PDA

View Full Version : What a h*** is going on with the flight models???



Endrju
12-20-2004, 07:28 AM
My game now is 3.02bm. Some days ago I was flying online in La5FN and encountered Bf109G-2 He has altitude advantage but after a few maneuvers energy states levelled just above the ground and a turning fight began. The duel lasted about 15 minutes and during it we both couldn't get on each other's tail. Without my head-on snapshot it would go on even longer

I thought: what is going on? Bf109 was never good in turn&burn, especially at low altitude. Later I checked it's 360 deg turn time. It is only 16 seconds!!!

Since Forgotten Battles, I was checking different plane's turning times. I am doing it at 1000m, 50% fuel and speed approximately 350 km/h IAS. No flaps. The test includes quarter roll and 360 deg turn. I carry out this test to the left and right (as none side is "faster") once or twice to check if I do it properly.

I must say, that at no one version, neither after any patch, the numbers from View Object desctiptions agreed with what I tested. In this sim all planes are "uber" but this is not the worst.

I am asking: why do you Oleg and other members of the team still and still change the flight models? From the interviews with you I know that before issuing any aircraft detailed data from reliable sources is collected. But after adding the aircraft to the game some people on the forum whine "why is it undermodelled" Other part cry "it is overmodelled" and some others say it is just ok. Then a patch come out which "tunes aircraft performance" What does it mean? Is the data from "reliable sources" not correct? Or Oleg tries to satisfy most of the forum members? It is interesting that even old, non-pacific planes are changed. Here I can put numbers:

F4U-1c turned in 14-15 seconds in 3.00. In 3.01m it was increased to 19 secs. And now in 3.02bm it is 17 secs.

F6F-5 turned in 14 secs. in 3.00. 17 secs. in 3.01 and 16 in 3.02bm

La7 3xB20 turned in 14 seconds in FB. In 3.01 it was 16 secs and now is 15.

Ki84-1c turned in 16 secs. in FB Then 17 in 3.00 and 3.01 and now is 16.

I dont have time to check all planes so I checked the most popular online. I think with other planes, and with other parameters it would be similar.

Can we ever reach the day when the existing plane's performance will be just OK?

Sorry for bad English

Hetzer_II
12-20-2004, 07:42 AM
If you look to the g2 and than to the f4u-c....

If you realy want to tell me the f4 should outturn the g2... no more words....

LeadSpitter_
12-20-2004, 08:02 AM
the corsair stands no chance in rl in a low alt turn fight vs the 109g2 nor in game.

109s in game now are really ridiculous thier high speed turning ability and roll rate compaired to the spitfire. Thier low alt turn fight combat turns even the 109k4, thier ability to take massive hits now g10-k4.

lot of things seriously wrong im sure oleg has the data and will go by it rather then whiners crying about thier favorite planes. I love the 109g6 one of my favorite planes same with the 190a8 but its just silly now how they maintain thier speeds and gain so much speed in 100m dive and do not bleed it off at all. Of course its not a turn fighting plane but the 190 should be more manueverable in a sustained combat turn then the p47 which is not correct.

BBB_Hyperion
12-20-2004, 08:58 AM
Well thats intresting . Show us a track for 109 g2
turning sustained ! 16 seconds and i can check if it was sustained i doubt it.

Hetzer_II
12-20-2004, 09:13 AM
@Lead

"the corsair stands no chance in rl in a low alt turn fight v"s the 109g2 nor in game"

Yes, but if you read what endruj wrote you will see.. he thinks:

"I thought: what is going on? Bf109 was never good in turn&burn, especially at low altitude. Later I checked it's 360 deg turn time. It is only 16 seconds"

and:

"F4U-1c turned in 14-15 seconds in 3.00. In 3.01m it was increased to 19 secs. And now in 3.02bm it is 17 secs."

Which makes me understand he thinks it is correct correct that an F4 can almost turn with any 109.. think about what happens if you decrease 109 turn to 18sec... maybe some day we also get an p47 outturning an i16...

Holtzauge
12-20-2004, 09:18 AM
Before I read your post, my main grievance has been the way the different a/c relative climbrates was modelled. Now if this extends to speeds and turn rates this is just as bad.

I think you have a very good point below. especially the part about stability in already modelled a/c and that the top prio should be to get these right, not to add a lot of goofy a/c that maybe were produced but in small numbers.

However, maybe this is a concession that has to be done to the arcade community that help pay the bills for PF development though....

I think it would be better to return to the core. WW2 a/c that were actually produced in numbers,a few of them, modelled correctly. Hope this is why it seems that BoB will only have a limited no of a/c.

I think that history proved the famous Russian who once said "Quantity is a quality in itself" wrong and I think this applies to sims too!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Endrju:

I am asking: why do you Oleg and other members of the team still and still change the flight models? From the interviews with you I know that before issuing any aircraft detailed data from reliable sources is collected. But after adding the aircraft to the game some people on the forum whine "why is it undermodelled" Other part cry "it is overmodelled" and some others say it is just ok. Then a patch come out which "tunes aircraft performance" What does it mean? Is the data from "reliable sources" not correct? Or Oleg tries to satisfy most of the forum members? It is interesting that even old, non-pacific planes are changed. Here I can put numbers:

F4U-1c turned in 14-15 seconds in 3.00. In 3.01m it was increased to 19 secs. And now in 3.02bm it is 17 secs.

F6F-5 turned in 14 secs. in 3.00. 17 secs. in 3.01 and 16 in 3.02bm

La7 3xB20 turned in 14 seconds in FB. In 3.01 it was 16 secs and now is 15.

Ki84-1c turned in 16 secs. in FB Then 17 in 3.00 and 3.01 and now is 16.

I dont have time to check all planes so I checked the most popular online. I think with other planes, and with other parameters it would be similar.

Can we ever reach the day when the existing plane's performance will be just OK?

Sorry for bad English <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WOLFMondo
12-20-2004, 09:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Endrju:


Can we ever reach the day when the existing plane's performance will be just OK?

Sorry for bad English <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It might be the global changes in the last patch that made some FM changes to planes that didn't need them.

Your English is good, I feel embarrised sometimes that as a natural English speaker that many people who use it as a second language are often much better than those who use it as there first.

Endrju
12-20-2004, 10:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hetzer_II:
@Lead

"the corsair stands no chance in rl in a low alt turn fight v"s the 109g2 nor in game"

Yes, but if you read what endruj wrote you will see.. he thinks:

"I thought: what is going on? Bf109 was never good in turn&burn, especially at low altitude. Later I checked it's 360 deg turn time. It is only 16 seconds"

and:

"F4U-1c turned in 14-15 seconds in 3.00. In 3.01m it was increased to 19 secs. And now in 3.02bm it is 17 secs."

Which makes me understand he thinks it is correct correct that an F4 can almost turn with any 109.. think about what happens if you decrease 109 turn to 18sec... maybe some day we also get an p47 outturning an i16... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No Hetzer, I think that it is not correct when Bf109G2 can turn on equal terms with La5FN. This last plane has lower weight/wings area ratio, and it is historically confirmed that it was better turner against any Bf's. And I don't know how is Corsair, I haven't read much about it. Here where you quote me, I said only what I tested about Corsair, I don't say it is okay or not.

Endrju
12-20-2004, 10:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
Well thats intresting . Show us a track for 109 g2
turning sustained ! 16 seconds and i can check if it was sustained i doubt it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, it was not sustained. My test consisted in level flight, then quarter roll and then 360 deg turn.
I think sustained turn rate is in greater part the matter of engine power and what I measure is mainly pure agility. But the key matter which I wrote about is that these values are changing all the time.
Now I suspect something that WOLFMondo noticed, that it may be global changes that influence all the aircraft. BTW nice to see that my English is not very bad http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sig.Hirsch
12-20-2004, 10:38 AM
Hi Endrju ,

it's your second post here ,excllent english of yours , maybe we know you already under another nick http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif (just a guess)

anyway if you're new use the search engine , we've discussed it thousands of times , the La-5 FN really eats the G2 in turns even at high speed except under 260 Km/h ( it's heavier ) .
I have a track if you want .
i hope u used flaps when you turn , and didn't make flat turns under 260 km/h cause that could be the problem .

cheers ,

Stiglr
12-20-2004, 10:52 AM
WolfMONDO wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I feel embarrised sometimes that as a natural English speaker that many people who use it as a second language are often much better than those who use it as there first.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, but it's "their first". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

GR142_Astro
12-20-2004, 10:59 AM
The luft fellows will flame away on this, but I really wish Oleg and 1C would take a look at where the 109 turn rates have gotten to. They just don't seem to jive with history.

No, a P51 shouldn't out turn a 109 low and slow. I know certain folks can squeeze lots of performance out of their 109s due to skill, but something is just a little out of whack with this aircraft. The 6/AS is a prime example.

Realism is all we are after.

WOLFMondo
12-20-2004, 11:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
WolfMONDO wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I feel embarrised sometimes that as a natural English speaker that many people who use it as a second language are often much better than those who use it as there first.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, but it's "their first". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Every week someone points this out to me at work. After 26 years I still can't get it right.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Endrju
12-20-2004, 11:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:
Hi Endrju ,

it's your second post here ,excllent english of yours , maybe we know you already under another nick http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif (just a guess)

anyway if you're new use the search engine , we've discussed it thousands of times , the La-5 FN really eats the G2 in turns even at high speed except under 260 Km/h ( it's heavier ) .
I have a track if you want .
i hope u used flaps when you turn , and didn't make flat turns under 260 km/h cause that could be the problem .

cheers , <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right, it's not my first post http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif By this time I posted several things as aniol_zaglady but I just got bored with this nickname. I know, many problems was discussed in the past but I haven't time to read everything.
And of course, I use flaps at critical situation when angle speed is the key.
About flaps I can say also that they are very convenient in powerful fighters agains more maneuverable, but weaker ones. I have a track when I outmaneuvered the AI Zero in La7 using take-off flaps. I can send you if you want http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JV44_Schtirlitz
12-20-2004, 11:37 AM
http://uploads.bestupload.com/users/uploads/g2vsla5fn.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gifSo, what's the problem?

Cajun76
12-20-2004, 12:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Holtzauge:


I think that history proved the famous Russian who once said "Quantity is a quality in itself" wrong and I think this applies to sims too!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Er, his name was Stalin, and his armies kicked German butt all the way back to Berlin. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif Not that he's a nice guy or anyting, but he had a piont with all those tanks, artillery, and Yaks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


As far as FM changes, a change in the global "physics" will change how all the a/c behave, in addition to any specific changes implemented to individual a/c.

Some guy around here used to post frequently that the FM was arcade because every patch it would change or be adjusted. In fact, it's just the opposite.

How many official patches have come out for CFS2, or Crimson Skies? Jetfighter X? Did the developers try to tweak the FMs to achieve more realism or fidelity?

I know it sucks in a way to have the FM change from patch to patch, but it also proves the team is constantly trying to improve and refine thier product.

And remember, it's a beta patch for a reason. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Feedback is the key and it's what they're looking for to get the 3.03 or whatever they're going to call it as correct as posssible.

Holtzauge
12-20-2004, 12:24 PM
So, to continue your analogy, you're saying the solution to the FM problem is to flood PF with new fighter models...

Hmmmmm, a novel line of though. But seeing your a Jug jockey and the Jug being the only plane that can fly through a brick wall without coming apart you probably need something rather solid and dense on your shoulders to survive!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cajun76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Holtzauge:


I think that history proved the famous Russian who once said "Quantity is a quality in itself" wrong and I think this applies to sims too!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Er, his name was Stalin, and his armies kicked German butt all the way back to Berlin. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif Not that he's a nice guy or anyting, but he had a piont with all those tanks, artillery, and Yaks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Holtzauge
12-20-2004, 12:37 PM
Cajun 76, I hope you took no offence from my previous post. It was just a joke on my part.

Seriously, I agree with what you say and I think the best way (only way?)is to give as good feedback as we can in this forum.

Let's keep our finger crossed and keep posting!

Endrju
12-21-2004, 11:34 AM
Schtirlitz: cool thing this Il2compare, but at it is written, it's basis are references, not the game. And it doesn't comply with the game. As I checked just before, Bf109G2 turns within 16-17 seconds(with 50 or 100% fuel) and during this turn speed falls from 390 km/h TAS to 300. As you see on the graph, the time should be longer.
However it is interesting that Bf109 should be more maneuverable than La5 at lower speeds(according to these references), I didn't know that.

Stiglr
12-21-2004, 01:44 PM
Endrju:

It is a good thing if IL-2 Compare uses "references" rather than the sim. That way, we can perform tests and see how closely the sim models adhere to the references (which I assume are test data, averaged out over several sources).

This, then, forms my biggest critique of the FM; how often and how badly off certain things are, at any given "version" of the FM.

RocketDog
12-21-2004, 02:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Endrju:
Schtirlitz: cool thing this Il2compare, but at it is written, it's basis are references, not the game. And it doesn't comply with the game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you sure about that?

From what I understand IL-2 compare is based on simple measurements made with the game. I suspect that the turn times are sustained turns. Tihs means that anyone will be able to get faster turns, but only by bleeding speed.

Regards,

RocketDog.

Holtzauge
12-21-2004, 02:27 PM
I think it is difficult to compare your test with the graph. My guess is that the graph gives what is called the sustained turn rate. This is the maxiumum turn rate an a/c can have without losing speed.

Another turn capability often measured is the so called instantaneous turn rate which is the maximum turn rate possible with no regard to speed loss. The instantaneous turn rate is either limited by the Clmax or CLtrim (i.e the max lift coefficient you can coax out of the plane before a g-stall or that you can trim out of the wing) or it is limted by the structural integrety (wings coming off!).

By your account (speed dropping from 390 to 300 km/h) my guess is that you did something in between a sustained and an instantaneous turn and hence it is difficult to compare data.

Try the same thing at a given speed and see how long the turn takes when you keep the speed constant and compare that with the chart.

I have no idea if the chart is correct. Where can one DL this and what kind of data can you get out of it?

Is it any good? What is the basis for the comparison? Historical or IL-2 model data?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Endrju:
Schtirlitz: cool thing this Il2compare, but at it is written, it's basis are references, not the game. And it doesn't comply with the game. As I checked just before, Bf109G2 turns within 16-17 seconds(with 50 or 100% fuel) and during this turn speed falls from 390 km/h TAS to 300. As you see on the graph, the time should be longer.
However it is interesting that Bf109 should be more maneuverable than La5 at lower speeds(according to these references), I didn't know that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WUAF_Badsight
12-21-2004, 03:28 PM
Endrju
Registered: Mon December 20 2004

enough said

WUAF_Badsight
12-21-2004, 03:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:

109s in game now are really ridiculous thier high speed turning ability and roll rate compaired to the spitfire.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
always has been

stick lockup way to early , needs to start happening at higher speeds

WWMaxGunz
12-21-2004, 03:41 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

How many times the same pattern? People who don't know post about how wrong things
are based on tests that show how much they don't know....

FM changes are made as Oleg says to include more modes of flight. And they have not
enough time to adjust every plane back close for everything they do, so we get patches
going out before things are brought as close as possible using physical based flight
modelling. They could hit the tables exactly but then be real sure the planes would
not be flying as real which is something loads of people here would never see anyway,
they think reality is in the tables and things they know of only.

Turns. Do not say this plane should be such versus that plane as if it is always true.
How they can do in the best hands depends on many conditions including altitude and
speed but also more. The IL2Compare chart says well what speed differences do to real
sustained turning at that one altitude alone. Those same planes in speed bleeding
turns (not sustained) will exhibit a varying rate of difference during the whole range
of speed from start to end, not some snap blanket "truth" about X and Y. And that is
just one small compare in performance. If the X vs Y thing always plays out then I am
more worried about the FM than if the numbers are not to the charts as that tells me
the flying is not real even if those few numbers are met.

Do not expect more than close to tables after the patches bring it to the best and even
less close until then. That is the price of a truely physical FM, it takes more time
to get right than anyone has so they do the best they can and then people who cannot do
or usually even appreciate most of it come and complain instead of taking the opportunity
to learn something.

Things to do when noticing "something wrong":
1) Ask.
Post what you do and see then ask about it. You will be right to some degree and wrong
in others. Good time to learn if anyone can help.
2) Respect.
Until you can do better !!or find better!! and even then, respect what is made. Don't
think that knowing a table or reading a book makes you big.
3) Ask again.
Politely if there can be a change and if there will, if something is wrong in that way.
Maybe then a change and maybe not. If you keep asking then at least do it without tantrums,
name-calling and other childish actions.
3a) Keeping on alone is not bad if you have a point and you can show it but leave the "I
hate you" kid stuff out of it. That gets worse than nothing when others may be actually
getting somewhere, you can ruin it for everyone which HAS happened already.

crazyivan1970
12-21-2004, 03:42 PM
Ok...general overview as always... Where is this going? LW planes shoud have their.... umm... cut off?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

MEGILE
12-21-2004, 04:09 PM
BF-109K4 is an easy ride. I am a noob, so I like it.

BlitzPig_DDT
12-21-2004, 04:20 PM
IL2 Compare seems totally unreliable now.

I say "seems" because it's providing data that, in at least one case, is backwards from what I have seen, including on this forum (BUT, it would NOT be the first time this forum has had 180 degree consensus shift.....just sayin') - it says the 190A9 can out turn the A4. And not just the A4, butthe A5 and 6 as well. It also says that the A8 is the best turner of the Antons and that the D9 '45 is the best turner of the bunch.

This also does not seem to be reflected in the game. Rather, it seems almost totally backwards from the game.

So I wonder about IL2 Compare now. (and this is the PF version)

crazyivan1970
12-21-2004, 05:01 PM
Agreed on IL2 compare... oops, did i say it out loud http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
12-21-2004, 05:21 PM
From all I know of the A8... the weight of armor especially... I sure do not expect it
to turn better than most any earlier Anton in most conditions. Where am I missing
something?

Endrju
12-22-2004, 05:26 AM
WWMaxGunz: more modes of flight?? That is interesting. What are these modes and why do they influence all planes?
And once again about my test. Sustained turn rate is turn rate with constant speed, right? So, when during the test speed drops from 390 to 300, it should be equal to sustained with speed between 390 and 300. And it is not, comparing to Il2compare. On the graph sustained 390km/h is performed in 23 seconds and 300 in 20. I am not surprised at that becouse I have the Il2compare: http://www.archakov.com/MG/Compare/il2c_v25_pf302.rar
And it is said there that it may not comply with the game as it's based on some references

Hetzer_II
12-22-2004, 05:53 AM
Endrju sustain is sustain.. what you did wasn substain it was instantaneous.

Why? You lost energy->Speed

There is no sence in comparing your numbers with the others, or do you compare beans with apples?

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
12-22-2004, 06:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
From all I know of the A8... the weight of armor especially... I sure do not expect it
to turn better than most any earlier Anton in most conditions. Where am I missing
something? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well the A8 has a few HP more than the earlyer antons....it has some 2000 and A5 has 1600, that is 400hp but the A8 is only 200kg heavyer...

Fred_77
12-22-2004, 11:54 AM
IL2 compare is usually pretty accurate, but sometimes the data in it can be straight out of left field. I tested the Antons and they seemed right on with IL2 Compare, but the dora couldn't come close to its supposed 20 second turn time. If you see something that looks suspicous in IL2 Compare it might be a good idea to test it yourself and see what you come up with.

S!
Fred.

Cajun76
12-22-2004, 12:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fred_77:
IL2 compare is usually pretty accurate, but sometimes the data in it can be straight out of left field. I tested the Antons and they seemed right on with IL2 Compare, but the dora couldn't come close to its supposed 20 second turn time. If you see something that looks suspicous in IL2 Compare it might be a good idea to test it yourself and see what you come up with.

S!
Fred. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you keep your speed exactly between 390 and 410 km/h during your turn? Because that's the type of turn IL2 Compare is showing. It may be impossible in "RL", in the game, to duplicate an IL2Compare graph becuae of induced drag and insuffiecient power to maintain your speed in the turn. IL2Compare is a guide, not a fact. It is theoritically possible to turn in 20 seconds in a Dora, but you must also meet the speed requirement. Otherwise, it won't work.

Endrju
12-22-2004, 01:11 PM
To many of you about sustained turn rate:
Right, it's something other than instantaneous turn rate, I realised that a couple of hours ago. But it can be scientifically explained - energy retrieved from speed during the turn allows to increase(in comparison to sustained..) angle of attack and to overcome extra induced drag caused by this increased AoA. And extra lift shortens turn time. Simple? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Soon I'll become master of science (in shipbuilding industry however)so I understand it this way http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Merry Christmas to all of you who took part in this discussion and were not bored despite similar topics in the past.
P.S. What is wrong with taking up again some problems? We are not writing a book that must be precisely arranged and organised.

OldMan____
12-22-2004, 01:20 PM
Several plane data was kept in IL2 compare from previous version, even on planes that have changed. Lots of things need review.. I only use it for new planes.

clint-ruin
12-22-2004, 02:27 PM
Endrju: you aren't the first to confuse sustained and instantaneous turn rates, won't be the last either :>

The thing with Il2compare is to take into consideration that it only measures the thing it says it is measuring above the graph, exactly and only that thing. Climb rates? OK - but it measures climb from 0m at a set speed and nothing more. Climb from 5000m to 10000m will not shape up the same way, especially not comparative climb between two engines with completely different performance at altitude. Turn rates? Same deal - if you can manage to hold the speed shown exactly, and start and finish the measured turn at precisely the indicated times, you should get something like what it's showing at the indicated alt. Anything else will show different results.

The other thing to bear in mind is that Il2c will get progressively less accurate as the version numbers between Il2cs tests and the game diverge. If you are using a version of Il2c that has data from say, I don't know, the Tempest in it, that's a pretty good indication that you are not running the exact same build as the one the tests were done on.

As far as I know the figures you see in Il2c are some sort of amalgam of many many many measured AI responses to those test parameters mixed with player input. Some of these are going to be hard to replicate - a tiny fraction of a degree or a k of IAS can seperate best from not-so-best performance. Same thing for the flight conditions in general - I am pretty sure you need 100% fuel, rad closed, overheat off [speed/climb tests are going to depend on this a lot], 12:00pm, clear weather, Crimea map conditions to try to get the same results. If you deviate from those conditions and get better or worse results then that's no great surprise.

It's a fun tool to have to get some quick baseline performance figures, but not as good as running identical tests in-game and then graphing the devicelink output from it or something similar.

Fred_77
12-22-2004, 04:10 PM
The test procedure I used was to make 4 complete circles at the desired airspeed, ie 400kh/p for the dora. The first turn is to let everything stabilize, and then I can time the 3 remaining turns. I then do the same test in the opposite direction. The easiest way to do it is in no-cockpit mode, and use the little AoA pipper. Just drag the pipper over the horizon and there won't be much deviation in altitude. Needless to say any big deviations in altitude and speed will poison the results and the test will need to be redone. Best to concentrate on the flying and then save it as a track, and get timings from there.

Usually IL2 compare is pretty accurate, but it isn't this time for the dora. It is a pretty handy guide mostly, but it seems that some of the info in it dosen't get updated. If there are any doubts about it, better to rely on your own tests results, providing they are done properly.

S!
Fred.

WWMaxGunz
12-22-2004, 05:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Endrju:
WWMaxGunz: more modes of flight?? That is interesting. What are these modes and why do they influence all planes?
And once again about my test. Sustained turn rate is turn rate with constant speed, right? So, when during the test speed drops from 390 to 300, it should be equal to sustained with speed between 390 and 300. And it is not, comparing to Il2compare. On the graph sustained 390km/h is performed in 23 seconds and 300 in 20. I am not surprised at that becouse I have the Il2compare: http://www.archakov.com/MG/Compare/il2c_v25_pf302.rar
And it is said there that it may not comply with the game as it's based on some references <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The words "modes of flight" are Olegish. He says more. I believe it is about modelling
the flight in more and more ways, things that were not done previous or the ways changed
to be better or blend better, like how we have slip-roll coupling from the start that
you don't find at least in some other sims if any -- these I take to mean 'modes', the
complex things beyond lift, drag, thrust, weight basics.

And sustained turns... what Fred said is more than I was gonna. Going around until
your bank and speed have settled and you can hold them before starting any timing has
got to be part of sustained turn measuring. Averaging.... sure you better be really
good at the science to do that! Whooo-hooo! As in, I don't think so!

A saying I learned when I started to get serious about combat sims is:

Angles for Energy.

That is what you trade in the fight, that is how you spend your E whether wisely or not.
When you do turns that lose speed you are trading energy for angle, or you are pulling
too hard and stalling just to mention that as possible (not what your account indicates
at all, you seem to be flying very clean to get your fast 360's) with result of energy
lost for nothing much at all.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
12-22-2004, 08:14 PM
Salute

The 109 FM is way off.

The issue is the stall speed of the later models. (G and later)

If you do a zero throttle test of the speed at which the aircraft stall in level flight, you will discover that the later model 109's, including the K, stall at the same speed as the earlier F models.

This is despite the fact that the wing area of these aircraft is the same, wing design the same, and the later models weigh up to 400 kg more. Ie. the wingloading of the later models is much more on the same wing area. Physics tells you the later models should stall, power off, at a higher speed.

For some reason in the game, they do not. In fact the G2 has a lower stall speed, power off, than the F models.

Note that power off stall speed has nothing to do with power to weight and powerloading, or stall under power. The potential horsepower of an aircraft has no effect on what speed stall will occur, when the throttle is set at zero.

Anyone can do a power off stall test very simply.

Fly at 100 meters, and while maintaining level flight, reduce throttle to zero. Hold level flight and altitude till the aircraft stalls. (record the track) Use the no-cockpit view for TAS. Stall tests are done with no flaps deployed.

H4wkw1nd
12-22-2004, 10:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
WolfMONDO wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I feel embarrised sometimes that as a natural English speaker that many people who use it as a second language are often much better than those who use it as there first.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, but it's "their first". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Er, I wouldn't get too cocky if I were you. You missed the most obvious mistake in his post. Believe it or not, "embarrised" is actually spelled "embarrassed" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif...

Ugly_Kid
12-22-2004, 11:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74_Buzzsaw:
Salute

If you do a zero throttle test of the speed at which the aircraft stall in level flight, you will discover that the later model 109's, including the K, stall at the same speed as the earlier F models.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like the stall speed in the game was anything like specific? You do a stall for Bf at one speed and I'll do the same with P-47 with 5 km/h less on the clock. Stall speed in the game - what a piece of bollocks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Hetzer_II
12-23-2004, 12:16 AM
Stallspeeds are way of for every plane...

and also a big problem ist the magic prop syndrom.... almost like a liteweight modellplane....

WUAF_Badsight
12-23-2004, 01:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74_Buzzsaw:
For some reason in the game, they do not. In fact the G2 has a lower stall speed, power off, than the F models. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
you guys might rubbish stall speed tests , but the above should not be happening

Ugly_Kid
12-23-2004, 01:37 AM
There isn't such a thing as one and defenetive stall speed in the game, just as there is no defenetive straight and honest stall even with power off. Probably the worst realized part of the FM and some jokers decide to pick on Bf-109 being particularly uniquely and biasedly wrong http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Try F-4U with historically known nasty stall characteristics, lousy max. lift coefficient and at that a heavy wing loading...Sure Bf is disgustingly off and unfair and quite unique in that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

ORR a place to compensate flying skill and excercising, get them here if you can't in the air.

ElAurens
12-23-2004, 08:38 AM
UglyKid, don't be so defensive about the 109. there are many aircraft that "in game" are not correct, the 109 just being the example cited here. As you point out the F4U has a pretty hokey FM as well.

The real issue here is energy retention. The E model is globally suspect IMHO. It's like the E retention characteristics got sprinkled around with no thought to what AC they were going to. I know that this is not intentionally done by Oleg and crew. It is no doubt a consequence of all the many patches, updates, and new aircraft in the game. Unfortunately the only way to fix it would be to fully review and repair the FMs of every single flyable aircraft in the sim at the same time and release it as a single FM patch. A daunting task eh?

RAF74_Buzzsaw
12-23-2004, 10:51 AM
Salute Ugly

Actually, if you do a test of the Corsair and compare its known historical stall speed with the speed at which it stalls in the game, it is stalling at a HIGHER speed than historically.

It is interesting to note that the Corsair's power off stall speed in 3.0 was actually spot on. However, the acceleration of the aircraft or its speed bleed in that version was much too good, which resulted in it having a highly overdone climbrate. It seems that Oleg adjusted the stall speed (however he models wing lift) to fix the problem, instead of the e-bleed and acceleration.

The Spitfire V and IX both stall at higher than historical speeds in their current incarnation.

According to Spit IX manual, Spit IX, when carrying a 45 gallon drop tank and full fuel and ammo, should, (power off) stall at 148.8 kph with no flaps deployed. Instead it stalls at 168 kph.

Comparisons with known historical stalls speeds have most Allied aircraft stalling at higher than historical stall speeds, whereas the later 109's are stalling at lower than historical speeds.

faustnik
12-23-2004, 11:04 AM
Buzzsaw,

I agree with you that something (maybe a couple things) is off with 109 but, it's not just stall if what you say about the Spit stall is true. Both the 109 and Spit can pull off high-G maneuvers in climbs with very little loss of E. It gives both planes a very "UFO" like look when they do it.

Your stall findings would explain the problem of Bf109s out-turning Spits at low speeds.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
12-23-2004, 11:17 AM
Salute Faustnik

You are correct in pointing to the e bleed issue with some aircraft.

I think overall, the e-bleed, or acceleration of a number of aircraft is overdone, perhaps the Spitfire and Corsair are examples. However, even with its current e bleed, the Spitfires climbrate is almost spot on to the historical aircraft. This is because the Spits have been handicapped with a too high stall speed. So essentially they end up with their best climbrate at a higher than historical speed.

In other aircraft, such as the G and later 109's, the stall speed is set too low, which, when combined with the historical very good powerloading, allows them to climb very steeply, and ahistorically. Best climb speeds for most of the later 109's was around 270 kph, but in the game they climb best at lower speeds than that.

This low stall speed, as you mention, allows them to ahistorically outturn the Spits at low speeds.

I think overall, the flight models need to be comprehensively looked at and adjusted.

faustnik
12-23-2004, 11:31 AM
Buzzsaw,

When I'm talking about E-bleed I don't mean in horizontal turns, but, in vertical maneuvers. I'll have to get a good ntrk online sometime and send it to you. Spits and 109s can pull contrails in climbing scissors-like moves and barely lose any E. I wonder if pilots are using manual prop pitch when this happens?


************************

BTW, nice work on the F4U climb findings. It feels much more realistic in 3.02b. We did some high speed climb tests against the 109A5 and they matched the Navy tests very well.

Ugly_Kid
12-24-2004, 04:47 AM
That was the point, really, Buzzsaw is merrily talking about stall speeds, which are not explicitly even that transparent in the game. You can goad most of the aircraft into close to 100 km/h speed and still maintain the control, if you're just soft on the stick etc., if you hamfist your way around you can make spit i.e depart in 200 km/h just as well. There is nothing historical in 1.0 g stall in the game. One is not really better than another take your pick, pet or foe. Spot on, yeah right. Moan your heart out.

I highly recommend a real life experience of an aircraft stall, like sitting in the crate rather than talking about it.

El, I accept the limitation of the game and understand it. IL-2 and FB yet to the last patch was still something for its time. Since AEP I've had these add-ons to remain compatible in online, not for half-hearted add-ons posing behing juicy 3D-models. I don't expect any fixes nor do I desire them anymore. Actually, I feel the late circus and "fixes" have only made the game worse (i.e dot circus). I considered purchase of add-ons philosophically as a yearly fee for online gaming. Lately particularly with PF I was surprised too see that I feel that I have paid for something that has made IMO the game worse. Just my feeling I am sure some of the DF gamer lot feel differently. Good for them, yet, I'll sign myself off as a future customer.

I would rather take a clean start. However, the clean start, whoever is going to do it won't fish me as a customer by offering 100-planes, blabla about physics and screenshots of smoking tires and storming ponds with 3D rubber ducks swimming in it.

Ugly_Kid
12-24-2004, 05:19 AM
As for being defensive about Bf-109 or something. Now, if they haven't bee able to get it "right" to the very liking of people like Buzzsaw who do not even fly it in FOUR YEARS, you think they will do it now if they give it just another try? I am tired of the constantly changing FM not so much Bf as FW i.e. and the joke of being more accurate than ever. The irritating part is the relearning again and the joke that some moaner who did not bother to spend some intensive time exercising his pet plane in the first place got his will through as a rule offering more moan than matter.

HayateAce
12-24-2004, 05:53 AM
Dude, you are just rambling on and on. Anyone know what he is talking about? Nervous, time-filling words while your 109 is investigated.....


http://mclellansautomotive.com/photos/B4824.jpg

GR142-Pipper
12-24-2004, 05:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Endrju:

It is a good thing if IL-2 Compare uses "references" rather than the sim. That way, we can perform tests and see how closely the sim models adhere to the references (which I assume are test data, averaged out over several sources).

This, then, forms my biggest critique of the FM; how often and how badly off certain things are, at any given "version" of the FM. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As it's been explained to me, IL-2 Compare data does not include fuel or ammo. If true, then aircraft that carried more fuel and ammo would be penalized more than those who didn't. In short, the data in IL-2 Compare differs to a greater degree the more fuel and ammo an aircraft is capable of carrying relative to another that can't carry as much of either. It would show the aircraft turning better than it really can in on-line play....sometimes a LOT better than in on-line play. So, aircraft like the Corsair, P-51, P-47, etc. that can carry a lot of ammo and fuel would be penalized more as represented in IL-2 Compare data.

GR142-Pipper

Ugly_Kid
12-24-2004, 07:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HayateAce:
Dude, you are just rambling on and on. Anyone know what he is talking about? Nervous, time-filling words while your 109 is investigated.....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Investigate all your heart out pal http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif I am sure they've already got your name and number and a place where to take results of your investigations.http://www.lelv28.com/images/schilder_13.gif If you only were able to put up actual testing and back it up with devicelink data, graphs and physics (and I mean so that you show that you really DO understand what you're talking about), fine - I am yet to see it, particularly from you, ace http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

IL2Compare, AFAIK is based on tabular data from AI aircraft, not on performance from human flown aircraft. You see, the very basic information from the program, the top speed i.e, is severely different from the in-game performance. If you would not even get the calculation correct for that one there's no use going and trying to predict climb or turn performance. The human aircraft performance is not based on tables rather than on time-integration and force balance. For this reason if it tried to do the integration from the coefficients by itself and got already an error in the estimate of a top speed everything else would be worthless and as is it is mostly worthless when talking about exact performance of the human flown aircraft - sorry, you need to do the measuring consistently and all by yourselves. Devicelink is much more of help there.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
12-24-2004, 09:10 AM
Salute Ugly

I fly the 109 all the time.

And test it.

You still haven't explained why the heavier, later model 109's, power off stall at the same or lower speeds as the earlier, lighter ones.

Ugly_Kid
12-24-2004, 10:57 AM
I said that I don't believe that you get one very definitive stall speed for any aircraft in the game and that very low speeds are obtainable with almost any aircraft using soft and specific control inputs. I don't think that real Bf towards the late series had the same stall speed.

IMO you're "investigating" something that will provide any result you want and offering that as a specific result. Yes, the stall is not very well made in the game, no doubt, you're just trying to hang it on one particular aircraft here. No problem, take the measures with devicelink make explicit proof and send it to them we'll see, you know the topic really isn't that new, just have a look at it from broader aspect.

faustnik
12-24-2004, 02:05 PM
UglyKid,

I'm not sure why you wouldn't find the stall rate relevent? Wouldn't this have an effect on both sustained turn and climb? Buzzsaw's been a flight simmer longer than I have and probably knows how to test better than I do but, I tried it anyway. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Level power off stall, TAS:

109F2: 172kph
109G10: 172kph
SpitVb: 150kph
SpitIXc: 170kph
109A4: 198kph
190A8: 205kph

So, the increased weight of the Merlin 66 makes a difference for the Spit but, the DB605's extra weight does not for the 109???

Not arguing with you, just trying to make sense of it.

ICDP
12-24-2004, 04:22 PM
Guys, it time for a reality check. While I trully enjoy the IL2 series of sims "games" they are not ever going to be even close to realisitc. The moves and "tricks" we do in these planes would get us killed in real life. NONE of these FM's are even remotely close to realisitic so stop trying to pretend that they are.

GR142-Pipper
12-25-2004, 02:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ICDP:
Guys, it time for a reality check. While I trully enjoy the IL2 series of sims "games" they are not ever going to be even close to realisitc. The moves and "tricks" we do in these planes would get us killed in real life. NONE of these FM's are even remotely close to realisitic so stop trying to pretend that they are. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You're right but you'd think that over time the FMs/DMs would move TOWARD realism instead of away from it. (IMHO, it's the result of too many aircraft to refine given the available resources. Quantity or quality, that's the choice. I vote for quality.)

GR142-Pipper

Ugly_Kid
12-25-2004, 04:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
UglyKid,

I'm not sure why you wouldn't find the stall rate relevent? Wouldn't this have an effect on both sustained turn and climb? Buzzsaw's been a flight simmer longer than I have and probably knows how to test better than I do but, I tried it anyway. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not saying anything about relevance of a stall! (although I can say that you should not find the best climb speed anywhere near the stall speed, it's typically slightly below the speed for best glide ratio, significantly higher than stall speed, tightest turn radius for a prop fighter you find in a near stall area, sustained turn rate on the other hand is again at a higher speed). I am just saying that the speed is not very specific in the game. With careful control you can fly slower than that.

You also have to be very careful about the real "data" that you use. Pilot's notes and manuals refer to IAS almost without exception and I bet you just gave TAS values, right?

Yes, indeed, so now depending on altitude that you made that testing, you have already a significant error there. At 1000 m you already disagree with Buzzsaw's Spit data with about 30 km/h from a given IAS value. Same for FW, according to Brown, the stall speed was slightly above 200 km/h (IAS), now in terms of IAS you come significantly below that!

A glide with 170 km/h IAS with La-7, for instance provides more or less identical performance to glide with 230 km/h, surely not very correct, is it?

Additionally, the way Buzzsaw writes about "the issue" gives an impression that there is a mystical speed limit set in the code or he sees it that way?

This is already an erronous idea of the workings of a FM. Whereas this could be true for a table based FM, it is not correct for a FM using real equations of flight. Stall is triggered by angle of attack and at that it is very relative. Why would an aircraft with higher wingload stall at a same speed if they would not specifically allow more CLmax and AoA? Why would they do it?

IMO the sim interprets relationship AoA vs. air speed and g-load in a very peculiar manner. It would appear as if AoA is very much a function of elevator handling only, instead of a normal outcome of flow. It seems to be possible to ride very low speed without triggering the stall, for instance with skilful trim input. In the real life under 1.0 g loading there's a speed which equals to the stall AoA, the stall speed. At this speed the boundary layer separates and the stall occures. In the game you can trick the aircraft past this speed. Notably stall is very much scripted (instead of being a real flow separation of the wing) and for example leads almost without an exception to a spin if you keep the elevator completely pulled, not very real again. Straight stall without wing dipping does not occur at all!

Now this modeling and limitation and its inadequacy is on the game engine it is not one or two aircraft. A big factor is a control (particularly elevator) sensitivity which dictates how precisely you can bring the aircraft to a lower speed without triggering the stall, which like I said seems to be more triggered by elevator than by the outcome of gravity (load factor), airspeed -> AoA.

Again I recommend a familiarization with real aircraft and real stalls. There have been some really interesting discussions of the topic.

Some games like Targetware IMO offers another idea of stalls, allthough the spins are probably not modeled at all yet the stall has a more specific and real feel about it.

BTW stall warning system in a real aircraft is also not triggered by air speed but by angle of attack measurement typically located on leading edge of a wing.

There is nothing new with the issue (russian fighters have been critizised for this since the day one of the game) and by all means discuss it all you want and by all means report it all to Oleg, just don't bark at the wrong tree.

OldMan____
12-25-2004, 07:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ICDP:
Guys, it time for a reality check. While I trully enjoy the IL2 series of sims "games" they are not ever going to be even close to realisitc. The moves and "tricks" we do in these planes would get us killed in real life. NONE of these FM's are even remotely close to realisitic so stop trying to pretend that they are. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

since there is nothing better than Il2 for PC then they are realistic. Nothing is more realistic within PC world. An 100% realistic simmulation is impossible simple because not even all computers in thw world together would be able to make a 100% exact simmulation of fluid dynamics in real time.

WWMaxGunz
12-25-2004, 02:14 PM
Hi Ugly & S!

Stall to spin could be as simple as mathematical point balance and simplified moments
of inertia, ie the thing sits on the tip of a needle and rolls too quick to hold on.

BTW, I know you have many texts on aerodynamics ... are there any formulae on the
dynamics of these things during changes? Most I've seen describe a steady state or
one with a single constant change.

WWMaxGunz
12-25-2004, 02:18 PM
S! Faustnik!

Stalls and turns...

By one site I see make good sense, physics and maths they have explained best turn is at
stall speed or right on the edge. Yes, really because you see the stall speed increases
with bank of the wings -- you only get the cosine of the bank x flat wing lift.

Ugly_Kid
12-26-2004, 03:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Hi Ugly & S!

Stall to spin could be as simple as mathematical point balance and simplified moments
of inertia, ie the thing sits on the tip of a needle and rolls too quick to hold on.

BTW, I know you have many texts on aerodynamics ... are there any formulae on the
dynamics of these things during changes? Most I've seen describe a steady state or
one with a single constant change. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A bible from the area is Bernard Etkin's:"Dynamics of Flight" (or used to be). Among the other things you can find equation collections for the 6 degrees of freedom but usually you start with simplifications and setting one or two derivatives to zero. Let's say, for example, term for cross-coupling between rotating mass and rotations (gyro-effects - usually insignificant except for helicopter). These equations are often used for autopilot's and sims but there must be others, I only know or knew of Etkin. The stuff is based on small disturbancies theories and I think, for example, spins need another kind of treatment or simplification. Something like roll - full stick input at t=0 and an integration how roll accelerates with time as inertia effect lets off is calculatable. So you cover the normal flight envelope but have to invent something for the limits of the "normal" envelope. Spin where another wing is stalled and the other one still sees an attached flow, vertical fin and horizontal stab being maybe partly shadowed by the fuselage flow would need a whole set of new aerodynamic coefficients and derivatives particularly for this kind of flow - a not regular one. Who would do such a thing trying to figure it out, just for this special case? No script something and basta.

It is also a question how you treat the derivatives. Take, for example, longitudinal equation. You'd take drag and at some area it is still valid to assume the zero lift drag coeff. equal to zero, well somewhere you would need to treat it with Mach effect, same for pitch moment coeff. Now start with IL-2 slow ground attack aircraft simulator for low altitude you'd automatically treat these as constants http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

The simulation is more in the area of flight mechanics, whereas aerodynamics is only a servant of flight mechanics http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. Flight mechanics is just normal dynamics expanded with aerodynamic forces from the specimen itself depending on the oncoming flow from the movement or something like that.

JG5_JaRa
12-26-2004, 05:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
since there is nothing better than Il2 for PC then they are realistic. Nothing is more realistic within PC world. An 100% realistic simmulation is impossible simple because not even all computers in thw world together would be able to make a 100% exact simmulation of fluid dynamics in real time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are PC sims which do the FM better than IL2, especially some of the tactical aspects which are screwed up in IL2, no need to repeat the "best sim ever"-truism over and over again just because one likes the "feel" of IL2.
Then, why does this fluid dynamics tale pop up over and over again as an excuse? Sims simply don't do that, even the big ones don't.
Calling something realistic just because one can't or doesn't want to think of anything better is a bit navie.

Ugly_Kid
12-26-2004, 05:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG5_JaRa:
Then, why does this fluid dynamics tale pop up over and over again as an excuse? Sims simply don't do that, even the big ones don't.
Calling something realistic just because one can't or doesn't want to think of anything better is a bit navie. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right on, I visited twice a multi-million $ DC-10 sim in 90s. The calculation power of the center was probably subpar to a modern palm-PC, graphics didn't feature smoking tires but flight and systems simulation was quite something, it's more a matter of resources and where you put it. I'll probably buy next sim which doesn't promise over ten planes and is too ashamed to show screenshot at all if I find one...

ICDP
12-26-2004, 05:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
since there is nothing better than Il2 for PC then they are realistic. Nothing is more realistic within PC world. An 100% realistic simmulation is impossible simple because not even all computers in thw world together would be able to make a 100% exact simmulation of fluid dynamics in real time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I completely disagree, constantly saying that IL2 series has the best FM does not make it true. Rowan's BoB and Mig Alley both had better FM's, there was no hanging on the prop like a helicopter and it was not possible to throw your aircraft around in the arcade fashion that is possible in PF.

I don't give a **** about fluid dynamic FM or whatever it is called in PF, it doesn't make it right that AC can reach maximum climb at ridiculously low speeds. In PF almost all aircraft in the game suffer from an almost total lack of energy loss at high G low speed manouvers and that is pure arcade BS IMHO. How many times have you watched an aircraft pull straight up from 200kph to hang on its prop to get an accurate shot off. In fact how many times have you performed this magical unrealisitic physics defying manouver yourself? Need I also mention the zero torque modelled in this sim, or is that not important in any good FM?

I love this sim/game but religiously stating that it has the best FM ever created on the home PC is doing a massive disservice to quite a few other sims that blatantly got it better.

JG77Von_Hess
12-26-2004, 09:06 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifSome good points here, and i agree with lots of that said here on the last few pages. The main reason i stick with this game is its strong online comunety, and if u want to play WW2 aircombat against human pilots there is really no good alternative. When i mix my knowledge on flying with flight physics and real-life aircraft performance, im im truely not really impressed with IL2s way of handling things. Lets hope Bob will turn out differnt.

Regards.

VH.

clint-ruin
12-26-2004, 11:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
IMO the sim interprets relationship AoA vs. air speed and g-load in a very peculiar manner. It would appear as if AoA is very much a function of elevator handling only, instead of a normal outcome of flow. It seems to be possible to ride very low speed without triggering the stall, for instance with skilful trim input. In the real life under 1.0 g loading there's a speed which equals to the stall AoA, the stall speed. At this speed the boundary layer separates and the stall occures. In the game you can trick the aircraft past this speed. Notably stall is very much scripted (instead of being a real flow separation of the wing) and for example leads almost without an exception to a spin if you keep the elevator completely pulled, not very real again. Straight stall without wing dipping does not occur at all! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you tried this with different planes? I've been looking into this just for my own interest in 3.02bm [don't have 303 down yet] and the results between planes are .. interesting. I'd assumed things had changed more than they seem between Il2 and PF on this score, and tests between planes seem quite .. inconsistent.

The representation of 1g 'stalls' seems to occur in an absolutely tiny margin of the envelope for most planes. For some I'm totally unable to trigger it full stop, at least for more than a fraction of a second with normal stick input. The Il-2 series is, at least so far, the easiest I've found to hold in the classic power off, nose drop, loss of aileron control, no wing drop style stall zone. Contrails stream out from the wingtips and you get quite a long range of elevator movement before you're turfed out of your stall. The elevator input doesn't seem to change your actual AOA at all, until you reach the tipping point and spin out.

Trying this in the A-20, A6M, I-153, and other planes I would have expected to be able to pull off something similar, and I just couldn't do it with anything like the same ease - as you mention, you can trick it with trim input, but it's not something that's easy to pull off. I went and turned down the elevator sensitivity in the controls setup, to give a wide range of representation to near-centre of elevator controls and it was still almost impossible for me to do. The 190D9 44 was actually easier to hold in that zone than the A6M2 for me, which seemed a little odd, too.

Same as the classic dive speed differences issue. There is very clearly a difference between the TB-3 and the FW-190 in dives, but when you try and nail it down to the classic "plane X is better than plane Y because it could dive to 20kmh faster, but the game sucks because they don't in PF" it seems to fall apart. Some planes have a large zone of input where you can hold a spinless stall, some planes don't .. just how big that zone is between 100 something planes seems to be complicated for them to fix. Can't imagine the kind of QA issues they go through now just to make sure that planes don't go out with non-working rudders a la FB 1.1 again, with this many planes in there.

AFAIK trim might be the best way to go about testing this stall zone. From the original RBJ style trim discussions, what I remember hearing about it was that the trim inputs aren't "real" controls in the sense that they disrupt the airflow over the plane - it's kind of like recalibrating the AOA/aileron/rudder input "0/0/0" from your joystick represents, but without any penalty from the trim tab sticking out into the airflow. So if we remove the elevator drag/distruption element from our stall tests we're left looking at something like the airframes natural "stallability" under various conditions of flight. Do you have any guesses as to how or why the elevator model/stall would be set up the way it is from your AE knowledge? Some kind of shortcut for multiple things [elevator drag, torque induced spins, whatever] to be represented by the same piece of code?

I remember asking something similar in a very long and rambly post about FW190 high speed stalls a while ago but I can't remember if you answered. A lot of the feedback effects people get from the sim probably come into play here as well - some added shake and noise to let the player know what's happening to the airframe at low speed might help some, just to make the onset of stalls seem less sudden to players.

Just asking because I'm interested by the way. There are very obviously a lot of shortcuts that have been used in the FM to make it fast, and the more bases this same limited set of shortcuts is supposed to cover shows the holes quite clearly. Oleg knows - see the message about Spit/Seafire overheating in the 3.03 readme for example, and his messages on the cut-down focus of BOB. I would think that just as a basic project management thing, he's now a lot more wary of making the same kinds of design choices that have hamstrung PFs ability to represent certain aspects of certain planes. That said - it's a computer game - not something intended for serious flight qualification training or the saving of hundreds of passengers lives, so if a 80s/90s DC10 sim has better systems representation with the full backing of an entire aircraft company and airlines then I'm not sure where the surprise is supposed to be :>

I do think it's kinda funny that we have some people saying "yeah, these sudden unpredictable control loss spins at low speed suck!" and another saying "yeah, this ridiculous ease of control at low speed sucks!" and then someone else pops up and says "I agree with both of you! Fix it Oleg or I won't buy your games!" :>

What sort of questions should we ask Oleg to find out what's going on here? I've read through and gotten the impression that a lot of people think something - sometimes a lot of different and mutually exclusive things - are wrong, but nothing phrased as "why does (specific thing) produce (specific result) in the game, Oleg?". Might help if people want an actual detailed answer from him about these issues.

Wolf-Strike
12-26-2004, 12:46 PM
Sometimes I wonder if Oleg keeps changing everything up to keep everything fresh.I know is sounds stupid but it does keep the guys who really care about the realistic FM's testing away and away after every patchhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)Keeps these boards full thats for surehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I only hope that when BOB comes around and with it the addition of more flight modules,that the team really takes the time to get each and every plane accurate.Can you imagine BOB with these way off FM's.Dont get me wrong,I love IL2 but I would really be unhappy if BOB comes with all the mistakes in the FM area.

EDIT:Ok so PF has a physical based flight
model.Do you think its possible(Oleg)to keep this physical part of the FM(for its better feel of flight)and combine it with a table based FM???

clint-ruin
12-26-2004, 03:18 PM
There have been patches that have completely nerfed or overboosted planes before. 1.03 for Il2 Sturmovik got a mention as the "300% LW advantage" patch by Oleg and you better believe there were enough people complaining about the correction in 1.04 [around when I started lurking the forums - whine central]. Noone keeled over and died as a result and Oleg is still in business.

BOB will come out and it'll be whatever is in the box. Maybe UBI will hassle him for an early release, maybe they will pass a milestone early, and get more time for QA. If things are off in BOB, whether it's the FMs or whatever, you will still be dealing with a largely similar dev team. The track record so far is something like 17 entirely free patches for the Il2FBAEPPF line and a commitment to fix anything that can possibly be fixed if sufficient data is provided to MG.

ICDP
12-27-2004, 08:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ICDP:
Guys, it time for a reality check. While I trully enjoy the IL2 series of sims "games" they are not ever going to be even close to realisitc. The moves and "tricks" we do in these planes would get us killed in real life. NONE of these FM's are even remotely close to realisitic so stop trying to pretend that they are. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well it looks like 3.03 has fixed some of the "arcade feel", I made the above statement proir to 3.03 and I take back most of it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

With 3.03 we finaly see that low speed energy retention/gain has been reduced. It is not as easy to perform strange gravity defying manouvers in 3.03. This has also had the added benefit of reducing the silly low speed maximum climbrate error. Now flying your aircraft at the proper bestclimb speeds results in a higher advantage than in previous versions. I may be wrong but after a few days flying patch 3.03 I do feel that low speed handling has been slightly reduced for all aircraft. I feel this is a great move by the devteam.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
12-27-2004, 01:26 PM
Salute

I still haven't gotten a reply to my question:

Why are higher wingloaded, later model 109's stalling at the same speed as lower wingloaded earlier model 109's?

When both have exactly the same aerofoil and wing area?

As Faustnik pointed out, when we look at the Spitfire V and IX, both of which share the same aerofoil and wing area, we see that the higher wingloaded IX stalls at a much higher speed as per the basic laws of physics.

So why are the later 109's exempt from the laws of physics?

Second:

Uglys comments about TAS vs IAS as far as stall testing is a smokescreen.

At 100 metres above sea level, which is where I did my testing, there is no significant difference between TAS and IAS. You can reliably check the stalling behaviour and determine stall speed.

All major Allied aircraft manufacturers used the zero throttle stall as a basemark for their testing, and included this information in their pilot manuals. When stall speed is listed for German aircraft, we can understand that to be zero throttle stall speed.

It was crucial for Pilots to know what the behaviour of their aircraft might be if they lost power during takeoff or landing.

The behaviour of an given aircraft's airframe under zero power should be the fundamental start point to the modelling of its behaviour in flight in IL-2 FB/PF. This is because when the aircraft is flying under zero power, we can see the basic lift which its wing is generating, unaffected by thrust lift.

OldMan____
12-27-2004, 01:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
since there is nothing better than Il2 for PC then they are realistic. Nothing is more realistic within PC world. An 100% realistic simmulation is impossible simple because not even all computers in thw world together would be able to make a 100% exact simmulation of fluid dynamics in real time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I completely disagree, constantly saying that IL2 series has the best FM does not make it true. Rowan's BoB and Mig Alley both had better FM's, there was no hanging on the prop like a helicopter and it was not possible to throw your aircraft around in the arcade fashion that is possible in PF.

I don't give a **** about fluid dynamic FM or whatever it is called in PF, it doesn't make it right that AC can reach maximum climb at ridiculously low speeds. In PF almost all aircraft in the game suffer from an almost total lack of energy loss at high G low speed manouvers and that is pure arcade BS IMHO. How many times have you watched an aircraft pull straight up from 200kph to hang on its prop to get an accurate shot off. In fact how many times have you performed this magical unrealisitic physics defying manouver yourself? Need I also mention the zero torque modelled in this sim, or is that not important in any good FM?

I love this sim/game but religiously stating that it has the best FM ever created on the home PC is doing a massive disservice to quite a few other sims that blatantly got it better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

will just say that once. I already watched lots of exibitions of propeller combat planes here in Brazil and they do much more hang on the prop than anyone can do in PF. And they are much less powerfull planes.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/super_tucano/

so it IS possible for a plane to do so. If people do it all the time as an unrealistic move.. not concern physics. So probably a few planes from this game should be able to do it in reality, maybe not with safety... but would be possible.

I saw with my own eyes... so PROVE that something is wrong. I give a **** about your feeling or opinion otherwise.

Also the games you satated have FM that make you feel you are flying on a table of performance, not in a descreete time physics simmulation, much worse in fact.

IL2 have some issues with excessive responsive controls near zero speed and like. But most problems are minimal if compared to issues in other games.

ICDP
12-27-2004, 02:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
IL2 have some issues with excessive responsive controls near zero speed and like. But most problems are minimal if compared to issues in other games. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The rest of your post is irrelevant to WWII fighters but the above is not. This is the area of arcadyness I am referring to, it is possible to aim and remain on control of an aircraft in PF at rediculously low speeds. One of the main reasons for this is the almost total lack of torque. The rest of the FM is definately the best yet but this area of the FM is overlooked and it is vital to realism.

p1ngu666
12-27-2004, 02:31 PM
i find 109s can climb up to me.
after ive done a bnz pass (full throttle)

IX seems pretty stall senistive and so does zero.

oddly i was outclimbed at slow speed by a ix with his flaps at landing position with me in ki43 combat (but 50%fuel - whatever id used).

109 drivers are often using manual pitch, they can take revs from 2600 to 3000 ish for awhile, i just did it on carrier (chocks held plane still)
i did that in the k4 btw.
oh and remmber the later 109s wings have bumps and stuff, i dont know how much that effects stuff, but its hardly gonna make it better.

the thing about the prop pitch is, if used it can gain a big advantage, over the stock performance. every other plane is stuck at stock performance.

and no, im not trying to kill the 109, i think oleg should place a rev limit on the engine or something

faustnik
12-27-2004, 02:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74_Buzzsaw:

The behaviour of an given aircraft's airframe under zero power should be the fundamental start point to the modelling of its behaviour in flight in IL-2 FB/PF. This is because when the aircraft is flying under zero power, we can see the basic lift which its wing is generating, unaffected by thrust lift. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cpt. Brown list throttle full off stall speeds for the LW planes if anyone has Wings of the Luftwaffe handy. I can find it later tonight.

WWMaxGunz
12-27-2004, 03:37 PM
The revs have a limit but revs times power don't seem to last I checked, also heavy
compression loading at low revs don't.

S! Ugly!

The DC simbox had more power than I think you credit. The boxes I flew late 80's were run
with perhaps a dozen VAX computers the sim techs pointed out. Those were not fast by today
standards but the busses could hold an amazing number of dedicated CPU's, drives and other
peripherals which always the bus capability to me is the difference of micro to larger
computer at least once you start filling them at all. With distributed power those old
cabinets could do small miracles. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Architecture can more than overcome raw speed.
Add on that if your DC simbox was like the ones I flew then there was nothing much outside
to see (nighttime, mostly lights, runways, major landmarks, some buildings low detail) and
only one plane FM in actual... with no guns or DM's! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif And still very exciting for
something you can do without leaving a chair and not involving sex. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

What a PC can do for the last 8 years is more and more incredible but in terms of combat
sims the extra gets taken up quickly and FM gets only a share. IMHO a state machine
approach to all the elements you point out to analyze conditions and then act on them in
a sequence of stages might come out good but the limits of hardware will determine which
elements could even be determined, which stages calculated, and those only when multiplied
by the number of planes. That takes in nothing of graphics or shooting and damage or the
engine and prop management, so limits of hardware for any one aspect is really what part
of the hardware power budget is designed to go for FM, DM, graphics, AI and all.

I see than IL2 series uses a simplified FM which IMHO would have been better to have those
run tabled FM for not just reduced load but flying only to real limits and surely easier
for AI routines to not just control but able to "predict" ability to move and build up
tactics not to mention fly in formation and land safely. I've had 286 and 386SX sims that
the AI's could do all but the complex tactics part of that so power budget should be small!

Anyway things get left out or merged with others and it only takes so much missing or just
so far off and it's possible to do unreal tricks. It must be that way for every sim to be
able to find the cracks and possibly exploit them, I realized that in 1999 if not 1998. It
is a bummer sort of but to me the art of a sim becomes in making the cracks in places
where they can't be exploited which is why I loved EAW even with the spins, how could those
be exploited? You learn to avoid them as a penalty for pushing too far. The rest of the
FM may not be the greatest but what it did was to balance all the pieces very well and run
on the PC's of the time (mine was 300mz K6-2, 32MB RAM) and mainly to keep the holes in
places where they mattered least. Something like that with updated DM, graphics and online
first, and then FM improvements would have made my day nicely. The points are balance of
features and making the holes be where they matter least, again IMHO.

I think that once 1C irons out the FM of PF we will be in much better shape. Still there
will be the DM's and guns (combined) issues but no way will even a solid majority agree
on whatever is made. I trust 1C to bring the FM into better order if they can afford to.

Ugly_Kid
12-28-2004, 07:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74_Buzzsaw:
I still haven't gotten a reply to my question:

Why are higher wingloaded, later model 109's stalling at the same speed as lower wingloaded earlier model 109's?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ask Oleg, they shouldn't but you assume here that you have explicitly nailed down one and only stall speed in your tests. Stall is not very greatly modeled, I think, You just seem to connect this with one aircraft.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
So why are the later 109's exempt from the laws of physics?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

again, ask Oleg, higher wingloading would need a special allowance of higher AoA and CLmax in the code, I doubt you will find "stall speed limit" in the code. It would be interesting to hear his comment, I rather think you're not working precisely enough and are too eager in your conclusions, but maybe that's just me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Uglys comments about TAS vs IAS as far as stall testing is a smokescreen.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You might think so but if you have source data and make claims, it would not harm to understand it, eh?http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Now depending on the results faustnik gave, surprisingly TAS, depending on the altitude HE decided to do HIS measurements you two may differ quite largely - something I tried to tell you quite a few times.

I don't think you will get an one and only stall speed out of the game, unlike from a real aircraft, this being an issue of a general modeling. Modeling that I do not find great but yet understandable. If the game had a) realistic 1.0 g stalls b) would produce defenetive stall speeds when tried, you would have a point. Since there is no a) nor b) you can't stuff your head at sand and point your finger at one single aircraft, now can you?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
At 100 metres above sea level, which is where I did my testing, there is no significant difference between TAS and IAS. You can reliably check the stalling behaviour and determine stall speed.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now you did, did faustnik? Depending on the map even at 100 m TAS > IAS, not even closely. That you started with TAS and try to explain it away shows that you and he started already with a wrong foot but your pet is spot on you say http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif If he didn't, your second statement remains also very untrue (two people very different results). I remember testing La-5FN stalls in previous history, wasn't really all that specific, the stall, sorry.

Neal, probably a similar crate it was a night sky, great immersion. I assume it was from early 80s, admittedly exaggerating but I really wouldn't put that much trust on the Unix from that time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, last time I benchmarked 2GHz PIV beated SGI Irix 10k with factor 4 and being 12 times faster than four year old Sun server http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. In one year 3.2 GHz Xeon brought again linear increase, today's PC isn't really that bad but even it can't run all the humbug and simulate grass grow if you need to do shooting and stalling at the same time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif - put more here less there http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, I would rather have more systems simulation and such, but bang for the bucks crowd want muzzle flashes and dirty canopies.

Clint, I am not sure I completely understand the question. It appears to me that trim partly uses elevator routines and is partly decoupled from the elevator but that lots of the trim stuff is pure hype.

An easiest way might be to simulate a spring type trim, where in a real aircraft springs are used to neutralize the stick force at certain angle. I think they tried to do it but early on in the boxed IL-2 the trim somehow changed the control limits too. If you applied positive trim you would loose from elevator power. Some of the strange part was never completly solved. Well trim control does not seem to cause aggressive AoA changes and stall is not triggered that easily. Near stall and at very high speed I would fly a lot with trim, in first place I am less likely to stall and in second place I get more elevator authority.

The "trim-tab" which is also not regular nor an unique solution turn only the elevator to a new zero stick force center. The trim drag in this case is not from the tab but from the complete elevator being in another angle, just about the same as a spring-type trim. Another possibility would be turning the complete horizontal stab, today a regular solution in airliners etc.. This strealines the complete stab and generates less trim drag. I don't think trim drag as such is a very significant figure.

Ugly_Kid
12-28-2004, 08:02 AM
Oh, Neal, I think too that table based is not all that bad in all counts, it's at least robust and allows less loopholes. I think I read somewhere Oleg saying essentially the same and that they consider tabularizing parts but I am not 100% sure of this and whether it was him...

faustnik
12-28-2004, 10:00 AM
Ugky Kid,

I did my tests at 1000 meters viewing TAS in Wonder Woman mode. Shouldn't all these types of things be examined in TAS?

Anyway FM testing isn't my thing, but the relative difference between the Spit, 190 and 109 upweighting was very obvious.

RAF74_Buzzsaw
12-28-2004, 12:52 PM
Salute Ugly

From comments like:

"...higher wingloading would need a special allowance of higher AoA and CLmax in the code..."

...it is clear that you do not understand the physics of wing stall, or CLmax.

When we look at a given wing, with a particular aerofoil and wing area, we know that wing will generate a specific amount of lift, depending on the AoA at which the Wing presents itself to the airflow. The amount of lift generated does not vary no matter how much loading is placed on the wing.

What varies is the angle at which the aerofoil must be presented to the airflow in order to sustain flight. The higher the wingloading, the more AoA required to generate the lift required to sustain flight.

And as you should know, when the AoA at which the wing is presented to the airflow exceeds a certain amount, then airflow is interrupted by too much turbulence, drag becomes greater than lift, and wing stall occurs.

If we look at the 109's as an example, and compare the 109K4 with say a 109F4, both of which have essentially the same wing. (same aerofoil, same wing area, although K4 loses a bit of lift for the bulges for wheels and larger wheel well) we can expect the following behaviour:

The K4 weighs in at 7440 lbs. The F4 weighs in at 6054 lbs. Difference in weight is 1386 lbs.

Wing area for both aircraft is 172.75 Sq ft.

Wingloading for K4 is 43.07 lbs per square foot of wing area.

Wingloading for F4 is 35.04 lbs per square foot of wing area.

Difference in wingloading is 19%. The K4 is carrying 19% more weight on the same set of wings.

What this means, is that under zero power, and at the same given speed, the K4 will need to have its wing set a higher angle of attack to the airflow than the F4 in order to maintain level flight. The K4 needs to generate MORE lift to compensate for its higher wingloading. The only way to generate more lift is to set the wings at a higher AoA in order to generate more lift.

However, the K4 cannot keep up a higher AoA without a penalty. As previously mentioned, when an aerofoil exceeds a certain AoA at a given speed, it loses lift, and the wing stalls. So we can clearly see, at zero throttle, the higher wingloaded K4 will stall at a higher speed than the lower wingloaded F4.

This is because the K4's wing will reach the critical AoA at which stall occurs, BEFORE the F4's does.

All of this is very basic physics.

With all this understood, it therefore becomes very puzzling to see the type of behaviour exhibited in the Simulation.

In the Sim, in zero power stall tests, the K4 is stalling at the same speed as the F4.

But how can that be, when both should be riding on a wing which generates the same lift, and the K4 has nearly 20% greater wingloading?

The only conclusion we can draw from this, is that the Simulation has mismodelled the lift generated by the K4's wing, as greater than the F4's. Which is obviously incorrect. Either that, or the K4's weight has been modelled as the same as the F4's.

Either way, it should be fixed.

WUAF_Badsight
12-28-2004, 02:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74_Buzzsaw:
The K4 weighs in at 7440 lbs. The F4 weighs in at 6054 lbs. Difference in weight is 1386 lbs.

Wing area for both aircraft is 172.75 Sq ft.

Wingloading for K4 is 43.07 lbs per square foot of wing area.

Wingloading for F4 is 35.04 lbs per square foot of wing area.

Difference in wingloading is 19%. The K4 is carrying 19% more weight on the same set of wings.

What this means, is that under zero power, and at the same given speed, the K4 will need to have its wing set a higher angle of attack to the airflow than the F4 in order to maintain level flight. The K4 needs to generate MORE lift to compensate for its higher wingloading. The only way to generate more lift is to set the wings at a higher AoA in order to generate more lift.

However, the K4 cannot keep up a higher AoA without a penalty. As previously mentioned, when an aerofoil exceeds a certain AoA at a given speed, it loses lift, and the wing stalls. So we can clearly see, at zero throttle, the higher wingloaded K4 will stall at a higher speed than the lower wingloaded F4.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
& if it doesnt , it should be changed till it does

that is not only fair , but also accurate

TX-EcoDragon
12-28-2004, 04:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ICDP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
since there is nothing better than Il2 for PC then they are realistic. Nothing is more realistic within PC world. An 100% realistic simmulation is impossible simple because not even all computers in thw world together would be able to make a 100% exact simmulation of fluid dynamics in real time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I completely disagree, constantly saying that IL2 series has the best FM does not make it true. Rowan's BoB and Mig Alley both had better FM's, there was no hanging on the prop like a helicopter and it was not possible to throw your aircraft around in the arcade fashion that is possible in PF.

I don't give a **** about fluid dynamic FM or whatever it is called in PF, it doesn't make it right that AC can reach maximum climb at ridiculously low speeds. In PF almost all aircraft in the game suffer from an almost total lack of energy loss at high G low speed manouvers and that is pure arcade BS IMHO. How many times have you watched an aircraft pull straight up from 200kph to hang on its prop to get an accurate shot off. In fact how many times have you performed this magical unrealisitic physics defying manouver yourself? Need I also mention the zero torque modelled in this sim, or is that not important in any good FM?

I love this sim/game but religiously stating that it has the best FM ever created on the home PC is doing a massive disservice to quite a few other sims that blatantly got it better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://www.airviolence.com/request.php?129

Kasdeya
12-28-2004, 05:11 PM
Hey Eco, Great vid bro. Who was flying it? The moves at time mark 1:50 and around 3:30 were incredible, not to mention the outside neg G roll/loop. The Pilot has great talent, I wonder if he is an online ace? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Might explain alot in itself, eh?

JG52_Meyer
12-28-2004, 08:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Endrju:
No Hetzer, I think that it is not correct when Bf109G2 can turn on equal terms with La5FN. This last plane has lower weight/wings area ratio, and it is historically confirmed that it was better turner against any Bf's. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong, the G2 was lighter and have a lower wingloading. And I would like to see how that is "historically confirmed" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

HayateAce
12-29-2004, 12:16 AM
That video reminds me of the 109s I see doing that online.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Cool video but I am unclear on why you post it. Surely you don't suggest that this highly specialized beast of a biplane sets any sort of example that some of the crazy FMs in Forgotten Battles are right.

Anyway, that pilot is one tremendous athlete.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

WUAF_Badsight
12-29-2004, 02:21 AM
people doing what HayaterHater does makes a mockery of this forum , its gotten its reputation because of dummies posting biased red herrings like HayateHater does

Ugly_Kid
12-29-2004, 03:23 AM
faustnik, yes, thank you. Now as I said you two have already different results. No this one should not be investigated in TAS for various reasons. Firstly, aircraft have IAS indicator, no TAS, thus pilots discuss IAS when talking about stall (TAS interest them when they navigate or boast how fast they fly not when they try to read instument to see how slow they can fly). Another reason is that aircraft, depending on altitude stall on different TAS, IAS being more or less constant...giving TAS for stall without the respective altitude is worthless.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RAF74_Buzzsaw:
From comments like:

"...higher wingloading would need a special allowance of higher AoA and CLmax in the code..."

...it is clear that you do not understand the physics of wing stall, or CLmax.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah right and you do? This starts getting really interesting...I wonder why I bother to write anything at all anymore.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And as you should know, when the AoA at which the wing is presented to the airflow exceeds a certain amount, then airflow is interrupted by too much turbulence, drag becomes greater than lift, and wing stall occurs.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok, thanks for the information, I doubt I need further lessions from you. Great theory but FYI stall here is not that much a question of that drag (drag is a sympton not the cause). After certain AoA the boundary layer separates (flow does not attach to the upper surface of the wing any more), the circulation is lost and wing looses lift. Shortly before this the wing reaches it max. performance AoAmax and corresponding max. lift factor CLmax. Your use of term turbulence here tells me you should stop teaching http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
This is because the K4's wing will reach the critical AoA at which stall occurs, BEFORE the F4's does.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the previous part wasn't correct strictly speaking whereas this one still holds the water.
However, you should notice that K4 with 19% more wingloading needs to fly 19% higher CL _all the time_at a same speed (any speed at that) and thus it reaches the CLmax slightly earlier, 9% in terms of speed. Now I haven't seen you posting systematic results anywhere near 10% accuracy to begin with. Only claims not proof.

Note, I do not try to deny a real-life tendency and behaviour (wing-loading for instance). You don't need to go hell-bent trying to explain that heavier variant in RL had a higher stall speed. This is hardly the point.

You say that you don't get this result out of the game. I am just saying that the game is globally as good or bad as it is and that it doesn't reflect that realistic behaviour at all, so you're practically criticising 10th digit of pi where as the integer part is 6 to begin with.

I doubt you'll find any bf pilot who agrees that G-6 is just as stall friendly as F-4 or G-2 in the game.

HayateAce
12-29-2004, 09:57 AM
Hmmm, more name calling from badsight.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Maybe you should resume posting once some of this hostility and rage has passed. Anyway, cool video and amazing pilot.

faustnik
12-29-2004, 10:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
faustnik, yes, thank you. Now as I said you two have already different results. No this one should not be investigated in TAS for various reasons. Firstly, aircraft have IAS indicator, no TAS, thus pilots discuss IAS when talking about stall (TAS interest them when they navigate or boast how fast they fly not when they try to read instument to see how slow they can fly). Another reason is that aircraft, depending on altitude stall on different TAS, IAS being more or less constant...giving TAS for stall without the respective altitude is worthless.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That make a lot of sense Ugly Kid, I didn't think of that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif