[ACE-OF-ACES]

Can you answer some day without using a million quotes ?

Not likely, in that I have found I make less errors by replying to what people say in smaller chunks.

And it seems you don t understand what I say ...
Yes for me IL2 compare is not good to make a FM ... It s good to see the difference between two planes in the game , and that s all ... Yes it makes errors ...
But it s not very important ...

No I understood your initial statement on IL2Comp..

I just don't agree with your assessment of it only good for comparisons.

And my 'real fly' tests prove it!

Thus I think it is you that may not understand what I say/said.

The part where I said IL2Comp is not 100% accurate, but, most of the time it is very close to the 'real fly' values.

Read what I ve said from the begining,

Oh I have, as a mater of fact I am one of the few that has read everything you have said from the begging. Such that I am one of the few people here who has actually done what you said, as in test the FM for ourselves.

Corea Mod is work in progress , the fm will change ...

Now that is what I call progress!

Look how far we have come! We started out with you calling me names and claiming your F86 ROC 'performance' is more real than anyone else, to you talking civil and admitting your ROC 'performance' has a bug in it and will be fixed in the next update!

About the Java class , I ve said a large part of the FM is written in the Java class ,

Actually I all ready knew that before you said it. Keep in mind there are two parts to the simulation of an aircraft 'performance' One the 6DOF math that is typically used by more than one aircraft, and the coefficients that are plugged into that 6DOF math that actually defines the 'performance' of the particular aircraft. With that said, the combination of both is what most people are referring to when they say the 'FM'. If your tweaking the 6DOF and/or the coefficients data base in Java I don't really care which as long as the result of those tweaks match the real world data (RWD) performance results.

but I ve said to you to wait for the update to see these changes ....

Actually that is not true..

You had a little snippet 'about' me in a reply of yours to =DFA=BeoWolf and GaryR of how you would have responded to me had I said something a little differently. That is not something you 'told me'! You may be surprised to here this, but I don't read every reply to/from everybody of every post here. I don't have time for that! Thus I only read things that are addressed to me. Which goes back to the reason I QUOTE everything, so the intended person is sure to see my reply to them. So, with that said, if you want to reply to me, QUOTE ME and reply TO ME! That is to say, don't expect me to read all your posts to everyone else for the one sentence that you might have intended for me. Better yet, PM me if you want to be sure I get your message!

From your first post , you are looking only for the climb rate ,

Nope.. I look at many things. But I tend to stick with the things I have RWD on to compare to.

but it s just 0.5 % of the FM ...

If you say so.

At last not the most important ...

Oh I totally disagree!

It may not be the most important thing to you with regards to all the things you do.

But performance wise the ROC is one of the most telling things about an aircraft's performance!

Even more so that it's top speed IMHO (within reason)

The ROC tells you, indirectly, just how much excess power a plane has. As in modern energy methods it can be related to the climb, speed and turn performance of a plane.

Which is why I think the ROC is one of the most important performance factors!

And why it is so important to get it right!

My opinion was born when I ve talked with some pilots ,

Mine to

And

Many books on the subject of aircraft performance!

in Il2 you have not the real feeling of a warbird ... A pilot said to me , in il2 , it s just like if you was in a Cessna , but not in a warbird , a warbird is very different, very nervous , ....etc ....

Hence the name simulation and not reality!

In Il2 , you have to make some compromise , you have the choice , sometimes you have the choice between the good numbers on the paper with an horrible plane in the game , or some change with the numbers on the paper and a good plane in the game ...

I totally disagree!

The things that are lacking in a PC like the 'feel' you spoke of is always going to be a short coming between a flight simulation and the real thing. But there are many ways to make up for for the lack of 'feel'. For example, some air force flight simulators I have seen use the seat harness to simulate 'g' forces. In the case where the pilot would apply the air brake, they simply pull the harness tighter. Thus the pilot 'feels' like he is being thrown forward against the harness when in fact it is the harness that is being pulled backwards into his chest.

Thus there are many ways to make up for the lack of 'feel'

But, allowing the performance of the plane to vary from it's actual values by 40% is NOT one of them!

For example the F-86 was too light in the game ( not on the paper ...) It was able to have a very good fly without engine ... It s always my first test ... I get altitude and I cut the engine and I look what happens ... Not good in this case ... So I ve made this F-86 more heavy ... But making that , the engine power was too poor ... So I increased the engine power a little ... But making that , the climb rate was a little overmodelised .... etc ...etc ....etc .... It s very difficult as you can see !

I don't think you understand me. In that I all ready said I don't care if you have to tweak the numbers away from their actual values, be it weight, thrust, drag (i.e. the coefficients feed into the 6DOF math) as long as the performance that comes out of it all is correct! I fully understand that it is a balancing act, I have for years! Back in 1992 when I tweaked my fist FM to make a plane hit the performance numbers more accurately (read RBI, AOTP, AOE, etc). Granted most of those were tabled based flight simulations (read non 6DOF) but the idea is the same. You tweak the inputs to make sure the outputs are correct.

I m working to fix all the bugs , perhaps this F-86 will be not perfect ,

As I have said many times now..

No sim ever was, is, or will be perfect.

Maybe if you actually replied to something I said (i.e. quote me) you might have noticed me saying that a few times thus far, same goes for me saying I realize you have to tweak the inputs to get the right outputs.

but if it s a little more close to the real than the others , I will be happy ..

Well one thing is for sure

Anything less than 35% error is better!

It should be easy for me to make a good FM with the default values , but if you let the stick to a real pilot , he will say to you : you are not flying a F-86 , your curves perhaps are perfect ( you think they are perfect ) but your plane is very very far from the real when you fly with it in the game ...

That is true of every flight simulation!

Be it the $40 variety or the $40,000,000.00 variety!

No sim ever was, is or will be perfect!

But that is no excuse for a 35% error in the performance numbers!

But at last , before any other talk , wait for the update ...

Well any other testing at least!