LOL guys, you do realise it says clearly on the graph that it should not be used for anything else than a comparison between the engines due to a non standard radiator ?

Also the speeds increase in the direction of the arrow.
Where it says geschwindigkeit.->


:rolleyes::rolleyes:

I said it before and Ill say it again

How is it that I knew in advance that you would not be able to admit you were wrong?

easy, I know you and your type!

Thanks for proving me right about you not being able to admit you were wrong! Now we know who is man enough.. ie.. Not you! ;)

Man I wish I could read german better!

Thanks for that info Hatch! By the way, does it say anything else? As in was this some sort of test radiator? As in an atempt to improve on the drag of the standard radiators?

Hey ACE the othe day i was driving my van on the motorway and i couldn't tell if i was a running at 50km/h or at 100km/h ;)

Come on mate you are pulling in no sense argue, everybody can notice a 10/
km/h difference, you have a bloody withe mark on the speed gauge to read your speed and the resolution on todays computers are mostly 1680 x 1050 or 1920 x 1080 or even higher, so resolution isn't a problem to read the gauges, also you have a lovely label that tells you the speed, but there's no way that anybody miss a 50km/h gap so please stop this argument, your graphic show that 50km/h gap from closed to open.

regs Potz

he might have german gauges potenz, he cant read them very well.

actually german gauges are easy to read than the allies as the imperial mesures system add more lines to the gauge as german in metric system is more visual cleaner to read

S!

OK, studied the graph. Texts are a bit hard to read but anyway. Rotating it clockwise makes it easier BTW ;)

OK, rotate pic 90deg and you see what I mean. Left side (Y-axis) is speed in km/h and coolant temp in Celcius. Top curve is for DB605A(marked with a *), lower curve DB601E(marked with a triangle). Lowest curve is the temperature curve and for both engines pretty much the same. X-axis is the opening of the cooling flaps in millimeters, 0-400mm.

IT seems the flaps were open 50mm and 81mm respectively. The note says something like: Just for comparison for DB601. DB605 is not usable because of the non-standard cooler and the cruising altitude, absolute values, see VB 109 18 L42 (must be a technical report) The harder to read note says something like: Not credited. automatic values ​​in H=2050m

thats interesting....i tested at an altitude of 500 meters and had the rads almost closed, level flight 440kph.then i opened them completely and the speed remained, not only for some seconds but for 5minutes, until i stopped my test.

well it seems that some report here changes with different rad settings, will have to try again at different altitudes...will report back my experiences.

No not really,

It was probably an informal test as it also states that they were using plain data.
It says "nicht umgerechnete messwerte" .
Which tranlated would be something like the "data was not thoroughly calculated".

They refer to another paper? with reference number VB 10918 L42
They also caution because of the non standard height at which the test was conducted.


Ah I saw Flanker35M's post too late

Already covered that mate.. here is a re-post of what I said earlier wrt 'real' life vs. 'sim' life

Which covers the difference between 'real flying and 'sim' flying..

Which also apply to your example of 'real' car driving vs. 'sim' car driving..

With a little difference.. That being blue sky vs. ground clutter.. Which driving a car, be it real or sim, you have more 'reference' points along your path that give you a 'cue' to how fast you are going.

Thanks for the info! S!

ACE you will not give up??? it is starting to be a bit annoying

first you talked about resolution, now about real life, the car thing was just an irony mate
a 50km/h or even a 10km/h gap will be readable in the gauge in now days resolution standars

Facts have that affect on some people!

Agreed.. 50 is much easier to 'see' than the 10 I was talking about at the time I thought we were talking about a +/-10

But now ask yourself..

Why is David and a few 'others' not able to 'see' a change in speed due to radiator settings, where as guys like Tom and SYN_Repent are able to 'see' a change in speed due to radiators settings?

Which group are we to belive?

I say belive, but I really should say which group are we going to have 'faith' in?

Because nothing has been provided by either group to support thier claims one way or another

Which brings us full circle

Where from the get go I have ask people to provide some proof, in the form of a track file for review, and better yet, to log the data (altitude, speed, etc) to a log file while flying

Than we would NOT have to base it on 'faith' or some sort of sick cheerleader prom night popularity contest

Is that too much to ask before someone accuses 1C of having a FM with a bug in it?

I think not

Oh one thing I forgot to mention..

Before this 50kph value becomes some sort of fact I think it is important to point out that the data is from a 109G and we are talking about the in game 109E! And I am pretty sure the radiators changes a lot between the E and G model.

And don't forget what Hatch pointed out! That the data is from a non standard radiator test!

What does that means?

Well maybe it means a standard radiator only causes a 25kph (or less) difference, or maybe it means a standard radiator will cause a 75kph (or more) difference. We don't know.

But I think we can all agree that radiators will have 'some' affect on speed, how much we really don't know.

We can agree to disagree as to if someone can 'see' a speed difference of 50kph or less!

But here is what we know to be true

Some people do 'see' a speed difference and others do NOT 'see' a speed difference

How do we decide who is right?

I know how and it does not require a burger king campaign on picking between a werewolf or vampire! ;)

If I was a moderator on these boards I'd make a rule that any thread claiming facts about the flight model without presenting evidence gets locked.

Problem with that is the folks making the baseless claims would than make baseless claims that 1C is trying to hide something by locking thier posts! ;)

All in all is it too much to ask to provide a track file for review when making a 'claim'? Is that too much to ask? I get it that some here may not know how to log the data to a file.. But come on how hard is it to recored a track file?

Speaking of which: I'm trying to write a script to log positional data to a file. Do you know how to get something like this to execute, client-side?

Do you mean 3D world space? XYZ stuff? I did see an example of that by fearlessfrog at SimHQ awhile back.. I think Ataros reposted it here somewhere.. As for general data logging Atarso has a good example here

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...338#post342338

Im at work right now, if you dont find that 3D space stuff by frog let me know (PM) in that I have a script at home with some of that code in it

Yeah ideally I'd like to write World XYZ and heading data for aircraft from an ntrk recording to a text file.

Can't figure out how to execute the script when the ntrk runs though.

Great minds think alike!

Let me guess.. your thinking of graphing the 3D data to make an ACM display of the track file! When I saw the script gives access to 3D data that was the 1st thing I thought of too!

Problem is, and don't quote me, is I don't think the script works during playback of a track file? I think the script only works in real time, as in when you start the mission the script runs.

If so that is one of the limitations of the scripts.. Where as in IL-2 we had DeviceLink that was active during track playback.. And Devicelink allowed you to send commands (set) where as far as I can tell the C# script method only allows you to recive (get) data

This is one case where I hope I am wrong! But, I have been looking around (google) and I don't see where the C# scripts are active during a track playback :(

S!

Get that working and a lot of useless flame fests could be avoided :) The chart provided some nice info after digging into it :)

Alot of guys allready got it working.. Getting data during real time flight that is.. Playback of tracks.. Not sure, but it does not look doable

http://www.cubpilot.com/Tspin/Woot.gif You nailed it Tailspin, I give this thread a perfect 10 for it's entertainment value.

On a more serious note: it's fun doing all the research ... a true learning experience.

Mission scripts are intended for mission logic, and not for interconnection with various devices as DeviceLink is. DeviceLinkish interface is probably still not implemented or at least hidden.

Can you get data on all aircraft in multiplayer? Speed/heading/position?

Can that be done client side or does it need to be done on the server? I'm not sure how to execute arbitrary scripts on the client.

Server side only, however in single player mode, server=client. You can't execute arbitrary scripts on clients in MP as that would allow security threats.

Yeah that's what I would have expected. But that means the only way to get data from multiplayer is to get it either from the server or from a track file.

Do we know anything about the .ntrk format?

way to drag this thread off topic, maybe start a new one?

But not limited to mission logic

But you can use scripts to drive guages

Only the shadown knows! ;)

As ZaltysZ noted, it looks like the answer is no.

Since the very beginning I have adjusted my Rads but having read this thread decided to leave them fully open on a MP session for the entire session. I didn't notice any difference or penalty - not one that would be considered a disadvantage.

I am now unsure as to wether the Rads have any drag impact but having said that I will continue to control my rad settings as a matter of good habit just in case something changes regards this in a future patch.

What a joke it would be if it's true, super advanced CloD physics/FM doesn't simulate drag caused by protruding plane parts. I can't tell any difference either when flying the G.50 with fully open or almost closed rads and you notice even 10 kph extra or minus in an aircraft which is as slow as the G.50.

I don't even understand this discussion, it's clear it's aerodynamics basics, more streamlined objects move easier through air then less streamlined objects (as in objects with other objects sticking out of them). What do you think wind tunnels are for? Even paint is known to cause drag on airplanes.

Ding!

At which point a reasonable man would take pause and ask himself..

Do I think 1C made a basic flight modeling error?

Or

Is it more likely that the 'users' who provided no proof made an error in testing?

Anything is possible I guess!

But if I had to place a bet on 'who' made an error

My money would be on the starbucks barista who only dabbles in flight simulation when not playing Quake over someone like Oleg who makes a living at it.

Where as your mileage may, and clearly does vary

ace of aces, if we go by that rule, then CLoD should be the perfect game, with no errors, but it is not, there has been a minor bug list as big as your ego since release, so its perfectly plausable that oleg (or luthier) did something wrong with the aerodynamic moddeling of the radiator.

This topic is a joke. 14 pages of people saying "omg if it's true that's bad" but nobody's actually taken the time to establish if it's true or not.

I checked.

The OP is correct.

Difference between fully open and closed radiator on the BF 109 E-4 in CloD is 0%/0 km/h.

Doesn't matter what throttle/prop setting, doesn't matter what height. And yes, i flew straight and level.

Just saying "I checked" is not proof. Sorry. Do you have a track file?

It was not my intention or job to proof anything.

I don't think the devs would need proof either, because it's obvious enough and they should know that already.

If you need proof, better check it yourself then.

Are you sure about that? Were you fully open at the beginning and fully closed at the end? If so, did you trim your plane after closing those rads? I can´t be really sure, but opening my rads fully always resulted in my planes tendency to climb and vice versa.

Fully open first, then fully closed. Trimmed nose-heavy a bit to compensate.

Redid the test 10 times at various altitudes and throttle settings.

This was ONLY with the 109 E-4 though, i'm a bit too lazy to test the other planes, but feel free to do so.

(yes, i doubted that they would forget to implement that in the "most accurate flightsim" etc., that's why i didn't believe the OP at first)

Checked the Spitfire Ia. Closing radiator definately causes an increase in airspeed there, opening radiator slows the plane down.

So i better check the 109 again.

EDIT:

OK, rechecked the E-4, it's not there. So the radiators have no effect on speed on the E-4, but they do have an effect on speed on the Spitfire Ia.

Disagree 100%

The 'point' your missing, or ignoring on purpose, is that 'rule' is in regards to, as addman pointed out BASIC AERONAUTICS! Which makes me smile when some here would suggest that Oleg is not capable of even the basics.. But I digress! Back to the point your missing.. Games are complex programs that tax every aspect of the PC hardware and software.. Just because the 1C team is having issues dealing with some nuances of a hardware driver error or OS issue does not mean 1C does not understand the basics of aerodynamics.

How did you know I named it ego? But I digress.. I can see your still missing the point here, so allow me to point this out to you again

BASIC AERODYNAMICS

Now I challenge you to go get that 'list' your referring to and out all the things fixed count up the items that fall into the category of BASIC AERODYNAMICS vs Video driver issues, GUI fixes, CTD, etc etc etc and than maybe.. just maybe even a die hard biased stood up on prom night 'swell fella' like yourself will see how ludicrous it is to even suggest that 1C does not have a grasp on BASIC AERODYNAMICS

Well like I said from the start..

To come to the conclusion I came to on this subject.. It requires a 'reasonable' man.. hint hint

I think you will have great difficulty testing this without logging data. I think they have modeled wind. Also, they may have also modeled analog stuttering in the gauges, so your reading is always going to be off within some tolerance if that is the case. Also, different planes will no doubt be impacted by different designs. Some planes you may notice the effect and others, not so much. I think of the 190 in 46', I don't really notice much when rad is open or closed, but 109 I definitely do and actually use open rad to burn speed. Anyway, if there is a way to turn off the wind in the CLoD testing, that would be a good idea.

There is another post by FHT the cowboy guy in fmb section. He made black box script to log data. Maybe you could use that. I would do this test at sea level over the ocean, maybe 50-100 meters. Run the plane up to cruising speed settings with rad full open. Hold it there in level flight and trim. Then toggle the rads closed. Since the rads are modeled separately, then you can do the test for both rad types independently and together to see the different effects. It wouldn't surprise me if this piece got dropped because...Oleg left. He definitely cared about flight models and quality products. But he is working a new job now.:(

How is wind going to affect any test. IAS is not wind affected ... (unless you are stationary on the ground :)

if it is variable in speed and direction, it will have an impact on your TAS/IAS at any moment in time. correct???

No. Wind will affect Ground speed but has zero effect on IAS and TAS.

Why ? again wind has no effect on IAS or TAS.

So I suppose the jet stream means nothing to you. No effect on TAS what so ever.:confused:

Err I ride jetstreams for a living :) they don't affect TAS just the Groundspeed.

Whether I am in the jetstream or not the Mach number and or IAS and the TAS are the same, the Groundspeed changes though. If i was in the centre of a jetsream and performed a 180degree turn all that changes is groundspeed, IAS/TAS and Mach number remain the same.

Have a look here :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_airspeed

and here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_speed

Having known and flown (only in games unfortunately)Ivan for a few years, I would just say, take his advise on this, he is a real commercial and ex military pilot, also if you give it some thought, it is pretty obvious that what Ivan is saying is true, it affects ground speed but not airspeed, in other words your not actually travelling as far, but you are still going at the same speed.

Okay, I think I understand now what you are saying. I am not a pilot btw.

But isn't ground speed and IAS and TAS at sea level pretty close to being the same for this purpose?

Edit:except for the wind vector component I guess??

Edit2: okay i think I get it after wiki. moving air mass...whatever blah, blah. no need to worry about wind in test then.

ace of aces, im not getting into that debate with you again, look at the bug reports, all the errors and bugs are there, from GFX, sound, control, engine, anything you can imagine, the bugs are there, perhaps if you take off your rose tinted glasses for a second you would be able to see them, give em a read before you reply here telling me my prom date didnt show........btw, with your fixation on prom dates, im a starting to presume something horrible happened in the past to you, was she fat and the only girl left without a date so went with the school nerd, did she drink too much spiked punch and throw up all over your handed down tux, did that event put you off girls for life?

just one, cba to look further, its too easy to prove you wrong all the time, no sport anymore http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=25857

I've noticed this as well. Seems like I can fly around all day on full throttle with rads full open and not lose any performance to drag. Probably a bug?? It's like they fix one damn thing and something else goes haywire! But being as the game is as complex as it is I guess it's just the nature of the beast...
__________________
http://forums.nichechoppers.com/imag...ine=1292495981http://www.bingertoday.info/huang2.jpghttp://www.bingertoday.info/huang3.jpg

What the hell..? Thats exactly what I said in post #4 lol

All you need to do is trim the plane to fly straight with radiator fully open. then close the radiator and trim again if necessary (doesn't seem to be necessary on the Spit btw?).

As long as you do that, you can easily check if the setting of the radiator flaps has any influence on airspeed. Takes 5 minutes for each plane. You can use that wonder-woman view to make it easier.

At least for the E-3, radiator do produce drag, easily noticeable on the instant need to trim the plane.

Yes, but if you don't log the data and post it, no one is going to know if you did it right or not. The plane needs to be perfectly level and no acceleration/deceleration going on when you begin the test. The slightest pitch up or down can make the plane accelerate/decelerate and screw up your reading. It would be nice if they had a test map and level stabilizer functionality available for testing the flight models. Anyway, I won't be doing this. I don't play CLoD. Maybe someday or maybe not if it is already selling for 12 bucks and this whole board becomes moot.

You also need to trim the E-4. It still doesn't slow the plane down.

But i'll probably check it with the E-3 aswell today.

This wonder-woman view has everything necessary for a straight and level flight. Climbrate indicator, etc. is all there.

I'm pretty sure the devs have access to logs like that, onscreen TAS, perhaps also an auto-level etc, to test that.

I don't even see the need for us non-developers to log something like that. After all, the devs shouldn't believe any results posted in this forum, before checking it themselves imho.

oKay. do it your way, i don't really give a rats. the game is 12 bucks and likely dead now.

[QUOTE=Hatch;357093]LOL guys, you do realise it says clearly on the graph that it should not be used for anything else than a comparison between the engines due to a non standard radiator ?


That's so funny ! Really made me laugh.
So how can we make a graph of the game? I'll do it.

Thread re-opened

I'm closing this thread for a while till you all cool off.

I have deleted the posts that have no concern being on this forum let alone in this thread.

Any more rubbish from you guys and you can take a holiday from here.

I'm seriously getting tired of this lousy "moderation" behavior.
First of all your message doesn't reflect your actions. Thanks for deleting my proposal for better standartized testing routines including attached pdf though.

While I posted at the peak of this thread and making a little fun of all what happened here, it's just weird that you decide to be above all and having the right to trollolol around with your post?
- Your post contains NO information.
- Everyone can see if a thread is locked or not.
- Time doesn't help cooling things off - in fact it's your fault for letting it derail up to this point.
- What is your post if not rubbish? As far as I am concernced it's totally off-topic.

A good moderator doesn't point fingers or red posts all the time. If you're truly concerned (which I doubt) send PMs and silently delete / edit messages or lock a thread if absolutely necessary. You need not to re-open it either - reasonable people will do that for you and continue their discussion. But why should I tell this to you, it should be common knowledge for any moderator in the first place.
Since I already sent you a PM with some of my observations only to get the response "Grow Up". Hence you're like a red flag to my eyes every time I see your questionable actions.


Right now the moderation in this forum is useless. You let things derail and then lock threads, put effort into deleting tons of posts (even though many or just some contain usable information), put some useless trollolol rant under everything and re-open them. What is the point? Other than deleting evidence and information.
- If you want to do something good then BE a moderator and DON'T let things derail. That makes you a judge and not a moderator...
- If necessary just lock the thread and let people re-use the information. Don't destroy information and / or evidence needlessly.
- Rather spend time preventing threads from derailing than deleting posts at random after things get out of hand. You're like a cop arresting a guy who was beating his wife for two years but this time her bruises were blue and not just green or whatever.
- Oh and please do moderate yourself as well ;) The more I see from you the more I'm getting the feeling you're just not up to the job.


----------------------------------------------------
Again, because deleted

I propose two things that could help solve the issue:

1) Yaeger style test piloting done in game and following a set of procedures.When I was young I got this game called Chuck Yaegers Advanced Flight Trainer. You actually had to find some numbers for the planes on your own like climb or take off speed etc. using some "test pilot procedures".
There was this awesome manual which told you what to do and you'd follow the same procedure with every plane.
You can download it here: ftp://ftp.worldofspectrum.org/pub/si...ghtTrainer.pdf

Something like this could be done with all the planes and for every patch that comes out. It'd not be perfect but at least a small step into the right direction. Also these numbers would be comparable. Since you'd always follow the same procedure.

2) More historical research
Find better charts and data but let a native german read over it before you post it and end up posting complete poop. I'm sure many would assist. Myself included.


Almost forgot. One thing I need to mention. There is no way we should believe into the myth of a UFO breaking all laws of psyics and being a perpetuum mobile. Energy conversion is not something that works on belief alone - while results will vary they ARE there and they ARE measurable.
There's no machine out there where the need to cool the engine actually results in better performance over all - aside from superconductivity scenarios which don't relate to our sphere of physics here. In other words there could be awesomely powerful planes that die from heat and others would just not be able to lift off at all because of too massive cooling solutions. But engine cooling is necessary and it did affect aircraft performance. In terms of both weight and drag.

Madfish and Madblaster. Brothers? ;-)

So what's the conclusion here? Does rads cause drag or not or just on some a/c or do we need more and precise data?






Btw, insightful comments on moderation.

If you stick to the point of this thread instead of sticking your nose in and making rude swearing remarks then all is good.

I can repost your original remarks and make you look foolish but I think I don't need to do that.

Whilst your here have a read of some rules, and then have a think why I didn't ban you when I should have.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=21176

13. Usage of obscene expressions, words and similar phrases as nicknames or other elements of user profile (email address, location etc.) is prohibited. The conotation of a phrase is determined by a moderator. Their decision is final in cases of questionable spelling. Usage of nicknames which might suggest their owner to be other forum users is also prohibited. Usage of pornographic, suggestive or obscene images as user pictures (avatars) is prohibited. Moderators and administrators have the right to delete such avatars, personal information and user signatures without prior warning.

Users who violated this rule will be banned from the section in the following pattern:
1st violation - 1 day ban
2nd violation - 3 day ban
3rd violation - 7 day ban

14. Discussion of topics which were locked by an administrator or a moderator is prohibited. Any kind of discussion concerning moderators' or administrators' actions is prohibited. All questions regarding forum operation should be sent to admin at 1cpublishing.eu.



Now can we please continue with this radiator discussion as intended

Lol. No.

Btw, I am okay with my deletions Alpha. Not mad about that at all. But 12 bucks a copy now? A little.:-P