Intro / a question regarding the sources for FMs

[GP*]

Hey everyone,

 

Long time lurker on these boards, finally coming out of the woodwork to say hi and actively become a part of the community as the release date draws nearer. I, like many others, am here because of my long time love for the IL-2 series. I started out on some older iteration of M$ FS as a kid -- I can remember trying to land on my dad's computer and being fascinated by it (despite the horrific graphics by today's standards), and grew up playing pretty much every version of MSFS, CFS 2 (the Zone was awesome back in the day), a brief stint with CFS 3, and then finally IL-2, which I played non-stop through high school. I've since tried other sims like LOMAC, FC2/3, the remainder of the DCS world, and ROF, but nothing has kept me coming back (so to speak) like IL-2 has. I was active on the ubi zoo forums back in the day as well (good to see old timers like Bearcat and others still here!) and now miss the community aspect of flight simming that message boards such as these give you -- the sort of passion for aviation that can be found here is difficult to find anywhere else. I avoided CLoD like the plague based on all the issues many had with it, but still read the banana forums for years just for fun...and now I find myself here. And now that I've finally stopped moving around so much and actually have time to play sims again, I couldn't be more excited about the upcoming release of BOS. But enough about me...

 

One question I do have about the sim is with regard to the flight models. I know many other there find immersion through things like clickable cockpits, CEM, high fidelity graphics, historical gameplay etc and while all these things are important to me, the most important to me is the "feeling of flight;" more specifically, the individual flight models for each aircraft. I love studying the strengths and weaknesses of each crate and pitting them against each other, and I loved IL-2 because everything you read about all the various aircraft was (usually) accurately recreated in-game (not to mention the fact that a sim finally got the concept of an accelerated stall right and buffet levels approaching a stall correct!). 

 

I have no doubt that BOS will do an excellent job with this -- the team seems beyond enthusiastic and dedicated to the authenticity of their product. I have noticed, however, that they have been touting their recently de-classified Russian sources for various aircraft performance figures. While I think this is obviously a great source of information, my question for the team is this -- are any other sources, whether they be other Russian sources or (even better) performance data from other nations, being considered when creating flight models? This isn't a narrow-minded question about not trusting Russian sources or anything like that...I'm just weary of using a single source for something as important as FMs. From my (admittedly limited) reading on test data, German and British sources seem to be particularly insightful and detailed. 

 

Hopefully this question makes sense to the rest of you. I, like the rest of you, am very passionate about WWII aircraft and the sims that honor their legacy. IL-2 had a significant impact on my life, and I'll never forget the enjoyment I got out of it. I look forward to adding BOS to my list of all-time favorite games in the near future . 

 

-Pre

[leitmotiv]

They never stated they are using only one source for FMs or only russian ones

 

The person who is in charge of correct FMs for BoS started this topic months ago and you'll find all your answers here, as i see he worked on DCS, RoF and now on BoS FM

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/122-fizika-i-aerodinamika-v-bzs/

[Volkoff]

They never stated they are using only one source for FMs or only russian ones

 

The person who is in charge of correct FMs for BoS started this topic months ago and you'll find all your answers here, as i see he worked on DCS, RoF and now on BoS FM

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/122-fizika-i-aerodinamika-v-bzs/

 

Thank you for the link! Given the new team, I am looking forward to an IL2 MIG-3, one day.

 

 MJ

 

p.s. Also, given the new team, if there is an aircraft museum in IL2 BOS, as there is in ROF, I hope that there is a MIG-15bis in the museum, somewhere.   

Edited August 6, 2013 by MishaJames

[migmadmarine]

I have also seen it said that the Russian classified records also contain the results of German tests. 

[leitmotiv]

i also saw they mentioned that now they have even the russian test data on german airplanes, 

and hearing this i thought nice, more different data on same subject it better.

I didnt looked at this like some guys on this and on russian forum, like developers imidiatly stated that they will use only this russian data to make FMs  they just stated they have acces to more data now.

 

For example Car manifacturer will stat in data for his car: it will spend 4.2L of fuel on 100km, 

that may not be true, so by looking at differant sorces and data gained from them, you can see what is more closer to real data in differant conditions and so on...

[GP*]

They never stated they are using only one source for FMs or only russian ones

 

And neither did I. Did I ever claim that they were only using the Russian data that they've referenced numerous times? No. Here's exactly what I asked:

 

 

While I think this [the Russian data] is obviously a great source of information, my question for the team is this -- are any other sources, whether they be other Russian sources or (even better) performance data from other nations, being considered when creating flight models? 

 

There's a big difference between that, and the words that you're putting in my mouth here: 

 

 

 

I didnt looked at this like some guys on this and on russian forum, like developers imidiatly stated that they will use only this russian data to make FMs 

 

 

 

For those of you wondering where my question came from, refer to 6:19 in this video: . To be fair, they never do say "we are only using these documents" -- however, they don't mention any other sources at their Media Presentation either, so I don't think it's so crazy that I've asked the question. It was also posted by the team somewhere as well, with no mention to other documentation. Like I said, not such a crazy question in light of what information has been provided to us. 

 

 

For the rest of you who have contributed to answering my question, many thanks! I appreciate sincere responses with accurate information, without implying ignorance on my part.

 

-Pre

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Pre,

 

Welcome, I have wondered the same thing about sources. I remember a video about the Fw190D9. An experienced American test pilot flew one immediately after the war, landed it and said either there was something wrong with the plane or the Germans were flat our lying about it's performance. A short while later a former Dora driver took the same plane up and slightly exceeded the stated data. There was nothing wrong with the plane you just had to know how to coax the best out of it. So, single source data does concern me. If the data is not compiled by one who knows how to maximize performance for a particular model it lacks validity. (Wish I could remember where that interview was found!!!)

 

On the other hand, based upon my viewing of the video and the way your question was posed it's not hard to see how Yaklover drew his initial conclusion. This forum tends to be a well moderated friendly place. When we disagree we tend to state facts (which you both did) and not get too defensive in the process (which you also did .)

 

S~

Edited August 6, 2013 by HerrMurf

[JG4Helofly]

Wouldn't it be best to base the FM on performance calculations? They did it back in WWII ( http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/109F4_Datenblatts/109F4_dblatt_calculated.html )

To me it seems to be the best way to have reliable data for the FM. I am no expert and therefore I don't know if it's possible to do it without RL flight performance tests.

[JtD]

WW2 performance calculations occasionally were off by 100 km/h - you can't use them unless they were backed up and/or based on testing.

[FuriousMeow]

Pre,

 

Welcome, I have wondered the same thing about sources. I remember a video about the Fw190D9. An experienced American test pilot flew one immediately after the war, landed it and said either there was something wrong with the plane or the Germans were flat our lying about it's performance. A short while later a former Dora driver took the same plane up and slightly exceeded the stated data. There was nothing wrong with the plane you just had to know how to coax the best out of it. So, single source data does concern me. If the data is not compiled by one who knows how to maximize performance for a particular model it lacks validity. (Wish I could remember where that interview was found!!!)

 

On the other hand, based upon my viewing of the video and the way your question was posed it's not hard to see how Yaklover drew his initial conclusion. This forum tends to be a well moderated friendly place. When we disagree we tend to state facts (which you both did) and not get too defensive in the process (which you also did .)

 

S~

 

 

I'm curious about the Dora pilot getting more performance than the, for this purpose, non-Dora pilot. Weren't the 190's engine systems automatic? I know they could be over-ridden, but wasn't the intention behind the Kommandogerät to ease pilot work load and attain the best performance it could? Sure a human can disable it and probably get maximum performance out of the engine, but it just seems strange that with an automated management system, such as the 190 had, that different results could be obtained. Unless of course command-device was over-ridden.

Edited August 6, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Don't have an answer for that. Just paraphrasing a documentary I saw a few years back.

[StG2_xgitarrist]

"An experienced american test pilot"....Well, you have experienced american pilots telling you infront of the camera that the P-51 was the best WW2 airplane....(not every statement is the downright truth)

 

But I agree with Prefontaine. You have soviet pilots hating the spitfire, RAF piltos praising the spitfire. Samething with other airplanes like the P-47. Also, not every aircraft was easy to master. The Bf109 was not easy to fly for new pilots

(difficult learning curve). So if you have someone sitting in a 109 for the first time and testing it, he will probably say it is horrible to fly. Other planes were much more friendly to newbies (like the Spitfire).

 

So gathering information from different sources is important, but i think the developers from 777 and 1c are experienced guys and they know that kind of thing (especially when they already worked on several projects and sims).

[FuriousMeow]

There were/are also American pilots that said the P51 was a great plane to get your picture taken in front of and to send the picture home, but if you wanted to come home then the P47 was better.

 

The Kommandogerät was designed to make flying easier for "newbies."

Edited August 6, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[Heywooood]

I have no problem believing that an experienced Dora pilot could get more performance out of the Fw190-D9 than even the best test pilot with little to no time in the type, especially one who is utterly foreign to the country where the type was designed...intrinsic stuff going on - an airplane isnt just an airplane if you really want to wring one out

 

there are always tricks to mastering a specific machine no matter what kind of machine it is...this is why typically you would want German source data on the German machines, Russian data on the Russian machines and so on...I think thats the point that people are trying to avoid actually making in this thread for some reason.*the old chestnut from Maddox IL2 - "Russian game developers purposely porked the German and US machines for unfair home field advantage* most likely reason

 

but after all this time - the best of whats available is what you use...official scientific data over pilot accounts and heresay has to trump the noise, no matter where it comes from - if it is official, and certified to be of proper data collection and documentation protocol - thats what you should refer to...

 

If German documents of this caliber exist and can be certified - then they should be utilized..but you have to be able to find them

Edited August 6, 2013 by Heywooood

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Amen,

 

I think all references, within reason, should be checked, their merits evaluated (no, "lets fudge the numbers because Hitler or Stalin wouldn't like those numbers") and the most accurate data used. Besides making the game as realistic as possible it also puts the developers in a good position when the rivet counters start screaming, "PORKED!"

[FuriousMeow]

I do have a "problem" with believing that, which is why I was curious. If the entire system is automatic, then the pilot's inputs don't matter as much - remember no 190 was trimmable in flight aside from the elevator and that was the entire horizontal stabilizer. 190s used the command-device for engine operations, so again that is no pilot influence.

 

So how does a pilot coax more performance out of an automated system? That is what I'm curious about. I can totally believe the pilot shut it off and went manual, but then the test data comes into question.

 

In which method was it tested?

[GP*]

Pre,

 

Welcome, I have wondered the same thing about sources. I remember a video about the Fw190D9. An experienced American test pilot flew one immediately after the war, landed it and said either there was something wrong with the plane or the Germans were flat our lying about it's performance. A short while later a former Dora driver took the same plane up and slightly exceeded the stated data. There was nothing wrong with the plane you just had to know how to coax the best out of it. So, single source data does concern me. If the data is not compiled by one who knows how to maximize performance for a particular model it lacks validity. (Wish I could remember where that interview was found!!!)

 

On the other hand, based upon my viewing of the video and the way your question was posed it's not hard to see how Yaklover drew his initial conclusion. This forum tends to be a well moderated friendly place. When we disagree we tend to state facts (which you both did) and not get too defensive in the process (which you also did .)

 

S~

 

Great point, and very true . It just wasn't the first response I was expecting! 

 

 

I have no problem believing that an experienced Dora pilot could get more performance out of the Fw190-D9 than even the best test pilot with little to no time in the type, especially one who is utterly foreign to the country where the type was designed...intrinsic stuff going on - an airplane isnt just an airplane if you really want to wring one out

 

there are always tricks to mastering a specific machine no matter what kind of machine it is...this is why typically you would want German source data on the German machines, Russian data on the Russian machines and so on...I think thats the point that people are trying to avoid actually making in this thread for some reason.*the old chestnut from Maddox IL2 - "Russian game developers purposely porked the German and US machines for unfair home field advantage* most likely reason

 

but after all this time - the best of whats available is what you use...official scientific data over pilot accounts and heresay has to trump the noise, no matter where it comes from - if it is official, and certified to be of proper data collection and documentation protocol - thats what you should refer to...

 

If German documents of this caliber exist and can be certified - then they should be utilized..but you have to be able to find them

 

Another valid point, and probably the biggest "take-away" from this thread. 

 

Thanks for the thoughts and discussion so far! 

[gavagai]

Everyone has seen the video with skip holm (with the interviewer from WW2OL), right?

 

 

...never ceases to cause a tizzy fit on both sides.

Edited August 6, 2013 by gavagai

[StG2_xgitarrist]

Yeah, in another thread Auroa_Stealth linked this interview too (Historical Data). Interesting interview indeed.

[6S.Manu]

So how does a pilot coax more performance out of an automated system? That is what I'm curious about. I can totally believe the pilot shut it off and went manual, but then the test data comes into question.

 

In which method was it tested?

 

Just think to the result of the RAF test between Spitfires and 109: some Spitfire pilots could turn inside the 109 (flown by a RAF pilot), other can't.

 

It's a matter of feelings and bravery: getting used to the plane is easier to exploit its performance since you know when the plane is going to betray you.

 

Then we should remember that RAF and VVS pilots probably used to look for features of secondary importance for the LW pilots. Just look at my signature,

 

Instead, if we talk about raw speed, then there are many things who could go wrong in a foreign test: for example IIRC the Russians tested the Dora and found it slow: they did'nt used the MW50...

[JtD]

Mr. Anthony Cooper misses that the Spitfire was the fastest climbing, fastest and best diving fighter the British Commonwealth had available for most of the war. The fact that it also handled better / was more responsive than many contemporary fighters was only icing on the cake.

 

It's a pretty stupid statement to put into a signature. The key improvements made with the Spitfire over the course of the war in the fighter role were increasing speed, climb, firepower, high altitude performance, high speed handling and range. These were the tactical features the RAF was keen on, and the success in combat is what gave the Spitfire the reputation.

[6S.Manu]

Mr. Anthony Cooper misses that the Spitfire was the fastest climbing, fastest and best diving fighter the British Commonwealth had available for most of the war. The fact that it also handled better / was more responsive than many contemporary fighters was only icing on the cake.

 

It's a pretty stupid statement to put into a signature. The key improvements made with the Spitfire over the course of the war in the fighter role were increasing speed, climb, firepower, high altitude performance, high speed handling and range. These were the tactical features the RAF was keen on, and the success in combat is what gave the Spitfire the reputation.

 

 

I don't think he misses those qualities, he claims that most of the time in the books and according the media the Spitfire is "great" because of its handiness and the famous elliptical wings. I fully agree with that. Most of job was done by the RR engine itself and should have more recognition IMO.

 

See?

http://youtu.be/ugBpAombpgs?t=1m11s

Look at the comments in that video and you'll understand why that statement is in my signature: not stupid at all, IMO.

 

A question: did ever Germans record sustained turn time for their aircrafts?

Edited August 7, 2013 by 6S.Manu

[JtD]

Yes, they did.

[StG2_xgitarrist]

Oh yeah that interview... I just dont understand why so obviuos errors are not corrected!

"It is difficult to bailout in a Bf109, because you have to open the canopy sideways." This is just wrong.. at least in a documantary the basics should be right. It was easier to get out of a Bf109, because you have to pull the right trigger and the whole canopy flys off. In a spitfire you have to open the canopy manually.

Edited August 7, 2013 by StG2xgitarrist

[FuriousMeow]

Just think to the result of the RAF test between Spitfires and 109: some Spitfire pilots could turn inside the 109 (flown by a RAF pilot), other can't.

 

It's a matter of feelings and bravery: getting used to the plane is easier to exploit its performance since you know when the plane is going to betray you.

 

Then we should remember that RAF and VVS pilots probably used to look for features of secondary importance for the LW pilots. Just look at my signature,

 

Instead, if we talk about raw speed, then there are many things who could go wrong in a foreign test: for example IIRC the Russians tested the Dora and found it slow: they did'nt used the MW50...

 

No, the automated engine system is the point of contention - not turning. If it's automated then you can't get anything more out of it because it is automatic.

 

And MW50 is a limited system, so max speed for a brief few minutes? Does that mean that the German published records of max speed are with the MW50 boost or without?

[gavagai]

I don't think he misses those qualities, he claims that most of the time in the books and according the media the Spitfire is "great" because of its handiness and the famous elliptical wings. I fully agree with that. Most of job was done by the RR engine itself and should have more recognition IMO.

 

See?

http://youtu.be/ugBpAombpgs?t=1m11s

Look at the comments in that video and you'll understand why that statement is in my signature: not stupid at all, IMO.

 

A question: did ever Germans record sustained turn time for their aircrafts?

 

It seems that they're only comparing the Spitfire to the 109E?  The handling qualities were improved with the redesigned wing of the 109F.

[Heywooood]

I would think that max speed means maiximum attainable speed available in the airplane as it is...

If the plane has water/methanol or other boost systems on it and available to the pilot at time of test - then max speed would be at optimum performance altitude with that system enabled

or as part of a series of altitude readings and power/prop/mixture/boost settings

[FuriousMeow]

Most tests say max speed, and then have a separate notation for max speed with boost when I looked at the information I had available.

 

But still, how can more be derived from an automatic system between two individuals?

Edited August 7, 2013 by FuriousMeow

[Heywooood]

here come the endless Spit v 109 rodeo's - Dont miss those at all from the old boards

maybe the Forum can open a dedicated Spit vs 109 board - just so we don't have to deal with them in the 'general discussion' ?

[JtD]

First, the D-9 had 40 minutes of MW50 available. This was used with the Sondernotleistung. There are top speeds given with that Sondernotleistung, and other top speeds for other power settings, be it Notleistung, Kampfleistung or höchste Dauerleistung (Special emergency/emergency/combat/maximum continuous power).

 

Second, the automation on the D-9 did not cover all systems. For instance, radiators could be adjusted manually, and their position could account for 100 km/h difference in top speed.

[=FI=Armitage]

I'm curious about the Dora pilot getting more performance than the, for this purpose, non-Dora pilot. Weren't the 190's engine systems automatic? I know they could be over-ridden, but wasn't the intention behind the Kommandogerät to ease pilot work load and attain the best performance it could? Sure a human can disable it and probably get maximum performance out of the engine, but it just seems strange that with an automated management system, such as the 190 had, that different results could be obtained. Unless of course command-device was over-ridden.

 

Manual gear box in a car vs Automatic gear box in a car. The automatic makes it easier to learn to driver and to continue to drive but the manual gives you much better performance but harder to learn and the driver has a bigger work load. 

[6S.Manu]

Manual gear box in a car vs Automatic gear box in a car. The automatic makes it easier to learn to driver and to continue to drive but the manual gives you much better performance but harder to learn and the driver has a bigger work load. 

 

Even location and time of the test should have influence on the results.

[leitmotiv]

my bet is that american pilot had more kg (strong bones) than german pilot, hence easier for airplane

 

and who knows in what position was the sun...

[FuriousMeow]

40 minutes of MW50, but 10 minutes duration of use with a break in between. Otherwise, engine failure.

 

I perfectly understand that Armitage. So in the situation of automatic vs automatic, how are different results achieved?

[JtD]

Last time I checked emergency ratings had time limits on any plane, MW50 did in fact increase the time limit somewhat, in case of the Jumo 213A on the Fw 190D-9 from 3 to 10 minutes.

 

And again, because you seem to have missed that first time: the automation on the D-9 did not cover all systems. For instance, radiators could be adjusted manually, and their position could account for 100 km/h difference in top speed.

[FuriousMeow]

They could be adjusted manually, just as the 109's could be adjusted manually. But they were automatic. I didn't miss that.

 

I just wanted to verify that apparently German test data was based on manually controlling all systems and not on the automated systems.

[AX2]

Many planes used Auto Prop Pitch and automated engine system...  Like some Spits

I just wanted to verify that apparently RAF test data was based on manually controlling all systems and not on the automated systems ??   

 

Other planes  used automated engine system  Like P51 ..

In the facts  The P51 H used a ( " MW50 system " ) water/methanol injetion .

 

I Think ..

If the developers want to find real data ... They know where is.

 

TALK ABOUT IT NOW IS USELESS

 

 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

But lively

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

There are no barber shops or coffee houses to gather at while we wait. So we come here to talk and debate at length. Enjoy it. It's much of what makes the air combat community (when moderated well, of course).

[FuriousMeow]

It just sets the atmosphere so when these discussions pop up later after the product is released, if someone can't achieve the results they expect from the game compared to certain data tests then it must be found out if they are manually controlling each system to get the most out of it or using the automated system that apparently produces less performance compared to the data on record.