Developer Diary, Part 123 - Discussion

[II./JG77_Manu*]

The ingame climb rate data for the Fw-190 is very close to the German test data I've seen.

Only the two fix rates for 0 and 3000. At 6000 it's way off.

[Juri_JS]

Only the two fix rates for 0 and 3000. At 6000 it's way off.

If I remember correctly it should be around 11 m/s on 6000 m. So it's not that far off.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Juri_JS

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Over 15% less then it should, that is indeed far off, makes a whole lot of a difference in aerial engagement

[F/JG300_Gruber]

Seems that the early La5 is outperforming the 190 in each and every flight characteristics dive speed excepted

 

Wasn't that supposed to be the case only for the F and FN versions ?

Edited February 27, 2016 by F/JG300_Gruber

[Phantom-103]

This obviously took a lot of time and effort to compile and sift through,Thank You very much for making IL*2 The Best it can be.

[Dr_Molenbeek]

So La-5 reaches 18m/s at sea level and 13,3m/s at 3000m (w/ Forza i suppose) but LaGG-3 reaches 13,3m/s at 3000m too while LaGG-3 s.35 data say 11,4m/s at 2600 RPM for that altitude ? 

 

Yak-1... 17m/s at SL and 15,3m/s at 3000m ?! What radiator settings have you used ? RL chart shows 15m/s as peak climb at ~1200m and about 12m/s at 3000m for Yak-1 s.69 with fully open radiators...

 

Bf 109G-2 running at 1.42 ata/2800 RPM while ingame the engine is clamped to 1.3 ata/2600 RPM (as it should btw)..? And you tell us that these numbers are from BoS ?

 

According to your datas, there's no plane ingame that overspeed regardless the altitude, sure, everything is fine.

 

Your "complex physics simulation system" made a great job. /s

[SOLIDKREATE]

The ingame climb rate data for the Fw-190 is very close to the German test data I've seen.

 

 

Climb rate bad for the 190? What is he basing that on? I think it climbs just fine. Not as fast as G-2 but it does pretty well for me.

[Wulf]

Seems that the early La5 is outperforming the 190 in each and every flight characteristics dive speed excepted

 

Wasn't that supposed to be the case only for the F and FN versions ?

 

 

Can't wait for the La-5 F and FN models.  Their performance is going to be 'off-the-frinking-scale'.  If you think the current La-5 rolls quick, just wait till it comes 'lightened' and 'sans' the bleeding wingtip tanks.  It will make a 190 appear to roll with all the speed and agility of a floor-mounted freezer unit.  

 

Go team!  

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

This looks like good data for someone to build a program similar to the old IL-2 Compare program.

[coconut]

Bf 109G-2 running at 1.42 ata/2800 RPM while ingame the engine is clamped to 1.3 ata/2600 RPM (as it should btw)..? And you tell us that these numbers are from BoS ?

I see nothing in the perf data that states they were gathered with the engine at 1.42 ata. Instead, the term "combat performance" is used, which I suppose is 1.3 ata. The 1.42 ata/2800 RPM is probably just a copy/paste error.

 

Your "complex physics simulation system" made a great job. /s

The sarcasm I wish you had kept for yourself.

 

The devs finally provide us with expected data performance, and that's the reaction they get. It's sad. With that data at hand we can either report observed differences with our own experiments, or point discrepancies with known RL test data. And it can be different people doing that independently. That's a step up from the previous situation where we had to provide both expected performance data and observed performance data at the same time. Meaning someone who had good access/knowledge of historical documents but poor flying skills (or maybe does not even fly/own the game) was not able to report issues. Or someone who had good virtual flying skills but poor historical knowledge would get their experiment ignored because they could not provide evidence of the correct expected figures. You had to have people with both skills or people cooperating with each other to help improve things.

Edited February 27, 2016 by coconut

[SqwkHappy]

Good to see.

[Turban]

Thanks devs

 

Il2 is not perfect. See, I'm not a fanboy. 

 

But I sure can appreciate the hard work you guys are doing and trully think you guys are doing good

 

Keep it up

[RAY-EU]

Very Good News ¡

 

IF Ze_Hairy , forum Friends & Il2 777 Studios are OK with History Data caracteristic of archives of WW2 of eyery Plane ..... Faboulus .

 

But need Time to compare and verify all the History WW2 Datas ... And every things are correct ...... OK ?¡ & Agreement H D A WW2 .

Like The WikiSIM .....

 

For Me Are The BEST NEWS ¡

 

Thanks Very Much for The Best SIM Project ¡

[150GCT_Veltro]

The 1.42 ata/2800 RPM is not a copy/paste error but the G2 data. One day, i hope soon, we could have also the 1.42 ATA but is always the same G2. So it's ok.

[LoneStar_47]

^{Are these numbers considered as ranges i.e. min to max? Just want to make sure I interpet correct.}

 

^{Takeoff speed: 160..200 km/h}

^{Glideslope speed: 220..240 km/h}

^{Landing speed: 155..165 km/h}

^{Indicated stall speed in flight configuration: 175..200 km/h}

^{Water rated temperature in engine output: 70..85 °C}

^{Oil rated temperature in engine output: 90..100 °C}

 

 

 

[JG5_Schuck]

Nice,

Very brave of the devs to release the base data.

And ride the tide of flak that will surely follow from certain individuals!! 

 

The G2 605A engine was considered a bit weak after it was overbored, putting excessive mechanical loading on the crank bearings.

So initially the Luftwaffe had to run it at 1.3ata 2600rpm, but this was soon sorted out, although the problem never really went away fully.

Im not sure of when they were given the go ahead by Daimler Benz to run full power?

Maybe we could have the full power version as an unlock?

 

An IL2 compare is a brilliant idea.

 

Anyway, keep up the good work.

[A-E-Hartmann]

Thanks for the update .

Good news .

[Bando]

 

^{Are these numbers considered as ranges i.e. min to max? Just want to make sure I interpet correct.}

 

^{Takeoff speed: 160..200 km/h}

^{Glideslope speed: 220..240 km/h}

^{Landing speed: 155..165 km/h}

^{Indicated stall speed in flight configuration: 175..200 km/h}

^{Water rated temperature in engine output: 70..85 °C}

^{Oil rated temperature in engine output: 90..100 °C}

 

 

 

 

 

I believe you will have to see them as guidelines to a heavy or a light plane.

[FuriousMeow]

Over 15% less then it should, that is indeed far off, makes a whole lot of a difference in aerial engagement

 

Except engagements are below 4000 meters. It's also 8% off. Not over 15%.

Edited February 27, 2016 by FuriousMeow

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Except engagements are below 4000 meters. It's also 8% off. Not over 15%.

Both statements wrong

[FuriousMeow]

9.5/11 = .86 * 100 = 8.6%. 11m/s is the climb rate of the 190A-3 at 6000meters.

 

The other is correct, online the combat is always below 4000meters except for the Germans that sit up around 5000meters waiting to dive below. And I say Germans because I never see Macchis around - unless I am in one. Too much of a challenge apparently. The German aircraft are so poor, as well, that the Axis side always outnumbers the Allies by at least 5 players if not more than double.

 

The devs are recreating real world physics, trying to get aircraft to "fly" on a home computer. One, that in itself is incredibly difficult. Two, getting within 5% is actually acceptable.

 

If you want a game where it is just all lookup tables, x = y, you can have them. They come on diskettes and work with DOS. They'll "hit the numbers" but the "flying" part won't be there.

Edited February 27, 2016 by FuriousMeow

[II./JG77_Manu*]

9.5/11 = .86 * 100 = 8.6%. 11m/s is the climb rate of the 190A-3 at 6000meters.

 

The other is correct, online the combat is always below 4000meters except for the Germans that sit up around 5000meters waiting to dive below.

[Edited] Percentages are schools subject of 10 year olds.

The other statement is utter nonsense as well..the last fights i had online have been all above 4000m.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Bearcat
Personal

[FuriousMeow]

please stop making a fool of yourself. Percentages are schools subject of 10 year olds.

 

 

Then why are you unable to calculate it properly?

[303_Kwiatek]

-5% for example in german plane performance and +5% for example in russian plane performance give 10% difference in performance:) beside high alt overspeed 109F4 in all other cases performance most russian planes in game is too optimistic (at least or more then 5% better)

Edited February 27, 2016 by 303_Kwiatek

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Then why are you unable to calculate it properly?

 

I just try not to be mean, and explain you the way of percentage calculation.

You have two numbers, in this case 9,5 and 11.

-->11/9,5=1.158 in words 11 is 1.158 times bigger then 9,5, in percentage it is 115,8% of 9,5

-->conclusion: it is 15,8% bigger.

Can't make it any more clear

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

So it came to number wars. Well, thats not going to be healthy ...  

[Hoots]

So it came to number wars. Well, thats not going to be healthy ...

 

Not only that, it's gonna get very boring.

[SYN_Skydance]

I 2nd that.......doh, another number!

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Yeah, that made war thunder forums uninteresting. The only type of discussion is the one when you are aeronautical engineer. Hope it wont be like that here. 

[No601_Swallow]

Yeah, that made war thunder forums uninteresting. The only type of discussion is the one when you are aeronautical engineer. Hope it wont be like that here. 

 

Um... Good luck on that one. This is a flightsim forum...

 

Or we could have the Hakenkruez  discussion? 

 

[Edit: Gotta say, though, I'm with Furious Meow. The numbers are pretty darn close.

 

But even if they're off, in terms of "gaming", the German kites have an  advantage in most situations (even if it's just the fact that they're so much easier to fly)... And yet, both sides are competitive and each and every encounter for me, beit SP or MP is thrilling and gut-wrenching. Dadgummit - even trying to land half the kites here is tense and sweaty - my definition of entertainment. Dadgummit again - even taxiing in this game is a thrill-fest!  ]

Edited February 27, 2016 by No601_Swallow

[ST_ami7b5]

[No601_Swallow]

    

 

I fly with a historically based squadron. Many of our pilots are great fliers, some are great competitors. All of us care deeply about 'historicity' (and, yes, that's a word). And we all want stuff to be as close as possible to historical records.  But you know what? The single greatest thing I care about when I fire up the sim is feeling like I'm flying an aeroplane, first and foremost, and secondly that I'm having fun with a bunch of mates. The bickering about numbers, the my-chart's-better-than-yours stuff? Life's too short.

 

Having said that, I love it that the devs feel a constant pressure to <Get It Right>, so rock on, etc. But at the moment I love this game, and I have to say I get annoyed by the flightsim tradition of people "batting" for aeroplanes of a certain country and seeming to feel 'entitled' to have an advantage in every encounter.

[Guest deleted@50488]

 

So La-5 reaches 18m/s at sea level and 13,3m/s at 3000m (w/ Forza i suppose) but LaGG-3 reaches 13,3m/s at 3000m too while LaGG-3 s.35 data say 11,4m/s at 2600 RPM for that altitude ? 

 

Yak-1... 17m/s at SL and 15,3m/s at 3000m ?! What radiator settings have you used ? RL chart shows 15m/s as peak climb at ~1200m and about 12m/s at 3000m for Yak-1 s.69 with fully open radiators...

 

Bf 109G-2 running at 1.42 ata/2800 RPM while ingame the engine is clamped to 1.3 ata/2600 RPM (as it should btw)..? And you tell us that these numbers are from BoS ?

 

According to your datas, there's no plane ingame that overspeed regardless the altitude, sure, everything is fine.

 

Your "complex physics simulation system" made a great job. /s

 

 

Are you being ironic Ze_Hairy ?

 

Maybe I didn't understand your point but are you referring to Han's post yesterday ?

 

Do you acknowledge the honesty Han, as a developer, has revealed when giving us those internal numbers ? I believe he recognizes those in need of fine adjustment and those which are already a good match, given the complex task I believe it is bringing such a flight model engine to precise numbers ?

 

I believe this was more than the proof, crystal clear, that the dev's approach is honest and they're willing to keep updating the various models to better match RW data.

 

Or, maybe I didn't understand your point, sorry if that is the case...

Edited February 27, 2016 by jcomm

[Rjel]

Very interesting update. Slowly but surely, a lot of wish list items are being made into realities in this sim. A lot more positives than negatives for me. I'm very eager for BoM and all of the upcoming improvements it will bring with it.

[Freycinet]

Nice update devs, that should keep the hungry dogs, sorry, FM freaks, happy for a couple of months...  :-) 

[Han]

Are you being ironic Ze_Hairy ?

 

Or, maybe I didn't understand your point, sorry if that is the case...

"Haters gonna hate" ©

When we have decided to post this data we were in full understanding that it will cause a great "butthurt" for 10-15 community members whose names are good known

 

One thing is damn strange to me. Yep - they hate. But they still playing it for years while they hate it all this time

 

Anyway, objective was not butthurt of haters, objective was to provide some additional understanding how to fly and how to fight in our game. These numbers are important for that.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

You have my sympathies Han, we love ya. 

[silvergun]

The rate of fire of German MG cannons is not a little below the average (data)?

Or the current rate is the average?

 

MG 151/15 - Rate of fire ~740 rpm   (ingame 700 rpm);

MG 151/20 - Rate of fire ~750 rpm   (ingame 700 rpm).

Edited February 27, 2016 by silverguun

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

"Haters gonna hate" © When we have decided to post this data we were in full understanding that it will cause a great "butthurt" for 10-15 community members whose names are good known One thing is damn strange to me. Yep - they hate. But they still playing it for years while they hate it all this time