PDA

View Full Version : Extensive 4.04 FM testing



JtD
03-17-2006, 07:16 AM
Already published in the German forum and elsewhere, I thought it might be interesting for a few folks around here as well:

FB 4.04 FM tests (http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/t404/404testing.html)

I'd like to highlight the column "track test", which is the time the planes needed to complete a demanding test course. I think it is fairly representative for dogfighting abilities. Most of the results mirror this quite well. So far I only had the time to try each plane once and thus the pilot factor is quite high. I'd like to ask everyone to participate in that test. The more tries, the lower time, the more correct the results. Details of how to are given on the testing page. Also, that testing course is quite a fun challenge.

stathem
03-17-2006, 07:52 AM
I'd like to offer my thanks for that work, JtD, some really useful and interesting info. on there, must have been quite a lot of work for you.

It'll be fun watching this thread develop.

Divine-Wind
03-17-2006, 08:12 AM
Can't download the test course?...

JtD
03-17-2006, 08:28 AM
Thx stathem, I hope to initiate a nice discussion. I think there are quite a few interesting figures.

Divine Wind, you need to rightclick and save link. Just tested, everything you need is there.

Divine-Wind
03-17-2006, 08:30 AM
Ah, roger. Firefox is really annoying in that area. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Divine-Wind
03-17-2006, 08:54 AM
Ehm... I may sound like an idiot, but is there a certain spot we put the mission, or just anywhere?

Bearcat99
03-17-2006, 08:57 AM
Very interesting data. Thank you foer your hard work. I know that must have taken a while.

SithSpeeder
03-17-2006, 09:45 AM
Wow! Thanks.

* _54th_Speeder *

msalama
03-17-2006, 11:26 AM
Thank you JayTeeDee. I've nothing but deepest respect towards you guys who take the trouble to really sort it all out... S, S, and S! is what I say http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

robban75
03-17-2006, 11:30 AM
Fantastic work JtD! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

TheGozr
03-17-2006, 12:09 PM
yes a lot of work there, good for the community. thxs

R_Target
03-17-2006, 12:12 PM
Well done. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

NonWonderDog
03-17-2006, 12:45 PM
I really like the "energy retention" column. Expect to draw a lot of heat for it, though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Amazingly enough, I see nothing out of the ordinary with anything except Lycoming and MiG-3 overheat times. I don't think that bodes well for this thread. It's way too factual to exist long here in it's current form. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

xTHRUDx
03-17-2006, 02:06 PM
his fuel data seems odd.

why not give all planes 25% fuel and post the "minutes till dry" this would be much more usefull

ReligiousZealot
03-17-2006, 02:14 PM
I must add my congratulations and say well done as well, very interesting read (nothing looks too far off from my limited knowledge). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Slickun
03-17-2006, 02:24 PM
Really cool work. Thanks for taking the time to do it, and to post it. It's greatly appreciated.

First look is that the Mustang III and LA-5N are beasts.

BaldieJr
03-17-2006, 02:54 PM
Dynamic flight model

bazzaah2
03-17-2006, 03:31 PM
That's great work and I admire your dedication!! Good to see that someone can get rated speed out of the Tempest (I just can't get level trim http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif) .

I have a question about zoom climb - the results at a glance seem in a fairly narrow band, with many at around 1100-1200m. Would that be what we should expect?

Davinci..
03-17-2006, 07:22 PM
excellent work dude!.

thanks for the effort, some good usefull data there.

can i ask something though?? could you kindly add in "zoom climb" testing with engines on?? I think that would help a ton too. And i think we might get some different results.

Stackhouse25th
03-17-2006, 07:27 PM
Im guessing he didnt get any sleep.

contact me if you want to host that on our web site (the page), instead of tripod.

BlitzPig_DDT
03-18-2006, 12:32 AM
Interesting. A lot of work, and nicely compiled.

I hate to say this in light of the amount of effort it obviously took but, while interesting, it's not very useful. It would have been much better to either give everything a dead 25% or, the short range planes (most of them), 50%, and the long range planes (US and IJN) 25%. That would reflect the configuration people would actually encounter and provide far more useful info, rather than a 30 minute flying time comparison.

xTHRUDx
03-18-2006, 01:50 AM
thank you DDT, i see someone else finds that bit of data odd too.

GH_Klingstroem
03-18-2006, 02:28 AM
WHOA!! Look at tyhe initial acceleration times for the FW190 A series!
Same goes for the p47!
Thought the fw190 accelerated very good according to pilot reports!
But then again. Level Acceleration is dependent on weight and HP... I guess they are among the heaviest...

Witch_56_SqnRAF
03-18-2006, 02:54 AM
Well done dude,

That's a lot of info, it must have taken forever!

I will "pour" over this for some time to come, again, thanks and well done http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

GregSM
03-18-2006, 04:20 AM
Very useful indeed €" a decent surrogate for IL2Compare! Thank you for the work, and for its clear presentation.


Cheers,


Greg

alert_1
03-18-2006, 10:24 AM
Nice work! What strucks me is the accelaration times from 0-200km/h for Me109G in comparison with Fw190A8. In thsi range (0-200km/h) is aceleration depending on practically only on power loading and propeller efectivity: powwerloadin of me109G2 and Fw190A8 is almost exactly the same (3100/1475 and 4300/2050) but for Me109G is taking 11.9s while Fw190 21.9s! It looks like big difference, but why? Propellor effectiveness of Fw190 si much pooreer than that of Me109?

crazyivan1970
03-18-2006, 11:17 AM
Wow, dude...well done.

Cobra-84
03-18-2006, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by Davinci..:
can i ask something though?? could you kindly add in "zoom climb" testing with engines on?? I think that would help a ton too. And i think we might get some different results.

The numbers I got were a little lower than the chart but the differences between planes are similar. The Bf-109 and the FW-190D ran out of fuel before the climb was finished with 1% fuel, so 2% was used.

Map - Crimea Alt-5 M Speed-600 KMH

Unpowered 100% 1% Powered 100% 1% 2%

F4U1-D 1060 1060 1400 1460
Spitfire +25 1000 1000 1660 1680
Bf-109K-4 C3 990 985 1640 1680 1700
FW-190A-8 1050 1050 1440 1485
FW-190D-9 '44 1085 1090 1665 1705 1750

Badsight.
03-18-2006, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Already published in the German forum and elsewhere, I thought it might be interesting for a few folks around here as well:

FB 4.04 FM tests (http://mitglied.lycos.de/jaytdee/t404/404testing.html) i cant imagine the time this took :0

have you gotten to play v4.04 just for fun yet! , awesome JtD .))))

JtD
03-19-2006, 04:10 AM
Originally posted by Divine-Wind:
Ehm... I may sound like an idiot, but is there a certain spot we put the mission, or just anywhere?

As you best play it via the full mission builder, just put it anywhere in the missions folder. Load it into the fmb (edit if you want) and select >file>play.

JtD
03-19-2006, 04:15 AM
Originally posted by xTHRUDx:
his fuel data seems odd.

why not give all planes 25% fuel and post the "minutes till dry" this would be much more usefull


DDT

I hate to say this in light of the amount of effort it obviously took but, while interesting, it's not very useful. It would have been much better to either give everything a dead 25% or, the short range planes (most of them), 50%, and the long range planes (US and IJN) 25%. That would reflect the configuration people would actually encounter and provide far more useful info, rather than a 30 minute flying time comparison.

Matter of taste, actually. In a df room I'd usually pick the fuel loadout that allows me at least 30 mins of flight. So I want to know how much fuel I have to take to fly 30 mins, not the time I have with 25%.
After take off, I'll be flying with a fuel loadout somewhere between 30 mins and 0%, so no single fuel loadout can acutally represent my condition perfectly.

JtD
03-19-2006, 04:20 AM
Originally posted by bazzaah2:

I have a question about zoom climb - the results at a glance seem in a fairly narrow band, with many at around 1100-1200m. Would that be what we should expect?

A very good question and I tend to say yes. The differences come from drag/mass ratio. Drag is the only loss and it shouldn't be extensive. Some of the planes have twice as much E loss as others, which already is quite a number.

I think some individual planes could need some tweaking, but in general the picture is a lot better than I expected.

JtD
03-19-2006, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by Davinci..:

can i ask something though?? could you kindly add in "zoom climb" testing with engines on?? I think that would help a ton too. And i think we might get some different results.

If I am going to add another column, it will be power on zoomclimb (at med altitude, probably).

JtD
03-19-2006, 04:27 AM
Originally posted by Cobra-84:

The numbers I got were a little lower than the chart but the differences between planes are similar. The Bf-109 and the FW-190D ran out of fuel before the climb was finished with 1% fuel, so 2% was used.

Nice addition...

Could it be you'd start in horizontal flight and pulled up into the vertical? I'd start vertical right away, this would be a good explanation for the differences.

JtD
03-19-2006, 04:29 AM
And it didn't take soo long, it's just than some test were really boring. But as you apprechiate it, it was worth it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

bazzaah2
03-19-2006, 05:31 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bazzaah2:

I have a question about zoom climb - the results at a glance seem in a fairly narrow band, with many at around 1100-1200m. Would that be what we should expect?

A very good question and I tend to say yes. The differences come from drag/mass ratio. Drag is the only loss and it shouldn't be extensive. Some of the planes have twice as much E loss as others, which already is quite a number.

I think some individual planes could need some tweaking, but in general the picture is a lot better than I expected. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's good to know, especially when you're as casual a user of this sim as I am.

Surprised though to see that the Dora has such good sea level speed. seems way too fast, the flight test here http://www.spitfireperformance.com/fw190/fw190d9test.html suggests that something like 540km/h should be more like it.

WWSensei
03-19-2006, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by xTHRUDx:
his fuel data seems odd.

why not give all planes 25% fuel and post the "minutes till dry" this would be much more usefull

Because the fuel tanks on all aircraft are not equal. 25% fuel of a P-51 would almost exceed 100% of a 109s fuel capacity...hence the "minutes till dry" would end up nearly as useless...

JtD
03-19-2006, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by bazzaah2:

Surprised though to see that the Dora has such good sea level speed. seems way too fast, the flight test here http://www.spitfireperformance.com/fw190/fw190d9test.html suggests that something like 540km/h should be more like it.

There were D-9 that went as fast as the one in game, just a question of boost settings. I am no Dora expert, but I know that 614 is not too fast.

zugfuhrer
03-19-2006, 02:32 PM
Nice work JtD.
Energy energy retention gives another picture if you put the engine to idle and maintain the altitude.
The spit brakes whery effective, and the FW maintain its speed much better.
Ive done the test on the patch before this and checked it one some a/c:s but no big difference.

Have you any idea how good the UBI-soft programmers has been in making the aircrafts topspeed and climb-rate correct to the real aircrafts?
The links above are really good.
Are there some other links too?

LEXX_Luthor
03-19-2006, 06:19 PM
Thanks JTD. Interesting reading there.

woofiedog
03-19-2006, 06:51 PM
Interesting data you have compiled here... Excellent work.
Thank's

El Turo
03-20-2006, 08:35 AM
The lack of proper dive acceleratio and zoom climb differentiation between aircraft in this sim is one of the very few continuing problems. Fantastic work, man! I know it had to be mind numbingly dull.

RegRag1977
03-20-2006, 08:41 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gifThanks for your work! Excellent to compare with historical data!!!

Thank you! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

JtD
03-20-2006, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by zugfuhrer:

Have you any idea how good the UBI-soft programmers has been in making the aircrafts topspeed and climb-rate correct to the real aircrafts?

Oleg Maddox, chief programmer, said they try to be within a 5% margin for the most important characteristics. For most aircraft speeds are even more precise.


The links above are really good.
Are there some other links too?

Oh well, there are more good links than you can possbly ever read. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

one of my favorites (http://www.airwar.ru/aww2.html)

It does not contain real good information on aircraft performance, but gives a lot of details for a lot of planes, including pictures, drawing, blueprints, manuals etc.

For performance of Western Allied aircraft, http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spittest.html
this one is probably the best.

And if you are interested in ground attack aircraft, I recommend this read:

http://web.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html (http://web.telia.com/%7Eu18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html)

karost
03-20-2006, 11:44 PM
JtD, that's Excellent work.
Thank's

rnzoli
03-21-2006, 12:12 AM
Soooo valuable, awsome. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Things I didn't know before:
- how big the difference is between radiators open and close
- the dramatic loss of speed under 5 meters (IMO this has to do with introducing ground effect in one of the 4.x patches, or?).

I also found out from one of your other links, what was the 2-engine, low-flying, strafing, bombing aircraft, that was referred as "Focke-Wulf" in a partisan's memoirs. Fw-189C.

Thanks again.

PapaFly
03-21-2006, 07:58 AM
Excellent stuff, thanks!
If you still have some time at hand, could you do some vertical zoomclimb tests at 50% fuel and maximum power setting?

Man, amazing how slow the 190a accelerate, the D9 only has about 200hp surplus and the time to accelerate from 0-200kph: 13secs for the d9, 22 secs for the A8! But the test is good, i know cuz i've done the same acceleration tests for the 190 a year ago, same picture!

I don't see how this is accurately modeled!

JtD
03-21-2006, 02:23 PM
The problem with power on zoomclimbs is to get equal starting conditions for each plane - I need same speed, same alt, full power. I can't spawn like that as the engine needs to rev up, but if I don't start vertically, the slow planes will lose to much speed before I can pull them into the vertical. No point in zooming up at like 450 kph which is about what I can do with a Spit V or a Yak-1.

To cut it short, I still have to think of a good testing procedure. Previous ideas did not work.

Kwiatos
03-21-2006, 03:17 PM
Fw 190 A series acceleration 0-200 km/h is great http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I hope P-11 will be tested soon also http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Aymar_Mauri
03-21-2006, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Fw 190 A series acceleration 0-200 km/h is great http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Doh!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

jds1978
03-21-2006, 04:09 PM
thank you!

PapaFly
03-22-2006, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
The problem with power on zoomclimbs is to get equal starting conditions for each plane - I need same speed, same alt, full power. I can't spawn like that as the engine needs to rev up, but if I don't start vertically, the slow planes will lose to much speed before I can pull them into the vertical. No point in zooming up at like 450 kph which is about what I can do with a Spit V or a Yak-1.

To cut it short, I still have to think of a good testing procedure. Previous ideas did not work.

Try my procedure:
start high enough (3000m) and dive towards terminal dive speed. Make sure to be close to that speed when you reach the deck, then gently zoom up into the vertical and keep it there untill you find yourself tailsliding. then dive to the deck and repeat. you should be able to do this 3 times in a row per flown mission. Make sure to have smoke on.

Then watch the track, and check how much altitude difference there is between the 500kph mark (you won't get planes vertical at 600kph, 500kph is realistic)and the 300kph, and from 500kph to 200kph. don't take into account the alt difference from 200kph to 0, as you're gonna have quite some torque here. also keep an eye on the smoke should be really vertical.

do this 3 times in a row for each plane, then calculate the mean values, and the standard deviation (should be below 5m).

Here the results from my flight tests one year ago:
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c60/PapaFly/PlaneData/Zoomclimb500-300.jpg

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c60/PapaFly/PlaneData/Zoomclimb500-200.jpg

And here's a pic of the used excel-sheet with all the input:
http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c60/PapaFly/PlaneData/Zoomclimbdata.jpg

Would be interesting to see how the 190s and 190s (specially the A8, A9, K4, D9, Ta152) fare in comparison to the spits.

JtD
03-22-2006, 08:53 AM
Good procedure. 500-200 is a bit too low for my taste, but better than nothing.

I actually do not think that much has changed from your testing.

Hawgdog
03-27-2006, 07:30 AM
Anyone do this test (first page link) for the D0-335?
I'll do it if not. A link to what map, how many times for average etc

regards-

ATLAS_DEATH
03-27-2006, 01:57 PM
Guess I'll try the Mustang III a little more..

PapaFly
03-28-2006, 12:03 AM
I did extensive full power vertical zoomclimb tests on the 109k4, late 190s, Ta152, SpitVIII and the 25pounder.
Just need some more time to compile it and plot the graphs.

ImpStarDuece
03-28-2006, 03:09 PM
Bump