PDA

View Full Version : Petition to Oleg for dive/zoom differences!



lbhskier37
08-14-2004, 05:05 PM
Now I am sick to death of being called a luftwhiner when I get pissed because a spit with equal or less energy caught me in a zoom climb and killed me. The problem is not specific to german planes at all. Have any of you tried to fight a Yak in a P47? Good luck! How about when PF comes out and the only advantage the Wildcat had over the Zero doesn't exist in this game because all planes dive and zoom the same. Everyone keep bumping this if you want to see this issue fixed. Or at least tell us that its not possible to do in the current engine. I for one would pay $50 for a game add-on that included only a fix for this. Oleg PLEASE fix this! This is the single biggest problem with this game. When PF comes out I its going to be hell in this forum because all the american pilots are going to find out they cant use thier biggest advantage.(kinda like all us FW whiners now) American planes will all be relegated to hit and run tactics like the FWs are now. PLEASE Oleg PLEASE address this in PF, it would make you sim perfect!

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

lbhskier37
08-14-2004, 05:05 PM
Now I am sick to death of being called a luftwhiner when I get pissed because a spit with equal or less energy caught me in a zoom climb and killed me. The problem is not specific to german planes at all. Have any of you tried to fight a Yak in a P47? Good luck! How about when PF comes out and the only advantage the Wildcat had over the Zero doesn't exist in this game because all planes dive and zoom the same. Everyone keep bumping this if you want to see this issue fixed. Or at least tell us that its not possible to do in the current engine. I for one would pay $50 for a game add-on that included only a fix for this. Oleg PLEASE fix this! This is the single biggest problem with this game. When PF comes out I its going to be hell in this forum because all the american pilots are going to find out they cant use thier biggest advantage.(kinda like all us FW whiners now) American planes will all be relegated to hit and run tactics like the FWs are now. PLEASE Oleg PLEASE address this in PF, it would make you sim perfect!

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

VW-IceFire
08-14-2004, 05:15 PM
I agree with the overall sentiment. There isn't much of a gain that you can generate by diving away from an opponent or using superior dive speed as an overall offensive manuver. Its just not as present. Evidently, the 2.04 patch introduced some variation but not a whole lot and probably thats about as much as Oleg can give to us out of the current engine.

Keep in mind, the engine was designed to simulate the IL-2 ONLY. Everything else is icing on the cake...so its not as "perfect" as it could be.

The argument is overall a sound one. However, can we stop with this petition stuff? Petition has a very negative conotation and its thrown around so much that it sounds like another tired old attempt to coerce someone into doing something. Lets be more positive and proactive...some memebers of the community have done tests. Submit data to the test e-mail address (il2beta@1c.ru) with as much detail as possible. If they can fix it...they do.

I have generally gotten a direct response in less than 12 hours. But I am careful to try and present a formal message with as much detail as possible.

I suspect...and someone with more knowledge may confirm this...that this topic was done over a year ago with the message in response that the current engine just doesn't have enough variables going on behind it to properly account for dive speeds. May be a thing to live with...till BoB and the new engine come along.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

lbhskier37
08-14-2004, 06:03 PM
The thing is that originally we were told that carriers were impossible without a great deal of code, and we are getting that. With PF being a new game, eventhough its on the same engine, this issue should be second only to the adding carriers in importance. This issue seems to have been confined to mentions in other threads, but hasn't been addressed by itself, at least not for a while. If there can be a million threads about the spitfire, this one constructive thread should be fine.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

VW-IceFire
08-14-2004, 06:15 PM
Actually, I doubt that we were told that carriers were impossible. I doubted that months ago and I doubt that now.

You do have a point, a change could be made...but I supect that with carriers there were probably less changes than something probably even more core to the FM such as dive speed.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

robban75
08-14-2004, 06:27 PM
I'm ALL for this!

I must add that we already have individual diveaccelerations for planes, BUT, only when the engine is idling.

Results below. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I started at 3000m in the QMB, leaving the engine at idle. Then I pushed the nose forward achieving a 45 degree dive angle. I read the speed after every 500m passed.

Results below. In km/h.


La-7 - D-9 - (dif)

3000m - 309 - 307 -
2500m - 432 - 450 - (18)
2000m - 530 - 552 - (22)
1500m - 593 - 624 - (31)
1000m - 643 - 676 - (33)
500m - 697 - 733 - (36)

Yak-3

3000m - 307
2500m - 434
2000m - 532
1500m - 600
1000m - 649
500m - 697

Spitfire MkVb - Fw 190A-4 - (dif)

3000m - 306 - 305
2500m - 426 - 443 - (17)
2000m - 516 - 544 - (28)
1500m - 579 - 611 - (32)
1000m - 620 - 660 - (40)
500m - 658 - 710 - (52)


http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

[This message was edited by robban75 on Sat August 14 2004 at 05:51 PM.]

[This message was edited by robban75 on Sat August 14 2004 at 05:53 PM.]

Fw-190D-9
08-14-2004, 11:51 PM
ok, if the difference is only when the engine is at idel, why in the heck isnt' there much of a difference if it's at full power?

BTW, I don't care if the IL2 sturmovik was supossed to be the only plane modeled 100% correct, with all the planes now currently in the game I think they should all be modeled correctly, both in their imprefections and perfections.

VMF513_Sandman
08-15-2004, 01:11 AM
when ww2 broke out, the a6m2 zero outclimbed and outturned the wildcat with ease. cat pilots that tried to do it found out the hard way it was suicide. over the m2, the wildcat is severely underpowered for the climbs, and with its weight, was a poor turner in comparison. its only + side was its dive capability. dive rates isnt the only thing that needs fixed. need to fix the modeling at altitude. over 10,000' the zero ran into trouble with the american fighters; especially the corsair, hellcat, and p-38 in the pacific.
in fb, the zekes can handle the 'thin' air just as easy as down in the weeds while the 38 seems to bog down when it should be even faster.

seems the 109 and 190's have very good high alt performance, but the allied doesnt; at least with the american planes that flew bomber escorts...mustang, jugs, and 38's at the very least. true the p-40's didnt fly bomber escorts over germany, but they were able to hold their own against the zero being over 10,000' and with speeds the zekes couldnt match.

looking at the object viewer, the 38 appears to be the heaviest plane in the game. but it certainly doesnt dive like a heavy ship. the jug tho lower in weight, has a higher top speed than the 38's...p-38-j at 8000 meters is 672. the L top speed 662 at same alt. a difference of 10 mph. the jug d-10 top speed: 697 at 9k meters, the d-27 at 9100m gets 689. neither model of p-38 can outrun either model jug at the alt the p-38 was supposed to shine at with 2 engines and more overall horsepower. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

the a6m2 under 10,000' should be able to handle any aircraft with ease if the fight goes into a turn fight. but a yak3 seems to be able to hang with it low-n-slow and its alot heavier weight-wise than the zeke. have no clue wtf the ai's do, but they're able to turn on a dime with ease.

lbhskier37
08-15-2004, 01:28 AM
Oleg I mean no disrespect if this issue has been addressed by you already, but for a dedicated FW pilot and soon to be dedicated Wildcat pilot this is a very important issue. If this really is a limitation in the code and truely is impossible then let me know and I wont bother about this issue anymore, but if it is indeed possible to fix somehow, I believe, and I think many agree with me, that this is one of the most important issue facing this sim right now. It is nice to get new planes, would be nice to get some climbs fixed, but this issue encompasses every plane and all their historical relationships to eachother in performance. To truely simulate air combat I believe this is essential, so if you find time in your busy schedule could you please look at a bit of Robbans data and give us a quick response. Thanks!

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

Hunde_3.JG51
08-15-2004, 01:46 AM
I believe it is the most important issue as well, where do I sign?

http://www.brooksart.com/Ontheprowl.jpg

Formerly Kyrule2
http://www.jg51.com/

lbhskier37
08-15-2004, 01:55 AM
I love this forum, I peacefully post an actual issue that isn't specific to one nations planes but get resistance. If I am offending pilots of spits, yaks, 109s that are enjoying their dive/zoom performance I am sorry. I believe that this is a bit more important than the fact that plane X is 5% faster/slower/worse rate of climb/better rate of climb than it should be, if you would rather all rage on about those issues, thats your choice I guess.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

FA_Whisky
08-15-2004, 02:56 AM
Yes please!!! You got my vote!! But as stated before, dive and zoom speeds as well as high alt preformance needs some tuning. Send Oleg a email about this and post his reaction here. Than we would know what to expect.

jurinko
08-15-2004, 03:10 AM
yes please Oleg do it!

---------------------
Letka_13/Liptow @ HL

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
08-15-2004, 03:46 AM
as for zoomclimb.

u can test as following.

go down to SL (crimea, 100 Fuel, 12o'clock..)
accelerate to say 550kph then pull up to 30?, idle the engine (to the same time) and see what happens.

U can alsow not idle the Engine but the result will be frustrating...

Ok here the Frustrating:

tested Plains, FW 190A6 and
SpitIXLFCW:

bot accelerated to their top-speed (WEP!) at SL.
the FW got 580(closed Rad), the Spit was about 540-550 (not constant du to auto-radiator)

then pulled both planes with full power and WEP still enabled into a 30? climb (zoom), chenter the Stick and let the planes level out (take the highest reached altitude before nose drop)

Result:

FW: ~1250m
Spit: ~ 1280m

so WHAT THE ****?
the FW was faster (by 30kph) is heavyer and has therfore more Energy:

Wight FW: 4000kg
Wight for Spit IX (assumed): ~3100kg
[assumed that the Spit was about the same wight as a 109 of the same year]

We will get the following data for kinetic energy both planes had befor the "zoom" was started:

we used: Ekin = 1/2*m*v²

result for Spitfire:
460388,75 KJ, initial energy.
FW:
675800 KJ
this is ~46% in favour for the FW 190 A6.

--

ok, since both zoomes were with WEP. we can compare powerloading too.

We get 1800hp for the FW's BMW engine.
and about 1675hp for the Merlin.

FW 190 A6: 0,45hp/kg
Spitfire MK IX: 0,54hp/kg
that is 20% in favour for the Spitfire.

--

if we put it together we still have 26% better result for the FW than a Spitfire (46%-20%).

--

We can not realy check the aerodynamic but we can compare Powerloading to Speed at SL (since it is an LF modell it should perform the best at SL).

---
580kph at 0,45hp/kg (FW 190A6, closed Radiator)
545kph at 0,54hp/kg (spitfire MK IX LF, CW)

>> aerodynamics for the FW is at least NOT worse than the Spitfires.


but still we have the results:

Spitfire: ~1280m
FW: ~1250m

BTW: did the same test with the A9, guess what ?

it will only gain 1305m (thats only about 50m more than an A6)

Side_Note:

because u can't manage the same altitude at the beginning the given numbers for zoom are already the GAINED altitude.

the FW started at 14m
the Spit at 11m but as said it is already included in the numbers.

i think the result will be simmilar when testing a P47 vs an 109.
So something is realy messed up.

http://home.arcor.de/sebastianleitiger/FB/Screens/Fw%20190A-4guns.JPG (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=185103665)

[This message was edited by ToP_BlackSheep on Sun August 15 2004 at 03:03 AM.]

Manos1
08-15-2004, 03:48 AM
YES please!

PS. And if there is any spare time left after this fix, you may want to check the Spitfire's overheat "feature" as well...

http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr/temp/4th_FG2_new1.gif
Hellenic-SQN (http://www.e-335thgreeksquadron.com)

sapre
08-15-2004, 04:43 AM
Please Oleg, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE

FIX THIS ISSUE!!
PLEASE!
IM BEGGING YOU!

thompet03
08-15-2004, 05:13 AM
bump!!!!!!!!!

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/93.gif

OldMan____
08-15-2004, 05:29 AM
I think we should collect more info, like documents and etc.. before opening a thread here. That is why I opned one in GD. Oleg will not pay attention to an unorganized bunch of people screaming without paper proofs.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

OldMan____
08-15-2004, 05:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ToP_BlackSheep:
as for zoomclimb.

u can test as following.

go down to SL (crimea, 100 Fuel, 12o'clock..)
accelerate to say 550kph then pull up to 30?, idle the engine (to the same time) and see what happens.

U can alsow not idle the Engine but the result will be frustrating...

Ok here the Frustrating:

tested Plains, FW 190A6 and
SpitIXLFCW:

bot accelerated to their top-speed (WEP!) at SL.
the FW got 580(closed Rad), the Spit was about 540-550 (not constant du to auto-radiator)

then pulled both planes with full power and WEP still enabled into a 30? climb (zoom), chenter the Stick and let the planes level out (take the highest reached altitude before nose drop)

Result:

FW: ~1250m
Spit: ~ 1280m

so WHAT THE ****?
the FW was faster (by 30kph) is heavyer and has therfore more Energy:

Wight FW: 4000kg
Wight for Spit IX (assumed): ~3100kg
[assumed that the Spit was about the same wight as a 109 of the same year]

We will get the following data for kinetic energy both planes had befor the "zoom" was started:

we used: Ekin = 1/2*m*v²

result for Spitfire:
460388,75 KJ, initial energy.
FW:
675800 KJ
this is ~46% in favour for the FW 190 A6.

--

ok, since both zoomes were with WEP. we can compare powerloading too.

We get 1800hp for the FW's BMW engine.
and about 1675hp for the Merlin.

FW 190 A6: 0,45hp/kg
Spitfire MK IX: 0,54hp/kg
that is 20% in favour for the Spitfire.

--

if we put it together we still have 26% better result for the FW than a Spitfire (46%-20%).

--

We can not realy check the aerodynamic but we can compare Powerloading to Speed at SL (since it is an LF modell it should perform the best at SL).

---
580kph at 0,45hp/kg (FW 190A6, closed Radiator)
545kph at 0,54hp/kg (spitfire MK IX LF, CW)

&gt;&gt; aerodynamics for the FW is at least NOT worse than the Spitfires.


but still we have the results:

Spitfire: ~1280m
FW: ~1250m

BTW: did the same test with the A9, guess what ?

it will only gain 1305m (thats only about 50m more than an A6)

Side_Note:

because u can't manage the same altitude at the beginning the given numbers for zoom are already the GAINED altitude.

the FW started at 14m
the Spit at 11m but as said it is already included in the numbers.

i think the result will be simmilar when testing a P47 vs an 109.
So something is realy messed up.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=185103665

[This message was edited by ToP_BlackSheep on Sun August 15 2004 at 03:03 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


about zooming up.. The heaviest should not have any advantage at all. The extra mass creates extra weight force down during climb. During the whole movment this weight creates a work (don´t know the translation to english of force*distance) exactly equal to the energy advantage that 190 had. Remember that the resultant force of weight vs propeler is the important one in this moment... and in this spit is at advantage. So this your test has nothing wrong with it.


Usually heavier planes had better zoom because they reached higher speed during dive.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

WWMaxGunz
08-15-2004, 05:47 AM
I sent Oleg a polite email asking about the dives. He sent back a polite, informative
reply. Guess what? The differences he says should be are about EXACTLY what Robban
shows above, 10kph to 30kph difference for some 109's and P-47's. There's more, one
bit that some people would just freak out over, hehehe think-Jugfans there hehehe!

So anyway I wrote asking if I could quote him and got no reply, so I won't give it all
but any of you can write and maybe ask if he doesn't mind them posting what he says.
My feeling is this; that he knows some things very well and when contradicted too often
doesn't want to be bothered by those who do. He's not in the business of total education
even if the sims do offer learning potential. He's not only got data, he's got the
ability to make sense of it, check on the aspects of it and use it to fill in blanks.
And against that, we have people with their favorite stories who ignore other stories
that don't agree with theirs. Oh my, what bother.


Neal

PS -- Robban! Wanna PM on the topic?

hop2002
08-15-2004, 06:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Describes the mood or content of the topic posted 15-08-04 02:46
as for zoomclimb.

u can test as following.

go down to SL (crimea, 100 Fuel, 12o'clock..)
accelerate to say 550kph then pull up to 30?, idle the engine (to the same time) and see what happens.

U can alsow not idle the Engine but the result will be frustrating...

Ok here the Frustrating:

tested Plains, FW 190A6 and
SpitIXLFCW:

bot accelerated to their top-speed (WEP!) at SL.
the FW got 580(closed Rad), the Spit was about 540-550 (not constant du to auto-radiator)

then pulled both planes with full power and WEP still enabled into a 30? climb (zoom), chenter the Stick and let the planes level out (take the highest reached altitude before nose drop)

Result:

FW: ~1250m
Spit: ~ 1280m

so WHAT THE ****?
the FW was faster (by 30kph) is heavyer and has therfore more Energy:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the wrong way to test a zoom climb.

By letting the speed fall so low, you are getting into continuous climb territory, where the Spit will beat the 190 hands down.

You are also letting them hang on their props, which the Spit, with a much better power to weight ratio, and lower wingloading, will do longer than the 190.

You should measure the altitude whenspeed drops to around 300 km/h. I did, and found figures of 980 m for the A6, 940 m for the Spit LF IX, when pulled up from the same speed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We can not realy check the aerodynamic but we can compare Powerloading to Speed at SL (since it is an LF modell it should perform the best at SL).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the Spit LF IX performed best at 7 - 10,000ft, and 18 - 20,000ft in it's 2 different supercharger gears.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>580kph at 0,45hp/kg (FW 190A6, closed Radiator)
545kph at 0,54hp/kg (spitfire MK IX LF, CW)

&gt;&gt; aerodynamics for the FW is at least NOT worse than the Spitfires.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speed is not dependent on weight. Speed is mostly a function of drag vs power.

There shouldn't be much difference in the drag figures between the two, though.

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
08-15-2004, 06:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
That's the wrong way to test a zoom climb.

By letting the speed fall so low, you are getting into continuous climb territory, where the Spit will beat the 190 hands down.

You are also letting them hang on their props, which the Spit, with a much better power to weight ratio, and lower wingloading, will do longer than the 190.

You should measure the altitude whenspeed drops to around 300 km/h. I did, and found figures of 980 m for the A6, 940 m for the Spit LF IX, when pulled up from the same speed.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

what was your initial Speed ?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>No, the Spit LF IX performed best at 7 - 10,000ft, and 18 - 20,000ft in it's 2 different supercharger gears.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

so now i am confused, why do they call it LOW-Fighter ?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Speed is not dependent on weight. Speed is mostly a function of drag vs power.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the power of the Engine runs the Prop which indicates Thrust. The higher the HP the higher the Thrust. But the Thurst "moves" the plain thrue the air make it heavyer and you'll need more thrust to get the same speed. (same as Cars, for example, a 1100kg car with 120 HP will perform way better than a 3000kg car with 120 HP, even with identical aerodynamics...)

http://home.arcor.de/sebastianleitiger/FB/Screens/Fw%20190A-4guns.JPG (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=185103665)

[This message was edited by ToP_BlackSheep on Sun August 15 2004 at 06:06 AM.]

OldMan____
08-15-2004, 07:04 AM
No one doubts the speed difference should be the ones roban got. But why they only happen at IDLE power?

If we had these differences at 100% power.. then this thread would never exist.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

hop2002
08-15-2004, 07:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>what was your initial Speed ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can't remember, but I think it was 500 km/h

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>so now i am confused, why do they call it LOW-Fighter ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because the original Spit F IX had a best performance altitude of around 27,000 ft. The LF IX was designed to operate better at around 20,000, and therefore outperformed the F IX at all altitudes below that as well.

Those were the altitudes where the F IX was having problems with the Fw 190.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the power of the Engine runs the Prop which indicates Thrust. The higher the HP the higher the Thrust. But the Thurst "moves" the plain thrue the air make it heavyer and you'll need more thrust to get the same speed. (same as Cars, for example, a 1100kg car with 120 HP will perform way better than a 3000kg car with 120 HP, even with identical aerodynamics...)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On the flat, with identical aerodynamics, there shouldn't be much speed difference between the 1100 kg car and the 3000 kg car. Some of course, because the 3 ton car will have far more "drag" from the road.

There are 4 main forces on a plane. Thrust pushes it forward, drag pushes it back, lift pushes it up, drag pushes it down.

Thrust and drag are directly opposed, and it's that ratio that does most to determine speed. Weight increases induced drag, which is caused by generating lift. It's that total drag, including induced drag, that in combination with thrust determines speed.

If you look at, for example, the P-51 you will see how little weight contributes to speed. The P-51 has a poor power to weight ratio, very good speed.

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
08-15-2004, 07:35 AM
agree 100% with lbhskier37.
I asked this question days ago in the PF forums. No response. As soon you ask something specific you'll be called a LW whiner etc.

Dive-speed acceleration and zoom climbs ARE KEY factors for a WW2 combat sim.
This applies for EVERY SINGLE PLANE.

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

robban75
08-15-2004, 07:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
PS -- Robban! Wanna PM on the topic?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh you bet I do!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

bazzaah2
08-15-2004, 08:12 AM
that would be a great addition and necessary too.

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_05.gif

Crashing online as :FI:SpinyNorman

Normally Spiny Norman was wont to be about
twelve feet from snout to tail, but when Dinsdale was depressed Norman could be
anything up to eight hundred yards long.

dadada1
08-15-2004, 09:45 AM
Respectfully Oleg I believe it would be very much appreciated if individual dive and zoom characteristics were added. You'll also save yourself a lot of headache (whines)for when PF arrives.

lbhskier37
08-15-2004, 09:49 AM
Lets just give an example here. You are driving in the mountains in your loaded log truck. There is a guy in front of you in a Toyota Tercel (for those across the pond, its pretty small) for some reason the brakes go out on both of them, who is in trouble here?

So basically what some of you are trying to say here is that the tactic of energy fighting is a bunch of bunk? I've seen people get stuck on this little thing they learned in basic physics that a 1000lb boulder will accelerate in a drop as fast as a penny, but in basic physics they dont really tell you the whole story, and its a bit more complex than that which is why a big rock falls faster than a feather, and a baseball goes higher when you throw it than a whiffle ball. (Im not saying light planes should just float in the air, this is an extreme example to show a point.)

Now someone posted above (sorry don't remember who) that they had emailed Oleg about this and he said the difference should be about what Robban found , but I am assuming that should be with power on. So if I am taking this right he agrees this is wrong? If so we have to show him that we think its a top priority to fix.
http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

[This message was edited by lbhskier37 on Sun August 15 2004 at 08:57 AM.]

wojtek_m
08-15-2004, 11:54 AM
lbhskier37 I think you have wrong understanding of physics... as hop2002 correctly stated the amount of power and the amount of drag alone dictate how fast the plane will be. The mass of the plane dictates how long it will take to reach the terminal velocity, so the smaller the mass the better the acceleration. As to a throwed baseball or a feather with the same initial speed: the feather will decelerate much faster and bleed its kinetic energy, because it creates much more drag. You have to look at the mass AND the drag this mass creates, so a feather cannot be thrown as far as a little steel ball with exact the same mass, because the feather creates much more drag.

Diablo310th
08-15-2004, 11:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
PS -- Robban! Wanna PM on the topic?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh you bet I do!!! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ohhh wow guys...share share please!!!!!! LOL So what did Oleg say about the Jug??? Inquiring minds (especially mine) want to know.

http://img54.photobucket.com/albums/v166/310thDiablo/DiabloSig.gif

lbhskier37
08-15-2004, 12:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wojtek_m:
lbhskier37 I think you have wrong understanding of physics... as hop2002 correctly stated the amount of power and the amount of drag alone dictate how fast the plane will be. The mass of the plane dictates how long it will take to reach the terminal velocity, so the smaller the mass the better the acceleration. As to a throwed baseball or a feather with the same initial speed: the feather will decelerate much faster and bleed its kinetic energy, because it creates much more drag. You have to look at the mass AND the drag this mass creates, so a feather cannot be thrown as far as a little steel ball with exact the same mass, because the feather creates much more drag.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This applies to level acceleration. In a dive you have one added force producing acceleration, gravity. Although the acceleration due to gravity would be the same, the acceleration force is greater when you have greater mass. (force is equal to mass time acceleration last time I checked) I am kind of confused by your post, you tell me I am wrong in the begining and then in your last part you say that the feather cannot be thrown as far, which is basically agreeing with what I am saying about zoom climb. I don't have any problem with my grasp of physics, you guys seem to have trouble sorting out your logic.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

NonWonderDog
08-15-2004, 02:34 PM
You forced me to create an account in order to reply. Shame on you. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Unless you mispoke yourself, your grasp of physics is quite clearly incomplete. Although gravity exerts a greater force against the more massive object, the more massive object has more inertia to be overcome. The net result is -9.8 m/s.

Drag also exerts a force in the opposite direction, slowing the accelleration of the plane. Heavier masses would be less affected by this force; is that what you were trying to say? I'm not sure that we have such gross weight differences between planes for this to be all that important. It is certainly less important than the coefficient of drag of the airplane.

But I truely can not understand what you are asking Oleg to do. Dive accelleration is not a primary coefficient of any physics model I've ever heard of, it certainly isn't part of FBs flight model. It is a secondary characteristic defined by gravity, air density, airspeed, coefficient of drag, cross-sectional area, and power. Which do you suggest Oleg change in order for dive accellerations to be more varied? Less drag on the planes would mean higher top speeds, which would necessitate lower power to keep specs, but the power and prop efficiency are already well-enough known...

In any case, someone posted US Navy dive comparisons between the P38 and A6M2 Zero a while back. They found that after a 30 second dive, the P38 had dived only 100 yards (91 meters) farther than the Zero. After 30 seconds. What are you expecting to see?

-Don't mind the edit, I'm an anal bastard who never lets a spelling mistake go.

[This message was edited by NonWonderDog on Sun August 15 2004 at 02:05 PM.]

OldMan____
08-15-2004, 03:45 PM
we are expectiong to see 100 meters... but we see 2 centimeters.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

dadada1
08-15-2004, 03:46 PM
91 metres could possibly just save your life by making your opponents shooting more difficult. Bullet dispersion and reduced effectiveness will also affect and probably increase your chances of survival over that distance.

Regardless of the physics arguments which I no little to nothing about, aircraft did have indiviual acceleration advantages when diving attitudes were are entered. They also had different velocities in extended dives, its this aspect that is missing in FB.

What if you spot an enemy just as he's coming into effective shooting range on your six, that 91 metres will make a difference. In air combat surley small things like this matter, margins for error and all that.

609IAP_Recon
08-15-2004, 03:55 PM
The last two posts: Have you proven what NonWonderDog stated in your FB tests?

You really saw only a different of 2cm after 30 second dive between zero and p38?


"Regardless of the physics arguments which I no little to nothing about, aircraft did have indiviual acceleration advantages when diving attitudes were are entered. They also had different velocities in extended dives, its this aspect that is missing in FB."

How can you avoid the physics arguments when you are speaking of aircraft characteristics? Wouldn't it be just a guess then?

S!
609IAP_Recon
http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg


Full Real Virtual Online War: Forgotten Skies (http://www.forgottenskies.com)

OldMan____
08-15-2004, 04:10 PM
If you followed these threads you would see that YES we did tested (ok.. we cannot measure 2 cm.. but that is the overall idea) Full power. Measured second by second in track at 1/4 speed.. exactly same speed km/h per km/h from start up to point where everyting starts shaking. Since towo plans accelerate differently al level flight.. why not at dive?

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

OldMan____
08-15-2004, 05:34 PM
As I promised eralier.. made some shallow dive tests. In these I made several shallow (less than 20 degrees dive. And in this tests FW190 and P47 do HAVE an advantage when compared to spitfire.

Spitfire MK IX reached 560 km/h after a dive of 500m while A9 reached same speed afetr 390 meters dive.

So .. it seem we do have an advantage..but only when gravity is less relevant than propeler while forcing plane down.


If is that as it is supposed to be OK (know anyway I know how to outdive that dammit spits)

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

lbhskier37
08-15-2004, 06:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NonWonderDog:



Drag also exerts a force in the opposite direction, slowing the accelleration of the plane. Heavier masses would be less affected by this force; is that what you were trying to say?


[This message was edited by NonWonderDog on Sun August 15 2004 at 02:05 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You got it, thats about what I have been trying to say, I've always been pretty bad at putting stuff like this into words (as anyone I have tried to help with any type of college class can tell you)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
I'm not sure that we have such gross weight differences between planes for this to be all that important. It is certainly less important than the coefficient of drag of the airplane.

[This message was edited by NonWonderDog on Sun August 15 2004 at 02:05 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think its the other way around, the weights between a Spit and a P47 is pretty huge (I dont have the data on me there are plenty of guys on this forum that do though), however I don't think the drag coefficient is that much different. At least from every account I have heard, our bigger planes should have better dive and hold their speed better in a zoom.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
In any case, someone posted US Navy dive comparisons between the P38 and A6M2 Zero a while back. They found that after a 30 second dive, the P38 had dived only 100 yards (91 meters) farther than the Zero. After 30 seconds. What are you expecting to see?

[This message was edited by NonWonderDog on Sun August 15 2004 at 02:05 PM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This seems about what I would expect, but from playing online I haven't seen this to be the case.


http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

wojtek_m
08-15-2004, 06:39 PM
Exactly NonWonderDog (what a nick http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ), people dont understand that whatever mass is considered it is accelerated with the SAME acceleration (g) towards the CoG of the earth... so only the drag matters, when considering an free fall in an atmosphere... but these differences in drag are pretty small comparing to the other forces at slow speeds (gravity and thrust). Drag becomes very important at high speeds, because drag~velocity^2. People are expecting to leave a spit or la7 or whatever by 500m in their FW or P47s after some 10 sec of a dive, which has nothing to do with reality... as far as I am considered I dont see any serious problems with the FM here.

OldMan____
08-15-2004, 06:41 PM
In my excitement I took wrong numbers..disconsider above. But there is dive diff at shallow angles.. You can gain a few meters. Less than this 100 meters stated.. but a few indeed.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

wojtek_m
08-15-2004, 06:59 PM
I think its the other way around, the weights between a Spit and a P47 is pretty huge (I dont have the data on me there are plenty of guys on this forum that do though), however I don't think the drag coefficient is that much different. At least from every account I have heard, our bigger planes should have better dive and hold their speed better in a zoom.

You havent got it yet... whatever mass, a spit a p47, a p11 or a feather of a bird is accelerated with the SAME accelaration (9.81 m/s^2) towards the CoG of our planet. The mass doesnt matter! The gravity force is indeed becoming bigger with increasing mass, but so is the inertia the force has to overcome (you have to use a bigger force to accelerate or 'move' a bigger mass), so the accelaration is the same at the end!

I don't think the drag coefficient is that much different.

Exactly! The shapes of WW2 aircraft arent that much different, so the drag is pretty similar for these aircraft. This means that the dive accelerations should be pretty similar too. Drag becomes more and more important as it grows with velocity squared. So lets say at 200 km/h the thrust to weight ratio (we forget prop efficiency here...) is much more important that drag. So initially an La7 should accelerate better than an FW because it has better powerloading. As the speed gets higher drag grows drastically and the FW begins to accelerate faster than an La7 until the 'drag force' becomes equally high as the gravity and thrust - then you have reached the 'terminal velocity' - the aircraft is not accelerating anymore.

LEXX_Luthor
08-15-2004, 07:00 PM
I wonder how to measure seperation. Do you use the icons with another simmer onwhine?

hop is onto something about seperation rates--a word conspicous by its absence here given all the FM Experts. We are expecting to push stick forward and Space Warp several light years (ok, 2 centimeters same thing).

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

LEXX_Luthor
08-15-2004, 07:09 PM
Fascinating. robban's level flight acceleration tests seemed to show this behavior (with D9 and La~7).....

wojtek_m:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So initially an La7 should accelerate better than an FW because it has better powerloading. As the speed gets higher drag grows drastically and the FW begins to accelerate faster than an La7 until the 'drag force' becomes equally high as the gravity and thrust - then you have reached the 'terminal velocity' - the aircraft is not accelerating anymore.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Are you saying the La~7 gain in high speed drag is more than Fw gain?

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

wojtek_m
08-15-2004, 07:39 PM
Are you saying the La~7 gain in high speed drag is more than Fw gain?

Mainly because of the wing design and area (cross section etc...) the FW is producing less drag than La7 for example, so as the speed grows it benifits more and more from the lower drag. It should accelarate faster at higher speeds in a dive. As previously stated the 'drag force', which is basically the force you need to move the 'air molecules' away, is becoming 'astronomically' high. It is indeed more important to have less drag than better powerloading at high speeds... In game ppl are complaining about not beeing able to outdive an La in an FW, but they shouldnt initially (the La should dive better at first). But as the speed grows the La7s acceleration should become less and less comparing to the FW. The problem is that until then we encounter the 'shaking', so the La has to pull out of the dive and ppl think that the only advantage of the FW is the higher 'shaking' speed... Remember that we're are talking about pretty small effects here, so for an average sim pilot they arent even visible... thats why we hear that 'every plane dives equally good in FB'...

WWMaxGunz
08-15-2004, 07:51 PM
Same drag coefficient but bigger plane = more drag. P-47 is a big plane.

Acceleration due to gravity may be the same for all masses but once you move
fast enough for drag to become a major factor then you have the weight of the
plane (mass x gravity x sine of dive angle) plus thrust to fight that drag,
the same plane with more weight will dive with faster terminal speed. It's an
equilibrium thing.


Neal

LEXX_Luthor
08-15-2004, 08:07 PM
Thanks wojtek. If I recall robban's level accel tests, the D9 began to neutralize the La~7 acceleration advantage not far below the max level speeds of the planes. At the higher speeds, the D9 could begin to accelerate faster in the data, but the tests cut off of course in level flight at the max level speeds.

Still, the Fw was well known apparently as an excellent diver. But what does it mean for us?

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

NonWonderDog
08-15-2004, 08:14 PM
Find the most aerodynamic plane you can and test it against something less so. In an unpowered dive they should start out even before the more aerodynamic plane starts to slowly, and then quickly, outpace the high-drag plane. That behavior is definitely in the sim, things would be VERY wrong if it wasn't.

Things get tricky when you add a propeller on the front. I won't pretend to know all the intricacies intertwining prop pitch, RPM, prop efficiency, manifold pressure, and resultant thrust at different speeds, and I don't expect that many people here DO know. All I know is that a plane with high power-loading and a high efficiency prop would have a significant initial dive advantage -- and most likely a shallow-angle dive advantage -- over a lower-powered, less efficient plane. As speeds rose things would sway back towards drag being the deciding factor.


If anyone's interested and doesn't know, the formula for a net accelerating force on a body in freefall through an atmosphere is F=mg-1/2CρAv^2. That's:
mass (kg) x gravity (m/s^2) - 1/2 x Cross-sectional area (m^2) x coefficient of friction x atmospheric density (kg/m^3) x velocity squared (m/s)

No less than 3 variables, with m (discounting fuel you burn off), C (assuming you stay perfectly coordinated), and ρ constant. Divide the whole thing by mass again and you get the resultant accelleration.

Mass DEFINITELY matters in all of this - nevermind Galileo - but I have a sneaking suspicion that it all levels out pretty well in the end. More massive planes tend to be bigger, thus more drag.


That's all well and good, but what happens when you add thrust? Especially the non-constant thrust of a propeller, thrust that increases and then falls off with TAS? How the heck do you map the above to a propeller's J curve? How do we know that the "aeromechanical screw" (I still don't know how that thing works) on the Focke-Wulf is even keeping us at the top of the J curve?

Prop planes are quite a bit more complicated than just "thrust=drag therefore top speed." You have to talk about things like advance ratio, propeller chord, propeller pitch, propeller diameter, propeller rpm, brake horsepower, and, of course, thrust horsepower.


Anyone going to do some Me-163b v. BI-1 tests? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[This message was edited by NonWonderDog on Sun August 15 2004 at 08:37 PM.]

WWMaxGunz
08-15-2004, 08:23 PM
Oh, when you are diving and speed gets going above the ability of the engine
to maintain at whatever power setting, lower the prop pitch. Very important
because otherwise you are using the prop as a brake. Always cut back on
the pitch as the dive speeds up. In the start if you are not already at full
or high speed then use the most efficient pitch but bring it on down with
increasing speed. I get better level speed at 98% power or less by lowering
pitch as my speed gets 360-400kph and up. As you lower pitch and engine speed,
you generate less heat and have more air coming through, you can close the
radiator flaps more and lower your drag as well.

IMHO realistic dive advantage occurred when one plane could outmaneuver the
other at diving speed, as in either jink or turn, roll and pitch while diving.
I've read from an AVG (Flying Tigers) member who also served into the later
war against Zeroes and he wrote that the P-40 would outturn a Zero in a dive
once the speed got up. They would spiral down to escape the Zeroes that could
not keep them in their sights once the ailerons of the Zero stiffened up. So
you don't just dive straight with an enemy behind you even if you have an edge
because it's not enough by speed alone. You slow weave, roll, or whatever while
you pull away.

ADFU test so often quoted, the dive from 10,000 ft to 3,000 ft, P-47 and FW.
FW starts faster and the P-47 catches up... at 3,000 ft where the P-47 is
noted as being "much faster". If I am in a car going 55mph and another car
goes by at 70mph, guess what? It's not about percentages, if I'm sitting
still and someone goes by at 15mph they still move away at the same rate.
How fast is "much"?


Neal

NonWonderDog
08-15-2004, 08:29 PM
Well, yeah, I should have said that directly instead of spouting inane babble about J-curves and such. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Constant speed props should do that without any input, but I have no idea what the aeromechanical screws are doing, ever.

wojtek_m
08-15-2004, 08:40 PM
Mass DEFINITELY matters in all of this True. But only at higher speeds where drag becomes the major factor, at slower speeds everything accelerates roughly the same as if there was no atmosphere. Have to go to bed now, I hope someone makes the tests... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
08-15-2004, 09:25 PM
The less steep you dive, the less that mass x gravity overshadows drag and thrust and
the sooner drag becomes a major player.

I can point a plane straight down and go till I run out of speed. But what plane then
could maintain flying straight up? That is the factor of gravity over thrust, it is
immense. Only high speed drag can really counter it.

NonWonderDog --- Atmospheric density is not constant in a dive. ==very evil grin==
But I am sure you know that one!

Thing with aerodynamic plane and non-aerodynamic plane in the sim are the differences
in weight and power. It ends up with apples to grapefruits compares and even when we
had AE educateds in these discussions, they really shied away from that kind of thing.
It gets really messy, quickly. The usual is to deal with the same plane only more mass
or less power or posit the same plane only larger/smaller, etc, to keep only one factor
as changed. Then how that factor would affect things could be discussed.


Neal

NonWonderDog
08-15-2004, 09:36 PM
Whooops! Typo. "A" should have been "C."

Thanks.

WWMaxGunz
08-15-2004, 09:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Constant speed props should do that without any input, but I have no idea what the aeromechanical screws are doing, ever.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well yeah and no. The props have a pitch range and it's not nearly 90 degrees of
operation. Even the ones that could feather had to pass a stop first.

Then there's what the engine is doing and frankly I have found that with higher
and higher speed I get better thrust by cutting back on the pitch at least when
I'm not running over 99% power, even with CSP on manual. I certainly don't do
any worse running level or near level.

For more of a feel, take a CSP plane and get it up to a good cruise, 400-500kph.
Now cut back on pitch a bit, power a bit, pitch a bit, power a bit, until you
have an economic power setting. It depends on the plane what that will be. A
later war powerhouse plane will hold that cruise at maybe 70% power and pitch,
maybe less. Make sure you hold level flight and stabilize the speed. Now, cut
power by half or more and pitch to match and watch how slowly you lose speed
while holding level. Then once you have a feel for that, run the pitch up to
90% or full 100% and watch what happens!

That is about this relation of the three at once; speed, power, and pitch.
It may or may not apply at high speed and power but I find they work along
the same basic lines.

Possible other explanation of highspeed and high rpms is more real and easy to
understand. That is prop tip speed going into compression. The path of the
prop tip is not only around the hub but also along the path of the plane. It
is a spiral. The faster the prop turns, the finer the spiral at any speed
which means it has to go farther per second to make that speed. Prop tips
going mach or even in sub-mach compression makes drag in reality. The more
they do so, the more of the end of the prop is working that way. So again,
cutting the rpms makes more efficient prop not just in less drag but the
compressed part ceases to make thrust. Is this modelled? Maybe. Oleg had
posted a ways back that compression is part of the sim, but no details.

Anyways, things like these to me make a very big difference in dive testing
results. Just jamming 100% pitch has not gotten the best results for this
poor sim experimenter who would not dream of posting his results as the best
or definitive --- but if I can do *something* then at least that is possible.


Neal

BigKahuna_GS
08-15-2004, 10:32 PM
S!

Read the whole interview : http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html

Gunther Rall on the P47 dive :

Q: Mr. Rall, what was the best tactic against the P-47?

A: Against the P-47? Shoot him down! &lt;Laughter from both Mr. Rall and audience, applause&gt; P-47 was not a big problem.

The problem was if you were chased by the P-47, he was fast in a dive, had a higher structural strength. You couldn't stand that you know? And they came closer in a dive, because she was faster. But P-47 was a big ship, you know? No doubt. But in a position where you chase him, there was no equivalent condition. By the way, ehh, this was &lt;## garbled: 06:5 tape 4&gt; thing talking about the P-47.

Years later, I was in Maxwell for the Gathering of Eagles in United States, they called some pilots from all over. By the way, I met there your Finnish ace, in Maxwell. There was the French one, there was Gabby Gabreski from the Americans and so forth. And there, I had to give a lecture about this flight, about this mission, and there was Gabby Gabreski. And he said "wait a minute, I was in this air battle!"
You know Gabby Gabreski, was he number one in the United States Air Force. He passed away already. And he said, "I was in this battle" and we figured out the 8th Air Force only had two P-47 groups. The one was Gabby Gabreski but the Gabby Gabreski, his group, had the task to wait up around the airfields. The problem was for us, when we had dogfight over the clouds and fought a bit, and you run out of fuel - red light, you have to get down and you then have to find a base. Because you don't know where you are over the clouds, you know, in this dogfighting. And then you come down, and Gabby, circled many bases and just waited. When we came back, no ammunition, gear down, no fuel. We lost a lot of pilots in the final approach down. And the other group was Hub Zemke, he was top cover of the 8th Air Force. He flew up at 10 000 meters and this is what I was confronted with. To make the long story short we became good friends after the war, and his son still living, they know, you know he says to me, &lt;chuckles&gt; "Gunther is a member of our family." &lt;laughs&gt; Thats great.


_________


I heard Gunther Rall say almost the indentical thing and more about the P51 and P47 dive superiority at Santa Monica Air Museum.

Keypoint--Rall, "But in a position where you chase him, there was no equivalent condition."

_________



__________________________________________________ __________________________
Nowonderdog--In any case, someone posted US Navy dive comparisons between the P38 and A6M2 Zero a while back. They found that after a 30 second dive, the P38 had dived only 100 yards (91 meters) farther than the Zero. After 30 seconds. What are you expecting to see?
__________________________________________________ __________________________


Can someone please post this test. I am not sure why the US Navy would be testing a P38 rather than a F4U or Hellcat, or if they got the info from the USAAF.

This dive test simply does not sound right---but then again it would depend on test conditions and the speed at which the dive was entered. The P38 was one of the best diving WW2 aircraft while the A6M2 and A6M5 were some of the worst.

If the dive was entered at slow speed there would be an initail seperation problem. But a 30 second dive with only 300ft of seperation ? Seems like both planes could reach their respective redline dive speeds during this long dive and the A6m2 had a much lower redline dive speed that would lead to the aircraft being uncontrolable while the P38 accelerated away.

Just think how fast and how far you could dive in 30 seconds.


Three Saburo Sakai Interviews:


In a short but informative interview with Saburo Sakai, Japans
leading living Ace, I said, "Commander, what was the Zero's top
speed?"

His answer, "The A6M2 had a top speed of 309 mph. and a
maximum allowable dive speed of 350 mph. It became extremely heavy
on the controls above 275 mph, and approaching 350 mph, the Zero's
controls were so heavy it was impossible to roll. A further
comment by Sakai was that the skin on the wings started to wrinkle,
causing the pilot great concern, since a number of Zero's had shed
their wings in a dive."



Saburo Sakai on the Zero's maneuverability:

Oh yes, the Zero was incredibly maneuverable, but not over about 250 mph. Above that speed, the stick just gets too heavy because the plane's control surfaces are so huge. You've seen those films of kamikaze plunging straight down into the water far from any U.S. ships, right? The kids in those planes probably put their planes into a dive way too early, and before they realized their mistake, they had too much speed built up to pull out of their dive. They probably died pulling desperately on the stick with all their strength. When I coached those kids [kamikaze pilots], I'd tell them, "If you've gotta die, you at least want to hit your target, right? If so, then go in low, skimming the water. Don't dive on your target. You lose control in a dive. You risk getting picked off by a fighter, but you've got better chance of hitting your target."



Interviewer: What would you tell new pilots about the Zero?

Saburo Sakai: I would tell new pilots the following things about the Zero...
Good points: Dogfighting prowess and a quick rate of climb. And the 7.7mm are very reliable.
Bad points: Doesn't perform well in dives. Enemy fire causes fires and easily damages the airframe.


_______

CCJ: What do you define as the most important things a fighter pilot must know to be successful, relating to air combat maneuvering?

Robert S. Johnson :
It's pretty simple, really. Know the absolute limits of your plane's capabilities.
Know its strengths and weaknesses. Know the strengths and weaknesses of you enemy's fighters. Never fight the way your enemy fights best. Always fight the way you fight best. Never be predictable.

In "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver
and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces.
Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.

The authors noted that
Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
________



http://www.aviationartcentral.com/images/art/stokes/stokes-turkeyshoot.jpg

"Angels of Okinawa"

WWMaxGunz
08-15-2004, 10:41 PM
Are you able to cut and paste here? If so, then HOW?

dadada1
08-16-2004, 12:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Recon:
The last two posts: Have you proven what NonWonderDog stated in your FB tests?

You really saw only a different of 2cm after 30 second dive between zero and p38?


"Regardless of the physics arguments which I no little to nothing about, aircraft did have indiviual acceleration advantages when diving attitudes were are entered. They also had different velocities in extended dives, its this aspect that is missing in FB."

How can you avoid the physics arguments when you are speaking of aircraft characteristics? Wouldn't it be just a guess then?

S!
609IAP_Recon
http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg


Full Real Virtual Online War: http://www.forgottenskies.com<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that a real question or are you just being provocative?

dadada1
08-16-2004, 12:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dadada1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Recon:
The last two posts: Have you proven what NonWonderDog stated in your FB tests?

You really saw only a different of 2cm after 30 second dive between zero and p38?


"Regardless of the physics arguments which I no little to nothing about, aircraft did have indiviual acceleration advantages when diving attitudes were are entered. They also had different velocities in extended dives, its this aspect that is missing in FB."

How can you avoid the physics arguments when you are speaking of aircraft characteristics? Wouldn't it be just a guess then?

S!
609IAP_Recon
http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg


Full Real Virtual Online War: http://www.forgottenskies.com<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that a real question or are you just being provocative? You just quoted Rall about the dive superiority of the P 47, a real WW2 pilot with real WW2 experience.&lt;HR&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;

BfHeFwMe
08-16-2004, 01:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Oh, when you are diving and speed gets going above the ability of the engine
to maintain at whatever power setting, lower the prop pitch. Very important
because otherwise you are using the prop as a brake. Always cut back on
the pitch as the dive speeds up. In the start if you are not already at full
or high speed then use the most efficient pitch but bring it on down with
increasing speed. I get better level speed at 98% power or less by lowering
pitch as my speed gets 360-400kph and up. As you lower pitch and engine speed,
you generate less heat and have more air coming through, you can close the
radiator flaps more and lower your drag as well.

IMHO realistic dive advantage occurred when one plane could outmaneuver the
other at diving speed, as in either jink or turn, roll and pitch while diving.
I've read from an AVG (Flying Tigers) member who also served into the later
war against Zeroes and he wrote that the P-40 would outturn a Zero in a dive
once the speed got up. They would spiral down to escape the Zeroes that could
not keep them in their sights once the ailerons of the Zero stiffened up. So
you don't just dive straight with an enemy behind you even if you have an edge
because it's not enough by speed alone. You slow weave, roll, or whatever while
you pull away.

ADFU test so often quoted, the dive from 10,000 ft to 3,000 ft, P-47 and FW.
FW starts faster and the P-47 catches up... at 3,000 ft where the P-47 is
noted as being "much faster". If I am in a car going 55mph and another car
goes by at 70mph, guess what? It's not about percentages, if I'm sitting
still and someone goes by at 15mph they still move away at the same rate.
How fast is "much"?


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the CSP is doing it's job, this is being done automatically any way. IRL you start setting for lower RPM's in your enigne while committed in a dive, and if the system mechanically can't override dingbat inputs and actually tries to slow motor RPM's you'll blow the reduction gears or shaft with some real quick building negative torque.

BfHeFwMe
08-16-2004, 01:47 AM
Define dive, exactly what are the combat dive tactics being used? What angles? What distance? What technique? What follow up action post dive?

Or are all dives considered to be equal? Haven't seen anything about dumping drag by 'unloading' the airplane into a dive, verses a G on split, both standard combat tactics, even in WWII. Unloading is most certainly modeled, and works very well.

My suspicion is most virtual pilots don't understand how to make proper tactical use of a dive in the first place, which generates a 'perception' of a huge glaring error. Sure, may need some tweaking here and there, everything always does, but is it really unuseable and non-functional, not in my virtual experiance.

How many times I see some Foo dive and start to pull away than immediatly pull right back up near the deck throwing the whole point of the dive out the window. It's so common you simpley lag behind and above a bit than cut the corner with lower G retaining good energy and an initial altitude advantage. Than hear whining about how the plane shouldn't be able to do it. But when you reverse it, they'll be left in the dust gasping and wondering how did you do that?

VFA-195 Snacky
08-16-2004, 04:43 AM
Had a LA7 climb and catch my P47 at 10,000m. Was pretty sad. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif
The hard part was he was doing barrel rolls and loops as if he was 2,000m off the ground. I just laughed


http://www.x-plane.org/users/531seawolf/b_a_presidential_first.jpg
"Navy1, Call the Ball- Roger Ball."

[This message was edited by Snacky_195th on Mon August 16 2004 at 03:52 AM.]

[This message was edited by Snacky_195th on Mon August 16 2004 at 03:54 AM.]

OldMan____
08-16-2004, 05:08 AM
Strange is that after a few hours of test.. not a single time the p51 wings were ripped of. Everytime I made a hard tunr recover from dive I suffered noting with P51. I can only reproduce this wing falling if a pull the stick to maximum instantaneusly. So please.. try to do the same with a FW to see what happens... you will spin like hell until ground...

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

WWMaxGunz
08-16-2004, 08:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
If the CSP is doing it's job, this is being done automatically any way. IRL you start setting for lower RPM's in your enigne while committed in a dive, and if the system mechanically can't override dingbat inputs and actually tries to slow motor RPM's you'll blow the reduction gears or shaft with some real quick building negative torque.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try doing that in the sim! I can dive a CSP plane to over 700kph and cut power to idle with
pitch at 100% and yes the engine will windmill happily while making a good bit of drag and not
overpressure the motor or gearing or prop hub whatsoever!

Cutting pitch should force the pitch to coarsen, no? It should try and slow the prop and
when I do it in a dive, I've already cut the power as well. AFAIT, the sim CSP's can go
from almost flat to effectively near feather in operation, or so it seems. But then those
same props were able to handle going to and I'd guess beyond max speeds of those planes.

Running engines fast with no load isn't much good for them either, is it? Cutting the
throttle in a steep dive was the norm I am sure but sometimes there were dives made at
full power that did not junk the plane, or at least they still could fly under power after
the dive? Those planes could take a good bit of punishment, dished out right?

Anyway, you drop the desired rpms on a CSP plane IRL and once the prop coarsens to the
stop then that's it for the system trying to slow the engine. The prop stays on the
stop and the engine speed rises as you go faster. I don't see how it's worse than
indicating full engine speed right from the start (to me, better) unless maybe you're
talking about a coordinated controls, pitch and throttle system? I am only going by
CEM and pitch on MANUAL.

The dingbat biz, to me, is being able to hit idle and full rpms suddenly at over 300mph.
Cutting pitch in a dive at high speed and not high power... where is the harm?


Neal

NonWonderDog
08-16-2004, 01:21 PM
The German planes in emergency manual prop pitch mode do NOT have constant speed propellers, in case anyone has any delusions. (Ooopsies, they do... but the Emil doesn't!)

With a constant speed prop, the prop will be coarsened as TAS increases in order to maintain set RPM. After a certain point, the prop can't coarsen any more and RPM is controlled solely by power and airspeed. If you then lower the pitch control, it should have absolutely no effect whatsoever. It won't damage the engine, it won't change prop pitch, it won't do ANYTHING. If it doesn't work this way in the sim, something is wrong. This same something could have an absolutely huge impact on dive accelleration, as the props could be reaching an artificially high pitch angle, allowing more power and giving less drag than they should. Although if it IS wrong, I can't imagine that Oleg wouldn't know about it and be working on it.

Another thing, completely unrelated: shouldn't the props on multi-engine planes fall into full feather when oil pressure fails? You should lose all prop control without oil pressure, in any case. I don't remember this ever happening in the sim, but I've never paid attention to my prop clock when my engine's run out of oil.

[This message was edited by NonWonderDog on Mon August 16 2004 at 03:14 PM.]

BfHeFwMe
08-16-2004, 03:20 PM
Your absolutely right, these systems simply aren't modeled in full detail, no sim does that I'm aware of. One CSP system is not necessarily the same as the next. There are many mechanical variations and levels of CSP, some built to control dive better than others, some with very little dive ability. Some with more physical inputs able to override wrong pilot selections. Very few of this era's planes were going to ever use 90 degree sustained dives as a normal tactic. They had better odds dodging the bullets.

Not easy to do, you have to start modeling detailed inputs to the prop governor, including things such as prop oil pressure and fly weight speeds ect., and also mechanical part structural limits. There's more right there than the average bear would think, and every plane a bit different.

Props are probably the most complex system on the plane, they work pretty dynamically in a true CSP.

ZG77_Lignite
08-16-2004, 03:46 PM
NonWonderDog, the FW190 Does utilize a constant speed prop unit (both historically and in FB). I agree that it historically did have a tertiary emergency electric blade pitch control, but this was in case of constant speed unit failure, many constant speed aircraft had a similar system (including P40 and Il-2); of course FB does not model this secondary back-up control.

Here's to BoB and even more complex engine management.

NonWonderDog
08-16-2004, 04:07 PM
Oh well, I'll admit that I haven't played with the FW190s enough. The Emil certainly doesn't have a constant speed prop in manual mode.

"Electric blade pitch control" -- how did that work exactly? Electric overide of the prop governor, using engine oil to move the blades? Or was it some kind of electric motor with a mechanical linkage?

In any case, it seems that any dive speed irregularites are very probably due to simplistic prop modelling. Oh well, nothing's perfect.

[This message was edited by NonWonderDog on Mon August 16 2004 at 03:18 PM.]

WWMaxGunz
08-16-2004, 05:22 PM
There was the Curtiss Electric Prop and a German one used in some 190's just to name two
of many worldwide. The Curtiss props were in P-40's and many other planes, licensed in
many countries.

I have seen diagrams I think of the German electric prop, or one of them. Rotation of a
shaft would cause weights to spin out against a spring and that would push a collar up
along the shaft. The electric control was two contacts above and below the collar so
that when it got to the upper one and contacted, current would turn the pitch coarser
and if the collar got to the lower one then the pitch would be made finer. A very
dependable system as long as there was electric power, no seals to leak for one thing.
Still it has a gap between the two contacts so you have a real amount of inertia possible
when the collar reaches a contact as opposed to instant adjustment control as with the
hydraulic system with the IMHO higher maintenance and possibly higher weight disadvantages.


Neal

Kurfurst__
08-16-2004, 05:23 PM
I did some dive testing with Spits and 109s when they come out... not yet with the newest patch, though I doubt much would have changed.

The results were rather disappointing. The same era Spit could dive just as well as the 109s (ie. 109F-4 vs. Spit V, MkIX vs 109G-2 to G-6). There was very little difference between the two, both initially and on the long run, the 109s not having any advantage in the dives, though even the historical British tests show this in all cases.

Probably it`s largely a function of drag-power, and weight has little to do with it, hence probably why the G-6 is so poor in dives vs. the Spit IX (G-2 is somewhat better, despite it`s lighter than G-6)).

Certainly it would be nice if Oleg`s team would pay more attention to the 'weight physics'. Right now, it deprieves the heavier planes like the P-47 and FW 190 their only effective combat tactic, and also ruins 109 vs. Spitfire, or Yak/Lagg tactics. I don`t kow about what`s the sit with the light Japanese planes turn-burners vs. the heavyweight USN competition, but I guess it`s similiar. Which is not good news for the Pacific Fighters...

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

OldMan____
08-16-2004, 05:36 PM
In fact that is not the only available tatics.. I am very successfull employing .." poitn guns to target and open fire!!" tatics :P Even If I need to make almost head on aproaches... If the opponent wanna survive.. he must maneuver HARD.. and loose speed.. than.. I go away.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

wojtek_m
08-16-2004, 05:45 PM
Kurfurst__ can you present some real dive test data and compare it to the tests you did in FB? ...or try to recreate the real life tests in FB? Otherwise its just talking you know...

-Logos-

Kurfurst__
08-16-2004, 06:04 PM
AFDU trials, Bf 109 F-2 vs. Spit VB :

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/109/climbanddive.jpg


AFDU trials, Bf 109G-6 with gunpods vs. Spit IX LF :


"Dive
19.........Comparitive dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Me.109 can leave the Spitfire without any difficulty. "



AFDU trials, Bf 109G-6 with gunpods vs. Spit XIV :


"Dive
26.........Comparitive dives show that the Me.109 possesses a slight initial advantage, but this advantage is lost at speeds in excess of 380 I.A.S. "


AFDU trials, Bf 109G-2 vs. Tempest V

Dive
Initial acceleration of the Tempest is not marked, but a prolonged dive brings the Tempest well ahead.


AFDU trials,Tempest V vs Spitfire XIV

Dive
27. The Tempest V gains on the Spitfire XIV.



AFDU trials, Spitfire IX vs Spitfire XIV

Dive
17. The Spitfire XIV will pull away from the Spitfire IX in a dive.


AFDU trials, Mustang III vs Spitfire XIV


Dive
34. As for the Spitfire IX. The Mustang pulls away, but less markedly.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

WWMaxGunz
08-16-2004, 06:25 PM
Oh yes. The ADFU reports with the exact means to duplicate all the compares.
Plastic statistics, get for parties and other get togethers.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

If science worked this way, we would still be riding horses.

Kurfurst__
08-17-2004, 04:18 AM
You have your period now Max, or what?

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

wojtek_m
08-17-2004, 05:48 AM
Kurfurst___ your "data" cannot prove anything... We need NUMBERS, so we can reproduce these within FB. Statements like ".......Comparitive dives between the two aircraft have shown that the Me.109 can leave the Spitfire without any difficulty. " are worthless... this is what WWMaxGunz meant. If you presented such "data" to Oleg I'm not wondering that he just 'ignores' this topic...

-Logos-

Kurfurst__
08-17-2004, 06:03 AM
The test reports are far from worthless. They give an indication of the relative dive performance of the planes, under equal conditions to both planes and the in-game enviroment produces something very different from those. Far better than the controversial 'anecdotal evidences'. We can know for sure the dive model is wrong, and where, in relative to which planes.

I have provided the data I have - I did my part. I have never seen 'numerical' data regarding dives, save a few high-speed dive tests, but those are rather useless alone, for the they either lack important information (nobody was testing dive acceleration, just dive speeds). And frankly I doubt that what you do here, saying 'we need number' and 'no numbers = worthless' would be a constructive contribution to this thread. THAT`s WHAT WE HAVE, if you want better, don`t moan, but try to dig up the data!

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

WWMaxGunz
08-17-2004, 06:09 AM
"Much" is not nearly as good as HOW MUCH. "Leave easily" means just how far and fast?
WTH is a "fairly tight turn" in a 109F even with controls stiffened up? How far you want
to take that?

What are the start conditions in the ADFU reports? I have seen speeds given but no settings
and I have seen "no change in throttle" but nothing about anything else. That may be good
for pilots who were all trained the same as did things the same so they didn't need to say
but for us here with people who will bend steel to warp a point, it's not useable.

Don't point yer old rags at me Kurfurst, just keep em for when you need em.
When you think you can repeat those tests faithfully in any sim then hey, get your Midol too.


Neal

lbhskier37
08-17-2004, 04:58 PM
I know Kurfurst's data doesnt show numbers, but it is data that backs up pilot accounts from all sides throughout the war. MaxGunz, I'm just wondering what your agenda is here, are you disagreeing that P47/FW190/P38 should outaccelerate Spit/Yak/109? Now if you are, could you please give us some evidence of this, numbers, accounts, or otherwise, and not just come in here and tear apart the data that has been found by people who care about this issue? Or if you do disagree that the heavier planes should accelerate in a dive faster, or are neutral are you only here to tear apart Kurfurst, I don't understand your contribution so far.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

LEXX_Luthor
08-17-2004, 05:19 PM
Not sure the more massive planes can "accelerate" faster than the less massive planes until very high dive speeds are achieved where less massive planes should lose accel capability relative to the more massive planes.

Lack of numbers give us nowhere to go.

What a steep dive could do is equalize acclerations between more sluggish massive planes and more zippy less massive planes--steep dive causing huge gravitational acceleration to wash out the differences in acceleration between massive and less massive planes, taking away the usual acceleration advantage of the less massive planes and putting both on equal footing. I dunno. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

lbhskier37
08-17-2004, 05:22 PM
The thing is, it was a documented tactic taught to pilots. I know you can't base everything on pilot accounts (and I'm not, every documented test I have seen has confirmed this albeit without numbers), but there is no data on this subject and no data or accounts or anything disproving it. If it wasn't the case that some of these planes could outdive others why would it be taught as a tactic, and why did it work in real life?

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

LEXX_Luthor
08-17-2004, 05:24 PM
We don't know how some planes out~dove other planes.

The pilot stories don't talk about accelerations, times of dives, angles of dive, initial speeds, gee loading during dive (zero gee best perhaps for acceleration) etc... In the heat of combat the pilots don't think like this but their body is trained to fly and fight. However this is the information one needs to engineer a computer simulation of airplanes.



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

lbhskier37
08-17-2004, 05:45 PM
So is the best solution just to ignore it? There are plenty of things that got in this game that aren't based on hard numbers, accelerated stalls for example, and those are still modeled.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

LEXX_Luthor
08-17-2004, 05:56 PM
And few are Happy with FB stalls, although one objective of dogfighting is to avoid stalling. Can't ignore it, but we need to find numbers or a pilot story that explains what goes on in dive combat in general instead of "lost him in a dive."


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

wojtek_m
08-17-2004, 06:18 PM
I can only repeat myself... dive accelerations ARE modelled, as every plane has an individual mass, drag and thrust. We dont even need a flight model to do these simple calculations... but the planes with better weight/drag ratio ("heavy planes") should accelerate faster only at high speeds, where drag is the most important factor. At slower speeds everything accelerate the same (without thrust), so the thrust to weight ratio is more important...

So is the best solution just to ignore it? There are plenty of things that got in this game that aren't based on hard numbers, accelerated stalls for example, and those are still modeled.

Dont compare stalls to dive accelerations, because stalls cannot be computed properly on todays machines, so it's always some preprogrammed behaviour in every sim - "dives" are easily computed...

The only variable which Oleg didnt know is the individual drag of the planes, so he probably adjusted that drag to become an realistic top speed for every plane. Some people claimed that we have 'realistic' dive accelerations but only on idle power... As the heavy, better diving planes (FW, P47) have often worser thrust to weight ratios than the lighter planes (yak3, la7) these two effects are working against each other when comparing light and heavy planes, so until 'medium' dive speeds the acceleration should be very very similar and only at high speeds the heavy planes should have an edge (..but not an "additional rocket engine" some people are expecting...).

-Logos-

wojtek_m
08-17-2004, 06:20 PM
Some people claimed that we have 'realistic' dive accelerations but only on idle power...

...so individual drag must be modelled... I cannot edit somehow http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

-Logos-

WWMaxGunz
08-17-2004, 06:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lbhskier37:
I know Kurfurst's data doesnt show numbers, but it is data that backs up pilot accounts from all sides throughout the war. MaxGunz, I'm just wondering what your agenda is here, are you disagreeing that P47/FW190/P38 should outaccelerate Spit/Yak/109? Now if you are, could you please give us some evidence of this, numbers, accounts, or otherwise, and not just come in here and tear apart the data that has been found by people who care about this issue? Or if you do disagree that the heavier planes should accelerate in a dive faster, or are neutral are you only here to tear apart Kurfurst, I don't understand your contribution so far.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My "agenda" is that we don't judge the sim using loose reports and anecdotes and then go
around making other statements based on "proven" "facts" that are neither. Generally what
happens when any account with holes in it, holes being places where specifics are not
nailed down, is that the holes get filled to suit peoples' needs. Screw that. What does
outaccelerate mean to you, for instance? How far, how fast before you are satisfied and
does it make a difference in how the planes are controlled? I've that of some people who
say they don't know and then turn around and expect one plane to be seconds of flight time
ahead of the other in just 1500 FEET of dive and following zoom, and not just 2 or 3 seconds
but by a commanding margin! Those are with a P-47D-22 and Spit V. Not gonna happen that
fast. Well Robert Johnson did it in a P-47C vs a Spit, so... Well yeah, Johnson got a
lead after doing a bunch of rolls and jinks that had the Spit trailing before he ever did
the dive and zoom, i.e. the lead was started before the final move -- but that's how these
stories get turned into "why can't I do that in the sim" posts and I am "agenda'd" against
it. Too much "fill in the blanks" rhetoric for me to get started up the abstract ladder
anyone wants me to climb, thank you.

Was that a 109G with gunpods or a 109G with weights added equal to the weight of gunpods?
I seem to remember at least one ADFU "test" where weights were added but not gunpods with
all the added drag that go with gunpods.


Neal

LEXX_Luthor
08-17-2004, 06:38 PM
Awsum wojtek. mmm, I am thinking a dive may act to equalize accelerations for all planes until the higher speeds are reached. The steeper the dive the more the equalization because of gravititational acceleration is so much greater than any WW2 aircraft self powered acceleration (ie...level flight acceleration).

To take acceleration advantage AWAY from the (normally) zippy plane is to GIVE relative advantage to the (normally) sluggish plane....until high speeds are reached where the more "massive" planes have their accelerations Reduced--but not as much Reduced as the (normally) zippy planes.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

lbhskier37
08-17-2004, 06:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wojtek_m:


Dont compare stalls to dive accelerations, because stalls cannot be computed properly on todays machines, so it's always some preprogrammed behaviour in every sim - "dives" are easily computed...


-Logos-<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Freefaalls are easily computed, dives are just as impossible to fully compute as stalls on the computers we have, so it is just as valid a comparison.

The problem here is that there is NO difference with power on, we do know that there was some difference in real life, just like we know there was a difference in stalls and other things in real life but dont have solid data. I know we cant be perfectly on, but leaving the accelerations the same when we knew they weren't doesnt seem like the right solution to me. I don't expect to rocket away and be out of reach in 2 seconds from the spit that was 50m behind me, I expect to be able to dive when a spit is 200+m away from me and pull enough lead not to die.

The bigger problem I am beggining to feel is the zoom climb. Light planes that bleed almost no energy zoom better than heavy planes. This totally ruins energy fighting. Again here is a place where we have comparison tests claiming that FWs/P47s should zoomclimb better than Spits/109s. In the game right now its not the same like it is with dive, it is the opposite. Should this stay the backwards of what it should be because we dont have numbers?

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

LEXX_Luthor
08-17-2004, 07:05 PM
Zoom numbers we can get by the proper FM testing.

Agree on initial speed and altitude. Pull up and measure altitude gain to some agreed limit of airspeed or agreed time limit. Repeat for various zoom climb angles (how to measure zoom climb angle?? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif ). I would be very interested in seeing this done for many planes, not just Fw and Spit as this could confirm or deny a more extensive sim issue.

For initial speeds greater than max level speeds, one could gain excess speed in a dive, level off and wait for the agreed initial speed and then pull up.

Then repeat for another plane to compare data with.

As much as Gibbage Whined about 50 calibre, he and his more sincere, serious, and even severe followers conducted in-game tests that I too repeated at home and convinced me solidly. The test data is what convinced Oleg. Thanks Gibbage and Team. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

WWMaxGunz
08-17-2004, 07:11 PM
If you can initiate your dive and be into it before your enemy has time to react then
even with a small edge for you, he will never get as close. P-47 rolls very well.

If you have more control at high dive speed then you can weave as you leave your
pursuit behind and give him small chance of hitting you. You can also change the
whole direction of the dive and gain time and distance while he has a harder time
bringing his plane on course with you and probably loses more speed in the process.

Probably more planes should get into having controls locking up in compression in
the sim right during the shakes. Then if the player doesn't back off the power,
bad things should happen. Well, maybe we do when the planes explode. Should it
be sooner for some or all of the planes? Things like that would force a lot of
players to approach highspeed dives with a bit more caution. People did survive
full power dives but more did not or did back off when the going got rough AFAIK.

What you all need? Look at the top level flight speeds. Take any of the fastest
planes and look at the last 2 or 3 models. Engine power increase = speed increase.
Lot of HP for not a lot of speed. Drag of extra speed QUICKLY equals all the power
added. Dive is extra power, lots of it. But the extra speed is already on top of
a whole lot of speed. If the power of gravity x mass in the dive is 3x the power
of power of thrust on level then hey, once you hit compression speeds the drag
goes up loads faster than square of speed.

Dive speed records... I look at different pilots flying the same planes and see a
range of speeds. In reality it was more about skill, balls and luck where in the
sim we expect to go step 1, 2, 3 and get the magic value. And we expect the same
speed to be achieveable at any alt, some of us or else where does Plane-X dives
with this speed vs Plane-Y dives with that speed, and no mention of alts and
conditions?

It's crazy to make claims on the limited data we have. One plane should dive faster
that some other, yes granted. How much? Is that at the start, middle, end or all?
As it's been noted, the sim flies by more basic rules.

Write to Oleg a nice, polite email requesting a little understanding. Maybe he will
write you back. Ask if you can quote his answer right in that email. I did not in
mine and I got no such answer so I don't post what he wrote back to me. The answers
gave me a scale to work with that I can accept and understand, even with math and my
limited science. But I won't post what all he wrote so you have to ask for yourselves.

Good day.


Neal

wojtek_m
08-17-2004, 08:12 PM
Ok you forced me to do it... I finally did a "full power" dive comparison between an good and an bad diving plane... FW-190D9 against A6M5a. An 'no power' test would be much better to determine if the aircraft have individual drag figures, but these tests were succesfully completed by someone else... the 'full power' just adds noise to the test results...

What I did?
1) I did only ONE test per plane - repeat it if you have time...
2) I started at 300 kph TAS at 7500 m and dived at 45? (last bar in wonderwoman hud - it is 45? I think otherwise its constant for both though...)then I noted the speed every 500m down to 3000m.
3) The planes are indestroyable in the (difficulty settings) in order to achieve high speeds, where drag is the key factor
4) I MANUALLY adjusted prop pitch for both planes during the dive to not overrev the engine
5) I had to manually adjust the mixture for the A6M5a
6) You could get probably a slightly better result for the A6M5a, because of the manual mixture...

Ok, the results: I only can use quick reply here, so I put the diagram on www.boersencheckpoint.de (http://www.boersencheckpoint.de)

As you can see there DEFINITELY are individual dive speeds. The low drag FW190 can achieve much higher terminal velocity and accelerates much faster in a dive. As expected the gap gets wider and wider between the two the faster they are, where drag is the key factor.

A note: You probably can get supersonic in the FW, but the transsonic/supersonic regime is really tuff to model, so i dont think it is modelled correctly in FB.

Now after the test I can say: "My Fw190D9 could leave an A6M5a in a dive without a problem"

-Logos-

robban75
08-17-2004, 11:21 PM
Here's a dive comparison between the La-7 and D-9.

Same procedure as wojtek. Only I started at 3000m.
La-7(left, D-9(right) I made 3 dives for each plane.

3000 - 353 - 353
2500 - 530 - 530
2000 - 623 - 619
1500 - 702 - 697
1000 - 774 - 772
500 - 829 - 832

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
08-18-2004, 09:56 AM
Must disagree.

tested 3 planes.
100% fuel, 5000m altitude.
started from 300-350 km/h dived at about 30?-40? degrees and made a track. then i counted the seconds until 700km/h were reached.
as we know the Jug should outdive em all and at least the FW190 should be a good diver too.
I picked them and tested against a yak3.

result:
FW190: 350 - 700km/h : 15 seconds
P-47: 330-700 km/h: 15-16 seconds (which is cool since it dives a bit faster)
Yak-3: 300(!!) - 700: 15 seoncds
one oculd even say the yak dives faster eh ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
No difference. Compare weight and, drag and all other stuff.

Tracks here:
http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/divetests.zip

IMHO: if we'Re comparing diveaccelarations in regard to combat reports like "I could leave them standing" or "I could leave combat by diving away since i was gaining speed faster" then one should see how fast the planes accelarate.

S!
http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

Kurfurst__
08-18-2004, 10:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Was that a 109G with gunpods or a 109G with weights added equal to the weight of gunpods?
I seem to remember at least one ADFU "test" where weights were added but not gunpods with
all the added drag that go with gunpods.

Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So which one would be that AFDU "test", Neal?

Me thinks that you had just made up a funny story about those gunpods, as you try rather hard to dismiss all the results completely, for a reason only you may seem to know, but which makes a disservice to this sim for sure. You either show something that disproves those, something of an alternative, something that is better, or kindly lower your voice factor here, if you have nothing to say.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

LEXX_Luthor
08-18-2004, 11:59 AM
Below, Yak~3 inferior dive to D~9, but La~7 similar to D~9 (44)...starting at 6km altitude and
300km/hr, maintain ~30 degree dive angle (how? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )


later EDIT:: forgot and in a rush used 100% fuel and these numbers are porked....Yak~3 dives same as the others with proper fuel mix.


alt 6000 5000 4000 3000
Yak 300. 390. 560. 690. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif
La7 300. 430. 600. 720.
.D9 300. 440. 600. 730.


Sweet test. Mission starts your nose pointing at the ground at the next [zero altitude] waypoint. Just keep the Near End of that high visibility concrete runway in your gunsight. To change dive angle, change initial altitude and/or move initial waypoint to the East or West. This 6000m start altitude gives dive angle of 31 degrees (not exact due to control issues). Use slow time if desired but state so. I did.

50% fuel and Default weapons as can be seen. 12 Noon clear sky Crimea. Radiators closed, all tests done with 100% throttle NO BOOST and no overheat. Probably forgot something to mention.


[MAIN]
MAP Crimea/load.ini
TIME 12.0
CloudType 0
CloudHeight 1500.0
player r0100
army 1
playerNum 0
[Wing]
r0100
[r0100]
Planes 1
Skill 1
numberOn0 0
Class air.FW_190D9
Fuel 50
weapons default
[r0100_Way]
NORMFLY 69973.12 47229.79 6000.00 300.00
NORMFLY 80032.89 47252.00 0.00 300.00
[NStationary]
[Buildings]
[Bridge]
[House]

[This message was edited by LEXX_Luthor on Wed August 18 2004 at 04:36 PM.]

[This message was edited by LEXX_Luthor on Wed August 18 2004 at 04:37 PM.]

Loki-PF
08-18-2004, 01:13 PM
Lexx, Roban, Wojtek_m,

Great work guys, this is EXACTLY what these types of discusions need. No arguments about my document is bigger than your document etc. Just reasoned discourse and semi-scientific http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif research about what the "GAME ENGINE" is telling us.

I really feel there is no point arguing about individual FM's until we all agree about what is really going on in the game!

Good work, I'll try to try some more tonight

Salute!
Loki

LEXX_Luthor
08-18-2004, 02:12 PM
thanks http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Lois_Lane:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Probably forgot something to mention.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
indeed, IAS not TAS http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

WWMaxGunz
08-18-2004, 02:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Was that a 109G with gunpods or a 109G with weights added equal to the weight of gunpods?
I seem to remember at least one ADFU "test" where weights were added but not gunpods with
all the added drag that go with gunpods.

Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So which one would be that AFDU "test", Neal?

Me thinks that you had just made up a funny story about those gunpods, as you try rather hard to dismiss all the results completely, for a reason only you may seem to know, but which makes a disservice to this sim for sure. You either show something that disproves those, something of an alternative, something that is better, or kindly lower your voice factor here, if you have nothing to say.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sure OFFICER. What part of SEEM TO REMEMBER is beyond you?
I had no idea that you ran things here but I guess you straightened me out!

robban75
08-18-2004, 03:38 PM
What makes a good diver?

1.Good power/weight ratio

2.Good aerodynamics

3.Heavy weight

4.High wingloading

Now, let's compare the Fw 190D-9 and La-7 in this case.

Which one would be the better diver?

D-9 strong points:

-Heavy weight
-Low drag airframe
-High wingloading

Weak points

-Not so good acceleration

La-7:

Strong points.

-Good acceleration
-Low drag airframe

Weak points.

-Low weight
-Low wingloading

Both planes have the same SL topspeed, 612km/h. The La-7 achieves this with 1850hp, and the D-9 with 2100hp. The La-7 is considerably smaller, it's about 2/3 the size of a D-9. Which one has the lowest drag airframe? I haven't got a clue. Any experts here on this subject?

The D-9's level acceleration at SL is slightly lower than the La-7's. In game the La-7 outaccelerates the D-9 by a great margin but only at speeds over 500km/h.(!?) See below.

Timer started at 300km/h. Time in seconds.

La-7(left, D-9(right)

350 - 4 - 5
400 - 10 - 12
450 - 17 - 21
500 - 27 - 33
550 - 43 - 52
600 - 87 - 103

The small and powerful La-7 barely walks away from the D-9 at the lower speeds, while at the higher speeds it's totally superior. Seems weird to me, it should be the other way around.

The low wingloading of the La-7 cause alot of lift at low speed giving it a good advantage in low speed turn fights, but at the same time it would cause alot of lift(drag) as the speed rises. So, at the higher speeds the D-9's high wingloading would pay off, but it doesn't, it's barely noticable.
We all now that the La-7 handily outturns the D-9 at low speeds thanks to its much lower wingloading. It's quite clear that the D-9 has a high wingloading. It is very noticable in the low speed regime. At high speed the D-9 feels very agile indeed, and it's very clear that this is its true domain. But when comparing the La-7 and D-9 at high speeds, things get confusing. The benefits from having a high weight/wingloading, is simply not there.


Below are some dive tests. I dove each plane 3 times. (All dives were recorded, and timed in playback)

I start at 3000m, then I read the speed after every 500m passed.

La-7(left) - D-9(right) ,full power and boost speeds in TAS.

3000 - 353 - 353
2500 - 530 - 530
2000 - 623 - 619
1500 - 701 - 697
1000 - 774 - 772
500m - 829 - 832

Extreme similarity between the two.

Shouldn't the difference be more pronounced?

Help me out here, please.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

LEXX_Luthor
08-18-2004, 05:34 PM
I porked my earlier test, didn't use proper mixture.

Now Yak~3 dives same as La~7 and D~9.

Will try later with a lower initial altitude and shallower dive angles.

I realized I messed up driving into town and maybe the fumes made me think of fuel mix. The good news:: http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif picked up paycheck and at local old book store found 1956 US Army publication Soviet Partisan Movement 1941-1944 with cool flex hardback binding. 20$

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

p1ngu666
08-18-2004, 05:49 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
&lt;123_GWood_JG123&gt; NO SPAM!

LEXX_Luthor
08-18-2004, 05:51 PM
pingu:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

Bull_dog_
08-18-2004, 07:09 PM
As I think about dive characteristics...I can't find too much in the way of data, but the dialog of pilots and the fact that in head to head comparison dive and zoom climb were very often measured as a key to combat tactics and effectiveness.

A rational person could deduct that there is a substantial difference in the performance from good to medium to bad dive and zoom characteristics. Quantifying it would be hard and I'm just not aware of any x plane diving at y angle for z distance yields a certain speed etc. However, there is much written about relative performance and how a dive/zoom climb can turn a disadvantage to a combat advantage for a good diving aircraft against a poor diver.

When I think about very good climbers like 109's and Spitfires against very poor climbers like P-47's and Fw A-8 or A-9 my actual tactics dictate the way the battle goes...upwards if I'm flying a climbing aircraft and downward if I'm flying the heavy aircraft.

It then stands to reason that the relative differences between the best diving aircraft (Tempest for example) against one of the worst say a 109F would be as stark and obvious as the difference in climb rates of the best to worst.

If it wasn't...then why the heck would anyone bother adopting fighter tactics to suit zoom and dive??? People's lives were on the line and Jug pilots will all swear that if they pointed their nose earthward, no German or Jap plane could stay with them for long...if they did follow, the Jug would zoom and gain and advantage over the adversary.

I don't know where Oleg gets his data from, but ingame/online there are slight differences in many single engined fighters but their differences are so marginal that it takes extensive testing to eek out a few km/hr difference...in the climb, it is fairly easy to tell the best from the worst. My reality says the relative difference between a poor diver vs. a good diver would be about as dramatic and fairly easy to quantify...the fact that it is hard to quantify and that a Fw can't dive away from a Spit Mk V tells me that whatever data is being looked at, it is not translating into the game as an advantage/disadvantage as it did in real life...and that is the goal of a simulator...simulate the flying/combat experience. No matter what the data says, flight engines are limited and when certain characteristics (roll rate comes to mind) don't translate into an advantage/disadvantage in the game, then there is an opportunity for improvement.

Whatever the data says, I hope the game reflects the relative advantage/disadvantages of various aircraft...I don't like flying ubercraft with no weaknesses and I find flying aircraft with no superior characteristics frustrating...especially on line. ALL aircraft that were successful had something over their adversary and those whose mission suited those characteristics closest, enjoyed the best success....case in point...Mustang in escort role, Spitfire in home defense role, Fw in ground attack and bomber intercept...and how poorly the 109E performed in an escort role, or how terribly the Zero performed as bomber interceptor or the Typhoon as interceptor....P-38 may be the best example of this...terrible at high altitude bomber escort but great as interceptor and ground attack at low and medium.

lbhskier37
08-18-2004, 09:33 PM
S! Lexx! I unfortunatly haven't had the time to do formal tests on this. All my comments have been based on personal observation in game, and looking at tests others have done in the past. I'm glad there are guys out there like you and Robban that go out and test this stuff thouroughly and document it. Also S! for catching your mistake, I was getting very confused that your data was so far off from Robbans as I have always seen Robban to have pretty accurate tests. I think seeing these tests and maybe sending some tracks of this to Oleg is the first step to getting something done about it. I really love this game and hate to hear all the constant whining, but really believe this isn't a whine and very important, especially for the upcoming PF. (especially in a Wildcat)

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

WWMaxGunz
08-18-2004, 10:15 PM
When I pass someone on the highway who is going 65mph and I am goin 80mph, I just
left him behind, whatever the term you wish. And it looks and feels the same when
he is at 95 and I am at 110. The same relation. Over a 15mph difference.

Some people look at numbers and somehow the speeds must compare, one must be bigger
by percent they reason. Uh-uh. You don't feel the speed in absolute terms. One
passes you and that becomes your relative speed. That is the experience, go and
do it and see. Or ask someone who does.


Neal

LEXX_Luthor
08-18-2004, 10:26 PM
mmm, thanks. Your in~game observations seem to be appearing in the numbers. Just did more Yak~3 vs Dora44 with 20 degree dive starting at 4km. Identical dive even to 600km/hr reached at 2km, thus showing same dive accel even into the medium~high speed regions. Yak begins to shake shortly thereafter. More tests needed--this was very short test here. Need also to do level flight acceleration tests and see why dive accelerations are different even with 20 degree dive angle.

Something very interesting things forming up. Recall robban's old level flight acceleration tests which showed fair differences between La~7 and Dora44, but they seem to have same dive acceleration. Also, something BullDog mentioned, its easy to see vast differences in climb test data, but hard to see differences in dive tests (so far). One works against gravity, the other works with gravity. Now, this should makes sense as gravity far out powers the thrust of WW2 aircraft, but how to go from robban's differences in level acceleration to no differences in a shallow dive--shallow being 20 degrees in my latest test, although perhaps not shallow enough? How the Devs handled gravity here may be the key to think about.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

lbhskier37
08-24-2004, 04:31 PM
bump to keep this in peoples minds, and hopefully get some attention from dev. team

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

k5054
08-25-2004, 12:21 PM
I've done a fair amount of work on the dive physics, using standard aero equations. Somewhere on this web is a time/alt/speed chart of a spitfire diving to 600mph TAS, and similar for a jug. Comparing these with some tests done by Hyperion here some while ago and timed with devicelink, I can see IL2 does map dive accelerations reasonably up to a point, but over 400mph true the acceleration diverges from the spitfire/jug tests and is too fast. The length of time taken to add 10mph in the RL tests is greater than in IL2, so it's my speculation that mach effects are not modelled, that is transonic drag rise. I don't have my results in a presentable form yet. In the RL test, the thrust of the spit prop at 600mph was stated as 120lb. This is way small compared to the vertical component of the weight, and is having little effect on the dive acceleration. That leaves the drag and the weight, acting on the mass. And the determining factor in dive acceleration at high speeds is thus the ballistic coefficient, a figure well known in bullet/shell/rocket ballistics, so this is rocket science after all.

Anyhow, the higher the ballistic coefficient (=mass/(drag coeff * area)), the more the dive acceleration.
Here is my list of WW2 fighters ordered by ballistic coefficient. Not definitive, some of the drag figures are subject to the quality of the input data, but here it is, again, for those who remember the first time.

he219a7 2840
p51d 2741
me262 2727
p40n 2575
f4u4 2514
p51b 2456
p51a 2449
f4u1a 2346
tempest V 2332
p63a 2275
mosquito19 2270
fw190d9 2216
typhoon 2122
fw190a3 2092
p47n 2073
george 2027
p40e 2025
spitfire 14 2019
bf109g10 2013
firefly 1967
frank 1966
yak7 1951
p39d 1906
mosquito 2 1893
p40f 1893
p61 1889
bf109g2 1886
p38j 1869
jack 1868
f6f3 1848
yak9 1811
p40b 1800
re2005 1799
bf109k 1793
p47d 1790
mc202 1786
bf109f4 1780
yak3 1779
spitfire lf9 1755
mc205 1748
lanc 1700
p38f 1678
tony 1669
ju88c 1644
g55 1641
lagg3 1606
spitfire 7 1605
spitfire 12 1587
whirlwind 1576
ta152h 1565
re2001 1544
spitfire lf5 1541
me410 1508
la7 1505
seafire lf3 1500
spitfire 9 1497
ju88g6 1481
B24H 1477
bf109e3 1457
bf110c 1456
la5 1448
mig3 1439
ki100 1436
p66 1411
p43 1404
yak1 1375
spitfire 1 1374
bf110g4 1371
f2a3 1360
defiant 1359
he112 1359
f4f4 1349
beau 1 1340
hurricane 2 1330
tojo 1318
c714 1317
d520 1314
zeke52 1307
seafire lf2 1269
fulmar 1259
fm-2 1250
B17e 1214
re2000 1211
p36a/cycl 1193
zeke21 1170
p36a/wasp 1167
mb152 1145
zeke32 1121
g1 1115
ik3 1114
hurricane 1 1072
spitfire 6 1042
ms406 1040
oscar 1032
iar80 1031
bf109c 1029
p35 1005
nick 987
g50 976
mc200 970
I-16 929
cw21b 850
rex 821
rufe 717
potez631 701
dxxi 684
cr42 677
nate 671
claude 604
cr32 572
gladiator 522
I-153 520
ik2 501
avia b534 499
pzl24 491
pzl11 450

lbhskier37
08-25-2004, 04:05 PM
interesting data, where did you get the drag coefs?

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

Atomic_Marten
08-25-2004, 04:26 PM
If this is true, what I cannot be sure of 'cause I'm total noob on a subject, I'd say that lack of proper dive capabilities seriously cripples BnZ planes. Another words, we can BnZ in just anything, and the only thing we must watch for is dive speed (those nasty wing-fell-off habbits of some planes... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif). And yes, guys claiming superiority of pure BnZ planes over more manouverable ones should really reconsider what they are saying if this is true.

BTW sign me in for this petition. Excellent idea http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif.

Fly sharp http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/93.gif

Atomic_Marten
08-25-2004, 04:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lbhskier37:
Now I am sick to death of being called a luftwhiner when I get pissed because a spit with equal or less energy caught me in a zoom climb and killed me. The problem is not specific to german planes at all. Have any of you tried to fight a Yak in a P47? Good luck! How about when PF comes out and the only advantage the Wildcat had over the Zero doesn't exist in this game because all planes dive and zoom the same. Everyone keep bumping this if you want to see this issue fixed. Or at least tell us that its not possible to do in the current engine. I for one would pay $50 for a game add-on that included only a fix for this. Oleg PLEASE fix this! This is the single biggest problem with this game. When PF comes out I its going to be hell in this forum because all the american pilots are going to find out they cant use thier biggest advantage.(kinda like all us FW whiners now) American planes will all be relegated to hit and run tactics like the FWs are now. PLEASE Oleg PLEASE address this in PF, it would make you sim perfect!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And yes, big bump for this. On the top of priority. When PF comes out and this issue remains un-fixed (that is if, what I stated before, it lacked in current version), I dunno what US fighter can stand against this kind of advantage.

MEGILE
08-25-2004, 05:37 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif I'm confused..

is the consensus that Dive/Zoom differences are moddelled, but they are so marginal that it is not realistic..
or are they not moddelled at all... Now robban's testing indicates a D9 out diving an LA7.. but I'd like to know what happens when that nose goes back up into a zoom climb, would the D9 leave the LA7 behind?

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51darkj.jpg

"Notice how much larger the HL installed file is; this is because it contains powerful commands used on your machine via remote control" - Galen Thurber http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

WWMaxGunz
08-25-2004, 08:29 PM
From what Oleg wrote to me, less than 25 feet per second difference was considered
as a pretty good dive speed difference. Someone goes by you that much faster and
in seconds leaves you behind, what do you see? What do you say? These ain't jets
and consider the highway speeds people normally drove at in those years, about 45mph
from what my relatives who were around back then told me. So how much is much?

S! K5054! Good to see you back! When Oryx has finished moving and settling in he
may reappear too!

I appreciate what you give on how the accel differs above 400mph. I have seen a
chart of G's per pound of stick force for the P-39 that shows actual curve that
includes wing bulging effects as well as compression, then below (less stick per G)
is the calculted from mach alone curve, then underneath a straight line of pull
with no mach or wing bulge. the first two curves were close but where they both
went near vertical translated as maybe 20+ max mph. And get this, the curves
started to rise from the straight line at 400mph!


Neal

lbhskier37
08-25-2004, 09:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Megile:
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif I'm confused..

is the consensus that Dive/Zoom differences are moddelled, but they are so marginal that it is not realistic..
or are they not moddelled at all... Now robban's testing indicates a D9 out diving an LA7.. but I'd like to know what happens when that nose goes back up into a zoom climb, would the D9 leave the LA7 behind?

http://www.5thairforce.com/e107_files/public/p51darkj.jpg

_"Notice how much larger the HL installed file is; this is because it contains powerful commands used on your machine via remote control"_ - Galen Thurber http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Robbans chart shows that D9 outdives La7 only when both are at idle, but if you put the power on the acceleration is nil.

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

wojtek_m
08-26-2004, 06:46 AM
Robbans chart shows that D9 outdives La7 only when both are at idle, but if you put the power on the acceleration is nil.

Do you really believe the 'physics model' changes when going to full power or what? It's just the two effects working agains each other: the FW has a better drag-to-mass ratio or ballistic coefficient(as shown by the idle test) and the La has the better powerloading and thus acceleration, so the FW has only an advantage at high speeds, where the drag plays the key role (At slow speeds the La7 should accelerate better in a dive). How often must I repeat it? The FW is a wonderfully diving plane, playing online I see them outdiving me very often - what's the problem? Do you need rocket engines?

-Logos-

robban75
08-26-2004, 10:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wojtek_m:
Do you really believe the 'physics model' changes when going to full power or what? It's just the two effects working agains each other: the FW has a better drag-to-mass ratio or ballistic coefficient(as shown by the idle test) and the La has the better powerloading and thus acceleration, so the FW has only an advantage at high speeds, where the drag plays the key role (At slow speeds the La7 should accelerate better in a dive). How often must I repeat it? The FW is a wonderfully diving plane, playing online I see them outdiving me very often - what's the problem? Do you need rocket engines?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The La-7 doesn't accelerate better than the D-9 in the initial part of the dive. It starts to pull away(barely) first after 1000m,. The D-9 starts to show a slight superiority at speed in excess of 800km/h. Need I tell you that these speeds are quite extreme in RL for fighters. The La-7 had a very low wingloading, creating alot of lift at the lower speeds. At high speeds the La-7's wing would cause a massive amount of lift(drag), forcing the nose to come up. The pilot would then ave to trim the nose downward creating alot of drag. The Fw 190 required no trimming for most of the flight envelope, much thanks to its high wingloading.

I find it hard to believe that heavy D-9 must have to reach close to 900km/h IAS in order to leave the light La-7 behind in the dive.

La-7(left, D-9(right)

These are the best speeds I got from 3 tests.

7500 - 308 - 309 starting speed
7000 - 489 - 489
6500 - 618 - 616
6000 - 708 - 707
5500 - 771 - 772
5000 - 831 - 837
4500 - 888 - 900
4000 - 936 - 954
3500 - 976 - 999

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

k5054
08-26-2004, 11:11 AM
Hey Max. I've been away for a couple of weeks of no Il2. But I did manage to see two 109s, a D-9, two 262s,numerous P-51 including an A-36, a MC200 and a MC202 and the last Spitfire VII. Let's not forget the A6M2, the B-36 and Bock's Car.

For Robban, useful figures as always. I don't think you're right about trim drag, it's there all right, but not a significant figure as the speed rises.

I don't believe that there is a dive model per se, nor a zoom. The same physics applies, if you have the right input numbers, and they ought to work in the one performance model. I personally don't think that model is a good one in AEP when you get to high speeds, a drag rise from transonic effects is not predictable based on book performance figures as the normal drag is. IMO AEP makes no attempt to do this. Basically in a dive the best power/weight a/c will win at low speeds, then as speeds approach level max the faster a/c will dive faster. Then above level max the best ballistic coefficient will win. AEP works in the first and second parts but not the third.
As previously mentioned here, dive acceleration differences are smaller than it seems when reading pilot accounts. I don't claim to understand this. Basically though the very biggest differences at medium speeds would be like standing still and watching a car drive off accelerating. No faster than that. Mostly it would be like the difference between two cars off the lights. The biggest differences will be in shallow dives because steep dives don't last long enough for the big separations to build up.

As a side issue from my last ballistic coeff list, here's the drag figures of a lot of WW2 types, this being what we call the relative flat plate area, but really the area * the zero lift drag coeff, and a realistic measure for comparing actual drag. Here it's in sq feet, but that doesn't matter much. (To get actual drag multiply this by speed squared and air density then divide by 2, keeping the units consistent, but remember this is profile drag only.)

Long list follows...

2.93 c714
3.3 yak3
3.42 yak7
3.51 p51a
3.59 bf109f4
3.62 mc202
3.65 he112
3.68 bf109g10
3.68 p51d
3.74 bf109g2
3.75 p51b
3.9 yak9
4.03 bf109e3
4.07 mc205
4.07 p40b
4.09 p40e
4.11 jack
4.12 p39d
4.19 fw190a3
4.21 spitfire 1
4.27 spitfire lf9
4.28 fw190d9
4.29 tony
4.31 spitfire lf5
4.36 frank
4.38 lagg3
4.42 re2005
4.43 bf109k
4.43 p40n
4.46 spitfire 14
4.46 george
4.49 p40f
4.52 yak1
4.61 zeke52
4.61 p63a
4.62 tojo
4.66 spitfire 12
4.67 d520
4.67 spitfire 7
4.68 re2001
4.73 g55
4.73 seafire lf3
4.86 I-16
4.89 tempest V
4.92 bf109c
4.94 f4u4
4.98 la7
5 mc200
5.01 spitfire 9
5.04 p36a/cycl
5.08 nate
5.12 la5
5.13 mig3
5.13 f4u1a
5.15 p36a/wasp
5.17 me262
5.19 typhoon
5.19 re2000
5.2 ik3
5.23 p66
5.24 ms406
5.26 f2a3
5.27 zeke32
5.27 zeke21
5.29 cw21b
5.3 p43
5.31 iar80
5.37 ki100
5.39 mb152
5.51 seafire lf2
5.52 oscar
5.7 g50
5.8 hurricane 1
5.9 f4f4
5.99 fm-2
6.01 hurricane 2
6.1 claude
6.16 f6f3
6.27 p35
6.33 defiant
6.53 spitfire 6
6.6 whirlwind
6.61 dxxi
6.71 ta152h
7.13 firefly
7.48 cr42
7.54 p47d
7.6 cr32
7.79 fulmar
7.86 p47n
8.12 I-153
8.17 ik2
8.77 avia b534
8.79 gladiator
8.82 pzl11
8.86 rufe
8.97 pzl24
9.36 p38j
9.47 p38f
9.49 g1
9.56 mosquito 2
9.58 mosquito19
9.97 rex
10.21 he219a7
10.22 bf110c
11.82 potez631
12.23 nick
14.11 me410
14.82 p61
15.1 bf110g4
15.75 beau 1
15.89 ju88c
19.51 ju88g6
32.35 lanc
37.25 B24H
40.13 B17e

wojtek_m
08-26-2004, 12:20 PM
I personally don't think that model is a good one in AEP when you get to high speeds, a drag rise from transonic effects is not predictable based on book performance figures as the normal drag is.

Basically there is no sim that can simulate transsonic/supersonic regimes on PC accurately. Even Xplane has a lot of problems with it. The transsonic/supersonic physics are just too much for todays PCs - every sim uses some sort of simplification - il2FB wasn't even designed to simulate that speeds, so its 'simplification is probably even simpler'...

@robban: no offense, I appreciate your testing work http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I wouldnt expect the late FWs and the La7 to differ that much in a dive except at high speeds. I know that some pilot accounts (e.g. your sig) say other things... the test you've made is tendencially what I would expect, but as we dont know drag coeffs we dont know about magnitudes...

-Logos-

WWMaxGunz
08-26-2004, 02:16 PM
K5054, not a criticism but you might specify the type of cars pulling out
because some people will jump on 'race cars' and others expect 'top fuel
dragsters' it seems with 1/4 mile (about 400m) in 3 to 6 seconds vs a
Chevette with engine trouble. Or maybe I exaggerate?


Neal

lbhskier37
08-26-2004, 04:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wojtek_m:
_I personally don't think that model is a good one in AEP when you get to high speeds, a drag rise from transonic effects is not predictable based on book performance figures as the normal drag is._

Basically there is no sim that can simulate transsonic/supersonic regimes on PC accurately. Even Xplane has a lot of problems with it. The transsonic/supersonic physics are just too much for todays PCs - every sim uses some sort of simplification - il2FB wasn't even designed to simulate that speeds, so its 'simplification is probably even simpler'...

@robban: no offense, I appreciate your testing work http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I wouldnt expect the late FWs and the La7 to differ that much in a dive except at high speeds. I know that some pilot accounts (e.g. your sig) say other things... the test you've made is tendencially what I would expect, but as we dont know drag coeffs we dont know about magnitudes...

-Logos-<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The comparison works the same if you chose a P47 and Yak 3. Try it yourself. And K5054, thats interesting info, but there is a lot more to drag than just profile drag, when you are at higher speeds like aircraft are pressure drag is a big factor.

WWMaxGunz, if you really believe dive/zoom should stay as it is because we dont have hard numbers and only comparisons (and this is assuming it can change which maybe it can't) then shouldnt energy bleed be the same for all planes? We know they should be different, but how different http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/2005VRSCSE.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&whereauthorid=lbhkilla&comefrom=display&ts=1049772896)
Official "uber190n00b"

"Big cannons are only for skilless pilots who can't shoot shraight enough to hit a target with a smaller caliber round."-310thcopperhead

k5054
08-27-2004, 11:17 AM
Neal, I'm looking at slow cars, accelerating like people do, not racers. The best fighters accelerating at their best speed have, say, &lt;400hp per ton. That would be the very fastest street car. The accel is about 0.5g. The difference between two fighters, even best vs worst, is going to be far less than 0.5g, and down in the 100hp/ton area, which is a pretty ordinary car, albeit driven at full throttle. And this is at best accel speed, which also corresponds with speed for best climb rate, down around 250kph.
All this straight from my head and subject to inaccuracy/mistakes.

The profile drag info is also subject to reliability of input data, but some of it matches with figures seen elsewhere.

Transonic drag rise? I wouldn't expect 1c to be able to calculate it, but maybe above some speed in the 450mph range the drag could depart from the v squared and go to v ^ 2+x where x is a factor for each aircraft. How to derive x is another question. There is some stuff on an old NACA report, but I couldn't figure it out. Somebody with better aerodynamics than (self-taught) me maybe could do it.

But how about zoom? Most (all?) of this happens in the subsonic area and the ballistic coeff comparison ought to apply. This means the 1c model should apply too. Why do reports imply big differences? What does the sim do? Anybody got tests?

WWMaxGunz
08-27-2004, 12:56 PM
Ibhskier, I don't know the -difference- of what I see from what was real.
I do know that in 'the court of Oleg' that he wants to see the papers and
like with ole Judge Wapner, no papers = no case = no change. Well, the
other TV judges are the same and my one case in court went that way too.

K5054, I'm sure we've both been a bit stumped by what the prop drag should be.
Profile drag in level flight always has the prop in tractor mode. Your cars
pulling out is well in the range of speed differences Oleg gave me for WWII
fighters, at least contemporaries. If 'all planes dive the same' then the
extremes do too? Pzl-11 and I-153 the same as Yak-3, as P-47D-27, as 190-A9?
There are others. I think not all the same but I agree that something seems
to be missing in the FM.

The P-39N stick pull to G's chart shows a real difference between calculated
with compression taken into accout from real with wing bulging (the skin I
suppose) noted and compression as the chart says. The difference I see is
in how late the compression steep upcurve sets in and the start, also the
curves themselves starting 430mph the calculated curve is slightly less steep.
I see the difference in that calculated to real as a root cause kind of thing
that would show in an FM, say. If this is the case then it explains much
from dives to high alt max speeds (mach is lower, compression speed lower)
and yes, bleed at high speeds only like above 400mph for the fast planes
and less for some others hard to say just which and no blanket rule for sure.

I wouldn't count 1C out on transonic calcs. There are at least 2 or 3 AE's
trained in modern times for serious planes, must have included jets? What
I do count as out or severly reduced is the ability to have a fast enough
formula for the FM of a combat flight sim, results must be fudged from there.


Neal

TAGERT.
08-27-2004, 01:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
I'm ALL for this!

I must add that we already have individual diveaccelerations for planes, BUT, only when the engine is idling.

Results below. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I started at 3000m in the QMB, leaving the engine at idle. Then I pushed the nose forward achieving a 45 degree dive angle. I read the speed after every 500m passed.

Results below. In km/h.


La-7 - D-9 - (dif)

3000m - 309 - 307 -
2500m - 432 - 450 - (18)
2000m - 530 - 552 - (22)
1500m - 593 - 624 - (31)
1000m - 643 - 676 - (33)
500m - 697 - 733 - (36)

Yak-3

3000m - 307
2500m - 434
2000m - 532
1500m - 600
1000m - 649
500m - 697

Spitfire MkVb - Fw 190A-4 - (dif)

3000m - 306 - 305
2500m - 426 - 443 - (17)
2000m - 516 - 544 - (28)
1500m - 579 - 611 - (32)
1000m - 620 - 660 - (40)
500m - 658 - 710 - (52)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Dont say I never gave you nuttin! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/divetests/robban75divetests01.jpg

The speed difference does not really tell the story.. A lot of people look at that difference of 22km/h at 2000m for the La-7 vs. D-9 and think to themselves..

"Geeeeeeeee I thought the D-9 was suppose to be a faster diver... 20km/h is not fast!? What is up? There must be a bug or something?"

What is impressive.. And is the thing pilots notice is the SEPARATION between the two planes.. That is how many feet there is between the two in a dive.. Like a guy passing you on the freeway at 70mph when your doing 60mph.. It is only a 10mph difference.. But in 15seconds he will be about 100ft in front of you!

So in an attempt to show you what the pilots saw I plotted the delta in speed time 5, 10, 30 seconds to show just how far ahead the other guy would be after 5, 10, 30 seconds had the two aircraft maintain the speed difference.. Keep in mind as the graph above shows the speed difference is increasing, but for the following plots I did the speed delta at the corresponding altitudes and then assumed them to be constant and used them over 5, 10, and 30 seconds.. Because 30 seconds in a DF is like a life time!

using the following conversion factor

1 kilometer/hour = 0.9113444 foot/second

Here is the plot
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/divetests/robban75seperation01.jpg

And here is another plot of the same.. only vs altitude

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/divetests/robban75seperationvsalt01.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

Per LEXX_Luthor req I made the pic just links

[This message was edited by TAGERT. on Sat August 28 2004 at 11:09 AM.]

609IAP_Recon
08-27-2004, 03:55 PM
good stuff - perhaps we can make a sticky out of this so the myths can be debunked.

S!
609IAP_Recon
http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg


Full Real Virtual Online War: Forgotten Skies (http://www.forgottenskies.com)

TAGERT.
08-27-2004, 04:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Recon:
good stuff - perhaps we can make a sticky out of this so the myths can be debunked.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Well.. I dont know if ploting robban72's data will prove or disprove anything.. But a picture is worth a 100 words.. And a plot gives you a better *feel* for what the numbers are doing.. My only goal in ploting it was to point out that the speed delta between aircraft types at different altitudes is NOT THE IMPORANT thing nor the THING pilots noticed!! What they did NOTICE was is how fast a guy pulled away from them or how fast they pulled away from another guy.. ie the DISTANCE they put between the two aircraft. So a small speed delta ADDS UP QUICK with regards to SEPERATION.

As for dive speeds being right or wrong.. I dont know what kind of data they are using to suport their arugments.. Making relitive arguments is neat and all.. but does not really prove much.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

WWMaxGunz
08-27-2004, 05:13 PM
Since Robbans speed tests were each one flight and the speed as alt decreased
depended on the speed above plus flight then how do you get 5, 10 and 30 second
lines? At 5 seconds each there should be one distance at some angle down, then
later there should be other data points but the 5, 10, 30 points should link as
a progression for a true picture of the relative positions, the distances with
time. If the planes were to dive shallow enough to take 30 seconds to lose 500m
alt then Robbans' data as you quoted would not apply.


Neal

TAGERT.
08-27-2004, 06:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Since Robbans speed tests were each one flight and the speed as alt decreased depended on the speed above plus flight then how do you get 5, 10 and 30 second lines? At 5 seconds each there should be one distance at some angle down, then later there should be other data points but the 5, 10, 30 points should link as a progression for a true picture of the relative positions, the distances with time. If the planes were to dive shallow enough to take 30 seconds to lose 500m alt then Robbans' data as you quoted would not apply.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The first thing to NOTE in my post is I said the following

"Keep in mind as the graph above shows the speed difference is increasing, but for the following plots I did the speed delta at the corresponding altitudes and then assumed them to be constant and used them over 5, 10, and 30 seconds"

I did this for several reasons.. One I didn't have any data on the total length of time it took him to go from 3000 to 500.. Two it is easier to do and I am lazy!

So, I just picked each speed delta at the corresponding altitude and ASSUMED it to REMAIN constant for 5, 10, 30.. Just to get a *feel* for how much distance (separation) you would put between the two aircraft. In RL your speed would be increasing as time goes by (assuming your still diving) and thus make the separation even greater. In short, if you are impressed with these separations then you would be even more impressed in RL because the plane is picking up speed and not a constant.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

LEXX_Luthor
08-27-2004, 08:11 PM
Interesting charts, but can they be made click links so we can read the thread text?

(I have ignored reading any text here)


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack ( AEP )

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

WWMaxGunz
08-27-2004, 09:23 PM
Fir enuf Tagert, you got me there! I'll have to take some time and see if I can try
and turn out a time-speed plot buuut maybe you can handle making the graphs and more
important, display them?


Neal

TAGERT.
08-27-2004, 10:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Fir enuf Tagert, you got me there! I'll have to take some time and see if I can try
and turn out a time-speed plot buuut maybe you can handle making the graphs and more
important, display them?

Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sure no problem! I just used EXCEL for graphing.. My inital reaction to doing that is I would have to know the time it took him to do the dive from 3000 to 500...

But we know the speed at each of the two end ponits..

So I guess you could use a piecs wise straight line constant acceleration between each data point.. but you would have to know the angle of the aircraft too and take the component of velocity in the down direction.. It's all doable.. But alot more work..

My only goal was to get people to note that it is not the INSTANT speed delta at each point that is all telling.. But the distance that speed delta will put between you and the other guy in a very short period of TIME.

Thus I feel the plots I have give you a good *feel* for that.. To make them more true.. I think you might need more info.. Or do as I did and fudge (guess at assumed constants) things.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

WWMaxGunz
08-27-2004, 10:46 PM
If my printer was working, I could take a crack at drawing tangents to your curves to
get close 1st derivatives -- or I could take averages of speed differences at the 500m
marks and apply crudely to X=X0 + V0t + At^2/2.... not the best I know but with close
points it's not that bad either for how the distances eyeball. Same with coming up
for times, V=V0 + At, IIRC been a while... solve for t again yes crude, if the output
looks any good it's replay the tracks for more data points although sim guages don't
exactly strike me as the latest in equipment even WWII era.

What am I thinking? Given the tracks it's possible to read the data directly from
second to second at 1/4 speed! Man, am I SLOW! LOL! My biggest wish for these kinds
of threads is positional data readouts with time! Devicelink does not give this even
when it works but I bet the AI and online server/clients gets it and if so, it is
calculated and "available". Next to everything correct to &lt; 5%, that's my big wish
now, maybe even more than 190 windshield bars having simulated refraction (just to
change the cockpit models would do it!)... well maybe not if better trim method also!


Neal

Aaron_GT
08-28-2004, 12:44 AM
"If my printer was working, I could take a crack at drawing tangents to your curves to
get close 1st derivatives -- or I could take averages of speed differences at the 500m
marks and apply crudely to X=X0 + V0t + At^2/2"

I did do that with some of the readings I took for 190 versus P47 with 70% throttle and prop from 10000 feet. I don't know where my copy of the speed readings are any more, but it should be around on a thread somewhere (maybe even this one).

Nice graphs, Tagert. I should dig up the figures I got for the 190 and P47 and throw those into Excel as well.

Aaron_GT
08-28-2004, 12:46 AM
"My biggest wish for these kinds
of threads is positional data readouts with time!"

Very approximate height readings are the best we have - not really accurate enough for this sort of stuff.

LEXX_Luthor
08-28-2004, 12:48 AM
bump

WWMaxGunz
08-28-2004, 02:19 AM
Aaron or anybody, how accurate are the guages on any FW's, P-47, Yaks, P-40's, P-51's,
La's, LaGG's, and some really slow planes Ju-87, IL-2, Pzl, I-153 and others, the Brewster,
Bf-110.... awwww, what planes have decently accurate alt guages well viewable at full zoom?
That should solve the 10m resolution problem. I'm also not into going with dives at idle
power. More like high cruise or whatever runs most power with rads full closed. Yes, this
will take me a chunk of forever (days) as messing around finding best pitch is IMHO a
neccesity.

But help picking out 4 planes of wide level speed ranges and good guages to start would help.

I've seen training tracks with second counters in the corner. Is that an option or would it
take some kind of command or setting? Might as well save myself work and reduce error at the
same time.

Lastly, whatever I can do, someone else can do better without cheating, I am sure. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Neal

BBB_Hyperion
08-28-2004, 05:54 AM
I suggest using devicelink data for such graphs.

And as well include the test data to check if data is accurate.

here is a example for p47 from actual ingame data polling time 50 ms.

http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/p47.pdf

When anyone wants to collect data and prepare graphs pt me i just have no time for it right now.

Also need a IAS TAS conversion depending on outside temperature cause devicelink gives only ias . But with the heinkel temperature gauge the outside temp can be taken for any map and alt. With that the air density funtion should somehow be possible to calculate mach numbers for ias tas conversion. No time to figure it out yet.

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

WWMaxGunz
08-28-2004, 10:36 AM
Questions I have are;

1) how close does devicelink data match speed bar given speedbar roundoff is wide?
2) prop pitch... did you use manual or auto? can you give what you did if manual?

I think I will just go with auto and see what happens. It is supposed to be what
was most used anyway.

Boy, those lines are close? I see by 600kph it looks like a bit over 300m vertical
seperation between power 0 and power full and I guess 2 seconds later for power 0
than power full. 600kph is 166.67 m/s, the full power plane is pulling away slowly.
What was power to weight of the plane and full power 2800m down in under 17 sec,
was the dive vertical? Power from gravity is weight x sine of dive angle (which
is not where the nose points always due to lift, you have to 'tuck the nose' to
keep a point steady in sight. I think there's enough data between height, speed
and time to figure it out, but I am tired after 16 hours awake.

With this kind of data though, it is good.


Neal

BBB_Hyperion
08-28-2004, 11:53 AM
The Data is directly from the Gameengine.

http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/p47.zip

Here is the complete recoding data in the excel chart you can do your own graphs from it or when needed more details and other types graphs.

Here you can see fuel rpm oil temp etc .

This type of info you can record for any Plane with the devicelink interface.

In this case it was a simulated 90 degrees dive from 10 k alt with and without power to look if there is any difference. Also i tried to maintain steady 90 degrees as you see when going through data.

Be aware in US version of excel you will need to replace , with . in the numbers else it might give trouble to generate new charts.

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

TAGERT.
08-28-2004, 12:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
The Data is directly from the Gameengine.

http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/p47.zip

Here is the complete recoding data in the excel chart you can do your own graphs from it or when needed more details and other types graphs.

Here you can see fuel rpm oil temp etc .

This type of info you can record for any Plane with the devicelink interface.

In this case it was a simulated 90 degrees dive from 10 k alt with and without power to look if there is any difference. Also i tried to maintain steady 90 degrees as you see when going through data.

Be aware in US version of excel you will need to replace , with . in the numbers else it might give trouble to generate new charts.

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Very Interesting!

I took a look at device link awhile back.. But didnt give it much thought because of the following message in the DeviceLink.txt file

In current version, this section is disabled while playing the game over the net.

Is that still the case?

On that topic.. What program/util are you using to establish the UDP interface? And thus passing the DeviceLink parameters?

On that topic.. I noted the DeviceLink.txt file said..

Proposing using the protocol within a single computer, ar a local network

Correct me if Im wrong, but that tells me I could be playing the game on one pc and have the UPD program running on another pc collecting data.. Thus the pc running the game would not be taking a hit trying to run the game and the UPD program?

In summary.. You have some sort of program/util you use to establish the UDP connection, and using the DeviceLink commands collected your data while running the game OFFLINE?

Thanks for any and all info!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

TAGERT.
08-28-2004, 12:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
If my printer was working, I could take a crack at drawing tangents to your curves to
get close 1st derivatives <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah.. Hmmm.. It has been awhile for me too.. Something rubs me wrong here.. The straight line tangents of a curve being equal to the derivative slopes is fine.. But that is typically done when ONE of the access is *time* That is to say if I have a velocity curve.. Where the Y axes is velocity and the X axes is time then doing the tangent line.. i.e. derivative would be the change in velocity with regards to time.. i.e. acceleration... But the curves I plotted were Altitude vs. Speed.. So a tangent line derivative would be the change in Altitude with regards to Speed (velocity).. i.e. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
-- or I could take averages of speed differences at the 500m marks and apply crudely to X=X0 + V0t + At^2/2.... not the best I know but with close points it's not that bad either for how the distances eyeball. Same with coming up for times, V=V0 + At, IIRC been a while... solve for t again yes crude, if the output looks any good it's replay the tracks for more data points although sim guages don't exactly strike me as the latest in equipment even WWII era. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I guess so.. all in all a lot of work.. And I don't know if the final SEPARATION graphs would be much different then the ones I did assuming constant velocity.. Granted the separation would be larger.. But I don't know if it would give a better *feel* for what is going on.. My only goal was to get people to stop focusing on the INSTANT speed delta.. is the small difference of 20kph.. it is what that delta does for you over a small period of time that makes the difference apparent.. i.e. the separation between the two ac

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
What am I thinking? Given the tracks it's possible to read the data directly from second to second at 1/4 speed! Man, am I SLOW! LOL!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That would be time consuming! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
My biggest wish for these kinds of threads is positional data readouts with time! Devicelink does not give this even when it works <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That would be very cool to have access to the positional data! You could do some very interesting post mission plots! The Internet link has to be passing positional (XYZ) back and forth during online play.. And the track files would have to contain that data too.. Is there a way to extract the position data from a track file?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
but I bet the AI and online server/clients gets it and if so, it is calculated and "available". Next to everything correct to &lt; 5%, that's my big wish now, maybe even more than 190 windshield bars having simulated refraction (just to change the cockpit models would do it!)... well maybe not if better trim method also!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It would sure provide a more standard way of finding and proving and disproving BUGS! I think that 90% of the BUGS in this game are due to people not knowing what they are doing and claiming the program! i.e. there is a BUG and the BUG is themselves! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

BBB_Hyperion
08-28-2004, 02:04 PM
to activate devicelink insert following lines in your conf.ini

[DeviceLink]
port=10000
IPS=

where IPS is the allowed IP to connect so be carefull when you leave it blank all can connect to it.

As tools there are several out yet. udpspeed and i think baldiejr coded a module for it too.

Connection can be done over other pc or over own it doesnt take much resources at all.

I did write my own specialised for testing purposes.

It records the data to a file and gives a overlay on the il2fbscreen to check if correct climb dive angle etc are held.

http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/il2fbaepdatapoll.zip
is a older version but i think still running other one i didnt upload yet.

be sure to check the il2fbaepdatapoll.ini(generated by first run with default values) for number seperator change to . from , for us version of excel.

when you add 22:Planetype to the data request list in the ini(output will contain this data and in this order like in the ini) it will generate you for each plane a new file with the planetypename date etc. seperates several testings.

The parameters in the ini are the same numbers than in the devicelink readme.txt

From time to time delete error.log it shows errors that happend but its only for beta purpose (and it is still beta) so ignore it or use it to find out what didnt work .).

So hopefully we can see some nice dive climb etc charts and correct data to verify em. (you can trick inital climb by starting with overspeed climb for example thats why the data belongs to the chart)

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

TAGERT.
08-28-2004, 03:27 PM
BBB_Hyperion and WWMaxGunz and others.. I invite you to take a look at this thread I started.. Im trying to come up with a MIN list of variables needed in a log file. Please any and all comments would be greatly apreciated!

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=567101236&r=708106236#708106236

[This message was edited by TAGERT. on Sat August 28 2004 at 05:35 PM.]

WWMaxGunz
08-28-2004, 09:12 PM
Hyperion, that zip file is only 17k? Haven't opened it yet, just looks small for
an exe. I do have an old UDPSpeed version I never used and am reading the UDPSpeed
thread with setup info over on SimHQ between waiting for UBI to load pages.

Does your old one have the glide slope indicator?


Neal

WWMaxGunz
08-28-2004, 10:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
If my printer was working, I could take a crack at drawing tangents to your curves to
get close 1st derivatives <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah.. Hmmm.. It has been awhile for me too.. Something rubs me wrong here.. The straight line tangents of a curve being equal to the derivative slopes is fine.. But that is typically done when ONE of the access is *time* That is to say if I have a velocity curve.. Where the Y axes is velocity and the X axes is time then doing the tangent line.. i.e. derivative would be the change in velocity with regards to time.. i.e. acceleration... But the curves I plotted were Altitude vs. Speed.. So a tangent line derivative would be the change in Altitude with regards to Speed (velocity).. i.e. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well since speed is change in position with respect to time would the tangent give the
vertical component of that? Or am I off base there?


Neal

TAGERT.
08-29-2004, 12:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Well since speed is change in position with respect to time would the tangent give the
vertical component of that? Or am I off base there?

Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmmm vertical? Maybe? I just cant seem to get past the fact that the graph is..

velocity change per alt

not

velocity change per seconds

In words that graph is how velocity changes with regards to altitude... not time.. So.. Im not real sure what it would be.. the tanget that is.. But maybe your right.. maybe it is the vertical component.. man.. Im getting old! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

BBB_Hyperion
08-29-2004, 02:28 AM
Yes thats the correct size and 64 kb extracted .

Its no virus or such no worry as long you get it from my site .)

will post my format description on other thread.

High Ground is not only more agreeable and salubrious, but more convenient from a military point of view; low ground is not only damp and unhealthy, but also disadvantageous for fighting.

Sun Tzu : The Art of War

Regards,
Hyperion

WWMaxGunz
08-29-2004, 12:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Well since speed is change in position with respect to time would the tangent give the
vertical component of that? Or am I off base there?

Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmmm vertical? Maybe? I just cant seem to get past the fact that the graph is..

velocity change per alt

not

velocity change per seconds

In words that graph is how velocity changes with regards to altitude... not time.. So.. Im not real sure what it would be.. the tanget that is.. But maybe your right.. maybe it is the vertical component.. man.. Im getting old! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
__TAGERT__
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well the tangent would give instantaneous velocity with respect to instantaneous
change in alt which is the vertical component so the tangent wouldn't be the vertical
component but more like the tangent of the dive angle. And I'm afraid that the
distance covered between alts would require an integration that rusted solid as I
am, I am not at all prepared to do! Length of a curve I think, and you'd need a
function of the curve to get it. OTOH an approximation could be done using code
if close enough data points for a decent approximation were available to feed the
code. Tangent would become the slope from one point to the next or the difference
of slopes between the one above and the one below, probably more accurate that way.
If I could remember the full application of Rolms Theorem, I could probably get the
parabolic between close points and apply something to that -- 15 years ago! LMAO!

What can I say? I got a major medical problem in mid-1999 and it was steady erosion
until I was at a low end of 2000, after a series of surgeries. They say I'll never
get it all back but at least I have my longterm still working. The sad part is I'm
still not even 50 yet! It's just way too soon to be like this!


Neal

Aaron_GT
08-30-2004, 12:57 AM
You're probably best off fitting a polynomial to the points and then doing whatever derivation of integration you need from that, which will be relatively easy stuff with a polynomial.

egypt23
08-30-2004, 07:15 AM
BUMP BUMP

TAGERT.
08-30-2004, 09:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
You're probably best off fitting a polynomial to the points and then doing whatever derivation of integration you need from that, which will be relatively easy stuff with a polynomial.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes.. but I want a method that the typical person can employ.. I use MatLab and MatchCad at work alot.. Easy to do curve fitting in those aps.. But excel? I know it can do it.. At least I think it can.. Never tried.. Motivation here is most people have EXCEL so Im looking into it

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

WWMaxGunz
08-30-2004, 06:19 PM
Borland released their old C++ free.....

TAGERT.
08-30-2004, 06:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Borland released their old C++ free.....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes.. have had that for some time now.. But It ain't as easy as MathCad or MatLab.. AND.. I just found a very COOL web sight for EXCEL!

Turns out that EXCEL does do best fit curves and provides the equations for them.. I wish I would have known this for work! It is actually pretty darn easy to do! Just click on your curve and select ADD TRENDS!

Here is the link of that cool websight!

http://phoenix.phys.clemson.edu/tutorials/excel/graph.html

The only manual part left is the derivative.. But Ill bet EXCEL does that to!

By the way I have a pretty cool UDPSpeed setup now.. Collecting all kinds of data.. But I think I might switch to BBB_Hyperion UDP thing.. In that the UDPSpeed does not work for all the DeviceLink parameters.. But it is hard to beat the UDPSpeed compact displays!
Anyway enjoy!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

TAGERT.
08-31-2004, 12:38 AM
A little update on my progress..

Using UDPSpeed I set up my gauges to display the pitch, alt and velocity.

Then starting at 5000m I pushed the nose over into a full throttle -30? dive. My goal was to maintain the pitch angle.

My TEST PILOT skills are not all that yet.. It was hard to hold that angle.. I can see where people that just eye-ball the pitch could make alot of errors.. And thus be the source of a lot of whinning.

I plan to redo the tests where I hope to maintain the pitch angle better.. The real goal of this was to get a EXCEL template and get UDPSpeed set up to log the data I want.. or may need.

Using excel I plotted the data then applied a best fit curve and got the corresponding equations. Using the equations I can now do some interesting SEPARATION plots that will show what a difference only 20mph can make in a short amount of time.. And why pilots said and felt the P47 was so great in a dive.

Here is a link to my early tests of a clean 100% fuel Bf-109G-10 vs. extra ammo 100% fuel P-47D-27.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/divetests/ALL_AC.pdf

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

WWMaxGunz
08-31-2004, 04:21 AM
If you can keep a large easy to see ground object like a concrete airstrip or
unique section of coastline on the same point of the windshield like in the
gunsight then would you not be keeping pitch change to a minimum?


Neal

clint-ruin
08-31-2004, 05:34 AM
Would be very interested to see if there's a noticable difference between trimming for a dive angle and holding a dive angle with the elevators directly. Some P-51 accounts I've read seem to make mention of having to constantly adjust trim for speed/flight conditions in the middle of ACM. Might be worth a look just to see whether and how it's modelled if it's there.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

WWMaxGunz
08-31-2004, 06:27 AM
From long experience with the sim engine, proper trim makes a very real difference.
Trim by a knob or slider may not be fast like it was, but it still is advantageous.

BTW Clint, you run UDPSpeed or another DeviceLink program to collect flight data?
It's about the best tool we have, only missing absolute positional data which I
am sure is generated for client/server online data as well as the AI's. Still,
this tool of DeviceLink is great and get this... you can collect data for tracks
alone, at least full .trk tracks. Want to analyze a track of your own or a posted
track? hehehehe

It's a way to find the good as well as the bad. But I see it as a way to tell the
best values for turn, climb, dive and transition to zoom for any plane and set of
conditions in the sim at least with work. First these should be determined, then
people can complain about them because you know they will. Might as well complain
about real things.


Neal

Ugly_Kid
08-31-2004, 01:59 PM
The trim drag should be pretty much ignorable. Anyway, if the trim is a tab type it will just cause the same deflection as you would get with neutral trim pushing against the airstream. Same goes for the spring type trim. Exception is trim working on complete tailplane but like said trim drag is nowhere near the complete drag - it's not even a fraction of it.

The biggest differences and deviations from RL which we are not experiencing are not aerodynamic kind - it is in the first place due to _very_ utopistic and idealistic engine management which allows all aircraft to dive with full power till the wings rip off...Additionally apart from overrevving we don't experience much of efficiency loss due to supersonic prop...Unless there is a radical work out in this area PF will put historical tactics in very interesting light (again). It is all not pilot allthough P-47, P-51 or FW still leaves Zero choking in the dust in dive and zoom the difference could be still more pronounced.

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

WWMaxGunz
08-31-2004, 03:44 PM
In real life, trim tabs are not a cause of drag. There are no trim tabs modelled
to drag in IL-2/FB, only the effects on stick forces. However using correct trim
does affect not only max speed but how fast you get there. When I heard from Oleg
about it over 2 years ago what he replied is that holding the stick as steady as
the trim will is impossible and that is the difference. I do note that my joystick
has a much smaller throw than real sticks on all but modern FBW jets.

That is what I was writing about saying trim indeed makes a difference in the sim.
My test and results were in putting pitch trim on the throttle just to fly around
and oh boy, it made a huge difference. I don't have a stick and quadrant with the
extra knobs that some do so I had to map the throttle there, can't fight that way
since throttle is essential to me and my use of it is part reflex when I go into
combat mode. But it makes a difference and it you're stuck with keyboard trim vs
someone who has fine control then that one has an edge that you do not. Simple
as that even with timed trim -- but timed trim does reduce some of the difference,
it takes longer for the dial-trimmer to get trim set.


Neal

TAGERT.
08-31-2004, 04:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
If you can keep a large easy to see ground object like a concrete airstrip or
unique section of coastline on the same point of the windshield like in the
gunsight then would you not be keeping pitch change to a minimum?

Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No.. no I dont think so? Imagine the typical 90? triangle.. Where altitude is the Y axis and X is the ground level.. As you dive the Y axis is getting shorter.. Thus if your keeping your nose on that *spot* you would be adj your pitch to do so.. Thus not keeping it constant.

But at the same time X is getting shorter.. But they would both have to change at the same rate.. Which means to reproduce the test each time your XYZ start point relitive to what your looking at would have to be known.. And we know that the XYZ data is not aval via DeviceLink.. So, best thing to do is use the UDPSpeed like display of pitch.. That is the best and most reproducable method

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

[This message was edited by TAGERT. on Tue August 31 2004 at 04:09 PM.]

TAGERT.
08-31-2004, 05:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
Would be very interested to see if there's a noticable difference between trimming for a dive angle and holding a dive angle with the elevators directly. Some P-51 accounts I've read seem to make mention of having to constantly adjust trim for speed/flight conditions in the middle of ACM. Might be worth a look just to see whether and how it's modelled if it's there.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes.. there are alot of variable that can effect the results.. But at this point I only wanted to change one varialbe at a time.. the pitch with everything else as constant as I can make it. I too have read accounts of pilots adj the trim to.. But I dont recall if it was to maintain control or improve control.. That is to say adj the trim to keep the stick deflection near zero instead of just deflecting the stick more.. As for the P51.. I seem to recal Kit Carson saying he had to adj rudder trim in a power dive.. but I forget the details of it.. But it is something I plan to try.. but for now.. I would just like to come up with a standard way with only one variable changing and compare all.. Once that is done try otehr things.

Neat thing is trim is one of the variable you can collect via DeviceLink.. I colleting it now.. just not changing it at the moment

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

WWMaxGunz
08-31-2004, 05:09 PM
http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p40_warhawk.html
Joel Paris:
"He could outturn you at slow speed. You could outturn him at high speed. When you
got into a turning fight withhim, you dropped your nose down so you kept your airspeed
up, you could outturn him."... "If your speed was up over 275, you could outroll it."

In that case above, if the enemy stayed or tried to stay co-alt you might be able to
trade speed for angle once with a bit of climb and be on his tail if you can get far
enough around the circle on him.

http://www.warbirdforum.com/shilling.htm
All good but doesn't have that part exactly from above although he lays out the advantage
of roll speed. IMHO, if you don't take that into account or use it then it's no good to
complain of dive behaviour since starting a dive at 275+ mph with a 3 or 4+ second lead
opens a large gap that any side to side test will not show. The P-40's they write of
also could outturn the Zero all the way down, change direction of the dive much faster
and open the gap more every time they did so. Therefore the roll at high speed advantage
is as good if not better than the dive speed advantage. Both together = escape.

Just intersting stuff, esp the last post:
http://yarchive.net/mil/avg_tactics.html


Neal

TAGERT.
08-31-2004, 05:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
http://www.acepilots.com/planes/p40_warhawk.html
Joel Paris:
"He could outturn you at slow speed. You could outturn him at high speed. When you
got into a turning fight withhim, you dropped your nose down so you kept your airspeed
up, you could outturn him."... "If your speed was up over 275, you could outroll it."

In that case above, if the enemy stayed or tried to stay co-alt you might be able to
trade speed for angle once with a bit of climb and be on his tail if you can get far
enough around the circle on him.

http://www.warbirdforum.com/shilling.htm
All good but doesn't have that part exactly from above although he lays out the advantage
of roll speed. IMHO, if you don't take that into account or use it then it's no good to
complain of dive behaviour since starting a dive at 275+ mph with a 3 or 4+ second lead
opens a large gap that any side to side test will not show. The P-40's they write of
also could outturn the Zero all the way down, change direction of the dive much faster
and open the gap more every time they did so. Therefore the roll at high speed advantage
is as good if not better than the dive speed advantage. Both together = escape.

Just intersting stuff, esp the last post:
http://yarchive.net/mil/avg_tactics.html


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Cool! the roll tests at alt at speed is my next thing to do on the list of things to do! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

TAGERT.
09-01-2004, 12:57 AM
check this out..

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=485007007

Let me know what you think

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

WWMaxGunz
09-01-2004, 03:09 AM
What is that domain axis, labelled 'inc'? If it's time and they all flew the same path
then it's at least trending how I would expect for the FW and Jug. I dunno bout the
Yak which I thought has more power to weight and is lighter, certainly true compared
to the Jug so the yellow line IMO would start out higher than the blue, but that's
only my guess. Compounding all that is that I just read your post to Gotcha about
IIRC at 10 degree difference in dive angles and some use of trim on one and other
condition differences -- so I don't know how useful the data are but they do describe
some sim actions and how they play out better than eyeballing and in-game guage
watching.

So what is 'inc', your 'X' axis what is the domain of the data?


Neal