[Eexhaton]

I smell this topic spinning off in the regurgitation of the same subject that has been discussed countless number of times,
including the name calling..

Take that crud back to the UbiZ00 :roll:

Don't claim anything you can't ever supply the proof for and be so mature not to start pointing fingers.
I'd say; keep it civil, or a lock should be requested.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

This whole fm talk is pointless...because none of us is qualified to say "this fm is realistic/it should be like this"...

Disagree 100%

Read on to see why I say that..

firstly because there is not enough data,

That is true for alot of the planes in IL2, but not all.

That is to say real world performance data is hard to come by for allot of the planes in IL-2, but not all

Thus Oleg surly had to make engineering estimates for the planes that he didn't have real world performance data on

secondly none of us even had a ride in a warbird (I won't even mention piloted a warbird).

The myth that you have to have flown the plane in question to say how well it is simulated performance wise is just that

A myth

Thousands of aerospace engineers have done thousands of studies on the performance of a plane without ever flying any plane (read not pilots) let alone the plane in question

What confuses most people is they mix plane performance with flying qualities

How fast a plane is at 20kft falls into the performance category and does not require a pilots license to see if the game speed matches the real world speed

Anyone that can add and subtract can do that

Where as describing the tingle and or vibration you feel in the stick just before the stall is a flying quality that typically comes from pilot's experiences

Which is not to say the plane could not be instrumented to measure such tingles or vibrations

Only that aerospace engineers are not interested in such things because it does not fall into the performance description of a plane

That and the aerospace engineers know the test pilots will get the word out on such things

So this whole argument is about speed and climb rate....which is a small portion of an fm.

It is actually an output of the FM

An output that is dependent on alot of values in the FM

So some might consider that small

But the speed and climb rate are the two most telling parts of a planes performance

That is why those two things were part of the standard testing

The next thing they tested the most of to the point that it was almost standard was the time to climb (TTC)

As in how long does it take this plane to get to such and such altitude?

As a mater of fact it was one of the most important things they needed to know during BoB

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"),

Testing the planes turn rate and roll rate was not part of the standard performance testing

That is to say it was not as important as the speed and climb rate

Thus it is very hard to find real world data on such tests

But the good news is it is pretty easy to estimate these values!

[acceleration (how fast is "I was rapidly closing in on him/it felt like accelerating in a car"),

As with roll rate and turn rate acc testing was not standard

But again knowing the horse power and drag it is something that can be estimated pretty accurately

control responsiveness ("it only needs a light push on the stick" to do how much exactly?),

The design spec typically stated the max control forces a plane could have

Which would have been verified during the acceptance testing of the plane

But typically a pilot would just give a thumbs up or down on it, that is to say no instrumenting was installed to measure it

unless there was a big problem with it exceeding the max spec

energy ("it bleeds a lot of energy" how much?).

That kind of testing didn't really come around until the 1950s

I include the Ps curves in my FM ANALYSIS documents for those that know how to read them

But sadly they didn

[Guest]

So what about a plane after being in combat a few times? The flyng abilities are bound to be altered by possible damage the plane has had, engine stress etc...

[ACE-OF-ACES]

So what about a plane after being in combat a few times? The flyng abilities are bound to be altered by possible damage the plane has had, engine stress etc...

There are more varialbes there than anyone could ever hope to account for

The good news is Oleg in his wisdom said early on that all planes in game are factory fresh and that he had no planes on trying to simulate wear and tare

[Guest]

So what about a plane after being in combat a few times? The flyng abilities are bound to be altered by possible damage the plane has had, engine stress etc...

There are more varialbes there than anyone could ever hope to account for

The good news is Oleg in his wisdom said early on that all planes in game are factory fresh and that he had no planes on trying to simulate wear and tare

Makes sense; especially from an online perspective.

Thankyou for your wisdom Aces

[Guest]

If you don't get the two most important things right, ie speed and rate of climb, it does not mater how well the rest was done

IMHO,that works the other way around also...It doesn't matter if,for example,190 and a Spit have 100% correct speed&climb if 190 has problems in out rolling a Spit or if a Spit has hard time out turning a 190...

Pilot myth...I think that if we can persuade mr Southwood to try ingame Bf109G2,and compare it to Black 6,he could give some useful input about elusive flying qualities.He could say,for example "this 109 requires a lot of rudder input if you want to fly it nicely (ball centered) through a set of maneuvers" and then the fm maker could adjust the fm until Southwood says "this is it,it behaves like a Black 6".That's what I meant by "someone with warbird experience".

As I said,(to me) flying qualities are equally important as speed&climb...and much harder to put in fm.

And thus far I have only been focusing on what they focus on back in WWII

That being the two standard things they tested for

Speed and rate of climb

As noted the rest can be estimated pretty accurately

Can you estimate it?...I need good estimates for one plane ...

[ACE-OF-ACES]

If you don't get the two most important things right, ie speed and rate of climb, it does not mater how well the rest was done

IMHO,that works the other way around also...

Well.. not really

And I think you will agree after I take the time to actually say it the other way around, i.e.

[quote]If you get the UN-IMPORTANT things RIGHT the two MOST IMPORTANT things won

[Fireskull]

I smell this topic spinning off in the regurgitation of the same subject that has been discussed countless number of times,
including the name calling..

Take that crud back to the UbiZ00 :roll:

Don't claim anything you can't ever supply the proof for and be so mature not to start pointing fingers.
I'd say; keep it civil, or a lock should be requested.

Good day, Eexhaton

Though I agree with your moral principles in the above quote, I totally disagree with your opininion about our progress here.


New perspectives are constantly being added.

A label in the general category of name calling is appropriate only if it is factually based and not intended to be insulting. Example: "Your mother is uninformed about that", would be appropriate in general and in context. "Yo mama is a stupid nag", would be unappropriate. If it is the "civil" truth and yet hurts overly sensitve feelings, then that is not the fault of the labeller. Some of what is considered civil or uncivil is subjective.

Calling people what they are and labelling things as they are will continue from me with mercy and restraint. Flight model moral support will get my attention for quite a while to come. The strength of this movement at AAA is increasing.

Some labels are appropriate. "Kid arcade style" is an appropriate label in the right context, in my opinion.


As for providing evidence, ACE-OF-ACES methods are vastly more transparent and reliable than UltraPack to this time.

Here is the proof:

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 :?

I agree with this, since I have read the flight model threads at UP on a bunch of occassions. The flight model data publication here is superior and the testing methods here are standard.

I believe that AAA is taking the morally high altitude by refraining from locking this and future threads, in general. The words and responses here have been of better quality than at UltraPack.

[Guest]

I believe that AAA is taking the morally high altitude by refraining from locking this and future threads

Why would you lock this?

Ace,yes,they tested for those two things only...but problem arise when you need to put other stuff into fm...and a lot of it is not just a code outside the fm .
Would you be willing to test one plane (make realism ratings)?Problem is that infomod is useless with it,so everything must be manualy tested...

[Guest]

I believe that AAA is taking the morally high altitude by refraining from locking this and future threads

Why would you lock this?

Exactly! We wouldn't, which is why we have the moral highground

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Ace,yes,they tested for those two things only...but problem arise when you need to put other stuff into fm...and a lot of it is not just a code outside the fm .

I think you missing my point

Out of all the things they could test for

Performance wise

The only two things that were part of the standard test was top speed per altitude and rate of climb per altitude

Which leads back to my orginal statement

If you don't get those two things right

The rest does not mater IMHO

You and I both know there are alot more things

My point is those are the two most important things

Would you be willing to test one plane (make realism ratings)?

My time is limited

And I have a list of things to do

But one of the harderst things about doing a realism rating is doing the leg work to find the real world data

That is 95% of it now that I have all my analysis tools writen

So if you will find the real world data

I can to the realism rating pretty quick

Problem is that infomod is useless with it, so everything must be manualy tested...

Not sure I understood this last statment..

Can you expand on that?

[ACE-OF-ACES]

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?

hey Kwiatek

someone asked me which thread I was refering to over at UP that HaDeS had deleted his and my post from..

When I went there to give him the link I noticed that the thread is missing

That is to say it is no longer in the FM Discusion forum

Where did you move it to?

I assume you moved it in that you and HaDeS have had such issues with AAA deleting posts here

Thus you could not have just deleted it

Right?

So could you be a bud and give me the link to where you moved it to?

Thanks!

[Guest]

This brings me back to my earlier post with regards to hypocrisy :roll: (if these facts are indeed true).

[Guest]

Not sure I understood this last statement..

Can you expand on that?

Check PM...

[ACE-OF-ACES]

This brings me back to my earlier post with regards to hypocrisy :roll: (if these facts are indeed true).

I also noticed the orginal P-51D Fw190 thread that HaDeS started so long ago

You know the one where HaDeS claimed thier FMs were more accurate

The one where HaDeS locked it as soon as some folks starting pointing out they were not more accurate

Gee I sure hope they didn't have a server crash or something!?!?

In that there is no way he would just delete those posts

Right?