|
|
#31
10-04-2009, 01:06 AM
|
||||
|
||||
I think you get the prize for longest post ever.
__________________
 XBL GT: - Robotic Pope HyperLobby CS: - Robot_Pope 
|
|
#32
10-07-2009, 04:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
First off I'd like to extend my thanks to Wildar for taking the time to make this data compilation. Very helpful.
A couple suggestions: I think you'd get better climb results if you tested the aircraft climbs at certain speeds rather than angles, since not all of those planes can reach those angles. I think all the planes can reach at least 200km/h though. Also, I noticed that the Spitfire XVI rolls worse than the IX? Is that a mistake? The clipped wings should help it roll better, not worse...
|
|
#33
10-07-2009, 10:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
When I have some more time on my hands I plan on doing new BOP tests with stricter test parameters (i.e. manoever speed), higher sensitivity settings etc. but only for a few of the aircraft on the list and not for all 20 that are on the current test list. I want to duplicate some real life tests with various aicraft in BOP to be able to compare it further to real life data. In many ways this is a waste of time, since BOP has not paid that much respect to the real life performance and characteristics of various of the aircraft simulated. Especially the US and German ones are treatly badly. But I still want to further test the difference between reality and BOP to identify the BOP design philosophy. There is one test result about which little can be argued: maximum sustained WEP level speed in BOP as compared to the real life historical aircraft test data. Just one look at the max. level speeds reveals that BOP is not equal to real life. The max. speeds are way off in BOP. That says something about simulator accuracy. A lot of the aircraft I tested have great difficulty settling even at one certain speed in the max. level speed tests, so I took the result that was there most often during about a 2 to 3 minute level flight at about 0+ degrees AoA. Those max. speed test results in BOP, the first thing I tested actually, are one of the reasons why I gave up on duplicating real life tests in BOP when testing all the 20 aircraft on the current test list.
|
|
#34
10-07-2009, 06:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Roger that. Thanks for taking the time to look and analyze all these planes though.
Despite being an amazing and hugely entertaining game, like a few of the players said, there are some glaring flaws. This is why I don't like sim mode because all the planes are modelled very differently when compared to my research, which includes mostly data from published books about the Spitfire. "Spitfire: An Operational History" and Mike Williams' performance charts which he gained from both Germany's Luftwaffe records and Britain's RAF records. The performance differences are quite massive. The fact that a Spitfire XVI rolls badly compared to a Spitfire IX is something to be looked at. I can say though that IL-2: 1946 was far more accurate than BoP. I can't hope to play on sim mode in this game when comparing the performance differences because it feels so wrong.
|
|
#36
10-07-2009, 06:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 , I just picked up info on this forum and speak from experience in-game).
|
|
#37
10-08-2009, 01:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some of us (like me) are just a little too obsessed with planes.
I wish I knew everything but some guys here know WAY more than myself. I'm really just here to hear them speak and learn a couple things myself. I know enough to figure out though, that something seems wrong in BoP's representation of aircraft. To me, this game will be really a really, really fun arcade game with a hint of physics so that its not just another dumb shooter of a game that other games seem to be. It is NOT however, a flight SIM. Like Wildar said, there's a huge discrepancy between RL data and BoP data. If you download his charts, you can compare the RL data to BoP data. The climb rates are actually appalling. The best a piston-engine fighter could achieve in the climb was not very high. Spitfire LF. IX's for example could hit around 4,600 - 4,700 ft/min. The IX in-game can achieve 6,000 m in little under 1.5 mins... that's about 13,000 ft/min! Which reminds me... where'd you find your data, Wildar? It is consistent with what I have at home, but I'd just like to know.
|
|
#38
10-08-2009, 05:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#39
10-08-2009, 05:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#40
10-08-2009, 06:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
New data available!
I downloaded the BOP DLC and was interested to find out how the P47D and Ta 152 H-1 were modeled in BOP, so I performed some tests on them and included them on the list of 20 BOP aircraft that I had already tested. Next to that I have noticed some discussions/questions on BOP aircraft characteristics by new forum members and also the on-going discussions on BOP aileron and elevator sensitivity issues. The data in the – now 22 aircraft list – may be easier for some to interpret when viewed as charts/graphs instead of numbers. So therefore, on page no. 1 of this thread I now have included three PDF (zip)files: 1. Version 1.1 of the – now 22 aircraft - BOP aircraft test data list PDF (now incl. P47D and Ta 152 H-1). 2. A charts/graphs PDF with graphs on the 22 tested BOP aircraft turn, roll, speed, climb, dive, nominal firepower data and also suggested aileron/elevator sensitivity settings. 3. A sensitivity setting (Ta 152 H-1) test report PDF which supplies data on the effects of lower and higher aileron/elevator sensitivity settings on turn, roll, climb, dive etc. in combination with speed and flap settings.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
