Developer Diary, Part 123 - Discussion

[JtD]

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.

Yes, but then why not start the clock at 0?

[Han]

And some more regarding WAY TO OPTIMISTIC russians - this time it's YaK-1.

Historical Source:

"Control Flight Test Report of three Yak-1 planes with MP-105F engines on Aircraft Factory #292, year of 1942"

 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

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.

 

So you just ignore the sources i presented?

Not one, but multiple, historic sources. Actual flight tests? You think they are all liars?

[Han]

Nope, I see that climb time is corresponding with 

Baubeschreibung Nr.1060

and

Fw 190 A-2 bis A-4 Handbuch

 

That is enought.

 

Climb rate may have some kind of methodological mistakes (variometer is not very precise gauge) while climb time is much more strict measured parameter.

So we beleive to climb time much more that climb rate if they're controversal.

ALSO my dear MANU

9.5 - it's approximated (average) climb rate, strict values are:

sealevel (300m) : 15.92 m/s

6000m : 10.02 m/s

8000m : 6.79 m/s (even better than your sources - 6.45 m/s)

[II./JG77_Manu*]

SO my dear HAN,

 

you wanna tell me that your former presented climb rates (in DD123) are wrong? That's a pitty, since i thought they are credible, and i built my argument after them. But apparently that's not the case.

So i don't know anymore, if i can trust your numbers you present now. I am not saying they are wrong. I can only say, i can't trust them, since the one's from DD123 are wrong. 

Also you are first saying, that climb rates are not believable, but then you build a case around them in the second part in your post? I don't get it.

 

However, just dismissing all sources from anyone else, and showing his own one's as the ultimate truth, dismissing every other opinion, even threaten to ban people if they have other sources/opinions is really no base to have an argument. I am out.

Good day, my dear Han  #

 

Edit: a pitty, that nobody can see if and when you edit your post. You did it numerous times now within 10 minutes, just to disarm my arguments.

Edited February 29, 2016 by II./JG77_Manu*

[unreasonable]

Yes, but then why not start the clock at 0?

 

[Edited]

 

It would only matter if the plane had been sitting on the runway for half an hour consuming fuel and throwing off the assumptions, right? I do not suppose that is the case. So I suppose it is just an arbitrary base line time.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Bearcat

[6./ZG26_McKvack]

Hey devs I've noticed a major big problem here

 

The he-111 should actually climb 0.4m/s more at 345m and should actually out-turn a stuka

Edited February 29, 2016 by 6./ZG26_McKvack

[150GCT_Veltro]

If it can help in this special FW day. Please keep it on.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190a3.html

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw-190-rep234.pdf

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw-190-rep2092.pdf

[Han]

SO my dear HAN,

 

you wanna tell me that your former presented climb rates (in DD123) are wrong? That's a pitty, since i thought they are credible, and i built my argument after them. But apparently that's not the case.

So i don't know anymore, if i can trust your numbers you present now. I am not saying they are wrong. I can only say, i can't trust them, since the one's from DD123 are wrong. 

Also you are first saying, that climb rates are not believable, but then you build a case around them in the second part in your post? I don't get it.

 

However, just dismissing all sources from anyone else, and showing his own one's as the ultimate truth, dismissing every other opinion, even threaten to ban people if they have other sources/opinions is really no base to have an argument. I am out.

Good day, my dear Han 

 

Nope, they're not wrong, they (only climb rates) are way to wide approximated. Climb rate on 6000m - i'ts average climb time from 5000m to 7000m. 

It's providing mistake if climb rate chart have "fracture" in this range (due to critical altitude).

Fw190 have critical altitude at 6000m, so this is that case.

 

So, we plan to make approximation more strict for such cases in our tables.

 

Regarding sources - I beleive not you and not me, I beleive to guys who have aviation education and dosens-years experience in aeronautical engeneering. Their expertise in selection of controversal engeneering data sources is 1000 times more significant than your or mine.

 

You don't like it? Than go to aeronautical university, take aeronautical high-level eduaction, go to Airspace Design Department, work there for 10 years (at least). After that I'll appericate your expertise same as I appericate expertise of our engeneers.

 

My dear MANU.

[coconut]

[Edited]

 

It would only matter if the plane had been sitting on the runway for half an hour consuming fuel and throwing off the assumptions, right? I do not suppose that is the case. So I suppose it is just an arbitrary base line time.

 

Default mission start time in the editor is 12.30. I suppose Han waited until 12.31 to start rolling, took 34s to stabilize, and then climbed to 2000m.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Bearcat

[Maple_X]

Dear Han, Manu

 

I have calculated climb time to 8000m from Manu's Climb-rate table.

From 0 to 1200m, 15.7m/s ---76.4s, and so on.

 

The result is...about 700s to climb 8000m.  I think this is not so far from Han's table.

[SCG_Neun]

Taking the time to list all the information is much appreciated.   Thanks guys.

[LuftManu]

Well, this is some crazy chat here....

 

I think nothing in game is correct 100% and Devs needs to fix it, as experts (Some more than others) we also like to have some kind of documentation, not to prove that the Devs are doing great, just to know what tables are being used. For me I have nothing to blame to the Devs, I just want them to fix and do it accurately.

 

I have read many and many post about Fw190, and Climb rates.

 

First of All I want to say that I dont have them here, so I wont post them, but for me the climb rate is not correct or incorrect., I think is more the first, but like other planes, it just need optimization.

With this I am not saying the FM is bad or the Devs worked for another purpouse, is just that it needs more work like the 100% of everything , to keep it growing. Does this mean that everything is bad? NO!, things need to be improved! there is always room for improvement and things here are good.

 

I think the posts from Han are very Nervous, we know that some members sometimes write things that is not good to hear, but some others (minority) are just poiting some things that just need attention or just a look, just jugding these people like the rude ones is not a very good idea. here, a lot of people have trust in the Devs, and we point out things, is for the better. (WIth this I am not saying that the FM needs serious rework) just the normal work. like others

 

 

Another thing: Han, in your post, you said that the Fw in BOS have better Climb rate that in RL, well, that is not the matter ,I dont care if is better or worse, I want it to be realistic, saying that I think you think that we want Ze best german fighter, and so on, maybe you are just missunderstanding some comments, well, for me I just want it to be realistic.

 

Just keep manners guys, in this world (Sim) we need to cooperate, or we will split in pieces.

 

ps:I can`t understand the table of DD, is that for the actual version? or is going to be in the next? Why on that table the Fw has slower climb rate?

 

Salute and take it easy! The Sim is growing great, just keep carry on!

 

My DEAR simmers! and DEVS!

Edited February 29, 2016 by ManuV

[Han]

ps:I can`t understand the table of DD, is that for the actual version? or is going to be in the next? Why on that table the Fw has slower climb rate?

 

Salute and take it easy!

I've explained this above. It's a question of measuring methods.

[LuftManu]

I've explained this above. It's a question of measuring methods.

Thanks, 10-4

[71st_AH_Mastiff]

to many sources I would say, they have to approximate all of those, and take to much time in building a model..

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

PS

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

Be cearfull with numbers please

My bad, thx for the correction. Guess it's 1:1 now

 

Anyway thx for taking the time sharing dev performence tests and sources despite the not too friendly climate here.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Letka_13/Arrow_]

HAN:

Thanks for all your inputs, insight and effort regarding this topic. I would really like to thank the whole team for building those fantastic flight models as I know as a professional - how much skill, knowledge effort and time had to be invested to obtain the best flight experiences in a desktop flight simulator ever. I think that there are many of us who think this way and I hope you and the team won't be discouraged by the too vocal and impolite minority. I have many friends who fly BoS and think alike, just don't post on the forums. 

[Han]

Default mission start time in the editor is 12.30. I suppose Han waited until 12.31 to start rolling, took 34s to stabilize, and then climbed to 2000m.

 

I was not my test - we using robots to control aircraft to have realy clear tests in game. Even little shaking or 0.5% of throttle may cause deviations.

HAN:

Thanks for all your inputs, insight and effort regarding this topic. I would really like to thank the whole team for building those fantastic flight models as I know as a professional - how much skill, knowledge effort and time had to be invested to obtain the best flight experiences in a desktop flight simulator ever. I think that there are many of us who think this way and I hope you and the team won't be discouraged by the too vocal and impolite minority. I have many friends who fly BoS and think alike, just don't post on the forums. 

 

No no no, don't care on this

We were 100% sure that this DD will cause a wave of FM claims. But now, when we have some time after FM completeon for all planes of BoM - we may to put some efforts on hard discussions and good-supported claims responsing.

 

Offcourse, we have a little bit prepaired:

 

 

 

 

[F/JG300_Gruber]

I was not my test - we using robots to control aircraft to have realy clear tests in game. Even little shaking or 0.5% of throttle may cause deviations.

 

That may explain why player made testings often seems to yield lower values than the tests made by the dev team.

[Bando]

Reading this thread tells me a lot of people have a lot of love for this sim.

The devs and the critics alike, for they would not be here on these forums to try to correct something that was not correct in their eyes.

I see a lot of love and devotion from Han in particular, but I guess the whole dev team, for this sim.

 

I hope this love and devotion continues to grow and develop into the best sim ever.

I also hope the dev team and Han are encouraged to do what they do best: Building a great sim for all the people on these boards and beyond.

 

Salute!

Edited February 29, 2016 by Bando

[LLv24_Zami]

Yeah, thanks for making those tests and showing the results here. It is always interesting 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

I did talk about certain toxic communites surrounding certain aircraft, this is my proof. (*cough*190*cough*)

 

 

But Anyways Han, As far as I've been told and shown in the FM-Discussions that the Current Limitations for the Curtiss P-40E-1 (Kittyhawk Mk.Ia) were most likely taken from a Peacetime Training Manual of Operations, which leave me mostly Confused and a bit Disappointed. 

My problem is that they are lacking coherrency. These are the numbers from the 1943 Training Manual, and as far as I know these closely resemble the ingame restrictions (thx LukeFF). 

 

 

On the other Hand Combat Manuals allowed usage of much Higher Outputs for longer, these are December of 1942, but the engines are basically the same. These lack coherrency as well, but at least point out the possibility of Higher Ouputs for longer. 

[mb339pan]

many thanks for your time Han, I look forward with optimism for this sim

[Jade_Monkey]

I did talk about certain toxic communites surrounding certain aircraft, this is my proof. (*cough*190*cough*)

 

 

But Anyways Han, As far as I've been told and shown in the FM-Discussions that the Current Limitations for the Curtiss P-40E-1 (Kittyhawk Mk.Ia) were most likely taken from a Peacetime Training Manual of Operations, which leave me mostly Confused and a bit Disappointed.

My problem is that they are lacking coherrency. These are the numbers from the 1943 Training Manual, and as far as I know these closely resemble the ingame restrictions (thx LukeFF).

 

 

On the other Hand Combat Manuals allowed usage of much Higher Outputs for longer, these are December of 1942, but the engines are basically the same. These lack coherrency as well, but at least point out the possibility of Higher Ouputs for longer.

Its good that you post it here but please also send it by PM to Han or other team members as Han indicated earlier in this thread. Its the only way to guarantee they'll look at it.

 

Same goes for other people posting links.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Jade_Monkey

[LukeFF]

Its good that you post it here but please also send it by PM to Han or other team members as Han indicated earlier in this thread. Its the only way to guarantee they'll look at it.

 

Already done.

[Jason_Williams]

It should be noted again that just because you submit something, it doesn't mean we will for sure act on it. We make no promises.

 

Jason

[RAY-EU]

Today is the release date of the new Virtual Helmet , that I have bought ," The HTC VIVE for STEAM "...

 

Any Knows how to find the lost forum ?

 

sorry I 'm lost ! I do not find ; but I think is missing the forum lost part of Hardware & Controlers . !?

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/forum/18-hardware-software-and-controllers/

 

Not sure if anything was lost since last year, but I could be wrong.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Lucas_From_Hell

[Jade_Monkey]

Today is the release date of the new Virtual Helmet , that I have bought ," The HTC VIVE for STEAM "...

 

Any Knows how to find the lost forum ?

 

sorry I 'm lost ! I do not find ; but I think is missing the forum lost part of Hardware & Controlers . !?

Let us know how that goes with BOS. Im curious although I'll probably wait for the second generation of VR devices once the initial issues are sorted out.

[RAY-EU]

Ah ! Thanks find the Hardware and Controlers Forum .

 

By the way , I think this is all SIM Il2 BOM and BOS very Good Improve for future update .

In This update for another escenario like Kurks WW2 planes of both sides will be more compensate , similar and History WW2 Archive data realistic on the project good way for :

 

The arrival of a Plane that was called ' the wooden saver of Satalingrad ' that Plane was the Lavochkin La-5 and later La-5 FN .

 

And the La-7 was provably the best dogfighter in service in the world , and was selected by almost all the Soviet aces .

 

Thanks very Much For working for the future to improve updates of The Best Simulator . Very Good Job . Keep Working Well ...

[-TBC-AeroAce]

I'm not making a case for right or wrong here. I'm not saying my methods or logic/ethos is not with out fault, BUT!!!!

 

I'm making a case for how hard it actually is to model an aircraft statically and then dynamically especially if the aircraft is 80- years old!!! Not even going there with how to make it run in a game environment (will touch on this later).

 

So how hard is it?

 

Basically I use CFD. I sim an aircraft ( all u initially need is an external model and some meshing skills)

 

Ow but ur not meshing to make a nice 3d model... U are doing this based on airflow and pressure gradients, and boundary layer. Ow crappie nappy what turbulence model do I use??

 

This will win you 1 million dollars if u solve it! Its called Navier Stokes closure problem...

 

So historical test data is just a check really that should always be taken with salt.

 

Meehhh I can do soo( I think soo should have same as too meaning) much.

 

The point of this post is that basically, there are preconceived expectations based on quite solid secondary sources

[unreasonable]

I'm not making a case for right or wrong here. I'm not saying my methods or logic/ethos is not with out fault, BUT!!!!

 

I'm making a case for how hard it actually is to model an aircraft statically and then dynamically especially if the aircraft is 80- years old!!! Not even going there with how to make it run in a game environment (will touch on this later).

 

So how hard is it?

 

Basically I use CFD. I sim an aircraft ( all u initially need is an external model and some meshing skills)

 

Ow but ur not meshing to make a nice 3d model... U are doing this based on airflow and pressure gradients, and boundary layer. Ow crappie nappy what turbulence model do I use??

 

This will win you 1 million dollars if u solve it! Its called Navier Stokes closure problem...

 

So historical test data is just a check really that should always be taken with salt.

 

Meehhh I can do soo( I think soo should have same as too meaning) much.

 

The point of this post is that basically, there are preconceived expectations based on quite solid secondary sources

 

How about, in Richardson’s words, “Big whorls have little whorls that feed on their velocity, and little whorls have lesser whorls and so on to viscosity”.

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Looking through the data one can see how much of a difference a powerful engine and clean aerodynamics make. The P-40E and the Fw-190 have nearly identical combat weights, yet one is a dog while the other is a hot rod.

[[CPT]milopugdog]

In other news: Is anyone else having issues with the Pe-2 s. 35's top turret reflective sight? Mine looks like it isn't working.v

[Jason_Williams]

Opened back up after pruning. 

 

If you want to complain about something be genuinely nice about it and if it is FM related try to provide data to back up your claim. If good stuff, the team may review it. But as we've said many times, just because you show some kind of data or state an opinion, it doesn't mean we are obligated to act on it. Our products are our interpretation of history created within the limits of our technology and resources available. We'll never get it 100% right because it is a game on the computer, but we get darn close. Clearly we have listened to many of our customers over the years and we constantly update and improve the product for you and will continue to do so. 

 

If Han wants to be a little cranky after thousands of posts claiming he and the team has been wrong over the years, who cares? The team has gone through hell more than once with multiple products to keep this genre alive. Please show some respect for their efforts and give him and the technical team a break.

 

If it get's out of hand again I'll just lock it permanently. 

 

Jason

[TWC_Ace]

I was very critic about FM in BOS, ROF and CLOD. FM is very important for hardcore combat flight sim IMHO. I undrestand that it cant be perfect but the relative performance between planes should be about right. But I completely understand Han's frustrations. Thats why I 100% agreed with him.

Also Jason, you have a fully right to take or not to take any of the FM data provided by the community and customers, virtual pilots are also free to play or not to play and to buy or not to buy any of your stuff in the future. Its a free will for every individual to decide if thats the product for him.

The bottom line is....hardcore sim genre is slowly declining..without 777 and TF guys it would definitely be more or less dead (Im not counting DCS which is study sim and somehow a different "shoe").

I will continue to support this team, however, after almost 25 yrs of playing sims I never played less (sims)....Im now more into WOWs (God, they can milk money!), ARMA3 etc...BUT, the recent "flaps fix" got my interest back to BOS and I hope this pause will get me very interested back to this superb simulation. I was never a fan of bans and topic locks but thats not in my power to change. Also Im all for devs to "vent" here and to express their opinions. I think thats better than silence.

@Han and team - keep up the good work and I wish you all the success and let the sim genre live....

 

thank you

Edited March 3, 2016 by blackram

[310_cibule]

+1 (almost 25 years of playing sims as well)

Edited March 3, 2016 by 310_cibule

[Danziger]

Opened back up after pruning.

 

If you want to complain about something be genuinely nice about it and if it is FM related try to provide data to back up your claim. If good stuff, the team may review it. But as we've said many times, just because you show some kind of data or state an opinion, it doesn't mean we are obligated to act on it. Our products are our interpretation of history created within the limits of our technology and resources available. We'll never get it 100% right because it is a game on the computer, but we get darn close. Clearly we have listened to many of our customers over the years and we constantly update and improve the product for you and will continue to do so.

 

If Han wants to be a little cranky after thousands of posts claiming he and the team has been wrong over the years, who cares? The team has gone through hell more than once with multiple products to keep this genre alive. Please show some respect for their efforts and give him and the technical team a break.

 

If it get's out of hand again I'll just lock it permanently.

 

Jason

Well put.

[-TBC-AeroAce]

How about, in Richardson’s words, “Big whorls have little whorls that feed on their velocity, and little whorls have lesser whorls and so on to viscosity”.

Then u hit the uniform scale!!! I forgot the name.

 

Funny fact turbulence has no official scientific definition.

 

 

And sorry for the rant I was thinking if I was to create the next flight sim I would get all figures fromm CFD as although it's not proved(million prize) it would be pure. Physics that people would just have to accept