Developer Diary, Part 123 - Discussion

[Han]

123

 

Hello everyone!

 

With Battle of Moscow project being close to its finish, we have some time to spare on the tasks that were postponed for a long time. In the developer diary #120 we told you about our plans to improve physics and aircraft systems, bomb sights are also being worked on. In the recent update 1.107b we added the more flexible modifications filter system requested by many multiplayer server owners and the additional logging to assist us in the search of hard to find issues like invisible planes in multiplayer and crashes that happen sometimes.

 

Among other things for the next update 1.108 we're preparing aircraft information that will be accessible for each plane in player profile and in full screen map mode during a flight.

 

Collecting the data required for it wasn't that simple since many of the reference values are 'soft data', many depend on an aircraft mass and configuration which are different in different tests performed back then, so it was needed to do ingame tests to measure them. These characteristics aren't specified in the game code: they are the integral result of a really complex physics simulation system. When our engineers build a plane, they set and tune aerodynamic elements and engine parts, aiming to meet the reference data available (such as maximum speeds, climb rates, lift-drag and trim curves, takeoff and landing run lengths when available, etc.). Moreover, the reference data analysis is always a research task, so there could be different cases. In some cases there is not enough reference data available and thorough engineer analysis is required to make an educated guess while keeping other values close to the reference data. In other cases, there could be several contradicting sources and we need to determine which one is more credible.

 

Characteristics presented below were measured in the game, which took almost two weeks of hard work. In the end we've got informative and standardized data for all planes in the game we'd like to present you below:

 

......................

 

Full news - here is a full text and materials
You're very welcome to subscribe for new videos here
You can ask new questions in this thread

[Jizzo]

[Blooddawn1942]

That's a lot of data gathered! Very interesting!

[LLv24_Zami]

Someone is working late!

Thanks for the DD. That data will be very useful when found inside the game.

 

Thanks for your work and dedication! Even critics are sometimes given, your effort is much appreciated.

 

Just yesterday while flying I thought that boy I enjoy this sim!

[Potenz]

190 A4??? we are getting russia 1943 after this one???

[LukeFF]

190 A4??? we are getting russia 1943 after this one???

 

Obviously a typo. C'mon. 

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Amazing update, I always wanted to see all this information compiled somewhere for reference to avoid frantic Googling and guesstimating. Thanks for the hard work!

[Bando]

Wow, a lot of data there.

Thanks a lot for this.

I tried to scratch this data from the forum, books, internet and what not.

Here it's presented on a platter.

Great stuff.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Thanks for the hard work on those tests it must have taken ages.

 

This sim is awesome 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

109 Topspeeds with Automatic Radiators and Level Trim I hope. 

[SOLIDKREATE]

Obviously a typo. C'mon. 

 

 

It is essentially an A4. It just doesn't have the FuG 16ZY radio set with a Morane "whip" (These were only for flight leaders) A4/R1. It also can't carry the WfGr .21 mortars or the ETC 501 bomb rack A4/U1.

 

 

The most logical Wurger for this SIM would be the Fw-190A-5 with the /U3 (ETC 501s) and the Pe-2 killer /U12 (.92 mm MG 17 and 20 mm MG 151 but replacing the outer wing 20 mm MG-FF cannon with two under wing gun pods containing two 20 mm MG 151/20 each, for a total of two machine guns and six cannons.)

Edited February 27, 2016 by 6./ZG1=SPEKTRE76

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Nice for providing us the official in-game data...now we can work from there. First thing that's obvious, but not surprising at all, is that 190s climb rate at higher alt is way to bad. Report incoming this weekend.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

I'm speechless.

 

I'll go to bed with the feeling of being taken for a beautiful sheep by 1CGS.

[[CPT]milopugdog]

Good to see this.

I do remember asking about it in the questions thread.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

Quickly tabulated the turn tests of Soviet tests of the aircraft i could find

 

Source :

http://juhansotahistoriasivut.weebly.com/results-of-the-soviet-turn-times-tests.html

Edited February 27, 2016 by RoflSeal

[andyw248]

Thanks for collecting all the data!

 

The data for the Pe-2 is interesting: Landing angle is higher than angle of attack at landing configuration. For all other airplanes the landing angle is lower than the AoA at landing configuration. Does this mean the Pe-2 should not be landed in landing configuration?

[-TBC-AeroAce]

Sweet iv been long awaiting some official numbers

[Guest deleted@50488]

Great work Team!  Thx!

[Jade_Monkey]

Very impressive! I know a lot of people were asking for this.

 

Great job as always.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

Thanks for collecting all the data!

 

The data for the Pe-2 is interesting: Landing angle is higher than angle of attack at landing configuration. For all other airplanes the landing angle is lower than the AoA at landing configuration. Does this mean the Pe-2 should not be landed in landing configuration?

Re pe2

 

Using full flaps will give u a glide ratio of a brick!! It has been stated to never use full flaps on a normal type approach.

 

On a normal approach I use maybe 20% flaps, anything more in my experience gets a bit tricky.

 

BUT TRY THIS!!

 

Go level bomb ur target in the PE2 get close to ur home base at altitude, maybe 3k height and 10k out. Spot ur field, line up and drop all flap and speed break and u will now become the space shuttle. U will land perfectly xx try

 

Ps no idea if realistic

[LukeFF]

 

 

BUT TRY THIS!!

 

Go level bomb ur target in the PE2 get close to ur home base at altitude, maybe 3k height and 10k out. Spot ur field, line up and drop all flap and speed break and u will now become the space shuttle. U will land perfectly xx try

 

Ps no idea if realistic

 

 

[Han]

Thanks for collecting all the data!

 

The data for the Pe-2 is interesting: Landing angle is higher than angle of attack at landing configuration. For all other airplanes the landing angle is lower than the AoA at landing configuration. Does this mean the Pe-2 should not be landed in landing configuration?

Yep. Flaps at 100% causing stall at final approach.It's not recomended to use more than 50%. IRL

[ACG_KaiLae]

Quickly tabulated the turn tests of Soviet tests of the aircraft i could find

 

Source :

http://juhansotahistoriasivut.weebly.com/results-of-the-soviet-turn-times-tests.html

 

While it's well known that the P-40 turned better at over 250 MPH, I'm having a hard time believing that it was worse at turning than a BF-110 or a PE-2, or that it's turn time was nearly 4 seconds worse than the 2nd worse single engine fighter. I'm....somewhat dubious about some of these numbers.

[pilotpierre]

Bloody terrific information to have, will take the guess work out of the picture. Well done comrades.

[Dutchvdm]

Nice collection of data. Isn't the turn radius of the 109 F2 a bit off compared to the other 109's?

 

Grt Martijn

[Sim]

Ah numbers.. the most boring developer diary so far

Also, this is for standard atmosphere, +15°C. There is a huge difference between say -25°C and +25°C in game.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

While it's well known that the P-40 turned better at over 250 MPH, I'm having a hard time believing that it was worse at turning than a BF-110 or a PE-2, or that it's turn time was nearly 4 seconds worse than the 2nd worse single engine fighter. I'm....somewhat dubious about some of these numbers.

P40 should have a slight edge against a 109(E/F) in a sustained turnfight...that's what you can read in pilot accounts on both sides. 

[TX-Gunslinger]

Thanks Han!  Very glad to see this data.

[III/JG2Gustav05]

I am stunned by bf109F2 turn time.

[303_Kwiatek]

Nice to see such data.

 

I think that turn times for most planes in these data are incorrect or bug?

[PeterZvan]

I was wondering the same as I got completly different results (much shorter) for sustained turns.

Perhaps the turn times are for a specified speed??

[NobbyNobbs]

 

 

I think that turn times for most planes in these data are incorrect or bug?

 

Nope. It's a turn data for unknown (for us) speed and roll angle, so it's a little bit useless for comparison with references. As Han wrote in russian it's not minimum turn time but turn time on combat speed.

[coconut]

Very nice having these performance numbers. I think they should be part of the specification of what you are selling. Then potential customers who are dedicated fans of a particular plane can decide whether they want to buy the game or not, instead of buying the game and then be disappointed because they didn't get the specific performance they were expecting. Just giving the type of plane is often not enough, considering the wide margin of interpretation of existing performance data. I'm glad the devs found the time to do this before the release of BoM.

 

 

As Han wrote in russian it's not minimum turn time but turn time on combat speed.

 

But what is "combat speed"? Should that be understood as "combat power engine settings", or some arbitrary speed, e.g. 450 km/h?

Edited February 27, 2016 by coconut

[Asgar]

I am stunned by bf109F2 turn time.

looks like it needs some additional FM work. (well, more than some other planes)

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

But what is "combat speed"? Should that be understood as "combat power engine settings", or some arbitrary speed, e.g. 450 km/h?

Good question. Would also be interested. Seems a bit random. I can't imagine a particular "fix" speed, where the P40 is way worse in turn then for example the Mig3 or the La5 (IRL)

[NobbyNobbs]

But what is "combat speed"? Should that be understood as "combat power engine settings", or some arbitrary speed, e.g. 450 km/h?

~280-300 kph

 

Это значит, что вираж выполняется на постоянном режиме двигателя (должны быть "боевой" для немцев, а вот включен ли у наших форсаж - не уверен - буду уточнять) и на постоянной скорости (как я выше писал 280..300 - тоже буду уточнять на всякий случай).

В процессе выполнения виража заданная скорость поддерживается движением ручки по тангажу, а высота - по крену. Без скольжения.

 

Причем еще раз подчеркну - для некоторых самолетов скорость оптимальная для виража может быть ниже 280..300, но она не оптимальная для боя. Отсюда могут быть некоторые расхождения с источниками.

 

Надо будет 4е примечание видимо добавить после уточнений.

 

 

rough translation (sorry, my English is not well): 

Turn was being made with constant engine power (combat for german planes, and I don't remember if it was overboost for soviets or not, I'll check it later) and with constant speed (about 280-300 kph, I'll check it later too). blah-blah-blah.

And one more time - for some planes optimal speed could be lower than 280-300 kph, but this speed is useless in combat. 

Probably we will add one more (#4) note after I check all the moments.

[Chief_Mouser]

40 km/h speed penalty for a rear gunner in the Il-2 - I'm going to put that bloke on a diet!

Cheers.

[mb339pan]

thx dev

[Art]

Fw 190 climb rate is rly bad ... I hope it will be correct with germans data.

[Juri_JS]

Fw 190 climb rate is rly bad ... I hope it will be correct with germans data.

The ingame climb rate data for the Fw-190 is very close to the German test data I've seen.