Don't make performances secret this time

[WTE_Galway]

It has come to my attention that a number of posters in this thread are comparing the performance of human flown aircraft against AI.

It is a given that AI controlled aircraft have performance advantages over human controlled aircraft.

[Rama]

Originally Posted by PE_Tihi

Can a plane have a wingspan of 10, 11, and 12,5 m at the same time? Can it have a max. speed of 480, 530, and 565 km/h at the same time?

Wingspan isn't FM data, it's structural data.
About max speed, for each plane type you can find different sources giving you different numbers, and even different reference altitude for max speed.
... and that's including different real flight test data.

Originally Posted by PE_Tihi

Try here, you wont have to calculate anything:

Ahah.... and do you think your link gives the only valuable and universal source??? you must be kidding...
Have you tried, just for ONE type of plane to gather all different performance sources and to compare them... you should try, it will help you to understand the problem...

[LEXX]

Phi::

Lots of people like that way of fight, BnZ, - like you [LEXX] obviously do. To my taste it is a bit disgusting to shoot down someone who doesnt know a thing about it- apart from being unsatisfactory - it doesnt tell me who flies better. Tastes are different, of course.

Yes, WW2 pilots of all nations chose to do it my way when they could. Having to enter a dogfight was considered a failure.

In my opinion, your [LEXX's?] FPS games are more popular for the same reason it is much easier to train an infantry soldier than a pilot- you do not need to know much to get a rifle pushed into the hands. So anyone can play a FPS without bothering to uderstand the flight behavior of a plane or many other things.

Same thing with air warfare. You have to learn the air war environment, even in peacetime, or you die. Clearly you don't know what the air war environment is, but I can't blame you, since no combat flight sim developer has ever modelled it, but have usually focused on arcade dogfight shooter gaming, and most people don't look at the sky and learn what's up there. So no offence intended here.

[PE_Tihi]

Originally Posted by Rama

Wingspan isn't FM data, it's structural data.
About max speed, for each plane type you can find different sources giving you different numbers, and even different reference altitude for max speed.
... and that's including different real flight test data.




Ahah.... and do you think your link gives the only valuable and universal source??? you must be kidding...
Have you tried, just for ONE type of plane to gather all different performance sources and to compare them... you should try, it will help you to understand the problem...

Even for the geometry , as you call it structural data of a plane - you ll find the wingspan of the plane different from the facory blueprint for a centimeter of two- that's production tolerances. You won't find two planes of the same type with exactly the same top speed.
Flight test data of captured planes - oft damaged and repaired in a makeshift manner- can give values lower than typical.
But we re not talking here about centimeters, or a mere 1 m/s of the climb rate ( although that is quite a lot). I am giving you an example where a game plane has been given 50% , 7 m/s more than RL. Now if you find me any source giving the I16 the climb rate even approaching 21.25 m/s I ll buy you a dinner.

I red quite a bit on the matter, you know. Comparing the data from different sources is not that difficult as you may think.
On the link I sent you , for example, there is a test report from the US Navy on the A6M2, giving it an initial climb of 13.5 m/s. Knowing from reading somewhere else that the Navy tested Zero was not in the best condition, I considered this result as being on the low side.
USAAF test gave it an initial climb of approx. 14,5 m/s- lets round it to 15 m/s for a factory new plane. W. Green and R. Francillon books confirm this number.
On the other hand , there is a number of sources that ascribe this plane a fantastic climb rate of 22 m/s, at the same time rating A6M5, a much more powerful model with 16 m/s. Newer A6M5 ,having much lower power loading had to climb faster, so these data were obviously nonsensical.

Now, japanese planes are a bit difficult- they destroyed all the documentation at the war end, but as you see- the aproximate numbers can be found out.
In the case of British and German planes- it is almost a childs play, as the very detailed and accurate documents on the factory testings on the linked page show. So please no mystifications about the different data from different sources.

Just for the record, game A6M2 climbs at approx. 20 m/s

[PE_Tihi]

Originally Posted by LEXX

Phi::
Yes, WW2 pilots of all nations chose to do it my way when they could. Having to enter a dogfight was considered a failure.


Same thing with air warfare. You have to learn the air war environment, even in peacetime, or you die. Clearly you don't know what the air war environment is, but I can't blame you, since no combat flight sim developer has ever modelled it, but have usually focused on arcade dogfight shooter gaming, and most people don't look at the sky and learn what's up there. So no offence intended here.

BnZ certainly was a best way to survive, and in a war situation I would be using it, too. But we are talking here about a game, not war. It is an adaptable game, it can be played in a number of different maners- you are free to choose one you like.
I am interested in flying skills, and that s the way I play it. You can teach one to BnZ in a short time- outmanoeuvring the opponent using the plane's qualities and energy to obtain a firing solution; shooting deflection from beam and all quarters, well it is quite a different matter, in spite of your derrogatory remarks about arcade dogfight. It is everything else but arcade )))
As said, a matter of taste and temperament.

[PE_Tihi]

Originally Posted by IceFire

See but thats not really balancing...balancing implies intent but thats jumping to conclusions.

If what you say is true then its one of several things I can think of off the top of my head:

1) Error in modeling
2) Error in data
3) Data used is correct but for a later model of aircraft than the one/year represented (could be better engine tuning, fuel availability, etc.)
4) Was balanced for some strange reason

To assume balancing implies intent which has not been established. Anyone who is suggesting it is impressing their ideas on the situation.

Furthermore my "grotesque" lack of seeing this has somehow managed to survive years of flying this planeset. As far as I'm concerned I'm always going to outclimb a I-16 Type 24 in a Bf109F-2 in an actual fight.

To be honest I grow frustrated with all of the people who feel their "side" has been wronged (I'm not saying this about you PE_Tihi) and advance only the one cause. There are still problems with every plane on all sides...there were many more problems which have been fixed and nobody cares about the ones that were fixed and fixed well.

1) Errors in modelling wouldn't last 7 years, and especially not such large ones.
2) Data is very easy to obtain, in Russia especially.
3) I didn't tell you everything- I16 type 24 didn't have cannon armament as portrayed in the game. Types 17 and 27 were cannon armed, but 27 was much heavier because of the cannon. Nevertheless- the plane in game uses the weight numbers of the machinegun armed type 24.
Even if one threw out of the plane the complete armament and everything else a screwdriver can remove, and put in a jockey-sized 50 kg pilot, plane would in all probabbility never reach even 17 m/s
4) Strange reason is supposed to be the predominance of the russian customers in the community in the first years of the game, and balancing the online wars.
What could be the reason for 'balancing' of the japanese planes against US Navy types- beats me.

And about the 109F2... I am afraid you are overly optimistic there. I16 climbs quite a bit faster at low altitudes- take a look at the Il2 Compare..

[IceFire]

You know I had started typing a big long message but its not worth it.

Also where is this information about which versions of the I-16 are armed with cannons and which are not plus the weight information and whatever else you've got.

[III/JG11_Tiger]

Pe_Tihi, after flying this sim since the original demo I would say Bnz is more difficult than TnB, your speed is greater your angles of deflection are often higher and more difficult to calculate, and the fact that you are trying to kill in one burst also often makes it more difficult. Apart from that many of us are trying to simulate the real war and any smart ww2 pilot knew that dogfights were for a different era, this was the undoing of many a Japanese pilot, who thought it more honorable to dogfight than to just kill the enemy as quickly as possible then fly home to fight another day.

As for your data on aircraft can we please have some more references.

[Igo kyu]

I have a book which says the I-16 tip 24 was a four machine gun plane, and the I-16 tip 27 had two SHVAK and two machine guns.

The book is "The complete book of fighters", it's heavy but seems to be comprehensive. I presume there are good sources for their data.

It was remaindered (sold off cheap) when I got it, so it probably isn't available new, it seems to be available second hand via Amazon:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Complete-Boo...7790613&sr=1-1

[PE_Tihi]

Originally Posted by III/JG11_Tiger

Pe_Tihi, after flying this sim since the original demo I would say Bnz is more difficult than TnB, your speed is greater your angles of deflection are often higher and more difficult to calculate, and the fact that you are trying to kill in one burst also often makes it more difficult. Apart from that many of us are trying to simulate the real war and any smart ww2 pilot knew that dogfights were for a different era, this was the undoing of many a Japanese pilot, who thought it more honorable to dogfight than to just kill the enemy as quickly as possible then fly home to fight another day.

As for your data on aircraft can we please have some more references.

I am beginning to regret comparing the ZnB and TnB tactics ant their followers. TnB certainly wasn't a recipe for a long life during the war, and in the game , too, ZnB is certainly less risky strategy. BnZ requires certain skills, too- simply my personal opinion to rate these skills lower.
It is quite dificult, though, to BnZ a fighter plane knowing about it. The BnZ-ers I have seen prefer in the general to hit a plane involved in a fight which absorbs the pilot's attention in another direction. Getting bored from them and climbing to their height- some seem at loss at what to do, others try getting away- only a minority has the skills and is confident enough of them to fight it out with you in a manoeuvring fight. Which they generally loose.
From BnZ ing friends I hear about the excitement of stalking the opponent and sweating to remain unnoticed. It is completely unknown to me- am not the type for it. And getting hit from above while fighting two guys won't make the BnZers more likeble to me, either.
Hitting someone in this matter leaves me cold- it doesnt tell me anything about who flies better; and that is what interests me. I want to have the opponents attention- am simply like that. So that is why I say- play according to your prefferences. What i say here are simply my tastes.
Simulating real war is thank god, impossible in a flight sim. You sit in your armchair in front of a PC, and you cant get burned, maimed , or killed in any of the terrible ways possible in a war. You are even not freezing, or having your blood drained from your head in manoeuvres.
Your mentioning of the japanese pilot who didn't get home cause of TnB is missing that perspective- you won't even leave your home if TnB-ning, nothing to say about getting killed.
Risking to get shot down virtually versus yawning while climbing and target practising afterwards in BnZ leaves me vith a clear choice, and you certainly have yours.
Please look for the plane data link in a following post.