PDA

View Full Version : A mistake in Hardball's aircraft viewer??



mortoma
06-08-2007, 03:41 PM
As a fan of Hardball's nifty aircraft viewer, I'd like to point out a possible mistake. I might be wrong, but of the three Brewsters, the F2A-2 sould be the fastest, with the B-239 and the Mk.I B-339 both about the same.

But HB has the MK.I as fast as the F2A-2. I find I can fly the F2A-2 faster at low altitudes than either of the two other ones. I have not tested max TAS at altitude, only max IAS at low level. I also seem to be able to outrun early Zekes in the F2A-2, not so in the B-339.

I know HB will see this post eventually because he reads these forums ( God only knows why ). But do you other folks agree that the white one with the telescopic sight has more speed whupass??

GerritJ9
06-08-2007, 03:58 PM
The F2A-2 was, by far, much faster than the B-239 and Buffalo Mk.1- according to Jim Maas, author of "F2A Buffalo in action" the F2A-2's top speed was 344 mph at 16,400 ft. For the Buffalo Mk.1 I have two top speed listings: 313 mph at 13,400 ft (William Green's "Warplanes of the Second World War: Fighters Volume 4) and 324 mph at 21,000 ft (Profile 217: Brewster Buffalo). The B-239 was slower still with a top speed of around 300 mph, again according to Jim Maas.
The top speeds of all three Brewsters are way out in FB/PF; I sent the relevant info to 1C ages ago but nothing has been done with it unfortunately. The F2A-2 was, historically, the fastest, so it being the fastest in the sim is correct. Other than that, 1C got the speeds hopelessly wrong.

stansdds
06-09-2007, 07:35 AM
I think the data in the viewer is directly from the game, so errors are not the fault of Hardball. Also of interest is the fact that in Il2, the British P-51C is faster than the U.S. P-51B, yet in reality the P-51B and C were identical, just built at two different facilities. I think all of the Corsairs in IL2 are identical in performance, yet in reality the F4U-1 and most -1A's lacked water injection systems, the F4U-1 could do no more than 417 mph (most probably didn't make it much past 400), The raised cockpit of the -1A induced more drag and lowered the top speed of the -1A to about 390 mph (very rarely do you see an author mention this). It was the late -1A, all -1C's and -1D's that had water injection and were capable of 425 mph, but that was in a clean condition, no bomb racks, no pylons, no rocket launching stubs.

I see tons of misinformation about WWII aircraft being published these days, seems that authors are not checking their facts very well. The historical documents are available, even online, so there is no excuse for glaring inaccuracies.

mortoma
06-09-2007, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by stansdds:
I think the data in the viewer is directly from the game, so errors are not the fault of Hardball. Also of interest is the fact that in Il2, the British P-51C is faster than the U.S. P-51B, yet in reality the P-51B and C were identical, just built at two different facilities. I think all of the Corsairs in IL2 are identical in performance, yet in reality the F4U-1 and most -1A's lacked water injection systems, the F4U-1 could do no more than 417 mph (most probably didn't make it much past 400), The raised cockpit of the -1A induced more drag and lowered the top speed of the -1A to about 390 mph (very rarely do you see an author mention this). It was the late -1A, all -1C's and -1D's that had water injection and were capable of 425 mph, but that was in a clean condition, no bomb racks, no pylons, no rocket launching stubs.

I see tons of misinformation about WWII aircraft being published these days, seems that authors are not checking their facts very well. The historical documents are available, even online, so there is no excuse for glaring inaccuracies. Ok, so then maybe he sould get his numbers from real world testing in the game then, cause in game the F2A-2 is way faster than the other two. Since a lot of folks use HB's viewer as a reference for game results, then the viewer should accurately reflect in game reality. I hope he fixes it. According to GerritJ9's sources, what we have in the game as far as actual speeds is pretty accurate. So Oleg must have given HB incorrect info then.

GerritJ9
06-10-2007, 02:10 AM
The best top speed in level flight I can get out of the B-239 and Buff Mk.1 at altitude is 350 kph IAS at 5000 metres, and 370 kph IAS out of the F2A-2 at the same altitiude. The F2A-2 should be streets faster than F4F, A6M2 and Ki.43- but in my testing, all of these are faster. And believe me, I have spent countless hours in trying every combination of setings I could think of to get more speed out of the Brewsters. Even the Ki.27 is faster! I certainly wouldn't describe the Brewsters' performance in the sim as accurate as regards top speed, though climb rate seems to be fairly accurately modelled.
So yes, the F2A-2 is faster than the other two- but not by much. Perhaps things might be corrected when the F2A-3 Oleg mentioned some time ago in his list of planned additions is added, but I'm not holding my breath.
But despite this speed deficiency, the Buff is still my favourite aeroplane.

Taylortony
06-10-2007, 02:51 AM
For what its worth, the Holy Bible has NEVER been printed yet without an error in it.

mortoma
06-10-2007, 04:57 PM
Hey I never said it was a big deal, only that if not right it should be changed. But not end of the world here. It just seems only fair to ask for a change since the whole idea of a viewer like that is to be as accurate as possible. Since it's possible to correct it, why not? HB has already corrected many mistakes. Good God, if mistakes in this flight sim itself had never been corrected in various legions of patches, we'd all be in a sorry state now wouldn't we? Perhaps you are in favor of not correcting easily corrected errors. Not me!!!
I'm glad Oleg had fixed a few dozen over the years!!

mortoma
06-10-2007, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by GerritJ9:
The best top speed in level flight I can get out of the B-239 and Buff Mk.1 at altitude is 350 kph IAS at 5000 metres, and 370 kph IAS out of the F2A-2 at the same altitiude. The F2A-2 should be streets faster than F4F, A6M2 and Ki.43- but in my testing, all of these are faster. And believe me, I have spent countless hours in trying every combination of setings I could think of to get more speed out of the Brewsters. Even the Ki.27 is faster! I certainly wouldn't describe the Brewsters' performance in the sim as accurate as regards top speed, though climb rate seems to be fairly accurately modelled.
So yes, the F2A-2 is faster than the other two- but not by much. Perhaps things might be corrected when the F2A-3 Oleg mentioned some time ago in his list of planned additions is added, but I'm not holding my breath.
But despite this speed deficiency, the Buff is still my favourite aeroplane. I find that F2A-2 is way faster at low altitudes, leaving Zekes and Oscars behind in short order. But then again, I fly 4.05, maybe it's slower now??

FltLt_HardBall
06-10-2007, 09:48 PM
Hi guys,

Thanks for your interest in my program. Most of the data is taken from IL2Compare since that is the most accurate data available to me without actually hand-testing all 300 or so aircraft in-game. Unfortunately there's no IL2Compare data for the B-339E. Historically the B-339E that Commonwealth forces used were unreliable and prone to overheating, and this may not be accounted for in the performance data on paper.

I'll have a go at hand-testing the Mk.1 Buffalo and see how it compares to the F2-A2 and the B-239. If anyone would like to help me, we can pool the data and average it out. Put it on the Crimea map and run it at sea level with overheating off (100% fuel and ammo), then at max. altitude (not sure what that is from memory, I'll check it when I get home from work.) I don't know whether it'll be possible to accurately check climb rates by hand; there are too many variables - but if someone wants to give it a try and get back to me with the details, then be my guest.

I'm currently in the process of re-working a lot of the data to come into line with Ross Youss's latest version of IL2Compare, so any info that you guys can supply me will definitely be useful.

msalama
06-10-2007, 10:19 PM
Hey guys,

Check out LesniHU's Autopilot (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=13359) if you want to do FM measurements. Might be just the ticket...

EDIT: a direct link here (http://lesnihu.wz.cz/autopilot/autopilot.html)

GerritJ9
06-11-2007, 08:19 AM
Hardball, my results for B-239 and B-339E at altitude are the same i.e. 350 kph IAS at 5000 metres altitude. I have found no difference in testing when using different maps- Crimea, Pacific Islands though I used Crimea exclusively after Oleg mentioned that 1C use this map for testing.
For the F2A-2 I got slightly more speed, 370 kph at the same altitude. Compared to published speeds, the B-239 is about 20 kph IAS slow, the B-339E about 40 kph IAS off and the F2A-2 a whopping 50 kph IAS out. Haven't done any sea level testing but will check if I have any sea level data- I seem to recall a max speed of 285 mph TAS at sea level, but can't say exactly from which source and which variant.
All results were obtained using stage 2 supercharger, 110% throttle, cooling gills closed (overheat disabled). Best results with prop pitch on auto. Be glad to help with further testing if required.

mortoma
06-11-2007, 02:13 PM
OK, I found something interesting, there's a folder in the install stuff for IL2 Compare
called "DataSpeed" and it shows in txt files the max sea level speed for the F2A-2 at 455Kph and the highest TAS at altitude aa 516Kph at 4,700 meters. The F2A-1 shows 423Kph at sea level and max TAS as 478Kph at 4,600 meters. The F2A-1 is the B-239 or Finnish version, not the Mk.I/B-339 version. So the version that is missing from IL2 compare is the Mk.I/B-339, not the B-239. This means then that your figures for F2A-2 and B-239 are correct Hardball. But the Mk.I version should probably have speeds somewhere in between.

All I know is that in the game the Mk.I seems faster than the B-239 and slower than the F2A-2 version. I have not a clue as to real life factual values though. Looks like GerritJ9 has good RL values. As to the game versus real life speeds, that's another problem. What I'd most like to see for now is the HB viewer to be in sync with the speeds we have in game.

So what needs corrected ( if possible ) in the viewer is the speed for the Mk.I The other two are jiving with the game speeds, that is if the IL2 compare is correct.

mortoma
06-11-2007, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
Hey guys,

Check out LesniHU's Autopilot (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=13359) if you want to do FM measurements. Might be just the ticket...

EDIT: a direct link here (http://lesnihu.wz.cz/autopilot/autopilot.html) Thanks, we may have to resort to that.

FltLt_HardBall
06-12-2007, 08:35 AM
Thanks for all the useful info guys. How hard is devicelink to set up? I've never used it.

Bearcat99
06-13-2007, 05:08 AM
I think that the correctness or incorrectness of HB's viewer should be decided by how the information stacks up in the sim... even if it is incorrect. Since after all... I cant speak for anyone else but for me that is the only reason why I use it. I really dont care how fast the real P-51 was in terms of comparing it with other planes etc for the most part... what I am concerned with is how it reflects in the sim that I fly 5 to 7 days a week.


Originally posted by stansdds:
I think the data in the viewer is directly from the game, so errors are not the fault of Hardball. Also of interest is the fact that in Il2, the British P-51C is faster than the U.S. P-51B, yet in reality the P-51B and C were identical, just built at two different facilities. I think all of the Corsairs in IL2 are identical in performance, yet in reality the F4U-1 and most -1A's lacked water injection systems, the F4U-1 could do no more than 417 mph (most probably didn't make it much past 400), The raised cockpit of the -1A induced more drag and lowered the top speed of the -1A to about 390 mph (very rarely do you see an author mention this). It was the late -1A, all -1C's and -1D's that had water injection and were capable of 425 mph, but that was in a clean condition, no bomb racks, no pylons, no rocket launching stubs.


Hmmm I thought the B & C were the same and it was the MkIII with the 25lb boost.. or os that 150 octane... that was faster.

CrazySchmidt
06-13-2007, 05:44 AM
Well... you had to write a difficult utility, didn't you?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

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

FltLt_HardBall
06-16-2007, 06:00 AM
So has anybody used this Autopilot utility successfully? I could do with a few pointers.

I've got it to where it's running and "waiting" but when I start the mission it never takes over control. I'm not sure if it's a problem with my router, or Norton security or IL-2 itself. Any help would be appreciated.

FltLt_HardBall
06-17-2007, 02:12 AM
Bump. Could use some help.

mortoma
06-17-2007, 01:45 PM
!Hola amigos! I have been offline for a long time due to roommate stupidity!! That, however is another story. But I'm back anyway. I will
try out that autopilot utility that apparently nobody has got to work yet.

FltLt_HardBall
06-19-2007, 04:16 PM
OK I got it working - the devicelink section has to be at the end of the IL2 conf.ini file.