PDA

View Full Version : About FW190 A8 and D9 sealevel speed



Pacomo
05-09-2005, 07:23 AM
Hi all (my first post here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )
Today i was testing some planes and i came across a wierd thing:
on the crimea map I was in a FW190 A8 trying to reach its max speed on the deck; i used 100% fuel , radiator closed and, using the Boost(it has a strange name) I reached 584 kph TAS, then I switched to the FW190 D9 1944 and, using the same procedure i couldn't get past 577 kph TAS (even with the boost enabled!!!)
Is it a bug? or maybe I forgot to do something?
can someone test it?

PS: i used trim in both cases

sorry for my bad english, its not my language http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BBB_Hyperion
05-09-2005, 07:42 AM
Hmm "you is wrong(tm)" test again.

http://www.butcherbirds.de/hypesstorage/topspeedp47d27fw190d9.jpg

BBB_Hyperion
05-09-2005, 07:53 AM
Oh forget be sure to close radiator http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Pacomo
05-09-2005, 09:44 AM
ops sorry forgot radiator. what a noob http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
did 603 kph anyway
thx for help

LeadSpitter_
05-09-2005, 01:38 PM
actually your a tiny bit off hyper

560 for the p47d 27 100 fuel, 0 alt crimea with overheat before reaching 560

560 for the p-38j 100 fuel, 0 alt crimea with overheat before reaching 560

580 P-51d 100 fuel, 0 alt crimea with overheat before reaching 580, you can reach 590 for 1 second with the mustang dipping the right wing a bit at 0 alt.

590 44 190d9 and 45 190d9 100 fuel, 0 alt crimea with no overheat then a couple minutes later overheats

580 190a8 100 fuel, 0 alt crimea with no overheat then a couple minutes later overheats

give me your email address and ill send you the tracks, some are from robban75

OldMan____
05-09-2005, 02:27 PM
lready told you Lead. Do not base max speed results in ABSOLUTELY FLAT flying. Due to way computer simmulations are performed, there are entropic barriers made to avoid simmulation de-stabilization, these barries make very small force results (in force system calculation) be rounded down if they are smaller than an E value. These barries can make a plane not to pass from 5800 without a very slight dive.. even if the plane can hold 610 after making this slight dive.

Probably this kind of barrier affect other things in simmulation as well.

LeadSpitter_
05-10-2005, 12:14 AM
The tests and tracks are all at 0 alt staying at 0 alt not going to 10-20 then diving to 0, difference. I understand even with 0 alt on crimea theres a 10m difference, can you post the link to where you so called already told me?

Still theres no other way to get level flight speeds is there. So wtf are you talking about entropic barriers and where did you get that information?

Aaron_GT
05-10-2005, 03:46 AM
What old man means is that the sim does calculations like:

if (nett force < small_value) then
do nothing at all
else
change things


So if you are at speed X then if the nett force (thrust-drag) is small then it will leave things in the steady state.

If you dive down then due to the same effect you can stay at a higher speed.

The idea would be to reduce the amount of FM calculation required by going to the 'do nothing' section of code unless something is happening.

I can't say I am entirely convinced that this is the case, though, as it would have the effect of letting you go too fast if thrust is just less than drag, just as it would stop you from going faster if it was just greater than drag.

BBB_Hyperion
05-10-2005, 09:18 AM
Well your tests are inaccurate topspeed is that speed that a plane can hold its not the speed that you get from level acceleration where you cant overcome certain drag state and therefore is slower. You dont have enough Energie to increase speed but you can hold a higher speed when reached. Thats what aaron and oldman talk about that there is a simplification.

I am sure ppl want the absulute topspeed in this game to know what speed they can hold at level flight.

Here is a sea level test crimea 100 % fuel p51d 20na showing 598+- km/h at sea level and that it is able to hold it for some time flying this way until engine damage reduces speed. While after 590 it accelerates rather poor it still increases speed.

http://rapidshare.de/files/1680211/p51d_20a_topspeed.zip.html
(press free at bottom)

OldMan____
05-10-2005, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
The tests and tracks are all at 0 alt staying at 0 alt not going to 10-20 then diving to 0, difference. I understand even with 0 alt on crimea theres a 10m difference, can you post the link to where you so called already told me?

Still theres no other way to get level flight speeds is there. So wtf are you talking about entropic barriers and where did you get that information?

we already discussed that a lot. If you don't want to remember I wont go looking for it.

I take this from the fact That I implemented simmilar simmulatiosn more times than you disagreed with someone in this forum.


It is VERY EASY to reach speeds stated in post previous to yours. You told the same about someones test on P38 speed and I posted a full track showing you wrong for same reason. If YOU dont wanna reach that speed, that is your problem.

LeadSpitter_
05-11-2005, 12:32 AM
actually the tests are from robban75 all remaining at 0 alt so i guess your saying hes wrong also and im wrong.

Oldman your tests which were from max speed at 100m diving down to10-20-30 alt differences diving down then diving down to 0 climbing to 10-20-30 being so unstable. They really made me crack up they were so stupidly done to make allied ac appear to have much faster level speeds.

Thats why i told you that in the thread and many seen what you did.

Look im not here to argue robban is correct and at least his level crimea tests all stay at exactly 0 alt unlike your p38 track oldman which was diving which is why i said its complete garbage.

Robbans tests all remain at 0 alt and stay at 0 alt the whole time on crimea.

robban75 took them and sent me them thru email and I have to say hes total unbias when it comes to ingame performances.

I did tests like his all remaining at 0 alt and get the same results as him when testing.

Just becuase you have some hidden hatred for allied ac using garbage tests coming in from high alt and diving saying oh the p38 reach over 600kmph IAS etc and claiming im wrong is ridiculous so give it a rest oldman.

Robban is the one who took the tracks and I must admit the most accurate speed tests i seen.

Yours were just a joke and made me laugh with the inaccurate dive you couldnt even keep the ac level oldman and robbans tracks are by far the most accurate.

Im sure hyperion will agree, of robbans tests and the highest sustained speed achieved in level flight and can hold that speed until engine dies from overheating.

Dont be angry oldman and i dont think robban75 would like you saying his tests are.

Now whats the point of that track 580kmph sustained like i said in the mustang.

OldMan____
05-11-2005, 04:50 AM
I am not the one who produces garbage here Lead. I am the one that make a test in the same way planes are used in game. Not in a LAB style flight. And knowing how computer simmulation works, that is why I do it this way. Just because you are ignorant about this things is no reason for me to not use this knowledge.

My tests are usefull... I cannot say the same about your constant moaning about everything that anyone does that does not conform to your little "personal world, where everyone that does not agree with you is a villan with a personal hate for something".


If you dont remember my way of testing was
benefical to Allied planes!! doing so allowed P38 get 23 kph more.



And yeap.. I think completely flat flying speed test a quite uselles since no one flies like that in game. I wont ever reach 600 kph by pure horizontal ACC. Every one would dive and hold speed up. Sme reason why me , Ice and Pingu made that triple online test in combat like situation... to collect USEFULL info. In may LAB tests FW can win SPIT.. in the real way of flying tests.. hardly.

As I said.. you wont reach that speed only if you don't want ! No one pursuing you will try to keep absolutely steady just to satisfact your sense of correctness. Wake up! We are testing a game, not real planes.

Roban testst are quite remarkable effort, but unfortunately they won't tell the whole story.


You also promissed in that time a track showing a bf109G6Late same condifions of roban tests.. but flying to >580 SL. Everyone asked you to poste it.. never saw it until today.

LeadSpitter_
05-11-2005, 07:10 PM
lol you make me laugh oldman http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif First off you say my tracks are inaccurate both you and hyperion, then i tell you were they came from, robban75 now they are remarkable but wont tell us anything?

They tell us the max sustained 0 alt SL crimea speeds until the engine dies, its a very simple test, I really dont understand how it can be argued.

Your true bias colors shining thru it sounds like to a reasonable man.

Now read the topic again.

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

You also promissed in that time a track showing a bf109G6Late same condifions of roban tests.. but flying to >580 SL. Everyone asked you to poste it.. never saw it until today.

Care to show me that statement oldman becuase its false in your little il2 world stuck in your head.

In patch 3.03 I stated the 109g6 lates max speed was 560kmph IAS in which it was, maybe oleg can stop by and sort this out so you can get it thru to you.

In 3.04 it is 540kmh in the 109g6 late, you or someone said it was 530kmph staying at 0 alt, but the way your tests were for allied ac was diving from 100m to 0m climbing to 50 40 30 then back to 0 alt.

Porpoising the ac in this game unfortunatly makes the ac gain speed where in rl it would slow you down to force an overshoot.

Maybe someone from 1c can can prove it to you or ross youss can show some devicelink charts of 3.04.

OldMan____
05-11-2005, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
lol you make me laugh oldman http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif First off you say my tracks are inaccurate both you and hyperion, then i tell you were they came from, robban75 now they are remarkable but wont tell us anything?

They tell us the max sustained 0 alt SL crimea speeds until the engine dies, its a very simple test, I really dont understand how it can be argued.

Your true bias colors shining thru it sounds like to a reasonable man.

Now read the topic again.

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

You also promissed in that time a track showing a bf109G6Late same condifions of roban tests.. but flying to >580 SL. Everyone asked you to poste it.. never saw it until today.

Care to show me that statement oldman becuase its false in your little il2 world stuck in your head.

In patch 3.03 I stated the 109g6 lates max speed was 560kmph IAS in which it was, maybe oleg can stop by and sort this out so you can get it thru to you.

In 3.04 it is 540kmh in the 109g6 late, you or someone said it was 530kmph staying at 0 alt, but the way your tests were for allied ac was diving from 100m to 0m climbing to 50 40 30 then back to 0 alt.

Porpoising the ac in this game unfortunatly makes the ac gain speed where in rl it would slow you down to force an overshoot.

Maybe someone from 1c can can prove it to you or ross youss can show some devicelink charts of 3.04.

lool I am not the one that has the respect of almost no one here. You are the biased one. You cant even make peole laugh...

I remember Ivan locked the thread , but can´t remember the name. Than in same day you argued with me in GG during game when I asked about that 580 track and you said I was tupid if I could not achieve that. It was in a desert map.. and I was shot down while typing to reply to you.


Where did I changed MY statements about your posted tracks? I knew from begginning whose they were from.. you wrote it in FISRT poST.. cant you read your own post? pff pathetic.


I would like to chalange you to prove where in my statement in this threda I show any biasing. You are the most anoying thing I ever saw in a game forum ever. You exagerate everything... you change every word other people say.... are you a politician? or just sick?

Again.. these speed values are not maximum sustained speed. I do these test same way for red and blue planes.. no biasing hyre.. just targeting TRUE GAME SPEED.

If you read first post.. something it seems you dont do very often you will see the guys askes if he forgot doing something. and Yes he did.. he forgot to play by game physics rules. That is what I stated in my posts when coutering your answer. I came with usefull info.. you just attack people like an angry dog attack a postman.

LeadSpitter_
05-11-2005, 09:10 PM
^ Reread it enough said. You make up lies that I said 580 in which I never have said for the 109g6 late. Thats where you were first wrong, you got all bent up out of shape when i told you a planes max sustained sl speed is not diving from 1000m with the p38 then after the dive when it reaches such a high speed you end the track before the speed reduces.

THEN with the g6 late in your track it stayed at 10m the whole time and was 530kmh becuase your rudder was way off and you saying thats the g6 lates max sl speed.

Dont go to childish insults now your better then that oldman.

The way you did your tests was wrong, compairing a diving planes speed to a static 0 alt german acs speed which was 530kmph in your 109g6 late test.

Im done here its useless to try to explain the differences of your tracks of so called SL speed, many others seen what you did as well as me.

Oh well discussion over.

p1ngu666
05-11-2005, 09:22 PM
nearly dawn here so
actung! handbags at dawn

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

BBB_Hyperion
05-12-2005, 10:59 AM
Asked Robban about the issue.


robban75 wrote:
He was sceptical about those top speed pics I posted a while back. So I recorded some tracks and sent them to him. It showed that I could reach 579 with the P-47, 596 in the P-51 and 605 in the P-63 at SL. I never got a reply, but at least he knows it is possible. So it confuses me that he states the P-47 topspeed to be 560 and Mustangs 580 when my track clearly shows they are much faster than that. :?

Just a sidenote topspeed is measured in TAS not IAS http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

OldMan____
05-12-2005, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
^ Reread it enough said. You make up lies that I said 580 in which I never have said for the 109g6 late. Thats where you were first wrong, you got all bent up out of shape when i told you a planes max sustained sl speed is not diving from 1000m with the p38 then after the dive when it reaches such a high speed you end the track before the speed reduces.

THEN with the g6 late in your track it stayed at 10m the whole time and was 530kmh becuase your rudder was way off and you saying thats the g6 lates max sl speed.

Dont go to childish insults now your better then that oldman.

The way you did your tests was wrong, compairing a diving planes speed to a static 0 alt german acs speed which was 530kmph in your 109g6 late test.

Im done here its useless to try to explain the differences of your tracks of so called SL speed, many others seen what you did as well as me.

Oh well discussion over.

I am not the one that did the bf109G6 test that you told had rudder way off. So it seems your memory is not that good. So you are the one "telling lies" here since you don't even rememebr what was told on thread and is saying that I made something.. tsc tsc tsc. I NEVER made this test with Bf109 you are talking about that would be a different test procedure from the P38 one.

You told 580 .. I remember that... Then you disapeared from thread. Then we discussed online. Even them I made a new P38 test never changing more than 3 meters altitude and I got a speed result little bit worse than previous from mine but better tahan yours. So your tests were the biased ones since obviously they were trying to show bf109 as much faster than it was and P38 much slower.


I am a P38 pilot when I am not in a FW.. so there is no sense in myself being biased against P38...