Japanese Aircraft

[GarandM1]

7 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

Well over 99% of the playerbase wouldn't even know if the planes were "accurate enough".  If they were close to generally accepted figures, most people would just blindly heap praise on the game and hail its accuracy.

 

It's not like they're going to have documents to cite in the Flight Model Complaints section of the forum.

Exactly, all the more reason to do it. Shoot, people complain even when the documentation is good. Why let that stop them from anything? People gripe, just a fact that will exist regardless.

 

And if people want to be total sticklers about flying something perfectly accurate, they can fly the better documented American planes while people like me fly Japanese stuff knowing it is made to the highest quality with the material available. As I mentioned before in this thread, I won't know what isn't done perfectly and neither will anyone else really. 

[Lusekofte]

If we keep getting Europe. Many of the planes I really really want is bound to come. 
Soon only bombers left in the repertoire

BON give us the Mossie and Tiffie and arado jet

BONO (Battle over Norway) give us HE 115, Beufighter, BOBI (Battle over Biscay) give us Catalina BOMU (Battle over Murmansk give us IL 4 , Martlet, Swordfish

Edited February 28, 2020 by 216th_LuseKofte

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

22 minutes ago, GarandM1 said:

Reading around the forum, it almost seems like passing on a PTO expansion next time around would be riskier than doing it. People are clamoring for it constantly and I think there is some fatigue setting in with 5 expansions now featuring 109s and 190s and the like. At some point they will need to move on. Of course there is also Italian planes they could do, but it really seems like people are generally more interested in the PTO. 

 

I actively campaigned for an Italian component a couple of years ago. Early western AC plus the Italian jobs to round out what we have would be excellent on some really beautiful landscapes.

14 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

Well over 99% of the playerbase wouldn't even know if the planes were "accurate enough".  If they were close to generally accepted figures, most people would just blindly heap praise on the game and hail its accuracy.

 

It's not like they're going to have documents to cite in the Flight Model Complaints section of the forum.

 

This is a pretty well informed playerbase for the most part. There are a few rivet counters but there are also a number of genuine technical experts. Getting it as right as possible is very important and that's why we skipped PTO for the moment. Jason has never shied away from the doomsayers nor the praise heapers. Niether have much influence on the direction of the game as we know it. I think, therefore, we can leave both fringes where they belong, on the fringe.

 

This thread wonders where the shiny line is between, "sim," and, "nope, not gonna play that."

8 minutes ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

If we keep getting Europe. Many of the planes I really really want is bound to come. 
Soon only bombers left in the repertoire

BON give us the Mossie and Tiffie and arado jet

BONO (Battle over Norway) give us HE 115, Beufighter, BOBI (Battle over Biscay) give us Catalina BOMU (Battle over Murmansk give us IL 4 , Martlet, Swordfish

 Ah to dream.............

 

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

@II/JG17_HerrMurf Yeah I know we have rivet counters- but the point is, what are they going to cite that shows the developers are wrong; and how are they going to know to begin with?

 

If the devs make a good faith effort- it's highly unlikely that sekret dokuments are going to emerge that overturn their interpretation.  If such documents were available, this predicament wouldn't exist.

Edited February 28, 2020 by J28w-Broccoli

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

5 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

@II/JG17_HerrMurf Yeah I know we have rivet counters- but the point is, what are they going to cite that shows the developers are wrong; and how are they going to know to begin with?

 

Depends greatly on what the community and the Dev's consider authoritative works vs primary works. This discussion is quickly formulating my next postulation/thread on that very subject.

[Lusekofte]

People have to realize that this simulate ww 2 aereal combat. And is no more a sim than old IL 2 

The accuracy needed is not the same accuracy a military aircrew need to learn a plane. 
If you want a ww 2 accurate simulator you need to get a floor mounted stick with accurate force feed back and really use your muzzles. Then accurate physics , then worry about a accurate FM and systems. 
I am well aware some believe they are ready for duty on a ww 2 hotrod. But we are not even close. But we might be close to real aereal combat during ww 2. 
DCS is not a simulator either. It simply focus more on pilot procedure than other

Edited February 28, 2020 by 216th_LuseKofte

[sniperton]

2 hours ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

You mean like going to Bodenplatte as opposed to a fourth iteration of the Eastern Front? I’m sure many Eastern Europeans didn’t make the jump but that was offset by gaining American and Western European pilots waiting to get their western Allied AC.

Just to be clear, if you mean "Russian" by Eastern European, you may be right in your assumption, but if you mean the vast region between Prague and Kiev (another ~150 million people), I'm sure they were ready to make the jump. As a Hungarian I did want to go to the PTO, Finland, or Italy, but I think not even the Lufties complain here about getting some late-war German planes and the Mustang as an apt adversary.

Edited February 28, 2020 by sniperton

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

That was originally typed Russian and Eastern European but I did a few edits and apparently deleted the original wording. Appologies.

[sniperton]

2 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

Appologies.

No need for that. I very much appreciate your efforts to speak this issue out in a civilized manner.

[Rei-sen]

16 hours ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

Well over 99% of the playerbase wouldn't even know if the planes were "accurate enough".  If they were close to generally accepted figures, most people would just blindly heap praise on the game and hail its accuracy.

Thing is, a lot of people think that what we have now is super accurate. However, after doing all kind of crazy maneuvers in A-20 and then watching a pilot's training film about it, where it's explicitly said that this is "not an acrobatic plane", I seriously doubt that.

[Lusekofte]

5 minutes ago, Arthur-A said:

Thing is, a lot of people think that what we have now is super accurate. However, after doing all kind of crazy maneuvers in A-20 and then watching a pilot's training film about it, where it's explicitly said that this is "not an acrobatic plane", I seriously doubt that.

I have seen that movie. But I read it was pretty good in many maneuvers. And it was some that was strictly a no no. From what I remember a roll was in some speed unrecoverable. You do not make a loop for the same reasons. But I guess that has to do with fuel quantity. 
In a show with fuel on the correct places you probably can do all those 

[Voodoo_Slayer]

On 2/24/2020 at 4:39 AM, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

The postponement, or worse, of the Pacific was heartbreaking for many of us. And I’m sure heart-rending for Jason.

 

I’m just curious, from a strictly player point of view, what level of fidelity is acceptable in this or any other sim in regard to the Japanese AC? I know the developers point of view – as close to 100% as possible regarding documentation and nothing less will do. They strive for excellence in all that they do and I (we) appreciate it immensely.

 

But……..

 

What do we, as users, find acceptable from OUR point of view? I’m sure the fuselages, wireframes, etc will always be excellent based upon past examples from this team. Visually I’m sure they can knock it out of the park with only some 1970’s Airfix kits as reference.

 

I remember the comparison of the CloD Spitfire to the one being produced by 1CGS when it was being brought onboard BoX. The two were pretty close and I doubt many users really knew this or that parameter was off by a centimeter or two when they were playing it in CloD. It was clearly a Spitfire to both casual and more hardcore gamers – visually.

 

I’m sure most, if not all, of the Tony’s, Frank’s, Val’s and Zero’s have good to excellent documentation regarding them. Less so the Nell’s, Judy’s and Jake’s, probably. Internal ribbing and stringers, pilot and crew panels, gauges, etc are probably some of the harder component items. Wing roots, planform and airfoils are probably tough as well.

 

Airspeeds, turn rates, roll etc are very fluid even with primary sources – between manufacturers specs, acceptance test results, and captured AC. If the speeds and times are within 2-3% of generally accepted figures is that, “close enough?” I think DM’s and weapons can reasonably be simulated/extrapolated from within the game. We know how much filler is in a given shell and Alclad is, generally, Alclad,. Fabric and wood skin are, generally, fabric and wood. Flammability and toughness are elusive concepts at best. It's not like we don't argue these points to death already, anyway.

 

So the question is this;

 

What level of fidelity would keep the game, “pure,” for you, as a, “pilot,” and still let us advance into the Pacific? What level of authoritative but not original documentation works for you as resources – particularly if there are NO original sources? Not the elusive, “needs interpretation,” but actually little to nothing in the archives? What level of extrapolation and educated guesses are acceptable?There literally is no AC in the WWII arena that doesn’t have multiple printed sources. A branch thought might be, what would you consider credible sources within THAT arena as well?

 

The Devs have an engineer on staff and there are several in the community who do physics simulations and aircraft testing (to what degree of accuracy I have no idea) already. With the number of non-primary sources and the level of understanding both professionally and in the community I would think we could get really close in most respects. Like CloD, the average user and casual rivet counter probably wouldn’t notice in the overall scheme but what is required for a satisfying simulation of combat flight and the associated visuals/feels?

 

The dream is the Pacific. What are your demands for getting there as a pilot/user and what are you willing to overlook?

 

Please keep in mind, this has no actual bearing on the Dev’s or any decision they might make going forward.

Nobody gives a f£ck about Jap aircraft. Bring on Normandy!!!!   Wahooooooooooooo

[BlitzPig_EL]

52 minutes ago, Valkyrie77 said:

Nobody gives a f£ck about Jap aircraft. Bring on Normandy!!!!   Wahooooooooooooo

 

You sir are clueless.  There are large numbers of people waiting to throw their hard earned cash at a good Pacific Theater sim, and who are bored to tears with yet another Bf 109 variant in yet another depiction of the death of the Luftwaffe on the Western Front.

 

Good DAY sir.

[GarandM1]

5 hours ago, Valkyrie77 said:

Nobody gives a f£ck about Jap aircraft. Bring on Normandy!!!!   Wahooooooooooooo

 

 

It is pretty ignorant to think that no one cares about something people are asking for literally every single day around here. You definitely do not speak for many people. 

Edited March 2, 2020 by GarandM1

[HerrBree]

29 minutes ago, GarandM1 said:

It is pretty ignorant to think that no one cares about something people are asking for literally every single day around here

Its also pretty ignorant to be constantly asking for things "literally every single day around here" that the devs have flat out said no to.

[GarandM1]

1 minute ago, HerrBree said:

Its also pretty ignorant to be constantly asking for things "literally every single day around here" that the devs have flat out said no to.

 

Can you link to where they "flat out said no"?

[Eisenfaustus]

13 minutes ago, GarandM1 said:

 

Can you link to where they "flat out said no"?

Jason said pretty clear in his briefing room, that it isn't gonna happen. 

He doesn't say "unless someone translate document X" or "unless the community makes it clear that they would be ok with second grade Japanese A/C" - he says it will not happen within BoX because it is not possible. 

 

And while I think it is a pity I also appreciate the honesty and the clarity of Jason's statement. 

[GarandM1]

2 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

Jason said pretty clear in his briefing room, that it isn't gonna happen. 

He doesn't say "unless someone translate document X" or "unless the community makes it clear that they would be ok with second grade Japanese A/C" - he says it will not happen within BoX because it is not possible. 

 

And while I think it is a pity I also appreciate the honesty and the clarity of Jason's statement. 

Him saying "This is why I have delayed any attempt to make a Pacific themed product to this point. " "I will continue to search any resource I find including government sources for actionable and useful info on Japanese aircraft, especially their cockpits in my spare time" and "I still hold out hope that we can sail the Pacific at some point in the future. " does not sound like a 'flat out no' as suggested.

[Dagwoodyt]

This thread is in predictable freefall.

[Eisenfaustus]

"my earlier confidence was a mistake. However, no matter how resourceful I am or how much I believe in the power of a strong will, I have yet to find a viable path to make this product"

 

Sounds pretty definitive to me - I read "unless some unexpected change for the better - no"

[AndyJWest]

1 minute ago, Eisenfaustus said:

"my earlier confidence was a mistake. However, no matter how resourceful I am or how much I believe in the power of a strong will, I have yet to find a viable path to make this product"

 

Sounds pretty definitive to me - I read "unless some unexpected change for the better - no"

 

Reading all that Jason said, rather than cherry-picked quotes, I don't see how it can be 'definitive' at all. He makes it clear he'd like to be able to do it. He explains why it isn't as easy as he'd hoped. He indicates that he's still looking for information. And he ends by saying "I still hold out hope that we can sail the Pacific at some point in the future". Which no matter how you try to spin it can't be read as a definitive statement that it won't happen.

[Ribbon]

This thread started in somewhat different manner than usual PTO threads which is great, for many it is passion and would love to see it in il2 someday.

 

Passionate community talking about it in forum which is meant for it, in a polite way!

 

Than you have ppl who think they own forum and are annoyed by others posting in it, spamming and derailing every thread they don't like and disagree with it.....there is a name for those ppl....name forbidden on this forum!

Edited March 2, 2020 by EAF_Ribbon

[GarandM1]

22 minutes ago, Eisenfaustus said:

"my earlier confidence was a mistake. However, no matter how resourceful I am or how much I believe in the power of a strong will, I have yet to find a viable path to make this product"

 

Sounds pretty definitive to me - I read "unless some unexpected change for the better - no"

My interpretation is different. I get no definitive no from his most recent statement and will continue to hope for the best. Everyone can read into those statements however they wish. Regardless, I enjoy all the conversation around Japanese aircraft and people's ideas for the series. 

[Stoopy]

My read, from taking Jason's entire post in it's full context, was he was referring to other barriers not having as much to do with lack of documentation and information necessary for his developer team to create an accurate simulation, but of the corporate and decision-making business case matters (i.e., convincing his bosses)  necessary to green-light the effort.    

 

Different things entirely - and being as it's fairly fruitless for any of us within the customer audience to pretend we have contextual insight as to the business discussions and thus speculate on decisions made outside our purview, it seemed pretty clear that this thread and conversation was focused on the technical considerations regarding PTO development and statements regarding lack of sufficient technical data.  Unless I got it wrong. 

 

None of us can say what exact fiscal and ROI metrics lay behind the decision, although I'm solidly in the camp of being confused as to how it couldn't be perceived as a worthwhile risk as compared to other expansions, considering the longstanding and widespread interest (obviously to the point of annoyance for some). 

 

Edited March 2, 2020 by =[TIA]=Stoopy

[Enceladus828]

This'll probably be the first Japanese plane after the Zero that the devs will have the info needed to build.

Edited March 2, 2020 by Novice-Flyer

[BlitzPig_EL]

Even that illustration of the "Tabby" has some inaccuracies.  There should be more windows on each side of the cockpit.

Still I would not complain about it if it was just a C47 with an IJA/IJN skin on it.  It also used Japanese engines of course, with different cowlings, as did the Russian Li2 version of the DC3 with it's Russian designed cowlings with winter shutters and Russian engines..

Edited March 2, 2020 by BlitzPig_EL

[danielprates]

1 hour ago, =[TIA]=Stoopy said:

None of us can say what exact fiscal and ROI metrics lay behind the decision, although I'm solidly in the camp of being confused as to how it couldn't be perceived as a worthwhile risk as compared to other expansions, considering the longstanding and widespread interest (obviously to the point of annoyance for some). 

 

This is muddier ground than it seems. I am sure lots of people (I am not saying all, or even most) begging for PTO, even agreeing to a more lax modelling, would be the same people complaining about long flights, ship modelling, difficulty to navigate, a "too expert" experience, carrier opetations being either too easy or too hard, etc.. And why not say it, complaining about the relaxing realism, to which they themselves agreed earlier. 

 

I am not trying to polemize this but, for sure, it is a gamble from the developer's perspective. The Rheinland map alone makes me sure of it. They spent an effort never before seen in this game, over a map, and it got 90% complaints (either negative remarks, or positive in the sense that the forum member was sure the map would be "fixed"). Now, when they look at our reaction to the map, they certainly think twive about doing something radically different. That, I guess in all humbleness, is the real reason PTO is getting postponed. 

[Stoopy]

I get what you are saying and agree.  However I also have to think that a large percentage of the complaints about the Rheinland map stemmed from the audience members who live in, or are highly familiar with, that part of the world and it's understandable that personal pride and interest would stir those complaints.  In that vein, it's kind of hard to mess up a map made largely out of water, or islands that by comparison have far less developed infrastructure.

 

You are right that carrier ops will be more demanding (as they should be!) and drive complaints about ease of use.  By the same token, IL2 - Pacific Fighters had what I felt were the hardest carrier ops possible at the time.   I recall being stymied after I kept landing in the drink just trying to waddle off a carrier in the F6F or SBD time after time.  But we all get it sooner or later and it was ultimately rewarding to master.  In some ways similar to the taxiing challenges we have now.   Those long flights over water from Midway back to the carrier group (which I don't recall being much more than 20 minutes) were never boring once panic set in that you had overflown or missed the group and were lost - gave many flights a white-knuckle ending.  There will always be one thing or another to pick nits over and if the management is that adverse to risk now, the series will prolly come to a nice cautious safe stop soon enough. 

 

Edited March 2, 2020 by =[TIA]=Stoopy

[danielprates]

26 minutes ago, =[TIA]=Stoopy said:

that part of the world and it's understandable that personal pride and interest would stir those complaints.  In that vein, it's kind of hard to mess up a map made largely out of wate

 

Hmmm yes quite right. Of course, my point wasn't that this time people will complain about the water, as they did about the Rheinland map - unless dolphins start buying the game. That was only an example, meant to stress that we (me included) are in general a bunch of complainers. With a new kinsdof sim, it is understandable how that may scare the developers.

 

Make no mistake, ME WANTS OUR PRECIOUS. I can very easily understand, though, how much of a leap of faith that would be, for the developer, by reading the endless "engine time" and "damage model"  and "dewing" and whatnot type of threads. Here is how I tie this post with the OP's inquiry, viz, "could we lower the bar in order to make PTO a reality?". My opinion: no, absolutelly not. But only because it is not that which is holding PTO. It is, in a large part, we and our eventual nagging that is to blame.

 

Edited March 2, 2020 by danielprates
Toned down a bit; typos

[Dijital_Majik]

19 minutes ago, danielprates said:

That was only an example, meant to stress that we (me included) are in general a bunch of complainers. With a new kinsdof sim, it is understandable how that may scare the developers.

 

 

If they (or any dev for that matter) were afraid, we'd never get anything.  Some folks will always complain and be vocal (whether rightfully, or not), and many more will be buying and quietly enjoying what they get, even if they do find a few things annoying/broken/wrong.  Some will be vocal about how great the new thing is with pictures, videos and threads full of praise.

Edited March 2, 2020 by Dijital_Majik

[Notclear]

1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Even that illustration of the "Tabby" has some inaccuracies.  There should be more windows on each side of the cockpit.

Still I would not complain about it if it was just a C47 with an IJA/IJN skin on it.  It also used Japanese engines of course, with different cowlings, as did the Russian Li2 version of the DC3 with it's Russian designed cowlings with winter shutters and Russian engines..

 

The illustration is correct, not all the Tabby get more widows on theirs sides. 

 

Concerning the Li-2, I think it's not necessary to the devs to make it, as soviets received and used a lot of C-47 with lend-lease, and sometimes field moded them with turrets as theirs home made Dc-3. Actually a C-47 can fit with all the chapters of our game West and east.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Well what do you know, I've only seen the versions with the extended side cockpit glazing.

Learn something new every day.

 

Thanks.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

5 hours ago, danielprates said:

 

Hmmm yes quite right. Of course, my point wasn't that this time people will complain about the water, as they did about the Rheinland map - unless dolphins start buying the game. That was only an example, meant to stress that we (me included) are in general a bunch of complainers. With a new kinsdof sim, it is understandable how that may scare the developers.

 

Make no mistake, ME WANTS OUR PRECIOUS. I can very easily understand, though, how much of a leap of faith that would be, for the developer, by reading the endless "engine time" and "damage model"  and "dewing" and whatnot type of threads. Here is how I tie this post with the OP's inquiry, viz, "could we lower the bar in order to make PTO a reality?". My opinion: no, absolutelly not. But only because it is not that which is holding PTO. It is, in a large part, we and our eventual nagging that is to blame.

 

 

It's less about lowering the bar than not having a bar for comparison, at all, in some respects to PTO. If the info is not available do we just throw up our hands and say it can't be done or do we rely on what sources are available and make engineering/educated guesses which conform to our physics model and accepted performance values in-game v real life. I for one certainly don't care if a gauge has yellow tic marks or a stringer inside the gunner's station is 16mm wide vs 15mm wide. As long as the feel and playability is there, the aircraft conform to expectations re: appearance, FM, DM, speed, climb and turn radius. As has been said previously; let us not refuse excellence because we cannot attain perfection.

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

If the PTO offered a substantial advancement over IL2 1946 (with community updates - I use VP Patch), I'd buy it. For PTO, I'm still flying a heavily patched IL2 1946 single player. It's still the best game that I can find for that theater. You've got to ask yourself what you envision for PTO - if you're talking fully functioning air craft carriers that spawn and launch/land planes (including in multiplayer?), you're talking big time work. A land-based variation with a sea/shore component is less ambitious, but the "big one" is still the realistic air craft carrier element. Not easy stuff, and it is likely pretty expensive and time-consuming to develop. But in either of those cases, I'd buy because it'd be the best PTO yet.

 

Same goes for MTO. In fact, I could see an MTO theater being a little less far-fetched in IL2 BoX. Many of the German aircraft would be applicable. The  Hurricane (forthcoming), early Spitfire, P40E/M variants could be used. Then the Italian offerings could be expanded a bit. The map would be a land-based map with a sea component mixed in, which we sort of have in some of the existing maps.

 

It may not be perfect, but the IL2 BoX platform is still the gold standard combat sim for me. Down the chain a notch from that is Rise of Flight, and then Wings Over Flanders Fields and the patch IL2 1946. PTO and MTO are still back in the IL2 1946 area there.

Edited March 3, 2020 by Krispy_Duck

[Voodoo_Slayer]

It’s not happening. That’s it. Get over it.  

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

16 minutes ago, Valkyrie77 said:

It’s not happening. That’s it. Get over it.  

 

Of course, that has been said about any number of things that have come to pass later in the development of this series. I'll agree it's not happening anytime soon but I wouldn't bank on it never happening at all just yet. Not sure why people have to troll so hard sometimes? The thread is postulating on what it would take to get it done, not the merit of should it be done.

[Livai]

Many Publisher do remakes of their most popular games. Why not IL-2, too? IL-2 has two soild game engines so where is the problem for a IL-2 1946 Anniversary Edition with remastered graphics, planes and maps done in BoX or CloD Quality. Better FM can be always added later.

 

WarThunder has Japanese Aircrafts and Carriers to do their Cockpits and the Planes itself is not the problem.

Edited March 3, 2020 by Livai

[ShamrockOneFive]

4 hours ago, Livai said:

Many Publisher do remakes of their most popular games. Why not IL-2, too? IL-2 has two soild game engines so where is the problem for a IL-2 1946 Anniversary Edition with remastered graphics, planes and maps done in BoX or CloD Quality. Better FM can be always added later.

 

WarThunder has Japanese Aircrafts and Carriers to do their Cockpits and the Planes itself is not the problem.

 

That's essentially what this generation of IL-2 is. When Jason laid out his vision a few years ago he called it the 'Spirit of '46' referencing IL-2: 1946 which was massively successful. But a "remastered IL-2: 1946" using the old game engine isn't going to happen. Simulation engine technology has moved on and the current team doesn't have experience with that engine. They have experience with their more advanced platform.

 

The cockpits and the exteriors doesn't seem to be the problem here or at least less of a problem. IL-2: Great Battles is a fairly deep simulation in terms of the systems for their warbirds and not having data for that kind of information makes it harder for them to come up with realistic renditions of the aircraft. A lot of educated guessing can make for a bit of a mess. I can see why they want to get as much detail as possible. WT should rarely be held up as being accurate historically... they go through the motions but they just make stuff up as they go along. It's almost 'kit-bashing' in the traditional plastic modeling sense. It works for them but there are different priorities and interests here.

[Rjel]

15 hours ago, Notclear said:

 

The illustration is correct, not all the Tabby get more widows on theirs sides. 

 

Concerning the Li-2, I think it's not necessary to the devs to make it, as soviets received and used a lot of C-47 with lend-lease, and sometimes field moded them with turrets as theirs home made Dc-3. Actually a C-47 can fit with all the chapters of our game West and east.

From this picture, is it certain that was a Japanese version or a captured DC-3/C-47 painted in Japanese’s colors?

[PatrickAWlson]

I've posted this before but let's try again.  There is a very good reason why the developers don't just try for "good enough".  They can't.  What do you think this is, some table driven 1980s sim that you can just plug numbers into?  It's physics based.  That means that you need real numbers to get real performance.  Once you are close you can tweak for accuracy, but there are real limits as to how much you can fudge.  That's why proper data is so important.

 

I get the idea behind other things, especially visuals.  Fudging a cockpit a bit is IMHO not that big of a deal.  Being less than perfect on external details is IMHO not that big of a deal.  But you cannot simply start plugging in semi random guesses into the physics engine and believe that you are going to get good results.  Trying to build an aircraft set this way would be a nightmare for the development team.