Feathered_IV Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Well, sue me. It just always seems like the most strident nutbags from Galen Thurber to Siggi and his followers always seem to have a chip on their shoulder for their Luftwaffe aircraft. 1
DD_Arthur Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) [Edited] Oh - er Feathered, in at the deep end, eh? Although, having sadly hung around flight sim forums for over a decade, I do have a certain amount of sympathy for this view, I know the kind of characters you refer to are few and far between and frankly, I don't see any of them here. What I do see is the collision between what happened in reality and what can be done in a video game. When Anthony Fokker built the Eindecker way back in 1915 he set the pattern for fighter development - the flying gun - for the next sixty years. The art of the fighter pilot is to creep up behind your opponent unseen and blow his brains out before running away to safety. It was all about the bounce. No one chose to enter a dogfight willingly and these sort of battles took place rarely. All these guys were playing a dead is dead game. And yet online - where we have nothing more than elaborate dogfight servers and a refly button - its a stick pulling fest. The idea of bias in flight models has always been a reflection on the individual rather than the designers. Remember Oleg's favourite ride? That's right, it was the '109 Edited February 8, 2015 by Bearcat
Feathered_IV Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Oh - er Feathered, in at the deep end, eh? Although, having sadly hung around flight sim forums for over a decade, I do have a certain amount of sympathy for this view, I know the kind of characters you refer to are few and far between and frankly, I don't see any of them here. Was pretty strong wasn't it. Ah well. Wish I could delete the last line, but unfortunately the forum won't allow it.
DD_Arthur Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) Don't worry, I'm sure the forum pixies will be along soon to perform some "surgery." Sallee's Hosenwhinging thread seems to have vanished overnight. Edited February 8, 2015 by arthursmedley
unreasonable Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) There is no goal to make some plane weaker or stronger because someone loves LaGG or 190, there is goal to make most accurate model based on proven historical data, even if it contradicts some deep-rooted myths. Excellent post setting out the difficulties of culling an answer from conflicting sources. As I see it is better to put the whole "bias" issue to one side: we cannot know for sure if you are doing it or not, for that matter it is sometime difficult to know if one is doing it oneself. You say you are not. I believe you are sincere. The remaining problem is in your last line: historic data cannot be "proven" in any scientific sense, since you cannot repeat the observation. Dismissing other information as "myth" is also rather emotive; sometimes events dismissed as myth turn out to be based on real events. Me, however sexist it may sound , am treating the team as whole more and more like a woman; not trying to understand or judge by standards I apply to myself, just ask myself If I want what they have to offer in my life more than less . It simplifies things a lot. This is such good advice, my own life become so much easier when I discovered this approach to the fair sex. I would just change the words "more rather than less" to "at the quoted price". Edited February 8, 2015 by unreasonable
unreasonable Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Don't worry, I'm sure the forum pixies will be along soon to perform some "surgery." Sallee's Hosenwhinging thread seems to have vanished overnight. That is a shame, we could all do with a few laughs here.
303_Kwiatek Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) '303_Kwiatek', on 07 Feb 2015 - 20:58, said: Russian planes in another sim made by Russian developers got some more bonus that they had IRL Let me translate one post for you from Russian forum about what data was used for Soviet planes. Quote ALL soviet planes in BoS are tuned using data, received either from check run or State performed tests of serial machine. And there are different copies of test results both from different samples from one factory and serial machine samples from different factories. PS: about Germans [planes]. It would be interesting to see not mark "added to arsenal" (as it is honestly is written) [not sure how to translate correctly, means test sample is good enough for series and State decides to produce it], but to read "test sample: serial machine". Note PS, AFAIK it is one of common mistakes that players make, while claiming some data. BTW: that thread on Russian forum is 160 pages long and players are trying to prove one or other issue with FM (German planes as well), some found issues were correct and changes were made or will be included in next versions. If you see some difference between version to version and it is not recent bug (that may be), than actual data used to tune plane was made more accurate. You like to talk about Russian propaganda from WWII as barrier for correct FM, but German or Western propaganda also exists in their's sources. Moreover, Western, German and Soviet tests of the same planes contain different performance results. If engineer take German version, every player who sticks to Western's data will say that it is not correct. If engineer take Western version, every player who sticks to German's data will say that is not correct. And to answer your yet unasked question, AFAIK, Soviet's data is not used to tune German planes to avoid accusations of using wrong data, although from my opinion for Soviet's pilots it was matter of survival to know accurate characteristics of enemy's planes, thus theirs result as much credible as results of other sides. As i said there should be 2 version of game : one for Russian market and second for rest of world That would be fair. Im joking. I belive that you got the problem with accurate data and with chooice which ones is more accurate. As you said data varry when the same type of plane was tested by other countries. But you know also that most captured planes were damage and not represent 100% performacne of standart aircraft. But backing to BOS i think that even if some data was confirmed by VVS still in BOS there is something not right. For example G-2 performacne was really agreed by German sources and VVS ( 525 kph at 0 , 660 kph at 7 km). Most problem in BOS is that German planes dont have their performacne advetange at high speeds. The most hurt plane is 109 G-2 - suprisly the plane which you have data confirmed by German and VVS test. IN BOS : Speed test at 7.2 km in BOS ( which is 6 km in ISA): 100 % fuel, level flight with auto level function. Yak 1 - 405 IAS/ 544 TAS kph (radiator 25%) ---- comparing to ISA 6 km - ab. 545 kph ----------- accurate G-2 - 450 IAS/ 602 TAS kph ( radiator auto) ------------------------------------------- 645/660 kph -------------43/50 kph less A-3 - 441 IAS kph / 590 TAS kph ( 1.3 Ata) ----------------------------------------------- 625 kph --------- ---35 kph less ---------470 IAS kph / 628 TAS ( 1.4 Ata) --------------------------------------------------- 650 kph ---------- --22 kph less F-4 1.3 Ata - 458 IAS kph / 612 TAS kph----------------------------------------------- ISA TAS 630 kph -------------18 kph less 1.4 Ata - 470 IAS kph / 628 TAS ---------------------------------------------------ISA TAS 645 kph -------------17 kph less The same at low alts G-2 got the worse speed boost due to winter cold air comparing to all other planes in BOS. So it is really strange that even if You got accurate data for these plane ( confirmed by German test and VVS test) still these plane doesn't reach its historical performacne. It seemd that you also got problem with Fw 190 A-3 in BOS. Russian test which i know were made with damaged plane ( it got different prop) so these test was not accurate. Actually in BOS Fw 190 A-3 doesnt have also benefis from cold air in climb rate. Test in BOS proved that climb time of A-3 in BOS is the same like IRL in ISA charts ----> so no true benefis from cold air. Also maximum speed at 1.3 Ata (combar power) is too low ----. its mean that at 1.3 Ata Fw 190 got too low power ( it could also affect no benefis in climb rate). Other hand Russian planes got maximum speed performacne as we could expect from VVS test serial planes which is good. ( dont know about climb rate but it looks that all Russian fighter got benefis in climb rate due to cold air). What is the most doubfull thing there are maximum dive speeds - which we all known there were seriously restricted in VVS RL manuals ( Lagg3 - 600 kph IAS, La5 - 625 kph, Yak-1 - 650 kph) , also high speed handling ( no problem with heavy stick forces) and also very dubfull high roll rates of La5 and Lagg 3 ( even Russian pilots when test these planes confirmed heavy stick forces and poor bank changes above 250 mph IAS). Other hand plane Fw 190 which was known from light stick forces and good control harmony had the worse handling at high speed comparing to all other fighters in BOS. Even if now some German planes are still supierior to Russian ones in game what will be if You intorduce in game other peroids - e.x. 1943 with improved Soviets planes like Yak-9 or La5F or La5FN? These would be game only for Russians i think. If you get all these things toghether it really hard to not to say that game even if got really good engine and potential is unfortunately too much balanced. Edited February 8, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek
Wulf Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 As i said there should be 2 version of game : one for Russian market and second for rest of world That would be fair. Im joking. I belive that you got the problem with accurate data and with chooice which ones is more accurate. As you said data varry when the same type of plane was tested by other countries. But you know also that most captured planes were damage and not represent 100% performacne of standart aircraft. But backing to BOS i think that even if some data was confirmed by VVS still in BOS there is something not right. For example G-2 performacne was really agreed by German sources and VVS ( 525 kph at 0 , 660 kph at 7 km). Most problem in BOS is that German planes dont have their performacne advetange at high speeds. The most hurt plane is 109 G-2 - suprisly the plane which you have data confirmed by German and VVS test. IN BOS : Speed test at 7.2 km in BOS ( which is 6 km in ISA): 100 % fuel, level flight with auto level function. Yak 1 - 405 IAS/ 544 TAS kph (radiator 25%) ---- comparing to ISA 6 km - ab. 545 kph ----------- accurate G-2 - 450 IAS/ 602 TAS kph ( radiator auto) ------------------------------------------- 645/660 kph -------------43/50 kph less A-3 - 441 IAS kph / 590 TAS kph ( 1.3 Ata) ----------------------------------------------- 625 kph --------- ---35 kph less ---------470 IAS kph / 628 TAS ( 1.4 Ata) --------------------------------------------------- 650 kph ---------- --22 kph less F-4 1.3 Ata - 458 IAS kph / 612 TAS kph----------------------------------------------- ISA TAS 630 kph -------------18 kph less 1.4 Ata - 470 IAS kph / 628 TAS ---------------------------------------------------ISA TAS 645 kph -------------17 kph less The same at low alts G-2 got the worse speed boost due to winter cold air comparing to all other planes in BOS. So it is really strange that even if You got accurate data for these plane ( confirmed by German test and VVS test) still these plane doesn't reach its historical performacne. It seemd that you also got problem with Fw 190 A-3 in BOS. Russian test which i know were made with damaged plane ( it got different prop) so these test was not accurate. Actually in BOS Fw 190 A-3 doesnt have also benefis from cold air in climb rate. Test in BOS proved that climb time of A-3 in BOS is the same like IRL in ISA charts ----> so no true benefis from cold air. Also maximum speed at 1.3 Ata (combar power) is too low ----. its mean that at 1.3 Ata Fw 190 got too low power ( it could also affect no benefis in climb rate). Other hand Russian planes got maximum speed performacne as we could expect from VVS test serial planes which is good. ( dont know about climb rate but it looks that all Russian fighter got benefis in climb rate due to cold air). What is the most doubfull thing there are maximum dive speeds - which we all known there were seriously restricted in VVS RL manuals ( Lagg3 - 600 kph IAS, La5 - 625 kph, Yak-1 - 650 kph) , also high speed handling ( no problem with heavy stick forces) and also very dubfull high roll rates of La5 and Lagg 3 ( even Russian pilots when test these planes confirmed heavy stick forces and poor bank changes above 250 mph IAS). Other hand plane Fw 190 which was known from light stick forces and good control harmony had the worse handling at high speed comparing to all other fighters in BOS. Even if now some German planes are still supierior to Russian ones in game what will be if You intorduce in game other peroids - e.x. 1943 with improved Soviets planes like Yak-9 or La5F or La5FN? These would be game only for Russians i think. If you get all these things toghether it really hard to not to say that game even if got really good engine and potential is unfortunately too much balanced. OMG, looks like Feathered's outed another Nazi. 3
Georgio Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Well, here we are again with people more interested in conspiracy theories than actual flying and enjoying the game. Personally I would say that most people I've come across in flight sims over the years think they are better than are and when they get out manoeuvred and shot down always look to other reasons apart from their lack of skill. Sure there are problems, it's an evolving game for instance the landing physics still seems off to me, but I'm sure given time it will get sorted. 2
Brano Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Another "hear,hear how I feel" topic.It seams like twitter or facebook here.Hey folks,see my todays status! To OP: yes,thanks to let us all know how you feel and we all hope you feel better now when its out. To FM crusaders: Interesting to see you join in every such post with your agenda.Even it has bean clearly stated many times,how you should report your findings about FM bugs.You seem to be interested more in argueing about it till the end of times than solving problem itself. 3
SR-F_Winger Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 The easiest the devs could make to end ALL this discussion (i mean if there is no bias) was to publicate the data they used to determine the performance the planes should have in their opinion. I mean they must have used some sort of formula to calculate an average from all their sources. Just publicate them and tell us how you came to the conclusion that the planes should perform the way they do. IF we can see that all sources have been used the same way and the "average" was calculated the same way for all planes of both sides the yawning should find an end. On the other hand if you didnt measured all planes with the same tape you better dont publicate anything.
JtD Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Speed test at 7.2 km in BOS ( which is 6 km in ISA)...No, it is not. Russian test which i know were made with damaged plane ( it got different prop)...Not for testing. Get your facts right.
FlatSpinMan Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Winger - as Taleks said, stroll into the Russian Military Archives, plunk down your cash and you can get the data yourself if you want it that badly. Then you can submit your FM complaints with good documented support.
SR-F_Winger Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) I was suggesting what could be done to bring an end to all discussions and accusations. I dont speak a single word russian. Wouldnt it be easy to, along with the planerelease, publicate a series of documents (or even just refrences with numbers used) that led to the the performance the planes show in game? I know it would take a little time but wouldnt that be a good tradeoff for less negativity in the forums? Edited February 8, 2015 by VSG1_Winger
FlatSpinMan Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Presumably there are means of getting documents translated, should you strongly desire to do so. As for why they didn't publish anything, I again refer you to Taleks' post. He posted in a personal capacity, not as an official representative of the company, but his reasoning was along th lines of the data could be held up as proof of bias/inaccuracies towards one side or the other. That's just a paraphrase -please search for his comment and read it directly to get a more precise answer.
II./JG77_Manu* Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Presumably there are means of getting documents translated, should you strongly desire to do so. As for why they didn't publish anything, I again refer you to Taleks' post. He posted in a personal capacity, not as an official representative of the company, but his reasoning was along th lines of the data could be held up as proof of bias/inaccuracies towards one side or the other. That's just a paraphrase -please search for his comment and read it directly to get a more precise answer. DCS is doing this, they are giving you a whole manual with all the data, restrictions etc. with the modules and i can't see any bias there (beside the reasonable request for 150 octan for allies). I also can't see any FM discussions there (not talking about Beta modules).
303_Kwiatek Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 DCS is doing this, they are giving you a whole manual with all the data, restrictions etc. with the modules and i can't see any bias there (beside the reasonable request for 150 octan for allies). I also can't see any FM discussions there (not talking about Beta modules). Yep but regarding WW2 planes in DCS take a note that there is no Russian planes yet 303_Kwiatek, on 08 Feb 2015 - 11:45, said: Speed test at 7.2 km in BOS ( which is 6 km in ISA)... No, it is not. Not so what is your own calculations? It really is not so improtant casue you know suprisly Yak-1 or Lagg-3 got accurate maximum speed at these alts in BOS comparing to RL ISA data. For be sure i made test at different alts ( 5 - 6 - 7.2 km ) in BOS and you know what at all these alts German planes never reached their RL maximum speeds. They were too slow at all these alts, other hand Russian ones were close to RL data. Im still like BOS game with its faults and want to play it but im not really blinded fanboy. You known.
Rjel Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 I've often wondered how much value there is to using captured enemy A/C data when creating flight sims? While on the surface it could be argued the data might be subject to less homegrown bias, given that each nation was fighting for its very survival at the time, it's difficult for me to believe that an equal amount of bias didn't creep into the results of testing enemy machines. The other factor is simply that with few exceptions, most retrieved enemy airplanes were not in factory fresh condition or even in a flyable state. While a handful might have landed at an enemy airbase by mistake, at best, most machines were culled from crash sites or were machines left behind at captured airbases in varying degrees of distress. I find it remarkable that each of the warring parties could reconstruct their enemies' weaponry during wartime for testing purposes, but did those tests always equal the captured equipments true potential?
Leaf Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) Unbelievable! Agreed. A ridiculous and somewhat insulting observation, I think. Edited February 8, 2015 by 19te.Leaf
ST_ami7b5 Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) Agreed. A ridiculous and somewhat insulting observation, I think. Reported it, mods took no action. I am sure if I would write something like that I would be banned immediatelly. Well, "Animal Farm" - some 'animals' are just more even... Edited February 8, 2015 by ST_ami7b5
Solmyr Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) But even if that should prove to be the case, it is nevertheless an extraordinary military achievement. But that's false. It wasn't 600 LW fighters only or not, shot down planes. People shouldn't talk about reliable estimations that are so absurd... During october and november 1942 : '2.82:1' in the LW favour (which is pretty far from '15:1' imo) 3592 destroyed planes from may 17th to november 30th, 1942, on eastern front. 2306 heavily damaged planes that needed to be sent in Germany to be repaired. For VVS : 10143 16634 Source : "Le fana de l'aviation", special-issue n°9, 1998. And that went even worse the times after... Edited February 8, 2015 by Solmyr
II./JG77_Manu* Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) Reported it, mods took no action. I am sure if I would write something like that I would be banned immediatelly. Well, "Animal Farm" - some 'animals' are just more even... That's because he "defended" the current state of the game against the ones who want a change. And he is attacking everyone, who raises concerns about FMs, that's only for the good of the Devs, because the impression emerges by people like him, that they are "right". Like hell they will ban one of their "supporters" Edited February 8, 2015 by Celestiale
JtD Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Not so what is your own calculations?I need to know temperature at altitude, which I don't. Just knowing pressure I can't know density and therefore can't make assumptions about engine power and drag. Still, flying the Fw190A-3 at full throttle altitude in second gear combat power on Lapino map, I'm getting to about 6100m pressure altitude, achieve 473km/h IAS which corresponds to 635km/h TAS, according to map grid and waypoint distance. It also implies a temperature/density similar to standard atmosphere at that pressure altitude. I would estimate the speed in BoS to be a very little bit higher than a test done in standard atmosphere at 6100m. So the BoS Fw190A-3 would maybe get to 630km/h TAS in standard atmosphere at 6100m. The equivalent A-3 in real life managed about 620km/h - 630km/h TAS at full throttle altitude. Considering the uncertainties of measurement, this is a perfect match. From my perspective: Developers: 1 - Kwiatek: 0 1
Dakpilot Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) That's because he "defended" the current state of the game against the ones who want a change. And he is attacking everyone, who raises concerns about FMs, that's only for the good of the Devs, because the impression emerges by people like him, that they are "right". Like hell they will ban one of their "supporters" And that is why all these FM discussions are always sad... because it always degenerates to conspiracy theories and insults, however veiled, taking away the credibility of those who even post decent facts, or those who purport to being an 'enthusiast and only concerned with historical accuracy' People wonder why Devs take little notice of FM "discussions" when the main 'combatants' are always the ones to let it get personal rather than factual Cheers Dakpilot Edited February 8, 2015 by Dakpilot 1
II./JG77_Manu* Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 I need to know temperature at altitude, which I don't. Just knowing pressure I can't know density and therefore can't make assumptions about engine power and drag. Still, flying the Fw190A-3 at full throttle altitude in second gear combat power on Lapino map, I'm getting to about 6100m pressure altitude, achieve 473km/h IAS which corresponds to 635km/h TAS, according to map grid and waypoint distance. It also implies a temperature/density similar to standard atmosphere at that pressure altitude. I would estimate the speed in BoS to be a very little bit higher than a test done in standard atmosphere at 6100m. So the BoS Fw190A-3 would maybe get to 630km/h TAS in standard atmosphere at 6100m. The equivalent A-3 in real life managed about 620km/h - 630km/h TAS at full throttle altitude. Considering the uncertainties of measurement, this is a perfect match. From my perspective: Developers: 1 - Kwiatek: 0 Wrong. The real life A3 managed 650kph TAS at this altitude. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a3-climb-speed-26-11-42.jpg
Wulf Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 'Solmyr', on 07 Feb 2015 - 06:18, said: People shouldn't talk about reliable estimations that are so absurd... During october and november 1942 : '2.82:1' in the LW favour (which is pretty far from '15:1' imo) 3592 destroyed planes from may 17th to november 30th, 1942, on eastern front. 2306 heavily damaged planes that needed to be sent in Germany to be repaired. For VVS : 10143 16634 Source : "Le fana de l'aviation", special-issue n°9, 1998. And that went even worse the times after... Those are incredibly precise figures. Assuming anything like similar losses in the West, you are essentially accounting for total German aircraft production for that year. That doesn't leave a lot in the cupboard for secondary theatres, training and maintenance units. Where did these figures come from?
JtD Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Wrong. The real life A3 managed 650kph TAS at this altitude. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a3-climb-speed-26-11-42.jpg Dude, read the chart you are posting. It says 630km/h at full throttle altitude for combat power. And since it is a Focke-Wulf figure, it is not corrected for compressibility and therefore about 10 km/h too fast. 4
II./JG77_Manu* Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 And that is why all these FM discussions are always sad... because it always degenerates to conspiracy theories and insults, however veiled, taking away the credibility of those who even post decent facts, or those who purport to being an 'enthusiast and only concerned with historical accuracy' People wonder why Devs take little notice of FM "discussions" when the main 'combatants' are always the ones to let it get personal rather than factual Cheers Dakpilot I am not the one who calls other people Nazi's, or attacks and insults people, who have other opinions then myself. Most of the crap which get's thrown at me i just ignore, and don't even answer, but there is a certain line, which really shouldn't be trespassed. Some kinds of people are just unbelievable
Bearcat Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Well, sue me. It just always seems like the most strident nutbags from Galen Thurber to Siggi and his followers always seem to have a chip on their shoulder for their Luftwaffe aircraft. That does seem to be an interesting correlation.. however you cannot express that in the manner that you did. The term "Luftwhiner" was not coined in a vacuum. Was pretty strong wasn't it. Ah well. Wish I could delete the last line, but unfortunately the forum won't allow it. Not a problem... it is done.. just please think before you hit send. Reported it, mods took no action. I am sure if I would write something like that I would be banned immediatelly. Well, "Animal Farm" - some 'animals' are just more even... I know this may be a difficult concept for you to wrap your head around... but we mods do sleep.. I am not the one who calls other people Nazi's, or attacks and insults people, who have other opinions then myself. Most of the crap which get's thrown at me i just ignore, and don't even answer, but there is a certain line, which really shouldn't be trespassed. Some kinds of people are just unbelievable I do not believe anyone was called a Nazi directly... The thread has been edited and PMs have gone out. Let it go. Don't let the thread get sidetracked. 2
ST_ami7b5 Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 ... I know this may be a difficult concept for you to wrap your head around... but we mods do sleep.. ... Was this tone really necessary? I consider it as a personal attack. I am older than you, Bear, so pls don't talk to me like to a nasty child. Be so kind.
Zettman Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Guys we all know that there are some problem in this game/sim. Nobody will be able to make a perfect game/sim, it is just not possible, especially if a huge number of data can not be confirmed in today's time (average performance of a plane that is serving on a frontline airfield during winter). I see no point in dragging this discussion to a personal level. That doesn't mean that the topic is unimportant. Why not be at least happy for one weekend? Remember, the devs announced that they will remove the unlocks (for Premium buyers). We can start complaining about things next weekend. Zettman
CaK_Rumcajs Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) Guys we all know that there are some problem in this game/sim. Nobody will be able to make a perfect game/sim, it is just not possible, especially if a huge number of data can not be confirmed in today's time (average performance of a plane that is serving on a frontline airfield during winter). I see no point in dragging this discussion to a personal level. That doesn't mean that the topic is unimportant. Why not be at least happy for one weekend? Remember, the devs announced that they will remove the unlocks (for Premium buyers). We can start complaining about things next weekend. Zettman I strongly suggest to sacrifice this weekend. Let's spare peace for the next one. Edited February 8, 2015 by Rumcajs 1
Solmyr Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 Where did these figures come from? Read twice before asking. 1
Zettman Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 ... but we mods do sleep.. Unacceptable! Someone has to constantly babysit us, so that we do not turn this forum into a mess. I also thought bears sleep only during hibernation, so hadn't you have enough sleep already for this year? I strogly suggest to sacrifice this weekend. Let's spare peace for the next one. Since we have already done it (the mess) and this one is nearly over, I can agree. Peace and love for the next weekend. Zettman
II./JG77_Manu* Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 I need to know temperature at altitude, which I don't. Just knowing pressure I can't know density and therefore can't make assumptions about engine power and drag. Still, flying the Fw190A-3 at full throttle altitude in second gear combat power on Lapino map, I'm getting to about 6100m pressure altitude, achieve 473km/h IAS which corresponds to 635km/h TAS, according to map grid and waypoint distance. It also implies a temperature/density similar to standard atmosphere at that pressure altitude. I would estimate the speed in BoS to be a very little bit higher than a test done in standard atmosphere at 6100m. So the BoS Fw190A-3 would maybe get to 630km/h TAS in standard atmosphere at 6100m. The equivalent A-3 in real life managed about 620km/h - 630km/h TAS at full throttle altitude. Considering the uncertainties of measurement, this is a perfect match. From my perspective: Developers: 1 - Kwiatek: 0 doing the same test with the Yak i got to 450 kph IAS at this altitude. That is 603kph after your calculation. That's strange given the fact that the topspeed of the Yak1 with PF was 571kph at 3650m.
unreasonable Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 People may find this interesting - although I think losses discussion belongs in a different thread, it is interesting in it's own right.
JtD Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 doing the same test with the Yak i got to 450 kph IAS at this altitude. That is 603kph after your calculation. That's strange given the fact that the topspeed of the Yak1 with PF was 571kph at 3650m.I don't think I gave my procedure clear enough, but I'm getting 441km/h IAS, 590km/h TAS, so pretty much the same. Which is, I totally agree, strange for an aircraft supposed to do ~550km/h at that altitude.
wtornado Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 I just want the FMB and I swear I will be a good boy and not come to the forum to rant about it or anything else. Plane FM' don't care I cannot talk about something I do not know let the aviation engineers (I am sure there are some)and devs do it. Game play beautiful. Planes beautiful.Ground objects beautiful.Everything is beautiful.
II./JG77_Manu* Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 I don't think I gave my procedure clear enough, but I'm getting 441km/h IAS, 590km/h TAS, so pretty much the same. Which is, I totally agree, strange for an aircraft supposed to do ~550km/h at that altitude. i don't see much of a procedure, going to 6100m and flying as fast as the aircraft is able to (in autopilot), there is nothing more then that. Lagg and La also overspeed. The La only 20kph, i think that's okay. The Lagg overspeeds 25-35kph (don't know how fast it should be at this altitude, only it's topspeed), this is also kinda within the scope. But given the fact, that the Yak1 is the best fighter of the russians anyway, a perfomance boost of about 50kph+ is not acceptable. But no bias here. Sure.
Recommended Posts