JG4_Widukind Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 thx Kiwatek for your Work here,my engl is not so pretty. Can we see the Data waht the Devs have? It will be very intresst for me.You can send me a PM too! 1
1CGS Han Posted October 11, 2014 1CGS Posted October 11, 2014 There many holes in your game regarding flight model and performacne of BOS planes expecially relative performance. Holes which your team for now mostly ingonres but these holes rise speculation about your team historical objectivness etc. That is what I call "sea of flame and whining". Here it is again. No facts, agressive attitude, no any wish to hear another side. That is why I don't see any usefullness in surfing here. And other developers too. Not the language barrier is the reason guys. That is the reason. Say thanks to Kwaitek guys. To others - I've told the rules on FM claims, ball is on your side guys. 4
Rama Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 Can we see the Data waht the Devs have? This has allready been answered (negativelly)
II./JG77_Manu* Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 And how can be the "60%" accurate is the max roll rate of "any allied plane at this time" isn't known? How was it measure without knowing the absolute performances? More generally, how do you measure and document "relative" performances? That's a very common missconception to thing that relative performances can be accurate by themthelves... since there's no way to measure them directly... and since the only way to get them is to make a comparison between absolute performances. Your second example is self explaining.... there's no way you could know that the Fw top speed of XXXkph was YYYkph if you didn't know that the top speed of the yak at same altitude was ZZZkh (and then you'll know, since YYY = XXX - ZZZ) So the comparison you find are either unbacked with solid measures, and not really documented.... or they are, and then there's a way to find the original documents about absolute performances. Yes, the famous "anecdotal evidences".... that's why all FM debates are useless, since they mostly rely on these "anecdotal evidences" who have no physical values, and can't be used to model FMs. If you base a plane FM on anecdotal evidence, then it will not only not correspond to physical measurement and thus will bring away the game from the simulatin word, but more, it would have to be changed with each new plane you bring into the game, since you will find other "anecdotal evidences" talking about relative performances between the in-game planes and the new, that will often contradict with the old ones. And another thing... the more you read historical documentation, the more you find contradictions between "anecdotal evidences", and the more you see how unreliables they are. The only thing you can count on is documented performances, based on physical measurement... and that's what every dev (hopefully) try to do. I don't want to contradict you, agree in every point. Just wanted to single out, that for us (community) it's very hard, if not close to impossible to gather complete data about any plane in game. So we are left mostly with the "anecdotal evidences", and scratching our heads, if something in game clearly contradicts them. But i'll try to do a performance test with the 190 in game, and compare it to real life data, which i have a lot from the Fw, luckily. Once i have unlocked the outer cannons.....someday
Rjel Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 That is what I call "sea of flame and whining". Here it is again. No facts, agressive attitude, no any wish to hear another side. That is why I don't see any usefullness in surfing here. And other developers too. Not the language barrier is the reason guys. That is the reason. Say thanks to Kwaitek guys. To others - I've told the rules on FM claims, ball is on your side guys. That is a shame. There are plenty of others here who post responsibly with a lot of value to their posts. I hope all of the developers will look to them instead.
JG4_Widukind Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 Tells you why the people are angry because they write a lot, bring examples and also Fakts.But of your page you have the feeling that one is ignort because no one responded to the posts. Kiwatek flys minimum 10Jeahrs online,me also (since VEF!) My Online Squad have 40 aktive Pilots ,we Have 120 Members ...all potential customers. We want a new IL2 Series they we can fly over Yeahrs...but the basics in the Game are the Planes. This has allready been answered (negativelly) i know...sad 2
II./JG77_Manu* Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 That is what I call "sea of flame and whining". Here it is again. No facts, agressive attitude, no any wish to hear another side. That is why I don't see any usefullness in surfing here. And other developers too. Not the language barrier is the reason guys. That is the reason. Say thanks to Kwaitek guys. To others - I've told the rules on FM claims, ball is on your side guys. no i think, here i have to contradict you and defend my fellow pilot a little. he exactly pointed out, what he thinks is wrong. The divespeeds. He also gave you all the real life divespeed limits, and the ingame divespeed limits, so the difference in this post, spot on. Only thing he didnt mention was his source. But everything else, so what do you need more? so i can't see your problem here. Can't see this "sea of flame and whining", quite the opposite 2
BFsSmurfy Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 That is what I call "sea of flame and whining". Here it is again. No facts, agressive attitude, no any wish to hear another side. That is why I don't see any usefullness in surfing here. And other developers too. Not the language barrier is the reason guys. That is the reason. Say thanks to Kwaitek guys. To others - I've told the rules on FM claims, ball is on your side guys. Really?? I`d say it`s about time some of the team woke up and smelt the coffee, there are a lot of disgruntled people here, the game is getting battered on other forums and the stock answer is effectivelty "we know best". Up until a few weeks ago the majority of this forum were on the devs side,myself included, you guys were answering the difficult questions and being reasonable. In the last 2 weeks the SE server has been shut down, we`ve had Mr Williams involved in an unproffesional battle on the forum, the campaign has hit the game and it`s unlocks have been virtually rejected by the online MP community and not one dev has answered the questions about that subject and here you are blaming Kwiatek who does loads of FM work in other games of being aggresive which he most certainly isn`t. Who`s running this show???, lest you forget we are the customers and I`ll quote a member of our forum " the games quality is judged by the customer not the developer." Can we wind the clock back 2 weeks and resume listening to the customer on all subjects instead of just the ones we want to deal with? 2
Kling Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 Guys stop it. There will not be any FM changes! The ROF community has not succeeded with their request after pages and pages of evidence for years. There most likely will not be any changes to FMs in BOS either. Accept the current FMs as they are. If the FM dont meet the evidence in your report, you are most likely wrong. If you claim that the Fw190 has a radial engine and also two wings, YOU must prove that because its not obvious otherwise!... That is the kind of feeling I get here... The most obvious things must be proved it seems. Why the devs dont have these sources already is a mystery to me!!?? 9
6S.Insuber Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 Apart from any criticism, I spend a word of praise for the devs. I don't know many other businesses where the staff stays on duty until early morning to meet deadlines and post updates. Thank you developers for your dedication!!!! 1
II./JG77_Manu* Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 (edited) Kwiatek just sended my an Email, he got banned(!!!) from the forum, because of what?! are we now in north korea, were no can show is opinion in public, without getting "jailed"?? I couldn't see any rage post from him. Only saw his statement, like i wrote in my last post. i shall copy something in his name, which i do in the following lines: ""Replying to Hann post i just want to say that i show that such developers silence and ingorance could rise speculation about their attitide and objectivity expecially that before noone from dev. team want to talk with community about these things. And using my name for exuse some ingorance is not fair. Just all. "" Edited October 11, 2014 by Celestiale 4
LLv34_Flanker Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 S! The highest Rate of Roll I could find anywhere for La-5 was ~120deg/s. But again there was no mention about altitude, speed, stick forces and all that. Of which ALL is in RAE and other tests performed on captured Axis planes. Also there is a mention on La-5 history saying the rate of roll was "slightly better than of Bf109G". Pretty vague there. So do we have to dig up Bf109G roll rates and try to figure from that? Easy to hide behind "we got data, show yours" if we can not get access to Russian archives. But the data for Fw190A and Bf109 is out there and widely accessible to anyone. 1
JG4_Widukind Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 I also think this will change anything, unfortunately, but this much is also sending.One test does not hurt.When Trying to calm the customer then but you should also react.Otherwise it is like CLOD.Und I do not want!If you want to have a good bond with your customers back then proves it.Notes are enough in the forum.The ball is on your side ... not ours.PS: I'm flying now for over 10 years online, and unfortunately also know that such discus ion unfortunately lead to nothing ... unfortunately!
1CGS Han Posted October 11, 2014 1CGS Posted October 11, 2014 Kwaitek just sended my an Email, he got banned(!!!) from the forum, because of what?!Realy? That was not me Have no idea why this have happened. Haven't he flamed in other threads in same time? 1
Rama Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 Kwiatek just sended my an Email, he got banned(!!!) from the forum, because of what?! are we now in north korea, were no can show is opinion in public, without getting "jailed"?? I couldn't see any rage post from him. Only saw his statement, like i wrote in my last post. i shall copy something in his name, which i do in the following lines: ""Replying to Hann post i just want to say that i show that such developers silence and ingorance could rise speculation about their attitide and objectivity expecially that before noone from dev. team want to talk with community about these things. And using my name for exuse some ingorance is not fair. Just all. "" I did it. Pleaser read forum rule #6. You're not supposed to critic the moderation in public. 3
=362nd_FS=Hiromachi Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 (edited) S! The highest Rate of Roll I could find anywhere for La-5 was ~120deg/s. But again there was no mention about altitude, speed, stick forces and all that. Of which ALL is in RAE and other tests performed on captured Axis planes. Also there is a mention on La-5 history saying the rate of roll was "slightly better than of Bf109G". Pretty vague there. So do we have to dig up Bf109G roll rates and try to figure from that? Easy to hide behind "we got data, show yours" if we can not get access to Russian archives. But the data for Fw190A and Bf109 is out there and widely accessible to anyone. I got Rechlin test in English : https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0Iwvrpz0e6CNHZpSEdoOGNYem8/view?usp=sharing According to it at 450 km/g (280 mph) roll takes barely 4 seconds - so ~90 deg/sec. At 600 km/h (373 mph) aileron forces become heavy/high but can be assisted by rapid rudder movements. Now data from game are needed to compare, and I dont have La-5 so if someone could ... Ps. Would be nice to get reply from Han in case of my post from previous page. Hope he will find a sec. Edited October 11, 2014 by =LD=Hiromachi 3
1CGS Han Posted October 11, 2014 1CGS Posted October 11, 2014 This is starting to smell really bad Yep, only one PM regarding roll rate in my box and even this single have no test data from BOS. Only ONE. One not completed claim. After all these whining here regarding Fw190. This is the real attitude of whinners. Anyway, I'll check even this alone PM in Monday. This is rhe real attitude of developers. A man is not what he tells. A man is what he does. 13
Saurer Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 I got Rechlin test in English : https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0Iwvrpz0e6CNHZpSEdoOGNYem8/view?usp=sharing According to it at 450 km/g (280 mph) roll takes barely 4 seconds - so ~90 deg/sec. At 600 km/h (373 mph) aileron forces become heavy/high but can be assisted by rapid rudder movements. Now data from game are needed to compare, and I dont have La-5 so if someone could ... Ps. Would be nice to get reply from Han in case of my post from previous page. Hope he will find a sec. That one is for the FN not for the one we have in game
=362nd_FS=Hiromachi Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 Yep, only one PM regarding roll rate in my box and even this single have no test data from BOS. Only ONE. One not completed claim. After all these whining here regarding Fw190. This is the real attitude of whinners. Anyway, I'll check even this alone PM in Monday. This is rhe real attitude of developers. Han, give people time. Making valid and consistent test is not easy nor fast. That one is for the FN not for the one we have in game And did it differ in wing structure/airfoil, size of ailerons, etc ? I dont have any direct test of La-5 from early series, I dont think there is one available outside of Russia. But I have this.
1PL-Husar-1Esk Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 And that was certainly not a very good idea.... Private discussion with the dev if you bring some good data could certainly be interesting... but public ones will allways turn into a never-ending useless debate. Can't agree, look at facts, all community was thankful and today they recall is as something very good and hope for same day something will happen with other planes...
LLv34_Flanker Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 S! Some sources say that La-5FN had slightly reworked ailerons, but no other hard facts offered.
=362nd_FS=Hiromachi Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 S! Some sources say that La-5FN had slightly reworked ailerons, but no other hard facts offered. I am only aware of slightly lighter frame, engine with ADI and upgraded slats. Even if reworked ailerons were introduced, than it would be nice to know in what way. For the moment that is all I can offer.
Rama Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 Ok, the dev bashing stops now. You can critic, but bitter reproaches as we see in this thread in direct answer of a dev will grant a ban. That's really weird to see that peoples calling for dev answers, and when one is giving answers, reproaches fall like hail. 3
1PL-Husar-1Esk Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 Yep, only one PM regarding roll rate in my box and even this single have no test data from BOS. Only ONE. One not completed claim. After all these whining here regarding Fw190. This is the real attitude of whinners. Anyway, I'll check even this alone PM in Monday. This is rhe real attitude of developers. A man is not what he tells. A man is what he does. Han, please unban Kwiatek he is not bad man, he only worries to much about historical accuracy. He did provide data about his concerns, others did test in game. There is everything in those threads, pleas give them time, i know they will gather all needed information and will post PM to you. Han thank you for yours attention and good will to help to end FM discussion.
6./ZG26_5tuka Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 I am only aware of slightly lighter frame, engine with ADI and upgraded slats. Even if reworked ailerons were introduced, than it would be nice to know in what way. Me too. Apart form the different cockpit, slight fuselage changes and of course the better M-82 engine I don't knwo of any significant change. Roll data should be close to equal to the early model. I have a 33 page manual for the early la-5, but it's cyrillc and I oculdn't really spot any signs of roll test data yet. If someone wants to check it pls PM me.
Rama Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 Han, please unban Kwiatek he is not bad man, he only worries to much about historical accuracy. He did provide data about his concerns, others did test in game. There is everything in those threads, pleas give them time, i know they will gather all needed information and will post PM to you. Han thank you for yours attention and good will to help to end FM discussion. Again, it's not Han who banned Kwiatek (3 days), but me. And for reasons who have nothing to do with historical accuracy worries. And now, I tell it for the last time, please read forum rule #6. If you want to critic the moderation, it should be done by PM, not in public.
Kling Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 Yep, only one PM regarding roll rate in my box and even this single have no test data from BOS. Only ONE. One not completed claim. After all these whining here regarding Fw190. This is the real attitude of whinners. Anyway, I'll check even this alone PM in Monday. This is rhe real attitude of developers. A man is not what he tells. A man is what he does. Thx Han for checking this! Can you also check if the acceleration of the fw190 is corect according to your own performance charts?
1CGS Han Posted October 11, 2014 1CGS Posted October 11, 2014 Han, give people time. Making valid and consistent test is not easy nor fast. Noone have done this before? Guys on forum have told that "forum is full of proofs and tests". I've supposed that it's only need to make a very campact compile of allready posted data which will be focused on exact problem. 2
=362nd_FS=Hiromachi Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 Noone have done this before? Guys on forum have told that "forum is full of proofs and tests". I've supposed that it's only need to make a very campact compile of allready posted data which will be focused on exact problem. Cant speak for others in case of tests. Considering I am team member of another project and had to test various things, including flight models I simply know how much time can take making a valid test.
1CGS Han Posted October 11, 2014 1CGS Posted October 11, 2014 SO NOONE HAVEN't test Fw190 roll rate after roll fix here but everyone tell it is wrong? I'm in parallel reality? 6
Rama Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 Can't agree, look at facts, all community was thankful and today they recall is as something very good and hope for same day something will happen with other planes... Wrong. The only community remainder about this issue is the "no FM rework has been done since almost forever" leitmotif
LLv44_Mprhead Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 Well guys, if you have data showing FW 190 roll rate and acceleration to be wrong, please do as Han asks and PM him that data. Then at least the ball is definitely in developers corner.
1CGS Han Posted October 11, 2014 1CGS Posted October 11, 2014 Yep. Still waiting for PM. I'm not an FM engeneer, so tell to me in PM as to an idiot in short terms: 1. Name of source, page number. 2. Circumstances of test point in source (plane configuration, altitude, IAS, one roll or continues rolling, rudder used or not, direction of rolling and so on) 3. Exact roll rate in these circumstances in source 4. Exact roll rate in these circumstances in BoS
6./ZG26_5tuka Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 I'd gladly contibute in testing the FM, but I lack proper data. If sby has a flight report / maual data on hand he maybe can post test conditions (for example weight, weaponry, wheater conditions ect.) so we can cross test it all together and compare results. Doing so we also reduce various measuring errors due to controller and hardware differences between individual players by creating a solid average test result.
Gort Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 In the 1990's, there was an interesting article in "Sport Aviation", the EAA's technical magazine that compared four WWII US Fighters. The cool aspect is that the aircraft were flown by current test pilots who collected data using modern methods. These included performance data with plenty of notes on engine constraints, and included things like measured roll rates at various speeds. Since we have flying examples of some of the aircraft in BoS, it would be wonderful to see a test card evaluation. I've never seen a data driven evaluation of the Me109, FW190 to date, just general comments in articles flown by pilots who haven't done objective testing with data collection telemetry (or even a Mark One Mod Zero stopwatch).
Mugwump Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 That's not a bad idea. I'm going to be heading down to Paul Allen's Flying Heritage Museum in two weeks. He's got an operational FW-190 A-5. I'll ask for the data from the museum when I'm there. http://www.flyingheritage.com/TemplatePlane.aspx?contentId=16
1CGS Han Posted October 11, 2014 1CGS Posted October 11, 2014 So noone have compared Fw190 roll with sources but everyone thinks it's does not match? 3
Matt Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 Even if reworked ailerons were introduced, than it would be nice to know in what way. For the moment that is all I can offer. Aileron area was reduced to be able to increase area of the flaps for improved low speed handling. Can't say exactly by how much though. But the "4 seconds" number on the Rechlin test is already so vague, that it really doesn't matter, unless you find more accurate data for the La-5 (any variant should help).
DD_bongodriver Posted October 11, 2014 Posted October 11, 2014 So noone have compared Fw190 roll with sources but everyone thinks it's does not match? You could maybe give them some time instead of repeating yourself. 3
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now