PDA

View Full Version : Performancecharts of FB Planes....comparison software



XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 10:40 AM
http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr/common/ilc2_v2.rar
http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr/common/ilc2_v2.zip


This charts/software are from Ross-Youss, very well made Programm, I allways waited for something like this, I think this Datas are correct, cause they are to many to evaluate them by flying...

But if I take a look at the 109´s it´s getting strange.. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif


A few examples:

http://w1.1861.telia.com/~u186104874/db605.htm
(for comparisions)

-A G2 climbs better than most later 109s... including G14 and G10 and real strange... at altitudes abouve 5500m it starting to outclimb the G6AS(M)!!- If you keep in mind that the G2 has the DB605A for low/medim altitude and the G6AS was equipted with a 605ASM with the special loader for (german) "high" altitudes - this engine had it best perfomance at 8000m in RL,
in FB it seems that the rated altitude is 5000m
The old DB605A is getting weak abouve ~5500m at altitudes cause it singelstagechager.

The G2 also outclimbs the G10 with the DB605D engine also developed as a highalt engine but in climb the G2 is better all the time...
It´s also nice to take a look at G10 and K4... Both are equipt with the DB605D... but the charts are totaly different!! The K4 is getting better after start till 5000m while the G10 is getting worse with every meter it gains...
but the G6AS with a different engine have a very similar chart- much more similar!
Even if we have the 2000HP K4 with C3 fuel the chart should be similar to the G10 cause it shouldn´t change the charecteristic of the engine (I think so).

- The G6 late is as fast as a G14 but at greater altitude... with the "same" engine (without the MW50 605AM enabled both should nearly performe similar- except the bigger weight for the the plane)


Its nice to see that the La5/7 are have no diffent performance with 100/110% over 3000m (historical correct)
but if you use the wep over 3000m, would this damadge the engine??? If yes, it should be modelld in FB like destoying your engine like overrev in LW planes...

JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/
http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif


Message Edited on 09/11/0312:26PM by Abbuzze

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 10:40 AM
http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr/common/ilc2_v2.rar
http://www.hellenic-sqn.gr/common/ilc2_v2.zip


This charts/software are from Ross-Youss, very well made Programm, I allways waited for something like this, I think this Datas are correct, cause they are to many to evaluate them by flying...

But if I take a look at the 109´s it´s getting strange.. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif


A few examples:

http://w1.1861.telia.com/~u186104874/db605.htm
(for comparisions)

-A G2 climbs better than most later 109s... including G14 and G10 and real strange... at altitudes abouve 5500m it starting to outclimb the G6AS(M)!!- If you keep in mind that the G2 has the DB605A for low/medim altitude and the G6AS was equipted with a 605ASM with the special loader for (german) "high" altitudes - this engine had it best perfomance at 8000m in RL,
in FB it seems that the rated altitude is 5000m
The old DB605A is getting weak abouve ~5500m at altitudes cause it singelstagechager.

The G2 also outclimbs the G10 with the DB605D engine also developed as a highalt engine but in climb the G2 is better all the time...
It´s also nice to take a look at G10 and K4... Both are equipt with the DB605D... but the charts are totaly different!! The K4 is getting better after start till 5000m while the G10 is getting worse with every meter it gains...
but the G6AS with a different engine have a very similar chart- much more similar!
Even if we have the 2000HP K4 with C3 fuel the chart should be similar to the G10 cause it shouldn´t change the charecteristic of the engine (I think so).

- The G6 late is as fast as a G14 but at greater altitude... with the "same" engine (without the MW50 605AM enabled both should nearly performe similar- except the bigger weight for the the plane)


Its nice to see that the La5/7 are have no diffent performance with 100/110% over 3000m (historical correct)
but if you use the wep over 3000m, would this damadge the engine??? If yes, it should be modelld in FB like destoying your engine like overrev in LW planes...

JG53 PikAs Abbuzze
I./Gruppe

http://www.jg53-pikas.de/
http://mitglied.lycos.de/p123/Ani_pikasbanner_langsam.gif


Message Edited on 09/11/0312:26PM by Abbuzze

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 02:43 PM
What data does this app use? Is it the Object Viewer? Oleg claims that data is not "correct". Sounds like a cover up to me, but.., if that is what this app uses then we need to take it's results with a grain of salt.

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 02:58 PM
i fly la7&la5fn at about 6500 use 110%throttle ,radiator position 4 the engine never overheat .you can use this throttle to fly till it run out gas.who can explain this?

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 03:07 PM
Extremely interesting stuff ! Can anybody tell wheter it is takeb from the actual in-game data ? If so, what version it is for ?

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 03:16 PM
My understanding from the VOW forums, (where the program link originated)is that Ross Youss got this data from Oleg and that it is actual flight data used in Version 1.11.

Budanova

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 03:26 PM
Great info ! Thanks !

BTW, looking at the climb graphs, I tend to believe its all for Radiator Closed data. That explains why my measured data at Rad 4 differs from it quite bit (but imho the latter shows the more common use of climb).

http://vo101isegrim.piranho.com/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation performance data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 03:39 PM
I'm almost certain that this data is comming from FB 1.11, you can easily find the errors from 1.11.
You can see there the 30 m/s climb for La5FN/La7 and the 16 sec turn on the same series (I even managed a 15 sec turn on La7 with 2 cannons). Or the incorrect climb speed on Bf-109 series (only G2 got a correct climb speed). Also here in those graphics all the MW-50 109 have the climb rate performance obtained without use of MW-50 (in 1.11 in the game G10 performs like it doesn't have MW-50 installed, K4 is ok though).
Or take a look at F4 climb rate 17.5m/s, I obtained exactly the same result. Or 18m/s for Yak1b (my test indicated 19.5m/s). Both F4 and Yak1b climb rate are obviously erroneous.

I can't believe that Oleg can approve such distorsion of the real performance ot those planes.


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

Message Edited on 09/11/0309:45AM by Huckebein_FW

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 04:09 PM
LOL

I new it all along....

Now all you whiner haters must eat your hats

slowley but certainly the 109 subject is being exposed to the LIGHT !!!

all you haters have some social services to preform /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I still like this sim alot even tho the 109 is a terd now

Maybe this is some honest mistakes in the 109s case as it was so close to right in 1.1b, I just dont understand howcome so many aspects change from 1 patch to the next not for the better tho in 109 case alwayes getting worse now its worse than ever even 109s in IL2 were better than this !!!

Please Oleg fix it!!!

<center> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1063229517.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 06:25 PM
Rather silent from the worshippers and LW haters, isn't it? lol

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 07:20 PM
Amazing! I knew it!
The bloody FM of the 109 and especially the CEM is porked. You might want to see the thread on this I started here:
http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=003757

http://bb.bbboy.net/bbgallery/Fantasy_&_Animals/wolfhowl.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 07:40 PM
-- Maybe this is some honest mistakes in the 109s case as
-- it was so close to right in 1.1b,

Yes, I have not downloaded 1.11 yet, I am fairly Happy with my Fb109s as they are 1.1b. I hear the 1.11 Me262 is still crippled at high altitudes.

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 07:43 PM
Ahh Yeah, can some-one explain what the numbers on the vertical axis of the "speed climb at 0m" means? is it the climb speed in ft/sec?

and what the numbers on the vertical axis of the "speed-turn at 1000m" graph are.

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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 08:12 PM
Here you go Mr. Platypus

for speed-climb,

vertical : vertical speed in meters/second
horizontal : horizontal speed (TAS)

for speed-turn,

vertical : time needed for a 360? turn in seconds (sustained turn rate)
horizontal : horizontal speed (TAS)

hope that helps.

See u Mr. Platypus

4./JG52_Kalo

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 08:30 PM
Bf-109F4 goes 30km/h faster than Bf-109F2 at 6000m, and has better turn rate....

Hurricane MKI has 22 second sustained turn rate....

109G2 climbs better than G10, G14 and K4...

MiG-3 classic has 19 second turn time...

HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!11

But seriously, nice program. It is beautiful /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

BTW, anyone know what "UP" means in the speed-turn dept?



I am now accepting donations to buy the smilies a new home.
http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb06894.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb57471.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb11726.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb75733.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb80477.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb64472.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb59442.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb80347.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb73057.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb48642.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb24962.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb72600.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb72327.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb10373.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb70750.gif


Message Edited on 09/11/0301:55PM by StG77_Fennec

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 08:43 PM
Based upon the chart, and presuming I'm reading it right ( /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif ), the Hurricane II climb rate might be right.

Assuming that the climb speed is in kph and that the speed is IAS (not TAS) and given that:

~225 * 0.62137119 = 139.8mph, this agrees with the Pilots notes for that aircraft (upto 16,000). Although the notes do go on to say that, at full load, 155mph is the most comfortable climbing speed.

Although we don't know wether it's TAS or IAS.

/m

<TABLE CELLPADDING=0 CELLSPACING=0 BORDER=0 BGCOLOR=#000839>
<TR>
<TD>http://www.airtattooshop.com/shop/images/Homepage/RAFBF_Logo.gif (http://www.raf-benfund.org.uk)</TD>
</TR></TABLE>

http://www.world-data-systems.com/lomac/icagbaderanim2.gif (http://www.icaghq.com)

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 08:54 PM
for the turn-speed chart the notations such as UP refer to the flap position.

It is definitely ingame data, compare the max speeds of 190D9 '44 and 190D9 '45, exactly what my tests showed (and strange that the later one is mostly slower).

Since the max speed table is obviously TAS, I assume the others are as well, though it would be nice for the climb and turn data to be given in IAS.

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 09:01 PM
but surely, if it's TAS it's kinda like walking blindfold through a field of razor blades?

/m

<TABLE CELLPADDING=0 CELLSPACING=0 BORDER=0 BGCOLOR=#000839>
<TR>
<TD>http://www.airtattooshop.com/shop/images/Homepage/RAFBF_Logo.gif (http://www.raf-benfund.org.uk)</TD>
</TR></TABLE>

http://www.world-data-systems.com/lomac/icagbaderanim2.gif (http://www.icaghq.com)

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 09:33 PM
bump

I am now accepting donations to buy the smilies a new home.
http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb06894.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb57471.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb11726.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb75733.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb80477.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb64472.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb59442.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb80347.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb73057.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb48642.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb24962.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb72600.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb72327.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb10373.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb70750.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 09:58 PM
Interesting - according to this the D-10 and D-22 are identical in terms of what it measures. It would be nice if it provided more data.

This is proof there is a problem - if - this is actual game data, as appears to be the case. The D-22 climbed much better than the 10 due to the paddle prop, and better than the 27 due to being lighter. That isn't the case apparently.

Also, the D-10 did get the paddle prop retro-fitted as I understand. The lighter weight of the razorback, combined with the lack of bomb shackles would make a very potent aircraft. However, as the 22 is not outclimbing the 27, we know that the retro fit is not modeled in.

Watch, Oleg will say the 27 is overmodeled.

Skychimp, you reading this?

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 10:00 PM
ICAG_Bader wrote:

-
- Although we don't know wether it's TAS or IAS.


I would assume that its TAS rember they didnt have IAS indicators in the cockpit (not too my knoledge I could be wrong)


Id bank on TAS

<center> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1063229517.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 10:29 PM
The other way around, the airspeed indicator is usually IAS.

But when people do tests, they usually convert their values to TAS for simplicity.

The best climb speed could be either IAS or TAS, because it is showing best climb at 0m, where both IAS and TAS are the same (on a standard day).

I am now accepting donations to buy the smilies a new home.
http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb06894.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb57471.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb11726.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb75733.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb80477.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb64472.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb59442.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb80347.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb73057.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb48642.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb24962.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb72600.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb72327.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb10373.gif http://www.smiliedb.de/s/sdb70750.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 10:35 PM
Can anyone explain to me the graph labeled Climb. I understand the left column is altitude, but was it the bottem row?

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 10:48 PM
What is the differnce between flaps UP and No flaps?

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 10:55 PM
This has been discussed in the VOW forum and the autor of the program said that data is from the drecrypted SFS files.


This is the url to the VOW forums: http://www.vow-hq.com/index.php?page=forum&action=topic&id=1830&start=80

XyZspineZyX
09-11-2003, 11:18 PM
StG77_Fennec wrote:
- I am now accepting donations to buy the smilies a
- new home.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I liked that sig /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


"Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty but the pig enjoys it!"

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 01:36 AM
Version 2.1 of this is now avaliable and adds some features plus providing axis definitions and takes away the confusing up flap line.

http://www.barans.spb.ru/files/ilc_v21.zip

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 02:17 AM
Can't get that URL to work. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 02:31 AM
Hmmmm. dang it was working when I was at work, but not when I am at home.

I guess maybe keep an eye on this thread for a mirror.

http://www.vow-hq.com/index.php?page=forum&action=topic&id=1885


BlitzPig_DDT wrote:


- Can't get that URL to work. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
-
-

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 02:39 AM
I found a new link.

http://starwarsgalaxies.ru/temp/ilc_v21.zip

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 02:54 AM
That worked. Thanks. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 03:01 AM
Ferro11 wrote:
- This has been discussed in the VOW forum and the
- autor of the program said that data is from the
- drecrypted SFS files.
-

If IL2 isn't table-based, then why is this stuff even needed in the SFS files? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 05:42 AM
Seriously, the fact that .sfs files have been decrypted is the most excellent revelation. I couldn't really care that much about the calculations in Il2compare, but man ..

Also the fact that the betas and patching process have reveled that there's very little, if any, consistency checking on the data files by FB.

Things don't look as ******ed as I once thought for modding this game.

I would encourage everyone to read the thread on VOW [ http://www.vow-hq.com/index.php?page=forum&action=topic&id=1830&start=0 ] if you seek any explanation of what the numbers in IL2 compare mean - all of them seem calculated on empty weight [no ammo/guns/fuel/etc] so that's possibly why you're seeing some weird numbers there.



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

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 08:06 AM
Seems to me two places where potential errors might persist:

1. the "calculated by special program using FM code" part

There might be some glitches which might be uncovered only when people start looking for possible problems intentionally. However, only one person outside 1C has access to both this "program", and the internal data coded by the SFS file.

2. the correct "empty weight" itself is still being debated inside the VOW forums.

Another interesting part is "tested today the G2, G6, G6ASM, G14 with different settings so that they can be compared with original settings". So, what exactly is this setting? No one knows for sure. It could mean something, but it may not.

...

It's a little too early to be decisive about anything, but if there is an error in the Bf109s, it is not like suggested by some. The main line of confusion and weirdness surrounding the Bf109s seem to all revolve between following 3 planes: the G-6/AS, G-14, and the G-10. The three intermittent(well, the G-10 actually is not, but..) 'steps' leading to the K-4. That, it seems, also noted within the VOW forums, referring it to as the "Chaos of the 109s".

As it stands, the best performer of the three is undoubtably the G-6/AS. It is followed by the G-10 and the G-14.

One interesting thing to note is the "attitude" of the climb rate charts. One can clearly see attitude of the G-10 and the G-14 are very simular to the G-6, while the G-6/AS and the K-4 are very different.

It could be a long-shot, but from a developers point of view, it seems that the G-2 and the G-6 was modelled first in IL-2, then the G-6/AS was separately modelled taking into account the special factors such as higher supercharger rate and MW50. Then, as FB comes it seems the G-10 and the G-14 was modelled based on the G-6, and the K-4 again, modelled separately. Then finally, the G-2 probably was redone again - as it looks that "the G-2 climb seems overmodelled" reference by some people, seems to make sense.

One thing that is really certain, is the decline in climb rate of the G-14 and the G-10 is abnormal. It is highly likely that the G-10 and the G-14 were mere 'enhanced performance' deriving from the performance values of the G-6, while the G-2, G-6/AS and the K-4 were 'specially tweaked'.

Something during the 'tweaking process' of the G-2, G-6/AS and the K-4 seems to have triggered a factor which specifically has to do with the retention of climb rates compared to the "G-6 and its derivatives". The attitude of the curve of the "G-6 and its derivatives" are very strange with a steady declining line - which as I recall, is nothing like what I've seen compared to the factory charts.


Stating it loosely, it looks almost as if the climb charts are mixed up:

G-6/AS climb should be for G-10
G-2 climb should be for G-6/AS
G-10 climb should be for G-14
G-14 climb should be for G-2



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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 12:17 PM
Shot2Pieces wrote:
- Ferro11 wrote:
-- This has been discussed in the VOW forum and the
-- autor of the program said that data is from the
-- drecrypted SFS files.
--
-
- If IL2 isn't table-based, then why is this stuff
- even needed in the SFS files? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
-

I think has been noted by others in this thread and is explained in the url from VOW forums, but basically the autor decrypted the FM formulas from SFS files and used them to obtain this data.

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 02:10 PM
Kweassa, I've heard convincing arguments quite often that the G2 is basically spot in in climb. The rest are very undermodeled however. Do you not think this is the case?

Also, saying that this program isn't accurate opens up some questions about why it matches what we see in the game so well.

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 03:09 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- Also, saying that this program isn't accurate opens
- up some questions about why it matches what we see
- in the game so well.

True.

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 08:56 PM
Message Edited on 09/12/0304:09PM by Chadburn

XyZspineZyX
09-12-2003, 09:23 PM
"Also, saying that this program isn't accurate opens up some questions about why it matches what we see in the game so well."

It's just a possibility DDT, not definitive nor decisive. I'd just like to keep the possibilities open.

Also, waiting for a convincing explanation to be presented for a problem, is admittably not often - I've seen through a lot of claims, and in each of them the gamers come up with as much evidence as counter evidence.

The roll-rates concerning the P-47s is probably the single largest instance where the developers openly admitted that it was wrong, and other issues were all corrected in a very hush-hush manner through some 3~4 versions, when we think about how things happened around the original IL-2. The other most common speculations revolving around, for instance like the debate on the .50s, remain within a loose 'consensus', still without any definitive evidence to be represented, in my opinion.

It is because the in-game data is notoriously hard to actually test it out - I see people quoting their own test results, and then see the blatant and obvious mistakes in testing methods all the time.

One reason is testing a climbrate at a certain altitude is very difficult to carry out accurately, and since I can't trust that neither myself, nor someone else is doing it right, I can't compare the results the program suggest, with my own testing.

In-game speed tests, which as you've seen how I do it before, are relatively much easier than climb rate testing and yet it still takes 5~6 'checklists' to follow to get it to a trustworthy level. Climbrates are much harder.

Also, having access to certain table of data is different from actual calculations. Speeds, as I mentioned, are easier to calculate, but climbrate takes more time. Initial data on what engine the plane uses and etc. is not enough, and it will take the programmer to have the exactly the same calculation methods with the game, to duplicate in-game results in a 3rd party program. Does the il2compare do that? May be, may be not.

I am very willing to accept the results the il2compare program is suggesting to us, and the consequential 'evidences' revolving around the climbrates for the Bf109s, but I still haven't got the decisive 'bit' to trust it whole-heartedly. In a very personal opinion, I don't think Mr. Youss is dumb, and probably he got the program itself right. Thus, I'd be willing to support the claims that the climb rates of three specific planes - the G-6, G-14 and the G-10, are porked.

However, whether Oleg will accept the results calculated by a foreign program as 'objective data', is something else.

Let's just say, while I'm a very pis*y whiner myself when it comes to whining /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif , the 'decisive tone' gamers present in these boards are sort of getting on my nerves, and is very alarming. I would view anecdotal opinions from gamers as 'considerable' evidence, but nothing decisive. Neither will the developers.

However, if somehow the developers will acknowledge the il2compare program as something that accurately portrays their game, then I guess it would be a pretty good evidence. Unfortunately, we can't do that, and only the developer Mr.Youss, can do that.


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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 01:35 AM
bumping, because everyone should have this.

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 01:56 AM
Agreed Fillmore. And people might want to keep an eye on this thread in ORR to see what (if anything) 1C has to say regarding its accuracy:

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zupaq