Developer Diary, Part 82

[CUJO_1970]

I don't meant how you hawe tested. I've asked how was tested real plane in your data?

Method above is how real plane was tested.

 

Please see link for NACA report above in which you may see full test method explained.

 

If you need me to I will send the full PDF document to your email.

[Han]

Method above is how real plane was tested.

 

Please see link for NACA report above in which you may see full test method explained.

 

If you need me to I will send the full PDF document to your email.

 

Ok.

[SYN_Skydance]

There will always be conflicting information in fm characteristics. If the devs can have several sources of data that they can compare, then they can decide the most suitable statistics to use. They have experience in this and I would think they they would make the most reasonable choices for each plane.

 

Sky.

[1./KG4_Blackwolf]

. I`m with ST A minor 7th flat 5th on this one ( I guess you`re a Hendrix fan or guitar player??)

 "Half-diminished"   

[BFsSmurfy]

I don`t read or understand music unfortunately, I play by ear and tabs, and youtube lessons. I wish I`d learnt what was what and why, but sadly I did not.

[CUJO_1970]

OK first part of PM including historical data has been sent.

 

Next step is to send comparative test results in game.

 

I will start a new thread detailing the findings after sending results to Han via PM per his request.

[1./JG42Nephris]

Just as small hint, we got the Messerschmidt Foundation in Germany which still flies the 109 (although nothing below a G4) and aswell the Flugwerk wwhich rebuilded,flew and sold FW190 (however Flugwerft got sacrificed by financial means).

I had contact to Flugwerk owner around 4 weeks ago for a visit.

 

Have you ever considered to make one of those pilots ,either by Messerschmitt/Cassidian or Flugwerk to fly your Sim?

When I am correct you did similar with russian planes and RL pilots who flew those models?

 

If you are interested for the contact in any kind and you maybe want to get one of those warbird pilots testing your 109 & 190, I could try to setup the wire.

Edited October 11, 2014 by 1./JG42Nephris

[LLv44_Mprhead]

Just as small hint, we got the Messerschmidt Foundation in Germany which still flies the 109 (although nothing below a G4) and aswell the Flugwerk wwhich rebuilded,flew and sold FW190 (however Flugwerft got sacrificed by financial means).

I had contact to Flugwerk owner around 4 weeks ago for a visit.

 

Have you ever considered to make one of those pilots ,either by Messerschmitt/Cassidian or Flugwerk to fly your Sim?

When I am correct you did similar with russian planes and RL pilots who flew those models?

 

If you are interested for the contact in any kind and you maybe want to get one of those warbird pilots testing your 109 & 190, I could try to setup the wire.

 

If I remember correctly, G4 is G2 with different radio equipment or something along those lines. So that shouldn't be too big an issue.

[FZG_Merlin]

It was pretty well known that the fw-190 had a impressive roll rate compared to other fighters.

 

Currently in the game it doesn't impress much.

[SYN_Jedders]

I love the fact that fm debates nearly always ignore the human element. Even if it is possible to roll and aircraft at 140/sec doesn't mean a human can withstand the treatment. Without modern equipment it would usually end up with your arsehole coming out through your eye sockets.

 

Not much is going to change at this stage in fm terms. I'm glad the Devs are answering aggressively now, maybe a little more of that in the last 2 weeks would have placated a few folks.

[DD_bongodriver]

140/sec anybody's grandmother could cope with.

[SYN_Jedders]

140/sec anybody's grandmother could cope with.

Well, mine could...they are both dead. Not sure what a reasonable figure is for roll rate. I'm sure you can give us accurate data.

[FZG_Merlin]

I love the fact that fm debates nearly always ignore the human element. Even if it is possible to roll and aircraft at 140/sec doesn't mean a human can withstand the treatment. Without modern equipment it would usually end up with your arsehole coming out through your eye sockets.

Not much is going to change at this stage in fm terms. I'm glad the Devs are answering aggressively now, maybe a little more of that in the last 2 weeks would have placated a few folks.

It is a known fact that 190 pilots were able to out roll enemy pilots and evade them that way...

 

Nothing miraculous here

[SYN_Jedders]

You better pm han then....your "facts" are exactly what he is looking for

[FZG_Merlin]

I am sure he can read pilots books, just as I can. German AND allied pilots, who come to the same conclusions in their book. The fw roll rate was superior and a great asset.

 

Recoup that with naca , British and soviet text, and there is no mistery.

 

That superior roll rate doesn't exist in the sim right now.

 

I have no doubt it's going to be fixed adjusted in the future.

Edited October 11, 2014 by FZG_Immel

[Mugwump]

More like it's too late for the drama.

 

It is a pity that the thread has been taken over by a FM controversy affecting one plane that many of us will hardly ever fly. Really only a few people care about this, and I cannot see how the roll rate of the Fw190 is likely to affect the success of the launch, which should be the team's sole concern at this point.

 

What is important is the SP campaign, which has been presented as the centerpiece of BoS, and it's interaction with MP.

 

Currently we are getting a stream of incremental bug fixes and improvements, which is good. I am enjoying the missions: there is a lot going on if you take the time to look rather than just flying along in autopilot time acceleration looking at your watch. I particularly hope that we will get a decent finger-four formation and not have control of the flight taken away by "player" commands at the action point.

 

But the underlying discontent still needs to be addressed. I understand that the basic system cannot be changed now even if the team wanted to do it, but possibly the following steps would show some willingness to listen:

 

1) Make MP qualify for xp-unlocks.

 

2) Have the player in SP join as a pilot of specific named unit (as in the original description of the campaign in the Dev Diaries) and record the results for each named pilot in a separate log-book, in addition to the existing aggregate player card. This would give us the bare minimum we need for RP purposes.

 

 

I agree with this.  It's much more important than concentrating on the minutiae of roll rates for a plane that really shouldn't even be in the game.

[FZG_Merlin]

Since it is in the game, one of it's main characteristic should be modeled correctly.

 

Simple as that.

 

And I don't even fly the plane..

[SYN_Jedders]

If you have these books then please send them to Han. He has asked for evidence so he can alter the fms accordingly. You say you know he is wrong and you can prove it with these books. Seems an open and shut case to me.

Edited October 11, 2014 by SYN_Jedders

[FZG_Merlin]

I'd be glad to provide the titles of the books and passage references, yes.

 

I didn't say he was 'wrong' I said it probably needed adjusting.

Edited October 11, 2014 by FZG_Immel

[SYN_Jedders]

Here's the thing. No two people will drive a car exactly the same way. No two cars will have the same performance figures when new, let alone after a few miles have been added to the clock. I can only assume that aircraft are the same as cars in this respect. Now, add to that the physical abilities of two human beings. Factors like fitness, height, weight, susceptibility to g-forces will all affect how an aircraft can turn, climb, roll etc.

 

Now. Add combat...fear, luck, skill, experience. Now write a book about it 50 years later form the survivors/victors point of view.

 

Now tell me truthfully, if you were writing a computer game would you rely on the data written in black and white by the manufacturer or just jot down a few random numbers based on what some folks say on a forum. Honestly now...how is anyone expected to get it accurate.

 

This is all about perception and the Devs have made their choices. Can we get them to "tweak" them a little?....maybe. If we ask enough and provide data.

[FZG_Merlin]

 

 

There is no mistery that the fw-190 had a superior roll rate to almost all contemporaneous fighters.

 

It's shown in very specific testings available to anyone (naca, British ones) that were done in a very systematic way that involves no specific piloting skills or physical abilities. Just simple tests that involved getting at certain speed and yanking the stick full left or right and measure how many degrees of angle were achieved in a second.

 

These tests, 'strangely' match and concur with what pilots at the time who flew with or against the fw-190 said. And they didn't say it fifty years later, but they wrote it in their debriefing reports and in their instruction manuals.

 

Simple as that.

 

Nor the test result or pilots accounts correspond to what is in the game at the moment. This is just it.

 

I don't doubt the roll rate should and will be adjusted.

Edited October 12, 2014 by FZG_Immel

[StarLightSong]

Well things are really progressing, particulary in terms of Community/ developer interaction and cooperation.

 

Great.

This the only alternative to DCS which is too time intensive for me at the moment.

 

However, I would like to move over to the steam platform where my many and much scattered online friends are.

 

Can a key be obtained for us "Premium Founders"

- not that I won't buy any additional content you create.

hmm maybe there's another place for this topic post...

 

anyways I feel that many people are having their needs addressed.

I'm just glad that PC military flight sims aren't going the way of the DoDo.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I was perfectly comfortable waiting til after release for most of the Fw FM tweaks and there are several to be had. The supercharger bug is far more critical than a few degrees per second of roll to me anyway.

 

The aircraft is in the game whether you like it or not. Whether it should be is a red herring in relation to an FM argument.

 

But for cryin' out loud, Han is here and asking for data. If you have it, provide it. I don't, so I can't. Based upon anecdotal information I believe all of the aircraft need their roll rates investigated but that wont, and shouldn't, cut it for the Dev's to amend anything. Send them the data. I and others are relying on the community expertise for this.

 

Squabbling about anecdotal information when you have the opportunity to effect change is mind boggling.

Edited October 12, 2014 by HerrMurf

[Gort]

140/sec anybody's grandmother could cope with.

 

T38/F5 and the old A4 series rolled at 720 degrees per second. Pilots loved rolling them.

[DD_bongodriver]

T38/F5 and the old A4 series rolled at 720 degrees per second. Pilots loved rolling them.

I would too, but apparently my asshole would fly out of my eye sockets.

[Jason_Williams]

I was perfectly comfortable waiting til after release for most of the Fw FM tweaks and there are several to be had. The supercharger bug is far more critical than a few degrees per second of roll to me anyway.

 

The aircraft is in the game whether you like it or not. Whether it should be is a red herring in relation to an FM argument.

 

But for cryin' out loud, Han is here and asking for data. If you have it, provide it. I don't, so I can't. Based upon anecdotal information I believe all of the aircraft need their roll rates investigated but that wont, and shouldn't, cut it for the Dev's to amend anything. Send them the data. I and others are relying on the community expertise for this.

 

Squabbling about anecdotal information when you have the opportunity to effect change is mind boggling.

 

What Han an Loft have always asked for is a proper comparison of what data you have and how the game performs under the same circumstances. When presented with a proper "paper" they will look at it. Simply sending links and other loose information isn't going to get looked at closely.

 

Jason

[FZG_Merlin]

Fair enough.

will be done

[soupdragon]

What Han an Loft have always asked for is a proper comparison of what data you have and how the game performs under the same circumstances. When presented with a proper "paper" they will look at it. Simply sending links and other loose information isn't going to get looked at closely.

 

But shouldn't this kind of thing be done by the devs as a matter of course? 

If I were making a WWII sim I sure as hell would be collecting flight data from as many sources as possible and corroborating it with the people on this forum who know this kind of stuff.  I mean the data is out there so  shouldn't you be trawling through it?

 

SD

[LukeFF]

try this go in has fast has you can in a dive  hit the 1/2 slow key, this helps me a lot

 

What?

[Gort]

I would too, but apparently my asshole would fly out of my eye sockets.

 

Maybe not that extreme, but you do come out of your seat a little...

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

But shouldn't this kind of thing be done by the devs as a matter of course? 

If I were making a WWII sim I sure as hell would be collecting flight data from as many sources as possible and corroborating it with the people on this forum who know this kind of stuff.  I mean the data is out there so  shouldn't you be trawling through it?

 

SD

They did but they are being challenged and are now providing the means to effect change. I don't see the problem with providing alternate sources. Factual information is the proper way to argue and the proper way to get the community involved. It (Dev interaction on this small point) might even be a single first step towards healing a community which tore itself apart over the last ten days or so.

Edited October 12, 2014 by HerrMurf

[LukeFF]

 

 

Kiwatek flys minimum 10Jeahrs online,me also (since VEF!)

 

And what does that matter? Playing flight simulators for ten years doesn't make one a pilot, any more than playing Silent Hunter for the same amount of time makes one qualified to command a submarine.

 

 

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?

 

Umm, the sources? 

[Feathered_IV]

So, you want changes?

Provide COMPACT historical data and BoS flight tests result to my PM.

If your PM will be like:

 

Hello

This is page scan from "xxxx", this graph shows Fw190a3 roll rate in "yyyyuy" conditions. As you see it should be "zzzzz" degrees per second.

And here is my result of flight test in BoS in same conditions. In BoS in same conditions we have "vvvvvv" degrees per second.

Mistake is more than "ppppp" percent, so please fix it.

Bye.

 

So, if I'll have such SHORT and USEFULL PM - we will re-check our data and adjustments.

Don't offer me "go there and look to thread". I.ll not do this, I've no time.

 

 

Excellent.  That will sort the men out from the boys.

[Jade_Monkey]

The only thing worse than getting shot down after reaching your objective is when you finally made it and the game crashes ((

 

I know they are looking into the crashes but I can't wait. 

[FlatSpinMan]

Just to reiterate, FM discussion doesn't go here. If you think there is an inaccuracy with the data, send a concise, well-supported PM to Han as he has said many times in this thread.

 

Please keep all discussion and comments civil and non-personal. I am currently cleaning up this thread.

[unreasonable]

My reading of the developer interaction here is that it is signaling that there is no possibility of the developers allowing MP to count towards xp, or of injecting any pilot RP information into the SP campaign.

 

Focusing communication on a single, relatively trivial issue allows them to show willingness to listen and adjust, provided their conditions are met, hence reducing the waving of pitchforks, which is bad for sales. (If someone does meet the conditions they demand, they can always change them).

 

Meanwhile any debate about the issues that matter is marginalized.

 

Vague statements can be made about changes after release: but if release is a failure then the project will be terminated. If it is a success, then the development decisions will be vindicated and hence the determination not to change them will be increased.

 

This is not a criticism of the developers, rather an appeal to the community to have realistic expectations about what is or is not going to happen.

IMHO

[Jason_Williams]

But shouldn't this kind of thing be done by the devs as a matter of course? 

If I were making a WWII sim I sure as hell would be collecting flight data from as many sources as possible and corroborating it with the people on this forum who know this kind of stuff.  I mean the data is out there so  shouldn't you be trawling through it?

 

SD

 

SP,

 

We have a real aerospace engineer who has built our physics and flight system. He is a professionally trained engineer and a real pilot who flies light sport ultralights and gliders. There is not much private aviation in Russia compared to the U.S. but he is the most qualified real-life flyer on the team. We feel he is very qualified and he is no dummy. He works very hard doing all the things you seem to think we do not do. We gather legitimate sources from archives or other places, comb through the data, measure shapes and coefficients, build the profile, produce a result, tweak and compare again. At some point we need to call it done and move on. We do not spend endless man hours ($$$$) tweaking to please every user. It's impossible. We are never going to match everyone's personal expectations of how each plane should perform. There is a certain level of "subjectiveness" to this topic and sometimes it seems it is more art than science because there is so much anecdotal stories etc. that cloud the facts. Even archival sources differ on numbers so the totally so the completely correct answer is somewhat lost to time. The team tries to stick to the science side of the arguments. However, we strive to get very close and real life pilots tell us quite frequently that our planes fly better than any other combat sim on the market. So we are quite happy with the results we get in most cases and when we feel we screwed up we try to fix.

 

What I see happening here (as with all sims ever released) is a lot of complaints based on anecdotal info and then a big push to match some magical performance number in some data-set somewhere. There is no way to completely reconcile the two. So Han has asked, as Loft and I have asked in the past is that if you have a serious problem with our FMs, prove it to us that we have a gross error. When we release our airplanes we feel the performance matches close enough to the data we have and hopefully gets close to the anecdotal stories we have heard.

 

The community has endless time to spend on these topics, we don't. So if you want to have us change something, show us how wrong we got it. Please don't post random links and quotes. We do not have the time to re-research everything.

 

I've never flown a real WWII in combat, so I have to trust that our engine and team get's it really close to how it was. None of us here have flown a WWII fighter at the edge of the envelope in combat so it is difficult for me to think that any of us have the exact answer. So there will always be some question as to what is correct.

 

Jason

[FuriousMeow]

Kiwatek flys minimum 10Jeahrs online,me also (since VEF!)

 

Neat. I've been playing ("flying") online for about 20 years, since Confirmed Kill v.91. Doesn't make a difference on being an authority with regards to flight models.

 

With my experience, though, I can tell you that the FMs aren't fudged negatively for the LW side and positively for the VVS side. Quite the contrary, the LW side is very good. Having 40deg/sec faster roll rate isn't going to save your bacon either or make the plane an amazing dogfighter. You'll still come out on the losing side of the fight if you are reliant on an extra 40deg/sec faster roll rate.

 

The only time I've seen roll rate save someone with regards to the 190 was back in the days of dial up and the reliance on predictive net coding that titles like CK, WB, and AH all used. The latency and predictive net code with the fast roll rate of the 190 caused it to glitch across the other client's screen, much like the old print screen cheat, so aiming on it was extremely difficult until it managed to gain enough speed to high tail it away then the 190 "experten" would finally level out and stop the fish out of water trick. That is the only time roll rate of the 190 has made a difference.

Edited October 12, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[Han]

The only thing worse than getting shot down after reaching your objective is when you finally made it and the game crashes ((

 

I know they are looking into the crashes but I can't wait.

 

Weird thing. We know it and we will fix it on next week.

[Han]

Regarding Fw190 FM.

 

At least I've received all necessary compact info on my PM from several great guys and one not so great guy

 

Issues which to be re-checked:

 

1. Roll rate

2. Climb rate

3. Supercharger swithch altitude

4. Negative G value before negative stall

 

I'll respond on every claim of these four after some time.

Now please back to 82nd diary and Campaign issues