So ... what's the verdict on the FW 190 now???

[widgeon]

So it bugs you that FMs are actually a set of equations fed with numerical parameters....... and not an historical novel or memorandum? That's how software code works.

 

First, I am only speaking in general terms with the following....

 

 What if your quantitative output  i.e.) result in the software environment,  turns out to be contary to historical descriptions.

 

In particular, descriptions from TEST pilots, not combat reports.

 

For example if a test pilot describes a snap stall at a particular speed, consistently, yet the quantitative software output gives a different result.

 

Is that test pilots information really just anecdotal?  I submit that it is not. 

Edited February 27, 2015 by widgeon

[Rama]

What if your quantitative output  i.e.) result in the software environment,  turns out to be contary to historical descriptions.

Will happen if the physical model is wrong OR if the historical description is wrong..... if you haven't any data, you can't tell which one is wrong.

 

In particular, descriptions from TEST pilots, not combat reports.

TEST flight produce datas, alongside pilot report. Since early days of aviations, ingeneers tried to record data during test flights (of course, the begining was hard with no appropriate measurement instruments, and the data collection was poor)

 

For example if a test pilot describes a snap stall at a particular speed, consistently, yet the quantitative software output gives a different result.

A snap stall don't disobey the laws of physics.

 

Is that test pilots information really just anecdotal?  I submit that it is not. 

It's not, since test flights also records lots of data. So test pilot information are used in conjonction with these data. For example, if a test pilot describe a flutter at a given altitude and a particular speed, the engineers will use the data the try to find what can explain this flutter.

[widgeon]

 

 

Quote For example if a test pilot describes a snap stall at a particular speed, consistently, yet the quantitative software output gives a different result. A snap stall don't disobey the laws of physics.

 

 

I guess we agree for the most part, but I don't think you can assume that a software model = the laws of physics.

 

Certainly there can be mistakes, or aberrations in the results of a quantitative model.  

[Rama]

but I don't think you can assume that a software model = the laws of physics.

I will maybe surprise you, but yes, I can assume that: a model = a particular set of laws of physics. The physical laws are not unique, some of them only apply in a given range of condition. So you can define a given range of condition that will apply for fligth sims.

The models you code with them can be more or less simplifed or complex depending on the degree accuracy you want to achieve.... toward the laws of physics (not toward the reality)

The laws of physics themthelves are just a description of the physical universe, and are considered "true" only as long the observation and measurement Tools you have don't give you access to a more detailed/accurate description.

 

Certainly there can be mistakes, or aberrations in the results of a quantitative model.

Sure.... but again, you can't "correct" the result of a quantitative model with a "non model" based on "non data" (aka "anecdotal evidence").

You have to base on datas in all cases.

 

[NachtJaeger110]

Getting back to the current Fw190 - I just ran a short test on the Lapino map in standard atmosphere. I used the Fw190 in normal loadout (no outer guns) with 100% fuel. Real life reference is the data sheet of the Fw190Aa3, which is pretty close to the A-3, and pretty much identical in terms of performance. (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a3-sheet-26-11-42.jpg)

 

Climb was done at 270 km/h indicated, give or take a few km/h, which at altitude <6km is pretty close to the best climbing speeds as given by Fw. As you can see, performance in game appears to be better in terms of speed at low altitude and worse in terms of speed at high altitude and in terms of climb. I haven't tested climb below 1000m. All tests done at combat/climb power.

 

Speeds were determined with stop watch and map grid, CAS-TAS conversion gives slightly lower numbers at altitude (1%).

 

IMO this kind of argument is the only relevant one. Great work JtD

 

To the devs with it!!!

[JtD]

Interesting chart, thanks JtD. 

 

Am I calculating wrong or is there a 20 percent difference in climb performance?

Well, either you're right or we are both making the same mistake. Climb performance in second charger stage seems to be more in line with a ~4300kg A-8, not a ~3850kg A-3.

[bivalov]

if now too high speed at sl are totally confirmed?

what about too LOW speed at sl with empty ETC 501? (there minus about 30 km instead of 12 kph at sl)

[wtornado]

At low Altitude I think the YAK-1 was much better than many people think.

 

And in certain situations and altitudes under 18 000 feet I think the YAK-9

would of given a Spitfire MK IX a good run for its money if it didn't better it.

 

And as for a LA-5 well it is great at low alt but I prefer the YAK-1 in a furball

I think think the old YAK would of fared better.

 

 

This is just silly.  The Yak 1 had a performance that fell somewhere between that of a Mk II and a Mk V Spitfire.  It simply wasn't in the same league as the as the Spitfire Mk IX.

 

A Spit IX LF , even the early Merlin 61 powered version, would eat a Yak 1 for breakfast.  Basically, the Yak and the Spit weigh about the same (with the 1942 vintage Yak being a bit lighter) but whereas the Yak has a Klimov with an output of just 1200 hp, the Merlin 61 produces about 1560 hp (1650 hp with Merlin 66).  What's more, the Merlin comes with a highly sophisticated two stage two speed supercharger that didn't have the problems that dogged the blower on the Klimov unit.

 

RAE  testing found this aircraft (i.e. the Merlin 61 powered Mk IX Spitfire) to have the same performance as the 190 A-3.  I'll repeat that,  just so you understand; the Merlin 61 powered Spitfire IX had the SAME PERFORMANCE AS THE 190-A-3.  So, lets get serious, the Yak 1 isn't going to out-perform a Focke-Wulf.   The only environment where a Yak 1 will be a match for a 190 A is in a computer game.  

Ok let me clarify this one for you too Wulf.

 

I said that the YAK-1 is better than most would suspect.Did say it was better than the

Spitfire MK IX? NO a big fat NO see the NO?did I say NO yes I did see it?

 

 

Now what plane did I suspect was as good if not better than the Spitifre MK IX and that actually

served in the Battle of Stalingrad unlike the bloody Butcher bird that was not even there and that the devs

did not give us because they new that everyone would fly it?

 

Look up look way up at my post read it oh read it again?

 

The YAK-9 was as good if not better in low level fighting than the Spitfire MK IX.

 

YAK-9

YAK-9

YAK-9

 

Had to re-write it to make sure you seen it again before the end of the post.

 

I also said I preferred the YAK-1 over the La-5 in a furball.

 

I think the devs honestly do not want to give us the YAK-9 in fear of losing all the

Luftwhiners back to Warhunder.

 

The devs know that with the correct  FM and historical data the YAK-9 would out turn out outmaneuver

and out perform all the German aircraft over Stalingrad and thus the MP servers skies would be empty

of German aircraft fearing the YAK-9's presence.

 

Tons of IL-2's would pound the German lines forcing the Luftwaffe to come down and fight the mighty YAK-9.

 

I won't talk about the YAK-3 and it's performances hell the German flyers won't come back to

play if it is ever released.

[SR-F_Winger]

I think the devs honestly do not want to give us the YAK-9 in fear of losing all the Luftwhiners back to Warhunder.

 

Some folks dont get it. All the diuscussion is not about having planes balanced but proforming historically correct, also in relation to its contemporary counterparts.

Once a theater in wich the russians or any other allied country had the better performing planes compared to the german ones NOONE is against having that modeled correctly!

But we currently have a scenario modeled in wich the german planes ACTUALLY did perform superior. We "Luftwhiners" want nothing else but historical accuracy and not balance. If we wanted balance we would indeed think of going Warthunder:P

Edited February 27, 2015 by VSG1_Winger

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

Some folks dont get it. All the diuscussion is not about having planes balanced but proforming historically correct, also in relation to its contemporary counterparts.

Once a theater in wich the russians or any other allied country had the better performing planes compared to the german ones NOONE is against having that modeled correctly!

But we currently have a scenario modeled in wich the german planes ACTUALLY did perform superior. We "Luftwhiners" want nothing else but historical accuracy and not balance. If we wanted balance we would indeed think of going Warthunder:P

yes but given engine limitations its near impossible to get historical accuracy...

[SR-F_Winger]

yes but given engine limitations its near impossible to get historical accuracy...

Not necessarily 100% accuracy. I think relative performance is the key and much more important than one plane performing 100% at all heights the way the real thing did.

[Wulf]

Ok let me clarify this one for you too Wulf.

 

I said that the YAK-1 is better than most would suspect.Did say it was better than the

Spitfire MK IX? NO a big fat NO see the NO?did I say NO yes I did see it?

 

 

Now what plane did I suspect was as good if not better than the Spitifre MK IX and that actually

served in the Battle of Stalingrad unlike the bloody Butcher bird that was not even there and that the devs

did not give us because they new that everyone would fly it?

 

Look up look way up at my post read it oh read it again?

 

The YAK-9 was as good if not better in low level fighting than the Spitfire MK IX.

 

YAK-9

YAK-9

YAK-9

 

Had to re-write it to make sure you seen it again before the end of the post.

 

I also said I preferred the YAK-1 over the La-5 in a furball.

 

I think the devs honestly do not want to give us the YAK-9 in fear of losing all the

Luftwhiners back to Warhunder.

 

The devs know that with the correct  FM and historical data the YAK-9 would out turn out outmaneuver

and out perform all the German aircraft over Stalingrad and thus the MP servers skies would be empty

of German aircraft fearing the YAK-9's presence.

 

Tons of IL-2's would pound the German lines forcing the Luftwaffe to come down and fight the mighty YAK-9.

 

I won't talk about the YAK-3 and it's performances hell the German flyers won't come back to

play if it is ever released.

 

 

Bloody-hell!!!  I only mentioned the Spit 9 because it serves as a handy yard-stick.  We know exactly what the Spit 9 will do in terms of performance and what the 190 A-3 will do relative to it.  If you agree that the Spit 9 is a better performer than a Yak 1, (which it is by a country mile) then you must also accept that the 190 will be a better performer than the Yak.  It's just that simple.

 

Why would you even mention the Yak (bleeding) 9?  What the hell has the Yak-9 got to do with anything??  We are talking about the relative performance of the Yak-1, La-5 and LaGG-3 vis a vis the 190 A-3.  That is the issue.  Gee-pizz!

Edited February 27, 2015 by Wulf

[StG2_Manfred]

Well, either you're right or we are both making the same mistake. Climb performance in second charger stage seems to be more in line with a ~4300kg A-8, not a ~3850kg A-3.

 

Well, if they correct this 20 percent error most of the arguments would be gone I think.

 

(20 percent is not a small matter...)

[Rama]

Not necessarily 100% accuracy. I think relative performance is the key and much more important than one plane performing 100% at all heights the way the real thing did.

Relative performance accuracy is dependant on absolute performance accuracy. The only way to tune relative performance is to tune absolute performances.

Let's say plane A has a max speed of 600 km/h at altitude h and plane B has a max speed of 640 km/h at same altitude. If the model achieve 97% accuracy on both (so 3% max error), then the model will compute a speed which is  between 592 km/h and 618 km/h for plane A and 621 km/h and 659 km/h for plane B.

Then... the relative performance, that is 40 km/h in real, will be in the range between 3 km/h  and  77 km/h, so a variation of 2500%.... and a relative error of 92%....

 

In order to pseudo-"correct" this.... then you need to include a bias into the model, this mean to add an error that will possibly propragate in many other aspect of the model.

And as a background of this pseudo "correction", you would have a value that has never been measured... and which is a pure guess, belonging to the corrector/user beliefs.

 

How do user guess a "relative performance"?.... they're taking the numbers in the literature, charts, etc... and making the difference. Doing this they just ignore that these numbers are far to be perfect, have an accuracy (which is mostly ignored), so an error (which value isn't given in the charts/litterature)... so the guess maybe off by 100% or even more, as shown by the example above.... all this because all peoples discussing FMs, when using charts/literrature, are assuming they are "true numbers", and then are persuading themthelves with anecdotal "evidence" like "plane B speed was Superior to plane A speed", which is true even it the error is 100% on the relative performance in the above example... but if you really examine it, gives no added information on the performance.

 

All the above are basics in the physic of the measure.

[Bearcat]

What bugs me about these FM disputes is the way some people try to rule out some sources of information as having any value on the basis that they are "anecdotal".

 

 

What bugs me most about these FM debates is that the bottom line is.. and I am not trying to insult anyone here and we all know it is obvious.. but.. this is not reality... There are so many additional factors that can contribute to achieving different results in this sim or any sim from reality from seat of the pants physics to stick curves on any given joystick  and their relation to control input.. That is why for me.. flying any given sim to it's own strengths or weaknesses is IMO the closest thing to reality because at the end of the day that is what pilots had to do IRL. Being a RL pilot has little bearing on this unless the faulty FM/DM is just so glaring as to be ridiculous.. like bombers out turning fighters.. or Laggs out diving 190s..

[NachtJaeger110]

Interesting chart, thanks JtD. 

 

Am I calculating wrong or is there a 20 percent difference in climb performance?

Careful, the document says that there is a 10 % error for the climbing time to 2000m, so BOS might not be off a full 20%.

It says only 3 % error in speed though.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Weird isn't it.  It always seems to be the guys who fly the Soviet aircraft who are so vocal in their support for the status-quo.   Hmmmm ...  ..

You are full of 'feelings' and short of 'facts'

[Sunde]

 

I find the Fw190 and the Bf109F4 very plausibly modelled, easily superior to their VVS opponents IF properly handled and the pilots on those aircraft aren't Aces!  Against many of you here at the forum I will certainly have no chance....

Thats great man, wish i shared your view on this. I'd like to see somone do a dogfight 1v1 YAK vs 190, im pretty sure i'v never met a 190 that even gave me a challange, and i'v fought MrX in the 190. The yak just does "EVERYTHING (combat wise)" better, i find the guns alot more deadly, the manouverabilty is not even worth mentioning, its like comparing a F-16 to a SR-71. The zoom climb seems just as good if not better, bascially the only thing the 190 can do to (avoid death) is to roll inverted with its "über" roll rate wich to me seems to be around 5-10% quicker than the yak, then hit the deck, and even in this situation the yak can close rads and stay with the 190 for a long time. I understand that the luftwaffe called the 190's back, if this was the situation with them, the Brits and Americans surely must have had sucky aircraft if high command belived that the 190 was more needed in the western theater than in Russia. What more i dont understand why german engineers even created the 190 since the 109 is just the better plane in every way, People here claim that the (fms are fairly realistic) right? So you are saying that Kurt Tank just designed an aircraft that was just completly stomped by the Yak-1 in 1v1's? Im sorry but this just seems odd.  

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

 

Getting back to the current Fw190 - I just ran a short test on the Lapino map in standard atmosphere. I used the Fw190 in normal loadout (no outer guns) with 100% fuel. Real life reference is the data sheet of the Fw190Aa3, which is pretty close to the A-3, and pretty much identical in terms of performance. (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a3-sheet-26-11-42.jpg)

 

Climb was done at 270 km/h indicated, give or take a few km/h, which at altitude <6km is pretty close to the best climbing speeds as given by Fw. As you can see, performance in game appears to be better in terms of speed at low altitude and worse in terms of speed at high altitude and in terms of climb. I haven't tested climb below 1000m. All tests done at combat/climb power.

 

Speeds were determined with stop watch and map grid, CAS-TAS conversion gives slightly lower numbers at altitude (1%).

Now we are getting somewhere!

 

Only thing I would like to see is the raw data points that you collected to make the BoS graphs, and a video/track of the test would have be good for documentation of the test methods and review. Other than that, this is the kind of in-game documentation of testing we need more of.

[StG2_Manfred]

Careful, the document says that there is a 10 % error for the climbing time to 2000m, so BOS might not be off a full 20%.

It says only 3 % error in speed though.

 

Yes, you are right, so the difference could be up to 30 percent 

 

Seriously, yes it says 10 percent tolerance, but this could go in both directions, we don't know. And it mentions this tolerance only for the first 2000m, as you say.

[Gil---]

This is just silly.  The Yak 1 had a performance that fell somewhere between that of a Mk II and a Mk V Spitfire.  It simply wasn't in the same league as the as the Spitfire Mk IX.

 

A Spit IX LF , even the early Merlin 61 powered version, would eat a Yak 1 for breakfast.  Basically, the Yak and the Spit weigh about the same (with the 1942 vintage Yak being a bit lighter) but whereas the Yak has a Klimov with an output of just 1200 hp, the Merlin 61 produces about 1560 hp (1650 hp with Merlin 66).  What's more, the Merlin comes with a highly sophisticated two stage two speed supercharger that didn't have the problems that dogged the blower on the Klimov unit.

 

RAE  testing found this aircraft (i.e. the Merlin 61 powered Mk IX Spitfire) to have the same performance as the 190 A-3.  I'll repeat that,  just so you understand; the Merlin 61 powered Spitfire IX had the SAME PERFORMANCE AS THE 190-A-3.  So, lets get serious, the Yak 1 isn't going to out-perform a Focke-Wulf.   The only environment where a Yak 1 will be a match for a 190 A is in a computer game.  

Wow, Yak's ~2900 kg and Spittie's 3400 is about same weight? LOL.

And yep, Yak-1 was slightly faster at low alt than Spit with Merlin 61 at +15 lbs/sq.in. And its predictable result as Yak has much smaller wings and so less drag.

As for climb just compare FW-190 at 2400 rpm (3850 kg / 1400 h.p.) with Yak-1 (~2900 kg 1200 h.p.)...

Just use more numbers and less emotions, airplane is not a girlfriend  .

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Based on some of the posts in this forum, I think it would be good for some to review the following link
 
http://regentsprep.org/regents/math/algebra/AD1/qualquant.htm
 
Which I have provided a summary of here:

qualitative

• Deals with descriptions.
• Data can be observed but not measured.
• Colors, textures, smells, tastes, appearance, beauty, etc.

quantitative

• Deals with numbers.
• Data which can be measured.
• Length, height, area, volume, weight, speed, time, temperature, humidity, sound levels, cost, members, ages, etc.

So it bugs you that FMs are actually a set of equations fed with numerical parameters....... and not an historical novel or memorandum?

That's how software code works.

 
Spot On!
 

Of course it's absurd, quantitative data are not "Superior", they are an absolute necessity in order to create a FM. Without them you can't code anything.

 
Bingo!

But, I should point out that real world data like top-speed-per-altitude and rate-of-climb is not really an input to a six dof (6DOF) flight model (FM), it is the outputs of the 6DOF FM. Therefore the real world data is used by programmers to validate the 6DOF FM.
 

So, depending on the data set you get, you can create a model which quality will depend on the data set quality..... but it's totally absurd to assume that non-data (aka "anecdotal évidences") can replace data to feed FM.

 
Agreed 100%
 

Of course, someone could try to "guess" data from "anecdotal évidences", and even persuade himself that this guessed data is accurate. That's the normal way in beliefs constructions.... and the beauty of it is that, since we're not tallking any more about physic and data, but about beliefs, no counter-argument will work (everybody is entitled to believe what he wants, and since beliefs are not quantitative data, you can't proove the belief is right or wrong)..... and that's probably the main reason FM debate are neverending: because they're mostly oppositions of belief that will lead to nothing but repeating the same opposition of the same beliefs.
 
Restrict the FM debate around the datas, and they will be short... and usefull for the dev, since they could by this way retrieve data they don't have.

 
Agreed 100%
 

what you call "similarity" is what I call "good accuracy".... and need enough data to be matched.
If you don't rely on data, considering the complexity of a good flight model, then "tuning" a model to make it "fit" one's perception of "roll inertia" (for exemple) will most probably degrade the whole model to a kind of virtual fantasy.
There's only one good way to find a common ground, it's by compiling data.

 
Bingo!
 

Will happen if the physical model is wrong OR if the historical description is wrong..... if you haven't any data, you can't tell which one is wrong.

 
Agreed 100%
 

TEST flight produce datas, alongside pilot report. Since early days of aviations, ingeneers tried to record data during test flights (of course, the begining was hard with no appropriate measurement instruments, and the data collection was poor)

 
Exactly, quantitative along side qualitative respectfully.

To make and validate a 6DOF FM you need the quantitative, to make the FM feel right you need the qualitative.

• The quantitative can be validated via in-game testing.
• The qualitative can be validated by those who have actually flown a WWII 'configured' aircraft.

Sadly, for qualitative, both the pilots and the planes are in short supply some 70+ years later. But, some of that can be gleamed from documented pilots stories, things like the stick shakes/buzzes just before the stall stuff.
 

The laws of physics themthelves are just a description of the physical universe, and are considered "true" only as long the observation and measurement Tools you have don't give you access to a more detailed/accurate description.

 
Bingo!
 

Sure.... but again, you can't "correct" the result of a quantitative model with a "non model" based on "non data" (aka "anecdotal evidence").

 
Amen
 

Relative performance accuracy is dependant on absolute performance accuracy. The only way to tune relative performance is to tune absolute performances.

 
Agreed 100%
 

but if you really examine it, gives no added information on the performance.

 
Bingo
 

All the above are basics in the physic of the measure.

 
Spot on
 
PS you should consider wrapping that all up into a post that should be posted at the start of each and every FM debate thread! Just a thought!

Edited February 27, 2015 by ACEOFACES

[SR-F_Winger]

Rama i think he loves you. I bet he sent you a marriage proposal via PM - right?

*Just Joking guys!*

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Logic is easy to love!

[CaK_Rumcajs]

Well all that numbers, equations, quantitative data and so on is OK. But your customers expect qualitative data too. You can't assume that qualitative data is not important. Flight sim fans buy the game to relive what they have read about WW2 flight combat. For them the anecdotal evidence is important too. So if a plane was known for a particular ability that gave it a distinctive advantage over other contemporary designs you have to expect we want to see that in game. And if we can't capitalize on that design advantage then we are searching for anwers. I'm fully aware of difficulty of simulation I'm an mechanical engineer. But i can only repeat words of one of my professors who taught us dynamics "Never fall in love with your mathematical model". So if the model doesn't provide output that can be mapped to what it simulates then people will ask and will dispute the model.

I personally do not have any secret data in my possession to add to the discussion. I love to fly both the German and the Russian planes. I'm not biased against anything. But i believe there are differences between expectations and BOS that shall be addressed.

Also don't try to put the enthusiasts who collect in game data to prove their point down. They are exactly the passionate people who make the game success or failure.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Well all that numbers, equations, quantitative data and so on is OK.

Not just Ok, necessary

 

But your customers expect qualitative data too.

As noted, about the only people who can truly appreciate the qualitative are those who have actually flown a WWII 'configured' aircraft. But, there are some qualitative things that can be appreciate by those who have not.

 

You can't assume that qualitative data is not important.

Agreed, and I have yet to see anyone say qualitative is NOT important, all I have seen some say is qualitative can not be used to validate the 6DOF FM wrt performance values.

 

Flight sim fans buy the game to relive what they have read about WW2 flight combat.

Agreed

 

Sadly, some who play WWII flight sims don't know the difference between TAS and IAS, but that does not stop them from coming here and claiming the FM is broken because the guage on the dash did not display the top speed of the plane they read from a wiki link. Sader yet, there are some who play WWII flight sims that don't even know who won WWII!

 

For them the anecdotal evidence is important too. So if a plane was known for a particular ability that gave it a distinctive advantage over other contemporary designs you have to expect we want to see that in game.

True, but, now you have to ask yourself.. Is the reason your not seeing the advantage due to a bug in the FM, or is it simply a case of the sim pilot sucks 'relative' to the sim pilot on his six?

 

And if we can't capitalize on that design advantage then we are searching for anwers.

Most of which can be found by simply looking in the mirror IMHO.

 

I'm fully aware of difficulty of simulation I'm an mechanical engineer. But i can only repeat words of one of my professors who taught us dynamics "Never fall in love with your mathematical model". So if the model doesn't provide output that can be mapped to what it simulates then people will ask and will dispute the model.

If the model is all that is in play..

 

But, go back and ask your professor about a 'model' with a 'man-in-the-loop' and ask him where you should start looking for errors in the results of the model.. Hint, it will not be the model!

 

I personally do not have any secret data in my possession to add to the discussion. I love to fly both the German and the Russian planes. I'm not biased against anything. But i believe there are differences between expectations and BOS that shall be addressed.

Stick time will address most and the ability to look in the mirror and admit defeat will most likely cover the rest IMHO

 

Also don't try to put the enthusiasts who collect in game data to prove their point down. They are exactly the passionate people who make the game success or failure.

Agreed 100%

Edited February 27, 2015 by ACEOFACES

[SR-F_Winger]

Well all that numbers, equations, quantitative data and so on is OK. But your customers expect qualitative data too. You can't assume that qualitative data is not important. Flight sim fans buy the game to relive what they have read about WW2 flight combat. For them the anecdotal evidence is important too. So if a plane was known for a particular ability that gave it a distinctive advantage over other contemporary designs you have to expect we want to see that in game. And if we can't capitalize on that design advantage then we are searching for anwers. I'm fully aware of difficulty of simulation I'm an mechanical engineer. But i can only repeat words of one of my professors who taught us dynamics "Never fall in love with your mathematical model". So if the model doesn't provide output that can be mapped to what it simulates then people will ask and will dispute the model.

I personally do not have any secret data in my possession to add to the discussion. I love to fly both the German and the Russian planes. I'm not biased against anything. But i believe there are differences between expectations and BOS that shall be addressed.

Also don't try to put the enthusiasts who collect in game data to prove their point down. They are exactly the passionate people who make the game success or failure.

Very well said!

[Urra]

Based qualitatively on what we have now I actually like the darn thing. I'm just learning to fly it corrrectly(baby steps), and it has done what other aircraft haven't - started to teach me to keep true to a certain technique of flying because it does punish you if do it wrong. FM discussion I will stay away from with a ten foot pole.

[Rama]

Flight sim fans buy the game to relive what they have read about WW2 flight combat.

And that's exactly the problem. Since they've never flown a WW2 aircraft and never built a flight model, with the help of the literature, they build a belief of what it should be and what feeling it should give...

.... but this belief is just a belief, that can be close or very away from reality (and they have no way to know how close or how far their beliefs are). And some of them can't understand that if the model reality contradict their feelings, they it is not necessary wrong... in fact, they've no possibility to know.

But that's a human thing, the beliefs are allways stronger than the rational way to understand stuff.

 

For them the anecdotal evidence is important too.

Of course, it's even the most important..... since they support their beliefs:The nice thing with anecdotal evidence is that you can choose to make your point the one that match your belief (you do so naturally, without even realizing it).

[Letka_13/Arrow_]

Based qualitatively on what we have now I actually like the darn thing. I'm just learning to fly it corrrectly(baby steps), and it has done what other aircraft haven't - started to teach me to keep true to a certain technique of flying because it does punish you if do it wrong. FM discussion I will stay away from with a ten foot pole.

 

That is a correct attitude, I sometimes wonder if those FM complainers (on any side) would be able to correctly land the aircraft in BOS without excessive bouncing or damage ten times in a row . 

[Mewt]

The following has no bearing on the merits accurate FM or DM, or whether they need to be accurate to have an enjoyable game or just work within constraints of the game to still be viable or any side arguments like that.

 

However anecdotal, however unscientific, however devoid of mathematics or numerical proof.... written, anecdotal sources, when taken together have a weight of collective evidence to them.

 

If there are 70 years of written documented 'anecdotes's' stating that aircraft A was measurably better than aircraft B, but then you play a computer game where aircraft B is measurably better than A... then you have a choice:

 

Question the accuracy of the 70 years of 'anecdotes' or question the accuracy of the recent computer game.

 

It simply has to do with 'historical expectation' and the answer to not meeting that expectation being 'our maths are right'. 

Edited February 27, 2015 by Mewt

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

However anecdotal, however unscientific, however devoid of mathematics or numerical proof.... written, anecdotal sources, when taken together have a weight of collective evidence to them.

 

Maybe..

 

But people have been saying that since I first started flying flight sims back in 1985.. And I have yet to see anyone successfully collect all the written anecdotal sources into something that would be agreed upon let alone considered evidence..

 

People think some sort of statistical average can be gleamed from pilot accounts..

 

But that is a pipe dream IMHO

 

For so many reasons, but most notability for you never get a chance to read the after action report from the pilots that were killed in action!

 

That and so many of the pilots stories cancel each other out!

 

For example

• Case 1) There are 'documented anecdotes' from Spitfire pilots stating they were able to out turn a Bf109.
• Case 2) There are 'documented anecdotes' from Bf109 pilots stating they were able to out turn a Spitfire.

So, which 'documented anecdotes' do you CHOOSE to believe?

 

If there are 70 years of written documented 'anecdotes's' stating that aircraft A was measurably better than aircraft B, but then you play a computer game where aircraft B is measurably better than A...

 

Measurably better?

 

Just what are you measuring there? 'feelings' or 'numbers'?

 

But I digress..

 

Terms like 'better' say more about the pilot skills and tactics than plan performance..

 

For example

• Case A) Ask a Russian pilot fighting on the Russian front if the P-39 was a good plane, chances are (statistically) he will say yes..
• Case B) Ask a American pilot fighting in the pacific if the P-39 was a good plane, chances are (statistically) he will say no..

Same plane but due to how they were employed in war, two very different opinions of 'good' plane.. Same goes for terms like measurable better, where as numbers don't have double meanings, 5 is 5.

Edited February 27, 2015 by ACEOFACES

[Rama]

If there are 70 years of written documented 'anecdotes's' stating that aircraft A was measurably better than aircraft B,

.... I'm sorry but this is nonsense.

If one anecdote tell that "aircraft A was measurably better than aircraft B", it means a measure has been done, and then this measure can be searched and maybe found. 

 

But anecdote don't tell that, they say "aircraft A was faster/better climber/more maneuvrable/etc... than aircraft B"... generally without telling anything about the conditions of the "observation", so globally useless.

[303_Kwiatek]

Getting back to the current Fw190 - I just ran a short test on the Lapino map in standard atmosphere. I used the Fw190 in normal loadout (no outer guns) with 100% fuel. Real life reference is the data sheet of the Fw190Aa3, which is pretty close to the A-3, and pretty much identical in terms of performance. (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a3-sheet-26-11-42.jpg)

 

Climb was done at 270 km/h indicated, give or take a few km/h, which at altitude <6km is pretty close to the best climbing speeds as given by Fw. As you can see, performance in game appears to be better in terms of speed at low altitude and worse in terms of speed at high altitude and in terms of climb. I haven't tested climb below 1000m. All tests done at combat/climb power.

 

Speeds were determined with stop watch and map grid, CAS-TAS conversion gives slightly lower numbers at altitude (1%).

 

These is exacly what i many times pointed.  In BOS winter conditions A-3 dont have any boost in climb rate due to cold air.  My test which was reported to devs showed that A-3 got only  climb times similar to ISA conditions where all other fighters got better climb rate then in ISA conditions.

 

Its obviously now during test in BOS with ISA conditions settings  why A-3 got much worse climb rate then RL data.

 

2 m/s worse climb rate is seriously disadventage of Fw 190 in BOS.

 

So climb rate and poor handling ( elevator effectinvess)  at high speed up to 700 kph IAS are seriously issuses of BOS A-3.

 

Thats why these plane dont have in BOS  its RL adventages.

Edited February 27, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[Mewt]

Maybe..

...Snip...

Some great points especially regarding the P-39. Perhaps my use of the word 'measurably' was ill placed.

[Sokol1]

 

 

• Case 1) There are 'documented anecdotes' from Spitfire pilots stating they were able to out turn a Bf109.
• Case 2) There are 'documented anecdotes' from Bf109 pilots stating they were able to out turn a Spitfire.

So, which 'documented anecdotes' do you CHOOSE to believe?

 

 

I both, the factor in these "anecdotes" are the pilots. The air combat is not a "exact science". 

 

And, "Bf 109" and "Spitfire" are a generic names for different versions of these planes, these anecdotes are with the best examples off both fighting against each other?

[Leaf]

.... I'm sorry but this is nonsense.

If one anecdote tell that "aircraft A was measurably better than aircraft B", it means a measure has been done, and then this measure can be searched and maybe found. 

 

But anecdote don't tell that, they say "aircraft A was faster/better climber/more maneuvrable/etc... than aircraft B"... generally without telling anything about the conditions of the "observation", so globally useless.

 

Wait, so in your mind not knowing how much faster aircraft A is compared to aircraft B completely negates the fact that it is?

 

The FW 190 should be more controlable at high speeds than the Bf 109. Fact. Just because we can't yet quantify by how much, doesn't mean that the game should not model the difference!

Edited February 27, 2015 by 19te.Leaf

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

I both, the factor in these "anecdotes" are the pilots. The air combat is not a "exact science". 

Bingo!

 

these anecdotes are with the best examples off both fighting against each other?

Depends on which anecdotes you read

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Just because we can't yet quantify by how much, doesn't mean that the game should not model the difference!

And just because someone says the ingame Fw190 is not more controllable than the ingame Bf109 at high speed does not mean it is true. Which should not be confused with me saying it is or is not, I am simply pointing out that first you will want to define 'more controllable' next find corresponding real world data for each, than preform an ingame test, and document the test via video/track file so the test is document for review. And that is the bare minimum IMHO before we can even begin to start talking about the results equating to an FM error.

[LukeFF]

So, after 6 pages, have we gone anywhere?