[ACE-OF-ACES]

REALISM RATING of the HSFX 4.1 Spitfire IX 25lb

The HSFX4.1 Spitfire IX 25lb is a stock IL−2 flight model.

With regards to top speed, it is much slower than it should be at most altitudes, thus falling well below the generally accepted 5% error window for most altitudes. In short the plane is generally under performing in speed.

With regards to rate of climb, it climbs much slower than it should at most altitudes, thus falling well below the generally accepted 5% error window for most altitudes. In short the plane is generally under performing in speed.

As noted this plane is a stock plane and therefore no modifications are allowed to the flight models, thus our only hope of getting a more accurate Spitfire IX 25lb is if someone makes a new slot plane and changes the flight model such that it exhibits more realistic rate of climb values.

DATA








INDIVIDUAL TEST
REALISM RATING of the HSFX 4.1 Spitfire IX 25lb

[LuckyOne]

Ace,you just confirmed what I always know,considering pilot reports,both German and British .What about other Marks of Spitfire and Bf?

[TheGrunch]

Ace,you just confirmed what I always know,considering pilot reports,both German and British .What about other Marks of Spitfire and Bf?

I think what you assert rather depends on whether you use the report that ACE has used or the other, later report performed at a take-off weight of 7400lbs rather than the 7234lbs in the earlier report, and which take-off weight the game assumes for the SpitIX25lbs.
The other report

[LuckyOne]

Explain me,please,part by part...and do not miss a bit.

[TheGrunch]

There are two tests, both performed upon the same aircraft, JL 165, and one (from Oct 1943) uses a take-off weight of 7234lbs, and achieves the results ACE has used in his comparison. There is another, later test (Feb 1944) which uses a take-off weight of 7400lbs and achieves results which are not as good (due to the greater weight). What we need to know is what weight the Il-2 Spit IX 25lbs uses at 100% fuel, so that we can see which set of data is the better one to compare with Il-2.

EDIT: It is however worth noting that the second report states that "The comparison of this estimated performance with that obtained on Spitfire F.Mk.IX BS.543 with Merlin 66, shows rather lower figures for JL.165, particularly in all-out level speed." JL.165 was probably quite a tired old airframe by then.

[LuckyOne]

Ok.Ok...I realized that in firs place.Thanks anyway mr.Grunch.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I think what you assert rather depends on whether you use the report that ACE has used or the other, later report performed at a take-off weight of 7400lbs rather than the 7234lbs in the earlier report, and which take-off weight the game assumes for the SpitIX25lbs.
The other report

S! Grunch

I used this test because the in-game Spitfire IX 25lb shows a Takeoff Weight of 7,116lb

Here is the link

Spitfire IX FM Analysis

So I though the heavier one would not be a good fit, but to be honest I did not look at the other test (7,400lb) too much.

Which one do you think would be the best to comp to?

Because I can re do it pretty quick

Just need to know the why so that Ill know if someone asks!

PS thanks for double checking all this

Because it can be confusing so I do thank you for checking!

The goal is to comp to the plane that is most like the ingame plane

In that you would be hard pressed to find real world data that matches an ingame plane perfectly

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Ace,you just confirmed what I always know,considering pilot reports,both German and British .

Do you mean you also knew the Spit 25lb did not deserve the uber label that the Bf109 drivers gave/give it?

If so I agree

The Spit 25lb has always been called over modled or too good or uber

But up till now all those labels have been based on nothing

And say more about the relitive skill level between the 109 and Spit pilot

Than it ever did about how good or too good or uber the Spit 25lb flight model is

What about other Marks of Spitfire and Bf?

I'm working on a comp of all the late Spits like I did for the late 109Ks

But I got to take the little woman out to dinner tonight so I don't think Ill get much more done today

[TheGrunch]

If the in-game aircraft's at 7116lb, sounds like you made the right decision to me. Don't mind checking this stuff at all, FMs are such a cause for controversy in this game, it's better if the process is as transparent as possible and people can get all of their objections out in the open and see why certain data was used, etc., etc. Obviously it helps if they make a specific objection supported by some kind of evidence unlike those in the previous thread. :roll: Presumably the latter of the two tests was performed with the rear fuselage tank filled or something. The earlier test was already at just below maximum fuel capacity for the two front tanks (84 out of 85 gallons). Interesting, I wonder what the die-hard Luftwhiners will make of this. So far we've had a Bf-109K4 with a substantially overestimated climb-rate and a Spit IX running at 25lbs being undermodelled in all areas.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

If the in-game aircraft's at 7116lb, sounds like you made the right decision to me. Don't mind checking this stuff at all, FMs are such a cause for controversy in this game, it's better if the process is as transparent as possible and people can get all of their objections out in the open and see why certain data was used, etc., etc. Obviously it helps if they make a specific objection supported by some kind of evidence unlike those in the previous thread. :roll:

Agreed 100%!

In light of previous posters, I realise how rare it is to find someone that understands the material and is able to double check my work with an open mind and no axe to grinde

So for that I thank you!! S!

Interesting, I wonder what the die-hard Luftwhiners will make of this. So far we've had a Bf-109K4 with a substantially overestimated climb-rate and a Spit IX running at 25lbs being undermodelled in all areas.

Well only time will tell

But I am sure they will find some hair to split!

[LuckyOne]

Ace,you just confirmed what I always know,considering pilot reports,both German and British .

Do you mean you also knew the Spit 25lb did not deserve the uber label that the Bf109 drivers gave/give it?

No,my experience of MK IX 25lb is all but uber....and I am here to evaluate what is wrong whit every existing a/c in IL2,and as you can see I restrain my self from heavy comments and I wait to see more data.

[TheGrunch]

Well, in my opinion it is still a beast of an aircraft in Il-2, a real killer. It's worth bearing in mind that the 150 grade fuel was only used for a little while and with several suspensions while in RAF service due to various problems such as lead fouling of spark plugs, so it's not as common an aircraft as Il-2 dogfight servers would have you believe by a long way...and given the fuel availability, maintenance problems and pilot quality of the Luftwaffe in the later part of the war, we see an idealised version of the Luftwaffe aircraft in Il-2 as well. I don't think it's so much of a problem myself in-game because I don't think that anyone would want to fly the Luftwaffe aircraft if they were simulated to be of poor fit and in poor repair with C3 fuel rarely available, but it's always worth remembering that the Luftwaffe had it a lot harder than this game depicts and so there's a much more even balance of power to the aircraft in the game than there was during the later years of the war. This and the very high average quality of blue pilots seems to make some red pilots feel a bit cheated, while personally I think it's brilliant because I prefer the idea of a test of machine vs. machine and pilot vs. pilot under ideal conditions.

[LuckyOne]

Well, in my opinion it is still a beast of an aircraft in Il-2, a real killer.

I would say that any a/c with two canons and four MG is a real killer.

we see an idealised version of the Luftwaffe aircraft in Il-2 as well.

heresy...

because I don't think that anyone would want to fly the Luftwaffe aircraft if they were simulated to be of poor fit and in poor repair with C3 fuel rarely available,

Well,Oleg already know that too,who will buy the Air sim game with realistic performance of Allied a/c,who will play it on line if you know that in reality German a/c was far away from uber by all means.Answer to that is to artificially equalize a/c in game performance.Oleg also occasionally tested the mood of Il2 community with patches,I remember,2005/6 I think,when blue pilots make such a fuss about "uber Spitfire" and "uber Mustang" and uber this or that... blue side,start to build a pressure on Oleg,via forums,complaining that Axis plains should bee a way better than anything flown by reds.And then,in next patch Oleg correct some tings in favor of blue side.Then red side start building pressure on Oleg claiming that red aircraft's have some non historical features and in other patch Oleg correct something else and again blue side complain why blue planes are not uber-crafts and so on,and so on....IL2 game,overall,have Jo-Jo effect in terms of historic performance of aircraft behavior,thanks to the patches we all waiting like water in the desert ....do you remember that "happy" time??

With every new patch,performance of major red a/c was weaken little bit by little bit...unnoticed by community,cause patches was released in reasonable time intervals and it is very hard to notice the differences of a/c behavior immediately.

s always worth remembering that the Luftwaffe had it a lot harder than this game depicts and so there's a much more even balance of power to the aircraft in the game than there was during the later years of the war.

Well,now I ask question...do we want balanced sim or history realistic sim??Or to make two version of sim,one for blue pilots with uber Axis a/c and one for red pilots with uber allied a/c??

This and the very high average quality of blue pilots seems to make some red pilots feel a bit cheated, while personally I think it's brilliant because I prefer the idea of a test of machine vs. machine and pilot vs. pilot under ideal conditions

Clearly you talking about start of WW II when Germans does have high average quality of pilots,but it is not case in 42,43,44,45. And I also support your point of view of machine vs. machine and pilot vs. pilot under ideal conditions...but for that we need a true historic characteristic performing a/c and not artificially balanced ones like this ones.Right??Right.

I have trust in Ace and I believe that he will do a great job.I also have some calculation of mine,and for now,they are closely matched.Anyway,this is Aces profession and he know technical procedure.I will talk when historic maters become an issue.

[Fireskull]

Well, in my opinion it is still a beast of an aircraft in Il-2, a real killer. It's worth bearing in mind that the 150 grade fuel was only used for a little while and with several suspensions while in RAF service due to various problems such as lead fouling of spark plugs, so it's not as common an aircraft as Il-2 dogfight servers would have you believe by a long way...and given the fuel availability, maintenance problems and pilot quality of the Luftwaffe in the later part of the war, we see an idealised version of the Luftwaffe aircraft in Il-2 as well. I don't think it's so much of a problem myself in-game because I don't think that anyone would want to fly the Luftwaffe aircraft if they were simulated to be of poor fit and in poor repair with C3 fuel rarely available, but it's always worth remembering that the Luftwaffe had it a lot harder than this game depicts and so there's a much more even balance of power to the aircraft in the game than there was during the later years of the war. This and the very high average quality of blue pilots seems to make some red pilots feel a bit cheated, while personally I think it's brilliant because I prefer the idea of a test of machine vs. machine and pilot vs. pilot under ideal conditions.

Grunch, this aircraft-the Spitfire IX, has a relatively unique set of factors. I think that you only touched the surface of it, which is fine.


Above all else, I want to see the stock IL-2 FM remain respected and untouched for many reasons, which I will pass to another time.

However, relevant to this discussion is the fact that exact same types of Spitfire IX out the factory could see factors added to it later which would change performance in combat, as previously covered in these FM test data topics. Ground crews made both authorized and unauthorized modifications, which are impossible to accurately simulate with our present technologies and skills. Some of these ground crew modifications increased performance and others simply added weight.

In general, the performance of almost all fighters decreased with the number of sorties flown because of normal wear and damage from air combat and anti-aircraft fire.

In many cases, the authorized and unauthorized performance enhancements made after the aircraft reached the field were offset by wear and damage.



All versions of the Spitfire were generally able to take more punishment than the Bf-109. However, that could also directly translate to more weight on the surviving Spitfires which had repairs such as welding, patches, and addition bracing added by ground crews. During most of the war, Bf-109s would be less prone to survive battle damage and therefore scrapped in larger numbers. More Bf-109s were lost to take-off and landings than were lost in combat, which created even more of a condition of there being more new Bf-109s available. The surviving Bf-109 pilots tended to have more new aircraft at their hands than the Spitfire pilots, especially as far as front line fighters is concerned. This is a small contribution to the speed and climb advantage of the Bf-109 over the Spitfire, in general, among fighters which experienced combat. Another issue is the prolific performance enhancements and experiments which were done, authorized and nonauthorized, by Bf-109 ground crews.


My point is that there are too many factors for us to consider with our present limitations in order to determine an accurate fighter flight model for the typical one which has seen some battle, wear, and damage with repairs. Therefore comparing battle experienced fighter planes with factory and/or test pilot specifications is not reasonable.

The IL-2 fighter planes which we fly are essentially according to factory specifications at the beginning of our mission, supposedly. I clearly see from the data and know from experience that these FMs are never realistic to combat aged aircraft and sometimes also don't seem to be factory new characteristics relative to one another. In my experience, the stock IL-2 aircraft have better flight models than the modded ones, though the reverse is sometimes true. Keep in mind that I have flown thousands of hours in IL-2 over the last five years. I must admit that gut feeling is no substitute for controlled test data, unless I were a highly trained test pilot myself.


Oleg Maddox has taken these issues very seriously, bless him for that. Team Daidolos and all the other communities need another set of test data from an independent source, such as ACE-OF-ACES. This is healthy for everybody.



Grunch, in one sense, I agree with you that we should not get too carried away with considering the almost endless factors that can effect the battlefield fighter performance.



I must disagree with you, Grunch, on one point: Actual testimonies of both Spitfire and Bf-109 pilots from combat state that the each plane packed a hell of a punch in firepower and both were close enough in maneuverability and performance that the skill of the pilot was by far the most important issue. Generally, the Spitfire was more maneuverable while the Bf-109 was a bit faster with some better climbing ability. The skills of the pilots varied wildly from location to location and from time to time. Remember that this is according to pilot testimonies, which seems to shed additional light on the flight characteristics that remained true to the legends of the Spitfire and the Bf-109. I see clearly that we should stear completely from pilot skill and aged battlefield flight characteristics in our considerations.

Where I disagree with you is that we will never see the "ideal conditions" under IL-2 technology-it is simply impossible at this time:

"...while personally I think it's brilliant because I prefer the idea of a test of machine vs. machine and pilot vs. pilot under ideal conditions."

The ideal conditions ain't gonna happin' any time soon with IL-2. If you think that you have experienced ideal conditions, then I must write that we are not even close for many reasons, some of which I highlighted here.


Oleg Maddox might authorize highly advanced combat flight model characteristics in Storm of War. An example is the fact that the higher the rank and/or skill of the Luftwaffe pilot, then the more options the pilot had to have his personal fighter modified by ground crew. It was common in the real war. This is one of many factors not available in IL-2 but might be in Storm of War over the coming years.



We take-off in IL-2 on equal terms with factory level flight models at the beginning of missions. Do we agree that we need the scientific approach for this reason?: When we take off in IL-2 at the beginning of a mission, we are all on the same page with essentially factory new aircraft and all the fairness that this offers for those who view it only as a game. Therefore we use factory or authorized data for testing the flight models.

However, the real World War Two was not a game and nothing was fair about it. Ruthless advancements and modifications abounded, unevenly dispersed across rank and physical locations. Added to this, it dynamically changed with time.


Okay, so the IL-2 aircraft which are modelled by factory/test pilot data should demand the same data in independent tests where possible. This will reveal how accurate the flight models of IL-2 are to the same data, but only if a compilational average is taken of many identical tests of the same aircraft.

ACE-OF-ACES is clearly evolving his methods along these principles and he has shown that the tests are progressing in an orderly way. He is made it clear about his willingness to improve in the testing issues.

[TheGrunch]

LuckyOne, I was talking about Il-2 blue pilots (in the game!), not historical Luftwaffe pilots. In reality German aircraft WERE very good. Whether they had as much opportunity to display those properties as they should have for the reasons I mentioned earlier from late '44 onward is another matter. As for balance, Oleg has always said that he is not interested in balance, and neither am I. I'm just not interested in fighting against or using aircraft that are modeled to be in a less than ideal state of production, repair or suffering from equipment shortage. Are the Russian aircraft modeled to represent the poor standard of Soviet aircraft production (structural failure, shockingly poor quality canopies, etc.)? Certainly not. I haven't perceived any blue bias in this game other than that the aircraft *are* represented in an ideal condition, as are ALL aircraft in the game! There are occasional anomalies given that it seems that the majority of data that Oleg uses comes from Russian sources, and flight testing of captured aircraft is by necessity a tricky business. I seem to remember hearing that the Russians have the quickest time to 20k ft. for one of the 109G model aircraft, simply because of the alterations they made to the aircraft to make it serviceable from the condition in which it was captured - whether the aircraft responded well to such alterations in the long term is another matter - captured aircraft had an alarming tendency to fall out of the sky after any kind of extensive testing by any of the air forces during that time period.
Besides, it's possible that the comparison that ACE has made is invalid anyway - and it certainly wouldn't be his fault if it was. Perhaps the aircraft in the game is simply too light to begin with? 7110lbs is about 200lbs/90kg below what I'd expect - looking at the T/O weights for a number of Spit IX flight tests I haven't seen a single one below that 7234lb figure during any of the 1944 tests, and the majority higher than 7300.
Anyway, I can see from your previous posts that you are quite unlikely to listen to any of this given that you've spent the majority of your time on the forum hyping up the Spitfire and the .303 round as some kind of miracle-weapon and slamming this game for having an Axis bias. I confess to no particular bias, being British, and appreciating British and German aircraft pretty much equally. I spend most of my time flying Spit IXs, 109Gs and P-51Bs. Not in my interest for either side to have an advantage to be honest. I have national pride and I love the Spitfire as an aircraft, but I'm not about to be fanatical about it.

Fireskull, I appreciate your input about the sheer breadth of the family of aircraft that come under the name Spitfire IX and the difficulties of representing this in a game and indeed in representing the variability of both historical production quality and the effects of damage and aging on an airframe. This is exactly why I think it is unreasonable to expect aircraft to be treated by developers as in anything less than factory-fresh initial states when they're spawned into the game. In SoW we may see aging on the skin of the aircraft, but I wonder how deep this effect will go? I doubt it will be much more than a visual effect (although I may be surprised ) Conditions are ideal in the sense of a simulation that demonstrates the different potentials of particular airframes in top-quality factory-fresh condition, that's all I mean. I'm not talking about ideal as a perfect historical simulation - even with all time and money in the world there is simply too much information that has been lost since the end of the war (particularly about German aircraft) that would make this impossible - how does one model the fit of a FW-190D being better because it was from a different factory in a way that makes sense and is quantifiable?
As a Second World War air-combat simulation pitting aircraft types in perfect condition against each other, this game is excellent. What we can't expect is that it will be an excellent war simulation as well. Developers can't model production quality deficiencies if they only have information about an aircraft that WAS considered acceptable enough to test.
For campaign-makers and offline players the situation might present a few more difficulties in terms of achieving the ideal representation of the last couple of years of the war - but the factory quality of German aircraft was never so bad that they failed to be potent aircraft. The most important factor of all was in falling pilot skill. This CAN be represented by a developer with much less difficulty.