[walshy]

FM debates really are painful since most people aren't qualified or unbiased to make a civilized discussion possible.

I think maddox did a good job regarding FM parameters which are easy to measure and for which data exists. For instance, level speeds are VERY close to test data.

Climb rate comparative difference between aircraft are mostly OK, but there are many which are significantly wrong (most planes climb too well, some are way above even the most optimistic tests - VVS stuff , especially early)

But how do you model acceleration? Turn rate (the single most important characteristic in Il-2)? Damage modeling (should a zero really fall apart from 5 .50 cal hits?)? General handling? For these we have only descriptive or anecdotal evidence without much scientific data.

Here the devs went for "the feeling" more then anything else.
For example:
* In Soviet version of history, FW-190 was overweight, underpowered monstrosity with acceleration of an overloaded flying boat whose only quality was superior level speed to earlier soviet design.
* Someone in the dev team read something about P-38 early compressibility problems and they modelled it for the sake of the game, however not at the speed range or alt where it was supposed to happen. Also the dive recovery flaps were not a bat turn on a push button device.
* Someone wrote that P-51 was superior to Bf-109 in high speed maneuvers, so they created an aircraft in which can pull 15G in a 750km/h dive with two fingers. Hence the disintegrating 51 in the game.
* Il-2 was renowned as a very tough aircraft so they made it ridiculously strong. Il-10 must have been better so they made it almost invulnerable (although Il-10s were massacred by US fighters armed mostly with .50 MG in Korea)
* Based on the British observations of a single 109, someone came to the conclusion that 109 had no controls authority over ~470km/h and that it had a seriously limited maneuverability
* Someone thought that if an aircraft has elliptical wings, it should turn like a Spitfire and thats how we got our Tempfire.
* P-47 was supposedly a good diver, so they made it supersonic (actually it had a pretty low critical Mach and P-51 was notably superior). P-47 actually had lower critical Mach number then Bf-109

I'm sure I could find more examples, but you get the point, much of the aircraft performance in the game is based on devs perception or "feeling" as well as historical performance data. Also, one must remember that PCs do not have and will not have sufficient "horsepower" to run real aerodynamic simulations for quite a while.

I agree, except... :wink:

Some notes:
- The FW-190 has a tremendous rate of roll (they certainly got that right)
- P-38s did use combat flaps (so at least its modeled - even if not accurately)
- I can shoot down the Il-2 in a Mig-3 (and it only takes three runs! A Bf-109 takes four)
- I think the Bf-109 elevator is modeled in game and the effects are a result of calculations - not history, although I could be wrong).
- There are two claims of P-47 pilots who believe they broke the sound barrier (although I don't have the reference on hand).

No comment on the others (especially the Tempest which is a wierd bird in many ways).

"I can shoot down the Il-2 in a Mig-3 (and it only takes three runs! A Bf-109 takes four)."

I can shoot down an IL-2 in one pass with any plane. Just aim for that big radiator and the bird is as good as down. I remembered reading German pilot accounts of how to take it down and applied it in the game. Erich Hartman's technique if I remember correctly was come up low from behind on it's six and shoot at the radiator.

Most of the planes in the sim have good FM's and as far as I'm concerned Oleg did a sterling job in putting together this sim/game. If the new planes that the AAA team have added get an overhaul in the future then that's all to the good, but at the moment if I fly any of them I compensate and get on with flying. Just my two cents.