I hate the wrong data in Il2 strmovik 1946

[Former_Older]

Originally Posted by SturmKreator

look my friend, read more

Pardon me, Pot Stirrer. Did I ever indicate what the real performance was of any aircraft in this simulation was is or should be? No. I never said that the FW 190 or any other plane here was perfectly modeled.

Originally Posted by SturmKreator

and dont follow all that you see, like a "the history channel" (or the gringory channel how I call),

If your little "history lesson" is intended to educate anyone, I don't see where you compare this to anything. Do you perhaps have the comparable chart for the performance in the sim? No. You show what is supposed to be an impressive chart. It doesn't thrill me much; this is loose data. You don't indicate what's wrong and where it's wrong. So you have raw data. Congratulations! You can cut an paste a photo. That's all you have proved!

And what is this "gringory" nonsense? You can call the History Channel a Ham Sandwich if you like, I don't give a rat ass. Whatever insult that was supposed to be was completely wasted.

Originally Posted by SturmKreator

think better before writte,

What have I written that is in error? Quote it please. You have made several references to things I have not said or indicated, but you act as if I have told you that this simulation perfectly models your precious FW 190. False argument, sophistry, and just plan silly

I have done no such thing. I invite you to show us all where I have done this

Originally Posted by SturmKreator

read in special books of editorial OSPREY, and you can know about the true, i have test Germans about fw190 A8, look this chart:

You're on very shaky ground here. In order for your statements here to have weight, you will have to show me your own tests and where they deviate from your precious charts. Please post those test results for all to see Or at least try to make me believe you tested in the sim at all

Oh, you say you didn't test? You just flew around a few minutes and got shot down? How sad...That's a damn shame! So the plane must be modeled wrong, because you're Pritzl Bar incarnate. Hey wait a minute, didn't he screw up in a civilian plane after the war and kill himself? But you're at least that good, yes?

You're amusing. Please respond with more bullshit

[Former_Older]

Originally Posted by Brain32

Wow you guys are very reasonable...too bad you are never reasonable when it comes to other planes people complain about LOOOOOOOL

"You guys"? You quoted one person.

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Feuerfalke

So true, Brain32!


On the other side: Who said that IL2 is realistic in every regard and detail? It's not. It's still a game, a pc-simulation-game, one of the most realistic there is, but still a game.

And this claiming of data is irrelevant, honestly. IL2 does not modell all aspects of physics and the engine is over 10 years old. Many planes just work with a load of work-arounds and scripting, others are missing important plane-parts, like coolers and stuff, because of engine limitations.

And you ask for realistic data?

Sorry, but this discussion reminds me to pre-schoolers discussing if Superman or Captain America would win a duel in real life.

If you would see FM code for different planes in these game and check their data you would be very dissapoinment -and not because of weak engine. Engine of these game is still quite good and allow to create accurate pefromance like maximum speed at different alts, climb rate, turn rate etc without big problem. But many planes in these game have 10% data in their code for FM so thats why these planes have such questionable preformance or data for these planes are from space not reliable books, monograhps etc. So in game Bf 109 G-2 has lower weight then F-2 for example, some planes have only 2 critical points with maximum speed ( could have much more), there are many mistakes in type of engines performance, even such stupid bugs like wrong writed 10X bigger aerlione area in one type bf 109 then others, wrong - opossite effect of rudder in some planes bacuse simple mistake with direction. Bugs are many and were never corrected even if community was speaking about it in Oleg Ready Room and others forums. I know that these bugs, wrong datas and many things could be easly corrected and these game would be much better then now.

[ZaltysZ]

Some strange numbers can be just a very dirty workaround for curve fitting problems or just expression of Effect = coefficient * real world value.

For example: suppose you have made a parametric FM; have blueprints, engine data and charts; need to apply your FM (by choosing parameters) to this specific aircraft model. After choosing parameters (wing span, weight, power ant etc.) you notice that you get performance way to different from the one in charts. Probably your FM lacks something minor which gives major influence to this difference. You can rework all FM (and remodel all previous aircrafts) or to choose parameters in such way that performance will comply with charts while minimizing side effects. Such workaround is very attractive solution for consumer level product, especially when there are lots of problems for determining model accuracy.

By fixing those numbers in IL2 you may get something which you were not expecting (UFO, brick and etc).

P.S: there is nice saying in scientific community: No one, except the author, believes in new theory, however everyone, except the experimenter, believes in results of experiment. This should be also applied to test result of aircrafts.

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by ZaltysZ

Some strange numbers can be just a very dirty workaround for curve fitting problems or just expression of Effect = coefficient * real world value.

For example: suppose you have made a parametric FM; have blueprints, engine data and charts; need to apply your FM (by choosing parameters) to this specific aircraft model. After choosing parameters (wing span, weight, power ant etc.) you notice that you get performance way to different from the one in charts. Probably your FM lacks something minor which gives major influence to this difference. You can rework all FM (and remodel all previous aircrafts) or to choose parameters in such way that performance will comply with charts while minimizing side effects. Such workaround is very attractive solution for consumer level product, especially when there are lots of problems for determining model accuracy.

By fixing those numbers in IL2 you may get something which you were not expecting (UFO, brick and etc).

P.S: there is nice saying in scientific community: No one, except the author, believes in new theory, however everyone, except the experimenter, believes in results of experiment. This should be also applied to test result of aircrafts.

Unfortunately and suprisly many of these bugs if were fixed to correct value, data etc casue more accuarate FM and peformance of some plane. Just they are simple mistakes, wrong writed numbers etc. It is possible that some of them was done to create a willing effect of performance some planes but many of them are just simple mistakes which hasn'nt corrected. Imagine that when you correct these values the plane start to fly like should

[ElAurens]

Wait a doggone minute here.

The Bf109G2 is actually lighter than it should be? Is this true?

By how much?

Is it on the same order that the Lagg 3 was underweight?

This has profound implications for mission makers.

[Kwiatek]

Wooalla :

G-2 - 2830 kg(game) - ~3100 (IRL)

F-2 - 2880 kg ( game) - ~2728 kg (IRL)

F-4 - 2900 kg ( game) - ~2890 kg (IRL)

[ElAurens]

Thanks!