Help wanted to make the game better. Inquire within

[ACG_KaiLae]

As some of you may, or may not know, there's some thought that the current FM for the P-40 is deficient. There are a lot of arguments, and counterarguments. 

 

However, those aren't going to do, or change anything. In order to get a FM looked at, you have to (1) demonstrably prove it is incorrect and (2) show what it should be changed to. I and others are working on that.

 

Why have I put the thread up then? Simple. I could use a hand in this. Step one is to precisely define what the aircraft we have in game actually is. We can then compare it to RL data to see if it matches, or overperforms, or underperforms. Right now there's only a few people actually doing tests - mostly me. Since I only have so much time to devote to this before my wife stabs me (because hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for flight sims) and other factors (like Paradox games) I could really use some volunteers to check out other areas I haven't gotten to yet. 

 

If you are interested in helping, please let me know here:

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25323-p-40-turn-rateflight-model-check/

 

Thanks for everyone who expresses an interest, you are helping to make the game better.

 

PS: Mods, please DO NOT move this thread to the FM section; not everyone reads it, and I want high visibility for this help wanted ad.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Kai_Lae

[JG13_opcode]

(because hell hath no fury like a woman scored for flight sims

a woman scored

I dunno, when I score with chicks they usually seem pretty content for the whole 2 minutes.

[ACG_KaiLae]

Funny and fixed

[Feathered_IV]

Furry

[Jade_Monkey]

The problem of testing by different people is that there are always inconsistencies (and therefore a bigger chance of being rejected).

 

Unfortunately i think this is a one man job.

[Finkeren]

The problem of testing by different people is that there are always inconsistencies (and therefore a bigger chance of being rejected).

 

Unfortunately i think this is a one man job.

If the FM of the P-40 is truly wrong (I personally think it's more a question of the engine limitations being too strict) then two or more testers should all be able to show it, regardless of the inconsistencies, as long as the follow the same protocol.

 

I think this is the right way to go about it.

[ACG_KaiLae]

The problem of testing by different people is that there are always inconsistencies (and therefore a bigger chance of being rejected).

 

Unfortunately i think this is a one man job.

 

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm planning on checking multiple areas of the FM. Right now, I can only do as many as there are people willing to test. So far, that's myself (testing to check clmax of the plane) and Super Etendard (who has volunteered to check roll rate). With more volunteers more areas can be checked in parallel, so things should go faster. 

[Jade_Monkey]

Gotcha

[Guest deleted@50488]

For sure the P-40 FDM has problems, or the turn coordinators have problems, since a few updates ago ( maybe since the last ? ) because no plausible indications of sideslip are obtained, due to power / AoA changes, as is typical of the P-40 and many other of the modeled aircraft.

 

I can ride my P-40 from ground to combat and back to land without using the rudder other than on takeoff, or during turns, or at very high speed dives where the ball calls for just a bit of left rudder ( should be more I believe )...

 

Also the 109s, the Yak-1s and other, have the same "problem"...

 

It was mentioned in one of he latest DDs that sideforces due to fuselage effects would be revised, but I don't get if these effects are already result of a change in that area ?

Edited December 14, 2016 by jcomm

[Dakpilot]

For sure the P-40 FDM has problems, o the turn coordinators have problems, since a few updates ago ( maybe since the last ? ) because no plausible indications of sideslip are obtained, due to power / AoA changes, as is typical of the P-40 and many other of the modeled aircraft.

 

I can ride my P-40 from ground to combat and back to land without using the rudder other than on takeoff, or during turns, or at very high speed dives where the ball calls for just a bit of left rudder ( should be more I believe )...

 

Also the 109s, the Yak-1s and other, have the same "problem"...

 

It was mentioned in one of he latest DDs that sideforces due to fuselage effects would be revised, but I don't get if these effects are already result of a change in that area ?

 

I don't believe that update has been officially implemented, not mentioned in patch notes anyway, they are usually open with that sort of info

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Guest deleted@50488]

I don't believe that update has been officially implemented, not mentioned in patch notes anyway, they are usually open with that sort of info

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Yep, true, but just for curiosity sake Dakpilot, can you also confirm this "too corrdinated" indications that we now get from the T/C all of the time, on about all the aircrfat, for various power and AoA changes, as opposed to how it was before ?

Edited December 14, 2016 by jcomm