PDA

View Full Version : Dive acceleration... simplicistic tests.



Manu-6S
08-16-2009, 05:21 AM
Hi friends,

I know that there has always been a strange behaviour regard dive acceleration (above all US navy aircraft vs Zeke and 109 vs Spitfire).

Infact I always though that the IL2's relationship between altitude loss and speed gain was a little weird.

So I tried to do a REALLY SEMPLICISTIC test comparing IL2 and RoF.

I repeat, the tools I have are not enough to do a real test, but I post this only to inform you.

109G6 AutoPP, Rad Open
190A4 100%PP, Rad Open
SpadXIII Rad Open, OK Mixture

20 to 30 dive

Alt G6 A4 Spad
1300 263 265 262
1290 270 274 278
1280 275 282 285
1270 282 290 293
1260 290 299 301
1250 297 305 309
1240 303 313 317
1230 310 320 327
1220 315 327 338
1210 321 333 346
1200 327 340 354

I FEEL that RoF is more sensitive to weight and power of the planes.
That could be because the low speed acceleration for the "beasts" is not enought, but I tested even at 500Km/h.. the FW seems to gain only 20Km/h in 100m.

I repeat for another time.. I've not the tools (in reality I've but I'm no used to work with them) and instead in RoF is really difficult to track the data (I made 6 test comparing the speed and taking the averages)


If this test are quite correct.. don't you think that the WW2 warbird sould outdive very easily a WWI fighter (ironic). Infact IL2 seems that it can't simulate the legendary dive accelerations of Tempest, FW190, F6F.
I think it's a limitation of the engine.

Instead in RoF, when you point you nose down you really feel the acceleration (and the decelleration if you start to climb).

Manu-6S
08-16-2009, 05:21 AM
Hi friends,

I know that there has always been a strange behaviour regard dive acceleration (above all US navy aircraft vs Zeke and 109 vs Spitfire).

Infact I always though that the IL2's relationship between altitude loss and speed gain was a little weird.

So I tried to do a REALLY SEMPLICISTIC test comparing IL2 and RoF.

I repeat, the tools I have are not enough to do a real test, but I post this only to inform you.

109G6 AutoPP, Rad Open
190A4 100%PP, Rad Open
SpadXIII Rad Open, OK Mixture

20 to 30 dive

Alt G6 A4 Spad
1300 263 265 262
1290 270 274 278
1280 275 282 285
1270 282 290 293
1260 290 299 301
1250 297 305 309
1240 303 313 317
1230 310 320 327
1220 315 327 338
1210 321 333 346
1200 327 340 354

I FEEL that RoF is more sensitive to weight and power of the planes.
That could be because the low speed acceleration for the "beasts" is not enought, but I tested even at 500Km/h.. the FW seems to gain only 20Km/h in 100m.

I repeat for another time.. I've not the tools (in reality I've but I'm no used to work with them) and instead in RoF is really difficult to track the data (I made 6 test comparing the speed and taking the averages)


If this test are quite correct.. don't you think that the WW2 warbird sould outdive very easily a WWI fighter (ironic). Infact IL2 seems that it can't simulate the legendary dive accelerations of Tempest, FW190, F6F.
I think it's a limitation of the engine.

Instead in RoF, when you point you nose down you really feel the acceleration (and the decelleration if you start to climb).

BillSwagger
08-16-2009, 06:28 AM
Its pretty hard to compare two different engines from two games, but another way to look at it is one games interpretation vs another. I don't think dive acceleration is accurately modeled either, but the few tests i've done actually match historical flight tests. Still, I've chased Zeros from 3000m+ almost straight down and i wasn't able to gain on him in a P-47. We had similar start speeds of about 450kph, and id even say i was going a little faster since i was closing in when he nosed over.

I've tried flying the Razorback from A2A Accusim. I'm only able to compare the P-47D-22, but overall the flight engine doesn't seem too different from Il2. Somehow i get the feeling its a heavier plane from A2A. I can put the 47 in a shallow dive at 10 degrees and it speeds up over 400mph IAS in much less time than in Il2, and much less altitude loss.
Steep dives over 45 degrees are on par with what Il2 has modeled.
The zoom climb is a little better, though.
I can start a shallow dive from 25k down to 20k and zoom climb up to 30,000ft and still hold about 200IAS. Il2 puts me under 28k holding about 160IAS.
The only remarkable difference is the dive acceleration in shallow dives, and how well the plane holds its speed in level flight afterward. The plane also gets up to top speeds much more effectively.

So i think the dive acceleration in Il2 is off somewhere in that it doesn't account for the weight to drag at higher speeds (500kph+), where having more weight even in a shallow dive can be very advantageous for speed.