PDA

View Full Version : Imperial Star Deuce - Hey



MLudner
11-13-2005, 02:38 PM
Allright, at last I have three accurately recorded .ntrks ready. I have had much trouble with this, but I finally have them.

Problem is: the shortest are 30 minutes long, the longest a bit over an hour.

The long one is .ntrk28: the P-51D20NA High Altitude Speed Test. I took-off from Egrovo (OL-Summer 4 Map - USAAF "Valhalla" Mission) and climbed to about 26,000ft ASL - sticking to the edge of the map in hopes of not running into the prowling Ace Bf-109G10 during the test. I tested speed at that altutude (240 MPH IAS best). Then I dropped to 15 and repeated. Then down to 10 (340 MPH IAS best). Thereafter I flew to Gora Lysaya and fiddled around until the Bf-109G10 found me. In the resulting furball I eventually downed the AI Ace, but only by scaring it into taking evasive action that slowed it down with on - or near on - target bursts at 600 + meters. I then return to AAF Egrovo, land and park in my revetment.

In the 2nd (.ntrk33) I reverse and fly the Bf109G10 out of Luftwaffenstutzplatz Wagnerstadt. No contact occurs, but I found out why in this one. Two previous attempts to do this had me prowling the skies in the 109 for almost an hour, baffled as to why I never found the AI Ace P-51D20NA. He was crashing into the southern side of Gora Sininos. So I just returned to base then made a quick tour of LWSP Wagnerstadt on my way to my revetment. This is the shortest track.

After adjusting the AI USAAF flight path and altitudes I got:
.ntrk34, about 30 minutes. Engaged AI Ace P-51D20NA just ost of Olegovo between Goras Lysaya, Sininos and Krasnopup. Eventually shot-down the Mustang when he made a mistake and let me close in, but up until then I could not get into effective firing range.

Where can I put them that you and others might view them and comment? Or, considering their length, would you even want to?

Also (For anyone who knows) - How can I make MPGs out of .ntrks? I would love to be able to make movies of these things (And others) that included background music.

How does one save screen shots?

ImpStarDuece
11-13-2005, 07:13 PM
You can try uploading them to yousendit.com or something similar.

A much easier test is just to go into QMB and select the altitude you want (in increments of 1000m to 5000m and then 7000 and 10,000) and just fly at that.

I'll run some speed tests shortly.

ImpStarDuece
11-13-2005, 08:15 PM
Ok, just ran some absolute speed tests of my own.


Couple of things when you run tests.

Standard method, as recommended by Oleg, is this;

Crimea map
Midday
Cockpit off
Radiators closed
All tests done over water.

The Crimea map has as close to standard atmosphere as appears in the game, and is the default map for testing any Flight Model characteristics

I made my runs at 7650m, or about 25000 feet. The USAAF got best speed results of 437 mph at 25,500 feet during war time testing, and 440 mph at 24,500 feet in post-war testing in California.

I made 3 runs, all at 50% fuel, full ammunition. I tried to trim the plane for "hands off" flying as best i could, but some minor stick corrections were needed to keep the plane dead straight and within +/- 10m of my desired altitude.

Speed tests results were;

Test 1. 692 kph sustained (edging 695 sustained after a shallow dive)
Test 2. 695 kph sustained (again after descending slightly)
Test 3. 693 kph sustained after ascending slightly to my test altitude.

Taking an average of all 3 test, I get 694 kph, or 433 mph. That is probably a little slow (by about 9-14, kph, 4-7 mph, depending on the tests you base your data on), but is less than a 1% deviation from real world data.

Going of incockpit instrumentation, top speed is just over 290 mph indicated, which translates to roughly 430 mph. I could easily sustain a hands off cruise speed, at 95% throttle and 4 notches of radiator open, of around 250 mph indicated. If you are only getting 240 mph indicated as best top speed, perhaps you need to run your tests again, to standard conditions.

MLudner
11-13-2005, 08:46 PM
Well, we are getting different results, then. I am using 100% Fuel because one of my early test attempts I went up with 25% (I have noted no difference, BTW in performance between that flight and the subsequent ones at 100%: 240 to 340 IAS mattering on altitude). Problem was I ran out of fuel in the middle of the Angels 15 Test and had to glide back to AAF Egrovo and land (Then the track showed me rolling over and diving into the ground like an idiot).

Originally, I was using QMB. But when I started at 7500 the performance of the Mustang was pathetic - better than a MiG-3, but still bad. I was using the Smolensk Map, though, like I tend to when flying allied in QMB non-PTO. I fly Crimea usually when German (Proximity to base the main reason). I decided it might work better if I started from Take-Off then climbed to altitude, then performed the test. It seemed to have made a difference. My Mustang did much better in the USAAF Valhalla Mission.

However, it surprises me that there would be any difference from map to map, save for a winter to summer map where temperature might play a significant role.

Still, I noted that when I flew the Mustang against the Bf-109G10 the 109 was faster. When I flew the Bf-109G10 against the Mustang, the Mustang was faster. This seems to occur when I am flying aircraft of similar speeds, where one - the P-51 in this case - should be a bit faster but isn't when AI is flying against me.

I've never flown cockpit off; it just doesn't feel right to me. Just like I won't save a track where I didn't land at the end when I had not been shot down. I'm anal like that.

yousendit.com? I'll poke about.

Thank you.

Can anyone answer my other question, or is it some top secret, skull and crossbones type thing?

neural_dream
11-13-2005, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
However, it surprises me that there would be any difference from map to map, save for a winter to summer map where temperature might play a significant role.
All maps have different environmental conditions. That's why any performance tests should be done on the Crimea map which has the "standard" climate. The AI isn't affected.

Still, I noted that when I flew the Mustang against the Bf-109G10 the 109 was faster. When I flew the Bf-109G10 against the Mustang, the Mustang was faster. This seems to occur when I am flying aircraft of similar speeds, where one - the P-51 in this case - should be a bit faster but isn't when AI is flying against me.
Known issue with the latest patches. The AI is faster than the player.

I've never flown cockpit off; it just doesn't feel right to me.
Then you'll be surprised how different IAS is to TAS at high altitudes.

ImpStarDuece
11-13-2005, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by MLudner:
Well, we are getting different results, then. I am using 100% Fuel because one of my early test attempts I went up with 25% (I have noted no difference, BTW in performance between that flight and the subsequent ones at 100%: 240 to 340 IAS mattering on altitude). Problem was I ran out of fuel in the middle of the Angels 15 Test and had to glide back to AAF Egrovo and land (Then the track showed me rolling over and diving into the ground like an idiot).

Weight is modeled into the game and has a adverse effect on climb and speed.

The P-51D could carry about 255 US gal of fuel, or about 965 litres. Aviation fuel has a specific weight of about 0.737 kg/ Litre. So full internal tanks on a P-51 weighs in at about 710 kg, or 1560 lbs.

The difference between a full fuel tank (710 kg) and 50% fuel is 355 kg, or about 780 lbs. The difference between 100% fuel and 25% fuel is 535 kg, or around 1170 lbs. I imagine that hauling around almost an extra 1200 lbs, in a fighter that weighted in at 7700 lbs empty, would significantly degrade performance.



Originally, I was using QMB. But when I started at 7500 the performance of the Mustang was pathetic - better than a MiG-3, but still bad. I was using the Smolensk Map, though, like I tend to when flying allied in QMB non-PTO. I fly Crimea usually when German (Proximity to base the main reason). I decided it might work better if I started from Take-Off then climbed to altitude, then performed the test. It seemed to have made a difference. My Mustang did much better in the USAAF Valhalla Mission.

Performance judgements in this game are not absoulte. Or maybe more accurately, the interpretation of performance is subjective. The numbers speak for themselves of course, but the handling is where everything becomes subjective.

The only USAAF A/C I fly regularly and consistently above 20,000 feet is the P-47. I feel more comfortable with it there than any other fighter, except for the Spitfire. That isn't to say that the Ta-152, Me-109K or P-51 aren't great performers up there, but to me, the handling of the P-47 and Spitfire are best up there.

The only way you can really judge the performance of the Mustang at this altitude is to take a standard set of conditions (my practice grouping in Crimea, 3 pm, 4000m, 4 veteran MC. 202s and whatever aircraft I feel like) and fly every plane against them. That's the only way you can really judge if the performance of the P-51 is 'pathetic' or not.


However, it surprises me that there would be any difference from map to map, save for a winter to summer map where temperature might play a significant role.

I don't know how true it is in IL-2, but in the real world planes do perform differently in different regions, mostly because of temperature, humidity and other atmospheric differences.

To take an example of the I'll use the Spitfire, had a noticably higher absolute ceiling when flying out of Egypt than when flying out of England. The heights of the stratoshpere gets lower the further you move from the equator. It's at 45,000 feet over Cairo but only 36,000 feet over London. Once the stratosphere is reached the air is less dense and also a few degrees warmer for about the next 10,000 feet. So the air at 36,000 feet above Cairo is actually colder than that above London, -62 degrees C compered to -54 degrees C. The Merlin performs better on cooler, denser air, allowing the engine to draw greater power and performance.

So the differences between maps may well be quite noticable.


I've never flown cockpit off; it just doesn't feel right to me. Just like I won't save a track where I didn't land at the end when I had not been shot down. I'm anal like that.

You may well be, but all of us have to bend our standards when the situation requires it. Standard testing calls for cockpit off, whether you like it or not. If you standards are hampering your ability to enjoy the game, or get the most out of it, I suggest that you modify them.

MLudner
11-14-2005, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MLudner:
Well, we are getting different results, then. I am using 100% Fuel because one of my early test attempts I went up with 25% (I have noted no difference, BTW in performance between that flight and the subsequent ones at 100%: 240 to 340 IAS mattering on altitude). Problem was I ran out of fuel in the middle of the Angels 15 Test and had to glide back to AAF Egrovo and land (Then the track showed me rolling over and diving into the ground like an idiot).

Weight is modeled into the game and has a adverse effect on climb and speed.

The P-51D could carry about 255 US gal of fuel, or about 965 litres. Aviation fuel has a specific weight of about 0.737 kg/ Litre. So full internal tanks on a P-51 weighs in at about 710 kg, or 1560 lbs.

The difference between a full fuel tank (710 kg) and 50% fuel is 355 kg, or about 780 lbs. The difference between 100% fuel and 25% fuel is 535 kg, or around 1170 lbs. I imagine that hauling around almost an extra 1200 lbs, in a fighter that weighted in at 7700 lbs empty, would significantly degrade performance.



Originally, I was using QMB. But when I started at 7500 the performance of the Mustang was pathetic - better than a MiG-3, but still bad. I was using the Smolensk Map, though, like I tend to when flying allied in QMB non-PTO. I fly Crimea usually when German (Proximity to base the main reason). I decided it might work better if I started from Take-Off then climbed to altitude, then performed the test. It seemed to have made a difference. My Mustang did much better in the USAAF Valhalla Mission.

Performance judgements in this game are not absoulte. Or maybe more accurately, the interpretation of performance is subjective. The numbers speak for themselves of course, but the handling is where everything becomes subjective.

The only USAAF A/C I fly regularly and consistently above 20,000 feet is the P-47. I feel more comfortable with it there than any other fighter, except for the Spitfire. That isn't to say that the Ta-152, Me-109K or P-51 aren't great performers up there, but to me, the handling of the P-47 and Spitfire are best up there.

The only way you can really judge the performance of the Mustang at this altitude is to take a standard set of conditions (my practice grouping in Crimea, 3 pm, 4000m, 4 veteran MC. 202s and whatever aircraft I feel like) and fly every plane against them. That's the only way you can really judge if the performance of the P-51 is 'pathetic' or not.


However, it surprises me that there would be any difference from map to map, save for a winter to summer map where temperature might play a significant role.

I don't know how true it is in IL-2, but in the real world planes do perform differently in different regions, mostly because of temperature, humidity and other atmospheric differences.

To take an example of the I'll use the Spitfire, had a noticably higher absolute ceiling when flying out of Egypt than when flying out of England. The heights of the stratoshpere gets lower the further you move from the equator. It's at 45,000 feet over Cairo but only 36,000 feet over London. Once the stratosphere is reached the air is less dense and also a few degrees warmer for about the next 10,000 feet. So the air at 36,000 feet above Cairo is actually colder than that above London, -62 degrees C compered to -54 degrees C. The Merlin performs better on cooler, denser air, allowing the engine to draw greater power and performance.

So the differences between maps may well be quite noticable.


I've never flown cockpit off; it just doesn't feel right to me. Just like I won't save a track where I didn't land at the end when I had not been shot down. I'm anal like that.

You may well be, but all of us have to bend our standards when the situation requires it. Standard testing calls for cockpit off, whether you like it or not. If you standards are hampering your ability to enjoy the game, or get the most out of it, I suggest that you modify them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's why I wanted to let others see the tracks, just in case I'm doing something wrong inadvertantly. Yousendit.com requires me to have an e-mail address to send it to.
Not hampering, but no actual WWII fighter pilot had that kind of view and for me part of the enjoyment is as much realism as I can get; I want to see that cockpit all around me.

I was getting the same speed irregardless of fuel load, maybe that should not be but that was my experience.

Oh, yeah, BTW: THAT was why I originally switched to the Valhalla mission; I could not set my fuel on QMB, but I could using FMB.