PDA

View Full Version : As far as biased goes: P-39... (sry for double post)



XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 09:40 AM
It's pretty clear that the P-39 series simply... climbs much better than it should... I don't have the exact data, because i am only someone who has been informed about this (look to WUAF_Badsight for real data), but apparently, the P-39 is currently... 95% off on the climbing rate, because tests IRL showed it to reach 5k in approx. 8 minutes, and ingame in around 4:30... Again, these numbers aren't exact, consult Badsight about them, but this is just out of hand.

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 09:40 AM
It's pretty clear that the P-39 series simply... climbs much better than it should... I don't have the exact data, because i am only someone who has been informed about this (look to WUAF_Badsight for real data), but apparently, the P-39 is currently... 95% off on the climbing rate, because tests IRL showed it to reach 5k in approx. 8 minutes, and ingame in around 4:30... Again, these numbers aren't exact, consult Badsight about them, but this is just out of hand.

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 10:36 AM
I think it's being looked at, as are several issues in the game.

I dont want to sound like a butt kisser or anything, and I have been critical of the dev team from time to time, but honestly, mistakes do happen in any business - nothing is perfect.

I can only imagine how complex this game has gotten with it's coding, (And from a limited point of view) I know that when you add new things to a particular software program, sometimes it's harder to fix what you break than it was to add the new stuff in the first place. Hope that makes sense, and hope everything will be much better with the next patch.

(Especially the netcoding!)

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 01:23 PM
rgr Hero..i can get 800 meters within few seconds with a good speed (340) and combat flaps in the P39. Something has to be fixed for sure but as the other guy said (sry don't remember the name) Mistakes can happen in any buisness.

S~

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 01:42 PM
lol,

Wich P-39 are you talking about?

None fact, if you guy's can take time and read a bit, the Q10 had some of it's amore removed by the russions.

Hence, what flgiht data are you using?

US fight data? or russion data? In game data?

Also, Badsight is not a game tester.




Message Edited on 09/27/03 12:42PM by Maple_Tiger

Message Edited on 09/27/0308:31PM by Maple_Tiger

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 01:47 PM
The best and most comprehensive comparison of Il2FB planes vs real life test data is Cubes work.

http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=004181

Shame he had to tag on all sorts of conspiracies - a lot of planes seem very, very close to the data, others are way, way off.

Hopefully the reworking of weights and the CEM/manifold system in 1.2 will correct a lot of these errors.



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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 03:38 PM
Howdy

Maple_Tiger wrote:
- lol,
- Wich P-39 are you talking about?
-
- None fact, if you guy's can take time and read a
- bit, the Q10 had alot of it's amore removed by the
- russions.
-
- Hence, what flgiht data are you using?
-
- US fight data? or russion data? In game data?

Where is this data that proves your case? What armour
was removed from the Q-10?

What was the standard armour configurations of the various
Q Models as delivered by Bell?


S!
Weasel

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 04:09 PM
~S! All, I can appreciate that the programing driving these models is very complex, and of course, way beyond my comprehension. NP with making mistakes.

My point, is not a ME TOO, but to say that as long as any changes are based on accurate and verifible hard data, I certainly don't have a problem, that's simply an expectation on my part, be it ever humble.

My research to date is confined to mostly the P-39, the P-40 and P-47 to a lessor degree. ( I just have more reading material on those)

Yes, the climb rate is too good on the the various models of the 39's, if only one confines his/her comparison to combat weight. An aero nautical engineer should have the expertise to interpolate the effect of wieght on ROC at various weights, and "altitude adjusted climb power, available".

My passion for many years is soaring, own my own bird, and anecdotally for increases in payload you do see an impact on climb,a glider pilots see this in thermalling climb rates acheived, but the impact, vis a vis wieght is not as great as one would think. Rather, ROC is impacted, for our purposes by the amount of excess thrust available from the power plants. The P-39's power drops off at 15,000, e.g. climb rate. The other variable is each engines temperature limitation.

In sum, change 'em with verifible data appropriate to make and model. I'm optimistic that 1C will address issues with a balanced approach to them from our community.

As we see Beta testors, are only part of this process.

Regards to all.



BPO5_Jinx
C.O. Replacement Air Group
Birds of Prey. 16th GvIAP
http://www.birdsofprey16thgviap.com
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/RS-15/N50GL.html

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 07:55 PM
Hey BgWeasel.

First dont get me wronge. All i want is all aircraft in FB to be acurit.

But i have noticed guy's using US flight data when testing russion based aircraft. Shure the P-40, P-39, and 47 are north american but most of these planes were alterd a bit by russion ground crue or enginears.

Where is my prove:

One, In game, in the objects veiwer under the aircraft heading and looking at the Q10 for example, you will read that the russion did remove some of the armore.

Second, there are sight's that also say the same thing. There not easy to find though.

Any way here is one of two sights that will prove that im not full of BS!. Also like i said, the object veiwer also will say what i have said about the Q10.

http://www.flugzeugwerk.net/ap39.htm

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 08:31 PM
Maple_Tiger wrote:
- Any way here is one of two sights that will prove
- that im not full of BS!. Also like i said, the
- object veiwer also will say what i have said about
- the Q10.
-

Good research there Maple_Tiger! To provide a second source to the information in the object viewer, you dug up a site that *gasp* simply reproduces the information in the object viewer!

--AKD

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

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 09:00 PM
Let's take the P-39Q-1 as an example of effects of field mods on climb rate:

Here is climb data:

http://www.axishq.wwiionline.com/~ring/planes/p39/Bel-P39-Q1-Manual/original/p29.jpg


Notice there is data for various weights. ex.:

7600 lbs (combat load): climb to 15,000 ft. = 4.9 min.

7200 lbs (no ammo): climb to 15,000 ft. = 4.5 min.

Now if every single piece of armor (including armored glass) in the aircraft was removed, the weight would be reduced by 191 lbs., making combat load 7,407 lbs. Since this falls roughly between the two climb data loads, we can estimate a climb to 15,000 ft. with no armor to be about 4.7 min. That's a difference of 4%. It is, however, highly doubtful that the Russians removed every piece of armor from the aircraft.

--AKD

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

ZG77_Nagual
09-27-2003, 09:16 PM
http://www.yarchive.net/mil/p39.html

interesting

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

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 09:29 PM
First, i did not say every peace of armore.

I said " some of the armore was romved".


Hey BgWeasel.

First dont get me wronge. All i want is all aircraft in FB to be acurit.

But i have noticed guy's using US flight data when testing russion based aircraft. Shure the P-40, P-39, and 47 are north american but most of these planes were alterd a bit by russion ground crue or enginears.

Where is my prove:

One, In game, in the objects veiwer under the aircraft heading and looking at the Q10 for example, you will read that the russion did remove some of the armore.

Second, there are sight's that also say the same thing. There not easy to find though.

Any way here is one of two sights that will prove that im not full of BS!. Also like i said, the object veiwer also will say what i have said about the Q10.

http://www.flugzeugwerk.net/ap39.htm.



I can show you more sights that say the same thing, but whats the point.

lol, that would be like trying to convince Oleg that the roll rait in the 27 is wronge.

Have you guy's taken the P-51 out for a spin? It's roll rait is about the same as the 27. Or what about the IL-2, should it's roll rait be almost the same as the 27?


Oleg is Russion, he is very proud of his counry's planes. Thats why all the russion planes in FB are the best. Deep in his mind he beleaves's the Russion planes are the best in the world.

lol, there not the best. They are one of the best.

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 09:48 PM
~S!

Great read, Naqual, thx.



BPO5_Jinx
C.O. Replacement Air Group
Birds of Prey. 16th GvIAP
http://www.birdsofprey16thgviap.com
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/RS-15/N50GL.html

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 03:12 AM
Don't touch the P-39, it performs great!! I love it! A super agile bombing and vulching machine!!!! LOL Super agile being the keywords there! =)

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 03:35 AM
waterinthefuel wrote:
- Don't touch the P-39, it performs great!! I love it!
- A super agile bombing and vulching machine!!!! LOL
- Super agile being the keywords there! =)

Right, shes's not as fast as the Yak or La5 or La7 or BF 109's and FW's.

But you have guy's who dont know any beter that try and turn with it and ect.

Yes she's a good plane when you fly it right.

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 04:00 AM
Originally posted by Cube:


Now back to Russian planes.
I took values from P39Q1 manual ( http://www.axishq.wwiionline.com/~ring/planes/p39/Bel-P39-Q1-Manual/Page.html)
so theres climb performance chart (it's a bit unclear at what power settings it was done because manual indicates that these tests use combat power but then adds that take off power was used for 5 min, but I decided to choose most optimistic for Russian planes version and compare it to 100% in the game):

Well, climb curves are nowhere close and climb to 5 km time in the game - 4:58 min is better than real one - 6:40 min by 35%.
Difference is not so big as it seemed from fb object viewer data but still huge, surpassed only by I16. But here I must add one observation what could explain inconsistence of real life results form P39 manual and fb object viewer. This climb data (6:40 min to 5 km) obviously applies to american planes, and TsAGI book indicates that russians made some modifications to their P39 in order to strengthen them, because tests showed that under high g tail and body of the plane gets deformed what often leads to chrashes. It obviously caused weight increase and this could be the reason why in russian tests they showed only 8.5min (P39N) and 8.1min (P39Q1) climb to 5km. On the other hand P39Q10 was contrary lightened by removing wing mg and some armor, thus we get 5.9min climb to 5 km. But in the game all the P39 models shows very close performance what is way better even than real life lightened ones.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cube,

I kindly believe you are grossly mistaken about the climb rate of the P-39 Q1, based on the exact data you quote from the manual:




A calculation of the time to altitude in minutes, converted to Meters to second:

Weight SL to 3000 SL to 5000 SL to 10000 SL to 15000 SL to 25000 FEET

8100 1.1 1.9 3.8 6.0 13.1
7600 0.9 1.6 3.1 4.9 10.1
7200 0.9 1.4 2.9 4.5 9.3

909 1515 3030 4545 7576 Meters
13.77 13.29 13.29 12.63 9.64 Meters/sec
16.84 15.78 16.29 15.46 12.50
16.84 18.04 17.42 16.84 13.58

I believe even with the 8100 weight, that FB's and data is closer to real life than your calucation. If you use the lighter weights, and one must assume that rational pilots and engineers would take advantage of lighters weights to achieve greater combat climbs, then FB data exactly corresponds to the real life data per this P39 Q1.

For example, Cube's data shows 11 meter/sec rate at 3000 meters. The published data shows a time to climb of 2.9 to 3.8 minutes, hence an AVERAGE climb rate of 13.3 to 17.4 meters/second.

I apologize if I have miscalculated. However, in lieu of missing something, I think the P39 bias is bunk.

A pop-quiz for the FM genius whiners:

If you have Plane A with a 25m/sec climb rate, and plane B with a 15m/sec climb rate, HOW far up are after 10 seconds ?

Answer: Within my shooting range. You can climb at this rate for 40 seconds, and I'll still be able to kill you.

Climb rate per se is a misleading concept for energy fighting (it forgets initial speed, speeds from dives, drag, it is an average speed.. etc etc..)



" The first time I ever saw a jet, I shot it down ": General Chuck Yeager, USAF, describing his first confrontation with a Me262 - - -
" Aggressiveness was a fundamental to success in air-to-air combat and if you ever caught a fighter pilot in a defensive mood you had him licked before you started shooting ": Captain David McCampbell, USN, leading U.S. Navy ace in W.W.II.

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 04:32 AM
@ A.K.Davis

15000 ft is not 5000m it is more like 4573 m. Therefore the difference is not 4%.

5000m = 16400ft


<center><img src= "http://homepage.ntlworld.com/n.bulger/Emil_Bug.jpg">

AKA JG5_Emil

"I wish we all had the courage to confine our defence to three simple words....LICK MY A*S!" Herman Goering

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 06:47 AM
DKP wrote:
-
- @ A.K.Davis
-
- 15000 ft is not 5000m it is more like 4573 m.
- Therefore the difference is not 4%.
-
- 5000m = 16400ft
-
- AKA JG5_Emil
-
- "I wish we all had the courage to confine our
- defence to three simple words....LICK MY A*S!"
- Herman Goering
-

Okay, I'll rewrite my post using metric units:

"Notice there is data for various weights. ex.:

3447.3 kg. (combat load): climb to 4573m = 4.9 min.

3265.87 kg. (no ammo): climb to 4573m = 4.5 min.

Now if every single piece of armor (including armored glass) in the aircraft was removed, the weight would be reduced by 86.6361 kg, making combat load 3359.76 kg. Since this falls roughly between the two climb data loads, we can estimate a climb to 4573m with no armor to be about 4.7 min. That's a difference of 4%. It is, however, highly doubtful that the Russians removed every piece of armor from the aircraft."

Strange, converting the units into metric didn't change the percentage. I wonder why that is...

--AKD

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

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 11:12 PM
Ok so I misinterpreted what you said since the difference between your 4.7 min climb rate to 15000 and the original posters climb to 5000m was indeed 4%.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


<center><img src= "http://homepage.ntlworld.com/n.bulger/Emil_Bug.jpg">

AKA JG5_Emil

"I wish we all had the courage to confine our defence to three simple words....LICK MY A*S!" Herman Goering

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2003, 11:58 PM
p39 shouldn't be able to challenge any fw190 or 109f or later at 7000m but it does.

In fact, it challenges 262 up there since you can barely get that jet up that high.

Many "bugs", p39 being just one of them. I still think the bugs are compromises due to a simple FM engine.