REALISM RATING F-51D-30NA by HSFX4.1 - Printable Version

+- All-Aircraft-Simulations (https://allaircraftsimulations.com)
+-- Forum: Announcements & General Discussions & Hyper Lobby (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=264)
+--- Forum: General Discussions. (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=298)
+--- Thread: REALISM RATING F-51D-30NA by HSFX4.1 (/showthread.php?tid=68754)

---

REALISM RATING F-51D-30NA by HSFX4.1 - ACE-OF-ACES - 20.02.2010

REALISM RATING F-51D-30NA by HSFX4.1

1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this analysis is to measure how close the performance of the simulated plane matches the performance of the real plane. This measurement is accomplished in several ways. In section 3 the PERFORMANCE COMPARISON provides a direct comparison between the simulated plane data and the real plane data. The error and percent error between the simulated plane data and real plane data is calculated per test type. From either of these two graphs the reader can see how well the simulated plane data matches the real plane data per altitude. Section 4 the REALISM RATING is provided for those readers who may have trouble reading performance data, error and/or percent error graphs. The REALISM RATING section simplifies the results into an easy to read bar graph that that can be used as an overall rating of how well the simulated plane data matches the real plane data.

2 TEST CONFIGURATION
The configuration used during this test is as follows:
2.1 FLIGHT SIMULATION
o IL-2 VER: 4.09m.
o MODS BASELINE: HSFX 4.1 (AAA),
o MODS FM ANALYSIS AND ESTIMATOR: ZINFOMOD,
o MODS MAP: Flight Test Map (BBury).

2.2 AIRCRAFT SETTINGS:
o FUEL: 100%.
o WEAPON LOAD OUT: DEFAULT.
o RADIATOR: DEFAULT.

2.3 MAP SETTINGS
o MAP: Flight Test Map (BBury).
o TIME: 12:00PM.
o WEATHER: CLEAR.
o CLOUD HEIGHT: 1000m.
o OFF: STATIC TIME.
o OFF: NO USER LOAD OUT.

2.4 DIFFICULTY SETTINGS:
o ON: SEPARATE ENGINE START.
o ON: COMPLEX ENGINE MANAGEMENT.
o ON: ENGINE OVERHEAT.
o ON: TORQUE & GYRO EFFECTS.
o ON: FLUTTER EFFECT.
o ON: WIND & TURBULENCE.
o ON: STALLS & SPINS.
o ON: VULNERABILITY.
o ON: BLACKOUTS & REDOUTS.
o ON: REALISTIC GUNNERY.
o ON: LIMITED AMMO.
o ON: LIMITED FUEL.
o OFF: COCKPIT ALWAYS ON.
o OFF: NO EXTERNAL VIEWS.
o OFF: HEAD SHAKE.
o OFF: NO ICONS.
o OFF: NO PADLOCK.
o OFF: CLOUDS.
o ON: NO INSTANT SUCCESS.
o ON: TAKEOFF & LANDING.
o ON: REALISTIC LANDINGS.
o ON: NO MAP ICONS.
o OFF: NO MINIMAP PATH.
o OFF: NO SPEED BAR.

3 PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
In WWII there were primarily two types of tests done to measure the performance of a plane; One the rate of climb (ROC) and two the top speed per altitude (TSPA). The problem is finding real world data to compare to that applies directly to the simulated plane. In the absence of such data substitutes can be used, if they are close to the simulated plane. This substituted data is typically test data from a variant of the simulated plane. In such cases the real world data may be adjusted to account for differences between the real plane and the simulated plane. Differences like engine horse power, power settings, external stores, gross weight, etc. The process for adjusting the real world data is open to debate and is why any assumptions used and the reasoning behind the adjustments are provided in section 5 for review.

Figure 1 RATE OF CLIMB


Figure 2 RATE OF CLIMB ERROR


Figure 3 RATE OF CLIMB PERCENT ERROR


Figure 4 TOP SPEED PER ALTITUDE


Figure 5 TOP SPEED PER ALTITUDE ERROR


Figure 6 TOP SPEED PER ALTITUDE PERCENT ERROR


4 REALISM RATING
The following figure shows the mean percent error and the absolute mean percent error.

Figure 7 MEAN PERCENT ERROR


The mean percent error shown in Figure 7 is a measure of the planes

---

- Rjel - 20.02.2010

I'm curious why you would compare a simulated D model with a real P-51 B? What conclusions can be drawn that are of value?

---

- ACE-OF-ACES - 20.02.2010

The answer to that question is contained in..

section 3 PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
section 5 REAL WORLD DATA ASSUMPTIONS AND ADJUSTMENTS (in the pdf summary doc)

---

- Bearcat - 20.02.2010

Yeah but why not a D with a D.. or a B wioth a B.. or gbetter yet... the HSFX 4.1D with eh UP D and the stock D.

---

- ACE-OF-ACES - 20.02.2010

Bearcat Wrote:Yeah but why not a D with a D.. or a B wioth a B..

From section 3

Quote:PERFORMANCE COMPARISON
The problem is finding real world test data to compare to that applies directly to the simulated plane. In the absence of such data substitutes can be used, if they are close to the simulated plane. This substituted data is typical test data from a variant of the simulated plane. In such cases the real world data may be adjusted to account for differences between the real world data and the simulated plane. Differences like engine horse power, power settings, external stores (typically gun pods), gross weight, etc.

But since no one seems to be in the mood to read something before they comment on something or reading and not grasping/getting it

Allow me to spell it out for you

The reason 'why' is because I don't have any real world data on a F-51D-30NA running at 75" 150 octane

Where as I do have real world data on a P-51B-15NA running at 75" 150 octane

Now if you have some real world data on a F-51D-30NA running at 75" 150 octane

Please pass it along and Ill use that

But until than

As noted in section 3

Ill have to make do with what I have

Bearcat Wrote:or gbetter yet... the HSFX 4.1D with eh UP D and the stock D.

That is a good idea..

Ill install UP1.8 and UP2.0 and see how they do vs. the P-51B

---

- Messer - 21.02.2010

No, but there's a P-51B in Il-2, so I'm also at a loss why you compare a real B-15 with an in-game D model... :roll:

---

- ACE-OF-ACES - 21.02.2010

Messer Wrote:No, but there's a P-51B in Il-2, so I'm also at a loss why you compare a real B-15 with an in-game D model... :roll:

No, but the P-51B in Il-2 is NOT a 75" version :twisted:

---

- RedChico - 21.02.2010

You fail to compare apples with apples and you fail to acknowladge that because of some 75" thing @ 150 octane red whine.

By the powers invested in me i conclude: Epic fail!


I advise you to go search for real world data to the models we have in IL2, only then you will master the art of comparison.

We know that IL2 is not perfect, but comparing apples with oranges and saying that apples should taste like oranges it won't stick.



No offense. (because last time i did a post like this i got banned)

---

- ACE-OF-ACES - 21.02.2010

RedChico Wrote:You fail to compare apples with apples and you fail to acknowladge that because of some 75" thing @ 150 octane red whine.

By the powers invested in me i conclude: Epic fail!

I advise you to go search for real world data to the models we have in IL2, only then you will master the art of comparison.

We know that IL2 is not perfect, but comparing apples with oranges and saying that apples should taste like oranges it won't stick.

Well that is your opinion and your welcome to it

Just know that I and everyone else noticed that you provided nothing but words

That is to say you provided nothing to support any of your claims

Nor did you address anything specific

Try reading the summary doc again and if you find something specific about it that you think is in error

Lets talk

RedChico Wrote:No offense. (because last time i did a post like this i got banned)

None taken

Hard to when nothig was really said

---

- RedChico - 21.02.2010

Sorry?

What just i did tell you to do?

Didn't i tell you to search for real world data of the same planes instead of comparing 2 diferent planes and saying that there's an "error"?
Of course there's an "error" its 2 diferent models.
And i don't need to draw graphics to notice that, nor do i need to present you with some kind of proof.

---

- ACE-OF-ACES - 21.02.2010

You really should read it before you comment on it, in that the difference you mention is acconted for

---

- RedChico - 21.02.2010

ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:You really should read it before you comment on it, in that the difference you mention is acconted for

Quote:In section 3 the PERFORMANCE COMPARISON provides direct comparisons between the simulated plane data and the real plane data

Sorry but you're hanging yourself with your own rope.


Why don't you compare a Bf 109 G2 (il2) against a real data of a bf109 G6 and see whats the error deviations and other stuff.

---

- ACE-OF-ACES - 21.02.2010

Actully your the one hanging in that your questions were answered before you asked them

---

- RedChico - 21.02.2010

ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:Actully your the one hanging in that your questions were answered before you asked them

Please explain because it seams that i'm dumb to figure what are you trying to get with all of this.

---

- ACE-OF-ACES - 21.02.2010

Red if you have any specific questions about something in the report that you think is in error

I am all ears

But if all you want to do is express your opinion over and over

Well good on you

Just don't expect me to follow you tit for tat

PS feel free to PM me if you want to ask a dumb question to save face here in the forum

---