[zaelu]

ACE-OF-ACES, I think you had been better if you had put more questions to clarify your issues than using so much statements.


I look at your "plotted" curves and Freddy's and I can only conclude that you rushed yourself in throwing stones. Criticism is good but, when is just offensive (as in attacking and not offending) is hard your point to be taken.

[Sneeke]

2 zaelu
What offend you find in comparing game data with real life data?
And I personally cannot agree with Freddy's concept of making FM about online fights, instead using RWD.

[Arsenal53]

I read somewhere that having the canopy open at the start is intentional..

But..

The problem with that is the AI does not seem to realize it is open, and they fly with it open, at least they do until it rips off.

never had this "bug"... the AI always close his canopy... did you really tried the mod?

Worse yet when you do a QMB the canopy starts out open, even though your in-flight! I imagine the same is true for the FMB missions. This is a really annoying problem, ...

I have a suggestion: when you are in the cockpit, press the button o :wink:

[zaelu]

2 zaelu
What offend you find in comparing game data with real life data?
And I personally cannot agree with Freddy's concept of making FM about online fights, instead using RWD.

Not me... and I wasn't talking about "offending" I was talking about offensive as in bullying, attacking. You know... like if you make a mistake then although I am right in my criticism I tell you something like:

"Hey you good for nothing etc etc... you make this mistake... ha ha... nub"

It will be much harder for you to swallow my criticism no matter how right am I... right?

Now... what happens when it proves that I was wrong in my criticism? All remains is the attitude... the bad one.

[Sneeke]

2 zaelu
Roger that.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

using only this to know a FM is totally ridiculous !

I disagree 100%

If we don't base the quality/fidelity/accuracy of the simulation on how well it matches the real world performance numbers..

Than what should we base it on?

In WWI, WWII and KOREA they did rate-of-climb (ROC) and top-speed-per-alt (TSPA) testing as a minimum to determine the performance of the plane.

Are you saying they were ridiculous to do such testing?

The game is not like the real world , there is a lot of errors in the code ,

Well, no flight sim ever was, is, or will be perfect!

But other planes (read FMs) are 'simulated' within reason (5 to 10 % error) in this game.

So the game code is capable!

It is just 'your' implementation of the FM that is in error.

There is an old saying.

garbage in garbage out.

It is not the game codes fault you put garbage in.

so if you want a good simulated plane this method is totally wrong !

I disagree 100% still!

As for the rest of your statements and question.

I was going to reply but I decided not to, in that it is clear you are very upset.

To the point that you can not tell the difference between a ROC graph and a TSPA graph.

Just know that I have been testing IL2 planes for years now.

And yours is the first I have seen that exceeds the 30% error mark!

Also you should read what I wrote, in that I clearly stated IL2C data is not 100% accurate and that I plan on doing a formal test.

At which point we will see if your theory/guess/excuse that the IL2C infomod by SJack does not see your Java class changes.

In summary

You should NOT say things like this..

Use your brains, test in game, and only consider what you think is the most credible

And

[quote="Freddy"]You too can access films, documents, books, and can decide for yourself what is credible and what is not

[FZ]

... Thanksgiving is already over ??

[aymi]

hi all

il a pas trop exag

[Freddy]

OK Ace of Aces ,
I think you just want to have the most possible perfect F-86 in the game , and I understand this cause I about this totally agree with you ...
If I ve the time , I will explain in a good english why I dont believe in the curves , I have some friends who speak a better english than me and they will translate ...
But few words ...
You have the right to not agree with me , but I think you don t understand my goal ...
Perhaps a short sentence could make you understand : I want the most possible realistic plane when I take it IN GAME ! Not just reading some numbers ... I ve flown on this simulator 10 years ago ( from the beginning ) , it a fantastic simulator but now I d like to solve some things I don t like , anemic engines ...etc ...
When you give the simulator to some real fighter pilots , they say all the same thing ... So It s necessary to improve the simulator ... I d like to be in the situation of a real pilot when I take this game and it s my goal ....
Sure I m constantly looking at the books , the curves , the numbers , but I m trying to make them ALIVE in the game ... Cause if you just take the historical numbers and put them in the FM , you have not a good result , you have to make an optimization ...
Il2 compare is a very good test to see the difference between two planes in the game , but not very accurate if you try to put the test on a real curve ...
It don t take all the FM ( java class ) , and forget a lot of things from the planes ...
In my update , I ve put more G effects , put a realistic landing ( no more than - 10 feets per second at touch down ) , problems with the bombs under the wings ...etc ...etc ...
Gradualy I will improve all I can ...
Try to make your FM only from the curves if you believe that it s the best ...
I think it s a good thing to have different points of view ...
But when all will be finished , try an honnest fly with the Corea mod , not just a track from IL2 compare , and you ll see whish mod is the most realistic when you take it in game ...

Best regards

[European Snake]

Ace, please drop it. Freddy is trying and doing a damn good job. Be thankful we have the basis right now, and worry about the details when it gets closer to total completion. Remember, yesterday was thanksgiving.

[JG14_Jagr]

Ace, please drop it. Freddy is trying and doing a damn good job. Be thankful we have the basis right now, and worry about the details when it gets closer to total completion. Remember, yesterday was thanksgiving.

Why whould he drop it? He's not wrong in this case. How a plane "feels" is very important in game, on that we can agree. There are times when some subjective decisions need to be made, but they should never be made without testing the results against the known objective data. Given the variables available every FM in game is going to be a compromise.. every time you alter something to try and get something "dead on" you will cause another measure to be further off than it was before.. its a balancing act.

I think you need to differentiate constructive criticism of Freddy's FM's from his amazing work on the 86F cockpit and in other areas.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

OK Ace of Aces ,
I think you just want to have the most possible perfect F-86 in the game , and I understand this cause I about this totally agree with you ...

Yes and good!

If I ve the time , I will explain in a good english why I dont believe in the curves , I have some friends who speak a better english than me and they will translate ...

You dont belive in the IL2C curves?

Or real world data curves?

But few words ...
You have the right to not agree with me , but I think you don t understand my goal ...
Perhaps a short sentence could make you understand : I want the most possible realistic plane when I take it IN GAME ! Not just reading some numbers ...

Everyone I know wants the most realistic flight simulation, thus everyone I know all want the same goal.

I ve flown on this simulator 10 years ago ( from the beginning ) , it a fantastic simulator

Me too and agree

but now I d like to solve some things I don t like , anemic engines ...etc ...

anemic engines?

When you give the simulator to some real fighter pilots , they say all the same thing ...

Really? What do they say?

So It s necessary to improve the simulator ...

As I allready noted, no sim was, is or ever will be perfect, so there is allways room for improvement

I d like to be in the situation of a real pilot when I take this game and it s my goal ....

I think that is everyones goal

Sure I m constantly looking at the books , the curves , the numbers , but I m trying to make them ALIVE in the game ...

And the best way to make them alive is to make the percent error between the flight simulation and the real world data (what you call curves and numbers) as small as you can make it.

Cause if you just take the historical numbers and put them in the FM , you have not a good result , you have to make an optimization ...

I don't care what numbers you put in the FM, as long at the numbers that come out match the real world data, curves, numbers, etc.

Il2 compare is a very good test to see the difference between two planes in the game , but not very accurate if you try to put the test on a real curve ...

You should get your translating friends to translate my earlier posts to you, in that I allready said IL2C is not 100% accurate and that a formal test is required. By formal I mean flying the plane and collecting the data using DeviceLink.

It don t take all the FM ( java class ) , and forget a lot of things from the planes ... In my update , I ve put more G effects , put a realistic landing ( no more than - 10 feets per second at touch down ) , problems with the bombs under the wings ...etc ...etc ...
Gradualy I will improve all I can ... Try to make your FM only from the curves if you believe that it s the best ...

Again, I don't care what numbers you put in the FM, as long at the numbers that come out match the real world data, curves, numbers, etc.

For example, I dont care what you put into the FM (ie Cy, Cx, CriticalCy, CxCurvature, etc) As long as what comes out is correct (ie TSPA, ROC, Turn Rates, etc)

That is to say if you found a real world value for the Drag coeficent, and you had to tweak it from that value to make the top speed come out right. That is fine by me! Because I dont expect the 6DOF math flight model to be perfect! I would say it is even expected that you would have to play with those numbers to make what comes out right!

I think it s a good thing to have different points of view ...
But when all will be finished , try an honnest fly with the Corea mod , not just a track from IL2 compare , and you ll see whish mod is the most realistic when you take it in game ...

Again, You should get your translating friends to translate my earlier posts to you, in that I allready said IL2C is not 100% accurate and that a formal test is required. By formal I mean flying the plane and collecting the data using DeviceLink.

S!

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Ace, please drop it. Freddy is trying and doing a damn good job. Be thankful we have the basis right now, and worry about the details when it gets closer to total completion. Remember, yesterday was thanksgiving.

Thanks for you input Euro..

But don't be upset with me if I choose to totally ignore it! In that I think Freddie is comming around, and more than capable of speaking for hiself and does not need you to speak for him!

S!

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Why whould he drop it? He's not wrong in this case. How a plane "feels" is very important in game, on that we can agree. There are times when some subjective decisions need to be made, but they should never be made without testing the results against the known objective data.

Bingo!

Now this is not to say every page of real world data you find is perfect either! But, if someone making a flight model is going to choose to ignore the real world data, well they better have a good justification for doing so IMHO.

Take the Ki84 for example, the US tested some of them after the war and found it to have a hudge rate of climb. Now at first glance, someone might say the ingame Ki84 should have the rate of climb listed in that US test report! But, upon further investigation, you have to consider the US tested the Ki84 with US fuel, which had a much higher octain than what Japan had! So, in a case like that I would fully understand it if someone making a FM for the Ki84 decided to make the rate of climb a little less than the numbers listed in that US test document. How much less, that is debatable and a grey area, but at least they gave a reason for doing it!! Where as on the flip side, telling us it just FEELS right to reduce the Ki84 rate of climb is not going to fly with most people!

Given the variables available every FM in game is going to be a compromise.. every time you alter something to try and get something "dead on" you will cause another measure to be further off than it was before.. its a balancing act.

Exactally, and like I said, no sim ever was, is, or will be perfect! But I know it can be closer than 35% error!

I think you need to differentiate constructive criticism of Freddy's FM's from his amazing work on the 86F cockpit and in other areas.

So ture!

[European Snake]

Ace, please drop it. Freddy is trying and doing a damn good job. Be thankful we have the basis right now, and worry about the details when it gets closer to total completion. Remember, yesterday was thanksgiving.

Thanks for you input Euro..

But don't be upset with me if I choose to totally ignore it! In that I think Freddie is comming around, and more than capable of speaking for hiself and does not need you to speak for him!

S!

Well, actually I'm not European. I've never left USA, but I have a lot of family in Italy.

What do you mean by coming around? And I'm not speaking for him. I just stated the obvious that he was trying and doing a good job.