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 11-01-2011, 04:33 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 SYN_Repent View Post
your saying i was wrong, about you saying you cant admit your wrong......show me where else i was wrong......

its a laugh, you spout a hundred lines to show how much more clever you are than people, how stupid they are, and how right you are, then when your caught out, and PROVED wrong.......you write one little line.

you really need to start and get right to the point (if there ever is one) in your posts, because the majority of your words are just worthless spam, you have added nothing to this thread except the graph you produced to prove david right (great move btw).



@ david, now lets get back to the original post, i did some testing in an E3, at 3000m with around 1.3ata and 2200 rpm, i was making about 420 kmh

with rads closed the speed went up to around 440kmh, that was rads fully closed for a short period of time.
I said it before and Ill say it again

How is it that I knew in advance that you would not be able to admit you were wrong?

easy, I know you and your type!

Thanks for proving me right about you not being able to admit you were wrong! Now we know who is man enough.. ie.. Not you!
__________________
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 11-01-2011, 05:01 PM
David198502's Avatar
David198502 David198502 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Austria
Posts: 1,536
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SYN_Repent View Post
your saying i was wrong, about you saying you cant admit your wrong......show me where else i was wrong......

its a laugh, you spout a hundred lines to show how much more clever you are than people, how stupid they are, and how right you are, then when your caught out, and PROVED wrong.......you write one little line.

you really need to start and get right to the point (if there ever is one) in your posts, because the majority of your words are just worthless spam, you have added nothing to this thread except the graph you produced to prove david right (great move btw).



@ david, now lets get back to the original post, i did some testing in an E3, at 3000m with around 1.3ata and 2200 rpm, i was making about 420 kmh

with rads closed the speed went up to around 440kmh, that was rads fully closed for a short period of time.
thats interesting....i tested at an altitude of 500 meters and had the rads almost closed, level flight 440kph.then i opened them completely and the speed remained, not only for some seconds but for 5minutes, until i stopped my test.

well it seems that some report here changes with different rad settings, will have to try again at different altitudes...will report back my experiences.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-01-2011, 05:40 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 GOA_Potenz View Post
Hey ACE the othe day i was driving my van on the motorway and i couldn't tell if i was a running at 50km/h or at 100km/h

Come on mate you are pulling in no sense argue, everybody can notice a 10/km/h difference, you have a bloody withe mark on the speed gauge to read your speed and the resolution on todays computers are mostly 1680 x 1050 or 1920 x 1080 or even higher, so resolution isn't a problem to read the gauges, also you have a lovely label that tells you the speed, but there's no way that anybody miss a 50km/h gap so please stop this argument, your graphic show that 50km/h gap from closed to open.

regs Potz
Already covered that mate.. here is a re-post of what I said earlier wrt 'real' life vs. 'sim' life

Quote:
Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES
On that note, real test pilots in WWII had far more feedback than the typical four eyed over weight shut-ins who make baseless claims and provide no proof let alone any results of their testing other than the accuse the sim maker of a porked FM. For example, a real trained test pilot is not only able to read the altitude gauges, like a sim pilot, but he has the added benefit of being able to feel suttle g changes (seat of the pants) while flying, something a sim pilot can not do. That is just one of many types of feedback the sim pilot does not have, thus all the more reason to log your data while you fly on top of making a track file
Which covers the difference between 'real flying and 'sim' flying..

Which also apply to your example of 'real' car driving vs. 'sim' car driving..

With a little difference.. That being blue sky vs. ground clutter.. Which driving a car, be it real or sim, you have more 'reference' points along your path that give you a 'cue' to how fast you are going.
__________________
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 11-01-2011, 04:28 PM
Hatch Hatch is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 87
Default

LOL guys, you do realise it says clearly on the graph that it should not be used for anything else than a comparison between the engines due to a non standard radiator ?

Also the speeds increase in the direction of the arrow.
Where it says geschwindigkeit.->


Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-01-2011, 04:35 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 Hatch View Post
LOL guys, you do realise it says clearly on the graph that it should not be used for anything else than a comparison between the engines due to a non standard radiator ?
Man I wish I could read german better!

Thanks for that info Hatch! By the way, does it say anything else? As in was this some sort of test radiator? As in an atempt to improve on the drag of the standard radiators?
__________________
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
  #6  
Old 11-01-2011, 05:09 PM
Hatch Hatch is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 87
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES View Post
Man I wish I could read german better!

Thanks for that info Hatch! By the way, does it say anything else? As in was this some sort of test radiator? As in an atempt to improve on the drag of the standard radiators?
No not really,

It was probably an informal test as it also states that they were using plain data.
It says "nicht umgerechnete messwerte" .
Which tranlated would be something like the "data was not thoroughly calculated".

They refer to another paper? with reference number VB 10918 L42
They also caution because of the non standard height at which the test was conducted.


Ah I saw Flanker35M's post too late

Last edited by Hatch; 11-01-2011 at 05:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-01-2011, 05:14 PM
Hatch Hatch is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 87
Default

http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/techre...ng/f_flaps.htm
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-01-2011, 05:42 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 Hatch View Post
No not really,

It was probably an informal test as it also states that they were using plain data.
It says "nicht umgerechnete messwerte" .
Which tranlated would be something like the "data was not thoroughly calculated".

They refer to another paper? with reference number VB 10918 L42
They also caution because of the non standard height at which the test was conducted.


Ah I saw Flanker35M's post too late
Thanks for the info! S!
__________________
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 11-04-2011, 09:55 AM
justme262 justme262 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 138
Default

[QUOTE=Hatch;357093]LOL guys, you do realise it says clearly on the graph that it should not be used for anything else than a comparison between the engines due to a non standard radiator ?


That's so funny ! Really made me laugh.
So how can we make a graph of the game? I'll do it.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-04-2011, 12:20 PM
KG26_Alpha KG26_Alpha is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 2,805
Default

Thread re-opened

I'm closing this thread for a while till you all cool off.

I have deleted the posts that have no concern being on this forum let alone in this thread.

Any more rubbish from you guys and you can take a holiday from here.

Last edited by KG26_Alpha; 11-04-2011 at 01:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 03:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.