofly
04-16-2007, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Talking about huge % error.

What about the ability of the spit IX+25lbs to sustain a 480km/h 180? turn in 27 sec? In real life it should be about 44s.
Two words..

Got Track?

Next two words

Got Data?


Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
There are some huge problems, but is it fair to say: tune down plane xy but not plane yz?
Fair?

I don't get into adj this for that with regards to 'game balance' issues..

I just call them as I see them.

The Bf-109K-4 has a ~25% better ROC than it should have..

29% if you use IL2C values (thanks for pointing that out Josf)

As for the Spit sustained turn rate.. I would have to see it to belive it, hence the Got Track question. Next I would have to see some real world data that says what it's actual turn rate was. In that this would not be the first time someone said some plane was doing something that it wasnt.. Based on the way it 'FEELS' to them, only to find out that when tested correctly it was nothing like what they thought it was. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read the topic posted by Josf which was closed. The RL datas are based on calculation and For ingame data I took il2c. I know that this programm is not 100% precise, but it's not that bad.

Manu-6S
04-16-2007, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Talking about huge % error.

What about the ability of the spit IX+25lbs to sustain a 480km/h 180? turn in 27 sec? In real life it should be about 44s.

There are some huge problems, but is it fair to say: tune down plane xy but not plane yz?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Look at my sign to know what I think about it...

Mates, as I said in another post the game is over... if I really cared about realistic performances I wouldn't play this game all this time.

So leave the K4 with his uberclimb, the Spit with his antigrav turn and all the other planes until the release of SoW... have fun with the planes that will not be fixed.

I foresee many tests in 2008 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

AKA_TAGERT
04-16-2007, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Tagert, as ever you oversimplify a complex problem.
Nah, just a summary of it.


Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Until we can compare apples with apples the idea of % errors is premature. We haven't got that far with the P-47 yet.
But that didn't stop you from the inital post now did it?


Originally posted by Viper2005_:
However, a comparison between the 44-1 test and tests conducted with the autopilot reveal errors rather larger than the 0.2% figure you're claiming.
That's right.. there was one that was a whole 3% off at like 38kft right? LOL!


Originally posted by Viper2005_:
The K4 probably climbs too well and if so this should be fixed, along with the climb rates of various other a/c.
Agreed 100%!

Starting with the biggest offenders first!


Originally posted by Viper2005_:
As you point out, higher performance a/c have larger absolute performance errors at any given % error standard, and therefore perhaps it might be argued that higher standards are appropriate?
Well, there are limits to 'simulation' itself.. Hence Oleg's noted goal of 5%. That is probally the best the sim can do. That is to say, even with perfect data inputs, the sim may only be capable of 5%. So I don't know if having higher standards would make a dif. I only pointed out the FACT that percent error can give a false impression.


Originally posted by Viper2005_:
If as has been postulated by several in this thread there is a general problem with the climb performance of most aircraft then perhaps this points to a wider modelling issue?
Well my experance says different.. In that the P38 was held to very stricked ROC values.. So strick that it could barely meet the rated values (read 0% error, if not -1% error). So that is one example of NOT ALL planes. I would also be a little suspect of anyone that says ALL PLANES in that Ill bet you that most people who say ALL have not fully tested ONE let alone ALL.

AKA_TAGERT
04-16-2007, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Read the topic posted by Josf which was closed. The RL datas are based on calculation and For ingame data I took il2c. I know that this programm is not 100% precise, but it's not that bad. So no real data to compare to.. Just some calculations by.. Josf? Nuff said! Nothing to see there, be sure.

JG4_Helofly
04-16-2007, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Read the topic posted by Josf which was closed. The RL datas are based on calculation and For ingame data I took il2c. I know that this programm is not 100% precise, but it's not that bad. So no real data to compare to.. Just some calculations by.. Josf? Nuff said! Nothing to see there, be sure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Negativ, you didn't read the discussion. Crumpp did the calculation and I have no doubt he knows what he is talking about.

JG14_Josf
04-16-2007, 10:34 AM
Thank Viper2005 for motivating me to show him that there are bigger offenders than the P47D 1944!

JG4_Helofly,

The above post can be viewed as a confession of purpose. If, for example, someone was to ask Tagert for an honest answer to the question: What is your purpose with this thread?

I don't expect anyone to know (and I don't expect anyone not to know) how a Hegelian Dialectic works; however there are enough examples around to make this phenomenon rudely obvious. Someone somewhere pushes buttons for the sake of pushing buttons because it is in their best interest to create argumentation. One must rely upon the button pusher for genuine honesty if one is to better know why such things are started and fueled.

Suppose, for example, that the simulator is off in a particular area of physics modeling whereby lighter planes with big wings act like dense planes with small wings i.e. they move air easily. Suppose that a number of players find this inaccuracy to be to their benefit for some reason (the actual reason is immaterial) and as such the inaccuracy is desired. What would be the reaction to any information that might, somehow, shed light upon the inaccuracy? I can't answer these questions accurately since, in my estimate, the reaction to more accurate information is to seek more accurate information (hence my linking Crumpps work on this forum).

Crumpp has had his ego injured (I suppose) and he doesn't respond to me other than to accuse me of wrong doing. I still admire his work as it does, in fact, offer another method of perceiving flight accurately.

The nature of the error in the game can be identified one way or the other with a few simple tests and calculations (even more simple than the ones offered by Crumpp); however such enlightenment' is hardly welcome here or even on CWOS because (I suppose) there is a need to protect ego (or one's turf).

The simple test:

Two identical planes engine off dive straight down from the same altitude. One is full of fuel. One is not as full of fuel. The loaded up plane should hit the ground first and the accuracy of the game will be measured by the error of that time gap.

If the denser plane does not accelerate to a faster rate accurately (too fast or too slow relative to the less dense plane) then all other physical relationships will be compounding that error.


When the effort to illuminate the error is gaining something called currency', then, the effort to suppress that process becomes even more current'. Eventually the Hegelian Dialectic becomes habitual; like Pavlov's dogs salivating at the sound of a bell.

Think in terms of a bloody corpse thrown into a piranha infested lake.

The trolls (piranha) feed into the flame fest at the slightest whiff of a scent suggesting that the game may or may not be accurate. The absurdity of the dialectic is confirmed as the trolls express their complete dogmatic duplicity.

Example: The game is accurately inaccurate; each patch.

The game may or may not be fundamentally flawed. If Crumpps work identifies the fundamental flaw, then, the fundamental flaw is identified. If not, then, not.

My work, according to my work, identifies the fundamental flaw. Dense objects do not accelerate going straight down at an accurate rate relative to less dense objects. Dense objects do not decelerate going straight up at an accurate rate relative to less dense objects.

The point is: How much currency' will either Crumpp's work or my work generate on any forum on the web? Even Crumpp is fearful of having his work spread. I am not.

If a person can objectively challenge the math, then, they can. If someone is reduced to merely attacking the credibility of the person presenting the math, then, you have found a very likely hidden' objective (one that will not be confessed) embraced by a troll.

You JG4_Helofly (I've been reading your words carefully) have remained objective. "We" (if I may lump myself in with your objectivity) would like to see a more comprehensive and reasonable inspection of Crumpp's work. You have read my work. If you think that someone, anyone, has successfully dispelled my work as false, then, perhaps you can quote such evidence.

Meanwhile; the game continues to model lower density objects being forced by air mass inaccurately compared to higher density objects. That observation' is confirmed by Crumpp's work. A light weight and large winged Spitfire (even one with maximum thrust for its engine size) cannot physically move as much air mass at high speed compared to a smaller, denser, more powerful Fw190 in reality. In the game the situation is obviously, measurably, inaccurate in this regard.

Where that shows up most is during a pull-up' at high speed after a dive. The lighter plane should be held up by the force of air compared to the denser, smaller, more powerful plane. The P-47 (red plane) should be zooming at a rate that no Spitfire (red plane) can follow. A pull-up' is a turn. A turn will have a turn rate, g load, and turn radius. A pull-up' turn will not have a bank angle. After the pull-up' part of the zoom climb where the two planes turn there will be an unloaded race to see which plane decelerates faster (without any induced drag force added to the force decelerating both planes) and the P-47 (despite being larger in size) will decelerate at a slower rate reaching a higher altitude and stalling later.

That whole pull out and zoom advantage for the denser plane will be a greater/lesser advantage with engine on/off during the same high speed dive, pull out (turn), and unloaded zoom climb depending upon total excess power during the entire flight. Here is where Crumpp's work shows the most promise in my opinion. If his work is accurate, then, the higher speed, higher g, greater bank angle sustainability' proves greater excess power at that speed even while induced drag is factored into the flight condition.

The trolls, before Crumpp's work, would point to sustained' turn performance whenever they tried to argue against my work. Now, due to Crumpp's work, that avenue of misdirection is, perhaps, cut off.

Eventually the Trolls will have a new game engine to champion. If the new game engine does model more accurately the relationship between object density and acceleration force of air mass, then, Blue and Red will be merely incidental rather than a means to an end. I think the challenge will be in competition during game play and no longer a perceived need to protect one's turf, rewrite history, and spread the Hegelian Dialectic which does intend to falsify right from wrong, true from false, and friend from foe.

Don't forget the power is yours hide post'.

You can also close your eyes, cover your ears, but leave your mouth open - for your own foot.

AKA_TAGERT
04-16-2007, 10:39 AM
Pooor Nancy

AKA_TAGERT
04-16-2007, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Negativ, you didn't read the discussion. Crumpp did the calculation and I have no doubt he knows what he is talking about. You may have..

But..

I have seen him make mistakes in simple unit calculations/conversions

But I digress!

The point your missing here is REAL WORLD DATA.

You either got it or you don't.

When you have that, Ill will be interested.

Until than, I think it is 'neat' that there might be some difference in what we have vs. what some one might calc from a BASIC 101 Class rule-of-thumb flat plate types of calculations.

But..

I wouldn't loose any sleep over it, in that I am sure that Oleg is well aware of and beyond those types of BASIC 101 Class rule-of-thumb flat plate types of calculation.

crazyivan1970
04-16-2007, 10:43 AM
This thread is going to its end....

M_Gunz
04-16-2007, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Someone somewhere pushes buttons for the sake of pushing buttons because it is in their best interest to create argumentation. One must rely upon the button pusher for genuine honesty if one is to better know why such things are started and fueled.

Talk about that kettle!

AKA_TAGERT
04-16-2007, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Someone somewhere pushes buttons for the sake of pushing buttons because it is in their best interest to create argumentation. One must rely upon the button pusher for genuine honesty if one is to better know why such things are started and fueled.

Talk about that kettle! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sad anit it?

The way Josf talks you would think I just made the statment with nothing to back it up!

I mean I spell out the method, tell folks how to use DeviceLink, provide graphs of the DeviceLink varialbes, and the orginal track files.

What more can I do?

The answer is nothing!

Josf's purpose is transparent.. Anything negative about a blue plane must be attacked from all angels in the hopes that the water gets so muddy that no one can tell which way is up or down.

Thank goodness I give the people of this forum more credit than Josf does for being able to see through his smoke screen.

Funny part is he really thinks his tatics work! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

MEGILE
04-16-2007, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thank Viper2005 for motivating me to show him that there are bigger offenders than the P47D 1944!

JG4_Helofly,

The above post can be viewed as a confession of purpose. If, for example, someone was to ask Tagert for an honest answer to the question: What is your purpose with this thread?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And this detracts exactly what, from Tagerts evidence?

So he isn't a blue flier who goes round sodomizing willy messershmit... woopiddoooo

His evidence is clear and concise, his tests sound, and his conclusions.. well upsetting to people of a blue pursuasion.

AKA_TAGERT
04-16-2007, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
And this detracts exactly what, from Tagerts evidence?

So he isn't a blue flier who goes round sodomizing willy messershmit... woopiddoooo

His evidence is clear and concise, his tests sound, and his conclusions.. well upsetting to people of a blue pursuasion. Just to be crystal..

Am I biased?

YES!

Very much so!

I like ALLIED stuff better than Jerry stuff!

On that note, the people to be suspect of are the ones that claim they are not biased!

In that there are only two types of people that would say that

1) Liars
2) Ignorant of the fact that they are

In that we are all biased!

It is human nature!

The question everyone should be asking is am I so biased that I am willing to lie about the results of my testing.

The answer is NO!

Why?

Well not because I am some perfect person! But because the numbers don't lie and if I tried to fudge the numbers someone somewhere would notice it. Especially someone like Oleg!

The fact is the DeviceLink data I present in the graphs is in it's raw format! So anyone could take my track file and extract the same data I show in my graphs and graph it in EXCEL.

The only thing I do to the data is apply a scale factor to convert from one unit (say meters) to another (say feet).

Granted, there are a few graphs where I apply some more math and/or combined a few variables to make a new' variable. Take my total energy graphs I do, they are a combination of the DeviceLink speed and altitude variables to make the PE,KE and TE graphs. Another example is my TAS and AoA graphs.

So I wouldn't even think of trying to fudge the results in that sooner or later I would get caught! That and if I was trying to pull one over on people, why would I make everything I do so available? Wouldn't it be better if I didn't show all the data? The reason I do show everything is so others can review it and provide feedback! In that if I did make a mistake I would rather someone here in the forum found it before I sent it off to Oleg and he found it.

Heck even when I do a manual best fit of the ROC graphs I show every step so that others can review what and how I did it!

My guess..

No..

My hope is that most people here realise all that, and thus don't talk about it much. It is that silent majority that I do this stuff fore! Not the fanboys! In that no mater what you say they will find something to get upset about! In that the fanboys want to keep their favorite ride as uber as they can! Forget about realism! Which is why they will rally like they did in this thread! Anything negative about a blue ride must be attacked form all angles! Fanboys who will spin it until the water is so muddy that nobody knows which way is up.

I know the old timers don't fall for that stuff.. Thus my only concern is for he newer members around here that are not familiar with Johf's tactics and might be fooled by them.

crazyivan1970
04-16-2007, 07:18 PM
Should i locked it now or wait until you guys earn yourselves some vacation time.... Thoughts?

Kettenhunde
04-16-2007, 07:34 PM
I have seen him make mistakes in simple unit calculations/conversions


Certainly. I make math mistakes as anyone else.

But let's be clear,

None that you have pointed out Tagert.

All the best,

Crumpp

AKA_TAGERT
04-16-2007, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
Certainly. I make math mistakes as anyone else.
As we all do from time to time


Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
But let's be clear,

None that you have pointed out Tagert.
Not true! (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=12527&start=60)

M_Gunz
04-17-2007, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Should i locked it now or wait until you guys earn yourselves some vacation time.... Thoughts?

I have this strange sort of dream with Bugs and Daffy in the woods but Elmer has changed into
Ivan with his stamp and he is tapping his foot.
And then Bugs says to Daffy, "Should he shoot you here or take you home first and shoot you?".

If you don't know the cartoon, CI, then I feel for your soul, man.

Whirlin_merlin
04-17-2007, 02:53 AM
Come on guys Tagart has actualy put his money where his mouth is here, he's done the test and given us the results and explained his protocols.
Okay there was a slight issue about not being able to show source of the RWD, which he explained at the start.
He has made no wild claims eg 109K4 should be banned from online servers etc.
Sure he's abrasive, sure he has an agenda but so what? The data is the data. Not great looping theoretical (often dodgy) calculations like we often see.

Tagart I may not be you biggest fan but thank you for doing this and other tests.

Josf have you done your straight down test if so please post the results (inc track, protocol etc.) However if you havn't actually done it yet can I suggest multiple repeats with the pilots swapping roles to remove 'pilot induced' vartiations.

La7_brook
04-17-2007, 03:17 AM
Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
Come on guys Tagart has actualy put his money where his mouth is here, he's done the test and given us the results and explained his protocols.
Okay there was a slight issue about not being able to show source of the RWD, which he explained at the start.
He has made no wild claims eg 109K4 should be banned from online servers etc.
Sure he's abrasive, sure he has an agenda but so what? The data is the data. Not great looping theoretical (often dodgy) calculations like we often see.

Tagart I may not be you biggest fan but thank you for doing this and other tests.

Josf have you done your straight down test if so please post the results (inc track, protocol etc.) However if you havn't actually done it yet can I suggest multiple repeats with the pilots swapping roles to remove 'pilot induced' vartiations. having elevators under mod at 450 kph in K4 will it be on his agenda too have them tested or is it just the climb rate that is his agenda ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Whirlin_merlin
04-17-2007, 03:43 AM
Originally posted by La7_brook:
having elevators under mod at 450 kph in K4 will it be on his agenda too have them tested or is it just the climb rate that is his agenda ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Er?

What's that got to do with the price of cheese.

P.S the 109s elevator authorithy at high speed has always seemed off to me too, but what do I know hence the need for game tests and RWD.

mynameisroland
04-17-2007, 03:52 AM
Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by La7_brook:
having elevators under mod at 450 kph in K4 will it be on his agenda too have them tested or is it just the climb rate that is his agenda ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Er?

What's that got to do with the price of cheese.

P.S the 109s elevator authorithy at high speed has always seemed off to me too, but what do I know hence the need for game tests and RWD. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you not been privvy to Kufursts data which shows that the unique reclined position of the 109 pilot allows him to leverage more elevator input than your average pilot flying any allied fighter ? Diagrams and anthropometric illustrations were included. Just incase this argument did not satisfy there was the dual argument that although most allied types had better elevator authority there was no real advantage in having an elevator with more responsiveness than the Bf 109 because the pilot would immediately black out due to higher G forces. Willy Messerschmit managed to get it spot on 1st time. The Bf 109s elevators straddled the perfect, invisible border line, where the 109 pilot could pull as hard as he wanted but not black out at high speeds. Those poor guys flying P47s and P51s and Tempests and Spitfires ect all used to black out because of their inferior seating positions and inferior superior elevator authority at speed.

So whatever way you look at it the Bf 109 comes out on top with regards to anything. Including elevator authority at cruising speeds - 400mph lol http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

La7_brook
04-17-2007, 03:54 AM
Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by La7_brook:
having elevators under mod at 450 kph in K4 will it be on his agenda too have them tested or is it just the climb rate that is his agenda ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Er?

What's that got to do with the price of cheese.

P.S the 109s elevator authorithy at high speed has always seemed off to me too, but what do I know hence the need for game tests and RWD. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> srry i throught this about getting the K4 right too RL data , my mistake then http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Whirlin_merlin
04-17-2007, 03:58 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:

Have you not been privvy to Kufursts data which shows that the unique reclined position of the 109 pilot allows him to leverage more elevator input than your average pilot flying any allied fighter ? Diagrams and anthropometric illustrations were included - there was also the argument that there was no advantage in having an elevator with more responsiveness than the Bf 109 because the pilot would immediately black out due to G forces. Willy Messerschmit managed to get it spot on 1st time. The Bf 109s elevators straddled the perfect, invisible border line, where the 109 pilot could pull as hard as he wanted but not black out at high speeds. Those poor guys flying P47s and P51s and Tempests and Spitfires ect all used to black out because of their inferior seating positions and inferior superior elevator authority at speed.

No I must have missed it, thanks RW now it all makes sense.

Anyway this is all moot now. Bring on SOW:BOB where hopefully the Defiant will be so overmoddeled by the evil, biased Oleg that it owns the 109s.

MEGILE
04-17-2007, 04:10 AM
Originally posted by La7_brook:
srry i throught this about getting the K4 right too RL data , my mistake then http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Sorry, but I missed your real world data

Whirlin_merlin
04-17-2007, 04:10 AM
Originally posted by La7_brook:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by La7_brook:
having elevators under mod at 450 kph in K4 will it be on his agenda too have them tested or is it just the climb rate that is his agenda ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Er?

What's that got to do with the price of cheese.

P.S the 109s elevator authorithy at high speed has always seemed off to me too, but what do I know hence the need for game tests and RWD. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> srry i throught this about getting the K4 right too RL data , my mistake then http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry I thought you where just trying to confuse things by bringing in an uncontected issue. My mistake but still two things occur to me.

1) Nothing is going to be got right it's too late for that with il2. Alas.
2) Even if things could be changed it should be based on tests, RWD etc.

Kurfurst__
04-17-2007, 04:56 AM
Originally posted by La7_brook:
having elevators under mod at 450 kph in K4 will it be on his agenda too have them tested or is it just the climb rate that is his agenda ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Indeed some maximum G-forces pulled at neutral trim position would be highly welcome for the Bf 109 versions. I believe people report the very late 109s are poorer in this regard? Would it be possible to run a devicelink test for G-2 and K-4 at some standard altitude, at increasingly higher speeds showing maximum G forces pulled?

Now THAT would be interesting!

Kettenhunde
04-17-2007, 06:43 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
But let's be clear,

None that you have pointed out Tagert.

Tagert says:


Not true! (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=12527&start=60)

Tagert,

Perhaps some will take the time to actually read the thread you linked and realize why I don't respond to you anymore in a serious manner.

They may also realize just how little you do know about the science of flight.

Good Luck in your game!

All the best,

Crumpp

AKA_TAGERT
04-17-2007, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

quote:
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
But let's be clear,

None that you have pointed out Tagert.

Tagert says:


Not true! (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=12527&start=60)

Tagert,

Perhaps some will take the time to actually read the thread you linked and realize why I don't respond to you anymore in a serious manner.

They may also realize just how little you do know about the science of flight.

Good Luck in your game!

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Notice the weak attempt at a topic redirect.

The old slide of hand tangent topic in an attempt to take the focus off the subject (me pointing out his error) and make it personal.

Nice try!

Gold Star for effort!

But..

NO SALE!

AKA_TAGERT
04-17-2007, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by La7_brook:
having elevators under mod at 450 kph in K4 will it be on his agenda too have them tested or is it just the climb rate that is his agenda ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif One thing at a time!

But now would be a good time for you to present your real world data to support your 'theory'!

AKA_TAGERT
04-17-2007, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Would it be possible to run a devicelink test for G-2 and K-4 at some standard altitude, at increasingly higher speeds showing maximum G forces pulled?

Now THAT would be interesting!
Yes it would be possible.

We dont know what the arc of the path would be, but we do have the altitude, and ROC (aka var aka change in alt) so from that we could determine the acceleration. That along with the pitch angle we could translate the acc in the earth axis to the plane axis. Slight variations due to the difference in the PITCH and AOA, but I have a calculation to find the AOA.

But..

It I would have to add some code to my analysis program to do it.. and I am not all that interested in doing it unless there is some real world data to compare to. So, if you got some data like that, let me know and Ill start working on it.

Manu-6S
04-17-2007, 08:29 AM
Wasn't the elevator stiffness issue caused by the model's limitation to simulate the force of 2 combined arms?

I don't see the need for a test with link device. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

JG14_Josf
04-17-2007, 08:30 AM
Josf's purpose is transparent.. Anything negative about a blue plane must be attacked from all angels in the hopes that the water gets so muddy that no one can tell which way is up or down.

Tagert,

Rather than spinning your lies as if the effort were a default mode, for once, think before inserting foot. You might find cause to use your mind, mouth, and communication skills to accomplish something.

Example (fill in the blanks):

----------Maximum climb rate-----@climb speed-------@climb angle-------@altitude
Real-----------Blank---------------------Blank----------------Blank----------------Blank
Game---------Blank---------------------Blank----------------Blank----------------Blank

Rather than imagining my agenda to be what you insist it is based upon your current agenda ignoring anything I may write suggesting that there is no need to imagine my agenda since my agenda is clearly and precisely admitted.

My agenda: Learn

If your tests are better' than IL2compare, then, better' has an unfamiliar meaning since IL2compare compares one plane against another plane in a manner that is easily understood. Your better' tests attempt to add a comparison that is not available with IL2compare. Your better' tests compare a GAME with REAL. We, if we want to, can imagine a fantasy GAME airplane flying next to a REAL plane to see which plane performs a faster climb rate.

What I would like to learn about your better' tests is a few more facts concerning your presentation so as to allow me to better imagine the unimaginable where the GAME is compared to REAL.

I picture the GAME plane side by side with the REAL plane and my imagination is looking for a climb angle and climb speed for both planes. I do this same SEARCH for all the planes in the GAME as I play the GAME.

Example:

The 109 can angle up into a higher climb angle than the P-47 in the previous patch. I'm not sure which 109 at this moment but I can probably find that TEST flight on a track file somewhere. The advantage of a steeper climb angle is a usable advantage so it is a good thing to know.

What is my agenda again? Do I need to check with Tagert to know my true agenda?

I don't.

As to any request for me to Link (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=7876) my test results, well, its been done more than once.

My agenda is not a popular one even with the people who tend to side with blue.

Look at Crumpp, for example, all he has for me is accusations of cutting and pasting his calculations, something I did not do, and all I have for him is praise concerning his methods of identifying aircraft performance. I think he is on to something significant and I am the only one, as far as public published inquiry is concerned, interested in learning more about that method. I'll check again at the site to see if more information is now available on that method. I'm interested and yet my interest is unwelcome.

Why do people choose ignorance?

Answer: They are comfortable with being ignorant.

Your mileage may vary.

Oh and lock the thread for things I've said rather than locking the thread for someone accusing someone else for being guilty of sodomy.

Be my guest.

AKA_TAGERT
04-17-2007, 10:21 AM
Ah nice try!

I almost fell for it!

But on second thought.. I am not going to play your little game.

IVAN has already hinted at us needing to clean up our act. Or he will lock this thread!

Which is exactly why you continue with the same old same old as if Ivan said nothing

You want it locked!

Why?

Well it is clear that this is painful' topic for the blue fanbois, thus they will rally and do what ever it takes to get such threads locked!

Even if it means getting banned for a week or two.

Again, nice try.

But NO SALE!

faustnik
04-17-2007, 10:39 AM
This red vs. blue gamer garbage is SO tiring.

JG14_Josf
04-17-2007, 11:04 AM
You want it locked!

Tagert,

Are you talkin' to me?

I read your Poor Nancy' post that is now edited to include another misrepresentation of your fellow forum participant (me).

I can state with clear and obvious truth that I do not want this thread locked. You either misunderstand me (leading to your misrepresentation) or you understand me and then you misrepresent me on purpose.

Here is how it works:

Trolls (like piranha) attack anyone who, for whatever reason, they don't like and their attacks intend to insult their victims. The idea is to cause a flame war and then test the moderator's power. The moderator can then exercise his/her power in a variety of ways one of which is to lock the thread; another is to restrict access by individual forum participants.

If I wanted to lock this thread or to have my access denied to this forum, then, I can do so in a variety of ways including calling people names and accusing people of sodomizing a historical person. My guess is that my efforts to inflame this topic in that manner would be dealt with swiftly by the moderator. As you well know; however I am often wrong.

Perhaps the moderator uses a form of calculation that I am unfamiliar with and therefore what triggers his tolerance level is based upon variables unknown to me. I run my own forum and I have yet to encounter a need for enforcement other than one incident whereby new forum members were linking their e-mail addresses to porn sites. I eventually gave up on policing that inevitability after consulting the forum space providers on our liabilities. My forum is a registered domain name.

So as to avoid your misrepresentation of me in gaining currency I feel the need to repeat the following:

I do not want this thread locked at all. I have a problem with being accused of starting flame wars which, from my viewpoint, is a clear and obvious misrepresentation of my participations on this forum. To confuse my defense as offense is clearly an error. It is provable. The forum archives (almost all) words published every original insult.

Clearly; the way to avoid having this thread locked is an easy process of returning to the topic and avoiding further insulting misrepresentations.

Example:

I do not want this thread locked. If someone suggests that I want this thread locked then:

A. Someone is misrepresenting me.
B. That misrepresentation is off-topic.

Back to the topic:

----------Maximum climb rate-----@climb speed-------@climb angle-------@altitude
Real-----------Blank---------------------Blank----------------Blank----------------Blank
Game---------Blank---------------------Blank----------------Blank----------------Blank

My participation can be summed up with the above request for data. If those blanks have already been filled in with data, well, I missed that part. I read, and can go back and quote if needed, words that pointed to sources where I can possibly find the data to fill in the blanks. My request is for those blanks to be filled in by someone having the authority to fill in those blanks accurately. I don't want to assume the capacity to authorize the accurate numbers in an official manner.

My request (my agenda) is to learn the accurate, official, authorized data needed to fill in those blanks for this climb performance topic. To suggest that my agenda is something other than to learn is to ignore my expressed request for specific data.

Is that not simple?

AKA_TAGERT
04-17-2007, 12:02 PM
As for..

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
----------Maximum climb rate-----@climb speed-------@climb angle--------@altitude
Real------Blank------------------Blank--------------Blank---------------Blank
Game------Blank------------------Blank--------------Blank---------------Blank</pre>

I allready filled in those blanks for you several pages back.

But..

It appears that you have a selective and/or short memory so I will post them for one more time.

MAXIMUM CLIMB RATE per ALTITUDE:<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
REAL: Is clearly displayed in the RWD ROC/ALT graph.
GAME: Is clearly displayed in my ROC/ALT and ROC/TIME graphs.</pre>

MAXIMUM CLIMB SPEED per ALTITUDE:<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
REAL: Kurfurst stated it is between 270 to 280.
GAME: Is clearly displayed in my IAS/TIME and IAS/ALT graphs.</pre>

MAXIMUM CLIMB ANGEL per ALTITUDE:<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
REAL: The climb speed dictates the climb angle, thus no need to record both.
GAME: Is clearly displayed in my PITCH/TIME graph.</pre>

Therefore..

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">
----------Maximum climb rate-----@climb speed-------@climb angle--------@altitude
Real------see RWD graph----------ask Kurfurst-------n/a-----------------see RWD graph
Game------see my pdf graphs------see my pdf graphs--see my pdf graphs---see my pdf graphs</pre>

Now, this is like the 3rd time I have told you this.. I even went as far as to give you the answers and to put them in your table format you love so much. You say you want to 'LEARN' but each time someone 'LEARN YAH" you seem to forget what you 'LEARNED' by the next page

So do us all a favor and write it down this time!

Than next time before you post, check your notes an see if your questions have not allready been answered and you simply forgot that they were answered.

Thank You!

Irish_Rogues
04-17-2007, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
This red vs. blue gamer garbage is SO tiring.

I agree.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif And it takes two to happen. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

SlowBurn68
04-17-2007, 12:22 PM
Hey - My reticle is off center in my 109 - How do I fix that?

AKA_TAGERT
04-17-2007, 12:23 PM
SHIFT F1

faustnik
04-17-2007, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by SlowBurn68:
Hey - My reticle is off center in my 109 - How do I fix that?

Ctrl-E

AKA_TAGERT
04-17-2007, 12:28 PM
Ctrl-LOL

JG14_Josf
04-17-2007, 12:50 PM
----------Maximum climb rate-----@climb speed-------@climb angle---------@altitude
Real------see RWD graph----------ask Kurfurst-------n/a------------------see RWD graph
Game------see my ROC graph-------see my IAS graph---see my PITCH graph---see my ALT graph

Tagert,

Is this some kind of meet me half way' test? Il2compare is better' in the sense that the graphical presentation clearly shows which aircraft is superior. IL2compare is not better' than the same information that includes climb speed and climb angle data; if you can imagine what I am trying to illustrate.

I have this better' agenda that is applicable to game play whereby better' is information that allows me to know how to shoot down other planes and not get shot down in the process. Perhaps my agenda could use refinement toward a more accurate communication; to anyone caring to actually know my actual agenda.

My agenda doesn't include research on Tagert's presentations. I asked for more information and you filled in my blanks with directions pointing toward the data?!

That is fine. I can accept that I get what I deserve according to you. What is striking to me concerning what you have offered is the remaining blank that you filled in with "n/a".

I suppose, and you can correct me if I am wrong, that the REAL climb angle is not applicable?

Here is where we may have identified the disparity between our perspectives more precisely (and managed to do so without increasing the heat much); climb angle (no matter how the actual relative data is found) is applicable to the learning agenda I seek and presumably it is not applicable to your agenda.

My example can be expressed in a track file where the last time I used a climb angle advantage occurred while I flew a simulated 109 against a simulated P-47. The P-47 was behind following while I pitched up to a maximum climb angle. The P-47 tried to follow that move and ended up overshooting under and ahead of the 109. All I had to do then was time my roll behind the P-47 before it could dive away.

The REAL 109 did manage a maximum climb rate at a specific climb angle and climb speed (all measurements are related physically I get that part) and the GAME 109 does manage a maximum climb rate at a specific climb angle and climb speed. It would be nice to know if GAME and REAL were in the ball park' and having an easy way to see this accurately is learning. I already know how to go back and look through your past contributions on this forum. I can find what I think is your official data based upon your directions toward your authorized data. I can do that now. Thanks.

AKA_TAGERT
04-17-2007, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JG14_Josf :
Tagert,
Josf,


Originally posted by JG14_Josf :
Is this some kind of meet me half way' test?
Hardly


Originally posted by JG14_Josf :
Il2compare is better' in the sense that the graphical presentation clearly shows which aircraft is superior.
That's nice!

And when ever want to compare GAME (say P51D) to GAME (say Fw190) I use IL2C to do just that.

But..

That is all OFF TOPIC with regards to this thread's TOPIC!

That being the comparisons of the ROC of the GAME 109K-4 data to the ROC of the REAL 109K-4 data.

Hence the title which states..

Bf-109K-4 1.80ata ROC testing


Originally posted by JG14_Josf :
IL2compare is not better' than the same information that includes climb speed and climb angle data; if you can imagine what I am trying to illustrate.
No, nor do I care to.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf :
I have this better' agenda that is applicable to game play whereby better' is information that allows me to know how to shoot down other planes and not get shot down in the process.
That's nice!

Say.. Why don't you go start your own thread about that TOPIC? In that it is OFF TOPIC with regards to the TOPIC of this thread. Which is the comparison of the ROC between the GAME 109K-4 and the REAL 109K-4.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf :
Perhaps my agenda could use refinement toward a more accurate communication; to anyone caring to actually know my actual agenda.
That's nice!

Say.. Why don't you go start your own thread about that TOPIC? In that it is OFF TOPIC with regards to the TOPIC of this thread. Which is the comparison of the ROC between the GAME 109K-4 and the REAL 109K-4.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf :
My agenda doesn't include research on Tagert's presentations. I asked for more information and you filled in my blanks with directions pointing toward the data?!
So what part of YOU YOURSELF typing


Originally posted by JG14_Josf in his prior post:
Back to the topic:

----------Maximum climb rate-----@climb speed-------@climb angle-------@altitude
Real-----------Blank---------------------Blank----------------Blank----------------Blank
Game---------Blank---------------------Blank----------------Blank----------------Blank

My participation can be summed up with the above request for data.

Where your REQUESTED FOR DATA was provided by me to you did you NOT understand?


Originally posted by JG14_Josf :
That is fine. I can accept that I get what I deserve according to you.
It should be in that is exactly what you asked for!


Originally posted by JG14_Josf :
What is striking to me concerning what you have offered is the remaining blank that you filled in with "n/a". I suppose, and you can correct me if I am wrong, that the REAL climb angle is not applicable?
Bingo!

In that the angle is dictated by the climb speed.

That is to say they are related!

You pick one to be a constant (say IAS) and it will force the other to vary.

That is to say the tests pilot would adj the pitch of the plane to maintain a constant air speed.

That is why the REAL WORLD TESTS reports don't bother to record the climb angle, just climb speed.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf :
Here is where we may have identified the disparity between our perspectives more precisely (and managed to do so without increasing the heat much); climb angle (no matter how the actual relative data is found) is applicable to the learning agenda I seek and presumably it is not applicable to your agenda.
That's nice!

Say.. Why don't you go start your own thread about that TOPIC? In that it is OFF TOPIC with regards to the TOPIC of this thread. Which is the comparison of the ROC between the GAME 109K-4 and the REAL 109K-4.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf :
My example can be expressed in a track file where the last time I used a climb angle advantage occurred while I flew a simulated 109 against a simulated P-47. The P-47 was behind following while I pitched up to a maximum climb angle. The P-47 tried to follow that move and ended up overshooting under and ahead of the 109. All I had to do then was time my roll behind the P-47 before it could dive away.
That's nice!

Say.. Why don't you go start your own thread about that TOPIC? In that it is OFF TOPIC with regards to the TOPIC of this thread. Which is the comparison of the ROC between the GAME 109K-4 and the REAL 109K-4.


Originally posted by JG14_Josf :
The REAL 109 did manage a maximum climb rate at a specific climb angle and climb speed (all measurements are related physically I get that part) and the GAME 109 does manage a maximum climb rate at a specific climb angle and climb speed. It would be nice to know if GAME and REAL were in the ball park' and having an easy way to see this accurately is learning.
Bingo!

And all you have to do is click on the link to my full analysis file if you want 'to know if GAME and REAL are in the ball park'.

It is an easy way to 'see' this 'accurately' and maybe 'even learn' something in that my full analysis contains all the varibales that the real test reports recorded for such a test AND MORE!


Originally posted by JG14_Josf :
I already know how to go back and look through your past contributions on this forum. I can find what I think is your official data based upon your directions toward your authorized data. I can do that now. Thanks.
Your welcome!

NancyBoyOnYer6
04-17-2007, 05:57 PM
After reading all of Tagerts useless suggestions. I've have a wonderful idea. Let Oleg design a "Tagert Patch" so he can be happy once and for all. Of course, any other lemming can also play along http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif


http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1081903.htm

Kettenhunde
04-17-2007, 06:14 PM
In that the angle is dictated by the climb speed.


Actually it is dictated by excess thrust.

Basic formulation being:

Sin y = Thrust available - Thrust required / Weight

This is a rearrangement of the basic principle of Thrust - Drag / weight determines climb performance.

Adding a velocity component to this basic relationship gives us our Rate of Climb:

Velocity * Ta - Tr / weight

Angle of climb is purely decided by excess thrust.

Power producers are simply not thrust limited at low velocity. So while their power production is determined by fuel flow thrust is a function of velocity.

Basic formula for thrust in BGS and using NM for power producers:

Thrust Horsepower (THP)* 325 / Velocity

We can also see that a 200 THP engine at 55 KTAS produces:

200 * 325 / 55 = 1181 pounds of thrust

However our same engine at 1 KTAS produces:

200 * 325 / 1 = 65,000 pounds of thrust

Because of this relationship of velocity to thrust in power producers we incorporate the basic formula for power producers in determining our climb angle.

Thus angle of climb becomes:

325 * (Power available - Power required) / Velocity * Weight

In a power producer velocity is important for angle of climb only from the standpoint of thrust production.

In a jet or thrust producer velocity is not a component of angle of climb.

Maximum angle of climb in a thrust producer has nothing to do with velocity. The basic relationship for either type has nothing to do with velocity but is a function of excess thrust.

Maximum angle of climb occurs at stall speed in a power producer.

All the best,

Crumpp

AKA_TAGERT
04-17-2007, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In that the angle is dictated by the climb speed.


Actually it is dictated by excess thrust.

Basic formulation being:

Sin y = Thrust available - Thrust required / Weight

This is a rearrangement of the basic principle of Thrust - Drag / weight determines climb performance.

Adding a velocity component to this basic relationship gives us our Rate of Climb:

Velocity * Ta - Tr / weight

Angle of climb is purely decided by excess thrust.

Power producers are simply not thrust limited at low velocity. So while their power production is determined by fuel flow thrust is a function of velocity.

Basic formula for thrust in BGS and using NM for power producers:

Thrust Horsepower (THP)* 325 / Velocity

We can also see that a 200 THP engine at 55 KTAS produces:

200 * 325 / 55 = 1181 pounds of thrust

However our same engine at 1 KTAS produces:

200 * 325 / 1 = 65,000 pounds of thrust

Because of this relationship of velocity to thrust in power producers we incorporate the basic formula for power producers in determining our climb angle.

Thus angle of climb becomes:

325 * (Power available - Power required) / Velocity * Weight

In a power producer velocity is important for angle of climb only from the standpoint of thrust production.

In a jet or thrust producer velocity is not a component of angle of climb.

Maximum angle of climb in a thrust producer has nothing to do with velocity. The basic relationship for either type has nothing to do with velocity but is a function of excess thrust.

Maximum angle of climb occurs at stall speed in a power producer.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh I'm sorry, did I forget to mention that the ROC tests are done at constant power settings? As in MIL, COMBAT, etc.

Thought you knew that?

Seemed so basic that I failed to mention it.. But in light of your confusion..

Know that they where!

Thus your 'master of the obvious' rendition of how power affects the way a plane flys not needed.

Now I understand your need to try and get back at me for making you look silly when I posted a link to something you said I could not find a link to..

But..

You really got to let it go son! It will just tear you up inside!

AKA_TAGERT
04-17-2007, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by NancyBoyOnYer6:
After reading all of Tagerts useless suggestions. I've have a wonderful idea. Let Oleg design a "Tagert Patch" so he can be happy once and for all. Of course, any other lemming can also play along http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
That's nice!

But do you have anything.. anything at all to contribute to this thread other than weak personal attacks in the hopes that I would respond in kind and turn this into a flame fest that ends up getting locked?

As I predicted.. the blue fanbois will rally and do what ever it takes to get threads locked that dont speak well of a blue ride.

M_Gunz
04-17-2007, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
That along with the pitch angle we could translate the acc in the earth axis to the plane axis. Slight variations due to the difference in the PITCH and AOA, but I have a calculation to find the AOA.

Pitch is not path. Ask any pilot worth his ticket then check the aero sites....

The relation of pitch to path varies with load, speed and AOA.

Do you *really* have an AOA calculator? Will you post the code? As in Got Code? Yeah, I SAVVY!

AKA_TAGERT
04-17-2007, 07:23 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
That along with the pitch angle we could translate the acc in the earth axis to the plane axis. Slight variations due to the difference in the PITCH and AOA, but I have a calculation to find the AOA.

Pitch is not path. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Never said it was! I actually even noted that when I said 'Slight variations due to the difference in the PITCH and AOA'.


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Ask any pilot worth his ticket then check the aero sites....
No need to ask, in that I all ready knew and all ready covered it when I said 'Slight variations due to the difference in the PITCH and AOA'.


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
The relation of pitch to path varies with load, speed and AOA.
Bingo! Which is why I said 'Slight variations due to the difference in the PITCH and AOA'.


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Do you *really* have an AOA calculator?
Yes

It is not perfect, and there is no way to completely validate it in the sim what with the limited variables we have at our disposals, but it does produce reasonable results. But I would not base anything on them as far as calling something GOOD or BAD. I don't use it for anything but as a sort of reality check, just a warm fuzzy.


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Will you post the code? As in Got Code? Yeah, I SAVVY!
Well, Ill show you mine if you show me yours! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

M_Gunz
04-17-2007, 07:58 PM
I've got no such code and be interested in what underlies code using devicelink values
to approximate it.

Pitch is angle of the nose above or below the horizon.

AOA is angle of the wing relative to the path of the wing. Since after all, the air ain't
oncoming, it's the plane that moves.

If I fly a dive and transition to climb then my pitch goes from sub-zero to high while my
AOA varies independantly. And I can run a flat spiral where pitch is always zero and AOA
changes too.

Do a steady IAS climb and collect alt data. Plot that using TAS and tell me please the angle
of the climb is constant!

AKA_TAGERT
04-17-2007, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I've got no such code and be interested in what underlies code using devicelink values to approximate it.
Well it is pretty long and drawn out and probally way to boring for most folks here.. That and I don't use it in any flight modeling validation.. I just took the variables we have at our disposal and thought I would give it a go as to see if it produced reasonable results. I did it years ago when I saw someone attempting to make a program that ploted the the planes course.. In that we dont have x,y,z just x,y where z has to be calculated form other values. Problem is the AOA is not perfect, thus the plot program was not perfect.. but it was a neat exersise


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Pitch is angle of the nose above or below the horizon.
I know


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
AOA is angle of the wing relative to the path of the wing. Since after all, the air ain't oncoming, it's the plane that moves.
I know


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
If I fly a dive and transition to climb then my pitch goes from sub-zero to high while my AOA varies independantly. And I can run a flat spiral where pitch is always zero and AOA
changes too.
I know


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Do a steady IAS climb and collect alt data. Plot that using TAS and tell me please the angle of the climb is constant!
Well problem is TAS is NOT one of the DeviceLink variables, and the rule of thumb equation to calc TAS from IAS does not match the WonderWoman display of TAS very well without adjusting it. I am currently working on an equation to adj the IAS values to get TAS values that match the WW display but it still needs work. Thus the only way to get TAS for now it to read it off the TAS display in the no cockpit view (akd WW view)

Kettenhunde
04-17-2007, 08:09 PM
power affects the way a plane flys not needed.

It is pretty obvious from your reply that you do not understand a thing I wrote.

Just as it obvious from your statement that angle of climb is dependent upon velocity that you do not understand the principles of aircraft performance.

Thankfully you are not a real pilot.

Angle of climb is a function of excess thrust not velocity.

A propeller aircraft achieves its best angle of climb at stall velocity. However the Rate of Climb is not very good at this speed.

You can "Nancy boy" all you want but the science remains the same.

All the best,

Crumpp

AKA_TAGERT
04-17-2007, 08:10 PM
Let it go!

Your just going to bring yourself to tears!