I'll have a stab at commenting on this.
I have pondered this topic for awhile, being a FM builder for Targetware for 6 years gave me a unique view on the issues involved with the quest to achieve close to reality (having been involved at the pointy end).
Data vs RL. Will IL2 guys be interested in the finer points, spending the time seeking the 'quality' data ie. the data varies and we need to make a call on which data or blend of data is most 'logical'. Then there is the accuracy, I have 70Gs of tested data, some has error and these are only evident after much research and time invested. So whilst someone can quote data, there is nothing to say it's the 'best data' or more representative average performance data.
I am willing to offer up my collection of original manual and tested data to help define/refine performance targets. Most of my good data streams start post BoB as the sim I build was WW2 Pacific. However; I do have a Gig or so on 109s and 110s, some good stuff on Spits from the MkV onwards, especially tropical varients. If the requests are specific I'm more able to possibly locate the answer and supply proofs, perhaps a few proofs that give a better average.
Anyway, point being it's not as simple as finding one source and saying it's 100% correct. Even tested data has a 10% margin of error, and planes do vary. Clean, dirty, which time period, what fuel etc etc. BUT if the data is clear and specifies the details then you can make a good representation.
I agree, some planes seem 'estimated', there would be much room for improvement, if we are allowed to help. I think this sim could get on top of any failings rather more quickly than going it alone with the one source of data that IL2 had used now.. to be more accurate IL2 CoD could call on the vast collections of the hard core FM guys like myself, it does exist and can be used to fill the data gaps.
I only ask that the data is used to improve the accuracy of ClOD, not to 'sell' to another company.
|
12-08-2011, 05:31 AM
Hybrid Mode
