UP 3.0 vs HSFX 5.0?

[SUP / Revan]

to make it short compadre,

IT-IS-NOT-AAKEN-FMS-IT ENABLES-RAM-SETTINGS



-------------
no longer part of SUP, too lazy to change name, asked modders, none replayed. gday.

[II/JG54_Emil]

The funny thing is there is no war between UP and HSFX

It´s basically Ace that spreads his poison.
Who knows what his agenda is, coming from the AAS modsite that is pretty much being ignored by UP and HSFX.

[Aracno]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

It would be the stupid thing allowed to join 4.101 servers with HSFX or any other mods beacsue of flight model differences and planes incompatibility. Thats why you cant also join with HSFX to UP 3.0 server. Beacuse people would be play different game. It is logical to me.


I dont want to take a part in such disscusion about UP 3.0 vs HSFX but looking what nonsenses Ace of Aces is trying to impose here i neeed to just warn people to be not a naive.


Some notices about " Expert Flight Model in HSFX 5.0 " - taking from some forums including HSFX itself:


From HSFX forum:

" ....he 109E4, taken as an example, has gained a full 4 seconds turn time, if IL2Compare is to be believed. I know that the charts are imperfect at best, but so far all tests have agreed with the improved performance of the Emil. To some extent this is probably a good thing, 24 seconds seems a bit high for such a light plane, but it has now overtaken the 109F4 in terms of turn performance. For those planes (yak1, mig3) which used to ride the middle ground between those types, it's a major blow. All data that I've got indicated that the yak and mig could, if flown well, match the E but not the F. No longer.

So let's look at the E vs the F.
Empirical data is hard to find, but
- all sources agree that the F had a cleaner airframe, so less parasite drag.
- Rounded wingtips would have produced less induced drag, vital in the turn.
- a much higher engine output allows the F to overcome more drag (which it has less of anyhow) for a greater sustained turn performance
- weight and wing loading is harder, considering the tradeoffs, but we know that the 109F had one less cannon than the E, had more wing area, but a heavier engine. Most sources I've seen place the wing loading of the F as slightly less than the E, or similar.

Each of these lists a turn advantage for the F. Unless there was a huge reduction in the wing camber that I'm not aware of, it seems like an excessive change.

The E7N is even better, with a staggering 17 second turn time, barely a second and a half behind the zero and over two seconds ahead of the F4.

Further, the F2 has a significantly better turn than the F4, despite lower engine output. The smaller caliber of its single gun appears to have given the plane a 1.5 second sustained turn advantage.

.... Overall, stunning work with the HSFX and the FM's but this breaks the early eastern front, and doesn't seem to be realistic (to my layman's understanding). It seems to be that much more effort was placed on the later models, and the relationship between them and the western planes. While this is fair enough, it does create a problem in other scenarios. I hope this can either be explained or changed. "


From some other forum:

"
Sorry is not FW 190 A9 but FW 190 A6

HSFX 5.0 EXPERT MODE
Quote
HistorySFX 5.0 readme:

A little Background:-

Aachen is a professional Aircraft design engineer, we were not sure if we wanted to go in this direction at first, but were so impressed by how much closer to what we have read flying some of these aircraft and fighting in them has come, that it was inconceivable to go back


Quote
HistorySFX 5.0 readme:

Foreword
The modifications of flight and engine models presented in this work have started with an analytical evaluation of aircraft performances. In the following paragraphs a short description of the methodologies adopted in the analytical study can be found, specifically for the evaluation of aircraft polars.

Wing and tail polar
Are computed by adopting lift line theory (Weiselberger) using non linear section lift data (J.C. Sivells, R.H. Neely). Compressibility effects are taken into account. Normally, lift distribution, finite wing Cy and Cx computed are in very good agreement with computations performed according to DATCOM method (ref. E. Torenbeek, Synthesis of subsonic airplane design). This is due to the fact that studied aircraft configurations are un-swept and have high aspect ratios.


Figure 1 – Lift coefficient distribution on half wing span (Bf109G2 at SL 530km/h). Cyan line is result computed with iterative method (NACA Report 865) while yellow line is result computed with DATCOM method


Figure 2 – Lift coefficient distribution on half wing span (Bf109G2 at 1000m 250km/h 2g level turn). This condition illustrates the determination of stall-limited turn rate (in this case stall is incipient at 0.6 x half-wingspan). A tolerance of 0.05 g has been used to predict ultimate wing load factor for both stall-limited and power-limited turn rates.

Fuselage polar
Drag computation for fuselage has been performed by using slender body formulation (ref. E. Torenbeek, Synthesis of subsonic airplane design). Lift induced drag is accounted for in the computation. Formulation for fuselage lift induced drag is given in referenced document.

Propeller
Propeller performance computations have been performed by means of blade element theory. In the present document, since no detailed description of propeller blades was available, the blade section has been assumed to be a flat plate. Optimal propeller (i.e. blade twist) has been computed in the condition of 100% throttle at sea level. Hence the propeller has been analysed for all beta angles in the range specified in EMD (propPhiMax and propPhiMin) at maximum propeller revolutions (constant rpm propeller), thus obtaining propeller efficiency curve at full power rpms.
It should be noted that the assumption made on blade section leads to under-estimation of propeller efficiency (up to 5% at maximum speed) thus leading to a conservative estimation of aircraft performance.

Propeller slipstream
Is computed using blade element theory adopted for propeller performances estimation. It is worth mentioning that actuator disc theory produces very similar results in terms of slipstream velocity and mass flow rate. This is due to the fact that considered propellers have low loading factor. For the purpose of this study the complete fuselage, radiators (under-wing and under-fuselage), inner wing section and tail assembly are considered to be completely inside the propeller slipstream. The inner wing section area enveloped by propeller slipstream has been computed considering the propeller radius/wing span ratio. This assumption leads to a slight over estimation of wing drag since propeller slipstream tube has a contraction after the propeller (about ¼ - ½ of propeller radius downstream of propeller) to its final radius.

Small summary of modifications – Aircarft polars

dCl/d? has been evaluated according to the following formula:

Cl? = f Cl?th /(E+Cl?th/(? AR)) [rad-1]

where Cl?th is the 2D section lift coefficient derivative and E=1+(2 TR)/(AR (1+TR))

Drag coefficient second derivative has been evaluated according to the following formula:

d2Cd/d?2 = Cl?2/(? AR e)

Second derivative of drag coefficient has been corrected with twist factor.

Clmax has been computed by computing Cl spanwise distribution and assuming linear spanwise variation of 2D section Clmax (ref. example figure below):



Bf109 slats
Bf109 slats has been treated as follows:
according to literature (R&M 2361 [sept. 1940]) slats open at Cl approximately 0,85-0,95. Second order Cd derivative for complete wing with slats deployed is computed at 5,3E-4. In the following figure the Cd as function of ? is reported.

Since it is not possible to impose the Cd jump corresponding to slat open condition, the Cd is simulated with a second order derivative of 5,8E-4 with 0,8? offset (ref. figure below).

This approximation limits the error in Cd estimation within +5% immediately before and -5% immediately after slat opening. Error tends to 0 moving away from slat openin threshold.
P51s CoG

In the models presented in this work, the P51 CoG position has been moved forward to replicate the position of the CoG in the configuration with 25 gallons in the 85 gallons fuselage fuel tank. From literature data the CoG for P51D configuration with 25 gallons in the 85 gallons fuselage fuel tank is 28.3% MAC. The P51s with full 85 gallons fuselage fuel tanks were statically unstable and the normal operating procedures for planes in such a configuration demanded to empty the 85 gallons fuselage fuel tank before all other tanks. At anything below 35 gallons, the P51s equipped with 85 gallons fuselage fuel tank were both statically and dynamically stable [America Hundred Thousands et al.]. Since the simulator does not allow for CoG movement with regards to fuel usage, and since the unstable configuration reproduced in the original models was deemed too conservative, it has been decided to adopt a statically and dynamically stable configuration as normally happened during combat operations. It is advisable to adopt a maximum fuel load of 75%.

P47D27 Late

In the models presented in this work, the P47D27Late has been modelled to reproduce (as best as technically possible) the flight characteristics and performances of P47M.


HSFX Expert Mode FW 190 A6 VS Spit IXe




OMG !!!
I will love FW 190 A6 ... in expert mode HSFX 5.0
Downloading .... Tongue "



"Lol nice Il2 graph Smiley

Climb rate 23 m/s and turn time below 20 sec for Fw 190 A-6. It looks that German pilots during WW2 who flew real Fw 190 were really hurted. Kurt Tank had should be ashamed.


These mod should have name " ALTERNATIVE HISTORY BY HSFX " i think - it should sound more beliveable Smiley"


"I think you will be not alone who would like to get superb A-6 with 20 sec sustained turn and 23 m/s climb rate. Many would like to get their favourite plane to be the best one. Something like Ladas ( LA family) in Il2 since begining. Tell any russian people that Lada is too good in IL2 Smiley

But if we continue Olegs shoes and will make other planes in similar way then we could rather speak about alternative history not realism anymore.

Remember that contemporary 109 plane was better in sustained turn then 190. It is clearly seen from technical data of both planes. IF A-6 would turn below 20 sec it would be better then 109 G-2 and was similar to 109 F-4 - which would be totaly absurd.

Remember also then Fw 190 A-6 (4100 kg) was heavier plane then A-4 ( 4000 kg) with the same engine power.

Also climb rate for A-5/A-6 wasn't brilant. The same like with sustained turn rate contemporary 109 types was better in sustained climb rate then Fw 190 types.

At nominal power ( 1.3 Ata) climb rate for 190 A-5 was 15 m/s and for A-6 ( heavier) only 14.5 m/s. For emergency power (1.42 Ata 2700 RPM) climb rate for A-5 was 18.5 m/s and for A-6 about 18 m/s.
RL 109 G-2 at 1.3 Ata (nominal power) climb 21 m/s.


So i think both Oleg M. and HSFX are wrong here being on the opposite banks of the same river. True as mostly lie somwhere in the middle Smiley


BTW looking at these IL2 Compare polares for A-6 from these "Historical Expert" Mod i really afraid to see other planes polares. "





" About climb Rate, the FW 190 dont climb like BF 190 ... is totaly absurd. Wink"




So I really dont even want to know what HSFX made with other planes and flight models.

I just see that their methods in making planes peformacne dont work like should. It is enough to check RL data and test and compare it with these what HSFX reached. The difference is huge.

UP make their FMs and performacne based mostly ( if availiable) on real life test flight data ( original scanes and monographs) and we really have huge base of it.

Just my 5 cents.



P.S.

The best thing in UP is that these pack doesnt need to be advertised or defended - it is advertising and defending itself.

It is enough to check main HL servers

Still everybody has its own preferences and chooice what to use is his own case.

I think you are a bit ungenerous with Aachen.
Remember, he is actually doing REAL AIRCRAFT for work, dont you think he know what is doing?
Do you really think an aeronautic engineer did his work without looking at RL data?
Sure this is only a game with all his limits and all is perfectible, and Aachen is still working on it, but reading your post seem that his FM are ridicolous and badly done.
And this is false and offensive for Aachen's work and i hope wasn't your intentions.
I cant speak about the questions highlighted in the post, i'm not an FM expert, but I'm a SEOW player and i have not seen ONE complain, from both side, about the new FM, and this is incredible during a SEOW with 80 or more competitive and experienced player, on the other side i have seen hundred people really "falling in love" for Aachen's FM and their feeling of flight.

You said: The best thing in UP is that these pack doesnt need to be advertised or defended - it is advertising and defending itself.

Perfect, but at the same time HFSX and Aachen don't deserve post like yours.

Aracno

[ocococ]

Actually for simple things like that you only need to have basic physics understanding. You don't even need RL data at all.

HSFX's expert FM has so many problems, that should not be taken seriously in any way. I discovered them while playing (something feels seriously wrong moments), and the IL2CompareHSFX charts just proved that I was right.

No offense to Aaken. Probably real life experience can't easily be transferred to a 10year old game.


As for the thread question, UP3 or HSFX5? None, stock game is the only one that is playable.

I respect all the individual mod content creators (Doesn't matter if I like their work or not),

But I consider all the modpack creators (packagers) incompetent. They have failed to deliver a polished modpack. They are all full of amateur bugs, stupid "personal opinion/im-gonna-do-it-my-way" game changes and low quality crappy content.

IMO, Their existence and their high(!) popularity is a disgrace to the original/stock game's quality and polish.

With the stock game, 5% of the game seems wrong.
With the modded game, 50% of the game seems wrong.

[EZ1]

Well I certainly opened a can of worms with my original post. Thanks to all who have participated.

Actually, I would never have considered installing mods except for 6DOF. That is the only mod I really think is important because my biggest complaint with IL-2 was the pilot having one eye nailed to the center of the cockpit. I couldn't care less about flying a bunch of obscure airplanes. But that's just me.

Thanks all.

[Asheshouse]

Originally Posted by ocococ

With the stock game, 5% of the game seems wrong.
With the modded game, 50% of the game seems wrong.

I wonder if you have really tried all the mods in both HSFX and UP to arrive at these precise figures?

If that really is your view then you still have the choice of using a ModEnabler rather than a pack and selecting your own favourite mods. No one is forced to use anything. People use Mods because they like them and they offer some excellent features or content not available in official patches.

Originally Posted by EZ1

I couldn't care less about flying a bunch of obscure airplanes. But that's just me.

Makes me wonder why you are interested in IL2 at all.

[II/JG54_Emil]

Originally Posted by Aracno

I think you are a bit ungenerous with Aachen.
Remember, he is actually doing REAL AIRCRAFT for work, dont you think he know what is doing?
Do you really think an aeronautic engineer did his work without looking at RL data?
Sure this is only a game with all his limits and all is perfectible, and Aachen is still working on it, but reading your post seem that his FM are ridicolous and badly done.
And this is false and offensive for Aachen's work and i hope wasn't your intentions.
I cant speak about the questions highlighted in the post, i'm not an FM expert, but I'm a SEOW player and i have not seen ONE complain, from both side, about the new FM, and this is incredible during a SEOW with 80 or more competitive and experienced player, on the other side i have seen hundred people really "falling in love" for Aachen's FM and their feeling of flight.

You said: The best thing in UP is that these pack doesnt need to be advertised or defended - it is advertising and defending itself.

Perfect, but at the same time HFSX and Aachen don't deserve post like yours.

Aracno

Maybe it would be enlighting to ask Kwiatek for his profession.

[ElAurens]

Originally Posted by II/JG54_Emil

Maybe it would be enlighting to ask Kwiatek for his profession.

Quote of the month.

[Aracno]

Originally Posted by II/JG54_Emil

Maybe it would be enlighting to ask Kwiatek for his profession.

I dont care, if he is another aeronautical engineer I would expect constructive and precise criticism or errors highlighted on SEOW forum, not spamming other's people whining post, especially in a thread hot like this.
Aachen is a nice guy open to critics and ready to explain when YOU are wrong and correct things where HE is wrong, he really does not deserve post like that.

[150GCT_Veltro]

Originally Posted by ocococ

Actually for simple things like that you only need to have basic physics understanding. You don't even need RL data at all.

Sure? Have you ever seen an FM code with polars ecc. ecc.?

FM are phisycs and maths first of all. Pilots statements are not always credible, first of all because usually they are completely differents.