PDA

View Full Version : BF109G2 to G10 analysis ready!



XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 06:00 PM
hi,

test can be found here (excel file)

http://test.equitatura.de/109tests.zip

developers...take a look pls

wastel

PS: all used datas are original ones

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 06:00 PM
hi,

test can be found here (excel file)

http://test.equitatura.de/109tests.zip

developers...take a look pls

wastel

PS: all used datas are original ones

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 06:26 PM
Thanks Wastel. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


-jippo

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 06:35 PM
Wow, now that should shut anyone up that thinks the 109 is not undermodeled. In some aspects, it's close, in others it is obviously not. Then again there is the whole nonsense of terrible overheating that can be deduced from this spreadsheet. For example, in FB 1.11 you cant fly to 5000 meters with radiator closed and MW50 working (Over 100%), but you could clearly do that in the real things.. Makes one wonder how the IL2 boys derived their information. I am sure it was an honest mistake.

I am confident that once the developers take a look at this data, they will figure out that something is wrong and will take some steps to correct it.

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 06:39 PM
i have no Excel /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
is there a chance to open it with some else?

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 06:50 PM
Geez - impressive work! I just hope it will reach the on it's meant for! *crosses fingers*

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 06:58 PM
nice,wastel.maybe we can get this fixed.

After it was refeuled i climbed in.With many manipulations the mechcanics started the turbines.I followed their actions with the greatest of interest.The first one started quite easily.the second caught fire.In no time the whole engine was on fire.Luckily as a fighter pilot i was used to getting quickly out of the cockpit.The fire was quickly put out.The second plane caused no trouble - Adolf Galland (first time in a ME262)

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 09:15 PM
Can anyone convert it to another format?

Always wondered how on one hand they tell you German equipment couldn't operate in extreme cold weather conditions, yet their stuff also doesn't work in normal and hot weather? Exactly what's the climate like in Germany?

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 09:25 PM
Very Impressive work!

Looking forward to see what results you may generate.



http://idealab.snu.ac.kr/~hobbist/La-5FN/small/La-5FN-06.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 09:47 PM
Fehler wrote:
- Wow, now that should shut anyone up that thinks the
- 109 is not undermodeled. In some aspects, it's
- close, in others it is obviously not. Then again
- there is the whole nonsense of terrible overheating
- that can be deduced from this spreadsheet. For
- example, in FB 1.11 you cant fly to 5000 meters with
- radiator closed and MW50 working (Over 100%), but
- you could clearly do that in the real things..
- Makes one wonder how the IL2 boys derived their
- information. I am sure it was an honest mistake.
-
- I am confident that once the developers take a look
- at this data, they will figure out that something is
- wrong and will take some steps to correct it.
-
MW50 was used for emergencies at HIGH altitude.


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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 10:10 PM
MW50 was useless at high alt..or lets say above the rated alt for the engine.
only GM1 provides an boost above the hole alt.

wastel

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 10:40 PM
update tomorrow

XyZspineZyX
09-13-2003, 11:12 PM
pipgig wrote:
- i have no Excel /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
- is there a chance to open it with some else?
-
-

get openoffice


ftp://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/pub/mirror/OpenOffice/localized/de/1.0.3/OOo_1.0.3.1_Win32Intel_install_de.zip

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 12:25 AM
Better yet get excel viewer directly from M$: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=4EB83149-91DA-4110-8595-4A960D3E1C7C&displaylang=EN

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 01:01 AM
Thanks, got it!

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 04:32 AM
great work thank you wastel! oleg please take a look!

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 06:29 AM
Hi,wastel
Thanks for your work


I agree with your test about 109s


I can take G6 climb to 9,000 and red friend (P39,Yak?,La5?) can not come close to me for shot http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif in HL


and G10,G14 become FORGOTTEN 109 in HL http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


now in HL people not satisfy for play 1944 session they
have 1940 - 1943 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif in major. and 1944 jast a little.


and I hope IL2FB v1.2 will be UNFORGOTTEN BAST GAME for us.

S!

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 09:50 AM
well done fingers crossed that oleg will fix this now...

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 11:55 AM
Is the G-14 really suppose to be that inferior to all the other Gs? Considering how it was suppose to be a general improvement I don't see it.

http://www.redspar.com/redrogue/CraggerUbisig.jpg

About after 30 minutes I puked all over my airplane. I said to myself "Man, you made a big mistake." -Charles 'Chuck' Yeager, regards his first flight

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 11:58 AM
Took a look at the data you presented, and I must admit, it makes a lot of sense.

The general theory/logic of the presentation also closely matches the initial 'theory' I've set for the Bf109s which I placed as 'G-6 and its deriatives' in other posts - G-6, G-6/AS and the G-10.

If there is anything lacking in this overall excellent presentation, I'd say it's the primer on test methods and process - it's no biggy for us who are reviewing the results, but when you address the development team, you'll need it definately. Unlike the P-47 roll issues discussed, (which is pretty much straight-forward to test out), climb testings will need a recorded track for developers to consider.

All in all, it's a very valid analysis and has great potential. I don't think the 1C team is exactly unaware of the problems with the "G-6 deriatives", and I imagine they're currently facing the typical problem of 'patch one casket and the other one starts to leak'.. but what you've presented would be very helpful in measuring exactly what are the problems.

I don't know if you've presented this to the 1C development team, but I suggest that:

1. slap up copies of the original RLM analysis you've quoted in a separate documented form
2. attach the track files of each individual testings
3. and then zip them all, and present it directly to Mr.Maddox either by E-mail, or contact someone who can and send it by him

Overall, one of the best instance of objective testing and analysis I've seen in these boards - this is exactly the way one should file a complaint or an objection if they feel something is wrong.

Good work!






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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 12:08 PM
"Is the G-14 really suppose to be that inferior to all the other Gs? Considering how it was suppose to be a general improvement I don't see it."

There's always much confusion revolving around the "G deriatives", but I imagine it became deeper since IL-2 original came up with the MW50 installed version of the G-6/AS(which the name "G-6/ASM" would be more accurate).

It seems the G-6/AS we have is the version installed with an enhanced supercharger + MW50 installation, which would take its performance near the G-10 with the DBM configuration.

Performance-wise, the G-10 DCM would be almost near K-4 standards, with the DBM version a little behind. The G-6/AS with MW50 injection, which we have in the game(which is practically a G-14/AS), is very close in performance to the G-10. Then it would be followed by the 'normal' G-14, which is a general improvement over the standard G-6.

As it stands, I really don't see the reason of putting in a G-6/ASM when we have a G-10 with the DBM config.

IMO, either take the MW injection out of the G-6/AS and rename it to 'G-14 late', or correct/upgrade the G-10 to DCM config.







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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 12:15 PM
UPDATED VERSION OUT:

built in new original info i got
speed and climb infos in
littel engine sheet in for beginners

http://test.equitatura.de/109tests.zip

wastel

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 12:25 PM
thank your update wastel!
salute!!!

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 12:41 PM
Yes, but the G-14 is inferior to the G2... which is just weird.


kweassa wrote:
- "Is the G-14 really suppose to be that inferior
- to all the other Gs? Considering how it was suppose
- to be a general improvement I don't see it."
-
- There's always much confusion revolving around the
- "G deriatives", but I imagine it became deeper since
- IL-2 original came up with the MW50 installed
- version of the G-6/AS(which the name "G-6/ASM" would
- be more accurate).
-
-
- It seems the G-6/AS we have is the version
- installed with an enhanced supercharger + MW50
- installation, which would take its performance near
- the G-10 with the DBM configuration.
-
-
- Performance-wise, the G-10 DCM would be almost near
- K-4 standards, with the DBM version a little behind.
- The G-6/AS with MW50 injection, which we have in the
- game(which is practically a G-14/AS), is very close
- in performance to the G-10. Then it would be
- followed by the 'normal' G-14, which is a general
- improvement over the standard G-6.
-
-
- As it stands, I really don't see the reason of
- putting in a G-6/ASM when we have a G-10 with the
- DBM config.
-
-
- IMO, either take the MW injection out of the G-6/AS
- and rename it to 'G-14 late', or correct/upgrade the
- G-10 to DCM config.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
------------
- Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns
- to..
-
- "It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and
- proud of it!



http://www.redspar.com/redrogue/CraggerUbisig.jpg

About after 30 minutes I puked all over my airplane. I said to myself "Man, you made a big mistake." -Charles 'Chuck' Yeager, regards his first flight

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 12:49 PM
bump

-------------------
http://320015073007-0001.bei.t-online.de/il2-forum/signatur.gif
JG51_Atze

JG51 (http://www.jg51.de)
Virtual Online War (http://www.s-driess.de/vow/index.php?page=homeÔžion=home)
"Ich bin ein Wurgerwhiner"

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 01:13 PM
Platypus_1.JaVA wrote:
- MW50 was used for emergencies at HIGH altitude.
-

You is wrong! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
As sayed befor it could only used until Rated Alt.Thats why GM1 was used until Engines like that of the G6ASM,G10 and K4(volldruckh├┬Âhe around 8000m) was avaible.

MW50 could be used for 10 minutes! after that a pause of 5min must be hold befor using it again!

As example G14 with old charger could only use it from 0m to 5500m(+dynamic rising of rated Alt because of Airspeed)

G6AS (ASM engine) had a rate alt at 7800m and could use MW50 to this high (this made GM1 system nearly useless for standart westernfront Combat because it would be only usefull above 7800m)

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 01:59 PM
"Yes, but the G-14 is inferior to the G2... which is just weird."

Yes, it is.

My theory is, while in development/additional patch stages of Fb, the G-2, G-6/AS and the K-4 received 'special treatment' where the developers might have tweaked small individual levels of errors.

Quite contrary to those three, the performance figures given here by wastel and the IL2Compare program gives me a strong impression that the G-14 and the G-10 were just 'beefed up' from the original FB FM of the G-6 in differing levels, so the G-14 is but a bit more faster G-6, and a G-10 being just a bit more faster G-14.

It's not surprising - most of the comments and objections, observations and analysis all intensely revolved around the K-4.

With FB the K-4 received more attention than all three "G-6 and its deriatives" combined.

In the original IL-2, the G-6/AS received as many attention as the K-4 is getting now.

The G-2 has placed itself as a very common 'second choice' alternative to the K-4 after FB came out(Why choose a G-6/AS, when you can just fly a K-4?), which resulted in many people flying it quite often.

However G-6, G-14, and G-10, was never popular.


The result is, the series which are most closely related with the standard G-6(G-6, G-6 late, G-14 and the G-10) seems to have fallen out of attention, being neglected for a long period of time. People were commenting that the G-6s were feeling better than orig. IL-2 days, and somehow people were content with that for quite long. (which, come to think of it now, probably was a positive effect coming from the transition of IL2 to FB, nothing more)

People were never too interested in the "G-6 deriatives" to thoroughly test it out, until recently. As resources are limited, the development typically, and naturally might have focused their attention to the planes and bug issues that are being mentioned the most, with some planes like the G-6 deriatives being secondary in priorities.

Perhaps with recent research on the subject as shown by wastel and many others, hopefully the "G-6 deriatives" might get better tweaked in the next update.


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

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

Message Edited on 09/14/0310:04PM by kweassa

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 08:27 PM
thx wastel, interessting and well done!

Hopefully 1C:MADDOX will notice it ...

XyZspineZyX
09-14-2003, 08:53 PM
Hmm tell me how come K-4 is such a dog, considering K-4 had improved airframe (aerodynamicly better) without increased weight and bigger engine.. it turns less agile than G-10 and G-14, or atleast did that in FB 1.0.. though I haven't flown K-4 and G-10 and G-14 in 1.11 much yet..

____________________________________



Official Sig:



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/shots/Vipez4.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 01:26 AM
I took the liberty of doing a quick check to see how wastel's test results come up against mine.


Bf109G-2(110%/rad2)
---------------------------
Altitude - mine - Wastel
---------------------------
0k - 526 - 523
1k - 539 - 540
2k - 554 - 556
3k - 572 - 573
4k - 589 - 590
5k - 608 - 608
6k - 628 - 629
7k - 648 - 648
8k - 637 - 637
9k - 626 - 618
10k- 611 - 610


Very good!





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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 02:01 AM
If you don't have Microsoft Excel, here is a free XLS viwer you can use.


http://members.shaw.ca/fennec/XLSviewer.exe

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

Message Edited on 09/14/0307:04PM by StG77_Fennec

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 04:10 AM
you can free download office2000 simplified chinese version from here
http://www.365mm.com/down.asp?id=582&no=1
win rar file 372M

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 01:12 PM
Here's a big BUMP

The 109 is a very important plane in most of the historical arenas because it is in fact the only fighter the OKL can use until a certain time frame.

It would be nice to see a post from someone on the dev team that they are either looking into it, dont care, have stopped worrying abour FB, or even "Go away kid, ya bother me!"

Silence is not golden on this forum.. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 03:25 PM
Bump,
Would love to see the G-6 improved personally, but want them all as goo as possible!

http://idealab.snu.ac.kr/~hobbist/La-5FN/small/La-5FN-06.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 08:56 PM
bump:

Maybe it is possible to describe weigth and engine used in G-6, G-6late, G-10, g-14, k-4

<p align="center">
_______________________________________
<p align="center"><font size="4"><font color="#CCCCCC"><font color="#FE2929">| </font> <font color="#FE2929">Major Cokol</font> (cokol@88-iap.de?subject=Kontakt via UBI-Forum)<font color="#FE2929"> | </font></font> <font color="#FE2929">w w w . 8 8 - I A P . d e</font> (http://www.88-iap.de)<font color="#FE2929"> |</font><font color="#CCCCCC"><font color="#FE2929"> Prawda der 88.IAP</font> (http://www.88-iap.de/prawda.htm)</font><font color="#FE2929"> | </font>[/b]</font></p>

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 10:51 PM
G6, G6late
DB605A1..no other
G14: Db605AM
G6AS(M): DB605ASM or ABS
G10: DB605DM/DB/DC
K4:same like G10.
but the DM was only very short in production und fast replaced by the DB, later with the DC.

engine weight (dry)
605a1:720kg
605AM:730kg
605ASM:730kg
605D:724kg
605DB/DC: 745kg
source: DB datasheet from Db archive

wastel

XyZspineZyX
09-15-2003, 11:33 PM
bumps has little effect if Oleg seldom drops in here at that board./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif



"......und mein Herz steigt wie ein Falke in die L├╝fte!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 12:58 AM
wastel

can you or another translat the 4th line(dim & weights section) in the engine spec charts on this link?

http://mitglied.lycos.de/luftwaffe1/aircraft/lw/DB605_varianten.pdf

http://a1276.g.akamai.net/7/1276/734/625ed428e022ef/www.harley-davidson.com/PR/MOT/2004/Softail/images/DOM/img_Softail_FXST.jpg

http://www.redneckengineering.com/photogallery/photo23581/curves-done-03.jpg


"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 06:17 AM
hi,
the 4th line, and the first weight mentioned is the
engine weight, the so called "dry weight".

the 2nd weight is the weigt of the engine built in with all the equipment built extra on the engine.
its the "built in weight with eqipment"

wastel

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 11:08 AM
oleg i find you are online now .what do you think about wastel's test?

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 01:22 PM
bump

-------------------
http://320015073007-0001.bei.t-online.de/il2-forum/signatur.gif
JG51_Atze

JG51 (http://www.jg51.de)
Virtual Online War (http://www.s-driess.de/vow/index.php?page=homeÔžion=home)
"Ich bin ein Wurgerwhiner"

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 01:50 PM
bump /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

-------------------
http://320015073007-0001.bei.t-online.de/il2-forum/signatur.gif
JG51_Atze

JG51 (http://www.jg51.de)
Virtual Online War (http://www.s-driess.de/vow/index.php?page=homeÔžion=home)
"Ich bin ein Wurgerwhiner"

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 02:25 PM
bump /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

-------------------
http://320015073007-0001.bei.t-online.de/il2-forum/signatur.gif
JG51_Atze

JG51 (http://www.jg51.de)
Virtual Online War (http://www.s-driess.de/vow/index.php?page=homeÔžion=home)
"Ich bin ein Wurgerwhiner"

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 02:43 PM
bump too

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 04:33 PM
bump /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

-------------------
http://320015073007-0001.bei.t-online.de/il2-forum/signatur.gif
JG51_Atze

JG51 (http://www.jg51.de)
Virtual Online War (http://www.s-driess.de/vow/index.php?page=homeÔžion=home)
"Ich bin ein Wurgerwhiner"

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 06:13 PM
Bump. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

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

Vez├ęr├╝nk a B├ítors├íg, K├┬*s├ęr├┬Ánk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

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

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 06:58 PM
bump /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

-------------------
http://320015073007-0001.bei.t-online.de/il2-forum/signatur.gif
JG51_Atze

JG51 (http://www.jg51.de)
Virtual Online War (http://www.s-driess.de/vow/index.php?page=homeÔžion=home)
"Ich bin ein Wurgerwhiner"

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 07:41 PM
*b├╝mp*

<HTML> <Center> http://fuchs667.bei.t-online.de/sig2.jpg

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif (http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de)</Center></Body></HTML>

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 07:43 PM
"no comment" from the developer party on this?

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 08:40 PM
*Bump*

7./JG26_HarryM

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 10:53 PM
bump /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

-------------------
http://320015073007-0001.bei.t-online.de/il2-forum/signatur.gif
JG51_Atze

JG51 (http://www.jg51.de)
Virtual Online War (http://www.s-driess.de/vow/index.php?page=homeÔžion=home)
"Ich bin ein Wurgerwhiner"

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 10:57 PM
I.JG53_Soap wrote:
- "no comment" from the developer party on this?

Sure there is a response - guess what./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif You got 2 tries to find out./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



"......und mein Herz steigt wie ein Falke in die L├╝fte!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-16-2003, 11:47 PM
Let me try to give an answer:
"You is right! We will use this datas in the new 1.2 patch..."

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 08:59 AM
VVS-Manuc wrote:
- Let me try to give an answer:
- "You is right! We will use this datas in the new 1.2
- patch..."
-
-

SB!!!!

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 11:30 AM
bump

-------------------
http://320015073007-0001.bei.t-online.de/il2-forum/signatur.gif
JG51_Atze

JG51 (http://www.jg51.de)
Virtual Online War (http://www.s-driess.de/vow/index.php?page=homeÔžion=home)
"Ich bin ein Wurgerwhiner"

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 12:00 PM
Well, I'll tell you what I heard. The official response has been, "They already climb better than they should. The developers tested against THEIR data and Wastel (Along with the original German data - I guess) is wrong."

I am making a bet that not only will they do nothing about this, but I bet they pork the 109 further in future patches. The thing I dont get is how the FM's have changed over time. It's almost like the Dev. team's data was written on an etch-a-sketch and they have had to rethink their coding because someone came along and shook the dang thing. And why does the 109 overheat so readily? Actually, it's not the overheating issue that is incorrect, it's the simple fact that opening up the radiators even slightly acts like you dropped flaps to "Landing" position. And without a doubt, based on the data Wastel has provided, this was not the case. Yet without them open you overheat way too fast. In other words, the rated top speeds are virtually unattainable, at least for any realistic sustained time.

Oh well, personally, the response was not surprising, but I dare any of you to say "Bring the facts, they will fix it." ever again. Wastel's research is one of the most comprehensive tests I have seen on this forum, (Next to the 190 forward view thread) and guess what.. it didnt mean crap. Here is a challenge to the Dev team. Show us your data against Wastel's. It cant be copywrited; how can you copywrite history? Now, you could copywrite someone's "Interpretation" of history because those ideas could be construed as "Original." I bet you wont show us, however. I find the desparity between the game and actual data very conclusive that something is wrong. I still think it is all in the radiator/energy bleed coding, personally.


Oh, while I am on that note, the next time some idiot says, "Learn to fly" I think I will respond with, "Learn to read" and point him in the direction of Wastel's research. In it's current state, the 109 still does have some other advantages over it's VVS counterparts, just not all the "Historical" advantages. Guess we all just have to learn to "Game the game."

In the end, this is only a game, designed for entertainment. Now we all have to decide if being "Slightly wrong, considerably wrong, or obviously wrong" is entertaining. It is a very pretty game however, and I cant take a thing away from that. I suppose I would probably have purchased this game based on that alone. But it IS an egg shell. Pretty on the outside, lacking substance (in some areas) on the inside... Unless of course, you like eggs.


Salute!

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 12:52 PM
Where'd you hear that 'response'?

I thought the 'they already climb better than they should' comment was heard before the recent version of the IL2compare software was out.. and also way before wastel's collection of test data was posted.

If I remember it correctly, Mr.Maddox stated no specific 109 when he mentions 'they'. I know it sounds a lame interpretation /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif but you really gotta get familiar with the 'developer's tapdance'. Bureacrats, diplomats and developers have this peculiar way of answering things in really bizzare ways that can be interpreted in all sorts of ways. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

The way I see it, the fact that we ain't getting a "you is wrong" response is itself somewhat not all too bad. Also, the questions I have asked about the accuracy of the Il2compare comparison software is unanswered - remaining yet a 'no comment' status.

I think it's a little too early to give up all hope. If wastel's test data, or the Il2compare test data is not seriously proved wrong, then it still stands that there are things to be fixed in 109s. I'm sure it will be addressed, though I admit it could be more than two~three patches or add-ons until we get what we requested.

Coming from a MMOG where the developers rarely answer to anything in less than three~four months, yeah, I can wait a little bit longer /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif










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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 12:54 PM
oh.. and *punt*


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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 03:56 PM
Kweassa,

In all fairness, I have to admit that I didn't read it. It's probably beyond my liberty to even discuss it, but I do think it's amazing that no one from the development team has even made a notation in this thread. I do know, however that there was some communicae between the originator of this thread and a member of the development team. I am hoping that Wastel will post something soon about that correspondance, but I also think he may be waiting for the right time to say anything. But I can assure you, the data fell on deaf ears.

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 04:04 PM
Will people please drop all this veil of secrecy, cloak and dagger BS?! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 05:26 PM
It's not really secret if you can read the German forum.

In this thread (http://forumsbb.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=de_il2sturmovik_gd&id=ztzyp) the author of the study has announced that he will withdraw from the game after he received an disappointing email with Oleg's reaction.

---------------
http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/stulogo-banner.jpg (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/)

Kampagne f├╝r IL-2 1.2: I-16 - Kampf im Kaukasus (Deutsch) (http://home.arcor.de/rayluck/sturmovik/kampagne.html)

ZG77_Nagual
09-17-2003, 05:46 PM
I think it goes like this - if we do not agree we do some research and present Oleg with our best data. He makes the call. It is not hard to find pilots, test pilots and statistics that support the contention that stated performance of luftwaffe planes was often significantly less than what the luftwaffe said it was. Some such remarks can be found in this interview.

http://airforce.users.ru/lend-lease/english/articles/golodnikov/

Among the many things I like about this simm is the perspective from which it is designed. I like Oleg's perspetive - his openness to input and his willingness to step up and make the call based on what he knows. To me that defines the game - which in this case is to accept the condition that this is Oleg's call - to provide him with your best information and accept his decision.

I appreciate the effort Wastel and others have put into testing and proving things. It certainly had made the simm better - but I would hope we all understand that it is Oleg's job to make the call - whether we happen to agree or not.

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

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 06:36 PM
A nice, diplomatic way of sayin you think he can do no wrong. lol /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

ZG77_Nagual
09-17-2003, 07:24 PM
Nuh uh!
That ain't what I said at all. I said it's up to him. Give it your best shot then let it go.

Only thing that bothers me is when people start getting insulting and weirdly conspiratorial.

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

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 07:41 PM
ZG77_Nagual wrote:
- Nuh uh!
- That ain't what I said at all. I said it's up to
- him. Give it your best shot then let it go.
-
- Only thing that bothers me is when people start
- getting insulting and weirdly conspiratorial.

It's human nature to delve into mysteries and try to solve them.

If we illustrate something is wrong and do it on the order of Wastel or Cirx and get told nothing at all, or "you is wrong", that shows there is a problem. We then want to determine what it is. Does he not understand? Does he not care? What is his intent and goal with this sim? All come into question. Clearly, it doesn't look good when he comes off as pursuing realism yet dismissing these investigations.

You might call it being conspiratorial, but, that is not the case at all.

ZG77_Nagual
09-17-2003, 08:22 PM
Yes, better to take the microsoft of janes approach.

"Dear Your-Name-Here,

Thankyou for your interest in Our-product. We very much appreciate your input which has been passed on to our waste management department.

Sincerely

Frank Placebo
Random Responder"

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

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 09:42 PM
lol

While that is a valid point, it's not what I was suggesting or advocating. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

It's like I often remind people, "better" and "best" are merely comparative terms, they do not in anyway denote good. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 11:34 PM
bump

-------------------
http://320015073007-0001.bei.t-online.de/il2-forum/signatur.gif
JG51_Atze

JG51 (http://www.jg51.de)
Virtual Online War (http://www.s-driess.de/vow/index.php?page=homeÔžion=home)
"Ich bin ein Wurgerwhiner"

XyZspineZyX
09-17-2003, 11:38 PM
Got nothing to do with performance, was a gameplay decision. You can't have something shift so radically around, unless it was complete bunk to start with.

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 01:43 AM
"Got nothing to do with performance, was a gameplay decision. You can't have something shift so radically around, unless it was complete bunk to start with."

Please elaborate.




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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 01:56 AM
WTH are you on when you wrote that, and where can I get some.

Nothing here though even begins to answer my orgininal question of why a 1944 aircraft the G-14 is so inferior to its predecessor of many years the G-2 in all areas of the flight envelope, when the whole G-14 project was undertaken to improve the G series.

RedManAce wrote:
- Got nothing to do with performance, was a gameplay
- decision. You can't have something shift so
- radically around, unless it was complete bunk to
- start with.
-
-



<http://www.redspar.com/redrogue/CraggerUbisig.jpg

About after 30 minutes I puked all over my airplane. I said to myself "Man, you made a big mistake." -Charles 'Chuck' Yeager, regards his first flight

Message Edited on 09/17/0308:09PM by Cragger

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 03:20 AM
Try to apply at least a little bit of logic. From untouchable climbers and fast to throwing out an anchor unable to run. That's no accident, game play decision, live with it, not going to change.

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 04:16 PM
RedManAce wrote:
- Try to apply at least a little bit of logic. From
- untouchable climbers and fast to throwing out an
- anchor unable to run. That's no accident, game play
- decision, live with it, not going to change.
-
-

I sort of get the point but there is more to it than that. Plenty of FB's data is pretty good and matched several data sources fairly well (take an average...) with great detailed modelling in some areas.

What a lot of the LW camp feel is that FB's "Backbone" is "Broken" and that certain things are amiss. You have to ask to self one simple question over and over...

If the FM was accurate in the first place then why did it change so dramatically, patch after patch?

Hopefully it was to ensure the most accurate representation of aircombat on the Eastern Front within the limits of modern PC hardware /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Maybe though (sort of like what RedManAce is suggesting) the changes have been made to appease the majority of vocal Dogfight Server advocates who dominate Ubi.com & HL?

Not my opinion but just a suggestion.

Personally I think that overall a lot of work and detail went into the 109's but due to time / resource constraints the Dev team didn't manage the job they maybe wanted to complete. Some 109's (like G-2) have decent CEM and hit several data sources closely etc etc. The Damage model is very detailed on the 109 and cockpits etc are of high quality - a lot of work went into them. With the RTS work 1C is involved with and their NEXT sim (yep + the add-on too) there is a lot of work going on at 1C. The recent patch error (which was rectified quickly) shows a team under stress IMHO.

The lack of response from the Dev team on this issue is only stark in comparison to the amount of feedback Oleg gave in the early days - compared to other developers this feedback is still much more. I don't think Oleg can please all of the people all of the time. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the next sim will have LESS aircraft with MORE detail. Only IMHO of course /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JG5_UnKle

"Know and use all the capabilities of your airplane. If you don't sooner or later, somebody who does, will kick your ***"


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-18-2003, 04:48 PM
Hmmm.

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 03:48 AM
bump

After it was refeuled i climbed in.With many manipulations the mechcanics started the turbines.I followed their actions with the greatest of interest.The first one started quite easily.the second caught fire.In no time the whole engine was on fire.Luckily as a fighter pilot i was used to getting quickly out of the cockpit.The fire was quickly put out.The second plane caused no trouble - Adolf Galland (first time in a ME262)

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 04:37 AM
Couple of things in the 'machine' you can check. One thing is water temp readings on overheat. 109's are excessively low compared to everything else, 103 C indicated as compared to Yaks showing 113 C. That's a 10 C difference in coolant heat loading.

Another factor is the atmosphere doesn't cool as you go up, same rad settings yeild the exact same peak temps regardless of altitude. An 80% power setting will peak the coolant temp at the same reading whether your at 1000 meters or 11.000, no difference for any rad settings.


The time to reach that peak temp for the setting gets shorter as you get higher, go figure.

All these anomolies work agaisnt the 109 and where it should perform. An 80% throttle setting already has you sitting at 89C, 100% power at 100C, you can't use boost because your already 3C within boil point.

Regardless of altitude, or cruise and up power setting, the max you have control over your temp C is an 8 degree range. Not even worth opening the rads over.

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 05:33 AM
Hi again

well good for read all good data here again.

now let me show u some history that can reflex somthing about G14 http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

/******

Lawrence Thompson meets Hartmann's G-14
=======================================
...I try to watch the Mustang down, but cannot, Now my full attention is on the Hun! Zoom. We fly through the two Mustangs (he was taken POW). Now the advantage of the P-51 is really apparent, as in a dive I am catching up to the Me109 faster than a runaway freight train. I press the trigger for only a second then I let up on the trigger, I believe at that time I was about 250 yards distant, but the Hun was really pulling lots' of negative and positive g's and pulling up to the horizon. He levels out and then does a vertical tail stand! And next thing I know, he's using his built up velocity from the dive to make a vertical ninety degree climb. This guy is really an experienced pilot. I'm in a vertical climb, and my P-51 begins to roll clockwise violently, only by pushing my left rudder almost through the floor can I stop my P-51 from turning. We climb for altitude; in the straight climb that Me109 begins to out distance me, though my built up diving speed makes us about equal in the climb. We climb one thousand fifteen hundred feet, and at eighteen hundred feet, the hun levels his aircraft out. A vertical climb of 1,800 feet! I've never heard of a piston aircraft climbing more than 1,000 feet in a tail stand. At this time we're both down to stall speed, and he levels out. My airspeed indicator reads less than 90 mph! So we level out. I'm really close now to the Me109, less than twenty five yards! Now if I can get my guns on him.........

******/
u can read full story from this http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-ErichHartmann.html

Can we do (G14) like this in IL2FB 1.11 ?

S!

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 05:42 AM
JG5_UnKle wrote:
- If the FM was accurate in the first place then why
- did it change so dramatically, patch after patch?

Isn't that the point though? They've had since IL2 1.0 (nout counting betas) to get the FMs of the 109 right.

If they were even close, one would expect the changes to be slight. However, they have been rather drastic, nearly each time. This leaves the impression that either the code is a horrible jumbled mess that nobody at 1C really understands, or, they really don't know what the FM should be and are just randomly flipping switches each patch.

Certainly they can't be getting new sets of data each patch and game version.

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 02:58 PM
Exactly, DDT!

The state they are in now, the 109's are nearly useless. And not just the G variants. I still think it has something to do with the over modeled drag effect of the radiators. The 109 overheats way too fast, but you could learn to work around that if you werent penalized so badly for opening the radiators, even slightly. Yet, according to Wastel's research, the climb test were done with radiators OPEN in certain positions. Try and get anything close to the performance out of the 109 with them open in this game in it's current state.

None of this is new, the beta testers brought a lot of this up to the dev team prior to the release of IL2/FB. I know, I used to hear ex-beta-tester, Wastel tell us about it all the time (He is a squad mate).

In the end, the OKL fliers really only have two planes to fly, the 109 and the 190. True, there are a number of versions that can be flown, but really there is only two fighter planes.

Now we all can read (I hope) and if not, you can at least look at the pictures that were presented, proving the visibility issue in the 190, but that's still buggered. The Revi is wrong, where it sits is wrong, and the pilots relative head position is wrong. The answer given to us to try and pacify the situation was "As you can clearly see by my picture it's modeled too good in the game." All that while presented with a photo (Taken at chest level) in the 190. As anyone can clearly see by a picture of my feet, a luftwaffe pilot could never actually see out of the front of the 190. You is wrong... Learn to fly. Here, I will give non-realistic roll to compensate you for your trouble... If a picture is truly worth a thousand words, someone forgot to tell the photographer what language to take the picture in I guess.


Now in the 109, you cant sustain any performance because of the mystical non-effective air-break-E-A-tor. The thing doesnt climb like it could historically, and the ammo counts are incorrect. The term "High wing loading" is substituted by the words "Excessive drag" and the words "Low wing loading" are substituted by the words "Unlimited energy retention". We get to hear, "Show us your data and it will be fixed." In return we get our -Official- statement, "The airplane already climbs too well" - according to? I guess according to "Official documentation that we are not allowed to see or cant read because we dont have a secret decoder ring given to us by Comrade Stalin?

The thing that really makes me laugh is the people on this forum that think "Urban Legend" should supercede official documentation. Does anyone doubt or voice their doubt about Russian, American, or British data sheets? No, of course not. Even in the cases that none are presented! But "Evil Nazi RLM mad scientists" documentation can't be trusted. It says so in my 108th edition of "Captain America" comic books right after Captain America defeats the Red Skull. Besides, we all know Germans never kept any accurate information. Everything they wrote was laced with lies and propaganda. By the way, if the world would have donned their garlic necklaces 60 odd years ago, the evil Nazi vampires would have had no affect on them.

For the people that think like that, I have a few questions for you. Did you believe way back in the IL2 day that all the flight models were as accurate as possible -according to their official data- as told to you by the dev team?

Well if they were, why the sudden change?

If IL2/FB was properly beta tested for accuracy, why was there a need for FM patching? I can understand enhancements in graphics, sound, net coding, damage model, etc., but why complete changes in established FM's?

If Beta 1.1b was accurate - minus a few coding/software glitches, why was the FM jacked with AGAIN?!?

Oh, I get it, we is right, we is righter, now we is rightest? Give me a break.

So, which one was right? I dont know, but after reading the data that Wastel gave I can tell you that according to the proper documentation versus in-game testing, this version isnt the one that is correct.

In the end, as I stated before the OKL only have two planes, the 190 and the 109. Two... And out of two, they cant seem to get one right? Now go ask yourself, one last question, if they cant get at least one right, are they going to get the 700 extra planes for the add-on right? Fat chance.

Oh, I can hear it now.. go play CFS3 or some other idiotic statement from people with less brain power than an ameba. No, how about this instead, I spent money for a quality product, and I expect quality. It doesnt matter if it's 40 dollars or 40 thousand, I expect what I thought I was paying for. Now, dont get me wrong, this is without a doubt the most butiful flight sim ever produced. It's quite stunning and is quite configurable to your level of taste - from beginner to hard core sim'mer. The immersion level of this product is unsurpassed, especially when you add in the human element of on-line flight. But then you have to start the engine and most of those things begin to fade away.

Do I believe there is some sort of conspiracy concerning the luftwaffe aircraft in this game? No, I dont. But what I do think is that there is a certain amount of arrogance by the developers in the fact that they refuse to admit they are wrong and do something about it. Well, actions speak louder than words. If you werent wrong a year ago, why did you change the FM's? You were either wrong then, or you are wrong now. Which is it? How about "Show us YOUR data" and let us be the judge?

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 04:36 PM
for all,

the 109's have the problem much much longer..event going back to il2 times.
but no one checked it.
it is not an 1.11 issue!!!

wastel

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 05:19 PM
Ever curious to see to what extent things are over-modelled or under-modelled, I thought I'd run a quick test to see what I could get out of the G14.

This is the basis of my test.

100% fuel,
default loadout,
trimmed for level flight,
max. power,
MW50 NOT used,
speed taken from instrumentation (speed bar off).

These are the numbers I got;

IAS TAS

Sea level 510 510
1000 510 530
2000 470 ca.540
3000 480 ca.580
4000 450 568
5000 440 598
6000 440 627

I will assume that there will be a substantial degradation in performance over 6000m. However, the point is not to post data that compete with yours Wastel but merely to ask the question - why there is such a discrepancy between your figures and mine? We're both playing FB1.11 after all so they should be in the same ballpark.

My speeds are somewhat different from yours and the top speed at 6000m in particular seems very close to that in the object viewer (allowing for use of MW50). Really, the numbers I got aren't so far off from the RLM data. And in fact the Object Viewer top speed (with MW50) is higher than that given in the RLM figure in your test.

Maybe we should get together and run some tests so more than one person's test data from FB form the basis of any requests to Oleg.

Not flaming your efforts, just trying to get to the bottom of this.

I haven't tested climbrate.

Cheers


http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 06:12 PM
bazzaah2 wrote:
- Ever curious to see to what extent things are
- over-modelled or under-modelled, I thought I'd run a
- quick test to see what I could get out of the G14.
-
- This is the basis of my test.
-
- 100% fuel,
- default loadout,
- trimmed for level flight,
- max. power,
- MW50 NOT used,
- speed taken from instrumentation (speed bar off).
-
- These are the numbers I got;
-
- IAS TAS
-
- Sea level 510 510
- 1000 510 530
- 2000 470 ca.540
- 3000 480 ca.580
- 4000 450 568
- 5000 440 598
- 6000 440 627
-
- I will assume that there will be a substantial
- degradation in performance over 6000m. However, the
- point is not to post data that compete with yours
- Wastel but merely to ask the question - why there is
- such a discrepancy between your figures and mine?
- We're both playing FB1.11 after all so they should
- be in the same ballpark.
-
- My speeds are somewhat different from yours and the
- top speed at 6000m in particular seems very close to
- that in the object viewer (allowing for use of
- MW50). Really, the numbers I got aren't so far off
- from the RLM data. And in fact the Object Viewer top
- speed (with MW50) is higher than that given in the
- RLM figure in your test.
-
- Maybe we should get together and run some tests so
- more than one person's test data from FB form the
- basis of any requests to Oleg.
-
- Not flaming your efforts, just trying to get to the
- bottom of this.
-
- I haven't tested climbrate.
-
- Cheers
i use the same setting as you did (cem,i use smolensk map ,you not mentioned what map you used)test g14 topspeed at 6000m i only can reach 584km/h (tas).how do you make it
i think you are a genius if you realy did it.could you post a track to us?

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 07:16 PM
krim,6000m,autolevel and trimmed,
full power without MW50 (110%)
i get 600km/h TAS with rads closed
584km/h rads 2



REALISTIC VALUE WOULD BE:

6000m, 100%!!! rad2 around 620-630Km/H


reason:

in reality, 1.3ata, 2600rpm was 100%
in FB G14 its 110%!!

wastel

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 09:58 PM
RedManAce has some good points, I think.

Problems with in-game data is one thing, but the overheat factor is making the problem feel even more drastic.





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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 11:41 PM
yep, it is true and as I said don't wanna flame your efforts.

Just that funny discrepancy,,,,

I can make a track for sure but have no webspace to upload to. I'll ask my fine friends at :FI: and will come back over the next day or two.

cheers



http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 12:27 AM
bump

-------------------
http://320015073007-0001.bei.t-online.de/il2-forum/signatur.gif
JG51_Atze

JG51 (http://www.jg51.de)
Virtual Online War (http://www.s-driess.de/vow/index.php?page=homeÔžion=home)
"Ich bin ein Wurgerwhiner"

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 02:52 AM
Baa... Baa... Baaa!!!!...


KA-BUUMMMMMPPPP!!!

Funny how Oleg has nothing to say about this? He's usually all over the topics he can "prove" ... "wrong" ... maybe he's afraid of the fact that he MADE A DAMNED MISTAKE... wow.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 03:00 AM
wastel wrote:
- krim,6000m,autolevel and trimmed,
- full power without MW50 (110%)
- i get 600km/h TAS with rads closed
- 584km/h rads 2
-
-
-
-
- REALISTIC VALUE WOULD BE:
-
- 6000m, 100%!!! rad2 around 620-630Km/H
-
-
- reason:
-
- in reality, 1.3ata, 2600rpm was 100%
- in FB G14 its 110%!!
-
- wastel
-
-
-
Wastel, are you sure what more than 1.3 ata was allowed without mw50 for G14?
And even IF yes, are you sure you need it? Whoever run 110% without MW50 and why anyone would want it?
-





Message Edited on 09/20/0302:01AM by Chromatorg

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 05:14 AM
bazzaah2 wrote:
- yep, it is true and as I said don't wanna flame your
- efforts.
-
- Just that funny discrepancy,,,,
-
- I can make a track for sure but have no webspace to
- upload to. I'll ask my fine friends at :FI: and will
- come back over the next day or two.
-
- cheers
mabye this is a stupid notion .if bazzaah2 said were true i would doubt if the different hardware cause the different test data?

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 05:40 AM
Chromatorg wrote:
- Wastel, are you sure what more than 1.3 ata was
- allowed without mw50 for G14?
- And even IF yes, are you sure you need it? Whoever
- run 110% without MW50 and why anyone would want it?



You do realise that MW50 isn't a boost right? it's simply a solution that is injected into the engine to keep it cooler at higher RPM's, thus allowing the engine to combust at higher temperaters allowing it to go faster, without risking blowing the engine.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:05 AM
You need to reread that again. IRL Luftwaffe aircraft did not have 110% throttle, the only nations that used anything that is comparable to that is the United States and Britian to my knowledge. Russian doctrine in this area I'm at a loss.

100% throttle or "Military Power" as it was called was the maximum power level and engine was rated at to operate by the respective military branch that used the aircraft, this was done to ensure engine longevity for ferry operations, trainings, and routine flight. Anything beyond this was called "War Emergency Power" and was the maximum power level the engine builder rated the engine at.

But to cut to the chase the maximum mechanically allowed throttle position on the DB 605AM was 1.30 ata on the manifold (100%, there wasn't any 110% or 115 or whatever in LW service as far as I can recall). Full throttle plus MW50 was 1.41 ata on the manifold. Because every aircraft in FB has this 100-110% thing the 109 is forced to run at reduced power to prevent overheating it wouldn't have encountered at that setting.

And I don't even fly the thing and I think its saddly snafued.

Chromatorg wrote:
- wastel wrote:
-- krim,6000m,autolevel and trimmed,
-- full power without MW50 (110%)
-- i get 600km/h TAS with rads closed
-- 584km/h rads 2
--
--
--
--
-- REALISTIC VALUE WOULD BE:
--
-- 6000m, 100%!!! rad2 around 620-630Km/H
--
--
-- reason:
--
-- in reality, 1.3ata, 2600rpm was 100%
-- in FB G14 its 110%!!
--
-- wastel
--
--
--
- Wastel, are you sure what more than 1.3 ata was
- allowed without mw50 for G14?
- And even IF yes, are you sure you need it? Whoever
- run 110% without MW50 and why anyone would want it?
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Message Edited on 09/20/03Ô 02:01AM by
- Chromatorg



http://www.redspar.com/redrogue/CraggerUbisig.jpg

About after 30 minutes I puked all over my airplane. I said to myself "Man, you made a big mistake." -Charles 'Chuck' Yeager, regards his first flight

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:11 AM
WUAF_Mj_Hero wrote:
-
-
- You do realise that MW50 isn't a boost right? it's
- simply a solution that is injected into the engine
- to keep it cooler at higher RPM's, thus allowing the
- engine to combust at higher temperaters allowing it
- to go faster, without risking blowing the engine.
-
-

Not higher rpm but higher manifold pressure. It was used to keep the manifold temperature down when higher boost was used.


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

Message Edited on 09/20/0301:21AM by MiloMorai

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 07:00 AM
Cra
Cragger wrote:
- You need to reread that again. IRL Luftwaffe
- aircraft did not have 110% throttle, the only
- nations that used anything that is comparable to
- that is the United States and Britian to my
- knowledge. Russian doctrine in this area I'm at a
- loss.
-
- 100% throttle or "Military Power" as it was called
- was the maximum power level and engine was rated at
- to operate by the respective military branch that
- used the aircraft, this was done to ensure engine
- longevity for ferry operations, trainings, and
- routine flight. Anything beyond this was called "War
- Emergency Power" and was the maximum power level the
- engine builder rated the engine at.
-
- But to cut to the chase the maximum mechanically
- allowed throttle position on the DB 605AM was 1.30
- ata on the manifold (100%, there wasn't any 110% or
- 115 or whatever in LW service as far as I can
- recall). Full throttle plus MW50 was 1.41 ata on
- the manifold. Because every aircraft in FB has this
- 100-110% thing the 109 is forced to run at reduced
- power to prevent overheating it wouldn't have
- encountered at that setting.
-
- And I don't even fly the thing and I think its
- saddly snafued.
-

I dont understand you... you want change indicated % so it will be shown 100% istead of 110% and 110% would not be allowed without Mw50??? If its indeed what you
want, i dont see how it will make any difference in G14 flying - just a cosmetic change in % indication.

After German docs Max Continius Power on g6 - k4 engines is 1075 PS. Anything higher and engine WILL start to overheat sooner or later. Allthought, with MW50 it will be rather later http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 02:11 PM
reality (G14)

100%=1.3ata,2600rpm (steig & kampfleistung)
110%=1.7ata,2800rpm..quick engine dead
110%+MW50=1.7ata,2800rpm (start& notleistung)

we havehttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gifG14)

100%=1,15ata,ca2300rpm(dauerleistung)
110%=1.3ata,2600rpm (steig und kampfleistung)
110%+MW50=1,7ata,2800PS (start & notleistung)

everyone got in now?


wastel

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 02:49 PM
hey Wastel.

I have the track done - and reproduced the numbers I got yesterday.

Test was done on the following basis

I set up from FMB (Smolensk map) with 1 g14 under my control at all times to take off, test max speed at heights from sea level (200m per altimeter) and then at 1000m to 6000m at 1000m intervals. All done in one flight and enigine allowed to overheat.

Pitch etc. left on auto as I think it would have been in RL? MW50 not used. No autopilot, speedbar, level flight aid or anything else used you'll have to take IAS readings from instrumentation. Speed bar off.

Let me know what you think, once you've seen - will go and see if I can get the webmaster at FI to host and post link or will PM you to get your email so can send track to you that way. From my numbers Oleg ain't so far off the RLM test.

I'll be back (puts on shades and goes out to car....).

Cheers.

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 03:13 PM
i do all test on krim map, because 0 alt above sea possible.
(smolensk give other results)

rlm tested like this:

steig and kampfleistung (climb and combat power),
original 100%,that is 1.3ata, 2600rpm in G14.
for climbtest use radiators on 4 to 6 (where rad8 would be more realistic)
for speedtest radiator 2.
dont forget the radiators!! NO test was flown with closed one.
ok, pls take your G14 and start at 0m with 280km/h IAS as climbspeed, radiators at 4. power set to 100%.
the G14 should reach 6000m in about 6,5minutes(g6 6 minutes).
in FB i need 10 minutes :-).

you can post me your settings and number via an privat message.

wastel

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 03:17 PM
i sugges you to use following settings.

-no cockpit view
-outside view
-no wind (so GS =TAS)

bzw..if you give full power (110) without MW50,
the engine should be dead within 1 minute.

wastel

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 03:52 PM
The thing is, I'll keep to my settings thanks.

Frankly, I don't see what difference using a different map should make. I'm content with what I have done and see no reason to switch off cockpit or anything else. If you're after as much realism as poss, then why use those settings? Why switch wind off? I don't believe that's a common feature for any plane.

If the aircraft engine should be dead at full power 'within a minute' without MW50 that may suggest a modelling flaw in the way the engine runs in FB but the fact remains I was still able to get close to the RLM speeds.

There's limit as to what can currently be included so that you still have a workable product. For example, there are flaws in LA5FN which means you have incorrect heating rates between cylinder heads and oil temperature when warming the engine and there's no compressed air starting either and that overall detracts from realism, but what to do, eh?

I think we all know that this sim does not model every aspect of an engine's bahaviour. Fact is in the G14 (and I supect others) you can get close to RLM speeds even if that is done in a way that is not a fully accurate simulation of the way that a particular aircraft behaved in RL.

I have to go out soon but will run again using MW50 at some stage soon.

Wny not run another test using my settings and see what you found. After all I have your numbers in the spread and don't feel the need to replicate yours.





http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 04:07 PM
Wastel, better test the planes over Smolensk (outside the map, where the ground is flat).

Crimea will give you values, that are too high !

-------------------
http://320015073007-0001.bei.t-online.de/il2-forum/signatur.gif
JG51_Atze

JG51 (http://www.jg51.de)
Virtual Online War (http://www.s-driess.de/vow/index.php?page=homeÔžion=home)
"Ich bin ein Wurgerwhiner"

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 04:36 PM
I just run the climbrate up to 3000m from standing start. I fully agree with your findings on that at least fwiw.

But even at 99% throttle at 150 metres I still get top speed of 510km/h.

But for now RL intrvenes.



http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 05:17 PM
again..for all

smolensk, wind off

100% power that "should" be (what is it not)
1.3ata,2600RPM, radiators set 2 (schnellflugstellung)

FB G14 0m:485Km/h TAS
FB G14 6,6k:544km/h TAS

real G6AM/R2 (like G14, but heavier because of cammeras)

RLM G6AM/R2 0m: 498km/h TAS
RLM G6AM/R2 6,6k: 628km/h TAS

any more discussions??

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 05:20 PM
Bazzah, no pit gives accurate TAS and alt readings. The instruments in the pit do not. No wind is also used so as to factor out every variable except that which you intend to solve for, in this case, the plane.

Leaving the pit on and wind on are not accurate testing methods in this game.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:06 PM
OK - DDT, thx for info.

Wastel, just for record, I have no doubt that your tests are accurately done and I don't feel the need to replicate your tests because I believe what you have put in your spread.

My point is really this. Even on basis of inaccurate test, I have achieved numbers close to those in RLM tests. I will rerun with wind off and speedbar on an take measurements from that. The settings are inaccurate relative to real life BUT the speed at least seems to be in the sim, in the wrong place if you like, but there. This makes me think that Oleg may well just say 'you is wrong' becasue the data are there that support something like RLM figures for speed and can be obtained in FB.

The issue is perhaps more one of tweaking the conditions under which max. figures can be reached for given planes.
Perhaps the question needs to be asked a little more indirectly. Why not put a comparison between conditions under which something like RLM figures can be reached ingame (for G14 at least) to those realiistic settings you have done your tests on?

I'll do some more tests and let you know.

Just my 0.02

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:22 PM
wastel wrote:
- reality (G14)
-
- 100%=1.3ata,2600rpm (steig & kampfleistung)
- 110%=1.7ata,2800rpm..quick engine dead
- 110%+MW50=1.7ata,2800rpm (start& notleistung)
-
- we havehttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gifG14)
-
- 100%=1,15ata,ca2300rpm(dauerleistung)
- 110%=1.3ata,2600rpm (steig und kampfleistung)
- 110%+MW50=1,7ata,2800PS (start & notleistung)
-
- everyone got in now?
-
-
- wastel
-
-

Ok Wastel, now i inderstand you. What i dont understand is why do you think indication change (i.e. 1.3 ata at 100% instead of 110%) will make G14 fly any better. As i said, in any case noone will fly 1.7 ata without mw50 anyway.
Right now at 110% ( 1.3 ata ) G14 can fly about 5 min - thats about right in my opinion. So my suggestions - dont look at %, look at ata and RPM gauges.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:43 PM
quick and dirty test shows that I get the same figures I posted above with 'wind off' and 'cockpit off' up to 2000m; will finish test tomorrow. I will redo test over the sea and think I can post a limk so will try and get that done tomorrow.

I say it again; I can get close to RLM figures, but with 'unrealistic' settings (and I suspect with climb rate as well - my first test I started on the runway and got to 3000m in 4 minutes or so).

As far as I can see more or less accurate speed (and possibly climb) is there for the G14 (at least; will do same test for others) it just is reached in a different way from the test you did Wastel.

Given that, I reckon that Oleg will say 'you is wrong' unless you change the basis of your question to him.

Are there any altitude limitations to use of MW50?


http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 07:06 PM
well, the problem is, that when you use 110%, the
engine will overheat as fast as an 109g6 with 110%.

but it should overheat like the 100% setting.


and, the 109G14 with 100, like any othe 109 with 100 would be more competive.
because..now, the no mw50 109s behave and at 110 like they should at 100 in reality.


wastel

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 07:12 PM
@bazzaah2

pls do the test with historic settings..or we have no chance to compare.

100%, rad 4 to 6 for climb, rad 2 for speedtest.
climbspeed 270 till 7000m, then 5km/h less per 1000m

(if you will get above 8000 :-) )


just give mie time to alt and TAS, no other flight situation is of value.

"cheating" like, manual pitch..just don't show the FB
G14 ot the original G14

wastel

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 07:22 PM
wastel wrote:
- well, the problem is, that when you use 110%, the
- engine will overheat as fast as an 109g6 with 110%.
-
- but it should overheat like the 100% setting.
-
-
- and, the 109G14 with 100, like any othe 109 with 100
- would be more competive.
- because..now, the no mw50 109s behave and at 110
- like they should at 100 in reality.
-
-
- wastel
-
-
-
-

Ya, i see the problem. At 1.3 ata g14 shouldn't overheat that fast probably. Certainly not as fast as g6 with 1.4 ata...

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 07:32 PM
Atzebrueck wrote:
- Wastel, better test the planes over Smolensk
- (outside the map, where the ground is flat).
-
- Crimea will give you values, that are too high !
-


Over the water? The flat water terrain in Crimea has been an easy test.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 07:32 PM
I'm happy to repeat your tests - but I am confident that they're accurately done. (I will though just for the sake of it but will end up with figures much like yours if I do them in the same way).

But with respect, I don't think you understood my point.

On the 'cheating' settings you get speed (and maybe climb) data that compare well with the RLM numbers you put in your spread. Thus, it is a question of how you use the game to get the best performance, even if those settings are wrong.

I think you need to put a 'cheating' settings into your graphs on the spread (i'm happy to do tracks for you to incorporate) You can then ask Oleg to adjust your test results so that the 'cheating' figures become available in a more realistic way. This may work because you are not challenging data (he most likely has RLM tests), just the way the data are used.

I fear that if you just say the model is or data are wrong he will come back and say 'you is wrong'. It seems to me that you CAN currentlyt get close(r) to RLM figures, even if that is obtained under inaccurate conditions.

Hope you see what I mean.


http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 07:50 PM
Red_Harvest wrote:
-
- Atzebrueck wrote:
-- Wastel, better test the planes over Smolensk
-- (outside the map, where the ground is flat).
--
-- Crimea will give you values, that are too high !
--
-
-
- Over the water? The flat water terrain in Crimea
- has been an easy test.

Yes, as far as I know it depends on the temperature, which has been set by the developers for each map.

In one thread, Oleg said, that one have to test the planes on summermaps, such as Smolensk or onlinesummer (you have to fly above the part of the map, where the ground starts to get flat).

-------------------
http://320015073007-0001.bei.t-online.de/il2-forum/signatur.gif
JG51_Atze

JG51 (http://www.jg51.de)
Virtual Online War (http://www.s-driess.de/vow/index.php?page=homeÔžion=home)
"Ich bin ein Wurgerwhiner"

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 07:24 PM
bump

After it was refeuled i climbed in.With many manipulations the mechcanics started the turbines.I followed their actions with the greatest of interest.The first one started quite easily.the second caught fire.In no time the whole engine was on fire.Luckily as a fighter pilot i was used to getting quickly out of the cockpit.The fire was quickly put out.The second plane caused no trouble - Adolf Galland (first time in a ME262)

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 11:37 PM
ba da bing

After it was refeuled i climbed in.With many manipulations the mechcanics started the turbines.I followed their actions with the greatest of interest.The first one started quite easily.the second caught fire.In no time the whole engine was on fire.Luckily as a fighter pilot i was used to getting quickly out of the cockpit.The fire was quickly put out.The second plane caused no trouble - Adolf Galland (first time in a ME262)