BALANCING - Please don't!

[EAF_Starfire]

Mystic Puma wrote in the newest press release

BALANCING

This is always the bogey man with flight sims. No attempt at balancing per se has been made. The intention was to achieve documented performance with each type. If this could not be achieved (due lack of Sim coding capability and or knowledge of that code) then the relative performance between comparative types was the goal. We wont ever get it perfect. Ceilings are a case in point.

 

 

 

From the realworld tests shown over at http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/  and the other graphs I have seen, the performance difference between the Spitfire Ia and the Bf109E needs to be addressed. The speed and acceleration of the 109E's seems to more than a little over the top.

 

 

Please stick to scientific facts, not pilots impressions or other warstories which are subjective.

 

[Gnus]

 

Mystic Puma wrote in the newest press release

 

From the realworld tests shown over at http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/  and the other graphs I have seen, the performance difference between the Spitfire Ia and the Bf109E needs to be addressed. The speed and acceleration of the 109E's seems to more than a little over the top.

 

 

Please stick to scientific facts, not pilots impressions or other warstories which are subjective.

 

You never thought that it is necessary use for British aircraft - British original documents, German aircraft - German original documents, Soviet aircraft - Soviet original documents?

[DenUA]

a very important and very delicate topic raised!

A lot of "spear was a broken" in this, forum Suchoi.

 

I want to feel - the historicity of cars! No matter how the game will proceed!

I wish the developers - "sober head on his shoulders!"

[YoYo]

a very important and very delicate topic raised!

A lot of "spear was a broken" in this, forum Suchoi.

 

I want to feel - the historicity of cars! No matter how the game will proceed!

I wish the developers - "sober head on his shoulders!"

+1.

[Buzzsaw]

As we mention in the READ ME, Flight Modeling is an ongoing process... we don't claim to have the perfect FM's, but we do everything we can to be objective.

 

However, there have been a lot of obstacles in our way.  The original game was seriously bugged, with a lot of issues in the way it replicated performance.

 

Performance at altitude was especially problematic.

 

TF 4.312 was a mid point in our explorations... it is by no means perfect, although I will happily compare our FM's against any game out there.

 

Since TF 4.312, we have discovered some additional errors in the game and squashed many of the bugs... in particular the high altitude bug... we hope to have these incorporated in the FM's for TF 4.5.  The changes will definitely be in TF 5.0.

 

Our basic criteria in terms of valuing source data is as follows:   (from most important, to least important)

 

1)  Source documents from the original building nation... for example, for the 109E's, factory documents from Messerschmitt, or from the Luftwaffe test facility at Rechlin.

 

2)  Source documents from nations allied to the original building nation, for example, for the 109E's, Swiss tests of the 109.

 

3)  Source documents from nations hostile to the original building nation, for example, for the 109E's, RAF/RAE tests, VVS tests, etc.

 

In most instances, tests of captured aircraft by hostile nations are problematic... often the aircraft were damaged during capture, sometimes non-standard equipment had to be used to get the aircraft to fly, (as for example, non-standard replacement propellors for aircraft which belly land) and often the aircraft were not tested at the appropriate settings.

 

However, all material is useful... which is why we consider everything.

 

One area we put very little weight on, is pilot anecdotes relating to combat or non-controlled situations.  In these cases, using the memories of pilots who were involved in situations where the fuel loadouts, pilot skill or any number of other factors were unknown is mistaken... there are too many variables.

 

The FM department includes people who have experience in flying Warbirds, as well as modern combat and non-combat jets.

 

Regarding "Balancing"... there are no attempts to balance... and usually they are not necessary.  Throughout WWII, the warring nations were very close in their levels of technology, and the opposing aircraft were quite similar in their competitiveness, although the different sides took different approaches to how their aircraft were designed and which areas were emphasized.

 

I like to think those who fly TF's CoD will find each aircraft has its strong points and if that aircraft is flown in a way to emphasize those strengths, the virtual pilot will have a reasonable chance of succeeding.

Edited March 31, 2017 by Buzzsaw

[Lolsav]

Wish i had a "tumbs up" or a "like" so i could place it on Buzzsaw post.

 

I have been a fortunate witness of all the work the FM team has produced in Cliffs of Dover. One thing is sure, the planes, for me at least, feel right. They have weight, they dont fly perfect (so many complains about spitfire drifting to right - same for german pilots complaining about they wish they had a rudder trim). But if you are a ww2 fan you know by now this what it was. The planes would fly straight at cruise speed, not a full throtle, like many do online.

 

Yes there are still holes and still room to improve. But rarely i felt satisfied with a fm like i do with Cliffs. Not going to compare with any other game, because it would be unfair to Cliffs or the other games anyway. Diffrent game engines, diffrent way of accomplish the same goals.

 

If you have not have give a chance to the TFS work on Cliffs by now you dont know what you missing. If you have - and you are reading till this last sentence - i hope you concur with me.

 

S!

[69thSpiritus]

You do Lolsav, its the green little arrow above the quote button. 

[Lolsav]

Think i managed it now Mr Spiritus. Ty :D

Think i managed it now Mr Spiritus. Ty :D

[JAGER_Batz]

As we mention in the READ ME, Flight Modeling is an ongoing process... we don't claim to have the perfect FM's, but we do everything we can to be objective.

 

However, there have been a lot of obstacles in our way.  The original game was seriously bugged, with a lot of issues in the way it replicated performance.

 

Performance at altitude was especially problematic.

 

TF 4.312 was a mid point in our explorations... it is by no means perfect, although I will happily compare our FM's against any game out there.

 

Since TF 4.312, we have discovered some additional errors in the game and squashed many of the bugs... in particular the high altitude bug... we hope to have these incorporated in the FM's for TF 4.5.  The changes will definitely be in TF 5.0.

 

Our basic criteria in terms of valuing source data is as follows:   (from most important, to least important)

 

1)  Source documents from the original building nation... for example, for the 109E's, factory documents from Messerschmitt, or from the Luftwaffe test facility at Rechlin.

 

2)  Source documents from nations allied to the original building nation, for example, for the 109E's, Swiss tests of the 109.

 

3)  Source documents from nations hostile to the original building nation, for example, for the 109E's, RAF/RAE tests, VVS tests, etc.

 

In most instances, tests of captured aircraft by hostile nations are problematic... often the aircraft were damaged during capture, sometimes non-standard equipment had to be used to get the aircraft to fly, (as for example, non-standard replacement propellors for aircraft which belly land) and often the aircraft were not tested at the appropriate settings.

 

However, all material is useful... which is why we consider everything.

 

One area we put very little weight on, is pilot anecdotes relating to combat or non-controlled situations.  In these cases, using the memories of pilots who were involved in situations where the fuel loadouts, pilot skill or any number of other factors were unknown is mistaken... there are too many variables.

 

The FM department includes people who have experience in flying Warbirds, as well as modern combat and non-combat jets.

 

Regarding "Balancing"... there are no attempts to balance... and usually they are not necessary.  Throughout WWII, the warring nations were very close in their levels of technology, and the opposing aircraft were quite similar in their competitiveness, although the different sides took different approaches to how their aircraft were designed and which areas were emphasized.

 

I like to think those who fly TF's CoD will find each aircraft has its strong points and if that aircraft is flown in a way to emphasize those strengths, the virtual pilot will have a reasonable chance of succeeding.

 TF Has done a great job, continue like this

 

Wish i had a "tumbs up" or a "like" so i could place it on Buzzsaw post.

 

I have been a fortunate witness of all the work the FM team has produced in Cliffs of Dover. One thing is sure, the planes, for me at least, feel right. They have weight, they dont fly perfect (so many complains about spitfire drifting to right - same for german pilots complaining about they wish they had a rudder trim). But if you are a ww2 fan you know by now this what it was. The planes would fly straight at cruise speed, not a full throtle, like many do online.

 

Yes there are still holes and still room to improve. But rarely i felt satisfied with a fm like i do with Cliffs. Not going to compare with any other game, because it would be unfair to Cliffs or the other games anyway. Diffrent game engines, diffrent way of accomplish the same goals.

 

If you have not have give a chance to the TFS work on Cliffs by now you dont know what you missing. If you have - and you are reading till this last sentence - i hope you concur with me.

 

S!

 

Yes man, the CoD has a magnificent FM, and I'm sure it will look even better

[ATAG_Flare]

A big +1 and thank you to Buzzsaw for his post.

 

The CloD FMs are not perfect, and FMs will never be perfect whether we're flying CloD, BoS, DCS, or whatever. I do believe though, that the CloD FMs are very close to what they would be in real life, and I'm looking forward to TF v5.0 to see what awesome improvements, however minute, have been added to the sim.

 

TFS does not really need to "balance" the planes, they were "balanced" in real life, pretty much, so I (and probably most of the sim community) want to have the most realistic sim possible, not the most balanced one.

[Lusekofte]

Well the performance vs opponent plane is debated in all CFS brands also in BOS, and my point of view has always been that if the performance is similar to what you read and had a impression of , I am good with it. It always amazed me in the arranges campaigns we had in SOW, the out come and losses/wins was similar to historical numbers. The way these campaigns played out was very much like they where back in the days. As long as tactics and fear for ones life, fear for letting your wingman down and some form of dicipline is there, the COD plane set is remarcable similar to the real thing. 

I do not think a public server and simulation ever will be capable to truly simulate the real atmosphere, temperatures , wind ,design and engine performance in these conditions and in altitude like the real thing, we always have to do with what we get.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

 TF Has done a great job, continue like this

 

 

Yes man, the CoD has a magnificent FM, and I'm sure it will look even better

 

Fan boy.

 

Had to do it...

[Lusekofte]

 

 

Had to do it...

 

 

We know

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

#nofilter

[Lusekofte]

He he , in case you wondered it was a joke, and you walked me right into it  

[SEE1947]

The advantages of the 109E over the Spit1a as currently modelled in Clod is something that needs to be addressed at some point. The other area is the blackout thresholds.

 

An observation and simply pointing out what a lot of players consider a problem regards FM but appreciate that it is difficult to get everything right when there was so much that needed to be done.