PDA

View Full Version : ROLL RATE TESTING: v4.02m MENU & SUMMARY



TAGERT.
11-05-2005, 01:02 PM
Go Here

NACA vs. IN-GAME ROLL RATES. (http://airwarfare.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=3062#3062)

Enjoy

Chadburn
11-05-2005, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Go Here

NACA vs. IN-GAME ROLL RATES. (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=144;t=001576)

Enjoy

Thanks, Tagert. I like the way you've replicated the original using the game data. Makes for easy comparison.

Well done.

TAGERT.
11-05-2005, 02:24 PM
Thanks! Your welcome!

Jaws2002
11-06-2005, 02:26 PM
Great work Tagert. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
I hope we'll have it right at some point in time.

Mysha76
11-06-2005, 05:09 PM
Good job. Thx for data. I believe, Oleg will see this. It can improve realism of FM.

Grue_
11-07-2005, 05:08 AM
Tagert, do you think the roll rate can be adjusted for one aircraft without affecting any of the others?

It's interesting how all of the aircraft in IL-2 show a similar trend in their roll performance data compared to NACA data.

Kocur_
11-07-2005, 09:31 AM
Great! Thank you!

One can wish we had access to data on rolling of soviet planes. Something tells me that would explain alot in terms of tendency to move performance peak point towards lower speeds in the game...

robban75
11-07-2005, 10:23 AM
Great testing! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

One other interesting point is the benefit of rudder application. The Spitfire for example gains much more in rollrate than other airplanes when using rudder. Problem is, I don't don't think there are any charts on this. Not that I know of anyways.

SD_Fugazi
11-08-2005, 10:37 AM
Hello Tagert...
You are certainly doing a hell of a work, but the conclusions you are reaching are not really relevant (planes are rolling faster at slow speed and slower at high speed than IRL), for the very same reason as you point out in the introduction of your observations... <span class="ev_code_RED">We do not know which force on the stick is modelized in the game, neither you know which amount of force you are pulling when testing...</span> (and for one we do not even know if it is a factor in equations that are used in that simulation). Therefore, any conclusion drawn from comparison to a real chart are not really relevant. Not even taking into account that we do not know which planes were tested in real life (a spitfire CW... which one?), or the conditions of the test from NACA (which are really making differences IRL).

Maybe the only thing you could safely conclude however, is if that model of a plane (in general term) is rolling faster than the other one, and if it is the same in the simulation (qualitatively not quantitatively).

~S~

Chadburn
11-08-2005, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by SD_Fugazi:


Maybe the only thing you could safely conclude however, is if that model of a plane (in general term) is rolling faster than the other one, and if it is the same in the simulation (qualitatively not quantitatively).

~S~

But that is what Tagert is doing. By reproducing the NACA chart for in-game planes he is showing their relative performance to each other. For that to have any meaning, he shows the NACA chart to show what their r/l performance was relative to each other. You can then compare. For example, a p40 shouldn't be out rolling an Anton at 255mph but a CW Spit should at 200mph.

It doesn't matter how much virtual stick pressure we're exerting in the game...max is max so that is the most roll you can get in 4.02 (minus rudder assistance). Presumably the NACA test shows maximum roll rates as well, otherwise what use is it.

faustnik
11-08-2005, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by Chadburn:
Presumably the NACA test shows maximum roll rates as well, otherwise what use is it.

The NACA test shows roll rate at a given speed with 50 pounds of stick force at 10,000 feet.

Hoarmurath
11-08-2005, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by Chadburn:
Presumably the NACA test shows maximum roll rates as well, otherwise what use is it.

That NACA chart isn't used to get detailed rolling performances of the planes in it, but only to give an idea of their relative aileron effectiveness. You remember, if you did read the full NACA report, that it was the subject, control effectiveness.

Also, this NACA chart isn't using NACA test data, but data collected among allied countries.

SD_Fugazi
11-08-2005, 12:36 PM
The report No 868 has nothing to do with the search of the best roll rate.
The purpose of the present paper is to summarize rather completely the available information on lateral control, to point out the limitations of the available information, and to indicate some of the problems that remain to be solved.

Chadburn
11-08-2005, 01:28 PM
The NACA chart Tagert uses has been posted for years in this forum, going back to the time complaints were made about the P47 roll rate. (I'll do a search later if anyone is interested)

Even if the chart's purpose is not to measure roll rate, what do the x and y axis read? Roll rate in degrees per second as a function of IAS.

But I still see no reason to disagree with Tagert's disclaimer or his conclusions.

Edit: Actually, after posting this I can think of an instance where the relative perfomance would be affected. In the RAF test of the 109E the top stick travel limit would only allow the test pilot 40lbs sideways pressure at 400mph, but that would be off the NACA chart anyways.

TAGERT.
11-08-2005, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by SD_Fugazi:
Hello Tagert... Hey Fugazi!


Originally posted by SD_Fugazi:
You are certainly doing a hell of a work, Agreed 100%


Originally posted by SD_Fugazi:
but the conclusions you are reaching are not really relevant Disagree 100%


Originally posted by SD_Fugazi:
(planes are rolling faster at slow speed and slower at high speed than IRL), Agreed 100%


Originally posted by SD_Fugazi:
for the very same reason as you point out in the introduction of your observations... We do not know which force on the stick is modelized in the game, Actully, not 100% true, I think if you do a search here Oleg actully did note that the in-game limit is 50lbs (i.e. the same force used in the NACA charts).

But, even if that is not the case, *if* I was applying more or less force it would NOT explaine the difference we are seeing in the curves!

As I noted in my post, all that would do is adj the point where the peak roll-rate is, but the over all curve shape would not change. Put another way, say at 50lbs your have moved the alierons as far as they can go, applying 60 would not cause them to move any farther. But, at higher speeds when the force of the wind starts to exceed 50lbs, then *if* you could apply 60 you would be able to offset the peak roll of a bit longer, but applying 60lb when the force is only 40lb would not cause it to roll faster at slower speeds. SAVVY?


Originally posted by SD_Fugazi:
neither you know which amount of force you are pulling when testing... Not true, Im applying 100% of the force. Keep in mind, the joystick inputs are not deflection inputs, they are force inputs. That is to say when you move the joystick 100% to the rear, you are not nesesarly moving the elevator to it's max defletion.


Originally posted by SD_Fugazi:
(and for one we do not even know if it is a factor in equations that are used in that simulation). Not true, Oleg talked about this here years ago. The joystick inputs are force inputs, not position/deflection inputs. As most modern PC flights sims do.


Originally posted by SD_Fugazi:
Therefore, any conclusion drawn from comparison to a real chart are not really relevant. Disagree 100%


Originally posted by SD_Fugazi:
Not even taking into account that we do not know which planes were tested in real life (a spitfire CW... which one?), As I pointed out in my post.


Originally posted by SD_Fugazi:
or the conditions of the test from NACA (which are really making differences IRL). Not true, The stick force is clearly noted as 50lbs (except for the ZERO) and the altitude (10kft) and speeds are clearly noted, and when talking IAS it is typicaly convertd to the standard day atm.


Originally posted by SD_Fugazi:
Maybe the only thing you could safely conclude however, is if that model of a plane (in general term) is rolling faster than the other one, and if it is the same in the simulation (qualitatively not quantitatively). Disagree 100%


Originally posted by SD_Fugazi:
~S~ ~S~

TAGERT.
11-08-2005, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by Grue_:
Tagert, do you think the roll rate can be adjusted for one aircraft without affecting any of the others?

It's interesting how all of the aircraft in IL-2 show a similar trend in their roll performance data compared to NACA data. Not sure Grue, that is a question only Oleg could answer imho.

TAGERT.
11-08-2005, 09:21 PM
@Jaws2002
@Mysha76
@Kocur_
@robban75
@Hoarmurath

Thanks! And your welcome!

Gibbage1
11-09-2005, 12:22 AM
Just an FYI, even if IL2 and real life used differant stick force, the curv should match. They dont. Not even close. Also some aircraft gaining roll rate after there peak at high speed is simply not possible. Maybe in Oleg's world, but not in the real world.

TAGERT.
11-09-2005, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Just an FYI, even if IL2 and real life used differant stick force, the curv should match. They dont. Not even close. Also some aircraft gaining roll rate after there peak at high speed is simply not possible. Maybe in Oleg's world, but not in the real world. FYI, that is why I said...


Originally posted by Tagert about two posts before Gibbage1's post"
But, even if that is not the case, *if* I was applying more or less force it would NOT explaine the difference we are seeing in the curves!

As I noted in my post, all that would do is adj the point where the peak roll-rate is, but the over all curve shape would not change.
Thus Agreed 100%

thompet03
11-09-2005, 01:24 AM
btw: Where are the tracks?

Got Track??

TAGERT.
11-09-2005, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by thompet03:
btw: Where are the tracks?

Got Track?? Yes, Want Track? PM me your email and Ill send them too you.

Slickun
11-09-2005, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Go Here

NACA vs. IN-GAME ROLL RATES. (http://airwarfare.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=3062#3062)

Enjoy

I did, immensely. Thanks for all the hard work, Bud.

SD_Fugazi
11-09-2005, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Hey Fugazi!
Hi again, thanks for taking time to answer my post, and for correcting me where I am apparently wrong.


Originally posted by TAGERT. (Oct. 05)[Rollrate testing: Bf109K]:
I don€t know what the simulation stick force is limited to, but, most seem to be under the impression that it is 50lb.

Originally poster by TAGERT. (Nov. 06)[Airwarfare forum]:
Also keep in mind that the NACA 868 data was done with a 50lb stick force limit (except for the ZERO). We don€t know exactly what force Oleg chooses to simulate.

Originally posted by TAGERT. (Nov. 05):
Actully, not 100% true, I think if you do a search here Oleg actully did note that the in-game limit is 50lbs
I still had the impression that you were in the same case as I was, you were assuming that force limit was 50lbs in the game, I was assuming that you were assuming http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif...


Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Not true, Im applying 100% of the force. Keep in mind, the joystick inputs are not deflection inputs, they are force inputs. That is to say when you move the joystick 100% to the rear, you are not nesesarly moving the elevator to it's max defletion.

Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Not true, Oleg talked about this here years ago. The joystick inputs are force inputs, not position/deflection inputs. As most modern PC flights sims do.
There is deflection and deflection, deflection of the stick, which has nothing to do with anything else in a simulation (and can be done fully whatever the external conditions are), and deflection of the control surface (which is linked to external variables out of the reach of the player and to the player input). So I agree 100% with you about the fact that a 100% deflection of the stick is not necessarily producing a 100% deflection of the control surface. However the maximum deflection you will have with your stick, should not be translated to a constant force, nor should it be translated to a maximum deflection of the aileron (this is what I think). Worst, for the same amount of deflection on the stick, at a constant speed and altitude, the amount of force should be different on each airplane (physical difference between control surfaces). Then if you were to compare several planes, taking the measure from the game, pushing your stick to the maximum deflection to try to get the maximum roll rate, you would probably ends up, trying to compare apples and oranges, and that is why on each planes used in the NACA study, the force is constant, not the deflection on the controls. But once again I can be completely wrong, and we may have a model that determined that for a deflection input (let's say of 100%) you are producing a 50lbs force (at most) for each and every airplane under any condition....

TAGERT.
11-09-2005, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by SD_Fugazi:
Hi again, thanks for taking time to answer my post, and for correcting me where I am apparently wrong. My pleasure.


Originally posted by SD_Fugazi:
I still had the impression that you were in the same case as I was, you were assuming that force limit was 50lbs in the game, I was assuming that you were assuming http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif... Not totally, I seem to recal seeing the post from Oleg wrt the force being 50lb, but, I dont have the link to it. So, you could use the search function if you want, or should I say if it is working? But, before you do, remember what I pointed out, even if the force limit is not 50lb, if it is more or less, it would not change the general shape of the curve, only the roll off point would move left or right (maybe right). Therefore, in light of the FACT that most of the curves look nothing like the NACA charts, something is not matching up here.


Originally posted by SD_Fugazi:
There is deflection and deflection, Agreed 100% Agreed 100%


Originally posted by SD_Fugazi:
deflection of the stick, which has nothing to do with anything else in a simulation (and can be done fully whatever the external conditions are), and deflection of the control surface (which is linked to external variables out of the reach of the player and to the player input). So far so good..


Originally posted by SD_Fugazi:
So I agree 100% with you about the fact that a 100% deflection of the stick is not necessarily producing a 100% deflection of the control surface. Agreed 100%


Originally posted by SD_Fugazi:
However the maximum deflection you will have with your stick, should not be translated to a constant force, nor should it be translated to a maximum deflection of the aileron (this is what I think). I kind of agrew with you, The way I see it, the input force *can be constant* but, the oposing force can and will vary with air speed.

When your input is greater than the oposing force, you will obtain full travel deflection of the control surface, when your input is less than the oposing force you will not obtain full travel deflection of the control survace.


Originally posted by SD_Fugazi:
Worst, for the same amount of deflection on the stick, at a constant speed and altitude, the amount of force should be different on each airplane (physical difference between control surfaces). Then if you were to compare several planes, taking the measure from the game, pushing your stick to the maximum deflection to try to get the maximum roll rate, you would probably ends up, trying to compare apples and oranges, and that is why on each planes used in the NACA study, the force is constant, not the deflection on the controls. But once again I can be completely wrong, and we may have a model that determined that for a deflection input (let's say of 100%) you are producing a 50lbs force (at most) for each and every airplane under any condition.... Roger.. I think? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

stathem
12-20-2005, 02:14 AM
Bump, for a discussion in another thread.

Kwiatos
12-20-2005, 04:57 AM
Bump and bump for:

- CORRECT P-47 ROLL RATE AT HIGH SPEED ( like it was in 3.04)

- CORRECT SPITFIRE CW ROLL RATE

msalama
12-20-2005, 06:06 AM
Thanks Tag, top work mate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Just hoping for this to get fixed across the board at some point. Well, we'll see...

Diablo310th
12-20-2005, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Bump and bump for:

- CORRECT P-47 ROLL RATE AT HIGH SPEED ( like it was in 3.04)

- CORRECT SPITFIRE CW ROLL RATE


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

LameDuck.
12-20-2005, 11:42 AM
Thanks Tagert.

FWIW, on the subject of roll rates, I would like to see Mig-3 included, as it seems to roll as well as an early Wulf....IMHO. I don't know where we could find historic flight measurement.

Anyway, another excellent study. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Kwiatos
12-20-2005, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by Diablo310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Bump and bump for:

- CORRECT P-47 ROLL RATE AT HIGH SPEED ( like it was in 3.04)

- CORRECT SPITFIRE CW ROLL RATE


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

robban75
12-20-2005, 03:35 PM
I vote for corrected roll rates on all planes.

Gibbage1
12-20-2005, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by robban75:
I vote for corrected roll rates on all planes.

I agree. All roll rates seem far off that its just silly and pointless to ask for only 1 or 2 to be corrected. They should all match there historial curv to give aircraft there historical advantages/disadvantages.

ElAurens
12-20-2005, 03:59 PM
I am wondering how different versions of the game would compare? For instance roll rates in the original IL2, or V2.02 etc...?

Remember that the 4.XX FMs are betas for BoB. This may go some distance in the explanation of why the curves are so whacky.

Gibbage1
12-20-2005, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
I am wondering how different versions of the game would compare? For instance roll rates in the original IL2, or V2.02 etc...?


The curves and numbers in old versions was fairly close. Only a few aircraft were off by any wide margin like the P-47. Things were rather spot-on in 3.x. 4.x just screwed the roll rates up for every aircraft in the game.



Remember that the 4.XX FMs are betas for BoB. This may go some distance in the explanation of why the curves are so whacky.

Then I would say this is Tagers bug report to Oleg.

msalama
12-20-2005, 10:56 PM
I vote for corrected roll rates on all planes.

Exactly. What would be the point of fixing only some of them?

Kwiatos
12-21-2005, 03:30 AM
Be realist. I doubt Oleg will correct roll rates all planes. I will be glad if only he will fix the most hurt like Spitfire CW and P-47.

Brain32
12-23-2005, 11:24 AM
Be realist. I doubt Oleg will correct roll rates all planes. I will be glad if only he will fix the most hurt like Spitfire CW and P-47.
Lol, bias never stops http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
I vote for all roll rates being fixed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif