[ACE-OF-ACES]

If your a big fan of the Mustangs

Like I am..

Than you may want to consider HSFX over UltraPack!

Why?

Well long story short UltraPack made a lot of changes to the flight models of Lt. Wolf's new 51s..

As a mater of FACT UltraPack made changes to dozens of the flight models of the original HSFX mod planes..

With regards to UltraPack including a copy of HSFX..

I have yet to get a straight answer as to what version of HSFX is included in UltraPack

It is HSFX 4.0, 4.1, 4.11?

And if it is 4.0 how do you apply the HSFX patches?

But I digress

In the case of Lt. Wolf's new 51s UltraPack reduced the top speed (TSPA) and rate of climb (ROC) of Lt. Wolf's new 51s..

At that time the folks over at UltraPack said they made the changes to Lt. Wolf's 51s in UP 1.8 to make them 'more realistic' performance wise..

Based on their research at that time..

Luckily some folks like me pointed out that their research was 'lacking' and their test methods were in 'error' (didn't use the std atm map) and that the changes they made actually resulted in 'less realistic' performance..

The good news is that in UltraPack release 2.0 they made more changes to Lt. Wolf's new 51s to increase the top speed and rate of climb..

That is tos say in UP 2.0 the un-did some of the changes they made in UP 1.8..

The bad news is they did not un-do all the changes and thus did not fully restore them to their original Lt. Wolf's performance values..

That is to say the UltraPack version of Lt. Wolf's 51s are still slower and don't climb as well as the original HSFX version of Lt. Wolf's 51s..

What does that mean to you?

Well if you fly online in a server that allows mods and your using HSFX..

Your HSFX 51 will be faster and climb better than those using flying the same 51 and using UltraPack..

To make an analogy..

It is like the UltraPack users got the late Friday afternoon production line 51 (read lemon) and your got the early morning bright eyed and motivated production line version

In short if you use HSFX you will have a performance edge UltraPAck users..

On a related note..

UltraPack also made changes to dozens of the original HSFX mod planes EMD files..

Which has to do with the planes engines..

I'm told that the UltraPack 51s have more of a glass jaw when it comes to 'damage'

But I have not come up with a good way to test that to prove it to myself..

So take that with a grain of salt..

All in all as noted UltraPack made changes (FM, EMD, etc..) to dozens of the HSFX mod planes..

On that note..

To all of you UltraPack users out there that thought you witnessed a hacker pass you by in the same plane..

Keep in mind that it may be a simple case of them using HSFX!

I have not finished checking all the flight model changes yet..

So I can only assume that some of the HSFX planes UltraPack changed will perform better and some perform worse as is the case for Lt. Wolf's new 51..

But once I am done I will post my findings!

On that note here is an example of the type of testing I do..

Based on SJack's zINFOMOD data use by all to generate IL2Comp data files..

Case in point the F-51D-30NA..

Let's compare the HSFX 4.1 ROC to the UP 1.8 ROC

F-51D-30NA HSFX 4.1 Rate of Climb (ROC)


F-51D-30NA UP 1.8 Rate of Climb (ROC)


As you can see HSFX 4.1 has a max ROC of ~4200fpm where as UP 1.8 has an ROC of only ~3500fpm

That is a difference of nearly 700fpm!

And as anyone in the know knows that the ROC testing of WWII is analogous to the modern energy methods Ps testing which is a measure of excess power. Excess power which is analogous to maneuverability.

But as noted above..

UltraPack caved to the pressure by folks like me who pointed out their research was lacking and their test methods were in error and added back some of the ROC in version UP 2.0

With that said let's compare the HSFX 4.1 ROC to the UP 2.0 ROC

F-51D-30NA HSFX 4.1 Rate of Climb (ROC)


F-51D-30NA UP 2.0 Rate of Climb (ROC)


As you can see HSFX 4.1 has an max ROC of ~4200fpm edge over UltraPack 2.0 max ROC of ~3900fpm

But that is just wrt the max ROC!

Note that at just about every altitude HSFX 4.1 performs better than UltraPack 2.0

Now let's compare the HSFX 4.1 TSPA to the UP 1.8 TSPA

F-51D-30NA HSFX 4.1 Top Speed per Altitude (TSPA)


F-51D-30NA UP 1.8 Top Speed per Altitude (TSPA)


As you can see HSFX 4.1 has a max TAS of ~445mph where as UP 1.8 has an max TAS of only ~435mph

That is a difference of nearly 10mph!

And as anyone in the know knows speed is life!

But as noted above..

UltraPack caved to the pressure by folks like me who pointed out their research was lacking and their test methods were in error and added back some of the TAS in version UP 2.0

With that said let's compare the HSFX 4.1 TSPA to the UP 2.0 TSPA

F-51D-30NA HSFX 4.1 Top Speed per Altitude (TSPA)


F-51D-30NA UP 2.0 Top Speed per Altitude (TSPA)


As you can see HSFX 4.1 has an max TAS of ~445mph edge over UltraPack 2.0 max TAS of ~438mph

But that is just wrt the max TAS!

Note that at just about every altitude HSFX 4.1 performs better than UltraPack 2.0

[BravoFxTrt]

was this comparison helpful? eh, couldn't buy a cup of joe with it. thanks for your research/posting. :roll:

[Storebror]

was this comparison helpful?

Yes, it was, is and will be.
Was your comment helpful? Couldn't buy a cup of joe with it.

Best regards - Mike

[Jambo]

Good morning Gentlemen,

how about a nice cup of coffee? I invite you both!

Jambo :wink:

[ACE-OF-ACES]

was this comparison helpful? eh, couldn't buy a cup of joe with it. thanks for your research/posting. :roll:

Yes to those with a background such that they could understand what it is saying

Where as your milage may varry

[Jambo]

Gentlemen,

I do like a good and interesting conversation - but always like Gentlemen!
As such - we don't rile or getting nasty.
But if you can't resist - I sure can - one way or another!

Jambo

[BravoFxTrt]

Ok I stand correct, no rebuttal.

[George Formby]

I would prefer this second study for correctness. viewtopic.php?f=134&t=29714&p=336149#p336149

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Not suprised in that all your inputs on the subject have been a joke

[Fireskull]

ACE-OF-ACES,


I am glad that you are with us again.

The more mature and appreciative that a person is toward truth, especially technical facts, the more likely will be the interest in your data.


Also, the more interested that a pilot is toward in game fairness, the more likely the interest in your data.


Again, I welcome you warmly back to this community website.





Fireskull

[ACE-OF-ACES]

The more mature and appreciative that a person is toward truth, especially technical facts, the more likely will be the interest in your data.

Agreed 100%

You hit the nail on the head

Also, the more interested that a pilot is toward in game fairness, the more likely the interest in your data.

Agreed 100% If you mean fairness in the since that it is 'only 'fair' when a plane is acuratly modeled
Disagree 100% If you mean fairness in the since that it is only 'fair' when a plane is modeled to make game play 'fair'

[Fireskull]

ACE-OF-ACES,


To me, the most important things about flight models are:


1) All players in the game have aircraft of the same standards for in game fairness.


2) All pilots should know that their opponents and squadmates are flying aircraft with consistent flight models (within their respective combat units of common exact aircraft type).


3) Models should be created by comparison to the best available official and historical data. In the case of IL-2, this should meet or exceed the quality standards of 1C Maddox Games (the original creators of IL-2) in honor of integrity.


4) Flight model of a particular exact type of aircraft must not change significantly over time (including "updates") with the only exception being to correct inaccuracy if discovered. Such corrections in flight models should be made known to the IL-2 community.

Creators of modded aircraft should strive to get it right the first time with flight models in the first publishing of the mod.


5) Flight model in game fairness should be established "out the box" and not dependant on Check Run Time = 2 enforcement, since "updates" and cheats can still possibly cause inconsistancies, though admittedly beyond the technical ability of most pilots, server owners, and coop hosts. However, once cheats are discovered, they tend to get circulated among a small group.


6) Creators of modded aircraft have a moral obligation to get help in publicizing accurate test anaylsis of their flight models for the sake of in game fairness, as well as comparing along side similar types of aircraft and available historical data.


7) Creators of modded aircraft should do a better job of making data (and the reasons for their choices about flight models) available, and also in a format that is easier for the typical user to understand.


We should not have to be concerned with "let the buyer (or IL-2 fan) beware", but instead do the right things to help the community be informed about in game fairness kinds of data. Rather than running away from the issues of flight model data, we should be running toward the data.


These are all my humble opinions for the sake of in game fairness. In my view, my expressed ideas are for the benefit of all flight simulation users and that this is very helpful for all modders and mod pack teams.

For example, the Red Bull air races have standards and aircraft consistancy for the sake of in game fairness. Of course, this requires a fair amount of unity. :wink: The professionals accomplish all of this.

"It is what you make of it", and so forth, if the readers can receive it - progressive and with a positive attitude - this would show honorable consideration for others and one's self.

Aren't these things showing "community"?



Fireskull

[ACE-OF-ACES]

That all sounds reasonable

Only thing I would add to is item number 7

7) Creators of modded aircraft should do a better job of making data (and the reasons for their choices about flight models) available, and also in a format that is easier for the typical user to understand. Especially if said mod maker is making changes to the performance of someone elses plane, be it an original Oleg plane or another mod maker.

In that it is one thing to make a plane from scratch.. One where you did the research on the performance and preset your justifications for doing so. For those types of 'new planes' I would cut a lot of slack with regards to errors in performance in that they had more to do than just the flight model.. As in 3D exterior, 3D cockpit, skins, etc.

It is another thing to take someone elses work and make changes to it because 'you think you know better'.. For those types the standard is much higher in that if you think you found an error in the performance I think you should be ready to present in great detail your reasoning for the change. In that 'trust me, I know best' does not cut it IMHO. This person didn't have to make the 3D exterior, 3D cockpit, skins etc, they only tweaked what was already there, thus they can use that time to present the data and their reasoning for the change. Also I think every attempt should be made to contact the orginal mod maker to discuss the perceived error before making changes to that mod. Granted in Olegs case that is not going to happen, but with regards to the mod makers here and elsewhere there is no reason that should not be happening

Long story short I don't want to see the release of new planes being hindered due to lengthy justifications of flight performance numbers.. But if your going to declare yourself as the mater of flight models and thus justified in making changes to other peoples flight models, well than you better have more to say than 'trust me'

[BravoFxTrt]

@ace, not a joke. just misunderstood ,lighten up its just a game and a graph for a game :roll: .

[ACE-OF-ACES]

@ace, not a joke. just misunderstood ,lighten up its just a game and a graph for a game :roll: .

Not sure what your refering to?

In that you said nothing that would upset me such that I would have to lighten up.