All-Aircraft-Simulations
FM of P51 - Printable Version

+- All-Aircraft-Simulations (https://allaircraftsimulations.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=275)
+--- Forum: IL2 FM Comparing Forum (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=281)
+--- Thread: FM of P51 (/showthread.php?tid=68916)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Re: FM of P51 - Guest - 17.06.2010

Guys, please, let's not argue about this. Reading Radar's post, much of what he says is truth. Graphs and data ae excellent to go by, but are not neccesarily true, and the same is true if you went solely by what you felt was right. At the end of the day, these planes will never be 100% true to their real life counterpart so IMO there is no right or wrong to this Wink

Re: FM of P51 - 8FS_Bulau - 17.06.2010

Revi 01 Wrote:Does the UP2 have the remodelled P51's? The reason I ask is becuse after installing UP2 and flying the old P51 I feel like a novice again,
or at least as bad as on the obsolescent FM's.
UP only modified FMs of new slot P-51s. Stock, Oleg P-51s were not changed.

Re: FM of P51 - ACE-OF-ACES - 18.06.2010

RedChico Wrote:
tater718 Wrote:Let's look beyond all of the graphs and numbers for a moment (...)
Ok... remember that its opinions and tastes of each pilot, not hard facts.
Exactly

Once you decide to ignore the graphs and numbers you have nothing left but a multitude of opinions.

And as we all know

Opinions are endless

This opinion based world is where all the problems with regards to realism stem from. That and the inability of people to take pause for a moment before blaming the flight model and take a look in the mirror and consider the possibility that the reason the plane does not act like the stories they have read is due to their own flying skills or lack there of as opposed to an error in the flight model.

But I digress

The point is just because a combat pilot stated that he in plane A was able to turn inside plane B does NOT mean plane A could outturn plane B under equal conditions in a controlled test

To put it another way

For every 109 pilot that said he was able to out turn a Spitfire, there is a Spitfire pilot that says he was able to out turn a 109

RedChico Wrote:
tater718 Wrote:(...)
Show me papers and graphs and whatever...It still isn't right.

Whats this? Now you want facts? :roll:

You have to see that what we do in IL2 is beyond what WW2 pilots did, we push the envolope quite often and for many seconds, they couldn't (G force) and wouldn't (fear of death), perhaps at that level P51's would still fly like a charm, with flowers and stuff.
Exactly

We do things in this sim that a real pilot would never dream of doing

Thus I am not surprised that we 'see' things that real pilots never mentioned

It is nearly impossible to say how a plane should act in a 'dynamic' situation

In that they hardly ever tested these planes under 'dynamic' situations

Thus there is hardly any real world data to refer to

There is some for some planes

But typically only the planes they noticed problems with

For example the P-39 is one of the most tested planes of WWII because they had so many problems with it

And take the P-38 compression problem

There is a lot of test reports on that

Problem is some see that and leave thinking the P-38 was the only plane to have compression problems

Truth is they all had the problem

The P-38 was just one of the first they noticed it on because it was one of the first to go that fast to notice the problem

So you will be hard pressed to find any real world data on the 'dynamic' attributes of a plane

One thing they did do often was to describe how the plane acted during a stall

The test pilots would purposely put the plane into a stall and than attempt a recovery

And than make a verbal report one how the onset of the stall felt and how to recover from it

Some planes would shake just prior to a stall giving the pilot some warning

Others would not

Some planes had typical recovery techniques

Others required more, like applying opposite rudder to the spin

These are the types of things you can gleam from test pilot and combat pilot reports

But you can NOT obtain relative performance FACTS from combat pilot reports

Because as I noted above

Combat pilot reports don't contain enough information to re-produce the scenario and you have no idea of the state of the other plane and pilot

That is to say all you can gleam from a combat pilot who stated that he in plane A was able to turn inside plane B is that the relative pilot skill of pilot A to pilot B and/or relative energy state of plane A to B was such that plane A was able to turn inside plane B for that specific case

Nothing more

With that said

As for FACTS

The FACTS are the changes UP made to the HSFX P-51s flight models made the UP flight models less accurate. That is to say the UP P-51 performance values do NOT match the real world performance values as well as the original HSFX 4.1 flight models do. I am currently working on my web site where I will post these results, once they are done I will post a link here for others to see with their own eyes how much error UP introduce to the P-51 flight model with the changes they made

Re: FM of P51 - ACE-OF-ACES - 18.06.2010

philip.ed Wrote:Graphs and data ae excellent to go by, but are not neccesarily true
Interesting..

Can you point me to or give me an example of this?

Re: FM of P51 - George Formby - 18.06.2010

ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:For every 109 pilot that said he was able to out turn a Spitfire, there is a Spitfire pilot that says he was able to out turn a 109

You hit the nail on the head with that statement!!

Re: FM of P51 - Trooper117 - 18.06.2010

Jesus lads.. have we not exhausted this yet?
I think this has been done to death already..

Re: FM of P51 - Guest - 18.06.2010

ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:
philip.ed Wrote:Graphs and data ae excellent to go by, but are not neccesarily true
Interesting..

Can you point me to or give me an example of this?

No, I can't. But it's common sense; there is a chance you can model the FM similar to one of the aircraft that flew, but after months/years of repairs upgrades etc, planes will of course be different to eachother. Even factory fresh A/C will handle slightly differently. One man's bread is another's poison. If a pilot found an aircraft sweet to fly, there'll be another who hated it. As far as graphs go, it's great that there's data to go by, but unless you've flown the plane in real life, you may never know if that graph is exactly true.

But please, if we wish to have these long-winded discussions, ask DM for a private section where you can do it. I do not want this to turn into another flame war about who has the best fm, which is the most realistic etc.

And Trooper: +1 mate.

Re: FM of P51 - Guest - 18.06.2010

Well, just a section where people can have their major rants like that away from the more serious or exciting stuff Wink It gets boring having to read through the same regurgitated stuff.

Re: FM of P51 - Deutschmark - 18.06.2010

philip.ed Wrote:But please, if we wish to have these long-winded discussions, ask DM for a private section where you can do it. I do not want this to turn into another flame war about who has the best fm, which is the most realistic etc.


philip, Ace can have is discussions no matter how long -winded thry are, so long as it
Fallows the rules of the site, 1, keep it friendly 2, keep it clean 3, keep it on topic.
And as I read his post above I see nothing there that is not within the rules.


Deutschmark

Re: FM of P51 - Trooper117 - 18.06.2010

Plus, this is a UP section.. If you don't like the fm's of UP then stay out of this section, god, it's not rocket science..
And before anyone starts, I'm not a fanboy, I have UP, HSFX, my own modded version as well as the vanilla install on my hard drive. (I cater for all flavours :mrgreen: ) But I'm sick of seeing the same old dramas re-emerge time after time, and its time to move on thats for sure.
Times have changed, that's why we have a dedicated section here for UP.. That means UP is allowed to be fairly represented here at this new site..

Re: FM of P51 - ACE-OF-ACES - 18.06.2010

philip.ed Wrote:No, I can't.
No prob in that I didn't think you cold

philip.ed Wrote:But it's common sense;
Well I disagree

In that if it was common sense than it would be common

So common that an example could be provided easily

Yet you did not provide an example

Thus not common

Thus not really common sense IMHO

philip.ed Wrote:there is a chance you can model the FM similar to one of the aircraft that flew, but after months/years of repairs upgrades etc, planes will of course be different to eachother.
Well since IL-2 does not make any attempt to model ware and tear and/or field changes

You really can not expect IL-2 to exhibit attributes due to ware and tear

philip.ed Wrote:Even factory fresh A/C will handle slightly differently.
Interesting..

Can you point me to or give me an example of this?

Not that it is relative to the topic at hand

In that as with ware and tear IL-2 does not make any attempt to model production variances

I personally would just like to know what you base that statement on

In that I hear a lot of people say this

Yet I have yet to see anyone provide any proof of it

Let alone state just how much the differences were

Are we talking 0.050mph in top speed?
Are we talking 0.500mph in top speed?
Are we talking 5.000mph in top speed?
Are we talking 50.00mph in top speed?

Don't get me wrong

I am sure there are difference in that no two items are exactly the same

The question is are the difference something a human can notice, i.e. 50mph (read naked eye)

Or does it required a measuring instrument, i.e. 0.05mph (read in the noise)

philip.ed Wrote:One man's bread is another's poison. If a pilot found an aircraft sweet to fly, there'll be another who hated it.
Agreed 100%

But I am not sure what it has to do with your statement that real world data is not necessarily true

philip.ed Wrote:As far as graphs go, it's great that there's data to go by, but unless you've flown the plane in real life, you may never know if that graph is exactly true.
Disagree 100%

You don't have to fly it to know if the data is true or not

Or are you saying you know better than all the test engineers of WWII and they were fools to belive the data collected by their instruments during a test flight by a test pilot?

philip.ed Wrote:But please, if we wish to have these long-winded discussions, ask DM for a private section where you can do it. I do not want this to turn into another flame war about who has the best fm, which is the most realistic etc.
I don't see how pointing out one FM has more percent error than another is a flame?

It is just the facts

The numbers don't lie

Now I cant be held responsible for someone who gets upset with the truth of the numbers such that they feel the need to flame instead of fix the error

But I don't think we worry about such people that we feel the need to not post the truth in fear of upsetting someone

Re: FM of P51 - Guest - 18.06.2010

Aces, stop it NOW.

Re: FM of P51 - ACE-OF-ACES - 18.06.2010

philip.ed Wrote:Aces, stop it NOW.
Stop what?

Re: FM of P51 - Guest - 18.06.2010

Twisting everyone's words. I don't give ( EDIT ) if you disagree with what I say, all I care is that I think I'm right. End of. And stop your pathological hated for UP. We don't care which FM's you prefer or why anymore.

Re: FM of P51 - ACE-OF-ACES - 18.06.2010

philip.ed Wrote:Twisting everyone's words. I don't give ( EDIT ) if you disagree with what I say, all I care is that I think I'm right. End of. And stop your pathological hated for UP. We don't care which FM's you prefer or why anymore.
Twisting?

Can you give me an example of something you feel I twisted?