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 09-06-2012, 01:04 AM
winny winny is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Manchester UK
Posts: 1,508
Default

Interesting debate, I thought I'd throw my 2 pence worth in..

You're both right, you need the maths, but you also need the combat reports.

You do the maths, then check to see if what's happening relates to what actually happened.

As far as I know combat reports and pilot's recollections are the only record of the use of these aircraft in the role they were designed for, combat.

I've read literally hundreds of combat reports from the Battle of Britain, both sides. Most of these guys were professionals, and eventually if you read enough, you can build a picture of what happened. OK, there's no numbers, but it's foolish to disregard them.

As Geoffry Wellum P/O 19 squadron BoB said "People ask me how can I remember it all, I just say, how could I forget?"

Read Brian Lanes account of a turning battle with a 109 where he sees the aileron snatch on the 109 , read Gallands stories of diving down onto Spits and being able to engage and disengage at will. Both from men who knew what they were doing.

The truth is a blend, where the math's ends the history helps.

Don't be partisan about it, there's enough people on here from both sides with enough knowledge to make CLoD/BoM the definitive sim.... If everyone would just stop arguing....

There you go, I think they call this "sitting on the fence".. oh well.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-06-2012, 04:20 AM
NZtyphoon NZtyphoon is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: NZ
Posts: 543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by winny View Post
As far as I know combat reports and pilot's recollections are the only record of the use of these aircraft in the role they were designed for, combat.

I've read literally hundreds of combat reports from the Battle of Britain, both sides. Most of these guys were professionals, and eventually if you read enough, you can build a picture of what happened. OK, there's no numbers, but it's foolish to disregard them.

As Geoffry Wellum P/O 19 squadron BoB said "People ask me how can I remember it all, I just say, how could I forget?"

Read Brian Lanes account of a turning battle with a 109 where he sees the aileron snatch on the 109 , read Gallands stories of diving down onto Spits and being able to engage and disengage at will. Both from men who knew what they were doing.

The truth is a blend, where the math's ends the history helps.

Don't be partisan about it, there's enough people on here from both sides with enough knowledge to make CLoD/BoM the definitive sim.... If everyone would just stop arguing....

There you go, I think they call this "sitting on the fence".. oh well.
+1


)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-06-2012, 08:25 AM
5./JG27.Farber 5./JG27.Farber is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,958
Default

Well if we are using anecdotal and pilot accounts lets throw these into the fire:

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/

I stongley urge the red fliers especially to read this. Its a shed load of pilot accounts with sources, all about the 109 and what an Uber plane she really is!



Quote:
Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber View Post
I have done the tests using the values in the table for the DB 601 A and B manual. I believe the new compressor is modeled, so in the box "Flying Altitude" I used the left hand column, as there is significant drop off in Ata at 4.5 to 5km rather than 4 to 4.5km... I also performed the test on a multiplayer server in case FM's are different in single player.


Using ATAG_Keller's IAS TAS converter the results are:

Test 1 Sea level 1.3Ata 2400U/pm IAS 440 TAS 440 or 273 mph
Test 2 Sea level 1.23Ata 2300U/pm IAS 430 TAS 430 or 267 mph
Test 3 Sea level 1.15Ata 2200U/pm IAS 420 TAS 420 or 261 mph

Test 4 4500metres 1.3Ata 2400U/pm IAS 400 TAS 518 or 322 mph
Test 5 5000metres 1.23Ata 2400U/pm IAS 390 TAS 518 or 322 mph
Test 6 4900metres 1.15Ata 2200U/pm IAS 370 TAS 489 or 304 mph

http://youtu.be/O4jHSMyYdkg <---- Video of tests.

Now we need to dig out the real life tests and compare.


The effect of WEP also seems to have changed. I tried making it break the engine in the usual ways but could not manage it... It also seems to have effect at all altitudes now.
I found this:

http://www.rolfwolf.de/daten/E4/Emil.html



I assume these are full throttle speeds.

Höchstgeschwindigkeiten in Steig/Kampfleistung (Tabelle)
I assume this is TAS

0km 460km/h

1km 480km/h

2km 500km/h

3km 520km/h

4km 540km/h

5km 555km/h

6km 555km/h

7km 550km/h

Last edited by 5./JG27.Farber; 09-06-2012 at 08:49 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-06-2012, 12:48 PM
macro macro is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 217
Default

Yes farber the 109 is slower than it should be, i remember seeing this on aonther thread somewhere. I think if they can get the speed, climb rate, turn rate and acceleration of the planes sorted that would go along way to the realistic settings, then add plane specifics after, such as stalling in the spits in hard turns or aerliron snatching in the 109 with the slats etc. We'd be getting there.

Is the basic info available as fact? If so then the basics shouldnt be a problem for the devs to sort out, and in my opinion should have done already.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-06-2012, 02:23 PM
5./JG27.Farber 5./JG27.Farber is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,958
Default

Yes macro, I think which ever way you look at it people would be happy either way if the figures added up for all aircraft - mathmatically or by accounts.

Thing is the devs dont come here. Only B6. If you want somethign doing you have to do the hard work then submit a bug report. We all know the phantom (ghost) formations were here from the start, people spoke of them on this forum but the devs did nothing because they didnt know, only after I got off my backside and submitted a bug report and evidence (ntrk) did they even know about it. The next patch is supposedly the steam official and after which no more changes specific to clod will be added - as I have read. So its vitally important we get it done now!

POST 19:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=32600&page=2

Quote:
Posted by TNT
Take for instance the implementation of the view (I mean for owners TrackIR). Was she in the sequel gets like this? Where Igromir property shown on the Su-26? Then if Su-26 tucked back in CloD, then so much interesting start in virtual reality.

Posted by steam_
From what or whom depends the fate official CloD?
If CloD "will throw" the developers (no matter for what reasons) whether SDK to give modelers? Or the position of the publisher (as they say in Ukraine) "did not clutter and do not give the other"?
Again, mostly known facts:

Blacksix
1) All requests on views and TrackIR were collected and passed up, in the sequel, the case should move.
2) Su-26 and SDK are not canceled, but the priority they have is minimal. Deal with these issues now, no one. This is not the position of the publisher, it is a forced alignment tasks by priority because of the banal deficiency of resources.
3) At the moment, the main goal for CloD - to bring the current series of beta patches to the final status and publication on Steam. After that, the leadership will have take a decision on the future of the game.
4) We have a very tight schedule for a sequel. We are now focused with full strength on it, as of the success and timely appearance of a new game depends all of our future.

Now, regarding the further communication, if all of the CloD after the patch on the Steam will be phased out, we have a pause there, because on the sequel I have no right to tell absolutely nothing until its announcement. How is it to fill my mind right now.

Last edited by 5./JG27.Farber; 09-06-2012 at 02:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-06-2012, 02:43 PM
notafinger! notafinger! is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 124
Default

I think the devs and the community would be best served by focusing on modeling the comparative differences between the fighters. Using historical documents, pilot testimonials, and any other sources available to create a flight model that feels historical. Let's ask ourselves some basic questions about the 3 major single seat fighters of BoB. In order how do the aircraft rank in _____ performance:

High Alt Speed:
Low Alt Speed:
Acceleration:
Climb:
Dive:
Roll:
Turn:

Maybe this should be a different thread as we, as a community, might come to some kind of agreement of what we would expect to see without focusing on absolute numbers.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-06-2012, 03:22 PM
macro macro is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 217
Default

From what iv read in reports and such

High alt speed spit slightly faster
Low alt 109 slightly faster
Roll: spit rolls slower at high speeds but about same at slow speeds. The 109 more stable at slow speed roll due to slats.
Spit could catch 109 accell in dive with+12 boost. 109 Elevator very heavy and hard to pull out of dive at high speeds.
Iv read the common tactic of steep but rarher slow climb of 109 was actually used by 109 pilots to get away from spits. Sounds like this is realistic in game.

Turn rate in spit was better that 109 when pushed to the limit, would need some sort of stall characteristic in spit for game balance.

Am i right or well off the mark? Not read enough about hurri to comment my opinion

Last edited by macro; 09-06-2012 at 03:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-06-2012, 04:52 PM
Matt255 Matt255 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 125
Default

Quote:
High alt speed spit slightly faster
Low alt 109 slightly faster
Roll: spit rolls slower at high speeds but about same at slow speeds. The 109 more stable at slow speed roll due to slats.
I read exactly the opposite.

Spit faster at low level, 109 faster at very high altitude.
Spit rolling slower at very low speed, both Spit and 109 ailerons becoming very hard to move at speeds above ~ 600 km/h / 400 mph.

Spits controls overall slightly less heavy at high speed.

I also don't see what the 109 slats have to do with rolling or why the plane would be more stable because of them.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-06-2012, 05:07 PM
SlipBall's Avatar
SlipBall SlipBall is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: down Island, NY
Posts: 2,719
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by macro View Post
From what iv read in reports and such

High alt speed spit slightly faster
Low alt 109 slightly faster
Roll: spit rolls slower at high speeds but about same at slow speeds. The 109 more stable at slow speed roll due to slats.
Spit could catch 109 accell in dive with+12 boost. 109 Elevator very heavy and hard to pull out of dive at high speeds.
Iv read the common tactic of steep but rarher slow climb of 109 was actually used by 109 pilots to get away from spits. Sounds like this is realistic in game.

Turn rate in spit was better that 109 when pushed to the limit, would need some sort of stall characteristic in spit for game balance.

Am i right or well off the mark? Not read enough about hurri to comment my opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt255 View Post
I read exactly the opposite.

Spit faster at low level, 109 faster at very high altitude.
Spit rolling slower at very low speed, both Spit and 109 ailerons becoming very hard to move at speeds above ~ 600 km/h / 400 mph.

Spits controls overall slightly less heavy at high speed.

I also don't see what the 109 slats have to do with rolling or why the plane would be more stable because of them.

Just make them the same then pilot skill will be the wild card
__________________



GigaByteBoard...64bit...FX 4300 3.8, G. Skill sniper 1866 32GB, EVGA GTX 660 ti 3gb, Raptor 64mb cache, Planar 120Hz 2ms, CH controls, Tir5
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-06-2012, 05:51 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 Matt255 View Post
I read exactly the opposite.
And here is a perfect example of what I was refering to, that being how two people can read the same 'accounts' and get different results

Where as 1 + 1 = 2 in real world test data and you would be hard pressed to find anyone to disagree with that!
__________________
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
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 06:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.