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

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...

Exacty and why I said:

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Tum te tummmm.....:)

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...160#post428160

Great minds think alike, and fools seldom differ.

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