|
|
|
|
#1
06-09-2012, 09:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Compressibility modelling
When diving under power aircraft speeds should be limited by compressibility effects. If not then aircraft that utilize vertical tactics like BnZ will get an unfair advantage over aircraft that employ angles tactics.
If airspeeds in the dive are not limited by compressibility, then the energy retention will be too high and an aircraft doing a BnZ attack will end up at to high altitude following a dive and zoom. I don't know how/if this is modelled in the sim but I think this could be tested implicitly by comparing airspeeds from a test dive in the sim with the attached C++ simulation chart. The chart contains two graphs: One is for the Spitfire Mk1 at +6.25 boost with compressibility modelled, both in terms of compressibility drag rise and also reduction in propeller efficiency due to Mach effects. The other has no compressibility correction whatsoever, either on drag rise or propeller efficiency. Both start from 23,000 ft altitude and 336 mph TAS. In IL2 there was something called "devicelink" where one could extract this type of info and do a comparison. Don't know if this or something similar exists here. An alternative is of course simply to test dive and read off the speed at 2.5 Km altitude 61 s into the dive and see how this compares with the sim. If there is no way to read out TAS in the sim then I suppose one could convert the IAS cockpit reading if this is reliable enough. I don't have the hardware to run this sim so I cannot test myself but I'm curious to know how the sim handles high speed dives. 
|
|
#2
06-09-2012, 12:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Aircrafts don't employ angle tactics: the pilots do. Nothing prohibits pilots to BnZ in an Hurricane... except their own noobness It's just too difficult to track planes under your ship and too easy to spot aircrafts over you head... and this is really helpful for guys who don't care about tactics... But NO... lets put in disadvantage the ones who actually do fly in the smart way!!! Anyway I agree about compressibility modelling, but it's not a priority at all.
__________________
 A whole generation of pilots learned to treasure the Spitfire for its delightful response to aerobatic manoeuvres and its handiness as a dogfighter. Iit is odd that they had continued to esteem these qualities over those of other fighters in spite of the fact that they were of only secondary importance tactically.Thus it is doubly ironic that the Spitfire’s reputation would habitually be established by reference to archaic, non-tactical criteria. Last edited by 6S.Manu; 06-09-2012 at 02:40 PM.
|
|
#3
06-09-2012, 02:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
But when it comes to unfair advantages, I guess you want the same for angles fighters as well right? Otherwize there could be a Spitfire with a turn time of 21 s at 20,000 ft if Crumpp has his way
 The Spit dive is just an example: The Me109 C++ simulation looks just the same. If no compressibility then too high speed in the dive and I assume everyone wants as close to historical performance as possible right? I understand that there are more pressing mods to be done. While I have not simulated the Hurricane, the Spitfire top speed numbers looks way to low. I get 280 mph for the Spitfire for +6.25 boost and about 475-480 Km/h for the Me109 at SL 1.3 ata and I guess that would be a higher priority to fix.
|
|
#4
06-09-2012, 02:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
First, I want to point out that my rant was referred to the "aircraft that employ angles tactics" statement. I go nuts when I read something similar...
Quote:
Since, you know, there are guys that actually try to simulate combat tactics... if these are not practicable then what's the reason to fly this sim? For its "not really complex" engine management? To enjoy the historical speed of the plane at altitude ("Look I'm reaching the same speed of the real plane, best moment in my life!!!")? It's just bad enough that fatigue is not modelled and every virtual pilot can sustain high G accelerations for dozens of minutes... If the guys who follow the main rule of warbird dogfighting ("Altitude Is Life") can't even gain advantage from that (BnZ) then be sure the game will die very quickly. 1C don't even need to model altitude over the 10K feet since the "BnZ is not allowed" rule found in some IL2 servers would not be forced by those loser admins, but by the game itself. Without a realistic world around the virtual pilot the single aircraft performance becomes far more important than the player own skill... infact in these weeks there are too much "X is too slow by 20km/h; we can't fight!!!" threads for my taste. Can't wait the day a WW2 sim could actually simulate a realistic aircraft/engine dynamic quality (wearing)...
__________________
A whole generation of pilots learned to treasure the Spitfire for its delightful response to aerobatic manoeuvres and its handiness as a dogfighter. Iit is odd that they had continued to esteem these qualities over those of other fighters in spite of the fact that they were of only secondary importance tactically.Thus it is doubly ironic that the Spitfire’s reputation would habitually be established by reference to archaic, non-tactical criteria. Last edited by 6S.Manu; 06-09-2012 at 03:22 PM.
|
|
#5
06-09-2012, 03:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm not arguing to introduce something to upset the balance of gameplay.
I used to fly IL2 a lot back when I had more time and in that sim there were things that were off that really affected gameplay. I think the elevator authority on the Me109 was one example. IIRC this was off in IL2 in the sense that it seemed more connected to TAS than IAS. I still think it would be good to get everything on the table (also the stuff you mentioned) but compressibility is one component there as well. As I said, I guess there are more pressing fixes to do to get the balance in gameplay right but that does not lessen my curiosity as to how the currently modelled planes behave in high speed dives
Last edited by Holtzauge; 06-10-2012 at 06:03 PM. Reason: Made it clear that the TAS/IAS issue related to IL2 not IRL
|
|
#6
06-09-2012, 03:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
And I don't want an arbitrary game balance: do I have to fly in a crap plane? I do it and I'll try to fly it in the historical way. (for example I16 vs 109). The thing I don't want is implementing something that heavily affects the combat simulation over more important things. Because in real life "Good Tactic" >>>>> "Raw Performance"... Anyway I don't think the elevator authority issue was about TAS or IAS: it was modelled like a loss of control surface effectiveness instead of a simple stick heavyness... in the game it was impossible to operate the stick with the strength of 2 arms like the real pilots did... they roughly modelled a pilot's strength related aspect without taking in account the pilot's stamina/fatigue modelling. I hope it will be possible in CloD's future.
__________________
A whole generation of pilots learned to treasure the Spitfire for its delightful response to aerobatic manoeuvres and its handiness as a dogfighter. Iit is odd that they had continued to esteem these qualities over those of other fighters in spite of the fact that they were of only secondary importance tactically.Thus it is doubly ironic that the Spitfire’s reputation would habitually be established by reference to archaic, non-tactical criteria. Last edited by 6S.Manu; 06-09-2012 at 03:50 PM.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
