Community FM Efford

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Neither if the guy who changes the FM is an aeronautical engineer, working with professional software and testing all the planes by this software? Many IL2 planes are really close to the real performances according to software simulation + historical data. Other planes are very different according both. Strange isn't it?

I'm more inclined to have faith in a professional software output than a sim developer opinion (and we know how he's easily influenced by some customer's opinions).

@Eklund89: check PM

It's a very delicate field Manu, you need a lot of empirical data in order to achieve a reliable FM,and sometimes we simply don't have this information.
Even the use of data measured nowadays on warbirds can't be completely accurate, because the plane loadouts and setups are different than what they used to be back in the days. I can tell you what a modern P-51D flight envelope is like, but there will surely be some discrepancies with the data recorded in the 40s.

I think the best way around this is developing a simulator that works the other way around, where physics are accurate and the sim does its calculations on airfoils, hp output, weight and other parametres.. but I'm afraid we will have to wait several years for something like that being available on a home pc..

Cloud computing might be the future of simulations, where one supercomputer does all the calculations and we just connect via terminals, but this is another story.

I think that it's a bit premature to do any speculations for now, let's give the guys at Maddox at least 6 months and then we might think of an effective think tank, but until then I wouldn't put the horse before the cart and limit feedback to bug reports.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

It's a very delicate field Manu, you need a lot of empirical data in order to achieve a reliable FM,and sometimes we simply don't have this information.
Even the use of data measured nowadays on warbirds can't be completely accurate, because the plane loadouts and setups are different than what they used to be back in the days. I can tell you what a modern P-51D flight envelope is like, but there will surely be some discrepancies with the data recorded in the 40s.

I think the best way around this is developing a simulator that works the other way around, where physics are accurate and the sim does its calculations on airfoils, hp output, weight and other parametres.. but I'm afraid we will have to wait several years for something like that being available on a home pc..

Cloud computing might be the future of simulations, where one supercomputer does all the calculations and we just connect via terminals, but this is another story.

I'm the first to say that historical data are usually ambiguous because we have variables like loadout, power output, airplane's condition, test pilot's skill and of course environment.

And more the majority of guys who fled that planes in that days didn't know the limits of their airplane since they were scared to try things that are normal for us virtual pilots (immortals). Listening to our grandfathers we have bold statement on warbirds' performance that can't be trusted since it's physically impossible.
Because of this I think that the only way to have real performance is by these softwares: probably not 100% accurate but physical science don't lie.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I think that it's a bit premature to do any speculations for now, let's give the guys at Maddox at least 6 months and then we might think of an effective think tank, but until then I wouldn't put the horse before the cart and limit feedback to bug reports.

Of course, my hands are tied. I test the game 20 minutes after every patch and I've to say that I'm really happy with the progress. Not joking. The planes' performance are not a priority by now. Nor mine nor should be of the developers

@TomcatViP: not "Prof Sim Software" but "Professional Aeronautical Software". One of the software used to design and test a plane on the paper before you start to build it.

[TomcatViP]

LoL I did copy tht.

No shame to say the word SIM : Simulation where created by scientist and mathematicians and still hve both a prof bckgrd and some scientific meanings I will even say that nowadays sim is the first layer of industrial reality

Whaaaaooo shld memorized this one for my next product review unless I'm actually quoting one of my ex

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

I'm the first to say that historical data are usually ambiguous because we have variables like loadout, power output, airplane's condition, test pilot's skill and of course environment.

And more the majority of guys who fled that planes in that days didn't know the limits of their airplane since they were scared to try things that are normal for us virtual pilots (immortals). Listening to our grandfathers we have bold statement on warbirds' performance that can't be trusted since it's physically impossible.
Because of this I think that the only way to have real performance is by these softwares: probably not 100% accurate but physical science don't lie.

what kinda parameters you would work on then? I'm intrigued by it.

Of course, my hands are tied. I test the game 20 minutes after every patch and I've to say that I'm really happy with the progress. Not joking. The planes' performance are not a priority by now. Nor mine nor should be of the developers

yeah let's give em some time, it's gonna be great Im sure
I personally can't wait for the Mediterranean expansion!

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

what kinda parameters you would work on then? I'm intrigued by it.

I'm not an engineer but I read the guys writing about calculating propeller efficency by software. So it's like working on the designs.

For the inside components' performance instead we still need historical data (engine, radiators ect are different things).

So we should complain about Overheat times, Guns' efficency ect, but not about things like max speed, climbing rate, acceleration ect.