Enhanced Flying Circus simulation using flight recording data from Levil BOM?

[Holtzauge]

There are often discussions in this forum about flight performance and what the actual capabilities of these aircraft were in real life.

 

While there is a lot of historical performance data out there, it’s often contradictory and sometimes it’s difficult to determine what the actual performance was. In addition, for some aspects such as turn performance there is no measured data to go on at all.

 

Consequently, one way to help the developers with good reliable data as input to tuning flight models could be to make recorded data such as speed, climb and turn rate for some of the aircraft simulated in Flying Circus available to them.

 

Now you may ask how would this be possible? These aircraft flew more than a century ago so how can we get flight data today?

 

Well actually it is possible! It only requires, as Dr. Strangelove would have put it, the will to do it!

 

Many of you will know of Mikael Carlson, the Swedish aviator who has a Fokker Dr.1, Fokker D.VII and a Pfalz D.VIII built just like the originals all with original engines.

 

Yesterday, I had a chat with Mikael about the prospects of doing trials with his aircraft with a Levil BOM mounted and he is positive to the idea. He is of course a busy man but he said if we could make a BOM available and I help out with the recording/evaluation of results he will fly with it.

 

In addition, some news I did not think was official yet but that the Collings Foundation has already let out of the bag: Mikael is currently renovating a Nieuport 28 (See page 2 in report) which he will be doing some flying with before handing it over later this year. Now wouldn’t we want to see some turn rate numbers on that crate!

 

I think this is all a unique opportunity and I would therefore like to gauge the interest in the forum on the idea of donating a Levil BOM to Mikael and if enough people are interested I could arrange some sort of crowdfunding activity.

 

You can find a lot of good info about the Levil BOM and Mikael Carlson’s aircraft just by googling and there are lots of nice videos on YouTube as well.

 

Both poll answers and replies in this thread would be appreciated!

 

 

Edited July 29, 2021 by Holtzauge

[Chief_Mouser]

Sounds like a good idea, although the BOM is an understandably expensive piece of kit.

You will need to check whether Jason and the devs will be willing and able to make use of the data. No use getting masses of stats if they're not going to be looked at.

It could be useful - and very interesting!

Edited July 29, 2021 by 216th_Cat
can't spell

[Holtzauge]

4 minutes ago, 216th_Cat said:

Sounds like a good idea, although the BOM is an understandably expensive piece of kit.

You will need to check whether Jason and the devs will be willing and able to make use of the data. No use getting masses of stats if they're not going to be looked at.

It could be useful - and very interesting!

 

For sure it's an expensive piece of equipment but that is the beauty I think with crowdfunding: If enough people are interested then we won't have to pitch in that much each one of us.

 

Regarding the use, remember that the developers have an explicit requirement when it comes to claims about the flight models: No data no change. In addition, they won't have to wade through a lot of data: The BOM does generate a lot of results but you can also filter out simple thing like speed, climb and turn rate as a function of altitude.

 

I think one very explicit example is the Nieuport 28 in-game turn rate: How on earth are we going to come up with any data to indicate if that is right or pessimistic unless we get flight trial data which now seems to be within reach!

[ZachariasX]

I think it would be a great thing to do. Actual flight data would be of tremendous value in understanding thise crates from a century ago.

 

I am not all certain how this would play out with this game here.

 

If Jason gave it a thumbs up, then he would imply to make further expenses on the FC series on his side to incorporate the data.

 

If „we“ were to produce the data, whos data would it be? Would it be sent to Jason under an NDA, then he would indeed receive something of value that justifies expenses made, at the price that the data is kept confidential. The data would be of most value to him then.

 

If the data is made public, then Jason has no obligation of any kind using that data. It would be nice to us folks with interest in the subject having that data. I would feel that such data should be published. Also I would weight the existence of such data more than Jason making use of that data.

 

Hence, I am not sure if Jason is the right person or 1C the  right legal entity. In the end, I would think museums featuring such aircraft should be interested in such a venture. At least those museums that understand themselves as a respository for knowledge rather than places of entertainment.

 

I think that ideally something like a „Knights of the Sky Foundation“ would host such an undertaking and have museums an private donors contributing the funds. Also it would be suitable if someone literate on the subject would compile the data in useful reports. Such would be valuable to museums and anyone documenting these aircraft. In the end, the one who collects the data owns the data. It would help, making this as public and transparent of a venture as possible.

 

From what I can see, the costs for such an avionics pod would be about 2000$? If it was just that, maybe it would be doable with just „interested persons“ giving cash. If more is required, then I‘d ask the bigger players.

 

If more woukd be required, I would proceed with such by asking beyond interested private people with money to spare. We would need an absolute number for the money needed and the timeframe required to gather the data. The means of publication must be understood by all involved. Having Michael Carlson on board should give considerable leverage in talking to museums and institutions interested in what I see an academical effort.

 

So, pitch funding… how much would you have in mind per person and what could you provide to a donor? (Jason provides us early birds with gold bars under the name tag. Gold bars that of course confer maximum+ forum karma… ?)

[Holtzauge]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

I think it would be a great thing to do. Actual flight data would be of tremendous value in understanding thise crates from a century ago.

 

I am not all certain how this would play out with this game here.

 

If Jason gave it a thumbs up, then he would imply to make further expenses on the FC series on his side to incorporate the data.

 

If „we“ were to produce the data, whos data would it be? Would it be sent to Jason under an NDA, then he would indeed receive something of value that justifies expenses made, at the price that the data is kept confidential. The data would be of most value to him then.

 

If the data is made public, then Jason has no obligation of any kind using that data. It would be nice to us folks with interest in the subject having that data. I would feel that such data should be published. Also I would weight the existence of such data more than Jason making use of that data.

 

Hence, I am not sure if Jason is the right person or 1C the  right legal entity. In the end, I would think museums featuring such aircraft should be interested in such a venture. At least those museums that understand themselves as a respository for knowledge rather than places of entertainment.

 

I think that ideally something like a „Knights of the Sky Foundation“ would host such an undertaking and have museums an private donors contributing the funds. Also it would be suitable if someone literate on the subject would compile the data in useful reports. Such would be valuable to museums and anyone documenting these aircraft. In the end, the one who collects the data owns the data. It would help, making this as public and transparent of a venture as possible.

 

From what I can see, the costs for such an avionics pod would be about 2000$? If it was just that, maybe it would be doable with just „interested persons“ giving cash. If more is required, then I‘d ask the bigger players.

 

If more woukd be required, I would proceed with such by asking beyond interested private people with money to spare. We would need an absolute number for the money needed and the timeframe required to gather the data. The means of publication must be understood by all involved. Having Michael Carlson on board should give considerable leverage in talking to museums and institutions interested in what I see an academical effort.

 

So, pitch funding… how much would you have in mind per person and what could you provide to a donor? (Jason provides us early birds with gold bars under the name tag. Gold bars that of course confer maximum+ forum karma… ?)

 

All very good points @ZachariasX!

 

First of all I did not even consider that this data would not be made public: My vision was that it should be freely available.

 

When it comes to ownership of the data as such, my impression speaking to Mikael on earlier occasions is that he is not very interested in the numbers himself: He flies without instruments on feel and even says he does not look at the tachometer: He just listens to the engine. What he has said however is that he would be willing to support gathering recording data on his aircraft if I could get hold of some sort of recording equipment. But again, you bring up an extremely important point that I need to reconfirm so I will double check that he is on board that it would be freely available.

 

Maybe we could get someone to host it on a website? If @Chill31 is OK with that then for sure, „Knights of the Sky Foundation“ would do fine. I could see about Mikael hosting it on his website as well. We could also set up something as a public Dropbox as well. The data would then be accessible to anyone who has an interest, Jason, you, me, we. Suggestions welcome.

 

About incentives, have not though about that so suggestions are welcome. One solution is to give everyone who contributes an officer’s commission in the VAF (Virtual Air Force): $10 gives you a second lieutenant and $1500 full Field Marshal and a Pour Le Merite. On a more serious note: I was hoping more on a kind of charity contribution: This is all going to a very good cause right?

 

How/if it would affect the in-game modeling well that is anybody’s guess but for sure the first criteria set up by the developers to have input on flight models would be fulfilled: We would be able to point to data supporting our case. The second argument for doing this is I think just like you yourself put it: “Actual flight data would be of tremendous value in understanding these crates from a century ago.”

 

As to the total sum to get this rolling I only see one and that is the BOM cost itself, right now on sale at about $1700. As I see it what needs to be added on top of that is an SD-card, an “old” smartphone, a holder for the smartphone to go in the cockpit  and a boom with brackets or some other means to mount it on his aircraft. The SD-card, old smartphone and holder I will throw in myself. I will double check with Mikael that if we fund the BOM he will fix a holder for the BOM that can be mounted in his aircraft at his own expense. So to sum up on costs: As I see it we only need to crowdfund the BOM. But again, if a few more people than you and me show an interest, I will bring it up with Mikael to confirm.

Edited July 29, 2021 by Holtzauge

[Cynic_Al]

This idea ranks with the one about approaching TVAL, asking them if they'd mind accurately measuring the speed of their planes and sending us the results.

How about something more realistic, like fitting the plane with a pie detector?  Your sky seems to have lot of pies in it, so perhaps an instrument that detects them would be more useful.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

That's great idea but I doubt if they use it to change existing FMs. Data for not yet modeled FMs like announced Sopwith Snipe, would have better chance to be used.  Anyway to support this I would donate some cash. 

[Patricks]

Did you mention to him we need to know the G forces required to rip a wing off? Of what use is his just flying around with a measuring instrument, he isn't going to push those old birds to their limits... at least I highly doubt he would risk them or himself.

[Holtzauge]

16 minutes ago, GPatricks said:

Did you mention to him we need to know the G forces required to rip a wing off? Of what use is his just flying around with a measuring instrument, he isn't going to push those old birds to their limits... at least I highly doubt he would risk them or himself.

 

Well, for things like top speeds and climb rates you don't need to rip the wings off and one area of controversy about the modeling in any flight simulator is the so-called sustained turn rates and to measure that IRL won't result in any high g-loads:  As an example, the Nieuport 28 turn rate has been controversial since Rise of Flight and continues to be so here in FC. This is perfectly possible to test with a Levil BOM which would give a very accurate turn time and with g-loads of no more than 1.5-3 g so no problem!

 

Another thing that is always discussed is the maximum  instantaneous turn rate and for that I agree he will probably not go to 5 g and he won't have to: What he could measure very accurately with the Levil BOM is the stall speed: If you have that you can derive the Clmax (maximum lift coefficient) which can then be used to accurately model high speed, high g-load instantaneous turns. Other ideas are to measure how fast the airplane slows when you g-load it: say hold 3 g steady in a turn maintaining altitude and measure how fast it decelerates: This will give you data on induced drag which could be used to tune induced drag modeling.

[ST_Catchov]

I don't think Jason will buy it. So far the FM team has shown no inclination or interest in taking on anything other than their own vetted research and aeronautical algorithms based (I presume, given AnP's interest in such matters) on wing loading/profile, weight, cog, engine power, prop pitch blah blah blah etc etc. Whether the outcome of these inputs and calculations are always correct is hotly debated but at the end of the day it's a game and a business not a flight simmer's philanthropic dream.

 

No disrespect, but include me out. We live in weird times and money is tight.

 

But by all means ..... good luck.

[=IRFC=Gascan]

I'd almost like to see this as two questions: is it a good idea, and would you help fund it.

[Chill31]

If Mikael is willing to use it, I will send him my BOM.  

[DD_Arthur]

13 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

This idea ranks with the one about approaching TVAL, asking them if they'd mind accurately measuring the speed of their planes and sending us the results.

How about something more realistic, like fitting the plane with a pie detector?  Your sky seems to have lot of pies in it, so perhaps an instrument that detects them would be more useful.

 

Lol. 

 

What a great, hilarious, ludicrous thread this is?.

 

 

[US103_Baer]

Like your positive thinking dude. 

But the devs clearly knew the N28 had a dodgy fm, and released it anyway. There's already a decent list of game issues that have correct data available that aren't getting addressed either. 

I feel the chances of getting them to take this data and merge it with their existing models is highly unlikely.

 

Edited July 30, 2021 by US28_Baer

[Holtzauge]

8 hours ago, Chill31 said:

If Mikael is willing to use it, I will send him my BOM.  

 

That is a very generous offer @Chill31! That would be great but I see some hurdles with such a solution (But maybe we can jump those?): First of all I expect gathering all the data will take a rather long time, especially if we want to test the Fokker D.VII, Pfalz D.VIII and the Nieuport 28 (Testing his Dr.1 may of course also be interesting but second priority I think since you are already testing a Dr.1). Second is transport and customs which is probably doable but likely complicated with this type of expensive kit. This in turn would mean that we probably don't want to send it back and forth meaning you would probably need to part with it for a rather long time so there is that to consider as well.

 

Finally, thanks to all who have been positive to the idea and are willing to pitch in! Personally I don't have any experience with crowdfunding so if someone has any ideas about how to do it in a better way and reach a larger audience plus the technicalities then please let me know, either here or via PM. Other than that, I guess the best course of action now is to see how this thread develops and if more people are interested in the idea.

[SYN_Vander]

I like the idea and am willing to pitch in. Be aware there is no guarantee it will change any of the FC flying models. That’s entirely up to Jason and the team as they are making and selling a product, not running a research center. But for future projects this is always a good thing!

[J99_Sizzlorr]

I like the idea, but I am only willing to pitch in if we have word from Jason and the team that they will use the data. What does a BOM cost these days? Also what happens to the it after testing is done? Who will keep it? Do we resell it and divide the money back to the pitchers?

[BraveSirRobin]

Until you get Han and Jason on board there is no point to this.

[SeaW0lf]

Just keep in mind that ROF and FC might have been made with some universal parameters for all the planes. So you might get a particular result with the Levil BOM that can’t be used in-game unless you adjust every plane in the roster, which might become just data for a future version of the simulator.

 

But speed checks are important and straightforward. Something we always looked for. It would be interesting to check the Pfalz and D.VII speed for example. The N28 together with both Dr.1 would also give us a better view of the rotaries performance as well.

 

It is amazing how most of these colectors don't ever fly with instruments. It would be good to start a trend, because in a couple decades we might have data enough, together with AI simulation, to create flight models really close to reality.

[ST_Catchov]

6 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

in a couple decades we might have data enough, together with AI simulation, to create flight models really close to reality.

 

Too late. I'll be singin' with them angels baby, makin' that harp swing and bustin' a move with Jesus and Dusty Hill. Hallelujah. Beards are in and I'll be able to drink again. WooHoo man!

[Holtzauge]

I don’t agree that the developers have to be on board to make this worthwhile: Why would they make any prior commitment before seeing any data? Comparing WW1 and WW2 flight performance data the former is scarce and often contradictory and the latter is often more abundant and there is in many cases enough to go on to form an opinion.

 

So those of you who are saying it’s unnecessary to do flight trials since we already have proof: Where is this data showing that something is unequivocally wrong with the Fokker Dr.1, Fokker D.VII and Nieuport 28 in-game? Sure, I too am of the opinion that for example the Nieuport 28 turned better IRL compared to what we see in game. But this is an OPINION and not something I can back up with data hence I can’t say that the FM is wrong. I don’t have the evidence. So those of you who say there is already evidence out there that proves your case why don’t you post it? Show me (and the developers) the data.

 

In addition, I have seen FM changes made by the developers if sufficient and reliable data is presented: A good example is the Fw-190 Clmax: There was an update to this that the community did not agree with and after presenting supporting data the developers updated the FM to what we have today. Sure, it took some doing but in the end we had a lot of evidence and that‘s what sealed the deal. This I think shows that it can be done.

 

However, bitching and moaning that things are the way they are and are never going to change is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Back in the days when my kids were small I can’t remember ever being swayed to do what they wanted when they threw tantrums. As they grew up they became more sophisticated in their argumentation though. Let’s hope the same thing happens here.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Instead of the usual forum back and forth, why not just PM Jason and see what he thinks?

[BraveSirRobin]

9 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

I don’t agree that the developers have to be on board to make this worthwhile: Why would they make any prior commitment 

 

Because it does not matter if every single FC aircraft is completely and totally wrong. If they don't have the time and money to make changes, you are just wasting your time.  And since you won't even ask them if they can look at this data, it looks more like a project designed to coerce them into making changes. That will only be a disaster.

Edited July 31, 2021 by BraveSirRobin

[=IRFC=Gascan]

Whether it results in changes to FC or not, gathering flight data about these planes seems like a worthwhile endeavor to me. I can't think of any good reason to not gather data. I would like to see FC be the best it can be, but its not the only thing in the world that could benefit from having accurate flight data for these planes.

[BraveSirRobin]

51 minutes ago, gascan said:

but its not the only thing in the world that could benefit from having accurate flight data for these planes.

I’ll bite.  What other possible reason is there for getting accurate flight data for these planes?  Most of the people who actually fly these planes don’t even care about the flight data.

[=IRFC=Gascan]

I can think of two so far. First, there's academic study of the historical planes. Learning how the planes handle today may help put the reports from the time period into perspective. See how well computer modeling matches both the recorded data and pilot descriptions of flights and combats. The other reason is some future flight sim may use the data, whether or not FC does.

[BraveSirRobin]

47 minutes ago, gascan said:

I can think of two so far. First, there's academic study of the historical planes. Learning how the planes handle today may help put the reports from the time period into perspective. See how well computer modeling matches both the recorded data and pilot descriptions of flights and combats. 

hahahahahahaha….  But seriously…. hahahahahahahaha….  

 

49 minutes ago, gascan said:

 The other reason is some future flight sim may use the data, whether or not FC does.

Maybe that imaginary dev team’s imaginary forum is a better place to organize this effort?

[Chill31]

I want to do it for the sake of recording this information for posterity. People often ask me: what is it like to fly a Fokker Dr.I?  

 

Well, I can tell you quite vividly what it is like, and in great technical detail. To be able to answer that question for people across many types of WWI aircraft would be quite rewarding in my opinion.  

 

It is one thing to read a book where a pilot says, I turned around to the right and shot him down. Well gosh, was it easy to do? Challenging? Dangerous? So much of that detail is not available if we don't dive deeper into the qualities of the airplane.

 

If they use the data for FC, great! If not, their loss.  Who knows how, when, or where it might be used down the road. 

 

For now, if the handling qualities of the planes interests you, be interested for the sake of knowledge and curiosity! If you want to gain more technical information, be involved in gathering it! I have thoroughly enjoyed my time and energy that I've spent to that end. I've made some great friendships I wouldn't have made otherwise, and I've learned a lot of stuff that I wouldn't have learned had I not undertaken this journey. 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Javier Arango before his fatal crash recorded telemetry data on the Sopwith Camel and maybe other planes like N28, I wonder if that data was saved and why nobody never try ask for it.

IMHO This new data as input for interesting  scientific studies or presentations would be enough for the effort.

Edited August 1, 2021 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[Holtzauge]

1 hour ago, Chill31 said:

I want to do it for the sake of recording this information for posterity. People often ask me: what is it like to fly a Fokker Dr.I?  

 

Well, I can tell you quite vividly what it is like, and in great technical detail. To be able to answer that question for people across many types of WWI aircraft would be quite rewarding in my opinion.  

 

It is one thing to read a book where a pilot says, I turned around to the right and shot him down. Well gosh, was it easy to do? Challenging? Dangerous? So much of that detail is not available if we don't dive deeper into the qualities of the airplane.

 

If they use the data for FC, great! If not, their loss.  Who knows how, when, or where it might be used down the road. 

 

For now, if the handling qualities of the planes interests you, be interested for the sake of knowledge and curiosity! If you want to gain more technical information, be involved in gathering it! I have thoroughly enjoyed my time and energy that I've spent to that end. I've made some great friendships I wouldn't have made otherwise, and I've learned a lot of stuff that I wouldn't have learned had I not undertaken this journey. 

 

And we all appreciate your efforts and that you so generously share them!

 

Great that you can do the Fokker Dr.1 trials and we get data on that. If we can get the BOM trials done on Mikael's aircraft as well we can add the Fokker D.VII, the Pfalz D.VIII and maybe even the Nieuport 28.

 

I made the BOM poll in order to gauge how much interest there is in the forum and if there were other people who may not be as active as those who have already responded who were interested but so far it looks like there is no "silent majority" who fly offline and are willing to pitch in. This means that your kind offer to make your BOM available to Mikael becomes even more important. Still, the biggest problem I see is that in order to cover all planes you may need to lend it out for along time but maybe you are OK with that?

 

BTW: How are the climb trials we talked about yesterday coming along? Looking forward to hear more about how that is going and seeing the results! In addition, any feedback on the test specification I sent yesterday would be welcome.

 

8 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Javier Arango before his fatal crash recorded telemetry data on the Sopwith Camel and maybe other planes like N28, I wonder if that data was saved and why nobody never try ask for it.

IMHO This new data as input for interesting  scientific studies or presentations would be enough for the effort.

 

It may be possible to get this data but I'm not sure it would be helpful in this particular case: I have exchanged a few mails with aviation journalist Peter Garrison who did the Camel trials with him. Don't know if they also did the N28 but I don't think so. More trials were as I understood it planned but were tragically cut short by Mr Arango's fatal crash. However, from what I understand from Garrison, these trials involved flying more to determine flying characteristics so not very helpful to determine performance I'm afraid.

[J2_Trupobaw]

Will Jason and devs make use of the information? - No idea.
Is there a point in trying to get Jason and devs on board? - Absolutely.
Do I want to see hard empirical data on plane performances? As in, "performances we had only speculations and conflicting second and third hand accounts on for last 100 years"? - Damn right I do. I want these measurements, I want them published and used, both by historians and forum warriors :). If they are used in the game it's a great bonus, but knowing what the real figures are are reason enough for me. Count me in.

Edited August 1, 2021 by J2_Trupobaw

[ST_Catchov]

Fix the DM and the FM won't matter. For most of us. Can Mikael check that out? Anyway, the plane selection is rather limited. But if the ensuing data proves the Dr1 and D7 are not flying tanks I'm all for it.

[Holtzauge]

Just now, ST_Catchov said:

Fix the DM and the FM won't matter. For most of us. Can Mikael check that out? Anyway, the plane selection is rather limited. But if the ensuing data proves the Dr1 and D7 are not flying tanks I'm all for it.

 

I wish I could say yes but I think the DM is out of reach because it involves destructive testing. For sure, I could ask him what he thinks but I think the DM lends itself better to a theoretical analysis. I do have some experience with structural engineering myself and I can tell you I think the way it is now does not tab with what I would expect: Barring the lucky shot severing a flying wire or fitting (in the jargon called single point of failure items with no secondary load paths) on a conventionally braced plane, I would say the probability of you damaging the structure to the extent that it has a significant impact on g-loading capability is slim unless you get a quite large number of hits. I'm now of course assuming in manouvering combat with the aircraft in relative motion and not someone flying straight along and getting buzz-sawed!

 

But PLEASE let's not turn this into another DM thread! For Gods sake let's put all that in another thread!

[J2_Trupobaw]

DM is a completely separate problem, that can be solved by re-applying what is being done in FC2 to FC1. It's in-game coding problem. What we're trying to do here is re-learning performance data that was unknown siince 1920s.

Edited August 1, 2021 by J2_Trupobaw

[BlitzPig_EL]

Let's say that we get solid performance data on the three or four aircraft available.  How would this data be valid, seeing that these aircraft will certainly not be tested at the outside of their performance envelope?  Flight testing is a very risky business after all.  Also, how could this data be applied in the sim when the majority of the set will still be using guesswork FMs?

 

I'm not against gathering data for the sake of historical knowledge, but how could it work in our little sim/game when the other planes are just best guesses?

[J99_Sizzlorr]

29 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Let's say that we get solid performance data on the three or four aircraft available.  How would this data be valid, seeing that these aircraft will certainly not be tested at the outside of their performance envelope?  Flight testing is a very risky business after all.  Also, how could this data be applied in the sim when the majority of the set will still be using guesswork FMs?

 

I'm not against gathering data for the sake of historical knowledge, but how could it work in our little sim/game when the other planes are just best guesses?

Flight data like top speed at various heights, climb and sustained turn could be achieved relatively safely. And I think Mikael Carlson is riding his planes close to their performance envelope.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

48 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Let's say that we get solid performance data on the three or four aircraft available.  How would this data be valid, seeing that these aircraft will certainly not be tested at the outside of their performance envelope?  Flight testing is a very risky business after all.  Also, how could this data be applied in the sim when the majority of the set will still be using guesswork FMs?

 

I'm not against gathering data for the sake of historical knowledge, but how could it work in our little sim/game when the other planes are just best guesses?

RMPs, propeller pitch and size, horizontal speed, turn  sustained or not, time to climb is enough and that can be made save close to max envelope.

Edited August 1, 2021 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[Monostripezebra]

a ton of effort to buy something for someone, who if he wanted to, could do that pretty well alone and pester some gameprogrammers to change minor details.. "for realism" while even in the best case outcome people will hang the same drunk way on teamspeak, discord etc.. voicecomming low over the mud with almost 0 groundfire in ahistoric fightercentric, killfocused lemmingtrains or shooting each other from 800m away because of years of practice and game engine but with that 1.5° closer-to-a-replica rollrate..

 

 

I really can´t think of a more "gamechanging" realistic WW1 depiction. Lol.

Edited August 1, 2021 by Monostripezebra

[Chill31]

7 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Javier Arango before his fatal crash recorded telemetry data on the Sopwith Camel and maybe other planes like N28, I wonder if that data was saved and why nobody never try ask for it.

IMHO This new data as input for interesting  scientific studies or presentations would be enough for the effort.

I will ask for it today. I'll let you know what I get back.

[BraveSirRobin]

This is being done for “posterity”?  Lol

 

Can’t Carlson do it for “posterity” on his own?  
 

Of course he can.  Only problem is that he doesn’t care about pestering WW1 flight sim developers.