Isa Speed Testing (Yak And 190 So Far)

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Finally that we got the FMB, we can set all the conditions to the ISA standard, and really test the FMs speedwise (and also the climb rate) without having to gamble about density, temperature etc.

I spend the whole afternoon in the FMB, to set up myself missions, where i can exactly test this. So far i tested the 190 at combat rating and the Yak, because those two birds seem to be the most discussed and polarizing. Altitudes 0, 3650, and 6000m.

My procedure was to take off, go to altitude,  and stay there till top speed is reached. Then i began to measure the speed. I used the Grids to do it, using 40km, and measuring the time the plane needed to go those 40km. In my opinion by far the most accurate method, even if your measuring error would be one second, that is still less then 0,5% error. It can also be replicated easily by everyone, who wanna doublecheck my results. With the Yak i set the Radiator this way, that oil doesn't exceed 110°C, and water doesn't exceed 100°C. The exact setting can be seen in my tableau. I also put the real life numbers next to my results, and the difference in between.

Here it is:

 

 

What can be seen? Well pretty much what a few other guys, and me have been stating for a long time, being accused of "let our feelings assess how the FMs are" and nonsense like this.

Well here is hard data:

 

At the ground they are both a little to fast, but around the same so all ok.

 

At Yaks FT-altitude it is already 16kph faster then it should be, looks like the Devs used the 1b numbers here, and not the 67 series (oh well, never imagined that before  ). At the same time 190 is a little to slow here, so when those two birds meet, we have a difference to real life of 22kph in favour of the Yak. Even more important, IRL the 190 is faster here, in game it is the other way round. I guess that is one, if not the biggest reason for all that moaning about the 190. I guess if the Yak would perform normally here, no one would moan about 190s performance (at least not engine-wise). The 190 exclusively observed is almost ok.

At high alt it get's really serious. Forget about that 4kph error from the 190, but the Yak overspeeds way to much, to be able to explain it in any reasonable way. Crystal clear bug here, like already found in another topic. Probably something wrong with the high alt performance of the PF engine. 

 

 

I will also test the other 4 fighters under ISA conditions, so we get the whole picture..here a little prediction (my feelings, you know):

Lagg overspeeds a lot at high alt, apart that mostly OK

La5 OK

G2 about OK, maybe a little to slow (likewise the 190)

F4 overperforming, not so much like Yak at high alt, but around the same like Yak at 3650, i guess

 

As soon as i have tested them all, i will copy the whole tableau in this topic, and draw some conclusions

Edited March 5, 2015 by Celestiale

[von_Tom]

 

 

Between roughly 4% and 7% error for the Yak.

 

Nice test.

 

Having read the other topics I think the issue was always that errors should be put to the Devs with evidence to consider, not a complete dismissal of opinions that were at the time not evidenced.

 

This is a good first step.

 

von Tom

[DD_Arthur]

Well done Celestiale.  Good, solid information.

 

Btw; what model of Yak do we have in the game?  I thought it was the 69 series.

[Finkeren]

Good work. Glad you took the time to do it.

 

Ofc it's a problem, that the Yak overperforms at altitude, but honestly I see it as less of a problem, when it's still slower than all of its opponents above 4000m. The Fw190 has a bit of a problem at medium altitude, but the 109s both outperform the Yak handily at all altitudes.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Well done Celestiale. Good, solid information.

 

Btw; what model of Yak do we have in the game? I thought it was the 69 series.

Sorry, of course we have the 69. Confuse this Nr. every time :-/

[303_Kwiatek]

You tried Yak-1 with 25 % radiator open? If it could run with 1/4 radiator for long way i think overspeed at 6 km would be even higher.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Got Track?

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Don't think he needs a track. As stated, the test is easy to replicate for anyone wanting to see if his data holds. On the other hand, I think Han would pay more attention if this was in the Bugs section.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Don't think he needs a track. As stated, the test is easy to replicate for anyone wanting to see if his data holds. On the other hand, I think Han would pay more attention if this was in the Bugs section.

Not one track, 18. But takes ages to uoload with my Internet (4,5h each), so everyone who doubts it can replicate it in a tenth of this time

You tried Yak-1 with 25 % radiator open? If it could run with 1/4 radiator for long way i think overspeed at 6 km would be even higher.

Set the Radiator exactly how it is explained above. If you close it more it goes over 100/110 after a while

[303_Kwiatek]

I think test in ISA will just confrim my previous test in winter condition.  Yak-1 and LAgg-3 overspeed a lot at high alts,  next 109 F-4 overspeed also and other planes ( LA5, Fw 190 and G-2) are very close to RL data.

[SR-F_Winger]

So they wanted hard data. There they are. Now there is no excuse not to "repair" this mistake.

Well ,done Celestiale. Thanks for your time and effort on that.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

As stated, the test is easy to replicate for anyone wanting to see if his data holds.

I realize it is easy to do, I also realize it is easy to make mistakes..

 

Hence the request for a track file to view the test to see that no mistakes were made. It is the only choice we have Until the game provides a way to log data during flight, as 1C did in IL-2 with DeviceLink, or as 1C did in CoD with C#, no one can say with any certainty how well the planes are matching the real world data. Just too many potential sim pilot errors can be made during testing that can corrupt the results.

 

This statement is based on the hundreds of test logs I have reviewed over the past 10+ from several different flight sim. I found that most of the errors were in the way the user performed the in-game test, and not an actual error in the FM. For example, not taking into account the difference in the in-game atmosphere and the real world data, which is typically corrected/converted to standard atmosphere, but not always! Another example, in WWII some countries the beginning of a rate of climb test started from a dead stop on the runway, where as others the beginning of a rate of climb test started with the plane air born at a low altitude. Not a big impact on the rate of climb data, but it does affect the time to climb results. Little difference like that can have a big effect on the results.

 

So, until we have a way to log the in-game data, any and all in-game testing should be taken with a grain of salt. As a bare minimum a video should be recorded during the test so others can review the methods used during testing.

 

On a related note, Combat Pilot Accounts..

 

Combat Pilot Accounts are great sources of information for the planes flying qualities, like the stick felt like it was in cement, the sounds it makes when you do this, the vibrations you feel when you do that..

 

But..

 

Combat Pilot Accounts are worthless sources of information for the planes performance!

 

Reason being combat pilot accounts are typically one sided stories that says more about the pilot vs pilot skill than plane v.s. plane performance.. That and the combat pilot accounts typically do not contain enough information to recreate the scenario in-game to see if you can obtain the same results, let alone the other planes state.. Than there is the human factor, with regards to pilot accounts years after the fact, the simply truth is memories change and are lost or become inaccurate over a period of time. And like the old fisherman telling us about the 'big one' that got away, they tend to embellish the facts over time, that is to say the fish gets bigger each time the story is told. That is just human nature found in us all... For example, take Brian Williams recent snafu!

 

For example, for every German pilot combat account of his Bf109 being able to out turn a Spitfire, their is a British pilot combat account of his Spitfire being able to out turn a Bf109..

 

Yet to this day people still think some sort of statistical average can be gleamed from pilot accounts.. But that is a pipe dream IMHO, for so many reasons, but probably the most important reason being, you never get a chance to read the after action report from the pilots that were killed in action!

 

Last, but not least, remember that no flight simulation ever was, is, or will be perfect! Hence the title 'simulation of flight' as opposed to just 'flight'.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

And again this copypasted text, i guess 100 of his 647 posts are this exact post. But it's always good to sound smart, isn't it 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I'd never trust a single test or tester anyway. I'd like to see five or ten guys repeat the test and compare the data to have a decent sample size.

 

I'm not really a scientist but I understand some of the methodology..................and I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night.

[Wulf]

Finally that we got the FMB, we can set all the conditions to the ISA standard, and really test the FMs speedwise (and also the climb rate) without having to gamble about density, temperature etc.

I spend the whole afternoon in the FMB, to set up myself missions, where i can exactly test this. So far i tested the 190 at combat rating and the Yak, because those two birds seem to be the most discussed and polarizing. Altitudes 0, 3650, and 6000m.

My procedure was to take off, go to altitude,  and stay there till top speed is reached. Then i began to measure the speed. I used the Grids to do it, using 40km, and measuring the time the plane needed to go those 40km. In my opinion by far the most accurate method, even if your measuring error would be one second, that is still less then 0,5% error. It can also be replicated easily by everyone, who wanna doublecheck my results. With the Yak i set the Radiator this way, that oil doesn't exceed 110°C, and water doesn't exceed 100°C. The exact setting can be seen in my tableau. I also put the real life numbers next to my results, and the difference in between.

Here it is:

 

 

What can be seen? Well pretty much what a few other guys, and me have been stating for a long time, being accused of "let our feelings assess how the FMs are" and nonsense like this.

Well here is hard data:

 

At the ground they are both a little to fast, but around the same so all ok.

 

At Yaks FT-altitude it is already 16kph faster then it should be, looks like the Devs used the 1b numbers here, and not the 67 series (oh well, never imagined that before  ). At the same time 190 is a little to slow here, so when those two birds meet, we have a difference to real life of 22kph in favour of the Yak. Even more important, IRL the 190 is faster here, in game it is the other way round. I guess that is one, if not the biggest reason for all that moaning about the 190. I guess if the Yak would perform normally here, no one would moan about 190s performance (at least not engine-wise). The 190 exclusively observed is almost ok.

At high alt it get's really serious. Forget about that 4kph error from the 190, but the Yak overspeeds way to much, to be able to explain it in any reasonable way. Crystal clear bug here, like already found in another topic. Probably something wrong with the high alt performance of the PF engine. 

 

 

I will also test the other 4 fighters under ISA conditions, so we get the whole picture..here a little prediction (my feelings, you know):

Lagg overspeeds a lot at high alt, apart that mostly OK

La5 OK

G2 about OK, maybe a little to slow (likewise the 190)

F4 overperforming, not so much like Yak at high alt, but around the same like Yak at 3650, i guess

 

As soon as i have tested them all, i will copy the whole tableau in this topic, and draw some conclusions

 

 

Good work bro.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

I'd never trust a single test or tester anyway.

Glad to see you argee with me

 

I'd like to see five or ten guys repeat the test and compare the data to have a decent sample size.

Agreed ten track files of ten tests would be a great start

 

I'm not really a scientist but I understand some of the methodology..................and I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night.

LOL

[6./ZG26_Emil]

and take a look at climb speeds Yak-1 is uber :D

[unreasonable]

@Celestiale: Question about the Fw190 performance at 3650m: had the supercharger gear changed up?

 

Reason I asked is because the NACA tests stated switch up height (at max revs shown on the graph) to be 12,000ft (3,657m), switch down at 6,500ft (1,980m).

 

If the gear change is modeled to these numbers, your test height could be just below the change height and so the engine is running at well below peak power which I imagine would affect your results. If the gear change has been simplified to only one height for both up and down then you should be well above it so no problems.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Isn't switch up in the game at 2300-2350m?  I know the ata guage lags downward as you climb from about 1350m then suddenly jumps back up between 2300-2350m.

[FlatSpinMan]

This looks a good start to proving/disproving the case, especially if more people produce the same results.

[unreasonable]

@HerrMurf:  Not sure myself as I have not updated for a while, limited game time going elsewhere just now until a better SP experience appears. But I expect you are right if the switch up and down take place at the same altitude in game. (Quite why modeled like that I am not sure).

 

From the previous discussions I expect you are right (p 0.80), except on an ISA standard map it should be a bit higher than your number for normal BoS map, since the pressure/altitude gradient can depend on temperature. In either case Celestiale's test will be well in the upper gear range so no worries. It would only be a possible issue for the speed tests if the in-game switch heights matched the NACA data.

 

Whether it would better be modeled differently is another interesting issue but best left for another thread.

Edited March 6, 2015 by unreasonable

[II./JG77_Manu*]

@Celestiale: Question about the Fw190 performance at 3650m: had the supercharger gear changed up?

 

Reason I asked is because the NACA tests stated switch up height (at max revs shown on the graph) to be 12,000ft (3,657m), switch down at 6,500ft (1,980m).

 

If the gear change is modeled to these numbers, your test height could be just below the change height and so the engine is running at well below peak power which I imagine would affect your results. If the gear change has been simplified to only one height for both up and down then you should be well above it so no problems.

Hey unreasonable, no it's way after the gear change. Gear change in my test happend at about 2600m. Don't know if this would be the historical ideal change altitude, but in game it's definitely modeled this way.

[JtD]

I'd never trust a single test or tester anyway. I'd like to see five or ten guys repeat the test and compare the data to have a decent sample size.

Fortunately, Celestiales tests are confirming the already posted results of Branos and my tests, give or take a couple of km/h.

[unreasonable]

Hey unreasonable, no it's way after the gear change. Gear change in my test happend at about 2600m. Don't know if this would be the historical ideal change altitude, but in game it's definitely modeled this way.

 

2600m sounds as though it is is consistent with the 2300 approx. in BoS -15C. Just checking! So no issue here.

 

 

 

Agreed ten track files of ten tests would be a great start

 

 

Not sure why you would need such a large sample: that would be appropriate if he was checking a RL phenomenon with a degree of random variation in the outcomes, where you are estimating confidence limits. Like checking the speeds of real aircraft.

 

In this case, since the program is a defined and the same for everyone, what he is doing is more like running a very large mathematical problem, where the only source of variation is an operator mistake.

 

You only need a couple of people to "check his maths"

Edited March 6, 2015 by unreasonable

[kendo]

...

Combat Pilot Accounts are worthless sources of information for the planes performance!

...

 

I've been reading this thread and the previous locked one and I can see the points that you and Rama have been making have some justification, but I think this position is just too extreme. "Worthless"!?

 

Certainly any one individual report must be treated with caution, and in terms of the narrow purpose of creating a flight model I can see why the devs demand numerical data before agreeing to changes.

 

But to write off and dismiss ALL reports/accounts from pilots as 'worthless' no matter their quality, number or degree of agreement and consistency?!

 

I recall reading that when the Fw190 was first encountered by the RAF the reports from the Spitfire pilots were unequivocal as to the German aircraft's superiority. Consistent and repeated accounts all said the same thing - the Germans had a new fighter and it completely outclassed the Spitfire V. That was real information. It wasn't 'worthless'. Not sufficient to nail down the precise parameters of the Fw's superiority (or for our purposes of modelling it in a sim), but surely not 'worthless'.

 

FMs require numerical data to be created. Understood. But ultimately when that model is applied and fed back into the game the results are experienced by the virtual pilots and if the experienced results differ in a regular and obvious way from the historical accounts then there is good at least prima facie reason to question the fidelity of the modelling.

 

P.S. I recall reading too that when faced by the RAF pilots' initial accounts of the FW190, the response of the 'boffins' was to dismiss them as well. And to suggest that what they had in fact encountered were captured French Curtiss Hawk fighters that had been pressed into service by the Luftwaffe. That went down well with the pilots...

 

Presumably their accounts were too 'anecdotal'....

Edited March 6, 2015 by kendo

[=EXPEND=Dendro]

Celestiale.... Thanks for this analysis/study. I also think tracks would make this a more viable and concrete exercise for the forumers and devs to discuss.

 

This is probably the best example of how to id errors or bugs in the FMs as it pertains directly to in-game performance. I's not too technical and it reallly says that there is quite a glaring overstatement of the yak's (series 69) performance vs supposed real-life performance. Turns rates, roll rates, barometric pressures, compression..... blah blah blah  is all too much for a game and I think most of us roll our eyes with all the bickering going on around FMs and DMs. Hopefully the devs will acknowledge or disprove the tests you have done and give us a more accurate FM of the yak's outright speed.

 

For the record.....I for one have true admiration for the FM programmers and the daunting task they have in having to satisfy an experienced simming fraternity's craving for super-accurate models and their unique characteristics. The amount of modelling and physics is truly staggering and I get nauseous just thinking about how they have programmed it all to work as well as it does.

[Rama]

First: the tests conducted by Celestiale are the way to go in order to make a point and are a good feedback to the dev. Good work.

 

Second: some little answers to the resurgence of an "allready old discussion".

I recall reading that when the Fw190 was first encountered by the RAF the reports from the Spitfire pilots were unequivocal as to the German aircraft's superiority. Consistent and repeated accounts all said the same thing - the Germans had a new fighter and it completely outclassed the Spitfire V. That was real information. It wasn't 'worthless'. Not sufficient to nail down the precise parameters of the Fw's superiority (or for our purposes of modelling it in a sim), but surely not 'worthless'.

It was certainly not worthless for the RAF HQ, as an input into tactical questions material policies. I still doubt very much it could be of any use to build a FM.

 

FMs require numerical data to be created. Understood. But ultimately when that model is applied and fed back into the game the results are experienced by the virtual pilots and if the experienced results differ in a regular and obvious way from the historical accounts then there is good at least prima facie reason to question the fidelity of the modelling.

This raise the hability of interpreted facts to question the fidelity (I prefer to use "accuracy") of a model.

I would certainly find valuable any reporting, including about "flight feelings", made by a pilot with a fresh experience of warbird piloting, to the condition the plane is not too far from its war weight and a big part of the light enveloppe tested by the pilot, AND comparing it himself with the simulation outputs/feelings (something you could also maybe call "anecdotal évidences", and something I would call a test report).

 

All the values of this kind of "anecdotal evidences" would be nullified if someone else use the report, make his own interpretation of it and pretend to have an accurate evaluation of the sim outputs/feeling based on his interpretation.... this is for me just fantasy.

And the accumulation of "anecdotal evidence" don't change a thing, since each are generally allready interpreted by the author himself (when sumarizing his experience in a few sentences), and then by the reader (who has no real possibilities to connect his interpretation and the author real feelings).

I have numerous experiences about consistent historical reports having proved wrong (like tankers in the South of France in 1944 consistenly reporting being hit or fired on by 88 shells, when there was no 88 guns in the area), and about actual model output "feelings" being consistently contradictory (have seen this in many labs). I've heard pilots verbally fighting each others about their piloting feelings of a given plane (plane they both piloted in the last year).... etc....

When you use numbers, they're the same for everybody. When you use word, what you mean when you write/speaks them is related to your own experience and is so different from what the one reading/hearing them understands (since it's also related to his own expériences).

Even somethingh as simple as "command stiffness" is highly variable as an information. I had the chance meet the pilot of a BXIV replica, and for him, the aileron command was so stiff that it was practically unusable, and he conclude the plane should be piloted with rudder induced roll (what he did well, including in the airport approaches), and this was matched with numerous historical accounts. Now, you also have pilots accounts, like Mermoz and a few others that did find the aileron command equilibrated and liked to barrel roll them.... (but this guy had arms bigger than my thigh....)

 

So, I will modify what I said, in order to make it more understandable (but it's probably useless, also because of the above). "anecdotal évidences" are not useless by themthelves or by a way to share emotions, or to share the feeling to belong to the same "groupe", or for many other things..... they're useless as a tool to transmit quantifiable performances informations.

[Trinkof]

Sorry, of course we have the 69. Confuse this Nr. every time :-/

69 wich is the same as the 1b exept for the canopy and guns ... So they took the 1b stats ... Logic no ?

[Finkeren]

69 wich is the same as the 1b exept for the canopy and guns ... So they took the 1b stats ... Logic no ?

Actually no.

 

I thought that was the case as well, but Celestiale actually had some sources showing that performance-wise they're not nearly as close as many of us thought.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Not sure why you would need such a large sample: that would be appropriate if he was checking a RL phenomenon with a degree of random variation in the outcomes, where you are estimating confidence limits. Like checking the speeds of real aircraft.

If it was the same person doing the test, than IMHO you would not need to do it ten time, but, even in real life testing the tests were preformed 'several' time to meet the basic scientific requirement of testing..

 

That being repeatability.

 

In real life they were not too concerned with pilot error, in that the test pilots were highly trained and familiar with the aircraft. In light of all that, a sim pilot doing the test 'once' is not what I would call proof. The ten tracks being a good start was based on the assumption that you have ten different people doing the test once.

 

As for the 'large sample'.. The reasoning behind that is that during the review of those ten tracks, your going to find errors that results in tossing out some of the tests. Thus you may only end up with one or two good tests.

 

In this case, since the program is a defined and the same for everyone, what he is doing is more like running a very large mathematical problem, where the only source of variation is an operator mistake.

Bingo!

 

You only need a couple of people to "check his maths"

Only need a 'couple' out of the 'ten' assuming that upon review of the tack some of those are going to be tossed out due to the operator error (mistakes) you noted. Edited March 6, 2015 by ACEOFACES

[Trinkof]

Actually no.

 

I thought that was the case as well, but Celestiale actually had some sources showing that performance-wise they're not nearly as close as many of us thought.

Oh ! My bad then

 

O7

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

I recall reading that when the Fw190 was first encountered by the RAF the reports from the Spitfire pilots were unequivocal as to the German aircraft's superiority. Consistent and repeated accounts all said the same thing - the Germans had a new fighter and it completely outclassed the Spitfire V. That was real information. It wasn't 'worthless'. Not sufficient to nail down the precise parameters of the Fw's superiority (or for our purposes of modelling it in a sim), but surely not 'worthless'.

Note, my worthless statement was in regards to making validating a flight model.. By validating I mean checking the outputs of the flight model, but value I mean things like rate of climb, top speed per altitude, roll rates, turn rates, etc.. Basically all the values they felt were worth testing.

 

As for you example above, the information is not worthless with regards to the Spitfire pilots to know to watch out for this new plane, because it appears to be better than older Bf109 and therefore we are going to have to change our tactics.. But none of that example of yours can be used to say how much faster the 190 is than the Spitfire, how much better the climb rate is, how much better the roll rate is, how much better than turn rate is. Just that it is or is not, with regards to that 'case' which occurred at 'some' altitude that the pilots may or may not have been flying at when they encounter the 190.. Did the 190 have an altitude advantage at the start of the encounter? What was the 190 initial speed relative to the Spitfire, the list of unknowns is endless.

 

"anecdotal évidences" are not useless by themthelves or by a way to share emotions, or to share the feeling to belong to the same "groupe", or for many other things..... they're useless as a tool to transmit quantifiable performances informations.

Agreed 100% Edited March 6, 2015 by ACEOFACES

[Trinkof]

Finally that we got the FMB, we can set all the conditions to the ISA standard, and really test the FMs speedwise (and also the climb rate) without having to gamble about density, temperature etc.

I spend the whole afternoon in the FMB, to set up myself missions, where i can exactly test this. So far i tested the 190 at combat rating and the Yak, because those two birds seem to be the most discussed and polarizing. Altitudes 0, 3650, and 6000m.

My procedure was to take off, go to altitude, and stay there till top speed is reached. Then i began to measure the speed. I used the Grids to do it, using 40km, and measuring the time the plane needed to go those 40km. In my opinion by far the most accurate method, even if your measuring error would be one second, that is still less then 0,5% error. It can also be replicated easily by everyone, who wanna doublecheck my results. With the Yak i set the Radiator this way, that oil doesn't exceed 110°C, and water doesn't exceed 100°C. The exact setting can be seen in my tableau. I also put the real life numbers next to my results, and the difference in between.

Here it is:

 

 

What can be seen? Well pretty much what a few other guys, and me have been stating for a long time, being accused of "let our feelings assess how the FMs are" and nonsense like this.

Well here is hard data:

 

At the ground they are both a little to fast, but around the same so all ok.

 

At Yaks FT-altitude it is already 16kph faster then it should be, looks like the Devs used the 1b numbers here, and not the 67 series (oh well, never imagined that before ). At the same time 190 is a little to slow here, so when those two birds meet, we have a difference to real life of 22kph in favour of the Yak. Even more important, IRL the 190 is faster here, in game it is the other way round. I guess that is one, if not the biggest reason for all that moaning about the 190. I guess if the Yak would perform normally here, no one would moan about 190s performance (at least not engine-wise). The 190 exclusively observed is almost ok.

At high alt it get's really serious. Forget about that 4kph error from the 190, but the Yak overspeeds way to much, to be able to explain it in any reasonable way. Crystal clear bug here, like already found in another topic. Probably something wrong with the high alt performance of the PF engine.

 

 

I will also test the other 4 fighters under ISA conditions, so we get the whole picture..here a little prediction (my feelings, you know):

Lagg overspeeds a lot at high alt, apart that mostly OK

La5 OK

G2 about OK, maybe a little to slow (likewise the 190)

F4 overperforming, not so much like Yak at high alt, but around the same like Yak at 3650, i guess

 

As soon as i have tested them all, i will copy the whole tableau in this topic, and draw some conclusions

So just to understand :

 

Performance of the yak 69 in game is actually those of the 1B ?

 

So, as 1B was also over stalingrad, just regarding FM and not 3D models, the ingame confrontation we have is no fantasy , nor "broken FM", nor UFO plane ...

 

Problem is just 3D model is the wrong one ?

 

And another serious question : does the tests you ran about the IG yak are fitting with the same error margin as german plane, the real charts of the 1B ?

 

Because if the error margin is the same everyone could stop the "Bias" debate.

 

Thanks for your hard work ! O7

[SR-F_Winger]

So just to understand :

 

Performance of the yak 69 in game is actually those of the 1B ?

 

So, as 1B was also over stalingrad, just regarding FM and not 3D models, the ingame confrontation we have is no fantasy , nor "broken FM", nor UFO plane ...

 

Problem is just 3D model is the wrong one ?

 

And another serious question : does the tests you ran about the IG yak are fitting with the same error margin as german plane, the real charts of the 1B ?

 

Because if the error margin is the same everyone could stop the "Bias" debate.

 

Thanks for your hard work ! O7

They added the YAK-1 to the game so they should model the YAK-1 and not ANY OTHER plane performancewise!

Sorry but modeling one plane and giving it the performance of another is just utter BS!

Anyways. How many 1Bs saw service over Stalingrad? Any numbers anywhere close to the numbers of the YAK-1 or even more so that modeling the later could be justified by any means?

Edited March 6, 2015 by VSG1_Winger

[II./JG77_Manu*]

So just to understand :

 

Performance of the yak 69 in game is actually those of the 1B ?

 

So, as 1B was also over stalingrad, just regarding FM and not 3D models, the ingame confrontation we have is no fantasy , nor "broken FM", nor UFO plane ...

 

Problem is just 3D model is the wrong one ?

 

And another serious question : does the tests you ran about the IG yak are fitting with the same error margin as german plane, the real charts of the 1B ?

 

Because if the error margin is the same everyone could stop the "Bias" debate.

 

Thanks for your hard work ! O7

No bias i think, haven't tested yet but I am pretty sure the F4 is also overperforming...if any we have inline-engine bias in this game

Even if it would be the 1b, which it clearly isn't, it would still overperform clearly at high alt..6k+

Edited March 6, 2015 by Celestiale

[361fundahl]

[Edited] no wonder the Russians hate us.

Leave the philosophy class in another thread... We need one thread with JUST in game test data plus a few comments explaining the test versus real life data...

Throw it in the "Bugs" section without all the other bullshit (human bickering) and maybe the devs will actually read through it...
Inline engine bias because they are the shit!

Edited March 6, 2015 by Bearcat
Profanity

[Trinkof]

They added the YAK-1 to the game so they should model the YAK-1 and not ANY OTHER plane performancewise!

Sorry but modeling one plane and giving it the performance of another is just utter BS!

Anyways. How many 1Bs saw service over Stalingrad? Any numbers anywhere close to the numbers of the YAK-1 or even more so that modeling the later could be justified by any means?

More Yak 1b than fock Wulf for sure  

 

On the other hand I agree with you regarding the difference of the flight model - 3D model, we should have things fitting together. I just wanted to point out that there is no "magic OP broken" plane here, like some people like to claim... and the fight we have in game are maybe not so far from truth if you admit you face a yak1b. 

 

But yes, there most certainly was a mistake regarding the FM we have. Question is : More difficult to change the FM or the 3d model ? 

 

Any case regarding how complex and "anarchic" the russian plane series were, and disparity between russians manufactories... I am not sure this was done on purpose, and that a lot of people would have done the same mistake, even aviation experts

 

EDIT : And about the overperforming of the yak at 6k, most probably a problem, but even with these mistakes, regarding the actual gap of performance between the planes, who would be stupid enough to sustain a fight in a yak at theses altitude ... but still need fixing for accuracy purpose

Edited March 6, 2015 by LAL_Trinkof

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

More Yak 1b than fock Wulf for sure

+1

[Brano]

Why OP had to open yet another thread in General discussion,when there is allready topic in apropriate location?

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/14625-wrong-russian-fighters-performance-high-alts-again/

 

There was continuous improvement from series to series with Yaks.Or someone thinks that there were purely s69 present at Stalingrad in november 42?Early june 1942 production?Well,surviving 5 months of combat service....There were lots of series of Yaks flying around.Even some refurbished with PA engine (more of a rarity).And s99,which is first Yak1b (with high gargot) is October 42 production series.So only thing that devs need to do is rename the plane to s69-s85.

Every plane was different,some had brand new engines,some at the end of resurs,some repaired maybe twice or trice....This is fontline fighting,not NII VVS or Rechlin testing ground.

Even FWs deployed around Velikie Luki with I/JG51 had worn out engines.No spare to replace.You think they flew according Rechlin specs?

This sensation hunting gets boring,really.

My 2 cents

[SR-F_Winger]

And about the overperforming of the yak at 6k, most probably a problem, but even with these mistakes, regarding the actual gap of performance between the planes, who would be stupid enough to sustain a fight in a yak at theses altitude

 

Just go on DED expert server or Wings of liberty. There is regularily when i am playing alone (thank god i have my mateys most of the time) when a YAK-1 sticks on my six and just keeps climbing after me up to to 9k height and i am unable to gian height in my suposedly superior performing(especially at those altitudes) F4.

Sorry but the high alt performance of the YAK-1 IS OP! There is no better word for that.

Edited March 6, 2015 by VSG1_Winger