IvanK talks climb rates

[ATAG_Snapper]

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...12&postcount=1

Interesting post.

[ATAG_Deacon]

:pouting:

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

[ATAG_Snapper]

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]

Hmmm, well it's nice to be vindicated, eh Snapper? :Grin:

[ATAG_Snapper]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Again...




:angry:

[Dutch]

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]

Please.....allow me to retort:

GO AHEAD SAY IAS ONE MORE TIM mf.jpg



:bgsmile:

[ATAG_JTDawg]

:bgsmile: :hpyclp: :shocked: wow plus 1 now all we need is it fixed lol

[ATAG_Snapper]

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/showpos...2&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.]

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 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

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]

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.

[ATAG_Snapper]

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.]

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]

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...12&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]

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]

Welcome to the Forum, Camber. It's great to see you posting here!

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

[ATAG_Septic]

Please.....allow me to retort:

GO AHEAD SAY IAS ONE MORE TIM mf.jpg



: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]

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]

Naaah, not me mate. :Grin:

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

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

[ATAG_Snapper]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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

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]

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.]

IvanK talks speed:

Hurricane (Rotol)

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...187#post432187

Spitfire (Rotol)

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

Yo!