PDA

View Full Version : IvanK talks climb rates



ATAG_Snapper
May-29-2012, 08:40
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=429912&postcount=1

Interesting post.

ATAG_Deacon
May-29-2012, 09:19
:pouting:

Stuck at work, no 1C Forums until I get home tonight...:blush!:

ATAG_Snapper
May-29-2012, 09:27
Sorry, Deak. Howzzis?

EDIT: Doesn't look like his attached chart came through here, but his analysis below tells the story. I'm sitting this one out over there. I've made my thoughts abundantly clear already. :bgsmile:

FM's the State of Play with emphasis on Climb performance.
After flying On line and believing I was seeing unusually poor Spit IIA Climb performance I went and did some specific climb testing. Its time to height is now significantly below spec performance. Attached jpg show the results of the Climb test data overlayed over Spit IIa RAE Tests and the climb tests performed in Ver 159550. My Climb profile was identical to that flown in the RAE test. As you can see Climb performance is now well below spec and after passing 16,000ft is totally unacceptable imo. So the FM changes made here are not acceptable imo and have gone to far to reduce RAF fighter performance. Given the results I saw with Spit IIA I then re tested all fighters (except G50).

I am not sure exactly what FM changes were made to the Spit IIA, IA and Hurricane ROTOL in this CLOD Beta/alpha patch version but imo certainly Climb rate wise it was pretty much spot on in Version 159550 as the graph attached here shows. At present the Spit MKIIA and IA are outclassed by the BF109E3/4 in the climb area. They shouldn't be ! The BF109E4 and SpitIIA and even IA climb performance real world should be quite close. as the graphs and data from RAE flight tests show.

Testing the Spit IA reveals a similar issue. The Spit IA Climb performance has also been decreased to well below spec performance. The ROTOL Hurricane has had its climb performance reduced as well and imo is the worst of all and now bears no resemblance to Spec climb performance !

From a Climb performance point of view all that was really needed from Ver 159550 to 1.06.17582 was to improve the the BF109E3/4 climb performance as it was clearly below par. Instead we see the Spit IIA and IA climb performance being degraded to the point of making them uncompetitive in the climb arena. The Hurricane is worst affected of all.

I have also re tested the BF109E4 Climb performance and find it unchanged from Ver 159550 which was and still is also below the OKL Climb specification.

So it would seem the Spit IIA and Spit IA Climb performance that was pretty close to spot on in Ver 159550 has been reduced to bring them down to even worse performance than the Ver 159550 Bf109E4 (which is still below spec). This testing of climb performance is also backed up On line with the E3/4 generally dominating in the Dog fight arena in the vertical. The Bf109E3/E4 in most cases can simply climb out of a fight and disengage at will.... even with Climb performance still below OKL spec .... this is how bad the issue is !

So how to fix this ? The Spit IA, IIA, Hurricane ROTOL Climb performance of Ver 159550 needs to be returned. You guys did an exceptionally good job imo on this one for Hurricanes,Spit IA and IIA. In fact all the climb performances in Ver 159550 except from the 109's were exceptionally good and close to available data. The BF109E3/4 performance needed/needs to be improved to bring it up to its spec performance which is close to Spit IIA. Based on the RAE data and the OKL 109E4 data the E3/4 should above 4000m show slightly better climb performance than all the RAF fighters. (the Yellow line).

Maybe be I am wrong but given that excess power is one of the prime determinants of climb performance and all Merlin powered aircraft have become worse (shifted to the right on the graph) by a similar amount could it be that Power output for this engine type/class has been reduced globally ? It would also explain the reduction in Vmax performance of the Merlin powered aircraft ?



__________________
Летайте на Яке!
Last edited by IvanK; Today at 01:10 AM.

Dutch
May-29-2012, 09:35
Hmmm, well it's nice to be vindicated, eh Snapper? :Grin:

ATAG_Snapper
May-29-2012, 09:50
Hmmm, well it's nice to be vindicated, eh Snapper? :Grin:

:Grin:

He also noted some improvements needed with the 109's -- as we all knew and agreed. It was really a need to bring the 109's performance upwards to match (and in some areas, exceed) the pre-patch IIa, then give emergency 12 lbs boost (for short term emergency) to the I and Ia, Hurri I and Ia (Rotol). I still felt the Ia Vmax performance at 6.25 lbs boost was way off, even pre-patch -- the Rotol was faster! The Ia performance pre-patch should've been closer to the IIa, but slower than the 109's adjusted Vmax.

Instead all RAF planes were nerfed. I won't speculate on the reasons (been there, done that! :bgsmile: )

ATAG_Deacon
May-29-2012, 09:53
Snapper,

Thank you for the update. IvanK's synopsis seems pretty spot on...and quite inline with your testing.

I am hopeful (yet highly doubtful given history) that the dev's actually listen and at least come close to reality :bgsmile:


~S~

Deacon

ATAG_Snapper
May-29-2012, 10:06
I'm finding the arguments against IvanK's finding interesting. Essentially, they're saying his methodology is incorrect for the 109 in testing maximum climb rate. Basically, it appears they're saying measuring a sustained climb rate at 250 kmh IAS does not give the best climb rate, because, as we all know, IAS falls with altitude due to the thinner air.

This, to me, is a classic case of "be careful what you ask for." :happy

If, by inference, IvanK should step up his IAS as he climbs to allow for this, his elapsed time curve will show the 109's in-sim climb rate to be too high!!!!:shocked:
This is a situation where, if you want the devs to jack up your favourite aircraft's performance, you should be sandbagging on the charts!

But, I could be wrong. :Grin:

Dutch
May-29-2012, 10:42
From Spit I pilot's notes;

'For Max rate of Climb the following speeds are recommended;

Ground level to 12,000ft - 185mph ASIR

12 - 15,000ft - 180mph ASIR

15-20,000 - 170mph ASIR

20-25,000 - 160mph ASIR'

Interestingly, I've already found that in-game these indicated speeds don't give the best climb rates in the Spit I. Ground to 12,000 is more like 160mph if I remember correctly.

Out of interest, it also gives rpm setting limits as 0-1000ft 3000rpm and 2600rpm for the rest with a 1/2 hr time limit.

It also says 'Fuel - Operational Units 100 octane only, Other units 87 octane.

But we won't go there, eh! :Grin:

ATAG_Deacon
May-29-2012, 10:42
Again...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=W-_sABor77E

:angry:

Dutch
May-29-2012, 11:02
Basically, it appears they're saying measuring a sustained climb rate at 250 kmh IAS does not give the best climb rate, because, as we all know, IAS falls with altitude due to the thinner air.

Eh???

Maintaining a constant indicated airspeed means your true airspeed is gradually increasing with altitude as the air thins, thus the lift generated by the wing remains almost constant.

As far as I recall, IvanK is a real life pilot and knows exactly what he's doing.

ATAG_Snapper
May-29-2012, 11:44
Please.....allow me to retort:

784


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPHuE5pDlEs

:bgsmile:

ATAG_JTDawg
May-29-2012, 11:48
:bgsmile: :hpyclp: :shocked: wow plus 1 now all we need is it fixed lol

ATAG_Snapper
May-29-2012, 12:09
Eh???

Maintaining a constant indicated airspeed means your true airspeed is gradually increasing with altitude as the air thins, thus the lift generated by the wing remains almost constant.

As far as I recall, IvanK is a real life pilot and knows exactly what he's doing.

Yep! In another thread he mentions he flies a Yak52. :happy

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=429732&postcount=67

Still, the usual suspects are questioning his methodology and hence his conclusions. Clearly, they prefer to maintain the status quo insofar as FM's are concerned. In fairness, there are a significant number of Blue pilots that want ALL flight models to be historically accurate -- fully aware that it will increase their challenge online.

Robo.
May-29-2012, 12:24
Yes, IvanK is a great guy and indeed a RL pilot (with plenty of experience, both civilian and military afik). He's invoved in both 1946 (Daidalos Team) and CloD and spent lots of time in the archives digging info fot the devs + testing as you can see. He's also testing sttuff for DCS and I find his posts very informative and his knowledge very practical in all aspects. I only know him very briefly from DT but I have great deal of respect towards this man :thumbsup: Anyway, he's what you call 'blue' pilot in CloD and I've seen him in a 109 every now and then with his squadmates. Hi observations and testing is spot on, but there will always be some people over at banana saying otherwise :dazed:

Snapper I really envy your calm approach over there, I can't read that stuff without chewing my chair. :bgsmile:

Anyway FMs are a joke now. But the game is still fun. Maybe they will make a sim out of it one day. :Grin:

ATAG_Snapper
May-29-2012, 12:41
Yeah, he shot me down last week while I was flying high above and up sun of an AI Blenheim formation. As I was peering down over the right side of my cockpit, looking to bounce any unwary 109, he snuck up from behind and laid a can of whoop ass on my Spit! :bgsmile: (Can't rely on that danged sonar anymore..... :hiding:)

Well, we'll see what comes of it. Like you said, we'll just keep having fun flying it in the meantime. :thumbsup:

ATAG_Snapper
May-29-2012, 20:03
IvanK is now getting grilled by the armchair experts. He doesn't seemed phazed one little bit, though - he just answers their questions. I admire his shibumi (grace under pressure).

Robo.
May-30-2012, 02:09
Oh yes. :hpyclp: Quite typical. One particular person with no knowledge about British engines whatsoever is cheeky enough to doubt his results. Quite fun to read that but imagine one has to spend time doing the testing AND then respond to random rants like that.

BTW, just to let you know everything is absolutely OK with the RAF performance, the 80mph speed drop is just nitpicking. :hpyclp:

jaydee
May-30-2012, 04:11
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=429912&postcount=1

Interesting post.

I read that post and agreed with everything he said based on my experiences flying Spits (before and after the Patch) ! I wonder how long before all the "Experts and Authorities" on FMs will be throwing "Charts" and "Graphs" back to "SHOW HIM" how much they Know.........The mans a real pilot,worked with TD and took the time to test and prove what we all know.......The developers will Surely listen to him !:teeter

camber
May-30-2012, 06:30
Hi all,

I was one of the folks trying to generate flight data for the patch but I am giving up for the time being. I think ATAG_Snapper would agree with me that it is rather a masochistic pursuit after a while :) Good luck to IvanK I say! It is very hard to penetrate the veil of odd arguments, inability to change course under any circumstances and blatant red or blue arguements.

Even with dodgy FMs ATAG is lots of fun, though I think it could be so much more with CloD improvements. When the beta patch first arrived there was 40 people in the server at my flying time instead of 3-10. Clearly there are people that want to jump into CloD MP that aren't. Maybe the devs are listening.

Cheers, camber

ATAG_Snapper
May-30-2012, 07:12
Welcome to the Forum, Camber. It's great to see you posting here! :thumbsup:

It was your initial data that had me look a little further into the offline FM compared to the online FM, and found a major difference with the Spitfire IIa's FM between the two. Fortunately, over here you'll find a lot of support and respect by ALL the ATAG Forum members here. We have lively discussions, and frequently disagree on many topics, but we keep it civil and even enjoy a little (lots, actually) levity now and again.

I agree that over at the banana forum there's frequently a certain degree of resistance by some to ideas, or even FACTS, that run counter to prevailing thought. A good example is IvanK's current thread on climb rates between RAF and LW fighters pre-and post- alpha patch. Instead of presenting actual sim findings of their own to refute his data, these armchair experts are quibbling over the difference in weight (75 lbs) between the RL Spitfire that was tested and the Cliffs of Dover Spitfire! It's embarrassing. I resisted asking whether the RL pilot in 1940 had eaten a big meal prior to testing, or perhaps instead had a big preflight dump in the latrine! :Grin:

Of course, that would've been childish, and everyone here knows that I'm the model of maturity at all times here! :0:

Well, we'll see what the devs have in store for ALL the flight models in future patches. They have lots of things to fix in each one!

Snapper :salute:

ATAG_Septic
May-30-2012, 08:22
Please.....allow me to retort:

784


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPHuE5pDlEs

:bgsmile:

So many priceless scenes in this movie, the dialogue, acting, choreography, action, plot, humour (In English it's humour not humor), satire. It's just brilliant.

In fact I've talked myself into another viewing, thanks Snapper:-)

ATAG_Snapper
May-30-2012, 09:16
Yeah, I threw the YouTube clip in for reference to my doctored pic above, otherwise Dutch may well be wondering what ol' Snapper is on about! :bgsmile:

Gotta love YouTube -- a great source for all the best moments in movies. And a great way to totally waste an entire evening! LOL

Dutch
May-30-2012, 09:23
Naaah, not me mate. :Grin:

As it happens, 'Pulp' is one of my favourites too.

'Inglorious Basterds' I thought was pants however........

ATAG_Snapper
May-31-2012, 09:12
I like a lot of Tarentino's movies; "From Dusk 'Til Dawn", "Reservoir Dogs", etc. Odds are, if my wife thinks it's "sick"......I'm gonna like it! :bgsmile:

Fried
May-31-2012, 10:17
I would really love to wade into that thread on 1c and make my first and final post there, final cos time I finished telling them what I thought of them and thier self-serving ideas it would mean an instaban :bgsmile:

Robo.
May-31-2012, 10:24
I like a lot of Tarentino's movies; "From Dusk 'Til Dawn", "Reservoir Dogs", etc. Odds are, if my wife thinks it's "sick"......I'm gonna like it! :bgsmile:

Exactly. I am lucky enough to share my taste with my girlfriend although she looks a bit puzzled when watching certain scenes (Stuck in the middle with youuu).

I liked Ingl. Basterds, too. Only one I didn't enjoy was about that racing car with Mickey Rourke... Death Trap or something.

Fried - yeah mate, you need to take it easy in there.

ATAG_Snapper
May-31-2012, 10:40
It's been an eye-opener for me. I'm a firm believer in "If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and walks like a duck......then it's probably a duck."

Case in point: with the latest patch + Hotfix there were initial complaints of the 109's stalling out too viciously and being too difficult to recover from the resulting incipient spin. I was skeptical at first, and actually voted "against" it over at the Bugtracker site in view of the person who authored it and his track record on 1C. However....similar reports were coming in from Blues players that I have huge respect for, and even some Red players were reporting 109's spinning out and not recovering. I don't need charts or mathematical equations to convince me that something wrong was done to the 109 flight model that desperately needs fixing. If I knew how to reverse my vote on Bugtracker, I would.

The eye-opener I refer to is how obviously well-educated and otherwise-knowledgeable people will allow their prejudices to spin reams of data to refute what is clear as day. Nothing new, I know, but I'm still amazed at how overt they are about it. And a little disgusted, I have to admit.

Fried
May-31-2012, 13:19
The eye-opener I refer to is how obviously well-educated and otherwise-knowledgeable people will allow their prejudices to spin reams of data to refute what is clear as day. Nothing new, I know, but I'm still amazed at how overt they are about it. And a little disgusted, I have to admit.

Snapper you always manage to put my thoughts into print so much better than I manage, keep it up sir :thumbsup:

Robo, yeah dont think I will get involved, would get my arse handed to me rather quickly, I will leave that thread to you, Ivan, Snapper and a few others to battle against the hordes :bgsmile:

ATAG_Snapper
Jun-01-2012, 15:22
Well, I'm staying clear.....the aeronautical engineers are slugging it out now with mathematical equations. :shocked:

(Don't wanna get a stray pie-r-squared in the face! :hiding:)

Robo.
Jun-05-2012, 06:49
IvanK talks speed:

Hurricane (Rotol)

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=432187#post432187

Spitfire (Rotol)

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=32521

Yo!

ATAG_Snapper
Jun-05-2012, 10:32
Thanks for the heads up, Robo. Interesting findings. Hopefully he will do similar testing on the 109.

I no longer post my data on IC, but I did make note on his thread that I found huge differences in FM with the Spitfire IIa online vs offline.

ATAG_Deacon
Jun-05-2012, 10:36
IvanK talks speed:

Hurricane (Rotol)

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=432187#post432187

Spitfire (Rotol)

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=32521

Yo!

Thanks for the heads up Robo!

Would someone be willing to post the original threads from 1C for those of us stuck at work and blocked from the 1C forums? :blush!:

ATAG_Snapper
Jun-05-2012, 10:44
IvanK (http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/member.php?u=3092) http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/images/styles/blackyellow/statusicon/user_offline.gif



Senior Member






Join Date: Oct 2007

Location: Australia

Posts: 658












http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif Hurricane Speed Test in game




As per the Spit IIA Speed test here is my test on
the Hurricane. Wt this time as per the full line on the
spec.

METHOD
Each run commenced on altitude with stabilised Oil/Rad
temps Oil Temp at 80deg C. Rad Full open (At present I cannot detect any Rad
drag so radiator position is not relevant imo)
Each altitude was a specific
FMB set up. Altitude maintained +-50ft throughout the test. QNH checked as 992mb
on the specific map used.
Each run done 3 times and Vmax average
plotted.
Seal level temp estimated 19 deg C based on HEIII OAT gauge on the
same map on the ground. TAS calculation based on standard 2 deg C lapse rate
from the surface. so at 16,000ft I was using an OAT of -13deg C
My test wt as
per the spec wt as it can be achieved in FMB with the Hurricane

Power
setting was Full throttle 3000RPM. Indicated Boost +5.2. Now its important to
understand that displayed Boost is not I believe actually measured in the FM but
represents an angular animation value. We all know that it should be indicating
+6.25 in the Hurricane

Results plotted as accurately as I
could.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/Hurrispd-1.jpg
I had to
extrapolate the graph in the lower left corner !

__________________

ATAG_Snapper
Jun-05-2012, 10:45
http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif Spit IIA Speed in game test
Attached graphic is my Speed test in CLOD current version + Hot fix.
Blue Line my results, Broken line Spit I spec, full line Spit II spec

METHOD
Each run commenced on altitude with stabilised Oil/Rad temps Oil Temp at 80deg C. Rad Full open (At present I cannot detect any Rad drag so radiator position is not relevant imo)
Each altitude was a specific FMB set up. Altitude maintained +-50ft throughout the test. QNH checked as 992mb on the specific map used.
Each run done 3 times and Vmax average plotted.
Seal level temp estimated 19 deg C based on HEIII OAT gauge on the same map on the ground. TAS calculation based on standard 2 deg C lapse rate from the surface. so at 16,000ft I was using an OAT of -13deg C
My test wt 114lbs less as reported by FMB than the spec wt

Power setting was Full throttle 3000RPM. Indicated Boost +6. Now its important to understand that displayed Boost is not I believe actually measured in the FM but represents an angular animation value. We all know that it should be indicating +9 in the Spit II.

I gave up testing at 17,000ft as things were radically different from the spec values.

Results plotted as accurately as I could.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/SpiIIClodspd.jpg
If someone wants to convert the test values to Standard day figures ... go for it.

ATAG_Deacon
Jun-05-2012, 10:52
Snapper, thank you for he update!

I do hope that they release a mini-patch Friday...it would be so nice to have 100 octane fuel modeled! :thumbsup:

ATAG_Snapper
Jun-05-2012, 11:38
Snapper, thank you for he update!

I do hope that they release a mini-patch Friday...it would be so nice to have 100 octane fuel modeled! :thumbsup:

Oh yeah, but I'm not holding my breath.

Ironically, and IMHO the pre-patch Spitfire IIa (the "uber Sissyfire") flew closest to the Ia spec; but the sim 109's were modelled too slow. The pre-patch Ia (with 12 lbs emergency boost) should've been given the pre-patch IIa's FM, the IIa actually adjusted slightly upward, and the 109's adjusted majorly upward to closer to the adjusted IIa's performance with 12 lbs emergency boost. The pre-patch Rotol should've been left alone, except with the addition of 12 lbs boost emergency to give it a very short term increase of 25-30 mph below 10,000 ft.

Obviously some tweaking adjustments to the above would be called for to more closely match Spit, Hurri, and 109 to spec values at various altitudes. However, both Spits would be a huge threat to the 109's, but the boosted 109's would still retain their relative strengths. The pre-patch Hurri Rotol would retain their effectiveness against bombers and hold steadier than Spits when their guns are fired. The emergency boost would give the Hurries a chance to dodge and escape an attacking 109, and perhaps put a burst into an unwary or careless 109 jockey.

I have my own thoughts on why this hasn't been done long ago. Hopefully IvanK's tests will compel 1C to actually do something. I hope IvanK also does tests on the 109 models.

ATAG_Septic
Jun-05-2012, 13:12
Oh yeah, but I'm not holding my breath.

Ironically, and IMHO the pre-patch Spitfire IIa (the "uber Sissyfire") flew closest to the Ia spec; but the sim 109's were modelled too slow. The pre-patch Ia (with 12 lbs emergency boost) should've been given the pre-patch IIa's FM, the IIa actually adjusted slightly upward, and the 109's adjusted majorly upward to closer to the adjusted IIa's performance with 12 lbs emergency boost. The pre-patch Rotol should've been left alone, except with the addition of 12 lbs boost emergency to give it a very short term increase of 25-30 mph below 10,000 ft.

Obviously some tweaking adjustments to the above would be called for to more closely match Spit, Hurri, and 109 to spec values at various altitudes. However, both Spits would be a huge threat to the 109's, but the boosted 109's would still retain their relative strengths. The pre-patch Hurri Rotol would retain their effectiveness against bombers and hold steadier than Spits when their guns are fired. The emergency boost would give the Hurries a chance to dodge and escape an attacking 109, and perhaps put a burst into an unwary or careless 109 jockey.



That sounds to me like it would provide competitive balance whilst reflecting sufficiently an historical accuracy. Would you mind awfully arranging this with 1c please Snapper?

Thanks muchly, I owe you a pint.

Septic.

ATAG_Snapper
Jun-05-2012, 15:15
Your beer is safe, I'm sorry to say, Septic! :blush!:



Whatever 1C/Maddox Games' intentions have been towards Cliffs of Dover this past year and 2 months.....competitiveness and historical accuracy ain't been part of it!

ATAG_Torian
Jun-06-2012, 06:53
Dang it Snapper, I was almost hopeful 1C was just plain misinformed about FMs and
would have an "oh wow, we stuffed up...lets fix this asap" epiphany. It looks like
there's something more deeply entrenched. How they can ignore this sort of
detailed examination is perplexing at best. I just hope it's not a case of "oh wow we
stuffed up....but we can't lose face and admit it and fix it". C'mon 1C, your
integrity would skyrocket with an honest attempt to get it right.

ATAG_Snapper
Jun-06-2012, 08:24
What I truly find perplexing is that 1C (through Black Six) feigned ignorance over what every British schoolboy knew about from the age of eight: 100 octane fuel and the 12 lbs boost it provided. The RAF After Action Reports are full of references to it; it's taken literally hundreds of posts over at "the Official 1C Forum" to drive that point home, with enough supportive documents to sink the HMS Hood!

I believe 1C has been taken slightly aback by the bitter pushback -- there are some things you don't mess with: Gettysburg, The Battle of Stalingrad, Iwo Jima, to name a few, and, certainly in this case, The Battle of Britain. To play fast and loose with such icons as Spitfires and Hurricanes is, as 1C is finding out, pure folly if you're trying to sell the game to U.K. and Commonwealth countries. If they tried to pull the same stunt on the 8th Air Forces's P51's and B17's -- 1C would not just hear about it, they would be DEAFENED!

Clearly, CoD is the testing ground for their upcoming, close-to-the-heart Battle of Moscow. Quite likely their attention to detail on the Russian aircraft will be, shall we say, of exceedingly high standard. And understandably so. But they also realize that to succeed they must look beyond their own fan base with DX9c-straddled PC's to market to the huge purchasing power of the Western World. I believe they are starting to see that they have squandered the goodwill of their hard-earned IL2: 1946 customer base on the less-than-perfect Cliffs of Dover. Worse yet, with their pre-Glasnost customer relation policy (meaning: none) they've actually garnered a lot of animosity amongst their prospective BoM customers. Un-freaking-believable!

As an indication of our shaken confidence in 1C, who here can honestly say, "I'll bet my next paycheque that 1C got the message and will get it right this time with their 'flight model adjustments' in the next patch"?

Obviously, I hope I'm wrong. Because then Septic will owe me a beer! :bgsmile:

ATAG_Torian
Jun-06-2012, 08:56
Quite likely their attention to detail on the Russian aircraft will be, shall we say, of exceedingly high standard.

"exceedingly high standard" Is there even a Russian equivalent to this phrase ?
Not sure the guys at 1C would understand it even in Russian. That dang porked throttle in the Spit IIa is a right royal PITA. U bring the throttle back to pull a tight turn to find ur accelerating into a blackout. sheeesh...lets undermodel the plane then mess up the controls. Hats off to em :doh!:

335th_GRAthos
Jun-06-2012, 15:00
What I truly find perplexing is that 1C (through Black Six) feigned ignorance over what every British schoolboy knew about from the age of eight: 100 octane fuel and the 12 lbs boost it provided.

Well to be precise, long time ago, 1C admitted publicly (Blacksix answering back to us after having spoken with Luthier) that "we never developed the Spit/Hurri with 87oct nor, 100oct in mind"

Which brings the conclusion that 1C developed the FM based on performance curves and NOT based on the many parameters a lot of people hope that these will bring the difference in performance ;)
This also explains the performance of the planes after half a wing is cut off.

Thus for me, as long as 1c does not dare to provide us with performance graphs coming directly out of their model engine, I can not be bothered.
http://grathos.de/temp/CoD/il2compare_bf109_spit.jpg
http://grathos.de/temp/CoD/il2compare_funplot.jpg

I appreciate the amazing effort that IvanK put into making the analysis himself i.e. doing the work for 1c but this is wrong in my opinion. This is where 1c deserve a kick in their precious and they should bloody well do the work and present the data, instead of having hundrends of people going after each other's throat in the 1c forum.

~S~

ATAG_Snapper
Jun-06-2012, 15:41
Well said, Athos!

ATAG_Colander
Jun-06-2012, 16:31
This is where 1c deserve a kick in their precious and they should bloody well do the work and present the data, instead of having hundrends of people going after each other's throat in the 1c forum.


That tool will be included in the sequel of the MMO. I'm not authorized to provide more details now, please wait for the official announcement.

335th_GRAthos
Jun-06-2012, 18:57
I know that (it was my post BlackSix answered to), and for this reason I watch the FM discussions with amusement.

It does not make less sad though, when I see good pilots invest loads of time trying to simulate tests and post results...

~S~

ATAG_Colander
Jun-06-2012, 20:11
did I write it so good that you couldn't tell I was joking? c'mon! the sequel of the MMO would be in 15 years!! :bgsmile: :bgsmile:

ATAG_Snapper
Jun-06-2012, 22:04
did I write it so good that you couldn't tell I was joking? c'mon! the sequel of the MMO would be in 15 years!! :bgsmile: :bgsmile:

Troublemaker! ::Grin:

I read your post thinking WTF?.......then "naaaaaaaaah" :bgsmile:

335th_GRAthos
Jun-07-2012, 07:18
did I write it so good that you couldn't tell I was joking? c'mon! the sequel of the MMO would be in 15 years!! :bgsmile: :bgsmile:



:angry:

Damn, I fell right into it...:doh!:


:respect:

ATAG_Snapper
Jun-07-2012, 07:53
But your point was well made about the devs should be doing their jobs, Athos. I agree 100%.

I did a little testing just to measure the Ia and IIa speed performance at just 3 altitudes as a "quick" measure. By the time you get it all done for several engine settings and, in my case, online vs offline -- the whole evening is shot and it's late into the night by the time it's done. And it's boring as hell. (Except the online. Almost got vulched at Manston as I set out to do sea level tests! :bgsmile:)

I'm staggered by the work IvanK has done -- which should've been done by 1C AND PUBLISHED by 1C. Then the usual characters over at bananarama began to pick away at the accuracy of his data with all kinds of minutiae. The one that took the cake was one who said that if the testing was done 10 times and averaged, perhaps THEN he might be convinced something was wrong with the post-patch FM's. :0: (IvanK was very cool -- he just said that the fellow better get started! :Grin:)

Whatever 1C is paying IvanK -- which is probably nada -- it ain't enough!

Blackdog_kt
Jun-09-2012, 18:12
Oh yeah, but I'm not holding my breath.

Ironically, and IMHO the pre-patch Spitfire IIa (the "uber Sissyfire") flew closest to the Ia spec; but the sim 109's were modelled too slow. The pre-patch Ia (with 12 lbs emergency boost) should've been given the pre-patch IIa's FM, the IIa actually adjusted slightly upward, and the 109's adjusted majorly upward to closer to the adjusted IIa's performance with 12 lbs emergency boost. The pre-patch Rotol should've been left alone, except with the addition of 12 lbs boost emergency to give it a very short term increase of 25-30 mph below 10,000 ft.

Obviously some tweaking adjustments to the above would be called for to more closely match Spit, Hurri, and 109 to spec values at various altitudes. However, both Spits would be a huge threat to the 109's, but the boosted 109's would still retain their relative strengths. The pre-patch Hurri Rotol would retain their effectiveness against bombers and hold steadier than Spits when their guns are fired. The emergency boost would give the Hurries a chance to dodge and escape an attacking 109, and perhaps put a burst into an unwary or careless 109 jockey.

I have my own thoughts on why this hasn't been done long ago. Hopefully IvanK's tests will compel 1C to actually do something. I hope IvanK also does tests on the 109 models.

I'm not an aeronautical engineer and still, it looks reasonable to me based on what we know from anecdotes, literature and veteran interviews.

It seems as if the 109 was the faster plane in general, but it could be caught depending on situational factors. For example, pulling the throttle back to cool the engine just as a Spit with a cool engine starts running boost and dives on you, etc.

Not to mention that all of this would really add some hardcore tactical implications and considerations in how we all fly, which adds variety and is a good thing.

The only reason i was skeptical during the octane debate is that certain people gave me the impression that they argued for a 100-octane Spit that permanently runs on full boost and the complete exclusion of the previous 87-octane version to ensure they will never have to fly inferior hardware online.

I think options are great to have though and i prefer to have each variant modeled, then decide on whether to use it on the mission design level. For example, if i'm running a late battle of France mission i'll make the units taking off from France use 87-oct versions to simulate their terrible supply state, while any units that cross over from the UK would fly 100-oct versions. Plausibly realistic and fun in terms of gameplay choices at the same time, ie "do i want to get into the action fast, or do i want better performance at the cost of transit time and on-scene endurance".

That's also why i fully support correcting the 110s (they are missing their M-shells currently) and adding their DB601N variant, it will make things interesting. Suddenly we get a plane that has the range and loiter time to fly offensive sweeps over the UK, it's got great firepower, it's probably faster than anything else out there, but can't turn or accelerate to save its own life (literally :bgsmile: ): the moment you depart from strict BnZ discipline and decide to mix it up, you sign your death warrant.

I really like those risk vs reward scenarios and the fact that the theater is historically geared that way is all the more better, because we can combine two things that can rarely be combined in flight sims: things being balanced while being historically accurate at the same time.

Too bad a lot of people over on the official forums can't see beyond the nose of their own favorite aircraft and appreciate a bit of a challenge :Grin:

ATAG_Snapper
Jun-09-2012, 18:29
+1 to the limited use of 12 lbs boost. If a Spit pilot is counting on using it to run down a fleeing 109 across the Channel, then he better be quick about it -- or he'll get about midway when his engine starts making horrible noises. I hope they institute that aspect for ALL aircraft using emergency boost/power.

We're certainly going to be looking very hard at the new FM's. Historical performance is important -- if the devs can see their way to ensure this for Spits, Hurries, 109's, 110's (no one much cares about the bombers, really*).....then we're in for a helluva ride!

* :bgsmile: J/K!!!!! :bgsmile:

ATAG_Snapper
Jun-09-2012, 18:37
What's also crucial, but doesn't get much air time is.....clouds. If the devs can optimize the game engine to allow heavier cloud formations without slide show fps, then this too will change the dynamics for the better IMHO. G50 pilots will suddenly become very dangerous to Allied aircraft in laying ambushes, and bombers of both sides will find their survivability and mission success grow significantly.

Not only will heavier clouds & inclement weather (dare we hope for localized rain?) be more realistic for this theatre, but all of us will have to reacquaint ourselves with compass and stopwatch! :bgsmile:

Blackdog_kt
Jun-09-2012, 19:35
Actually i can't wait to see us flying like this. Just imagine the confusion while navigating in the clouds, or the suspense when going all out stealth mode...they can't see me but neither can i in this weather, what if there is a squad of enemy fighters on patrol just behind that cloud? :shocked::thumbsup:

See, i'm getting all itchy to fly and my Sidewinder has stopped working for the 2nd time :bgsmile:

I'm taking it to a friend who managed to fix it the first time around (he's some kind of an electronics hobbyist) and hoping for the best. Otherwise i'm going to get a cheap alternative as an interim solution, i've been hearing good things about the low-range thrustmaster stick with hall effect sensors.

Back on topic though, i hope we get everything as accurate as possible. It's way more interesting than cruising at full power all day long and knowing i will always have that extra power if i need it. I can't wait till we reach a state were in certain cases we will actually be surprised to the point of scary while flying the sim ;)

ATAG_Snapper
Jun-09-2012, 20:04
It's sounding better all the time.

To borrow an idea I saw over at 1C, it'd be great if at 12 lbs boost/1.7 ata (or whatever the 109's WEP is) the time before catastrophic engine failure could be randomized. If the accepted time was, for instance, 15 minutes before engine damage....then randomize it around that number. Sometimes your engine will crap out after a mere 3 minutes, other times you go for a full half hour and get away with it -- you just don't know. With the same idea, maybe you use it sparingly 3 or 4 times in a single sortie and all's fine; other times you use it a second time and CRUNCH!

<my flame suit is on> :bgsmile:

ATAG_Snapper
Jun-09-2012, 20:07
I have the Sidewinder 2 and Thrustmaster's TM16000 stick with the Halls sensors. Both are excellent sticks.

Blackdog_kt
Jun-09-2012, 23:50
It's sounding better all the time.

To borrow an idea I saw over at 1C, it'd be great if at 12 lbs boost/1.7 ata (or whatever the 109's WEP is) the time before catastrophic engine failure could be randomized. If the accepted time was, for instance, 15 minutes before engine damage....then randomize it around that number. Sometimes your engine will crap out after a mere 3 minutes, other times you go for a full half hour and get away with it -- you just don't know. With the same idea, maybe you use it sparingly 3 or 4 times in a single sortie and all's fine; other times you use it a second time and CRUNCH!

<my flame suit is on> :bgsmile:

I actually like this a lot and it's exactly what i've had in mind for a while. Too many people said "no random failures please" because it would imbalance the playing field too much in multiplayer and i agree.

However, this is not a random failure. What's random is the time of occurrence around an established reference duration. The failure itself however is not random at all: keep pushing beyond what the flight manual says and you WILL get a failure, you just don't know exactly when.

Actually, i think i can use this definition to pass it around on the 1c forums and start getting some support for the idea :Grin:

So, the way it would work is exactly like you described. Maybe with not such a big deviation around the reference duration for a failure to occur, but following the exact mechanics you described.

Another thought i had was to have an extra attribute on the specific engine components that get affected by over-boosting, let's call them "reliability points".
These would be constant for each component, but in keeping with your idea what would be randomized is their rate of depletion each time the pilot goes over the limits. Also, an additional rule could be in place so that when exceeding the limits multiple times, the rate of reliability drop will again be random but not less than the rate that was "chosen" by the sim the previous time around. This would give us more deterioration the more often we exceeded the limits. Implementing it like this would give us even better resolution at how it's all modeled.

So for example, i might get some simple cooling system damage, a failure of a more critical component, or multiple of them occurring at the same time.

This is somewhat similar to how A2A does it in their accusim add-ons for FSX, with the exception that they also carry the damage over from flight to flight (this would be a bit overkill for CoD, unless we can script dynamic campaigns with maintenance and turn-over time considerations). A2A seem to break down the engine into components with individual wear and tear, add some randomization, give it a bit of variance even when operating in normal conditions and it gives you the feeling it's a living breathing thing.

How do i know it's randomized and not explicitly calculated? If you save mid-flight, exit and reload you'll see that the parameters have changed: whereas your no.1 engine was the one running a little hot, after reloading your flight mid-session it's now the no.3 engine that's acting up slightly. In other words, it's clever programming that creates the illusion of reality while also minimizing processing overhead for the PC :thumbsup:

If we had something similar in CoD it would work wonders, because it's "cheap" as far as processing power goes and the rest of the DM/CEM can work on top of it to enhance things even more.

The CoD engine is capable of modeling cascading failures quite well and i've seen this at work numerous times when testing things offline, both on my own aircraft and on AI enemies.

I remember once shooting down an AI Spit and it was the stuff wartime gun-cam films are made of. It started belching gray smoke form the exhaust stacks and i was about to roll over the top and dive down again, but at that point a third stream of smoke appeared out the side of the cowling, this time thick and black. Zooming in i saw a fire had just started to develop, i left him alone and circled, watching him go into the drink in lazy, wide spirals while trailing three different streaks of smoke. Upon reflection i realized that probably its engine started burning oil in the combustion chambers that had probably gotten there due to damage (the gray smoke coming off the exhausts) and after a couple of seconds the whole thing went up in flames (the fire and black smoke coming out of the cowling) :shocked:

Another time i was flying back home in a damaged 110 and i had a small fire in the left wing. I turned off the engine and the fuel supply and kept going.After 15 minutes or so i had almost crossed the channel, but the fire had eaten through the wing to such an extent that my aerodynamic characteristics were awful. Not only that, but as i started bleeding speed the fire expanded across the wing due to the decreased wind over it, it killed my gunner and after a couple more minutes it reached my fuel tanks and i exploded in mid-air.

There is some amazing work in the DM department but a lot of times we don't appreciate it due to the nature of our engagements: pressing on until we see a fireball and a chunk of debris.

Now imagine randomizing things a bit like we both describe here. It would not only create the illusion of a real aircraft, it would heighten suspense too and blur the lines a bit during an engagement, so we wouldn't have to deal with accusations of "UFOs" and "clownwagons" from both sides :bgsmile:

Make this enhanced CEM module a separate realism option, so that we can turn it off to test the FMs under "factory specification" conditions and get valid results, and it's all good. I swear if i ever win a lottery, i'll get on a plane to Moscow and pay them money on the condition that they implement features like that :Grin:


P.S. Thanks for the feedback on the stick. If my sidewinder cannot be salvaged i'll keep it for a possible rewiring project and order a thrustmaster from amazon uk in the meantime.

ATAG_Snapper
Jun-10-2012, 12:21
Interesting post -- just got to it now. The TM16000 stick is amazing value. The twist rudder and throttle axis use pots, but the X and Y using the Halls sensors are very smooth and precise. This stick can also use the free Thrustmaster TARGET software same as the Warthog and Cougar HOTAS which gives this inexpensive stick huge capability. I found I couldn't use the old Sidewinder4 software (probably dates back to Win95 :shocked:) with my Sidewinder2 stick -- it's only drawback for me (well, it could've used more buttons/switches on the stick itself, but I'm spoiled with the Warthog. :Grin:).

I have A2A's Wings of Power 3 Accusim Spitfire Ia/IIa. Mighty impressive. I broke the bank getting FSX and a whack of add ons, but for me it was worth every penny just for the educational value alone. Because it's a competitor to CoD, I'm loath to discuss it on the 1C Forum, obviously, but I would just CHAFE at some of the thread posts! Hell, I've FLOWN the "real thing" -- I know how it ALL works! :bgsmile: Seriously, though, I wish Luthier would send one of his guys out late at night with his wife's credit card to surreptitiously download it! ;)

The other sim that has impressed me and several others here is ED's DCS P51D. Still in beta, of course, but it's been working fine right out of the gate. Many systems are still a WIP, but I'm liking what I'm seeing and experiencing so far. As modelled, their P51D is a squirrelly little beast and a real challenge. I do like their solid back-and-forth communication and straight up information to the forum members.

Will keep the bomber thread front-and-center for the next while with the guys and alert you to any new input coming through.

Cheers,

Snapper

Robo.
Jun-16-2012, 04:55
The only reason i was skeptical during the octane debate is that certain people gave me the impression that they argued for a 100-octane Spit that permanently runs on full boost and the complete exclusion of the previous 87-octane version to ensure they will never have to fly inferior hardware online.

I spent a lot of time reading these debates on 1c (unfortunately :Grin:) and I don't think I've seen any of that. Nobody even mentioned Spitfires running permanently on overboost. In the RAF, you sort of expect to fly slightly inferior hardware, that's OK. But what we've got now is ridiculously inferior hardware due to the devs FM errors, hence the frustration. That was my impression at least... The aircraft in the sim are simply not what they really were in too many aspect for this game to be called a simulator.


I think options are great to have though and i prefer to have each variant modeled, then decide on whether to use it on the mission design level. For example, if i'm running a late battle of France mission i'll make the units taking off from France use 87-oct versions to simulate their terrible supply state, while any units that cross over from the UK would fly 100-oct versions. Plausibly realistic and fun in terms of gameplay choices at the same time, ie "do i want to get into the action fast, or do i want better performance at the cost of transit time and on-scene endurance".

I agree that having options is better than not having them. But what you describe is all regarding (online) playability. Very important thing, I guess, but not more important than historical reality. Battle of France was more about early Hurricanes which we don't have (waybridge prop and fabric control surfaces). I spent hours reading BoF combat reports, very amusing. Yet we can not pull the plug in the Hurri like these guys did on regular basis. That is not very good, is it?

Same for the Spitfires, you don't 'need' a 87 octane version unless you want to fly some 1938 scenarios or events like battle of barking creek or some OTU training missions. :thumbsup: I am not RAF biased btw, I fly just anything online. Mostly RAF on ATAG because it's more of a challenge, but I read accounts of both sides equally. I am not emotionally involved so to speak. Please do keep the 87 Spitfires, or even better, get them do the same things that a2a Spitfire can do. You can chose your fuel, you set your oxygen and everything. Kill my engine if I abuse it too much but if I want to fly the Battle of Britain scenario on a Spitfire, I will historically correctly have 100 octane spirit in my fueltanks. But we haven't got such a Spitfire in this game. That is not very good either, is it?



That's also why i fully support correcting the 110s (they are missing their M-shells currently) and adding their DB601N variant, it will make things interesting. Suddenly we get a plane that has the range and loiter time to fly offensive sweeps over the UK, it's got great firepower, it's probably faster than anything else out there, but can't turn or accelerate to save its own life (literally :bgsmile: ): the moment you depart from strict BnZ discipline and decide to mix it up, you sign your death warrant.

Yes please, 601Ns all the way please.


I really like those risk vs reward scenarios and the fact that the theater is historically geared that way is all the more better, because we can combine two things that can rarely be combined in flight sims: things being balanced while being historically accurate at the same time.

I strongly disagree. 'Balanced' is unimportant, that's a 'game' thing. 'Historically accurate' is what makes simulator a simulator. Virtual pilots who can not and will not take off for 'their' side despite the odds (numbers, technical superiority of the virtual enemy') being against them should consider different hobby :D Chess perhaps, there your chances are more balanced. I am joking but as you've said, everyone wants to win, everyone wants to fly better plane so winning is easier. I don't care what everyone wants, I care about the Battle of Britain reality.

Dutch
Jun-16-2012, 06:32
The only reason i was skeptical during the octane debate is that certain people gave me the impression that they argued for a 100-octane Spit that permanently runs on full boost.

Yep, I agree. I got this impression too.

However it seems to me that a Merlin tuned to run on 100 octane only would produce more power at all boost settings though. Similarly, if said tuned engine were run on 87 octane detonation and damage may occur. (Help me out here Bliss!).

It's not just the permitted boost from the supercharger which changed in the 100 octane fighters, but possibly changed compression ratios and camshaft/valve timing differences. Hence the conversion work required to run 100 octane efficiently. So +5 boost in a 100 octane would result in more power than +5 in an 87 octane.

My car runs fine on ordinary unleaded. If I put super unleaded in it, it doesn't go faster but does run smoother. If I had some engine work done so that it would take full advantage of the higher octane it would go a bit faster, but I'd no longer be able to use the lower octane stuff. And that's before I even think about bolting a Sebring onto it. :Grin:

Robo.
Jun-16-2012, 07:08
Yep, I agree. I got this impression too.

I guess every virtual pilot flying for the Luftwaffe might get that impression. :Grin: I agree some people are pushing too hard and their agenda is quite obvious. But I'd say if you ignore the personal attacks, obvious bias towards one side, then what remains is quite interesting for any aviation fan.


However it seems to me that a Merlin tuned to run on 100 octane only would produce more power at all boost settings though. Similarly, if said tuned engine were run on 87 octane detonation and damage may occur. (Help me out here Bliss!).

It's not just the permitted boost from the supercharger which changed in the 100 octane fighters, but possibly changed compression ratios and camshaft/valve timing differences. Hence the conversion work required to run 100 octane efficiently. So +5 boost in a 100 octane would result in more power than +5 in an 87 octane.

Not really, the technical side of this has been discussed to death at 1c. I agree it's a bit complicated, especially on a Spitfire that could use both ABC off (BCC-O) and emergency +12lbs. power at certain conditions. But it's not exactly like you describe it.

Anyway, in a simulator attempting to represent the Battle of Britaion era, 100 octane version should me modelled in the first place. At the moment, it is not. These are simple facts no matter what 'side' you happen to fly with...

Dutch
Jun-16-2012, 08:29
Anyway, in a simulator attempting to represent the Battle of Britaion era, 100 octane version should me modelled in the first place. At the moment, it is not.

Totally agree. I just wish they'd get their skates on and release the new FMs in a beta with or without DX9.

ATAG_Snapper
Jun-16-2012, 08:51
Totally agree. I just wish they'd get their skates on and release the new FMs in a beta with or without DX9.

Yes!!!!!!

Get the beta(s) out, fine tune 'em, THEN worry about DX9. Surely some legal beagle can untie this DX9-handcuff for them so they can forge ahead. Even if -- for the final retail release -- in an ingame setup menu the player can click on "Win XP" version or "Vista/Win7" version. At least then they could show that all DX systems are being supported.

As others have suggested, I'm thinking this whole DX9 conundrum is a bit of a smoke screen for deeper problems they're having.