PDA

View Full Version : new compare 4 ace



JG26_Heinrich
02-27-2004, 06:45 AM
http://www.silver.ru/soft/il2c_v23.zip

http://www.treffnix.onlinehome.de/compare.jpg

[This message was edited by JG26_Heinrich on Fri February 27 2004 at 05:55 AM.]

JG26_Heinrich
02-27-2004, 06:45 AM
http://www.silver.ru/soft/il2c_v23.zip

http://www.treffnix.onlinehome.de/compare.jpg

[This message was edited by JG26_Heinrich on Fri February 27 2004 at 05:55 AM.]

delta_9_tetra
02-27-2004, 06:55 AM
Thanks for the information! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.imgmag.org/images/delta9tetra/030104-d9t.gif

JG26_Heinrich
02-27-2004, 07:05 AM
have it from vow forum.

http://www.vow-hq.com/index.php?page=forum&action=topic&id=1098&PHPSESSID=a36812005bb89a35528f2edadaa2c255

CaptainGelo
02-27-2004, 07:09 AM
COOL!!!!THX!

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/p38abig.jpg

Tooz_69GIAP
02-27-2004, 07:19 AM
is the data for these comparisons taken from the in game data? Or are these the data sheets for the RL a/c??

Anyway, this is great visual resource, very informative!!!

Tooz

whit ye looking at, ya big jessie?!?!

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_tooz.jpg
Za Rodinu!

JG26_Heinrich
02-27-2004, 07:35 AM
in game data.

Abraxa
02-27-2004, 07:41 AM
good news. Nice to see what we can expect from the new expansion pack.

BBB_Abraxa

02-27-2004, 08:44 AM
YAY.

DangerForward
02-27-2004, 09:44 AM
Interesting stuff. The TA152 seems to say, "unlearn all you know about the 190 family." At low levels(sub 4000 meters) you won't outrun anything, but turn turn turn. It's like the opposite of a 190. The P63 appears quite different from the P39Q10 unlike what some have speculated.

DangerFoward

Zen--
02-27-2004, 09:56 AM
The wheels in my head are already turning, looking at the TA152 specs.


Very very interesting

-Zen-

FA_Whisky
02-27-2004, 12:08 PM
max is with WM or WEP right? Should't that last for a few minutes max?

Gwalker70
02-27-2004, 12:54 PM
how did you get this information ROFL http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif you beta tester of expansion? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Zen--
02-27-2004, 02:24 PM
Respectful question, how accurate is the object viewer in IL2 and is this program using that data?

I've heard posts before that say the OV is often way off in accuracy or that planes cannot reach their posted specifications...is there any truth to this?

I can't say that I'm familiar with either the OV or this program, but this new compare is a nifty little thing...my compliments to the creator. I've been playing around with it for a half an hour and it's been really fun http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

-Zen-

Gwalker70
02-27-2004, 02:31 PM
oh he made this program from the object viewer? damn I thought somebody actually done all these test in game rofl guess I am dreaming http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

Gibbage1
02-27-2004, 03:16 PM
Going throguh the program I found a few some errors. Its clearly taking the RAW data from the sim.

#1, Spits dont have combat or takeoff flaps. Just landing. But the program has data for clean, combat, landing, and takoff flaps.

#2, The 109 E7NZ CANT use its boost under 5000M (?) but the graph shots it using it from 0M to 10,000M.

There are a lot of other things that you can tell was extracted from the program like every speed is much higher then it should (no aerodynamic drag) and things like that.

Also, for the turn numbers it looks like stalling is NOT a factor. It takes numbers of the maximum turn without stalling. As we all know, some aircraft stall easier then others. So numbers like the P-38 vs say a FW-190 will be skewed since the FW-190 will stall out befor it gets close to its maximum turn, were the P-38 will get closer. So the numbers may say the FW-190 will turn better then the P-38, it wont in-game.

You can also se numbers like for the U-2VS (Old recon bi-plane) that it was going 0 KPH at 6600M, but then started to accellerate above that. No. It stalled at 6600M, but since there are no stalls.....

You get my drift. Just dont put too much into these numbers is all I am saying. So when I am out turning your FW-190 A9 online in my P-38, dont accuse me of cheating because "IL2 Compare says I have better turning!".

Gib

CaptainGelo
02-27-2004, 03:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Going throguh the program I found a few some errors. Its clearly taking the RAW data from the sim.

#1, Spits dont have combat or takeoff flaps. Just landing. But the program has data for clean, combat, landing, and takoff flaps.

#2, The 109 E7NZ CANT use its boost under 5000M (?) but the graph shots it using it from 0M to 10,000M.

There are a lot of other things that you can tell was extracted from the program like every speed is much higher then it should (no aerodynamic drag) and things like that.

Also, for the turn numbers it looks like stalling is NOT a factor. It takes numbers of the maximum turn without stalling. As we all know, some aircraft stall easier then others. So numbers like the P-38 vs say a FW-190 will be skewed since the FW-190 will stall out befor it gets close to its maximum turn, were the P-38 will get closer. So the numbers may say the FW-190 will turn better then the P-38, it wont in-game.

You can also se numbers like for the U-2VS (Old recon bi-plane) that it was going 0 KPH at 6600M, but then started to accellerate above that. No. It stalled at 6600M, but since there are no stalls.....

You get my drift. Just dont put too much into these numbers is all I am saying. So when I am out turning your FW-190 A9 online in my P-38, dont accuse me of cheating because "IL2 Compare says I have better turning!".

Gib<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



stupid program..lol..... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/wolf4ever/p38abig.jpg

Zen--
02-27-2004, 03:31 PM
Ok, thats kind of what I thought, thanks Gib. Not being familiar with it I was unsure of what some of the possible missing variables might be, if any.

I was also surprised to find out the D9 can do 600kph at SL, tying it as the fastest plane in the game with the La7....sure as heck doesn't go that fast in game, I can tell you that with a smile http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif (my experience has been the F8 is the fastest SL 190, for whatever thats worth)


I agree on the uncalculated stall characteristics giving potentially misleading results, but pilot skill in this case is a huge factor in how close one can come as you said. The P38 looks like it fairs very well according to these numbers which gives me a good feeling, at least in game it should come within the ballpark and I'm glad to know that it's got some competitive figures.

Any other glaring or not so glaring issues with the OV?


Thanks for the response btw

-Zen-

WUAF_Badsight
02-27-2004, 03:38 PM
IL2 Compare uses data from in-game of FB

the best performance that planes are capable of is recorded for the graphs it shows

its accurate to what the planes are capable of in-game

faustnik
02-27-2004, 03:43 PM
Why are people so quick to dismiss the data in IL-2 compare?

hmmm....

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

Gibbage1
02-27-2004, 04:01 PM
Im not dismissing it. Im just saying its not 100% accurate. It gives you a general idea of performance, but its not going to be definitive because it does not calculate other factors.

Like I said, the numbers show the maximum possible performance. But does not calculate for weather, ammo, fuel, or other factors. Not many people fly with 0 fuel or 0 ammo http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif IF you did, it wont be for long. But things like best climb rate for the P-38 is at 275 km/h is quite helpful. And its optimum engine performance is at 8000M. But at the same time, it shows that NOTHING out climbs the P-38 short of the 190 D9 and I know thats false. Ammo and fuel count for a LOT of weight on the P-38.

Gib

faustnik
02-27-2004, 04:28 PM
Gibbage,

You're just worried you lobbied too hard for your babies perfromance with Oleg. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Wasn't the P-38 am excellent climbing machine? AHT shows it superior to every American a/c save the P-63 UberCobra. Seems good to me.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

Gibbage1
02-27-2004, 04:34 PM
P-38 DID have good climb rate... Compaired to other US aircraft. But thats not saying much is it? As apposed to the German doctrin of fighter design of "slap the biggest engine into the smallest airframe and forget about fuel". The 109's could climb a LOT faster then the P-51's, but mainly because they were only bringing 30-45 mins of fuel with then, not 6 hours of fuel as in the P-51.

But thats not the point. The point is the numbers says that the P-38 will be the best climber, when its not.

P.S. I did lobby Oleg for P-38 performance tweaks. But not all good. It used too roll 360 in 3.5 secondes at low speed and never suffered compressability. I had that changed. Now it rolls more poorly, and dont DONT wanna take the P-38 J into a high alt dive if you feel like living. If I wanted the P-38 to be uber I would have kept my mouth shut and not pointed these bugs out.

Gib

faustnik
02-27-2004, 04:37 PM
Gib,

I was just giving you a hard time. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I know you want it accurate.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

Gibbage1
02-27-2004, 04:53 PM
OK. Im just glad nobody thought I would try to make the P-38 into sometihng it was not.

Yes, the P-38 was my baby. But I wanted it to be accurate. I worked VERY closly with Oleg on it. When I would find something that I thought should be changed, I backed it up with multiple forms of proof OTHER then pilot accounts. Well I did use some pilot accounts, but mostly German pilots who said there 109's could not turn inside the P-38. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I also used gun cam footage, and todays pilots who fly restored P-38's.

Im quite proud of how close the P-38 came. A few issues I wish could be resolved, but they are due to the game engine not knowing how to handle the counter rotating props (stalls). But I think everyone will agree that the P-38 is, and was the best twin engine fighter of WWII, and a very capable fighter. In IL2, it will be up against the best single-engine fighters. In the proper hands, it will be very good.

Gib

faustnik
02-27-2004, 05:01 PM
Here is some evidence from IL-2 Compare that the P-38 is right on http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/P38VsBf109G10.jpg
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/P38vsP63.jpg

P-38 sure can't outclimb that G10!

Here is the shot from IL-2 compare that disturbes me (nothing to do with the P-38) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif:
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/P40vsA4.jpg

The A4 climb is hosed.

All I'm saying is that the program is an accurate portrayal of relative performance in the sim and is a legitimate source of info for discussion.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)

Chadburn
02-27-2004, 05:05 PM
Oleg has commented before on this program. It is based on in-game data but doesn't take all performance calculations into account.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~jkinley/FB_JG27.jpg

karost
02-27-2004, 09:25 PM
Gibbage 1 you are very good eye scanner. now I agree with you LOL....



some one show me ... Energy Manueverability Diagram in FB game

if you don't know what it look like click here
http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_011g.html

and if you need to know how to read click here
http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_011a.html

it about :-
- Top seed
- Corner Velocity ( 6g stall speed)
- Turn rate at coner velocity
- 1g. Stall Speed
- Best sustained turn velocity
- Turn rate at best sustained velocity
- Turn radius at best sustained velociy
- Speed for best sustained g:
- Best sustained g:



anywhere THX Youss for make a good tools like IL2 Compare and for the next move
it would be very very good if this tool can show "Energy Manueverability Diagram"


S!

Saburo_0
02-27-2004, 10:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chadburn:
Oleg has commented before on this program. It is based on in-game data but doesn't take all performance calculations into account.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~jkinley/FB_JG27.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Waht he said! Its useful but not always accurate.