Friday Update, April 13, 2012

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by zapatista

you are demonstrating a failure here to rationally compute simple facts

first we want to know what the actual BoB era performance was for these 3 planes. even if there will be slightly different perspectives on german or allied evaluations done, there will be some genral common ground.
second you can then look at how an experienced, expert, or novice pilot might handle that aircraft
third, you then asses how accurately these competing planes are modeled in CoD, to confirm/reject that what we have in the sim actually allows us to replicate the ww2 pilots experience as close as possible
fourth, and this is where you oddly seem to start off from and completely overlook the previous 3 points, you then want to see how we as armchair virtual pilots can master a specific plane with all its idiosyncrasies, so we have a change to use it strength correctly, and compete against other aircraft with a varied level of skilled pilots.

does that sequence ring any bells with you ?

if you still dont compute, the purpose of this discussion was to deal with step 1 and 2

i really dont care what side was "better" at this or that, we all know what the eventual outcome of the conflict was what i do care about, is being able to use historical tactics and maneuvers with specific planes in this sim, and be able to rely on the aircraft i am (virtually) flying being able to execute it. that is for me (and many others here) the "fun factor" of this sim, and why we keep pushing for it to be better and more accurate.

1 and 2 are binded. Evaluations are made by tester pilots: they should have the same flight experience in both the planes to gave us a corrected evalutation. And those tests were made with airplane in different mechanical conditions...

Still the 4 it's not reachable because of the insurmountable differences between RL and the simulator (if your simulator is not able to include them... in CloD we have no pilot's stamina that's the least... it's a loooong road).

IMO you can't have the real turning performance without an adequate professional software where we can insert the very detailed model of that plane... if it does exist.

There's not reason to discuss it in a message board searching for documents... turning performance is different from climbing and speed tests.

What do you expect?

@zapatista: my "meaningless comment" was a reply to Fruitbat's post...

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by Osprey

Your reply was incredibly rude Zapatista. Whether you did this because your grasp of English is poor or if you are socially inept I do not know. In future perhaps you would do well to think whether you would be prepared to say that to him in person before you post, that may keep your manners in check.

you are not one to speak here, with your abrasive self conceited meaningless posts directed at various people over the last weeks

how about you mind your own business and stay out of what does not concern you, you have enough problems of your own without going to look for more

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

1 and 2 are binded. Evaluations are made by tester pilots: they should have the same flight experience in both the planes to gave us a corrected evalutation. And those tests were made with airplane in different mechanical conditions....

there is even a step before that, namely the technical specifications of the manufacturer and the performance/quality of the components, eg HP the engine puts out, reliability of parts and quality of manufacturing (a big problem with some of the russian planes for ex), etc.. but as you correctly point out, "the proof of the pudding" is largely in what performance was then reported by the test pilots who flew the fist prototypes.

no matter how far back we go with this, our starting point (as eager flight SIMULATOR pilots), is to have the technical specifications of the aircraft modeled openly provided by lutier and Co. we can then debate amongst ourselves how correct this is, and compare information from our own (deemed reliable) sources. and that is exactly what i am trying to obtain, so we can start trying to recreate the experience to competitively fly these virtual aircraft and recreate what was historically possible to do with them

even trying to have a sensible discussion about this seems difficult here, seems a bit similar to herding cats

are most of you really just satisfied with "lets just imagine this aircraft is correct", and "its just the pilot who failed/succeeded, no matter how wrong/bad/good the machine" ?. i'd accept that if we were all flying exactly the same planes, but we are not, they are modeled differently, so the question is , how accurately is it in CoD. if they all have a similar margin of error to the real aircraft they represent, it might not even matter, but we dont know that, and there is strong indication this is not the case for some aspects of certain aircraft..

[Insuber]

As remarked by others (Manu, Tamat) there are some visual limitations of the current simulation which effect more the game than the 5% + or - of turning radius.

I'll give an example. One hour ago I was on ATAG - before a CTD - flying on my Bf-109 Northward at 4km above the Channel, and got engaged by a Spit coming opposite.

After the crossing I went in a power climbing spiral at full WEP, 1.41 ata, while the Spit turned towards me loosing some of his energy. He kept lifting his nose some 200 m behind and lower on my right, trying to score pot shots, which he did, but on the fuselage. After some of this spiral climbing he stalled and went down spinning for some 500 m. I leveled and kept turning , looking at him to see his direction once he recovered the spin, in order to B&Z him. And voilà ... vanished above the sea.

All my maneuvering and tactics have been frustrated because at medium distance the LODs are porked, and the Spit became invisible. Sooooo ... why disputing about plane performance when we have some basic issues like the disappearance of planes at medium distance?

Cheers,
Insuber

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by Insuber

As remarked by others (Manu, Tamat) there are some visual limitations of the current simulation which effect more the game than the 5% + or - of turning radius.

I'll give an example. One hour ago I was on ATAG - before a CTD - flying on my Bf-109 Northward at 4km above the Channel, and got engaged by a Spit coming opposite.

After the crossing I went in a power climbing spiral at full WEP, 1.41 ata, while the Spit turned towards me loosing some of his energy. He kept lifting his nose some 200 m behind and lower on my right, trying to score pot shots, which he did, but on the fuselage. After some of this spiral climbing he stalled and went down spinning for some 500 m. I leveled and kept turning , looking at him to see his direction once he recovered the spin, in order to B&Z him. And voilà ... vanished above the sea.

All my maneuvering and tactics have been frustrated because at medium distance the LODs are porked, and the Spit became invisible. Sooooo ... why disputing about plane performance when we have some basic issues like the disappearance of planes at medium distance?

Cheers,
Insuber

Have you added that to the bugtracker/feature list?...I have not looked there lately, but I don't remember seeing that.

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by SlipBall

Have you added that to the bugtracker/feature list?...I have not looked there lately, but I don't remember seeing that.

Really? There were several threads on this issue. If not present, I will add it.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by zapatista

are you all really just satisfied with "lets just imagine this aircraft is correct", and "its just the pilot no matter how wrong the machine" ?

Of course I'm not!

If I really was why should I've started http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=27410?

A correct visibility simulation would make planes' performance less important during the fight (as they were), but still it would be nice to have them correctly modelled.

Zapatista, I think that's difficult to find the correct answers here. Our target should be to meet a guy who actually can access to a professional software (if his boss let him use it) and compare the result since CloD is a parametric software, not a fluidodynamic one (as XPlane should be IIRC).

There are great limits in the IL2 physic engine (I'm not a real pilot but I've spoken with some military guys) and I think that giving Luthier some good info and documentation is still not enough, since they should redo the engine.
I don't know how the CloD engine works, but IMO it's not so different.

It would be nice to create a very detailed model for X-Plane and then compare it to the pilot's evaluations.

Look, I'm a programmer (industry application, not gaming) and together with my friends (some engineers, historians, other programmers) we are planning to start the model of a plane's motor to see if we are able to create something that could be used in a open source simulator. It's a test...

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by slipball

have you added that to the bugtracker/feature list?...i have not looked there lately, but i don't remember seeing that.

done!

[moilami]

Originally Posted by BG-09

The UDSSR under Communist rule have very extensive agricultural politics!
The invasion of Germany over UDSSR, began on 22 of June 1941.
At this priod the UDSSR government used planned economy based on 5-year plans, with extensive agriciltural operations and production.
The landscape have to be VERY different from the landscape of France and England!
At the moment of the military ivasion, majority of the fields have to be ploughed, and the crops have to be seeded, with crops at their middle phase of development!
1. This means, that the german tanks have to advance through a GREEN corn a half a meter high;
2. The wheat have to be LIGHT GREEN at this moment, not YELLOW, because at this latitude it rapes LATER!
3. There have to be extensive cooperative gardens of FRUIT TREES, of diffrent kind, with a white painted trunks.
4. A lot of irigation channels full of watter.

The so called "Kolhoz", and its HUGE fields of identical crops must cover extensive maps areas. This is not Westrn Europe, This is UDSSR: "Souiz nerushinmiii, Respublic svobodniih...." WELCOME TO EASTERN EUROPE AND EURASIA in 1941...

This have to be taken in to consideration of landscape modeling in to the next chapter of the sequel The BoM:
1. Extensive fields of corn;
2. Fields of wheat;
3. Fields of beetroot;
4. Fields of cabbage;
5. Apple gardens;
6. Cherry gardens;
7. Pear gardens;
8. Plume gardens.

This is the reality, and this have to be taken in to consideration. Even, a agricultural statistics from 1940 have to be checked, before the map creating process!

S!

If it just would be open software, then I bet someone would do it

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by zapatista

you are not one to speak here, with your abrasive self conceited meaningless posts directed at various people over the last weeks

how about you mind your own business and stay out of what does not concern you, you have enough problems of your own without going to look for more

Yes I think it's the latter.