PDA

View Full Version : TAS Calculation

02-23-2007, 09:16 PM
I've developed a TAS calculator but I need to know how the game handles temp in general and temp as related to altitude specifically (since TAS is a function of Density Altitude ambient temp factors in). I'm assuming that the game is designed around the standard day with Pressure Altitude at sea level a constant 29.92 in Mg and sea level temp a constant 15C/59F. However temp would change with altitude. In RL this is non-linear so how does the game model this.

If my assumptions about the standard day are incorrect and/or someone knows how the game models temp, I would appreciate it.

CAF96th_Sillyak
02-23-2007, 10:28 PM
Thats a great question, one that I don't have an answer to.

AKA_TAGERT
02-23-2007, 10:31 PM
I've developed a TAS calculator but I need to know how the game handles temp in general and temp as related to altitude specifically (since TAS is a function of Density Altitude ambient temp factors in). I'm assuming that the game is designed around the standard day with Pressure Altitude at sea level a constant 29.92 in Mg and sea level temp a constant 15C/59F. However temp would change with altitude. In RL this is non-linear so how does the game model this.

If my assumptions about the standard day are incorrect and/or someone knows how the game models temp, I would appreciate it. Only one map is said to be close to the STD, that is the Crima map. How close, not sure, Oleg just that it is the closest

StellarRat
02-24-2007, 12:55 AM
It's 2% for every 1000 ft. so your TAS is 2% higher than your IAS for every 1000 ft. of altitude. At 20,000 ft. there is a 40% difference.

Tully__
02-24-2007, 04:52 AM
Crimea map with time of day set to 12:00 is exactly standard conditions, they set it up that way for comparison testing with RL figures. They chose Crimea because it has the climate closest to standard conditions. Other maps and other times of day have different "sea level" temperatures, especially the winter maps.
You can do some map calibrating by comparing the speedbar (red numbers in the bottom left of scree, IAS) to the No Cockpit speed indicator (TAS). Bear in mind that the speedbar rounds down to the nearest interval (10km/h when in metric mode, don't recall if it's 5 or 10 mph/knots) so if it's showing 270km/h then

270km/h <= IAS < 280km/h

Doing this No Cockpit comparison you'll see that in many of the winter maps IAS is greater than TAS at sea level and up to a couple of hundred metres altitude in some cases.

02-24-2007, 06:36 AM
It's 2% for every 1000 ft. so your TAS is 2% higher than your IAS for every 1000 ft. of altitude. At 20,000 ft. there is a 40% difference.

The 2% change only accounts for the density gradient from the decrease in air mass as you move up through the atmosphere and assumes that temp is constant as you increase altitude.

Crimea map with time of day set to 12:00 is exactly standard conditions, they set it up that way for comparison testing with RL figures. They chose Crimea because it has the climate closest to standard conditions. Other maps and other times of day have different "sea level" temperatures, especially the winter maps.

So the map makers set the sea level temp, what about the gradient at altitude from winds aloft, inversions, etc. Are these modeled into the game? Maybe I should post this in Oleg's forum?

AKA_TAGERT
02-24-2007, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by Tully__:
Crimea map with time of day set to 12:00 is exactly standard conditions, they set it up that way for comparison testing with RL figures. They chose Crimea because it has the climate closest to standard conditions. Other maps and other times of day have different "sea level" temperatures, especially the winter maps.
Hey Tully! Up to now I was under the impression that the Crimea map was the CLOSEST to 'std', but reading your post I sounds like your saying it is actully spot on? Is that true?

Originally posted by Tully__:
You can do some map calibrating by comparing the speedbar (red numbers in the bottom left of scree, IAS) to the No Cockpit speed indicator (TAS). Bear in mind that the speedbar rounds down to the nearest interval (10km/h when in metric mode, don't recall if it's 5 or 10 mph/knots) so if it's showing 270km/h then

270km/h <= IAS < 280km/h 10mph I belive

Originally posted by Tully__:
Doing this No Cockpit comparison you'll see that in many of the winter maps IAS is greater than TAS at sea level and up to a couple of hundred metres altitude in some cases.
This is why I asked you the first question above.. In that I see that same error between IAS and TAS at sea level even on the Crima map at high noon! I have never been able to explane that, in that if Crima is truly 'std' than they should be the same! But I have seen a 20mph difference between the two in more than one test.

XyZspineZyX
02-24-2007, 07:31 AM
I've developed a TAS calculator but I need to know how the game handles temp in general and temp as related to altitude specifically (since TAS is a function of Density Altitude ambient temp factors in). I'm assuming that the game is designed around the standard day with Pressure Altitude at sea level a constant 29.92 in Mg and sea level temp a constant 15C/59F. However temp would change with altitude. In RL this is non-linear so how does the game model this.

If my assumptions about the standard day are incorrect and/or someone knows how the game models temp, I would appreciate it.

Sounds to me like you have an idea of what you're doing! I wonder if you should just get a Flight Computer and calculate the ambient temperature at various altitudes? [before anyone asks why or tells me that they didn't have Flight Computers in WWII, a Flight Computer works like a slide rule and weighs about 2 oz]

For quick online reference when people ask, I always use this for a good estimate:

http://www.csgnetwork.com/tasinfocalc.html

WWMaxGunz
02-24-2007, 09:03 AM
I wonder if sensor and positional errors are modeled plane per plane as history.
They are known for some planes but I think not all we have.
In that case we should do IAS to CAS correction before CAS to TAS conversion.
This would be something that gets more error with increasing speed somewhere above
200-240 mph (320-400 kph).

My speedbar shows kph but with an ini change could be showing mph. Round down to
10's of kph is inherently less than round down to mph as 10 kph is about 6 mph.

AKA_TAGERT
02-24-2007, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I wonder if sensor and positional errors are modeled plane per plane as history. They are known for some planes but I think not all we have.
highly unlikely! In that Oleg has never even hinted at that, and it is hard enough to find standard data on these pleans, trying to find the CAS correction for 200 planes would be a big task, and not worth it IMHO in that 99.9% of the users would never notice it! Thus not worth wasting PC cycles on let alone modling time let alone research time.

Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
In that case we should do IAS to CAS correction before CAS to TAS conversion. This would be something that gets more error with increasing speed somewhere above 200-240 mph (320-400 kph).
If, but as noted, highly unlikely for several good reason.

Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
My speedbar shows kph but with an ini change could be showing mph.
the speed bar can be toggled within the game from kph, to knt, to mph. As for an ini change, never heard of that option to set it to one or the other.

Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Round down to 10's of kph is inherently less than round down to mph as 10 kph is about 6 mph.
Problem is the errors I have seen are in the 20mph+ range.

BBB_Hyperion
02-24-2007, 08:22 PM
I've developed a TAS calculator but I need to know how the game handles temp in general and temp as related to altitude specifically (since TAS is a function of Density Altitude ambient temp factors in). I'm assuming that the game is designed around the standard day with Pressure Altitude at sea level a constant 29.92 in Mg and sea level temp a constant 15C/59F. However temp would change with altitude. In RL this is non-linear so how does the game model this.

If my assumptions about the standard day are incorrect and/or someone knows how the game models temp, I would appreciate it.

You can use as small workaround the he111 outside temperature gauge to get temperature data not very exact reading from dial but better than nothing. From there you can use temperature distribution in the atmosphere. Over temp you can get sea level pressure or pressure at alt .

StellarRat
02-24-2007, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by RamonaDave:The 2% change only accounts for the density gradient from the decrease in air mass as you move up through the atmosphere and assumes that temp is constant as you increase altitude It works fine for setting the bombsight. Or are you after something else?

WWMaxGunz
02-24-2007, 11:00 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 WWMaxGunz:
I wonder if sensor and positional errors are modeled plane per plane as history. They are known for some planes but I think not all we have.
highly unlikely! In that Oleg has never even hinted at that, and it is hard enough to find standard data on these pleans, trying to find the CAS correction for 200 planes would be a big task, and not worth it IMHO in that 99.9% of the users would never notice it! Thus not worth wasting PC cycles on let alone modling time let alone research time.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right. Oleg tells us all the changes doesn't he? We've never been surprised, have we? LOL!
Those guys have only notified the board how many times after the whining gets so far?

Modeling time? For a lookup table?? Are you talking about cycles?

Research time? Oh no, this project hasn't ever been about trying to model the real things
has it? Especially not something quick and easy to implement! Ohhh, wait, it has.

I'm just pointing out that such a thing can account for a lot of user-detected 'anomalies'
and could be much reason for dismissal of those. 99.9% of users not getting some points
about this series has never been a design consideration that I have seen in the last 6 years
anyway. If that was the case then CEM would never have been included since a minority of
players have more than a half fast clue about it anyway!

It's an easy thing to do and not hard to model missing data and check against a few real
sources. It does not need to load down the FM at all. And it could well be one of the MANY
details that no, we don't get told directly about but does provide comic relief at 1C.
I don't say that's the way it is but this 'highly unlikely' business is someones "FEELING"
and we all know what kind of reception that gets especially from one of our forum members.

02-24-2007, 11:19 PM
StellarRat,

I was actually doing this for the bomb site so if that's all I need, great!

AKA_TAGERT
02-24-2007, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Right.
Yes I am

Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Oleg tells us all the changes doesn't he?
My point has nothing to do with change too bad you missed it.

Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
We've never been surprised, have we? LOL! Those guys have only notified the board how many times after the whining gets so far?
We? I am sure you have been many times, but we? Hardly!

Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Modeling time? For a lookup table?? Are you talking about cycles?
Both, which is why I mentioned both. The point you missed the first time is that it is highly unlikely they would simulate (modle) this in that 99.9% of the people would not even notice it! So why waste CPU cycles, even one, on something that no one will notice? SAVVY?

Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Research time? Oh no, this project hasn't ever been about trying to model the real things has it? Especially not something quick and easy to implement! Ohhh, wait, it has.
Yes research time! In that simulating flight is easy relative to finding the data to put into the simulator! The common stuff is hard to come by, let alone the obscure stuff like CAS correction tables!

Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I'm just pointing out that such a thing can account for a lot of user-detected 'anomalies' and could be much reason for dismissal of those.
Not in this case

Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
99.9% of users not getting some points about this series has never been a design consideration that I have seen in the last 6 years anyway.
Probably because it requires a little common since to understand why it would not be worth simulating.

Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
If that was the case then CEM would never have been included since a minority of players have more than a half fast clue about it anyway!
Apples and Oranges

Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
It's an easy thing to do and not hard to model missing data and check against a few real sources.
Disagree 100% wrt the data part, as for easy, never said it was hard, just not worth doing. Two very different concepts your getting confused about.

Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
It does not need to load down the FM at all.
Clearly you have no concept of how little things can add up. As for loading down the FM, never said it would load it down, I simply said it would not be worth doing IMHO.

Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
And it could well be one of the MANY details that no, we don't get told directly about but does provide comic relief at 1C.
Maybe.. maybe not!

Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I don't say that's the way it is but this 'highly unlikely' business is someones "FEELING" and we all know what kind of reception that gets especially from one of our forum members.
So what part of me saying IMHO did you not understand? You do understand that an opinion is a 'FEELING' that someone has and that saying highly unlikely in and of itself is clearly an opinion. After which I stated my reasons for why I 'FEEL' it is not worth doing. You do realise this don't you? Please tell me that you do, and that you were just trying to be funny with this last statment. If so, gold star for effort! But don't quit you day job! If you have one!

WWMaxGunz
02-25-2007, 07:59 AM
I can savvy that Tagert can't admit even small mistakes.
If he doesn't notice it then it must not have happened.
What a freaking little god complex.
"IMHO" indeed, when the H stands for humble......

No, I don't think that it is highly unlikely that the guages work somewhat as real.
I think that it is likely in fact only depending on whether or not they coded it so
and kept the code in.

Let's see how long a reply this gets. Perhaps every word can have it's own spin next time.

AKA_TAGERT
02-25-2007, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I can savvy that Tagert can't admit even small mistakes.
Mistakes? Maxg I challenge you to quote ONE thing in this thread that I said that is a mistake! You never will! You will just do as you are doing now and avoid the topic at hand by trying to start some illogical tangent topic! The FACT of the mater is your upset with me for pointing out your mistake of saying the P38 BOOSTED (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/5671045135/p/25) ailerons only improved the roll rate at high speeds.

Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
If he doesn't notice it then it must not have happened. What a freaking little god complex. "IMHO" indeed, when the H stands for humble......
Your describing yourself Maxg! As for noticing 'it'! You are under the FALSE impression that this IAS vs. TAS error at sea level is something new! It is NOT! It has been around since 4.0! So, now who is upset about not noticing something and not man enough to admit a mistake? But you keep trotting out that Oleg changes stuff without telling us line each time your proven wrong! Clearly you like hiding behind that catch all skirt!

Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
No, I don't think that it is highly unlikely that the gauges work somewhat as real.
Even though Oleg himself has stated that gauges are not perfect and that he only goes by the Wonder Woman view display numbers.

Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I think that it is likely in fact only depending on whether or not they coded it so and kept the code in.
And you have every right to 'FEEL' that way Maxg! But just 'FEELING' that way does not make it so! The only difference between my 'FEELING' and your 'FEELING' is I provided 'REASONS' to support my theory that it is not worth doing, where as you did not.

Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Let's see how long a reply this gets. Perhaps every word can have it's own spin next time.
Well I can see your still upset from the spanking I gave you in the P38 thread, so lets just agree to disagree on this one! If you 'FEEL' Oleg has the time and money to go out and find CAS correction tables for all 200 planes in game, code them up, and devote CPU cycles on them for something that 99% of the people will never notice, be my guest! All I am saying it I find THAT highly unlikely! Not impossible! Just highly unlikely! In that there are so many other things that the time and money could be spent on that would be noticed. That is the economics reality of the real world! It is all about the biggest bang for the buck! But I guess it takes someone with a real job to consider those types of things?

WWMaxGunz
02-25-2007, 09:20 PM
I made one suggestion that the IAS guages may model historic pitot and guage error in a sim
where historic modeling has held a premium spot from the start and look at the cr@p I get!

Fine, I'm sick of this idiot anyway.

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 WWMaxGunz:
If he doesn't notice it then it must not have happened. What a freaking little god complex. "IMHO" indeed, when the H stands for humble......
Your describing yourself Maxg! As for noticing 'it'! You are under the FALSE impression that this IAS vs. TAS error at sea level is something new! It is NOT! It has been around since 4.0!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Long before then people had posted about that. It was one of those "never-fixed" items.

So, now who is upset about not noticing something and not man enough to admit a mistake? But you keep trotting out that Oleg changes stuff without telling us line each time your proven wrong! Clearly you like hiding behind that catch all skirt!

I what? I'm upset? I keep trotting out what when? Well, in your private world where every
thing gets its own special interpretation then, as in your dreams, maybe.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
No, I don't think that it is highly unlikely that the gauges work somewhat as real.

Even though Oleg himself has stated that gauges are not perfect and that he only goes by the Wonder Woman view display numbers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. The guages are not perfect. And you make that into?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I think that it is likely in fact only depending on whether or not they coded it so and kept the code in.
And you have every right to 'FEEL' that way Maxg! But just 'FEELING' that way does not make it so! The only difference between my 'FEELING' and your 'FEELING' is I provided 'REASONS' to support my theory that it is not worth doing, where as you did not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, your selective interpretation shows if you think I provided no 'REASONS'.
Oh yeah, SAVVY?

Well I can see your still upset from the spanking I gave you in the P38 thread,

You mean just another time when I've gotten tired of your horse apple attitude and quit?
Spanking? In your mind, maybe. I guess it explains so much about your posts that you imagine
you are 'spanking' other guys. I've noticed your 'excitement' before and as then it seems to
me that you must type one-handed when replying to posts with so much vigor and so little actual
attention to what the other is writing. You SURE AS H do not try to get anyone else's point
in your lust-rush to put every little thing written, even to single words, down and into some

so lets just agree to disagree on this one!

Oooooh! Can we! Can we! Oh, you show such MERCY oh great and powerful one!

If you 'FEEL' Oleg has the time and money to go out and find CAS correction tables for all 200 planes in game, code them up, and devote CPU cycles on them for something that 99% of the people will never notice, be my guest![QUOTE]

So now he has to go out and find for every plane or even the majority, what the correction was
when oh damn, whole parts of the FM and DM's have been generated.
And as for CPU cycles... very damn few and not incredibly often, go ask a real programmer.
And lastly, as I stated above, if what gamers notice mattered so much then we would have far
less FM than we do currently.

[QUOTE]All I am saying it I find THAT highly unlikely! Not impossible! Just highly unlikely! In that there are so many other things that the time and money could be spent on that would be noticed. That is the economics reality of the real world! It is all about the biggest bang for the buck! But I guess it takes someone with a real job to consider those types of things?

And ALL I was saying is that it is POSSIBLE and SOMEWHAT LIKELY that pitot and guage error
as an element of reality is and has been modeled. Nothing more.

As for your 'economics reality of the real world', are you so sure something like that would
take such huge effort? I'm sure it would not just as I know that a lookup table would not
present more than negligible CPU and resource load.

I wrote code for many people for 19 years after working for years in metal and plastics fabrication.
I've "done the impossible" in over half those jobs and exceeded what people with more experience
and formal education on their resumes could do. They hit conceptual limits that I got past.

So stuff your punk-a REAL JOB innuendos you insecure clown.

StellarRat
02-25-2007, 09:35 PM
StellarRat,

I was actually doing this for the bomb site so if that's all I need, great! You also need to convert mph to knots if you're using the American planes. If you punch in the speed as mph you'll miss everytime. Reduce your TAS (in mph) by about 15% to come up with knots/hour. And make sure to subtract the terrain height from the altitude you put in too. Height in the bombsight is the height above the target not the height indicated by your altimeter. So if you're flying at 20,000 ft and your target is on a mountain at 3000 ft you'd put 17000 in the sight.

AKA_TAGERT
02-26-2007, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I made one suggestion that the IAS guages may model historic pitot and guage error in a sim
where historic modeling has held a premium spot from the start and look at the cr@p I get!

Fine, I'm sick of this idiot anyway.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
If he doesn't notice it then it must not have happened. What a freaking little god complex. "IMHO" indeed, when the H stands for humble......
Your describing yourself Maxg! As for noticing 'it'! You are under the FALSE impression that this IAS vs. TAS error at sea level is something new! It is NOT! It has been around since 4.0!
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Long before then people had posted about that. It was one of those "never-fixed" items.

So, now who is upset about not noticing something and not man enough to admit a mistake? But you keep trotting out that Oleg changes stuff without telling us line each time your proven wrong! Clearly you like hiding behind that catch all skirt!

I what? I'm upset? I keep trotting out what when? Well, in your private world where every
thing gets its own special interpretation then, as in your dreams, maybe.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
No, I don't think that it is highly unlikely that the gauges work somewhat as real.

Even though Oleg himself has stated that gauges are not perfect and that he only goes by the Wonder Woman view display numbers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. The guages are not perfect. And you make that into?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I think that it is likely in fact only depending on whether or not they coded it so and kept the code in.
And you have every right to 'FEEL' that way Maxg! But just 'FEELING' that way does not make it so! The only difference between my 'FEELING' and your 'FEELING' is I provided 'REASONS' to support my theory that it is not worth doing, where as you did not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, your selective interpretation shows if you think I provided no 'REASONS'.
Oh yeah, SAVVY?

Well I can see your still upset from the spanking I gave you in the P38 thread,

You mean just another time when I've gotten tired of your horse apple attitude and quit?
Spanking? In your mind, maybe. I guess it explains so much about your posts that you imagine
you are 'spanking' other guys. I've noticed your 'excitement' before and as then it seems to
me that you must type one-handed when replying to posts with so much vigor and so little actual
attention to what the other is writing. You SURE AS H do not try to get anyone else's point
in your lust-rush to put every little thing written, even to single words, down and into some

so lets just agree to disagree on this one!

Oooooh! Can we! Can we! Oh, you show such MERCY oh great and powerful one!

If you 'FEEL' Oleg has the time and money to go out and find CAS correction tables for all 200 planes in game, code them up, and devote CPU cycles on them for something that 99% of the people will never notice, be my guest!<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

So now he has to go out and find for every plane or even the majority, what the correction was
when oh damn, whole parts of the FM and DM's have been generated.
And as for CPU cycles... very damn few and not incredibly often, go ask a real programmer.
And lastly, as I stated above, if what gamers notice mattered so much then we would have far
less FM than we do currently.

[QUOTE]All I am saying it I find THAT highly unlikely! Not impossible! Just highly unlikely! In that there are so many other things that the time and money could be spent on that would be noticed. That is the economics reality of the real world! It is all about the biggest bang for the buck! But I guess it takes someone with a real job to consider those types of things?

And ALL I was saying is that it is POSSIBLE and SOMEWHAT LIKELY that pitot and guage error
as an element of reality is and has been modeled. Nothing more.

As for your 'economics reality of the real world', are you so sure something like that would
take such huge effort? I'm sure it would not just as I know that a lookup table would not
present more than negligible CPU and resource load.

I wrote code for many people for 19 years after working for years in metal and plastics fabrication.
I've "done the impossible" in over half those jobs and exceeded what people with more experience
and formal education on their resumes could do. They hit conceptual limits that I got past.

So stuff your punk-a REAL JOB innuendos you insecure clown. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Just as I predicted!

You accused me of making a mistake, I called you on it, you avoid it and go off on some poor me rant!

That may work on the new comers around here Maxg but not me!

Again, nice try, gold star for effort but no sale!

WWSpinDry
02-26-2007, 07:32 AM
Could you ladies please take it to private messages? This started out as an interesting thread. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

02-26-2007, 09:44 AM
Absolutely!

Touchy, or what...? Lol

I'm interested in StellarRat's comment re. US aircraft and the kts/mph issue. Could someone explain this further - you get better results by reading the values off in kts and converting those than by using mph??? Is that right?

Yours,

AKA_TAGERT
02-26-2007, 10:07 AM
Absolutely!

Touchy, or what...? Lol

I'm interested in StellarRat's comment re. US aircraft and the kts/mph issue. Could someone explain this further - you get better results by reading the values off in kts and converting those than by using mph??? Is that right?
I think there is some confusion here, so instead of assuming what it is your referring to allow me to tell you want I know to be the case.

There are 4 ways to 'read' the 'speed'
1) cockpit gauges
2) mini display
3) wonder woman cockpit display

As for #1 the units are what ever the real cockpits had, and Oleg has stated that the needles readings on those are not that accurate. (read fudged)

As for #2 the units can be toggled between kph, KPH, and mph. All three are rounded off to the nearest tenths. Oleg has stated that this display is not that accurate. (read fudged)

As for #3 the units are in kph and Oleg claims this is the only speed gauge he guarantees to be accurate.

As for #4 the units are in kph, and Oleg has stated that the values are not that accurate. (read fudged)

The 'issue' is that at sea level IAS should be equal to TAS under 'std' conditions. The Crima map is suppose to be 'std' conditions. Now at 100ft or less the error between IAS an TAS should be +/-1mph at best, but as it turns out there is a 20mph error between the two even with the round off error taken into consideration.

As I said, that is what I understand to be the case! Hope this answers your question

WWMaxGunz
02-26-2007, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
You accused me of making a mistake, I called you on it, you avoid it and go off on some poor me rant!

You really do live in a twisted, self-centered world.
I feel sorry for you but even sorrier for those that have to deal with you in person.

WWMaxGunz
02-26-2007, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by WWSpinDry:
Could you ladies please take it to private messages? This started out as an interesting thread. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

And I thought that I raised an interesting and *possible* point.
I'd rather not see it lost over one member's "territory".

AKA_TAGERT
02-26-2007, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
You really do live in a twisted, self-centered world.
I feel sorry for you but even sorrier for those that have to deal with you in person. Just as I predicted!

You accused me of making a mistake, I called you on it, you avoid it and go off on some personal attack rant!

That may work on the new comers around here Maxg but not me!

Again, nice try, gold star for effort but no sale!

AVGWarhawk
02-26-2007, 12:17 PM
@WW

Don't feed the animals! It only makes them more aggressive and want for more. Most of them look for a slip up so they can eat you alive. We don't know if it is hereditary or not but the animals seem to find great satisfaction in drilling people. This usually resulting in a useless thread not much unlike we have here. Seems to be a recurring theme for some of the animals.

Thank you,
The Zoo Management.

AKA_TAGERT
02-26-2007, 12:39 PM
Poor Nancy

AVGWarhawk
02-26-2007, 12:43 PM
See what I mean?

WWMaxGunz
02-26-2007, 12:43 PM
Sorry AVG. I cease and desist. I see that I only taunt a dumb animal anyway. My bad.

AKA_TAGERT
02-26-2007, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Sorry AVG. I cease and desist. I see that I only taunt a dumb animal anyway. My bad. Just as I predicted!

You accused me of making a mistake, I called you on it, you avoid it and go off on some personal attack rant!

That may work on the new comers around here Maxg but not me!

Again, nice try, gold star for effort but no sale!

AKA_TAGERT
02-26-2007, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
See what I mean? Here is a classic case of someone that can dish it out, but not able to take it.

AVGWarhawk
02-26-2007, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Sorry AVG. I cease and desist. I see that I only taunt a dumb animal anyway. My bad.

Yes, dumb animals for some reason need to exude dominance because of the lack of something in their kingdom. Usually it is a set of balls to dominate their physical world so these animals chose to use the virtual world to exude dominance over the land.

Have a nice day!

AVGWarhawk
02-26-2007, 12:49 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 AVGWarhawk:
See what I mean? Here is a classic case of someone that can dish it out, but not able to take it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Case and point! Touche'

AKA_TAGERT
02-26-2007, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Sorry AVG. I cease and desist. I see that I only taunt a dumb animal anyway. My bad.

Yes, dumb animals for some reason need to exude dominance because of the lack of something in their kingdom. Usually it is a set of balls to dominate their physical world so these animals chose to use the virtual world to exude dominance over the land.

Have a nice day! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So let me see if I understand you and Maxg's logic correctly..

It is ok to accuse someone of being wrong..
But it is not ok to call them on it and ask them to quote the so called wrong statement?
Nor is it ok to call them on it each time they avoid quoting it?

And it is ok to attack someone and refer to them as dumb animals..
But not ok for the attacked person to respond in kind?

Huh! What color is the sky in you and Maxgs world? In that kind of logic does not fly here in the real world!

The FACT is Maxg said I was wrong, at which point I asked him to quote what I said that he felt was wrong.

He never did!

Why?

Because he never could!

Why?

Because I was not wrong!

Why?

In the hopes of dragging me into one of his troll trap arguments to take the focus off the fact that it is he who is wrong.

An old troll tatic that might work on the new guys around here, but I know Maxg too well to fall for that old trick! The fact is he can not admit he is wrong because his fragile ego would be crushed.

It really is that simple!

SAVVY?

AVGWarhawk
02-26-2007, 01:07 PM
No SAVVY.......sorry dude. I have rose color glasses. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-26-2007, 01:08 PM
bet

StellarRat
02-26-2007, 01:22 PM

WWSpinDry
02-26-2007, 01:47 PM
http://www.spinland.biz/images/hijacked.jpg

WWMaxGunz
02-26-2007, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
The FACT is Maxg said I was wrong, at which point I asked him to quote what I said that he felt was wrong.

He never did!

Your spelling has improved but you still need to either learn to read better.
It is that or maybe you have subconscious that filters out what you don't want.

I made a statement about possible guage modeling to which I get a reply in completely un-humble
terms (yet included a tiny self-contradictory IMHO, what a laugh!) about how highly unlikely
my surmise was along with a number of poor excuses labeled as reasons and the usual extra snot.

To that I did provide counters based on experience in computing and with this series which I
see as written off as "never did". And I returned the snot. But apparently only Tagert
Approved (TM) "reasons" count and nothing else exists.

From there it has predictably gone downhill..... did anyone get a track?

AVGWarhawk
02-26-2007, 02:02 PM
@WWSpindry

That pic is hilarious!!! Sorry for the hijacking.

AKA_TAGERT
02-26-2007, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
The FACT is Maxg said I was wrong, at which point I asked him to quote what I said that he felt was wrong.

He never did!

Your spelling has improved but you still need to either learn to read better.
It is that or maybe you have subconscious that filters out what you don't want.

I made a statement about possible guage modeling to which I get a reply in completely un-humble
terms (yet included a tiny self-contradictory IMHO, what a laugh!) about how highly unlikely
my surmise was along with a number of poor excuses labeled as reasons and the usual extra snot.

To that I did provide counters based on experience in computing and with this series which I
see as written off as "never did". And I returned the snot. But apparently only Tagert
Approved (TM) "reasons" count and nothing else exists.

From there it has predictably gone downhill..... did anyone get a track? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Just as I predicted!

You accused me of making a mistake, I called you on it, you avoid it and go off on some weak, I did not see the IMHO excuse rant!

That may work on the new comers around here Maxg but not me!

Again, nice try, gold star for effort but no sale!

02-26-2007, 04:38 PM
AKA_Target and WWMaxGunz for the mature and inciteful banter. Does anyone have any useful information about temperature modeling in game?

AKA_TAGERT
02-26-2007, 05:55 PM
AKA_Target and WWMaxGunz for the mature and inciteful banter.
Again, sorry for all that!

Does anyone have any useful information about temperature modeling in game? No sorry, bad news is DeviceLink does not provide temp. Your best bet is doing what BBB_Hyperion sugested.. Problem is that temp guage is pretty low res! So data colected from it will have a good amount of error. Here is a chart I did a few years ago

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/P38/WR_GCS00001/TBL03.jpg

hope it helps

PS I thought there was another plane, a new one, other than the 111 that had a temp guage?

WWMaxGunz
02-27-2007, 01:20 AM
Standard atmosphere is defined as at 15C.

For those that have to have a reference. (http://http:/www.ae.su.oz.au/aero/atmos/atmos.html)

24C is 75.2F ... a nice warm summer day in Crimea!

Matz0r
02-27-2007, 02:32 AM
Regarding the TAS calculator, here's a wish; I've always wanted a TAS calculator that uses the OpenGL overlay method, ie blends into the opengl display like Teamspeak Overlay (http://www.teamspeakoverlay.com/) does it. I've wanted to write something like this for a while, but haven't mustered the time and TBH my windows programming skills are very thin.

BBB_Hyperion
02-27-2007, 04:26 AM
Displaying it is not problem but devicelink is . It works only offline.

Matz0r
02-27-2007, 06:34 AM
An automatic TAS calculator would be kind of gamey, what I meant was a bombsight calculator with angles and tas using manual input, like the one that already exists only using overlay display instead. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

02-27-2007, 08:25 AM
That would be sweet!

02-27-2007, 08:55 AM
~S~

The calculation I use in the mini-Excel spreadsheet on my PDA is as follows:

=((B2/1000)*(C2*0.02))+C2

Where B2 = altitude & C2 = IAS

It's the basic rule of thumb (TAS = IAS + 2% for every 1000 ft above sea level) translated into (inelegant) Excel-speak, but it seems to work with reasonable accuracy (the problem I have is spotting and getting a good line on the bleedin' targets in the first place... :roll:

02-27-2007, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

... Here is a chart I did a few years ago

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/P38/WR_GCS00001/TBL03.jpg

hope it helps...
This is somewhat helpful. There is definately linear trend. If you enterperlate the data you get a temp loss of approx 1 Deg C for each 100 meters in altitude! Now if we know the ambient air temp at ground level we can deduce the ambient temp at alt (if we aren't in the 111).

http://www.dialdelta.com/file_transfer/Temp_Alt.pdf

WWSpinDry
02-27-2007, 09:11 AM
There's a spreadsheet I downloaded some while back, by "Colonal Sanders Lite," that uses different calculations. I don't know anything about these; could someone savvy comment on them?

For units in feet/MPH (b16 is alt, c16 IAS):

=(C16*(B16/50000+1))

For units in meters/KPH (b20 alt, c20 IAS):

=((C20)*((B20*3.2808399)/50000+1))

The 3.28etc is clearly just a units scalar, it's the rest of the equation that's interesting to me.

AKA_TAGERT
02-27-2007, 09:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

... Here is a chart I did a few years ago

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/P38/WR_GCS00001/TBL03.jpg

hope it helps...

There is definately linear trend. If you enterperlate the data you get a temp loss of approx 1 Deg C for each 100 meters in altitude!
Agreed, here is the linear fit I got from those previously ploted data points

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TESTING/P38/WR_GCS00001/FIG04.jpg

So from that the temp at sea level (x=0) is 24.172?C, which is hoter than a 'std', which makes me doubt Tully's claim that the Crima is 100% std! Only thing I have ever seen Oleg claim is that the Crima map is the 'closets' to 'std'. So the Crima map may be the closest in-game map to 'std' but based on these temps it sure does not seem to be exactly 'std'. If that is the temp.. that may explain why IAS does NOT equal TAS at sea level.. like it should under 'std' conditions.

Or..

The temp gauge in the He111, like so many other gauges, is just 'fudge' and not based off anything really. To test that we should test the He111 temp gauge on a winter map and see if it displays anything different. If it does, than it might be based off of something 'temp', or it is the same linear equation with a different starting point (ie same slope, different 24.172). If all it is used for is to drive that guage, than I would not be suprised! But if this is used in the FM calculaions in anyway.. it could be bad? And may also explane why the IAS does NOT match TAS at sea level on the Crima map (aka bug)

Now if we know the ambient air temp at ground level we can deduce the ambient temp at alt (if we aren't in the 111).
Well.. Oleg claims that Crima map is the closets to 'std' conditions.. So couldn't you just assume the 'ambient air temp' is 'std'? I mean try it and see if your results are what you expect, or see if they are off by the same amount that thit sea level temp seems to be off of the 'std' temp.

Neat thing is if you get this to work.. we might be able to do testing on other maps.. Not sure what good that would be, but it might be? Assuming you have some real world data that is NOT collected under 'std' conditions and you can find an ingame map that matches your data better. Just a brain storming thought.. nothing more.

But.. all this temp stuff might be overkill? In that the IAS->TAS rule-of-thumb equation maybe all you need?

On that note, what was your goal again? My 'guess' is you want to come up with a TAS display for.. what? Bombing? If so, that rule-of-thumb equation should be good enough for any of the maps IMHO. But maybe your goal is something different?

AKA_TAGERT
02-28-2007, 07:53 AM
PS what IAS to TAS calculation are you using that is TEMP depended? I have found a few examples, but was wondering what equation your using?

02-28-2007, 08:54 AM
IAS is a function of air density or "density altitude". IAS is a measure of the velocity pressure on a pitot static tube less the static pressure. Both of these measurements are affected by atltitude, humidity and temperature of the air mass. The warmer the air mass the less dense it is and the lower the IAS will read.

Metric: TAS = IAS*(1+.0184*KM)+(C-15)*1.8

Standard (Knots): TAS=IAS*(1+.0206*KFeet)+(F-59)

Look at it this way. If you are in an aircraft traveling at 100 Knots ground speed at sea level with air pressure at 29.92" Mg and the ambient temp 59 Deg F then GS = TAS = IAS.

However if you increase the temp but leave all the other variables the same then GS = TAS but your IAS < TAS because the air mass will be less dense.

That is why, in RL pilots taking off from high altitude runways, on warm days, have to look closly at take off distance, abort distance, etc because it is possible to not have enough runway if the air temp and altitude are too high.

AKA_TAGERT
02-28-2007, 08:55 AM
IAS is a function of air density or "density altitude". IAS is a measure of the velocity pressure on a pitot static tube less the static pressure. Both of these measurements are affected by atltitude, humidity and temperature of the air mass. The warmer the air mass the less dense it is and the lower the IAS will read.

Look at it this way. If you are in an aircraft traveling at 100 Knots ground speed at sea level with air pressure at 29.92" Mg and the ambient temp 59 Deg F then GS = TAS = IAS.

However if you increase the temp but leave all the other variables the same then GS = TAS but your IAS < TAS because the air mass will be less dense.

That is why, in RL pilots taking off from high altitude runways, on warm days, have to look closly at take off distance, abort distance, etc because it is possible to not have enough runway if the air temp and altitude are too high. I understand all that, my question was what equation are you using that has temp as one of the variables. I have seen a few, some more complex than others, I was just wondering which one your using.

02-28-2007, 08:59 AM
Tagert,

You are too quick, I realized I didn't answer your question and edited my post but by the time I put the formulas up you had replied.

Any way look at my last response to see the formulas and I didn't mean to sound condescending

AKA_TAGERT
02-28-2007, 09:00 AM