Developer Diary, Part 123 - Discussion

[Hoots]

Trouble is Han, if they do a pm to your inbox they can't beat their chests about how wrong they think things are and how clever they are in public.

[Art]

PS

We will check Fw190 hi-alt climb rate comparing with sources - I see fact-supported reports here

But It's a luck that I see them. To have guarantie there should be a PM in my box with all materials and tests.

Thank you.  I like this approach 

[kendo]

Taking the difference is the same as taking one number over the other.  11/9.5 = 1.158, -1 = 0.158 ie 15.8%.  11-9.5 = 1.5, 1.5/9.5 = 0.158.

 

What is crucial is deciding which number to take as the denominator(the number on the bottom) : 11, or 9.5. Obviously, you get a lower % difference taking a larger denominator.

 

In any percentage calculation it could be appropriate to use either number as the denominator - it depends on what you want to use as the yardstick, and it is always best to be absolutely clear in case of ambiguity.

 

In this case, the 5% range is +/- % acceptable error from the target number, so ideally the deviation from the target should also be measured using the target as the denominator, otherwise the percentages are not comparable. While we do not know the actual target number, (but the developers do) it obviously is not 11, which is just what the "haters" think it ought to be - if the current FM is correct then it is 9.5, or near enough (within 5%). So 11 is indeed 15.8% greater than the proxy for the target number and Manu is absolutely right.

 

edit: right in his calculated %, no opinion on the number itself - well actually I do, but not going to risk a banning

 

Taking 11 as the denominator would be appropriate if the question was "how much should a roll rate (oops, climb rate) of 11 be reduced to get to the target number?". Answer 1.5/11 or 1-(9.5/11)  = 13.6%

 

Sorry, but there is no option in any of this. There is a defined way to calculate percentage error - it is a defined term in maths/physics - and that is what the devs will be using for measuring their 5% limit, so for any comparison to be appropriate it needs to use the correct formula as defined. See links below:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approximation_error

 

http://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-Percentage-Error

 

The correct or target figure is used in the denominator - and I used 11 only because that was the figure being used in the previous debate - not because I have any opinion or knowledge about its correctness.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By the way this thread is all completely mad

Edited February 29, 2016 by kendo

[jaydee]

         

 

Dude, you are hardly one to talk.  

 

Winger, I am disappointed with you. You had a Hissy Fit (Tantrum) here and elsewhere when you didn't get "Things  Your Way". You have gone on other forums and "Tried to Convince Others" BOS is bad !.

Pull your finger out of your Arse and get back Flyin BOS ! (You know you want to ).

~S~

[150GCT_Veltro]

PS

We will check Fw190 hi-alt climb rate comparing with sources - I see fact-supported reports here

But It's a luck that I see them. To have guarantie there should be a PM in my box with all materials and tests.

 

Thank Han.

[Caudron431]

Trouble is Han, if they do a pm to your inbox they can't beat their chests about how wrong they think things are and how clever they are in public.

My guess is that there's also a frustration maybe coming from the ClOD times where some could believe they had a right to intervene on a sim development, then by the means of mods. They really though that they were "the" important people in the sim world kind of heroes above the rest of simmers, people that don't have to show respect. They see themselves as equals when they speak with the devs, but they are not able to create something original: just modify.

 

Many modders are still bitter today, because they truly believed they were as important as developpers while in fact they were only able to modify a preexisting sim to their tastes, but not able to create something coherent and beautiful from scratch.

 

What you see is the better the sim grows the bitter they seem to be. So i can only rejoice myself to see them  bitter. They seem unable to cope with the fact that the sim can actually be a success without their personal interventions. Their whine and attitude is a clear sign of IL2 BOS BOM good health. We should rejoice!

Edited February 29, 2016 by Yak9Micha

[SR-F_Winger]

Winger, I am disappointed with you. You had a Hissy Fit (Tantrum) here and elsewhere when you didn't get "Things  Your Way". You have gone on other forums and "Tried to Convince Others" BOS is bad !.

Pull your finger out of your Arse and get back Flyin BOS ! (You know you want to ).

~S~

nah. Enough grey hair from this. Not worth it. So EDITED:)

Edited February 29, 2016 by StG2_Winger

[Guest deleted@50488]

I've actually been banned once from the DCS forums, and often receive warnings :-) for commenting ( repeatedly ) on aspects I find not so correctly modelled, specially when comparing it to ... BoS or other flight simulators...

 

Hehe - at my age I feel ridiculous sometimes participating at some forums... but I try to keep a single principle - being honest and not biased in what I write and the points I rise, while at the same time trying to be polite with everyone...

 

I have several times mentioned here at the il2 BoS forum aspects of the flight dynamics I do not agree with. Never presented a single formula, just described the effects - Never been banned or warned!

 

I did get banned once from here, but that's because I showed some nice boobs under the effects of Gs.... It was pure aerodynamics, but not accepted as a proof of the effects loading a GA with a few Gs can have on a nice girl... ( heheh, I promptly accepted the ban and regret having posted that movie... ;-) )

 

It all depends on the way we drop our ideas and opinions, our expectations. I believe everything can be accepted, and get an answer, when asked in right terms. I only PM'ed Han once, and got his response in a couple of hours. I was glad with it, and it was sufficient to get a better insight on how something was being dealt with in BoS.... I do the same with the developers of every flight simulator I use.

 

I try not to bring the terms of my writing into levels of wording that turn out to sound insulting, bashing...

 

Then, and much more important, in the very first place I enjoy being able to use il2 BoS / BoM, as much as I do using DCS, and other flight sims, so, I sometimes can't understand when we ( I have done it too sometimes... ) start mistreating the things we like and actually give us joy in life... It's nonsense ... Isn't it ?

 

Again, in publishing his measurement results the only thing the il2 BoS / BoM devs team proved is that they're up for the work, they're honestly trying to build a sound base for their already successful combat flight simulation platform AND!!! if this sort of data was not published before that's most probably because EVERY WEEK they see here their users posting on that "DD Today?" thread, or waiting for some more fixes, maps, additional aircraft to become available... 

 

It's stressing for sure for the dev team, it's stressing and disappointing because they have been giving their users news and something to play I do not see in any other flight simulator I use ( well, Aerowinx PSX being the exception because his single developer is a special case of dedication.... ).

 

Let's wait for what's coming, calmly wait, because, for instance, an aspect I myself brought some weeks ago will probably find it's way into the simulation in future updates - detailed fuel management -and I am sure further fine tuning is going to get done, because we have also seen the devs acknowledging the need to further inspect, for instance, the reasons for the somehow overdone rolling moments due to sideslip at higher AoAs, and o on....

 

It's progressing at a remarkable pace, it's giving me, and I am sure most of it's users, a lot of joy to play, it's worth believing in ! Isn't it ?

Edited February 29, 2016 by jcomm

[Luger1969]

Guys, i see that Moders have performed law and order restoring.

We don't like it. Realy. But MUTUAL respect should be kept.

 

Guys who come here to tell that "devs your work is a trash" will be never wellcome here. I'm think it's fair.

 

From other hand - we allways appericated guys who support us by different ways, including FM checks but without insulting. It's allways pleasure to calloborate with them. And we say a great Thanks to them.

 

PS

We will check Fw190 hi-alt climb rate comparing with sources - I see fact-supported reports here

But It's a luck that I see them. To have guarantie there should be a PM in my box with all materials and tests.

Good morning everyone. Let me start off by saying that I am not a technical expert on the level of the devs or most forum members but that I like to read the forums to enjoy and learn. Right now for example there are great things being done in the manual/guideline forums which I really enjoy.

 

Han I like your post that I have quoted. Thanks for that.

 

My big  wish for this sim is for it to succeed so that we can enjoy WW2 simming for years and years to come. 

 

Thank you to the developers who have put this product on the table consistently and meeting all due dates and my expectations.

 

Thanks you to all the community members who write on these forums and provide inputs. 

[HagarTheHorrible]

 

Not everyone might see the funny side, never the less I think it's still apt.

Edited February 29, 2016 by HagarTheHorrible

[unreasonable]

 

Sorry, but there is no option in any of this. There is a defined way to calculate percentage error - it is a defined term in maths/physics - and that is what the devs will be using for measuring their 5% limit, so for any comparison to be appropriate it needs to use the correct formula as defined. See links below:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approximation_error

 

http://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-Percentage-Error

 

The correct or target figure is used in the denominator - and I used 11 only because that was the figure being used in the previous debate - not because I have any opinion or knowledge about its correctness.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By the way this thread is all completely mad

 

Unbelievable -  I have been using percentages for 50 years in science and economics and nothing has changed. I certainly do not need a wiki guide for kids on how to do it.

 

Using the difference number between the two numbers is mathematically equivalent to the difference between one and the ratio as I showed in my post. Check for yourself. I have used this formula literally thousands of times in my professional career.

 

As you say - and I said in my post - the target figure is used as the denominator. In this case it is 9.5 (or whatever the devs think is the target). It makes no sense whatever in this context to use 11 as the denominator as this is just one number that could be compared to the fixed target figure of 9.5. 

 

While I agree that the thread is strange, what is stranger still is people claiming - incorrectly - that someone has made a mathematical error when they clearly have no idea what they are talking about.

[Aap]

As you say - and I said in my post - the target figure is used as the denominator. In this case it is 9.5 (or whatever the devs think is the target). It makes no sense whatever in this context to use 11 as the denominator as this is just one number that could be compared to the fixed target figure of 9.5. 

 

C'mon, percentage math is so simple that you don't need to use it thousands of times in professional career to make these simple calculations. So as the percentage discussion started from this message:

 

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

 

Then the discussion is about how far off the game's data is from where it "should be" according to this post - 11 m/s.

So if the value "should be" 11 m/s, but really is 9.5 m/s, then it is 100% - (9.5m/s x 100%)/11m/s =  13,6% off from where it "should be".

[Danziger]

I think the main problem is with bad attitudes. It is possible to complain about something in a nice way and try to be helpful in showing possible fixes. As someone who reads the forum a lot in my down time away from the computer I can say I'm very pleased to see some cleaning out of the forums. I can't count the number of times I've read about legitimate complaints from people only to be put off by their extreme attitude. I really get tired of sifting through all of the rude comments and sarcasm as well as some downright hateful posts directed at the developers. I've also noticed it keeps coming from the same sources.

 

You guys should check out the Russian forums. They aren't kidding about banning people there. People here have been getting away with quite a bit for a while.

[unreasonable]

C'mon, percentage math is so simple that you don't need to use it thousands of times in professional career to make these simple calculations. So as the percentage discussion started from this message:

 

 

 

Then the discussion is about how far off the game's data is from where it "should be" according to this post - 11 m/s.

So if the value "should be" 11 m/s, but really is 9.5 m/s, then it is 100% - (9.5m/s x 100%)/11m/s =  13,6% off from where it "should be".

 

No of course it is not difficult, which is why saying that Manu's calculations were incorrect is wrong. As I said before and will say again, either number could be used as denominator depending on the context: if you are talking about any comparison with a 5% error margin then the issue is 5% of what? This clearly is not 5% of 11 - it is 5% of the developers' target number, which we assume to be close to 9.5 since that is the game value that is being defended. So Manu's calculation was perfectly correct in that context.

 

If you want to specify as you have done that you are basing it on some other "should be" number then the result is unambiguous and the calculation is fine.

 

Frankly the difference between the two calculations in this case in the context of the game is trivial - but what does bother me is that people will make such categorical and ignorant statements along the lines of "you is wrong".

[Aap]

Agreed.

Testosterone levels must be high to get into prolonged arguments about such things 

[Han]

[kendo]

No of course it is not difficult, which is why saying that Manu's calculations were incorrect is wrong. As I said before and will say again, either number could be used as denominator depending on the context: if you are talking about any comparison with a 5% error margin then the issue is 5% of what? This clearly is not 5% of 11 - it is 5% of the developers' target number, which we assume to be close to 9.5 since that is the game value that is being defended. So Manu's calculation was perfectly correct in that context.

 

If you want to specify as you have done that you are basing it on some other "should be" number then the result is unambiguous and the calculation is fine.

 

Frankly the difference between the two calculations in this case in the context of the game is trivial - but what does bother me is that people will make such categorical and ignorant statements along the lines of "you is wrong".

 

First off, I agree this is completely trivial - so much so that I would prefer not to be even posting on this again.

 

Second, the links were not necessarily just for your benefit - and frankly I didn't have a lot of time (or inclination) to look for better.

 

Finally, of course the entire issue is which number is used as denominator - and this has to be the number being specified as the correct 'real world' figure - in this case that was 11 - as specified by Manu - that is if we're comparing the game approximation to reality the target value always has to be the real-world value and not whatever approximation the game currently makes of it - currently 9.5 but open to revision?

 

(and forget about whether 11 is really proven to be the climb rate of a FW or not - that's a whole other issue and one I'm not qualified to answer)

 

The fact remains we were comparing the approximation in the sim to a specified real world figure and not the other way around => therefore 11 in denominator => 13.6%

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

And I won't post anymore on this - all reasons given above already - and really it is just too crazy to get worked up about this

 

...and the whole argument seems to be redundant anyway given Han's post above...

Edited February 29, 2016 by kendo

[Han]

Damn, Kendo, which 13.6% are you talking about?

I have posted GAME-IRL compare above, mistake is not more than 1%.

 

You have ignored my post? Than it's reason for a ban.

[kendo]

I hope that was a joke......

[Han]

Nope. You still claiming on 13.6% mistake after my post with strict data showing that mistake is 1%. Right?

Or it's a language barrier and you meaning something else?

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

You have ignored my post? Than it's reason for a ban.

 

Wow, talk about a hissy.

 

Think about the precious PR that you guys have struggled to recoup in the past year... 

Edited February 29, 2016 by Space_Ghost

[kendo]

NO.....! That was a whole other argument with Unreasonable about something else.

[Han]

Regarding "a way too optimistic russian planes":

NO.....! That was a whole other argument with Unreasonable about something else.

 

Than be cearful We're little bit angry after Hairy and Kwaitek efforts

[kendo]

Ok....time I was out of here anyway.... 

[DD_Arthur]

Nope. You still claiming on 13.6% mistake after my post with strict data showing that mistake is 1%. Right?

Or it's a language barrier and you meaning something else?

 

@Han; Kendo is not disputing your figures.  He is having a debate with unreasonable about how to work with percentages.  There is no problem here.

 

Thank you for the chart and performance figures, btw.   

[JtD]

personally i can't reach more than 534 kph at sl without overheat, i.e. it is speed of real La-5 s4

 

so, maybe, 544 kph is speed exactly in winter time, i.e. ~ 575 kph - 30.

Which radiator settings do you use to achieve 534 in standard conditions (autumn map) without overheating? Personally, I struggled to get it past 510 because I needed nearly fully open radiators. Somehow felt wrong, but so far I had no time to check in detail. I was trying to start with a medium temperature engine and to not overheat before the forzash timer ran out.

[NobbyNobbs]

@@Han

Why ingame Lagg's  figure is broken on 2000 meters (1st altitude border of M-105 PF)? 

Do you use supercharger correctly? 

 

зы. на какой высоте была включена вторая скорость? 2000м? 3000м?

Edited February 29, 2016 by NobbyNobbs

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

 

Thx for the test, however there are some issues with the table you posted in here (some values are off).

 

Here's the Baubeschreibung Nr.1060: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a3-sheet-26-11-42.jpg

 

It reads:

 

                                                                           Source data (min)                      Source data (sec)           Ingame        Δ          %

Climb time from 0 m to:              2000m   2.3 min (2.12 min in your table)     =   138 sec  (132 in table)     133 sec  = -  5      - 3.759

                                                  4000m   4.8 min (4.48 min uin your table)   =   288 sec  (same)               291 sec  = +  3     + 1.031

                                                  6000m   7.6 min (7.54 min in your table)     =   456 sec  (474 in table)     470 sec  = + 14    + 2.978

                                                  8000m   11.5 min (12min in your table)       =   690 sec  (720 in table)     714 sec =  + 34     + 4.761

 

The source also notes an error margin of 10% for climb data to 2000m.

 

If you wish I can take it to PMs and delete my post.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Han

[Han]

[JtD]

Trouble is Han, if they do a pm to your inbox they can't beat their chests about how wrong they think things are and how clever they are in public.

That's BS. Personally I post my FM findings, supportive or critical of current FM, in the open, because I appreciate it if other people do the same. Ideally, you learn something about in game performance, real life performance, general flight physics and flight modelling all in one post. Some folks like to chat about skins, I like to chat about FM's.

[Falco_Peregrinus]

 

 

Han, that is brilliant!

Putin's face is priceless! ))

Edited February 29, 2016 by Ioshic

[6./ZG26_Emil]

That's BS. Personally I post my FM findings, supportive or critical of current FM, in the open, because I appreciate it if other people do the same. Ideally, you learn something about in game performance, real life performance, general flight physics and flight modelling all in one post. Some folks like to chat about skins, I like to chat about FM's.

 

But isn't that the point? There's chatting and then there is being rude towards the Dev team and accusing them of bias etc. I don't blame them for getting sick of it, if I was getting this level of abuse in my job I'd tell my client to find someone else and good luck.

[JtD]

Thx for the test, however there are some issues with the table you posted in here (some values are off).

I don't even get the table - where's the 31.00 coming from? Time of day? Also & unfortunately, the only way I get the stated in game times is if I am on a winter map.

[Han]

Thx for the test, however there are some issues with the table you posted in here (some values are off).

 

Here's the Baubeschreibung Nr.1060: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a3-sheet-26-11-42.jpg

 

It reads:

 

                                                                           Source data (min)                      Source data (sec)           Ingame        Δ          %

Climb time from 0 m to:              2000m   2.3 min (2.12 min in your table)     =   138 sec  (132 in table)     133 sec  = -  5      - 3.759

                                                  4000m   4.8 min (4.48 min uin your table)   =   288 sec  (same)               291 sec  = +  3     + 1.031

                                                  6000m   7.6 min (7.54 min in your table)     =   456 sec  (474 in table)     470 sec  = + 14    + 2.978

                                                  8000m   11.5 min (12min in your table)       =   690 sec  (720 in table)     714 sec =  + 34     + 4.761

 

The source also notes an error margin of 10% for climb data to 2000m.

 

If you wish I can take it to PMs and delete my post.

 

Sorry, not Baubeschreibung Nr.1060 but Fw 190 A-2 bis A-4 Handbuch.

 

2.12 - means 2 minutes 12 seconds.

 

PS

Also, 714 - 690 - it's not 34, it's 24 - 3.5%

Be cearfull with numbers please

[Hoots]

That's BS. Personally I post my FM findings, supportive or critical of current FM, in the open, because I appreciate it if other people do the same. Ideally, you learn something about in game performance, real life performance, general flight physics and flight modelling all in one post. Some folks like to chat about skins, I like to chat about FM's.

But have you also done as they asked and put it in a pm in a factual way? If yes then super, if not then you can hardly blame them for ignoring you.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

But isn't that the point? There's chatting and then there is being rude towards the Dev team and accusing them of bias etc. I don't blame them for getting sick of it, if I was getting this level of abuse in my job I'd tell my client to find someone else and good luck.

 

Fair enough... You also wouldn't be in business for very long if you threatened to fire or ban every one of your clients any time they disagree with your findings.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

 

No idea where you got that from, but the A2 is a different aircraft then the A3, and the A4 is another aircraft again. They have different properties, and different climb rates. You numbers might be right for A2, but surely not for A3 and A4.

To just give the A3 the properties of the A2, is the same like giving the Yak1-S69 properties of some 1941 Yak with P-engine. 

I have only seen an excel sheet, maybe you misinterpreted something or didn't translate properly, after all it's surely not easy for a Russian to translate German.

 

I already posted the sources which are about A3, and not A2. I am doing it again.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a3-climb.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a3-climb-speed-26-11-42.jpg

 

those are actual tests, and not what handbooks says!! Tests! And 3 of them (the other one from a broken engine) match pretty good. The result is crystal clear. 11m/s at 6000m (or even more). Anybody can read that

Edited February 29, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[Han]

And what? 

In compare with Baubeschreibung Nr.1060 mistake is less than 5% anyway

Everything is fine in any case and NO REASON to claim against "undermodelled Fw190"

 

You may to post even this number of "!" :

 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

This will not change the fact, that Climb rate of Fw190A3 in BoS is corresponding very good with historical test data.

[unreasonable]

I don't even get the table - where's the 31.00 coming from? Time of day? Also & unfortunately, the only way I get the stated in game times is if I am on a winter map.

 

31.00 is the clock started at 31 minutes 0 seconds, then you get to 2000m in 167 sec but have a 34 second adjustment for take/off and speed up to get your 133 figure, then the figures show the cumulative time to height.

[Jupp]