Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
216th_Jordan

Getting a bit more 'fact' to the 'feel'

Recommended Posts

Hey guys,

 

as the recent DD spawned a very unpleasant discussion which partly evolved around feelings of plane nerfs or buffs I felt there was the need to take a little light into the darkness.

So while I was preparing and running a testseries the discussion escalated and got ugly as I have not seen it in a long time. So after some time of thinking about if it would actually be good to touch the topic again I looked at the 12 hours of work I put into it and decided that it would be worth sharing anyways. That is because this video is not meant to make a case for or against something but to give an insight on what is happening when you are flying these crates in different setups and situations.

 

What I did:

Hearing a lot of contradicting claims about Yak-1 and Bf109 performance I thought about getting quantifiable data from both that can be representative and comparable. I wanted to show different situations for both aircrafts, supported by charts with the most important testdata.  The test is specialized around climbing ability of the two planes:

 

General setup: 50% fuel for both aircraft.

 

1. Testseries (#1 - #6): Vertical climb

2. Testseries (#7 -#12): 60° climb

3. Testseries (#13 - #18): 40° climb

 

What else is included?

 

1. Charts for all three testseries plus a comparable chart of all three together.

2. Conclusions regarding the charts and the planes behavior.

3. I put my video showing prophang of Yak-1 and Bf109-F4 in comparable splitscreen at the end again (was unable to produce splitscreen before).

 

I oriented my test layout around Geramos test (always 3 tests for one climb angle: 450 kph / 500 kph / 500 kph with flaps). The recorded climbtimes however have a big margin for error (much more than altitude) and should be treated with caution.

 

The test showed interesting results and one thing for sure got

confirmed again: never climb out infront of your enemy, especially at co-energy. And: too steep climbs will likely get you in trouble.

Giving my own opinion: I find that both planes behave quite believable..

 

But see for yourself:

 

 

 

I very much hope that this gives a bit better view on the actual happenings and mechanics and that this leads to a little less confusion and anger.

Oh and, this is my first Sony Vegas project so expect are some errors in editing in it..

 

Jordan :salute:

 

 

Also this :biggrin:

 

 

 

 

post-13979-0-05344600-1478399486_thumb.jpg

  • Upvote 17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thx for putting the time into doing this. I've watched it but only casually. I'll have to watch it several times to absorb the information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy smokes Jordan, this is nothing short of excellent! :)

 

Thanks for putting this together, this thread should be pinned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting work, thank you for doing this.

 

From this there's no doubt, that the 109 prophangs somewhat better than the Yak (which is probably a surprise to exactly noone)

 

I don't think any of it looked particularly wrong, but maybe I've just been flying BoX for too long to notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That just proves even more that when I just want to commercially fly to every corner of the map and not get bothered by the pesky

VVS fighters I can go to 10 000 meters and fly to all four corners of the map and RTB like I was in Flight Simulator 10.

 

I will be able to drink coffee eat snacks watch a little in flight T.V. and I should be safe. :biggrin:

 

Video and stats are very well done good job Jordan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great test! Make one for MG and Shvak damage comparation, ballistic and other stuff. ;)

​But better than everything, fly hundred hours like axis player.

Edited by 72sq_Savinio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14:10 there shouldnt be helicoptering like the bf109 did there. it s literally rotary wing.

 

However the vertical deltaH advantage seems reasonable: ~150 m bf109. You can do an upwards spiral and get away with it if done properly. delta H is a so called vertical maneuver advantage.

Edited by Max_Damage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your time and effort Jordan . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest deleted@30725

12 Hours? Results are worth every second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting video. 

 

It appears a 40% climb is the best case scenario for the 109 vs a Yak, almost a 300m difference in their climb performance. Ironically a 90 degree climb is the worst case scenario for both (and presumably all) planes. It's funny that almost everyone I dog fight does this. 

 

That being said, in a 90 degree climb, the Yak is maintaining almost 97.5% of it's climb performance with it's flaps deployed! The G2 93.4%. In a 40 degree climb, the Yak maintains 91%. That seems wrong to me, surely flaps should have more drag than that for both planes, perhaps flap physics have issues?

Edited by GridiroN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great work Jordan comparing the planes. +1

 

I think the test shows what is suposed to be. The 109 climbs for a little longer and the prop hangs the plane also a little more. But this is correct. the 109 has more power/weight ratio and the prop can hold max rpm on the climb not as te yak 1 where rpm drops at the end due to the propeller so that is what i dont understand, why devs want to change that? to make it equal to the yak?


Great test! Make one for MG and Shvak damage comparation, ballistic and other stuff. ;)

​But better than everything, fly hundred hours like axis player.

You have one hour of video testing that on my youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkiV77H-OVLBy0tX3ec5ewg/videos

Edited by E69_geramos109
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks all :)

 

 

Great work Jordan comparing the planes. +1

 

I think the test shows what is suposed to be. The 109 climbs for a little longer and the prop hangs the plane also a little more. But this is correct. the 109 has more power/weight ratio and the prop can hold max rpm on the climb not as te yak 1 where rpm drops at the end due to the propeller so that is what i dont understand, why devs want to change that? to make it equal to the yak?


You have one hour of video testing that on my youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkiV77H-OVLBy0tX3ec5ewg/videos

 

The Devs want to make it correct as they said, that is why they are searching for the original german document giving the specifications as they were unable to find it and needed to use assumed values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really nice video Jordan. I delay a whasing machine load due to that.

I think that the video shows what is supposed to be,as Mr Geramos(un saludo amigo ;)) said. I will leave it as it is; no correction need to be done.(or I'm mistaken?)

Regards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Devs want to make it correct as they said, that is why they are searching for the original german document giving the specifications as they were unable to find it and needed to use assumed values.

 

 

"In particular, the Bf-109’s ability to "hang on the prop" causes our concern and we would like to double-check everything attentively."

 

As much as I would like to be with you on that, just looking at An´s way of how he put it implies that they think it´s too good and they want to double check to make sure it is actually that good, meaning a correction is likely to be adverse.

 

Wish they would double check some other things based on feelings too...

Edited by II/JG17_SchwarzeDreizehn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matter of interpretation of words, one may also say that they are uncertain if current state is accurate and would like to verify it. Either way it leads to a same point, Dev team requested help with finding German documentation on propellers, as one currently used is not first hand source. If anything, the result can be more accurate than current one so I dont understand the reaction. It's been always claimed that Developers omit actual German documentation and use Russian data which gives incorrect results, yet when they ask for help to get most precise level of information it is resisted to a point beyond any rationale arguments. It's like 109 would be a holy statue that one cannot touch, because first assumption that comes to some people is that it is going to be "nerfed". Look at what geramos said ...

 

In this particular scenario it's not about making something better, worse or equal but more accurate. To revert this - let me ask that if it is actually found that based on original documentation for VDM propellers, current efficiency is too high or they do not operate exactly the way they should, which leads to some reduction of characteristics - should they pursue more accurate result or decide to keep one less realistic, based on less reliable data, but more pleasing ?

 

Ps. Sorry for a rant Jordan, you're the boss. That tests are really well performed !

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great work Jordan comparing the planes. +1

 

I think the test shows what is suposed to be. The 109 climbs for a little longer and the prop hangs the plane also a little more. But this is correct. the 109 has more power/weight ratio and the prop can hold max rpm on the climb not as te yak 1 where rpm drops at the end due to the propeller so that is what i dont understand, why devs want to change that? to make it equal to the yak?

You have one hour of video testing that on my youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkiV77H-OVLBy0tX3ec5ewg/videos

 

As I understood it, they didn't want to decrease the RPM, they wanted to investigate whether the 109's tendency for the prop to hang, and the plane sort of stalls on-the-move. I've had times in the 109 where possibly after recovering from a  climb, the plane will sort of, "burn it's wheels" trying to move forward, but it hangs in place instead, but not when it's at the angled climb, later, when it rights itself. 

 

I could be completely wrong, but I assumed that's what the devs were trying to investigate: the low energy state behavior of the 109's prop. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

n this particular scenario it's not about making something better, worse or equal but more accurate. To revert this - let me ask that if it is actually found that based on original documentation for VDM propellers, current efficiency is too high or they do not operate exactly the way they should, which leads to some reduction of characteristics - should they pursue more accurate result or decide to keep one less realistic, based on less reliable data, but more pleasing ?

 

Ok, point taken. Maybe really misinterpretaion of words.

 

Forgot to say, good Job on the test Jordan!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your work Jordan, very interesting test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Hoffmann Propeller could be of any help in a general, single (maybe two) phone call kind of way.  They may have some performance numbers for the original blades handy or be able to provide an external contact.

 

They made the replacement (flying) blades for Black Six after the originals were slightly bent forward on the aircraft's first post-restoration flight (which they straightened).  Heck, I think all 109s (and a lot of Spits) are flying Hoffmanns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice effort.

 

One thing though the conclusion that flaps "increase angle of attack".  No they do not and I am positive the devs know that.

 

The effect of camber is shift the polar so that the same coefficient of lift is produced at a lower angle of attack.  The wings CLmax will occur at a LOWER angle of attack.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing though the conclusion that flaps "increase angle of attack".  No they do not and I am positive the devs know that.

What happens in real life and what happens in game are 2 really really different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grapejam,

 

What a pearl of wisdom and thanks for casting that before us!   :salute:

 

Does not have much to with the effect of camber and how the game represents it, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Charts for all three testseries plus a comparable chart of all three together.

 

Where can we find this? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where can we find this? 

 

Its in the video. You can directly jump there with the annotations.

Nice effort.

 

One thing though the conclusion that flaps "increase angle of attack".  No they do not and I am positive the devs know that.

 

The effect of camber is shift the polar so that the same coefficient of lift is produced at a lower angle of attack.  The wings CLmax will occur at a LOWER angle of attack.

 

Absolutely right, that was a typing error. AoA reduces and climb gets steeper with same climb angle.

Corrected it now with annotations. Thanks.

Edited by 216th_Jordan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem!

Thanks for being an adult and not turning it into a huge convoluted discussion.

 

Great test. I think we can conclude there is no bias. The devs are doing a great job with the data they have at hand.

 

Personally I think they would benefit from alpha testers who understand the science of flight and can identify the behavior and perfirmance points of an airvraft. Not just the simple ends of the envelope but folks who know how the physics works and what property of the design effects whst.

If the alpha testers do not know or are unable to identity real issues....then problematic FM will be released resulting in customer dissatisfaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If the alpha testers do not know or are unable to identity real issues....then problematic FM will be released resulting in customer dissatisfaction.

 

As I understand it, the testers don't test the FM. I guess that is only done internally by the team. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...