Complicated way to customize cruising speed for PWCG

[greybeard_52]

As we know, the cruising speed of an airplane should correspond to a certain engine speed, or a certain percentage of the maximum power, consequently obtaining a speed dependent on the altitude.
In the original game, career missions typically gain an altitude of two thousand meters, and their cruising speed is adequate for this altitude.
In PWCG the cruising speed is also fixed, but the flight altitudes can range in a much wider range. It follows that it can be too high or too low.
I thought I'd share a method (quite complicated, actually) to adjust the cruising speed to the altitude.
1). Take note of the flight altitude obtained with PWCG.
2). Find in "IL-2 Compare" the speed at the intersection with altitude 1).
3). Enter the speed 2) and altitude 1) in the spreadsheet (ONLYOFFICE) and obtain the speed (IAS) to be corrected in the waypoint table.

Attached you can find the necessary tools, to whose authors the respective credits go. Unfortunately, the example is poor, due to the vicinity of original and corrected speeds, but at lower altitudes differences are much more significant.

 

707238312_IL-2Compare.zip IAS calculator (modded by greybeard).zip

Edited October 30, 2022 by greybeard_52

[kraut1]

On 10/30/2022 at 6:18 PM, greybeard_52 said:

As we know, the cruising speed of an airplane should correspond to a certain engine speed, or a certain percentage of the maximum power, consequently obtaining a speed dependent on the altitude.
In the original game, career missions typically gain an altitude of two thousand meters, and their cruising speed is adequate for this altitude.
In PWCG the cruising speed is also fixed, but the flight altitudes can range in a much wider range. It follows that it can be too high or too low.
 

Hi Greybeard,

I agree with you that there are sometimes issues with too fast cruise speeds in IL2 GB too.

I am not absolutely sure but I think in IL2 GB it is not so complex as it is in CLOD because it seems to me that the speeds in the mission file are in TAS and not in IAS.

But it has to be considered that the speeds for the plane types are altitude dependend (supercharger effectivness at altitude, weapon / amma loadout, fuel,...)

UPDATED:

in some respect I was wrong, see below.

Edited November 14, 2022 by kraut1
updated

[kraut1]

I made a small test mission:

FW190-A3 with 2 MG-FF flying at a good altitude for the supercharger = 5900m with waypoint speeds = 500km/h.

Because I know that the FW has with this configuration a max. speed of ca. 630 - 650km/h (TAS) I expected that 500km/h(TAS) could be reached with max. continous power (ca.1,25ata).

I started the mission, activated autopilot and after ca. 2minutes a indicated speed of ca. 430 km/h with 1,2ata was reached and this speed did not changed.

But when I tried to calculate it in a simplified way and with your calculator I found out that I am wrong:

waypoint speed: 500km/h

in game indicated 430km/h (at only 1,2ata)
IAS calculated: ca.360km/h

Does that mean that the speed indicated in IL2 GB is something between TAS and IAS?

I am not sure... may be I did something wrong.

Updated / added for combat power:

in game indicated ca. 455km/h (at  1,32ata) at 5900m

 

 

Edited November 14, 2022 by kraut1
updated

[greybeard_52]

2 hours ago, kraut1 said:

Does that mean that the speed indicated in IL2 GB is something between TAS and IAS?

 

Yes and no. Premised that I'm reasonably sure that all speeds in game (but those related to performance in plane specs) are IAS, I too noticed apparent inconsistencies between set cruising speed and actual one. Sometimes the two matches, sometimes the actual one is lower; don't know, I may only guess that it matters of slight adjustements operated by game engine to general situation (could be mission timing or plane technical limits).

[kraut1]

1 hour ago, greybeard_52 said:

 

Yes and no. Premised that I'm reasonably sure that all speeds in game (but those related to performance in plane specs) are IAS, I too noticed apparent inconsistencies between set cruising speed and actual one. Sometimes the two matches, sometimes the actual one is lower; don't know, I may only guess that it matters of slight adjustements operated by game engine to general situation (could be mission timing or plane technical limits).

Maybe it is because the origin of the game engine ist a WWI simulation.

 

[greybeard_52]

4 hours ago, kraut1 said:

Maybe it is because the origin of the game engine ist a WWI simulation.

 

Maybe, even if, in the specific case, it is my opinion that this should be understood as an advantage and not a limitation, because this simulator has drawn the best of itself from Rise of Flight.
In any case, I believe that the indicated speed (IAS) is more important for the pilot than the real one (TAS) because vital aspects of piloting such as stalling depend on it. I remember that in old simulators I played, involving modern airplanes, there was a double speedometer: one for the TAS (for navigation purposes) and one for the IAS.

[FodderMonkey]

On 11/14/2022 at 9:15 AM, greybeard_52 said:

 

Maybe, even if, in the specific case, it is my opinion that this should be understood as an advantage and not a limitation, because this simulator has drawn the best of itself from Rise of Flight.
In any case, I believe that the indicated speed (IAS) is more important for the pilot than the real one (TAS) because vital aspects of piloting such as stalling depend on it. I remember that in old simulators I played, involving modern airplanes, there was a double speedometer: one for the TAS (for navigation purposes) and one for the IAS.

Yes and no. For IAS you are correct for stall characteristics, etc, but TAS is also vital for understanding G envelope, fuel endurance, etc. Gotta have both. The question is whether the sim is running its physics calculations on one or both. 

[greybeard_52]

15 hours ago, FodderMonkey said:

Yes and no. For IAS you are correct for stall characteristics, etc, but TAS is also vital for understanding G envelope, fuel endurance, etc. Gotta have both. The question is whether the sim is running its physics calculations on one or both.

 

I didn't understand the G envelope, while I think the autonomy is part of the navigation. I'm guessing that, precisely because both are needed, the simulation takes due account of them.