[BillSwagger]

Okay, so the IL-2 aircraft which are modeled by factory/test pilot data should demand the same data in independent tests where possible. This will reveal how accurate the flight models of IL-2 are to the same data, but only if a computational average is taken of many identical tests of the same aircraft.

I would add a sort of checks and balances needs to take place if the end goal is historical accuracy.

Say, for example, after determining a computational average and deciphering whats the real performance, you design a few models around that data.

In theory, it should simulate the behavior of the aircraft. Now what if you have 20 combat reports and 10 of them say something different than what is being depicted in game? Example, if the combat reports show plane A repeatedly catching up or out running plane B in level flight and your models in game aren't doing this, how do you resolve that issue?

Combat reports have no scientific weight, and i can understand the bias behind it because the guy that survives the fight is usually the one that gets to tell the tail.

There are also many reasons Plane A could still catch plane B in level flight, because of engine troubles, energy from a dive, and perceptions or misconceptions from the pilot.

If you are able to identify a significant portion of combat reports that show commonalities that reach beyond these sort of specifics, why should they not be considered?
Obviously, the problem would be converting a combat report into a scientific method, and the number of reports that show a commonality would have to reach beyond a handful of reports that don't appear to be biased or resolved by the conditions above.
The problem for science here is that its too subjective, but i think methods could be devised to make it more objective. I still carry the opinion that combat reports do mean something.

In relation to the Spitfire, it just seems like the in game model does it all. So i start to ask myself, what were its limitations. And if it had no limitations why use planes like P-40s or Tempests, Mustangs, P-39s. They were replacing Spitfire units with P-47s as backwards as that sounds. I know that's not good enough reason to not make an accurate model, but consider the things a realism search hasn't answered.







Bill

[RedChico]

In light of previous posters, I realise how rare it is to find someone that understands the material and is able to double check my work with an open mind and no axe to grinde

Now this one is much better (because i DO read), section "6.1 RWD REFERENCES", links to a site with copies of original full reports and such. See, that wasn't so dificult, only if you had done this in the first time and kept doing it....


As i said before i never questioned the your calculations, nor the type of real word data (calculated first confirmed/tested later, as in any industry) because that how it was done and still is.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Obviously, the problem would be converting a combat report into a scientific method

Is what I pointed out before

And noted that the few times I have seen people try it in the past it ended up being a worthless effort

That is to say upon review, it was easy for anyone to pick it apart to show the errors in it or the bias in it be it intentional or not

Which was not a problem due to the person doing the statistical analysis as much as it was a problem (limitation) with the raw data, i.e. the combat reports

Which are always one sided and typically never contain enough information to recreate the scenario to test and see if you get the same results in the game

Where as with test reports like the ones I use are preformed under controlled conditions with recording devices

But you have your mind made up that some sort of statistical information can be obtained from dozens if not hundreds of combat reports

If someone would just take the time to do it

And that if fine to belive there is

But until it is done it is just a theory

So don't let me discourage you in trying with my notes of how others have failed

Maybe you have a way succeeding where others have failed

So give it a go and report back with your results

Good luck

[ACE-OF-ACES]

My point is that there are too many factors for us to consider with our present limitations in order to determine an accurate fighter flight model for the typical one which has seen some battle, wear, and damage with repairs. Therefore comparing battle experienced fighter planes with factory and/or test pilot specifications is not reasonable.

Agreed 100%

The tech does exist today but it does not run in real time

That is to say a computer could calculate the affect on the drag due to a bullet hole in the wing

But it would probally take the computer 5 min to calculate 1 sec worth of fligh time

So someday when computers are fast enough to do that in real time we will have better damage modling affects on the flight model

And maybe someday they will be able to do the same with motor damage and the rest

It all takes time and money

But someday it will happen

But until that we will just have to do with flying factory fressh planes

[LuckyOne]

LuckyOne,

No,no...you are a little bit over inflate my statements about only Spitfire 7.7mmMG,I clearly pointed a non historic damage of ALL small cal's in IL2...but this is a subject for another topic.


@Firescull

Generally, the Spitfire was more maneuverable while the Bf-109 was a bit faster with some better climbing ability. The skills of the pilots varied wildly from location to location and from time to time.

Well,that is common generalization from the beginning of the war,regarding Spitfire MK I/II,and Bf-109E4/E7,which is somehow reflected on all future Spitfire models...it is clearly mistake.

[Thee_oddball]

GIGO: wing planforms, props, airfoils, incidences, engine cant, weight, drag data, etc... input all that well and you'll get a pretty accurate flight model. However it won't be perfect because no simulator is, by definition. Modellers tweak the flight model by adjusting these inputs to account for what can't be modelled in order to get closer to published or known behavior. So, X-Plane will tell you to a great extent, but if the input is garbage then the output will be the same.

No, as Brett said above, things like radii of gyration are hard (if not impossible) to find, as are details of propeller twist and aerofoil section, for example. Even things like control surface deflection are often hard to find. Even then, there are always things that you can do in the simulator that you can't in the real thing (by which I mean, the control forces on most aircraft are nothing even remotely like those produced by the spring or force-feedback motors in a joystick).

For detailed comparative analysis of aircraft, you have to fly the real thing. For rough comparison, you might get a basic qualitative feel out of a simulator. If you want to compare, say, a Spitfire and a BF109, they're probably too similar for X-Plane to give a reasonable idea of the differences. You could probably put Spitfire visuals over a BF109 flight model and not notice the difference in terms of handling.

Does anyone here think X-plane could be used toget us %90-95 there in terms of figuring out the handling characteristic of the planes in il2?

[Fireskull]

@Firescull

Generally, the Spitfire was more maneuverable while the Bf-109 was a bit faster with some better climbing ability. The skills of the pilots varied wildly from location to location and from time to time.

Well,that is common generalization from the beginning of the war,regarding Spitfire MK I/II,and Bf-109E4/E7,which is somehow reflected on all future Spitfire models...it is clearly mistake.

LuckyOne, I see where you are going with this point. For frontline fighters-which saw the vast majority of combat, actual accounts show that this remained true until almost the end of World War Two: Spitfires being somewhat more maneuverable and Bf-109s being somewhat faster with better climb.

Now here is the tricky part for most people. IL-2 is modelled after available data, sometimes the preferred data when more than one source is available ( Such data is obviously debatable for use ). How can anyone expect accurate flight modelling of the frontline fighter, given that there is no consistent data on it and IL-2 is not actually modelled after front line fighter characteristics? Largely, this can be resolved in post-war testing. Expert test pilots who provided post war data proved that the generalizations about the frontline Spitfire and the Bf-109 were true into 1945. The gap narrowed with factory stock aircraft and was confused across types and subtypes. In other words, the trend projected through most of the war, a kind of parallelism, but this post-war data is often not available, only the test pilot personal conclusions. Because of this, there is disbelief and opposition to the generalization.

None the less, front line fighter accounts diverged from factory data, according to test pilots. The classic example is how Luftwaffe fighters in rear areas or marginal locations were usually given stock hardware. Frontline fighters would progressively be given more enhancements in favor of combat readiness. Rank and the proven success in combat were rewarded with fighter enhancements, which were expected to create combat results in defeat of the enemy. Several different technologies were used to increase the speed of the Bf-109, including various types of chemical injection into the engine, with different amounts of deployment and success. A few things were widely deployed exclusively to frontline fighters in the last several months of the war. This conserved resources and labor for better efficiency-rookie pilots not expected to survive long were given stock aircraft, for example. Though almost no reliable data can come from pilot combat reports toward an IL-2 flight model, the pilot combat reports do reveal that the frontline Bf-109s were faster and better climbing than the factory data for new aircraft, for the reasons which I revealed in this paragraph.

I am convinced that IL-2 is mainstreamed, so to speak, as The Grunch and ACE-OF-ACES agree. It is an over simplification, but it is made this way for the fairness of gameplay and because of the limits of present technology. Since IL-2 does not focus specifically on frontline fighter performance as favored over rear, marginal, reserve fighters, and newly delivered aircraft, then we should logically assume that the flight models of the Spitfire and the Bf-109 are supposed to be closer in IL-2. However, I can assure you according to both official data and pilot combat reports that the performance of the Spitfire and the Bf-109 did not merge. It might only be the case of the narrowing of characteristics of these two fighters in IL-2 as compared to the actual historical frontline fighters which were modified, enhanced, repaired, and had wear. For ethical reasons, we will not alter the flight models of stock IL-2 aircraft, so this proposal has been dead before it was born.

This confuses most IL-2 enthusiasts, but it is why we discuss issues in open forum. I disagree with you, LuckyOne on your point, but completely understand why you took your position.

This being the situation with many people instinctively or subconsciously bothered by the wide discrepancies, we see that the causes of the annoyance are in the awareness that IL-2 is not really modelled to simulate the frontline fighter. Along with that is the myth that the Spitfire caught up to the Bf-109 in speed. Among frontline fighters, this is not the case. In factory data among a wide berth of fighter type variations, the case could loosely be made for that but difficult to prove for IL-2 purposes. For factory new aircraft, the gap lessened, but for frontline fighters, the gap remained significant regarding the speed advantage of the Bf-109 over the Spitfire. Sure, there were individual subtypes which were the exception, but people ignore the fact that those were created usually to meet very specific combat roles, such as interceptor, fighter/bomber, and so forth. People often confuse the data on such aircraft as being frontline fighters in the air superiority role.

LuckOne, can you see that you can not be so sure of your position in the light of this understanding?

Therefore, I recommend that we continue to use factory and/or test pilot official data, and estimates if that is all which is available. The advantages are very numerous, including order, clarity, game fairness, and plain progress. This is the only reliable way to scientifically compare flight models at this time.

[Fireskull]

TheeOddBall,

The X-plane could be used for private experiments, but my opinion is that in a public forum it won't get far because of the desire to focus on official data and also to not tamper with stock IL-2 flight models. There is no harm is private experiments, in my opinion.

Too many variables introduced into these analysis would undermine the integrity of them.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Therefore, I recommend that we continue to use factory and/or test pilot official data, and estimates if that is all which is available. The advantages are very numerous, including order, clarity, game fairness, and plain progress. This is the only reliable way to scientifically compare flight models at this time.

Agreed 100%

And all data used should be provided for others to review

With all assumptions about the data clearly listed for review

Because without that

Any claims of more or less accurate are just baseless and should be taken as opinion not fact

Also beware anyone that trys to overwhelm you by simply posting a bunch of links to multiple reports

Under the guise that you should simply trust them that they made the right choice between which data to use

[BillSwagger]

Obviously, the problem would be converting a combat report into a scientific method

Where as with test reports like the ones I use are preformed under controlled conditions with recording devices

But you have your mind made up that some sort of statistical information can be obtained from dozens if not hundreds of combat reports

If someone would just take the time to do it


Good luck

It saves time to pursue recorded information found in flight test data. That's the easy part and if it were that open and shut we'd all be in agreeance.

I also see a bit of mistrust that i don't care to get in the middle of but i think it waste more time trying to substantiate or discredit a source than just looking at the additional documentation provided and reading what its actually portraying and then quietly drawing my own conclusions.

Knocking people down or the information they provide is not conducive to building, its actually more destructive than anything, and has a way of alienating people. I'm not singling anyone out, i just think sometimes i see threads that carry on for pages about the legitimacy of an opinion, when the actual source (ie the facts) itself still has value especially if the current information is limited and leads to oversimplified results.

Simplicity does not constitute completeness, although that does contradict the idea that the most simple explanation is usually the correct one.


Bill

[ACE-OF-ACES]

It saves time to pursue recorded information found in flight test data.

True

But that is not the reason it is better than combat reports

Test data is collected under controlled conditions

Combat reports are not

That's the easy part and if it were that open and shut we'd all be in agreeance.

Well it is not that easy

And if you think their is a lot of disagreement now

Wait until you present you 'conclusion' you drew from your statistical analysis of those combat reports

I also see a bit of mistrust that i don't care to get in the middle of but i think it waste more time trying to substantiate or discredit a source than just looking at the additional documentation provided and reading what its actually portraying and then quietly drawing my own conclusions.

Not sure what your referring to there

Knocking people down or the information they provide is not conducive to building, its actually more destructive than anything, and has a way of alienating people. I'm not singling anyone out, i just think sometimes i see threads that carry on for pages about the legitimacy of an opinion, when the actual source (i.e. the facts) itself still has value especially if the current information is limited and leads to oversimplified results.

Not sure what your referring to there either

Simplicity does not constitute completeness, although that does contradict the idea that the most simple explanation is usually the correct one.

Ok make that three for three

In that I am not sure what your referring to there either

Stop beating around the bush and just say it

[BillSwagger]

Also beware anyone that trys to overwhelm you by simply posting a bunch of links to multiple reports

Under the guise that you should simply trust them that they made the right choice between which data to use

What are you referring to?

Its rhetorical, Ace, so don't answer it and like i said i'm not attmepting to single you out, you just pushed me to answer you more concretely and your previous post was a prime example.

i think this attitude is unhealthy for building, and i know you are not the only one to adopt this attitude and that you don't always reflect this attitude 100 percent of the time.

A researcher should be unbiased and willing to consider all data presented to them and leave their own thoughts at the door, agreed?

"The most simple explanation is often the correct one."

I was making no specific reference to anything, i just offer it as a wise suggestion when approaching data that people seem to have such differing opinions over.

I guess in my mind i'm hoping that we see one version of the sim one day, and i really get tired of seeing repeatedly toxic spats that only seem to disrupt any progress toward unity. This goes for everyone, including myself.

that's all

Bill

[Fireskull]

Bill, though I appreciate your passion in discussion, I think that you missed ACE-OF-ACES issue - completely - on this one.

There was a specific notorious topic post at a particular unnamed, but well known website this year which many people in the know still remember very well. A bunch of bloviating statements were made with hollow information in the topic. The links which were provided were widely viewed as avoiding direct debate and seemed to many to be hiding empty debate positions behind a smoke cloud of claims.

Earlier, you expressed appreciation for the progress which ACE-OF-ACES is making in the flight model analysis, especially compared to the empty alternative. You were on the right course at that time :wink:

I must give you credit, you sure helped bring the issue more light, in your own way.

[BillSwagger]

fireskull,

Thanks for the context, but it still clarifies to me that there is a mistrust with in the mod community that seems to get in the way of what i think should be the end goal.
I'm not attempting to get in the middle of these issues only that i think that research if properly conducted can help resolve a lot of the disagreements.

Maybe this is not the proper place to have this discussion, seeing as this is the Spitfire realism thread.



Bill

[Fireskull]

Bill,

Well, it is relevant because two of the purposes of this topic are to move more people to an agreement and dispell some myths about IL-2 flight models with data. It is normal to briefly remember the lack of quality in the presentation of another website's hollow contentions.

I will continue to be bold in making such contrasts apparent, yet avoid causing a fight in the future by careful choice of words.

All Aircraft Arcade is, as a matter of fact, rising above the folly. I believe that you are with this, right?