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
  #1  
Old 08-26-2012, 06:54 PM
ACE-OF-ACES's Avatar
ACE-OF-ACES ACE-OF-ACES is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NM
Posts: 2,248
Default CoD Spit Mk.I 100 oct vs. Real World Spit Mk.Ia +6 lbs

Hey guys

Did a comparison of the in-game Spitfire Mk.I at 100 octane to the real world data on a Spitfire Mk.Ia at +6 lbs.

Again, I am no Spitfire expert, so correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the real world +6 lbs. Spitfire using 87 octane? If so, shouldn't the in-game 100 octane (i.e. +12 lbs.) version be faster that the +6 lbs. below the FTH?

In either case, for those who have tested the in-game version, what values are you coming up with? Reason I ask is I have been reading some posts where some are saying the mixture levers and such may be reversed or not working at all in this beta version. So, there is a good chance that I did something wrong during the test. If you guys are getting it to go faster, could you post the settings you used during your tests? If not, than it may be best to hold off on any further testing until 1C has a chance to sort out these issues.

It just seems odd to me that the 100 octane version is not faster than the 87 octane version below FTH. Note I also included a picture of the in-game Spitfire Mk.I at 100 octane to the real world data of a Spitfire Mk.Ia at +12 lbs. To show how much slower the in-game Spitfire Mk.I at 100 octane is below the FTH.
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-26-2012, 08:11 PM
JTDawg JTDawg is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 129
Default

Got a new test for you , if you would in realisim settings under CEM shut off engine temp mang. i think you will be surprised by findings . As they seem to be much closer to whats right tad off here an there depending on plane . I an others would be interested in your findings
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-26-2012, 08:44 PM
ACE-OF-ACES's Avatar
ACE-OF-ACES ACE-OF-ACES is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NM
Posts: 2,248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JTDawg View Post
Got a new test for you , if you would in realisim settings under CEM shut off engine temp mang. i think you will be surprised by findings . As they seem to be much closer to whats right tad off here an there depending on plane . I an others would be interested in your findings
Well..

Right now I am spending more time on my web-page than testing..

I just did a few quickie tests to make sure the file formats are working and to have some data to work with..

Over the past 10 or so years of doing IL-2 FM testing I realized something..

I don't have the time to do all the tests people would like to see done!

So I had the idea of making a web-site where people can do their own test, upload the data and display/graph it..

Not only graph the results of their CoD test, but compare the CoD results to the real world data of their choice..

And not just ROC and TSPA tests!

For the CoD in-game test data, you will be able to pick and choose the 'variables' you want to graph. For example, say you want to graph the oil temperature vs. altitude, or oil temperature vs. water temperature.. Basically any in-game variable. And if you find a real world test that has say water temperature, you would be able to compare the CoD results to those.

With that said, I am also working on a 'standard form' for people to submit the real-world-data they want to use for comparison.. Also working with FST to come up with a standard C# script for testing.

So, hopefully in the next few weekends 'you' will be able to do this test your talking about and upload it to my website.
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-29-2012, 06:24 AM
Redroach's Avatar
Redroach Redroach is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bavaria, Germany
Posts: 709
Default

with which weapon configuration(s) and with which ammo load(s) did the RL-tests take place?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-29-2012, 08:48 AM
winny winny is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 1,508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redroach View Post
with which weapon configuration(s) and with which ammo load(s) did the RL-tests take place?
The RL data for a mk I (if it's the data usually quoted, top speed 363mph) was taken from a Spitfire that was at least 300 lb lighter than a mkI in Battle of Britain trim. It was around 5,800 lb as opposed to 6,100 lb (ish). It was the eight gun version, didn't have the pilot armour, bullet proof windscreen ( reckoned to cost 3-4 mph) or the IFF aerial (again another 2-3 mph). The only reference I've seen to it is by Dr Alfred Price. He says in "Spitfire in combat" that the top speed was closer to 350 mph for a BoB era MkI. It's a bit vague, I know, but does highlight how difficult it is to get accuracy. He knows his Spits though..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-29-2012, 11:47 PM
ACE-OF-ACES's Avatar
ACE-OF-ACES ACE-OF-ACES is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NM
Posts: 2,248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by winny View Post
The RL data for a mk I (if it's the data usually quoted, top speed 363mph) was taken from a Spitfire that was at least 300 lb lighter than a mkI in Battle of Britain trim. It was around 5,800 lb as opposed to 6,100 lb (ish). It was the eight gun version, didn't have the pilot armour, bullet proof windscreen ( reckoned to cost 3-4 mph) or the IFF aerial (again another 2-3 mph). The only reference I've seen to it is by Dr Alfred Price. He says in "Spitfire in combat" that the top speed was closer to 350 mph for a BoB era MkI. It's a bit vague, I know, but does highlight how difficult it is to get accuracy. He knows his Spits though..
On that note..

Differences in weight typically affect the ROC results much more than the TSPA results..

That is to say you may not notice a difference (percent difference would be small) in TSPA due to a little weight change, but, you will notice it in an ROC test.
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on.

Last edited by ACE-OF-ACES; 08-29-2012 at 11:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-02-2012, 09:07 AM
Redroach's Avatar
Redroach Redroach is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bavaria, Germany
Posts: 709
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by winny View Post
The RL data for a mk I (if it's the data usually quoted, top speed 363mph) was taken from a Spitfire that was at least 300 lb lighter than a mkI in Battle of Britain trim. It was around 5,800 lb as opposed to 6,100 lb (ish). It was the eight gun version, didn't have the pilot armour, bullet proof windscreen ( reckoned to cost 3-4 mph) or the IFF aerial (again another 2-3 mph). The only reference I've seen to it is by Dr Alfred Price. He says in "Spitfire in combat" that the top speed was closer to 350 mph for a BoB era MkI. It's a bit vague, I know, but does highlight how difficult it is to get accuracy. He knows his Spits though..
okay, I just wanted to know. Thank you!

I'm still afraid of people being awful "test pilots" like those who were around at CoD Release... of that type who complained hard, over multiple forum pages, about why they can't achieve maximum rated speed at sea level (TAS was totally unknown, anyways). If the devs would have listened to that, we would be in even more trouble now.
But you guys seem to have done your "homework" resp. proper set-up and flight procedures (wind/no wind, REALLY straight and level, eliminate any yawing etc.), and then some (that website I was directed to looks really nice)!

Last edited by Redroach; 09-02-2012 at 09:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-29-2012, 11:38 PM
ACE-OF-ACES's Avatar
ACE-OF-ACES ACE-OF-ACES is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NM
Posts: 2,248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redroach View Post
with which weapon configuration(s) and with which ammo load(s) did the RL-tests take place?
A link is provided to the source of the real world test at my website, i.e.

www.flightsimtesting.com

There you will find the answer to all those questions and more.
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-29-2012, 08:30 AM
camber camber is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 105
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES View Post
Hey guys

Did a comparison of the in-game Spitfire Mk.I at 100 octane to the real world data on a Spitfire Mk.Ia at +6 lbs.

Again, I am no Spitfire expert, so correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the real world +6 lbs. Spitfire using 87 octane? If so, shouldn't the in-game 100 octane (i.e. +12 lbs.) version be faster that the +6 lbs. below the FTH?
Perhaps I am not understanding the question fully, but all Spit Ia's at +6.25psi boost (full throttle) should go the same speed whether they are using 87 or 100 octane. The Spit 1a 100 octane has the ability to use +12psi (using the modified boost cutout red tab) and go faster (provided it is below FTH for +12psi). There is an intermediate altitude range where the supercharger can give less than +12psi but more than +6 psi, above that 87 and 100 octane variants are equal.

I assume your flight tests for the CoD Spit 1a 100 octane were using the +12psi boost? Did the engine blow up during tests?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-29-2012, 11:43 PM
ACE-OF-ACES's Avatar
ACE-OF-ACES ACE-OF-ACES is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NM
Posts: 2,248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by camber View Post
Perhaps I am not understanding the question fully,
Ok, lets see..

Quote:
Originally Posted by camber View Post
but all Spit Ia's at +6.25psi boost (full throttle) should go the same speed whether they are using 87 or 100 octane.
Agreed.. So far so good..

Quote:
Originally Posted by camber View Post
The Spit 1a 100 octane has the ability to use +12psi (using the modified boost cutout red tab)
Correct.. So far so good..

Quote:
Originally Posted by camber View Post
and go faster (provided it is below FTH for +12psi). There is an intermediate altitude range where the supercharger can give less than +12psi but more than +6 psi, above that 87 and 100 octane variants are equal.
Agreed.. That is what I was refering to when I said..

Quote:
Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES View Post
but isn't the real world +6 lbs. Spitfire using 87 octane? If so, shouldn't the in-game 100 octane (i.e. +12 lbs.) version be faster that the +6 lbs. below the FTH?
Quote:
Originally Posted by camber View Post
I assume your flight tests for the CoD Spit 1a 100 octane were using the +12psi boost?
Yes!

Quote:
Originally Posted by camber View Post
Did the engine blow up during tests?
Nope!
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on.
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 01:29 AM.


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