PDA

View Full Version : "Bug" or Programming...



GR142-Pipper
06-20-2005, 05:45 PM
Quote by ZG77 Naqual...
Well, no; I was commenting more on somebody elses remarks setting up the whole 'he flew one therefore' thing. (and I am aware of T-28s being part of the curriculum - in fact over in the pacific fighters forum we had a fellow who'd flown those and a few others SUPPORTING the new yaw and intertia modeling.)

My remarks go more to the sensory inputs argument than anything else - there is a whole universe of tactile inputs that are simply not present in a flight simm. Judging relative performance without them is pretty difficult.

The stuff you were commenting on - judging relative energy states in pursuit etc. - really falls into this category - I mean we don't really even have depth perception in the simm. It's really one of the more difficult areas in simm programming. True. However, this is an area that is less sensory-driven than others as it is exclusively visual. In other words, the occurrance of blackout and it's presence or absence is discernable relative to the motion of the aircraft being pursued. This virtually always occurs at close quarters from 100 meters to about .25 km.


At the same time I have long wondered about the black out phenomenon - on and offline - but I filed it in the curiosity department simply because what I do know about how the simm is programmed seems to undermine the idea that it's a bug. This is an important point and that point is symantics. Specifically, if the game is consciously programmed in a specific manner to do "x" thing and (for the sake of example) let's say that "x" thing was programmed "incorrectly" (i.e. not representing what occurs in real life), would that constitute a "bug" or simply be called programming license? This game has several of these "license" issues. I call them bugs because they clearly (IMHO) don't represent real life. However, if they're consciously done, a programmer would not call them "bugs" because the code is doing what the programmer wants it to do.

This might sound like stating the obvious but a common baselining of terms is very necessary. Unfortunately, this would require an examination of the code which (rightfully) is not going to be forthcoming.

...and so it goes.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
06-20-2005, 05:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Quote by ZG77 Naqual...
Well, no; I was commenting more on somebody elses remarks setting up the whole 'he flew one therefore' thing. (and I am aware of T-28s being part of the curriculum - in fact over in the pacific fighters forum we had a fellow who'd flown those and a few others SUPPORTING the new yaw and intertia modeling.)

My remarks go more to the sensory inputs argument than anything else - there is a whole universe of tactile inputs that are simply not present in a flight simm. Judging relative performance without them is pretty difficult.

The stuff you were commenting on - judging relative energy states in pursuit etc. - really falls into this category - I mean we don't really even have depth perception in the simm. It's really one of the more difficult areas in simm programming. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> True. However, this is an area that is less sensory-driven than others as it is exclusively visual. In other words, the occurrance of blackout and it's presence or absence is discernable relative to the motion of the aircraft being pursued. This virtually always occurs at close quarters from 100 meters to about .25 km.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">At the same time I have long wondered about the black out phenomenon - on and offline - but I filed it in the curiosity department simply because what I do know about how the simm is programmed seems to undermine the idea that it's a bug. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> This is an important point and that point is symantics. Specifically, if the game is consciously programmed in a specific manner to do "x" thing and (for the sake of example) let's say that "x" thing was programmed "incorrectly" (i.e. not representing what occurs in real life), would that constitute a "bug" or simply be called programming license? This game has several of these "license" issues. I call them bugs because they clearly (IMHO) don't represent real life. However, if they're consciously done, a programmer would not call them "bugs" because the code is doing what the programmer wants it to do.

This might sound like stating the obvious but a common baselining of terms is very necessary. Unfortunately, this would require an examination of the code which (rightfully) is not going to be forthcoming.

...and so it goes.

GR142-Pipper

Lixma
06-22-2005, 07:05 PM
If varying blackout rates exist for different aircraft (and i'm firmly in the 'no' camp) then it must be a bug. My reasoning...

If it's deliberate programming then there must have been consultation at some point. If a programmer is tasked with writing seperate blackout routines for different aircraft then just like performance figures he would want to find out what values he needs to input for each given aircraft. Being a simulation he's not going to make the figures up on his own so he will ask someone to research it...

At this point someone will have told him (if he didn't already know) that the blackout limit should be a universal quality and the value he should input must be a global one....for all aircraft.

heywooood
06-22-2005, 09:31 PM
Bf109 placed the pilot in a semi reclined position to better fit average sized pilots into the comparatively small cockpits they had...This reclined position also reduced G-effect on the pilot, the blood doesnt drain straight down from the head in this reclined position.

This reclined position was adopted for use much later by Gen Dyn for the F-16 Viper for the same reasons.

GR142-Pipper
06-23-2005, 12:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lixma:
If varying blackout rates exist for different aircraft (and i'm firmly in the 'no' camp) then it must be a bug. My reasoning...

If it's deliberate programming then there must have been consultation at some point. If a programmer is tasked with writing seperate blackout routines for different aircraft then just like performance figures he would want to find out what values he needs to input for each given aircraft. Being a simulation he's not going to make the figures up on his own so he will ask someone to research it...

At this point someone will have told him (if he didn't already know) that the blackout limit should be a universal quality and the value he should input must be a global one....for all aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I think that this is well within the realm of possibility. Here's another example of the game's "anomalies". Try chopping the throttle in a 109 and watch how power gets pulled instantly. As an experienced 109 driver, you know that the energy state of the 109 is impacted immediately (like no other in the game). Now, try the same with a VVS or Allied aircraft and note that it takes from 2-5 seconds for a power chop to be felt. This is an eternity in a close-in dogfight and nearly always will result in either an overshoot or the requirement to yoyo. This situation too was no accident, was deliberate programming, and is completely unrealistic. In short, this is another example of a programming variable used to achieve artificial aircraft characteristics that all aircraft in this game don't equally possess but do in real life.

GR142-Pipper

Lixma
06-23-2005, 12:47 AM
Pipper, try the same throttle chop in an allied a/c but dump the prop-pitch simultaneously. It has the same effect....or it used to; I don't have a throttle anymore so I don't muck about with pitch settings these days. Allied planes' (VVS especially) engines take a good while to wind down whereas the German stuff has the automatic pitch thingy.

lixmamkII
06-23-2005, 12:57 AM
Lixma - bugging and programming - can you get in touch I need to discuss some issues - you cheesey welsh furker!!!

Skoshi Tiger
06-23-2005, 01:27 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by heywooood:
Bf109 placed the pilot in a semi reclined position to better fit average sized pilots into the comparatively small cockpits they had...This reclined position also reduced G-effect on the pilot, the blood doesnt drain straight down from the head in this reclined position.
QUOTE]
During the Battle of Britain, the Spitfires were modified to incorporate a two step rudder pedals for much the same reason. Just before going into combat the pilot would place his feet in on the upper steps which would place his body in a more reclined position.

Lixma
06-23-2005, 01:49 AM
I did some tests.

P-51, Yak-3 and G2. All 100% fuel. I timed the deceleration from 500kph to 300kph following a throttle chop using the on screen timer.

P-51 = 35 seconds.
G2 = 28 seconds.
Yak-3 = 24 seconds.

No pitch adjustments involved.

Linky for tracks (.rar)

http://s50.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=0L6KA0HTXF67M2LF22EZJNEV8Q

I put overshoots firmly in the 'situational' category. A chasing pilot is automatically 1 or 2 seconds behind the pursued when it comes to reacting to his quarry's engine state. Unless you can predict exactly when the aircraft in front is going to dump his power then you're always going to be one step behind.

From accounts i've read, chopping or suddenly increasing power often came with a tell-tale belch of smoke from the exhaust. If something like this was implemented then forcing an overshoot would be less reliable due to the smoke telegraphing the pilot's intentions. Hopefully this aspect will make it into BoB.

Re: Seat position...I remember talk about this (and G-suits) when we finally got the P-51. Does anyone know whether these factors are coded in the game ?

Badsight.
06-23-2005, 03:37 AM
oh you bastage with your proof an all

just who do you think you are , i have crutch's im holding onto here . . . . .



(no plane in Fb has a pilot wearing a G-Suit btw)

WWSensei
06-23-2005, 04:29 AM
Lixma,

Don't go by percentage of fuel alone. 100% of fuel in a P-51 is about 5 times as much fuel as a 109G2, so weight CoG and such will be significantly different.

TX-EcoDragon
06-23-2005, 04:32 AM
Prop (as well as engine) design play a big role in the aerodynamic braking action of the prop (try pulling power back in an aircraft with an MT aerobatic prop, the thing tosses you into the straps like you just hit the brakes, of course teh prop is desing to do this), and it's probable that there is some difference between say a 109 and a yak 3 etc. I doubt that any actual research was done on in this area since it would be pretty involved looking at the prop design, powerplant characteristics, inertia of the aircraft, and aerodynamic drag. Of course unless it represents and actual characteristic that we know to be there, then it should probably be even. . . of course we know something like the P-51 will decelerate slower, but to figure out how much slower seems a rather daunting task short of just testing a few real world Ponies loaded and equipped appropriately and then comparing them to the same real world tests of each respective aircraft. In my experience there is a difference amongst aircraft, but generally the difference doesn't seem to be so large as to outweigh the advantage provided by being the first one to cut power, but I haven't really tested this in paricular since when I go for an overshoot I don't simply cut power.

Lixma
06-23-2005, 05:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
Lixma,

Don't go by percentage of fuel alone. 100% of fuel in a P-51 is about 5 times as much fuel as a 109G2, so weight CoG and such will be significantly different. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah...that occured to me after i'd posted. It was more a case of leaving the options in the QMB alone between tests rather than making fuel a factor.

lixmamkII
06-23-2005, 10:58 AM
LIXMA,

lixmamkII
06-23-2005, 11:01 AM
Lixma,
Can you please reply to me - MCA, Lemur, Challer, Taff, Cheesey

Want to hook up again - NY Sushi memories!!!

horseback
06-23-2005, 04:36 PM
re the "reclined position" in the 109: Not exactly. The seat is still relatively upright, but much closer to the cockpit floor, forcing the pilot's legs to a higher angle in relation to his torso. I don't think that this was as effective as the actually reclined (or more accurately, tilted back) seat found in the F-16 and other modern era fighters.

Also, on the chopping the throttle thing, weight and inertia also come into play, and this heavily favors the 109 vs the P-51 or its even heavier US stablemates. The 109 is one of the lightest fighters in the game in that performance class, and the German prop control is modelled so that it is more efficient in this situation than the CSP setup on most Allied birds.

cheers

horseback

GR142-Pipper
06-24-2005, 01:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lixma:
Pipper, try the same throttle chop in an allied a/c but dump the prop-pitch simultaneously. It has the same effect....or it used to; I don't have a throttle anymore so I don't muck about with pitch settings these days. Allied planes' (VVS especially) engines take a good while to wind down whereas the German stuff has the automatic pitch thingy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Lixma, that was exactly my point. The long lag time to "unwind" in Allied and VVS aircraft is completely ficticious. NO aircraft takes long to unwind in real life. The throttle is pulled and power comes off immediately...but not in this game.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
06-24-2005, 01:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lixma:
I did some tests.

P-51, Yak-3 and G2. All 100% fuel. I timed the deceleration from 500kph to 300kph following a throttle chop using the on screen timer.

P-51 = 35 seconds.
G2 = 28 seconds.
Yak-3 = 24 seconds.

No pitch adjustments involved.

Linky for tracks (.rar)

http://s50.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=0L6KA0HTXF67M2LF22EZJNEV8Q

I put overshoots firmly in the 'situational' category. A chasing pilot is automatically 1 or 2 seconds behind the pursued when it comes to reacting to his quarry's engine state. Unless you can predict exactly when the aircraft in front is going to dump his power then you're always going to be one step behind.

From accounts i've read, chopping or suddenly increasing power often came with a tell-tale belch of smoke from the exhaust. If something like this was implemented then forcing an overshoot would be less reliable due to the smoke telegraphing the pilot's intentions. Hopefully this aspect will make it into BoB.

Re: Seat position...I remember talk about this (and G-suits) when we finally got the P-51. Does anyone know whether these factors are coded in the game ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> A straight-line 500km/h to 300km/h deceleration is not all that meaningful in a close-in dogfight. All a 109 has to do while maneuvering is to pull power and virtually ALL other aircraft will overshoot/need to yoyo. The reverse situation is not true. The 109 can cut power and remain saddled on the aircraft.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
06-24-2005, 01:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-EcoDragon:
(...snip...) I doubt that any actual research was done on in this area since it would be pretty involved looking at the prop design, powerplant characteristics, inertia of the aircraft, and aerodynamic drag...(snip). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agree. And if that's the case it's purely a matter of programming that accounts for the difference in power traits between the 109 and other aircraft.

GR142-Pipper

Lixma
06-24-2005, 02:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper: A straight-line 500km/h to 300km/h deceleration is not all that meaningful in a close-in dogfight.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It isn't a meaningful demonstration of what happens in a dogfight, no. What it is is proof that the 109 doesn't have some kind of deceleration "special power" or a vastly different engine model.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">All a 109 has to do while maneuvering is to pull power and virtually ALL other aircraft will overshoot/need to yoyo. The reverse situation is not true. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reverse is true....(of course the reverse is true)

I can fly a Yak 1b and force an overshoot by cutting power and manouvering. I can fly a P-40 and force an overshoot by cutting power and manouvering. I can fly FW 190 and force an overshoot by cutting power and manouvering. Forcing an overshoot isn't somehow a 109 speciality....it's a (fairly dangerous) common defensive manouver.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The 109 can cut power and remain saddled on the aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And so can any other aircraft...providing the pilot times it right. You're attributing powers to the 109 it does not possess. The tracks demonstrate it has no peculiar quickly-decelerating engine.

Lixma
06-24-2005, 02:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:Agree. And if that's the case it's purely a matter of programming that accounts for the difference in power traits between the 109 and other aircraft.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What difference in power traits ?

Prove it.

Post some tracks where the 109 decelerates faster than any other aircraft. The ones I posted show no particular difference in engine modelling to the Yak-3 and P-51.

EDIT: If under hard manouvering and 0% power the 109 series decelerates faster than other aircraft then that points to an aircraft bleeding E faster than the others....not some weird engine trait.

That only leaves the situational element. Reacting instantaneously to the prey's throttle setting and manouvering is impossible and would require clairvoyance if you're going to remain in the saddle without overshooting. Regardless of the aircraft involved.

Badsight.
06-24-2005, 02:24 AM
that & the fact that the Bf-109 in FB-PF has on of the slowest RPM accelleration (spool-up for jet jocks) of any fighter

as in time from 500 rpm to Max (or especially idle to Max)

not the slowest , but one of them

im not meaning speed (km/h) accelleration

GR142-Pipper
06-26-2005, 01:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lixma:
(...snip...) The tracks demonstrate it has no peculiar quickly-decelerating engine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
06-26-2005, 01:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lixma:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:Agree. And if that's the case it's purely a matter of programming that accounts for the difference in power traits between the 109 and other aircraft.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What difference in power traits ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> The difference is that the power response in the 109 is immediate and the energy loss/gain is likewise immediately implemented. This is not true of virtually ANY Allied aircraft.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Prove it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Easy. Change power in a 109 and watch how it's energy state is likewise altered immediately. Now do the same in an Allied aircraft and wait the 2-5 seconds for the power to come off. It's an easy and quite repeatable test.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">EDIT: If under hard manouvering and 0% power the 109 series decelerates faster than other aircraft then that points to an aircraft bleeding E faster than the others....not some weird engine trait. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Respectfully, the issue centers on the addition or removal of power during an engagement and how the 109/190 energy state changes immediately while others don't.

Would you characterize the 2-5 second lag time between throttle pull in the Allied/VVS aircraft as representing anything close to reality? When power is pulled in ANY aircraft it's impact on the aircraft energy state is immediate. There's no phoney lag time as is currently implemented in this game. It just doesn't exist in real life.

GR142-Pipper

Fehler
06-26-2005, 03:28 AM
Pipper, you do understand that the 109 has the Kommandgarant (Spelling?) and allied planes have constant speed props, correct?

It has been my understanding that both systems in our "Complex engine management" have been simplified due to computer limitations. As a pilot, I am sure you are aware just how simplified the complex engine management is in the sim.

Therefore, the CSP as we have it in game tries to maintain RPM at whatever setting you have it. Therefore it only stands to reason that when you pull throttle, the CPS tries to maintain the same revs until it is unable (Engine power vs pitch is unable to maintain the revolutions the CSP is set for.) This is why you dont see a rapid deceleration. The German system is directly linked to the throttle, thus when you pull throttle on a 109, the pitch and revolutions change immediately as well.

If you take a CSP allied plane and place prop pitch on a slider (Like I have) and pull throttle at the same time you lower the pitch, you will see the same affect you do on the 109. Try it, you will see what I mean.

If you add in the less clean design of the 109 vs. say a P-51 it would stand to reason that the 109 would slow down faster because of the extra drag if both planes were to cut throttle and pitch at the same time. How much faster? I dont think we could know without wind tunnel tests. We could get close with math, but hey, isnt that why they still do wind tunnel tests?

I suppose this is the way Oleg has decided to model the KG system that the 109's had, because in real life they did lessen the workload on the pilot as opposed to their allied counterparts.

The only thing I dont get about the sim is why you can over-rev CSP props in a steep dive. You could runaway the prop in P-47's P-51's, etc. But you cant in this game. You CAN runaway the prop in a 109, Dora or Ta using manual pitch, but not in any of the CSP planes. Weird...

Lixma
06-26-2005, 06:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Change power in a 109 and watch how it's energy state is likewise altered immediately. Now do the same in an Allied aircraft and wait the 2-5 seconds for the power to come off. It's an easy and quite repeatable test. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I did test it...the tracks show this. The 109 has no special ability to decelerate (or change it's E state). Or is speed not E now ?

Just because the engine is still revving high on the allied aircraft doesn't mean they're still producing the same power. Watch the Yak-3 track (or have a dabble in the QMB). That plane will decelerate faster than the 109 when you cut the power....despite the engine revs taking longer to drop.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Respectfully, the issue centers on the addition or removal of power during an engagement and how the 109/190 energy state changes immediately while others don't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How are we to measure 'E' other than the speed on the dial ?

Hetzer_II
06-26-2005, 07:03 AM
Now we are at the point where people will begin telling, that 109 and 190 have a such big advantage because they are bleeding energy much quiecker... what a bull****..

believe me.. i would prefer to keep thee energy...

Lixma
06-26-2005, 09:12 AM
I did some more tests.

As we don't have an 'E' meter available anywhere on the planet I thought about how to test the claim that German a/c's engines are capable of changing their aircraft's energy state with much more efficiency than Allied aircraft. How to do it though ?

Well, I decided to measure the time it took various popular aircraft to decelerate from 500kph to 300kph following a full throttle chop and then measure the time taken to reach 500kph again with the throttle wide open. I flew in as straight a line as I could to eliminate individual aircraft's flight characteristics from the tests. The only real factors exposed are the plane's weight, engine performance and drag.

If German a/c were gaining an 'E' advantage through their engine's ability to go from one power setting to another extremely quickly we'd see a marked advantage in deceleration and acceleration times....the Allied a/c would be shown to suffer a kind of 'turbo-lag' especially in the 300-400kph test.

These are my results....(in seconds)

Type____500-300___300-400___300-500

Yak-1b------24---------18--------64---
109 G2------31---------20--------58*--
P-47-27-----34---------16--------51---
P-51D-------33---------13--------49---
Yak-3-------25---------15--------71---
109-G10-----37---------15--------51---
Dora-44-----60---------20--------52---
Spit-9e-----26---------17--------51---

(* this was the time for 480kph)

I'll make a few comments about the results. All aircraft had 100% fuel except P-51 which took 25% (I hope it didn't skew the results too much).

If the 109 series were equipped with engines that could somehow alter the energy state of their aircraft more rapidly than others then the results of types from comparative years (G2/Yak 1b...Yak 3/G10) should show this. But they don't. The Yaks are decelerating (altering their 'E' state) much faster than the 109s. The acceleration times are much closer.

Look at the Dora's deceleration...that is an aircraft in need of an anchor !

This next table is also interesting. This shows the time taken for the aircraft to go from 500kph down to 300 and back up to 500 again. As far as I can tell this is a pretty good guide as to how able the aircraft are at altering their energy state using only the engine...in minutes and seconds.

Type_______500-300-500

Yak-1b---------1.46
109 G2---------1.49 (to 480kph)
P-47-27--------1.41
P-51D----------1.35
Yak-3----------1.51
109-G10--------1.43
Dora-44--------2.12
Spit-9e--------1.34

Three of the most popular German aircraft seen online and the figures show they're holding no peculiar advantage at all when it comes to engine/power delivery characteristics. Similarly the results show that Allied a/c aren't suffering any particular disadvantage.

Linky to the tracks....

http://s47.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=3PPOYBVH4TAXO0B49C0SFFJ1IC

NonWonderDog
06-26-2005, 10:44 AM
Although low power and high RPMs sounds "meaner" than the converse, it's the draggiest configuration. When you chop the throttle in the allied birds wihout touching pitch the manifold pressure drops right off, but the propeller goes to a finer pitch to maintain high RPMs. At this point the wind is driving the prop, dumping a lot of energy (drag) into spinning your engine. I don't know in what detail oil pressure or electric prop systems are modelled, which could complicate things.

The automatic prop system on the 109 (Kommandogerat is the 190 system specifically, right?) is completely different. I'm not sure how it's supposed to work, but you can watch the prop clock to see what it's doing. Cutting the throttle cuts the engine speed at the same time to keep the prop from driving the engine. Apparently it chooses the most efficient prop pitch automatically; it sets the pitch where power/drag is maximized. The entire system is a heck of a lot more complex than linked throttle and rpm, and I don't pretend to understand it.


I've started rambling, so I'll sum up.
Low MP + high RPM = slow down fast. (emergency descent, landing, etc.)
Low MP + Low RPM = slow down without overheating. (Radials especially don't get as much oil with the prop driving the engine -- more of a long-term worry, though.)
High MP + Low RPM = BAD, DON'T DO. Doesn't hurt you in the sim, but could cause unwanted detonation (knocking) in reality. (Unless these planes automatically adjust ignition timings and mixture to prevent this -- which they might. Still hard on the engine, though.)
High MP + High RPM = go fast.
Full power (Kommandogerat) = go fast.
No power (Kommandogerat) = confusing.

If you switch to manual prop pitch in a 109 and maintain the finest pitch you can while cutting the throttle you should slow down faster. In fact, you do. Here's the results of short test, decellerating from 500 km/h to 300 km/h indicated. Keep in mind that I was in a horrid sideslip at all times; I don't have rudder pedals and my twist stick is just not up to the task in this instance.

109G2 on automatic pitch -- 27 seconds
109G2 on manual fine pitch -- 17 seconds
109G2 on manual coarse pitch -- 35 seconds (edit -- added this)
Yak-3 at 0% RPM -- 35 seconds
Yak-3 at 100% RPM -- 18 seconds

Nothing looks out of the ordinary to me...

GR142-Pipper
06-26-2005, 07:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lixma:
[QUOTE]Respectfully, the issue centers on the addition or removal of power during an engagement and how the 109/190 energy state changes immediately while others don't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How are we to measure 'E' other than the speed on the dial ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Any aircraft will have a given energy level based on it's current flight state. However, changes in energy level can be measured by rates of acceleration and deceleration. The easiest way to gauge this is through engagements. Over time, one can derive how both his and his opponents respective aircraft energy states differ.

GR142-Pipper

Lixma
06-26-2005, 07:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper: However, changes in energy level can be measured by rates of acceleration and deceleration. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hence the second set of tests. They involved no manouvering (as best I could) for the sole reason of isolating engine performance without other factors such as lift, mass, inertia and what-not muddying the waters.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The easiest way to gauge this is through engagements. Over time, one can derive how both his and his opponents respective aircraft energy states differ. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree to an extent...but it is always a subjective guesstimate; the more we practice the better we'll be at reading an opponent's energy level (hopefully). Being caught out by an overshoot points to a mis-reading of an opponents energy state rather than some tricked-out engine feature on selected planes.

GR142-Pipper
06-27-2005, 12:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lixma:
(...snip...)Being caught out by an overshoot points to a mis-reading of an opponents energy state rather than some tricked-out engine feature on selected planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> This is probably true for those who are new to the game but for experienced players to have this situation chronically occur, a "mis-read" isn't likely the answer. IMHO, the 109s power manipulation when compared against most any other aircraft in the game is nothing short of unnatural. Straight line testing is just about meaningless. What matters is what occurs in engagements.

Anyway, I've had my say. Some will agree, others won't....and so it goes.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
06-27-2005, 12:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fehler:
Pipper, you do understand that the 109 has the Kommandgarant (Spelling?) and allied planes have constant speed props, correct?

It has been my understanding that both systems in our "Complex engine management" have been simplified due to computer limitations. As a pilot, I am sure you are aware just how simplified the complex engine management is in the sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> It's not that far off. Probably the things that are the furthest off are the cruise settings. Typically, one would take off with the prop full forward, advance the throttle and once airborne ****** both to cruise settings. When combat was encountered the prop would go full forward and the throttle would be the sole input for power.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Therefore, the CSP as we have it in game tries to maintain RPM at whatever setting you have it. Therefore it only stands to reason that when you pull throttle, the CPS tries to maintain the same revs until it is unable (Engine power vs pitch is unable to maintain the revolutions the CSP is set for.) This is why you dont see a rapid deceleration. The German system is directly linked to the throttle, thus when you pull throttle on a 109, the pitch and revolutions change immediately as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> The absence of deceleration has nothing to do with prop pitch.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you take a CSP allied plane and place prop pitch on a slider (Like I have) and pull throttle at the same time you lower the pitch, you will see the same affect you do on the 109. Try it, you will see what I mean. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I'll accept your word for it but this has nothing to do with how real airplanes behave...it's pure programming gimmickry.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you add in the less clean design of the 109 vs. say a P-51 it would stand to reason that the 109 would slow down faster because of the extra drag if both planes were to cut throttle and pitch at the same time. How much faster? I dont think we could know without wind tunnel tests. We could get close with math, but hey, isnt that why they still do wind tunnel tests? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> But you shouldn't be able to have it both ways. The 109 can easily out accelerate a P-51. As a matter of fact, in an engagement a 109 should be able to have a P-51 for lunch in this game.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I suppose this is the way Oleg has decided to model the KG system that the 109's had, because in real life they did lessen the workload on the pilot as opposed to their allied counterparts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> When power is pulled in ANY aircraft in real life, the energy state is instantly impacted. Again, this is not implemented in this game evenly.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The only thing I dont get about the sim is why you can over-rev CSP props in a steep dive. You could runaway the prop in P-47's P-51's, etc. But you cant in this game. You CAN runaway the prop in a 109, Dora or Ta using manual pitch, but not in any of the CSP planes. Weird... </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes. Not only weird...most unnatural.

GR142-Pipper

NonWonderDog
06-27-2005, 12:25 AM
Yes, but what straight-line testing *will* do is allow testing specifics. If the Me-109 prop and engine allow the plane to slow down faster, straight-line testing will show this. My short tests (above) have shown the Me-109 to be pretty much identical to a Yak-3 in straight line decelleration at a variety of RPM settings.

Thus, we can safely conclude that, if there is a difference, it is not due to the prop or engine. Personally, if I didn't "know" that you were a pilot, I'd suggest that it's all in your head. I'd say that since you hear the CSP-equipped engines running at high RPM you assume that they're still making power, when in fact they are slowing you down MUCH faster than the Kommandogerat does or is designed to do.


If it's not the engine that's different, people shouldn't go about screaming that the 109's engine allows for UFO braking. If the 109 slows down more quickly in maneuvers... well, that's not much of an advantage, is it? It's something you should *easily* be able to exploit if it's true.


And, sorry to say this, but decelleration has EVERYTHING to do with prop pitch. Both in game and in real life. It's the SOLE reason that twins have feathering props.

GR142-Pipper
06-27-2005, 12:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
(...snip...)Thus, we can safely conclude that, if there is a difference, it is not due to the prop or engine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> No, we can't conclude that at all. Keep in mind that an aircraft's deceleration characteristics are not necessarily linear. For example, if an aircraft slows down a great deal early in the deceleration period but slows at a slower rate later, the end numbers (in seconds) by no means tell the story. This is exactly what I think is happening with the 109. I suspect that it's been programmed with a large power spike (either up or down) early on.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Personally, if I didn't know that you were a pilot, I'd suggest that it's all in your head. I'd say that since you hear the CSP-equipped engines running at high RPM you assume that they're still making power, when in fact they are slowing you down MUCH faster than the Kommandogerat does or is designed to do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Honestly, this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with constant speed props. Nothing. It's purely a power matter.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If it's not the engine that's different, people shouldn't go about screaming that the 109's engine allows for UFO braking. If the 109 slows down more quickly in maneuvers... well, that's not much of an advantage, is it? It's something you should *easily* be able to exploit if it's true. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> As I have previously mentioned above, engines follow acceleration/deceleration curves and they're not necessarily linear. Given that, one must be very careful about inferring too much from any straight-line calculations as they're meaningless in a fast-changing engagement scenario where the accel curves are non-linear.

GR142-Pipper

NonWonderDog
06-27-2005, 12:42 AM
Decelleration is more of a drag matter than a power matter I would think. Prop pitch can have a surprisingly large effect on drag. Since as long as you have the throttle at idle you're making close enough to no useful power, prop pitch has EVERYTHING to do with this.

I really don't get where you're coming from. I guess you'd say that the CSP planes would be draggier at 0 throttle than the Kommandogerat planes, but I've never seen the huge "advantage" the 109 is purported to have to begin with. It seems to slow down slower than the planes that are held at max RPM with the CSPs, as would be expected.


Uneven decelleration can be tested in a straight line as well, ya know. It's really not that difficult. Everything engine related here can be tested easily, maneuvering stuff is harder. But if it is a maneuvering question, it's more of a disadvantage for the 109 than anything.

GR142-Pipper
06-27-2005, 12:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
And, sorry to say this, but decelleration has EVERYTHING to do with prop pitch. Both in game and in real life. It's the SOLE reason that twins have feathering props. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Twins (and greater) have fully feathering props to reduce drag for engine-out range as well as controlability purposes.

Regarding deceleration, it has nothing to do with prop pitch. It's strictly a power matter...except in this game, of course.

GR142-Pipper

NonWonderDog
06-27-2005, 12:53 AM
Alright, I'll bite. How can you show me, conclusively, that American (and whatever else) planes do not lose power when you cut the throttle? I'm really not seeing it.

Here's what I see; we'll compare. When I cut the throttle in an American plane, I see the MAP plummet and hear the slight change in engine note of load coming off the engine. The prop stays at the set RPM for several seconds (presumably because the prop pitch is reduced). At a low enough speed, full fine pitch will no longer keep the prop spinning at the set speed, and RPMs start to come off. Although RPMs don't fall off instantly, I've started decellerating the instant I cut the throttle.

This all seems correct to me...?

GR142-Pipper
06-27-2005, 12:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Decelleration is more of a drag matter than a power matter I would think. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> In real life, it depends on where you are in the flight envelope. In this game, it depends on whether or not you're flying a 109 ( http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif sorry, I couldn't resist)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Prop pitch can have a surprisingly large effect on drag. Since as long as you have the throttle at idle you're making close enough to no useful power, prop pitch has EVERYTHING to do with this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Keep in mind that the entire context of this discussion is in an ENGAGEMENT. The issue centers on how quickly power can be removed/added which will affect the aircraft's energy state. We're not talking about a scenario in which the engine is at idle/off and you're manipulating the prop for some added glide distance.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Uneven decelleration can be tested in a straight line as well, ya know. It's really not that difficult. Everything engine related here can be tested easily, maneuvering stuff is harder. But if it is a maneuvering question, it's more of a disadvantage for the 109 than anything. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> "Maneuvering" is not an exact synonym for "turning". In real life, the 109s best opportunity was to maneuver in the vertical.

Anyway, keep this issue in mind and see if you're able to observe this in any of your engagements.

GR142-Pipper

Badsight.
06-27-2005, 04:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
However, changes in energy level can be measured by rates of acceleration and deceleration. The easiest way to gauge this is through engagements. Over time, one can derive how both his and his opponents respective aircraft energy states differ. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>wouldnt a test free from the need to avoid being shot produce more accurate & more eaisly repeatable results ?

as in 2 planes side by side not fighting ?

but being flowen in the exact same manner by pilots in agreement ?

Badsight.
06-27-2005, 04:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lixma:
Type____500-300___300-400___300-500

Yak-1b------24---------18--------64---
109 G2------31---------20--------58*--
P-47-27-----34---------16--------51---
P-51D-------33---------13--------49---
Yak-3-------25---------15--------71---
109-G10-----37---------15--------51---
Dora-44-----60---------20--------52---
Spit-9e-----26---------17--------51--- </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
so an actual TEST shows the 3 fastest De-cellerating planes is :

1) Yak-1b

2) Yak-3

3) Spitfire Mk9e

.


& the second SLOWEST is ?

Bf-109 G10

Lixma
06-27-2005, 05:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper: As I have previously mentioned above, engines follow acceleration/deceleration curves and they're not necessarily linear. Given that, one must be very careful about inferring too much from any straight-line calculations as they're meaningless in a fast-changing engagement scenario where the accel curves are non-linear.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's why I included the 300-400kph figures in the test. To see if any aircraft (German or otherwise) showed an unusual initial spike in acceleration. They don't. Should I have tested for the 300-350kph range ? The 300-325kph range ?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Straight line testing is just about meaningless. What matters is what occurs in engagements. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally disagree. If you're going to claim that particular aircraft have engines with special accel/deceleration abilities then surely any test to highlight this must isolate the engine performance as much as possible. That's what I did. The results speak for themselves.

lixmamkII
06-27-2005, 11:17 AM
Lixma - check your private messages - BIGLAD

GR142-Pipper
06-27-2005, 06:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lixma:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GR142-Pipper: As I have previously mentioned above, engines follow acceleration/deceleration curves and they're not necessarily linear. Given that, one must be very careful about inferring too much from any straight-line calculations as they're meaningless in a fast-changing engagement scenario where the accel curves are non-linear.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That's why I included the 300-400kph figures in the test. To see if any aircraft (German or otherwise) showed an unusual initial spike in acceleration. They don't. Should I have tested for the 300-350kph range ? The 300-325kph range ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> The 300-400 kph figures are too broad. As you're aware, most close-in fights occur in the 200-350 kph overall range, typically in increments of 10-40 kph (10-15 kph differences occurring at the slower speed fight end of the spectrum).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Straight line testing is just about meaningless. What matters is what occurs in engagements. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I totally disagree. If you're going to claim that particular aircraft have engines with special accel/deceleration abilities then surely any test to highlight this must isolate the engine performance as much as possible. That's what I did. The results speak for themselves. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Respectfully Lixma, what's been offered is just not that substantive (IMHO, of course). The point being that there are no "results" given the context of the conversation. You've tested aircraft deceleration over a 100 kph band. I think you did the best you could with what's available but acceleration curves simply aren't linear and the band is not only far too broad but it also doesn't represent enough of the close-in fighting environment from an airspeed point of view.

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree on this matter because my experiences in this game over quite a bit of time clearly tell me in no uncertain terms that the 109 accels/decels like no other in the game and it's purely power driven through programming.

You feel otherwise...fair enough.

GR142-Pipper

JG5_UnKle
07-22-2005, 08:42 AM
OK GR142-Pipper why don't you do some testing and prove otherwise?

So called luftwhiners get labelled http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif so.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Lixma
07-22-2005, 12:25 PM
Ack....dredged from the deep. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I could test for speed ranges between 150/200, 200/250...hell I could make graphs for all aircraft in increments of 10km/h and they would show the same results as the earlier tests only in finer resolution.

But that would still never convince people who believe otherwise. There is no amount of testing that will prove to people the 109 has no special accel/decel abilities. And when no amount of empirical evidence can shake one's conviction in something then things like testing and evidence become moot.

This isn't aimed at Pipper. I enjoy flying with him (usually against http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) but it is aimed at the prevailing attitude against people who fly 109s on a regular basis.

I've been accused of trimming, prop-pitching and all sorts in the past and now the super-engine myth seems to have taken hold. I use none of the above 'exploits' but it's only my word. But when rumours start that my aircraft has some special ability not afforded (or advertised) to other aircraft in the game then it's somewhat galling to be reminded that the reversal of advantage I managed to achieve against an adversary was down to an undocumented feature of my aircraft rather than any input on my behalf.

There is a burden of proof on the accusation that 109s have a 'special' engine and it lays upon those holding and voicing it. I've done tests to show otherwise. If they are too coarse to show this 'effect' then OK. Let someone holding the idea take up the challenge to prove this super-engine exists. Or at the very least provide the basis for a set of tests that will highlight it.

The 109 super accel/decel belief is a myth. And like any article of faith no amount of testing or evidence will convince its adherents to it's validity or lack thereof.

AerialTarget
07-22-2005, 02:16 PM
I'm very well aquainted with the Me-109 G-2 flight model. I learned on that airplane back in the original IL-2 Sturmovik, and have used it for my blue plane ever since, through all of its flight model changes.

I must admit that, while some of the arguments used to say that there is no deceleration advantage are wrong, as far as I know there is not deceleration advantage. What is balogna, however, is the extremely slow stall speed of the Me-109 - it allows you to perform maneuvers at such a slow speed that any airplane trying to mimic you will probably stall and spin. Thus, the overshoots!

III-JG27_DV8
07-22-2005, 05:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lixma:
Pipper, try the same throttle chop in an allied a/c but dump the prop-pitch simultaneously. It has the same effect....or it used to; I don't have a throttle anymore so I don't muck about with pitch settings these days. Allied planes' (VVS especially) engines take a good while to wind down whereas the German stuff has the automatic pitch thingy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Lixma, that was exactly my point. The long lag time to "unwind" in Allied and VVS aircraft is completely ficticious. NO aircraft takes long to unwind in real life. The throttle is pulled and power comes off immediately...but not in this game.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Constant Speed Airscrew

vs

Automatic Propeller Pitch Control

Find out WHY they're called different before you say something is "completely fictitious".

S!
DV8

_____
Romans 3:22 NLT

We are made right in God's sight when we trust in Jesus Christ to take away our sins. And we all can be saved in this same way, no matter who we are or what we have done.

AerialTarget
07-22-2005, 10:02 PM
Ah! But the real life Allied aircraft (some of them, including the one I love and fly) could switch to manual propeller pitch, and therefore should be able to produce the same exact result.

NonWonderDog
07-23-2005, 11:45 AM
You don't need full manual control, all you need to do is select a lower RPM.

Leaving it at max RPM will slow you down faster, however. It will also horribly stress a radial engine if you do it for too long, but that's not in the sim. The design of radial engines means that oil is only refreshed when the engine is driving the prop. No oil gets through the holes when the prop is windmilling. (Or something like that.) Inlines don't have this problem. This is a long-term issue that wouldn't affect us anyway, but it's good to know. I think they ignored this and just replaced the engines every once in a while in WWII, anyway.

msalama
07-23-2005, 12:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">(Or something like that.) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, that's it, you explained it correctly. It's called "backloading" & it most definitely destroys your radial in no time flat if U leave it unchecked...

GR142-Pipper
07-25-2005, 03:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lixma:
But that would still never convince people who believe otherwise. There is no amount of testing that will prove to people the 109 has no special accel/decel abilities. And when no amount of empirical evidence can shake one's conviction in something then things like testing and evidence become moot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Respectfully, hundreds and hundreds of dogfights have told me otherwise. There is no finer empiracal data than that. These things just aren't made up; they're observed...day in, day out. This problem is further compounded by the fact that Allied aircraft DON'T decelerate when power is pulled, quite unlike the German aircraft. The whole things has gotten to be quite farcical. For reasons of his own, Oleg continues to allow these oddities and innaccuracies to reside in the code.

GR142-Pipper

A.K.Davis
07-25-2005, 05:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lixma:
But that would still never convince people who believe otherwise. There is no amount of testing that will prove to people the 109 has no special accel/decel abilities. And when no amount of empirical evidence can shake one's conviction in something then things like testing and evidence become moot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Respectfully, hundreds and hundreds of dogfights have told me otherwise. There is no finer empiracal data than that. These things just aren't made up; they're observed...day in, day out. This problem is further compounded by the fact that Allied aircraft DON'T decelerate when power is pulled, quite unlike the German aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My lord! Took about 10-15 minutes of testing in QMB to realize how untrue this is. Load up QMB, choose a plane, pick a medium altitude, accelerate to 400 km/h and then pull the throttle all the way while maintaining alt. Just count of the seconds it takes to drop to 300 km/h. I tried Spitfire Mk Vb/IXe, Bf-109F-2/G-2/G-6AS/K-4, Fw-190A-4/-6/-9, P-51B/C/D, P-47D-27, P-38Llate, Ki-84 and Yak-3. Of all the aircraft, the Yak-3 decelerated fastest. Fw-190A, D-9 and P-47 decelerated the slowest, with D-9 the slowest of all tested. Spitfires, 109s and P-51s were similar, with P-51s decelerating somewhat faster!

GR142-Pipper
07-25-2005, 09:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lixma:
But that would still never convince people who believe otherwise. There is no amount of testing that will prove to people the 109 has no special accel/decel abilities. And when no amount of empirical evidence can shake one's conviction in something then things like testing and evidence become moot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Respectfully, hundreds and hundreds of dogfights have told me otherwise. There is no finer empiracal data than that. These things just aren't made up; they're observed...day in, day out. This problem is further compounded by the fact that Allied aircraft DON'T decelerate when power is pulled, quite unlike the German aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My lord! Took about 10-15 minutes of testing in QMB to realize how untrue this is. Load up QMB, choose a plane, pick a medium altitude, accelerate to 400 km/h and then pull the throttle all the way while maintaining alt. Just count of the seconds it takes to drop to 300 km/h. I tried Spitfire Mk Vb/IXe, Bf-109F-2/G-2/G-6AS/K-4, Fw-190A-4/-6/-9, P-51B/C/D, P-47D-27, P-38Llate, Ki-84 and Yak-3. Of all the aircraft, the Yak-3 decelerated fastest. Fw-190A, D-9 and P-47 decelerated the slowest, with D-9 the slowest of all tested. Spitfires, 109s and P-51s were similar, with P-51s decelerating somewhat faster! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Your method doesn't answer the issue being posed. The issue is rate of decline in energy state of the aircraft due to power reduction. It's an even simpler test. Pull power and watch while nothing happens for several seconds in a Yak, LA or several of the U.S. types. Now do the same thing and watch how the 109's energy state is immediately lowered when power is withdrawn. "Several seconds" in a close-in dogfight is an eternity. One of the 109 drivers favorite tricks is to simply pull power sharply and watch for the overshoot. They know that the above mentioned aircraft can't reduce their power as quickly. For anyone who has even a fair degree of experience, this is an easily understood, observable, and repeatable situation when engaged.

GR142-Pipper

Badsight.
07-25-2005, 10:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Respectfully, hundreds and hundreds of dogfights have told me otherwise. There is no finer empiracal data than that. These things just aren't made up; they're observed...day in, day out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> there is no way possible for you to know what the person controlling your bandits plane is doing

there is no way possible for a DF to - in any way shape or form - produce data more accurate than a controlled test

Badsight.
07-25-2005, 10:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
For anyone who has even a fair degree of experience, this is an easily understood, observable, and repeatable situation when engaged. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>what must be easy to do is to get GR142-Pipper to overshoot

other forum members might say "learn to fly" but not i , instead ill ask that you do some actual testing instead of baseless claiming

this is the exact load-of-BS that idiots like HayateAcehole like to spout

trouble is , the more you say it doesnt make it true

because its not

what its called is "getting out-flowen"

WWMaxGunz
07-26-2005, 01:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Here's another example of the game's "anomalies". Try chopping the throttle in a 109 and watch how power gets pulled instantly. As an experienced 109 driver, you know that the energy state of the 109 is impacted immediately (like no other in the game). Now, try the same with a VVS or Allied aircraft and note that it takes from 2-5 seconds for a power chop to be felt. This is an eternity in a close-in dogfight and nearly always will result in either an overshoot or the requirement to yoyo. This situation too was no accident, was deliberate programming, and is completely unrealistic. In short, this is another example of a programming variable used to achieve artificial aircraft characteristics that all aircraft in this game don't equally possess but do in real life.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. They deliberately have different prop control systems. That is historic.

WWMaxGunz
07-26-2005, 01:36 AM
If I have 2 different planes, X and Y, and plane X bleeds speed at a different rate in a
turn or loop than plane Y... a LOT more at higher G's, while plane X can also turn harder
from mid-speed to low-speed even while bleeding more speed;
then can Y follow plane X through an increasingly hard turn where the plane X pilot is not
cooperating?

I doubt it very much. And I'd just love to see track of plane Y running wingtip smoke go
right along in the smoke from plane X who is not cooperating but rather putting forth full
effort. I'd love to see full icons tracks from both planes, just to know the speeds and
distances.

GR142-Pipper
07-26-2005, 01:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
For anyone who has even a fair degree of experience, this is an easily understood, observable, and repeatable situation when engaged. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>what must be easy to do is to get GR142-Pipper to overshoot

other forum members might say "learn to fly" but not i , instead ill ask that you do some actual testing instead of baseless claiming

this is the exact load-of-BS that idiots like HayateAcehole like to spout

trouble is , the more you say it doesnt make it true

because its not

what its called is "getting out-flowen" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Nah, I compensate and do just fine.

Guys, good flying. Time to move on. S!

GR142-Pipper

WWMaxGunz
07-26-2005, 01:45 AM
I've seen the counterwhine to this. It's called "Allied planes don't bleed speed.".

A.K.Davis
07-26-2005, 10:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Lixma:
But that would still never convince people who believe otherwise. There is no amount of testing that will prove to people the 109 has no special accel/decel abilities. And when no amount of empirical evidence can shake one's conviction in something then things like testing and evidence become moot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Respectfully, hundreds and hundreds of dogfights have told me otherwise. There is no finer empiracal data than that. These things just aren't made up; they're observed...day in, day out. This problem is further compounded by the fact that Allied aircraft DON'T decelerate when power is pulled, quite unlike the German aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My lord! Took about 10-15 minutes of testing in QMB to realize how untrue this is. Load up QMB, choose a plane, pick a medium altitude, accelerate to 400 km/h and then pull the throttle all the way while maintaining alt. Just count of the seconds it takes to drop to 300 km/h. I tried Spitfire Mk Vb/IXe, Bf-109F-2/G-2/G-6AS/K-4, Fw-190A-4/-6/-9, P-51B/C/D, P-47D-27, P-38Llate, Ki-84 and Yak-3. Of all the aircraft, the Yak-3 decelerated fastest. Fw-190A, D-9 and P-47 decelerated the slowest, with D-9 the slowest of all tested. Spitfires, 109s and P-51s were similar, with P-51s decelerating somewhat faster! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Your method doesn't answer the issue being posed. The issue is rate of decline in energy state of the aircraft due to power reduction. It's an even simpler test. Pull power and watch while nothing happens for several seconds in a Yak, LA or several of the U.S. types. Now do the same thing and watch how the 109's energy state is immediately lowered when power is withdrawn. "Several seconds" in a close-in dogfight is an eternity. One of the 109 drivers favorite tricks is to simply pull power sharply and watch for the overshoot. They know that the above mentioned aircraft can't reduce their power as quickly. For anyone who has even a fair degree of experience, this is an easily understood, observable, and repeatable situation when engaged.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the window could be greatly reduced. With more precision, we could calcute time to drop 10 km/h instead of 100 km/h. Are you seriously suggesting that the difference (likely in the range of 0-2 seconds) in rate at which an aircraft can bleed 10 km/h after power reduction is the substantial cause of overshoots in a dogfight? Do you realize how much more quickly ALL aircraft can bleed energy by dropping flaps and landing gear?

WWMaxGunz
07-26-2005, 01:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
Well, the window could be greatly reduced. With more precision, we could calcute time to drop 10 km/h instead of 100 km/h. Are you seriously suggesting that the difference (likely in the range of 0-2 seconds) in rate at which an aircraft can bleed 10 km/h after power reduction is the substantial cause of overshoots in a dogfight? Do you realize how much more quickly ALL aircraft can bleed energy by dropping flaps and landing gear? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Some planes bleed more in turns or just by crabbing slightly or just by going out of
coordination. Some planes are heavier by far as well as being larger, typically US
planes meet that criteria. Add to that a prop that adjusts itself to keep RPM's
constant, so it will feather itself somewhat even if 100% is commanded and what should
the result be? It's not quite a no-brainer, but it's pretty close.

If I'm following another plane that is still able to maneuver hard enough that I can't
lay fire on him at under 200 yards, meters, whatever, then I'm going to be sitting back
at least 200m. If I don't notice him slowing down which in this sim it is VERY hard to
judge relative distances and speeds since the start and I have this from real pilots in
my squad including ex-military and one active Navy pilot before he was off back to duty;
IF I don't notice the beginning of that one slowing down then I may get 50m closer in
what seems like no time at all. About then, and this is just me, I don't slow down and
blow my speed but instead I climb. With the way that climbs are down I think too well
at low speeds and accelerations are likewise that doesn't always work but it's habit for
me. Do the yoyo or more and try to dance all over him. Mustang vs 109... Mark Hanna
says energy fight the way I read it. Definitely don't stay and dogfight when the speed
drops below 450kph.

WWMaxGunz
07-26-2005, 01:27 PM
OTOH you could just take the shot on the silly git closing the gap for you, dive under
and bank off to one side (get outside his sim-tunnel-vision) before coming up for a high
pass (to slow you down). Unless he's looking other than in front or is using externals
he won't catch you in time. You're not in the saddle but then who's got more E?