Auto level autopilot is single engine airplanes which gives additional speed is being abused in multiplayer

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Damn they should of used auto level 

[unreasonable]

3 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

Now this starts to be a bit silly. After 8 pages of ping-pong I actually did a test and presented my results, as requested,  <snip>

 

True, and true.

 

However, there are three questions all tangled up in the debate about whether auto-level should be allowed at full throttle, the most important of which you are still refusing to address or acknowledge. 

 

1) Does auto level allow the pilot to fly level without carefully looking at his instruments, etc thus losing focus on other things?

2) Does auto-level allow the player to fly faster while level than manual flying while level?

 

For completeness:

 

2a) Does auto-level allow the player to fly faster level than while climbing manually at the same settings?

2b) Does auto-level force the player to fly more slowly than while diving at the same settings?

 

3) Is using auto-level advantageous in combat?

 

On 1) I think the answer is obviously yes. It is very hard to be sure you are flying exactly level manually, so if you are concerned about this of course you will be using attention that you cannot be using to look around and so on.

 

On 2) the tests so far are inconclusive since it is  so hard to tell if one is exactly level while not in auto-level. As previously pointed out, this can only be done over water and over time, so your screenshots demonstrate nothing.  In principle, if the answer is in fact yes, then that implies that engaging auto-level is not just turning on an auto-pilot affecting the control surfaces, it is actually changing the FM of the aircraft. This I find implausible given the developers' assurances that AI does not change FMs but merely flies them. So for me the burden of proof lies with those who claim that auto-level is actually faster. So the OP is at best unsupported by evidence, at worst simply wrong about additional speed.

 

2a and 2b are clearly "Yes" and "No" respectively. 

 

The OP claims that auto-level is an exploit. In my eyes, an exploit is something that gives an unfair advantage. We may agree as per question (1) that auto-level allows the player to fly level without losing SA, and (2) that if not really faster it is certainly no slower, but if flying level is in fact a disadvantage, as every fighter doctrine asserts, how is this an exploit?

 

The only situation I can think of where auto-level is really advantageous would be flying through cloud, but is this the real cause of the OP's complaint? Suppose that auto-level automatically disengaged when a cloud is entered. Would this calm the complainants? I very much doubt that.

 

I think the developers should leave it in. I recall at school we all complained about being made to have short hair cuts. On of the younger and more progressive teachers explained to some of us that if we had a short hair-cuts rule we would complain about that and test the boundaries with hair over the collar etc. If we were allowed to grow hair as long as we wanted (this was the early seventies  ) we would then be forced to find something else to complain about and rebel against. So before you know it we would all be dope fiends like the boys at Westminster. 

 

Experience shows that MP always produces loads of complaints, so it may as well be about something as trivial as this.

 

  

 

[Godspeed]

I personally think that auto level should be removed from Expert difficulty if plane does not really have it.

[ZachariasX]

24 minutes ago, Godspeed said:

I personally think that auto level should be removed from Expert difficulty if plane does not really have it.

So much for level bombing in the Peshka.

 

I personally think that if you cannot properly fly and operate an aircraft, autolevel must look like an exploit to you.

[spamRoast]

9 hours ago, hrafnkolbrandr said:

If you're worried about dudes chasing you down in autolevel, or dudes running away in autolevel; why don't you just use autolevel?

 

This is the most important point to me. If everyone can abuse the same "cheat" then is it really a cheat? People earlier in the thread already said that this is really only a "problem" in long chases. Those are hardly the entirety of air combat. If someone is using this "cheat" in those cases, just make an exception and use it yourself too. Problem solved. Why all the fuss to lower a plane's speed in auto-level by some arbitrary amount just so people can catch up or run away without auto-level? I'd bet the majority of times a plane's getting away or catching up it has very little to do with auto-level anyway. 

Edited May 23, 2018 by obit

[AndyJWest]

Unless you are approaching critical altitude (unlikely given the way multiplayer combat usually goes), in a 'long chase' of an aircraft with similar performance that stays level, you are probably better off climbing slightly initially, rather than staying at the same altitude as the plane you are chasing. You'll get a little behind to start with, obviously,  but then benefit from increased TAS and start to catch up again. And then have the height advantage as you catch up.

[Aap]

5 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

I personally think that if you cannot properly fly and operate an aircraft, autolevel must look like an exploit to you.

 

Bashing other poster's flying skills, based on nothing, is an interesting approach in an argument, especially it has nothing to do with logic.

 

Let's try to have a little logical excercise.

Let's imagine we have people that could navigate without GPS and people that could not navigate without GPS. Which group is more likely to fight for keeping GPS?

Now, let's imagine we have people that could fly their planes efficiently manually and people that could not fly their planes efficiently manually. Which group is more likely to fight for super-efficient autolevel in a competitive MP environment?

[LukeFF]

[RedKestrel]

22 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

So, my dear de-bunkers, I decided to do a quick test, so we would not need to have the same ping-pong for the next 8 pages, but could have something new to argue about. According to my own personal test, your reference test that de-bunks everything has been de-de-bunked. Results were pretty much in line with Dietrich's tests. 

 

Short description of test procedure:

Went to a quick mission, picked Bf109G2, full fuel, a single plane mission, altitude 4000 m, full throttle.

First test:  Find out optimal stab trim for level flight. Result -80%.

Second test: Start with -100% stab trim. After achieving top speed, change stab trim to -80%. After a couple of minutes disengage autolevel and fly manually.

Results: After 3 minutes with -100% stab trim: 495 km/h. Trim to -80%, two minutes later: 493 km/h. Disengage autolevel, two minutes later: 489 km/h.

Third test: Tested also flying manually from the beginning, same conditions as before. Could get to 486 km/h at max, but speed varied between 480-486 km/h.

 

Pictures of the second test below. Times when I changed trim and disengaged auto-level can be seen on cockpit clock.

My understanding from this is that the difference in max speed between autolevel max and full-on manual maximum is 9 km/h (495 km/h -486 km/h). If one uses autolevel to reach max speed, and then switches to manual, 2 minutes later the speed has dropped by 4 km/h. So, in a 109, the difference between someone who uses autolevel and their pursuer is 4-15 km/h. I'm using the max value provided of 486 km/h, since this was a number you were able to achieve and, in a focused pursuit, I'm assuming any pilot will be focusing all their energy on achieving best speed. The worst possible value would be 15 km/h. The best is 4 km/h. The middle value is 9km/h.

Unfortunately the test does not include radiator settings. If the radiators are on automatic, that could be confounding the data. EG, since the manual test was done after the autolevel tests, the engine is likely at a higher temperature, and therefore will have more open radiators, causing increased drag. I'm assuming all three tests were done in the same mission. If they were done in a separate mission that might eliminate the issue, if this is the case with this data then that may remove this as a confounding factor. Radiator changes may account for why the best speed stab trim doesn't get better speed than the 100% setting as tested.

What we need to see is something from the manual test to ensure that the plane is level at the time, and the radiators being set manually for consistency.

Compare this with other tests that users have done, we have several tests showing minimal to no difference, and some showing small differences. Some of those tests have been done with 109s, others with planes with 3 axis trim. The 3 axis trim planes show no difference, or close to none, when the plane is properly trimmed. The 109, due to lacking aileron and rudder trim, cannot be set that way, and so must be manually corrected for. This manual correction can introduce excess drag. This may put planes like 109s, yak-1b and I-16 without rudder trim at a disadvantage. 

If we take the test at face value, at worst case scenario we can see a 15 km/h advantage in top speed to an autoleveling. And even within the same test, perhaps only a 4km/h top speed. 
Now the question: does that difference translate to any actual, fundamental difference in-game when fleeing/pursuing in a straight line?

Lets subtract 15km/h from the top speed of a G2 and compare it to it's best performing likely foes. All info is from tech specifications provided by devs as the max performance in game.

Sea Level:
109G2: 530 km/h - 15 = 515 km/h
Yak-1 S. 69: 514 km/h
Yak-1b: 530 km/h

Result: Yak-1 has no advantage, Yak-1b has advantage (15 km/h).

2000m:
109G2: 577 km/h - 562 km/h
Yak-1 S.69: 549 km/h
Yak-1b: 567 km/h

Result: yak-1 has no advantage, Yak-1b has advantage (5 km/h)

Once you're higher than 2000m the advantage increasingly goes to the 109s.

So what we see from this is the following:

If the above tests are accurate, and we take the worst case scenarios, we have the best possible opponent for the 109G2 being able to catch or flee from a 109G2 at sea level, having a possible very slight advantage at 2000m, and probably no advantage beyond that.

So a guy in a 109G2 who tries to escape a Yak-1b will get caught at sea level, possibly get caught at 2000 m, and everything else he will toodle away with impunity. And this is at combat settings. With emergency power a 109G2 could pull away for a while and gain separation, or catch his enemy. A vanilla yak-1 gets caught or left in the dust even with a 15 km/h boost.

Assuming these tests are correct (and we have some caveats, as we haven't seen radiator settings or screenshots of the manual flight, which could account for much of the discrepancy), and taking the absolute worst case of the results presented, against the best-performing likely opponent, we have a minimal impact on gameplay. If we take the best case scenario (4 km/h), the difference evaporates. 

Clearly, anyone who tries to autolevel away from a 109G2 is taking their life in their hands, since the G2 will catch them on combat power unless they're a 1b. On emergency power the 109 will probably catch them anyway.

The 109, meanwhile, can get away from most of its opponents at any altitude except very, very low, even with a significant speed disadvantage from not autoleveling. Only the 1b can catch you, and that's at sea level.

So we can say that, even in the worst case, autolevel doesn't change the dynamics of the game much, if at all. The Yak-1 still can't catch you, the Yak-1b might catch you down low, and the La-5 series 8 always could catch you down low. Flying in a straight line for prolonged periods is nigh-on suicidal anyway, so anyone doing this for advantage has a short life expectancy. 
 

[Trooper117]

I bet if I come back here in 10 years time this effin bollox will still be going... 

[AndyJWest]

1 hour ago, RedKestrel said:

...
If the above tests are accurate...

 

They aren't. See my post in response.  If you repeat the test over the sea on the Kuban map, where you have an accurate altitude measurement in the HUD to work from, you will find that that keeping altitude accurately is difficult, but that if you do, the difference between autolevel on and autolevel off speeds is negligible. The only way you can reproduce Kemp's result is by climbing. Try it for yourself.

 

 

[RedKestrel]

Just now, AndyJWest said:

 

They aren't. See my post in response.  If you repeat the test over the sea on the Kuban map, where you have an accurate altitude measurement in the HUD to work from, you will find that that keeping altitude accurately is difficult, but that if you do, the difference between autolevel on and autolevel off speeds is negligible. The only way you can reproduce Kemp's result is by climbing. Try it for yourself.

 

 

I don’t have the Kuban map so unfortunately I can’t.

 

either way, it doesn’t make a difference. The small advantage his tests “proved” doesn’t change the game enough to be exploited.

[dburne]

2 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

I bet if I come back here in 10 years time this effin bollox will still be going... 

 

I am beginning to think you actually may be right.

This is unbelievable...

 

 

[Godspeed]

19 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

So much for level bombing in the Peshka.

 

Good point some exceptions must be.

What i mean is single engine fighters can use this for advantage and if people want realism it should be removed.

 

Edited May 24, 2018 by Godspeed