[ACE-OF-ACES]

First off, a big thank you to ACE OF ACES for the work on performance data. I appreciate this attention to detail,

Thank you

even though I have to admit that for the most part, I don't even know how to read all these charts.

It's easy

Take the following P-47 top speed graph



Well say you want to know what the top speed is at 15kft..

Place your finger on the LHS where it says 1.5 (that is 15,000ft), ie the Y axis (Altitude)

Than drag your finger to the RIGHT until it intersects one of the lines

For example the green one (P-47D-27)

Once your finger intersects the green line

Start moving your finger DOWN until you hit the X axis (TAS)

Under your finger is the SPEED at that alt, ie 15kft

Which looking at the graph is ~395mph

When it comes to comparing flight data, I am rather sceptical to begin with.

Really?

Now let me get this straight

You admit your experience is such that you don't understand the charts enough to even read them

Yet you feel your experience is such that you can be sceptical of the results

The results that you don't understand how to even read

Is that right?

I have to admit, I find that very strange

In another thread with a similar discussion topic, somebody mentioned that the stock flight models for IL-2 were designed in such a way that their in-game performance is balanced to that of other aircraft. Sometimes, compromises in regard to the representation of actual flight data had to be made, so that aircraft would still retain a semblance of their actual, historical traits compared to each other, while still fitting into the performance parameters that the game engine allows.

Well one thing is for sure

You can find people who feel that way

But you can also find people who don't feel that way

All I know is that when Oleg was asked if he adjusted the flight models for 'game' balance he said no

That is the thing about peoples 'feelings'

They are based on nothing but a 'feeling'

They can not be proven wrong or right, because it is just a 'feeling'

Where as on the other hand, given real world data, you can compare it to the in-game results and get the same results each time you do it

Because the math is not based on how someone 'feels'

With all these discussions about flight data, the first thing that comes to my mind is how and for whom these data were obtained. I don't think that any particular set of performance data can be taken at face value.

And what is that 'feeling' of yours based on?

This 'feeling' you have about the data that you yourself said you don't fully understand

It matters under what circumstances they were obtained and who the audience was. For example, if a particular manufacturer wanted to push a particular prototype, they might have "adjusted" the data accordingly.

I have never bought into the notion that the ethics of the manufactures were such that they would fake such things. Especially when you consider the fact that the air forces they build the planes re-did each test to ensure the plane could do what the manufacturer said it could do as part of the acceptance testing. So it would be silly to lie knowing that the min they turned the plane over to the air force their lie wold be reviled. The only case I can think of someone doing that is someone who knew the plane would never make it to production, Than they could say just about anything they wanted to say about it in that they knew their lie would never be discovered. As was the case for many German engineers late in the war that were being pressured to come up with some super weapon to save their skins

On the other hand, evaluations of captured enemy aircraft were usually much more critical and unfavourable than those coming from the manufacturer; perhaps to some extent for propaganda reasons.

I have never bought into the notion that the ethics of these test pilots was such that they would be charged with testing an airplane to find it's weakness for their pilots to take advantage of only to lie about the result. In that they knew what they said was going to be used by pilots in the field and thus their pilots in the fields life depended on them being truthful.

Finally, there must have been great discrepancies between the performance of brand-new machines and those that had been used under combat conditions for a while. Some aircraft may have been damaged, resulting in a somewhat lower performance, while others may have been "tuned-up" in the field for higher output.

Be sure, but this sim like most does not attempt to model wear and fatigue.

There would also have been differences between individual machines of the same type, depending on usage and differences in wear and tear. So, unless there is a wide range of data for any particular type and model of aircraft, it would be extremely difficult to make an assessment that would accurately reflect the performance characteristics and capabilities of each individual plane of a certain make.

Which is why most real world data consisted of testing more than one plane. Take the P51 and P38 testing done, the USAAR pulled several planes from the assembly line 'at random' to preform acceptance testing on.

Please don't get me wrong; I appreciate the acribic work that is done in regard to performance data and evaluation. However, I believe that there needs to be some room for variation,

For a guy who admits he does not understand the data, you sure have a lot of opinions on how valid it is!

But I digress!

Just so you know it is generally accepted that +/- 5% error is acceptable in a simulation. A few years back some add ons for the Microsoft's Combat Simulator claimed to have 1% error but to be honest they never really provided any proof of it. It was just something they claimed to have, much like UltraPack claims to have more accurate flight models than HSFX. Maybe they do, maybe they don't all I know is the few I have looked at don't. That is the neat thing about comparing to the real world data. It removes all the 'feelings' and all that is left is the 'facts'.

though I don't know how this can be accurately modeled in IL-2. Apparently, SOW is supposed to have it. To me, and this may well reflect my skill level, or lack thereof, it's always my opponent's plane that I feel is the "Ueber-Plane," no matter what we're flying at the moment. If I am in La-7, I still get shot down by Bf-109Fs, if I am in a FW-190D-11, the P-51Ds still get me. If I switch to the Allied side, it's similar in reverse. Perhaps, any of this would be more apparent in online-play, which I don't do.

There is a lot of truth in that

You unlike most are willing to admit they have been bested by a better pilot

In your case AI

But that kind of honesty while looking in the mirror is the exception to the rule

A lot of folks here will blame it all on the flight model without even taking pause to consider that what they saw was not an over molded plane but a better pilot

So, if the flight model of the Bf-109K will be adjusted in a new slot, does that then mean, that all sorts of other aircraft need to be adjusted, too?

Nope because like I pointed out

Oleg never adjusted for balance

And none of the mod makers I have spoke to adjust for balance sake, except one, Freddy and his HISTOMOD KOREAN mod. Freddy 'feels' he provides a better 'game' by ignoring real world data when developing his flight modles and prefers to base them on.. on.. on.. Hmmm actually he has never really explain just what it is he does base his flight models on.