FM's the State of Play with empasis on Climb performance.

[IvanK]

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 ?


http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/climbscod6.jpg

[bw_wolverine]

Well, you won't get any disagreements from Red pilots, I think.

It'd be nice if they did make the adjustments, but considering the way the FMs are have been shifting, I don't see it happening. We just need to learn to fly as best we can with the way they've made the aircraft in game.

[CWMV]

I disagree.
We've been at it from day one about the FM's, and to the dev's credit they have been changed, they just need some more poking to get it right I think.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease after all.
Correct the 109's, and give us some real opponents to shoot down. If I wanted to shoot down ham-strung fighters with third rate performance and terrible pilots Id just wait till BoM comes around to slaughter the VVS.

[Robo.]

I disagree.
We've been at it from day one about the FM's, and to the dev's credit they have been changed, they just need some more poking to get it right I think.

I agree with IvanK, the RAF fighters perform well below the specs, the 109 is still not what it should be. I don't know what has been done in this version, but it's certainly not right yet. Thanks for the graphs mate!

CWMV - that was just rude about Russian pilots. :-x

[Kwiatek]

What i think that all these planes need a fair and deep Flight Model and expecially Performacne revision.

There are plent errors in maxium speed, climb rate, RPMs settings ( power settings) for Merlin engine, slats working, stability and controls ( expecially rudder) working.

I wonder why 1C reduced speed of british fighters if before it was more close to RL data and now it is way off even for 6 1/4 lbs power.

It was need mostly to correct 109 speed range.

I wonder if they will manage to do it in accurate way ever?

I dont even want to think what they will get in Battle of Moscow with russian planes if they have problem to get correct FM&performacne for a few BoB planes?

[Kurfürst]

IMHO another thing that needs to be looked into is best climb speed. AFAIK the best speed for climb for the 109E in the sim is 270-280 kph IAS. This would be correct for the 109G, but the E's best climb rate was at 250 kph IAS.

This might sound as a small thing, but it seriously effect the climb curve. The FM calculates climb via a generic formula, where Vi=best climb is the peak and Vi= max level speed is 0. Shifting Vi=best climb to higher speed will thus reduce low speed (steep) climb performance and too low Vi= max level speed will reduce high speed climb, zoom etc.

This can and does effect tactics such as climbing turns, using different climb angles etc.

[IvanK]

My E4 Climb test flown at 250Kmh IAS 1.35/2350RPM (AUTO)

[Kurfürst]

A bit of a clarification, I wasn't suggesting you made your tests badly, dear Ivan! ;) However from what I remember from the SFS files is that the best climb speed of the 109E in the sim is defined as 270 kph instead of 250.

[Crumpp]

My E4 Climb test flown at 250Kmh IAS 1.35/2350RPM (AUTO)


Did you write down the climb speeds you used as well?

AFAIK the best speed for climb for the 109E in the sim is 270-280 kph IAS. This would be correct for the 109G, but the E's best climb rate was at 250 kph IAS.


Kurfurst is correct. All aircraft performance occurs at a specific velocity and it fixed by the design.

If the relationships of lift and drag are correct in the model, it will reflect in the best rate of climb speed.

Those airspeeds are listed in the appropriate Operating Handbook for the type.

I would also suggest conducting saw tooth climb schedules to determine the Vy and Vx of the models in the game.

[IvanK]

The speeds used for these tests are those listed in the RAE test schedules so as to replicate the conditions in the test to those of the chart being used to plot the data. These speeds conform with those climb schedules in the relevant Pilots notes.

I am aware of best climb speeds Vx Vy etc and methods used to determine them.

[Ernst]

The relative climb speeds, i.e., the difference between the climb speeds of all aircraft each other are in good agreement with RL.

Since to me there is no difference in the "fighting" aspect if the strategy used was to degrade RAF fighters or upgrade the LW ones.

Obviously I prefer that the LW ones upgraded to its RL curves. But if someone is complaining that they were being shot down because the RAF are uncompetitive in climb area I disagree.

[Robo.]

The relative climb speeds, i.e., the difference between the climb speeds of all aircraft each other are in good agreement with RL.

Well they are certainly not.

[Ernst]

And more there were some error due the fact there is no guarantee that the pilot used the maximun aircraft performance only because he is human. Was the tests repeated extensively do determine an average that the pilot can climb the aircarft? Yes or no? Due to this the relative (difference in) climbs are in good agreement. Second the quantity represented is not rate of climb.

From the error theory the error should be the minimun grade/2, i.e, sigma = 2.5ftm/2 = 1.25m = 1m15s. Considering this error the relative climbing can be considered in good agreement.

[Crumpp]

And more there were some error due the fact there is no guarantee that the pilot used the maximun aircraft performance only because he is human. Was the tests repeated extensively do determine an average that the pilot can climb the aircarft? Yes or no? Due to this the relative (difference in) climbs are in good agreement. Second the quantity represented is not rate of climb.

You are absolutely correct in both your post's Ernest. The Relative performance is about right and it looks like people are nitpicking IMHO.

To put it another way, there is more correct about it than there is wrong with it.

It is rate of climb though. Rate is performance in relation to time. The graph plots are time to altitude which one can calculate rate in feet, meters, inches, nanometers, or whatever unit of distance per time they wish.

[5./JG27.Farber]

the 250 IAS is for sea level, it drops over altitude.

For example the Bf109T

Alt - 0m's
Speed IAS - 250

Alt - 1000m's
Speed IAS - 243

Alt - 2000m's
Speed IAS - 236

Alt - 3000m's
Speed IAS - 229

Alt - 4000m's
Speed IAS - 222

Alt - 5000m's
Speed IAS - 215

Alt - 6000m's
Speed IAS - 208

Alt - 7000m's
Speed IAS - 200


So merely maintaining 250kmh for a 109 climb test is actually not its best climb. Just a thought.

[Crumpp]

the 250 IAS is for sea level, it drops over altitude.


Of course it does. This was another 100 page argument with folks on this forum. It changes with density altitude.

the Bf109T

Those are the same as the Bf-109E Flugzeug-Handbuch.

[Al Schlageter]

250mph IAS at 50 ft is not the same as 250mph IAS at 10,000ft?

[von Brühl]

No, they aren't the same speeds. At 250IAS@50ft, you're pretty close to really going 250, at 10000ft, you're closer to 300mph.

[Crumpp]

This was another 100 page argument with folks on this forum.

:arrow: above

[robtek]

And don't you forget, german plane = km/h NOT mph!

[IvanK]

Reducing IAS climb schedules were used in all the climb tests as per source documentation.

Here is the source data used for the Spit II climb. IAS is in actuality in MPH not KNOTS The line under knots is actually a misaligned strikeout line that should be going through the KNOTS label ... as it does on all other pages of the document. Given the test was only done to 16,000ft the IAS reduction was only in the order of 5 MPH and then only in the later portion of the test climb.

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/spit2slbsched.jpg

As reported previously based on timed climb segments the VSI on the Spitfire and Hurricane is over reading by around 500fpm.

[SEE]

Many thanks IvanK, I have the utmost respect for you and the tests you carried out - I hope that your assessment of the beta FM has been passed on to the devs (if not already noted by them).

[Crumpp]

What is the weight of the airplanes in the game and those in the flight test's?

[ATAG_Snapper]

Many thanks IvanK, I have the utmost respect for you and the tests you carried out - I hope that your assessment of the beta FM has been passed on to the devs (if not already noted by them).

+1

[IvanK]

The flight tests were done at mission weights as close as possible to the source documentation. In the case of the Spitfire II the weight was 2766Kg 6097Lb as reported by the game. So the CLOD Spit was 75Lbs start weight less than the RAE Test data.

[Seadog]

This appears to be a summary of the same test:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/p7280-climb.jpg

[Crumpp]

Crumpp and the RR Merlin:

"THAT IS WHY YOU HAVE PILOT ANECDOTES OF FLYING AT +16 LBS ON 87 OCTANE!"



Seadog....

Read, it is from your own post:

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/2639/rcwpg6.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/402/rcwpg6.jpg/)

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=426953&postcount=1696

[Crumpp]

The flight tests were done at mission weights as close as possible to the source documentation.

Ok as close as possible is not exact.

ROC = Excess POWER / weight

The difference in weight will produce a proportional difference in climb rate. If you are 1% off in weight you will see a 1% increase in climb rate.

[IvanK]

Of course its not exact but the trouble is within the limits of the Sim you cant always physically get the actual weight !! That is the case with the Spitfire.

Crumpp in post #14 YOU stated "The Relative performance is about right and it looks like people are nitpicking IMHO" !!.

The closest I could get to the correct weight was 75Lbs LESS than that used in the RAE test. If you actually look at the test you would see that with the CLOD Spit at 75Lbs less weight its still under performing by a considerable margin. So who is nitpicking now ?

[Seadog]

Seadog....

Read, it is from your own post:



There's nothing in that excerpt that states the engine could run at 16lb boost on 87 octane fuel...in fact there's nothing about 87 octane in it at all.

[camber]

Thanks IvanK,

Your climb tests tell a similar story to my speed at alt data.

Seadog....

Read, it is from your own post:

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/2639/rcwpg6.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/402/rcwpg6.jpg/)

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=426953&postcount=1696

The reference to +12psi and an external bleed hole confirms that the boost cutout used by Pilot Wilkie is the type modified for 100 octane emergency power. Blocking the drilled bleed hole returns the boost cutout to it's original operation (giving direct throttle control to the pilot) and hence the ability to get higher boost pressure than +12psi (on 100 octane).

camber

[Robo.]

IvanK - thank you very much indeed! We've been doing some testing withe the RAF fighters against the 109s and we've also found serious discrepancies regarding performance.

Your time is much appreciated!

[Crumpp]

The reference to +12psi and an external bleed hole confirms that the boost cutout used by Pilot Wilkie is the type modified for 100 octane emergency power. Blocking the drilled bleed hole returns the boost cutout to it's original operation (giving direct throttle control to the pilot) and hence the ability to get higher boost pressure than +12psi (on 100 octane).


Not if you read the 1937 Flying Notes. It talks about this same modification independent of fuel. The boost override could allow the pilot to reach boost pressure which caused detonation and this a typical modification.

There is no way of telling from an anecdote the details of the engine modifications.

Using a bleed hole is a very common method to control boost pressures. This is the same thing that BMW took when increasing the BMW801D series to 1.58ata/1.65ata. They just drilled the hole on the other side of the diaphragm.

Crumpp in post #14 YOU stated "The Relative performance is about right and it looks like people are nitpicking IMHO" !!.

The closest I could get to the correct weight was 75Lbs LESS than that used in the RAE test. If you actually look at the test you would see that with the CLOD Spit at 75Lbs less weight its still under performing by a considerable margin. So who is nitpicking now ?

I am wondering what your expectations are here. Yes, the relative performance is about right. What is the issue???

The error looks to be on the order of about 10% which is not bad for climb performance.

You are asking the developers to correct performance to a standard day, too. They should be moving the opposite direction and modeling performance on a summer day.

Of course your climb rates are going to be significantly reduced at a high density altitude.

I would ask questions like:

"Why is my level speed matching performance corrected to standard on a high density altitude day?"

"Why is my radiator temperature hitting the upper limits in level flight on maximum continuous?"

"Why can I asymmetrically overload the airframe at 400 mph and nothing happens?"

There is a lot bigger fish to fry for the programmers than a small error in specific climb rates.

[IvanK]

So Crumpp what then was the point of your comment in post #28 "Ok as close as possible is not exact." ?

I do actually agree with you in your comment on the Structural strength model (or lack of) in CLOD,and the other questions you propose as well. Other than standard Atmosphere question they have all been brought up directly with the devs a long time ago. When or if the devs decide to do something about them is for them to decide.

[Robo.]

I am wondering what your expectations are here. Yes, the relative performance is about right. What is the issue???

No it is not! Please have another look at the Spec graphs of E-4 and Mk.IIa and then have a look at the tests. You see? :grin:

"Why is my level speed matching performance corrected to standard on a high density altitude day?"

"Why is my radiator temperature hitting the upper limits in level flight on maximum continuous?"

"Why can I asymmetrically overload the airframe at 400 mph and nothing happens?"

Agreed on all this. I hope all this issues will be adressed at some point.

There is a lot bigger fish to fry for the programmers than a small error in specific climb rates.

The error is not small! The gap is now ridiculous and very much unhistorical. Perhaps it does not matter to you for you don't actually fly this sim.

[camber]

Not if you read the 1937 Flying Notes. It talks about this same modification independent of fuel. The boost override could allow the pilot to reach boost pressure which caused detonation and this a typical modification.


Absolutely disagree but this discussion occurred before and my position is essentially the same as Banks. No point to reopen the argument here.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=32190&page=2

[David198502]

IvanK - thank you very much indeed! We've been doing some testing withe the RAF fighters against the 109s and we've also found serious discrepancies regarding performance.

Your time is much appreciated!

+1
i enjoy to fly with my squad mates, and against our other squads on the RAF side....im a 109 guy, and fighting against RAF with the current flight models isnt fun at all.
its way too easy now for the 109s.it would be boring, if this performance difference between LW and RAF planes was correct, but its not and therefore its annoying as well.
i want them all as accurate as possible.

thx IvanK for using your time to test, and furthermore to help the devs with documents.though its a bit puzzling, that the devs really "need" your information at all.

[Ernst]

When error due to the scale is considered the SPITII and 109 climbing times are considered equal when compared each other in both (RL and GAME). There is an error in measuring due the scale (due the human eye that placed the points there), an error due the measuring (since the human pilot is not perfect). If you create an error bar considering all sources of error the bars would superpose themselves, then you can consider both very well matched. Sorry for my bad english but i expect that you understand. Statistically both are well matched. You see a gap between both, but this can be only because the error margins, due the imprecision of the human eye and from the instruments of measuring.:cool:

Ivank

Can you provide your measurements in table format? I will plot the data in ORIGIN and calculate the error bars.

ORIGIN: http://www.originlab.com/

[Robo.]

Ernst if you try to follow a 109 in the climb, you'll see the gap is very much real :D

I appreciate you're trying to get the measurment methodic right, but the fact is the RAF aircraft are, unfortunately, seriously underperforming - no matter how you're looking at it.

Or even better, I suggest you do your own tests and share them with us.

Regards.

[Crumpp]

So Crumpp what then was the point of your comment in post #28 "Ok as close as possible is not exact." ?


Conditions very much matter in aircraft performance and if they do not match, do not expect the same performance.

[Crumpp]

When error due to the scale is considered the SPITII and 109 climbing times are considered equal when compared each other in both (RL and GAME).

Exactly.....

[Robo.]

Conditions very much matter in aircraft performance and if they do not match, do not expect the same performance.

Ok, with 75lbs. less he should expect better performance then. Is he getting it? No, he isn't. Why? Because there is a severe problem with the FM. That's the point of this thread by the way.

You can try and match the weight exactly in game, then do the testing and share the results with us.

[5./JG27.Farber]

Those are the same as the Bf-109E Flugzeug-Handbuch.

Yes I know, thats why I bold'd the T for blind people :-P I did not have those figures to hand but I did have those, so i used them to giver people an idea. It was just an example. If you are told best climb speed is 250km/h and you stick to that IAS throughout your test surely you have done it wrong? Same for spit, hurricane and flying pigs...

[Crumpp]

Because there is a severe problem with the FM.

Where?

I don't see it in terms of speed and climb numbers. All aircraft performance is a percentage range even under fixed standard conditions.

Aircraft performance comparision is all relative.

The relative performance appears correct. All aircraft have a similar margin of error applied.

What more do you want? That is the most important thing in a "simulation".

It is much more important than specific performance. You can get the specific performance absolutely right within the percentage range and completely screw up the relative performance.

If you are told best climb speed is 250km/h and you stick to that IAS throughout your test surely you have done it wrong? Same for spit, hurricane and flying pigs...
Today 09:57 AM


Exactly.

You were correct and I only posted to confirm you had the same ones as found for the Bf-109E.

You are correct too in not only do you to have to maintain the correct climb speed, you have to fly the test correctly.

Climb test generally are conducted by begining at a lower altitude and do not start until the climb is stabilized as well as at the starting target altitude. They end at a target altitude, too. That becomes a raw data point for that altitude band. Typically this is a 1000 foot band with the test airplane begining its climb 500 feet below and ending it 500 feet above that 1000 foot band. In otherwords, 2000 feet of altitude are required to estabilish climb rate data in a 1000 foot band.

Those "climb charts" guys like to quote are extrapolated from a few of these points and the raw data converted to standard conditions. There is insturment error, flight error, and pilot error in all it.

The pilot does not hop in and start from the runway to reach altitude with the stop watch running and marking the VSI. The chart is an idealized extrapolation of a few data points.

[5./JG27.Farber]

Crump are the fligth models for the SpitIa and Hurri rotol correct then?

[Kwiatek]

Crump are the fligth models for the SpitIa and Hurri rotol correct then?

Lol how it could be correct if both these planes are just way too slow even for 87 octan fuel versions? You people read what was written in these forum?

[Robo.]

Where?

I don't see it in terms of speed and climb numbers. All aircraft performance is a percentage range even under fixed standard conditions.

I see what you mean with the percentage range and relative performance, but this is not the case. No one would complain this much if it would be.

I am sorry but this is quite obvious to any virtual pilot who actually flies this sim.

[Crumpp]

Crump are the fligth models for the SpitIa and Hurri rotol correct then?


In relation to each other, I think the performance is correct.

Is the specific performance of any airplane in the game correct? Spitfire, Hurricane, Bf-109?? Not really.

Is the relationship's based on performance correct for all the fighters? Yes

Aircraft performance comparision is all relative.

The relative performance appears correct. All aircraft have a similar margin of error applied.

What more do you want? That is the most important thing in a "simulation".

It is much more important than specific performance. You can get the specific performance absolutely right within the percentage range and completely screw up the relative performance.

[5./JG27.Farber]

In relation to each other, I think the performance is correct.

Is the specific performance of any airplane in the game correct? Spitfire, Hurricane, Bf-109?? Not really.

Is the relationship's based on performance correct for all the fighters? Yes

Aircraft performance comparision is all relative.

The relative performance appears correct. All aircraft have a similar margin of error applied.

What more do you want? That is the most important thing in a "simulation".

It is much more important than specific performance. You can get the specific performance absolutely right within the percentage range and completely screw up the relative performance.




So what your saying is... The game feels right from what is in writen in pilots accounts?

Sorry thats what i call folklore. Its not science. Even when written by an ace. Fear adrenaline and other factors which cloud the mind come into play. Ever seen a report of a crime by witnesses where every witness said a different storey? I have. Its not a fact, its a memory.




Lol how it could be correct if both these planes are just way too slow even for 87 octan fuel versions?



Kwaitek, you did flight models for UP. It alarms me you cant control yourself when I ask someone else their opinion in a forum specifically and your emotions require you to laugh at me and "state your "expert" opinion". How can you apply scientific thought when you are so easily ruled by you emotions? - I dont require an answer by the way...


You people read what was written in these forum?


Yes and do you see what I did in this thread? I analysed, I provoked, I suggested with and without belief, I theorised... -Then I made a judgement... Dont be so ignorant. Assumptions are not always right at first glance.

[Ernst]

If you repeat Ivank's experiment at least ten times for each aircraft, calculate the average climbing curves for each ones, then calculate the standard deviation around the average for both, use it as an error bar and show me that the bars do not superpose themselves I ll agree in the same time.

[ATAG_Snapper]

If you repeat Ivank's experiment at least ten times for each aircraft, calculate the average climbing curves for each ones, then calculate the standard deviation around the average for both, use it as an error bar and show me that the bars do not superpose themselves I ll agree in the same time.

Would there not be a greater degree of confidence if the experiment was done a minimum of 100 times for each aircraft?

[Crumpp]

The game feels right from what is in writen in pilots accounts?


No, I am saying the relative performance is correct. The specific performance is off but not outside the realm of possibility.

In fact it is a little optimistic if you are going to model the atmospheric conditions on a summer afternoon in 1940.

I am much more disturbed by such things as seeing standard data giving good agreement with a high density altitude enviroment than I am in specific cllimb performance.

See below...

If you repeat Ivank's experiment at least ten times for each aircraft, calculate the average climbing curves for each ones, then calculate the standard deviation around the average for both, use it as an error bar and show me that the bars do not superpose themselves I ll agree in the same time.

Exacty and why I said:

You can get the specific performance absolutely right within the percentage range and completely screw up the relative performance.

[IvanK]

Well off you go then Crumpp and Ernst how about you guys do the number of climbs you require and chart the data for us all to see. I have started the ball rolling, over to you guys to finish it.

[Robo.]

No, I am saying the relative performance is correct. The specific performance is off but not outside the realm of possibility.

I repeat that there would be no problem with the performance being correct relative to each other, yet slightly off by the same margin from the reference graphs. This is not the case, unfortunately.

In my opinion, the models should be as close to the reference charts for standard atm. conditions and then affected by actual atmospheric settings on each map. There would be no problem with that, that's how it worked in old Il-2. I am sure it is possible to get the FMs more accurate than this. ;)

You're stating that everything os OK and it's the atmospheric settings of the map (do we know what that is btw?) and the testing method, everybody else sees the FMs are not something to be proud of from the devs perspective.

I really suggest you guys give them aircraft a spin and share your findings with us. :-P

[Crumpp]

I repeat that there would be no problem with the performance being correct relative to each other, yet slightly off by the same margin from the reference graphs. This is not the case, unfortunately.

It sure looks like it based on IvanK's chart.

If you I was doing the performance calculations for the game and you handed me that chart I would tell you there is nothing to fix for the gameshapes based off it. If my numbers werre right on the aircraft characteristics, I would start looking for a global setting instead of monkeying with individual aircraft.

You're stating that everything os OK and it's the atmospheric settings of the map (do we know what that is btw?)

No, I don't know it. I don't work for 1C and I don't think anybody else in this thread does either. It is the most likely explaination given that all the aircraft have a very similar margin of error. That chart is not reason to cry about individual gameshapes. Given that level speeds match standard conditions and climb rates do not, I would think something is up with the enviromental model.

[Crumpp]

I really suggest you guys give them aircraft a spin and share your findings with us.

Flying as a "virtual test pilot" is not my dream with my off time. I don't have an issue with any of the specific performance.

I do enjoy this game because of the detail in the gameshapes. It is not realistic or equal to actual flying but it is better than anything in the past.

It should be pretty easy to figure out if the density altitude is modeled. The altimeter is adjustable and you should have to change it based on conditions.

Is the Wellington flyable? It has an OAT gauge in the panel as standard equipment.

The temperature and altimeter setting can be used to figure out the density altitude. Once you have that then performance can be converted from standard to that condition to check on specifics.

[IvanK]

Already looked at the atmosphere in CLOD in an an attempt to map it to determine lapse rates, density altitude etc.

Default QNH in CLOD would appear to be 992mb and is easily determined on any map .... search for the thread "Full real Altimeter'.

The Wellington as we all know is not flyable. The Ju88 and HEIII have OAT gauges. Their out put is erratic and they return questionable values that are not usable imo .... or the atmosphere is totally porked !

Looking in FMB I woould have thought there would have been an option to allow the map builder to set basic pressure and temp settings for the map. In IL2 classic they are hard wired as part of the Map file put there by the original map builder.

[Crumpp]

Already looked at the atmosphere in CLOD in an an attempt to map it to determine lapse rates, density altitude etc.

Default QNH in CLOD would appear to be 992mb and is easily determined on any map .... search for the thread "Full real Altimeter'.

The Wellington as we all know is not flyable. The Ju88 and HEIII have OAT gauges. Their out put is erratic and they return questionable values that are not usable imo .... or the atmosphere is totally porked !

Looking in FMB I woould have thought there would have been an option to allow the map builder to set basic pressure and temp settings for the map. In IL2 classic they are hard wired as part of the Map file put there by the original map builder.

It seems to me that if the developers are serious about having the game checked for bugs and accuracy, this information would be available being that is absolutely essential for aircraft performance determination.

It really looks like there is an issue with atmospheric modeling.

[ATAG_Dutch]

.... or the atmosphere is totally porked !

It really looks like there is an issue with atmospheric modeling.

Tum te tummmm.....:)

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=428160#post428160

[Crumpp]

Great minds think alike, and fools seldom differ.

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/22602.html
;)