[Kwiatek]

BTW Axial how do you like new P-51 B and D in UP pack?

[Kwiatek]

Hey I thought you said

Nothing more to say. Belive what you want.

I must have hit a nerve?

Eitherway it is good to see that you have more to say and you do care about what I belive

As i said before in 1.8 UP version all new FM's are made in Crimea Map and were adjusted to these map not the Smolensk. So there were difference in performacne the same plane in both map. So new UP planes were ajdusted to RL charts in Crimea Map. It caused that in Smolensk Map the same planes were just too slow and have worse climb rate. So it was affect not only new P-51 but all new planes in UP with new FM's. IN UP 2.0 all these planes were adjusted for Smolensk Map and their performacne issue was fixes. IL2 Compare for stock planes is also based on Smolensk map. So now is accurate to comparison stock and new ones at the same map.

The point your MISSING here is at the time of UP1.8

With those errors you mentioned still in place

A thread was started at the UltraPack site claiming to have the more accurate P51 flight models

I really don't care what the reasons for the errors in were UP1.8

The point is you and yours were claiming UP1.8 P51s were more accurate than the HSFX4.1 P51s

All in all I am glad you guys found your errors and made changes in UP2.0 to make the P51 flight models more like the orginal HSFX4.1 flight models

Lets hope your UP2.01 made even more changes to make them more like the orginal HSFX4.1 flight models

Your old test with P-51 was made with 1.8 UP. And thats why your test is not accurate and wrong for any UP 2.0 version.

So you claim that UP P-51 FM are wrong is not true.

You could check it byself in UP 2.01 and compare it with RL data for P-51.

Actully it was you and your claims over at the UltraPack site that the UP1.8 flight models were more accurate than the HSFX4.1 flight modles that is and was not true

Well you are really hard understanding guy. You stuck with your version and nothinhg change these.

So i will be not repeat myself it is just waste a time.

[LuckyOne]

Hello Kwiatek,do you also make FM for Spitfire and Bf??

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Well you are really hard understanding guy. You stuck with your version and nothinhg change these.

So i will be not repeat myself it is just waste a time.

Yeah you said that before

And than you posted a reply

The truth has that affect on people

So as it stands

It is your position that you do not have to provide any of the data you based your P51 flight models on and that everyone should just take you word for it when you say it is more accurate

Again that may be good enough for the folks over at UltraPack

But not here

[Trooper117]

Ok.. no mud slinging about other sites, and that is definately our site policy.. Locked!

[Trooper117]

Unlocked now gents.. Sorry for the lock as discussion about aircraft performance is generaly a good thing and should be transparent. However, we need to be civil to each other and other sites.
It's not mandatory to agree either, as long as it's kept as a debate. Thanks for your patience!

[ACE-OF-ACES]

No need really in that a simular topic came up over at UltraPack

http://ultrapack.il2war.com/index.php/topic,2158.0.html

EDIT

Good thing you re-opened it

Because the similar thread over at UltraPack got locked

For some weak made up excuse that I had followed Kwiatek over there after he stopped replying to me here

FACT is Kwiatek said several times that he was not going to reply anymore

Only to reply more

So that was not the reason I started posting over at UltraPack

In that given time I knew Kwiatek would post again after saying he wouldn't

The simple truth is a similar topic came up over there and I posted in it

Nothing more nothing less

But they needed an excuse to lock that thread over there because I was pointing out and proving their claims of having more accurate flight models is in error

They could not deal with the facts I provided thus they had to lock it to keep the myth alive

The funny part about this is

They had no problems with Kwiatek coming here and posting in an AAA thread (this thread) providing links to and promoting his P-51 flight models over HSFX/AAA

[mach-overspeed]

Hey guys, rather than get all steamed up about which FM is more/less whatever than another FM, might I say the following:

1. No two serial numbers of the same aircraft type fly exactly the same. Maybe one is slightly out of rig. Or maybe some nutjob freight dog did loops in the damn thing and bent an engine mount (don't laugh....it was a -58 Baron) so it flys crooked. Maybe they call the Director of Maintenance "Dead Body" for a reason. Maybe it has two different (both legal...) propellors because they can't afford to get a run-out prop (of either spec...) overhauled. There's a million reasons why one or another airplane will "fly" differently than it's stablemates.

2. Wouldn't it be easier to use an industry accepted engineering tool designed to predict aircraft performance etc (X-Plane...) and try to tweak our FM to approximate that as closely as possible?

3. IL-2 ain't really a simulator, is it? The program itself has limitations that prevent it from ever actually emulating an airplane.

4. Whatever hardware you're running with makes a huge difference in the way IL-2 "feels", and how any of our "simulated" aircraft will respond/behave to control inputs. Moreover, some folks make way better control inputs than others, and much as in real airplane flying, the sim-airplane will tell a guy which sort he is, if he's paying attention.

5. There are people in this community who have never actually flown, much less for thousands upon thousands upon thousands of hours, and who have no clue as to basic aerodynamics, real aircraft operating limitations, SOP's or explaining to the boss why it wasn't them who broke part x of assembly y which put airplane z out of commission for 36 hours, grounded somewhere in BFE, generating negative revenue. How many vids have you watched where the guy "demonstrates" something or another and you notice that he runs the engine(s) at "radar power" for the entire flight? Where he steams to about a one mile final at 275 knots indicated, jerks the power to idle and slams the gear and flaps down simultaneously? God bless them each and every one.

6. The purpose of IL-2 is to have fun.

[Fireskull]

Hi, mach-overspeed

Thank you for the comments.

Hey guys, rather than get all steamed up about which FM is more/less whatever than another FM, might I say the following:

1. No two serial numbers of the same aircraft type fly exactly the same. Maybe one is slightly out of rig. Or maybe some nutjob freight dog did loops in the damn thing and bent an engine mount (don't laugh....it was a -58 Baron) so it flys crooked. Maybe they call the Director of Maintenance "Dead Body" for a reason. Maybe it has two different (both legal...) propellors because they can't afford to get a run-out prop (of either spec...) overhauled. There's a million reasons why one or another airplane will "fly" differently than it's stablemates.

Fireskull: We know that IL-2 is not real life. There are many limitations to IL-2 and much that can not be simulated. However, we see that there will be more aspects to consider, such as fair game play...




2. Wouldn't it be easier to use an industry accepted engineering tool designed to predict aircraft performance etc (X-Plane...) and try to tweak our FM to approximate that as closely as possible?

Fireskull: Standard is already established, as is available to be viewed at this website. More information about the standard will be posted at this website in the future.


IL2 FM Comparing Forum
In this forum you can discuss IL2 FM comparing one
FM to another FM or real life data.
viewforum.php?f=141





3. IL-2 ain't really a simulator, is it? The program itself has limitations that prevent it from ever actually emulating an airplane.


Fireskull: The term simulator is relative and not absolute. In this sense, IL-2 can be configured as a simulator.




4. Whatever hardware you're running with makes a huge difference in the way IL-2 "feels", and how any of our "simulated" aircraft will respond/behave to control inputs. Moreover, some folks make way better control inputs than others, and much as in real airplane flying, the sim-airplane will tell a guy which sort he is, if he's paying attention.


Fireskull: True, however, things such as rate of climb have standard conditions which eliminate input variances.



5. There are people in this community who have never actually flown, much less for thousands upon thousands upon thousands of hours, and who have no clue as to basic aerodynamics, real aircraft operating limitations, SOP's or explaining to the boss why it wasn't them who broke part x of assembly y which put airplane z out of commission for 36 hours, grounded somewhere in BFE, generating negative revenue. How many vids have you watched where the guy "demonstrates" something or another and you notice that he runs the engine(s) at "radar power" for the entire flight? Where he steams to about a one mile final at 275 knots indicated, jerks the power to idle and slams the gear and flaps down simultaneously? God bless them each and every one.


Fireskull: Here are more examples of the things not to use for flight model analysis of IL-2. Only a few aircraft characteristics allow for reliable scientific analysis ( with regard to IL-2 ), but they have a potentially huge effect on aircraft performance. Differences in these core areas can cause one pilot to have an unrealistic advantage over his squadmates in IL-2. Here is reason for everyone to be on the same page, so to speak.




6. The purpose of IL-2 is to have fun.


Fireskull: True - Yet we know that it is no fun for most people to fly with competition who have an IL-2 flight model which give such pilot upto a 30% climb rate advantage over official aircraft manufacturer data. ( As we saw in one particular modded aircraft in IL-2 in the past.)

Fair game play is important for fun, right?

I am convinced that the way to start a game of IL-2 is to have each pilot be given as close to a "factory fresh" aircraft as is possible.

All pilots of the same exact type of aircraft should start a game in IL-2 with the same potential rate of climb and maximum speed at level flight for the same given altitude - all by industry stardards.


Of course, all people in the game must want fair game play, true? Not everyone wants fair game play, but I do.



This thread does not have a topic which is specifically about flight models. However, it is possible - given the poor flight models released by some modding communities in the past - for a pilot to be watching others with better aircraft performance because their flight model is unrealistic.

Let's not go into the details of flight models here and so go off-topic.



Fireskull

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Hey guys, rather than get all steamed up about which FM is more/less whatever than another FM, might I say the following:

1. No two serial numbers of the same aircraft type fly exactly the same. Maybe one is slightly out of rig. Or maybe some nutjob freight dog did loops in the damn thing and bent an engine mount (don't laugh....it was a -58 Baron) so it flys crooked. Maybe they call the Director of Maintenance "Dead Body" for a reason. Maybe it has two different (both legal...) propellors because they can't afford to get a run-out prop (of either spec...) overhauled. There's a million reasons why one or another airplane will "fly" differently than it's stablemates.

2. Wouldn't it be easier to use an industry accepted engineering tool designed to predict aircraft performance etc (X-Plane...) and try to tweak our FM to approximate that as closely as possible?

3. IL-2 ain't really a simulator, is it? The program itself has limitations that prevent it from ever actually emulating an airplane.

4. Whatever hardware you're running with makes a huge difference in the way IL-2 "feels", and how any of our "simulated" aircraft will respond/behave to control inputs. Moreover, some folks make way better control inputs than others, and much as in real airplane flying, the sim-airplane will tell a guy which sort he is, if he's paying attention.

5. There are people in this community who have never actually flown, much less for thousands upon thousands upon thousands of hours, and who have no clue as to basic aerodynamics, real aircraft operating limitations, SOP's or explaining to the boss why it wasn't them who broke part x of assembly y which put airplane z out of commission for 36 hours, grounded somewhere in BFE, generating negative revenue. How many vids have you watched where the guy "demonstrates" something or another and you notice that he runs the engine(s) at "radar power" for the entire flight? Where he steams to about a one mile final at 275 knots indicated, jerks the power to idle and slams the gear and flaps down simultaneously? God bless them each and every one.

6. The purpose of IL-2 is to have fun.

Hi mach-overspeed

I can't say it any better than Fireskull said it

But I will add this

I am currently working on my website where I pull together all the tests I have done thus far..

There not all up yet and there are a few bugs here and there

But if your interested take a look

http://www.flightsimtesting.com/

Currently I don't have a forum to discuss the topics listed there

But AAS and UltraPack both have forums dedicated to flight model discussions

viewforum.php?f=141

http://ultrapack.il2war.com/index.php/board,18.0.html

You can reach me in either forum if you have any questions about the data posted at my site

S!

[old crow27]

in regards of the fuel i kinda see why its a problem in the game. for some reason they have it set to where the wing tanks are emptied first then the fuselage tank. Mustang pilots would never do this. That tank causes a loss of directional stability and they would try to use the fuel in that tank up first so this wouldn't be an issue during a dogfight. Jumping in IL-2 i selected 25% fuel in a D model and once the game loaded i took a look at the fuel tank gauges. the wings are empty but the fuselage is full!

[.041 Safety Wire]

AOA,

I noticed in one of your earlier threads you stated that higher octane ratings tranlated into more horsepower, please explain this statement. I thought higher octane ratings just reduced the chances of PING and untimately the possibility of detonation of the fuel air mixture.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

AOA,

I noticed in one of your earlier threads you stated that higher octane ratings tranlated into more horsepower, please explain this statement. I thought higher octane ratings just reduced the chances of PING and untimately the possibility of detonation of the fuel air mixture.

Short answer increasing the octane raises the level at which a engine will ping, thus higher octane enables you to run at higher manafold pressuses before the engine pings, thus more power. Put another way if you tried to increase the manafold pressure on lower octane fule, it would start pinging sooner and thus less power. A ping in a low compression engine like our cars today results in an anoying sound.. where as with these high performace engines the ping sound can be and typcailly is followed by the sound of the engine comming apart

[ACE-OF-ACES]

in regards of the fuel i kinda see why its a problem in the game. for some reason they have it set to where the wing tanks are emptied first then the fuselage tank. Mustang pilots would never do this. That tank causes a loss of directional stability and they would try to use the fuel in that tank up first so this wouldn't be an issue during a dogfight. Jumping in IL-2 i selected 25% fuel in a D model and once the game loaded i took a look at the fuel tank gauges. the wings are empty but the fuselage is full!

It was a long time ago, and I dont remember who it was, but I was told the IL2 FM does NOT take into account the location of the fuel tanks with regards to the cg.

The way it was explained to me is the weight/mass of the fuel is simply added to the dry weight.

Which results in the extra weight being evenly distributed over the entire aircraft.

In short the cg does not change with fuel usage.

If that is the case than the real world P51 rear fuel tank problem does not exist in IL2 in the same way it existed in real life.

On that note the damage model apears to take into account the location of the fuel (with regards to fuel leaks) but I am not sure how the two interact if at all.

Maybe a FM mod guy can step in here tell us for sure one way or another

If said FM guy claims it does take it into account, tha please post the *.FMD and/or *.DMG file and show us where the 'variable' the belive is taking this into account.

[.041 Safety Wire]

AOA,

I noticed in one of your earlier threads you stated that higher octane ratings tranlated into more horsepower, please explain this statement. I thought higher octane ratings just reduced the chances of PING and untimately the possibility of detonation of the fuel air mixture.

Short answer increasing the octane raises the level at which a engine will ping, thus higher octane enables you to run at higher manafold pressuses before the engine pings, thus more power. Put another way if you tried to increase the manafold pressure on lower octane fule, it would start pinging sooner and thus less power. A ping in a low compression engine like our cars today results in an anoying sound.. where as with these high performace engines the ping sound can be and typcailly is followed by the sound of the engine comming apart

So I guess when the AAC started using the higher octane fuels they had to install high compression pistons and retime the powerplant and tune the supercharger controls to take advantage of the higher octane fuel. Because if the engines were not tweaked the higher octane rating could result in a lower power output since it is slower burning than the lower octanes and only is effective when the compression ratio is increased and timing changed. Manifold pressure is controlled by the throttle plate and if the manufacturer recommmends a miximum boost of lets say 65" Hg for three minutes then no matter what the octane rating of the fuel you should only pull the 65".

Here is an explanation found on line that is pretty accurate.

Many high-performance engines are designed to operate with a high maximum compression, and thus demand high-octane premium gasoline. A common misconception is that power output or fuel mileage can be improved by burning higher octane fuel than a particular engine was designed for. The power output of an engine depends in part on the energy density of its fuel, but similar fuels with different octane ratings have similar density. Since switching to a higher octane fuel does not add any more hydrocarbon content or oxygen, the engine cannot produce more power.

BTW PING and detonation are two different things PING will not necessarily destroy a powerplant whereas detonation will, think of PING as having the ignition timing too far advanced so the mixture ignites before the maximum compression is reached where as detonation is an uncontrolled explosion of the fuel/air mixture rather than a controlled burn. As this controlled burn starts at two different areas in the combustion chamber the flame fronts should meet as the piston arrives at TDC with maximum pressure occuring at some point after TDC.

A good read for gasheads: http://www.jcmmachine.com/PDF%20files/J ... %20ch3.pdf