Spit/109 sea level speed comparisons in 1.08 beta patch

[swift]

You do not need to do this surgical argument deplugging (what I always feel to be a bit rude although I understand that you do not mean it this way). I understood perfectly where you want to go.

My point is that with the maths what you have in mind you will be likely as far off the reality as with what we have right now in the game if you cannot check it against reality.

So you apply maths but the chances are great that you will be far off the mark as with the current methods (which might by the way be based on some simplified maths I guess). You will never know if you will be below or above the mark. So I could as well trust in what we have now. I could as well trust in anecdotical evidence provided the sample is large enough to allow a statistically sound picture about the real thing. If 1000 pilots say the spit could outturn the 109 I'd tend to believe that 1000 pilots cannot be wrong even if I do not know the 1000 initial conditions. The number of pilot accounts however may suggest that the variety of initial conditions in which these guys made their observation was large enough to provide for a good hint about a qualitative not measurable behaviour.

It will be simply an impossible task to have fully viscious cfd simulations for each aircraft for a game that is basically just a niche product. It had perhaps been tried once. It has never been done again. This talks books. And cfd is again basically useless anyway if it cannot be checked against wind tunnel tests. Now this won't ever happen anyway.

And don't mix up the effort you and your company can put into a product for which your company will be payed a fortune with the possibilities of a small game developer company.

[5./JG27.Farber]

I suppose there could be a way to settle this. If AoA used his method on a spitIa and Swift used his method on a SpitIa and we had some results?

Aside from having different approches to the same problem, what about some results?

[Crumpp]

So it would appear at sea level the 109 is too slow by at least 30kmh.

There was another monster silly thread over this issue.

It appears all of the aircraft are slow by a similar margin of error.

So while actual performance is not correct, relative performance is not effected.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

So while actual performance is not correct, relative performance is not effected.

Oh yes it is, unfortunately.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

There was another monster silly thread over this issue.

It appears all of the aircraft are slow by a similar margin of error.

So while actual performance is not correct, relative performance is not effected.

Right.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by swift

You do not need to do this surgical argument deplugging (what I always feel to be a bit rude although I understand that you do not mean it this way).

Not a need as much as a style that I find useful and actually respectful in that I take the time to address each of your comments.

PS wrt my style, I have spoken with several mods and it does not break any forum rules!!

Originally Posted by swift

I understood perfectly where you want to go.

Really? Because I did not get that impression

Originally Posted by swift

My point is that with the maths what you have in mind you will be likely as far off the reality

Yes we have already established that you do not trust the math..

Got it!

So if not math.. Than what should we trust?

Originally Posted by swift

as with what we have right now in the game

And how far off is it?

Only way to tell is to apply some math and derive a percent error

Originally Posted by swift

if you cannot check it against reality.

Agreed 100%

The part we don't agree on is the definition of reality..

I for one am all for checking against reality when reality exists.. Like real world test data

But when real world test data does not exist, than my point is you have to trust the math to fill in the blanks

Where as you want to fill in the blanks with anecdotical evidence..

And I have already given several examples of why that is a bad idea

Originally Posted by swift

So you apply maths but the chances are great that you will be far off the mark as with the current methods (which might by the way be based on some simplified maths I guess). You will never know if you will be below or above the mark. So I could as well trust in what we have now. I could as well trust in anecdotical evidence provided the sample is large enough to allow a statistically sound picture about the real thing. If 1000 pilots say the spit could outturn the 109 I'd tend to believe that 1000 pilots cannot be wrong even if I do not know the 1000 initial conditions.

If large enough?

Again, as I noted, EASY to say, but until you try you don't know just how hard it is to try and do that..

Many have made that claim over the my past 20 years of simming

All have failed!

All in all I would still take my chances with 6DOF math over some sort of statistical conclusion drawn from anecdotical evidence..

Why?

Because there is something you are forgetting about anecdotical evidence

We only hear from (read the reports of) the pilots that made it home to write about it..

Thus a filtered set of data!

In short, we don't know how many Spitfire pilots were SHOT DOWN trying to turn with a 109 and thus never got a chance to write about it!

Originally Posted by swift

The number of pilot accounts however may suggest that the variety of initial conditions in which these guys made their observation was large enough to provide for a good hint about a qualitative not measurable behavior.

Chances are it will not..

Again, not trying to bum you out

All I am saying is that many like yourself have made such claims over my past 20 years of simming

All have failed

But who knows, maybe your different?

Maybe you are the one to do it?

On that note, don't take this wrong, but talk is cheap!

Do it and than lets talk about it!

Originally Posted by swift

It will be simply an impossible task to have fully viscious cfd simulations for each aircraft for a game that is basically just a niche product.

My guess is the main reason it has not been done is that it is over kill from the get go..

That is to say the benefits of it are so small that most would not even notice the difference..

At the human level that is!

Originally Posted by swift

It had perhaps been tried once. It has never been done again. This talks books. And cfd is again basically useless anyway if it cannot be checked against wind tunnel tests. Now this won't ever happen anyway.

Yes as I pointed out, FLIGHT Unlimited tried it back in 1995, and as I noted in my last post, I don't know of anyone else that has tried it since.

Originally Posted by swift

And don't mix up the effort you and your company can put into a product for which your company will be payed a fortune with the possibilities of a small game developer company.

LOL

Trust me, we are as small if not smaller than 1C when it comes to budgets

[swift]

Sh, I tell you a secret: CloD is already based on 6dof ... but don't tell anybody

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by swift

Sh, I tell you a secret: CloD is already based on 6dof ... but don't tell anybody

Huh?

It is no secret..

You will be hard pressed to find a PC flight sim made in the past 10 years that is NOT using a 6DOF FM..

Except maybe for some of the x-box quake types of flight sims..

So...

No comment on the FACT that we only hear from (read the reports of) the pilots that made it home to write about it..

So maybe now you can see my point of view as to why anecdotical evidence is 'flittered data' and thus not useful in any sort of statistical summary!

It would be like going to San Francisco or New York city and asking people on the street how good of a job they think the president is doing and using those results to place a bet on the next election!

And that is just one problem with anecdotical evidence!

Let's not forget that anecdotical evidence is typically, if not allways, a 'one sided' story!

That is to say you will be hard pressed to find a WWII after action reports that consist of both comments from the Spitfire pilot and the Bf109 pilot in that report talking about the same encounter..

Thus math ftw!

[5./JG27.Farber]

So aside from this intellectual joust - what about some results?

[SlipBall]

From the 1941 study, it sounds to me that hi-speed rolling was not a strong point