UP 3.0 vs HSFX 5.0?

[EZ1]

I was using UP 2.0.1 with 4.9. Then after all the servers went to 4.10.1 I got tired of waiting for UP 3.0 and installed HSFX 5.0 mostly to get 6DOF again. HSXF 5.0 seems to have everything I need. Can someone explain the defferences or advantages of one over the other?

[Ze-Jamz]

Best thing to do mate is to do to the ultrapack website and look at the read-me then decide for yourself..on top of that if youve got the SAS mod activator you can have both installs in one place just select what version you want to play and viola!

hth

[EZ1]

Neither readme compares one to the other. One thing I have seen in UP 3 that I think is really nice is the start menu, but I'm not sure how useful it would be to me as I rarely change setings. I am really interested in what others have to say.

[TeeJay82]

I wish UP and HSFX could get together and make a baby

[Bearcat]

I have two installs... the two are not compatible.. and may never be if I am reading between the lines on the SAS/UP forums.. I will always go with what ever mod pack works with the latest official patch.. For me UP ids ok.. it has it's plusses for sure.. but I want to stick with whatever the latest patch is and if UP brances off after 4.10.1 and decides to not go with 4.11 then I will be using UP strictly to keep up with what the other world is doing.. There is some goodness there.. in 3.0.. I like it but the squad is sticking with HSFX..

[Mustang]

HSFX 5.0 is oriented to SEOW !

http://wiki-seow-en.swil.fr/index.php/Main_Page


And have Aachens Flight Models - JGSME MOD





HSFX 5.0 Readme

Aachens Flight Models

A little Background:-

Aachen is a professional Aircraft design engineer, we were not sure if we wanted to go in this direction at first, but were so impressed by how much closer to what we have read flying some of these aircraft and fighting in them has come, that it was inconceivable to go back.

We hope that you share the views of the many 'test-pilots'. You retain a choice still anyhow. Using the full work is strictly optional.

Note:-
In Stock Configuration Oleg's Flyables are all Stock (by Oleg or TD) although all new aircraft * that Aachen has worked on have his FM's also.

In 'Expert Mode' All of the aircraft below use Aachens FM's.
We have altered the Netcode and the encryption for this mode, so that players cannot use the modified ‘Stock’ FM’s on stock servers.

Those that play online require very reasonably that everybody is playing with the same.
Expert mode is to protect this desire.
List of modified aircrafts

The complete list of planes modified is as follows:
Bf109:
E1, E1B, E3, E3b, E4, E4B, E4N, E7, E7N, E7NZ
F2, F2B, F2trop, F4, F4B, F4trop, F4Z
G1, G2, G2trop, G3, G4, G4trop, G5, G6early, G6Erla, G6Late, G6Mid, G6trop, G10, G10C3, G10Erla, G14, G14early, G14AS
K4, K4C3, K6, K14

Fw190:
A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A5-165, A7, A7sturm, A8, A9
F8
D9, D9late, D11, D13

G55:
G55, G55late, G55-ss0, G55-ss0late

MC:
MC200, MC202, MC205, MC205V

P51:
P51B, P51C, P51CM, P51D20, P51D20NT, P51D25, P51D30

P40:
P40B, P40C, P40E, P40E-M-105, P40M

P38:
P38J, P38J10LO, P38J15LO, P38J25LO
P38L, P38L5LO, P38Llate

P47:
P47D10, P47D22, P47D27, P47D27late

Foreword
The modifications of flight and engine models presented in this work have started with an analytical evaluation of aircraft performances. In the following paragraphs a short description of the methodologies adopted in the analytical study can be found, specifically for the evaluation of aircraft polars.

Wing and tail polar
Are computed by adopting lift line theory (Weiselberger) using non linear section lift data (J.C. Sivells, R.H. Neely). Compressibility effects are taken into account. Normally, lift distribution, finite wing Cy and Cx computed are in very good agreement with computations performed according to DATCOM method (ref. E. Torenbeek, Synthesis of subsonic airplane design). This is due to the fact that studied aircraft configurations are un-swept and have high aspect ratios.


Figure 1 – Lift coefficient distribution on half wing span (Bf109G2 at SL 530km/h). Cyan line is result computed with iterative method (NACA Report 865) while yellow line is result computed with DATCOM method


Figure 2 – Lift coefficient distribution on half wing span (Bf109G2 at 1000m 250km/h 2g level turn). This condition illustrates the determination of stall-limited turn rate (in this case stall is incipient at 0.6 x half-wingspan). A tolerance of 0.05 g has been used to predict ultimate wing load factor for both stall-limited and power-limited turn rates.

Fuselage polar
Drag computation for fuselage has been performed by using slender body formulation (ref. E. Torenbeek, Synthesis of subsonic airplane design). Lift induced drag is accounted for in the computation. Formulation for fuselage lift induced drag is given in referenced document.

Propeller
Propeller performance computations have been performed by means of blade element theory. In the present document, since no detailed description of propeller blades was available, the blade section has been assumed to be a flat plate. Optimal propeller (i.e. blade twist) has been computed in the condition of 100% throttle at sea level. Hence the propeller has been analysed for all beta angles in the range specified in EMD (propPhiMax and propPhiMin) at maximum propeller revolutions (constant rpm propeller), thus obtaining propeller efficiency curve at full power rpms.
It should be noted that the assumption made on blade section leads to under-estimation of propeller efficiency (up to 5% at maximum speed) thus leading to a conservative estimation of aircraft performance.

Propeller slipstream
Is computed using blade element theory adopted for propeller performances estimation. It is worth mentioning that actuator disc theory produces very similar results in terms of slipstream velocity and mass flow rate. This is due to the fact that considered propellers have low loading factor. For the purpose of this study the complete fuselage, radiators (under-wing and under-fuselage), inner wing section and tail assembly are considered to be completely inside the propeller slipstream. The inner wing section area enveloped by propeller slipstream has been computed considering the propeller radius/wing span ratio. This assumption leads to a slight over estimation of wing drag since propeller slipstream tube has a contraction after the propeller (about ¼ - ½ of propeller radius downstream of propeller) to its final radius.
Small summary of modifications – Aircarft polars

dCl/dα has been evaluated according to the following formula:

Clα = f Clαth /(E+Clαth/(π AR)) [rad-1]

where Clαth is the 2D section lift coefficient derivative and E=1+(2 TR)/(AR (1+TR))

Drag coefficient second derivative has been evaluated according to the following formula:

d2Cd/dα2 = Clα2/(π AR e)

Second derivative of drag coefficient has been corrected with twist factor.

Clmax has been computed by computing Cl spanwise distribution and assuming linear spanwise variation of 2D section Clmax (ref. example figure below):



Bf109 slats
Bf109 slats has been treated as follows:
according to literature (R&M 2361 [sept. 1940]) slats open at Cl approximately 0,85-0,95. Second order Cd derivative for complete wing with slats deployed is computed at 5,3E-4. In the following figure the Cd as function of α is reported.

Since it is not possible to impose the Cd jump corresponding to slat open condition, the Cd is simulated with a second order derivative of 5,8E-4 with 0,8ｰ offset (ref. figure below).

This approximation limits the error in Cd estimation within +5% immediately before and -5% immediately after slat opening. Error tends to 0 moving away from slat openin threshold.
P51s CoG

In the models presented in this work, the P51 CoG position has been moved forward to replicate the position of the CoG in the configuration with 25 gallons in the 85 gallons fuselage fuel tank. From literature data the CoG for P51D configuration with 25 gallons in the 85 gallons fuselage fuel tank is 28.3% MAC. The P51s with full 85 gallons fuselage fuel tanks were statically unstable and the normal operating procedures for planes in such a configuration demanded to empty the 85 gallons fuselage fuel tank before all other tanks. At anything below 35 gallons, the P51s equipped with 85 gallons fuselage fuel tank were both statically and dynamically stable [America Hundred Thousands et al.]. Since the simulator does not allow for CoG movement with regards to fuel usage, and since the unstable configuration reproduced in the original models was deemed too conservative, it has been decided to adopt a statically and dynamically stable configuration as normally happened during combat operations. It is advisable to adopt a maximum fuel load of 75%.

P47D27 Late

In the models presented in this work, the P47D27Late has been modelled to reproduce (as best as technically possible) the flight characteristics and performances of P47M.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I have two installs... the two are not compatible.. and may never be if I am reading between the lines on the SAS/UP forums.. I will always go with what ever mod pack works with the latest official patch.. For me UP ids ok.. it has it's plusses for sure.. but I want to stick with whatever the latest patch is and if UP brances off after 4.10.1 and decides to not go with 4.11 then I will be using UP strictly to keep up with what the other world is doing.. There is some goodness there.. in 3.0.. I like it but the squad is sticking with HSFX..
With regards to the RED text..

Not only is UP 3.0 not compatible with HSFX 5.0

UP 3.0 is not compatible with IL-2 4.10.1!

That is to say you can not join a stock IL-2 4.10.1 server (coop or DF) with UP 3.0 enabled.. EVEN IF THE SERVER SAYS IT ALLOWS MODS!

Which leads to my comment on the ORANGE text..

UP 3.0 has already branched off, that is to say you don't have to wait an see what UP 3.0 decides to do when 4.11 comes out, UP 3.0, as noted above, is not compatible with 4.10.1. And they have already stated they have no intentions of being compatible with any future official 1C/TD updates.

Therefore if you want to use mods, say the 6DOF mod and join a IL-2 4.10.1 server your only choice is to use HSFX 5.0, in that UP 3.0 will not be able to join a 4.10.1 server. The only servers you can join with UP 3.0 is UP 3.0 servers.

And you may want to keep this info under your hat.. Especially if you have an account at the UP and or SAS forums!

Because I brought this all up a few weeks ago at the AAS forums, and it upset the leaders of UP and SAS so much that they felt the need to rename my handle and changed my aviator to something very childish, heck the leaders at SAS was so upset that they even IP banned me from their server.

Which really shows you want kind of mind set your dealing with at those two sites.

Where if you post any info about UP or SAS that they perceived to be negative and you stand the chance of them getting so upset at you that they will change your forum handle, avaitor and/or banning you for something you said in 'ANOTHER' forum!

So keep that in mind if you choose to repeat what I pointed out here. ;)

[ElAurens]

Cheesehawk, did you miss where ACE-OF-ACES said 1C/TD updates?

Team Diadalos is in fact the official Maddox Games sanctioned producer of content for IL2 1946.

Just sayin'.

I'm also kind of wondering where SAS got that AC 47 Spooky gunship from?

*COUGH*

[EZ1]

I've been running HSFX 5.0 on Skys of Valor for several weeks. SoV is a 4.10.01 server. No problem.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

There will be no more 1C updates, there haven't been any in years. The patches from 4.08 (if I remember correctly) through current are all by TD, who were given permission to release "official" content by Maddox Games, but were not involved in the creation of the original game.
So what part of me saying 1C/TD did you not understand?


Also, I have yet to see any servers that are on 4.101 that you can run the HSFX mod on, although I could be mistaken.
You are mistaken


Generally, they are stock 4.101, modded 4.101, HSFX, or UP3.0.
Disagree 100%

On just about any given day, most of the servers are standard/stock 4.10.1 servers

When I say most, I mean most popular servers, and by most popular I mean with at least 5 or more people in them. In that I have not bothered to count all the servers than are up 24/7 but have no one in them.


All are roughly incompatible with each other. If I'm wrong, show me the server, because honestly I'm a bit going from memory, but I haven't seen any servers where I could bring a HSFX plane with mods vs some poor guy in a stock plane and no mods...
Your wrong

And to show you, try an join any standard/stock 4.10.1 server with HSFX 5.0 and you will be able to join the server

Unless

The server sets the CRT value to 2, in which case the server typically states NO MODS allowed, and last time I check there are only a couple of servers that do that.

[tk471138]

so about this hsfx aaken mods...you have to enable the expert mode in the jsgme? lol this whole time i thought that aaken was available with stock hsfx...what else does enabling 'expert mode' do besides put in the aaken stuff...

[ACE-OF-ACES]

so about this hsfx aaken mods...you have to enable the expert mode in the jsgme? lol this whole time i thought that aaken was available with stock hsfx...
Aaken is a professional aircraft design engineer with a Ph.D. and is currently working in that capacity. Not since Oleg himself has someone with this much experience and education touched the flight modles of IL-2. Aaken uses actual aerospace methods to develop the flight models as opposed to the 'that looks about right' flip a coin method that other mod packs employ. As for what planes are affected, note in the stock HSFX 5.0 configuration (EXPERT mod off) all of the stock IL-2 planes (original slot) have the stock flight models, but some of the the mod aircraft (new slot) use Aaken’s flight models. When you enable the EXPERT MOD via JSGME in HSFX 5.0 both the stock (original slot) and mod (new slot) aircraft use Aaken's flight models. In the initial release of HSFX 5.0 Aaken's focus was on the popular ETO aircraft, Aaken is currently working on the PTO aircraft flight models which will be released as an update/hot fix, it is in beta testings as we speak. For a list of all the planes that Aaken has done see below

what else does enabling 'expert mode' do besides put in the aaken stuff...
You can refer to the HSFX 5.0 readme, which I found hard to read and took it upon myself to make a unofficial version, below i the link

http://flightsimtesting.com/my/documents/il2/HSFX/HSFX5.0_HOWTO_MANUAL.pdf

Refer to section '8 Aaken's Flight Models' to learn more about what was done, and refer to section '7.12 EXPERT mode aircraft' to see a list of the planes that Aaken has done, and keep in mind that list will be growing as time goes by, where I noted above he is currently working on many of the PTO aircraft. The EXPERT MOD is something I think you will enjoy, for most of those who have tried it all say one thing THE FEEL IS REAL! ;)

[tk471138]

Thanks alot for the info and the little guide was helpful as well.

[EZ1]

Yes, thanks from me too. The MANUAL was the best thing yet on mods. It answered several questions that I've had for a while. It seems that most of the documentation provided by the mdders assumes the reader has been involved with the developemnt.

[JimmyBlonde]

Imagine you're in a bar and you see two lovely ladies smiling at you.

You talk to the one on the left, UP, who is a down with the guys type of girl with a nice rack and you know she'll be fun but wonder if she might be a little dull after a month or two.

or:

You talk to the one on the right, HSFX, who looks a little more classy but isn't as friendly or popular as UP. You can tell that she's going to be more high maintenance and will probably end up spending most of your paycheck but you can't resist the challenge of trying to make her smile.

Long story short, both have their merits and it's down to personal taste.

[zipper]

According to the UP 3.0 RC readme, http://ultrapack.il2war.com/page/readme, one is to start with a clean 4.10.1m version of the game.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Thanks a lot for the info and the little guide was helpful as well.
Your welcome!

And..

EZ1
Yes, thanks from me too. The MANUAL was the best thing yet on mods. It answered several questions that I've had for a while.
Your welcome!

Oh and feel free to give the link to others who you think may need it, I post the link in HL when ever I see someone asking questions

EZ1
It seems that most of the documentation provided by the mdders assumes the reader has been involved with the developemnt.
That is the feeling I got from it too, which is what motivated me to make the one I made. The HSFX readme is more of a diary or log that captures the sequence of events, and credits to those who did what, which makes a lot of since to the guys doing the work because like you said they were involved with it.

But very hard for anyone that was not involved. I found myself reading the first few paragraphs and than giving up.

It wasn't until I saw a bunch of people in HL asking questions that were answered in the HSFX readme that I went back and force myself to read it all!

And sure enough the info was there but you really had to dig for it, and in some cases it was in more than one place. So, putting myself in the shoes of the 'user' I took out most of the diary/log of events stuff, the credits to those who did it, and focused on 'what' was in there and providing pictures to go along with the 'how to' stuff

[ACE-OF-ACES]

JimmyBlonde
Long story short, both have their merits and it's down to personal taste.
I agree both have their merits

And both are similar, which is not surprising in that UP lifts the content from other mods and mod packs like HSFX and repackages it to include it into their mod pack

Hence the name Ultra in the title UltraPack, as in taking mods from all other mods and mod pack and putting them into one mod pack.

A real kitchen sink approach to mod packs, that, based on the multi page bug report at the UP forums may not be such a good idea?

And since UP takes from all others, there is not a lot of original UP content in UP, for example UP even went as far as to lift the name HSFX used for Aaken's mods, i.e. EXPERT MODE, which can be seen in the UP switcher below

http://i1228.photobucket.com/albums/ee454/Panzer-UY/Set.png

Which is not to say UP implemented/used Aaken's flight models! They just lifted the name which will surly be a source of confusion among the users who might think UP has an professional aircraft design engineer with a Ph.D. and is currently working in that capacity creating their flight models, which is not the case at all.

In the end, as you noted, the decision comes down to personal taste.

But hopefully an informed decision!

Both mod packs will allow you to mod the game, but only HSFX will allow you to join stock 1C/TD servers running 4.10.1

The choice is clear for me when you consider the fact that most servers in HL are stock 1C/TD servers running 4.10.1, but 'allow mods'

Because I have to have 6DOF! And I like the option to fly in a stock 1C/TD server or a HSFX server

But that is just my personal preference

Problem for UP 3.0 is, I think a lot of people have the same personal preference ;)

[ElAurens]

All I want from UP is the P51A, but not badly enough to actually install it.

:cool:

[Ze-Jamz]

All I want from UP is the P51A, but not badly enough to actually install it.

:cool:

Why dont you just have both mate,

I have hsfx for having a mess around with and UP for some of the missions, I also have a SAS install where I've put all my modded content into..

If you've got the space it's the best policy..at least that way you can do whatever you like and have all your options open

[ElAurens]

I have my reasons for not using Ultra Pack, they are personal and will not be aired here.

Suffice it to say I am loyal to my friends.

[WWFlybert]

And you may want to keep this info under your hat.. Especially if you have an account at the UP and or SAS forums!

Because I brought this all up a few weeks ago at the AAS forums, and it upset the leaders of UP and SAS so much that they felt the need to rename my handle and changed my aviator to something very childish, heck the leaders at SAS was so upset that they even IP banned me from their server.

Which really shows you want kind of mind set your dealing with at those two sites.

Where if you post any info about UP or SAS that they perceived to be negative and you stand the chance of them getting so upset at you that they will change your forum handle, avaitor and/or banning you for something you said in 'ANOTHER' forum!

So keep that in mind if you choose to repeat what I pointed out here. ;)

what a joke .. first, I doubt the leaders at UP or SAS even read posts at AAS, as the site is irrelevant to IL-2 mods and almost nothing but a promotion site for a WWI mod of another game engine .. UP and SAS most likely have a problem with you for other reasons besides stating acknowledged information about UP 3.0

Everyone knows UP "enabled" whether 2.01 or 3.0 , will not work on 4.09m (2.01) or 4.101m servers, that is why there is a switcher included

HaDes at UP seems to take critique quite well actually, where breathe anything except glorious praise regarding the vaporware Canvas Knights over at AAS will get you banned there very quickly .. I am speaking for many, including those that were once members of the CK team and even admins of AAA ( which was copied without AAA owner's permission to become AAS )

[ACE-OF-ACES]

what a joke .. first, I doubt the leaders at UP or SAS even read posts at AAS
Well the joke is on you

Because not only did SAS read the post at AAS, they dedicated a post in the SAS forums about the post at AAS

So, nice try, but no sale! ;)

[Korn]

You can't, Spits vs 109s is crt=2, and for good reason.

I'm surprised to read about joining stock 4.101 games with HSFX, i don't know what popular servers are not crt=2. Plus i can tell you for a fact that joining servers with different planesets than your own leads to weird situations, i remember being killed by invisible enemies (i didn't have their planes in my mod installation). In coop it gets weirder even, it's difficult to get in the right plane in the first place since you don't see the same list as the server.

[Kwiatek]

It would be the stupid thing allowed to join 4.101 servers with HSFX or any other mods beacsue of flight model differences and planes incompatibility. Thats why you cant also join with HSFX to UP 3.0 server. Beacuse people would be play different game. It is logical to me.


I dont want to take a part in such disscusion about UP 3.0 vs HSFX but looking what nonsenses Ace of Aces is trying to impose here i neeed to just warn people to be not a naive.


Some notices about " Expert Flight Model in HSFX 5.0 " - taking from some forums including HSFX itself:


From HSFX forum:

" ....he 109E4, taken as an example, has gained a full 4 seconds turn time, if IL2Compare is to be believed. I know that the charts are imperfect at best, but so far all tests have agreed with the improved performance of the Emil. To some extent this is probably a good thing, 24 seconds seems a bit high for such a light plane, but it has now overtaken the 109F4 in terms of turn performance. For those planes (yak1, mig3) which used to ride the middle ground between those types, it's a major blow. All data that I've got indicated that the yak and mig could, if flown well, match the E but not the F. No longer.

So let's look at the E vs the F.
Empirical data is hard to find, but
- all sources agree that the F had a cleaner airframe, so less parasite drag.
- Rounded wingtips would have produced less induced drag, vital in the turn.
- a much higher engine output allows the F to overcome more drag (which it has less of anyhow) for a greater sustained turn performance
- weight and wing loading is harder, considering the tradeoffs, but we know that the 109F had one less cannon than the E, had more wing area, but a heavier engine. Most sources I've seen place the wing loading of the F as slightly less than the E, or similar.

Each of these lists a turn advantage for the F. Unless there was a huge reduction in the wing camber that I'm not aware of, it seems like an excessive change.

The E7N is even better, with a staggering 17 second turn time, barely a second and a half behind the zero and over two seconds ahead of the F4.

Further, the F2 has a significantly better turn than the F4, despite lower engine output. The smaller caliber of its single gun appears to have given the plane a 1.5 second sustained turn advantage.

.... Overall, stunning work with the HSFX and the FM's but this breaks the early eastern front, and doesn't seem to be realistic (to my layman's understanding). It seems to be that much more effort was placed on the later models, and the relationship between them and the western planes. While this is fair enough, it does create a problem in other scenarios. I hope this can either be explained or changed. "


From some other forum:

"
Sorry is not FW 190 A9 but FW 190 A6

HSFX 5.0 EXPERT MODE
Quote
HistorySFX 5.0 readme:

A little Background:-

Aachen is a professional Aircraft design engineer, we were not sure if we wanted to go in this direction at first, but were so impressed by how much closer to what we have read flying some of these aircraft and fighting in them has come, that it was inconceivable to go back


Quote
HistorySFX 5.0 readme:

Foreword
The modifications of flight and engine models presented in this work have started with an analytical evaluation of aircraft performances. In the following paragraphs a short description of the methodologies adopted in the analytical study can be found, specifically for the evaluation of aircraft polars.

Wing and tail polar
Are computed by adopting lift line theory (Weiselberger) using non linear section lift data (J.C. Sivells, R.H. Neely). Compressibility effects are taken into account. Normally, lift distribution, finite wing Cy and Cx computed are in very good agreement with computations performed according to DATCOM method (ref. E. Torenbeek, Synthesis of subsonic airplane design). This is due to the fact that studied aircraft configurations are un-swept and have high aspect ratios.


Figure 1 – Lift coefficient distribution on half wing span (Bf109G2 at SL 530km/h). Cyan line is result computed with iterative method (NACA Report 865) while yellow line is result computed with DATCOM method


Figure 2 – Lift coefficient distribution on half wing span (Bf109G2 at 1000m 250km/h 2g level turn). This condition illustrates the determination of stall-limited turn rate (in this case stall is incipient at 0.6 x half-wingspan). A tolerance of 0.05 g has been used to predict ultimate wing load factor for both stall-limited and power-limited turn rates.

Fuselage polar
Drag computation for fuselage has been performed by using slender body formulation (ref. E. Torenbeek, Synthesis of subsonic airplane design). Lift induced drag is accounted for in the computation. Formulation for fuselage lift induced drag is given in referenced document.

Propeller
Propeller performance computations have been performed by means of blade element theory. In the present document, since no detailed description of propeller blades was available, the blade section has been assumed to be a flat plate. Optimal propeller (i.e. blade twist) has been computed in the condition of 100% throttle at sea level. Hence the propeller has been analysed for all beta angles in the range specified in EMD (propPhiMax and propPhiMin) at maximum propeller revolutions (constant rpm propeller), thus obtaining propeller efficiency curve at full power rpms.
It should be noted that the assumption made on blade section leads to under-estimation of propeller efficiency (up to 5% at maximum speed) thus leading to a conservative estimation of aircraft performance.

Propeller slipstream
Is computed using blade element theory adopted for propeller performances estimation. It is worth mentioning that actuator disc theory produces very similar results in terms of slipstream velocity and mass flow rate. This is due to the fact that considered propellers have low loading factor. For the purpose of this study the complete fuselage, radiators (under-wing and under-fuselage), inner wing section and tail assembly are considered to be completely inside the propeller slipstream. The inner wing section area enveloped by propeller slipstream has been computed considering the propeller radius/wing span ratio. This assumption leads to a slight over estimation of wing drag since propeller slipstream tube has a contraction after the propeller (about ¼ - ½ of propeller radius downstream of propeller) to its final radius.

Small summary of modifications – Aircarft polars

dCl/d? has been evaluated according to the following formula:

Cl? = f Cl?th /(E+Cl?th/(? AR)) [rad-1]

where Cl?th is the 2D section lift coefficient derivative and E=1+(2 TR)/(AR (1+TR))

Drag coefficient second derivative has been evaluated according to the following formula:

d2Cd/d?2 = Cl?2/(? AR e)

Second derivative of drag coefficient has been corrected with twist factor.

Clmax has been computed by computing Cl spanwise distribution and assuming linear spanwise variation of 2D section Clmax (ref. example figure below):



Bf109 slats
Bf109 slats has been treated as follows:
according to literature (R&M 2361 [sept. 1940]) slats open at Cl approximately 0,85-0,95. Second order Cd derivative for complete wing with slats deployed is computed at 5,3E-4. In the following figure the Cd as function of ? is reported.

Since it is not possible to impose the Cd jump corresponding to slat open condition, the Cd is simulated with a second order derivative of 5,8E-4 with 0,8? offset (ref. figure below).

This approximation limits the error in Cd estimation within +5% immediately before and -5% immediately after slat opening. Error tends to 0 moving away from slat openin threshold.
P51s CoG

In the models presented in this work, the P51 CoG position has been moved forward to replicate the position of the CoG in the configuration with 25 gallons in the 85 gallons fuselage fuel tank. From literature data the CoG for P51D configuration with 25 gallons in the 85 gallons fuselage fuel tank is 28.3% MAC. The P51s with full 85 gallons fuselage fuel tanks were statically unstable and the normal operating procedures for planes in such a configuration demanded to empty the 85 gallons fuselage fuel tank before all other tanks. At anything below 35 gallons, the P51s equipped with 85 gallons fuselage fuel tank were both statically and dynamically stable [America Hundred Thousands et al.]. Since the simulator does not allow for CoG movement with regards to fuel usage, and since the unstable configuration reproduced in the original models was deemed too conservative, it has been decided to adopt a statically and dynamically stable configuration as normally happened during combat operations. It is advisable to adopt a maximum fuel load of 75%.

P47D27 Late

In the models presented in this work, the P47D27Late has been modelled to reproduce (as best as technically possible) the flight characteristics and performances of P47M.


HSFX Expert Mode FW 190 A6 VS Spit IXe

http://i1228.photobucket.com/albums/ee454/Panzer-UY/Aaken.jpg


OMG !!!
I will love FW 190 A6 ... in expert mode HSFX 5.0
Downloading .... Tongue "



"Lol nice Il2 graph Smiley

Climb rate 23 m/s and turn time below 20 sec for Fw 190 A-6. It looks that German pilots during WW2 who flew real Fw 190 were really hurted. Kurt Tank had should be ashamed.


These mod should have name " ALTERNATIVE HISTORY BY HSFX " i think - it should sound more beliveable Smiley"


"I think you will be not alone who would like to get superb A-6 with 20 sec sustained turn and 23 m/s climb rate. Many would like to get their favourite plane to be the best one. Something like Ladas ( LA family) in Il2 since begining. Tell any russian people that Lada is too good in IL2 Smiley

But if we continue Olegs shoes and will make other planes in similar way then we could rather speak about alternative history not realism anymore.

Remember that contemporary 109 plane was better in sustained turn then 190. It is clearly seen from technical data of both planes. IF A-6 would turn below 20 sec it would be better then 109 G-2 and was similar to 109 F-4 - which would be totaly absurd.

Remember also then Fw 190 A-6 (4100 kg) was heavier plane then A-4 ( 4000 kg) with the same engine power.

Also climb rate for A-5/A-6 wasn't brilant. The same like with sustained turn rate contemporary 109 types was better in sustained climb rate then Fw 190 types.

At nominal power ( 1.3 Ata) climb rate for 190 A-5 was 15 m/s and for A-6 ( heavier) only 14.5 m/s. For emergency power (1.42 Ata 2700 RPM) climb rate for A-5 was 18.5 m/s and for A-6 about 18 m/s.
RL 109 G-2 at 1.3 Ata (nominal power) climb 21 m/s.


So i think both Oleg M. and HSFX are wrong here being on the opposite banks of the same river. True as mostly lie somwhere in the middle Smiley


BTW looking at these IL2 Compare polares for A-6 from these "Historical Expert" Mod i really afraid to see other planes polares. "





" About climb Rate, the FW 190 dont climb like BF 190 ... is totaly absurd. Wink"




So I really dont even want to know what HSFX made with other planes and flight models.

I just see that their methods in making planes peformacne dont work like should. It is enough to check RL data and test and compare it with these what HSFX reached. The difference is huge.

UP make their FMs and performacne based mostly ( if availiable) on real life test flight data ( original scanes and monographs) and we really have huge base of it.

Just my 5 cents.



P.S.

The best thing in UP is that these pack doesnt need to be advertised or defended - it is advertising and defending itself.

It is enough to check main HL servers :cool:

Still everybody has its own preferences and chooice what to use is his own case.

[Kwiatek]

And since UP takes from all others, there is not a lot of original UP content in UP, for example UP even went as far as to lift the name HSFX used for Aaken's mods, i.e. EXPERT MODE, which can be seen in the UP switcher below

http://i1228.photobucket.com/albums/ee454/Panzer-UY/Set.png

Which is not to say UP implemented/used Aaken's flight models! They just lifted the name which will surly be a source of confusion among the users who might think UP has an professional aircraft design engineer with a Ph.D. and is currently working in that capacity creating their flight models, which is not the case at all.



Absolutly brillant for me. I suggest to award Ace of Aces Golden Comedian Award.

I am not so long ago amused.

[Storebror]

UP even went as far as to lift the name HSFX used for Aaken's mods, i.e. EXPERT MODE, which can be seen in the UP switcher
Thanks for the heads up, Grant!
If you hurry up, you might be the first to claim copyright on the term "Expert Mode" here: http://www.copyright.gov/

At this opportunity you might want to check other terms which have been "lifted" by UP, such as RAM (I think I've seen that before elsewhere, not sure though), "Game" or "Cancel".

Best regards - Mike

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

It seems, as the phrase 'vs' in any topic name always leads to some people want to make war (not love). :D

[EnsignRo]

It seems, as the phrase 'vs' in any topic name always leads to some people want to make war (not love). :D

Which can be amusing :D

[BadAim]

There needs to be no war boys. For it seems that in spite of all the "Hate" that seems to be going on between the Major "packs", they are indeed compatible. Simply drop HSFX over your clean 4.10.1, drop Modact 3.04b over that, and UP 3.0 over that. BINGO! You now have a 4 in one install. Just point Hyperlobby at your (single) IL2 folder and after you find a server you want to join pick which version you need from the handy dandy little switcher and select the JSGME options you want. Simple, elegant and no more fighting. Just pick what you want for a given need!

[SUP / Revan]

to make it short compadre,

IT-IS-NOT-AAKEN-FMS-IT ENABLES-RAM-SETTINGS



-------------
no longer part of SUP, too lazy to change name, asked modders, none replayed. gday.

[II/JG54_Emil]

The funny thing is there is no war between UP and HSFX :grin:

It´s basically Ace that spreads his poison.
Who knows what his agenda is, coming from the AAS modsite that is pretty much being ignored by UP and HSFX. http://ultrapack.il2war.com/Smileys/ExcellentSmileys1/character0051.gif

[Aracno]

It would be the stupid thing allowed to join 4.101 servers with HSFX or any other mods beacsue of flight model differences and planes incompatibility. Thats why you cant also join with HSFX to UP 3.0 server. Beacuse people would be play different game. It is logical to me.


I dont want to take a part in such disscusion about UP 3.0 vs HSFX but looking what nonsenses Ace of Aces is trying to impose here i neeed to just warn people to be not a naive.


Some notices about " Expert Flight Model in HSFX 5.0 " - taking from some forums including HSFX itself:


From HSFX forum:

" ....he 109E4, taken as an example, has gained a full 4 seconds turn time, if IL2Compare is to be believed. I know that the charts are imperfect at best, but so far all tests have agreed with the improved performance of the Emil. To some extent this is probably a good thing, 24 seconds seems a bit high for such a light plane, but it has now overtaken the 109F4 in terms of turn performance. For those planes (yak1, mig3) which used to ride the middle ground between those types, it's a major blow. All data that I've got indicated that the yak and mig could, if flown well, match the E but not the F. No longer.

So let's look at the E vs the F.
Empirical data is hard to find, but
- all sources agree that the F had a cleaner airframe, so less parasite drag.
- Rounded wingtips would have produced less induced drag, vital in the turn.
- a much higher engine output allows the F to overcome more drag (which it has less of anyhow) for a greater sustained turn performance
- weight and wing loading is harder, considering the tradeoffs, but we know that the 109F had one less cannon than the E, had more wing area, but a heavier engine. Most sources I've seen place the wing loading of the F as slightly less than the E, or similar.

Each of these lists a turn advantage for the F. Unless there was a huge reduction in the wing camber that I'm not aware of, it seems like an excessive change.

The E7N is even better, with a staggering 17 second turn time, barely a second and a half behind the zero and over two seconds ahead of the F4.

Further, the F2 has a significantly better turn than the F4, despite lower engine output. The smaller caliber of its single gun appears to have given the plane a 1.5 second sustained turn advantage.

.... Overall, stunning work with the HSFX and the FM's but this breaks the early eastern front, and doesn't seem to be realistic (to my layman's understanding). It seems to be that much more effort was placed on the later models, and the relationship between them and the western planes. While this is fair enough, it does create a problem in other scenarios. I hope this can either be explained or changed. "


From some other forum:

"
Sorry is not FW 190 A9 but FW 190 A6

HSFX 5.0 EXPERT MODE
Quote
HistorySFX 5.0 readme:

A little Background:-

Aachen is a professional Aircraft design engineer, we were not sure if we wanted to go in this direction at first, but were so impressed by how much closer to what we have read flying some of these aircraft and fighting in them has come, that it was inconceivable to go back


Quote
HistorySFX 5.0 readme:

Foreword
The modifications of flight and engine models presented in this work have started with an analytical evaluation of aircraft performances. In the following paragraphs a short description of the methodologies adopted in the analytical study can be found, specifically for the evaluation of aircraft polars.

Wing and tail polar
Are computed by adopting lift line theory (Weiselberger) using non linear section lift data (J.C. Sivells, R.H. Neely). Compressibility effects are taken into account. Normally, lift distribution, finite wing Cy and Cx computed are in very good agreement with computations performed according to DATCOM method (ref. E. Torenbeek, Synthesis of subsonic airplane design). This is due to the fact that studied aircraft configurations are un-swept and have high aspect ratios.


Figure 1 – Lift coefficient distribution on half wing span (Bf109G2 at SL 530km/h). Cyan line is result computed with iterative method (NACA Report 865) while yellow line is result computed with DATCOM method


Figure 2 – Lift coefficient distribution on half wing span (Bf109G2 at 1000m 250km/h 2g level turn). This condition illustrates the determination of stall-limited turn rate (in this case stall is incipient at 0.6 x half-wingspan). A tolerance of 0.05 g has been used to predict ultimate wing load factor for both stall-limited and power-limited turn rates.

Fuselage polar
Drag computation for fuselage has been performed by using slender body formulation (ref. E. Torenbeek, Synthesis of subsonic airplane design). Lift induced drag is accounted for in the computation. Formulation for fuselage lift induced drag is given in referenced document.

Propeller
Propeller performance computations have been performed by means of blade element theory. In the present document, since no detailed description of propeller blades was available, the blade section has been assumed to be a flat plate. Optimal propeller (i.e. blade twist) has been computed in the condition of 100% throttle at sea level. Hence the propeller has been analysed for all beta angles in the range specified in EMD (propPhiMax and propPhiMin) at maximum propeller revolutions (constant rpm propeller), thus obtaining propeller efficiency curve at full power rpms.
It should be noted that the assumption made on blade section leads to under-estimation of propeller efficiency (up to 5% at maximum speed) thus leading to a conservative estimation of aircraft performance.

Propeller slipstream
Is computed using blade element theory adopted for propeller performances estimation. It is worth mentioning that actuator disc theory produces very similar results in terms of slipstream velocity and mass flow rate. This is due to the fact that considered propellers have low loading factor. For the purpose of this study the complete fuselage, radiators (under-wing and under-fuselage), inner wing section and tail assembly are considered to be completely inside the propeller slipstream. The inner wing section area enveloped by propeller slipstream has been computed considering the propeller radius/wing span ratio. This assumption leads to a slight over estimation of wing drag since propeller slipstream tube has a contraction after the propeller (about ¼ - ½ of propeller radius downstream of propeller) to its final radius.

Small summary of modifications – Aircarft polars

dCl/d? has been evaluated according to the following formula:

Cl? = f Cl?th /(E+Cl?th/(? AR)) [rad-1]

where Cl?th is the 2D section lift coefficient derivative and E=1+(2 TR)/(AR (1+TR))

Drag coefficient second derivative has been evaluated according to the following formula:

d2Cd/d?2 = Cl?2/(? AR e)

Second derivative of drag coefficient has been corrected with twist factor.

Clmax has been computed by computing Cl spanwise distribution and assuming linear spanwise variation of 2D section Clmax (ref. example figure below):



Bf109 slats
Bf109 slats has been treated as follows:
according to literature (R&M 2361 [sept. 1940]) slats open at Cl approximately 0,85-0,95. Second order Cd derivative for complete wing with slats deployed is computed at 5,3E-4. In the following figure the Cd as function of ? is reported.

Since it is not possible to impose the Cd jump corresponding to slat open condition, the Cd is simulated with a second order derivative of 5,8E-4 with 0,8? offset (ref. figure below).

This approximation limits the error in Cd estimation within +5% immediately before and -5% immediately after slat opening. Error tends to 0 moving away from slat openin threshold.
P51s CoG

In the models presented in this work, the P51 CoG position has been moved forward to replicate the position of the CoG in the configuration with 25 gallons in the 85 gallons fuselage fuel tank. From literature data the CoG for P51D configuration with 25 gallons in the 85 gallons fuselage fuel tank is 28.3% MAC. The P51s with full 85 gallons fuselage fuel tanks were statically unstable and the normal operating procedures for planes in such a configuration demanded to empty the 85 gallons fuselage fuel tank before all other tanks. At anything below 35 gallons, the P51s equipped with 85 gallons fuselage fuel tank were both statically and dynamically stable [America Hundred Thousands et al.]. Since the simulator does not allow for CoG movement with regards to fuel usage, and since the unstable configuration reproduced in the original models was deemed too conservative, it has been decided to adopt a statically and dynamically stable configuration as normally happened during combat operations. It is advisable to adopt a maximum fuel load of 75%.

P47D27 Late

In the models presented in this work, the P47D27Late has been modelled to reproduce (as best as technically possible) the flight characteristics and performances of P47M.


HSFX Expert Mode FW 190 A6 VS Spit IXe

http://i1228.photobucket.com/albums/ee454/Panzer-UY/Aaken.jpg


OMG !!!
I will love FW 190 A6 ... in expert mode HSFX 5.0
Downloading .... Tongue "



"Lol nice Il2 graph Smiley

Climb rate 23 m/s and turn time below 20 sec for Fw 190 A-6. It looks that German pilots during WW2 who flew real Fw 190 were really hurted. Kurt Tank had should be ashamed.


These mod should have name " ALTERNATIVE HISTORY BY HSFX " i think - it should sound more beliveable Smiley"


"I think you will be not alone who would like to get superb A-6 with 20 sec sustained turn and 23 m/s climb rate. Many would like to get their favourite plane to be the best one. Something like Ladas ( LA family) in Il2 since begining. Tell any russian people that Lada is too good in IL2 Smiley

But if we continue Olegs shoes and will make other planes in similar way then we could rather speak about alternative history not realism anymore.

Remember that contemporary 109 plane was better in sustained turn then 190. It is clearly seen from technical data of both planes. IF A-6 would turn below 20 sec it would be better then 109 G-2 and was similar to 109 F-4 - which would be totaly absurd.

Remember also then Fw 190 A-6 (4100 kg) was heavier plane then A-4 ( 4000 kg) with the same engine power.

Also climb rate for A-5/A-6 wasn't brilant. The same like with sustained turn rate contemporary 109 types was better in sustained climb rate then Fw 190 types.

At nominal power ( 1.3 Ata) climb rate for 190 A-5 was 15 m/s and for A-6 ( heavier) only 14.5 m/s. For emergency power (1.42 Ata 2700 RPM) climb rate for A-5 was 18.5 m/s and for A-6 about 18 m/s.
RL 109 G-2 at 1.3 Ata (nominal power) climb 21 m/s.


So i think both Oleg M. and HSFX are wrong here being on the opposite banks of the same river. True as mostly lie somwhere in the middle Smiley


BTW looking at these IL2 Compare polares for A-6 from these "Historical Expert" Mod i really afraid to see other planes polares. "





" About climb Rate, the FW 190 dont climb like BF 190 ... is totaly absurd. Wink"




So I really dont even want to know what HSFX made with other planes and flight models.

I just see that their methods in making planes peformacne dont work like should. It is enough to check RL data and test and compare it with these what HSFX reached. The difference is huge.

UP make their FMs and performacne based mostly ( if availiable) on real life test flight data ( original scanes and monographs) and we really have huge base of it.

Just my 5 cents.



P.S.

The best thing in UP is that these pack doesnt need to be advertised or defended - it is advertising and defending itself.

It is enough to check main HL servers :cool:

Still everybody has its own preferences and chooice what to use is his own case.

I think you are a bit ungenerous with Aachen.
Remember, he is actually doing REAL AIRCRAFT for work, dont you think he know what is doing?
Do you really think an aeronautic engineer did his work without looking at RL data?
Sure this is only a game with all his limits and all is perfectible, and Aachen is still working on it, but reading your post seem that his FM are ridicolous and badly done.
And this is false and offensive for Aachen's work and i hope wasn't your intentions.
I cant speak about the questions highlighted in the post, i'm not an FM expert, but I'm a SEOW player and i have not seen ONE complain, from both side, about the new FM, and this is incredible during a SEOW with 80 or more competitive and experienced player, on the other side i have seen hundred people really "falling in love" for Aachen's FM and their feeling of flight.

You said: The best thing in UP is that these pack doesnt need to be advertised or defended - it is advertising and defending itself.

Perfect, but at the same time HFSX and Aachen don't deserve post like yours.

Aracno

[ocococ]

Actually for simple things like that you only need to have basic physics understanding. You don't even need RL data at all.

HSFX's expert FM has so many problems, that should not be taken seriously in any way. I discovered them while playing (something feels seriously wrong moments), and the IL2CompareHSFX charts just proved that I was right.

No offense to Aaken. Probably real life experience can't easily be transferred to a 10year old game.


As for the thread question, UP3 or HSFX5? None, stock game is the only one that is playable.

I respect all the individual mod content creators (Doesn't matter if I like their work or not),

But I consider all the modpack creators (packagers) incompetent. They have failed to deliver a polished modpack. They are all full of amateur bugs, stupid "personal opinion/im-gonna-do-it-my-way" game changes and low quality crappy content.

IMO, Their existence and their high(!) popularity is a disgrace to the original/stock game's quality and polish.

With the stock game, 5% of the game seems wrong.
With the modded game, 50% of the game seems wrong.

[EZ1]

Well I certainly opened a can of worms with my original post. Thanks to all who have participated.

Actually, I would never have considered installing mods except for 6DOF. That is the only mod I really think is important because my biggest complaint with IL-2 was the pilot having one eye nailed to the center of the cockpit. I couldn't care less about flying a bunch of obscure airplanes. But that's just me.

Thanks all.

[Asheshouse]

With the stock game, 5% of the game seems wrong.
With the modded game, 50% of the game seems wrong.

I wonder if you have really tried all the mods in both HSFX and UP to arrive at these precise figures?

If that really is your view then you still have the choice of using a ModEnabler rather than a pack and selecting your own favourite mods. No one is forced to use anything. People use Mods because they like them and they offer some excellent features or content not available in official patches.

I couldn't care less about flying a bunch of obscure airplanes. But that's just me. Makes me wonder why you are interested in IL2 at all. :-)

[II/JG54_Emil]

I think you are a bit ungenerous with Aachen.
Remember, he is actually doing REAL AIRCRAFT for work, dont you think he know what is doing?
Do you really think an aeronautic engineer did his work without looking at RL data?
Sure this is only a game with all his limits and all is perfectible, and Aachen is still working on it, but reading your post seem that his FM are ridicolous and badly done.
And this is false and offensive for Aachen's work and i hope wasn't your intentions.
I cant speak about the questions highlighted in the post, i'm not an FM expert, but I'm a SEOW player and i have not seen ONE complain, from both side, about the new FM, and this is incredible during a SEOW with 80 or more competitive and experienced player, on the other side i have seen hundred people really "falling in love" for Aachen's FM and their feeling of flight.

You said: The best thing in UP is that these pack doesnt need to be advertised or defended - it is advertising and defending itself.

Perfect, but at the same time HFSX and Aachen don't deserve post like yours.

Aracno

Maybe it would be enlighting to ask Kwiatek for his profession.

[ElAurens]

Maybe it would be enlighting to ask Kwiatek for his profession.

Quote of the month.

[Aracno]

Maybe it would be enlighting to ask Kwiatek for his profession.

I dont care, if he is another aeronautical engineer I would expect constructive and precise criticism or errors highlighted on SEOW forum, not spamming other's people whining post, especially in a thread hot like this.
Aachen is a nice guy open to critics and ready to explain when YOU are wrong and correct things where HE is wrong, he really does not deserve post like that.

[150GCT_Veltro]

Actually for simple things like that you only need to have basic physics understanding. You don't even need RL data at all.

Sure? Have you ever seen an FM code with polars ecc. ecc.?

FM are phisycs and maths first of all. Pilots statements are not always credible, first of all because usually they are completely differents.

[Kwiatek]

Well i got 2 books about BoB fighter planes where 2 different aeronautical engineer (as i remember from 2 different University) were calculated sustained turn rates for Spitfire Mk1 and 109 E and both got quite different results . Hard to say what data they both used but one got that 109 E outturn Spitfire MK1 and second hardly opposite result.

I dont care, if he is another aeronautical engineer I would expect constructive and precise criticism or errors highlighted on SEOW forum, not spamming other's people whining post, especially in a thread hot like this.
Aachen is a nice guy open to critics and ready to explain when YOU are wrong and correct things where HE is wrong, he really does not deserve post like that.

Sry but i dont have a goal to write at SOEW forum casue im not stick with HSFX and SOEW. One of my reason is that i just know comparing real life data which i got that in many cases many HSFX planes had wrong and unhistorical performance - far from even close to realistic. Im stick with UP where i made many flight models for UP planes based on RL data (orignal scans) and flight test not about dubfully calculations. Im not claim that all planes in UP had accurate performance and flight models beacuse there are so many new planes and flight models made by different people with really different quality. There is not possible to control and check all these planes beacuse there are really too many of them. But i could say only about these one which i made - many Western Front planes like new Fw 190s, 109s, SPitfires etc. Surly nothing is perfect and never will be but the goal is to achive the closiest results to real life data as it is possible in these game.

[Aracno]

So you are the FM guy of the UP?
Coming here to attack your collegue of HFSX?
Congratulations.
And about "dubfully calculations", take care next time you fly on an airliner, maybe calculations are done by Aachen ....

[Kwiatek]

Yes im these guy from UP which made some FM's for it.

I dont want to attack anybody here. Maby i was wrong understanded.
Just i want to say that such "calculations" from different reasons dont work for these planes comparing to RL data. These is the same like i said about 2 different aero engineers who got way different results for the same thing.

Regarding our game it could be also that flight model maker cant or dont know how to get wanted resuts. From my experience sometimes is really hard to do some things in il2 engine and soetimes it is needed to make it different way.

Whathever reason in my humble opinion flight models in HSFX in many cases ( in some important planes) really doesn't work like it supposed to be and are way different from real life results. Just all.

[Aracno]

I dont want to go in the telenovela of "your data are wrong", i have read too much posts and i know is an infinite debate.
Maybe you are using different data, so if your FM check your data i'm happy for you, maybe Aachen is happy because his FM check his data too ..... people can decide by himself.
What i know is that Aachen its an aeronautical engineer that work in the aeronautical industry and a second WW ac passionate and a lot of people are loving his work.
I'm sure a lot of people are loving your FM, there is no reason to go in a "my data are better than yours" war, especially in a forum where the second guy involved (Aachen) is not present.

[Kwiatek]

Well there are not " my data" but just official data from these times used by Germans, British or Amercians for their planes. I mostly try and got if it is possible such official data not books, monographs etc. But if some planes in IL2 mods have obviously way too good or way too worse performacne comparing to even offical data from their country flight test there is really something off. But as you said i also dont want to start another telenovela "which data or mod is better" here, it is not point do to it.

[Bearcat]

I have two installs... the two are not compatible.. and may never be if I am reading between the lines on the SAS/UP forums.. I will always go with what ever mod pack works with the latest official patch.. For me UP ids ok.. it has it's plusses for sure.. but I want to stick with whatever the latest patch is and if UP brances off after 4.10.1 and decides to not go with 4.11 then I will be using UP strictly to keep up with what the other world is doing.. There is some goodness there.. in 3.0.. I like it but the squad is sticking with HSFX..

With regards to the RED text..

Not only is UP 3.0 not compatible with HSFX 5.0

UP 3.0 is not compatible with IL-2 4.10.1!

That is to say you can not join a stock IL-2 4.10.1 server (coop or DF) with UP 3.0 enabled.. EVEN IF THE SERVER SAYS IT ALLOWS MODS!

Which leads to my comment on the ORANGE text..

UP 3.0 has already branched off, that is to say you don't have to wait an see what UP 3.0 decides to do when 4.11 comes out, UP 3.0, as noted above, is not compatible with 4.10.1. And they have already stated they have no intentions of being compatible with any future official 1C/TD updates.

Therefore if you want to use mods, say the 6DOF mod and join a IL-2 4.10.1 server your only choice is to use HSFX 5.0, in that UP 3.0 will not be able to join a 4.10.1 server. The only servers you can join with UP 3.0 is UP 3.0 servers.

And you may want to keep this info under your hat.. Especially if you have an account at the UP and or SAS forums!

Because I brought this all up a few weeks ago at the AAS forums, and it upset the leaders of UP and SAS so much that they felt the need to rename my handle and changed my aviator to something very childish, heck the leaders at SAS was so upset that they even IP banned me from their server.

Which really shows you want kind of mind set your dealing with at those two sites.

Where if you post any info about UP or SAS that they perceived to be negative and you stand the chance of them getting so upset at you that they will change your forum handle, avaitor and/or banning you for something you said in 'ANOTHER' forum!
So keep that in mind if you choose to repeat what I pointed out here. ;)

Let me clarify that... I will be using UP strictly to keep up with what the rest of the mod community is doing but I will be flying HSFX online and with the squad.

[II/JG54_Emil]

bash bash bash mor bash bash bash

lol

what a funny idea to create this forum where can jump on each other

muhahaha

[Bearcat]

bash bash bash mor bash bash bash

lol

what a funny idea to create this forum where can jump on each other
muhahaha

Just who am I bashing? It s what it is man... I like UP or else it wouldn't be on my HD ... but for me.. the singular most important feature of any mod pack that I use is it's compatibility with the latest incarnation of the stock sim. If the folks at UP/SAS choose to not keep up with that then as far as my online flying goes I will stick with HSFX. I don't see where I am bashing anyone with that ... and frankly ... some of the issues that so many have with the different mod packs do not exist in a vacuum. There are reasons why the two camps are the way they are.. as far as Red & Blue ...

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

From my experience sometimes is really hard to do some things in il2 engine and soetimes it is needed to make it different way.



This is very true at least.

[Aracno]

Yes im these guy from UP which made some FM's for it.

I dont want to attack anybody here. Maby i was wrong understanded.
Just i want to say that such "calculations" from different reasons dont work for these planes comparing to RL data. These is the same like i said about 2 different aero engineers who got way different results for the same thing.

Regarding our game it could be also that flight model maker cant or dont know how to get wanted resuts. From my experience sometimes is really hard to do some things in il2 engine and soetimes it is needed to make it different way.

Whathever reason in my humble opinion flight models in HSFX in many cases ( in some important planes) really doesn't work like it supposed to be and are way different from real life results. Just all.

You seem a reasonable guy, so, how you can think an engineer did not looked in to RL data to check his result?
Comparing theorical calculations with practical result is one of the most important thing for an AC builder, this is why there is windtunnel and test pilot.
Do you really think he did calculations and stop?
Without checking in game result?
We ALL know that game engine has limit, Aachen too, so there must be a reason for the difference you have found, otherwise he dont know how to read RL test data and i will be worried next time i need to fly on an airliner.
And why they have added the ac compare to HFSX, for let you see how wrong was the new FM?
I'm an "old" WWII sim player (CFS1) and i'm in the "modding" since CFS3, unfortunately looks like the ultimate RL data does not exist and during the last ten years I have never seen a thread about FM and RL data finished well.
Keep 10 FM expert toghever and you will obtain 10 different FM, no way to see them happy toghever .... :-x
This is why I see your post a bit unfair, you are an expert and we, ordinary people, must have faith in what you say because we have no way to check, then you should make similar claims with who can argue, Aachen in this case, not in a thread that in most cases will be read by those who have never even seen the data for discussion, and for sure not in a thread starting with "pack vs pack" where NO ONE of both modpack was involved.
I can understand a reaction to Ace's post, but he is not Aachen, Charlie or any other HFSX developer.
Dont forget, SEOW user are in most case experienced and competitive players and WWII lovers, be sure they are not a polite users, if they think there is a problem with the FM of the ac they are flying in the tournment they can give you a good headeche ... :evil:
And i suspect there must be something right if most of the best organized groups use only HFSX for their groups activity and on line campaign.
Anyway i want to close the question, there are two modpack around, they have different FM and apparently they are both appreciated by a lot of people.
With HFSX you can disable the "new FM" with expert mode, in UP i suppose there are different slot (not sure, maybe i'm wrong), so the end user has the choice from 3 different FM, he will decide wich one check his expectations, and in most cases is better than having only the stock one.

[I/ZG52_HaDeS]

Aracno,
We know how biased you are, and what your intentions are so please don't pretent to be a "saint". We are aware...
Anyway...to me all this "politics" for a game is ridiculous, too bad its like this, seriously.

Kwiatek is regarded as the most talented and accurate FM "builder" in the IL2 addons community. His work is regarded as top. Its not questionable as he has proven this for years.
Aachen perhaps has a Phd, perhaps is an aircraft engineer and also knows his stuff, this is also unquestionable. But despite how much "theory" you know, some (or most of) the times you cannot beat experience and historical accuracy.
I am not questioning that Aachen's FMs are that bad, certainly they are better than your previous ones where an A-20B could turn like a Zero. But as we can see Aachens FMs are also not perfect and can improve a lot in the future.

17 Seconds turn-time for a Bf-109E:
http://www.242sqn.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2653&sid=63e2626c690ba7d4eb8e71b1d1cd21f8

Last the FMs debate cannot lead to a conclusion because of egoism and bias
Everybody thinks that their FMs are the best, most accurate, etc and they don't change opinion even when they are confronted with facts.
And everyone with half a brain knows who are these people.
The only thing that can be counted is the acceptance they have in the community, and Kwiatek has proved this through years.
Its a long way but if someone has to convince the rest about the "historical accuracy" of the FM he uses or created, this is the only and long road.

Perhaps this post is also unnecessary because of the reasons i mentioned above. That, in the end, here at the "yellow-forum", certain people/fanboys believe what they Want to believe, no matter what. Its the outside" world of HL that matters most, to me at least.

Cheers :)

EDIT:
And a small detail. Kwiatek is not the only one that makes FMs for UP. He has made the most but not all.

[Aracno]

I'm not trying to be a saint, I'm trying to be civil.
For sure you are not on the top of my sympathy but I have nothing against the modders that released the mod in your pack.
So I have nothing against Kwiatek, except about the opportunity of his post in this thread.
So, please, dont try to keep me in your personal war.

[I/ZG52_HaDeS]

I'm not trying to be a saint, I'm trying to be civil.
For sure you are not on the top of my sympathy but I have nothing against the modders that released the mod in your pack.


Very nice of you really, but its not "my pack". Its community's one. I may have started first and be behind this all the time, but for sure i don't feel its "my pack", and frankly its not at all "mine".


So I have nothing against Kwiatek, except about the opportunity of his post in this thread.


Its also nice of you but knowing that you are biased in favor of specific things, your post was not that innocent.


So, please, dont try to keep me in your personal war.

"war" and "personal" are 2 words that are not in my vocabulary in the Il2 world regarding UP.

Cheers :)

[GOZR]

Well IMO as real WW2 aircraft pilot ;).. i can tell you to get the UP version of IL2.

[Aracno]

Very nice of you really, but its not "my pack". Its community's one. I may have started first and be behind this all the time, but for sure i don't feel its "my pack", and frankly its not at all "mine".

Who is the polite now?
All the IL2 world identify UP with you, it's enough for me.

Its also nice of you but knowing that you are biased in favor of specific things, your post was not that innocent.

Yes, I like HFSX, BUT, i was an happy UP2.01 users, so it's hard for you to found something written by me against one pack or in favour of another.
I was only defending Aachen's work, without Kwiatek post I hardly posted in this thread.

"war" and "personal" are 2 words that are not in my vocabulary in the Il2 world regarding UP.

Cheers :)

Yes, and every Christmas I become SantaKlaus.

Cheers
Aracno

[JtD]

According to Focke Wulf, the real 190 had a climb rate of 14 m/s in second charger gear.
According to 1C FM of that plane, it has 15 m/s.
According to a much improved mod pack FM, it has 17 m/s.
According to another even more improved mod pack FM, it has 18 m/s.

Go figure what "better" FM means...my guess is the next "improvement" will break the 20.

Maybe the FM builders should get together and check their data before they release it? Would save us from forum hostilities and bad FMs.

[Aracno]

According to Focke Wulf, the real 190 had a climb rate of 14 m/s in second charger gear.
According to 1C FM of that plane, it has 15 m/s.
According to a much improved mod pack FM, it has 17 m/s.
According to another even more improved mod pack FM, it has 18 m/s.

Go figure what "better" FM means...my guess is the next "improvement" will break the 20.

Maybe the FM builders should get together and check their data before they release it? Would save us from forum hostilities and bad FMs.

There is 16 m/s free for us ...... :grin:

[II/JG54_Emil]

According to Focke Wulf, the real 190 had a climb rate of 14 m/s in second charger gear.
According to 1C FM of that plane, it has 15 m/s.
According to a much improved mod pack FM, it has 17 m/s.
According to another even more improved mod pack FM, it has 18 m/s.

Go figure what "better" FM means...my guess is the next "improvement" will break the 20.

Maybe the FM builders should get together and check their data before they release it? Would save us from forum hostilities and bad FMs.


lol
what a indifferent comment all, all FW190 have a climb rate of 14m/s.???

[JtD]

Well, some lol, others will find the variant I was referring to.

[Aracno]

About FW A6 wrong performance and the graphic showed in this thread, in the IL2 compare for some strange reason the AC weight is 3780 kg instead of 4050-4100, so il2 compare are calculating wrong ROC and performance due to this problem.
But AC weight in HFSX is correct and performance too.
So all this discussion was based on wrong calculations of IL2 Compare, not on the real ingame FM.
The same problem is present in others AC (wrong weight in IL2Compare), and they are studying the reasons of this error.
If this discussion was made ​​on the forum HFSX the problem would be solved immediately, without shedding doubt on the validity of the work done by Aachen.

[II/JG54_Emil]

If this discussion was made ​​on the forum HFSX the problem would be solved immediately, without shedding doubt on the validity of the work done by Aachen.

I absolutely agree.

Which leads us to the question why do we have such a discussion here?

[439th_Spider]

You know what, this mod war goes nowhere and is non productive.
Since it began we had less and less people flying mods in Hyperlobby almost all coop start with 4.101 :(

Not that it's not good but it's just not enough when you used to mods

Ace of Aces because of your behavior i restart flying UP instead of HSFX, if HSFX is so good no need to compare or bashing Ultrapack 3.0

I was suprise by HSFX 5.0 and i found it stable and fun to fly, why in that case bashing Ultrapack team, you surely had personal reason for doing it but you can KEEP IT FOR YOURSELF!

You use forums to settle your personal affair and i am sure other people are bored to see you continue to argue about your point of view, i don't see why people had to give answer to your thread, useless, as you always say you are right.

I will give you my point of view, go on vacation for a while, a year or so could do the trick:mad:

Over an out, and be sure i won't read your anwer if you ever give me one, but you won't be able to retain yourself don't you? ;-)

[Bearcat]

There needs to be no war boys. For it seems that in spite of all the "Hate" that seems to be going on between the Major "packs", they are indeed compatible. Simply drop HSFX over your clean 4.10.1, drop Modact 3.04b over that, and UP 3.0 over that. BINGO! You now have a 4 in one install. Just point Hyperlobby at your (single) IL2 folder and after you find a server you want to join pick which version you need from the handy dandy little switcher and select the JSGME options you want. Simple, elegant and no more fighting. Just pick what you want for a given need!

I did not know that.. I'd hate to corrupt my current install. I'll have to try that out. Now t is up to Modact 3.06.

[Crumpp]

Ace of Aces

Is Tagert.....


all FW190 have a climb rate of 14m/s.???

Of course not. The conditions matter and since very few people seem to be capable of understanding how conditions effect performance or how to convert to a baseline these discussions will always exist.

[Bearcat]

There needs to be no war boys. For it seems that in spite of all the "Hate" that seems to be going on between the Major "packs", they are indeed compatible. Simply drop HSFX over your clean 4.10.1, drop Modact 3.04b over that, and UP 3.0 over that. BINGO! You now have a 4 in one install. Just point Hyperlobby at your (single) IL2 folder and after you find a server you want to join pick which version you need from the handy dandy little switcher and select the JSGME options you want. Simple, elegant and no more fighting. Just pick what you want for a given need!

I tried that.. it didn't work.. It loadedf p my HSFX fine.. and the stock fine.. but when I went to run UP 3 it crashed everytime.. The SAS Mod Act 3 install works as well.. Just UP.. and since my HSFX runs like a top... I may redo it again.. I have a stock 4.10.1 on my BU drive .. This time I just too my HSFX install and added the mod act to it and then UP .. but as I said.. no joy.

[Le0ne]

The socalled war is here in 1c forum, outside of this forum it is not a war. In SAS forum HSFX and UP lives in harmony, not making any personal attacks against eachother.
This topic is not going anywhere anyone of us want to be.
I praice the modders, TD and everybody making this game playable in 2011. Because this game soon must have a world reckord in age and players.
Why do we not join TD and the modders in the task to make this game live a bit longer, instead of tearing the comunity to pieces.

Sorry for my Bad English

Best Regards

Finn Otto

[SAS~Anto]

The socalled war is here in 1c forum, outside of this forum it is not a war. In SAS forum HSFX and UP lives in harmony, not making any personal attacks against eachother.
This topic is not going anywhere anyone of us want to be.
I praice the modders, TD and everybody making this game playable in 2011. Because this game soon must have a world reckord in age and players.
Why do we not join TD and the modders in the task to make this game live a bit longer, instead of tearing the comunity to pieces.

Sorry for my Bad English

Best Regards

Finn Otto

Indeed that's correct. The admins of HSFX, SAS and UP3 are all on good terms with each other, sharing content and communicating regularly. The HSFX crowd tend to do their own thing with their SEOW campaigns (which the pack is tailored for). SAS caters more for the offline crowd whilst UP3 caters specifically for general dogfighting and online coops.

This 'mod war' is something that apparently occurred in the last days of AllAircraftArcade. There were a handful of individuals that tried to create this big divide amongst the modding community for god knows what purpose. In particular there was a lot of excessive promotion of HSFX over the 'inferior and stolen content' of Ultrapack. Really it was quite ludicrous and an utter waste of everyone's effort involved. UP was in agreement with the HSFX admins to use their pack as a base, which simply involved removal of SEOW specific content plus a few extra community mods. The aim at the time was for HSFX to continue focussing on SEOW development whilst UP focussed on a more general approach. This has carried through to today and quite successfully.

Anyway, the reality is now, there is something for everyone :) And besides the occasional mud-slinger, things are reasonably harmonious.

[Bearcat]

There needs to be no war boys. For it seems that in spite of all the "Hate" that seems to be going on between the Major "packs", they are indeed compatible. Simply drop HSFX over your clean 4.10.1, drop Modact 3.04b over that, and UP 3.0 over that. BINGO! You now have a 4 in one install. Just point Hyperlobby at your (single) IL2 folder and after you find a server you want to join pick which version you need from the handy dandy little switcher and select the JSGME options you want. Simple, elegant and no more fighting. Just pick what you want for a given need!

Any more on this since my updated post?


I tried that.. it didn't work.. It loadedf p my HSFX fine.. and the stock fine.. but when I went to run UP 3 it crashed everytime.. The SAS Mod Act 3 install works as well.. Just UP.. and since my HSFX runs like a top... I may redo it again.. I have a stock 4.10.1 on my BU drive .. This time I just too my HSFX install and added the mod act to it and then UP .. but as I said.. no joy.

Thinking about trying this again... I have Mod act 3.6 & UP 3.0RC4.. will tha6t work.. (andf of course HSFX 5.01. )