Spitfire Mk IIa performance tests - Patch 1.07.18301

[=AN=Apache]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper

Looking forward to see this when I'm back at my PC, Felipe. My stupid iPad can't open .zip files.

What format opens ?

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by =AN=Apache

What format opens ?

PDF works great on an iPad! Thanks to both if you can post it unzipped. =AN= rocks!

[=AN=Felipe]

No problem Snapper! If you still have some trouble send me an email, ill send the file direct to you ok?

felipe.borkowski@hotmail.com

cya!

[=AN=Apache]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper

PDF works great on an iPad! Thanks to both if you can post it unzipped. =AN= rocks!

Follow the link to the .pdf !!

http://www.4shared.com/office/As0Dlh...itfire_Mk.html

[Kwiatek]

As i expected CloD Spitfire MKIIa still way too slow both at deck and FTH. Still wrong power engine settings - mainfold pressure (boost) and RPMs. The same situation like with other RAF fighters. 109 regarding power engine settings is much better and realistic modeled - it should be only faster ab. 20 kph at the low alts then now.

I think with actuall FM and performacne of these planes there is no sense to make such detailed test and comparision before 1C will fix it and make it in much more accurate and historical way - if they ever do these.

[=AN=Felipe]

S! Kwiatek,

I work on a automatic excel sheet, so its no problem for us do this detailed tests. I agree with you and i hope the developers check this out, i know them have more programs to do this like scrips but the precision of this test should be arround +-3mph so its not a unaccurate teste, this is our present performance in cliffs of dover.

If the developers dont use this for consult and one more parameter of comparasion dont mind, we can use this to ask for a more realistc FM and charge to do this.

Thx for your post!

[klem]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

As i expected CloD Spitfire MKIIa still way too slow both at deck and FTH. Still wrong power engine settings - mainfold pressure (boost) and RPMs. The same situation like with other RAF fighters. 109 regarding power engine settings is much better and realistic modeled - it should be only faster ab. 20 kph at the low alts then now.

I think with actuall FM and performacne of these planes there is no sense to make such detailed test and comparision before 1C will fix it and make it in much more accurate and historical way - if they ever do these.

I think thats why its important to show the devs what we find. This is a beta test after all and we don't know how far they have gone in testing the FMs or how far they intend to go with FM development and what their target data is.

Felipe, it would be nice if you could include the historical data alongside the test data for an immediate comparison. And the source reference of course to fend off any arguments. What do you set yout altimeter to? I adjust mine for "true height" as pos.z from for Point3d pos = me.Place().Pos(); (converted to feet for the Hurri). Default 1000mb is something like 100 ft out at SL and around 200ft at 20,000 ft, not a lot but...

[=AN=Felipe]

Sure Klem, ill use the real tests too in comparasion. So the altimeter was setted to 985mb 0ft at manston airfield, then i start to run the tests, so its about -400ft if we do by your technics, no winds and other things, if you are talking about that i do this way

thx klem

[klem]

Originally Posted by =AN=Felipe

Sure Klem, ill use the real tests too in comparasion. So the altimeter was setted to 985mb 0ft at manston airfield, then i start to run the tests, so its about -400ft if we do by your technics, no winds and other things, if you are talking about that i do this way

thx klem

Hi Felipe,

Manston elevation is around 144 ft and Tangmere ~40 feet. I checked the Altimeter error two ways. I deliberately ditched in the sea and checked the output file for ditched altitude reading I_Altitude (when it hit the water) and also the 'True Height' or PosHeight from this:
Point3d pos = me.Place().Pos();
PosLongitudinal = pos.x;
PosLateral = pos.y;
PosHeight_m = pos.z
PosHeight_ft = PosHeight_m * 3.2808399
That indicated that the altimeter should be set to 992Mb.

Of course for low flying its the Sea level you want which in theory can change with the tides but I don't think that's modelled.

I also use HudLog to display some parameters on screen all the time including Altimeter Altitude and True Height so I can easily set the Altimeter. The frustrating thing is that I just loaded the mission again and found that it has changed to 995mb and I don't know why! Anyway its only something like 100 ft difference so no big deal with the FMs being as far off as they are. Funny thing is that if I ignore that and set it to 992 I seem to be about right over the sea low level.