PDA

View Full Version : Bf109G-2/G-6early discussion



JG53Frankyboy
01-22-2007, 07:57 AM
unfortunatly all these interesting posts of the last weeks about these planes are lost http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

ok, to start with their speed:

the G-2 and G-6 early are almost at the same speed at SL ~530km/h TAS , the G-2 slightly faster.
but at 7000m (the full throttle alt in game, accoring to IL2 compare)the G-2 is ~30km/h faster than the G-6 ?!
is the more drag the G-6 has (tail wheel, MG131 bulges) in the thinner air in 7000m more counting than at SL ?
in my opinion (that can be totaly wrong !) the speedcurves of these two planes should be almost paralel in comparison - and not differ from almost equal in 0m to ~30km/h in 7000m.
or does here the weight, even in the gameengine calculation, begin to count ?

they should have the same engine , a DB605a.
and if they are rated different ( i know the proplems with the full 1,42ATA of the 605), the earlier G-2 should not have the higher rated engine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


to ad, i speak of the difference - not knowing if the G-6 is too bad or the G-2 is too good. most propably the "truth" would be in the middle.
anyway, having my popcorn ready http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG53Frankyboy
01-22-2007, 07:57 AM
unfortunatly all these interesting posts of the last weeks about these planes are lost http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

ok, to start with their speed:

the G-2 and G-6 early are almost at the same speed at SL ~530km/h TAS , the G-2 slightly faster.
but at 7000m (the full throttle alt in game, accoring to IL2 compare)the G-2 is ~30km/h faster than the G-6 ?!
is the more drag the G-6 has (tail wheel, MG131 bulges) in the thinner air in 7000m more counting than at SL ?
in my opinion (that can be totaly wrong !) the speedcurves of these two planes should be almost paralel in comparison - and not differ from almost equal in 0m to ~30km/h in 7000m.
or does here the weight, even in the gameengine calculation, begin to count ?

they should have the same engine , a DB605a.
and if they are rated different ( i know the proplems with the full 1,42ATA of the 605), the earlier G-2 should not have the higher rated engine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


to ad, i speak of the difference - not knowing if the G-6 is too bad or the G-2 is too good. most propably the "truth" would be in the middle.
anyway, having my popcorn ready http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
01-22-2007, 08:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
accoring to IL2 compare </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<span class="ev_code_red">ERROR ERROR ERROR</span>

IL2COMPARE is NOT displaying data directly from the IL2 engine or data files!

IL2COMPARE is making predictions based off of calculations that are based off of data collected (DeviceLink) while flying (AI flying) the plane.

There are alot of potential errors involved in doing that, which can result in the IL2COMPARE prediction being very Very VERY different than the actual value you will see/get while playing the game!

Oleg has even said IL2COMPARE is not 100% accurate and NOT to based any BUG reports on values displayed in IL2COMPARE.

At the same time, it is amazing how close the IL2COMPARE values do come sometimes! Truly a great tool! As long as it is used correctly and understood to be a 'prediction' of the value, not the actual value!

Which brings us back to square one when reporting a BUG, Real world data and..

Got Track?

Those are the only two things Oleg is interested in and as a community that is all we should be interested in!

If we did draw the line there.. Real World Data and Track it would remove 90% of the whining around here which is based on nothing but an opinion! IMHO! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG53Frankyboy
01-22-2007, 09:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
...........At the same time, it is amazing how close the IL2COMPARE values do come sometimes! .............. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

anyway , i flew the speeds in game ! im not talking about the speed given in IL2compare(even if they are good matched http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ).
i "just" looked for some info at what altitude the game propably has the "full throttle altitude" of the DB605a............
well , perhaps i should repeat the speedtest at 5800m (rated alt of DB605a without RAM effect)too.......... not thinking i will get a different result !

imagine the Vmax of the G-2 IF it would have it's full throttle alt at ~6000m in game and its speed 1000m higher would be still over 660km/h TAS http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .....................

AKA_TAGERT
01-22-2007, 11:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
anyway , i flew the speeds in game ! im not talking about the speed given in IL2compare (even if they are good matched http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah, so when you said..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
accoring to IL2 compare </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You were just kidding?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
i "just" looked for some info at what altitude the game propably has the "full throttle altitude" of the DB605a </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And my point is that info.. ie IL2COMPARE is only a prediction of what it may or may not do.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
well , perhaps i should repeat the speedtest at 5800m (rated alt of DB605a without RAM effect)too.. not thinking i will get a different result ! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes you should and you should record a track file of it because you would not be the first person to think they did a good job of it or that there would not be any difference in doing it more than once.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
imagine the Vmax of the G-2 IF it would have it's full throttle alt at ~6000m in game and its speed 1000m higher would be still over 660km/h TAS http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ..................... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Neat theory.. or should I say opinion?

anarchy52
01-22-2007, 12:20 PM
So far IL-2 compare has been spot on or very close to in-game performance.

AKA_TAGERT
01-22-2007, 12:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
So far IL-2 compare has been spot on
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>Does not change the FACT that Oleg himself and the maker of IL2COMPRE have both stated that IL2COMPARE is a prediction of the values. NOT the actul values read from the IL2 engine or data files!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
or very close to in-game performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sometimes.. most of the time even.. but not all of the time

rmorgansmith
01-22-2007, 12:40 PM
Glad to be back, I am the one who started this thread and I was commenting on my impressions on the Bf-109 G6. I was doing a campaign in Fw-190 A and got wounded and when I was back I was in a 109 G6 and was dissapointed compared to the early Butcher Bird. I got some input and was taken to task for not using the plane correctly. In fighting the P-51 and T-Bolts thrown at me by the computer it was very difficult as they were booming and zooming away and I could not keep up with them in a climb. Got a few kills but it was tough, my last one I tried to take some of the advice and kept after a T-bolt as he zoomed up, after a few up and down cycles I was gaining a little on him by using combat flaps to hang in a climb to the stalling point trying to get a firing solution, he hung on his climb and started to come back down on me and as he rushed past I fired a full armament burst at somewhere close to 90 degree deflection and he flew right through it, got the kill as he spiralled out of control into the ground.

Next mission they transferred me back to the Ardennes in FW-190D9, what a killer machine! Have not done much flying in that and it just owns the Jug and 51 at the low altitudes,climbs like crazy and brutal firepower, got two air to air kills in one mission a 51 and T-bolt and had enough ammo to shoot up a truck column, went home to keep the kills as the AA was riddling me a bit but still had some ammo left.

When the T-bolt tried that same climb, stall, dive trick I just followed him up and nailed him no sweat. Love that D-9.

Kwiatos
01-22-2007, 01:28 PM
Yea D-9 is as easy like the spitfire. Turn with P-51,P-47 and Tempest, roll and climb even better and is faster. And of course have good firepower - 0,50 caliber is unselles

JG52Karaya-X
01-22-2007, 02:17 PM
Speeds on the G6 (around 530-540 for both the G6early and late on the deck and 630-640 at altitude) are ok, its just that the turntime is off by at least 2 secs. It currently has a turntime of 23secs at an optimum turn speed of 310km/h. Thats more like a real G6 with gunpods needed for a full circle. Our G2 take 20,5 secs ingame which matches LW and VVS test data perfectly, as the G6 is just a mere 70kg heavier one can expect a turntime of 21secs in the worst case.

I will record a track soon and upload it.

FritzGryphon
01-22-2007, 02:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It currently has a turntime of 23secs at an optimum turn speed of 310km/h </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You should try this again. I've gotten 21 seconds at 1000m, 100% fuel, at 250IAS turn speed. Upload track if you want.

I agree 100% that it was broken before.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So far IL-2 compare has been spot on or very close to in-game performance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree it is usually right on the money. However, some times I have tested top speed (P-40 for example), and it is completely off, by 50km/h or more. The IL-2 compare data seems to ignore some factors present in the game, expecially at higher altitudes.

rmorgansmith
01-22-2007, 03:39 PM
My objection to the G-6 was not so much the turn time as the climb performance vis a vis the AI T-Bolts and Mustangs because when the table are turned and I am flying the American planes the Bf-109 s are right up my behind when I try the high/low tactics the A/I uses.

I am not complaining about the AI, I understand how difficult that must be as a programming challenge, and it is pretty challenging and fun which really is the point and hats of to Oleg and his crew. Really looking forward to BOB-SOW, I am sure the whole thing will be impressive and with the newer more powerful computers it should really blow our doors off.( Can you say second mortgage for new computer, just don't tell my wife.)

To address Kwiatos's impression of the .50 cal in game it is different weapon for sure but have had many multiple kill missions with it and again I hope as the SOW series rolls out there will be modelling for the AP Incendiary round for the .50 that I understand was devastating. To the best of my knowledge only solid slug is moddelled or ball round as it is called by those in the know of ammo nomenclature.

Kwiatos
01-22-2007, 06:55 PM
http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avbf1092.html#m2

"The "Bf-109G" was direct follow-on to the Bf-109F. The"Gustav", as it came to be known, was fitted with the still more powerful DB-605-series engine, with was effectively a DB-601 with bored-out cylinders, higher compression, and 1,450 horsepower for takeoff. The new engine was heavier and generated higher torque, requiring airframe reinforcement and changes. Some Gustav variants also featured a pressurized cockpit. Initial deliveries of the Gustav began in early 1942.

By this time, the Bf-109 was clearly past its prime, and the Focke-Wulf 190 would equip Germany's leading fighter squadrons. However, the Reich had lagged in introducing new fighters. There were never enough FW-190s to go around, while development of advanced jet fighters was delayed for technical and bureaucratic reasons until they were, fortunately for the Allies, too few and too late to make a difference.

<span class="ev_code_RED">Uprating the Bf-109 helped plug the gap for a while, but at a price. While the Bf-109 was maneuverable, it had never been light on the controls, and as it became faster it also became more difficult to fly. Its handling on the ground, never good, only kept getting worse. The Gustav was a handful for experienced pilots, and downright dangerous to inexperienced ones.</span> "


Hmm why i cant see these in game? All Bf 109 from G-K are easy to fly, take off, land etc like other prevoius version.

WWMaxGunz
01-22-2007, 07:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
accoring to IL2 compare </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<span class="ev_code_red">ERROR ERROR ERROR</span>

IL2COMPARE is NOT displaying data directly from the IL2 engine or data files!

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<span class="ev_code_RED">WRONG WRONG WRONG</span>

That was how the old IL2 Compare worked before the period where there were no updates,
perhaps you remember the threads asking for it?

As Youss has stated when the 4.x versions came out, he has a version of the game that has
AI able to be controlled in doing maneuvers again and again. He collects the data via
devicelink and the compare program displays the graphs which are user editable.

The AI does not cheat physics, it uses the same FM players do as has been stated many
times by Oleg maddox who should know perhaps better than players thinking with "must be"
errr-logic.

There are people able to match performance as shown in IL2C and posted about it.

rmorgansmith
01-22-2007, 08:02 PM
So what is the AI advantage all about. I thought Oleg had stated at one point the AI had some advantages as far as E retention and engine management, not cheating physics so much but I just have noticed that it is hard to catch say a Zero with a Hellcat in level flight and when you change planes the same thing happnens, AI has advantage. I can sympathise with this as far as making the game challenging within the limitations of AI programming at the time the game was made, which is quite a few years ago, hope to see improvements with SOW, I am sure we will.

Am I wrong about this?

HayateAce
01-22-2007, 08:25 PM
G A M E P L A Y

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

WWMaxGunz
01-22-2007, 09:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rmorgansmith:
So what is the AI advantage all about. I thought Oleg had stated at one point the AI had some advantages as far as E retention and engine management, not cheating physics so much but I just have noticed that it is hard to catch say a Zero with a Hellcat in level flight and when you change planes the same thing happnens, AI has advantage. I can sympathise with this as far as making the game challenging within the limitations of AI programming at the time the game was made, which is quite a few years ago, hope to see improvements with SOW, I am sure we will.

Am I wrong about this? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AI has no joystick. AI has a far a I can tell calibrated senses and always perfect trim.
I may be wrong about that, it may only be the higher level AI's that fly totally clean.

How hard would it be to place maneuver limits on an AI in the fashion of rookie pilots not
taking the planes near limits, etc? RB3D AI has that or at least we had that in some of
the beta patches but it's been so long I forget if that bit stayed for the final release.

AKA_TAGERT
01-22-2007, 09:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<span class="ev_code_RED">WRONG WRONG WRONG</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No sorry WWMaxGunz but it is you that is wrong!

Once again you have managed to glanced over what I said and addressed what you assumed I meant instead of addressing what I actully said.

For the proof of your mistakes, see below

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
That was how the old IL2 Compare worked before the period where there were no updates, perhaps you remember the threads asking for it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
How it DID work and how it DOES work.. See below

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
As Youss has stated when the 4.x versions came out, he has a version of the game that has AI able to be controlled in doing maneuvers again and again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mistake No. 1: What part of me saying..
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
IL2COMPARE is making predictions based off of calculations that are based off of data collected (DeviceLink) while flying <span class="ev_code_yellow">(AI flying)</span> the plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Did you not understand?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
He collects the data via devicelink </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mistake No. 2: What part of me saying..
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
IL2COMPARE is making predictions based off of calculations that are based off of <span class="ev_code_yellow">data collected (DeviceLink)</span> while flying (AI flying) the plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Did you not understand?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
and the compare program displays the graphs </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mistake No. 3: What part of me saying..
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
IL2COMPARE is <span class="ev_code_yellow">making predictions</span> based off of calculations that are based off of data collected (DeviceLink) while flying (AI flying) the plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Did you not understand? Where the predictions are displayed as a graph

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
which are user editable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mistake No. 4: I never said they were not editable!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
The AI does not cheat physics, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mistake No. 5: I never said AI did cheat physics!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
it uses the same FM players do as has been stated many times by Oleg maddox who should know perhaps better than players thinking with "must be" errr-logic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mistake No. 6: I never said AI did not use the same FM!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
There are people able to match performance as shown in IL2C and posted about it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which does not change the FACT that..
<span class="ev_code_yellow">IL2COMPARE is making predictions based off of calculations that are based off of data collected (DeviceLink) while flying (AI flying) the plane.</span>

Just encase you missed it the first time..

Oh wait!

Too late!

You already did miss it the first time!

But what the heck..

Maybe the 3rd time is a charm for you?

Here goes!

<span class="ev_code_yellow">IL2COMPARE is making predictions based off of calculations that are based off of data collected (DeviceLink) while flying (AI flying) the plane.</span>

That is SIX out of SIX wrong!

Now tell me..

Honest..

Are you trying to not read what was written?

Or does it just come natural for you?

I beg you WWMaxGunz!

Please read my post at least once before you reply!

And if your not sure, feel free to PM me first so I can set you strait private like so you don't have to make such an A-HOLE of yourself in front of god and everybody!

Deal?

WWMaxGunz
01-22-2007, 10:09 PM
Because IL2 Compare is not making PREDICTIONS.
It is gathering data.
The method CHANGED.

Perhaps you should take it up with ROSS_YOUSS.

Then you can figure out who is playing A-hole here, or not and say it is me.

AKA_TAGERT
01-22-2007, 10:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Because IL2 Compare is not making PREDICTIONS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
WRONG!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
It is gathering data. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
As i said

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
The method CHANGED. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
WRONG!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Perhaps you should take it up with ROSS_YOUSS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No need in that.. as you can see above.. it is YOU that has it WRONG!

Don't belive me? Than start here..

Ross Youss on IL2COMPARE (http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=39318)

If you have any questions.. feel free to PM me!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Then you can figure out who is playing A-hole here, or not and say it is me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
WRONG!

HellToupee
01-22-2007, 11:27 PM
whats it matter, can u match the figures from il2 compare because i can.

WWMaxGunz
01-23-2007, 12:05 AM
Last March v3.0.0 for IL2 v4.05.

I had already PM'd Youss to repost what he did post in DECEMBER 2006.
You can argue it with him.

JG53Frankyboy
01-23-2007, 12:17 AM
am i allowed to ask what il2compare has to do with the point that the G-2 is ~30km/h faster at full throttle alt than the G-6early in game ?


did anyone climbtests with the G-2 and G-6 ?
the feeling is there that the G-2 is climbing much better , but i have no proof.
as already said, the weight difference should be not so much (i dont talk here about the weight difference that il2compare is claiming &lt;- to give Tagert something to troll again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )


btw, @ Tagert, im not looking for stuff to convince the Maddox team ! years ago ,peopel in the german community with much more knowledge about all this stuff tried already to put the line of the ingame G-2/G-6 more "straight" - no chance. this is NOT ORR, this is the open discussion forum, so i started this topic because im interested in this things and the old posts were lost (but if you would have read the first topic better and not only fingerpointed the "il2compare" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif , i already said that).

JG52Karaya-X
01-23-2007, 01:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
did anyone climbtests with the G-2 and G-6 ?
the feeling is there that the G-2 is climbing much better , but i have no proof. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well not only that but even the 109F4 climbs faster than both G6 versions which really shouldnt be!

Lazy312
01-23-2007, 02:34 AM
I did some quick tests in 4.071.

G-2 climbed to 5000m in 3,7/4,5 minutes (110%/100%) with full tank and auto radiator at Crimea. However I only tried it once so it could be probably done a little bit faster. I managed to achieve 674 km/h at 7000m - I'm pretty sure about this number. I also tested sustained turn time at 1000m and got slightly above 20 seconds.

G-6 early did 639 km/h at 7000m in my hands which is faster than in previous patches.

AKA_TAGERT
01-23-2007, 07:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Last March v3.0.0 for IL2 v4.05. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh master of the obvious!

What gave it away?

The date and the IL2COMPARE version posted at that link I provided?

FACT is the method Ross uses in his IL2COMPARE program has not changed between 4.05 and 4.07! All he did is update it for the new planes added and bug fixxes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I had already PM'd Youss to repost what he did post in DECEMBER 2006. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Don't think that I didn't notice that you did NOT provide a link to the DECEMBER post! There is a good reason you didn't because you know it would prove what I said above! Thus removing your hope trying to inject some doubt and a weak attempt to start a tangent topic.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
You can argue it with him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why? I have no argument with Ross! The proof of that is in that you have not shown one ERROR in anything I have said! Realising that you are trying to get a tangent topic started to argue over the date or versions. Nice try, but no sale!

All I did in my last reply to you was point out the FACT that you posted a reply to me about things I never said!

In a nut shell Max you're a two trick pony!

That is to say 95% of all your replies (to everyone, not just me) in this forum consist of one of two things

1) Master of the Obvious
2) Replies to things that were never said

Where..
#1 is where you simply re-state what someone has already said in a slightly different way in the hopes of taking credit for what was said.
#2 You only read %1 of someone's post, or you read all of it and only understand 1%. Than you fill in the rest or the parts you don't understand with what you FEEL the person is saying. Which up to that point is not a bad thing! Who cares if your clueless! The bad part is when your proceed to reply to what you FEEL he/she was saying instead of actually replying to what he/she actually said.

If I have told you once, I have told you a thousand times! Do as I do! Break down what was actually said and reply to what was actually said. If you break it down in smaller chucks it will be easier for you understand what was said and you wont get confused by trying to sum all that was said in your reply back.

SAVVY?

AKA_TAGERT
01-23-2007, 07:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
btw, @ Tagert, im not looking for stuff to convince the Maddox team ! years ago ,peopel in the german community with much more knowledge about all this stuff tried already to put the line of the ingame G-2/G-6 more "straight" - no chance. this is NOT ORR, this is the open discussion forum, so i started this topic because im interested in this things and the old posts were lost (but if you would have read the first topic better and not only fingerpointed the "il2compare" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif , i already said that). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah so when you said..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
accoring to IL2 compare </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You were just kidding?

Vipez-
01-23-2007, 07:41 AM
I wonder if Tagert is such a smart a$$ in real life as in here? No offence http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

AKA_TAGERT
01-23-2007, 07:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vipez-:
I wonder if Tagert is such a smart a$$ in real life as in here? No offence http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>None taken!

At 6'4" 225lbs I am pretty out spoken http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Whirlin_merlin
01-23-2007, 08:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
[

At 6'4" 225lbs I am pretty out spoken http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

American foreign policy in a nut shell.

Ducks. (As in I duck to avoid punch, not northern term of affection).

P.S Dont really mean it.

AKA_TAGERT
01-23-2007, 08:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
American foreign policy in a nut shell.

Ducks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Dam Skippy!

Got us through two world wars and than some! The only times we have lost is when some feel compelled to try and make nice nice with the enemy or understand why he is attacking us or our interests!

But I digress!

Now I know all you Lefties.. I mean Lufties don't like me! And given a chance will take a swipe at me any time you can.. But with that aside.. Do any of you smacktards have anything to say about the topic at hand? If not, please do the forum a favor and simply PM me these childish weak attempts to change the topic at hand.

Deal?

Whirlin_merlin
01-23-2007, 08:08 AM
Not me I'm 6 foot but only about 100lbs in my heaviest boots.

Vipez-
01-23-2007, 09:54 AM
So you're a female?

FluffyDucks2
01-23-2007, 10:38 AM
That would be 6'4" wide then I presume? , too many pizzas? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

BillyTheKid_22
01-23-2007, 11:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HayateAce:
G A M E P L A Y

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Xiolablu3
01-23-2007, 11:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
did anyone climbtests with the G-2 and G-6 ?
the feeling is there that the G-2 is climbing much better , but i have no proof. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well not only that but even the 109F4 climbs faster than both G6 versions which really shouldnt be! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you sure about this Karaya?

Some of the 109F models where amazing performers and they were much lighter than the standard 109G6's.


I am not saying they should definitely climb better, just that its possible? I am sure I have seen some 109F varients tested at rechlin climbeed like rockets, even compared to later 109's.

I could be wrong tho. I am not the best at reading graphs.

JG52Karaya-X
01-23-2007, 11:43 AM
The Bf109F certainly had a good climbrate for its time but ingame we have the 1,3ata F4 with DB601E, 1200PS at takeoff and the 1,3ata G6s with DB605A, 1310PS at takeoff. Additionally given the more effective supercharger on the DB605 the Bf109G should climb faster than a vanilla Bf109F. A 1,42ata F4 however should be able to match or actually outclimb the G up until high altitudes but we dont have that one ingame!

Xiolablu3
01-23-2007, 11:45 AM
Rgr that mate, thanks for your info.

AKA_TAGERT
01-23-2007, 12:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FluffyDucks2:
That would be 6'4" wide then I presume? , too many pizzas? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>As with Maxie's assumptions.. WRONG

WWMaxGunz
01-23-2007, 12:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:

[QUOTE]FACT is the method Ross uses in his IL2COMPARE program has not changed between 4.05 and 4.07! All he did is update it for the new planes added and bug fixxes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look you jerk, he did post in December and I did read what he wrote.

He ran the tests and collected the data and there were limits on the tests.
He gives error margin to be as much as 5% which is better than human pilot error.

How much do you want to _make_ of what he wrote there? Oh, IL2C MUST be 3rd hand?

Youss in 3/06 -- in a special program games AI aircraft was carrying out a set of maneuvers.
the flight written to the log and analyzed to create scedules.

How damn FAR you want to stretch that TAGGY? Enough to ERROR ERROR ERROR anyone that uses
IL2 Compare by any chance? OH, why ask since you already jerkwad did!

He collected data from in game and made curves from that. I have seen you do worse here
curve fitting climbs and you backed that up with you usual 'style'.

--- compari illustrates the potential of the aircraft under certain artificially limited
value. if the maximum speed of sound and klimb more accurate, it shows wiraj only potential
aircraft. on the programme of the AI wiraj sound at an altitude of 1000m, provided that the
angle of attack does not exceed 12 degrees. the same Messer-f4 is the sustainability of up
to 18 degrees (17.5) and the sound wiraj can be done to a man, to say nothing about mixed
viraj. we focus on the accuracy of + -5% of TTH limit, and believe that all the results in
the fall. not touch on accurate figures compari-only shows potential for the narrow meaning
baseline.

What do you know? They couldn't test for EVERYTHING POSSIBLE. Who'da thunk it?
How FAR you want to push it?
5% in the worst case thay have.
Is that 5% from what may be possible for players to do in the worst case?
Looks that way but IMO it is better to ask Youss DIRECT than to make up an explanation.
Want to say why? Oh, you already 'know'. Based on? Oh, your what, opinion?

Taggy: IL2COMPARE is NOT displaying data directly from the IL2 engine or data files!
Taggy: IL2COMPARE is making predictions based off calculations that are based off data
collected (DeviceLink) while flying (AI flying) the plane.

1) The data was taken from the running game engine, AI's flying set tests.
------ should I repeat that exactly 6 or 8 times the effing stupid way YOU DO?
------ the AI flew tests in a running copy of the game
------ the game files are used by the running game
------ we do see data from the IL2 engine
------ it does not say anything there about **manufacturing** data in Youss' post
------ predictions based off calculations that are based off data collected IS manufacture
------ how you go from 'analysis' to predictions based off calculations that are based off
data collected while flying (AI flying) the plane is your own little extra step.

2) Players running tests have matched the IL2C data. They have posted tracks, btw.
------ perhaps speed and climb are easier to get nailed closer than some other tests
------ but I won't say for sure since I'm not there, not like you
------ I will just go from people matching the data in careful tests thay make and YOU can
trot along with your suppositions of what "must be"

3) Have you seen posts or tracks where the IL2C data has been exceeded w/o cheat on method?

4) Do you have anything concrete to say IL2C is not good data? Within 5% is not okay?
------ gee Mr. Whizzird, how close do real world data points fit each other? About... 5%?

What is the software for? Comparing the planes in controlled tests.
The curves just -happen- to be pretty accurate as better virtual pilots have found out.
The source and method are fine to within real world standards.

And the -big- question is which hand you type with while the other is so busy?

WWMaxGunz
01-23-2007, 12:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
am i allowed to ask what il2compare has to do with the point that the G-2 is ~30km/h faster at full throttle alt than the G-6early in game ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A shame because that is how the speeds compare in that program.
But I guess that MG does not use IL2C or maybe they have reason to believe it is right enough?

Biggest trouble I have seen with people presenting charts is when Oleg replies that the chart
is not for the complete model used in the game. This happens rarely because he usually quits
replying after once or twice the same issue, same chart, same plane.

We don't get the full information to match the charts and that is source of much irritation
since the very start of the series. The choice is stay with the series or leave or just keep
complaining about what few and short answers are ever given. Find or make better!

Irish_Rogues
01-23-2007, 02:16 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

tomtheyak
01-23-2007, 02:19 PM
Hey guys,

Tag, back off a lil old boy,

1) Il2 compare - ok you are right; shouldnt be used to exactly quote what the game is doing, but a lot of people here find it useful for ballpark figures and this is what this topic is all about - a General Discussion thread on real charateristics vs. apparent in game of 109G2 V. 109G6. Not an indepth ORR analysis. Frankyboy admits as much.

This ain't the ORR and no-ones looking for definitive values. Your point is made regarding Compare.

@Others lets just know that when using Il2 compare for presenting data, announce it as the source and regard it with a measure of sceptism; close enough for government work. If Oleg himself says not to be trusted 100% then thats the clincher for me at least.

2) Tag, you do with some humble pie. I get the feeling that outside of this forum your physical presence has intimidated people into agreeing with you or kept them from taking an disagreement with you past a certain point and as such has overinflated your opinion of your powers of intelligent debate. It has spilled over here: I have NEVER seen you admit being wrong. You use the forum equivalent of shouting people down if they don't agree with you instantly or challenge you in any respect.

You then ridicule their opinions, data, or personal qualities till they back down. And they do, because you show no sign of reasoning at these stages. Man, even you can't be right 100% of the time.

You are obviously a smart guy, and I have a great deal of respect for your dogged commitment to testing accuracy and 'Got Track' is now a byword in any serious attempt to document an ingame a/c's perceived divergence from its RL counterpart but you bundled into this thread and took an interesting discussion to a series of personal attacks and bickering.

Just take it easy mate.

AKA_TAGERT
01-23-2007, 09:00 PM
I hesitate to even reply to this post because it really does not pertain to me in any way shape or form. Other than the first quote, which was not addressed, Maxie's reply to me consists of him reiterating something I have already said as if he was the originator of the statement, or berating me for something I never said.

Up to now I saw Maxie as a two trick pony

1) Master of the obvious statements and/or repeats something someone else already said.
2) Replies to things that were never said (Attacking windmills).

Which is the SOP for someone with a low self esteem and an ego too fragile to admit they were wrong. Basically someone that likes to step in and grab the credit for things when things go right, and someone who will do what ever it takes to take the focus off of them when things go wrong. Which usally means not addressing any the questions put forth and trying to muddy the waters by changing the subject.

But now I am not so sure that description fits Maxie? In that most of his mistakes could also be explained by poor reading comprehension skills. But it seems to come and go, in that in some threads he seems to be understanding but in others he is 180 out of what is being said. So, maybe there are medical issues here to consider?

All in all good REASONS for his actions but not good EXCUSES for his actions! I don't have the time for either nor should anyone else have to put up with his Dr. Hyde outbursts! But it would be nice to understand the cause, in that it would help me formulate better replies to him in the future in the hopes of defusing his Dr. Hyde side.

But I digress! This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, I am simply trying to understand what causes Maxie to be so wrong so often.

As for my following reply to Maxie's most recent outburst, I would highly recommend that nobody but Maxie spend any time reading it. In that it is nothing more than me pointing out, once again, how Maxie managed to either repeat something I have already said or how Maxie managed to reply to something that I never said. All in the hopes that it might help Maxie get a look into the mirror and realize that he has a problem, if he does, or that he is not fooling anybody, if he does not.

So with that said, this is for you Maxie!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Look you jerk, he did post in December and I did read what he wrote. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Max I challenge you to show me (QUOTE) where I said he did NOT post or that you did NOT read his post! You can't because I never did say that! What I said was simple! I said you did NOT provide a link to Ross's post (like I did for you) because had you done so it would prove what I am saying is correct. Thus this is just another cause of you replying to something I never said (Attacking Windmills)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
He ran the tests and collected the data and there were limits on the tests. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Max I challenge you to show me (QUOTE) where I said he did not run tests and collect data. You can't because I never said that! As a mater of FACT I DID say that he ran tests and collected data! Note

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">AKA_TAGERT in the 1st reply on page 1:
IL2COMPARE is making predictions based off of calculations that are based off of <span class="ev_code_yellow">data collected (DeviceLink)</span> while flying (AI flying) the plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Granted I did not explicitly say he ran a test but it is understood that the only way to collect data is to do the test! Thus this is just another cause of you repeating something that was already said as if you were the originator of the statement.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
He gives error margin to be as much as 5% which is better than human pilot error. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Max I challenge you to show me (QUOTE) where I said his margin of error was NOT 5% or that it is NOT better than human error! You can't because I never said that! Thus this is just another cause of you replying to something I never said (Attacking Windmills)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
How much do you want to _make_ of what he wrote there? Oh, IL2C MUST be 3rd hand? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Max I have no idea what your trying to imply here? Thus this is just another case of you trying to muddy the waters

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Youss in 3/06 -- in a special program games AI aircraft was carrying out a set of maneuvers. the flight written to the log and analyzed to create scedules. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Max I challenge you to show me (QUOTE) where I said the AI is NOT flying the planes that he is collecting the data on. You can't because I never said that! As a mater of FACT I DID say that he uses AI to fly the planes and collects the data. Note

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">AKA_TAGERT in the 1st reply on page 1:
IL2COMPARE is making predictions based off of calculations that are based off of <span class="ev_code_yellow">data collected (DeviceLink) while flying (AI flying) the plane.</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thus this is just another cause of you repeating something that was already said as if you were the originator of the statement.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
How damn FAR you want to stretch that TAGGY? Enough to ERROR ERROR ERROR anyone that uses IL2 Compare by any chance? OH, why ask since you already jerkwad did! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Max I challenge you to show me (QUOTE) where I said IL2C is worthless! You can't because I never said that! As a mater of FACT I DID say what a useful tool it is and how amazingly close the values are. I just go one step further and remind people that IL2C is not perfect an is only a prediction of what the plane may or may not be capable of! Which is no big insight on my part because Ross and Oleg both say it too! I have just found that some people did not get the message, therefore when ever I see someone trying to imply there is a bug in the simulation based off of what they see in IL2C point out that shuttle FACT! Thus this is just another cause of you replying to something I never said (Attacking Windmills)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
He collected data from in game and made curves from that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Max I challenge you to show me (QUOTE) where I said he does NOT collect data from the game! You can't because I never said that! As a mater of FACT I DID say that he collects data from the game! Note

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">AKA_TAGERT in the 1st reply on page 1:
IL2COMPARE is making predictions based off of calculations that are based off of <span class="ev_code_yellow">data collected (DeviceLink)</span> while flying (AI flying) the plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I have seen you do worse here curve fitting climbs and you backed that up with you usual 'style'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which is why I make such a big deal of it! In that in my experience at work with plotting data I know how far off a curve fit can be! Which is what IL2C does when graphing data! There will be parts of the curve that fit the data exactly, and there will be parts where it is way off! Now if someone is running the game and they are looking at that part where it is way off it would be good for them to know that IL2C plots are just curve fits of data collected from the AI flying the plane and NOT data directly extracted from the IL2 engine (exe) or data files (sfs)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A Quote of Ross re-posted by WWMaxGunz:
---<span class="ev_code_yellow">compari illustrates the potential of the aircraft</span> under certain artificially limited value. if the maximum speed of sound and klimb more accurate, it shows wiraj only potential aircraft. on the programme of the AI wiraj sound at an altitude of 1000m, provided that the angle of attack does not exceed 12 degrees. the same Messer-f4 is the sustainability of up to 18 degrees (17.5) and the sound wiraj can be done to a man, to say nothing about mixed viraj. we focus on the accuracy of + -5% of TTH limit, and believe that all the results in the fall. not touch on accurate figures compari-<span class="ev_code_yellow">only shows potential</span> for the narrow meaning baseline. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Max take a moment and pay close att to the parts of Ross's quote that I highlighted in yellow for you. The key word repeated several times is <span class="ev_code_yellow">potential </span>. Than go back and read what I said about is <span class="ev_code_yellow">predictions</span> . Also note what he said about the 5% error! He BELIVES it to be +/-5% which is very different than saying he did tests to insure it let alone guaranteeing it!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
What do you know? They couldn't test for EVERYTHING POSSIBLE. Who'da thunk it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Max I challenge you to show me (QUOTE) where I said he COULD test for everything! You can't because I never said that! Thus this is just another cause of you replying to something I never said (Attacking Windmills)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
How FAR you want to push it? 5% in the worst case thay have. Is that 5% from what may be possible for players to do in the worst case? Looks that way but IMO it is better to ask Youss DIRECT than to make up an explanation. Want to say why? Oh, you already 'know'. Based on? Oh, your what, opinion? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Max I challenge you to show me (QUOTE) where I ever said 5% was NOT good! You can't because I never said that! All I eve did was point out what Ross and Oleg admit! That being that IL2C is just a prediction of what the plane may or may not do! ! Thus this is just another cause of you replying to something I never said (Attacking Windmills)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A Summary of a quote by TAGERT posted by WWMaxGunz:
Taggy: IL2COMPARE is NOT displaying data directly from the IL2 engine or data files!
Taggy: IL2COMPARE is making predictions based off calculations that are based off data collected (DeviceLink) while flying (AI flying) the plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now if only you could understand what you quoted. The proof that you don't is show below.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
1) The data was taken from the running game engine, AI's flying set tests. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Max I challenge you to show me (QUOTE) where I said the data is NOT take from the running game engine. You can't because I never said that! As a mater of FACT the point you keep missing is that IL2C does NOT read the data directly from the IL2 engine (exe) or data files (sfs). IL2C makes predictions (graphs) based off of DeviceLink data collected (game output available to anyone) while the AI was flying the plane. Thus this is just another cause of you replying to something I never said (Attacking Windmills)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
------ should I repeat that exactly 6 or 8 times the effing stupid way YOU DO? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Max in light of all the ERRORS you have made up to now there is one thing for sure, it would not hurt you to quote everything! That is to say being totally wrong as you are, it could not get any worse by quoting as I do!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
------ the AI flew tests in a running copy of the game </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Max I challenge you to show me (QUOTE) where I said the AI did NOT fly the test while running the game! You can't because I never said that! As a mater of FACT I DID say the AI is flying while the DeviceLink data is being collected. Note

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">AKA_TAGERT in the 1st reply on page 1:
IL2COMPARE is making predictions based off of calculations that are based off of <span class="ev_code_yellow">data collected (DeviceLink) while flying (AI flying) the plane.</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thus this is just another cause of you replying to something I never said (Attacking Windmills)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
------ the game files are used by the running game </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Max I challenge you to show me (QUOTE) where I said the game does not make use of it's own files! You can't because I never said that! As a mater of fact this is about the biggest DUH you have ever uttered! Thus this is just another cause of you replying to something I never said (Attacking Windmills)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
------ we do see data from the IL2 engine </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Max I challenge you to show me (QUOTE) where I said the data (DeviceLink) is NOT from the game! You can't because I never said that! As a mater of FACT I DID say the data is from the game! Note.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">AKA_TAGERT in the 1st reply on page 1:
IL2COMPARE is making predictions based off of calculations that are based off of <span class="ev_code_yellow">data collected (DeviceLink)</span> while flying (AI flying) the plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But I think I know where you are confused! In that I also said the following. Note

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">AKA_TAGERT in the 1st reply on page 1:
IL2COMPARE is NOT displaying data directly from the IL2 engine or data files! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is pretty cut and dry, but, for someone like yourself that has poor reading skills I can see where it might be confusing if taken out of context with what was said directly after that (part about data via DeviceLink). So allow me to expand on what I originally said in the hopes of un-confusing you in light of the fact that you clearly are confused! Here is what I ment' when I said that'

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">AKA_TAGERT attempt at helping Max pull his head out:
IL2COMPARE is NOT displaying (graphing) data directly from the IL2 engine (exe) or data files (sfs). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does the inclusion of the (exe) and (sfs) help you understand that I was referring to the files' where one is the exe file' and the other is the sfs file'? Do you understand the significance of that subtle difference? I fear the answer is NO! But trust me it is a big difference! In that it would imply that Oleg gave Ross the encryption code to read the encrypted files, which is very unlikely!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
------ it does not say anything there about **manufacturing** data in Youss' post </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Max I challenge you to show me (QUOTE) where I said the data is manufactured! You can't because I never said that! What I said is IL2C makes predictions based off of the DeviceLink data! Curve fitting is itself a prediction of the data points! But that is not the only thing going on in IL2C!

For example, take a look at the MAX ROC by Altitude' plot of the A6M6a. That graphs is NOT a plot of raw DeviceLink data! That graph is the result/output of a calculation preformed on the raw DeviceLink data! I know this to be true because I have collected a lot of ROC data via DeviceLink and it DOES NOT look like that! Even after a high order polynomial curve fit in that a function can not have two values of Y for one value of X and yet this graphs does! So he has to have performed a post processing calculation of the raw data to produce that plot (a piecewise curve fit, multi curve fits connected together). Another thing that gives it away is the smoothness of that plot. This is indicative of an resilt/output of a calculation not raw data points! Where as the ROC at constant TAS' plot is NOT smooth and is most likely a example of where a simple point-to-point plot of the raw DeviceLink data points will suffice.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
------ predictions based off calculations that are based off data collected IS manufacture </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Disagree in that manufactured is a word used in this context implies that it is based on nothing, pulled out of thin air! That is not the case here!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
------ how you go from 'analysis' to predictions based off calculations that are based off
data collected while flying (AI flying) the plane is your own little extra step. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not true! Again, take a look at the MAX ROC by Altitude plots.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
2) Players running tests have matched the IL2C data. They have posted tracks, btw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Max I challenge you to show me (QUOTE) where I said that players have NOT run tests that matched IL2C data! You can't because I never said that! . Thus this is just another cause of you replying to something I never said (Attacking Windmills)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
------ perhaps speed and climb are easier to get nailed closer than some other tests </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Max I have no idea what your trying to imply here, one thing for sure it has nothing to do with anything I said, therefore this is just another cause of you replying to something I never said (Attacking Windmills)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
------ but I won't say for sure since I'm not there, not like you </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Max I have no idea what your trying to imply here, one thing for sure it has nothing to do with anything I said, therefore this is just another cause of you replying to something I never said (Attacking Windmills)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
------ I will just go from people matching the data in careful tests thay make and YOU can trot along with your suppositions of what "must be" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Max in light of the FACT that you have not provided one example of my making suppositions I don't think it is fare for you to imply that I have.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
3) Have you seen posts or tracks where the IL2C data has been exceeded w/o cheat on method? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Max I am not sure what it is your asking here, so allow me to re-pharse it in my words to see if I am understanding you correctly? Are you asking me if I have seen any cases where the IL2C value did not match a value from DeviceLink from a track file? If so the answer is no! But I will say this, Ross and Oleg have both been very clear that there ARE SUCH CASES!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
4) Do you have anything concrete to say IL2C is not good data? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes! Ross has said that IL2C only gives food for thought! Is that concrete enough for you?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Within 5% is not okay? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Assuming it is, but Ross himself said he BELIEVES that all the results fall within that amount of error! Which is very different than stating it DOES fall within that amount of error!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
------ gee Mr. Whizzird, how close do real world data points fit each other? About... 5%? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Depends on what your working on! When I worked for TRW my space craft component designs had to be much more accurate than that! Where as the tolerances on a wooden wagon wheels is probably much larger, or master of the obvious!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
What is the software for? Comparing the planes in controlled tests. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Max I challenge you to show me (QUOTE) where I said that IL2C is not used to compare planes! You can't because I never said that! Therefore this is just another cause of you replying to something I never said (Attacking Windmills)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
The curves just -happen- to be pretty accurate as better virtual pilots have found out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This would not be the first time virtual pilots have been confused! That and don't forget that Ross and Oleg have both stated that IL2C is not perfect!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
The source and method are fine to within real world standards. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Max I challenge you to show me (QUOTE) whre I said the method Ross uses is NOT a good one! You can't because I never said that! As for world standards, please provide the link to the real world standards of testing off the shelf flight sims! You can't because there is no such thing thus no standard! Therefore this is just another cause of you replying to something I never said (Attacking Windmills)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
And the -big- question is which hand you type with while the other is so busy? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The right one, in that the left one is pressed firmly up against your lips helping you guide it in!

WWMaxGunz
01-23-2007, 09:31 PM
Duck, dodge and cover time for Taggy and his word games.
I won't bother with the whole mess cause he'll just deny it.

I did mistake that he was on about the original method for IL2C simply because the BS about
"predictions based on...." that he cooked up his damn self.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Which is the SOP for someone with a low self esteem and an ego too fragile to admit they were wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just look in the mirror, boy. I've admitted being wrong here more than a few times.
And I am not proof that dried up cowpies can be stacked over 6 feet either.

But you have admitted to being wrong ONCE and it was to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But I digress! This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, I am simply trying to understand what causes Maxie to be so wrong so often. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This from an anus that gave me a month of argument trying to say pitch and AOA are equivalent.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Look you jerk, he did post in December and I did read what he wrote. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Max I challenge you to show me (QUOTE) where I said he did NOT post or that you did NOT read his post! You can't because I never did said that! What I said was simple! I said you did NOT provide a link to Ross's post (like I did for you) because had you done so it would prove what I am saying is correct. Thus this is just another cause of you replying to something I never said (Attacking Windmills) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Duck and cover, ******bag. Anyone able to read knows how you played it. Of course you "did
not say", that is how you push what you know better than.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">AKA_TAGERT in the 1st reply on page 1:
IL2COMPARE is making predictions based off of calculations that are based off of <span class="ev_code_yellow">data collected (DeviceLink)</span> while flying (AI flying) the plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Granted I did not explicitly say he ran a test but it is understood that the only way to collect data is to do the test! Thus this is just another cause of you repeating something that was already said as if you were the originator of the statement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny but it is labelled with the name of the moron that made the statement.
So don't saddle ME with what YOU posted. It's your take-off, your assumption, your opinion.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">AKA_TAGERT in the 1st reply on page 1:
IL2COMPARE is making predictions based off of calculations that are based off of <span class="ev_code_yellow">data collected (DeviceLink while flying (AI flying) the plane. )</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thus this is just another cause of you repeating something that was already said as if you were the originator of the statement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Twice you miss the message, goofball.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">AKA_TAGERT in the 1st reply on page 1:
IL2COMPARE is making predictions based off of calculations that are based off of <span class="ev_code_yellow">data collected (DeviceLink)</span> while flying (AI flying) the plane. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know you love your own BS.....................

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I have seen you do worse here curve fitting climbs and you backed that up with you usual 'style'. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which is why I make such a big deal of it! In that in my experience at work with plotting data I know how far off a curve fit can be! Which is what IL2C does when graphing data! There will be parts of the curve that fit the data exactly, and there will be parts where it is way off! Now if someone is running the game and they are looking at that part where it is way off it would be good for them to know that IL2C plots are just curve fits of data collected from the AI flying the plane and NOT data directly extracted from the IL2 engine (exe) or data files (sfs) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why I told you, take it up with Youss.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A Quote of Ross re-posted by WWMaxGunz:
---<span class="ev_code_yellow">compari illustrates the potential of the aircraft</span> under certain artificially limited value. if the maximum speed of sound and klimb more accurate, it shows wiraj only potential aircraft. on the programme of the AI wiraj sound at an altitude of 1000m, provided that the angle of attack does not exceed 12 degrees. the same Messer-f4 is the sustainability of up to 18 degrees (17.5) and the sound wiraj can be done to a man, to say nothing about mixed viraj. we focus on the accuracy of + -5% of TTH limit, and believe that all the results in the fall. not touch on accurate figures compari-<span class="ev_code_yellow">only shows potential</span> for the narrow meaning baseline. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Max take a moment and pay close att to the parts of Ross's quote that I highlighted in yellow for you. The key word repeated several times is <span class="ev_code_yellow">potential </span>. Than go back and read what I said about is <span class="ev_code_yellow">predictions</span> . Also note what he said about the 5% error! He BELIVES it to be +/-5% which is very different than saying he did tests to insure it let alone guaranteeing it! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For top speeds and climbs it is working out just fine. He stated the limits.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
What do you know? They couldn't test for EVERYTHING POSSIBLE. Who'da thunk it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Max I challenge you to show me (QUOTE) where I said he COULD test for everything! You can't because I never said that! Thus this is just another cause of you replying to something I never said (Attacking Windmills) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope. You missed the point while trying to redirect it. The compare program is good for
what it was made for. It doesn't cover everything possible, that is your out.

But I attack a windbag........ err, mill. But a different kind of mill, not windmill.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">AKA_TAGERT in the 1st reply on page 1:
IL2COMPARE is making predictions based off of calculations that are based off of <span class="ev_code_yellow">data collected (DeviceLink while flying (AI flying) the plane. )</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thus this is just another cause of you replying to something I never said (Attacking Windmills) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I quoted that directly from your post. Have you edited it out already?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
------ the game files are used by the running game </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Max I challenge you to show me (QUOTE) where I said the game does not make use of it's own files! You can't because I never said that! As a mater of fact this is about the biggest DUH you have ever uttered! Thus this is just another cause of you replying to something I never said (Attacking Windmills) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Go back to your own post. I point out that IL2C _is_ using game data and you go syntax on it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">AKA_TAGERT in the 1st reply on page 1:
IL2COMPARE is NOT displaying data directly from the IL2 engine or data files! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is pretty cut and dry, but, for someone like yourself that has poor reading skills I can see where it might be confusing if taken out of context with what was said directly after that (part about data via DeviceLink). So allow me to expand on what I originally said in the hopes of un-confusing you in light of the fact that you clearly are confused! Here is what I ment' when I said that' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay Willie. You did not mean that IL2C is a 3rd had representation of the FM.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Does the inclusion of the (exe) and (sfs) help you understand that I was referring to the files' where one is the exe file' and the other is the sfs file'? Do you understand the significance of that subtle difference? I fear the answer is NO! But trust me it is a big difference! In that it would imply that Oleg gave Ross the encryption code to read the encrypted files, which is very unlikely! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't give a fig what you want to turn your post to Frankyboy into. Most people write to
communicate but you write to play stupid argument games.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
------ it does not say anything there about **manufacturing** data in Youss' post </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Max I challenge you to show me (QUOTE) where I said the data is manufactured! You can't because I never said that! What I said is IL2C makes predictions based off of the DeviceLink data! Curve fitting is itself a prediction of the data points! But that is not the only thing going on in IL2C! [/QUOTE]

Predictions based on... based on... what you do not know but assume and opinionate.
And we all know what Taggy says about assumptions and opinions.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">For example, take a look at the MAX ROC by Altitude plots of the A6M6a. That graphs are NOT plots of raw DeviceLink data! That graph is the result/output of a calculation preformed on the raw DeviceLink data! I know this to be true because I have collected a lot of ROC data via DeviceLink and it DOES NOT look like that! Even after a curve high order polynomial curve fit! A function can not have two values of Y for one value of X and yet these graphs do! So he has to perform a piecewise curve fit (multi curve fits connected together) to get that graph. Thus it requires some calculations' to be preformed to get that plot! You can even see that the lines are very smooth, where as the ROC at constant TAS is not and is most likely a simply plot of the raw DeviceLink data points. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except that the Max ROC CHART like EVERY MAX ROC CHART is laid out the same way.
Not just Youss' chart but NACA, RAEE, Rechlin......
Gee, you think maybe they put the domain on the vertical axis and the range is horizontal?
You know, like the freaking labels say -- Max ROC by Altitude? With Alt on the vertical
axis.
Nahhh, all those guys were just wrong, wrong, wrong and should have checked with YOU.

What I posted about everything not tested. Damn Youss did not check climb for every 50m!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
------ predictions based off calculations that are based off data collected IS manufacture </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Disagree in that manufactured is a word used in this context implies that it is based on nothing, pulled out of thin air! That is not the case here! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh. When I write, you can point out implication but when you write?
Okay, I challenge you to show where _I_ wrote the words "pulled out of thin air".
That's how you like it?

Screw the rest. You are boring and full of yourself. Take a box of ex-lax and lose 225 lbs.

ROSS_Youss
02-03-2007, 06:28 PM
OMG. cancer of brain.

il2c DONT use DeviceLink.

4CrazyIvan:

мой аглийский оставляет желать лучшего. плиэ, не сочти за труд - первеведи им:

как работает компарь.
имеется специальная версия ИЛа, без графики, без джойстиков и прочей лабуды. убрано все ради скорости вычислений. эта версия использует код флаймодели из соотвествующего патча. запускается вылет и АИ крутит большой набор маневров, параметры полета пишутся в файл. без графики набор маневров расчитывается очень быстро - в сотни раз быстрее чем если пилотаж крутить вручную.

на основании полученого лога полета генерятся данные для компари.

можно ли сказать что данные компари получены из движка игры? можно - 100%.

можно ли сказать что кампарь демонстрирует точные характеристики самолетов в игре. нельзя.

обьясняю почему - пилотаж крутит АИ. если со скоростью все точно (дали АИ команду он и прижал педальку выдерживая горизонт) =&gt; графики скорости очень точны. а вот с виражами все совсем не так - отказывается стандартный АИ ходить в вираже на грани сваливания. аналогично и с климбом - человек может чуть быстрее заклимбиться на том же мессере держа скорость в районе 230 км/ч. АИ так климбить не хочет - и держит в климбе около 280 км/ч. переделывать АИ только ради теста - смысла нет никакого.

кроме того, все графики в компаре приведены для весьма специфичных и узких условий. устоявшийся вираж - на высоте 1000м. график климба - с постоянной скоростью и т.д.

по этому я акцентирую внимание на том, что компарь предназначен для сравнения ПОТЕНЦИАЛА самолетов, а не для изучения точных значений.

если компарь показывает что самолет А выполняет устоявшийся вираж бысрее самолета Б, то в онлайновых полетушках в диапазоне высот 500-1500м так и будет. а вот на 7000м тот же миг уже может пощипать мессера в виражах. добавте еще и тот факт, что программа полета - универсальная для всех крафтов. а ен всегда то что хорошо для мессера, будет хорошо и для яка. наверное можно написать специализированую программу которая вытащит абсолютноточные параметры к примеру яка, но кастомизировать ее для двух сотен крафтов - никто не будет.

компарь - показывает потенциал крафта в некоторых режимах. данные получены из движка игры и тут все честно. но... не надо требовать от компаря 100% точности. некоторые сложные вещи человек может сделать лучше. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
02-03-2007, 10:05 PM
What was used to get the data from AI?

IL2C only displays data from open format text files so no, no devicelink used by that exe.

What about what you collected and where is it good fit for?
It seems very good with top speeds.

I would like to be able to change the order the planes are listed to more easily find the
ones I want. What we have now is very good, more than useful. AI is more consistent.

Ugly_Kid
02-03-2007, 11:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ROSS_Youss:
OMG. cancer of brain.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

someone please translate the less understandable bits after that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


LOL

I agliyski leaves much to be desired. plie not consider themselves work-pervevedi them : how compari. there is a special version of Ila, without schedules, without joysticks and other labuda. remove all for the speed calculations. This version uses code flaimodeli a corresponding patch. run off and AI wants a wide range of manoeuvres, the flight written to the file. without timetables set manoeuvres calculated very quickly, in the hundreds of times faster than piloting run manually. on the basis of dialogue polucenogo generatsa flight data for compari. can it be said that the compari obtained from the game engine? can be 100%. can one say that campari demonstrates the exact characteristics of aircraft in the game. not. obiasniau why fluff ball AI. if Quick is accurately (AI had command he pushed pedalcu staying horizon) =&gt; graphics speed is very accurate. but it is virajami all is not the case-not a standard AI go to wiraje on the verge of putting. the same and klimbom-people can just zacklimbitsa faster at the same messere holding speed in the region of 230 km / h. Why so klimbiti wants, and holding klimbe about 280 km / h. Why redo only for the test, meaning no. In addition, all graphs compare is for a very specific and narrow conditions. viraj sound, and at an altitude of 1000m. klimba schedule-at a steady speed, etc. on this, I draw attention to the fact that compari designed to compare BUILDING aircraft, and not for the exact values. if compari shows that the aircraft is a sound wiraj basree aircraft B, the online poletushkah altitude 500-1500m this will be the case. but at the 7000m the same moment may already poschipati messer in turns. add to the fact that the flight is a universal for all craftov. and the lens is always what is good for messer, will be good for stations. Perhaps you can write a specializirovanuu to get absoonetotocnae parameters such stations, but castomizirovti it for two hundred craftov, no one will. compari - Indicates potential crafta in some regimes. Data obtained from the engine and the game is all honestly. but ... there is no need to require compara 100% accuracy. Some complex things people can do better.

JG52Karaya-X
02-04-2007, 03:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ROSS_Youss:
OMG. cancer of brain.

il2c DONT use DeviceLink. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, Youss, how close is the newest version of IL2C to the ingame values?

About the G2 vs G6:

I can very well recreate the speeds given in Il2C for these two planes ingame +-1% and they seem reasonably correct. One has to remember that the G6 introduced many small aerodynamic changes over the G2 which in all of its sums increased drag quite substantially.

1) The tailwheel was locked down instead of being retractable (-15km/h)
2) The wings received buldges that enabled to accomodate the bigger tires introduced on the G3/4 (-5km/h)
3) Due to the inclusion of the MG131 instead of the MG17 and their bigger ammo boxes the cowling also received buldges (-5km/h)

Summing it up we end up at the 640km/h for the G6. However what I cannot recreate is the 20,5-21sec turntime ingame that a normal G6 should be able to reach, my tests showed a best turntime (const. speed, const. alt) of 23secs which is also what is displayed in IL2C! That is where the G6 is undermodelled.

And btw both the G6early and G6late are almost identical, biggest difference being the canopy (struted vs Erla), the early is just about 5km/h slower at all alts, both have the same 23secs turntime though.

Kurfurst__
02-04-2007, 03:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ROSS_Youss:
OMG. cancer of brain. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROFLOL. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

WTE_Ibis
02-04-2007, 04:22 AM
Quote: If I have told you once, I have told you a thousand times! Do as I do! Break down what was actually said and reply to what was actually said. If you break it down in smaller chucks it will be easier for you understand what was said and you wont get confused by trying to sum all that was said in your reply back.
----------------------------------------------

Oh God NO! please save us from that ratbagery, flung in your face, centre finger extended type retort. Please!!
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

.

ROSS_Youss
02-04-2007, 04:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:

So, Youss, how close is the newest version of IL2C to the ingame values?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

speed - accurate 100%.
turntime - accurate 99% at speed &gt;250km/h. AI dont want turns at slow speed.
climb - accurate 99% at speed&gt;250 km/h. AI dont want to climb at slow speed.

JG52Karaya-X
02-04-2007, 05:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ROSS_Youss:
speed - accurate 100%.
turntime - accurate 99% at speed &gt;250km/h. AI dont want turns at slow speed.
climb - accurate 99% at speed&gt;250 km/h. AI dont want to climb at slow speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for your response! That sounds very good and also matches with my offline testing experiences.

Ugly_Kid
02-04-2007, 05:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ROSS_Youss:
speed - accurate 100%.
turntime - accurate 99% at speed &gt;250km/h. AI dont want turns at slow speed.
climb - accurate 99% at speed&gt;250 km/h. AI dont want to climb at slow speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

TAS/IAS?
(at alt &lt;250 km/h IAS is quite a normal speed for best performance...)

Ratsack
02-04-2007, 08:03 AM
Is that the sound of embarrassed silence I hear?

It is.

cheers,
Ratsack

DKoor
02-04-2007, 08:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
accoring to IL2 compare </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<span class="ev_code_red">ERROR ERROR ERROR</span>

IL2COMPARE is NOT displaying data directly from the IL2 engine or data files!

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<span class="ev_code_RED">WRONG WRONG WRONG</span>

The AI does not cheat physics, it uses the same FM players do as has been stated many
times by Oleg maddox who should know perhaps better than players thinking with "must be"
errr-logic.

There are people able to match performance as shown in IL2C and posted about it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><span class="ev_code_red">ERROR</span> <span class="ev_code_yellow">ERROR</span> <span class="ev_code_red">ERROR</span>

Why?
Ai cheats and does not share same FM with player.
I am able to back up what I am saying with one track:
A6M2 cheat dive (http://s1.upload.sc/request/bd150014c4a180397fe21c235cbb12cf)

tigertalon
02-04-2007, 08:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ROSS_Youss:
turntime - accurate 99% at speed &gt;250km/h. AI dont want turns at slow speed.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess this must be the missing 1% then, spitfires are substantially easier to turn than 109s at high speed.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v662/aegeeaddict/Turn_times.jpg

MEGILE
02-04-2007, 09:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ROSS_Youss:
turntime - accurate 99% at speed &gt;250km/h. AI dont want turns at slow speed.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess this must be the missing 1% then, spitfires are substantially easier to turn than 109s at high speed.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AI has trim on a sub-routine

Klemm.co
02-04-2007, 10:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
AI has trim on a sub-routine </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I suppose you mean flaps.

JG14_Josf
02-04-2007, 12:46 PM
Tigertalon wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I guess this must be the missing 1% then, spitfires are substantially easier to turn than 109s at high speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

High speed level flight sustained turn performance is not high speed instantaneous turn performance.

The plane with the lower corner speed (not a performance factor measured by IL2 compare as far as I know) will have the faster turn rate (absolute) and the smaller turn radius (absolute) when altitude loss is not a consideration (not level flight sustained turn performance).

That means: On a graph like the one's provided by IL2compare (but not level flight sustained turn performance only) the arc reaching to a highest turn rate will be the arc on the chart for the plane with the smallest possible turn radius and the fastest possible turn rate.

Here is an example of such a chart:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/IL2Flugbuch/Wing%20Loading.jpg

Note how the level sustained turn performance arc (curve) is shown on the real EM chart and it behaves just like the IL2compare chart where the light weight, high power-loaded, low wing-loaded plane has a slow speed level flight sustained turn advantage and the high mass, how power-loaded, high wing-loaded plane has the high speed level flight sustained turn advantage. The cross over between level sustained slow speed turn performance and level sustained high speed turn performance in the real EM chart is .7 mach. The cross over between level sustained slow speed turn performance and level sustained high speed turn performance on the IL2 compare chart is 335 km/h where the Spitfire VB and the 109F4 have equal level sustained turn performance.

The real EM chart includes instantaneous turn performance information and level sustained turn performance information.

The level flight sustained turn performance data is reported on the real EM chart just like the IL2compare chart records the level flight sustained turn performance data (one is up side down compared to the other).

The real EM chart uses turn rate. The Il2Comapre chart uses turn time.

Note how the IL2Compare chart does not record instantaneous turn rate data.

Note how the real EM chart does record instantaneous turn rate data.

Note how the real EM chart records an absolute increase in turn rate and an absolute decrease in turn radius for the higher mass, lower power-loaded, higher wing-loaded, plane.

IL2Compare does not report, on that turn performance chart, this:

Tigertalon wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I guess this must be the missing 1% then, spitfires are substantially easier to turn than 109s at high speed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v662/aegeeaddict/Turn_times.jpg

The easy' to turn Spitfire has the level sustained turn performance advantage below and up to 335 km/h. Above 335 km/h the 109 turns a level flight sustained altitude circle in less time.

That is hardly a high speed turn performance advantage for the 109 since any plane flying in a level sustained turn at a slower speed (without stalling or blacking out the pilot) can turn inside that type of a low g, high speed, sustained level turn. Why would anyone fly a high speed low g sustained level turn unless they were checking their six while running away from a fight?

A Spitfire following a 109 as the 109 pilot eased off on the g, eased off on the lift production, and increased the speed in the turn to turn a very wide 335 km/h level sustained turn could easily turn, instantaneously, or sustained, inside to cut off that large radius turn being made by the 109. The Spitfire could make a sharp turn and cut off the 109s turn by a large margin and then straighten out wings level to accelerate and cut off the 109 sooner or the Spitfire can simply pull a lot of lead on the 109 and let geometry take care of the range reduction in due time.

A level flight sustained high speed turn advantage is not a turn advantage. An instantaneous turn advantage is found in using high speed to gain angles quickly i.e. instantaneous turn, high g, just above stall, just under black out, at corner speed.

IL2Compare does not report instantaneous turn performance; corner speed (as far as I know).

An EM chart can report instantaneous turn performance and anyone can gather this information with flight tests in the game like this:

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/images/WWIIEMgameerror.jpg

What that reports from my in-game flight tests (and anyone can improve upon the accuracy of my in-game flight tests for the new patch) is that the Spitfire VB (1941) holds a 32 degree per second turn rate at 375 km/h.

That high speed, instantaneous, Spitfire turn (that can be sustained in a nose low turn) at 32 degrees per second, at 375 km/h, is a 180 meter radius turn i.e. a very small radius turn and much smaller radius turn than any level sustained turn in the game.

What is the best turn rate, turn radius, and g load, for the Spitfire in a level sustained turn? 17 seconds for 360 degrees? 360/17 equals 21.1 degrees per second.

The Spitfire I tested in the game can turn 32 degrees per second in a diving spiral at corner speed. You can do it too.

In the game; the high speed best turn for the Spitfire (last patch) is 32 degrees per second, 375 km/h, 180 meters radius, at 6 g.

That is a very low corner speed at 6 g (pilot black out) and therefore that is a very fast turn rate and a very small turn radius much smaller than the level sustained turn.

The Spitfire VB (1941) high speed turn performance is 7 degrees per second faster than the Fw190A-8 high speed turn performance turn rate (unsustainable in level flight).

The Spitfire VB (1941) high speed turn performance is 150 meters smaller than the Fw190A-8 high speed turn performance turn radius (sustainable in nose low flight).

The Spitfire VB (1941) high speed turn performance (6 g corner speed) is 115 km/h slower than the Fw190A-8 corner speed. That is a significant high speed turn performance advantage for the Spitfire VB (1941) over the Fw190A-8 in the game.

EM charts show high speed turn performance data.

IL2Compare (a very good program) shows only (as far as I know) high speed level flight sustained turn performance data = which plane is the better stall fighter.

Kurfurst__
02-04-2007, 01:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ROSS_Youss:
turntime - accurate 99% at speed &gt;250km/h. AI dont want turns at slow speed.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess this must be the missing 1% then, spitfires are substantially easier to turn than 109s at high speed.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v662/aegeeaddict/Turn_times.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

These are sustained turns, and quite simply as the MkV is much slower than the F-4, it simply does not have the power to compete at high speed. The plane has a max. level speed of 460 km/h, it is surprising that it can't turn a lot at 440, now is it?

What is ridiculus is the F-4's 21 sec turn time. At least 2-3 secs worser than real life IMHO.

WWMaxGunz
02-04-2007, 02:15 PM
If I understand from above, it should be possible for players to get a little better on turns
than those charts show. But you have to fly it better than the AI and nowhere mess it up.

I see the F-4 on the chart best turn time at about 20.5 secs at 320-340kph range there.
Can you get extra on top of that by doing what the AI did not?

JG14_Josf
02-04-2007, 03:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If I understand from above, it should be possible for players to get a little better on turns
than those charts show. But you have to fly it better than the AI and nowhere mess it up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Max,

This chart clearly shows how a player can get a lot better turns:
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0l0yx/images/WWIIEMgameerror.jpg

32 degrees per second is a lot better than 21 degrees per second.

EM charts show more than level sustained turn performance charts. EM charts fill in a lot of blanks.