PDA

View Full Version : Tested 109's Climbrate: Oleg is 100% right



XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 09:42 AM
Salute All

Well, I've been reading all these comments from the 109 pilots about how their aircraft has been devastated in the latest version of the game, and how the game isn't worth playing anymore.

I'm not unsympathetic to their concerns, so I decided to fly the planes and see if they had been ravaged as badly as suggested.

I don't fly the 109's that much, so today I practiced using the manual pitch system that they have, and surprisingly, found it rather simple.

This was my method:

Before I started my engine, I went into CONTROLS and remapped my HOTAS setup so that my throttle control now controlled pitch, and my mouse wheel now controlled throttle. It seemed to work perfectly. I was able to keep the revs under control. Before I'd start up, I'd reduce pitch to 5%, then start the engine. Then I'd set throttle at 95-100 % and leave it there. Then I'd simply use my throttle wheel control of pitch to raise or lower the pitch. I found that taking off I would max out at 85% pitch, for level flight I normally used between 55-65% pitch, in dives I would use 15-20% and in extreme corkscrew climbs I would use 95% pitch. I never used 100% pitch as it always would over rev the engine. In extreme climbs, I would roll up my throttle to 110%, then drop it off when I leveled out.

What I noticed was that it was surprisingly easy to control the planes. I only blew out my engine once, and that was because someone knocked on my door and I had to answer it. I found in wide view, I could easily watch the Rpm counter. And pretty soon I got to know by sound what revs I was at. For the 109E I made a point of not going over 2500, for the F and later models, I kept it to 2750 rpm.

I also noticed that I could gain altitude amazingly fast in these planes using the above method.

So I decided to test them scientifically.

Method was as follows:

1) 100% fuel

2) Default loadout.

3) Online Dogfight server, small map of Finnish Gulf

4) Record Flight

5) Takeoff with radiator fully open, fly to over water, then drop down to wavetop.

6) As per Beta testers standard procedure, starting speed 300 kph, radiator closed, 110% throttle.

7) Climb to 5,000 meters. Set RPM for the 109E at 2650, and for the others at 2800. As soon as engine overheats, reduce throttle to 100%, open radiator, reduce revs to 2500 for 109E and 2600 for others to cool engine. By the time the climb ends at 5,000 ft, engine is at normal temperature.

I did not test all the 109's, only the 109E4, 109F4, 109G2, 109G6AS, 109K4

Following are the results I got:

109E4

1000 meters: :51 seconds Maximum climbrate to 1000 meters of 19.6 meters/second, or 3858 ft/min

2000 meters: 1:44 seconds

3000 meters: 2:39 seconds

5000 meters: 5:05 seconds


109F4

1000 meters: :42 seconds Maximum climbrate to 1000 meters of 23.8 m/sec or 4685 ft/min

2000 meters: 1:32 seconds

3000 meters: 2:34 seconds

5000 meters: 4:49 seconds


109G2

1000 meters: :37 seconds Maximum climbrate to 1000 meters of 27.02 m/sec or 5325 ft/min!!!!!

2000 meters: 1:21 seconds

3000 meters: 2:08 seconds

5000 meters: 3:57 seconds


109G6AS

1000 meters: :41 seconds Maximum climbrate to 1000 meters of 24.39 m/sec or 4750 ft/min

2000 meters: 1:32 seconds

3000 meters: 2:31 seconds

5000 meters: 4:41 seconds


109K4

1000 meters: :40 seconds Maximum climbrate to 1000 meters of 25 m/sec or 4969 ft/min

2000 meters: 1:28 seconds

3000 meters: 2:28 seconds

5000 meters: 4:13 seconds


Looking at these climbtimes, it is clear that in every case except perhaps the 109G6AS and 109K4, the aircraft perform BETTER than they did historically. The G6AS and K4 are pretty close to historical. The 109G2 is clearly FAR overmodelled in its climbrate.

There is no doubt in my mind that Oleg has been extremely generous in designing the flight models for these aircraft.

Now there are some that might say that it is TOO difficult to learn how to use the manual pitch system. As I said, I rarely fly 109's, but by the end of an evening of flying using manual pitch, I was feeling quite comfortable fighting and flying in these planes. For those who are 109 Aficionados, and who fly them all the time, it would seem to me that this would be no challenge at all.

Even those who would want to be conservative, and set their throttle at 95% and leave it there, and keep revs to 2500 are going to get better performance than historically.

And those who suggest that it is extremely easy to destroy their engine with a single error. I many times over reved these aircraft's engines during my flying and the tests, several times momentarily up to 3500 RPM and never had the engines blow up on me. Only when I inadvertently let them go up to extreme engine speeds and and sit there overreving for a significant period of time did I have a problem.

Those who are not prepared to invest the time to learn their aircraft are going to have to live with the lower performance of the automatic system. Remember, this was 1940, not 2003. There were no computerized systems to regulate mechanical systems then. If pilots wanted 100% performance, then they learned the mechanics of the system themselves.

There is only one thing which I think Oleg could change in this mechanical pitch system for the 109's. And that would be to reduce the tendency to over rev in a climb. No matter how steep the climb is, or how slow the aircraft is going, if you put pitch control to 100%, you will over rev the engine. This doesn't seem logical. But then again, I am not an engineer.


RAF74 Buzzsaw







Message Edited on 09/21/0308:50AM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 09:42 AM
Salute All

Well, I've been reading all these comments from the 109 pilots about how their aircraft has been devastated in the latest version of the game, and how the game isn't worth playing anymore.

I'm not unsympathetic to their concerns, so I decided to fly the planes and see if they had been ravaged as badly as suggested.

I don't fly the 109's that much, so today I practiced using the manual pitch system that they have, and surprisingly, found it rather simple.

This was my method:

Before I started my engine, I went into CONTROLS and remapped my HOTAS setup so that my throttle control now controlled pitch, and my mouse wheel now controlled throttle. It seemed to work perfectly. I was able to keep the revs under control. Before I'd start up, I'd reduce pitch to 5%, then start the engine. Then I'd set throttle at 95-100 % and leave it there. Then I'd simply use my throttle wheel control of pitch to raise or lower the pitch. I found that taking off I would max out at 85% pitch, for level flight I normally used between 55-65% pitch, in dives I would use 15-20% and in extreme corkscrew climbs I would use 95% pitch. I never used 100% pitch as it always would over rev the engine. In extreme climbs, I would roll up my throttle to 110%, then drop it off when I leveled out.

What I noticed was that it was surprisingly easy to control the planes. I only blew out my engine once, and that was because someone knocked on my door and I had to answer it. I found in wide view, I could easily watch the Rpm counter. And pretty soon I got to know by sound what revs I was at. For the 109E I made a point of not going over 2500, for the F and later models, I kept it to 2750 rpm.

I also noticed that I could gain altitude amazingly fast in these planes using the above method.

So I decided to test them scientifically.

Method was as follows:

1) 100% fuel

2) Default loadout.

3) Online Dogfight server, small map of Finnish Gulf

4) Record Flight

5) Takeoff with radiator fully open, fly to over water, then drop down to wavetop.

6) As per Beta testers standard procedure, starting speed 300 kph, radiator closed, 110% throttle.

7) Climb to 5,000 meters. Set RPM for the 109E at 2650, and for the others at 2800. As soon as engine overheats, reduce throttle to 100%, open radiator, reduce revs to 2500 for 109E and 2600 for others to cool engine. By the time the climb ends at 5,000 ft, engine is at normal temperature.

I did not test all the 109's, only the 109E4, 109F4, 109G2, 109G6AS, 109K4

Following are the results I got:

109E4

1000 meters: :51 seconds Maximum climbrate to 1000 meters of 19.6 meters/second, or 3858 ft/min

2000 meters: 1:44 seconds

3000 meters: 2:39 seconds

5000 meters: 5:05 seconds


109F4

1000 meters: :42 seconds Maximum climbrate to 1000 meters of 23.8 m/sec or 4685 ft/min

2000 meters: 1:32 seconds

3000 meters: 2:34 seconds

5000 meters: 4:49 seconds


109G2

1000 meters: :37 seconds Maximum climbrate to 1000 meters of 27.02 m/sec or 5325 ft/min!!!!!

2000 meters: 1:21 seconds

3000 meters: 2:08 seconds

5000 meters: 3:57 seconds


109G6AS

1000 meters: :41 seconds Maximum climbrate to 1000 meters of 24.39 m/sec or 4750 ft/min

2000 meters: 1:32 seconds

3000 meters: 2:31 seconds

5000 meters: 4:41 seconds


109K4

1000 meters: :40 seconds Maximum climbrate to 1000 meters of 25 m/sec or 4969 ft/min

2000 meters: 1:28 seconds

3000 meters: 2:28 seconds

5000 meters: 4:13 seconds


Looking at these climbtimes, it is clear that in every case except perhaps the 109G6AS and 109K4, the aircraft perform BETTER than they did historically. The G6AS and K4 are pretty close to historical. The 109G2 is clearly FAR overmodelled in its climbrate.

There is no doubt in my mind that Oleg has been extremely generous in designing the flight models for these aircraft.

Now there are some that might say that it is TOO difficult to learn how to use the manual pitch system. As I said, I rarely fly 109's, but by the end of an evening of flying using manual pitch, I was feeling quite comfortable fighting and flying in these planes. For those who are 109 Aficionados, and who fly them all the time, it would seem to me that this would be no challenge at all.

Even those who would want to be conservative, and set their throttle at 95% and leave it there, and keep revs to 2500 are going to get better performance than historically.

And those who suggest that it is extremely easy to destroy their engine with a single error. I many times over reved these aircraft's engines during my flying and the tests, several times momentarily up to 3500 RPM and never had the engines blow up on me. Only when I inadvertently let them go up to extreme engine speeds and and sit there overreving for a significant period of time did I have a problem.

Those who are not prepared to invest the time to learn their aircraft are going to have to live with the lower performance of the automatic system. Remember, this was 1940, not 2003. There were no computerized systems to regulate mechanical systems then. If pilots wanted 100% performance, then they learned the mechanics of the system themselves.

There is only one thing which I think Oleg could change in this mechanical pitch system for the 109's. And that would be to reduce the tendency to over rev in a climb. No matter how steep the climb is, or how slow the aircraft is going, if you put pitch control to 100%, you will over rev the engine. This doesn't seem logical. But then again, I am not an engineer.


RAF74 Buzzsaw







Message Edited on 09/21/0308:50AM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 09:47 AM
Salute

P.S. Anyone who wants to look at my records of the tests, send me a PM and I will e-mail them to you.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 09:55 AM
Buzzsaw,

pardon my sour mood because of raging hangover. What you write here is plain and simple horsesh!t grade A.

Here is a chart of G-2, chew on that, yes with _only_ 100% throttle 1.3 ata:

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/9759518.FinnishBf109G2MT215_Climb_Testat1.3ata.jpg


The real world saw G-2 in 4 min 11 s in 5000 m. It is far from being "completely off" in FB. You suggest K-4 wasn't faster? You also, whether by intention or not, completely forgot G-10 and G-14 as well as G-6. You also decided to limit your testing to 5000 m, to an altitude above which the german fighters should posses quite an advantage in comparison with russians...

Yes, let's see...hmmm G-10, G-14

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/lategustav_vs_p39.jpg


a lazy azz programmer would have just taken G-6/AS model and copied it over G-10 and G-14 everybody would have been happy. No they had to do something completely different.

You don't strike as very knowledgeable in the matter so I would suggest you go back to ponder the shortcomings of P-47. Or was this road already walked to the end and now it's up to making opponents worse?

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif


Message Edited on 09/21/0309:57AM by Ugly_Kid

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:02 AM
Great post Buzzsaw. You posted like a gentleman,and Ugly simply acted an a$$. Doesn't suprise me. Luftwhiners are usually rude and cranky. Sounds to me like you may have solved the problem(sorta). Let's see if the Lufties accept your method....

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg



Message Edited on 09/21/0304:05AM by necrobaron

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:17 AM
Well frankly the topic sort of starts getting to me. Sorry again I am not in the best mood at the moment but he did not back his tests up with data - so how on earth can he claim that FB is 100% right, excuse me? Additionally he comfortably left out the variants that are wronger than wrong. I would suggest you both take a deep look at Wastel's investigations, huh? He happens to be a bit more informed on this topic.

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:19 AM
Salute Ugly

I would suggest if you are tasting horsedroppings, then perhaps it is something you ate. Perhaps you should change your diet. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

What I see in your chart for the G2 is a climbrate of 20 m/sec at sea level, maxing out at 24.4 m/sec just below 2000 meters. That is a long way from 27.02 m/sec.

Second, I don't see any details as to what the aircraft was loaded with as far as fuel/weapons etc. is concerned.

Third, my understanding is that the engine in the G2 was not cleared for higher boost than 1.3 atas.

Fourth, as far as my not testing the other 109's are concerned, the fact is, I don't have a lot of time to spend on this type of thing. There are another EIGHT 109's I could have spent my time testing. Since people seemed most concerned about the F4, G2 and K4 I decided to focus on those. I included the E model and G6AS as comparison. I don't have a lot of doubt that I would find the other aircraft which I didn't test would meet the historical performance standards as well.

Fifth, this was not a comparison with Soviet aircraft. If you want to test them and post the results, be my guest.

Finally, what exactly is your point anyway?

I didn't say the performance of these planes should be reduced, I said THEY WERE ACCURATE. It is all those in the Luftwhiner community who have been suggesting these planes are UNDERMODELLED and who have been calling for them to be improved.

Are you suggesting the G2 should have a HIGHER climbrate than 27.02 Meters/sec?????

I would suggest that you look a little closer at your motives.


RAF74 Buzzsaw




Message Edited on 09/21/0309:33AM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:22 AM
Buzz thank you for your sympathy. I have read a gajillion posts you have made and have never quite got that feeling from you before. Thanks for the sudden interest. I dont quite understand why those data sheets look different from your tests though.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:22 AM
pls try it with realistic settings, like they where used in combat and in historic test.

no pitch and rpm tweaks...

you can only compare times and climb abilities when you use
historical settings.


so, leave pitch on automatik, climb with rad 4 to 6 and use 100% power.

THEN compare


wastel

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:29 AM
Before you blow more hot air Ugly, what makes you think wastel's research is thoroughly scientific? There are an awful amount of assumptions there made from a performance chart of a G1? The description of that test, which isn't displayed, is incomplete. How can you be so sure it is accurate? This is such a tired argument, as you have already said.

Excellent work btw Buzzsaw. I am also tired and cranky.

Barfly
Executive Officer
7. Staffel, JG 77 "Black Eagles"

http://www.7jg77.com

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:29 AM
Salute Wastel

You seem to be suggesting that Oleg set the climbrates in auto so they match historical, and then allow players to switch to manual and get 6,000 ft/min...

I don't think so.

If Oleg eliminates manual, then fine, let him set the auto climbrate to historical... but otherwise, no.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:30 AM
necrobaron wrote:
- Great post Buzzsaw. You posted like a gentleman,and
- Ugly simply acted an a$$. Doesn't suprise me.
- Luftwhiners are usually rude and cranky. Sounds to
- me like you may have solved the problem(sorta).
- Let's see if the Lufties accept your method....
-

After you have to swallow all the crap that has been shoved down from your throat you'd be cranky too. There is a limit what man can take. Latest patches and news about "balanced" FM have flipped it over for me and many others. It is so frustrating to see a game with such a potential being ruined by team who doensnt care about facts, but makes the game "balanced" referring to their (propably non-existent) secret documents.

And Bull$hitting gentleman-like way doesnt make Bull$hitting any better.

Regards,
very disappointed and angry customer

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:30 AM
First you said they perform better than historically. Second, you talk about momentary climb rate obviously in the long run it evens out. The difference in the climb to 5k is not significat. You can also see from those IL compare charts that climb performance shape over altitude is also wrong, so in the end you can pick any point and say it's too good or it's too bad. In the end effect Bf is far from being over or under modeled compared with some other crates. Some of the variants beg an explanation.

You want to advertise your expertise after few trials. Some of us have been spending quite a few hours on those very planes. I am sorry I think I am able to observe these objectively but your shot on 109 of all planes was a cheap one, truly.

Who cares about momentary climb performance or 1.42 ata? This is a very moot point because that thing can't keep it for longer than it takes to say solong Sostakovich. K-4 allegedly getting its top speed just in a time to get engine failure. Really, you are going pretty high on popularity scales with your stuff.

These variants you comfortably left out. If you had been looking deeper into the matter you might have noticed that usually people have beef exactly with these. So your "investigations" serves 0 purpose...

Titeling you mail with 100% correct is about to make you very popular.

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:34 AM
Very good post, Buzzsaw. It's one of the better 109-related posts I've seen of late, in contrast to the "it's all wrong!" type of junk I'm used to seeing on these boards.

The crux of Buzzsaw's argument is that one must learn to use the manual pitch system when flying the 109's. They aren't like the Kommandogeraet-equipped 190's, which provided the pilot with optimum engine settings at a faster rate of speed. And that, after all, was the reason for the way the 190 was designed: to reduce the workload of the pilot so that he could focus on the enemy, rather than constanly having to adjust his engine controls. The end result? The 190 had an advantage in engine management over the 109.

I/JG54^Lukas
He 162 A-2 Cockpit Modeler
...and soon the Hs 129 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:39 AM
Salute Ugly

In regards to this comment:

- Who cares about momentary climb performance or 1.42
- ata? This is a very moot point because that thing
- can't keep it for longer than it takes to say solong
- Sostakovich. K-4 allegedly getting its top speed
- just in a time to get engine failure.

Look at my post again.

I clearly indicated that IMMEDITATELY that I got an overheat message, that I reduced throttle to 100%, opened the radiator, and reduced pitch to reduce revs.

In every test, by the time or before I reached 5,000 meters, the engine was running at NORMAL operating temperature.

I could have gotten MUCH faster climb times to the listed altitudes if I thrashed the engines and didn't make sure they wouldn't blow.

I didn't do that because my tests were intended to be representative of what could be expected in real combat flying.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:47 AM
IIRC climb test were usualy made full fuel/full armamement, rad open 50% till VH and closed afterwards.

Please note that the Finnish G-2 test gave way better results than British, Messerschmitt and Erla tests. I'm not sure where the difference comes from maybe the Finnish test was not normalized to standard pressure/temperature i don't know yet.

The RLM G-1 sheet is quite sustpect as well as performing a bit better than the expected values when compared to both Mtt and Erla tests. I suspect the aircraft sent to RLM was a bit tailored... Climbrate is indeed a full 1.5m/s better than a dozen Mtt and Erla test i have for both G-1 and G-2.

Butch

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:48 AM
Indeed an interesting read, however I was hoping I could read all these threads without coming upon so many namecallings.

Namecallings and abuses will really hurt those who utter them, because the arguments for their stands dissappear a bit.

It would be so much more interesting and rewarding to take part of your research and findings without remarks like "you are as dumb as an ***" etc etc.

Cheers mates
F19_Orheim
G2 pilot


<center>http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bjorta/F19-Orheim-IDCard-sm.gif

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_hawkeye.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)



http://www.gbg.bonet.se/bjorta/F19%20VS%20banner%20B.jpg (http://www.f19vs.tk)

</center>


Message Edited on 09/21/0312:03PM by F19_Orheim

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:49 AM
The question is, was the mechanial system so "conservative" and slow to react?

Because as far as I know, most, if not all, pilots always used automatic prop-pitch. As you say, on those times one-self had to go through it and get 100% out of the mechanics of things...
So if most pilots went for automatic prop-pich, it should perform even better than manual, don't you think?

Just another thought.

To me, it seems that 109 (an other like IAR or G50s or other axis) engines run too relaxed in the game. They seem lazy and slow. Just look in external at how the Ai reacts when it sees an enemy: They shake around (stupid really) and they accelerate really slowly, as if they were affraid of pouring out their tea.


<img src=http://www.silence.plus.com/xanty/stuff/falcofb.jpg>

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:50 AM
from a book wrote by Robert GRINSELL
draw by Rikyu WATANABE

i ve for the K4 with DB 605ASCM:
time for climb at 5000m:3mn
10000m:6mn42s
12000m:10mn12s
climb rate:24,50m/s

time for G6 with DB 605Am:
time for 3000m:2mn54s
5700m:6mn
climb rate:17m/s

for F4 with DB601E:
time for 3000m:2mn36s
climb rate:22.8m/s

for E3 with DB 601Aa:
time for 3000m:3mn36s
6000m:7mn45s
climb rate:17.83m/s

hope that help can you give us your test for G14,G10 ?

http://gc3.normandie.niemen.free.fr/images/ezboard/signatures/enigmus.jpg

NN_EnigmuS.
Normandie Niemen virtuel.
http://www.normandieniemen.firstream.net/

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:52 AM
Those silly Germans, why did they ever bother with those auto-thing-a-ma-jiggy prop pitch pieces of equipment? This test clearly shows they could have won the air war if they would have used this method!

Well, you know.. Let them eat cake!



Yet another "Feed the monkey, watch him $hit" thread.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 11:03 AM
form squadron signal aircraft number 57:
"Messerchmitt BF109 in action part 2"

i ve the same engine on G10 than K4 with same HP,the same characteristic of maximum speed the only difference is the weight:

for G10:6.158Ibs
K4:6.070Ibs dont know the weight unit but anyway

so why such big difference in game perhpas squadron signal is wrong it s not the first time hehe

http://gc3.normandie.niemen.free.fr/images/ezboard/signatures/enigmus.jpg

NN_EnigmuS.
Normandie Niemen virtuel.
http://www.normandieniemen.firstream.net/

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 11:16 AM
Panelboy wrote:
- Before you blow more hot air Ugly, what makes you
- think wastel's research is thoroughly scientific?
- There are an awful amount of assumptions there made
- from a performance chart of a G1? The description
- of that test, which isn't displayed, is incomplete.
- How can you be so sure it is accurate? This is such
- a tired argument, as you have already said.
-
- Excellent work btw Buzzsaw. I am also tired and
- cranky.
-

Excellent work? Geeh, the guys took the plane and climbed with it. Impressive. Now, as for wastel, I happen to know that he's been on the topic a bit longer and he happens to know a bit more on that particular aircraft.

Buzzsaw, I meant 1.42 ata comment on your earlier stuff saying it wasn't allowed. Feel free to trash the engine you will not fetch much better numbers. Additionally, you should be a bit more throughout before popping up as an authority telling "everything's ok nothing to see here everybody go home".

I want to add that I am not disturbed all too much about the shortcomings of Bf that have been brought up lately. I still like it and I am able to cope with it. G-10 was my favourite in 1.0 I had some good times with it, so yes I am disturbed by its state and I do not have high expectations for the day I have to ride it in VEF. BUT there are plenty of other Bfs to choose from. Additionally I frankly don't give a flying f... how they will make further innovations on 109s maybe dump down G-2 climb, I'll still fly it even with a bathtub flight model. I've seen worse I flew VEF 1 with IL-2s representation of G-6, come on hit me with your best shot. Just do one favour, spare me of that overmodeled, too good BS, will ya?



-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 11:19 AM
xanty wrote:
- The question is, was the mechanial system so
- "conservative" and slow to react?
-

The slowness works a wrong way around. Imagine being at low rpm with fine pitch. Now give throttle and would a slow system react. Yes, by lagging on turning the pitch coarse -> getting instantly higher rpm. Indeed, this was one of the things that happened with Bf, overrevving if throttle was opened too fast, no not in FB, system is slow all right but worng way around.

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 11:22 AM
Salute

By the way, my understanding of what the Climbrates for the aircraft I tested should be at sea level:

109E4: 3200 ft/min or 16.26 m/sec

109F4: 4000 ft/min or 20.32 m/sec

109G2: 4200 ft/min or 21.33 m/sec

109G6AS: 4700 ft/min or 23.87 m/sec

109K4: 4900 ft/min or 24.9 m/sec

I get these figures from original Luftwaffe and Allied test documents.

They are at maximum throttle and WEP.

RAF74 Buzzsaw



Message Edited on 09/21/0310:25AM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 11:22 AM
According to GL/C-E2 docs dated 1st November 1944 and 13th August 1944.

G-10
weight : 3297kg
max speed@alt :
- 562@SL
- 690@7.5km
RoC@SL@100% : 14.2 m/s

G-10/U4
weight : 3343kg
max speed@alt :
- 562@SL
- 690@7.5km
RoC@SL@100% : 14 m/s

G-14
weight : 3247kg
max speed@alt :
- 568@SL
- 665@5.0km
RoC@SL@100% : 16 m/s

G-14/U4
weight : 3318kg
max speed@alt :
- 568@SL
- 665@5.0km
RoC@SL@100% : 15 m/s


G-14/AS
weight : 3272kg
max speed@alt :
- 560@SL
- 680@7.5km
RoC@SL@100% : 15.4 m/s


K-4
weight : 3362kg
max speed@alt :
- 580@SL
- 710@7.5km
RoC@SL@100% : 14.1 m/s

Butch

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 11:26 AM
1. Wrong test methods noted in bold.


"Method was as follows:

1) 100% fuel

2) Default loadout.

3) Online Dogfight server, small map of Finnish Gulf

4) Record Flight

5) Takeoff with radiator fully open, fly to over water, then drop down to wavetop.

6) As per Beta testers standard procedure(1), starting speed 300 kph, radiator closed(2), 110% throttle(3).

7) Climb to 5,000 meters(4). Set RPM for the 109E at 2650, and for the others at 2800. As soon as engine overheats, reduce throttle to 100%, open radiator, reduce revs to 2500 for 109E and 2600 for others to cool engine(5). By the time the climb ends at 5,000 ft, engine is at normal temperature."

Notes:

(1) With the current run of affairs, the 'Beta tester's standard procedure' hardly adds any relevance as of now.

(2) Check wastel's posts. radiator to closed, is not part of the standard procedure. Climb tests are to be done at radiator settings at 4~6. What is mentioned above, is practically same as tampering the procedures to match historical numbers on an abnormal setting.

(3) Check wastel's posts. Climb settings are 'steig und kampfleistung' - to be set at 100%.

(4) Check Ugly_Kid's comments. The engine performance of the DBs tend to fall of as altitude grows, hence, climb performance of the Bf109s usually are best at sea level, and then it either falls down or grows(depending on plane type) very slowly and steady rate up to 6000m. Over 6000m it starts to fall at an increased rate. The performance as shown in-game data from IL2Compare, does not match historical chart attitude. A test, up to 5000m, will not confirm some of the problems previously presented.

(5) Climb tests are part of evaluating the plane at a very typical combat situation. The Bf109, in a combat configuration, is meant to fly with its normal internal systems. The above mentioned method of overriding normal control systems, when compared to automobiles, is like an automobile maker publishing data of a test drive, where an Indy500 driver is at the seats overriding all normal methods of control by pulling out inhibitors, killing the automatic gear system, and putting everything under his own race-oriented human control. Automobile companies don't use that kind of testing results of standard data.



-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 11:27 AM
Additonally Buzzsaw, yes it climbs even we Luftwhiners admit that, yes, indeed it does climb and yes your test shows that it climbs. Amazing, now care to add how it _should_ climb?

Saying something is 100% correct begs a true data to back that up, doesn't it?

Once again you picked comfy set of variants. You did not pick those that are drastically off.

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif


Message Edited on 09/21/0311:27AM by Ugly_Kid

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 11:38 AM
Salute Kweassa

Ok, then my suggestion is that you do the tests, at 100% throttle, with the rad open, BUT, use MANUAL, not auto pitch.

Now match those tests up with the figures Butch has posted above and lets see if the 109's are correct.

Go ahead I dare you. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The issue is whether players can get historical performance out of their aircraft. Not whether or not certain historical test procedures are followed.

Seems you Luftwaffe types seem to want your cake and eat it too. Ie. get historical performance in auto settings, and then be able to switch to manual and get completely uber ahistorical performance. Sorry, that doesn't cut it.


RAF74 Buzzsaw



Message Edited on 09/21/0310:39AM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 11:45 AM
Salute Ugly

You may be surprised to find that I didn't start these tests to prove that Oleg was right.

In fact, I assumed, with all the complaints, that there was some foundation to the claim that the 109's were undermodelled. And I expected to find that they were.

Much to my surprise I find they aren't.

But I'm not going to hide my results to make someone happy.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 11:47 AM
Ugly_Kid wrote:
-
- Here is a chart of G-2, chew on that, yes with
- _only_ 100% throttle 1.3 ata:

Don't get me wrong, I simply want to know how the graphs were drawn.

I have seen quite a number of tests. Most of them simply display curves and not points. I guess they are the results of many compiled measures (averaged), and the curves are smoothed out for easy reference.

On the Finnish test I see both points and curves, for Speed (W, in m/s) and Manifold pressure (in ATA).

But I see no point for the last curve (time to alt). Was is plotted or calculated ?

Can you also give a complete reference about this test (date, conditions, etc.) ? As Butch pointed out it is much better than most British and German tests.

Were there several tests ? Only one set of data ? There are so few points that the latter seems more than likely... But is it the case ?

Thanks.

Tym

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 11:47 AM
Oleg is 100% right ?????

look again at your own (*cheated) tests.

THE LATE WAR 109s ARE TOTALY OFF (FOR GAME BALANCE)

AND THE LATE WAR VVS ARE TOTALY UBER (FOR GAME BALANCE)

Now grove back to Olegs .... you know where /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

If you dont fly the 109s just let it be and enjoy your patch.

(* Dont cheat around with manuel pitch, real tests was made without manuel pitch. and the radiator were also not closed, with this setings you overhead in 2 min (in game).

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 11:48 AM
Sigh, it does not seem to sink in that people are mostly talking about G-10 or G-14...Also they are talking about higher altitudes. Whatever, everything's fine glad that you showed it, I am relieved. Have a nice day.

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 11:55 AM
2. Problem of reasoning

You seem to be suggesting that Oleg set the climbrates in auto so they match historical, and then allow players to switch to manual and get 6,000 ft/min...

I don't think so.

If Oleg eliminates manual, then fine, let him set the auto climbrate to historical... but otherwise, no.



There is a problem in reasoning with the following line of logic as mentioned above. The definition of 'accuracy' is seriously warped - in a manner that simular to the famous logic of 'the ends justify the means'.

It is seriously doubtful the system should produce certain set of matching results on manual. As mentioned in prior post, testings are supposed to be an accurate evaluation of what the plane can do in normal combat conditions, where pilots are to do things in the safest way possible.

Tampering with the system, or doing what the producers prohibited, was a serious problem concerning the inherent danger in such actions, and also the consequences of a short engine life span, during in a time of war where material production was increasingly getting difficult.

What it can do, if someone was crazy enough to run along the lines of killing the engine, at the same time increasing the workload, is HARDLY something that would be recorded as standard documented data. The problem with accuracy is pretty much obvious - certain designated method does not produce certain designated results. If you have to use other methods to receive the designated result, then the process is wrong and inaccurate.

If one must insist something is 'accurate', in the fact that certain set of results can be achieved by using the wrong methods, then the word 'accuracy' itself loses all meaning. People are complaining because they cannot achieve a certain rate of climb with the main line of procedure they are supposed to fight with.

Imagine the situation where the P-47 roll rate is somehow linked with the pitch. Strangely, some system quirk enables the P-47s to achieve correct rate of roll only when the nose pitch is above horizon. What would one feel about that when others comment "there's nothing wrong with the P-47. It is accurate."? Is it really accurate?

Procedures are not to be separated with results.



-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 11:58 AM
NN_Tym wrote:
- But I see no point for the last curve (time to alt).
- Was is plotted or calculated ?
-

It is from a test flight with a frontline fighter MT-215.
It is 100% consistent with Rechlin tests from the Germans.

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/9759597.109G1_Rechlinpage3.jpg


-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 11:58 AM
Buzzsaw I applaud your tests. I think you're right and also that the auto was not as optimum as the auto on the 190.

Regarding acceleration and so on, the prop pitch change on the 109 under load was only 1 degree a second, according to the chief mechanic of Black 6 who advised Oleg during the beta, about half as fast as the 190.

_____________
Ian Boys
=38=Tatarenko
Kapitan - 38. OIAE

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 11:58 AM
Salute Ugly

Sounds to me like you are advocating to eliminate Manual control of pitch on the 109's altogether.

I say fine, lobby Oleg for that. Have him set the climbrate in Auto so it matches historical, and also eliminate the Manual pitch control option from German aircraft. That way we don't get this confusion.

And we don't have a situation whereby certain German pilots who want to take the time to learn how to fly manually, can get their aircraft to perform much better than the those who keep them in auto.

I'm sure Oleg would be happy to get rid of that headache. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 11:58 AM
Posts like this make me wanna stop believing on the good nature of people. Buzzsaw acts like the great Allah, the Moses that came down the mountain. He reveals his findings and tells THE TRUTH.

Did U ever consider that the guys that have been telling that 109 is undermodeled, actually put a lot more effort on proving their point than U did? U neglegted most of the facts stated in this forum and game up with the ultimate truth? Are U not concerned at all that there might be some validity or reliability problems in your tests? LOL, I guess not...

And what comes to 109s performance, I bet it is one of the best researched topics ever revealed in this rorum. The arguments that are seen here about 109s performance are very solid. How about LaGG3, Yak3 and LA7...what evidence do U have of those planes flying as good as they do now? And i16 being a tank, not to mention about the LagGG3? Not a whole lot data exists on those planes but on the contrary the 109s are documented very well...and then U come here and publish your findings with as little scientific backing as possible.


What comes to the plane selection U chose: by omitting 109G6 and G6-late from your results, U consciusnesly confessed that those planes are underperforming in the game. As simple as that.

I don't suggest that the research done by the other members here is 100% bullet proof sciense, but h*ll yeah they sure are more convincing than your subjective outcomes!!! The title of your post is already so subjective that it is far from convincing and thorough research. What U basically came up with is a tapping to the shoulded of Oleg, saying "U R a good fellaw, may I lick your a** now?"

If U really want to ensure that there are opponents for U in IL2FB also in the future, start concentrating on real issues like, AI improvement and updating all FMs and DMs instead of wasting your time trying to fight against the windmills. Don't try to downplay your opponents planes just to gain upperhand.

I must confess that witht the resent development in this game, I hardly buy the Add-on. When NHL2004 comes out in 2nd October in Finland, I might be gone for a long time from Il2FB.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 12:04 PM
Salute Porta

What's this about me having "evidence" about Soviet planes??

Just because I endorse the current performance of the 109's I tested, (and I am not sure how the G10 or G14 results would be) doesn't mean I endorse the current performance of any Soviet aircraft.

I don't know if they are correct, because I haven't tested them. I don't have a lot of interest in them, as I prefer to fly USAAF and RAF aircraft.

Perhaps I will get around to testing them at some point. The I-16's as they stand currently seem to me to be a little questionable, but who knows until I test them against known data?

How about you do some testing??

Maybe then you could present your findings to the forum.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 12:06 PM
"The issue is whether players can get historical performance out of their aircraft. Not whether or not certain historical test procedures are followed."

As in the prior post, procedures are not to be departed with results. It is your very pretense that procedures and results don't have to do with each other, which is seriously wrong, and is causing distasteful reactions(actually, more of pure disbelief, in the bluntness of the comment, rather than distasteful).

The internal systems of German planes, are part of a good combat advantage. While tinkering with the RPM settings in CSP planes with a HOTAS rotary located from a palms width from your hand may not sound hard, in real life the pilot had to part with one hand, to meddle with the levers, during combat. Responsive acceleration/decceleration from the manifold-RPM interlinked systems are a great combat advantage, by reducing the work load.

While the advantage is not that much noticeable in a game, having a automatic system is still way more comfortable than a manual system, not to mention it is also the way it should be.

Through the usage of that system people are to achieve good and accurate results. If one has to give up that systematical advantage in order to achieve the same result, then it's wrong.

Your provocative nuance of claiming 'accuracy' hardly has any meaning, if you want to stick to this word game. We might as well argue the P-47 rolls accurately with rudder assistance, matching the roll figures which was to show data of roll performance without any rudder input. You would not settle for that, would you?

Neither will the people finding fault with climb performance in Bf109s.



-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 12:08 PM
Also please note that Oleg has never said any planes were tweaked for balance. Youss said that and said it was his opinion only.

_____________
Ian Boys
=38=Tatarenko
Kapitan - 38. OIAE

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 12:14 PM
Salute Kweassa

Sorry, but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you.

This is a Simulation we are talking about here. These are not real planes.

Players flying simulations will use whatever they can from the Game system to get an advantage.

So if they can get an a better than historical climbrate by using Manual pitch, they will. That's human nature.

It is not acceptable for your side to insist that maximum climbrates on your planes only be tested by historical methods, leaving open the opportunity for those who don't play by your rules to get better performance by using other than historical game systems.

As I said to Ugly: If you want to eliminate this contradiction, then lobby Oleg to eliminate the possibility of using Manual pitch on German aircraft, and ask for historical climbrates in the auto mode.


RAF74 Buzzsaw



Message Edited on 09/21/0311:16AM by RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 12:25 PM
Ugly_Kid wrote:
-
... Talking about the Finnish G2 test
- It is from a test flight with a frontline fighter
- MT-215.
- It is 100% consistent with Rechlin tests from the
- Germans.

This piece of information, I had. I knew the plane was a front line one.

What I would like to know is :

- Fuel load, armament ?
- How many measurings ?
- Date of test.
- Was the plane sent back to its unit afterwards ?
etc.

Butch says that the Finnish test and the Rechlin one seem rather optimistic compared with other tests. So your document is not a surprise.

Now the question is why they are so different from most other sources...

Tym

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 12:30 PM
"... say fine, lobby Oleg for that. Have him set the climbrate in Auto so it matches historical, and also eliminate the Manual pitch control option from German aircraft. That way we don't get this confusion.

And we don't have a situation whereby certain German pilots who want to take the time to learn how to fly manually, can get their aircraft to perform much better than the those who keep them in auto..."


FB1.1 'final' fixed that - the automatic controls were giving output very sufficient, and while a lot of people hanged on to the habit of manual, thinking it gave better performance, practically, they were doing needless things, because the efficiency of automatic controls were almost on the same level of manual in 1.1F. Push anything more than that, and the engine overreved quickly with overheat and damage.

People who still thought manual control was giving better results, kept complaining in the ORR how manual adjusting became too hard, and it overrevs the engine very fast.

...

Just set the limit of manual to the same levels of auto. That would rid of the exploitation easily.





-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 12:34 PM
Now, I am lobbying for something? Sheesh, my hangover is getting worse and worse. Obviously concluding from your previous Bf trashings you have an axe to grind. Suprisingly you are hardly more correct this time.

I said I don't use manual so obviously I don't belong to this exploit category. I prefer comfort over risk of overrevving it in the heat of the combat. Just like the real pilots, I might add. If you go on trashing the Bf prop howabout modeling some shortcomings of the CSP, huh? Not likely to happen, is it?

Ian Boys,

am I reading it correctly, you think it is impressive that the guy climbed with Bf and made tracks out of it? That's an investigation, really. What wastel's stuff? Storm in a tea cup? Annoying background noise from credited luftwhiner?

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 12:40 PM
When i compare to those tests for instance :

http://www.allaboutwarfare.com/files/pictures/aviation/ww2/germany/bf109/bf109g1-climb1.jpg


I suspect there is something wrong with both Finnish and Rechlin test.
From other documents i know for sure that actual production fighter had worse performance than rechlin test since their performances are compared to the Rechlin sample, and the later is somewhat better by about 1.5 m/s.

For the Finnish test i suspect the pressure/temp were not normalized to standard values hence the difference in speed.
The other G-2 test i have are similar to the one i posted above, and i know for sure that it was full fuel and full load as weight is given at various alt.

Butch

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 12:47 PM
"Sorry, but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you.

This is a Simulation we are talking about here. These are not real planes.

Players flying simulations will use whatever they can from the Game system to get an advantage.

So if they can get an a better than historical climbrate by using Manual pitch, they will. That's human nature.

It is not acceptable for your side to insist that maximum climbrates on your planes only be tested by historical methods, leaving open the opportunity for those who don't play by your rules to get better performance by using other than historical game systems.

As I said to Ugly: If you want to eliminate this contradiction, then lobby Oleg to eliminate the possibility of using Manual pitch on German aircraft, and ask for historical climbrates in the auto mode."


Mate. You're confusing the addressing exploitation issues, with the accuracy issues.

Addressing the problem of exploitation is to be solved by a separate means.

What you are saying might make up for a good reasoning in terms of "gameplay", since you are advocating a historically inaccurate fact to the effect that this inaccuracy in automatic systems, in a perverted way, deals with another 'inaccuracy' of exploitation.

It's a sad, very goal-oriented attitude, Buzz.

Think about it. You're saying a historically inaccurate FM, is 'accurate'(or rather, 'proper') because it stops exploitation. Shouldn't we be thinking how to stop the exploitation itself with the accurate system management intact, rather than be satisfied that a coincidential error/bug/snafu/whatever that porked a FM accidentally cured a exploitation?



-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 12:49 PM
Salute Ugly

I have no axe to grind.

As a matter of fact, it probably would be a good thing if Oleg improved the climbrate of the K4 a little.

Even though it matches historical rates, the fact that I achieved the historical rate in manual pitch, and with the all the difficulties in managing manual in the heat of combat, the plane should probably be compensated with a little cushion.

The other aircraft I tested already have a considerable cushion over their historical performance, and therefore need no boost to their climbrate. A pilot could easily set the manual pitch on these aircraft at a non dangerous level for dogfighting, and still get historical performance.

I will take the time to test the G6's and G10 and G14 tommorrow to see how they stack up.


RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 12:55 PM
disregarding that "pigpig" has no idea what on earth he's talking about: Hat's off Buzz... when 1.1b came out, for a long time i was angry / convinced that the K-4 (namely) had been porked, and that it was "ruined" as everyone says. well, the fact is... this is not true at all... The fact that you people can't climb 3k straight up anymore, doesn't mean that the plane is "FAR OFF" or "POORLY MODELED"... what it really means, is you're using it completely wrong. Additionally, i don't use manual pitch often (auto seems sufficient).. and i NEVER... EVER have a problem outclimbing .. any prop plane above 2k.

People.. the K-4 is fine... you just have to use finess / have patience with it. Also, historically, tailstands of 1000m. were rarely done. So the fact that the K-4 can't rocket-ship climb anymore isn't anything special.

Forgive me if i sound disoriented.. because i am, it's 5:00 AM here, and i never went to sleep (yet). But to the point, i agree with you in total buzz (as far as the K-4 is concearned), and if people think it's ruined, then all the better, at least less people will be flying it (less bad pilots, anyways). I say, bring on the change!

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 01:09 PM
well,
currently , the 109G2 is litte worser than the rechlin and finnish test. let them both be too good, then out G2 may be correct.

BUT

guys, look at the 109G6

german test said 6min to 6000m, with an average climb of
around little less than 17m/s.

on 100% power, climbspeed 280 and coolers on Steigflug (climb).


do the same test with the 109G6 in FB, coolers for climb on
4-6 setting. 100% power.

you need 8:15 too 6000 when using same climbspeed on krim map. thats around 12,25m/s average!!! (17m/s original!!)

or what about the G14. on 100% power it should run on 1.3ata and 2600rpm. but in FB you need 110% to achive it.

original climbtime G6AM/R2(heavier RECON version)!!
to 6km in 7min, giving an average climbspeed of 15m/s.
(100%power,cooler 4 to 6, cs 280ias)

now use 100% in fb for same test.
you need 10+minutes !!! to 6km.this gives an average climbspeed of 10,5m/s (15 m/s original,at same setting!!)


i had an email dialog with oleg, about the auto prop pitch in the 109. i thought it was much to slow. but he told me, that he talked to an german resaurator who tells him ,that the system historically WAS SO SLOW. i said..ok, nice to know it , i belive you.

manual prop pitch was only used in some emergency starts on very short fields!!! but never in normal operations.


like i wrote now hundrets of times. the problem is, that the developers may have done following failur.
they took 100% origin performances as 110% performances in game.
AND!! the gap between 100->110% in game is much to big.
an light 109F2 had 150extra PS from 100 to 110% and got an maximum of more speed of 20km/h and 2,5m/s.
(according planesheet from 41)
an G6 got 165extra PS but was heavier and less areodynamic than an F2. so i think it would have gained an maximum of 15km/h extra and 1,5 to2m/s extra climb on 110% setting
(engines without mw50 only!!).

what has to be done?
the 100% current power should be much closer to current 110%
(without mw50 only!), but the step from 100 to 110 must be much smaller than it is now.

result will be an historic correct 109 series with better 100%performance, but only very very littel more speed and climb on 110% like we have now.

greetings
wastel
.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 01:16 PM
Ugly_Kid wrote:
- Additonally Buzzsaw, yes it climbs even we
- Luftwhiners admit that, yes, indeed it does climb
- and yes your test shows that it climbs. Amazing, now
- care to add how it _should_ climb?
-
- Saying something is 100% correct begs a true data to
- back that up, doesn't it?
-
- Once again you picked comfy set of variants. You did
- not pick those that are drastically off.
-

It is nice that someone even tries, but sorry to say but I feel this is pointless. No patch wont do any good regarding RL. We already know how it will turn out. 109 has been too good earlier, now when it is toned down it is again 100% correct. (until more "balance" is needed in online wars)

So whats the point beating the dead horse anymore; IL-2 has already been "patched" to death. No more kicks in the face are needed anymore.

Let IL-2 Ridiculous Battles rest in peace and let us hope that someone breaks the encryption some day so we could get RL values from this great game engine.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 01:16 PM
JG54_Lukas wrote:

- The crux of Buzzsaw's argument is that one must
- learn to use the manual pitch system when flying the
- 109's. They aren't like the Kommandogeraet-equipped
- 190's, which provided the pilot with optimum engine
- settings at a faster rate of speed. And that, after
- all, was the reason for the way the 190 was
- designed: to reduce the workload of the pilot so
- that he could focus on the enemy, rather than
- constanly having to adjust his engine controls. The
- end result? The 190 had an advantage in engine
- management over the 109.
-

In FB, the auto prop pitch system for the 190's reduces maximum performance by not allowing the engine to rev to it's max RPM. By using manual control you can rev the engine much higher to get better performance and because of that it auto pitch operates more as a safety regulator to avoid burning up the engine than as a device to get optimum RPM, as far as I can see anyway.

Is this accurate in real life? I can't say, never seen one in action.


Respectfully,



TX-Zen
Black 6
TX Squadron CO
http://www.txsquadron.com
clyndes@hotmail.com (IM only)


http://www.txsquadron.com/uploaded/tx-zen/Zensig2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 01:25 PM
butch2k wrote:
- When i compare to those tests for instance :

Is that G-2 wih 100% certainty it only say 109G?

- For the Finnish test i suspect the pressure/temp
- were not normalized to standard values hence the
- difference in speed.
- The other G-2 test i have are similar to the one i
- posted above, and i know for sure that it was full
- fuel and full load as weight is given at various
- alt.
-
Hate to disagree with you, You do admit that they had a working stopwatch? At that day it was +7.5‚?C and 992 mbar on 0m full ammunition and 400 liters fuel. At 2500 m radiators fully open for the first time, then opened and closed, depending on temperature...


-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 01:34 PM
Kannaksen_hanu wrote:
- It is nice that someone even tries, but sorry to say
- but I feel this is pointless. No patch wont do any
- good regarding RL. We already know how it will turn
- out. 109 has been too good earlier, now when it is
- toned down it is again 100% correct. (until more
- "balance" is needed in online wars)
-

Seems that in this forum saying 100% correct needs two minutes effort. Saying something is wrong takes enormous effort putting up Excel sheet and real life test data side by side. But hey that can be put off lightly, because here only 100% correct is correct. Really fashionable, kudos to ORR. And I agree it's no use complaining I would just like to have something constant so that I don't have to relearn that damn thing after each and every patch. If only I could restrain myself from reading all this bollocks.

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 01:52 PM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute Wastel
-
- You seem to be suggesting that Oleg set the
- climbrates in auto so they match historical, and
- then allow players to switch to manual and get 6,000
- ft/min...
-
- I don't think so.
-
- If Oleg eliminates manual, then fine, let him set
- the auto climbrate to historical... but otherwise,
- no.


Buzzsaw your test is flawed right from the start. Climb test should be made with autopitch on, and in general autopitch should be on at all times except for cruising.

Bf-109 should be able to reach its specs with autopitch on which it doesn't (F4, G6, G10 and to some degree G14, G6/AS). This was the problem reported and Oleg gave us a candid "Bf-109 climbs better than it should".


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 09/21/0308:31AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 02:03 PM
Ugly kid, temp/pressure, pitot tube position and instruments errors are usualy normalized after actual flight test. Else it's useless for comparison purposes, if you test aircraft in different conditions you are bound to get very different result. Hence the need to normalize them for future comparison purposes.

For instance when speaking of a 262 keep in mind that max speed varied by as much as 80km/h between summer and winter.

Note that due to the DB605A design it's virtually impossible to obtain a constant RoC from 0 to 2000m like Rechlin and Finnish, all other tests show a slight increase in RoC from 0 to 2000m.

It is also important to know whether it's a climb by segment test or a full climb test, result being very different as in one case you do not give much though to temperature since you climb by step of for instance 1000m with time to let the engine cool down. Since i do not know whether the Finnish test was normalized to German standards or not, i won't comment on their accuracy, i'm so far commenting the Rechlin test.

The aircraft tested on the chart above are G-1s, with standard takeoff weight of 3070kg, so you can compare it with the Rechlin G-1 test.

I have test of various G-1s, including one comparing a G-1 with a recce conversion of a G-1 weighting only 2830kg, this later aircraft show the same climb rate as the Rechlin G-1 but is 200kg lighter.


Butch

ZG77_Nagual
09-21-2003, 02:12 PM
great post buzzsaw. Ugly - you seem smart - I don't see Buzzsaw setting himself up as an authority - he just did some tests and let us know the results.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 02:27 PM
butch2k wrote:
- Ugly kid, temp/pressure, pitot tube position and
- instruments errors are usualy normalized after
- actual flight test. Else it's useless for comparison
- purposes, if you test aircraft in different
- conditions you are bound to get very different
- result. Hence the need to normalize them for future
- comparison purposes.
-

Well variometer needs only static pressure (not necessarily from pitot static tube) and derivates changes over the altitude. Sure there are errors etc., but altimeter was checked for instance, having max. error of about 55 m on 9998 m, error being generally much lower.

The only actually interesting reading is the time used for the climb. You can also derive the climb speed from that.


-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 02:28 PM
Exactly. Don't worry about it Buzzsaw, the same people arguing with you are also taking issue with Butch2k's authority.

Thankyou for recording your tests, also.


http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 02:33 PM
clint-ruin wrote:
- Exactly. Don't worry about it Buzzsaw, the same
- people arguing with you are also taking issue with
- Butch2k's authority.
-
- Thankyou for recording your tests, also.


This test is useless since it should be made with autopitch on. If Buzzsaw does not know that he should ask first before waste everybody's time.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

Message Edited on 09/21/0308:35AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 02:37 PM
WUAF_Mj_Hero wrote:
- disregarding that "pigpig" has no idea what on earth
- he's talking about: Hat's off Buzz... when 1.1b came
- out, for a long time i was angry / convinced that
- the K-4 (namely) had been porked, and that it was
- "ruined" as everyone says. well, the fact is... this
- is not true at all... The fact that you people can't
- climb 3k straight up anymore, doesn't mean that the
- plane is "FAR OFF" or "POORLY MODELED"... what it
- really means, is you're using it completely wrong.
- Additionally, i don't use manual pitch often (auto
- seems sufficient).. and i NEVER... EVER have a
- problem outclimbing .. any prop plane above 2k.
-
- People.. the K-4 is fine... you just have to use
- finess / have patience with it. Also, historically,
- tailstands of 1000m. were rarely done. So the fact
- that the K-4 can't rocket-ship climb anymore isn't
- anything special.
-
- Forgive me if i sound disoriented.. because i am,
- it's 5:00 AM here, and i never went to sleep (yet).
- But to the point, i agree with you in total buzz (as
- far as the K-4 is concearned), and if people think
- it's ruined, then all the better, at least less
- people will be flying it (less bad pilots, anyways).
- I say, bring on the change!
-
-

Sorry are u talking to me "PIPGIG".

If yes then i have to tell you that YOU dont know what you are talking about.

I wish to get back the 109 from 1.1b.
The K4 had bug on manuel prop pitch and also a 103% throttle bug. But i see you dont know what i m talking about /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif .

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 02:38 PM
Nobody cares how way off are VVS planes Climb rates???
like minute too fast. Those should fixed too.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 02:40 PM
- Note that due to the DB605A design it's virtually
- impossible to obtain a constant RoC from 0 to 2000m
- like Rechlin and Finnish, all other tests show a
- slight increase in RoC from 0 to 2000m.


Do you have different Finnish test?
That test what i have seen have increase in roc from 0 to 2000m

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 02:41 PM
Is anybody reading what kweassa has been saying.

Also : From Huckebein---in 109

in
- general autopitch should be on at all times except
- for cruising.

or if damage auto-system was experienced.


This is what was done, as stated by pilots and manuals.
This point was reiterated on the Simhq boards by someone who had interviewed 109 combat, and training pilots.

Why then are any test of performance being done in manual?

Except to point out the faults in the modeling of the automated system!!

Widgeon

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 02:43 PM
sorry to make it more clear the bugy 109 was in 1.0

in 1.1b it got solved.

and in 1.11 it gote crap. (for game blance)

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 02:48 PM
I am sure butch2k is a grown up and he won't be beating up his wife 'cause people don't agree 100% what he said.

butch2k BTW looking at your curve and the climb times, where is actually the difference your graph sees G-1 in 4,5 min in 5k, not a big difference.

Nagual, the duder said they climb BETTER than they should. He did not bother to put anything to back that one up, did he? I think that's a bit more than just putting up results for everybody to see, that's like waving a red cloth in front of the bull. 109 flyers are not actually celebrating a christmas at the moment, now are they? Again, I have no problem with 109 as it is (at least with most of them), but I do have a problem with that sort of polstered BS. And frankly if he has so much energy he could be investigating something that's defenately way off. But that would not do, now would it, easier to put that everything's 100% correct that goes down like a piano from a window. Prooving something to be incorrect needs a bit more effort like wastel's package, and yet that can be shrugged off lightly 'cause it ain't dancing samba with the official thruth. That's sort of eating me.

Yes, most of the Bf issues converge to a problem behind joystick but I had a damn fine squadmate going to reserve because of the current version. To me that says a lot, if not enough.

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 02:49 PM
Mokkeri, look back to page one, it increases.

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif


Message Edited on 09/21/0302:50PM by Ugly_Kid

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 03:06 PM
LLv34Mokkeri wrote:

-
- Do you have different Finnish test?
- That test what i have seen have increase in roc from
- 0 to 2000m

Sorry meant Rechlin test, not Finnish one.



Butch

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 03:30 PM
does it matter at all if 109:s have correct Climbrates when VVS counterparts are way overmodelled??

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 03:33 PM
Ssssh,

(whispers:that's secret we are not supposed to discuss that)

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 03:41 PM
Ugly_Kid,

There's nothing stopping you from performing the same tests on soviet planes to check that they match up to the Il2Compare figures.

Perform the tests, record the tracks, find a reasonably reliable source that you believe shows them as incorrect, mail it to il2beta@1c.ru and see what happens. Huck just did it, Youss has said that he'll accept any track showing the LA7 performing a ridiculous climb and attempt to get it fixed, for example, and I'm sure this holds for any other incorrect Yaks/Laggs/etc.

Excel spreadsheets by themselves, anecdotes, and threads on the ORR don't cut it, and I'm glad they don't.

I'm not having a go at you here - I'm just saying, the weight of proof to make changes in FB seems a bit higher than what we've been seeing on the ORR lately.


http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

Message Edited on 09/21/0302:43PM by clint-ruin

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 03:48 PM
During the discussion in the VOW forum, Youss already received several tracks, where we were able to climb to 5000m in 3:42-3:35 minutes with the La7 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif (FR settings).

-------------------
http://320015073007-0001.bei.t-online.de/il2-forum/signatur.gif
JG51_Atze

JG51 (http://www.jg51.de)
Virtual Online War (http://www.s-driess.de/vow/index.php?page=home‚ßion=home)
"Ich bin ein Wurgerwhiner"

Message Edited on 09/21/0304:49PM by Atzebrueck

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 03:54 PM
Believe me I've done that often enough. It's like that and it's propably going to stay like that. Allthough not specially mentioned in readme I have noted some changes in VVS from 1.1b to 1.11.

Besides the point is that I am not that knowledgeable when it comes to VVS fighters, so I rather not argue their performance figures in depth. Additionally, I do not posses too much documentation and do not read russian in order to back up possible claims with something. We just have to assume that russian testers proceed objectively /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 04:06 PM
Good point "Buzzsaw"


For others, read this thread too: http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzkbg

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 04:12 PM
hi all,

buzzaw used the wrong climb speed and radiator setting.

he mixed the TAS with IAS .

result->
his 109 was climbing at much higher angle than it should.
->he was faster up to 3000m

i tried it, and got around 2:40 to 3000 instead 3min with real values.

but i can say it again..we can only compare the real values with the il2 ones, when we try to be as close to historic test settings as we can.

it was just an simple failur every one can happen

wastel

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 04:21 PM
Glad to hear that LA7, if incorrect, may yet be sorted out.

I must say that for G14 (only one tested so far) I've got very close to RLM speeds quoted in wastel's spreadsheet (yes, I have a track), though using settings which do not correlate with real life settings, but, here's the thing, I achieved them anyway.

I think some of you are asking the wrong question. It's not that certain speeds/climbrates for particular planes are completely unachievable in any circumstances, but more that certain speeds etc. are not always achievable in a 'historically accurate' way.

Why not compare hisoric settings tracks with ahistoric tracks and simply ask 1C to make them more realistic (per the beta) again?

Id be happy to help if anyone thinks this is a realsitic approach.





http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 04:24 PM
Guys, Ugly_Kid makes some very good and interesting points. You can't just climb up to 5km and say there's nothing wrong, and you can definately not say the 109s are overmodelled!
I appreciate the work though, and the willingness to test the FM in FB, however, like Ugly_Kid said, it's useless this way. Although Ugly_Kid's mood seems a little.. angry shall we say? He is right in my opinion.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 07:51 PM
It's no use Buzzsaw. They'll never be happy. You've made good points, but still they argue. Apparently, it's never occured to these guys that the 109 is fine and the VVS planes are simply overmodelled(which I DON'T dispute). I say go enjoy FB, and let these guys wallow in their own misery. If they have nothing to do but argue about the FM of the 109, and refuse to accept suggestions or other opinions,then so be it. They hear what they want to hear and nothing else. I love the 109(though I prefer the 190,though it's roll-rate is overmodelled,strange how they don't moan about that/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif ), but it has it's limitations. They can't accept that.

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg


Message Edited on 09/21/0302:52PM by necrobaron

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 08:12 PM
every man and has dog is a tester now

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 08:19 PM
i think i will post LA7 test now kill the LA7

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 09:27 PM
necrobaron wrote:
190,though it's roll-rate is
- overmodelled,strange how they don't moan about
- that.

You think the 190 roll-rate is overmodelled and it looks
strange for u that "They?" dont moan about that.???


/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 09:30 PM
Great, now can you show me how to hit and hold my max level charted speed for a measley 300 seconds. LoL

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 09:32 PM
- necrobaron wrote:
109 has it's limitations. They can't accept that.

yea, Game balance limitations LOL. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 09:37 PM
pipgig wrote:
-
- necrobaron wrote:
- 190,though it's roll-rate is
-- overmodelled,strange how they don't moan about
-- that.
-
- You think the 190 roll-rate is overmodelled and it
- looks
- strange for u that "They?" dont moan about that.?


Hehe,you're right pipgig. I guess I shouldn't be suprised./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 09:49 PM
necrobaron wrote:
- pipgig wrote:
--
-- necrobaron wrote:
-- 190,though it's roll-rate is
--- overmodelled,strange how they don't moan about
--- that.
--
-- You think the 190 roll-rate is overmodelled and it
-- looks
-- strange for u that "They?" dont moan about that.?
-
-
- Hehe,you're right pipgig. I guess I shouldn't be
- suprised./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
- 47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg
-



LOL, no realy i mean why is taht strange.
It maybe have a little to fast roll rate on high speed.
But there is no proofe that say it was 1 sec slower on above that and that speed.(and its realy must be a sec)
I just belive its to fast becouse i never use 100% rollrate becouse its simply rolls to fast for me.
i also need a 1second brake after a roll to realise where i am lol.

But its not realy a big issue and there are much worser problems. For example the break radiator flaps on the 109.

I also quess it was already told Oleg and he knows that
and be sure he will fix the roll rate if its realy to fast.
But we fear he will not fix the bad bugs, only the good bugs. At least that was the case in the past on LW planes.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 09:56 PM
I guess we'll see....

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 11:36 PM
"but, here's the thing, I achieved them anyway.

I think some of you are asking the wrong question. It's not that certain speeds/climbrates for particular planes are completely unachievable in any circumstances, but more that certain speeds etc. are not always achievable in a 'historically accurate' way."


More word games.

That 'historically accurate way', just so happens to be also the easiest way, and an automatic way, which is very useful during combat, as you can keep your HOTAS for duration of combat, without having to fidget around pulling levers and pushing switches.

So what's the end result?

No matter how you people want to root for Buzz, in the end the system is wrong, inaccurate, and the target results may only be achieved through heavy pilot workload - which means sacrificing one of the main advantages of the plane. If achieving those results only at manual was historic, we would not complain. Achieving those results in FB requires the pilot to give up on his normal and simple way of flying - which was reality also.

We're not pressing questions against Buzz because we don't believe his tests. It was a good test, and his posted results are probably right.

No, we're very tempted to deny his claims on the FM itself, because while we respect his time and effort, it hardly means anything when certain contexts of the problem are arbitrarily left out - see the first posts of Buzz he states the results don't have to do anything with procedure.

Riiiight...

With no disrespect, I can hardly think he'd stay quiet when the P-47 absolutely needed rudder assistment to achieve 'stick only' roll rates quoted from charts... or if the CSP system on the P-47 became suddenly porked after one patch, and it requires the pilot to give up on the advantages of the comfy automatic pitch adjustement via CS Props, and requires people to be paranoid about RPM settings every moment of combat.


The claimed 'Oleg is right', is either an intentional provocation, or a mere word-game. Whichever way, it is very unpleasant. We didn't bring the fight to him Buzz rooters, he brought the fight to us.



-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 11:57 PM
Somebody do the same tests for La-5,La-5F, La-5FN, La-7, Lagg3 '41 and '43 please /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 12:07 AM
Vipez- wrote:
- Somebody do the same tests for La-5,La-5F, La-5FN,
- La-7, Lagg3 '41 and '43 please <img


Yep I too would like to see those results....

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 12:31 AM
I would like to see those results. I still think the problem is primarily more that VVS planes are overmodelled as opposed to the Luftwaffe birds being undermodelled. Will someone test the Reds?

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 02:24 PM
necrobaron wrote:
- pipgig wrote:
--
-- necrobaron wrote:
-- 190,though it's roll-rate is
--- overmodelled,strange how they don't moan about
--- that.
--
-- You think the 190 roll-rate is overmodelled and it
-- looks
-- strange for u that "They?" dont moan about that.?
-
-
- Hehe,you're right pipgig. I guess I shouldn't be
- suprised./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
- 47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg
-


You is wrong guys........ I reported the wrong rollrate of Doras to them since the first beta Test. By the way original Doras rollrates:

speed 150 mph = 4,7 s
speed 200 mph = 3,8 s

Source: German Museum Munich and Flugzeugwerft Schleißheim



<center>http://www.Redwulf.de/Pic/aniwulf.gif
<center> Redwulf__1
<center> Geschwaderkommodore JV 44
<center> The Redwulf Squadron
<center>--------------------------------
<center>"A Wulf never walks alone"

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 03:24 PM
ianboys wrote:
- Buzzsaw I applaud your tests. I think you're right
- and also that the auto was not as optimum as the
- auto on the 190.
-
- Regarding acceleration and so on, the prop pitch
- change on the 109 under load was only 1 degree a
- second, according to the chief mechanic of Black 6
- who advised Oleg during the beta, about half as fast
- as the 190.
-
- _____________
- Ian Boys
- =38=Tatarenko
- Kapitan - 38. OIAE

I hope you applaud the tests in that they prove there is some concern regarding the autoprop system. Otherwise I don't understand your comment. Or are you suggesting we follow Buzz's example and use manual prop pitch in order to acheive the climbrates that were historically acheived using the autoprop system?

I also find it interesting that others have done extensive research and testing to express their concerns regarding 109 climb rates. Yet their posts generate no comments here in the forums.

You are one of the beta-testers for 1C, correct? So I would genuinely appreciate your commnets.

Thanks.

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 06:14 PM
On the subject of accurate simulation of WWII air combat the question of propeller modeling is an interesting subject.

In IL2/FB, as far as I know, the game simulates maximum performance in the I-16, Hurricane, P-40 and P-39 using an Auto Prop feature. If the following is an indication of reality then the game possibly has modeled an unrealistic advantage for those planes. Does anyone have information concerning Allied plane prop devices and usages?


http://www.airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/part1.htm

A. S. Did the I-16 have a variable-pitch propeller?

N. G. On type-28s and type-29s. But, you know, we were somewhat skeptical regarding it. The VISh [variable-pitch propeller] was good for heavier aircraft. On the I-16, either because of the opinions of the airmen or for still other reasons, the capabilities of this system were rarely employed. It was controlled by rods, by a special hand lever. Before we began an aerial engagement we reduced pitch and subsequently worked only the throttle. That is all there was to it.


(Hurricanehttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

A.S. What about propeller?

N. G. It was interesting. We had a variable pitch propeller, but with wooden blades. We changed the pitch manually with levers and rods. It was not difficult. We had one propeller technician for every four aircraft in the squadrons.


A. S. What about the propeller?

N. G. The P-40 had two types of propeller. With the electric propeller, the pitch was regulated by an electric motor, and with the mechanical propeller, conventionally with levers and rods. The electric propeller was automatic, with combined control by the throttle and pitch. The throttle quadrant had a rheostat and the movement of the lever automatically regulated the pitch. The Tomahawk had the electric propeller, while the latest Kittyhawks had mechanical propellers. Both types of propeller were reliable.

I did not fly with the mechanical propeller because by this time I had transitioned to the Cobra. Regarding the linked control I can say the following: sometimes this linked control was a hindrance.



(P-39http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
A. S. You said that various propellers were mounted?

N. G. Yes. At first they had three-bladed props, later four blades. I did not detect any appreciable difference between them. These propellers were mechanical, they were controlled by hand, with a system of levers and rods. On later Cobras they installed combined throttle/pitch control. This was the case on some Q-10s, on all of the Q-25s and Q-30s. We preferred the de-linked control, where the throttle and the pitch were separate. This was on the Q-5 up to the Q-10.


These quotes:

I-16:
The VISh [variable-pitch propeller]...the capabilities of this system were rarely employed...Before we began an aerial engagement we reduced pitch and subsequently worked only the throttle.

Hurricane:
We changed the pitch manually with levers and rods.

P-40:
sometimes this linked control was a hindrance.

P-39:
We preferred the de-linked control


Those quotes indicate something different than what is modeled in the game. The above quotes suggest to me that when flying those planes the pilots prefered to use manual pitch control when it was available, and of course they had to use manual pitch when linked, governed, or auto pitch was not available. This would also lead to the possible conclusion that the Auto pitch (when it was available) resulted in reduced performance and therefore the pilots prefered to gain the additional performance by making the choice to use manual prop settings, again when the choice was available in those planes.

So IL2/FB is modeling planes on the Allied side which could have required manual pitch settings in order to reach maximum performance yet the game allows the pilot to achieve these maximum performance capabilities without the added engine management workload.

Now we have test results from the game (thanks to Buzz) that show how some of the BF109s are only able to achieve the Auto prop performance capabilities when the pilot uses the manual settings. Gone are any abilities that the pilots may have had to increase performance beyond Auto settings even at the risk of engine damage and even at the risk of adding additional pilot work load. The 109 pilots are forced by the game to require the additional work load just to achieve the planes documented Auto performance capabilies.

And again, the Allied planes possibly allow the pilots to gain the additional manual performance without the additional work load.

Oleg may be 100% right by some narrow definition of the words but something is not 100% accurate in IL2/FB





JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 06:19 PM
You missed my point Kweassa.

I'm not rooting for or against anyone in this, I just want things to be accurate.

The fact remains that the speeds and climb rates for G14 CAN be reached in the game in a way that is close to RLM test data Wastel posted.

As I have said before, perhaps the wrong question is being asked of 1C. They may just say 'you is wrong' because you CAN get the right speeds. they are just obatined in a way that is 'wrong' per Wastel's testing methods.

1C should simply be asked to adjust means by which max. speed/climb rates can be reached in the applicable 109 models as the top speeds etc are all there in the game already.

Someone tell me where to get VVS data and will do some tests. Happy with Russian sites as I speak the lingo.






http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 06:21 PM
you are NOT EVEN close to my test trials.

wastel

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 06:54 PM
Josf, you got the point!!



http://membres.lycos.fr/messzer/avatar/mahgar8.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 07:03 PM
- (P-39http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
- A. S. You said that various propellers were mounted?
-
- N. G. Yes. At first they had three-bladed props,
- later four blades. I did not detect any appreciable
- difference between them. These propellers were
- mechanical, they were controlled by hand, with a
- system of levers and rods. On later Cobras they
- installed combined throttle/pitch control. This was
- the case on some Q-10s, on all of the Q-25s and
- Q-30s. We preferred the de-linked control, where the
- throttle and the pitch were separate. This was on
- the Q-5 up to the Q-10.

It's been pointed out to me that what he calls pitch control is really CSP settings but I'm not so sure from what N.G. says. He makes no note of manual pitch meaning a different thing anywhere except where it was linked to the throttle.

CSP's were used at least as early as 1936. The Hamilton was used then in the development of the Buffalo alone so they weren't exactly rare or experimental even before the war. Yet I had read that Hurricane I's had fixed pitch wooden props and the Spit I had a 2-speed prop so it gives me to wonder why those were so if such a superior system were available all those years? Perhaps it's because of the weight? Those early CSP's were more used commercially in big multiengine planes and IIRC, weight was a factor. I can't help wondering just how fast they were to adjust to changes either.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 09:16 PM
Well Buzz and company someone please explain this to me using Youss's program.

http://www.uploadit.org/files/220903-G14vsG2.JPG


http://www.uploadit.org/files/220903-G14vsG6.JPG


The above makes absolutely no freakin sense considering the G-14 was G-6s upgraded to achiever near par performance with the K-4.

The G-10s TAS vs. Altitude at 100% is actually better than the G-2s and G-6s but WTH is up with the G-14 its slower than both older models at 100& throughout the flight envelope and for a variant for higher altitudes its TAS drops off BEFORE the older Gs. Sure its better if you use MW_50 all the time and burn up your engine to just be on par, but I doubt this was the historical case.

Not to mention the G-14s being outclimbed by the G-2 at any TAS.


http://www.redspar.com/redrogue/CraggerUbisig.jpg

About after 30 minutes I puked all over my airplane. I said to myself "Man, you made a big mistake." -Charles 'Chuck' Yeager, regards his first flight

Message Edited on 09/22/0303:18PM by Cragger

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 10:08 PM
Some pointers, Josf:

"I-16: The VISh [variable-pitch propeller]...the capabilities of this system were rarely employed...Before we began an aerial engagement we reduced pitch and subsequently worked only the throttle."

Youss himself confirms the I-16 we have, is the Type28 in reality, not the Type 24. As in the article Type24s were not fitted with a CSP system, and needed the pilot to work manually on the pitch control.


....

"P-40:
sometimes this linked control was a hindrance.

P-39:
We preferred the de-linked control

Those quotes indicate something different than what is modeled in the game. The above quotes suggest to me that when flying those planes the pilots prefered to use manual pitch control when it was available, and of course they had to use manual pitch when linked, governed, or auto pitch was not available. This would also lead to the possible conclusion that the Auto pitch (when it was available) resulted in reduced performance and therefore the pilots prefered to gain the additional performance by making the choice to use manual prop settings, again when the choice was available in those planes."

The linked controls here, refers to a mechanical system linking the throttle control and RPM. It has nothing to do with propellers. In fact, the way P-40s and P-39s are portrayed in the game, is exactly as the quote - RPM control(which, confusingly labelled as 'prop pitch control' in the game) remains separate to the throttle system. I'm afraid your observation is based on a misundestanding.


.......

"So IL2/FB is modeling planes on the Allied side which could have required manual pitch settings in order to reach maximum performance yet the game allows the pilot to achieve these maximum performance capabilities without the added engine management workload."

IL2/FB is modelling planes on the Allied side with a constant speed engine RPM maintainment. Their propeller is always automatic. Axis planes are using RPM-throttle linked system, and their propeller is also automatic.

In the end, both Allied and Axis planes are using propellers which do the same thing - while one is hydraulic based, and the other is seemingly aeromechanical, what they do is essentially the same: change the propeller pitch to maintain a set RPM, which in the Allied planes the pilot must do it separately, and in the Axis planes the pilot can control it with the throttle lever.

So what it means, is virtually the VVS planes running along with 100% RPM(referred to as 'prop pitch') + full throttle, is the same thing as LW planes running at full throttle(since full throttle also means full RPM). The problem is, one side is getting their historic performance with automatic propellers with this setting, the other side is not, and must revert their plane to a manual setting to do so.


To put it simply, VVS CSP planes are also flying with an auto-prop. The hydraulic constant pitch props are fully automatic, with its advantages being that it is very reliable and sturdy than the aeromechanical props of LW planes. However, the disadvantages are the CSP hydraulic based system will fail with hits taken to the hydraulic system, and also overrevving it in a maximum throttle dive, will bust the hydraulics and make the oils seep out, thus the CSP dies and reverts to essentially a fixed prop.

Compared to that, the aeromechanical props of German planes are adjusted by air-pressure, meaning it is somewhat less 'resistant' to overrevs compared to a CSP - whereas a CSP system will try to 'lock' the prop with hydraulic power so the RPM does not increase over designated levels... the aeromechanical props will over time succumb to the high air-pressure quicker than the CSP, and will start overreving the engine earlier than the CSP based engine system. But the good side is, unless the propeller base is directly damaged, the function never fails.

....


To put it in another words, if automatic prop adjustment was not as precise as manual and would hinder maximum performance, then the VVS planes should suffer the same thing. However, their listed performance is reached at full automatic control, while the LW planes cannot do that.

The "manual control more precise than flimsy auto", does not make sense.






-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 10:41 PM
kweassa,

Please include your sources to back up your statments.

I'll try to find the post and link it here concerning the device used by the 109s to control prop pitch.

My understanding, based upon a post that refered to an original 109 manual, is that the 109s used an electric motor to move the prop blade pitch. This motor was turned on and off in one direction or the other by a engine governor switch. The RPM at which the switch would turn on was controled by either a knob on the throttle for manual control bypassing the governor or by the throttle lever for Auto control when the governor was connected to the throttle lever.



If you can please show how this aero mechanical device works and on which planes it was fitted.



JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 10:44 PM
Worked from the back of my memory there, Josf, so I admit I could be wrong on the prop governing system of 109s. Will check on my sources.



-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 10:48 PM
Zounds, you're right. They used the VDM electric props.

Then you can disregard the part about the operational disadvantages of the spring-loaded system I stupidly posted above.



-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 11:14 PM
Josf, kweassa is correct. The linked prop + throttle system was also used on P-47. It still employed a CSP propeller, completely different from that of Bf-109. Manual pitch on Bf-109 did not bring any performance improvement over autopitch, this is a bug of the game and should be corrected. I can send you an e-mail with description of Bf-109 autopitch system if you want.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 11:38 PM
Kweassa,

Thanks for the update, I am posting the link I have regarding the prop question. I do not have any sources of my own.

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zjqbf


Is it important to clear up the following?:

kweassa wrote:

Some pointers, Josf:

"I-16: The VISh [variable-pitch propeller]...the capabilities of this system were rarely employed...Before we began an aerial engagement we reduced pitch and subsequently worked only the throttle."

Youss himself confirms the I-16 we have, is the Type28 in reality, not the Type 24. As in the article Type24s were not fitted with a CSP system, and needed the pilot to work manually on the pitch control. "



Is it your contention that the Type28 did not allow the pilot to work the pitch control manually as it is in IL2/FB, or they did not prefer to use the manual pitch control ability in the Type28 I-16, or simply that they did not need to work the pitch control manually?

I'm asking this only because my point about the I-16 prop pitch was that in the article linked the pilot described a preference to use the manual pitch control.

Here is the quote again:
___________
A. S. Did the I-16 have a variable-pitch propeller?

N. G. On type-28s and type-29s. But, you know, we were somewhat skeptical regarding it. The VISh [variable-pitch propeller] was good for heavier aircraft. On the I-16, either because of the opinions of the airmen or for still other reasons, the capabilities of this system were rarely employed. It was controlled by rods, by a special hand lever. Before we began an aerial engagement we reduced pitch and subsequently worked only the throttle. That is all there was to it.
____________

My interpretation of this quote is that:
The Type-28 and type-29 I-16s had a constant speed prop but the pilots prefered to fix the pitch manually at a reduced setting and opted instead to manage the engine with the throttle.

The point being that possibly the pilots found manual control of the prop to be an advantage over the constant speed or regulated settings.

The problem is both that the 109s, as far as I know, are the only ones modeled in the game with this feature i.e. the plane offers a performance advantage when manual control of the prop is selected over the less capable auto settings, and that the 109s can only achieve their rated performance with the more demanding manual settings.

Conversely, it seems, that the allied planes, at least the ones mentioned in the article do not require any extra pilot attention to achieve the extra performance.

Does this mean that IL2/FB would be a better sim if the I-16 was capable of even greater performance if the game allowed manual prop control?

Does someone have a link to the compare program?

I can check it out, perhaps the I-16 has room for a little extra performance <-----that is intended as a joke. It has me smiling http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif






JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 11:46 PM
Huckebein_FW,

Please do send the info

josf.kelley@verizon.net

As far as my understanding goes the P-47 used a hydraulic pitch control device much like the Hamilton Standard pictured here:

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182082-1.html

And the P-47 had a prop lever next to the throttle. The prop lever set the governor at a specific RPM to which the mechanism automatically regulated the prop pitch in order to maintain the desired engine RPM.

If you have more specific information on the P-47 prop device I would very much like to see it.

Thanks.

JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 11:48 PM
http://www.barans.spb.ru/files/ilc_v21.zip

Seems to be the latest version.


http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 11:52 PM
Thanks!

JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 11:55 PM
Buzzsaw,

Listen I don't have time to spend here analyzing this and that..

Suffice it to say this with all due respect my friend..

Continue flying your Allied and VVs planes and leave the testing to those of us who have flown this plane for the past few years..

I don't need any advice from somebody that doesn't fly the 109 at ALL and just decided out of the blue to become an expert..

The 109 is probably the most difficult plane to fly and I have flown it for years now since the early days of Il2..

I use both manual and auto prop pitch expertly and I can tell you for a fact that what Ugly kid and others are saying on this forum is a lot more solid looking than what your "little test" has produced..

Throw out all the facts and figures and this is what your left with..

The A9 has become the dominant plane of choice right now... Not the 109 K-4, Not the D9..

This is a fact of life that can not be overlooked..

Is this correct?

I myself have had to resort to flying the A9 because of the damage done to the flight model of the 109, it is no longer competitive..

Willy Messerschmidt was trying to gain a speed advantage of over 20km (S&L) and hour with the K4 compared to previous variants, parts of it are even made from wood composites..

In World War II the 109's the K-4 could hold its own, in FB it no longer does..

Based on the facts and figures I have the K-4 at:

Maximum Speed: 452 mph at 19,685 ft.
Maximum Climb: 4,823 feet per minute

the A9 doesn't beat that speed figure in straight and level flight.. The 109 doesn't even meet those figures in this game at that alitude..

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 12:20 AM
JG14_Josf wrote:
-
- Is it your contention that the Type28 did not allow
- the pilot to work the pitch control manually as it
- is in IL2/FB, or they did not prefer to use the
- manual pitch control ability in the Type28 I-16, or
- simply that they did not need to work the pitch
- control manually?
-
- I'm asking this only because my point about the I-16
- prop pitch was that in the article linked the pilot
- described a preference to use the manual pitch
- control.
-
- Here is the quote again:
- ___________
- A. S. Did the I-16 have a variable-pitch propeller?
-
- N. G. On type-28s and type-29s. But, you know, we
- were somewhat skeptical regarding it. The VISh
- [variable-pitch propeller] was good for heavier
- aircraft. On the I-16, either because of the
- opinions of the airmen or for still other reasons,
- the capabilities of this system were rarely
- employed. It was controlled by rods, by a special
- hand lever. Before we began an aerial engagement we
- reduced pitch and subsequently worked only the
- throttle. That is all there was to it.
- ____________



Its exactly like we have in the game: before the fight make the pitch full fine (100%) and work only with throttle.
All allied planes have that system. Pitch needed only while cruise for fuel economy.

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 12:23 AM
wastel wrote:
- pls try it with realistic settings, like they where
- used in combat and in historic test.
- no pitch and rpm tweaks...
- you can only compare times and climb abilities when
- you use
- historical settings.
- so, leave pitch on automatik, climb with rad 4 to 6
- and use 100% power.
- THEN compare
- wastel

How do YOU know that this is how it was done? You guys kill me even when someone gives you facts that you too can test or at least work with to see if you can get close to actual spercs in this SIM.... you come back with more....STUFF.

Ugly_Kid wrote:
Well frankly the topic sort of starts getting to me. Sorry again I am not in the best mood at the moment but he did not back his tests up with data - so how on earth can he claim that FB is 100% right, excuse me? Additionally he comfortably left out the variants that are wronger than wrong. I would suggest you both take a deep look at Wastel's investigations, huh? He happens to be a bit more informed on this topic.

How?? What makes Wastel's info any better than Buzz'z? I am asking a llegitimate question because I dont know his quals.......so dont flame me on that. You say he didnt back up his tests with data...

RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
Salute
P.S. Anyone who wants to look at my records of the tests, send me a PM and I will e-mail them to you.
RAF74 Buzzsaw

What is that? Cant you at least TRY it under the conditions he mentioned before you shoot him down?

RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
Salute Kweassa
Ok, then my suggestion is that you do the tests, at 100% throttle, with the rad open, BUT, use MANUAL, not auto pitch.
Now match those tests up with the figures Butch has posted above and lets see if the 109's are correct.
Go ahead I dare you.
The issue is whether players can get historical performance out of their aircraft. Not whether or not certain historical test procedures are followed. Seems you Luftwaffe types seem to want your cake and eat it too. Ie. get historical performance in auto settings, and then be able to switch to manual and get completely uber ahistorical performance. Sorry, that doesn't cut it.
RAF74 Buzzsaw


This is my point...it is a SIM.....How can you expect to get the exact performance in the exact same method...... as the actual plane....you cant but if....IF...by doing things a little differently you CAN get that performance as close as possible or at the least closer than before...why NOT try it and see... MY GOODNESS!! You guys act like there are better FMs out or a sim that you can play with and fiddle around with controlls as much and as accurately as this one..there isnt. I dont mean to poo poo your issues with the FMs at all and I can repect your feelings but man o man.......

and I have another question for those experts..and it is an honest one so again dont ream me..... does time of year play a significant factor in these tests? Will the p[lane perform the same way in February as it would in June? If not when were the original tests done?? There is no way we can exactly duplicate the performance of any of these aircraft.......but I find them all a joy to fly and i think these FMs are TOP NOTCH... I cant wait for the Pony, and the Zero,the Spit,the Frank,the Go...... hopefully an Arado and a Destroyer and whatever else we can get.





<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

Message Edited on 09/22/0307:28PM by Bearcat99

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 12:34 AM
"I am posting the link I have regarding the prop question."

Thanks for the link. So it would appear the fly-weight system is practically the same as in Allied CSP systems - the only difference is the fly-weights in Allied props actuated a hydraulic valve, whereas this mechanism is replaced by an electric motor in the German props. The same type of slow response was ture in Allied systems too, as for instance, when at full RPM, if the throttle lever was jerked back to idle suddenly, the hydraulics went bust and there was oil everywhere, because the hydraulics flow cannot follow the abrupt change needed in the prop pitch.

....


"Is it your contention that the Type28 did not allow the pilot to work the pitch control manually as it is in IL2/FB, or they did not prefer to use the manual pitch control ability in the Type28 I-16, or simply that they did not need to work the pitch control manually?

I'm asking this only because my point about the I-16 prop pitch was that in the article linked the pilot described a preference to use the manual pitch control."


It's hard to say. The questioner asks Golodnikov if the I-16 had a 'variable-pitch propeller'. Golodnikov answers "yes", "it was a lever/rod system", "pilots didn't like it".

The problem is, that part of the interview is really confusing and doesn't reveal much because:

1) The term 'variable pitch propeller' is very often confused with the 'constant speed propeller', when in reality CSP is one of many VPP systems. For instance, the early war planes typically had a hand-adjusted multiple stage prop-pitch system, which is a VPP, but not a CSP, and not an automatic prop control.

The interviewer can be questioning either if the I-16 had just a VPP system, or if it really had a CSP system. I'm guessing the former, but there's no way of being sure.

2) Golodnikov also mentions 'adjusting pitch', but like currently in FB, the term 'pitch' is also used confusingly with the term 'RPM'. So when he says he adjusts 'pitch', it could mean either he is adjusting the RPM, or he is really adjusting the pitch only. I'm guessing the latter in this case.
...


Golodnikov says:

..........
"On type-28s and type-29s. But, you know, we were somewhat skeptical regarding it. The VISh [variable-pitch propeller] was good for heavier aircraft. On the I-16, either because of the opinions of the airmen or for still other reasons, the capabilities of this system were rarely employed. It was controlled by rods, by a special hand lever. Before we began an aerial engagement we reduced pitch and subsequently worked only the throttle. That is all there was to it."
..........

The subsequent question would be the following:

What does it mean when he says:

"Before we began an aerial engagement we reduced pitch and subsequently worked only the throttle. That is all there was to it" ???

If it was a CSP system with RPM control, in a fight a pilot would push the RPM to maximum, to produce most efficient power. This, would cause the pitch to increase, since the acceleration would push the airspeed up, and to prevent overrevving, the propeller would automatically increase pitch. So, he would not 'reduce pitch.' If Golodnikov is confusing the words 'RPM' and 'pitch', it also does not make sense.

So, the only possible explanation would be:


1) Type-28/29 was fitted with a hand-adjusted, non-CSP, VPP system
2) Pilots were skeptical of the VPP system for some reason
3) Thus, pilots did not fiddle around with what the VPP system could do. What they did was just reduce pitch by hand to a certain level(thus, increasing revolution of the engine) and leave it there, fighting with throttle control afterwards.


So, the I-16s only had the manual pitch control, meaning literally 'pitch', not 'RPM'. They had no 'automatic prop' system - Golodnikov is saying the Tip28/29 was fitted with a lever controlled system which could change the pitch manually, but the pilots didn't make full use of it, and just left the pitch and low levels.

The 'preference' is not about using 'manual pitch control' like you say, but most probably, the pilots preferred not to fiddle with the system at all, since it obviously meant high workload.




-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 12:48 AM
Bearcat, have a sedative. You are excited all over something which you have no idea about. Otherwise you wouldn't have said something like:

"How do YOU know that this is how it was done?"


How do we know that is how it was tested? Because the documents themselves come with detailed curves and the 'setting' mentioned in detail. Also, the 100% and 110% throttle corresponds in RPM rates, to what the historic charts confirm.

The real 'killer' is giving the results of something tested out with a wrong method and implying there's nothing wrong with the game, so everyone should just shut up, since the end results are matched.


"How?? What makes Wastel's info any better than Buzz'z? I am asking a llegitimate question because I dont know his quals.......so dont flame me on that. You say he didnt back up his tests with data... "

Because he has the original documents which describe in detail how the test has to be done. Which suggests a certain method to be followed in testing various factors such as speed or climb rate, which he tried accordingly, and found out the in-game data does not match. He did back up his tests with data, in detail, with charts, graphs and compiled.



"What is that? Cant you at least TRY it under the conditions he mentioned before you shoot him down?"

And what will that prove? Buzz disclosed his test conditions right out from the start, which we again and again mentioned, was not right.. which he ignored again and again it didn't matter.

So, what will it prove, when we try the same tests as he did, under the wrong conditions?

......

"This is my point...it is a SIM.....How can you expect to get the exact performance in the exact same method...... as the actual plane....you cant but if....IF...by doing things a little differently you CAN get that performance as close as possible or at the least closer than before...why NOT try it and see... MY GOODNESS!! You guys act like there are better FMs out or a sim that you can play with and fiddle around with controlls as much and as accurately as this one..there isnt. I dont mean to poo poo your issues with the FMs at all and I can repect your feelings but man o man....... "

So, that's what you guys did with the P-47 roll issues?

Speak for yourselves, friend.



Calm down, and read the two threads related with this issue which Buzzsaw posted, and also wastel's two threads on the weight of the G-6, and the one titled "G-2 to G-10 analysis ready".



-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 12:59 AM
"Its exactly like we have in the game: before the fight make the pitch full fine (100%) and work only with throttle.

All allied planes have that system. Pitch needed only while cruise for fuel economy."

Cromatorg's statement got me thinking. There's a different possible explanation on the matter.

Golodnikov could have meant exactly what Cromatorg said - "pitch full fine (100%)", when he says "reduce pitch", in the strange swirl of terminology revolving around the words "RPM" "Pitch" "Auto" and "Manual".

In that case, it would mean the I-16 was as in the game, where the pilot would put set the RPM to full max, and the pitch adjusted itself.

However, in either case, the point remains valid - the pilots were skeptical of manually controlling something, and just left the settings to one point(be it a hand-adjusted VPP or CSP) and kept it there.

The pilots did not put something to manual control to gain performance - rather, they put something in a certain setting and just left it there.



-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 01:47 AM
lol/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 02:24 AM
kweassa wrote:
-
- Speak for yourselves, friend.

- Calm down, and read the two threads related with
- this issue which Buzzsaw posted, and also wastel's
- two threads on the weight of the G-6, and the one
- titled "G-2 to G-10 analysis ready".


Myselves??? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Who me, myself & I? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif .... I assume the myselves you are referring to are me and the rest of the American FB contingent ......well to tell the truth I had little to do with that P-47 thing. That was mostly Sky Chimp and he must have had his ducks pretty much lined in a row because Oleg admitted that yes indeedy the P-47 roll rate was waaaaay off. I did think the 47's roll rate was off but I am not qualified to back it up with charts and stats and such.... and just in case you don't know I only speak for me...I don't speak for the rest of America.... I am calm really...and like I said I don't know what makes Wastel more qualified than Buzz that's why I asked.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif it just seems to me that to expect a sim to FULLY and ACCURATELY reflect real performance under exact simulated conditions (as close as they can be) .......given the hardware and software we are working with, is just asking a lot. At least even if it IS under the wrong conditions he got the thing to perform close to actual specs even if he did it the wrong way... I got the 47 to roll better by using my throttle and aileron trim in the 1.0....not as well as it does now but better than out of the box.... but we got some relief in the patch.... You guys just shot the man down like he was an unqualified idiot and I thought he had some good points. Can you answer my question though...?? I am NOT being facetious in the least I really want to know and if it seems like a dumb question then hey.......would there be a difference in performance say between March and June? What role does atmospheric conditions play in the actual tests performed or are they intentionally done at certain times of the year for consistancy....... Would that factor into the tests?

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 02:25 AM
kweassa,

Cromatorg may know everything. I do not. He has stated his opinion. I've presented what appears to be the opinion of someone who flew the planes in question and flew those planes in actual combat. I do not know if the source is accurate.

What I do know is that constant speed props have many different variations, and it does not seem likely that all Allied planes had the same device and they all worked the same way, as Cromatorq points out is the case in the game.

Our interpretations of the referenced text does not prove or disprove any conclusions concerning the accuracy of the game. However my observation remains that the link suggests that the game is not accurate relative to the games engine management issue. Specifically that some Allied planes are modeled in a simplified manner when the possibilities exists that they were not so simple while Axis planes are modeled in a complicated mannner when the possiblities exist that they were not so complicated in order for the pilot to maximize performance during combat.


Your interpretation suggests to you that Golodnikov desribed a Constant Speed Prop and that Goldonikov did not adjust the manual conrol for performance but rather what? Convenience?

What about the other references to the P-40, the Hurricane, and the P-39?

If your conclusions are such that now you are as satisfied as Cromatorq that all is correct and accurate in the game then forgive me for not making such a leap of faith.

The words on that web page reporting to be the words of Golodnikov suggest otherwise in my view.

Golodnikov described what sounds like a variable pitch prop and he specifically states that it was used in the type 28 and 29.

It is a reach in my opinion even to think that he was bypassing any governing mechanism such as what is found in a constant speed prop and instead choosing to set the pitch manually.

If there exists a more descriptive example of the prop devices in question then there would be much less open to interpretation, and debate.

Golodnikov mentions the words or translated words "unified system of throttle/pitch"

There is another reference indicating that the subject in question is not as simple and uniform as the game suggests it would be for all the planes in the Allied inventory.





JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 02:58 AM
Hi Bearcat.

i've seen you around and know you're genuinely asking to try to get up to speed.

The basic problem is that there are issues with the CEM in LW planes. Out of the box, planes like the K4 were like UFO's. There were exploits with the 103% throttle, and manual pitch control could be used to exceed the performance that was being achieved using the autoprop system.

To make a long story short, the patches have adressed this to some degree, but many feel that the autoprop system still doesn't allow some late model LW planes to achieve their historically documented ROC's.

Why people seem overly-sensitive to this is three-fold, as I see it. First, there is the constant use of ad hominem attacks against people who have done some pretty good research to support their case that some 109's appear undermodelled. They are called "whiners" and told to "get a life; it's just a game; learn to live with it." What is galling is that these comments come from the same people who were in here rightfully complaining about the P-47 roll rate. They didn't just decide to "live with it" and the game is improved because of their efforts.

Secondly, the research that some people have done, and that seems to be confirmed by Youss's IL2 Compare program doesn't seem to generate much in the way of dialogue from anyone in 1C, at least not here in the ORR. Wastel has said he's been in touch with Oleg thru email, so that is definitely good. But Buzz's thread is an attempt, all be it a bad one, to simply dismiss the work of people like Wastel.

Lastly, Buzzsaw claims that the planes are 100% correct and his support is doing tests that required him to change the standard conditions that the planes were historically tested with, especially using manual prop settings rather than the auotprop system.

What his test in fact showed, is that the problem others have noted seems to exist. In other words, one must "cheat" and use the manual prop setting to achieve the performance parameters that were historically achieved using autoprop. What's the problem with this? Well, the autoprop system was designed to relieve pilot workload and to save on engine damage, and people who fly 109's in FB simply want to have this feature modelled with some accuracy.

Cheers.

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 04:02 AM
Josf check your PM.


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 04:23 AM
Thanks Chad..../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 04:31 AM
NEWS:

Quote Youss:

Yes. This docs was sended to Dimas, and aswer was "allready have".

I dont ask Dimas about Dora - becouse he have lot work with addon.

till now:

1. DM - engines and controls - repaired.
2. Acceleration - partically solved for FW and BF (problem was in auto-pitch mode).


lets wait and see....

<center>http://www.Redwulf.de/Pic/aniwulf.gif
<center> Redwulf__1
<center> Geschwaderkommodore JV 44
<center> The Redwulf Squadron
<center>--------------------------------
<center>"A Wulf never walks alone"

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 04:52 AM
Salute Chadburn and the rest:


Bottom line:

109 series can achieve BETTER than historical climbrates in Manual pitch mode.

You can complain as much as you want, you can call me biased, (although all I did was test the planes in manual, do the test yourself and you will get the same results) but those are the facts.

If you want to get maximum performance out of your plane, then learn to fly it in manual.

That may not be historical, it may not reflect 100% the way the 109 series was designed, but that is the way it is in this CPU limited, design limited, SIMULATION of aircraft which flew in WWII.

I wish you good luck in convincing Oleg to modify the Auto pitch for these planes, but until that happens, you can hide your head in the sand and fly auto, you can be a hypocrite and secretly fly manual while you beat your breast and complain about lousy performance in auto, or finally, you can openly fly manual, admit that the aircraft is still competitive, and make the best of it.



RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 05:08 AM
Alas but it is not competitive in Auto Pitch. When you cant even get to the rated speed in level flight or climb. But hey you dont have that problem with your little Yak or LA so what do you care.

MAYBE Oleg needs to make the 190 turn better then the LA and the 109 to turn better then a yak to "Balance" the game then you would have your whiney little *** on here crying to Oleg about that but because its not your plane that you fly we are wrong.

So maybe before you come in here with your tests and numbers you need to think that hey maybe they have a point

Now remove your head from Olegs bum so that you can breathe a little easier.



"Of all my accomplishments I may have achieved during the war, I am proudest of the fact that I never lost a wingman. It was my view that no kill was worth the life of a wingman. . . . Pilots in my unit who lost wingmen on this basis were prohibited from leading a [section]. They were made to fly as wingman, instead."
Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann "Karaya One"



Message Edited on 09/22/0311:09PM by LW_lcarp

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 05:14 AM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:

"you can be a hypocrite and secretly fly manual"

Do you understand the word pretentious, and can you admit that this word could be an apt description of the above statement?

I may be able to map my Cougar Throttle to control both the throttle and the prop pitch analog axes and in this manner I can work around the innacurate IL2/FB engine managment model. In effect I may be able to turn the games manual setting into a realistic auto setting.

http://forums.frugalsworld.com/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=495089#post495089 ?





JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 05:31 AM
RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute Chadburn and the rest:
-
-
- Bottom line:
-
- 109 series can achieve BETTER than historical
- climbrates in Manual pitch mode.
-
- You can complain as much as you want, you can call
- me biased, (although all I did was test the planes
- in manual, do the test yourself and you will get the
- same results) but those are the facts.
-
- If you want to get maximum performance out of your
- plane, then learn to fly it in manual.
-
- That may not be historical, it may not reflect 100%
- the way the 109 series was designed, but that is the
- way it is in this CPU limited, design limited,
- SIMULATION of aircraft which flew in WWII.
-
- I wish you good luck in convincing Oleg to modify
- the Auto pitch for these planes, but until that
- happens, you can hide your head in the sand and fly
- auto, you can be a hypocrite and secretly fly manual
- while you beat your breast and complain about lousy
- performance in auto, or finally, you can openly fly
- manual, admit that the aircraft is still
- competitive, and make the best of it.
-
-
-
- RAF74 Buzzsaw
-
-
-

Buzz, clearly you are not able to look at this issue from any other perspective than us vs. them. No one is asking for the auto-pitch performance to be improved, while at the same time increasing performance in manual mode so that it is always superior to auto-pitch. I guess I see where you are coming from. You believe that maximum performance should only be attainable using a manual system, that the sim should model an advantage to manual control because it takes more "skill" to use. I hope you are willing to follow this rationale to its logical conclusion: all Allied aircraft (and constant-speed prop Axis aircraft) should UNDERPERFORM their historical max performance in FB because it is, in fact, an AUTOMATIC system. There is no option to go into full manual control on the constant-speed prop planes, so from your perspective, it should be impossible to reach the max performance figures.

You don't really want that, do you?

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg


Message Edited on 09/23/0306:07AM by A.K.Davis

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 06:57 AM
Bearcat,

I try to formulate as shortly as possible because it seems to be very hard to understand:

1) This person stated 100% correct, he also stated even better than historical. He based 100% or better statement on one figure. One single figure climb rate at SL.

2) He did not look at the climb times to several altitudes

3) He did not even bother to look at altitudes higher than 5 km. I thought there's a plenty of sky over there.

In what ways was Wastel's investigation better. Hmmm...indeed...Oh, he tested a bit broader area and used historical settings, compared with historical data. Tested also level flight speeds to see if there's logical consequental discrepancy there. He also pondered the question what could be the cause of this. BUT hey, that's nothing, he disagrees with the official thruth. A guy playing around with prop pitch reaches higher momentary climb rates on SL. That's enough to state everything is 100% correct or even better.

Now, take a very deep breath, if you want you can also let the cat out.

Now,
He did not show even 1% not even a half of it to say anything like that. Thank you.


-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 07:08 AM
go kid go eat them up bump

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 07:41 AM
Interesting, you just posed another bug in FB FM.
Try it with realistic settings, not by tweakinghttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hehe, put pitch to throttle in 109 and it is close,
just might try it,very realhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


RAF74BuzzsawXO wrote:
- Salute Ugly
-
- I would suggest if you are tasting horsedroppings,
- then perhaps it is something you ate. Perhaps you
- should change your diet. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
- What I see in your chart for the G2 is a climbrate
- of 20 m/sec at sea level, maxing out at 24.4 m/sec
- just below 2000 meters. That is a long way from
- 27.02 m/sec.
-
- Second, I don't see any details as to what the
- aircraft was loaded with as far as fuel/weapons etc.
- is concerned.
-
- Third, my understanding is that the engine in the G2
- was not cleared for higher boost than 1.3 atas.
-
- Fourth, as far as my not testing the other 109's are
- concerned, the fact is, I don't have a lot of time
- to spend on this type of thing. There are another
- EIGHT 109's I could have spent my time testing.
- Since people seemed most concerned about the F4, G2
- and K4 I decided to focus on those. I included the
- E model and G6AS as comparison. I don't have a lot
- of doubt that I would find the other aircraft which
- I didn't test would meet the historical performance
- standards as well.
-
- Fifth, this was not a comparison with Soviet
- aircraft. If you want to test them and post the
- results, be my guest.
-
- Finally, what exactly is your point anyway?
-
- I didn't say the performance of these planes should
- be reduced, I said THEY WERE ACCURATE. It is all
- those in the Luftwhiner community who have been
- suggesting these planes are UNDERMODELLED and who
- have been calling for them to be improved.
-
- Are you suggesting the G2 should have a HIGHER
- climbrate than 27.02 Meters/sec?????
-
- I would suggest that you look a little closer at
- your motives.
-
-
- RAF74 Buzzsaw
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Message Edited on 09/21/03‚ 09:33AM by
- RAF74BuzzsawXO

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 09:13 AM
LeLv28_Masi wrote:

Hehe, put pitch to throttle in 109 and it is close,
just might try it,very realhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


The Cougar throttle does both analog throttle and digital prop pitch control simultaneously with the same lever. So far the results look encouraging.

I've broken up the throttle range into 25 parts or bands as the Thrustmaster Foxy program calls them and in each band I've placed a key press corresponding with an edited IL2/Fb prop pitch key press setting.

In IL2 my prop pitch keys are ` 1 2 3 etc.

It became obvious right away in mock dog fights in the Quick mission builder that the highest and lowest prop settings were unnecessary.

My 25 bands then became 3333334444445555666778

I will need to do some more tweaking to get the ratio right and I may simply put the prop pitch back on the Ant rotary knob with a similar mid range prop adjustment range.

With the above setup in a dog fight the throttle can be used to maintain a specific engine RPM. As the plane is loaded up in a zoom climb or hard turn the pilot simply moves the throttle forward simultaneously or even in advance of the expected increase in load.

I found it very usefull in a rolling scissors or other such vertical type fight. In hard climbs the plane did not over rev with the throttle on the forward stop at 110 percent throttle and 80 percent pitch. The engine would heat up but as the load decrease and as the throttle was pulled back in preperation for the decrease in load the engine would cool back down.

The 109F4 against the Veteran Lagg and Yak did seem to have an even greater edge than when flying with prop on Auto at 95 percent throttle with radiators closed which was my former combat configuration. However, on-line things are bound to be quite different.

It takes a little more attention to monitor and maintain a constant engine sound but I can see with practice it will be no different than flying the old 109E models from old IL2 versions where I used the full range of prop control on a rotary knob.

Does this constitue a reasonable fix to an error in the modeling?

Perhaps not since the Cougar stick may be unique in this ability.





JG14_Josf

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 06:36 PM
Redwulf__1 wrote:
- NEWS:
-
- Quote Youss:
-
- Yes. This docs was sended to Dimas, and aswer was
- "allready have".
-
- I dont ask Dimas about Dora - becouse he have lot
- work with addon.
-
- till now:
-
- 1. DM - engines and controls - repaired.
- 2. Acceleration - partically solved for FW and BF
- (problem was in auto-pitch mode).
-
-
- lets wait and see....
-
- <center>http://www.Redwulf.de/Pic/aniwulf.gif
- <center> Redwulf__1
- <center> Geschwaderkommodore JV 44
- <center> The Redwulf Squadron
- <center>--------------------------------
- <center>"A Wulf never walks alone"


S!

Xmas again????




HAUPTMANN LBR=Rommel 1‚¬ļ Technischer Offizier TOS I/JG52 - Erst Staffel - Nr. 7
http://www.luftwaffebrasil.hpg.com.br

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 08:47 PM
Porta_ wrote:
- Posts like this make me wanna stop believing on the
- good nature of people. Buzzsaw acts like the great
- Allah, the Moses that came down the mountain. He
- reveals his findings and tells THE TRUTH.
-
- Did U ever consider that the guys that have been
- telling that 109 is undermodeled, actually put a lot
- more effort on proving their point than U did?


Porta_,

Actually, in fairness to Buzzsaw, I DO consider that the guys who have been whining all the way from hell and gone about the Bf-109 series did put a LOT more effort into proving THEIR point than Buzzsaw did.

I say this because all of these "tests" set out to prove how bad the Bf-109 is. None of theses tests, until this point, have set out to find out how the Bf-109 performs. Buzzsaw, with whom I fly on a very regular basis, is about an MATICULOUS as any human being I've ever met /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif And further, he is no fanboy, and amazingly enough looking over these boards, that doesn't make him a Luftwhiner. I know for a fact, because I've listened to him on Teamsound for almost 2 years now, that his only agenda is REALISM. One thing that I know that he doesn't do, is randomly make up numbers. I am sure if he didn't have a job, he'd have tested each and every Bf-109 in Il2, and then scowered the globe for real Bf-109's and compared them for you guys..

As for why Auto pitch was used by most 109 pilots in the war... Because its EASIER, but don't think that that means its better. You don't see many F1 drivers with Automatic transmissions... Because Indy car drivers take time to learn their machines in order to get the most out of them.

And knowing this, and knowing a couple of test pilots myself, what test pilot is going to follow every single RLM procedure to begin with? See, thats not testing a plane, thats sitting in it and holding the stick back a little bit until you're up there. What, so I'm saying that a test pilot, who KNOWS that this plane he's flying is good, and KNOWS that he can control pitch better than the computer, might just play with the pitch control a touch while climbing? Heavens no.. Surely not.... What I mean is this, for anyoen to suggest that they know EXACTLY how every test was performed is complete horsesh!t, to borrow the phrase. All you know is exactly how the test was reported as being performed. Many many times, thats not exactly how things go down.

As for the constant speed props.. Umm why should they undermodel them? There is no Auto adjustment settings.. because.. umm.. they weren't adjusted. So they should work just fine.

I personally, and I am sure Buzzsaw would agree, am not trying to support Uber VVS planes, and I'm not trying to make sure that the 109's are held back by the mysterious "man"... Realism is what we're all striving for here... Show me on the doll where the mean old Mr Oleg nuetered you're precious Bf-109?


/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+

"Flying is more than a sport and more than a job; flying is pure passion and desire, which fill a lifetime."

RAF74_JazzMan
RAF No.74 Squadron
http://www.aircombat.ca/RAF74/

http://www.hotel.wineasy.se/ipms/photos/profile_74sqn_06.gif


"Individual victories in the air should be subordinate to the overall sucess of the group....The most important principle is to insure that those under you feel that their commander understands their worries; that the commander can be approached by anyone in the group; that what he demands of the group is necessary, and that you would never demand of them more that what you are willing to demand of yourself."

:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+

Message Edited on 09/25/03‚ 12:55PM by Jazz-Man

Message Edited on 09/25/03‚ 09:31PM by Jazz-Man

Message Edited on 09/25/0309:35PM by Jazz-Man