Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover > Technical threads > FM/DM threads

FM/DM threads Everything about FM/DM in CoD

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 04-07-2011, 02:52 PM
TheGrunch's Avatar
TheGrunch TheGrunch is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 843
Default

We have ambient temperature gauges in the Ju 88 and He 111 if this helps. Likewise, if we can work out exactly the altitude at an airfield (FMB maybe?) and compare it to the altitude given by the aircraft's gauges we may be able to work out pressures.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-07-2011, 08:10 PM
TheGrunch's Avatar
TheGrunch TheGrunch is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 843
Default

The biggest problem really at the moment is the lack of a DeviceLink style interface yet and the inaccuracy of the rollover text on cockpit gauges (seems to be 1 decimal place, not very useful when altitudes are measure in km for example). Although I haven't even looked at the no-cockpit view so that might be better.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-28-2011, 01:24 PM
TUCKIE_JG52 TUCKIE_JG52 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 250
Default

Any data on this subject?

I've been focusing in Bf-109E-3 tests.

By landing beside a beach and setting the altimeter to 0, the indicated pressure in all maps is 993 mbar.

Ambient temperature is about 17ºC, but I must confirm with Ju-88 and He-111 instruments.



I've also looking for which are the german standards, named "Normaltag" ("Normal Day"):
I'm not sure about the data they considerred standard, but it looks like 1018mbar and 16ºC.

In this test there's a correction factor developed, but I can't undestarnd what every value really means:
http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_...5a.html#blatt5

If that correction factor is correct, it would mean that with the current pressure and temperature settings for all maps in CoD, we'll never be able to reach the german values of the performance charts like climbing. Even more if it's considered that, as commented in this post, Bf-109 has an overloading problem:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=20160

Overloaded E-3 + not so favorable meteorological contitions = our graphs will look always under the german values.

We need to apply correction factors to really evaluate if CoD E-3's performances are correct or not.

Last edited by TUCKIE_JG52; 04-28-2011 at 01:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-28-2011, 06:01 PM
Viper2000 Viper2000 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TUCKIE_JG52 View Post
Overloaded E-3 + not so favorable meteorological contitions = our graphs will look always under the german values.

We need to apply correction factors to really evaluate if CoD E-3's performances are correct or not.
Exactly.

I think that we should probably correct all of our performance references to ISO standard atmosphere conditions to produce an overall aircraft performance database, and then convert performance data from that database to whatever the conditions on our chosen test map are.

BTW, formation flying is the most obvious way to overcome the 1 d.p. limitations of the cockpit instruments, at least to some degree...
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-28-2011, 06:27 PM
Sternjaeger II Sternjaeger II is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,903
Default

definitely a good effort, but let me just say one thing..

we need to know exactly what parametres are needed in order to provide usable data and not waste any time. It would be worth to try and talk to Luthier about this, so maybe we could be directed in the right way..

Viper has a factual approach to things that is quite the right way to go, but before you jump in this head first try and seek for some support from the guys at Maddox Games.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-28-2011, 06:31 PM
Vengeanze Vengeanze is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 837
Default

I don't understand anything you guys are saying here but I make darn good coffee!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-28-2011, 06:44 PM
SG1_Lud's Avatar
SG1_Lud SG1_Lud is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Spain
Posts: 376
Arrow

Viper, if you are leading this project I'm in.

Tuckie and me are trying to do the same in a spanish forum, so we can work together.

Congrats for the idea.

Cheyennepilot ( aka Lud)

Last edited by SG1_Lud; 04-28-2011 at 07:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-28-2011, 06:51 PM
kimosabi kimosabi is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Svalbard
Posts: 439
Default

There's no use going by FM testing as detailed as this one yet. The FM is just as immature as the rest of the game is, so in a year a test like this one should be better suited.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-29-2011, 12:39 AM
Peril Peril is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 78
Default

Does the engine have the capability to output debug data in digital?

Detailed info like rate of turn, G's, RoC, hp, IAS, TAS, boost, rpm etc. all in digital?? This is detailed data invaluable to defining the errors. I find the hp and boost in digital very useful in defining RAM effects at alts etc. Analogue gauges are just to vague to be really definitive, we don't even know if they are calibrated correctly.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-29-2011, 08:23 AM
TUCKIE_JG52 TUCKIE_JG52 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 250
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viper2000 View Post
Exactly.

I think that we should probably correct all of our performance references to ISO standard atmosphere conditions to produce an overall aircraft performance database, and then convert performance data from that database to whatever the conditions on our chosen test map are.

BTW, formation flying is the most obvious way to overcome the 1 d.p. limitations of the cockpit instruments, at least to some degree...
That was my idea too...



Yesterday I did pressure and temperature measurements. And got some conclusions that must be cross-checked.

Pressure measuring method:
1. Place a Ju-88 in a beach (Sea Level).
2. Set altimeter to 0.
3. Read pressure in milibars directly from the Kollsman window, in the upper side of the german altimeter.

Temperature measuring method:
1. Place a Ju-88 where you want to test the plane.
2. Read outisde temperature indicator

Facts found:

A) I get different values of pressure and temperature in the same place every time I reload the mission. Sometimes they'll repeat, but they tend to change more when a different plane is loaded in the same place. ---> Temperature and pressure are not always the same, there's some grade of randomisation. (This must be confirmed).

B) Ambient temperature is different from water and oil temperature before starting engine.


Clues to test:
-There's the possibility to switch from the cockpit of one plane to another, at least altimeters can be cross cheched in that way; same mission load, planes placed together on a beach, check if all altimeters have the same pressure reading in Kollsman when altimeter set to 0. --> If same readings oK, reload the mission to test randomisation of parameters.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.