PDA

View Full Version : Answer please about FM



IJG27_Steini
08-25-2004, 01:23 PM
Hiya Guy's

i am sorry, to start this again, but, has anyone news about the FM ? Will be corrected ?

Since AEP all planes are diving nearly with same speed. All planes are hanging in the air.
You are still able to climb with 120 km/h in the 109, with other planes even lower.

All planes seems not to loose energy during combat. This situation we had with FB 1.0 allready, but it was fixed 8 month later. Any news about that ?

I do not speak about "this plane is 5 km/h too slow", but about this major problem for all planes.

thx for you answers

IJG27_Steini
08-25-2004, 01:23 PM
Hiya Guy's

i am sorry, to start this again, but, has anyone news about the FM ? Will be corrected ?

Since AEP all planes are diving nearly with same speed. All planes are hanging in the air.
You are still able to climb with 120 km/h in the 109, with other planes even lower.

All planes seems not to loose energy during combat. This situation we had with FB 1.0 allready, but it was fixed 8 month later. Any news about that ?

I do not speak about "this plane is 5 km/h too slow", but about this major problem for all planes.

thx for you answers

ASH at S-MART
08-25-2004, 04:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IJG27_Steini:
Hiya Guy's<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>hey Steini! How's it going?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IJG27_Steini:
i am sorry, to start this again, but, has anyone news about the FM ? Will be corrected ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Forget about FM.. You will find more interesting talk radio on the AM dial! i.e. http://www.kfi640.com/main.html

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IJG27_Steini:
Since AEP all planes are diving nearly with same speed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Got a track of each plane diving at nearly the same speed? No? Too bad! Assuming it actually did happen like you say.. What proof do you have that says otherwise.. And when you do present it please also provide us with the configuration of said aircraft at the time of the test.. Along with test altitude, air temp, etc..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IJG27_Steini:
All planes are hanging in the air.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Got a track of each plane hanging in the air? No? Too bad! Assuming it actually did happen like you say.. What proof do you have that says otherwise.. And when you do present it please also provide us with the configuration of said aircraft at the time of the test.. Along with test altitude, air temp, etc..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IJG27_Steini:
You are still able to climb with 120 km/h in the 109, with other planes even lower.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Got a track of a 109 doing that? No? Too bad! Assuming it actually did happen like you say.. What proof do you have that says otherwise.. And when you do present it please also provide us with the configuration of said aircraft at the time of the test.. Along with test altitude, air temp, etc..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IJG27_Steini:
All planes seems not to loose energy during combat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Got track of all planes loosing energy? No? Too bad! Assuming it actually did happen like you say.. What proof do you have that says otherwise.. And when you do present it please also provide us with the configuration of said aircraft at the time of the test.. Along with test altitude, air temp, etc..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IJG27_Steini:
This situation we had with FB 1.0 allready, but it was fixed 8 month later. Any news about that ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which situation?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IJG27_Steini:
I do not speak about "this plane is 5 km/h too slow", but about this major problem for all planes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Got a track of all planes being too slow? No? Too bad! Assuming it actually did happen like you say.. What proof do you have that says otherwise.. And when you do present it please also provide us with the configuration of said aircraft at the time of the test.. Along with test

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IJG27_Steini:
thx for you answers<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No problem.. anytime!


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 04:03 PM.]

XyZspineZyX
08-25-2004, 05:40 PM
Ignore the troll, Steini.

Nimrod fanbois like ASH_STUPID here just stick to the "Oleg is always right" party line no matter what.

I once produced a track showing planes pivoting on their COG (which AI planes at the very least often do) during beta testing, and some ******* there saw the same video and was convinced it was just "an early lead turn". This was just prior to the first FB occurances of the "not of this earth" physics that gave the Hurri II's levitation powers and allowed a certain Mark of 109E to loop off the tarmac at 140 kph.

You listen to these jerks, and none of that would ever get fixed or even identified.

ASH at S-MART
08-25-2004, 05:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Ignore the troll, Steini.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Poor Stiglr.. Still upset? Sorry.. I didn't mean to make you look bad in the HL lobby

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Nimrod fanbois like ASH_STUPID here just stick to the "Oleg is always right" party line no matter what.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Speaking of nimrods.. It seems obvious that you dont know what a "troll" actually is. It certainly doesn't fit me. Although I may not shy away from opening a raging controversial discussion, and I certainly am not shy about making my opinion known, I don't post "just to stir the sh** pot"; I have a POINT to every argument I make. Some seem to think that because one holds an unpopular view or opinion, he's automatically a troll. Not true. These people need to realize that everyone has an opinion and is entitled to it. And, most important, that opinion doesn't have to be lockstep with YOURS. So.. to POINT out my POINT you missed.. An accusation without any proof and just based on *feelings* is really useless! Kind of like *feeling* someone is cheating.. People like you never stop to consider the possibility that they were simply bested.. That would burst their fragile ego bubble bringing the whole deck of cards down.. CANT HAVE THAT NOW CAN YOU?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I once _produced a track_ showing planes pivoting on their COG (which AI planes at the very least often do) during beta testing, and some ******* there saw the same video and was convinced it was just "an early lead turn". This was just prior to the first FB occurances of the "not of this earth" physics that gave the Hurri II's levitation powers and allowed a certain Mark of 109E to loop off the tarmac at 140 kph.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>People like you also tend to blame the whole group for one persons mistake.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
You listen to these jerks, and none of that would ever get fixed or even identified.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>People like you have a real hard time understanding the need for proof and to give a detailed description of the situation and system.. They think their answer is the only possible one.. Again.. goes back to the fragile ego thing.

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 05:15 PM.]

KGr.HH-Sunburst
08-25-2004, 07:03 PM
ASH turns any thread into TRASH
hence the name TRASH_HOUSE*****S

realy why do you act like a jerk all the time
even if some guy is asking a question?
it doesnt matter if its a stupid or SMART one

being a smarta$$ is fun once or twice but being it all the time is boring IMHO

http://www.hell-hounds.de
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v94/sunburst/FW190A6sigHH.jpg
''All your Mustangs are belong to us''

LLv34_Stafroty
08-25-2004, 07:14 PM
just ignore the *****

ASH at S-MART
08-25-2004, 08:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RK_HH-Sunburst:
ASH turns any thread into TRASH
hence the name TRASH_HOUSE*****S <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nice Try! No argument.. Just name calling.. Typical

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RK_HH-Sunburst:
realy why do you act like a jerk all the time
even if some guy is asking a question?
it doesnt matter if its a stupid or SMART one <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How is calling for and driving home the idea that a *feeling* without any *proof* let alone an *track* let alone a *method* to reproduce the situation being a jerk?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RK_HH-Sunburst:
being a smarta$$ is fun once or twice but being it all the time is boring IMHO<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is your opinion and you are welcome to it! I personally think that acuactions based on *feelings* is boring

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

WWMaxGunz
08-25-2004, 08:12 PM
S! Steini!

I believe that a track of a non-AI climbing 'much' (my word there) at 120kph or less
should be important to the sim.

Well I believe that the AI should not either! But my fix of: limits for AI performance
from table or make AI FM table driven since they don't fly the same FM anyway (a table
would be easier for them to fly I think, look at the sims that had and the PC's they
ran on!) and do the craziest things I've seen in a flight sim yet.
You can get AI performance of your plane just by using the dang autopilot anyway! If
not by PF a change then hopefully the next sim the AI work more to real.

A tabled FM for AI would maybe help with framerates?

AI is a big issue both offline and in making better coops.


Neal

IJG27_Steini
08-25-2004, 11:44 PM
@ASH_SMART

pls give me your email adress, i will provide you with tracks. I hope you got an good internet connection, because email will be big.

You see your stupid kind of posting is affecting no one. Go home boy.

LLv34_Stafroty
08-25-2004, 11:45 PM
MGunz, i thnk this game is not table based game.. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gif easy to notice when patches come out and something has been tweaked, cos "professors" found out new evidence on one plane, so other planes FM chanses too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

Aaron_GT
08-26-2004, 03:20 AM
ASH_SMART:
"Got a track of each plane diving at nearly the same speed? No? Too bad! "

If I can remember what I called the tracks I can send you some.

Aaron_GT
08-26-2004, 03:27 AM
Table based sims (e.g. EAW, Warbirds 2) sometimes have a decent FM, it seems. Janes WW2F was also table based, although the FMs less good (I'll have to check what the latest 3rd party ones are like).

I quite like the Xplane FMs, except the P51 that comes packaged with it, at least in 6.51 (haven't bought version 7) seems to overperform especially in roll, unless it is meant to represent a pylon racing version. Xplane, SDOE, etc are physics based.

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
08-26-2004, 03:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Got a track of each plane diving at nearly the same speed? No? Too bad! Assuming it actually did happen like you say.. What proof do you have that says otherwise.. And when you do present it please also provide us with the configuration of said aircraft at the time of the test.. Along with test altitude, air temp, etc..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

posted days ago in another thread. Here're 3 tracks
again....

Crimea: 5000m alt, 1000% fuel, rads normal. Pitch was used for maximum speed

tested planes:
P47
FW190A9
Yak-3

Starting speed for the planes were
p47:330
FW190:350
Yak3:300

Calculated time until 700km/h were reached
P47:15
FW190:15
YAK3:15

tracks ? HERE !
www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/divetest.zip (http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/divetest.zip)

You'll find that the yak, starting at slower speed will reach 700 almost as fast as the Jug diving from 330 or the FW190 350...

Old topic. Boring. No offense, but you also participated in the other trhead where various people posted evidence.

Also made zoomclimb tests. After recovering from maximum speed the Yak3 climbed the highest (4850m) the P47 to 4250 and the FW190 to 4000.
Enjoying your proper BnZ advantage versus turners ??? No ? cause it's absent...

These tracks were sent to oleg, some time ago http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
!S!

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

DarthBane_
08-26-2004, 04:39 AM
This game favours turning it is obvious, other RL plane qualities are marginalized. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

WWMaxGunz
08-26-2004, 04:52 AM
Max --- beating head on table till the pain stops.........

Please read again. I *suggest* that AI, and only AI, would probably be better and most
certainly fly better if they used a tabled FM rather than the simplified physical FM
they use now. I have watched a B-17 with the rudder shot off fly sideways except for
a very small forward component of motion. I have seen AI's climb impossibly fast at
very low speeds since the sim came out. I put my plane in autopilot at least in IL2
(haven't done since the start) and it flies as AI. News for truth, AI run from tables
would probably be easier for the AI and the CPU at the same time.

NEVER did I suggest that IL2 or FB use a tabled FM. Please reread that post if you even
think I did.


Neal

LLv34_Stafroty
08-26-2004, 06:12 AM
heheh, i just imformed that game isnt table based :P

Bearcat99
08-26-2004, 07:33 AM
Well... the dive speed of the Jug and the 190 should be better. It will be in teresting to see how well the Corsair dives in PF. I have had 109s get away from me in dives while Im in a Jug.. that shouldnt happen. But overall I am still very satisfied with the FMs in FB with a few minor things notwithstanding.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | Sturmovik Essentials (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | MUDMOVERS (http://magnum-pc.netfirms.com/mudmovers/index.htm)

IMMERSION BABY!!

ASH at S-MART
08-26-2004, 09:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Table based sims (e.g. EAW, Warbirds 2) sometimes have a decent FM, it seems. Janes WW2F was also table based, although the FMs less good (I'll have to check what the latest 3rd party ones are like).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>EAW was not a table based FM.. Neither was Warbirds.. As for Janes.. I dont know but doubt it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I quite like the Xplane FMs, except the P51 that comes packaged with it, at least in 6.51 (haven't bought version 7) seems to overperform especially in roll, unless it is meant to represent a pylon racing version. Xplane, SDOE, etc are physics based.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>PAW1942 equations of motion were of the Small Perturbation Equation type.. an alternative to use of the Total Force Equation that EAW and Warbirds used... Most sims prior to PAW were table based.. AOTP, EAW, SWOTL.. But sense then most sims of any value have been of the Total Force Equations flavor.

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

ASH at S-MART
08-26-2004, 09:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Got a track of each plane diving at nearly the same speed? No? Too bad! Assuming it actually did happen like you say.. What proof do you have that says otherwise.. And when you do present it please also provide us with the configuration of said aircraft at the time of the test.. Along with test altitude, air temp, etc..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

posted days ago in another thread. Here're 3 tracks
again....

Crimea: 5000m alt, 1000% fuel, rads normal. Pitch was used for maximum speed

tested planes:
P47
FW190A9
Yak-3

Starting speed for the planes were
p47:330
FW190:350
Yak3:300

Calculated time until 700km/h were reached
P47:15
FW190:15
YAK3:15

tracks ? HERE !
http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/divetest.zip

You'll find that the yak, starting at slower speed will reach 700 almost as fast as the Jug diving from 330 or the FW190 350...

Old topic. Boring. No offense, but you also participated in the other trhead where various people posted evidence.

Also made zoomclimb tests. After recovering from maximum speed the Yak3 climbed the highest (4850m) the P47 to 4250 and the FW190 to 4000.
Enjoying your proper BnZ advantage versus turners ??? No ? cause it's absent...

These tracks were sent to oleg, some time ago http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
!S!

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ill take a look at it when I get home.. But allow me to make a prediction.. You pushed it over into a straight down dive.. That is not way it should be tested IMHO... But this is good! At least you guys have *something* to back up your whines! Unlike the orginal poster who whined about 5+ things with 0+ proof!

@Aaron_GT Yes if you can send them..

@IJG27_Steini.. LOL! In light of your weak proof.. Ill just assume that any track you have would be a waste of time.. So dont bother sending it.. Unless you at least take the time like JaBo_HH--Gotcha did to give a breif discription of what he saw.. Sorry if my kind of posting AFFECTED YOU... You can run along now boy and start another whine with no proof!

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

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2004, 10:05 PM
And even when it IS backed up with a track or some facts & figures, notice YOU still call it a "whine".

Yer an inveterate Fanboi, SMART_ASH. In addition to that robotic arm you have for, uh, fun, you have a bionic nose for parking up the chuff of a well known sim developer.

Jaws2002
08-26-2004, 11:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bearcat99:
... But overall I am still very satisfied with the FMs in FB with a few minor things notwithstanding.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The "dive/zoom climb" problem is affecting the FW-190 and the Jug more then others.
After the last patch the P-47 got a good boost in climb, and that is helping a bit, not much.
With the FW's the problem is way bigger. you can dive away from very few planes. Now if you try to rise your nose just a few degrees you are a free lunch, if you try to turn you end up the same free lunch. The only thing you can do is stay fast (if you are in Dora or A-9 at some altitudes), and hope to bore the pursuer to death and make him leave you alone.
It rolls well, true, but all the other planes in the game except the Spit and Zero roll almost the same.
I don't know how much you fly Foke Wulf, but if you take it only few times online you'll see how frustrating and boring is to fly it. Nothing that you read in books works.

http://img78.photobucket.com/albums/v258/&lt;FA&gt;Jaws/Uber2sm.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
08-27-2004, 12:26 AM
dive in FB is poorly moddeled

FB favours Turn & Climb ability because Dive performance is virtually the same for all A/C

in regard to accelleration , not max speed

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Aaron_GT
08-27-2004, 03:28 AM
"The "dive/zoom climb" problem is affecting the FW-190 and the Jug more then others"

These are the two I tested, based on the figures from the angled dive from 10,000 ft reported here. I set the power settings to cruise - approx 70% throttle and prop, for a stable speed equivalent to that reported in the test - I can't remember what that was off the top of my head. The tracks I have (when I find them) are mostly this setting up to a stable cruise speed, then waiting until the dive area (visible landmarks to allow the same angle for each plane). I then nosed the planes over.

Extensive testing would include more plane types, and more throttle settings and more repetitions.

What I then did was go through the track at 1/4 speed noting the speed of the plane every 2 seconds. The curve of v against t for the 190 and P47 was very similar for each plane.

What I haven't done is repeated this for other sims. I've deleted CFS2 and CFS3 so I am not sure if I can be bothered reinstalling those to do tests, and EAW doesn't seem to work properly with my current stick set up (it sees the rudder pedal on the gameport, but not the joystick). That leaves SDOE, WB3, Janes WW2F. and X-Plane to compare against.

Aaron_GT
08-27-2004, 03:29 AM
P.S. whilst I can show that there is little difference in performance in my 190 v P47 tests, I don't know if the performance in the game is inaccurate or not, given the power and prop settings I used.

609IAP_Recon
08-27-2004, 05:40 AM
first off - I have tracks showing the p47 out zoom climb many different aircraft in which they started their initial dive at same altitude. The other aircraft fall off way before the p47 did - including the 190.

Ash asks for proof over words - and yet a plethora of people bash him and offer no proof. We have one person (Ash) asking for proof and 5 others just sitting around bashing him for it. Very lame - I know in todays world we forget the proof is in the pudding - but how about getting some facts together rather than trolling this thread?

I'd prefer some charts and tracks - explanations - considering most chumps around here just make off the wall comments.
"This plane can't climb" "this one is too tough" "this one turns too hard" on and on and on.

Answer please about this: how about you create a system that shows exactly how all these aircraft should behave and then come tell us how bad this system is? Please provide all your charts and documentation for all the aircraft in FB so we can make sure you got it all right?

Should be easy considering you say this one is all messed up - right?

I look forward to seeing your physics engine.

Aaron - what does comparing to other older games prove? Curious why that proves anything? Doesn't that assume they were right maybe?

How about we establish a baseline - you pick one of those games and then prove why it is correct? Then we can compare to this game.

Saying "this flew right in EAW" really doesn't prove much does it? Makes a big assumption that EAW was correct? Most people I have talked too say the FM's were not near as complex as in FB. Doesn't necessarily prove that it is right.

Do we have tests of real life showing what a p47 vs a yak should accelerate in a dive at? I've seen many posts of this same topic and haven't really seen a solution yet - should we reference those?


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


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

ASH at S-MART
08-27-2004, 10:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG50_Recon:
first off - I have tracks showing the p47 out zoom climb many different aircraft in which they started their initial dive at same altitude. The other aircraft fall off way before the p47 did - including the 190.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Interesting!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG50_Recon:
Ash asks for proof over words - and yet a plethora of people bash him and offer no proof. We have one person (Ash) asking for proof and 5 others just sitting around bashing him for it. Very lame - I know in todays world we forget the proof is in the pudding - but how about getting some facts together rather than trolling this thread?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thank You! I was wondering if anyone here was capable of understanding the difference between just saying it and backing it up with something! And by something I mean a NACA like test.. Not some out of context paragraph from some WWII pilot who said "I out climbed XXX plane" and then *assuming* that must be true for every situation.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG50_Recon:
I'd prefer some charts and tracks - explanations - considering most chumps around here just make off the wall comments. "This plane can't climb" "this one is too tough" "this one turns too hard" on and on and on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactly!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG50_Recon:
Answer please about this: how about you create a system that shows exactly how all these aircraft should behave and then come tell us how bad this system is? Please provide all your charts and documentation for all the aircraft in FB so we can make sure you got it all right?

Should be easy considering you say this one is all messed up - right?

I look forward to seeing your physics engine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! I do have to give some credit to the guys who actually say they have a track to prove what they are saying.. But they don't seem to realize that a lot of *it* depends on how you fly the plane! I can jerk a P47 into a 90? nose down dive and not get very good dive results.. Because so much energy was lost in the JERKING of the pointing the nose down 90?.. Or I can mind my "E" and push it into a gental 60? dive and make that baby hall some A$$!

So even with a track.. there is still room for error.. But at least you can see what the guy did and then compare that to what a pilot did in a NACA like test. To see if the method matched.. I'm sure that is the type of data that Oleg bases his FM's on and not some out of context blue moon comment by some bias WWII pilot.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG50_Recon:
Aaron - what does comparing to other older games prove? Curious why that proves anything? Doesn't that assume they were right maybe?

How about we establish a baseline - you pick one of those games and then prove why it is correct? Then we can compare to this game.

Saying "this flew right in EAW" really doesn't prove much does it? Makes a big assumption that EAW was correct? Most people I have talked too say the FM's were not near as complex as in FB. Doesn't necessarily prove that it is right.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactly!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG50_Recon:
Do we have tests of real life showing what a p47 vs a yak should accelerate in a dive at? I've seen many posts of this same topic and haven't really seen a solution yet - should we reference those?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Without a NACA like test where they call out the ac config like fuel load, ammo no ammo, etc and the test alt, speed and angle of dive it would be very hard to say the FM is wrong! Because basing it on a WWII pilots combat reports where they say things like "I could allays catch a 109 in a dive in my P47" is very subjective! You don't know the initial E state of either aircraft let alone enough information to recreate the situation in the game to see if they match.. And we have not even begun to talk about the HUMAN FACTOR of interrupting the results.. One mans fast is another mans slow.. So unless you have a NACA type report that says the SPEED was 300mph doesn't mean much when someone says it was fast! About the only proof I would buy is if someone recreated the scenario of a NACA type of report on the PC and found it to be VERY different from the NACA numbers. There just to many variables that are not define in a statement like "I could allays catch a 109 in a dive in my P47"

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

WWMaxGunz
08-27-2004, 10:59 AM
Not to forget that when the speed is reported you need alt recorded at, start
speed, time to get to the reported speed, angle and distance covered...

We tried to duplicate the ADFU trial as best we could and the differences were
very small. Other runs made by players have left questions we can't find firm
answers to. I wrote to Oleg about it, pointing out the ADFU "much more" speed
of the P-47 when it caught the FW at the bottom of the dive (with decidedly
better pullout and subsequent zoom) and found from him that "much more" in the
dives is not some 30 or more mph but much less, like around 15-18 mph in that
case. The observer sees the planes relative to each other.
Just as planes running for max level speed get less and less acceleration due to
drag increase by square of speed as they approach max speed, so the accel near
max dive slow down. Look at the P-51D max level speed and then compare it to
the P-51D max dive speed, perhaps maybe another 100mph on top of over 450mph
even with the weight of the plane (considerable) added in.

It is one thing to say the sim ain't right, it is completely another to say just
how far off... no one does this. Expecting everything to nail down to some small
percantage of error +and+ to have the flight characteristics all in there is more
than any sim I know of does. Nailing the known points on charts with a purely
physics based model requires tweaks that throw it off in other places. Perhaps
with great amounts of time per plane and PC's powerful enough to model all the
small differences to reduce simplification and genericism from the code it will
be possible to get closer to true and still use a purely physical model.

I have seen the "1% solution" and the formulae/FM are so rigid they can plug in
plane stats and desired end values into ==static== formula, then the ==dynamic==
FM behaves the same way. Something is not so pure there even without knowing
the exact code they use. The words "on rails" comes to mind.

What some people want from this sim is impossible. In total terms including the
combat environment, what we have is tremendous. Perhaps there can be some changes
but one thing people may have to accept is that a change in their own understanding
of what was real may have to be some part of closing that perceived gap.


Neal

ASH at S-MART
08-27-2004, 11:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Perhaps there can be some changes but one thing people may have to accept is that a change in their own understanding of what was real may have to be some part of closing that perceived gap.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>EXACTALLY!

PS I agreed with the rest of your post! But I didnt quote it.. Because I wanted to emphisie this point of yours at the end.. Which IMHO is the biggest problem most of the time!

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

crazyivan1970
08-27-2004, 11:18 AM
Topics like this never fail to amaze me, really. How can you possible claim that all planes dive the same? Try catching 47 on the dive, unless you in another 47 or jet... good luck. Sometimes i wonder if everyone has same versions of AEP.

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.

WWMaxGunz
08-27-2004, 11:52 AM
Much depends on how you fly.

ASH at S-MART
08-27-2004, 12:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Much depends on how you fly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>One might even go as far as to say EVERYTHING depends on how you fly! 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

WWMaxGunz
08-27-2004, 01:00 PM
Ummmm, if you can beat the specs by a large margin and be using the regimin
(conditions) of the specs themselves then I feel that a point is made.
Just what specs, how well the user matched the regimin and the gap make
how important it is to me in the sim.


Neal

ASH at S-MART
08-27-2004, 01:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Ummmm, if you can beat the specs by a large margin and be using the regimin
(conditions) of the specs themselves then I feel that a point is made. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe.. in that now you have to define "large margin".. As with the statement of FAST.. One man's fast is another man's slow.. One man's trash is another man's treasure. So when you say large margin.. You talking 75%? 50%? 25%? 10%? Go much lower than 10% and you fall into the area where what a pilot had for lunch and how much change is in his pocket will make a differens! j/k! But you catch my drift!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Just what specs, how well the user matched the regimin and the gap make how important it is to me in the sim.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Same here... but so few bother to obtain a regimin let along test to it. They just read some statement some pilot make with regards to a certain situation with no idea of the intial states of the other aircraft and think that statement should hold true in every case... Which is just crazy IMHO!

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

Aaron_GT
08-28-2004, 12:36 AM
"Aaron - what does comparing to other older games prove? Curious why that proves anything? Doesn't that assume they were right maybe?"

I'm not suggesting that it proves anything! It is just that it can be interesting to see how others have created solutions to essentially the same problem (creating a WW2 flight sim) and how the FMs compare. With earlier games, though, there are more compromises required with respect to processing power of the typical PC at the time they were released. I'm certainly not saying that any other game is correct, just suggesting comparasion from the point of view of academic interest.

" Nailing the known points on charts with a purely
physics based model requires tweaks that throw it off in other places."

This is what I suspect is happening. The physics model, to be able to simulate things on a typical PC, needs to be simplified, so rather than being able to plug in some simple set of parameters that can be easily measured from the dimensions of the plane, etc., probably requires something more abstracted which then needs tuning to produce the correct performance. I expect that if the physics model could be more detailed it would make plugging in the parameters easier in that the parameters would probably be closer to measurable phsyical quantities. Plus, of course, if there is a bug in the physics model then fixing it means reparameterising all of the planes, and there are an awful lot of them, which makes it easy to miss an aspect of one.

I can see why Oleg is starting from scratch with Battle of Britain - the physics model can be more detailed, plus I am sure he and the team have learned things about how best to write the code, how to modularise the code, etc.

WWMaxGunz
08-28-2004, 04:14 AM
I never had a copy of Crimson Skies, don't know how it flies, but I can well see how
their initial premise did sidestep a whole raft of... flower food and would allow a
straight, unmessed-with flight engine to be used.

Dear Oleg;

There is a lot less data on WWI planes --- right approach to 'pitching the game' or
how you say it is would make open places less critical, fewer data points to match
and a pure model as good as you can should not have to be tweaked so much or hard.
Do cockpits really have to be exact? As long as they look good, most will be happy.
There are plenty of restored plane to get pictures of and old photos of some, the
rest can be faked along similar appearance and yes, I would buy it as standalone!
More slack on models, would that make the modellers easier to find?

I am sure that the FM would be close to IL-2 if not exactly. You do biplanes now,
the WWI wings are not as good and some have barn door characteristics and torque is
higher but the altitudes would not challenge IL2 FM nor the speeds!

WWI air combat was just so unique and there's this feel in the sims of it of open,
difficult to stay flying and very vulnerable yet against much less firepower. To
model all of the bullets should not drag the machine down unless you do the ground
action the same, 100's of men firing rifles up at strafing planes.

Maybe after BoB?


Neal

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
08-28-2004, 08:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Topics like this never fail to amaze me, really. How can you possible claim that all planes dive the same? Try catching 47 on the dive, unless you in another 47 or jet... good luck. Sometimes i wonder if everyone has same versions of AEP.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Respectfully Ivan ! Because it is that way !
This topic is now spread over three threads and never ever did somebody respond to prove it isn't so.
Download these tracks and check for yourself.
The only difference present in the game is the maximum terminal velocity in various planes.
Everything else is the same.

Check these tracks:
Dive from 5000 until terminal velocity.
Calculated time until reaching of 700km/h
FW190: starting speed 350. reached 700km/h in 15 seconds
P47D: starting speed 330 reached speed in about 15-16 seconds
YAK-3: starting speed at about 300 reached 700km/h in 15-16 seconds. (even faster eh ?)
Fuel 100% rads as per default. Used pitch.

Tracks were sent to oleg. No response yet. Several other guys made tests with even more planes.
I dived at about 30-40? but you can check in the track.

It's just one meg.

!S!

http://www.black-crusade.de/hellhounds/divetests.zip

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2004, 09:06 AM
Watch for Korolov to appear in this thread and say you had lag in your track.

thompet03
08-28-2004, 09:22 AM
Im only missing one troll..

where the hack is da ballz??

put put put where he is??

;-)

WWMaxGunz
08-28-2004, 09:49 AM
Gotcha, I zip tracks with WinRAR on highest compression and they get
to a small bit of the unzipped size. If you have really huge tracks
though, I guess the zip would be big too. I've run a short few minutes
making a track to show the 20mm fragments were not working and the zip
I sent in was just over 40k, IIRC.
That was quite a few passes in that one but the telling event was in
the start with the shells going through the windshield and exploding
in the Tu-2 cockpit and no crew casualties. I'm sure that others had
sent in such tracks as well.


Neal

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
08-29-2004, 02:56 AM
@WWMAXGUNZ: so you think the tracks get ignored because they're to huge ?
I will re-pack them with rar and check the size. Thanks for the hint.


!S!

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

WWMaxGunz
08-29-2004, 12:05 PM
No, not ignored. Just not easy to d/l for those with dialup. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
It's a good idea to zip em tight anyway, takes less drive space when you
start archiving them, less space on a CDR (700M but I put on other things,
don't you?). I use WinRAR on just about everything but MP3, AVI and other
files already compressed. It's easy to test anything anyway.

If you get and use WinRAR and SmartPAR then you also have a way to make
audio and video archives with error correction segments to cover eventual
scratches of unreadable CDR files the you're just saving yourself headaches
later on.


Neal

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
08-30-2004, 01:47 AM
I re-rar'ed it. didn't get smaller. Since 56k users accept flying with LAG and LAGGING others to hell and on top survive the ordeal of downloading all these signatures I think one meg isn't to much... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


BUMP for this thread !

Nothing new ? Any response from the developers so far ?

!S!

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

crazyivan1970
08-30-2004, 05:11 PM
Gotcha, with all due respect, i dont need tracks http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif cause i fly every day on regular bases. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif And the reason nobody responded to this yet... because there is nothing to prove. Every plane has a character in this sim, which makes it truly unique. If you guys don`t see it this way too bad. But what do i know, i`m just another fanboy as Stilger claims...along with hundreds of others who`s having a ball at Hyperlobby.
When people will realize that pilot is a breaking factor in anything, we might see the light at the end of this mistirious tunnel called FM. That day shall come...

Cheers!

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.

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2004, 05:12 PM
Yeah, and it couldn't hurt if the dev team took an interest in FM accuracy, either. At least as much effort as they put in "rolling pencils on TB3 flight decks" and other visual minutae. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ASH at S-MART
08-30-2004, 05:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Yeah, and it couldn't hurt if the dev team took an interest in FM accuracy, either. At least as much effort as they put in "rolling pencils on TB3 flight decks" and other visual minutae. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That pencil is WAY overmodled.. Did you *see* how fast that pencil rolls left and right? Everyone *knows* that russian pencils didnt roll as fast as German pencils... yet this one does! Over in Targetware Rollballs they simulate rolling balls instead of pencils.. And they do a much better job of it! Proof? Well I just said so didnt I? What more proof do you need?

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

WWMaxGunz
08-30-2004, 06:00 PM
My old set of German uber-pencils had flat sides, octagonal. The design
obviously hails back to WWII when they were designed just to not roll so
much and be easier to retrieve when dropped on a flight deck. So there!
I hope that Oleg knows about this, that some pencils had flat sides and
were rated at 1.42ATA which they *could* do (helps navigate faster you
see) even when derated to 1.32ATA till 1943. They also had a better
type of graphite, didn't crack when the pencil fell but wasn't soft and
kept a point longer. Truely Uber compared to the other pencils.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2004, 06:59 PM
Y'know, I didn't wanna say anything, SMART_ASH. But I doubt Russians could GET pencils that sharp during the Great Patriotic War. But, since you bring it up....

ASH at S-MART
08-30-2004, 07:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Y'know, I didn't wanna say anything, SMART_ASH. But I doubt Russians could GET pencils that sharp during the Great Patriotic War. But, since you bring it up....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah.. Stiglr.. My dyslexic friend! How are You? Or should I say You are How? What are you doing here? Is the Targetware server down again? As for Russian pencils.. Do I detect a slight resentment towards Russians? Hmmmm I wonder if it has anything to do with you NOT being a beta tester anymore? LOL!

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

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2004, 11:03 PM
No, that has nothing to do with it.

I don't have time, actually, to do beta testing for Maddox. Too busy doing the same (and more) for Targetware. And, knowing that Maddox beta testers are only being "selectively" listened to... well, it doesn't exactly fill me with enthusiasm for the process anyway.

ASH at S-MART
08-31-2004, 12:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
No, that has nothing to do with it.

I don't have time, actually, to do beta testing for Maddox. Too busy doing the same (and more) for Targetware. And, knowing that Maddox beta testers are only being "selectively" listened to... well, it doesn't exactly fill me with enthusiasm for the process anyway.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey.. what ever gets you to sleep at night!

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

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
08-31-2004, 12:32 AM
@Crazyivan: I respect that you've got some advantageous position here in this forums and so I think I have to chose my words carefully http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif but I must admit I'm flattened. Whenever somebody brings up some claims he's pressed to support that by tracks or hard data or a combination of both otherwise he'll be accused of being a ****-Whiner (****=enter the Side you don't like).
So in this case I made just three short tracks and recorded this small interesting bit and you say they're not needed since they'Re wrong....
It's like having a thief on video but his realtives don't believe it since he's just such a kind guy.....

You'Re not the only one flying this sim for a long time. These old stuff like "pilot makes the difference" is erm outdated. Especially in this sim. I guess people will see the difference once PF hits the deck and their famous corsair wont leave a Zero in a zoomclimb.
If it would be as you say then we definately wouldn't have all these quarrels we have now.
Actually I couldn't believe for myself until I made these tracks, since I never thought that this could have been true.

But we both wont make the difference will we ?
After all we'Re all fanboys...
I respectfully hope that not everybody in the dev-team shares this particular opinion. From what I'Ve seen so far they don't as with each patch things were changed.
IF you have some time you can maybe suggest how the community could back up their claims in the future since now we're down to nothing when everybody starts yelling (Warning exageration) "Who cares for Tracks you N00b. I totally OWN you in my LA-7. You're just to stoopid to fly your GO-229. Dive-speed differences are for girls..." and we are one step nearer to Counterstrike if you get my idea...
What more neutral way of discussing facts of the game could exist...
!S!

*hopes not to be banned http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

starfighter1
08-31-2004, 02:08 AM
hi,
I guess a lot of FM settings are mixed up in the internal settings of low arcade to more real settings inside of the accessed container datas.

This after all new patch and new planes importet. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

the data-sensitive of different internal difficult settings to container FM data recall
should verify again at all planes in different settings.

It seems to be that some like La-7(and more) use datas of the so called 'low arcade modus' (see low difficult FM game settings) at high FM difficult settings.
No question that some planes seems to handle like a 'Tie Fighter' http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

So we need a verification of the FM Container data settings and values and the assignment instruction to different FM settings. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

This job(by developer) takes a long time even to edit some mistakes and reprogramm to new allocation...

Result: we are looking forward to a new big patch or not if the developer is not interest to patch it.

A long open Betatest after PF integration is usefull to test all planes again http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

my two cents to this...

WWMaxGunz
08-31-2004, 03:53 AM
2 different kinds of tracks: .ntrk and .trk

.ntrk does not have full data (settings?), possibly others, not good for sending to 1C
so not good for proof. I don't know if you can run one with different settings and what
will happen like different playback.

.trk is full data but only makeable offline of whole mission. You can make .trk with
arcade=0 and view with arcade=1 for example, don't think it works with .ntrk

From devicelink thread, tracks can be played back with devicelink program on (there are
many out now) and collect data. This means that you can change what data is collected
without having to refly the mission. I don't know if ntrk files will work with this,
devicelink I understand does not work online -- many would like to hear if it can and
how to do it!

STARFIGHTER: I am wondering about this, if people are using autopilot online? The
autopilot uses AI to control the plane and we know that AI cheats multiple ways.
If that is causing problems the maybe a server setting or realism toggle should be
asked for for PF/next maybe last FB patch?

TAGERT: Hey man, lighten up a bit! Beta testing is a lot of work and time, about
like taking care of a kid 4 to 8 hours a day if you do it at all proper. If Stiglr
says he hasn't got the time and you don't belive then show proof and a track file
would really help! Just saying......


Neal

WWMaxGunz
08-31-2004, 06:16 AM
People --- we don't just have the tools to check the FM! Oh No! We have the tools to find
the best ways to fly these planes as well, hehehe. This is something I've wanted since go!

There is something that every long-time ++Serious++ flight simmer wants for every plane and
general alt in any sim. That is the best sustained corner speeds. For every plane, alt, and
configuration of that plane (fuel, ammo, bombs, flaps, gear, etc) there is a best speed that
can be maintained in a best constant turn radius that returns your best turn rate. You may
be able to turn flying faster or with a smaller radius but this speed is magic, it gets the
most.

In general if you are really serious about getting the most, you fly one ride and learn it
to death including that best turn speed for some ranges of alts and your default loading
(without flaps down if you want to keep your E). You learn the best turn speeds for your
opponents. You maybe learn them for every 5000 ft or 2km at, or you tape a chart somewhere.
You try and match that speed for your alt range whenever you are combat turning... that speed
is the groove, it is magic, no other way to put it.

DeviceLink logs can find that speed at alt for the planes with patience and testing. It
takes serious simmers and a lot of work to find the gold but it is highly worth it. I've
run UDPSpeed just getting things set up and reading the log data, looking at the bleed as
I was transitioning an IL-2 from dive to zoom when all this hit me like a brick. The
bleed was there, second by second along with alt and when the thought crossed my mind that
I was seeing how d*mn hard I had pulled up it was then I knew that this information has the
very practical use of TRAINING FEEDBACK which AFAIC is higher priority than playing 'find
the errors' since 'find the errors' often includes making some basic errors in the finding.

I think the better =players= would rather know where and how the best performance can be
gotten of the sim. I think they'd love a tool that gives them feedback of how they fly.

That doesn't mean that finding errors should cease! With this feedback we can spot what
is happening and 'vet' the tracks backing claims then send on the good ones with data for
the relevant parts. Vetting means throwing out the bad ones in this case, it's old slang.

I'm just more excited about the positive potential here!

Also, running FB with UDPSpeed on makes my sim run jerky even with data every 1 second
instead of the default 1/10th second. So I didn't run the UDPSpeed but made a track
instead. I exited FB, ran UDPSpeed and fired up FB again. Then I ran the track and
the UDPSpeed numbers showed up and collected in the log just fine, running jerky all
the way but IMHO it didn't affect anything as the plane still hit the same low alt and
high speed (well really, the highest speed was before I pulled back to transition and
that IL-2 lost close to 20kph out of 490 in 3 seconds alone going from appx 20m above the
lowpoint to the low point and back up appx 20m) as well as the highest alt and lowest
speed, again those not in the same second as while I pushed the nose down the plane
began to speed up while still on the rise. Flying with pauses of UDPSpeed on while I
control is just for me not the way to go.


Neal

starfighter1
08-31-2004, 06:19 AM
hi,
I don't know the FM Datas corresponding in autopilot setting of the planes. You ?

I'm talking about different programmed FM datas compare to basic datas and maybe mixed up at 'in game settings' from 'low' to 'high' difficult settings.
conclusion: some planes use low difficulty 'arcade settings' at more real internal difficult setting by switching that in game

We need more transparence in this from the developer and of course tests in several settings by same stick value settings to all planes.

Just try this 'Capt. Brown thread settings' http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



QUOTE]Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
2 different kinds of tracks: .ntrk and .trk

STARFIGHTER: I am wondering about this, if people are using autopilot online? The
autopilot uses AI to control the plane and we know that AI cheats multiple ways.
If that is causing problems the maybe a server setting or realism toggle should be
asked for for PF/next maybe last FB patch?

BfHeFwMe
08-31-2004, 01:40 PM
Some seem to forget they're viewing the world distorted through a reversed binocular type view. Try driving down the freeway while looking through one backwards, see if you can really make distance and closure timing judgments to avoid traffic at speed while the cars a quarter of thier normal size and your in a fishbowl view.

Of course everything looks odd and off. But are you seriously going to claim you can spot ordinary everyday relative physics motions by eye in there? Most people don't adapt well to different environments when they distort their normal physical routines, they get ill, many never can adapt.

Face it, you're getting physical input via the Mk1 eyeball and sound, but it's a highly distorted from reality. If your going to base your argument on perception, I'll laugh, but a track we may watch. Don't be surprised if you get blasted for using poor BFM skills, but someone just may tell you what your doing wrong, and how to fix it. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

WWMaxGunz
08-31-2004, 05:54 PM
Starfighter, I don't know how anyone can be using any difficulty settings of their own
online. The server/host is supposed to be in total control of the settings, the client
software is supposed to use the difficulty settings of the host.

The Capt. Brown Settings are joystick sensitivity settings. Nothing to do with the
difficulty settings. You use the ones he recommends for realistic feel and you will
have to fly some seriously careful tactics not to have your six handed to you quickly.
They certainly won't gain you any advantage beyond smoother flight and they definitely
will limit your control authority in the extreme. Better to develop better stick
habits of less and smaller motions most of the time and limiting diagonal stick use.

Using autopilot: ever been in a mission with AI and found yourself getting behind
or unable to climb as fast or steeply? So you put on autopilot and viola, your plane
flies just like theirs! But there's more! Autopilot in combat will climb and turn
you just as the AI do! At one time it would cool the engine to switch back and forth,
but I think that may have been fixed. What do I think of that? It's nauseating! So
I'd like to see a server setting to disable use of autopilot.


Neal

TAGERT.
09-01-2004, 01:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
Respectfully Ivan ! Because it is that way ! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Respectfully.. looking at your track files.. Im not convinced. Take a look here for my results of your track files

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=485007007

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
This topic is now spread over three threads and never ever did somebody respond to prove it isn't so.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Until Now! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
Download these tracks and check for yourself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Did

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
The only difference present in the game is the maximum terminal velocity in various planes.
Everything else is the same.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hard to tell from your track files.. You did thing on some aircraft that you didnt do on other.. ie adj prop pitch, adj elevator trim, etc..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
Check these tracks:
Dive from 5000 until terminal velocity.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>+/- nearly a 100m

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
Calculated time until reaching of 700km/h<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Problem is your didnt sync up the inital alt and inital velocitys.. So hard to tell.. Sense the Fw190 started out faster, it reached the TV sooner.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
FW190: starting speed 350. reached 700km/h in 15 seconds
P47D: starting speed 330 reached speed in about 15-16 seconds
YAK-3: starting speed at about 300 reached 700km/h in 15-16 seconds. (even faster eh ?)
Fuel 100% rads as per default. Used pitch.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Used prop pitch on some.. used elevator trim on some..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
Tracks were sent to oleg. No response yet. Several other guys made tests with even more planes.
I dived at about 30-40? but you can check in the track. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You got the pitch of the Fw190 up to near -60 and only about 50 on the P47 and YaK.. So that will effect your results.. I must say.. you did do a prety good job on pitch though if you were just eye-balling it? Or did you use UPDSpeed to display the pitch?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
It's just one meg.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And my results in the pdf are even smaller! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

WWMaxGunz
09-01-2004, 02:55 AM
I think it's more true to history anyway so I'll not be using manual pitch in 'tests'.
I hate to say 'tests' without saying that first thing tested is me the pilot, just to
say 'test' has the implication of being an authority over the sim FM which I do not
take credit for being.

Anyhow, no manual pitch control for me and when I think of it I feel that most pilots
running those planes at least in dives (can't say for climbs and moreso for max speeds)
would have left the prop control as automatic as possible. That might be why there is
no mention of prop pitch use in those reports I've seen.

Kommandogerat for the FW's... and to ask Butch and others (Oleg?) if any other way was
used in Rechilin or other real life tests, should the FW's that had it run to specs
without having to use full manual control and very likewise the 109's? Very important
as so far I think people use everything they can with these when running 'tests'. So
these are conditions that may make a large a difference in what can be done.


Neal

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
09-01-2004, 06:06 AM
Hi Tagert,

I already felt invited at the bigh thread bearing my name to participate so have a look there on my comments.
Thanks for your time to at least investigate.
In your thread I'm commenting about why I use trim on one and no on the other plane etc.

As a general rule:
The FW190 Prop-pitch-automatic sucks.
It's only use is in dives up to 650km/h at which point it becomes obsolete. I think, since I just recorded until 700km/h I didn't siwtch it wildly but I tend to disable the automaton at 650 and set pitch to 30-20 and finally 0 when i reach 700km/h+

I use the same on every other plane with exception of the BF109 which would blow up. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I know that I didn't sync up the initial speeds, but this only made me look in awe even more. As i said the yak started from SLOWER-speed but reached 700km/h as fast as an already faster going FW190 or P47.
But I don't want to spam this thread to death and we maybe can discuss the stuff in the other thread, especially on some things you point out.

If you mean angle=pitch (the angle your plane has relative to the horizon) I did it by eye only, since I don't have the tools you guys use.

I'd like to invite everybody to make small comparisons with these settings.

Take your favorite mount to 5000m.
Wait until you reach 350km/h IAS.
Dive until TV.
Record the time you needed to reach 700km/h (most should be able to reach that. Maybe not an I153 or an I16 but then again, it'S delta-titanium...) *g*

What is the best dive-angle for a common test?
Common physics say that vertical dives are useless since gravity is doing the most job then, but if we agree on diveangles of say 40, 50, and 60 degrees for several planes maybe then we can see the results better.
I will try to get this devicelink thingie and would really like to see what the conclusion will be.
Maybe my tests were not perfect but it took me 5 minutes to do them after a squadmate indicated that somebody already made the tests....

If we all do some tests and collect the data I'd be HAPPY to see that dive-accelarations according to mass/drag/thrust is modelled at least DIFFERENTIATED. As it stands now we need more tracks and more guys being able to perform the right analysis but I'm eager to help http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
From experience I know that these factors are not being felt in the sim and that a lot of guys learned to game-the-game instead of flying.
I've been flying the FW190s too long and have learned that you CAN'T outdive your enemy unless your TV is higher than his.
I've seen plenty of p47s fall to the guns of BF109s being able to dive with them until the mk108 made them "fall"....

Thanks for your investigation. What we could request from the developers would be something like a HUD für arcade settings to enable us to do such tests. It may look like in an F16 but this would speed things up. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

starfighter1
09-01-2004, 11:48 AM
hi,
same at offline: I'm talking about the basic FM to some 'so called 'overmodelled' planes that should not have that flight dynamics near to real things.
My question: could it be that some of internal flight settings are imported from the lower 'settings.. say easy flight modelling' to the more difficulty settings that most of You are use ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
I guess the allocation is important http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Only the developer can check if datas from low FM containers are running in the upper settings of some planes ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

that's the point, if there is a mixing up ofdifficult FM settings at so many planes..

conclusion:let's test all features of the planes (includes also DM) at lowest FM settings and go ahead to next higher level in FM setting.

stick and settings are important to compare all results.
sorry we can't get any look into all this used FM container datas the developer programmed to different and difficulty settings oft the planes.

therefore I'm just looking for more objektive tests fields otherwise the discussion is more speculative.

Anyway: a verification of that datas as above
is usefull to find out some more 'over- or undermodelled' FM at some planes.

But any test needs a editor(not for changing ) to get a look into this FM container datas to get more objektive view of the different FM datas compare to planes and settings from low to higher difficult FM settings in games http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

my two cents in general to this ...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Starfighter, I don't know how anyone can be using any difficulty settings of their own
online. The server/host is supposed to be in total control of the settings, the client
software is supposed to use the difficulty settings of the host.