Roll Rates

[Roland_HUNter]

4 hours ago, Avimimus said:

I think it'd be extremely interesting if the devs showed their process - it is always fascinating when they share.

 

I think it is worth recognising that writing such an article would take a lot of work, especially as it might require teaching a certain amount of aerodynamics - and the effort might be better spent working on new (or refined) flight-models though.

 

But I agree it'd be very neat - especially discussions around performance values which aren't usually well documented (e.g. roll rates, third derivative components of motions).

 

So, the in game roll rates are based on calculations and not documents? 

 

You ask me to show documents with numbers. It's says to me: the devs have documents. 

 

Please share it with us. 

4 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

But "being cool" is quite far from any obligation, which is what Roland is forgetting here.

You can't be serious. 

It would mean, even the war thunder developers are more fair than IL-2. 

(what I doubt) 

They always share their historical sources. 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 hour ago, Roland_HUNter said:

So, the in game roll rates are based on calculations and not documents? 

 

You ask me to show documents with numbers. It's says to me: the devs have documents. 

 

Please share it with us. 

You can't be serious. 

It would mean, even the war thunder developers are more fair than IL-2. 

(what I doubt) 

They always share their historical sources. 

Alright then, can you please point out where in the EULA or sales agreement it's specified that you are entitled to those documents?

 

The only things the Devs are legally and morally obliged to provide to you are what you agreed to in those two contracts. Nothing more and nothing less.

[354thFG_Rails]

You have to the leg work if you think something is wrong @Roland_HUNter . Find documents showing testing with numbers that you can try and duplicate in game. Record, and present your evidence into the bug reports section or even here to get the attention it needs. You can’t base anything on feelings or pilot accounts, it’s not good enough. What one pilot thinks is very good controls another might think it’s average. And every pilot had different abilities as far piloting goes. So you need hard numbers to base your test on. 

Edited May 3, 2024 by 86th_Rails

[Roland_HUNter]

6 minutes ago, 86th_Rails said:

You have to the leg work if you think something is wrong @Roland_HUNter . Find documents showing testing with numbers that you can try and duplicate in game. Record, and present your evidence into the bug reports section or even here to get the attention it needs. You can’t base anything on feelings or pilot accounts, it’s not good enough. What one pilot thinks is very good controls another might think it’s average. And every pilot had different abilities as far piloting goes. So you need hard numbers to base your test on. 

Yes I know. 

As I mentioned DVL report about F2 has everything what needed/asked for. 

 

Still not inplemennted. 

This is why asked humbly what kind of documents are the source for the 109 at the moment. 

 

With respect, we brought 5-10 pages of documents about the 3 min 1.42 ata for 109 F, G still nothing showed against it except the manuals. But there is a big contradiction, because we already showed manuals what tells us, 3 min was allowed. 

 

So, as they showed documents for the 1 min 1.42 ata and as for the unlimited engine time for yaks, please show us the documents about the recent roll rates. 

 

Thank you. 

15 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Alright then, can you please point out where in the EULA or sales agreement it's specified that you are entitled to those documents?

 

The only things the Devs are legally and morally obliged to provide to you are what you agreed to in those two contracts. Nothing more and nothing less.

Did I Mentioned anywhere they have that kind of obligations? 

No.

[354thFG_Rails]

3 minutes ago, Roland_HUNter said:

Yes I know. 

As I mentioned DVL report about F2 has everything what needed/asked for. 

 

Still not inplemennted. 

This is why asked humbly what kind of documents are the source for the 109 at the moment. 

What is not implemented? What is that graph showing it should do? 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

3 minutes ago, Roland_HUNter said:

Did I Mentioned anywhere they have that kind of obligations? 

No.

Then it should be really simple, shouldn't it? They don't provide documents and you, being the one who has an issue with the current implementation, provide the "Primary source data, i.e., weather conditions, altitude, fuel/ammo load, etc in combination with a roll rate test" that is needed if you ever want the 109 roll rate to be changed.

 

If you don't provide those documents, then nothing will be changed. You can like this or not, and you can complain about it all you want, but it's as simple as that. No documents, no changes.

[Roland_HUNter]

1 hour ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Then it should be really simple, shouldn't it? They don't provide documents and you, being the one who has an issue with the current implementation, provide the "Primary source data, i.e., weather conditions, altitude, fuel/ammo load, etc in combination with a roll rate test" that is needed if you ever want the 109 roll rate to be changed.

 

If you don't provide those documents, then nothing will be changed. You can like this or not, and you can complain about it all you want, but it's as simple as that. No documents, no changes.

Ahm, ahan. 

Looks like you ignoring what I said, many Times. 

Again: documents were already sent, nothing happened. 

 

But the 109 roll rate still not changed, and more numbers, datas are asked for.

 

They I said: okey, then please show us, what are your documents. 

This is simple. 

(and I like how did you not reacted on the 1.42 ata and yak example, verry "diplomatic") 

1 hour ago, 86th_Rails said:

What is not implemented? What is that graph showing it should do? 

Really it's not obvious? 

And for more details (than roll/sec at  given speeds) the developers have more influence than me, they can ask out the full copy of the DVL report from the archive. 

 

I guess it's their interest to make the game more historical accurate. 

 

And the big question again, what have been already asked:

Then every other game what are implemented the 360 ° at 4 sec roll rate, is wrong? 

What games are I talking about:

IL-2 1946

Microsoft Flight Sim

War Thunder 

IL-2 Clod

DCS

 

[354thFG_Rails]

13 minutes ago, Roland_HUNter said:

 

Really it's not obvious? 

And for more details (than roll/sec at  given speeds) the developers have more influence than me, they can ask out the full copy of the DVL report from the archive. 

 

I guess it's their interest to make the game more historical accurate. 

Clearly not, because personally I think it rolls to good and was closer to what it should be before. But please enlighten me as to what you think the problem is?

[Roland_HUNter]

1 minute ago, 86th_Rails said:

Clearly not, because personally I think it rolls to good and was closer to what it should be before. But please enlighten me as to what you think the problem is?

You can find all the answers for you question in this topic. 

And, "I think" is an opinion. 

I do not want to change the roll rate because of my opinion. 

That is not objective. 

[ACG_Cass]

2 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

As I mentioned DVL report about F2 has everything what needed/asked for. 

 

Starting point: Show us how the 109 doesn't match the DVL report. 

[354thFG_Rails]

Why won’t you answer what you think is wrong? I’m just curious if you think it is to slow or to fast. 
 

I’m not the one pushing for something to change. So what I think doesn’t matter.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

28 minutes ago, Roland_HUNter said:

Ahm, ahan. 

Looks like you ignoring what I said, many Times. 

Again: documents were already sent, nothing happened.

Who is ignoring what? You have to provide all those documents here, together, and they have to be "Primary source data, i.e., weather conditions, altitude, fuel/ammo load, etc in combination with a roll rate test". If you think the Devs are going to waste hours searching for hours on these forums for documents that may or may not have been posted elsewhere just to please you, then I can tell you right now that that's not going to happen.

 

If you want things changed, then you need to post the proper documentation here. This is a simple fact, and something that you are still ignoring. They are not going to change anything if you do not post all of that here. Period. Like it or not.

 

33 minutes ago, Roland_HUNter said:

They I said: okey, then please show us, what are your documents. 

This is simple.

Again, the Devs are under no obligation whatsoever to share those documents.

Suggesting that the current roll rate is wrong based on the fact that the Devs haven't shared their sources is a logic fallacy, namely an argumentum ad ignorantiam.

 

33 minutes ago, Roland_HUNter said:

(and I like how did you not reacted on the 1.42 ata and yak example, verry "diplomatic")

A straw man fallacy, a red herring, as well as bordering on an ad hominem. I hope I don't need to further explain why this comment is simply ridiculous.

 

36 minutes ago, Roland_HUNter said:

Then every other game what are implemented the 360 ° at 4 sec roll rate, is wrong? 

What games are I talking about:

IL-2 1946

Microsoft Flight Sim

War Thunder 

IL-2 Clod

DCS

...and yet another logic fallacy, this time an argumentum ad populum.

 

Your whole reasoning is based on one big chain of logic fallacies while you keep ignoring the very simple fact that if you want to change things, you need to post the proper documentation here.

[Roland_HUNter]

1 hour ago, 86th_Rails said:

Clearly not, because personally I think it rolls to good and was closer to what it should be before. But please enlighten me as to what you think the problem is?

"if you want to change things, you need to post the proper documentation here." 

So they can do anything what they want. Because they don't have to prove it, show it. 

 

I guess you Already read my post here when I Mentioned, at the A3 release point, the A3 had historical roll rate, then with no mentioning, it was decreased from maximum 162° to maximum 135. 

 

And because of this whole topic, it's buffed back to around 150-155°.

 

 

And really argumentum ad populum? 

Because I took another example for the topic? Please. 

 

argumentum ad ignorantiam🤣🤣🤣

So if I ask them humbly to show their documents, it's meaning I do not believe in them? Please do not give me words what are am I never said. 

 

straw man fallacy:

So if you ignore what I Mentioned, but you still talking about it, and then I Mentioning this why are you ignoring it? it's against you? Aham. 

 

Red herring:

So I can't make an example with past topics, because you think, it's irrelevant? Please. 

And there was nothing against your person, it's a diplomatic formula to do not answer for things what you so not wish to answer. 

 

Excuse me, I stated a formulaic fact that has nothing to do with you personally. 

 

I do not like ad hominem because it's killing the debate. 

 

Thank you. 

 

[354thFG_Rails]

51 minutes ago, Roland_HUNter said:

"if you want to change things, you need to post the proper documentation here." 

So they can do anything what they want. Because they don't have prove it, show it. 

 

I guess you Already read my post here when I Mentioned, at the A3 release point, the A3 had historical roll rate, then with no mentioning, it was decreased from maximum 162° to maximum 135. 

 

And because of this whole topic, it's buffed back to around 150-155°.

 

 

And really argumentum ad populum? 

Because I took another examplea for the topic? Please. 

 

argumentum ad ignorantiam🤣🤣🤣

So if I ask them humbly to show their documents, it's meaning I do not believe in them? Please do not give me words what are am I never said. 

 

straw man fallacy:

So if you ignore what I Mentioned, but you still talking about it, and then I Mentioning this why are you ignoring it? it's against you? Aham. 

 

Red herring:

So I can't make an example with past topics, because you think, it's irrelevant? Please. 

And there was nothing against your person, it's a diplomatic formula to do not answer for things what you so not wish to answer. 

 

Excuse me, I stated a formulaic fact that has nothing to do with you personally. 

 

I do not like ad hominem because it's killing the debate. 

 

Thank you. 

 

As far as I know the devs based their changes of this…

so again, if you’ve testing against this graph l, have you come up with different results? I ask again, what is wrong with the 109?

Edited May 3, 2024 by 86th_Rails

[AEthelraedUnraed]

2 minutes ago, 86th_Rails said:

As far as I know the devs based their changes of this…

I thought they meant a different document, but anyhow. I just tested it against this graph. 109F2, 3000m, Kuban autumn map, 500kph TAS which corresponds to around 430kph IAS. Rudder assist on to keep the ball centered and I don't have my pedals right now. Slightly exceeded 500kph TAS because without my pedals I couldn't keep the nose from dropping. However, given the flatness of the curve there this shouldn't make much of a difference, or even give a slight advantage. I executed two double rolls, one to the left and one to the right. I measured the roll time for the second rolls of both, taking "konstanten Querruderausschlügen" to mean that they started measuring after the ailerons had already reached their maximum deflection.

 

In the graph, we can see that at 500kph TAS, we should have a rolling rate of 1.4rad/s = 80.2deg/s. This should give us a total rolling time of ~4.5s.

 

I attached a video recording of my measurement. The left roll took 4.35s, the right roll 4.52s. This seems rather spot on to the provided curve.

0001-0290.avi0001-0640.mp4.zip

[Roland_HUNter]

19 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I thought they meant a different document, but anyhow. I just tested it against this graph. 109F2, 3000m, Kuban autumn map, 500kph TAS which corresponds to around 430kph IAS. Rudder assist on to keep the ball centered and I don't have my pedals right now. Slightly exceeded 500kph TAS because without my pedals I couldn't keep the nose from dropping. However, given the flatness of the curve there this shouldn't make much of a difference, or even give a slight advantage. I executed two double rolls, one to the left and one to the right. I measured the roll time for the second rolls of both, taking "konstanten Querruderausschlügen" to mean that they started measuring after the ailerons had already reached their maximum deflection.

 

In the graph, we can see that at 500kph TAS, we should have a rolling rate of 1.4rad/s = 80.2deg/s. This should give us a total rolling time of ~4.5s.

 

I attached a video recording of my measurement. The left roll took 4.35s, the right roll 4.52s. This seems rather spot on to the provided curve.

0001-0290.avi0001-0640.mp4.zip 4.45 MB · 0 downloads

"Max roll rate of Bf 109F-2, at 30kg/66lbs stick force 3000m TAS from DVL report (DVL more or less German equivalent of NACA)

 

200 kph = 45 deg/sec (0.8rad)

300 kph = 68 deg/sec (1.2rad)

400 kph = 83 deg/sec (1.45rad)

480 kph = 20kg/44lbs limit

500 kph = 88 deg/sec (1.55rad)

600 kph = 91 deg/sec (1.6rad) - peak value

700 kph = 56 deg/sec (0.98rad)

800 kph = 23 deg/sec (0.4rad)

 

In IAS

 

600km/h TAS = around 510km/h IAS = 91°

700km/h TAS = around 595km/h IAS = 56°

800km/h TAS = around 680km/h IAS = 23°

 

So if we have a look at Me 109 roll rate at 700kmh (IAS 595kmh or 368mph) it is 56 degrees/second it is the same as a normal wing spitfire at the same speed albeit at 30kg (66kg) stick force instead of 50lbs.

 

Attached is the NACA report which has roll rates of various allied and axis fighters (albeit not the 109, which we have to use the DVL report)

 

The Me 109 was far from immobile in the roll axis. Why would the DVL produce a report based on 30kg stick force if a German pilot couldn't produce it?

 

Maybe don't arm wrestle with a Luftwaffe 109 pilot is one thing  to be taken from this."

Source:https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/me-109-ailerons-and-roll-rate.56006/

[AEthelraedUnraed]

10 minutes ago, Roland_HUNter said:

200 kph = 45 deg/sec (0.8rad)

300 kph = 68 deg/sec (1.2rad)

400 kph = 83 deg/sec (1.45rad)

480 kph = 20kg/44lbs limit

500 kph = 88 deg/sec (1.55rad)

600 kph = 91 deg/sec (1.6rad) - peak value

700 kph = 56 deg/sec (0.98rad)

800 kph = 23 deg/sec (0.4rad)

 

In IAS

 

600km/h TAS = around 510km/h IAS = 91°

700km/h TAS = around 595km/h IAS = 56°

800km/h TAS = around 680km/h IAS = 23°

You're looking at the wrong curve. "Extrapoliert" means "extrapolated", which is nice but doesn't mean a thing. You need to look at "Gemessen" which means "measured"; i.e. the actual measured numbers.

[354thFG_Rails]

Do we know what the solid/dashed line means? To me the peak roll rate from the measurements is 1.2 rads at about 525kph. 

Edited May 3, 2024 by 86th_Rails

[AEthelraedUnraed]

45 minutes ago, 86th_Rails said:

Do we know what the solid/dashed line means? To me the peak roll rate from the measurements is 1.2 rads at about 525kph. 

I'm not 100% sure, but it is denoted as "Φ_K_max=15°" which I interpret as the measured roll rate at the maximum aileron deflection of 15 degrees versus the extrapolated roll rate at the same aileron deflection. Which would explain why it nicely corresponds with the latter curve (the uppermost line) at lower speeds. They extrapolated the 15° deflection curve from the measured curves at 3, 6 and 9 degrees aileron deflection, then later found that the actual roll rate was less than predicted for whatever physical reason. Which would likely make this slightly thicker solid/dashed line a later addition to the graph, which in turn could explain why they didn't draw it in the earlier line styles as given in the legend.

 

Again, I'm not quite sure, but to me this sound like the most probable explanation without access to the entire document (where it's likely stated what exactly the "Φ_K_max=15°" line means). What I am quite certain about though, is that extrapolated data is not a very trustworthy source at all so that the uppermost curve that goes to 1.6 radians should not be taken at face value without proper scrutinisation.

Edited May 3, 2024 by AEthelraedUnraed

[Bilbo_Baggins]

Bf109s and LaGG-3s aside for a sec - don't folks think the roll-rate of the Mosquito leads to some questioning if that is accurate or not? 

[Kurfurst]

7 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I'm not 100% sure, but it is denoted as "Φ_K_max=15°" which I interpret as the measured roll rate at the maximum aileron deflection of 15 degrees versus the extrapolated roll rate at the same aileron deflection.

K = Knüppel, i.e. 15 degrees flight stick deflection (=maximum deflection).

 

The thick line is for the actual roll rate taking into account loss due to wing twisting.

 

As a side note, this was measured on a 109F, so G/K should be probably closer to the theoretical values as these planes had reinforced wing structural elements and therefore more rigid.

[ACG_Cass]

2 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

As a side note, this was measured on a 109F, so G/K should be probably closer to the theoretical values as these planes had reinforced wing structural elements and therefore more rigid.

Have you been able to find anything on the impact of this? I can only find a forum post from many years ago stating the Finns managed 85 deg/s in a G but no source.

 

My concern is I doubt the devs will want to have to reconfigure roll rates for G and above for the sake or 5-10 deg/s, which is within the error margin.

 

11 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

Attached is the NACA report which has roll rates of various allied and axis fighters (albeit not the 109, which we have to use the DVL report)

 

The Me 109 was far from immobile in the roll axis. Why would the DVL produce a report based on 30kg stick force if a German pilot couldn't produce it?

 

They certainly might have been able to get higher control force but what's important is the relative performance to other aircraft. If the other are following the NACA in IL2 then so should the 109.

 

I'm pretty sure there are control traces of other aircraft like this for the P47 showing higher roll rate at lower forces, or simply higher forces applied but you're opening Pandoras box when you have a reliable source that can show you relative performance.

------

 

It's also probably discussing the elephant in the room, which is that the 109 roll rate does not drop off at anywhere near the speed it should...

[Roland_HUNter]

On 5/3/2024 at 11:12 PM, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I thought they meant a different document, but anyhow. I just tested it against this graph. 109F2, 3000m, Kuban autumn map, 500kph TAS which corresponds to around 430kph IAS. Rudder assist on to keep the ball centered and I don't have my pedals right now. Slightly exceeded 500kph TAS because without my pedals I couldn't keep the nose from dropping. However, given the flatness of the curve there this shouldn't make much of a difference, or even give a slight advantage. I executed two double rolls, one to the left and one to the right. I measured the roll time for the second rolls of both, taking "konstanten Querruderausschlügen" to mean that they started measuring after the ailerons had already reached their maximum deflection.

 

In the graph, we can see that at 500kph TAS, we should have a rolling rate of 1.4rad/s = 80.2deg/s. This should give us a total rolling time of ~4.5s.

 

I attached a video recording of my measurement. The left roll took 4.35s, the right roll 4.52s. This seems rather spot on to the provided curve.

0001-0290.avi0001-0640.mp4.zip 4.45 MB · 1 download

I do not know what kind of watch are you used, but please buy a new one.
On your video for (finished) rolls....360 °....
To the left at 450 km/h:
~6 sec, which means:  60°/sec.
 

To the right at 450 km/h:

5,772 sec, wich means: 62,37 °/sec.
Where is the 80°?

 

On 5/3/2024 at 11:49 PM, AEthelraedUnraed said:

"extrapolated", which is nice but doesn't mean a thing.

extrapolate - 'to determine a numerical value by an approximate method from known data'. - extrapolation: 'approximate determination'.

1.(mathematics) an approximate determination of the value of a function at a given point from the values of the preceding stage
2. and the approximate determination of its expected value or quantity from previously known values

 

Which means that, based on the calculated and known data, a pilot who can apply 30 kg of force is capable of a 90+° roll rate.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

2 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

I do not know what kind of watch are you used, but please buy a new one.
On your video for (finished) rolls....360 °....
To the left at 450 km/h:
~6 sec, which means:  60°/sec.
 

To the right at 450 km/h:

5,772 sec, wich means: 62,37 °/sec.
Where is the 80°?

Use a better video player. I just rewatched it, and my claims are correct.

A screencap from the original video. The time format is in minutes:seconds+frames. Please tell me how it's possible that I'm flying straight at 20 seconds 11 frames, then almost upside-down two seconds later, and upright again at 4 seconds 13 frames (~4.43 @ 30FPS) after starting the roll, if it supposedly took me 6 seconds.

 

Also, who gave you permission to post my video to YouTube? Consider this an official cease-and-desist notice to immediately take it off.

 

2 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

extrapolate - 'to determine a numerical value by an approximate method from known data'. - extrapolation: 'approximate determination'.

1.(mathematics) an approximate determination of the value of a function at a given point from the values of the preceding stage
2. and the approximate determination of its expected value or quantity from previously known values

 

Which means that, based on the calculated and known data, a pilot who can apply 30 kg of force is capable of a 90+° roll rate.

 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

 

This is getting ridiculous. Please stop talking about mathematical methods if you don't know at least the basics. I'd suggest starting at the Wikipedia page about extrapolation. A small, relevant quote: "Even for proper assumptions about the function, the extrapolation can diverge severely from the function". In the graph above, these assumptions weren't proper ones as they didn't account for wing twisting (and perhaps other stuff). Claiming that extrapolated data based on improper assumptions has precedence over the measured data in the thick line is just.... flabbergastingly beyond belief and betrays a complete lack of understanding of mathematical and scientific methods.

 

Once again, the onus is on you to prove your claims. You are the one who claims the current implementation is wrong. If you think the 109 turns too slow, then you must come up with a timed video under the appropriate flight conditions and you must come up with evidence that shows this is wrong.

Edited May 6, 2024 by AEthelraedUnraed

[Roland_HUNter]

7 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Also, who gave you permission to post my video to YouTube? Consider this an official cease-and-desist notice to immediately take it off.

Oh yes, I wanted to do: cease-and-desist....ofc...and do not debate with you....

Its not public btw. 

Less public than this forum.
Btw I used Vegas Pro for the video.

Extrapolation:

Man... I copied the official description of the extrapolation 🤣🤣🤣 try harder. 

 

And the timing thing of the video.... You are stubborn. 

I'll make a better video for you 😉

[Roland_HUNter]

 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 hour ago, Roland_HUNter said:

Extrapolation:

Man... I copied the official description of the extrapolation 🤣🤣🤣 try harder. 

Honestly, this is high school mathematics.... you're trying to solve high school mathematics by using a dictionary of all things.

 

I suggest picking up your calculus book instead.

Edited May 6, 2024 by AEthelraedUnraed

[Roland_HUNter]

7 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Honestly, this is high school mathematics.... you're trying to solve high school mathematics by using a dictionary of all things.

 

I suggest picking up your calculus book instead.

I did not use calculations. 

I used the definition. 

That's not my problem, if it's not paralel with the definition. (but I doubt that) 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

2 minutes ago, Roland_HUNter said:

I did not use calculations. 

18 hours ago, Roland_HUNter said:

based on the calculated and known data, a pilot who can apply 30 kg of force is capable of a 90+° roll rate.

Yeah, right.

[Roland_HUNter]

28 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Yeah, right.

Yes, here again the definition:
"extrapolate - 'to determine a numerical value by an approximate method from known data'. - extrapolation: 'approximate determination'."

 

They knew what the plane was capable of by known data......and by theoritical calcualtions they calculated a result for the 30kg of force.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

16 minutes ago, Roland_HUNter said:

Yes, here again the definition:
"extrapolate - 'to determine a numerical value by an approximate method from known data'. - extrapolation: 'approximate determination'."

Again, you're looking at a dictionary for the meaning of mathematical concepts, for the Gods' sake.

 

A dictionary is no mathematical study book. No. Mathematical. Study. Book.

 

I don't know how I can make it even clearer to you, but a dictionary does NOT provide the necessary details to work with or interpret mathematical results.

 

16 minutes ago, Roland_HUNter said:

They knew what the plane was capable of by known data......and by theoritical calcualtions they calculated a result for the 30kg of force.

Please try again when you've acquired the necessary knowledge to interpret the graph.

Edited May 7, 2024 by AEthelraedUnraed

[Roland_HUNter]

22 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Again, you're looking at a dictionary for the meaning of mathematical concepts, for the Gods' sake.

 

A dictionary is no mathematical study book. No. Mathematical. Study. Book.

 

I don't know how I can make it even clearer to you, but a dictionary does NOT provide the necessary details to work with or interpret mathematical results.

 

Please try again when you've acquired the necessary knowledge to interpret the graph.

Again....if we talking about that: WHAT is extrapolation, why do you want numbers?
Extrapolation numbers are different: always depend on the experiment.
But I do not want show mathematchial numbers, when we are talking about WHAT is it, and not: what its shows on the 109. We can see what it shows.
or you want to know HOW it is shows it? Then read the full report which, perhaps, contains them.

Again, the definition, the PURPOSE of the extrapolation:
"In mathematics, extrapolation is a type of estimation, beyond the original observation range, of the value of a variable on the basis of its relationship with another variable. It is similar to interpolation, which produces estimates between known observations, but extrapolation is subject to greater uncertainty and a higher risk of producing meaningless results. Extrapolation may also mean extension of a method, assuming similar methods will be applicable. Extrapolation may also apply to human experience to project, extend, or expand known experience into an area not known or previously experienced so as to arrive at a (usually conjectural) knowledge of the unknown[1] (e.g. a driver extrapolates road conditions beyond his sight while driving). The extrapolation method can be applied in the interior reconstruction problem."

 

and:

"Extrapolation arguments are informal and unquantified arguments which assert that something is probably true beyond the range of values for which it is known to be true. For example, we believe in the reality of what we see through magnifying glasses because it agrees with what we see with the naked eye but extends beyond it; we believe in what we see through light microscopes because it agrees with what we see through magnifying glasses but extends beyond it; and similarly for electron microscopes. Such arguments are widely used in biology in extrapolating from animal studies to humans and from pilot studies to a broader population"

Both are from  wiki.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 hour ago, Roland_HUNter said:

We can see what it shows.

Clearly you cannot. You're making claims based on extrapolated numbers that are disproven by experimental data in the same graph.

[Roland_HUNter]

23 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Clearly you cannot. You're making claims based on extrapolated numbers that are disproven by experimental data in the same graph.

Does not matter what I show, say to you.

You even doubted the counter of the video player lens.
I made another video, and it doesn't support your claim either.

Have you brought up anything since then?
No, now you're trying to get at something else....

Oh, and I almost forgot, you immediately accused me of doing something legal against you because I exposed your video with a counter as publicly as you did....
I'm sorry, but it doesn't matter what I say, the point for you is to get into something.

 

Arguing with you is going nowhere.
When I say something, you always tease me about something, and then when I disprove your claim, no apology or anything, you immediately tease me about something else.
Something that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion, yes, and going against my person.(ad hominem?)

The above "without your permission how dare I upload your video" statement is a beautifully veiled statement about me, how duh: what a shameful person I am.

 

You'd make a great lawyer.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 hour ago, Roland_HUNter said:

it doesn't support your claim either.

Have you brought up anything since then?
No, now you're trying to get at something else....

Funny how this is now suddenly my claim.

 

I do not care if the roll rate is changed or not.

 

You are the one claiming it needs to be changed. Not I.

 

1 hour ago, Roland_HUNter said:

Oh, and I almost forgot, you immediately accused me of doing something legal against you because I exposed your video with a counter as publicly as you did....

I do not want anything I've made published on YouTube. I've never published anything on YouTube and I certainly don't want this video to be there. My reasons for that are private and none of your concern.

 

You are free to upload it here on the forums as an attachment, as I have done, but not on YouTube.

 

1 hour ago, Roland_HUNter said:

Arguing with you is going nowhere.

This whole argument is indeed going nowhere. You come here claiming the 109 rolls too slow, demanding the Devs change it. When you are told you need to provide evidence before the Devs do anything, you refuse to provide it. When you refuse to provide evidence and someone else provides a graph that counters your claims, you misrepresent it to mean something else. When you are pointed out that you are misrepresenting the graph, you try to use dictionary terms against centuries-old mathematics. When you are pointed out that dictionaries are no substitute for scientific books, you just ignore and instead double down on that this graph somehow "magically" proves that the 109 has a "90+° roll rate".

 

The graph actually disproves that the 109 should have a "90+° roll rate".

 

If you want the Devs to change the roll rate, then you will have to come up with evidence that indicates what it should be. It's your responsibility to understand this evidence and draw scientifically sound conclusions from it. Until you have provided any such evidence, the Devs will not change a thing.

 

If you fail to grasp that and continue to insist without any evidence that the Devs change the 109 roll rate, then indeed it's impossible to argue with you and I shall not further bother. But don't expect to see the 109 roll rate changed soon. Or ever.

[Aapje]

1 hour ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I do not want anything I've made published on YouTube. I've never published anything on YouTube and I certainly don't want this video to be there.

 

FYI, the video is hosted on YouTube, but not really published there, as it is unlisted and thus is not shown in the search results or if you browse to Roland's channel. The only way to see it is if you have the direct link.

 

On the one hand you have copyright to the video you made, but on the other hand there is a fairly strong case to be made for fair use, for reasons of commentary, research and criticism.

 

Anyway, both of you are not very nice to each other and I'd prefer if you'd both be a bit more respectful.

[Roland_HUNter]

1 hour ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

If you fail to grasp that and continue to insist without any evidence that the Devs change the 109 roll rate, then indeed it's impossible to argue with you and I shall not further bother. But don't expect to see the 109 roll rate changed soon. Or ever.

Ahm, I know this is not about this topic....but this sentence is false....

Just some example:
Documents showed, nothing happened since 2018:

Documents showed, the nobody believed to the topic author, this issue was fixed after 2 years without any patch log:

Real life canopies showed, nothing happened since 2022:

Documents showed, still not changed in game:

 

By these experiences, I would (sadly) not believe if I show more documents than these(109 roll rate), it would be changed.

PS: Still no answer has been given to the community as to why the FW-190 roll rate was historically nerfed lower, and now with the repeated historical justification, buffeted again.

I 100% believe that game development is not easy. In fact...
But because of this kind of communication, unfortunately, many people have abandoned the game or don't buy it.
This saddens me deeply.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 hour ago, Aapje said:

FYI, the video is hosted on YouTube, but not really published there, as it is unlisted and thus is not shown in the search results or if you browse to Roland's channel. The only way to see it is if you have the direct link.

Ah, alright then, if it remains as such I will allow it. I still don't like the posting of videos on anything that even reeks of Social Media without prior permission by the original author, but I guess that's just my dislike of social platforms. As you say, there is something to be said for fair use.

 

1 hour ago, Aapje said:

Anyway, both of you are not very nice to each other and I'd prefer if you'd both be a bit more respectful.

You're right. I think we both got a bit carried away in the discussion. @Roland_HUNter I should indeed have been kinder and not let my frustrations get to me. Please accept my apologies. Let's try again, shall we?

 

1 hour ago, Roland_HUNter said:

By these experiences, I would (sadly) not believe if I show more documents than these(109 roll rate), it would be changed.

There are also some topics where good documentation did in fact result in changes to the flight model. E.g. lately the Fw-190 and P-47.

 

You're correct that providing documents to substantiate your claims is not a guarantee that the flight model will be changed. However, not providing documents is almost a guarantee that the flight model will not be changed.

 

1 hour ago, Roland_HUNter said:

PS: Still no answer has been given to the community as to why the FW-190 roll rate was historically nerfed lower, and now with the repeated historical justification, buffeted again.

I don't think they are obliged to give us any justification. They'll have their reasons, whether that's other documentation, general changes to the physics code having unintended side-effects, gameplay reasons or whatever.

 

The thing is, increased communication costs lots of time, and most people likely don't have access to the same historical sources as the Devs do. With time already short on their hands, I'd rather have them actually make improvements to the game than just talk about them.

[Roland_HUNter]

12 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I think we both got a bit carried away in the discussion. @Roland_HUNter I should indeed have been kinder and not let my frustrations get to me. Please accept my apologies. Let's try again, shall we?

It's true.
We were both carried away by the passion.
I accept your apology. You are forgiven.
Please accept my apologies as well.

[Roland_HUNter]

Any fix for Lagg3, LA5, Yak?