13.04.2010, 11:51
Hello Ace of Aces, hello Lucky One,
Thanks for your comments. I think, we got a good discussion going here!
As a professor myself, I think that we are approaching the topic from opposite ends. Ace, and perhaps Lucky, too, you seem to approach it from an engineering/science perspective, while I come at it from the point of view of a historian. As I said earlier, I do think that this kind of work and attention to detail is important and I am glad that Ace took this on. However, the point I wanted to make is this: Yes, the number five will always be the number five. How and why one arrives at that number is another matter, though. I just don't think that the data alone can tell the whole story. The context in which the data were gathered and published or disseminated is important, too. Based on my experience in the work that I do, I think that "truth" is always relative and not absolute, even when it comes to the collection of "hard" data. It is very difficult, if not impossible to separate "hard data" from their interpretation.
However, I do have a few more questions for Ace. From your experience as an engineer, how great do you think the discrepancies between factory-fresh aircraft and combat-used planes of the same type would have been in regard to performance? Was this perhaps something that the game developers of IL-2 were trying to build into the game (hence some of the inconsistencies in regard to actual flight data)? Is it something that could/should be reflected in how the fms of in-game planes? Are these differences reflected in the graphs you have presented? These are just comprehension questions, not criticism.
My example of the Zero, was just that, an example. I am aware of the difference between True Airspeed and Indicated Airspeed. I was not referring to speed values indicated on any gauge or display in the game, but to the fact that in-game, the AI can outrun me in their P-40s, or Wildcats when I am flying an early version of the Zero. When they chase me, they always catch up, when I and my AI-wingmen chase them, they always get away.
Ace, you wrote:
"That is why combat reports are useless
The story is one sided
You don't know the state of mind or the sate of the other plane
That is to say for everyone 109 pilot that says he could out turn a Spitfire there is a Spitfire pilot that says he could out turn a 109
Which is why real world data collected under controlled test conditions is the only way to fly
Pun intended Wink"
I think, this is exactly the point we seem to disagree on. I do think that the "state of mind" or the "state of the other plane" are important. I believe, there is validity to the statements of combat pilots, even though they are subjective, especially if there are several such reports indicating similarities. If one discovers a discrepancy between the recorded flight data and the statements of pilots who flew, or who fought these planes, shouldn't one ask why that is? Is it really only a matter of perception, or perhaps of differences in pilot skill? Would those not also have to be factored into considerations of performance differences? Or is this the point where we reach the limitations of the IL-2 game engine?
Anyway, your thoughts on this are much appreciated.
Regards,
RB
Thanks for your comments. I think, we got a good discussion going here!
As a professor myself, I think that we are approaching the topic from opposite ends. Ace, and perhaps Lucky, too, you seem to approach it from an engineering/science perspective, while I come at it from the point of view of a historian. As I said earlier, I do think that this kind of work and attention to detail is important and I am glad that Ace took this on. However, the point I wanted to make is this: Yes, the number five will always be the number five. How and why one arrives at that number is another matter, though. I just don't think that the data alone can tell the whole story. The context in which the data were gathered and published or disseminated is important, too. Based on my experience in the work that I do, I think that "truth" is always relative and not absolute, even when it comes to the collection of "hard" data. It is very difficult, if not impossible to separate "hard data" from their interpretation. However, I do have a few more questions for Ace. From your experience as an engineer, how great do you think the discrepancies between factory-fresh aircraft and combat-used planes of the same type would have been in regard to performance? Was this perhaps something that the game developers of IL-2 were trying to build into the game (hence some of the inconsistencies in regard to actual flight data)? Is it something that could/should be reflected in how the fms of in-game planes? Are these differences reflected in the graphs you have presented? These are just comprehension questions, not criticism.
My example of the Zero, was just that, an example. I am aware of the difference between True Airspeed and Indicated Airspeed. I was not referring to speed values indicated on any gauge or display in the game, but to the fact that in-game, the AI can outrun me in their P-40s, or Wildcats when I am flying an early version of the Zero. When they chase me, they always catch up, when I and my AI-wingmen chase them, they always get away.
Ace, you wrote:
"That is why combat reports are useless
The story is one sided
You don't know the state of mind or the sate of the other plane
That is to say for everyone 109 pilot that says he could out turn a Spitfire there is a Spitfire pilot that says he could out turn a 109
Which is why real world data collected under controlled test conditions is the only way to fly
Pun intended Wink"
I think, this is exactly the point we seem to disagree on. I do think that the "state of mind" or the "state of the other plane" are important. I believe, there is validity to the statements of combat pilots, even though they are subjective, especially if there are several such reports indicating similarities. If one discovers a discrepancy between the recorded flight data and the statements of pilots who flew, or who fought these planes, shouldn't one ask why that is? Is it really only a matter of perception, or perhaps of differences in pilot skill? Would those not also have to be factored into considerations of performance differences? Or is this the point where we reach the limitations of the IL-2 game engine?
Anyway, your thoughts on this are much appreciated.
Regards,
RB