CoD flight test data vs. Real World flight test data

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by camber

Very nice Ace,

Thank you!

Originally Posted by camber

a good utility to get closer to the IL-2 compare type of arrangement.

Hopefully even better.. In that IL-2 Compare was limited to comparing in-game planes to in-game planes.. Except for the modified version that I put out a year or so ago (for HSFX) that included two RWD files along with the in-game planes.

Originally Posted by camber

The notes section for each test is a good idea,

Agreed.. In that the devil is in the details

Originally Posted by camber

for CoD tests it would be useful to record as much info as possible on the test parameters, e.g rpms, boosts, rad posns etc.

Actually the C# script I have been using that I got from FST includes all those variables and more!

Those CoD tests I have uploaded now have all that data, I just have not put them to a graph yet.

Right now my plan (read could change) is to have two graphs..

The 1st graph is and ROC or TSPA graph, depending on the test type you select. The intent here is that you would 'typically' be comparing an in-game plane to it's real world counter part. This would be the 'most common' comparison in that most WWII tests consist of both a ROC and TSPA.

The 1st part is done and you can see it at my website, i.e.

www.flightsimtesting.com

The 2nd graph would be what ever you want it to be!

The intent here is to let the user pick what ever variable he wants from the CoD C# data log and graph it vs. another CoD C# data log variable.

For example, say you wanted to graph the elevator deflection vs. altitude, or the engine oil temperature vs. altitude, or the throttle setting vs rpm.

In this case, typically you won't have a real world counter part, but in some cases you would.

For example, a lot of WWII tests had the time to climb (TTC)

So, in the 2nd graph you could plot the CoD altitude vs. time and if the real world data contains TTC data it will show up in the graph, if not, than it wont show up.

On that note, I have these 3 real world Spitfire TSPA graphs (+6, +12, +16) uploaded to my website

The +6 and +12 is what I used in my comparison, here http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34075

I have yet to find the corsponding ROC test, so, in this case, this real world data only consists of TSPA

In short, typically real world WWII data consits of ROC and TSPA..

Sometimes more

Sometimes less

But I digress

So, the 2nd graph is not really intended to compare an in-game plane to a real world plane, but you could if the real world data exists.

The 2nd graph is intended to be used to investigate the way the CoD test was performed..

That is to say you can check to see if the sim pilot did the test correctly!

For example, plot the throttle vs. altitude.. As in did the pilot have the throttle at 100%? Another way it can be used is to see just how level the plane was being flown during a TSPA test.. For example, you could plot the ROC vs. TAS and 'see' if the plane reached it's top speed when ROC was ZERO (level flight) or did it happen after the pilot dove down a few hundred feet (intentionally or not realizing it) where ROC would have a larger than ZERO negative value. In essance converting alt to speed and thus not a valid TSPA test method.

Those are just some examples of how the 2nd graph can be used to investigate how the sim pilot performed the simulated test.

I am also in the process of including the ability to convert the CoD non std atm data to std atm data. But this all takes time! This weekend I have to fly out to CA.. So I don't know if I will get this done this weekend, but hopefully the next. I try to spend a little time on it each chance I get. But we all know how free time goes!

[5./JG27.Farber]

Took you long enough... Some of its not there but alls forgiven if its accurate and comprehensive... Time will tell...


Good luck! Your audience is a pack of wolves!

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

Took you long enough...

True.. dang real world keeps getting in the way of me doing more virtual world stuff!

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

Some of its not there

Well.. do tell!

In that one reason to post the current status is to get feedback as to what people would like to see.. So with that said, what is 'missing' as far as your concerned? In that it might be a simple mater to add it.

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

but alls forgiven if its accurate and comprehensive... Time will tell...

Which is another reason for posting the current status.. To see if anyone can find any errors that need fixing (improve accuracy) and to see if anyone can find anything that falls short of being a complete test (improve comprehensiveness).. So please, can you provide some details of the criteria that you would be using to base your claims of accuracy and comprehensiveness on.. So I can improve both if necessary.

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

Good luck! Your audience is a pack of wolves!

True..

But this is not my first FM validation rodeo!

As already noted, I don't claim to be any historic plane version expert..

Even though I know more than most of the self proclaimed experts!

But I digress..

My goal is to provide the 'tools' for anyone to preform and/or inspect the virtual pilots test methods and results and how they compare to the real world results.

A sort of standard in testing if you will..

Ill leave the arguing as to how high is high or how blue is blue or how real the real world data is to the so called experts!