PDA

View Full Version : Friday CoD Update February 10, 2012



ATAG_Snapper
Feb-10-2012, 10:25
Here at the 1C Forum:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=29662

I won't make comment on the above; everyone will have their own take on it.

I did take exception to a response by the 1C developer team spokesperson's answer to a question about the fuel octane currently modelled in Cliffs of Dover. I'll probably earn some "infraction points" for it, but so be it:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackSix
Hm...

I don't see anything in this issue of 100 octane fuel.
Do you know which fuel is now flying Spitfire and Hurrican in the game?

ATAG_Snapper replied:

I'm surprised and a little dismayed by this question. Surely this would have been thoroughly researched by the 1C development team many years ago. For reasons unknown, the correct engine performance data for the Spitfires (all marks) and Hurricanes (all marks) was not implemented in Cliffs of Dover, which is both puzzling and regrettable.

There are reams of actual test data available to the public to support this statement (example: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1vrs109e.html ), yet a question from a developer spokesperson debating the octane performance level, at this late point of nine months after the actual launch of Cliffs of Dover, is.....confounding.

I'm a devoted fan of Cliffs of Dover and spend many hours online flying the Hurricane Rotol and Spitfire 1a. So many aspects of this simulation are superb, and I trust all parties are dealing straight here and in good faith.

Dutch
Feb-10-2012, 11:04
Yeah I saw that, but in fairness to B6, everything about the performance of the aircraft is so out of sync I don't think the problems are limited to simply fuel octane.

Some of the chaps seem to have latched onto it as being some sort of cure all for the performance deficit though. They may be right, but I dunno.

None of us can get above 25,000ft for instance. That's not just fuel octane. Also, as far as I'm aware, the LW only had 87 octane throughout the Battle and their performance isn't correct either.

Here's hoping it'll all get addressed somehow soon.

I kinda like the flak guns though. Imagine filling Alambash's face with 40mm. :laugh1

ATAG_Colander
Feb-10-2012, 11:07
100 octanes for the Hurri??? The rotol can catch a 109 on level flight as it is!!

:laugh1

ATAG_Snapper
Feb-10-2012, 11:25
Here is the response back from BlackSix:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackSix

I learned about the fuel from Ilya.
Now we have simulated the performance of engines taken from public test. What kind of fuel they used - such fuel in our game. Please don't ask me to look and learn these particulars, I have absolutely no time for it.
In the future, it may be introduced by the separation of the types of fuel.

ATAG_Snapper replied:

Thanks, BlackSix. This is good info which I will share with the ATAG Forum.

Dutch
Feb-10-2012, 11:31
So what do you think this means?

'Now we have simulated the performance of engines taken from public test'.

It's probably a language thing.

'Such fuel as they had' means both. So are the Spit II and Rotol Hurri 100 octane, the rest 87? Even if true, we still can't get to 30,000ft!

ATAG_Snapper
Feb-10-2012, 11:34
100 octanes for the Hurri??? The rotol can catch a 109 on level flight as it is!!

:laugh1

It's all goofy, I know.

The Spit Ia and Rotol performance is switched in terms of speed; but both still are wrong. I've been flying the Rotol almost exclusively the past few weeks -- I got so frustrated with the Ia's lacklustre engine performance. Sometimes I can catch a 109 in a chase, sometimes I can't. Probably has more to do with my taking 100% fuel; took a lot of tips from JTDawg but I still stick with full fuel loads against his suggestion of 40% - 50%.

I don't fly the 109's, but I have no doubts when I hear their performance levels are off, too.

ATAG_Snapper
Feb-10-2012, 11:41
Yeah I saw that, but in fairness to B6, everything about the performance of the aircraft is so out of sync I don't think the problems are limited to simply fuel octane.

Some of the chaps seem to have latched onto it as being some sort of cure all for the performance deficit though. They may be right, but I dunno.

None of us can get above 25,000ft for instance. That's not just fuel octane. Also, as far as I'm aware, the LW only had 87 octane throughout the Battle and their performance isn't correct either.

Here's hoping it'll all get addressed somehow soon.

I kinda like the flak guns though. Imagine filling Alambash's face with 40mm. :laugh1

From all the data I've waded through, the 100 vs 87 octane differences are mostly below 15,000 feet where a 100-octane tuned and fuelled Merlin engine can take a much higher boost for a limited sustained increase in climb and level performance.

I agree that this won't likely cure the 25,000 feet -plus problem with CoD (which is where a lot of the patrols and combat took place).

Heck, we don't even have oxygen masks for those altitudes anyway!!! LOL

DISCLAIMER: I ain't no aeronautical engineer. I'm just going by what I've read -- and much of that is on the Internet so it MUST be true!:Grin:

Doc
Feb-10-2012, 12:03
I want my nitrous bottle back. The reds have been sandbagging all this time. :Grin:

ATAG_JTDawg
Feb-10-2012, 12:06
100 octanes for the Hurri??? The rotol can catch a 109 on level flight as it is!!

:laugh1 LOL but it takes about ten mins. to catch ya! and agree with snapper ,sometimes just cant catch a 109.

Dutch
Feb-10-2012, 12:13
I have 'Alfred Price - The Spitfire Story', sort of a definitive work, and figures are always dependant on exact aircraft used on test. As it happens, the Spit 1a perf figs are with 87 octane. I don't want to type out the lot (I'm a crap Typist), but time to climb is probably the best performance figure to check the difference.

So, Spit 1a, 87 octane, 3 bladed wooden constant speed prop, laminated glass windsceen but no armour plate or IFF equipment, March 1940, time to 10000ft - 3m 30s, max speed @ 10000 320mph (TAS). The in-game Ia has IFF, don't know about armour plate.

He doesn't tell us the octane for the IIa test, but it did have the armour and the IFF equipment adding weight of 122lbs, plus the drag of the IFF equipment's aerials. September 1940 time to 10000ft 3m 24s, max speed @ 10000 326mph.

If the game's IIa is better than this, I'd put it down to the IIa being 100 octane fueled and therefore fully entitled to be in the game. (Hides quickly). :Grin:

Similarly the Rotol Hurri - 100 octane.

I'll run a couple of offline tests and see.

ATAG_Snapper
Feb-10-2012, 12:15
This fellow over at 1C laid it all out re RAF vs LW fighter performance. It's pretty dry reading (including his earlier link within his post below), but it's all clearly laid out. If Ilya had used this info in the first place, a lot of acrimony could've been avoided since.

Why can't sim developers be perfect like me? :0:

--------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kwiatek
Not only Spitfire IA need FM revsion. I think need it many planes in CLod.

During BoB both Spitfire MK1 and Hurrciane MK1 used 100 Octan fuel and +12 lbs boost emergency power. We need it both like it was historicaly.

Also 109 E need FM revision - atually there were too slow.

All planes need changes in service celling which now in CLOD is really off.

In sum most planes from CLOD need FM and performacne revsion.

Here in these topic there are RL data and comparision with CLOD:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=20110


So:

Keep Spitfire I with 87 Octane and two pitch prop - AGREE

Update Spitfire Ia to 100 Octane fuel and keep Rotol prop (most used type in BoB) - YEP 100 OCTAN for Spit IA but with DeHaviland Constant Speed Propeller Unit

Spitfire II with 87 Octane and Rotol prop (could have 100 octane later, not so many used in BoB) - DONT AGREE - NEED 100 OCTAN FUEL SPIT II which used +12 lbs Emergency Power - everthying is in SPit MK II manual

Also there could be 2 types of Hurricane:

- MK1 early with 2 stage DH prop pitch - 87 Octan fuel
- MKI late with Rotol prop - 100 Octan fuel

ALso 109 E need performance revision beacuse with 1.42/1.45 Ata there are too slow - 109 E should reach about 490-500 km/h at deck - now is only 460 km/h.

All these planes have too low maxiumum service celling


So for accurate and historical both online and offline gameplay we need deeply FM&Performacne revision.

I know what im talking about beacuse im in the topic for long time and made some FM revsion for IL2 mods planes expecially BOB fighters like Spitfire, 109 and Hurricane and 110 C-4.

So i think if in incoming patch there will be not solid and professional FM revision for these planes many people will be really dissapointment expecially when Luthier promise that there will be FM and performacne revsion in coming patch some time ago.

Dutch
Feb-10-2012, 12:22
Well, what he said then. But I'll still test the Ia for fun! :Grin:

Knight
Feb-10-2012, 12:47
Hey Guys to give the break down that I see is many FM's need work to get corrected I think what most are trying to get across is get it fixed before moving on which I hope they are.

I for one have built a hawker hurricane model for CFS 3 and then gave it to a kid to finish since I left that sim to come to the il2 series. As for the model of Hurricane the rotol is at actual for 87 at 6.5 boost. Most hurricanes in BoF were being tested at 12 and 100 octane fuel. So by the start of BoB all hurricanes on the front line were 12 lbs which in my mind you need a 1.45 ata for the 109e series. This would be accurate.

So I think what would be great is the team focusing in on completing the BoB arena and making it the sim we all hoped for before jumping on BoM. If the FM and Dm guys are still working on this sim then I am ok with it.

The online war experience is what we are all looking for a map rotation giving historical advantages back and forth as the battles progress. Like front line bases starting with 87 and then shipping lines if getting stopped at Dover can not move to the next stage of fuel or power plant. This would give to more of the mission object part that I know you and most of the guys at atag enjoy like me.

Anyway my small 1/2 a cent version on the issue.

MajorBorris
Feb-10-2012, 13:02
That was a cool update, I liked the different landscape and controllable ground units will be alot of fun!

Whats up with that Ju 88? extra machineguns, external hardpoints, armor and hp
:happy

III./ZG76_Keller
Feb-10-2012, 15:05
That was a cool update, I liked the different landscape and controllable ground units will be alot of fun!

Whats up with that Ju 88? extra machineguns, external hardpoints, armor and hp
:happy

I knew you'd like that! :Grin:

Jimbop
Feb-10-2012, 16:11
I don't know guys. I'm underwhelmed with the update and BlackSix's responses. I get the impression that plane peformance won't be changed much in the patch. I really hope I'm wrong but I doubt the patch will give me much reason to get out of the Hurri and into the 1a.

"Now we have simulated the performance of engines taken from public test. What kind of fuel they used - such fuel in our game."

Like I said, I hope I'm wrong but I'm not sure that he was referring only to fuel in the first sentence.

Dutch
Feb-10-2012, 16:55
"Now we have simulated the performance of engines taken from public test. What kind of fuel they used - such fuel in our game."

Like I said, I hope I'm wrong but I'm not sure that he was referring only to fuel in the first sentence.

So Jim, what do you think he was referring to? That first sentence makes no sense to me.

Jimbop
Feb-10-2012, 16:56
I read it that they had examined publicly-available test results and had modelled top speed, turn rate etc accordingly.

Dutch
Feb-10-2012, 17:00
Hmm...ok, thanks.

ChiefRedCloud
Feb-10-2012, 18:12
That was a cool update, I liked the different landscape and controllable ground units will be alot of fun!

Whats up with that Ju 88? extra machineguns, external hardpoints, armor and hp
:happy

I'm ignorant of aircraft stats, but from reading through numerous posts by you gentlemen, the dev's seem to want to dumb down or some how they seem to miss the mark on such simple stuff in Fm's and such.

Now we can slip into ground defences and shoot at aircraft? Really? And this is what we purchase Flight simulators for?

And since I don't seem to have an eye for the graphics changes that seems to be taking place, someone please, tell me what has changed? Other than dumbiong down the colours from the last patch.

If you not some frustration, you may be a Redneck ..... NO :no ...... that's a differant joke ...... or is it .... :inq:

ATAG_Colander
Feb-10-2012, 18:15
I think being able to man AAA's is good! Maybe I can get my wife to play now with the promise of being able to shoot me down! :laugh:

Jimbop
Feb-10-2012, 19:14
Yes, I think it's good and I think that tank will be playable too. Getting more players into the game will be good for future development as long as they keep the aircraft FMs, DMs etc at a high level - that's the challenge. The way I see it they could use the tanks, AAA etc to attract new players who would then 'graduate' to full real flying.

Dutch
Feb-11-2012, 00:21
I've got a lot of friends who're really 'into armour' but not so much into flying 'planes who'd jump at the chance of getting into an online war scenario involving both.

And I can't wait to get behind a bofors so's I can shoot that bloody Keller bloke down. And his mate Boris. :laugh1

Jimbop
Feb-11-2012, 15:53
The inevitable "low flak over Manston" call will take on new meaning! It would add another dimension to bomber nights, too.

Dutch
Feb-14-2012, 10:44
Well, what he said then. But I'll still test the Ia for fun! :Grin:

So, in conjunction with Talisman's octane thread at 1C, I tested the 1a's performance to altitude by timing from wheels off the ground to 10,000ft.

Boost on, full throttle all the way up, 2850 rpm, radiator at 50%, trimmed for optimum climb at 160mph IAS
Guess what? It took well over 5 minutes, and the anticipated 2895ft/min couldn't be maintained.

It should have taken 3m 30s according to data collated at RAF Boscombe Down in March 1940.

So the in-game Ia doesn't even reach 87 octane performance levels. :no

Here's an interesting link, too.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/n3171.html

ATAG_Snapper
Feb-14-2012, 12:14
That was a good test, Dutch. Do you recall if you used 100% fuel? If so, I wonder (meaning I'm gonna try it :thumbsup:) if, say, 20% fuel would shorten the time.

ChiefRedCloud
Feb-14-2012, 12:51
So I'm confused .... was there an update on Feb 10, 2012? I don't recall any notification of one.:no:inq:

Dutch
Feb-14-2012, 13:51
That was a good test, Dutch. Do you recall if you used 100% fuel? If so, I wonder (meaning I'm gonna try it :thumbsup:) if, say, 20% fuel would shorten the time.

I did use 100% fuel and yep, 20% fuel would shorten the time, but as far as I'm aware, all test a/c would've taken off with 100% fuel, as tanks are always kept topped up to prevent water condensation contaminating the fuel.

At least that's my understanding of a/c in general, some real life pilot could p'raps bear me out here. :inq:

ATAG_Snapper
Feb-14-2012, 13:53
There was no patch, if that's what you mean, Chief. Just a progress "update" by BlackSix (Ilya's spokesperson) on the 1C Forum per the link in the original post.

ATAG_Snapper
Feb-14-2012, 13:56
I did use 100% fuel and yep, 20% fuel would shorten the time, but as far as I'm aware, all test a/c would've taken off with 100% fuel, as tanks are always kept topped up to prevent water condensation contaminating the fuel.

At least that's my understanding of a/c in general, some real life pilot could p'raps bear me out here. :inq:

Thanks, Dutch. That would be my understanding, too. I always fuel up at 100% because of I hate running out of fuel. Exception: If taking off from a field under attack and I need agility more than endurance.

Dutch
Feb-14-2012, 14:34
Ok, test number two,

This time I set the 'plane up as before, but climbed keeping the rate of climb indicator set to 2800-2895ft/min and ignored airspeed. I got to 10,000ft quicker, but still not in 3.5 mins. IAS was down to 110 by this time.

Gonna try again with 140 IAS and 2800-2895ft/min as before.

Edit: Nope - there is no way to get the Spit Ia to 10,000ft in under 5 minutes (going off the clock in the cockpit). Can anyone better this?

Hmmm......

TomcatViP
Feb-14-2012, 16:19
I think you guys to be credible shld first ask for a FM correction on the spit wich I never heard until now.

Then boost you cld get.

As for now I am still able to make a vertical pull up directly after lift off what is properly insane (even the 109 in old IL2 cld not do it before the unfamous and shameless 4.11). I hve alrdy talked abt the unlimited turn ability of that bird in CoDnot to mention the turn circle that is half that of a Hurri. So I won't repeat myself

SO first, get some credibility among the devs and then you cld get what you are begging for a year now.

But for the honest reader, just a remind abt the Spit vers and the tempo during BoB :
http://plane-crazy.purplecloud.net/Aircraft/WW2-Planes/Spitfire/Examples/spitfire%20mk%202.htm

SA helps to get a clear pictures. Yeah that's true. But what's most needed in Virtual life certainly is honesty :eek::no

ATAG_Snapper
Feb-14-2012, 16:43
Nice photo of that Spit IIa and a good read below it. Thanks for sharing it, TC.

Dutch
Feb-15-2012, 09:25
Same test with MkIIa;

From wheels off the ground to 10,000ft, boost off, full throttle, 2850rpm, - 3m 25s.

(altimeter was adjusted to read zero before take-off in all cases).

The time quoted for the MkII in 'Alfred Price - The Spitfire story' is 3m 24s.

He also says that ;

'The increase in fully loaded weight of 122 pounds, compared with N 3171 (the MkI with Rotol prop quoted as 3m 30s to 10000ft) was due to the increased weight of the Merlin XII engine and the carriage of an IFF set and armour. Because of the additional weight and drag of the IFF aerials running from the fuselage to the tips of each tailplane, in spite of the extra power the MkII had performance only marginally better than that of N 3171 described earlier.'

The time to climb (10,000) for a Spit MkI with Wooden fixed pitch prop was 4m 18s.
The time to climb (10,000) for a Spit MkI with DH Two pitch metal airscrew was 5m 30s
The time to climb (10,000) for a Spit MkIa with Rotol CSP was 3m 30s (but it didn't have armour or IFF).

So my conclusion is that the CSP prop MkIa in the game has the same performance profile as the DH 2-speed prop model.

If we recall, the CS MkIa was introduced quite quickly in a patch following game release, so they gave us the rpm management, but not the performance improvement.

Be interesting to do similar tests with the two Hurri versions. Watch this space. :Grin:

ATAG_Snapper
Feb-15-2012, 11:42
Hmmmmmm........

So, correct me if I'm wrong. Your test of the CoD's Mark IIa time to reach 10,000 feet closely matches Alfred Price's Mark Ia time for the same test?

Uh oh...................LOL

Dutch
Feb-15-2012, 12:33
Hmmmmmm........

So, correct me if I'm wrong. Your test of the CoD's Mark IIa time to reach 10,000 feet closely matches Alfred Price's Mark Ia time for the same test?

Uh oh...................LOL

It's identical to Alfred Price's IIa figs bar one second. The discrepancy of one second is probably down to my bad piloting!

The CSP Ia's figs in Price's book are 6 secs slower than the II, but the example used didn't have armour plate or IFF. I'd estimate the weight of armour and IFF plus the drag of the aerials might increase the Ia's time to climb by ...well, 10 seconds? 20 seconds?

So if the in-game Ia had a time to climb of say 3m 40s - 3m 50s, we'd be in the ballpark, but it doesn't, it has the 5m 30s of the metal 2-speed prop, or worse.

So the IIa is accurate in this test, the Ia is very wide of the mark.

ATAG_Snapper
Feb-15-2012, 13:14
This is fascinating stuff. It'll be interesting to see how the Hurri Rotol compares to the ingame IIa.

GRAthos was concerned about the apparent lack of energy bleed in CoD's Spitfire IIa. He mentioned an Immelman turn in a Spit IIa, but did not give specifics as to what the speed of the IIa was at the conclusion of the turn vs the entry speed. Supposedly there was little or no speed loss, but he failed to say.

Dutch
Feb-15-2012, 13:27
I saw that but haven't tried it yet. It'd depend a lot more on the skill of the pilot too, in minimising energy loss, so results would differ from pilot to pilot. But I'll have a go! :Grin:

Dutch
Feb-15-2012, 14:37
It'll be interesting to see how the Hurri Rotol compares to the ingame IIa.

I couldn't get the Rotol Hurri to 10,000 in less than 5m 20s. I didn't use emergency boost, 2800rpm, optimum climb speed @ 148mph. It might be possible to better this, because I didn't keep my wings level all the way up. (Got mesmerised by the altimeter and clock, also trying to keep the RoC gauge on 2800ft/min!)

But again, there are so many variables in the test data also. I used this for a guide;

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/l2026.html

So the heavier weight result of 4.6m in the data might be achievable with a bit more concentration!

335th_GRAthos
Feb-15-2012, 14:44
little or no speed loss, but he failed to say.

Little or no speed loss is correct Snapper. The SpitII hardly bleeds energy compared to SpitI series.

And since both SpitI and SpitII fly on the same 87oct fuel :TS: and have the same airframe, there нs no logic behind this. Unless if somebody put a teflon coating on the SpitII which should not be there....

Thanks for posting all this tests (and having the courage to go through the pain) guys!
I feel vindicated because your tests make the point: SpitI & SpitII have the same 87octane fuel, performance is completely different. So forget the 87oct fuel saga.
The SpitI model is porked and no octane booster on earth can compensate that... (the SpitII model is porked too, but in other areas).

So, flight model, flight model, flight model! period!



But since I am not in the 1C forum so, I can write as much critisism I want ;) I will tell you where my biggest worry is (not that I have not posted it at 1C but I will a bit more direct here):
There is one real life gun camera film which I can not post due to copyright constraints, showing a Hellcat or Corsair, shooting the right wing fuel tank of a Zero flying straight and level. Big fire on the right wing.
What happens in the next second, the Zero starts a violent right roll: The fire on the right wing surface causes loss of lift on the right side, the left wing continues producing the same airlift as before and that causes the sudden roll movement is there.

How does a CoD plane behave:
I have landed a plane in this condition three times, back to my base over the channel...with the help of some rudder trim. You can do the same with your Spits and Hurris...
http://grathos.de/temp/CoD/Bf109_half_wing.jpg
This is why in CoD, holes in the wings have limited impact to the performance of the plane.

So my blood boils when I see how narrow minded people become, believing that all their problems will be solved if they have 13octanes (100-87=13) more in their fuel tank :!sad!:


Anyway, happy flying to all, at least we have the ATAG and REPKA servers so we have our share of fun without too much distraction. I am sorry you do not see me online lately, see you soon after the patch :thumbsup:



~S~

Dutch
Feb-15-2012, 14:57
Thanks for posting all this tests (and having the courage to go through the pain) guys!
I feel vindicated because your tests make the point: SpitI & SpitII have the same 87octane fuel, performance is completely different. So forget the 87oct fuel saga.
The SpitI model is porked and no octane booster on earth can compensate that... (the SpitII model is porked too, but in other areas).

So, flight model, flight model, flight model! period! :thumbsup:

Yep, this is what I've been trying to say all along, although I'd never be quite so erm....forthright with my comments!

:laugh1

Edit: Well actually, no aswell, because B6 says that 'such fuel as they had is in our game' or some such. We've definately got basic FM issues, but my theory is still that the Spit MkII and Rotol Hurri already have the 100 octane, the rest 87. But I could be wrong.

ATAG_Snapper
Feb-15-2012, 15:44
What has been a factor with this whole octane fuel discussion is the boost gauge. Many of us make the mistake thinking these are real aircraft with real instruments. When we see maximum boost is 6.5 lbs on the Spit/Hurri boost guage, we take that to correlate with the established 87 octane gas performance on real aircraft.

But as you folks point out, this doesn't explain other performance problems such as low service ceiling and, per Dutch's climbout tests above, the poorly performing CSP Spit Ia.

That slippery eel of a IIa is also a whole new kettle of fish. But if that means the IIa can trim the tail feathers of a zooming 109 E4 -- then that's a good thing, right? <Snapper ducks GRAthos' thrown shoe LOL>

Over the next few days I plan to acquire, install, and test A2A's new Wings of Power 3 Spitfire. It'll be interesting to try the climb numbers of their CSP versions of the Ia and IIa against Dutch's test numbers. I realize it's a bit of apples to oranges, but it'll be interesting to compare the two sets.

I think it's safe to say that everyone here wants accurate flight models for ALL aircraft, period.

Dutch
Feb-15-2012, 15:50
Over the next few days I plan to acquire, install, and test A2A's new Wings of Power 3 Spitfire. It'll be interesting to try the climb numbers of their CSP versions of the Ia and IIa against Dutch's test numbers. I realize it's a bit of apples to oranges, but it'll be interesting to compare the two sets.

I think it's safe to say that everyone here wants accurate flight models for ALL aircraft, period.

Comparing A2A's stuff to Alfie Price would deffo be very cool. I'd be particularly interested in the MkIa Rotol prop result, as you can imagine.

BTW, as you're more of a Rotol Hurri chap than me, could you also have a go at the time to 10,000 game yourself in Cliffs? I got kinda bored in the end!! :Grin:

ATAG_Snapper
Feb-15-2012, 15:54
I'll be glad to try the Hurri Rotol and DH520, Dutch. Will set my altimeter to 0 feet as you did. I have the Alfred Price Spitfire book, will look up the relevant info.

Dutch
Feb-15-2012, 16:02
Excellent! I'm off to the pub now, so see yers later. :thumbsup:

ATAG_Snapper
Feb-15-2012, 16:05
:thumbsup:

ATAG_Snapper
Feb-15-2012, 19:53
OK, here's what I got:

Hurricane Rotol: 2800 rpm, 5.7" boost, 148 mph - 4:55

Hurricane DH 5-20: 2840 - 3020 rpm, 5.4" - 6.0" boost, 148 mph - 6.49

Spitfire IIa: 2800 rpm, 5.8" boost, 148 mph - 3:33

Methodology:

Set altimeter to "0"
Warmed up until water temp reached 60 C
Take off full throttle, radiator full open
Rotated at 80 mph
Started stopwatch as wheels left the ground
Retracted wheels
Closed radiator to 50%

For CSP (Rotol & IIa) used pitch control to back off rpms to 2800
Maintained speed at 148 mph IAS
Stopped stopwatch at 10,000 feet and recorded elapsed time

For DH 5-20, I just went full throttle and stayed in fine pitch, hence the range of rpms & boost recorded as we climbed. Probably could have improved time of climb if I'd playec with the mixture (afterthought).

Dutch
Feb-15-2012, 22:03
That's brilliant mate. 4.55 is so close to the 4.6 in the data for the 'heavyweight' MkI Rotol Hurri.

So here's my bet: The MkII Spit and the Hurri Rotol are very well modelled in the game for this test (maybe not so good in other ways), and are running 100 octane.

I'll have to check on the DH figs, but it sounds about right to me, especially compared to Alfie's 5m 30s for the Spit with the same prop..

Thanks for doing the test. To be continued!! :Grin:

ATAG_Snapper
Feb-16-2012, 09:13
This exercise was a bit of an eye opener for me. I did a couple of extra runs on the Rotol which I didn't publish above, just out of personal curiosity. Normally I park my rpms at 2500 at full throttle ingame, so I tried that setting and attempted to get sharpest climb by increasing my angle of attack at near-stall condition. Ie, keeping my nose pointed as high as possible. This gave me a sustained speed of 90 mph, but it took 7:01 to reach 10,000 feet.

Again at 2500 rpms and full throttle (6.2 lbs boost) I held 148 mph, this time it took 5:13 to reach 10,000 feet.

I don't know how reproducible this is -- I only did one trial at each setting so anyone could get something quite different, I suppose. Also, there's a bit of squirrelling around after taking off, what with starting the stopwatch, raising gear, half-closing rad, adjusting pitch (Rotol & IIa), etc etc which introduces variables to the data. Also, the mixture on the Hurricane DH 5-20 was left on rich, when it probably should've been progressively leaned with altitude. Hey, Alex Henshaw I am NOT! LOL

But it was fun. :thumbsup:

Dutch
Feb-16-2012, 09:28
Yeah, I suppose IRL they'd've had a chap on the ground with a stopwatch and a radio.

It's interesting doing these tests to show the aspects of forward speed versus rate of climb and how critical it is. The IIa goes up like a lift with very little pilot input, and on occasions the RoC gauge is against the stop at 4000 when showing 160 IAS.
I found the Rotol Hurri needed far more 'management' in terms of trim and stick waggling, but didn't get as good a time as you did.

Think I'll have a few more goes! :laugh1

By the way, I did the same test with the Spit MkI two pitch prop, and got the same results as for the CSP. Over 5m 30s.

ATAG_Knuckles
Feb-16-2012, 09:30
Flying full size for 30 years:

Yes !!! the practice is to always top off after a flight, due to "water" condensation that WILL accumulate in the tanks. Topping off dosen't cure the issue just makes it less. The reason that you always "Drain" a portion of the bottom of the tanks prior to flight.
However saying that !!! testing is always done with a specific measure of fuel.

Knuckles

ATAG_Snapper
Feb-16-2012, 09:41
I intend to do more offline flying/testing to really get to know the aircraft better.

For instance, the Hurri DH5-20 doesn't have Auto Rich/Auto Lean mixture control -- it's fully manual. I putzed around with it at 10,000 feet last night. At full throttle, Full Rich, and fine pitch I was turning over 3,000 rpms but not going terribly fast -- 170 mph (?). When I pulled the prop pitch lever fully back the revs dropped way down - below 1600 rpm and the plane shook badly and lost even more speed. When I slowly advanced the Mixture Lever forward to lean the mixture, the plane stopped shaking, the revs picked up, and my level speed quickly picked up to 240 mph IAS. It was a "Aha!" moment!

Dutch
Feb-16-2012, 09:55
@ Knucks, thanks mate, thought so. :Grin:

Wonder how the Blenny compares to performance data? I've never even looked at any 'official figures'! :laugh1

@ Snapper, save your money with the FSX and A2A idea then!!

Talisman
Feb-16-2012, 11:04
Little or no speed loss is correct Snapper. The SpitII hardly bleeds energy compared to SpitI series.

And since both SpitI and SpitII fly on the same 87oct fuel :TS: and have the same airframe, there нs no logic behind this. Unless if somebody put a teflon coating on the SpitII which should not be there....

Thanks for posting all this tests (and having the courage to go through the pain) guys!
I feel vindicated because your tests make the point: SpitI & SpitII have the same 87octane fuel, performance is completely different. So forget the 87oct fuel saga.
The SpitI model is porked and no octane booster on earth can compensate that... (the SpitII model is porked too, but in other areas).

So, flight model, flight model, flight model! period!



But since I am not in the 1C forum so, I can write as much critisism I want ;) I will tell you where my biggest worry is (not that I have not posted it at 1C but I will a bit more direct here):
There is one real life gun camera film which I can not post due to copyright constraints, showing a Hellcat or Corsair, shooting the right wing fuel tank of a Zero flying straight and level. Big fire on the right wing.
What happens in the next second, the Zero starts a violent right roll: The fire on the right wing surface causes loss of lift on the right side, the left wing continues producing the same airlift as before and that causes the sudden roll movement is there.

How does a CoD plane behave:
I have landed a plane in this condition three times, back to my base over the channel...with the help of some rudder trim. You can do the same with your Spits and Hurris...
http://grathos.de/temp/CoD/Bf109_half_wing.jpg
This is why in CoD, holes in the wings have limited impact to the performance of the plane.

So my blood boils when I see how narrow minded people become, believing that all their problems will be solved if they have 13octanes (100-87=13) more in their fuel tank :!sad!:


Anyway, happy flying to all, at least we have the ATAG and REPKA servers so we have our share of fun without too much distraction. I am sorry you do not see me online lately, see you soon after the patch :thumbsup:



~S~

Hi Grathos,

Steady on with that blood boiling stuff old chap, we dont want you to keel over. I agree with what you say about the flight models. However, I have been trying to make the extra point over on the banana forum that they appear not to have paid any attention to model the Spitfire aircraft that took part in the battle with the 100 Octane fuel and resulting extra boost. Surely you would agree that this is also part of the flight model consideration, as well as many of the other things that effect the way the aircraft model will fly. My point is that I would like to fly the Spitfire like the veteran combat reports and historical data. I would also like to fly the Me 109 like the veteran combat reports. I would like to see flight models for all aircraft that match as near as possible the historical way it was. I am particularly disappointed with the Spitfire, and Hurricane for that matter, that our simulated experience with instrument readings and operation of the boos cut-out do not match what the veteran pilots say or the historical data that is available. If you have researched and read information on the 100 Octane fuel issue I feel sure that you will understand what I mean. I hope we get better flight models from the company soon, but I do not want them to forget the 100 Octane fuel issue, because it was fundamental to RAF success in the air during the battle. Surely it is correct and fair to raise the issue of 100 Octane fuel, as it existed in real life, and ask for it to be included as part of the flight model as far as operating the controls in the cockpit and any resulting flight characteristics. I have not said that I want to fly faster, I have just asked for a proper simulated experience for a Spitfire and Hurricane using the 100 Octane fuel that it was designed to use.

Hope to see you in the ATAG sky again soon.

Happy landings,

Talisman

ATAG_Colander
Feb-16-2012, 11:37
There is one real life gun camera film which I can not post due to copyright constraints, showing a Hellcat or Corsair, shooting the right wing fuel tank of a Zero flying straight and level. Big fire on the right wing.
What happens in the next second, the Zero starts a violent right roll: The fire on the right wing surface causes loss of lift on the right side, the left wing continues producing the same airlift as before and that causes the sudden roll movement is there.

How does a CoD plane behave:
I have landed a plane in this condition three times, back to my base over the channel...with the help of some rudder trim. You can do the same with your Spits and Hurris...


Like this?
http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqpw7dunIR1r1vz7co1_500.jpg

ATAG_Snapper
Feb-16-2012, 16:58
That happened to me in my Rotol. I passed a wee bit too close to a bomber's stabilizer and clipped off about half my starboard wing. I immediately started to roll right but was able to slow the roll with opposite rudder. The roll stopped completely when I applied full left trim. I made it back to Hawkinge to land, resulting in a beautiful cartwheel down the airfield, then blowing up. :goofy:

335th_GRAthos
Feb-16-2012, 17:12
Like this?
http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lqpw7dunIR1r1vz7co1_500.jpg

JS, where does this come from???

~S~

Dutch
Feb-18-2012, 09:07
I have been trying to make the extra point over on the banana forum that they appear not to have paid any attention to model the Spitfire aircraft that took part in the battle with the 100 Octane fuel and resulting extra boost.

So am I correct in thinking that the issue regarding 100 octane is simply a matter of the reading on the Boost Gauge rather than any performance difference? :inq:

Only it seems to me that what we need most for the Ia is rate of climb and acceleration, which the CSP currently doesn't give us. Not even at the 87 octane levels. The Rotol Hurri outclimbs the Rotol Spit Ia.

According to Alfred Price, the 2-speed prop gave higher top speeds than the CSP, but what was required most by the pilots was rate of climb, rather than top speed.

I'd say that's what we most need in the game, too! :)

Talisman
Feb-20-2012, 11:27
So am I correct in thinking that the issue regarding 100 octane is simply a matter of the reading on the Boost Gauge rather than any performance difference? :inq:

Only it seems to me that what we need most for the Ia is rate of climb and acceleration, which the CSP currently doesn't give us. Not even at the 87 octane levels. The Rotol Hurri outclimbs the Rotol Spit Ia.

According to Alfred Price, the 2-speed prop gave higher top speeds than the CSP, but what was required most by the pilots was rate of climb, rather than top speed.

I'd say that's what we most need in the game, too! :)

Hi Dutch,

As I said "resulting extra boost", meaning the resulting extra boost! If there is extra boost then I
would expect to see it in the flight model. The amount of extra boost depends on the altitude.
My understanding is the 100-octane fuel increased the Spitfire's speed by 25 mph at sea level
and by 34 mph at 10,000 feet.
http://www.rsc.org/AboutUs/News/PressReleases/2009/SpitfireFuel.asp

Also, The Spitfire Story, by Alfred Price lists the diff between 87 octane fuel and 100 as

"giving no improvement at or above 16,500 foot full throttle height of the merlin II and III engines fitted to the spitfires, below that altitude the maximum boost pressure could be raised from 6 1/4 pounds to 12 pounds without causing detonation in the cylinders; the resultant extra power increased the maximum speed by a useful 25mph at sea level and 34mph at 10,000 feet"

and being supplied to frontline squadrons from spring 1940.

Happy landings,

Talisman

Dutch
Feb-20-2012, 14:39
Well, we're in complete agreement then, Talisman old chap. :dthumb:

They need to get a much better FM together for the Ia (well we're told we're getting them for all), then give us an option for 87/100 octane, or given the widespread availability of it at the time, just make the 100 octane figures the norm.

Correct instrument readings for both of course.

Not sure some of the Blue pilots'll be too happy when it all comes together though!

335th_GRAthos
Feb-20-2012, 14:55
Just promise me that the new SpitI will not have the teflon coating on the wings like SpitII and I'll survive :Grin:

~S~

jaydee
Feb-21-2012, 01:54
Just promise me that the new SpitI will not have the teflon coating on the wings like SpitII and I'll survive :Grin:

~S~

Im new to all this "forum ettiquet" ! Is that a "Troll" ?:inq:

335th_GRAthos
Feb-21-2012, 04:16
You have to read it in conjuction with the last sentence of the previous post Jayde, unfortunately the page changed.

It is just a humouristic but subtle reminder that FM is not depending exclusively on engine performance but on energy behaviour and a lot of other things :Grin:

~S~

PS. and the good thing is that 1c acknoledged they are working on it

Talisman
Feb-21-2012, 04:58
Well, we're in complete agreement then, Talisman old chap. :dthumb:

They need to get a much better FM together for the Ia (well we're told we're getting them for all), then give us an option for 87/100 octane, or given the widespread availability of it at the time, just make the 100 octane figures the norm.

Correct instrument readings for both of course.

Not sure some of the Blue pilots'll be too happy when it all comes together though!


I hope they do include the 100 Octane fuel with the new flight models, but I do not hold out much
hope. We need the model to be correct though if they do, or it will get a bad name, as the 25lbs
boost Spit did in the old IL2 sim. The extra boost needs to have a realistic model. We should not be
able to fly around with boost on all the time without the penalty of damaging the engine and having
to cope with the very considerable increase in fuel consumption, etc. We need to have a model with
attention to he detail.

When we fly blue planes we will have to adjust, as did the LW in the BoB. But soon when we fly red
and the FW 190 is about, we will have to adjust again! Also, red pilots will have a big adjustment
to make with the BoM; very happy days for blue pilots on the eastern front early on, but it gets harder
as the war moves on. Change is constant!

PS. The thing I am looking forward to most in CloD at the moment is dynamic weather and things
that mean we will have to develope our airmanship (not driving) skills.

Happy landings,

Talisman

ATAG_Septic
Feb-21-2012, 05:46
PS. The thing I am looking forward to most in CloD at the moment is dynamic weather and things
that mean we will have to develope our airmanship (not driving) skills.

Happy landings,

Talisman

Some good points Talisman, especially for me your P.S. It's long confused me why professional aviators seem so satisfied (according to some 1c forum posts) flying a sim with such smooth air. The little passenger-with-a-go-on-the-stick flying experience I've had (from Chipmunk / microlight /Piper) the air has felt a roller coaster. My brief microlight experience taught me to beware of warm clear looking days (in UK) as the air would be especially bumpy.

Cheers Old Bean.

ATAG_Knuckles
Feb-21-2012, 08:34
Ans especially the crummy wet weather that crops up so often in that part of the world.

Gee you would actually have to learn that funny English compass

Knucks

ATAG_Septic
Feb-21-2012, 10:16
Ans especially the crummy wet weather that crops up so often in that part of the world.

Gee you would actually have to learn that funny English compass

Knucks

We learn at an early age in rusty old Blighty that; Whether the weather is hot, or whether the weather is cold, we'll weather the weather, whatever the weather, whether we like it or not.

Septic :)

Dutch
Feb-21-2012, 10:23
:laugh1

We can only cope with mild drizzle anyway. Anything different to mild drizzle causes a national crisis. :uhoh

ATAG_Snapper
Feb-21-2012, 15:26
OK, I went to ATAG's Server #2 to evaluate three RAF fighters' energy loss in executing Immelman turns. Methodology: I flew each aircraft at the same settings: full throttle yielding 6.25 lbs boost (no overboost), pitch set to yield 2,500 rpms in each engine. Once I achieved level flight and trimmed out at 5,000 feet (or as close as I could get it), I recorded the IAS then brought the plane up into an Immelman turn at 3.5 g's (I'm guessing there; I just did a frickin' Immelman). Upon completing this vertical turn I immediately righted the aircraft and recorded IAS and altitude.

Here's my results:

Spitfire IIa: Start: 5,000 feet; 290 mph IAS
Finish: 7,200 feet; 120 mph IAS

Spitfire Ia: Start: 5,100 feet; 240 mph IAS
Finish: 6,950 feet; 80 mph

Hurri Rotol: Start: 5,300 feet; 250 mph IAS
Finish: 7,080 feet; 100 mph IAS

I recorded each attempt per the video clip below. Sorry it's a little dark -- the Server time is 4:30 a.m.!!! LOL If there was ever a prize for most boring vidoes over at the banana forum; this would be a contender....

http://vimeo.com/37199001


http://vimeo.com/37199001

335th_GRAthos
Feb-21-2012, 17:35
Thank you Snapper for making the video!!!! :nw:


Interesting that the SpitII at 2,500 rpms does 290mph compared to the 250mph of the SpitI (SpitII speed is 16% higher at the same rpm)

I was surprised by the performance of the Hurricane (it only lost 60% of its initial speed). Then, I saw that it achieved only 800ft alt advantage.


The SpitII also lost 59% of its initial speed (= energy).
But at a gain of 1200ft (50% more altitude gain than the Hurricane).
And since altitude in energy....:thumbsup:

The Milkman's calculation: 59% speed loss minus 50% alt gain nets a 9% loss.
OK, OK, I will have to admit my exaggerations and take my previous statements back: Teflon has much lower loss :laugh1 [this calculation is absolute rubbish, but fun must be...]


You have to do one more test one day Snapper, for me:
Start at 250mph at 5000ft in the SpitII and do the Immelmann again.



~S~

ATAG_Snapper
Feb-21-2012, 18:17
Hi Athos!

I'll be pleased to give it a try at 250 mph and will post my results back here. Dutch gave me a heads up on the Spit airspeed indicator; it's a little different from the Hurri's in that it doesn't have the "big hand, little hand" like the Hurricane does. When I did the Immelman in the IIa the single needle rotated a full 360 degrees around the dial from 290 down to 120 at the conclusion of the maneuvre. I don't know if this is modelled correctly in the sim, but at a quick glance 290 looks no different than 120, but I watched the video later in close up to reassure myself that the speed did wind down.

Also, my Immelman's were a little sloppy, but I didn't have the time to repeat/practice to make them "pretty". :). Because we have no g-meter in this sim I wasn't sure how I could accurately reproduce the precise climbing arc of each Immelman turn....so I didn't worry about it. I just did 'em. LOL

EDIT: Spitfire IIa Immelman with entry speed at 252 mph

Everything else was done the same, ie 5,000 feet start altitude, 2500 rpms, just the throttle was reduced to bring a level speed of 252 mph (I thought I was at 250 mph, but a closeup of the video below shows 252 :( At least I was bang on for altitude! :) ).

Results: Start: 252 mph, 5,000 feet
Finish: 95 mph, 7,000 feet

http://vimeo.com/37230530


http://vimeo.com/37230530

P.S. Apologies to Striker for briefly interrupting our Teamspeak discussion for this filming. "Quiet on the set! Lights! Camera! ACTION!!!" LOL

jaydee
Feb-22-2012, 02:27
You have to read it in conjuction with the last sentence of the previous post Jayde, unfortunately the page changed.

It is just a humouristic but subtle reminder that FM is not depending exclusively on engine performance but on energy behaviour and a lot of other things :Grin:

~S~

PS. and the good thing is that 1c acknoledged they are working on it

My apologies Grathos ! ~S~

ATAG_Snapper
Feb-22-2012, 03:49
Thank you Snapper for making the video!!!! :nw:


Interesting that the SpitII at 2,500 rpms does 290mph compared to the 250mph of the SpitI (SpitII speed is 16% higher at the same rpm)

I was surprised by the performance of the Hurricane (it only lost 60% of its initial speed). Then, I saw that it achieved only 800ft alt advantage.


The SpitII also lost 59% of its initial speed (= energy).
But at a gain of 1200ft (50% more altitude gain than the Hurricane).
And since altitude in energy....:thumbsup:

The Milkman's calculation: 59% speed loss minus 50% alt gain nets a 9% loss.
OK, OK, I will have to admit my exaggerations and take my previous statements back: Teflon has much lower loss :laugh1 [this calculation is absolute rubbish, but fun must be...]


You have to do one more test one day Snapper, for me:
Start at 250mph at 5000ft in the SpitII and do the Immelmann again.
~S~

re Spit IIa going 40 mph faster at same rpm: I'm no expert here, but I don't believe the real Merlin XII was that much more powerful that the Merlin III that it could support such a coarser pitch at 2500 rpms to yield that speed increase. IMHO the Merlin III is undermodelled in that respect.

I agree with your statement that it's the flight modelling as a whole that needs to be adjusted. None of these aircraft can come close to the posted service ceilings for each of them by a huge margin. I think the highest anyone achieved was 27,000 feet -- I've never come close. You would know better than I, but I'm sure the 109's (all models) suffer the same situation.

335th_GRAthos
Feb-22-2012, 04:52
My apologies Grathos ! ~S~
WHAT! :cussing:
You thought I am like banana forum's XXXX, XXth_XXXX, XXX, XXX_XX, xxxxxx, XX, XXnd_XX, XXXX, XXth_XXXX, XXX, XXX_XX, xxxxxx, XX, XXnd_XX, XXXX, XXth_XXXX, XXX, XXX_XX, xxxxxx, XX, XXnd_XX, XXXX, XXth_XXXX, XXX, XXX_XX, xxxxxx, XX, XXnd_XX, XXXX, XXth_XXXX, XXX, XXX_XX, xxxxxx, XX, XXnd_XX, XXXX, XXth_XXXX, XXX, XXX_XX, xxxxxx, XX, XXnd_XX, XXXX, XXth_XXXX, XXX, XXX_XX, xxxxxx, XX, XXnd_XX [message truncated, length of post exceeded max allowable limit...]
No problem! :roflmao:


Snapper, many thanks for the last video!
Which will make me shut up because, looking at the performance of the SpitII, it is only 8% and 12% (in speed and in altitude respectively) superior to the SpitI. This is too small a difference to make a conclusive result since the starting parameters may vary by this much.
Which would lead to the logical conclusion that it is the engine that makes the difference :!sad!:
But I swear, the SpitII flies like it is from another world! :grr:
Oh well...


~S~