[ACE-OF-ACES]

yeah, it's like comparing a chevette witha corvette just because they are GM products.

Hardly

If you are going to do a study on FM's, then I think it should be across the board, all I have stumbled upon is you doing FM's from the UP bundle, I see no HSFX or stock for that matter.

Stumble being the operative word

I see that everyone else allready clear up your mistake on that

To which I would like to add

Or should I say recomend?

You should really spend a min or two reading something before commenting on it

And

You should really spend a min or two looking for something before you say it is not there

Just a thought

As for the program you use, what exactly is it?? Not questioning your integrity, but anyone can put lines on a chart and say that is the gospel, thats how the Mormon church started. I am a person who does not dig bias studies if you want to know what my beef is......

The only bias I seen thus far is in your rush to paint me as biased

In that you were in such a hurry to do so you didn't even notice the HSFX version of this test

[Monguse]

Remember ALL mods that have new FM's will be looked at.

[{HVY-E}Jinxx]

Ace,

Maybe you could post a side by side comparison of the P51 (Real Wold) vs. HSFX vs. UP 2x so guys like that can find it all together and not have to spend the extra 30 secs or so using the "Search" function hidden so well at the top of all the pages on this site.

God knows that I've beat my head against a wall after spending more than 5secs trying to find a topic on these forums........... :wink:

Seriously though, I think it might help a bit if people could look at all three side by side at the same time.

S!

Btw.... Great job. I found the charts most informative, but than again, they're not just pretty colored lines to me......

[Murph]

Will you do, or have you done, comparisons between the stock Il2 P51s and RWD? I'm not suggesting they ought to be changed, I just wonder how close ( or how far off ) they might be.
Also in these cases, I assume we'd have same-to-same version and model comparisons.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Will you do, or have you done, comparisons between the stock Il2 P51s and RWD? I'm not suggesting they ought to be changed, I just wonder how close ( or how far off ) they might be.
Also in these cases, I assume we'd have same-to-same version and model comparisons.

I can compare any plane in IL2 to anything

The hard part is finding the real world data to compare to

The next hardest thing is to convince some people that you don't need to know what the pilot had for breakfast to make the comparsion valid

So, if you can find me a link to the real P51 rate of climb and top speed data

Than tell me which ingame P51 you want me to compare it to

I can do it pretty quick

The timely part is converting the real world data to values.. tables are easy, but if it is a graph I have to spend time zooming in and out to get the values

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Ace,

Maybe you could post a side by side comparison of the P51 (Real Wold) vs. HSFX vs. UP 2x so guys like that can find it all together and not have to spend the extra 30 secs or so using the "Search" function hidden so well at the top of all the pages on this site.

God knows that I've beat my head against a wall after spending more than 5secs trying to find a topic on these forums........... :wink:

Seriously though, I think it might help a bit if people could look at all three side by side at the same time.

That sounds like a good idea

Let me thinkn about it and Ill get back to you

Btw.... Great job. I found the charts most informative, but than again, they're not just pretty colored lines to me......

That is good to know, actually I knew in advance that a lot of people here wouldn

[Murph]

The one which people seem to have the most trouble with in game is the D-20NA. It's the one most of picture when we think "P51 Mustang", and it often seems to cause surprise when people find how badly it performs and handles in-game compared to stories one reads about it. I think there was pretty extensive testing at Pawtucset River on these, so the data should be available.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Let me know what you find

[Murph]

Is this useful to you?
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/must ... gtest.html
Scroll down for data on the D and H models.

[Monguse]

Actually Wolf and co. used that and more.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Is this useful to you?
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/must ... gtest.html
Scroll down for data on the D and H models.

That is the same link that I provied in my pdf document..

It is a link to several Mustang test

One of which is the P-51B running at 75"Hg. that I used in the comparsion to the F-51D that runs at 75"Hg.

There are a few links to some P-51D-15NA tests, none of which were done using 75" but at least one done at 67"Hg

Now the only quesiton left is

Which one of the P-51Ds in the game

mod or stock

Runs at 67"Hg?

[Monguse]

From what we were able to determine, the game 51D's run at 65"/100 octane.

[Murph]

So the stock P51s use a lower manifold pressure and lower octane fuel than was actually used in real life? According to this report 150 octane was used starting in June of 1944, and was used not only for P51s but for P47s and P38s as well.
I still remember the ugly sturmovik-style radiator the original Mustang in this game had, so I guess there have been some improvements. But I'd like to know what Oleg's reasons for downgrading the fuel and engine performance might have been, not that we'll ever know.

[Monguse]

Not really, what's in the game was actually flown for a time before 150 was approved. However, in the MTO 100 octane/65" manifold was used. This bit of information came from Art Fiedler 325th FG Veteran.

On that note, according to Mr. Fielder the super charger was set by the crew chief according to the pilots wishes, which is why the P51's in UI 1.2 and in HSFX were set to manual in order to allow the virtual pilot to select super charger when you wanted. It would have been optimal to have an additional setting in the UI to set your super charger setting but that would have opened a huge can of worms.

[Guest]

in that trying to teach them is more trouble than it is worth.

Part of the reason why I yawned. Don't people like you get sick of standing on your soapbox?

I fully agree that FM for all aircraft should be researched to the best ability. I don't agree with the fact that this modding site is better than that one because it's FM is closer to real life. That is rubbish. The majority of FMs are developed using the scarce primary and sometimes semi-factual secondary sources and then altering numbers in a model to achieve a near-plausable simulation.

Whats more, and part of the reason I bothered responding, is haven't you learnt that such posts (by naming direct mod sites) is simply going to incite the sort of unwanted discussion that occured due to previous posts of such nature? Wouldn't it be more sensible (and seems the majority of the modding community do it this way) is to contact the people responsible for the FM via private message or email, present them with your data and discuss in an adult fashion at ways of going about it properly? Not all parties come to table, but that is mainly because they are sick of getting bashed in threads that usually start like this.

Instead, people are called stupid 3yos, mud is slung, egos get hurt and the modding community suffers.

BTW, I rarely reply to these sort of threads, it is 99% time not worth it, but I'm just sick of seeing this place spend more time arguing about as opposed to making mods.