777 FM Validation

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Since we are all talking about what ifs and wish lists..

 

I really hope 777 can put some effort into documenting the FM in the same manor that hitechcreations does, here is a link to list

 

http://www.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/Aircraft_of_Aces_High_II

 

Click on any one of the planes and you will find the standard WWII performance style charts (ROC TS) for the plane in question..

 

It would also be great if 777 includes a way for the user to do their own testing and validation.. For example IL-2 had DeviceLink and CoD had the C# flight parameters that allowed the user to log flight data during flight

 

Anyway, just a thought

 

[Sturm_]

The clearer 777 is about the flight modeling, the less complaints they will get. Of course there's always room for improvement, but in the history of Il-2 we have seen some gruesome mistakes, let's hope this time things are done paying attention to the community (there's really talented people with flight simming as a hobby).

[4./JG53_Wotan]

Aces High doesn't "validate" FMs - they "document" their ingame FMs. The two are completely different.

[Bearcat]

It will all boil down to the flying.. If this sim is another one where the Russian AC are tweaked on the more optimistic end, the German ones are mixed and the American ones are tweaked on a less optimistic level and that includes weapons  .. then there will be more whining.. Either way someone will most likely be disappointed somewhere.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Aces High doesn't "validate" FMs - they "document" their ingame FMs.

So what part of me saying..

 

.

I really hope 777 can put some effort into documenting the FM in the same manor that hitechcreations does

Did you not understand?

 

.

The two are completely different.

Never said they were the same

 

But at some point you have to document the current state if you have any hope of validating it..

 

On that note validation means different things to different people, and I would not be surprised if you and I have different definitions based on your reply to this thread

Edited December 14, 2012 by ACEOFACES

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

It will all boil down to the flying.. If this sim is another one where the Russian AC are tweaked on the more optimistic end, the German ones are mixed and the American ones are tweaked on a less optimistic level and that includes weapons .. then there will be more whining.. Either way someone will most likely be disappointed somewhere.

That is a given

 

But your missing my point..

 

That being the difference between HitechCreations and most if flight sim makers.. The difference here being HitechCreations takes the time to document their FM..

 

That is to say they SHOW YOU the performance values they implemented in their flight model..

 

Where as a lot of flight sim makers don't have the stones to SHOW YOU.. Or worse yet don't have the means to SHOW YOU.. Which makes you wonder how they validated their flight models, if at all!!

 

So you really have to give HitechCreations here credit for not only taking the time to do it but confidant enough in their flight model to document it for all to see

 

Because without that as a starting point all we are left with is end users like yourself to say how well the plane flight models are simulated.. And I can tell you from experience, the end users results leave a lot to be descried!!

 

 

[4./JG53_Wotan]

The title of this thread is:

"777 FM Validation"

Then you go into what Aces High does. What Aces High doesn't do is "validate" FMs. They model FMs based off the information they have then the rest of you complain,

 

For all the so-called "user validation" folks do nothing becomes of it. Unless you are working from the same data set there is no way to validate their work. They are not going to give away their data - as Oleg said way back in Il-2 they paid money for most of the data they work from and they not going hand it out to anyone. Even HT has said as much on the Aces High forums - they don't give out their full data - they just provide basic info. to allow folks to compare performance.

Edited December 14, 2012 by 4./JG53_Wotan

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

The title of this thread is:

"777 FM Validation"

I am glad you pointed that out.. Now tell me where in that title does it say hitechcreations validates their flight models?

 

.

Then you go into what Aces High does.

Correct..

 

And if you had read what I wrote you should note that I said hitechcreations documents their flight models which should not be confused with me saying hitechcreations validates their flight models.. As you did in your fist post

 

.

What Aces High doesn't do is "validate" FMs.

Than it is a good thing that I never said hitechcreations validates their FMs

 

Right?

 

.

They model FMs based off the information they have

As is the case with most if not all flight simulation programers

 

.

then the rest of you complain,

Ah.. you lost me there..

 

Would you be so kind as to provide a link that shows me complaining about hitechcreations basing their flight models off the information they have.. In that I know I have a drink from time to time, but I am sure that I never posted such a post.. So if you can please post the link I will go back and correct what I said in that it is something I would have never said when I am sober

 

.

For all the so-called "user validation" folks do nothing becomes of it. Unless you are working from the same data set there is no way to validate their work. They are not going to give away their data - as Oleg said way back in Il-2 they paid money for most of the data they work from and they not going hand it out to anyone. Even HT has said as much on the Aces High forums - they don't give out their full data - they just provide basic info. to allow folks to compare performance.

So what part of me saying

 

.

find the standard WWII performance style charts (ROC TS)

Did you not understand? Edited December 14, 2012 by ACEOFACES

[Freycinet]

Aceofaces, do you really need caps, bold and double exclamation marks to make a point? Not to speak of aggressive posturing. It is very tiresome to read and doesn't support your arguments in the least, just the opposite.

[falstaff]

To think I lived long enough to hear Freycinet (top 5 most aggressive poster) criticise AcesofAces (top5 most aggressive poster) for aggressive posturing...

 

All we need now is Hayward, Bongo*, Robtek and Carguy and Krupi and a few others to to wade in, and we'll have the same nonsense fest that be-devilled the banana forums, and also SimHQ before it.

 

Can't you just leave it, just a little bit? Much as I find some asinine humour in the Clod faithful turning on eachother like rabid dogs, it isn't the most edifying of spectacles to carry across into a new forum.

 

Get with the programme (ing), as they say.

 

*Edit, I see Bongo has got off to flying start already, two locked threads and going strongly (backwards). It will end badly

Edited December 14, 2012 by falstaff

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Aceofaces, do you really need caps, bold and double exclamation marks to make a point? Not to speak of aggressive posturing. It is very tiresome to read and doesn't support your arguments in the least, just the opposite.

Freycinet..

 

If you have an interest in FM validation..

 

Than please lets hear what you have to say!

 

But if your only reason for coming here is to tell everyone how you 'feel' about my style of posting.. Would you be so kind as to spare the rest of the folks in this thread and make use of the PM features available in this forum.. Where you can tell me one on one about how you 'feel' about my style of posting?

 

Thanks in advance! S!

Edited December 14, 2012 by ACEOFACES

[Faustnik]

The best FMs are not only made from charts.

 

I love looking at charts, becuase it can't read well. Charts can tell you how fast a plane can go. 4.11 IL-2 FMs have the best charted FMs.

 

The most fun FMs when in IL-2 1.0. I loved the P-39. It was dfficult to fly. It had character. Oleg made FMs with character. Later, people wined, like me, and dumbed in down.

 

Just being honest.

 

 

 

 

[addman]

The best FMs are not only made from charts.

 

I love looking at charts, becuase it can't read well. Charts can tell you how fast a plane can go. 4.11 IL-2 FMs have the best charted FMs.

 

The most fun FMs when in IL-2 1.0. I loved the P-39. It was dfficult to fly. It had character. Oleg made FMs with character. Later, people wined, like me, and dumbed in down.

 

Just being honest.

 

 

LOL! Yeah I remember flying the P-39 in the IL-2 demo and you barely had to pull the stick back a couple of inches before it went into an uncontrollable spin. As you said, it had character, you had to fly it with respect....and speed.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Aye Faustnik!

 

Long time no type!

 

.

The best FMs are not only made from charts.

Actually the charts/graphs have nothing to do with the code of a 6DOF flight model..

 

If you think of the 6DOF flight model code as a black box, with inputs coming in on the left and outputs coming out on the right..

 

The inputs would consist of the pilot intputs, plane state/location, etc.

The black box (6DOF) would calculate the outputs based on the pilot intputs, plane state/location, etc.

The outputs would consist of the plane in flight.

 

At this point the charts/graphs are used to 'see' how well the 6DOF flight model simulates the real thing by how well the corsponding outputs match the charts/graphs..

 

The part a lot of people don't realize is they have to fly the in-game plane in the same manor the real plane was flown during the test that the charts/graphs were created from.

 

.

I love looking at charts, because it can't read well. Charts can tell you how fast a plane can go.

Agreed..

 

Sad things is a lot of the info we would like to know about was not tested for during WWII, thus there is no chart to compare to. For example, things like the turn rate and roll rates were not part of the standard tests (ROC, TSPA, TTC).. Thus in these cases we have to trust the 6DOF math is correct.

 

.

4.11 IL-2 FMs have the best charted FMs.

Agreed 100%

 

But that was more of a third party and/or hidden feature of IL-2 that made that possible. I like hitechcreations approach of making it something they do up front and provide for all to see (read documented)

 

.

The most fun FMs when in IL-2 1.0. I loved the P-39. It was difficult to fly. It had character. Oleg made FMs with character. Later, people wined, like me, and dumbed in down.

 

Just being honest.

That dumbing down process.. I have heard that said.. But to be honest I never saw any proof of it.

 

Anyway glad to see your still around!

 

If you don't know who I am, my old ubi handle was Tagert!

Edited December 14, 2012 by ACEOFACES

[DD_bongodriver]

To think I lived long enough to hear Freycinet (top 5 most aggressive poster) criticise AcesofAces (top5 most aggressive poster) for aggressive posturing...

 

All we need now is Hayward, Bongo*, Robtek and Carguy and Krupi and a few others to to wade in, and we'll have the same nonsense fest that be-devilled the banana forums, and also SimHQ before it.

 

Can't you just leave it, just a little bit? Much as I find some asinine humour in the Clod faithful turning on eachother like rabid dogs, it isn't the most edifying of spectacles to carry across into a new forum.

 

Get with the programme (ing), as they say.

 

*Edit, I see Bongo has got off to flying start already, two locked threads and going strongly (backwards). It will end badly

 

If you stay out of my way I will stay out of yours, no need to start stalking me again you creepy nonce.

Edited December 14, 2012 by bongodriver

[falstaff]

If you stay out of my way I will stay out of yours, no need to start stalking me again you creepy nonce.

 

Low, even by your standards.

 

If you're going to call people nonces (meaning: paedophile) then you better have something to back it up before they come knocking on your door, Craig.

 

(BTW, with the same woman for 22 years, two kids...I'm taken, you can't have me....)

[DD_bongodriver]

Low, even by your standards.

 

If you're going to call people nonces (meaning: paedophile) then you better have something to back it up before they come knocking on your door, Craig.

 

(BTW, with the same woman for 22 years, two kids...I'm taken, you can't have me....)

 

Hey I'm not the one out of us that knows the others real name and is making threats, and i'm not the one having to reassure anyone over any accusations, all I'm saying is you don't need to speak to me or even mention me and there is a perfectly serviceable ignore function on these boards, there was no need for the first interaction between us to have started with you making snide comments.

[ShamrockOneFive]

So basically what is being asked for is to have something akin to IL-2 Compare built right into the product.

 

Maybe not a bad idea. Not everyone uses or is aware of tools such as IL-2 Compare and it could potentially be useful to make that kind of information more broadly available as it would prevent some of the complaints. It would introduce others as people may not agree with the data being displayed but at least there would be little question as to how it had been done.

 

The trick is still that flight modelling is highly situation based so even if it's documented, there will still be complaints.

 

I guess the last way to look at it is that aside from the negative aspects, such a tool would be beneficial to all pilots who wanted to be tactically aware and utilize the available data to help inform them of their choices while flying the various aircraft in combat. For example if you know you're faster only to a certain altitude you'll stay within that altitude. If you know your roll rate and turn rate are better but you don't have a better top speed then you'll avoid running from plane X. I think having some documentation would be handy. Certainly.

[Hunty]

Low, even by your standards.

 

If you're going to call people nonces (meaning: paedophile) then you better have something to back it up before they come knocking on your door, Craig.

 

(BTW, with the same woman for 22 years, two kids...I'm taken, you can't have me....)

Well Bongo acused me of being a troll earlier but i just ignored him.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Have to agree 100% (HA!) with Ace and with IceFire.

 

If the FM dust ups that we all have taken part in in IL2 are to be avoided, then knowing the "numbers" of the FMs in the new sim would be a very good thing.

 

However, current practice in RoF is to just believe that the FMs are correct.  I've never seen any documentation on them, so I do hope that the new sim avoids this.

Edited December 15, 2012 by ElAurens

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

So basically what is being asked for is to have something akin to IL-2 Compare built right into the product.

 

Maybe not a bad idea. Not everyone uses or is aware of tools such as IL-2 Compare and it could potentially be useful to make that kind of information more broadly available as it would prevent some of the complaints. It would introduce others as people may not agree with the data being displayed but at least there would be little question as to how it had been done.

 

The trick is still that flight modelling is highly situation based so even if it's documented, there will still be complaints.

 

I guess the last way to look at it is that aside from the negative aspects, such a tool would be beneficial to all pilots who wanted to be tactically aware and utilize the available data to help inform them of their choices while flying the various aircraft in combat. For example if you know you're faster only to a certain altitude you'll stay within that altitude. If you know your roll rate and turn rate are better but you don't have a better top speed then you'll avoid running from plane X. I think having some documentation would be handy. Certainly.

Bingo!

 

 

 

If the FM dust ups that we all have taken part in in IL2 are to be avoided, then knowing the "numbers" of the FMs in the new sim would be a very good thing.

Agreed 100%

 

.

However, current practice in RoF is to just believe that the FMs are correct.  I've never seen any documentation on them, so I do hope that the new sim avoids this.

We do have to cut 777 a little slack wrt WWI data.. In that if you think finding WWII data is hard.. It has to be even harder to find WWI data!

 

But that is no excuse for 777 to not at least SHOW US what values they did decide to go with

[Faustnik]

got to see you Tagert!

 

Chart + art would perfect.

 

[ATAG_Slipstream]

A lot of the Russian planes were pretty poor in 1942, with all sorts of problems. The LA5 was good at low alt, but gassed the pilot unless they flew with the canopy open, and had a high pilot workload.I think 1c games are going to have to consider 'balancing' or it would be a slaughter fest for the LW flyers, sitting up high and flying B n Z all day long.

[71st_AH_Hooves]

Didnt both teams work on IL2 ? So i guess ts safe to presume they have half an idea and information on the models they are going to create.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

A lot of the Russian planes were pretty poor in 1942, with all sorts of problems. The LA5 was good at low alt, but gassed the pilot unless they flew with the canopy open, and had a high pilot workload.

Interesting

 

Not sure what it has to do with documenting the flight model and providing ways to validate the flight modle but still interesting.

 

.

I think 1c games are going to have to consider 'balancing' or it would be a slaughter fest for the LW flyers, sitting up high and flying B n Z all day long.

IMHO balancing is never the answer for a flight sim, unless it is an xbox flight sim or an arcade flight sim.. In that most if not all hard core flight simmers what realism when and where they can get it

 

 

Didnt both teams work on IL2 ?

Not sure if the current whole team did, but I have read where some have

 

.

So i guess ts safe to presume they have half an idea and information on the models they are going to create.

Just as it is safe to presume that the folks at hightechcreations have an idea and information..

 

The difference here being the folks at hightechcreations provide the documentation of the standard performance values (ROC, TSPA) to show everyone the values they decided to go with

 

Hope that helps!

 

 

 

got to see you Tagert! Chart + art would perfect.

Good to see you too bud!

 

On that note, I still think your chart art was the best to date.. I still loved the way you plotted the overlay of the 'band' of altitudes at which the bombers operated.. It really help shed some light on 'where the fight was' which in turn help everyone understand why the US planes performance values had the focus set for high altitudes where a lot of the other earlier planes had the focus set for low altitudes

[ShamrockOneFive]

A lot of the Russian planes were pretty poor in 1942, with all sorts of problems. The LA5 was good at low alt, but gassed the pilot unless they flew with the canopy open, and had a high pilot workload.I think 1c games are going to have to consider 'balancing' or it would be a slaughter fest for the LW flyers, sitting up high and flying B n Z all day long.

I'm firmly against balancing but there will likely have to be decisions made regarding what state aircraft from both sides are to be considered. German planes had some mechanical issues during the winter portion of the Battle for Stalingrad with seized engines from the extreme cold. Engines had to be heated prior to starting and even then there were problems. The Russian planes were of varying quality but tended to have fewer issues in the colder temperatures. Battle performance for German pilots trapped in the Stalingrad encirclement couldn't have been great with them surviving on a bare minimum of calories. The entire La-5 line had issues with gasses seeping into the cockpit, some Yak's had problems with wings peeling (although that was typically 6 months after Stalingrad), the glass canopies were of poor quality and would yellow quickly under the sun.

 

Some of these things you can model and some it's very difficult to simulate.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Some of these things you can model and some it's very difficult to simulate.

True, they could..

 

But typically flight sims don't.. Most flight sim I have played over the past 20 some years choose to focus on simulating factory fresh planes that meet the factory fresh performance values..

 

Why?

 

Well I suspect because once you go down that road of 'what ifs' as in will this piston rod 'choose' to fail this mission or not you open up a real can of worms that most people don't want to contend with..

 

Would it be realistic to simulate such things?

 

Sure it would!

 

But do we really need that level of realism in a game? That is to say most of us don't play flight sims 24/7.. If we did play flight sims all day and all night all year long than yes it would be cool if one day out of the 365 my P-51 decided to throw a rod and I had to turn back for home as the rest of my buds continued on with the mission..

 

But for the rest of us, who may only have 3 to 4 hours a weekend to play, it would be very upsetting to most of us if our P-51 decided to throw a rod in the middle of a big mission with your buddies and you had to turn back for home..

 

Your mileage (pun intended) may vary!

Edited December 15, 2012 by ACEOFACES

[ATAG_Slipstream]

Well 777 based some of their FM's for RoF on data taken from captured (ie possibly worn out) German  aircraft, so 'factory fresh' could be different here,

As there is more data available for WW2 then hopefully things will be different, but even in il2 and CoD the FM's of some planes were way off.

Edited December 15, 2012 by JG52Uther

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Well 777 based some of their FM's for RoF on data taken from captured (i.e. possibly worn out) German aircraft, so 'factory fresh' could be different here,

This concern with captured aircraft testing is over rated IMHO..

 

Either side had the ability to repair damage and were more than capable of determining the settings for peak performance.. Especially wrt to the simple WWI designs, there are a few cases in WWII where some features and settings of captured aircraft may have had a factor, both good and bad. Take the captured Japan aircraft, where the US testers sued higher grade fuel than Japan had aval, which is why some of the test values were actually higher than Japans factory fresh values.

 

.

As there is more data available for WW2 then hopefully things will be different, but even in il2 and CoD the FM's of some planes were way off.

Now you getting up to speed with regards to my whole point

 

As in 'way off' from what?

 

If the sim makers don't post the performance values they use, than there is no way to know if your way off or not! For example, a lot of the P38 data used by hitechcreations is from the pilots manual.. Which is way, Way, WAY too conservative! And this is what IL-2 (Oleg) initially used.. At which point a lot of P-38 experts realized that via their testing results from DeviceLink and wrote Oleg and provided him the REAL test values which in turn gave the P38 the true performance it deserved.

 

So now you can see why I feel it is important for the sim makers to document the values they use and provide methods for the users to do their own testing

[wiseblood]

True, they could..

 

But typically flight sims don't.. Most flight sim I have played over the past 20 some years choose to focus on simulating factory fresh planes that meet the factory fresh performance values..

 

Why?

 

Well I suspect because once you go down that road of 'what ifs' as in will this piston rod 'choose' to fail this mission or not you open up a real can of worms that most people don't want to contend with..

 

Would it be realistic to simulate such things?

 

Sure it would!

 

But do we really need that level of realism in a game? That is to say most of us don't play flight sims 24/7.. If we did play flight sims all day and all night all year long than yes it would be cool if one day out of the 365 my P-51 decided to throw a rod and I had to turn back for home as the rest of my buds continued on with the mission..

 

But for the rest of us, who may only have 3 to 4 hours a weekend to play, it would be very upsetting to most of us if our P-51 decided to throw a rod in the middle of a big mission with your buddies and you had to turn back for home..

 

Your mileage (pun intended) may vary!

 

 

This came up sometime around the last big SimHQ interview, and word was then that -

 

http://www.simhq.com/_air14/air_529a.html

 

Even when starting an airplane engine you do not get the same performance result each time. That is because, just as in real life, no engine is truly identical. There are small differences between each one; therefore, two "identical" aircraft engines perform slightly different even with the same settings. Most Rise of Flight users do not understand this random element in our engine, but it adds an immeasurable bit of realism to flying our planes. Add in different environmental factors and you get a very dynamic outcome each time you fly.

 

Jason chimed in further -

 

 

http://riseofflight.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=433794#p433794

 

 

Guys,

 

1. Loft was not kidding and nothing got lost in translation.

 

2. I learn new technical stuff about the engine every week. I was not in charge in the beginning and stuff was built that even I did not know about. Sometimes I am amazed at what I learn.

 

3. English is NOT the native language of the team and they had no experience marketing such a product to a global audience, especially to Westerners so items like this can get left out of the conversation. It still shows in some of the communications from the guys, but I don't correct every word they say. They are not children and I want them to practice their english skills. They've learned a lot from me and I've learned a lot from them.

 

3. Some of you, especially the ones who like to argue, fail to accept that our flight engine and associated modules are some of the most complex ever put into a PC game and/or flight-sim. You don't seem to believe us when we say it. This feature is just one example of the kind of detail and immersion building details that are in the product.

 

4. Many Russian users knew this as they talk to the team in their native langauge.

 

5. The team has been laughing at members of the community who try to reproduce exact results every time in your tests to prove how our engine is porked. This is one reason why we don't stress a small percentage of variance in performance data.

 

6. Many of you have noticed it, but you did not know what you were noticing and just assumed we were idiots. Hence, the laugher in the office.

 

The differences in engine performance are indeed subtle, but they are there and we like it.

 

Those that question the team's abilties and say we are full of it don't know what they are talking about.

 

Jason

 

I don't know if they will also go this route for BOS, but in terms of engine capabilities this is apparently something that has been working for some time in ROF.

Edited December 15, 2012 by wiseblood

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

I don't know if they will also go this route for BOS, but in terms of engine capabilities this is apparently something that has been working for some time in ROF.

If they do, I hope they make it an option!

 

In that I have my reservations of random performance simulation..

 

Realistic yes..

 

But there can be a down side!

 

For example, I recall some 10 to 15 years ago a flight sim maker making the same claims..

 

Turns out they were not actually simulating random engine performance as much as using it as a excuse for never getting the performance correct.

 

That is to say when ever a question came up about why such and such plane could not meet or managed to exceed such and such performance value the sim maker would attributed it to random engine performance modeling..

 

Even when the performance values people were getting where way below/above the rated values, which meant the random engine performance was that of a briggs and stratton lawn mower, or a Saturn five rocket motor respectfully..

 

In short, if done right, the random performance simulation should be well within the noise of the pilot error..

 

That is to say +/-5% of the factory fresh values..

 

If it is more than that, than I would suspect their random engine performance simulation is in error, or, that they are just using it as an excuse for not fixing the performance values

Edited December 15, 2012 by ACEOFACES

[wiseblood]

Well, Jason does say twice that they are only small variations.  The biggest one I've ever had, that I noticed at least, was one time when I flew the HP O-400 and one engine had a slightly lower redline than the other - just barely enough to accumulate more engine damage at full power than the other, and eventually after 15 minutes resulted in it breaking down and stopping without being hit.

[AndyJWest]

Yup - the variations in RoF engine performance are subtle, and you'll only get verifiable evidence in normal play from flying the twins - and even there it is mostly just a minor temperature variation. Sometimes it feels like you've got a dodgy engine, or on rare occasions a good one - but  it is impossible  to be sure you aren't just kidding yourself. 

Edited December 15, 2012 by AndyJWest

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Well, Jason does say twice that they are only small variations.

As well it should be! As noted within the noise of the +/-5% error..

 

Therefore we should never see a 777 rep attribute performance value differences obtained by the user to random engine performance simulation!

[gavagai]

This concern with captured aircraft testing is over rated IMHO..

 

Either side had the ability to repair damage and were more than capable of determining the settings for peak performance.. Especially wrt to the simple WWI designs, there are a few cases in WWII where some features and settings of captured aircraft may have had a factor, both good and bad. Take the captured Japan aircraft, where the US testers sued higher grade fuel than Japan had aval, which is why some of the test values were actually higher than Japans factory fresh values.

 

When the Germans tested a captured SE5a, it was slower than their Fokker D.VII and Pfalz D.IIIa.  The British and French had similar perplexing results with their tests of captured aircraft.  You might not be familiar with the range of factors that could affect a WW1 scout.  In addition to engine wear and different fuel types, the canvas would slowly soak up atmospheric water, the fuselage could twist, and the prop could warp.  We have no indication that either side attempted to fix-up a captured aircraft before they tested it.

In a British test of a Sopwith Snipe (not captured, obviously), after 24 hours flying time, the airspeed dropped by 5%, and the rate of climb decreased by 9%.  For WW1 using captured aircraft data is a very, very big deal.  I don't know if there's a similar problem for WW2 aircraft, but the construction materials (metal) make me think it is less of a problem.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

When the Germans tested a captured SE5a, it was slower than their Fokker D.VII and Pfalz D.IIIa. The British and French had similar perplexing results with their tests of captured aircraft.

Variations are a given, and to be expected

 

Even when testing their own aircraft there would be variations. Said variations typically resulted in them taking a closer look at what they were doing which resulted in a change that in turn fixed the problem. A good example of this can be seen in some of the P38 testing done. Something as simple as not having the duck work sealed correctly resulted in lower performance numbers.

 

.

You might not be familiar with the range of factors that could affect a WW1 scout.

Oh I am sure there are some aspects that I am not aware of in that it is not my life work!

 

.

In addition to engine wear and different fuel types, the canvas would slowly soak up atmospheric water, the fuselage could twist, and the prop could warp.

All of which was well within each sides capability to test.. For example a simple compression test would tell you how worn out an engine is and both sides were well aware of the canvases susceptiblity to moisture.

 

.

We have no indication that either side attempted to fix-up a captured aircraft before they tested it.

Yes I am not surprised that they didn't bother to document the "DUH'

 

That is to say I give them the benefit of the doubt, that prior to flying a plane that they would take the time to repair a broken engine mount if they found one or that they would fix a torn canvas if they found one or that they would fix a broken wing spare if they found one or that they would fix a frayed control cable if they found on, the list goes one.

 

.

In a British test of a Sopwith Snipe (not captured, obviously), after 24 hours flying time, the airspeed dropped by 5%, and the rate of climb decreased by 9%.

Bingo!

 

As noted above such instances typically resulted in them digging deeper to see what was causing the difference which in turn caused the to make adjustments.

 

.

For WW1 using captured aircraft data is a very, very big deal.

All data has to be reviewed carefully IMHO, both captured and non captured

 

.

I don't know if there's a similar problem for WW2 aircraft,

There is

 

.

but the construction materials (metal) make me think it is less of a problem.

Yes, with regards to the moisture canvas issues.. But there are other issues that need to be taken into account when looking at the data.

[=IRFC=Jorri]

That is to say I give them the benefit of the doubt, that prior to flying a plane that they would take the time to repair a broken engine mount if they found one or that they would fix a torn canvas if they found one or that they would fix a broken wing spare if they found one or that they would fix a frayed control cable if they found on, the list goes one.

 

 

Repair broken parts, sure. They would not replace the propeller, though. Or cover the plane with new canvas. OR align the fuselage again. Or put every bracing wire back to tension. And if they did, the results would even be less demonstrative of the plane's performance, because they would not likely have the exact right propellor, or know to rig the plane as well as the original mechanics. Same with fuel and oil type.

 

You speak about 5%. That is a huge amount of performance variety. 20 KMPH more or less in a WWI scout makes all the difference. And you would want that as random performance variety? ROF's flight models don't all manage to stay within these precentages and it's a big problem. Some of the flight models are spot on, though.

Edited December 15, 2012 by hq_Jorri

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

They would not replace the propeller, though. Or cover the plane with new canvas. OR align the fuselage again. Or put every bracing wire back to tension.

And I give them the benefit of the doubt that they are smart enough to realize 'it' is broken and thus not safe to fly or if flyable know in advance it is going to affect the results

 

.

And if they did, the results would even be less demonstrative of the plane's performance, because they would not likely have the exact right propellor, or know to rig the plane as well as the original mechanics. Same with fuel and oil type.

These guys (engineers) on both sides of the war were not simpletons.. Nor were the evaluating a flying saucer from outer space of which they had no background in or experience with.

 

.

You speak about 5%. That is a huge amount of performance variety.

The +/-5% is the accepted standard of variation to expect in real world data.. As for huge amount, I guess that depends on your definition of huge, but it does not change the fact that +/-5% is the accepted standard

 

.

20 KMPH more or less in a WWI scout makes all the difference.

I think chuck said it best when he said it is the man not the machine!

 

.

And you would want that as random performance variety?

Where did you get that impression?

 

No that is not what I want, that is simply the accepted standard amount of variation one can expect in WWI and WWII testing

 

.

ROF's flight models don't all manage to stay within these percentages and it's a big problem. Some of the flight models are spot on, though.

At this point I would be very telling, and even support my point, for you to tell us your test methods used during the testing of said parameters and how you collected the flight data during said testing Edited December 15, 2012 by ACEOFACES

[=IRFC=Jorri]

Nobody says the planes were broken.

 

The example with the Sopwith Snipe goes  along way to show why captured planes, whose data was used to model German planes in ROF, won't perform as close to their peak as factory fresh planes or even prototypes, whose flight data were used to model a lot of the British planes in ROF.

Edited December 15, 2012 by hq_Jorri

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Nobody says the planes were broken.

Really?

 

So when you said..

.

Repair broken parts, sure.

What was it you were talking about than?