[George Formby]

For the last few months I have heard a lot of flak about something being up with the FMs of the P-51's in the UP Package, something I never gave much thought about considering to date I have put together over 100 missions dealing with the P-51A thru D. Welp, for the last month I have been doing some comparative flight analysis using UP 2.1, UI, and HSFX, pitting several scenarios, one with p-51 v P-51 (UP 2.1), P-51C-D UI v P51 C-D 2.1UP, and finally the ponys of UP and HSFX. Hoping this would finally ansewer the question, " Is there fault with the FMs of UP to a degree that they would be declared a "Super Plane"?"

My findings from the pilot seat point of view is this, I could find little if any difference in the way the ships handled, not enough to constitute any kind of un-even advantage. The roll rates were just about even. the climb/stall ratios were virtually identical, and the win/loss ratio was relatively on the same level as what it always has been for me. The P-51 D in the UP even handles similar to the real world plane (something I forgot to mention, I had the opportunity to actually catch a ride in a real pony, even got to throw the stick around, but that story is for another time) so, to me personally, I have answered my own questions about the plane.

In closing, my best advice to anyone with a doubt, test em out for yourself, judge your own findings, don't leave the answers to bums like me. I know there are going to be some to pounce on this post, so I am gonna say in advance, I am not posting this to start an argument, if you want to discuss how I set up my tests and findings, thats fine, but I WILL NOT argue the subject, this was purely a personal sort of thing, and I feel I should be able to post what I find, so here it is laid out for you cats, if you have the time, set up a little testing of your own and tell me what you think?

respectfully,
george

[ACE-OF-ACES]

test em out for yourself, judge your own findings, don't leave the answers to bums like me.

Agreed 100%

[WhoDatNotSayin]

Some of the supposed differences might be susceptible to an objective test - speeds for instance, and even (theoretically) sustained turn rates. At the moment my prototype autopilot system (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f...4121016097)has only been tested with a stock install, but there is no reason in principle why it won't work with mods. It needs more work to measure turn rates though, and I suspect that w1ndf4k3r may get there first with this one (see http://allaircraftsimulations.com/forum/...39#p329339).

Clearly, testing every aircraft in both mod packs would be tedious though. And even if we find differences, all that might result is an argument about which is correct. Given this, I'm not even sure I'd want to get involved in testing, unless there was an agreed way of arriving at a common standard for mod FMs. This would need good intentions, rather than raking over old arguments about who did what and why...

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Some of the supposed differences might be susceptible to an objective test - speeds for instance, and even (theoretically) sustained turn rates.

Agreed 100%

Most testing done by sim pilots is NOT done well..

Such that even they are not able to repeat the test and get the same results..

In short the 'differences' the pilot is 'seeing' and or 'feeling' is due to the sim pilot not the FM

At the moment my prototype autopilot system (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f...4121016097)has only been tested with a stock install, but there is no reason in principle why it won't work with mods. It needs more work to measure turn rates though, and I suspect that w1ndf4k3r may get there first with this one (see http://allaircraftsimulations.com/forum/...39#p329339).

Actually a guy by the name of LesniHU beat you both years ago with his autopilot program that interfaces via DeviceLink..

His is script based and can do turn rates but is not easy to setup..

Clearly, testing every aircraft in both mod packs would be tedious though.

Which is why I switched to using SJacks zINFOMOD for all performance testing and only used LesniHU's autopilot on results that look questionable, as in a sanity checking of the zINFOMOD results. Thus far I have not fond one zINFOMOD result that was not validated by LesniHU's autopilot

And even if we find differences, all that might result is an argument about which is correct. Given this, I'm not even sure I'd want to get involved in testing, unless there was an agreed way of arriving at a common standard for mod FMs.

The best way to avoid that is to avoid sim pilots methods and stick actual test methods used by the air forces of that time.. The two most popular tests during WWII to test performance was the rate of climb (ROC) results and the top speed per altitude (TSPA) results.. It was only after WWII that they started using the Energy methods to determine the performance of an aircraft.

The neat thing about that is SJack's zINFOMOD provides both those test and more that can be compared to actually WWII test results..

As long as you use the std atm map by Bbury in conjunction with zINFOMOD..

Something the folks over at UltraPack did not realize until it was too late and sheds light on 'why' they felt some FM's needed changing

This would need good intentions, rather than raking over old arguments about who did what and why...

Disagree it is good to point out the errors others made in the hopes that they and others will think twice before making a change to someone else FM before they know the whole story

[WhoDatNotSayin]

Ok, ACE-OF-ACES, I respond to your posting with a constructive suggestion, and what do I get:

Actually a guy by the name of LesniHU beat you both years ago with his autopilot program that interfaces via DeviceLink..

Do you really think I'd be unaware of LesniHU? And yes, I use DeviceLink too. How else would you be able to test anything? As you are well aware, LesniHU's script-based system is tedious to set up, and hardly conducive to in-depth comparisons (not that I'm criticising it in any way. Without his inspiration, I doubt I'd have done what I did). Know-it-all sarcasm is no way to encourage progress.


And then you finish with this:

Disagree it is good to point out the errors others made in the hopes that they and others will think twice before making a change to someone else FM before they know the whole story[

This is precisely the sort of attitude that I'd hoped to avoid. I'm not interested in petty arguments about past modding history. If you are, good luck to you. Just don't expect to get any support from people actually interested in improving the sim.

ACE-OF-ACES is back on ignore. :roll:

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Ok, ACE-OF-ACES, I respond to your posting with a constructive suggestion, and what do I get:

Actually a guy by the name of LesniHU beat you both years ago with his autopilot program that interfaces via DeviceLink..

Do you really think I'd be unaware of LesniHU?

WOW..

Someone is a little touchie..

Actully I know you are aware of LesniHU's work..

Anyone who has done anything along these lines would know..

I just found it 'odd' that you made no mention of his work..

Thus I felt the need to inform all those who may be reading this..

That there is an autopilot program out there for them to use that has been around for years and works very well

And yes, I use DeviceLink too.

As do I in the data logger I wrote years ago

How else would you be able to test anything?

You should really read my post again..

And take note of where I mentioned SJack's zINFOMOD..

You know the mod that UltraPack and other use to generate the files used by IL2Compare

Than you wouldn't ask such silly quetions

As you are well aware, LesniHU's script-based system is tedious to set up,

For some but not all

and hardly conducive to in-depth comparisons

Not ture..

Not by a long shot

(not that I'm criticising it in any way.

No worries even if you did it would not hold any merit with me..

In that I know LesniHU's work very well

Without his inspiration, I doubt I'd have done what I did).

Yet you made no mention of his work inspiring you..

Speaks volumes IMHO

Know-it-all sarcasm is no way to encourage progress.

Than don't do it!

And then you finish with this:

Disagree it is good to point out the errors others made in the hopes that they and others will think twice before making a change to someone else FM before they know the whole story

This is precisely the sort of attitude that I'd hoped to avoid. I'm not interested in petty arguments about past modding history. If you are, good luck to you. Just don't expect to get any support from people actually interested in improving the sim.

LOL..

Did you actully say that with a straight face?

Do you really think I need your support?

To do what I have been doing for years witout your support!

Now that is funny!

ACE-OF-ACES is back on ignore. :roll:

Promise?

[WhoDatNotSayin]

Given the hazards of discussing such issues in any forum that A-OF-A has access to, can I suggest that anyone wishing to make a positive contribution to this discussion does it via PMs, or on another forum not subject to his egotistical drone. I'm probably unlikely to be able to do much testing, but I might be able to offer a few pointers as to ways forward, and perhaps, as someone not involved in past modding disputes, able to encourage forward movement.

Of course, if my contribution is unnecessary, I'll be happy to let others take over.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Given the hazards of discussing such issues in any forum that A-OF-A has access to, can I suggest that anyone wishing to make a positive contribution to this discussion does it via PMs, or on another forum not subject to his egotistical drone. I'm probably unlikely to be able to do much testing, but I might be able to offer a few pointers as to ways forward, and perhaps, as someone not involved in past modding disputes, able to encourage forward movement.

Of course, if my contribution is unnecessary, I'll be happy to let others take over.

Egotistical?

Yet your the one that got upset when I pointed out that your autopilot program was preceeded by LesniHU's autopilot years ago..

So upset that all you could see is red and thus didn't read anything I said about SJack's zINFOMOD and what it can do..

The proof of that being in your question “How else would you be able to test anything?”

In that had you read what I wrote you would have know there is another way to obtain test data..

So you might want consider parking your ego at the door Oh Mr. kettle calling the coffee black!

Oh and just so you know the 'turn rate' at 1km is provided by SJack's zINFOMOD :twisted:

[Python]

Salute

Lets keep this civil and not start flaming each other this topic is very touchy with some so discuss it but be respectfull of each others opinion. I will be watching this topic close


Python

Global Moderator

[WhoDatNotSayin]

Frankly, RAF209_Python, I'm beginning to wonder whether it is even worth continuing to debate this at all. The whole issue seems to be more about vague conspiracy theories and ancient feuds than about aircraft performance.

Hopefully, when SoW:BoB is finally released, a clean slate might leave room for a more objective approach...

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Frankly, RAF209_Python, I'm beginning to wonder whether it is even worth continuing to debate this at all. The whole issue seems to be more about vague conspiracy theories and ancient feuds than about aircraft performance.

Typical 'kill the messanger tatics'

Note how they try to imply there is a conspiracy theory..

Yet they will never actully point you to any facts to support that implication..

That is to say notice how they don't mention the message..

They just resort to name calling (Egotistical)..

Why?

Because they know that everything I have said is true..

Thus any atemp to address the message only highlights that truth..

So they avoid it and resort to trying to imply there is a conspiracy thoery to try and discredit the messanger..

And cross thier fingers and hope that no one will notice

[Python]

Salute

Yes I agree this topic will never turn out the way the author hopes as it is a hot topic my concern with it is that everyone try and respect each other opinions and not get in a flame war we want everyone to have a good time. Everyone has the right to there own opinions and we try to let topics go on as long as the discussion does not go south, But I'm afraid this one has allready gone to the point of no return. So if folks feel the need to post in others folks post just to see if they can get a rise out of someone then they may find they cannot post for a while that is why I'm watching this close as is others.

[Python]

Salute

All right thats it I'm locking this thread and will have the admins look at what has went on.

[Fireskull]

Important Statement - For the sake of all the readers

For the participants in this topic, this is the last time that I am going to explain things to you. From now on, you will see action in response to hostile posts and few words from the Oversight Team.


As it stands now...

First, I want to acknowledge for the benefit of all that each person in this topic who posted has made significant contributions to IL-2 modding communities in the past.

The advocates, the critics, and the critics of the critics have been generally welcome at All Aircraft Simulations. This is something very unique and special about our community here.



Liberty Requires Responsibility

The closed All Aircraft Arcade and every other major modding community website would have forbidden the basic liberties that you enjoy here for freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and entering this website as equals. Certainly, open discussion about FMs would not have been allowed and a bunch of other sensitive topics were banned, too, but often arbitrarily.

Keep in mind that I am saying this in the perspective that people have been banned and/or topics about such issues ceased to ever again be allowed. Ironically, leaders of websites sometimes let those topics run for a long time before finally making intervention.

The main reason why Administrators of other IL-2 websites have had to ban open discussion about flight models and other super-sensitive topics is not because they weren't willing to disuss them - they tried that - but because some of the participants have proven to make unacceptable attacks on one another. The "flame wars" are simply not welcome in the IL-2 communities and they are not welcome here. The Oversight Team of this community is experiencing the same point of not wanting to handle any more topics gone hostile over dicussion of FM.


We want to keep all of you in this website if possible and enjoy the liberties, but we don't want the "flame wars" for sure.


Flight Models Subject Is Important But Controversial

Specifically about flight models of IL-2 aircraft and comparing them to one another and past ones with present FMs, and so forth - this is both an inevitable focus of conversation and a very sensitive one, as George admitted in his opening post.

Since the several months before All Aircraft Arcade was closed, we have seen very intense, usually unfriendly, and sometimes insulting posts by several different people in discussion about flight models, as we know. It has actually been almost a year that I can remember of this kind of hostile argueing around IL-2 flight models.


Enforcement of Rules and Vision for a Friendly Website

The Oversight Team, which includes Global Moderators and Administrators of this website, is increasing the pressure to conform to the vision of a friendly place for the community to enjoy reading and participating in discussions. The only pressure is upon those who add to the hostilities. Most people who are involved in the website are doing just fine.

For this reason, I am furthering these things based on the aleady established rules, policy, and vision for this website:

1) This topic is being moved to the IL2 FM Comparing Forum where it belongs. Though the title was not about FMs, the words of George Formby in the opening post cleary steered it that way.

For the last few months I have heard a lot of flak about something being up with the FMs of the P-51's in the UP Package...

2) The topic became unfriendly and clearly hostile so it should remain locked.

3) The oversight team of All Aircraft Simulations, which includes Global Moderators and Administrators will be discussing how we can do more to prevent hostile posts in the future.

4) The oversight team will discuss whether to keep this topic in the public view because of useful insight and the expression of the oversight team in it for the sake of the website. The decision to keep this topic in the public view has yet to be made. If it's allowed, then you will know it.

_________________________________________________________________


Original topic post by George Formby:

For the last few months I have heard a lot of flak about something being up with the FMs of the P-51's in the UP Package, something I never gave much thought about considering to date I have put together over 100 missions dealing with the P-51A thru D. Welp, for the last month I have been doing some comparative flight analysis using UP 2.1, UI, and HSFX, pitting several scenarios, one with p-51 v P-51 (UP 2.1), P-51C-D UI v P51 C-D 2.1UP, and finally the ponys of UP and HSFX. Hoping this would finally ansewer the question, " Is there fault with the FMs of UP to a degree that they would be declared a "Super Plane"?"

My findings from the pilot seat point of view is this, I could find little if any difference in the way the ships handled, not enough to constitute any kind of un-even advantage. The roll rates were just about even. the climb/stall ratios were virtually identical, and the win/loss ratio was relatively on the same level as what it always has been for me. The P-51 D in the UP even handles similar to the real world plane (something I forgot to mention, I had the opportunity to actually catch a ride in a real pony, even got to throw the stick around, but that story is for another time) so, to me personally, I have answered my own questions about the plane.

In closing, my best advice to anyone with a doubt, test em out for yourself, judge your own findings, don't leave the answers to bums like me. I know there are going to be some to pounce on this post, so I am gonna say in advance, I am not posting this to start an argument, if you want to discuss how I set up my tests and findings, thats fine, but I WILL NOT argue the subject, this was purely a personal sort of thing, and I feel I should be able to post what I find, so here it is laid out for you cats, if you have the time, set up a little testing of your own and tell me what you think?

respectfully,
george