PDA

View Full Version : 4.02m Rate of Climb testing: P-38J



AKA_TAGERT
12-10-2005, 03:22 PM
Enjoy

AIRWARFARE.COM Forums (http://airwarfare.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=825)

AKA_TAGERT
12-10-2005, 03:22 PM
Enjoy

AIRWARFARE.COM Forums (http://airwarfare.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=825)

Grey_Mouser67
12-10-2005, 07:51 PM
Thank you Target...this has been brought up numerous times and Oleg has not addressed it. I hope he looks and tunes the aircraft a bit more. Would be nice to see 100% fuel though so we could see a direct comparison.

In a game where many of the aircraft are modelled to the optimistic side of climb rates, this is especially troubling for J pilots...I love the J other than its poor climb rate and heavy elevators.

It is quite obvious why Lightning pilots in game can not spiral climb away from their contemporary enemies and hang on their props/stall fight like they could in real life. Just read a book by Capt. Eric Brown that said the Bf109G/U2 had a stall speed of 99mph in landing configuration. The Lightnings stall speed in landing configuration was much lower than that...couldn't remember and didn't look up my sources but IIRC it was between 70 and 80mph; one of the lowest of any WWII aircraft...seems like some of the early 109's and carrier aircraft were lowe ...hence some of the combat difficulty in game.

p1ngu666
12-10-2005, 11:43 PM
grey, landing stall would be with flaps and gear down..

but ya lack of torque on 109 means u cant spiral climb well against it

tagert, old p38 climb cheastnut eh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JtD
12-11-2005, 12:11 AM
109 G-6/U-2 has underwing gunpods. I am fairly sure I can sprial climb away from that in a P-38. Actually I am fairly sure I can fly circles around it in the J.

JtD
12-11-2005, 12:58 AM
Tagert, I did a quick test using the cornerstones of your test setup and got the J model up to 20050 feet in 6:00 minutes.

Thing that escaped me: Rad settings. Mine were closed (for best performance).

Main difference between your test and mine: I used lower climb speed at roughly 155 mph through all altitudes.

Best roc was in the range of 3800 feet/minutes (from 1040 meters to 2200 meters in 60 seconds).

Have you tested how 100% fuel in FB match the 100% fuel in real life figures for the P-38? From a few datasheet I found it looks like the J model had 410 gallons internally and needed 360 per hour to feed the engines on max power - giving you something like 70 minutes. In game this lasts about 80.

AKA_TAGERT
12-11-2005, 01:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Tagert, I did a quick test using the cornerstones of your test setup and got the J model up to 20050 feet in 6:00 minutes.

Thing that escaped me: Rad settings. Mine were closed (for best performance).

Main difference between your test and mine: I used lower climb speed at roughly 155 mph through all altitudes.

Best roc was in the range of 3800 feet/minutes (from 1040 meters to 2200 meters in 60 seconds).

Have you tested how 100% fuel in FB match the 100% fuel in real life figures for the P-38? From a few datasheet I found it looks like the J model had 410 gallons internally and needed 360 per hour to feed the engines on max power - giving you something like 70 minutes. In game this lasts about 80. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Cool, send the track file to naca_testing@yahoo.com and Ill take a look at it. If you made it to 20kft in 6min than you would be the firts to do it, thus I would love to see the track file. If you did manage to do it, than we could move onto a test that actully matches the real method and configurations.. ie 100% fuel and ground start. In that in my test I used a much lower fule load and the air start method.. Two things that should have garinteed that anyone could make it to 20kft in 6min with ease. But, you wouldnt be the first guy to say he did it.. or think he did it only to find out later that he did not do it. Thus the request for the track file.

faustnik
12-11-2005, 01:26 AM
Tagert,

Were US climb test all radiator open? LW and RAF tests were.

JtD
12-11-2005, 01:29 AM
You got mail. Feel free to give me critics/feedback through this forum, so everybody is informed.

AKA_TAGERT
12-11-2005, 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 JtD:
You got mail. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>DOH! I forgot to specify the *.ntrk file format.. the *.trk file format does not play back well from one PC to another.. please convert your *.trk file to a *.ntrk file. It is easy to do, assign a key to the quick record, play back your *.trk file and when it starts, press the buton you assigned to the quick record, than it will make a *.ntrk version of the flight

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Feel free to give me critics/feedback through this forum, so everybody is informed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Any and all DeviceLink analysis I do will be posted at AIRWARFARE in that the MOD's dont like that kind of detailed stuff over here.

UPDATE! I took a quick look at your *.trk file to see if it would play back correctly.. You make a big mistake! DONT USE TIME COMPRESSION! That blows all the calculations big time! You have to do it in real time. Another thing, if you re-do the test from scratch.. fire you guns at the end of the test until empty.. This is the only way to prove you took a full ammo load, which adds alot of weight.

AKA_TAGERT
12-11-2005, 01:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
Tagert,

Were US climb test all radiator open? LW and RAF tests were. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It didnt say, but, when the engines start to over heat, I open the rad. The only other thing I could do is to turn off engine overheat.. but I allready reduced the fuel load alot and did the air start method.. Those two things alone should have allowed the P38 to reach 20kft with ease.

JtD
12-11-2005, 02:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

UPDATE! I took a quick look at your *.trk file to see if it would play back correctly.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be good news.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> You make a big mistake! DONT USE TIME COMPRESSION! That blows all the calculations big time! You have to do it in real time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You just gotta replay the thing with manual time compression and leave it where it is (1x). Or you can use the clock counter to check the time. I don't think that time acelleration will change the flight performance, afaik it will only increase the likelyhood of a screwed up track.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Another thing, if you re-do the test from scratch.. fire you guns at the end of the test until empty.. This is the only way to prove you took a full ammo load, which adds alot of weight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The good thing about the *.trk version is you can open it in an editor and check the setup - environment as well fuel & weapon loadout can be found there. No tricks possible.

Anyway, gonna give it another 6 minutes go.

AKA_TAGERT
12-11-2005, 09:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
That would be good news. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I am the good news man! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
You just gotta replay the thing with manual time compression and leave it where it is (1x). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope! No can do! Even if I could press a button to force it back to 1x, which I can not, the time it would take me to respond to it would still be enough to messs up he calculations

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Or you can use the clock counter to check the time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>If that is the way you want to do it, be my guest, but that is not the way I do it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
I don't think that time acelleration will change the flight performance, afaik it will only increase the likelyhood of a screwed up track. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You may *belive* what ever you like, but I *know* that it does change it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
The good thing about the *.trk version is you can open it in an editor and check the setup - environment as well fuel & weapon loadout can be found there. No tricks possible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>True, but I was refering to the *.ntrk format.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Anyway, gonna give it another 6 minutes go. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Cool! Do me a favor though, if you use time compression, dont bother sending it to me, it will be a waist of both of our time.

JtD
12-11-2005, 11:17 AM
Mate, I already sent it. As much to your standards as I could.

JtD
12-11-2005, 11:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

You may *belive* what ever you like, but I *know* that it does change it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, I forgot to ask: Got track?

AKA_TAGERT
12-11-2005, 02:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Mate, I already sent it. As much to your standards as I could. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Cool, working right now. I should be done in a few hours

AKA_TAGERT
12-11-2005, 02:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Ah, I forgot to ask: Got track? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, Your Track!

Pig_Mac
12-11-2005, 02:55 PM
It would be really nice to see the climbing of the J model to be better. A 38 with brakes can do more then amazing turns, and the late one can keep climbing from ground into the fight, and still be able to get energy enough to be an annoyance.

The J model is 'worth 200 points', and have a huge frame, so the 2 engines should allow it to climb away from some of the dangers a little better.

AKA_TAGERT
12-11-2005, 05:54 PM
Ok the results have been updated!

Enjoy!

AKA_TAGERT
12-12-2005, 12:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
Thank you Target...this has been brought up numerous times and Oleg has not addressed it. I hope he looks and tunes the aircraft a bit more. Would be nice to see 100% fuel though so we could see a direct comparison. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Your Welcome!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
In a game where many of the aircraft are modelled to the optimistic side of climb rates, this is especially troubling for J pilots...I love the J other than its poor climb rate and heavy elevators. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grey_Mouser67:
It is quite obvious why Lightning pilots in game can not spiral climb away from their contemporary enemies and hang on their props/stall fight like they could in real life. Just read a book by Capt. Eric Brown that said the Bf109G/U2 had a stall speed of 99mph in landing configuration. The Lightnings stall speed in landing configuration was much lower than that...couldn't remember and didn't look up my sources but IIRC it was between 70 and 80mph; one of the lowest of any WWII aircraft...seems like some of the early 109's and carrier aircraft were lowe ...hence some of the combat difficulty in game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>When flying the P-38L LATE I experance such things that I have read about.. But the J and L seem under powered and unable to provide the same experance. And thus far my testing of the J shows that it is underpowered relitive to two real world tests

JtD
12-12-2005, 09:26 AM
Thanks for taking your time to evaluate my track.

In your conclusions you point towards some of the main problems I personally have with climb tests:

One would be that it is very hard to find the best climbing speed for a certain ac for a certain altitude. Could easily be the P-38 climbs better still at somewhat higher or lower speed than I used. And maybe, if I hadn't increased my IAS at higher alts it would have also helped.

The second one is to actually keep the best climbing speed. P-38 is an easy one in that aspect as you don't have to deal with torque effects and rudder trim. But even there I failed to keep the speed fairly even.

And a third one is probably the generally generous performance in slow speed climbs.

And finally a question: Do you know if in the real climbtests they went all the way up from 0 to 30k in one go? The time limit for 60" was 5 mins iIrc, and I know that in other tests they would stage the climb into like 5 minutes bits, allow the engine to cool, and continue upwards.

Willey
12-12-2005, 04:17 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

AKA_TAGERT
12-12-2005, 09:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Thanks for taking your time to evaluate my track.

In your conclusions you point towards some of the main problems I personally have with climb tests:

One would be that it is very hard to find the best climbing speed for a certain ac for a certain altitude. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>For some, in that some dont have that data.. but from the pilots manual we do have that data.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Could easily be the P-38 climbs better still at somewhat higher or lower speed than I used. And maybe, if I hadn't increased my IAS at higher alts it would have also helped. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Nice theorys, but, in doing so you engines would have over heated faster too.. so maybe not. Sad part is we had to destroy the engines, use less fuel, and ignore the NASA method to get close to the TTC numbers for the 60.00"MP test even though we were using 60.74"MP and we fell way short of the 60.80"MP tests.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
The second one is to actually keep the best climbing speed. P-38 is an easy one in that aspect as you don't have to deal with torque effects and rudder trim. But even there I failed to keep the speed fairly even. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>As it was for real world pilots

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
And a third one is probably the generally generous performance in slow speed climbs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Thank god the new FM does provide the P-38 with that PRO aspect as it had in real life, the old FM did not do it justice.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
And finally a question: Do you know if in the real climbtests they went all the way up from 0 to 30k in one go? The time limit for 60" was 5 mins iIrc, and I know that in other tests they would stage the climb into like 5 minutes bits, allow the engine to cool, and continue upwards. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>YES! As per the NASA method the test was continues, no pausing to cool off. Here is the link..

NASA check climb aka check of the predicted best-climb schedule(s) (http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Education/OnlineEd/Intro2Flight/nasclmb.html)

Now if that NASA sight is not enough to sway you.. maybe a little common since will? Put yourself in the WWII mindset for a moment.. A BoB like situation for example.. Now you know your interceptor aircraft have a finite endurance, so, to get the most out of them you would want to delay the launch of the interceptors as long as possible. For example, your radar pick up the enemy bombers 400 mile away, and at their current altitude of 20kft and airspeed of 200mph they will not reach you for at least 2 hours. Now assume that your interceptors have enough fuel to fly for about two hours.. So, if you sent they up right now, they would be out of gas and landing about the time that the bombers get to you. Not a good idea! Now if you know that it takes your interceptors 10min to climb to 20kft.. Than you can be a little smarter about it all and time it just right to give your interceptors the perfect mix. But, to do that you need to know how long it takes your interceptor to climb to 20kft. Hence the TTC charts! Now you can use that chart to determine just when to scramble the interceptors! So, now you can see that those charts of the time it takes and the amount of fuel they burn doing it would be TOTALLY USELESS if they took a 5min break at 15kft to let the engines cool off and didnt bother to tell anyone!

Make since? Common since usually does! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Badsight.
12-13-2005, 01:58 AM
so how much slower is the 100% fuel in-game times compared to 25% ? is it a drastic change ?

theres an obvious under-performing FB plane in this thread . . . . .

Gibbage1
12-13-2005, 02:53 AM
Its my openion that almost all aircraft in IL2 are now so far off from spec that its almost pointless to complain about a single aircraft. Almost petty. Yes, P-38 is my baby, but it would be hypacritical for me to complain about only the P-38 when so many other aircraft are equally nerfed.

I know Tag that you simply cant test all other aircraft, but I am sure that at least half underperform as bad if not more then the P-38. The other half overperform. 4.02 is a bad patch in my openion. It fixed nothing and broke everything.

Ratsack
12-13-2005, 07:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
... It fixed nothing and broke everything. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Broke everything?

Que?

Ratsack

AKA_TAGERT
12-13-2005, 08:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Its my openion that almost all aircraft in IL2 are now so far off from spec that its almost pointless to complain about a single aircraft. Almost petty. Yes, P-38 is my baby, but it would be hypacritical for me to complain about only the P-38 when so many other aircraft are equally nerfed. I know Tag that you simply cant test all other aircraft, but I am sure that at least half underperforms as bad if not more then the P-38. The other half overperform. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Half huh?
I love it when someone tosses out a number or a percentage that is based on nothing but a *feeling*. But, even a broken clock is correct twice a day, therefore you are correct that some, like the P-38 under perform and some over perform, based on actual testing of in-game planes that I have done. But since I have not tested them all (and don€t plan on it) I will not be so bold as to pull a number out of thin air as you did and say 50%. That kind of emotionaly based guessing outburst might fly in the art world, but not in the engineering world. Or are you trying to tell us that you have preformed a ~15min ROC test for all 200+ planes? If so I have three things to say to you.. One, Got Track(s)?, Two Got Real World Data(s)? and last but not least, Get a Life! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
4.02 is a bad patch in my openion. It fixed nothing and broke everything. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%!
In alot of ways the new FM has helped the P38 alot! In that the new FM allowed Oleg to simulate the positive aspects of the P38 that could not or at least were not being done in the old FM. The stability and the stall charterstics in the new FM are much better than the old FM IMHO! The so called wobble that so many are havig to come to grips with is very suttle in the P38 and gives it the *historical* edge it had as a stable gun platform over other planes IMHO. So, in summary, no FM in any game/simulation ever was, is or will be perfect! But Oleg's new FM is better than his old one IMHO and is a step in the right direction IMHO.

JtD
12-13-2005, 09:17 AM
Tagert, in combat missions they would almost always use the 30 minutes power limits (or even less) for climbing to intercept. Possibly rad open. Noone likes to get into action with overheated engines. The fuel you save by reducing the flying time you spent on the extra power you need.

AKA_TAGERT
12-13-2005, 09:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
Tagert, in combat missions they would almost always use the 30 minutes power limits (or even less) for climbing to intercept. Possibly rad open. Noone likes to get into action with overheated engines. The fuel you save by reducing the flying time you spent on the extra power you need. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%! The in-game P38 should not over heat like it does when *trying* to preform the RL climb-schedule that did not cause damage to the RL P38.

PS I see that you have NO COMMENT on the NASA link or the COMMON SINCE statement.. Thus is it safe to assume that they answered your question wrt taking a break?

ECV56_Rolf
12-13-2005, 10:56 AM
In which terrain were the original tests made?

Just curious, because it is not the same taking off from desert ground, or from water.

Even so that could only explain a not so significative difference in between the game and reality.

But then, the place and the conditions where the original tests were made must be compared to the in game conditions for the sake of accuracy.

Tha abscence of wind in the game is also a HUGE difference on plane climb performance. Termals are also something to take into account.

We don't know the true in game air pressure or temperature. (or at least I don't know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) and wind appears not to be present ever.

But we DO know that temperature and air pressure are there, as in the desert map where engines get hotter way faster.

Yours is a fine work Tagert, and it looks that you are seriously trying to avoid that rubbish about my plane is better than yours. Still it looks almost hopeless... people will do that given reasons or not.

And I really believe that from the point of view of flying balanced scenarios, it will be far better that Maddox Games includes in BOB something that shows what you are doing automatically. Every campaing we start, we do it on fear that it will be ruined if we did not finish it during a single patch release.

Because doing the job you are doing on every patch release is absolutely absurd! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

JtD
12-13-2005, 11:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
PS I see that you have NO COMMENT on the NASA link or the COMMON SINCE statement.. Thus is it safe to assume that they answered your question wrt taking a break? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tagert, I _know_ that climbtest sometimes were staged to prevent engine damage yet to do it on maximum power available. The point of that test would be to investigate the maximum rate of climb of a plane at a certain altitude, not the time to altitude. Basically for dogfight performance.

I also followed your link and it appears that in that specific procedure climbtests are not supposed to be broken down into stages. Rgr that.

My last post was much directed at your common since. It does not make sense to me as climbs on 110% from 0 to 30k wouldn't be done on a daily basis back in WW2. They'd go to combat/climb settings and do with them. So these TTC tests done with wep would be interesting for engineers, test pilots and Army officials, but only to lesser extend for the actual flying personnel. For the latter, they gotta do the TTC tests at 54" hg to make since.

ElAurens
12-13-2005, 07:33 PM
I have sent tracks to Tagert of top speed and climb tests I have done in the Ki 61 Ko. If, as I suspect, it is too slow and it's climb rate is off then I think we have a global problem with the game, not just one or two aircraft. But... the hands on guy that I am (antique car mechanic IRL) is telling me that anything is possible and perhaps it is just a few aircraft that are incorrect...

Oh the humanity....

Gibbage1
12-13-2005, 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 AKA_TAGERT:
Disagree 100%! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ya know, rants have nothing to do with science or fact, but 100% openion. I was sharing my openion that 4.02 is a total wash compaired to 4.01, and 4.01 is not close to perfect itself. Even your roll rate test's demonstrated just how badly things are off. I also did not specify climb only, just general FM. So say for instance the FW-190 D9 may be on the mark for climb, you and I both know its off on the roll rate. I would accept it if things were close by an error of margin, but IL2/PF 4.02 is not even that. Not even the curves match in the roll rate test, and most aircraft gain roll rate at extreme speed and thats not physically possible! Debating openion is useless. You can agree with it, or disagree with it, but there is no read debating openion. Now if I stated everything as "fact" then we can start a debate. Im sure that I could find something wrong with 50% or more of the aircraft if I test every aspect of the FM http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But I dont have the time to do that, and you dont have the time to do counter testing to prove my test wrong or false.

P.S. I liked the P-38 in 4.01 better. 4.02 enduced a very nasty snap stall that 4.01 did NOT have. So now its tricky pulling back on the stick and thats simply not historically accurate to any degree. 4.01 removed a great deal of the torque and stalls from the P-38 as it should of been, but Oleg seems to reverse his correction and broke the thing that made the P-38 a great aircraft. Again, my openion. Dont bother debating it.

AKA_TAGERT
12-13-2005, 10:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Ya know, rants have nothing to do with science or fact, but 100% openion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%! Your opinions are based on nothing, mine are based on testing, thus yours qualify as a rant/opinion and mine don€t.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I was sharing my openion that 4.02 is a total wash compaired to 4.01, and 4.01 is not close to perfect itself. Even your roll rate test's demonstrated just how badly things are off. I also did not specify climb only, just general FM. So say for instance the FW-190 D9 may be on the mark for climb, you and I both know its off on the roll rate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>And i shared my opinion of your opinion, I disagree with your opinion 100% and still think the new FM is a step in the right direction. Now.. how can I say that in light of all the errors in roll rates and climb rates, etc? Easy, because I unlike you I realize that no sim was, is, or ever will be perfect! SAVVY?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I would accept it if things were close by an error of margin, but IL2/PF 4.02 is not even that. Not even the curves match in the roll rate test, and most aircraft gain roll rate at extreme speed and that€s not physically possible! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>IYHO but not IMHO. The difference us is I present test data in support of my opinion where as you just present your feelings in support of your opinions. Big difference IMHO! (note the last IMHO pun was intended)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Debating openion is useless. You can agree with it, or disagree with it, but there is no read debating openion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>As for opinions based on personal *feelings*, Agreed 100%! As for debating opinions based on in game test results relative to real world data, Disagree 100%!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Now if I stated everything as "fact" then we can start a debate. Im sure that I could find something wrong with 50% or more of the aircraft if I test every aspect of the FM http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Hence the name *simulation*

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
But I dont have the time to do that, and you dont have the time to do counter testing to prove my test wrong or false. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Try me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
P.S. I liked the P-38 in 4.01 better. 4.02 enduced a very nasty snap stall that 4.01 did NOT have. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>IYHO not IMHO.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
So now its tricky pulling back on the stick and thats simply not historically accurate to any degree. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>IYHO not IMHO

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
4.01 removed a great deal of the torque and stalls from the P-38 as it should of been, but Oleg seems to reverse his correction and broke the thing that made the P-38 a great aircraft. Again, my openion. Dont bother debating it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Your are wrong, be sure.

AKA_TAGERT
12-14-2005, 12:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
I have sent tracks to Tagert of top speed and climb tests I have done in the Ki 61 Ko. If, as I suspect, it is too slow and it's climb rate is off then I think we have a global problem with the game, not just one or two aircraft. But... the hands on guy that I am (antique car mechanic IRL) is telling me that anything is possible and perhaps it is just a few aircraft that are incorrect... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Your inner voice is correct.. Anything is possible..

Ki-61 Analysis (http://airwarfare.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=834)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
Oh the humanity.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>This will be a hard pill for some to swallow! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Gibbage1
12-14-2005, 01:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Disagree 100%!

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think we can agree to disagree. One thing I have found that you may or may not know is performance of the aircraft differs from computer to computer. I know your very technical, and in a perfect world this SHOULD not happen, but its true. Some computers have very different aircraft even when running the same software. Case in point the dreaded "wobbles". From what I can gather, your one of the many lucky ones not effected much. I am. I have it bad. I have tried all the home brew remedies and cant get them fixed. Some computers have bad wobbles, some dont have any at all. This proves my point. Also, back in Aces, the P-38 had a bug with ammo. On SOME computers (mine included) the P-38 had TWICE the ammo then others. This eliminates input as a possible reason for the differences. I was not the only computer that had this. I also had EXTREAMLY poor roll rate on the P-38 when others had good roll rate. The two problems seemed to co-exist so people with bad roll rate always had the long ammo, and only a small % of the community had the problems. Again, proof that not all aircraft are the same from computer to computer. You don€t agree with me that the P-38 was better in 4.01. You don€t agree that it has a more snap stalls. You don€t agree with me that 4.01 had less torque. That tells me that again, your P-38 is not flying like my P-38.

That sort of throws off any sort of testing. You may not be getting historical climb for the P-38, but for some reason JtD is getting close. Who is correct? Both may be! Since now that I demonstrated that two computers don€t output the same FM, who knows.

Tag. Have you ever wondered if JtD or everyone else's program is "synchronized" to your copy? People are always getting such varied results. Put some thought into it. I think there is a much bigger issue then what€s on the surface.

robban75
12-14-2005, 08:25 AM
FWIW, here's my results. Crimea map, 100% and 25% fuel, rads auto. ft/min.

1000 - 3512 - 4099
2000 - 3278 - 3936
3000 - 3026 - 3577
4000 - 2853 - 3451
5000 - 2696 - 3123
6000 - 2371 - 2892

AKA_TAGERT
12-14-2005, 08:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I think we can agree to disagree. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%. I *think* it is ok to have and debate an opinion that is based on real world data and actual in-game tests, you on the other hand *think* it is ok to have and opinion that is based on nothing but your feelings, and not worth debating, to which I agree 100% with you, where we differ is you also *think* that the opinions based on real world data and in-game testing is NOT worth debating about. to which I disagree 100% with you.

Two very different things and one should not be confused for the other.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
One thing I have found that you may or may not know is performance of the aircraft differs from computer to computer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Got Track?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I know your very technical, and in a perfect world this SHOULD not happen, but its true. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Actully you dont know Jack or me! I too know that under the *same* conditions two *different* PC's will have *different* results from one usec to the next usec. But, what I know and what you fail to understand is that difference would be very very small, so small that a human would not even notice it and so small that test equipment might not even be able to measure it. Within reason of course, granted, if you pit a 12MHz 286 vs. a 3GHz P4 a human will notice it, but a 2.8GHz P4 vs 3.0GHZ P4 both running IL2 with a single plane in the air.. As in the tests I have don€t, you wont notice it. Keep in mind I€m talking FM calculations here, not the arties graphics card stuff.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Some computers have very different aircraft even when running the same software. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Case in point the dreaded "wobbles". From what I can gather, your one of the many lucky ones not effected much. I am. I have it bad. I have tried all the home brew remedies and cant get them fixed. Some computers have bad wobbles, some dont have any at all. This proves my point. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%! It does not prove Jack about the PC theory, because this same wobble error could be due to the user flying methods. A ham fisted pilot that jerks the stick around is going to have more wobble problems than a guy who treats it like a lady. Also, most of the people who claim to have wobble problems use twistie sticks and most who use rudders dont.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Also, back in Aces, the P-38 had a bug with ammo. On SOME computers (mine included) the P-38 had TWICE the ammo then others. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Got Track?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
This eliminates input as a possible reason for the differences. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I was not the only computer that had this. I also had EXTREAMLY poor roll rate on the P-38 when others had good roll rate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Got Track?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
The two problems seemed to co-exist so people with bad roll rate always had the long ammo, and only a small % of the community had the problems. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Sounds more like a two different versions of software problem not two different PC problem.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Again, proof that not all aircraft are the same from computer to computer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, disagree 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
You don€t agree with me that the P-38 was better in 4.01. You don€t agree that it has a more snap stalls. You don€t agree with me that 4.01 had less torque. That tells me that again, your P-38 is not flying like my P-38. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Leave your tea leafs at home, and remember, you yourself said that opinions are not worth debating, and since yours are based on your feelings, I agree. Now if you Got Track to support your 4.01 vs. 4.02 opinion I€m all ears.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
That sort of throws off any sort of testing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You are wrong, be sure.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
You may not be getting historical climb for the P-38, but for some reason JtD is getting close. Who is correct? Both may be! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You didn€t read it did you? The reason that JtD got close was explained within the contents of the test, no magic spell was needed to explain away the difference let alone some baseless PC theory.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Since now that I demonstrated that two computers don€t output the same FM, who knows. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Disagree 100%. IMHO the only thing you have demonstrated is your ignorance about how PCs work, and you inability to understand the test results that explain why the tests results were different.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Tag. Have you ever wondered if JtD or everyone else's program is "synchronized" to your copy? People are always getting such varied results. Put some thought into it. I think there is a much bigger issue then what€s on the surface. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Too funny. So now JtD is a hacker? Did you see him do it? Or did the tea leafs tell you he hacked it?

JtD
12-14-2005, 09:18 AM
My computer runs at 150 octane.

OldMan___
12-14-2005, 11:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
One thing I have found that you may or may not know is performance of the aircraft differs from computer to computer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Got Track?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I know your very technical, and in a perfect world this SHOULD not happen, but its true. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Actully you dont know Jack or me! I too know that under the *same* conditions two *different* PC's will have *different* results from one usec to the next usec. But, what I know and what you fail to understand is that difference would be very very small, so small that a human would not even notice it and so small that test equipment might not even be able to measure it. Within reason of course, granted, if you pit a 12MHz 286 vs. a 3GHz P4 a human will notice it, but a 2.8GHz P4 vs 3.0GHZ P4 both running IL2 with a single plane in the air.. As in the tests I have don€t, you wont notice it. Keep in mind I€m talking FM calculations here, not the arties graphics card stuff.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Disagree 100%. Even a incredbli minor difference may have huge results in comulative step integrations like the ones used to simulate physics on any game. This is a classic effect of numerical calculus (not the annalitical one). A simple 1% error in a numerical integration might deteriorate the stability of the integration so that in a short time your error will grow to huge numbers. There are several techniques to avoid and minimize that, but the more complex the simmulation, more difficult to completely avoid it.

Professor_06
12-14-2005, 01:14 PM
Hmmm. Interesting.

Gibbage1
12-14-2005, 01:25 PM
Tag, you want me to post tracks from a 2 year old game? Sorry, I cant. They dont exist anymore! BUT proof still does.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m.../727106852#727106852 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/727106852/r/727106852#727106852)

And yes, it was fixed in one of the first patches. It was not listed as one of the fixes in the Readme, but I did not change my system and the P-38 suddenly worked. Both roll rate and trigger time was fixed.

VW-IceFire
12-14-2005, 10:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
... It fixed nothing and broke everything. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Broke everything?

Que?

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh you know...the...

- Randomly wobbly aircraft on some systems
- Weak FM for fuel, tail, and control systems on the P-38
- Weak tail for the P-47, F6F, Ki-100, A-20, B-25, and others
- Concrete DM model for the LaGG-3 series

Etc.

4.02 was, I have to agree, a mostly bad patch. The parts I love are the continued stability (game has never been more stable *touch wood*), the new map, the new P-47 Late, new objects, FW190 DM being just what it should be, 109 having been improved, MG151/20 working right, and so on. In terms of content...never better. But the DM and FM issues have been my issue number 1 since I got this installed. Some of them seem to appear at random on random computers...

I'm hoping for a 4.03m which will fix these issues and leave the good stuff intact.

AKA_TAGERT
12-15-2005, 12:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Tag, you want me to post tracks from a 2 year old game? Sorry, I cant. They dont exist anymore! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger, so what your saying is you got nothing to suport your claims.. got it, thanks

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
BUT proof still does.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m.../727106852#727106852 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/727106852/r/727106852#727106852)

And yes, it was fixed in one of the first patches. It was not listed as one of the fixes in the Readme, but I did not change my system and the P-38 suddenly worked. Both roll rate and trigger time was fixed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Proof? You call that proof? A bunch of guys who can not decide between rudder or no rudder.. not once was the altitude specified.. and not one track file saved? Please.. remember who you are talking to. The guy who did multi roll rate tests and wrote code to automate it, and one thing I learned from all those roll rate tests..

What you think you see is NOT necessarily what you get.

Eye balling your watch and flying at the same time does not cut it, in that it introduces more than enough error to account for the differences you guys were seeing.

In short, that might be enough *proof* for the art world, but not in the engineering world

AKA_TAGERT
12-15-2005, 12:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan___:
Disagree 100%. Even a incredbli minor difference may have huge results in comulative step integrations like the ones used to simulate physics on any game. This is a classic effect of numerical calculus (not the annalitical one). A simple 1% error in a numerical integration might deteriorate the stability of the integration so that in a short time your error will grow to huge numbers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>You are correct.. for a real bad programer who assumed that the loop time (the delta time) is some constant. That is as dumb as assuming all PC's run at the same frequency. Thus those kinds of errors would happen if someone assumed that, but clearly Oleg and his team are no so dumb.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan___:
There are several techniques to avoid and minimize that, but the more complex the simmulation, more difficult to completely avoid it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Is what Im saying.. So basic is this concept that it typiclly goes without saying.. ie a DUH not worth mentioning because anyone who has ever done any kind of time dependend loop calculations knows this, but it can be avoided completely.

AKA_TAGERT
12-15-2005, 12:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JtD:
My computer runs at 150 octane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>ROTFL!

OldMan___
12-15-2005, 08:01 AM
No it can never be avoided COMPLETELY, unless you extend your integration to an infinite level of derivatives or bipartitions. Something that you won't find in any game. But if you have enough CPU spare time you can make more precise integrations that avoid most of such problems.

Also complex physics simulations like the ones we are talking about have forces that are a function of other forces and values that are functions form the original force (don 't know the mathematical name of that in english). To integrate such type of equations in a very robust way would require a lot more CPU time than simple ones. Runge-Kutta is the best you will find in any game, and it is a method that already increases CPU complexity quite fast when equations get more and more complicated. So games not rarely let some level of such error pass!!! (don't know IL2 code, but 8 in 10 games I've studied or worked on let some small amount of erro pass). For example shots trajectories are computed in most games by a simple Euler integration.

Don 't forget IL2 engine is quite old, and made in a time where CPU power was far less available. It probably won't give large differences. Buth when you are flying near any edge of flying envelope, you cannot be 100% sure you are not geting in a zone where you have a drastic effect (Imagine the 2.x FW190 FM where a single more degree of AOA would make your flight behave completely different).


It is not very likely, but it IS POSSIBLE.

AKA_TAGERT
12-15-2005, 09:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan___:
No it can never be avoided COMPLETELY, unless you extend your integration to an infinite level of derivatives or bipartitions. Something that you won't find in any game. But if you have enough CPU spare time you can make more precise integrations that avoid most of such problems.

Also complex physics simulations like the ones we are talking about have forces that are a function of other forces and values that are functions form the original force (don 't know the mathematical name of that in english). To integrate such type of equations in a very robust way would require a lot more CPU time than simple ones. Runge-Kutta is the best you will find in any game, and it is a method that already increases CPU complexity quite fast when equations get more and more complicated. So games not rarely let some level of such error pass!!! (don't know IL2 code, but 8 in 10 games I've studied or worked on let some small amount of erro pass). For example shots trajectories are computed in most games by a simple Euler integration.

Don 't forget IL2 engine is quite old, and made in a time where CPU power was far less available. It probably won't give large differences. Buth when you are flying near any edge of flying envelope, you cannot be 100% sure you are not geting in a zone where you have a drastic effect (Imagine the 2.x FW190 FM where a single more degree of AOA would make your flight behave completely different).


It is not very likely, but it IS POSSIBLE. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger, again, no sim ever was, is, or will be perfect, and yes some things make use of simpler methods, but, IMHO, all these things are so small that they would be in the noise of the calculations thus un-noticable to the human eye and most likly un-recordable at the DeviceLink level. As for the age of IL2, does not mater, because the math of the FM has been around loger than PC's themselfs. It was, is, and will be well understood. The only real difference in the 6DOF FM's over the years is the fedelity. As more PC power becomes avaliable, they are able to do more complex methods, calculte things on the fly instead of a lookup table, etc. So, in short, I agree with you, there will be differences, but theose differences will be in the noise of the calculation.

That is to say, in a TTC like test these differences might account for 1 sec of difference per mark, but NOT 1 min worth of difference.

OldMan___
12-15-2005, 09:43 AM
YEs, I am talking about 1 or 2 seconds difference in tests.

Tachyon1000
12-15-2005, 06:19 PM
I'd suggest that people totally ignore these threads in the future. While the testing method may show defaults in the performance of the plane, it does not elucidate the source of the problem. It doesn't perform correctly. Great. Undisputed. Now, why?

This is a more helpful analytic technique as it identifies where the problems are and their genearal causes.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m...201032453#4201032453 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/5221080943/r/4201032453#4201032453)

AKA_TAGERT
12-15-2005, 09:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan___:
YEs, I am talking about 1 or 2 seconds difference in tests. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger, than I Agree with you 99.98%! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
12-15-2005, 09:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
I'd suggest that people totally ignore these threads in the future. While the testing method may show defaults in the performance of the plane, it does not elucidate the source of the problem. It doesn't perform correctly. Great. Undisputed. Now, why?

This is a more helpful analytic technique as it identifies where the problems are and their genearal causes.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m...201032453#4201032453 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/5221080943/r/4201032453#4201032453) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Looks like someones *feelings* got hurt! Time for a hug?

Professor_06
12-15-2005, 10:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OldMan___:
YEs, I am talking about 1 or 2 seconds difference in tests. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Roger, than I Agree with you 99.98%! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sheesh, its christmas time.. give him the extra .02%...LOL..that really is funny you know..

AKA_TAGERT
12-16-2005, 09:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Professor_06:
Sheesh, its christmas time.. give him the extra .02%...LOL..that really is funny you know.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks! I was wondering if anyone would pick up on that joke! Math jokes are the best! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Tachyon1000
12-16-2005, 06:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
I'd suggest that people totally ignore these threads in the future. While the testing method may show defaults in the performance of the plane, it does not elucidate the source of the problem. It doesn't perform correctly. Great. Undisputed. Now, why?

This is a more helpful analytic technique as it identifies where the problems are and their genearal causes.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m...201032453#4201032453 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/5221080943/r/4201032453#4201032453) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Looks like someones *feelings* got hurt! Time for a hug? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, my methods are merely superior to yours in every way.

AKA_TAGERT
12-16-2005, 08:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tachyon1000:
No, my methods are merely superior to yours in every way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, I see what your problem is here. To fix it, simply click your heals togther three times and say "there's no place like home, there's no place like home, there's no place like home"