Acceleration comparisons

[MaxGunz]

UDPSpeed and UDPGraph will let you put data on-screen while flying offline which I think could include acceleration indicator which should allow dynamic testing to see what effect you could achieve. The hardest part is setup and there were walk-thru's on that last I remember. It's like the difference between hand tools and power tools, once you got power tools they can be a pain at times but mostly tend to put a smile on your face once you get used to them.

The parallax effect is probably due to being in right-eye gunsight mode. Switch back and see, it is easier to fly most fighters in centered view. Up close it's even easier to shoot that way, with practice.

Really, in-game since the start I've found the smartest thing to do before maneuver combat is to neutralize trim and avoid hard G's that lead to wingtip stalls or worse. Slip... easiest to avoid in a P-51 with mini-ball gunsight and hardest in the Spits. We NEED a slip indicator in the speedbar to replace what can be felt IRL.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back in December I thought to interface Arduino to IL-2 but first there was an MP3 module to deal with. It took over 4 months to find out that the fix is shorting 2 whisker-tiny pins on a surface-mount chip which no way I can do so now there's a new module that's got its own hangups... 115200 serial may not work well breadboarding or I dunno what else is the hangup -- I'm a programmer who can do some hardware so aware that I have my own hardware limits. This will be either GO or NO GO, I won't try another, and then on to other pursuits that have been on hold like an autopilot robot.
As it is, I think my forehead is flat and I have no hair above my ears/eyebrows.

Today, after reading about trim I got a real narsty idea... the same controller that runs the stick could be made to do "smart trim", couldn't it? Or maybe not, having the nose seek to bring the stick to center after some-odd seconds might be a bad thing at times, like when you're just about to shoot! Perhaps a button, like I asked Oleg for back in 2002.

[horseback]

Originally Posted by MaxGunz

The parallax effect is probably due to being in right-eye gunsight mode. Switch back and see, it is easier to fly most fighters in centered view. Up close it's even easier to shoot that way, with practice.

Really, in-game since the start I've found the smartest thing to do before maneuver combat is to neutralize trim and avoid hard G's that lead to wingtip stalls or worse. Slip... easiest to avoid in a P-51 with mini-ball gunsight and hardest in the Spits. We NEED a slip indicator in the speedbar to replace what can be felt IRL.

Today, after reading about trim I got a real narsty idea... the same controller that runs the stick could be made to do "smart trim", couldn't it? Or maybe not, having the nose seek to bring the stick to center after some-odd seconds might be a bad thing at times, like when you're just about to shoot! Perhaps a button, like I asked Oleg for back in 2002.

Since getting TIR about seven years ago, I hardly ever use the Toggle Gunsight button, particularly since 6DOF was introduced in the stock game. The parallax is there from either view in every case, and I assume that it is there as a result of 'artistic license', because it isn't visible in any pictures that I have on hand of existing aircraft (Kinzey's Detail & Scale series has excellent cockpit photos for each of the WWII US fighters, in most cases including extensive shots of each variant) or my own observations in museums and air show displays.

I like the suggestion about neutralizing trim once maneuvering begins, but I believe that the trim models for these aircraft need to be put in line with the other 'stock' aircraft in the game, or that we get a short-term HUD display indicating your trim displacement every time you make an adjustment (like when you change radiator, PP or throttle), so that you know just where the hell you are in terms of trim state--as I pointed out in earlier posts, a RL pilot would roll in more trim to a pre-set point in anticipation of a dive or increased throttle.

I've also been toying with making a trim box with a 20:1 gearbox on each pot so that I can make the teeny-tiny adjustments to my pots that the game demands (and how is it that one button press of 1/80th of total deflection is so necessary?) and at the same time make the larger changes for something I'm about to do.

cheers

horseback

[JG27CaptStubing]

Interesting to see what TD did to some of the FWs... No wonder you can easily get caught with your pants done

[Mustang]

Great Post Horseback !!

Thats take long time to do.

But now...
what aircraft are OP ? vs RL

[horseback]

Originally Posted by JG27CaptStubing

Interesting to see what TD did to some of the FWs... No wonder you can easily get caught with your pants done

To be fair, this set of tests were done at just about the worst possible height for the FW; 3000m is quite close to the alt at which its supercharger moves from low to high blower, so the engine is not at its best here. I've just started doing the sea level (100m) tests, which should be more flattering to the Wurger.

cheers

horseback

[horseback]

Originally Posted by RPS69

I'am much more impressed by the LaGG66 acceleration, and having higher final speed. I think that some of this must be rechecked, and it would be a healthy thing to do.

Horseback, since you were on the WW view, you weren't checking the slip ball by chance? The higher the engine power, the more important it is.

Actually, I fly the test in cockpit mode and depend upon the depictions of the instruments to keep straight and level. I then watch the track in Wonder Woman because it allows me to obtain the precise altitude and TAS data which I record.

Part of what I'm trying to do is find the best way to fly accurately or get the best out of the aircraft as the average player with TIR and the usual array of controllers would, which is (partly) why I fly the tests in cockpit. In a lot of cases, there appears to be a sort of forced parallax, where the indicators don't align, particularly in the US type artificial horizons (and all of my photos and source material show no such parallax visible, either from the pilot's seat or even from shots taken just outside the cockpit). This tends to make it harder to keep your wings level when you're trying to hold the nose down until the elevator trim can be dialed in. Generally, the in-cockpit slip ball (or T&B needle in the case of British fighters) is at least slightly in conflict with the vector much of the time and the in-cockpit 'ball' is almost always in error versus the WW vector ball during any kind of change in direction or sudden power surges.

About the LaGG, I think that we have to take the altitude (approx 3000m) into account, as well as the fact that in-line engines are both more aerodynamically friendly and seem to 'rev up' more quickly. We also have to think about reputations; the later LaGGs were quite improved over the early models, but the pilots of the VVS appear to have lost faith in it the same way USAAF pilots in the Southwest Pacific lost faith in the Airacobra. At 3000m, the LaGG (66) may be closer to its best performance height than the La-5F and FN, as well as being a bit more aerodynamically refined.

I think that the results at 100m and 1500m will be quite different.

cheers

horseback