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
  #21  
Old 04-29-2011, 08:25 AM
TUCKIE_JG52 TUCKIE_JG52 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 250
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kimosabi View Post
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.
Of course, but there's also no reason to stay with nothing to do, at least we must know in which atmosfere are we flying... to avoid people whining about bugs that aren't bugs...

Our learning curve is slower than developers speed of work

Last edited by TUCKIE_JG52; 04-29-2011 at 09:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-29-2011, 04:06 PM
kimosabi kimosabi is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Svalbard
Posts: 439
Default

My learning curve tells me that the mixture issue need to be taken care of, and that the FM needs to provide us with more feedback and certain elements of aircrafts behaviour before a FM test is justified. Otherwise mapping an aircrafts performance envelope will not be correct once the FMs have been changed. They know about those issues and I'm sure they are working on it. I'll say it like this: There's no use taking a Fiat Uno to Nürburgring to test lap times, if the race is classed as a FIA GT. But by all means, if you people need something to do just for the sake of doing it......

Last edited by kimosabi; 04-29-2011 at 04:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-29-2011, 04:09 PM
ivo ivo is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Italy
Posts: 98
Default

Bye see here:
http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/spit2.html
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-30-2011, 04:41 AM
Peril Peril is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 78
Default

That's useful data on early Spits, thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-27-2011, 02:13 PM
Osprey's Avatar
Osprey Osprey is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 1,264
Default

I don't know if this ever started or how serious Viper is but I am willing to help with the testing but ONLY if there is some assurance from the development team that it is being taken seriously.

From what I am seeing wider Europe is undertaking a Public Beta test which is adhoc and incredibly disorganised.

So, if we are given genuine co-operation from Luthier & friends, and that we supply genuine reliable information to them to use, then I'm signed up.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-27-2011, 02:28 PM
heloguy heloguy is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 38
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viper2000 View Post


I suggest that we use the 1976 standard for comparison purposes because this allows us to avoid some otherwise potentially nasty conversions (eg changes to Temperature scales over time...).

Obviously the next thing that we need to do is to find some way of measuring the atmosphere properties on a variety of available maps so that we can pick the best one for testing.

Does anybody have any suggestions as to how we might best go about this?
I would think that the 1976 standard day wouldn't be the best choice as that's not what testing data from the 30's and 40's was based on. Maybe the earlier two would be the best to use.

As far as ambient conditions, either use the gauges in game and hope they are calibrated correctly, or just e-mail the developers to find out what the stock standard atmospheric conditions are.

If there's a way to adjust atmospheric conditions in the FMB (I would look, but will not have my computer with COD for awhile as I'm in the States), then you could create a mission in the FMB that all testers would be compelled to use that are a part of this project.

Really, the best historical data (if it exists) would be that which has variable test data, such as a curve that represents the difference in performance compared to altitude and temperature on the graph axes in order to adjust for density altitude. If this sim has variable weather as it says, then it will be hard to see if the aircraft performs correctly over a range of temps and pressures if it's only tested on a standard day.
__________________
Asus PZ877-V
Intel i3770k
Nvidia GTX 980
8gb RAM
Windows 10 x64
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-27-2011, 05:13 PM
Viper2000 Viper2000 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey View Post
I don't know if this ever started or how serious Viper is but I am willing to help with the testing but ONLY if there is some assurance from the development team that it is being taken seriously.

From what I am seeing wider Europe is undertaking a Public Beta test which is adhoc and incredibly disorganised.

So, if we are given genuine co-operation from Luthier & friends, and that we supply genuine reliable information to them to use, then I'm signed up.
I haven't started any work on this yet because, as you point out, we're effectively in a public beta at the moment, and with major code changes taking place so regularly the chances are that a lot of the work we put in would be wasted.

I've also got a PhD to finish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by heloguy View Post
I would think that the 1976 standard day wouldn't be the best choice as that's not what testing data from the 30's and 40's was based on. Maybe the earlier two would be the best to use.

As far as ambient conditions, either use the gauges in game and hope they are calibrated correctly, or just e-mail the developers to find out what the stock standard atmospheric conditions are.

If there's a way to adjust atmospheric conditions in the FMB (I would look, but will not have my computer with COD for awhile as I'm in the States), then you could create a mission in the FMB that all testers would be compelled to use that are a part of this project.

Really, the best historical data (if it exists) would be that which has variable test data, such as a curve that represents the difference in performance compared to altitude and temperature on the graph axes in order to adjust for density altitude. If this sim has variable weather as it says, then it will be hard to see if the aircraft performs correctly over a range of temps and pressures if it's only tested on a standard day.
Using a 1930s or 1940s atmosphere standard is likely to cause confusion, because all sorts of things were different in those days (eg the definition of the Kelvin).

It's also inherently more likely to produce flame wars because if we pick a NACA atmosphere then people will see American aeroplanes with data which looks like primary source data and potentially German or British aeroplanes with corrected data which disagrees with primary sources. We would then find ourselves having to explain the concept of standard atmospheres and correction factors in the face of vociferous accusations of bias from the large population of trolls that inhabit the forum.

Whatever we do, we're going to end up picking a single standard atmosphere so that we can compare the performance of all the aeroplanes in the sim on the same chart. Apart from anything else, if we don't do this, the chances are the somebody else will do so in a biased way with the intention of forwarding their own agenda, since quite a lot of forum trolls seem more interested in being able to say "my aeroplane is better than yours" than in historical accuracy.

Ideally, I'd use the ISO standard atmosphere, because it's neutral and current. However, I don't think that it's freely available, and that would both interfere with testing and lead to accusations that the process was not transparent.

The 1976 US standard atmosphere is freely available on the internet, and avoids most of the risk of accusations of bias it's post-war*, and it is relatively modern (so we get basically modern SI units, though it uses its own private value of the gas constant, presumably for historical reasons).

*Therefore all of the aeroplanes we test will see correction factors.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 06-11-2011, 12:58 AM
CaptainDoggles's Avatar
CaptainDoggles CaptainDoggles is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,198
Default

I've got some of my old university textbooks still, one of them has a standard atmosphere in the appendix; I'll check to see which version it is. The textbook is relatively new so it ought to be a modern ISO atmosphere.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 06-11-2011, 01:31 AM
Skoshi Tiger Skoshi Tiger is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 2,197
Default

Just done a quick check on the Spitfire II, on the ground at Mansten ( 178 feet) the closest I can get in 1 MB increments is a bout 993mb, at Shoreham (7 feet) on the same map 992 MB.


With the current standard SL pressure at 1013 MB it looks like theres a bit of a Low over the South East of England.

Also, FTIW, from the oil temp it's about 21 Degrees.

Cheers

Last edited by Skoshi Tiger; 06-11-2011 at 01:43 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 06-11-2011, 01:56 AM
CaptainDoggles's Avatar
CaptainDoggles CaptainDoggles is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,198
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viper2000 View Post
Ideally, I'd use the ISO standard atmosphere, because it's neutral and current.
Just had a look. The appendix in this particular book gives temperature, pressure, density, and speed of sound in SI units and English units. Data are every 2000m up to 70km for SI, and every 5000 feet up to 175000 feet for English units.

Let me know if that's worth anything to you and I'll see what I can do about scanning it.
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 06:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.