Spitfire Mk1 and F86 - 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: Spitfire Mk1 and F86 (/showthread.php?tid=69779)
+- 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: Spitfire Mk1 and F86 (/showthread.php?tid=69779)
Spitfire Mk1 and F86 - spitfire_93 - 22.04.2010
Hello, through combat, i realized that the spit mk1 from UI 1.1 is much slower than the 109 E4 and that the F86 i recently downloaded from Peter D is also much slower than the mig 15. Is it just me or are the flight models a bit off? Thanks
- seaniebeag1983 - 22.04.2010
Isnt the 109 supposed to be faster than the spit?
as for the F86 and the mig I wouldnt have a clue which is meant to be faster.
- F22-Raptor-2006 - 23.04.2010
The spit mkI is slower than the early bf109E4. 109s didn't have the same turning ability but if they ever ran into trouble they climbed or ran away or dived. Remember the spit Mk I cannot push down and do negative G as its engine cuts out.
The sabre can go past mach1 in a dive however the mig15 cannot due to the design it is uncontrollable at those speeds. The Mig should have a much higher climb rate. Also that is the Mig15bis and what you have is the F86A, the F version is more of a match for that mig. Mig is a more of a handful and tends to spin more easily as it isn't as stable as the sabre, wing loadings, cg etc...
- Kwiatek - 24.04.2010
Lol somebody delete my post about new Spits MK1 and Bf 109 in UP.
It looks that somebody have problem with these expecially the way how these planes are made in UP comparing to others
Very nice
- Guest - 24.04.2010
Kwiatek Wrote:Lol somebody delete my post about new Spits MK1 and Bf 109 in UP.
It looks that somebody have problem with these expecially the way how these planes are made in UP comparing to others
Very nice
No, it's because of our policies towards UP posts/topics/links etc. At the present, we refuse to affiliate with a site that we don't have working relations with.
Sometime I hope this improves in the future as we are open to burying the hatchet, but-alas-it doesn't seem the case.
In the future, I'd suggest PM'ing an admin about an issue like this, rather than posting in the open forum
(I didn't remove your post BTW )
- spitfire_93 - 24.04.2010
Wait, so is the spit I's flight model accurate. If not, where can i get a more accurate version (or even a MkII). Thx
- Kwiatek - 25.04.2010
spitfire_93 Wrote:Wait, so is the spit I's flight model accurate. If not, where can i get a more accurate version (or even a MkII). Thx
So try UltraPack
IF you want more realism and historical accuracy of course PS for AAA admins.
Plz stop editing my post ok?
- ACE-OF-ACES - 26.04.2010
Kwiatek Wrote:So try UltraPackFor those who may not be familiar with Kwiatek
PS for AAA admins.
Plz stop editing my post ok?
He is the one that takes the mods from the HSFX pack after each major release of HSFX and copies them into the UltraPack
Which is why most if not all major releases/upgrades of UltraPack follow the release/upgrade of HSFX by a few days
In that it takes them a few days to extract the HSFX mods and copy them into thier package
Also note that Kwiatek makes hollow claims about UP being more accurate
That is to say all he provides is words stating that it is more accurate
He provides no proof of it
Oh sure he might post a IL2Comp graph showing some performance values relative to another spit in the game
But he has yet to ever show a graph of his flight model vs. the real world data
So if your the lemming type that will belive anything anyone tells you with no proof
You will be welcomed with open arms over at UltraPack
And yes you should go download the latest version of UltraPack
Just keep in mind that all flight model development done by UltraPack up to and including UP2.0 was done on the Crimea map
Same is true of the IL2Comp graphs provided by Kwiatek
The Crimea map which is very far off standard atmosphere (STD ATM) conditions
And as most people in the know know
All real world data is presented relative to STD ATM conditions
Thus you can not compare the results from Crimea to STD ATM results
I say you but I mean most
The folks at UltraPack didn't realize this mistake until just a few months ago
And are now back peddling so fast that their pant legs are getting caught in the chain
And they are falling over trying to put out the fires that are proving that the idea that UltraPack has more accurate flight models is just a myth
As a mater of FACT Kwiatek locked a thread over at UltraPack today that I was posting in that proved this
That is what they do over there when ever a topic ask questions that they don't like
That or they will simply delete your post or their posts that make them look bad
Which is probably the reason Kwiatek posted in this thread here today and said what he said
He thinks most of you will be fooled into thinking that UltraPack forum does not edit or delete your post if he accuses AAA of doing it
But the fact is they do the same thing they belittle AAA for doing (read hypocrits)
Pretty standard actions of the UltraPack folks to come here after someone proves they where wrong in their forum
I guess it makes them feel better
But it really just makes them look rather petty IMHO
But if your the type that likes to see the flight models talked about in an open forum
Than you have come to the righ place!
And here are some examples
REALISM RATINGS
Spitfire IX 25lb
Bf-109K-4
F-51D-30NA HSFX 4.1
F-51D-30NA UP1.8
F-51D-30NA UP2.0
FM ANALYSIS
Bf-109K-4
P-47Ds
F-86s
MiG-15s
P-38s
You wont find this kind of openness on the discussion of the flight model implementations over at UltraPack that lays it all out on the talbe for all to see
Over there you have to be a good lemming and simply 'trust' them :?
Follow those links in the previous post!!! - Fireskull - 27.04.2010
Kwiatek, you are much brighter than some of the lacking individuals with whom I have reconciled over the years. I feel that there is hope.
Look at this as an opportunity to come into the light and get trusted. Be humble. We know about you. We are willing to forgive.
I read the UltraPack topics which were locked recently. No apparent reason was evident for the locks.
Some UP people came into our community merely to insult and make unproven claims.
Simply show us the data.
Where is the credible UP data on flight models? Knowledgable people keep looking and it is NOWHERE to be found! Many of us at All Aircraft Arcade have much science and/or data processing experience. How can you people expect such weak methods to go unscrutinized? Get awake, people!
Kwiatek, you know me well enough that I am fair. I also use facts, data, and reliable methods to come to reasonable conclusions.
You cannot stop me from promoting much greater awareness in all the IL-2 society about UP unwillingness to progress on flight model testing quality. Also coming to light is the UP lack of team attitude toward IL-2 experts outside UltraPack. Talking about other's data does not translate directly to teamwork. Teamwork requires decreasing ego pride and increasing reason.
ACE-OF-ACES posted in UltraPack the facts with relative civility and you people reject both his respect and the data. I honestly desire to see teamwork among UP and AAA experts in order to avoid duplications of work which wastes time, prevent dead-end efforts, and learn from one another toward the benefit of everyone. If I don't see much improvement soon, then I am going to become much more involved. Trust me, you want me as a friend and not a rival. It is your choice. Choose teamwork and the principles of success. Are you with us, or not? Let it be known that AAA has reached a friendly hand to UP. Let it become very known!
- Storebror - 27.04.2010
Kwiatek Wrote:So try UltraPackKwiatek, is it really neccessary to provoke that kind of discussion again?
The pros and cons about your FMs are filling dozens of pages over at UP.
A set of those discussion threads has been closed over there, not without a reason. One of them for instance has been closed since you didn't respond to a similar discussion in this AAA board anymore, so some people carried over the thread to UP.
I can understand both side's arguments, but I don't catch the point why you just cannot live with the fact that not everybody shares your opinion about the current situation of modified FMs.
To put this straight: I'm using UP 2.01 most of the time as well, so I don't insist in AAA being "good" and UP being "bad". I've got my opinion about the FM thing, but IL2 and UP consist of more than just your FMs.
Kwiatek Wrote:PS for AAA admins.AAA's current attitude against UP is a matter of common knowledge.
Plz stop editing my post ok?
You already know the result before pressing the "Submit" button.
ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:it takes them a few days to extract the HSFX mods and copy them into thier packageNo, that's a different thing.
UP takes HSFX as a base, widely untouched (that's why you can select the HSFX compatibility mode from JSGME for online gameplay).
Additional UP packages reside in the files folder whereas the HSFX base is available in SFS format.
ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:Kwiatek makes hollow claims about UP being more accurateThe discussion is pointless.
That is to say all he provides is words stating that it is more accurate
He provides no proof of it
Regarding FM historical accuracy, Kwiatek is doing what he can do to reveal the facts his work is based on.
He's doing a great job for that matter and I guess at the moment there's nobody available who has got the knowledge and time to compete (or, better choice, complement).
But that's not the point.
Criticism about Kwiatek's work mainly arises from editing other people's work without asking for permission, thus claiming ownership of things being intellectual property of somebody else. Further more working on FMs always shifts the balance in regarding missions - it's something you can greatly disagree about whether or not it's more important to have historical accurate FMs or balanced gameplay. History wasn't balanced in the air, at least from a specific time on, but there might be reasons that IL2 gameplay should persist balanced yet.
ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:REALISM RATINGS...only a few of those are UP FMs, and those show the same error tendency like the HSFX ones.
(...)
FM ANALYSIS
The same thing, more or less pronounced, nothing to worry about.
Best regards - Mike
- Guest - 27.04.2010
As Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy said:
- ACE-OF-ACES - 27.04.2010
Storebror Wrote:Actually it is both IMHOACE-OF-ACES Wrote:it takes them a few days to extract the HSFX mods and copy them into their packageNo, that's a different thing.
UP takes HSFX as a base, widely untouched (that's why you can select the HSFX compatibility mode from JSGME for online gameplay).
Additional UP packages reside in the files folder whereas the HSFX base is available in SFS format.
They take items from the HSFX release and use it in UP as their own, P-51s being a perfect example. And they also provide HSFX as a standalone mod.
Storebror Wrote:All excuses/reasons aside the fact remains that Kwiatek makes hollow claims about UP being more accurate That is to say all he provides is words stating that it is more accurateACE-OF-ACES Wrote:Kwiatek makes hollow claims about UP being more accurate That is to say all he provides is words stating that it is more accurateThe discussion is pointless.
He provides no proof of it
Regarding FM historical accuracy, Kwiatek is doing what he can do to reveal the facts his work is based on.
He's doing a great job for that matter and I guess at the moment there's nobody available who has got the knowledge and time to compete (or, better choice, complement).
But that's not the point.
Storebror Wrote:Criticism about Kwiatek's work mainly arises from editing other people's work without asking for permission, thus claiming ownership of things being intellectual property of somebody else.Agreed that is one of the main but not the only
Storebror Wrote:Further more working on FMs always shifts the balance in regarding missions - it's something you can greatly disagree about whether or not it's more important to have historical accurate FMs or balanced gameplay. History wasn't balanced in the air, at least from a specific time on, but there might be reasons that IL2 gameplay should persist balanced yet.None of the issues I have commented on had anything to do with balance
Storebror Wrote:...only a few of those are UP FMs, and those show the same error tendency like the HSFX ones.Agreed
The same thing, more or less pronounced, nothing to worry about.
But the point your missing here is that did not stop UltraPack from claiming to have a more accurate P-51 flight model.
At the time they made that claim they had no issues with such claims
It was not until after I took a closer look and noted that the opposite was true
That HSFX's P-51s were more accurate
That is when making such claims became an issue over at UltraPack
On a related note..
Have you been watching the UltraPack forum?
They accuse AAA of controlling the content of the forums
Yet that thread at UP has been un-locked and lock so many times I am having trouble keeping up with it
But here is the sequence
Quote:Lock and Unlock sequence
1 HaDeS locks it and calls me biased
2 HaDeS unlocks it an deletes his post
3 I post thanking HaDeS for unlocking it and deleting his previous post
4 HaDeS deletes my post thanking him for unlocking and posts telling me to stay on topic
5 Kwiatek locks the post
6 Someone unlocks the post to allow Gryphon to respond and than locks it right after
7 HaDeS unlocks the post to post than locks it right after
8 JG54_Emil unlocks the post to post than locks it right after
For a locked thread it sure gets a lot of post made to it
But only post from the UP crew
Also note that before they lock the thread
They use it as an opportunity to accuse me of something
But I don't get to respond to their accusations because the lock the thread
But that is not surprising
Pretty standard stuff at the UP forums
What is new
And rather funny
Is after HaDeS accuses me of all sorts of things in his post
He has the audacity to end his post asking me to start another thread and show them how to do the correct IAS to TAS calculation!
LOL!
Can you belive that?
Now normally that would be too funny
If it was not so sad
- Storebror - 28.04.2010
[quote="philip.ed"]
- Fireskull - 28.04.2010
Storebror Wrote:My "dream FM set" would contain two FMs for each plane in doubt: One which is historical accurate and one which perfectly matches the FMs of contemporary opposite planes. This could, of course, fall together in one single FM if it is both historical correct and matches the opposite side at the same time (which mainly comes true for early war aircraft). None of the sets would have to bother about issues regarding the other set. The historical correct planes might outclass opposite ones or might be outclassed by them, you just don't have to care, since if you want to have the perfect match, you could choose the second set which doesn't care for historical accuracy.
I guess this will remain my dream and not that many of us do share it either.
Storebror, this automatically causes me to wonder how many people want to degrade IL-2 into an arcade game for kids and how many pilots want improvement on the historical realism of the flight models for amazing combat in IL-2. Keep in mind that the flight model experts associated with AAA have affiliations with real world airmen [airpersons] and other aviation experts.
We must honor the integrity of aviation in general and history in specific for the benefit of all and for the sake of our own conscience. We gravitate toward the interests of aviation integrity instead of the sloppy ways of appealing to arcade style flight models.
ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:that did not stop UltraPack from claiming to have a more accurate P-51 flight model.
Storebror Wrote:Yes, you're right, I know this endless discussion from over there.
Some people do have a distinctive need for recognition. It's not that easy to me, but finally I can live with that.
ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:(UP Standard Atmosphere discussion thread thing...) Can you belive that?
Storebror Wrote:Yes... well...
I guess that these endless fights between AAA and UP have come to a point where it's simply time to say "we disagree", sit back for a few months and let things calm down, drink a lot of and try to come together again then.
I don't mind to argue, I even like discussions lasting 20 pages or more, but if it spreads across 3 forums and some dozen threads, it's too much for me.
We all know that AAA and UP generally disagree on the flight models. It really is a matter of whether UP will accept better flight model evaluation and test methods. Will reason win or will pride win in their minds? Will sound, scientific methods be embrassed or will denial and stagnation continue in flight model examination? What are the consequences of them attracting people who accept lower standards? What are the consequences of our team attracting people who appreciate progressive methods of flight model evaluation? What are the future effects of these things?
Will our team become more integrated with 1C and Team Daidalos standards while UP becomes more integrated with the arcade style fans? I believe that our team will continue to take the moral higher altitude.
One of my hopes is that the civility of how we go about this might allow the superior principles to contribute to the maturing of the IL-2 youth.
Part of the issue with our team as compared to UP is the age and maturity factors-enough said. I am glad that the young ones take interest in IL-2 for the sake of aviation but I will not compromise on supporting inferior flight models and their inadequate methods.
We have a core of true experts here who combine IL-2 flight model skill with principles of success. It might just be that UP is simply outclassed in flight model tests but they are yet to accept outside expertise.
Regardless, this team will expand its evaluation of flight models with objective, and effective, methods. The strength of this movement with AAA as the outlet for publication will continue to provide more credible data on flight models, with or without UP.
In the long term, the true founders and leaders of the combat flight simulation will take notice of those who accept sound Research, Testing, and Development standards. These are the ones who will be respected and see their work become officially included in future creative releases for publication.
For this reason, perhaps it is inevitable that our team distinguish itself above the self-declared rival team.
- Guest - 28.04.2010
This whole fm talk is pointless...because none of us is qualified to say "this fm is realistic/it should be like this"...firstly because there is not enough data,secondly none of us even had a ride in a warbird (I won't even mention piloted a warbird).
So this whole argument is about speed and climb rate....which is a small portion of an fm.
What about roll rate (how much degrees/sec is "insane roll rate"?),turn rate (how much degrees/sec is "I could out turn him with ease"),acceleration (how fast is "I was rapidly closing in on him/it felt like accelerating in a car"),control responsiveness ("it only needs a light push on the stick" to do how much exactly?),energy ("it bleeds a lot of energy" how much?).
So,we don't know what realistic is for these planes or how they should fly,getting correct speeds and climb rate is making it about 15-20% "realistic"
...Sure,we could make a "realistic" fm for a cessna,because lot of guys are flying one