Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dave

  1. Could the dev team possibly obtain a StarVR rig from StarBreeze? Until consumer VR resolution and FOV improve to those of the StarVR I'm not buying, but it would be good if development can get ahead of the curve.
  2. I too would appreciate people unaffected by this issue butting out. I spent AU$6000 on my graphics cards and screens ... for the sole purpose of playing this game. Since parting with that pile of cash I have had abysmal (or non-existent) SLI support, the complete dropping of 3-screen support and now this driver disaster. So many people whined and whined about DX10 not being good enough ... well for me DX11 has delivered a 60% drop in frame rate, constant freezes, crashes to desktop, spontaneous reboots and no visible improvements at all. All I expect for the huge amount of money I have paid to the two parties concerned (1CGS and nVidia) is that one or both of them take some ownership of these issues and demonstrate that they give a shit by providing a timeline for a fix. For me, rolling back to 368.81 has stopped the crashes but the game only uses one of my graphics cards resulting in rather poor frame rates. I'd just assign the other to PhysX but BoX doesn't appear to use it. I could go out and buy a 1080Ti now for about AU$1200 but as someone else already pointed out, the next update could similarly render that upgrade useless and my existing cards (which cost AU$1500 each 2 years ago) play any other gold title flawlessly at over 100FPS all while rendering to 3 2560x1440 screens. Why the hell should I throw away more money when I still haven't received what I already paid for.
  3. I'd like to know if FM changes affecting the P40 are even included in 2.009.
  4. Warbirds Over Wanaka is on right now. If I could there to talk to the P40 guys I would. Anyone nearby?
  5. I don't have visibility of 1CGS' FM source, but I will make a comment with regard to the construction of such models in general and leave it to AnPetrovic to correct me regarding his exact design.In physically-modelled simulations documents and records of output parameters such as roll rate are not used at all as input to the FM. The purpose such documents serve when you have built an aerodynamic model based on calculations of flow around a 3D structure is to aid in confirmation of the validity of your model. That is to say, there is not some table where you have "roll_rate=X" which you copied from some report. That would be an output of the calculation not an input. One way you generate that output would be to consider the entire aircraft surface as being made up of tiny patches or elements (finite element analysis) upon each of which you mathematically calculate the resultant forces of airflow many times for each combination of input parameters for the element (such as air density, flow velocity, angle of incidence ...) and then integrate those results over the entire surface. If the elements are small enough the result will be "close enough" to reality. You then stuff the results into multidimensional arrays (indexed on the input variables) so your computer doesn't have to perform the calculations at runtime. The values in the array are discrete so you use interpolation to generate approximations of the continuous values. The accuracy of the output depends, among many factors, on the number of input axes, the resolution of samples, the accuracy of the 3D model and the quality of the fluid mechanical model. This may not be how BoX is done, but I suspect something at least similar to this approach. The point I am trying to convey is that attempting to control or "tweak" the models accuracy using the output is at worst futile and at best a very time consuming process of trial and error. What they seem to be doing instead is trying to get the input parameters as accurately modelled as possible and they compare measured results with whatever historical documentation is available to see how close they are. Given the difficulty inherent in this process conflicting values within some tolerance must be taken with a bucket of salt. So people shouldn't make a major case out of say a 1 degree per second roll rate discrepancy with some test report especially as the measurement accuracy of such reports possibly contain larger errors than the team's software model in some cases. Edit: accidental double post
  6. Maybe read the other threads on P40 engine limits rather than risk that topic being reborn here.
  7. Man I am certain you know that isn't what I was saying or even why I mentioned that example. The point of that example was that it was one that could be found in this forum that proved the P40E was used to war's end in the Pacific by at least the RAAF and they weren't all "late model" P40s in the PTO as Farky seemed to believe. For the record - if you check every P40 thread here you will see that I have always suggested a realistic indicative "limit" of 60" for 20 minutes - despite evidence presented of widespread setting of WEP to 66"Hg in WDAF units in the North African desert in 1942.
  8. I question the validity of that entire argument (Han's) because the date at which people's expectations (and therefore documentation) were revised doesn't have to coincide with the engine's capabilities. What I'm trying to say is that the specific V1710 engine used in the P40E didn't suddenly improve - what changed was the operators' understanding of its capabilities which to that point had been greatly underestimated.
  9. We (RAAF) operated the P40E in the PTO - specifically Guadalcanal and New Guinea. The after action report that I provided in another thread which documented a P40E evading a Zero on the deck at ~70" of manifold pressure for about 15 minutes (pulling these numbers from memory) was written up by a P40E pilot.
  10. This isn't flight test data, and you could argue it is not objective, but Bobby Gibbes was a straight talking realist who had the benefit of flying many types including the 109 F-4 and 109 G-2 who had the utmost respect for both the aircraft and their pilots. It is anecdotally interesting ...
  11. Sigh. Trimming was easy at beginning and early stage of the dive because airspeed hadn't yet produced control forces sufficient to impede said trim adjustment. This doesn't imply that trimming down is any more or less difficult than trimming up. I can't believe this is what you understood it to mean. BTW I supplied not one, but two, sources supporting this. And if you search this forum for "109 trim" you will find that I and others have collectively supplied several other historical reports and records of interview which all corroborate this assertion. Mr Physics and Mr Reality also concur that as airspeed increases the force required to deflect a surface into the airstream increases. So, in short, I base it on several period reports and my sound understanding of the mechanics of flight (BSc (Physics) + postgrad study in aeronautical engineering + a few hundred hours of stick and rudder time). No hours in these ... but plenty of hours in these ...
  12. I don't know. But it shouldn't be too difficult to calculate by modelling the airflow and resultant forces on control surfaces ... oh wait - thats what they are doing. I'm going to reserve further judgement until the changes discussed in the DD are released.
  13. It doesn't. When did I say that?
  14. There is no way the change would be in response to this thread - the issue they refer to in the DD was identified last year. Besides, changes to a software product follow a process which, beyond show-stopping bugs, takes longer to effect this degree of change than the two weeks this thread has existed. It also isn't a "consequence of introducing one big change that required a ton of other micro changes to balance it out" if the developers' own statements are to be believed. It seems the fluid-dynamic modelling they had used previously to build their FM didn't correctly account for some flow interactions caused by airflow around the empennage. Perhaps they had only modelled the lifting and control surfaces independently - I don't know. Based on the explanation given in the DD it would seem also that the aerodynamic force changes due to increasing airspeed had been incorrectly computed or neglected. Specifically trim operation in 3 aircraft which I mentioned to have implausibly high rates of change at high speed is affected - the P40, Mig3 and Bf109. It read to me as though the engineering team: - had previously applied per-aircraft "tweaks" to what was otherwise a globally physically-modelled system because at the time they simply couldn't account for the observed errors in behaviour; - have finally discovered the root cause of the problem in a rather unexpected part of their modelling process; - have resolved to correct the global root cause which will require recalculation of flight model parameters for every aircraft (I assume they perform offline precalculation for multidimensional arrays which are used in game as current comsumer hardware just doesn't have the grunt to do this in real time); and - plan to update each aircraft as their recalculated FM parameters are complete. So I don't think there is any "balancing out" going on here - just a much needed fix to a weakness in the core assumptions of their FM generation. NB: I may have read between the lines a bit due to being employed as a software engineer in the development of physical system modelling for fluid mechanical systems.
  15. Very busy with work today but here are two: The report on the captured G-2 "Black 6" mentions that the stabiliser trim wheel becomes almost solid at high speed, indicating that a more accurate model for trim actuation would consider a rate inversely proportional to airspeed with a some limit (which we can argue over) beyond which it become practically inoperable (and certainly not easily operable as it is now). I believe this is the reason SOPs instructed pilots to trim for dive recovery before entering such dives and use forward stick pressure to maintain a nose down attitude. " 13. The Elevators harden up at high speeds and retrimming is necessary, which is difficult as the twin wheel hardens up and becomes almost solid in a dive." http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me-109g2-trop.html A report on the G-6 also discusses the difficulty in adjusting pitch trim at such speeds (it is my understanding that the 350 IAS is expressed in miles per hour so as to avoid confusion of allied pilots - this equates to about 564km/h but even the 350 would be a rounded and slightly imprecise figure) ... "11. The rudder is fairly heavy but not uncomfortably so. As there is no rudder trimming device, it is necessary to apply right rudder for take-off and left rudder at high speeds. The ailerons become increasingly stiff with the increase in speed especially at speeds in excess of 350 I.A.S. At speed below 180 I.A.S. the ailerons are not positive and as the stall is approached they are almost non-effective. The elevators also become increasingly difficult to operate as the speed increases. Above 350 I.A.S. this unpleasantness is accentuated as the elevator trim is practically impossible to operate." http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g6-tactical.html
  16. As I have already said I intend to do exactly this to the extent possible within the restrictions of the game, and I had no intention of commenting further until I had done so, but some individuals feel compelled to ridicule any perfectly reasonable question around FM fidelity when it requests a re-evaluation of the in-game capability of their favourite aircraft. When ridicule devolves into assertions of ignorance and stupidity I feel compelled to respond.
  17. No I did not. It's possible to dive away at max speed at 5 degrees declination. You can also dive away at full throttle at 90 degrees if you like. I have not said anything to contradict this. You've posted my exact words and yet you still fail to comprehend their meaning. Rather than cherry pick the bits you want to attack out of context please try to be mature about it and consider my entire statements.
  18. This is what you said sarcastically in dispute of my assertion that attempting to recover from a fast (near airframe limit) dive close to the ground would likely result in a CFIT. I responded with the factual tactic advocated for use in that circumstance. You now supply a very different scenario where your comment seems appropriate, absent the original context, to steer the debate well away from your earlier tripe. "Mission parameters did not permit blah blah ..." It seems that you are now talking about bomber escorts not leaving their bomber formation to chase the interceptors as they dove away. While true, this has nothing to do with the topic of low recovery from a steep dive at Vmax or the validity of my statement that operation of the stabiliser trim in said circumstances was practically futile. I have never proposed that 109s can't dive away at high speed, nor disputed that would-be pursuers may have a multitude of reasons for not giving chase. I presented a very constrained scenario - you ridiculed that statement with a claim that was factually inaccurate if we are to assume that you were attempting to directly refute my own position - I corrected you. No need to "read up on" it thanks. Already did that during my military education.
  19. You are seeing what you want to see rather than what is written. The Colonel did not mention at what point trimming out was necessary and you have assumed that it was at the bottom of a dive after maximum airspeed had already been reached. I will post the RAE reports again as soon as I have some spare time - I am currently at work.
  20. Hmmm lets see ... you made the arrogant statement twice that allied reports carried no weight as though allied crews were incapable of accounting for the condition of the aircraft. I admit that when I just went back and checked - an earlier statement that I had attributed to you regarding performance claims being invalid because ... German engineering ... was actually made by someone else. I have referenced supporting documents - you simply choose to disregard the reports which we (ie English word in this context referring to those assembled and participating in this conversation) are all perfectly well aware of (they have been trotted out for time and again on just about every forum since the dawn of combat flight sims) - evidently because they weren't authored by Germans. Sounds like you have an issue to me.
  21. @Unreasonable - that should be reasonably simple to do. This weekend - time permitting - I will do it. I generally prefer to fly a mission with my mates than spend hours recording tracks and editing video for the benefit of people who will simply dismiss it as "feelings".
  • Create New...