UP 3.0 vs HSFX 5.0?

[ElAurens]

I have my reasons for not using Ultra Pack, they are personal and will not be aired here.

Suffice it to say I am loyal to my friends.

[WWFlybert]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

And you may want to keep this info under your hat.. Especially if you have an account at the UP and or SAS forums!

Because I brought this all up a few weeks ago at the AAS forums, and it upset the leaders of UP and SAS so much that they felt the need to rename my handle and changed my aviator to something very childish, heck the leaders at SAS was so upset that they even IP banned me from their server.

Which really shows you want kind of mind set your dealing with at those two sites.

Where if you post any info about UP or SAS that they perceived to be negative and you stand the chance of them getting so upset at you that they will change your forum handle, avaitor and/or banning you for something you said in 'ANOTHER' forum!

So keep that in mind if you choose to repeat what I pointed out here.

what a joke .. first, I doubt the leaders at UP or SAS even read posts at AAS, as the site is irrelevant to IL-2 mods and almost nothing but a promotion site for a WWI mod of another game engine .. UP and SAS most likely have a problem with you for other reasons besides stating acknowledged information about UP 3.0

Everyone knows UP "enabled" whether 2.01 or 3.0 , will not work on 4.09m (2.01) or 4.101m servers, that is why there is a switcher included

HaDes at UP seems to take critique quite well actually, where breathe anything except glorious praise regarding the vaporware Canvas Knights over at AAS will get you banned there very quickly .. I am speaking for many, including those that were once members of the CK team and even admins of AAA ( which was copied without AAA owner's permission to become AAS )

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by WWFlybert

what a joke .. first, I doubt the leaders at UP or SAS even read posts at AAS

Well the joke is on you

Because not only did SAS read the post at AAS, they dedicated a post in the SAS forums about the post at AAS

So, nice try, but no sale!

[Korn]

You can't, Spits vs 109s is crt=2, and for good reason.

I'm surprised to read about joining stock 4.101 games with HSFX, i don't know what popular servers are not crt=2. Plus i can tell you for a fact that joining servers with different planesets than your own leads to weird situations, i remember being killed by invisible enemies (i didn't have their planes in my mod installation). In coop it gets weirder even, it's difficult to get in the right plane in the first place since you don't see the same list as the server.

[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.

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

And since UP takes from all others, there is not a lot of original UP content in UP, for example UP even went as far as to lift the name HSFX used for Aaken's mods, i.e. EXPERT MODE, which can be seen in the UP switcher below



Which is not to say UP implemented/used Aaken's flight models! They just lifted the name which will surly be a source of confusion among the users who might think UP has an professional aircraft design engineer with a Ph.D. and is currently working in that capacity creating their flight models, which is not the case at all.

Absolutly brillant for me. I suggest to award Ace of Aces Golden Comedian Award.

I am not so long ago amused.

[Storebror]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

UP even went as far as to lift the name HSFX used for Aaken's mods, i.e. EXPERT MODE, which can be seen in the UP switcher

Thanks for the heads up, Grant!
If you hurry up, you might be the first to claim copyright on the term "Expert Mode" here: http://www.copyright.gov/

At this opportunity you might want to check other terms which have been "lifted" by UP, such as RAM (I think I've seen that before elsewhere, not sure though), "Game" or "Cancel".

Best regards - Mike

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

It seems, as the phrase 'vs' in any topic name always leads to some people want to make war (not love).

[EnsignRo]

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar

It seems, as the phrase 'vs' in any topic name always leads to some people want to make war (not love).

Which can be amusing

[BadAim]

There needs to be no war boys. For it seems that in spite of all the "Hate" that seems to be going on between the Major "packs", they are indeed compatible. Simply drop HSFX over your clean 4.10.1, drop Modact 3.04b over that, and UP 3.0 over that. BINGO! You now have a 4 in one install. Just point Hyperlobby at your (single) IL2 folder and after you find a server you want to join pick which version you need from the handy dandy little switcher and select the JSGME options you want. Simple, elegant and no more fighting. Just pick what you want for a given need!