![]() |
|
IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games. |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
The only thing we can say with any certainty is that no one has yet posting anything that would/could be remotely considered as proof either for or against the realism of the Bf109 FM
Due to the limitations of the human sense observations from the plane itself, or worse yet, the opposing plane consist of too many unknowns to say with any certainty.. Unless the values are way off.. For example a Bf109 climbing straight up for 20kft like an F15 is an error the human senses could detect.. But the human senses are not good enough to even begin to quantify the error (say how big the error is) That is the reason plane makers more so than not go to all the trouble of instrumenting a plane to 'measure' the variables during the test flight.. As opposed to relying solely on the test pilots real time (radio) or memory of the flight With that said When testing how realistic an FM is you need to do the following three things as a 'minimum' 1) Know what the real world values should be for a given test flight. 2) Be able to reproduce the test flight method and reproduce or account for the configuration used during the test flight. 3) Log the same or equivalent in-game data while reproducing the test flight in-game. Than and only than can you say with any certainty how realistic the FM is.. And know that the acceptable rule-of-thumb error between the real world data and in-game data is about +/-5% Note.. you will be hard pressed to find any real world data on the energy state or power of a Bf109 performing a 180°! Thus failing one of the three minimum requirements for a test. At which point you would have to 'calculate' in advance what the values 'should be' but that in and of itself can be a real can of worms. Thus it is best to limit your FM testing to the types of testing they did in WWII, in that you will stand a much better chance of finding some real world data to compare to. Anything less than that is just opinion at best PS you can log data in CoD using C#
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on. Last edited by ACE-OF-ACES; 03-29-2012 at 02:47 AM. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
You can counter the enemies low but make sure that you have friends flying higher. The difficult is to find a team that want to take different roles and fly that way:
examples: you can do a low CAP since you have other guys flying high. I doubt that high enemies ll dive knowing that there are enemies higher too. If they dive to attack they ll become nice targets too. You only have to join some guys with enough tactical discipline and put the things in practice. Invite some friends and make a plan: while i and 2 go to low CAP, another 4 go to a high CAP over the area etc. The enemy ll think to times before dive and give their altitude advantage. The problem is to find some to fly this way. |
#53
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Maybe Goering should have sent all his bombers to England at 10ft above the deck. ![]()
__________________
Pilot #1 (9:40 hours flying time, 3/0/1 Fighters, 7/2/0 Bombers). RIP No.401 Squadron Forum ![]() ![]() ![]() Using ReconNZ's Pilot Log Book |
#54
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
![]() ![]() So yes, this kind of organization is what we need. I will keep trying. Like I said many times. These are mostly just vent posts. Back to business as normal.
__________________
Pilot #1 (9:40 hours flying time, 3/0/1 Fighters, 7/2/0 Bombers). RIP No.401 Squadron Forum ![]() ![]() ![]() Using ReconNZ's Pilot Log Book |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
![]() a classic ![]() |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Impressive, one never stops learning... Was it a left turn or a right turn? Anyway, I am not worried. The patch will fix this, that, tripple fps, cure cancer, soothe hemoroids, whatever. ~S~ |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Cheers! |
#58
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
IMHO that statement is way incomplete. At what speed and G´s??? ANY aircraft can mantain what is called a sustained turn, in which no energy is lost. For a given altitude, airspeed and power setting (provided the engine power is enough) there is always a number of G´s which will give you a sustained turn. if you pull more G´s you bleed off energy (loose altitude or speed). if you pull less G´s you gain energy (increase speed and/or altitude). It is a little more complicated than that, but that is the big picture. I recommend you take a look to the E-M chart concept. i.e http://www.combatsim.com/review.php?id=133
__________________
Intel i7-2600K // Asus Maximus IV Extreme Rev3 // 2xGTX580-3GB (SLI'ed when able) // 16 GB DDR3 // SSD // HDD WD 10K // Win7 x64 // LG monitor 24´´ 1920x1200 res |
#59
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
![]() |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
And it took the Mc.202 to partially recover the technical disadvantage, while the excellent G.55 Centauro and Mc.205 Veltro arrived too late and in too low quantities. But again, the G.50 cries for an FM update! |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|