PDA

View Full Version : What are doing testers of FB? About performance some planes!!!



Kwiatos
08-24-2004, 08:53 AM
I'm still confused how testers check basic performance (max speed, climb rate) of planes in FB. Why after so many patches we still have bugs in game which are very basic bugs easy to check. For example i flow yesterday in Dogfight A6m2 Zeke agaist P-40, I wonder why my Zake is so slow and hadn't much better climb rate. I checked different sources and made some test in FB. I was very very dissapointet.
A6m2 in game reach only 478 km/h at 4,5km!!!
In many sources we have that A6m2 had 316 mph (288kt) - 509 km/h (some source even 331mph - 532km/h) max speed with initial amazing climb rate 4500 ft/min!!!. Even A6m1 was faster then A6m2 in FB.
Why after such long time any testers no see these????? Why we still have basic bugs.

Other example. Spitfire MK IX. In FB SPitfire reach 700km/h !!!! when real maximum speed Spitfire IX was 668km/h!!!!! I knew these before patch 2.04 and i read on these forum that these bug was raported by comunity. And so? After patch 2.04 where in readme is FM of SPitfire MKIX was corected we have still THE SAME BUG.

[This message was edited by Kwiatos on Tue August 24 2004 at 08:11 AM.]

Kwiatos
08-24-2004, 08:53 AM
I'm still confused how testers check basic performance (max speed, climb rate) of planes in FB. Why after so many patches we still have bugs in game which are very basic bugs easy to check. For example i flow yesterday in Dogfight A6m2 Zeke agaist P-40, I wonder why my Zake is so slow and hadn't much better climb rate. I checked different sources and made some test in FB. I was very very dissapointet.
A6m2 in game reach only 478 km/h at 4,5km!!!
In many sources we have that A6m2 had 316 mph (288kt) - 509 km/h (some source even 331mph - 532km/h) max speed with initial amazing climb rate 4500 ft/min!!!. Even A6m1 was faster then A6m2 in FB.
Why after such long time any testers no see these????? Why we still have basic bugs.

Other example. Spitfire MK IX. In FB SPitfire reach 700km/h !!!! when real maximum speed Spitfire IX was 668km/h!!!!! I knew these before patch 2.04 and i read on these forum that these bug was raported by comunity. And so? After patch 2.04 where in readme is FM of SPitfire MKIX was corected we have still THE SAME BUG.

[This message was edited by Kwiatos on Tue August 24 2004 at 08:11 AM.]

Future-
08-24-2004, 09:38 AM
First of all, the things you mention are not "bugs". Per definiton, a bug is an error in a programm that shouldn't be there, an error that is caused accidently.

However, the flight models of the planes in the game are not an accident, they were meant to be the way they are.

Now, about your observations: I also noticed that some planes perform slightly better/worse than their real-life counterparts. The exact reason for this is unknown to me, but then again, overall the FMs are well met. Not perfect, but good enough.

Long story short: if you're such an expert, I recommend you try to become a beta tester for Oleg, and see how far you can get with your opinion. If anything will be changed, it's - as always - up to Oleg to decide.

Ah, and another thing: beta testing isn't just there so some flyboy can get the FM of his dreams for "his" planes. Beta testing also checks for bugs, "balancing" problems etc..

End of story.

- Future

Commanding Officer of the 530th Bomb Squad
380th Bomb Group 5th AF USAAF

http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1083.jpg

Visit us at http://www.310thvfs.com , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

p1ngu666
08-24-2004, 10:10 AM
robban75 (i think) does some good tests, no reason why u shouldnt either http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
but ya the zero is too slow, been mentioned before..

http://www.pingu666.modded.me.uk/mysig3.jpg
<123_GWood_JG123> NO SPAM!

Kwiatos
08-24-2004, 10:24 AM
Sry Future if you think that i feel my favorite plane is too bad or sth so im crying here. I fly many planes i like all them and i have a few my favourites plane to fly from different country. I like flying Fw190 the same like flying Spitfire , i often fly Bf 109 like P-51. But im very disapointet when i found than some plane is wrong modelled in evenen basic performance like max speed, climb rate - thing which are very easy to check. As i think every tester have a some plane to check. If we speak about FM tester should check firstly such basic things like maximum speed, climb rate, turn rate etc. Dont speak about more detalied things like dive acceleration, zoom climb, energy bleeding etc. What could i feel when i found that these basic things are wrong, unchecked and not fixed by such long time?????
I fly in Polish SQN 303 which historically flew Hurricane and SPitfire in WW2. We fly in VWF in Spitfires and other allied planes. When i found thah Spitfire MKIX is too fast at high alt i posted about it in these forum because i dont like flying overmodelled plane!!!! The same situation was when i found that P-51 is overmodelled in my opinion in slow speed dogfight, when i found that Spitfire MKV 1941 and CW 1943 are overmodelled in climb rate at high alt ETC. I dont like flying overmodelled planes because i feel that isn't right. I thinik that many people here need maximum possible realism in these game. Im not somesidewhiner. When i found sth wrong with anyside plane i always post here about it.

[This message was edited by Kwiatos on Tue August 24 2004 at 09:39 AM.]

Kwiatos
08-24-2004, 10:35 AM
Hmm Pacific Fighters is close. I though that before relase PF FB/AEP will be good preparet for it with clarify and stable FM/DM. A6M2 is one of basic fighter in these theathre and now before PF have wrong modelled performance.Probaly A6m5 have similar situation if we speak about max speed. I wonder if FB/AEP (PF) is still simulator or became more arcadish game for all.
Why testers dont see such basic things???

F19_Ob
08-24-2004, 10:44 AM
Its very difficult to say that something is wrong with the performance in FB.
Many pilots and real testpilots generally mean that there is a difference between factory specs and testcondition specs and the actual performance during combatconditions.
So its unlikely we will have a definitive answer to the performance issue.
Im atlest confident in that the Madox crew know more than I do in these matters.

cheers

609IAP_Recon
08-24-2004, 11:12 AM
Well, they could release a patch every 5 years to give them time to fix every minute detail.

Or you could get a patch every so often with lesser expectations?

Which one you like?

S!
609IAP_Recon
http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg


Full Real Virtual Online War: Forgotten Skies (http://www.forgottenskies.com)

[This message was edited by 609IAP_Recon on Tue August 24 2004 at 11:24 AM.]

Ugly_Kid
08-24-2004, 11:16 AM
Why do you think the problem is the testers?
Why do people automatically assume that the "leaks" also come from testers - it sure does not sound like a pleasant/grateful job that testing...

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

Willey
08-24-2004, 01:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Future-:
Long story short: if you're such an expert, I recommend you try to become a beta tester for Oleg, and see how far you can get with your opinion. If anything will be changed, it's - as always - up to Oleg to decide.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Better replace that Oleg with Ubi...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Ah, and another thing: beta testing isn't just there so some flyboy can get the FM of his dreams for "his" planes. Beta testing also checks for bugs, "balancing" problems etc..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, "balacing" problems... that exactly is what a simulation beta tester should *not* do. But looks like they did... but I bet it's in Ubi's and not in Oleg's favor.

Kwiatos
08-24-2004, 02:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
Why do you think the problem is the testers?
Why do people automatically assume that the "leaks" also come from testers - it sure does not sound like a pleasant/grateful job that testing...

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes but testers are for found such basic bugs etc and they didnt do it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Future-
08-24-2004, 02:08 PM
Balancing is indeed important, although it means something partially different to "balancing" in a (for example) real-time strategy game.

"Balancing" regarding a flight sim means for me testing a weapon/plane, and trying to judge if it is overpowered or underpowered. A wild example for this would be, say, the following:

A tester notices that a certain weapon deals damage more compareable to an atomic blast rather than what it most probably should be. So this weapon needs to be balanced.


And ultimately, Oleg pulls the ropes for all game changes. Whenever it comes to a certain plane or loadout to be included and/or changed, Oleg decides what to do. Or have you ever seen some Ubi guy that hopped in and decided?

- Future

Commanding Officer of the 530th Bomb Squad
380th Bomb Group 5th AF USAAF

http://invisionfree.com:54/40/30/upload/p1083.jpg

Visit us at http://www.310thvfs.com , home of the 310th FS and the 380th BG

Ugly_Kid
08-24-2004, 02:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Yes but testers are for found such basic bugs etc and they didnt do it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And what makes you think "the problem" was never found? Additionally, if they were paid for that testing stuff you might even have a place for critic AFAIK they're not. You can of course volunteer your expertise to do a better job...(for free)

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

Kwiatos
08-24-2004, 02:22 PM
I reported many bugs before for free of course and many from these raports was agreed by Oleg M and bugs was fixed expecially in FM for different planes. I feel these changes in FB http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif and im glad that Oleg M. fixed them.
But in my opinion such basic things like max speed for planes should be checked and corected at firstly by tester. I know that Oleg M. couldn't check everything by themself. Thats way are testers for. As i know every change in FM/DM Oleg M. must accept.

Ugly_Kid
08-24-2004, 02:53 PM
Fine,

There is stuff that is not as intended.
There is stuff that IS as intended.
There is stuff that is not as intended but not interesting to fix.

And if any of that sh!te ain't pleasing you it's 'cause of the testers? Testing can fix only the first one of those...

Persistent childish whining en Masse seems to be something that's going to get things "fixed" that weren't broken to begin with...is that also fault of the "testers"?
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg

T_O_A_D
08-24-2004, 03:06 PM
Does anyone have the testers formula for testing.

Map,weather,fuel,ammoloads.

And are they simuliar to the formula used in real life?

Till you do both the same you have no clue.
I think Oleg and 1c have done a rather good job to reflect real aircraft by type given the info and limitations of the PC.

So till you can post real time data your beating a dead horse here.

Lets see the proof in the pudding or I'll just lock this whine!

Have you checked your Private Topics recently? (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=ugtpc&s=400102)
My TrackIR fix, Read the whole thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=49310655&m=15310285&p=1)
Commanding Officer of the 131st_VFW (http://www.geocities.com/vfw_131st/)
http://home.mchsi.com/~131st_vfw/T_O_A_D.jpg

Kwiatos
08-24-2004, 03:39 PM
For the Spitfire IX thing was clear in others topic and posts and for sure fact that Spitfire IX is overmodelled in max speed at high alt was proved. These fact was know even before patch 2.04 was many topic where people wrote about these and even wrote that these thing was raported to 1C. After 2.04 max speed of Spitfire is the same like before http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
Every could find sources about such basic performance of plane like max speed and make some basic test in FB to check it. I still wonder why testers don't do it in right way. I found many sources where it is that A6m2 had max speed 288 kt (316 mph/h) or even more. I didnt find any that says A6m2 had less maxiumum speed than 500 km/h. In FB A6m2 we have 478 km/h. Every could check it in easy way. Maby except testers http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
08-24-2004, 04:04 PM
I would highly doubt that the job to test flight models and damage models is that of the beta testers. This is Olegs job. Beta testers would be more responsible for the task that many have mentioned above.

=S=

http://www.flightsuits.com/images/patches/patch_vmf214a.jpg

www.vmf-214.net (http://www.vmf-214.net)
(The Original BlackSheep Squadron of IL-2/FB/AEP/PF)

WWMaxGunz
08-24-2004, 04:05 PM
I was a beta for a flight sim back in 1998. It is a lot of work. A lot.
You get a new patch and you check out just what you are told to then report.
What happens, you don't know. You pass along other observations and maybe
they make a change list. Maybe the change happens before the next 4 patches
you get. There are only so many changes per patch because too many changes
and things become uncontrolled. In the meantime, the forums rage about when
the patch will be and at the same time demand 50 new things and 100 more to
be changed and you see only a few per week maybe. There is thanks from the
company and development team but very few in the community. Then in the end,
if the company is one I know of, the result is totally different than what
you have been testing and from an inside poll by the testers it is inferior
to the last 3 patches you had -- that is how it can be. In that sim it was
the noise on the boards that convinced the company it was hopeless to fix it
all since the whining never ever ends so they arcaded it a bit and left in
the cracked parts of the FM from weeks before the best test patch of all.

Be really happy that Oleg and Crew have taken these sims so far and continue
to do so. Be very happy indeed.

No, the testers do not control the process. What can be done with the code
has more 'control' than anything else, then there is 1C. All else is less.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
08-24-2004, 11:39 PM
"First of all, the things you mention are not "bugs". Per definiton, a bug is an error in a programm that shouldn't be there, an error that is caused accidently.

However, the flight models of the planes in the game are not an accident, they were meant to be the way they are.

Mmmmmm, they ain't right are they ?

Now, about your observations: I also noticed that some planes perform slightly better/worse than their real-life counterparts. The exact reason for this is unknown to me, but then again, overall the FMs are well met. Not perfect, but good enough.

Mmmmm, but they still ain't right, are they ?

Long story short: if you're such an expert, I recommend you try to become a beta tester for Oleg, and see how far you can get with your opinion. If anything will be changed, it's - as always - up to Oleg to decide.

Two sites for you to look at: www.avhistory.org (http://www.avhistory.org)
In particular, their 1% FM design spreadsheets
www.darcorp.com (http://www.darcorp.com)
In particular, their design and testing software.

Ah, and another thing: beta testing isn't just there so some flyboy can get the FM of his dreams for "his" planes. Beta testing also checks for bugs, "balancing" problems etc..

End of story.

- Future"

crazyivan1970
08-25-2004, 12:12 AM
What TOAD said http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

@Kwiatos - with all due respect you, don`t really know what beta testers do and how much work it is.

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/band.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

ASH at S-MART
08-25-2004, 01:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I'm still confused how testers check basic performance (max speed, climb rate) of planes in FB. Why after so many patches we still have bugs in game which are very basic bugs easy to check.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Easy! Because a simulation never has been, never is, and never will be real!

For a visual.. pretend the following data points were collected 60+ years ago during some flight test

http://www.mste.uiuc.edu/courses/ci399TSMsu02/students/hooper/lessons/FinalLesson/sample_data.gif

except pretend that X is speed and not time.. i.e. speed vs. height

At these conditions

air temp 70?F
fuel load 50%

Just to name a few..

The result are then plotted on a graph..

http://www.mste.uiuc.edu/courses/ci399TSMsu02/students/hooper/lessons/FinalLesson/sample_plot.gif

Now notice that it is NOT a continues line.. The data points were only collected (measured by a device or written down by the test pilot) at specific heights.. Now from the graph we can see that..

at height 5 we have a speed (time) around 0.60
at height 15 we have a speed (time) around 0.97

Now that is great if we only fly at height 5 or 15.. But we don't.. We fly at 6, 7, 7.1, 7.01, etc.. So what do we do?

Well you need an equation that BEST FITS your data points so you can ESTIMATE what they *might* be in between the actual points.. i.e. SIMULATE what they *might* be!!

The following is a graph of an EQUATION that is a BEST FIT.

http://www.mste.uiuc.edu/courses/ci399TSMsu02/students/hooper/lessons/FinalLesson/sample_plot3.gif

As you can see the red line does NOT allays land ON TOP of the actual data points.. So there is the source of some ERROR.

So in a nut shell that is what SIMULATION is.. Some MATH that approximates things in the real world!

Now for the real mind bender.. Go back up and change the Air Temp OR Fuel Load and you will have a whole new set of data points and thus a different equation.. or hopefully just different coefficients (4.1406) to the same equation.

So.. in summary.. simulation never has been, never is, and never will be real!

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

[This message was edited by ASH_SMART on Wed August 25 2004 at 12:15 AM.]

Kwiatos
08-25-2004, 03:33 AM
I dont post here about 1 or 2 km/h more. I post here because for example A6m2 have 30km/h less then should, because Spitfire MK IX has 30 km too much in max speed. These isn't test error isn't???? I dont know what job exacly betatesters do. So i use word "testesrs" i mean people which are rensposibility of some type of plane or planes. I dont post here beacuse color of my seat isn't my favourite, beacuse sky is too blue or water is too cold. Im interestenting in these game in maximum possible realism in FM/DM of planes. If i dont care about it i would play Battlefield 1942 or sth.

VMF513_Sandman
08-25-2004, 06:11 AM
the japanese built the a6m2/5 for 1 thing in mind: manuverability. from the time ww2 broke out to the time they were decimated at okanowa, they didnt improve much on their planes as the opposition....faster, higher ceiling, and more armored fighters. they were from day 1, in the antiquated ww1 style dogfight, and for the 1st 6 months, they ruled the skies over the wildcat.

the a6m2's best turn rate was at slow speed...not high speed like the later fighters. the zero was also very lightweight in comparison to any of the american fighters. the a6m2 was introduced in the year 1940. the plane had zero armor anywhere to make it as light as possible, with it's high-lift wings, that gave it its incredable climb rate...at a price. its engine was unable to make it dive well. at 250 mph or under, the zeke would be unbeatable fighting on its terms. at higher speeds, the flaws of the zero became apparent. climb rate was 4,517 feet per minute, ceiling at 10,000 meters. over 3,047 meters tho, (10,000 feet), the zero started to lose its edge. the wildcat's finally put its heavier weight to good use and dived to outrun the zeke. over 300 mph, the zeke couldnt keep up. the controls started to stiffen, and if the dive continued, the plane would start to fall apart.

a6m5 had a much thicker wing, higher ceiling, and more powerful engine. dived better than the a6m2, climb rate at 3,150 feet a minute...less than what the a6m2 could do, but could handle a bit more speed. it still prefered speeds under 300 mph for its best turn rate..and the a6m2 would still beat it down in a turn fight.

engine comparison: a6m2: 950 hp. a6m5: 1,130 hp. armor: none. year introduced: 1943.

converting to metric, 250 mph is 402 kmh (roughly). at or below this speed, the a6m2 should have no problems out-turning any plane other than a bi-plane witch can fly considerably slower. for a6m5, keeping it between 410-460 kmh would be ur best bet. why in the hell are u tryin to make a a6m2/5 keep up with a mustang? at slow speeds, the zeke will turn on a dime, and to those z/b'er's, 1 meter either way will blow their shot. sooner or later, the z/b'er will get iratated enough to dare to try to turn with u.....dinner is served. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

Hunter82
08-25-2004, 06:33 AM
I love how everything is a testers fault and they didn't do their job.


Joke mode on:
Problem here is most who have the biggest issue with how the testers find and report bugs or how Oleg implements changes probably couldn't detect a fart in a wind storm or their way out of a cardboard box. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

==============================
Mudmovers (http://magnum-pc.netfirms.com/mudmovers/index.htm)
ATI Catalyst Beta Tester
Catalyst Feedback (http://apps.ati.com/driverfeedback/)
Catalyst Driver Download (http://www.ati.com/support/driver.html)
Magnum PC (http://www.magnum-pc.com)

==============================

Kwiatos
08-25-2004, 06:37 AM
VMF513_Sandman are you know what about is these topic???? I think no.

I tested A6m2 climb rate. Is too low the same like maxium speed.
In FB A6m2 climb to 6km in 8:30 (100% power, 100% fuel) in RL Zeke climb to 6 km in 7:27. PF is coming lol.

WWSensei
08-25-2004, 07:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I post here because for example A6m2 have 30km/h less then should, because Spitfire MK IX has 30 km too much in max speed. These isn't test error isn't????<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kwiatos, I assume you accounted for IAS vs TAS at 4,5 km? I ask because a back of the napkin quick calculation shows that's about how much difference there would be at that altitude if you used the wrong altimeter reading.

I'm not at a machine with the software on it so I can't verify it hence the question.

Kwiatos
08-25-2004, 07:55 AM
Im not noob in these job WWSensei. Of course TAS

JG53Frankyboy
08-25-2004, 08:17 AM
well , the in game objectviewer , actually the german one, is giving 478km/h at 4550 m as Vmax for the A6M2 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

i reached with an unarmed A6M2 , 25% fuel, at 5000m MSL , Crimea Map (because oleg said THAT IS the map with the best altitude modell) ~480 KM/h TAS.

so, if we read our books (R.C.Mikesh its ~508 km/h at ~5000m) its to slow, but in olegs eyes its ok http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VMF513_Sandman
08-25-2004, 08:31 AM
u didnt say if u were in cem..witch fuel mixture might come into play, flaps or no flaps, steady climb, or the 'climb till almost stall' scenerio. at any rate, the zeke is more at home under 3k meters...not at 6k+ where the 109, 190's, and the z/b'er's are known to haunt. btw, the americans used the poor right hand turn rate to their advantage...and this zero obviously prefers left handed turns.

Kwiatos
08-25-2004, 08:32 AM
I found suorces that says A6m2 typ 21 (the same we have in FB) had 288 knots/h at 4.5km - 532 km/h. A6m2 typ 11 have 316 mph - 508 km/h.

For example about A6m2 performance:

A6M2 Specs:


Armament: Two 20 mm Type 99 fixed forward-firing cannon with 60 rounds per gun in the wing leading edges, and two 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Type 97 machine guns with 500 rounds per gun in the upper part of the forward fuselage with synchronization equipment to fire through the propeller disc

Ordnance: Up to 120kg (265 lb) carried on two hard-points (both under the wings with each unit rated at 60 kg, and generally comprising two 60 kg (132 lb) bombs.

Electronics: Standard communication and navigation equipment, plus a reflector gun sight.

Powerplant: One Nakajima NK1C Sakae 12 radial piston engine rated at 940 hp for take-off and 950 hp at 13,780 ft.

Size:
Span: 39 ft 4.5 in.; aspect ratio 6.42;
Wing Area: 241.54 sq ft.
Length: 29 ft 8.75 in
Height: 10 ft 0 in.

Weight:
Empty: 3,704 lb.
Normal take-off: 5,313 lb.;
Maximum take-off: 6,164 lb.

Performance:
Maximum level speed 'clean': 331.5 mph at 14,930 ft
Maximum range 1,929 miles with drop tank; typical range 1,625 miles with internal fuel.
Maximum rate of climb at sea level 4,517 ft. per minute; climb to 19,685 ft. in 7 minutes 27 seconds; service ceiling 32,810 ft.

WWMaxGunz
08-25-2004, 08:51 AM
This sim don't go by tabled FM. Best fit might describe engine power in between
charger shifts. Even EAW was more complex than that curve in the graph. To make
climb less, some other things like maybe ability to turn take a hit as opposed
to people calling for "turn the climb down!" like sure, quick change a number or formula
and there it is.


Neal

VMF513_Sandman
08-25-2004, 09:07 AM
ooooooooooo houston, we found a bug. altimiter wrong. buku wrong. wont indicate alt properly in any which way. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif
btw guns, a6m2 doesnt have a supercharger http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif

WWMaxGunz
08-25-2004, 09:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vagueout:
_Two sites for you to look at: http://www.avhistory.org
In particular, their 1% FM design spreadsheets
http://www.darcorp.com
In particular, their design and testing software._
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One of my squadmates just finished his PhD in AE. He spent some time debating the 1% guys.
His take on their approach was "Within 1% of what they know.".

You like the way it flies?

IL2 could be like that. The planes would behave exactly to something like IL2Compare,
which is an approximation to what IL2 does in real time. But it could be clamped right
to the formulae the way CFS2 is, which is the ONLY way that assembly line bit can work.
Not quite tabled but it might as well be because in that case the only thing different
is that the formulae replace the tables mostly but the sim is still on guiderails and
will not do anything not mandated. Anything else and you can't predict your 1% error.

You might also want to check for behaviours modelled in IL2 not present in CFS-any.
Yeah... the numbers aren't right on the mark. In reality, do you think that test
pilots got the same results as each other, or even every time they flew the same plane?
probably to within in some cases more or less than the sim but the reality was and is
that max speed, etc, are not fixed values and do depend on the pilot, the day, and the
plane. So that 1% thing is for 1% retentives with severe chart fixations.

Still another patch to PF and bet it ain't the last patch in the series (maybe for FB)
so we'll all see how things settle. Everything right "now" is not just not possible
given the number of people at work on the sim. I guess it could be open and then you
can go online with everyone flying to within 1% **of what they want**.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
08-25-2004, 09:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
btw guns, a6m2 doesnt have a supercharger http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good. Some planes do. One code engine for all planes.

Keep hitting yourself, it's easier than thinking.


Neal

Kwiatos
08-25-2004, 09:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF513_Sandman:
ooooooooooo houston, we found a bug. altimiter wrong. buku wrong. wont indicate alt properly in any which way. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif
btw guns, a6m2 doesnt have a supercharger http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you read even little about A6m2 you would be know that A6m2 have supercharger but only 1-stage.
Lol

lol

VMF513_Sandman
08-25-2004, 09:24 AM
the aforementioned altimiter bug is present in both models of the zero..a6m2 and a6m5. when in a climb or a dive, the gauge should be actin like a hamster on a wheel. does it do this, try it and tell me. supercharger found on a6m5..more powerful engine than the m2.

it could be worse tho. in cfs2, the planes could be modified at will and without being detected except for the sim's veteran flyers. but cfs2 also didnt have the complex engine management fb has either. my only change would be how the guns fire in all planes: mg's dont fire all at once. it would make the gunnery alot more accurate.

VMF513_Sandman
08-25-2004, 09:29 AM
look at it this way Kwiatos; zero might not be up to spec's in the climb rate dept. the 38 should also have extreme climb capability also, but should a 38 get bounced by a zeke out of nowhere, his only options would be to dive and make tracks till he got the speed up.

Kwiatos
08-25-2004, 09:43 AM
Sry but i dont understand your "style of thinking" Sandman. Plz find another topic for littering.

ASH at S-MART
08-25-2004, 10:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I dont post here about 1 or 2 km/h more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I never said you did or did not.. I simply pointed out that simulation never was, never is, and never will be real. The equation example was an attempt to show you that those data points you pull out of a book are NOT used in a lookup fashion. They are used to compare to the FM equations to see if the FM is close.. Sometimes it will be right on the money, sometimes it wont.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I post here because for example A6m2 have 30km/h less then should, because Spitfire MK IX has 30 km too much in max speed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What part of "Sometimes it will be right on the money, sometimes it wont" do you not understand?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
These isn't test error isn't????<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Excuse me?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I dont know what job exacly betatesters do.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That much is painfully clear from your posts!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
So i use word "testesrs" i mean people which are rensposibility of some type of plane or planes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Duh

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I dont post here beacuse color of my seat isn't my favourite, beacuse sky is too blue or water is too cold. Im interestenting in these game in maximum possible realism in FM/DM of planes. If i dont care about it i would play Battlefield 1942 or sth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So what part of "never was, never is, and never will be real" do you not understand?

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ASH at S-MART
08-25-2004, 10:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
This sim don't go by tabled FM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Never said it was.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Best fit might describe engine power in between
charger shifts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That equation vs. data points was not intended to imply that flight models are that easy.. It was intended to show that exact data points are not used in some lookup fashion. There are actual equations being used to calculate numbers in real time. Reason I kept it simple and didn't provide a full FM example is that it is clear to me this guy does not ever realize the simple example yet.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Even EAW was more complex than that curve in the graph.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True.. So was PAW1942.. PAW1942 was actually one of the first to use equations over lookup tables.. Back then they used a lot of fixed point math instead of floating point.. But you could *feel* and *see* the difference PAW had relative to lookup table sims of the time like AOTP and AOE.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
To make climb less, some other things like maybe ability to turn take a hit as opposed to people calling for "turn the climb down!" like sure, quick change a number or formula and there it is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again.. was a simple example.. In that it was clear that he didnt ever realise that.. Anything more would have just blown him out of the water.. Sad thing is it appears that he didnt even understand the simple example.. As for you and yours.. I'm sorry if you and yours got the impression that FM are simple to do.. They isn't! The math itself is.. Has been around for years.. But it obtaining the coefficient of that math and tweaking them to match the data.. That is the hard part that can make or break it

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

WWMaxGunz
08-25-2004, 10:37 AM
That and the existing detailed equations are way beyond any computer I know of to
run in realtime even for just one plane let alone a combat sim.

ASH at S-MART
08-25-2004, 10:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I tested A6m2 climb rate. Is too low the same like maxium speed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think you dont realise there is errors in equations AND errors in testing methods! This same climb rate to alt in time thing came up awhile back with regards to the Me262. Some guy was claiming just as you are now that it was talking longer than it should.. Thus he concluded it was a BUG.. Never once stoping to look in the mirror and consider that it may be him that is the source of the ERROR! Others took the Me262 up and didnt hang it from it's nose and found it to hit the number dead on.. So you see your TESTING method may be the source of the problem.. You know that very thing your blaiming the BETA TESTERS for.

For example.. just to point out some important factors you dont know.. Thus will make it hard to recreate the TEST in the sim to see if it matches those numbers..

What was the change of angle of climb as alt changed?
What was the change of rate of climb as alt changed?
What was the change of power settings as alt changed?
What was the change of fuel mixture as alt changed?
What was the change of cross/head winds the day of the test?

Little things like that can make a big difference! Dont belive me? Then read about Luckie Lindie and how he help P38 pilots get more range out of thier P38s.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
In FB A6m2 climb to 6km in 8:30 (100% power, 100% fuel) in RL Zeke climb to 6 km in 7:27. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What proof do you have that the actual test was with 100% fule and 100% power?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
PF is coming lol.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Get a mirror!

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ASH at S-MART
08-25-2004, 10:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
That and the existing detailed equations are way beyond any computer I know of to
run in real time even for just one plane let alone a combat sim.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Depends on which your talking about.. There are FMs like the ones used in this game.. And a PC is very capable of running in real time.. Then there are FM equations used that actually use a model of the aircraft body and apply simulate the air flow over wings and such.. i.e. the modern wind tunnel and modern test pilot stuff that goes on before an airplane ever flys.. Those types of equations (flight modeling) would bring a PC to it's knees and may run over night to simulate a hour of flight.

But those types of FMs are NOT the types used in these types of simulators.. The results from those maybe used to derive coefficients for these.. Much like flight data from 60 years ago is used.

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

Kwiatos
08-25-2004, 11:49 AM
I never belive only 1 suorce. Alway search for more. I made some job, find some sources, made some test etc. I made some conclusions and post it here. I did it because i want these game became better simulator more and more close to reality. I just wonder what did you do Ash_Smart besides disturb others to make something for these game. You only bla bla bla. If you doubt in sth plz give me proof, test or something constructive instead bla bla bla.
i can look at the mirror and say i do something for these game and i feel these things.
What did you do mister Ash.

ASH at S-MART
08-25-2004, 12:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I never belive only 1 suorce.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Good to hear! Because it is a common mistake... Yet.. I only saw one source posted by you?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Alway search for more. I made some job, find some sources, made some test etc. I made some conclusions and post it here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You should consider posting your methods along with your sources.. In that as I pointed out your method can make or break it.. That and as others pointed out some maps seem to make a difference.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I did it because i want these game became better simulator more and more close to reality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As do most.. but until some proff is provided your reality is not garinteed to be reality

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I just wonder what did you do Ash_Smart besides disturb others to make something for these game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just because you are disturb by me pointing out your errors does not mean I have not done things! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif As a mater of fact playing the devils advocate to all these bug whinners is a form of doing something IMHO.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
You only bla bla bla.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Get that mirror I was telling you about.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
If you doubt in sth plz give me proof, test or something constructive instead bla bla bla.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What part of the proof did you not understand? Or are you tring to tell me now that you did post..

The change of angle of climb as alt changed?
The change of rate of climb as alt changed?
The change of power settings as alt changed?
The change of fuel mixture as alt changed?
The change of cross/head winds the day of the test?

If you did.. it must have got deleted.. because I dont see it anywhere

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
i can look at the mirror and say i do something for these game and i feel these things.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Excuse me?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
What did you do mister Ash.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>See above

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

Kwiatos
08-25-2004, 12:57 PM
Belive me If i would will see sens to post here sources, test etc i would do it. Probably better place to do it is e-mail box to 1C. I just wonder why such basic thing like maximum speed for different planes are still wrong and many people, testers dont see it. If you dont belive for example that A6m2 is too slow made some job, found suorces, make some test, etc. You will see. I know these because i did it.
I dont see sense to waste my time to answer your post here .

LEXX_Luthor
08-25-2004, 01:02 PM
Maybe they did see and nothing could be done at the time, you know, push down a speed bump here, and a yaw bump pops up somewhere else. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The FB speeds are probably closer to published test numbers than the statistical range of real life aircraft speeds of real planes on the battlefield.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack ( AEP )

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2004, 01:10 PM
Having been an early IL-2 beta tester team member, allow me to shed some light on this process.

One, not all the beta testers were good at doing detailed flight testing. Some just wanted a preview, and really did little more than fire up the sim, look at the pretty pictures, do a few Instant Action duels and comment on that. I certainly was not that well versed at "discerning whether Plane X would climb 2,400 f/m under 10K feet under military power". There are a few guys who are good at coming up with regimens for getting climb charts, performance charts, etc. but they are a rare (and anal http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) breed. Certainly, no procedures were offered by Ubi or the design team to guide us in doing this.

Two, sometimes we were told what things we could comment on, to the exclusion of others!!! This was often for "close to gold" releases where it was too late in the process to do something like overhaul a FM. We were instructed to only comment on crashes, bad bugs and things of that nature. Even posting about other subjects on the dev board would be ignored at this stage.

Overall, I'd say the testing process was not 'scientific' enough or procedurally sound enough to get better results than it has. So, if the beta testers are not pressed to do this, then the "proof-flying" would fall back on those who devised the FMs in the first place. It might be better if the testers were armed with procudures to test, and were organized better, so that certain testers were responsible for determining if "their" 3 assigned planes hit "these" numbers. That would have been a better way to go about it.

So, there is plenty of "blame" to spread around in why the planes often do not match up as close as they should to the published numbers.

ASH at S-MART
08-25-2004, 01:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Belive me If i would will see sens to post here sources, test etc i would do it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Only do it if you mind people pointing out that you didnt do it

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Probably better place to do it is e-mail box to 1C.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yup

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I just wonder why such basic thing like maximum speed for different planes are still wrong and many people, testers dont see it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And I wonder why such basic things like knowing the conditions those numbers were colected gets ignored by guys like you when the try to re-create the same test in the sim.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
If you dont belive for example that A6m2 is too slow made some job, found suorces, make some test, etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Give me all those factors I mentiond that are needed and I will.. Otherwise you will have to live with a perecntage error

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
You will see. I know these because i did it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>All I see is your lack of any data on the conditions of the test that those numbers came from

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kwiatos:
I dont see sense to waste my time to answer your post here .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nor do I.. I just wish you would have realised that a long time ago.. Glad I could help though! Good luck with your *proof* your too busy to post here but plan to email to Oleg!

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
08-25-2004, 02:51 PM
Fascinating insight Stiglr, thanks.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack ( AEP )

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

jugent
08-25-2004, 03:04 PM
Stiglr why arnt you a betatester today?

T_O_A_D
08-25-2004, 07:36 PM
Dang Stiglr

That was the best post of yours I've ever read! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

Now lets get some facts on here! Or we close and move on.

Like anyone got access to real world flight test procedures they use to chart up a plane for advertized abilities?

If we could get that then we could test our planes and compare. If not lets move on.

I really thinks Hunters on to some thing there and the fart bug http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Have you checked your Private Topics recently? (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=ugtpc&s=400102)
My TrackIR fix, Read the whole thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=49310655&m=15310285&p=1)
Commanding Officer of the 131st_VFW (http://www.geocities.com/vfw_131st/)
http://home.mchsi.com/~131st_vfw/T_O_A_D.jpg

VMF513_Sandman
08-25-2004, 07:41 PM
i did a comparison of a6m2 and 5 to cfs2's. zeke of cfs2's altimeter at least works and it does grab a hell of alot of air at relatively low speed, roll rate not much different...difference being it wont snap stall like those horrible cfs2 stall modelling. he'd really be whinin if they'd have the guns like they did...m2's guns so weak against corsair and hellcats, it would be like takin .303's against lagg3's.

WWMaxGunz
08-25-2004, 07:58 PM
&gt;Originally posted by Stiglr:
&gt;Certainly, no procedures were offered by Ubi or the design team to guide us in doing this.

That is a little sad.

&gt;Two, sometimes we were told what things we could comment on, to the exclusion of others!!! This was often for "close to gold" releases where it was too late in the process to do something like overhaul a FM. We were instructed to only comment on crashes, bad bugs and things of that nature. Even posting about other subjects on the dev board would be ignored at this stage.

Only to be expected or a patch would take... well we would still be waiting, no?

&gt;Overall, I'd say the testing process was not 'scientific' enough or procedurally sound enough to get better results than it has. So, if the beta testers are not pressed to do this, then the "proof-flying" would fall back on those who devised the FMs in the first place.

This I think is somewhat true. Maybe they learned to listen to the 'anal' testers and
the alphas as well?

&gt;It might be better if the testers were armed with procudures to test, and were organized better, so that certain testers were responsible for determining if "their" 3 assigned planes hit "these" numbers. That would have been a better way to go about it.

Would you trust all the testers to get "their" planes right? I wouldn't!
Perhaps, as above, they got to where they learned who would do the better job and relied
on them more, then maybe double-checked once the tester reported the plane was ready?

&gt;So, there is plenty of "blame" to spread around in why the planes often do not match up as close as they should to the published numbers.

Definitely agree. There is also if the published numbers are right, Oleg has shot many
of those down just by pointing to the conditions or lack of given with those numbers.

Still very sorry to hear that they gave no test instructions. Disappointed actually.
Releasing procedures used to the board would cut the number of false leads way down,
well what has been told has done some of that already.

Before FB was out, Oleg did promise to release at least some information of where the
numbers came from IIRC. I have yet to see enough to make much at all clear.


Neal

ASH at S-MART
08-25-2004, 08:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T_O_A_D:
Now lets get some facts on here! Or we close and move on. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>YES!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T_O_A_D:
Like anyone got access to real world flight test procedures they use to chart up a plane for advertized abilities? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You would be suprised! The NACA reports typically give you not only the results but the conditions the tests were perofrom under.. Most of the number people toss around in here are from books that got those numbers from such reprots.. But left out all the detail. Problem here is without the details alot of what people complain about is that they FAILED to take into consideration the details!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T_O_A_D:
If we could get that then we could test our planes and compare. If not lets move on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There out there.. Alot of the old NACA stuff is on the web now.. Alot of colleges have them on microfish.. Im sure Oleg has simular flight data with not only the RESULTS (numbers) but the CONDITIONS (ac config, etc).

A perfect example of how CONDITIONS can factor into things.. Take a look at what lucky lindie did for the P38 range.

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

VonHeide
08-27-2004, 04:35 PM
YUMMY YUMMY YUMMY IVE GOT GUMMY N MY TUMMY!!AND I JUST CANT GET IT RIGHT!!

Dora is the Love
G-10 is the Way

VFA-195 Snacky
08-28-2004, 03:38 AM
It's not. It's a pain in the tail for the most part, but it can be rewarding.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
Why do you think the problem is the testers?
Why do people automatically assume that the "leaks" also come from testers - it sure does not sound like a pleasant/grateful job that testing...

http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/oksennus_1.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.x-plane.org/users/531seawolf/b_a_presidential_first.jpg
"Navy1, Call the Ball- Roger Ball."

[This message was edited by VFA-195 Snacky on Sat August 28 2004 at 02:49 AM.]

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2004, 09:11 AM
Well, Gunz, if you can't trust the beta testers to do honest testing, you've got basic problems beyond the sim itself.

Actually, if you can't trust the developers to develop the FMs without bias, you've also got problems.

I'd think the testers could have had a little cross-assignment of planes to see if there were wide disparities in the results by different testers on the same plane. That should uncover an obvious attempt to "pork" or "ueberize" results as part of an agenda to alter a true FM in the sim.

WWMaxGunz
08-28-2004, 10:02 AM
I've been there, done that, seen how it went as a beta for RB3.
It's not about dishonest testers Stig. I just don't trust a large part
of any group to be good test pilots let alone the best. You wrote as
much yourself in this thread!

I got problems? Did you spend time flying RB3D??? Wanna know where
some of the cracks in the FM are or do you well know them yourself?
I've taken an Alb DVa up to the max height and had the VSI pinned
near all the way just flying right on the edge in circles. The last
couple beta patches wouldn't let you do anything like that. That
plane still wasn't uber compared to the N-28 and later Allieds though,
but it was a good ride. The MMP is still unmatched without playing
a pay-monthly sim which is why I stayed at all after the release.
But the FM... well the efforts of the community attest to how bad the
corp-rat release is, those guys did years of hard work on partial
fixes. I'd say, "we all got problems" that time. I also really do
appreciate the way 1C has stuck to this and not given up to move
along. It shows real strength and desire to stay in the market.


Neal

T_O_A_D
08-28-2004, 12:44 PM
Ash you got any links, I'd be willing to compare some of them. If I had the stuff to compare against.

Also I am well aware of what LL did with the P-38 and it fuel economy. He has a history with the real 131st (http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/county/stlouis/aviation/131st.htm). I have read alot on them since our squad carries its name in the virtual world.
Although origianaly they were the 110th then renamed.

Have you checked your Private Topics recently? (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=ugtpc&s=400102)
My TrackIR fix, Read the whole thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=49310655&m=15310285&p=1)
Commanding Officer of the 131st_VFW (http://www.geocities.com/vfw_131st/)
http://home.mchsi.com/~131st_vfw/T_O_A_D.jpg

[This message was edited by T_O_A_D on Sat August 28 2004 at 11:57 AM.]

ASH at S-MART
08-28-2004, 01:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T_O_A_D:
Ash you got any links, I'd be willing to compare some of them. If I had the stuff to compare against. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As a mater of fact I do.. The NACA web sight is getting better all the time! They are currently scanning in a lot of the old hard copies into soft copies.. My old college was an AERO ENGINEERING oriented college, so they had all the NACA stuff on micro fish.. A REAL PAIN to look up things.. But the NACA web sight now has search.. I don't think it will actually search the contents of the documents.. In that is appears they are just scanning them in as images.. But they do search by the title, NACA report number, etc.. Probably the best is to use the browse and search by years.. i.e. the 1940s. Only prob is you might not find much at the NACA with regards to capture enemy aircraft.. That was done by another agency.. but there is some!

Here is a link

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/?method=browse

Another good one is here

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/digidoc/report/wr/

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by T_O_A_D:
Also I am well aware of what LL did with the P-38 and it fuel economy. He has a history with the real 131st. I have read a lot on them since our squad carries its name in the virtual world. Although originally they were the 110th then renamed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I only point that out as one of the PERFECT examples of how BIG a difference the way a pilot flys can EFFECT the results.. As with DIVE SPEED.. You can kill the dive speed (waste E) of a P47 by forcing it into a nose stand dive.. Some noob might do that and say claim it is a BUG because a guy in a 190 caught him.. Stuff like that!

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

T_O_A_D
08-28-2004, 07:48 PM
RGR TY for links will scour them.

Rgr on second point aswell. I fully understand.

Have you checked your Private Topics recently? (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=ugtpc&s=400102)
My TrackIR fix, Read the whole thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=49310655&m=15310285&p=1)
Commanding Officer of the 131st_VFW (http://www.geocities.com/vfw_131st/)
http://home.mchsi.com/~131st_vfw/T_O_A_D.jpg

Aaron_GT
08-29-2004, 02:37 AM
"Other example. Spitfire MK IX. In FB SPitfire reach 700km/h !!!! when real maximum speed Spitfire IX was 668km/h!!!!! "

Which figures are you using for the Spitfire IX performance? Is it a version with the same Merlin as in game, with +18 boost?

Aaron_GT
08-29-2004, 02:47 AM
"That and the existing detailed equations are way beyond any computer I know of to
run in realtime even for just one plane let alone a combat sim."

Indeed, currently for full fluid dynamic simulation of a plane in detail they use things such as 250+ node beowulfs!

Kwiatos
08-29-2004, 04:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
"Other example. Spitfire MK IX. In FB SPitfire reach 700km/h !!!! when real maximum speed Spitfire IX was 668km/h!!!!! "

Which figures are you using for the Spitfire IX performance? Is it a version with the same Merlin as in game, with +18 boost?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read these man:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=900101665

There wasn't sny Spitfire MK IX with Merlin 70 or 66 which had maximum speed above 668 km/h.

WWMaxGunz
08-29-2004, 11:57 AM
One other thing: air temperature really matters in performance of lift and thrust.
Small planes, just the difference of day and night get different handling. If you
don't think so, ask a pilot with experience. Night air is cooler and generally
steadier, you get better lift and the prop bites more.

But then at really high alts I don't think it makes so much difference. Small plane
pilots wouldn't usually know unless they carry oxygen or have sealed cockpits.

What season it is... well if day and night make a difference then hey...

So there is another condition of a test and my question is this:

How can it be possible to throw a single number for speed at alt around, expect that
to be matched? It defies logic when no matter the condition of atmosphere there is
"the one true number" to be matched or the FM is screwey. What range can be expected
between maps and seasons to say, "I went this fast, the sim is porked!"? So it is
not out of line to ask about real test conditions or if the sim test matched those.
Not out of line at all. If you think it is then try to get real or learn more real.

For now I just wait to be accused of making an excuse, or worse, or more real of both.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2004, 12:18 PM
Gunz, we all know that the numbers won't be hit, spot on everytime in every circumstance. That's too much to ask for.

But, when *cough* certain planes *cough* routinely outperform (or underperform) those numbers, why is it so hard for the fanbois to admit a mistake "might" have been made, honest or otherwise?

Answer just that question, and we can move forward in this debate.

ASH at S-MART
08-29-2004, 01:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Gunz, we all know that the numbers won't be hit, spot on everytime in every circumstance. That's too much to ask for.

But, when *cough* certain planes *cough* routinely outperform (or underperform) those numbers, why is it so hard for the fanbois to admit a mistake "might" have been made, honest or otherwise?

Answer just that question, and we can move forward in this debate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The only routine thing here is your lack of any proof to back up your statements. But I digress.. I have yet to see one post by anyone here saying there are no mistakes.. So your whole "admit a mistake might have been made" is bogus to say the least.. All I have seen is people trying very hard to quantify the amount of error and guys like you calling anyone that does not agree with you a fanbois.. I have seen you talk many times in many places about how great Targetware is compared to IL2.. Why do you do us all a favor and go fly it and hang out in there forum? You fanbois statements are not contributing to the topic at hand

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

ASH at S-MART
08-29-2004, 01:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
One other thing: air temperature really matters in performance of lift and thrust. Small planes, just the difference of day and night get different handling. If you don't think so, ask a pilot with experience. Night air is cooler and generally steadier, you get better lift and the prop bites more.

But then at really high alts I don't think it makes so much difference. Small plane pilots wouldn't usually know unless they carry oxygen or have sealed cockpits.

What season it is... well if day and night make a difference then hey...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
So there is another condition of a test and my question is this:

How can it be possible to throw a single number for speed at alt around, expect that to be matched? It defies logic when no matter the condition of atmosphere there is "the one true number" to be matched or the FM is screwey. What range can be expected between maps and seasons to say, "I went this fast, the sim is porked!"? So it is not out of line to ask about real test conditions or if the sim test matched those. Not out of line at all. If you think it is then try to get real or learn more real.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well said! The amount of error due to simple temp changes can probally account for a good +/- percentage!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
For now I just wait to be accused of making an excuse, or worse, or more real of both.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Or fanbois.. Which I think is LATIN for you own stock in ubi! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ASH HOUSEWARES GROOVY (http://www.garnersclassics.com/wavs/army/groovy.wav)
http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsmovie/ash.jpg

NorrisMcWhirter
08-29-2004, 01:24 PM
Check the tester demographics - that will tell you more than anything.

I'm a firmware engineer so I know how difficult, laborious, thankless and boring testing of code can be. However, the original poster has made a reasonable point.

What amazes me the most about each patch is how many planes appear to have been affected. If you want to reduce testing/risk, you only tinker with relevant bits (although there is no guarantee of affecting some other area of code even at that). For instance, the 190A8 fuel consumption bug. How long has that been in for?

Cheers,
Norris

================================================== ==========

: Chris Morris - Blue Jam :
http://cabinessence.cream.org/

: More irreverence :
http://www.tvgohome.com/

: You've seen them... :
www.chavscum.co.uk (http://www.chavscum.co.uk)

'Bugs? What bugs?'
'AAA steals online kills, crash landing if good landing but out of fuel, muzzle flashes, kill given for planes that have landed OK, AI steals offline kills, gauges not working, Spitfire never overheats, FW190 view, P63 damage model, weird collision modelling...'
'Yeah, but look on the bright side - at least the 0.50s are fixed!'
Moral: $$$ + whining = anything is possible

WWMaxGunz
08-29-2004, 01:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Gunz, we all know that the numbers won't be hit, spot on everytime in every circumstance. That's too much to ask for.

But, when *cough* certain planes *cough* routinely outperform (or underperform) those numbers, why is it so hard for the fanbois to admit a mistake "might" have been made, honest or otherwise?

Answer just that question, and we can move forward in this debate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The answer to the question is a question. Is it for a fact as unbalanced as you stongly
seem to say? Well okay, and many others as well? I've felt strongly about a lean (the
other word will not be said) in conditions but then I flew the other side for more than
a short time and found shortcomings there too. So... I didn't count, who really does
or knows enough to do so? People I trust very much say it's not skewed enough to get
upset about. I'm more concerned about what I perceive as disadvantages in the view
from the whole series of the better prop fighters of one side that limits SA and
critical tactics in those very important planes. But then there's also the cloaking
device camo for at least many of us who don't or can't afford (or even have) that
affects both sides. I worry far more about the ability to do combat than stats
being small amounts off, and at many data points the German planes also exceed specs
laid down.

The issues are just to complicate to assess quickly and accurately, from either side.
Judge the balance? LOL, the dive issue isn't resolved yet how many posts do I see
where it's taken for a fact that it is to the detriment of every BnZ plane? I look
at the views and view system and that to me is more than any measure of error I see.

Oh well. I just don't know enough to say the overall case. Maybe you are right
anyway. Maybe not.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
08-29-2004, 01:59 PM
Norris, if they change the underlying mechanics at all then every plane that uses
that part will change. What is most often unnoticed is improvements in the model
to fix behaviors or to introduce whole new behaviours previously unmodelled.

Remember the amount of time when in a turn you had to hold the bank? That forces
the pilot to use cross control on the stick, which adds drag and bleeds speed.
Of course when that got fixed (last fall I believe) it wasn't widely announced but
people do notice that planes bleed less speed in turns. Is that a big change in
FM or is it really due to not having to hold the stick diagonal to turn as the
result of a small change?

Detailed descriptions of complex changes and adds plus the consequences in Olegish
probably would take him beaucoup hours, delaying patches much demanded quickly.
Besides, the explanations would probably be too hard to understand just from the
language barrier with only one small hole in it.

IMHO, the BoB sim will work and fly better. They have learned from mistakes.
Niklaus Wirth wrote that if you want to make a program right, you write it twice
and throw the first one away. Then he wrote that the Pascal language was his
first attempt and that Modula was his second, the one everyone should adopt.
He wrote that in the August 1985 issue of Byte but Pascal is still heavily used
today and I expect new Pascal compilers to be written and sold. I don't think
that FB will hold on 20+ years but I don't think it will die soon either.


Neal