PDA

View Full Version : =DIVE TESTS RESULTS= P47D wins!



TAGERT.
09-01-2004, 10:17 PM
Tonight I did a few CLASSICAL comparisons.

The P47D-27 vs. Bf109G-6 late vs. Fw190A-9

It has been said by some that "All aircraft in IL2 dive the same!"

Put another way "All aircraft have the same dive acceleration!"

The tests I did prove that is NOT the case.

Starting from 7000m at 300km/h I preformed a -25? nose pitch dive I obtained the following velocitys

VELOCITY 3D PLOT
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/divetests/DT_7k_25p_100f/DT_7k-25p_100f_3D.jpg

VELOCITY 2D PLOT
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/divetests/DT_7k_25p_100f/DT_7k-25p_100f_2D.jpg

I'm not saying these dive tests I did are validated by some actually test flight data.. But they do show that in the GAME different airplanes have different dive characteristics.. Thus debunking the "all dive the same statement".

And here is a graph of the separation vs time. The separation is found by taking the difference in velocity at each second. Than I take that difference and multiply it by a second to get the distance (separation) due to that velocity difference over a second. Then I sum up the distances over time. I also converted the distance to feet. The following graph shows the distance along the flight path, to get the X and Y componets of the distance you would have to use the pitch angle.

SEPARATION 2D PLOT
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/divetests/DT_7k_25p_100f/DT_7k-25p_100f_SEPERATION.jpg

Also these dive characteristics I recorded *tend* to fit the historical norm IMHO... That being

The P47 is one bad a$$ diving sob!

It totally leaves the 109G-6 in the dust.. But only slightly pulls away from the Fw190.. At least until parts start comming off of the 190.. Then the P47 pulls way ahead! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

For the rest of the plots you can check them out here.

PLOTS (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/divetests/DT_7k_25p_100f/DT_7k-25p_100f.pdf) <-A pdf file

Note that the elevator diflecton did not log for the 109. I have found that some aircraft dont log it for some reason. So I used the pitch angle to sync up the data.

And the orginal track files are here

ZipTRACKS (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/divetests/DT_7k_25p_100f/DT_7k-25p_100f.zip)

And here is a link to the log files I collected from the track files

ZipLOGS (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/divetests/DT_7k_25p_100f/DT_7k-25p_100f_LOGS.zip)

I used the onset of pitch to sync up the data

Enjoy

PS I still havent graphed the seperation yet.. Which will show how BIG of an effect a LITTLE speed delta has on seperation.. ie the thing the pilots noticed

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

[This message was edited by TAGERT. on Tue September 07 2004 at 11:00 PM.]

TAGERT.
09-01-2004, 10:17 PM
Tonight I did a few CLASSICAL comparisons.

The P47D-27 vs. Bf109G-6 late vs. Fw190A-9

It has been said by some that "All aircraft in IL2 dive the same!"

Put another way "All aircraft have the same dive acceleration!"

The tests I did prove that is NOT the case.

Starting from 7000m at 300km/h I preformed a -25? nose pitch dive I obtained the following velocitys

VELOCITY 3D PLOT
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/divetests/DT_7k_25p_100f/DT_7k-25p_100f_3D.jpg

VELOCITY 2D PLOT
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/divetests/DT_7k_25p_100f/DT_7k-25p_100f_2D.jpg

I'm not saying these dive tests I did are validated by some actually test flight data.. But they do show that in the GAME different airplanes have different dive characteristics.. Thus debunking the "all dive the same statement".

And here is a graph of the separation vs time. The separation is found by taking the difference in velocity at each second. Than I take that difference and multiply it by a second to get the distance (separation) due to that velocity difference over a second. Then I sum up the distances over time. I also converted the distance to feet. The following graph shows the distance along the flight path, to get the X and Y componets of the distance you would have to use the pitch angle.

SEPARATION 2D PLOT
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/divetests/DT_7k_25p_100f/DT_7k-25p_100f_SEPERATION.jpg

Also these dive characteristics I recorded *tend* to fit the historical norm IMHO... That being

The P47 is one bad a$$ diving sob!

It totally leaves the 109G-6 in the dust.. But only slightly pulls away from the Fw190.. At least until parts start comming off of the 190.. Then the P47 pulls way ahead! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

For the rest of the plots you can check them out here.

PLOTS (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/divetests/DT_7k_25p_100f/DT_7k-25p_100f.pdf) &lt;-A pdf file

Note that the elevator diflecton did not log for the 109. I have found that some aircraft dont log it for some reason. So I used the pitch angle to sync up the data.

And the orginal track files are here

ZipTRACKS (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/divetests/DT_7k_25p_100f/DT_7k-25p_100f.zip)

And here is a link to the log files I collected from the track files

ZipLOGS (http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/divetests/DT_7k_25p_100f/DT_7k-25p_100f_LOGS.zip)

I used the onset of pitch to sync up the data

Enjoy

PS I still havent graphed the seperation yet.. Which will show how BIG of an effect a LITTLE speed delta has on seperation.. ie the thing the pilots noticed

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

[This message was edited by TAGERT. on Tue September 07 2004 at 11:00 PM.]

SkyChimp
09-01-2004, 10:55 PM
Good job, Tagert. Nice graph, too.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/signature2.jpg
The fuselage is short and fat,
the plank-like wings are square and flat,
While out behind in foul or fair,
the Wildcat's tail stands fair and square.

TAGERT.
09-01-2004, 10:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Good job, Tagert. Nice graph, too.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks Chimp! I know your hard to impress.. So I take that as a big complement! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I noticed you said graph and not graphs.. Did you take a look at the link to the pdf with all the other plots? I really like the 2D vel graph with the hi/lo bars.. You can really see the speed delta between the P47 and 109. My next goal is to get the equation of those lines, find the speed delta, and calc the seperation per time.. That is the important part! The part pilots noticed!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

faustnik
09-01-2004, 11:06 PM
Yes, excellent graph! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=31)

SkyChimp
09-01-2004, 11:25 PM
GraphS. Sorry. In PDF even. Good study.

Regards,
http://members.cox.net/us.fighters/signature2.jpg
The fuselage is short and fat,
the plank-like wings are square and flat,
While out behind in foul or fair,
the Wildcat's tail stands fair and square.

robban75
09-01-2004, 11:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
It totally leaves the 109G-6 in the dust.. But only slightly pulls away from the Fw190.. At least until parts start comming off of the 190.. Then the P47 pulls way ahead! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excactly, but parts didn't start comming of in RL. In the transonic regime planes should become noseheavy, not break apart.

Here's a dive test comparing the La-7 and D-9.

La-7(left, D-9(right)

These are the best speeds I got from 3 tests. (in TAS)

7500 - 308 - 309 starting speed
7000 - 489 - 489
6500 - 618 - 616
6000 - 708 - 707
5500 - 771 - 772
5000 - 831 - 837
4500 - 888 - 900
4000 - 936 - 954
3500 - 976 - 999

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

TAGERT.
09-01-2004, 11:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
Excactly, but parts didn't start comming of in RL. In the transonic regime planes should become noseheavy, not break apart.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe.. Maybe not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
Here's a dive test comparing the La-7 and D-9.

La-7(left, D-9(right)

These are the best speeds I got from 3 tests. (in TAS)

7500 - 308 - 309 starting speed
7000 - 489 - 489
6500 - 618 - 616
6000 - 708 - 707
5500 - 771 - 772
5000 - 831 - 837
4500 - 888 - 900
4000 - 936 - 954
3500 - 976 - 999
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Got Track?

Also.. how did you verify your dive angle? No mater.. if you have the track I can find out.

On that note.. What is your point about these numbers? Are you saying they are good or bad? Ater which I would like to know what real world data you are comparing them to to make such claims.

In summary.. my only ponit is the statment that "all aircraft dive the same" is not true.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

Snoop_Baron
09-01-2004, 11:44 PM
I've been silently following this interesting debate. And just wanted to say I really appreciate all the hard work guys like Target have put in to try and find out how things really behave in this sim http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

s!

:FI:Snoop Baron
http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_01.jpg

Snoop_Baron
09-01-2004, 11:45 PM
Btw downloading those tracks now. Thanks again.

:FI:Snoop Baron
http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_01.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
09-01-2004, 11:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Maybe.. Maybe not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

a FW190 pilot on the eastern front took his plane up to its altitude ceiling & pointed nose down

the plane got so fast that the prop windmilling slowed the acceleration till it maxed out

he pulled out without much alt to spare & nothing fell off the FW190

i.e. the FW-190 didnt have a dive speed limit IRL

.

& btw , thx for posting your results Tagert

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

TAGERT.
09-02-2004, 12:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
a FW190 pilot on the eastern front took his plane up to its altitude ceiling & pointed nose down

the plane got so fast that the prop windmilling slowed the acceleration till it maxed out

he pulled out without much alt to spare & nothing fell off the FW190

i.e. the FW-190 didn't have a dive speed limit IRL<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Accounts from pilots who survived dangerous situations are easy to find.. Well easier than the accounts from pilots who were killed in dangerous situations. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But I digress.. The damage model is another topic.. The one at hand is dive speeds.. And how some *feel* they are all the same.. Nice thing about numbers.. You can graph them to go back and calibrate your *feelings* http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
& btw , thx for posting your results Tagert<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No Problem!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

clint-ruin
09-02-2004, 12:22 AM
Did I mention the bit about how you rock yet Tagert?

Also: where has that Josf guy gone to?

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Rab03
09-02-2004, 01:08 AM
Yeah, I remember a drawing showing two pilots arguing. One of them tells the other: Maybe your P-51 accelerates better, but my Jug can outfall you!

Moral of the story: When you point the nose of a Jug towards the ground, the plane flies as a brick!

See my skins at
http://server6.uploadit.org/files/JohnnyRab-SIG.jpg (http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=Rab&ts=1069857387&comefrom=credits)

BfHeFwMe
09-02-2004, 01:21 AM
Yup, confirms what I've been using all along, have to know how to dive tactically. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
09-02-2004, 01:30 AM
Hi Tagert, again nice one !

I still don't get the conclusion.

If we take your graph we can see that at about 650km/h the speed increase of the 109 is less than of the other birds.

I have measured that the time needed to reach 700km/h IAS is roughly 31-32 seconds.
Funny thing is that exactly at that point the seperation begins in your graph.

Correct me if I am wrong but when we speak of accelaration this means that Object A creates more speed in X time than Objext B in the same time.

So if I put them side by side I see:
after 5 seconds planes are next to each other
after 10 seconds they're still next to each other (I wont comment on small deviances resulting from flying different planes) and so on.
at roughly 30seconds (by that time I reached 700km/h in a bf109 if you recall). they'Re still next to each other.

So where'S the so called dive accelaration difference. As WWMAXGUNS pointed out already. Gravitation is not the only factor. It's combining of Drag/Thrust/Mass and Gravity.

On your altitude graph i see that from second 32 the dive of the 109 is becoming shallow.

I also see that the flight paths of them all are so close together that they'Re virtually the same.(with exception of the 109, but I WILL check your track !)
The only difference I see between the FW190 and the p47 is the TV-factor.Nothing else. Maybe I just don't get it but tell me the difference here http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DO you have the first graph in 2d ?
Why did your BF109 lose speed in second 32 whereas my bf109 didn't ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Nice thread. Like that ! Constructive debate

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
09-02-2004, 01:39 AM
I'm with robban.

Tag, you need to post your raw data numbers that you recorded in the test as well as how you got the numbers. Also, the fancy 3D slant view corrupts attempts to read approximate values from the graf, and that is essential for any discussion.

My limited test numbers back up robban, but he does far more testing than I. robban, if you see Josf again, tell him he should have listened to me and trusted the numbers all along. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I trust numbers alone.



Tagert, what is the horizontal axis, the "inc", represent? I have no idea.

Also, its polite to make a note to people if your posted links are pdf files. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Thanks.



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack ( AEP )

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

FA_Whisky
09-02-2004, 02:22 AM
Try testing just one plane with 25% 50% 75% and 100% fuel. I did it with the P51d once(lost the track). But i remember that it dives better with 25% http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif than with 100% fuel http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

clint-ruin
09-02-2004, 02:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FA_Whisky:
Try testing just one plane with 25% 50% 75% and 100% fuel. I did it with the P51d once(lost the track). But i remember that it dives better with 25% http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif than with 100% fuel http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


...and?

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

WWMaxGunz
09-02-2004, 04:33 AM
So I look at the PDF and I look at Alt wrt Time (inc for increment = seconds?) and
I notice the 109 curve heading lightly upward while the other two are level and beginning downward. At about 7 seconds maybe the 109 is finally starting down while the other two
are just beginning to drop, they started downward trend about second 3 or 4 if inc is
actually seconds.

Then I look at pitch and... well what was that about a couple of degrees pitch to path
difference?

The start speed is still very low for these planes. Planes like the FW and P-47 in the
comparison (IMHO a better word than test, the ADFU used comparison) climb at around
400kph not for best climb but for combat to keep from getting caught slow and because
better max climb planes don't generally get nearly their best climb so far from their
best climb speeds. So get the start speed up to 400kph if you want more real, that
is the speed withing 2mph that the ADFU comparisons started at -- it is reasonable
maintainable in maneuvers combat speed if you fly these planes right.


Neal

k5054
09-02-2004, 06:22 AM
you wanna put a P-51D in there, 100% fuel? In my calcs it beats the P-47.

VMF513_Sandman
09-02-2004, 06:25 AM
dam dude, u really put some effort into the saying 'show me proof'. not sure how to really read this, but the 'paperwork' show the jug is beatin that azz in a dive http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

TAGERT.
09-02-2004, 07:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
I'm with robban.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Congratulations! I hope the two of you are very happy together! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Tag, you need to post your raw data numbers that you recorded in the test<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually I don't *have* to do anything.. But I actually did post the raw data numbers.. They are in the track files.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
as well as how you got the numbers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Read the file called DeviceLink.txt in your IL2 directory

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Also, the fancy 3D slant view corrupts attempts to read approximate values from the graf, and that is essential for any discussion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well it is a good thing that the purpose of a 3D graph is not to read approximate values from than! I it just for big eye catching comparisons. If you want to read approximate values then look at the link I posted that has a 2D graph version.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
My limited test numbers back up robban, but he does far more testing than I. robban, if you see Josf again, tell him he should have listened to me and trusted the numbers all along. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I trust numbers alone. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah? Ok.. I think?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Tagert, what is the horizontal axis, the "inc", represent? I have no idea.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It is like time.. But I didn't want to mislead anyone and call it time. It is the row count in the spread sheet. Sense the time delta between each data sample is nearly a constant it is an easy way of plotting data.. But I'm working on a general excel template (that Ill post later for all to use) that will make use of the actual time. Because I notice that in other peoples track the times are not so constant.. But in mine they were. So being lazy and having better things to do I did it the easy way.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Also, its polite to make a note to people if your posted links are pdf files. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Thanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Jezzz no making you happy! I post the picture and you get mad.. I post a link to pictures and you get mad! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But in the future Ill do that for you! Oh.. and by the way.. Your welcome.. In that I reduced the size of the picture just for you! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

TAGERT.
09-02-2004, 07:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
Did I mention the bit about how you rock yet Tagert?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Thanks Clint! Like Chimp.. Coming from you that is a complement! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

TAGERT.
09-02-2004, 07:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FA_Whisky:
Try testing just one plane with 25% 50% 75% and 100% fuel. I did it with the P51d once(lost the track). But i remember that it dives better with 25% http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif than with 100% fuel http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Could do that.. But that is not what I set out to do.. What I set out to do was to see if the statement that "All the aircraft in IL2 dive the same" is true or false. My tests show that it is false.

And just to be clear.. I'm not saying the dive speed I obtained are real or not real.. That is to say I don't have any proof to make such a claim.. So I didn't make it. All I'm saying is that different aircraft in IL2 do dive differently.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

LEXX_Luthor
09-02-2004, 07:44 PM
Post the numbers here.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack ( AEP )

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

TAGERT.
09-02-2004, 07:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
you wanna put a P-51D in there, 100% fuel? In my calcs it beats the P-47.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Really? That kind of goes againts the general historical notion that the P47 was a better diver.. But at least if you beat the P47 with a P51 it further shows that NOT all aircraft in the game dive the same.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

TAGERT.
09-02-2004, 08:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
So I look at the PDF and I look at Alt wrt Time (inc for increment = seconds?) and I notice the 109 curve heading lightly upward while the other two are level and beginning downward.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well.. as with real test pilots there is hallways going to be a small amount of error.. Physics wise all that should mater is..

The initial alt (potential energy)
The initial vel (kinetic energy)

I think I *see* what your thinking though.. Correct me if I'm wrong.. But I think your suggesting that one was climbing and had to push over fighting that upward motion and the others were diving.. thus nothing to fight.. Or worse yet that the others were diving from above and just passed through that point.. That is why I included the track files so people could *see* what was going on. From the track it is pretty clear that was not the case.. The only adj in alt were subtle and slight in an attempt to get them all starting at 7k and 300km/h.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
At about 7 seconds maybe the 109 is finally starting down while the other two are just beginning to drop, they started downward trend about second 3 or 4 if inc is actually seconds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Emmm kind of.. But also take a look at the pitch in and around the 7 sec mark.. You will note that the other planes were actually pitched up and the 109 was pitched down.. So even though the alt of the 109 was slightly above the others.. The 109 was pointing down more and the others pointing up.. Basically the reverse of what was assumed by just looking at the alt graph.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Then I look at pitch and... well what was that about a couple of degrees pitch to path difference?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It was about how it can effect the dive speed.. But I did two tests in the P47.. The first the pitch was way under the other two.. So I ran it again and pushed it a little harder this time.. That is the data I used.. But it didn't really change the results.. So I just stuck with it. In conclusions.. As long as the rate of pitch change is close.. As it is in these tests a little spike does not seem to effect the ultimate outcome.. But further testing will be needed to see if that is the case. As I noted I only did 2 with regards to that issue.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
The start speed is still very low for these planes. Planes like the FW and P-47 in the comparison (IMHO a better word than test, the ADFU used comparison) climb at around 400kph not for best climb but for combat to keep from getting caught slow and because better max climb planes don't generally get nearly their best climb so far from their best climb speeds. So get the start speed up to 400kph if you want more real, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My goal was not to set up a *real* combat situation.. i.e. I was not concerned about getting jumped by an enemy aircraft during my test! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif My goal was to see if "All aircraft in the game dive the same". From my tests I think it is safe to say that is not true.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
that is the speed withing 2mph that the ADFU comparisons started at -- it is reasonable maintainable in maneuvers combat speed if you fly these planes right.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What is ADFU?

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

TAGERT.
09-02-2004, 10:57 PM
With regards to "inc"

It is basically time in seconds.. I check it tonight just to make sure.. Each data point is based of the "tod" value. The tod is a float number where the hole number is the hour of day and the decimal part is the fractional part of an hour. So to get seconds I take the difference between two data points and multiply it by 3600.

Problem is every once in awhile a data point gets delayed.. That is to say it took a little longer to write it to the log file.. But the *time* the data point was sampled is still correct. So if you calc and use the actual time.. You will get a flat spot in your data plots.. Which shouldn't be there.. because the LAG was not in the sampling of the data point, but in the time it took to log it to file. So it is best to just plot by row numbers (inc) and check your time just to ensure it is relatively constant. If it aint.. You will see some funny things happening to your data.

So, basically the inc axis is seconds.. For these tests anyways.. In the future I will take out *inc* and just put the actuly time units. I just didnt want to put time until I was sure it was actually equal to it.

[This message was edited by TAGERT. on Thu September 02 2004 at 10:15 PM.]

TAGERT.
09-02-2004, 11:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
Hi Tagert, again nice one !<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
I still don't get the conclusion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What part of it are you having trouble with? Simple really.. It has been said that all aircraft in IL2 dive exactly the same. Which imply a simple flight model.. or a bug in a complex one. Going in I didn't really know for sure if it was true or not.. All I did know is that all the tests and number that have been presented prior to my tests didn't prove it one way or another IMHO. So I set out to do it myself, and I think it is safe to say that the statement is NOT true.. In that the Bf109G-10 have a very different dive relative to the P47D-27 and Fw190A-9

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
If we take your graph we can see that at about 650km/h the speed increase of the 109 is less than of the other birds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which graph? I have several.. But Ill assume your talking about the velocity vs. inc and not velocity vs alt. With that said.. What are you saying? The speed increase? You mean the speed difference? (speed delta). Assuming that is the case, the speed difference starts way before 650km/h! It starts at the 300km/h mark and continues to grow all the way to the end of the test. As for the 190 that is not the case.. The 190 actually starts to MATCH the P47 in speed near the end.. but maybe that is because it weighs less due to all the parts flying off! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Also keep THIS in mind.. The graph shows the 190 starts to MATCH the P47 speed near the end of the test... DON'T CONFUSE THAT WITH DISTANCE!! That is to say it did NOT CATCH UP TO THE P47! The distance the P47 put between the 190 and itself early on still remains! The 190 would have to go faster than the P47 for a long period of time to catch it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
I have measured that the time needed to reach 700km/h IAS is roughly 31-32 seconds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok, if you say so.. Just how did you calc that?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
Funny thing is that exactly at that point the separation begins in your graph. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No.. as I pointed out.. Take a look at the 2D plot of velocity. You can see that the speed DIFFERENCE starts at the beginning and continues to all the way to the end for the Bf109 and for most of it for the Fw190.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
Correct me if I am wrong but when we speak of acceleration this means that Object A creates more speed in X time than Objext B in the same time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
So if I put them side by side I see:
after 5 seconds planes are next to each other
after 10 seconds they're still next to each other (I wont comment on small deviances resulting from flying different planes) and so on.
at roughly 30seconds (by that time I reached 700km/h in a bf109 if you recall). they'Re still next to each other.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, No and No. Again, your confusing POSITION with VELOCITY! When you say NEXT TO EACH OTHER your talking position.. If you had said..

after 5 seconds planes are near the same speed
after 10 seconds they're still near the same speed
at roughly 30seconds they are still near the same speed

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/divetests/DT_7k_25p_100f/DT_7k-25p_100f_2D.jpg

Then you would be more correct.. Especially for the Fw190 vs P47D.. Not true for the 109. But your still *missing* the point!! A SPEED DIFFERENCE will cause the two objects to SEPARATE from each other. That is to say if your going 60mph on the freeway and a guy passes you at 70mph the SPEED DIFFERENCE is actually small... BUT! You will notice that the faster car is starting to move away from you.. i.e. the two cars are SEPARATING! Measure the DISTANCE that little SPEED DIFFERENCE causes! It does not take much speed difference to make a lot of distance! Maybe this example will drive it home once and for all.. Forget the two cars moving at 60mph and 70mph.. Imagine your standing on the side of the road and a car goes by you at 10mph.. You standing still now.. But the SPEED DIFFERENCE IS STILL THE SAME! 10mph! Now stand there for 5 seconds and notice how far away that car is! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
So where'S the so called dive acceleration difference.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It is there.. but you just don't seem to see it. The SLOPE of the Bf109 velocity graph vs the SLOPE of the P47 graph is basically the acceleration difference

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
As WWMAXGUNS pointed out already. Gravitation is not the only factor. It's combining of Drag/Thrust/Mass and Gravity.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Never said it was the only, I simply pointed out it was the major player in dives

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
On your altitude graph i see that from second 32 the dive of the 109 is becoming shallow.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which graph? Shallow? Are you talking about the SLOPE of the velocity curve.. Or the pitch? As for pitch at 32 it is the same as the rest.. As for the slope of the velocity graph, the SLOPE is LESS THAN the other two which means the ACCELERATION is less than the other two

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
I also see that the flight paths of them all are so close together that they'Re virtually the same. (with exception of the 109, but I WILL check your track !)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>flight paths? Please.. I went to a lot of trouble generating those graphs.. If your going to reference one give me the title of the one you talking about. Ill assumed your talking about the alt vs vel. If so the 190 and P47 are close.. But don't confuse CLOSE in VELOCITY to mean CLOSE POSITION wise!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
The only difference I see between the FW190 and the p47 is the TV-factor. Nothing else.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Look again! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
Maybe I just don't get it but tell me the difference here http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>See above.. your very close.. The only thing your missing really is that CLOSE in VELOCITY is not CLOSE IN POSITION! Like the two cars on the freeway.. They are CLOSE in VELOCITY but after just a few seconds they are NOT CLOSE IN POSITION.. And they get farther and farther apart every second on the second! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
DO you have the first graph in 2d ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes see the link to the pdf

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
Why did your BF109 lose speed in second 32 whereas my bf109 didn't ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It didn't loose any speed.. it never had it to loose! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
Nice thread. Like that ! Constructive debate<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

Loki-PF
09-02-2004, 11:35 PM
Tagert,

Salute! Nice Job. I can't say it enough.... There is no sense arguing about FM's in the game until we understand what the "GAME ENGINE" is really telling us. I am somewhat new to this community but to me it seems like you've found the golden goose for acquiring data, namely the device link thing. Who knew!? (My apologies to anyone reading this that had discovered device link before or mentioned it as a means of a testing method.)

On the subject at hand though.... I don't think some of the nay-sayers are going to come around until you come up with a graph that shows a more piloty view, like relative position of plane A versus plane B.

Once again, great work!
Loki out

TAGERT.
09-02-2004, 11:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Loki-PF:
Tagert,

Salute! Nice Job. I can't say it enough.... There is no sense arguing about FM's in the game until we understand what the "GAME ENGINE" is really telling us. I am somewhat new to this community but to me it seems like you've found the golden goose for acquiring data, namely the device link thing. Who knew!? (My apologies to anyone reading this that had discovered device link before or mentioned it as a means of a testing method.)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes.. a few folks found it along time ago.. But the real purpose of device link was to use it to drive realistic cockpits.. That is to say some people have real levers and guages and the works! DeviceLink allows you to talk to the program to READ things.. like the speed guage.. Which in turn you could use it to set values on your real cockpit speed guage..

Or say you build your own flaps lever.. You could use DeviceLink to take those settings from your home build lever and WRITE them to the game.. thus changing the flap settings..

All kinds of neat stuff really! In theory you could build a real life looking cockpit with all the buttons, switches and ect that in turn would work in the game.

And I can not even take credit for using it to analize data.. There are a couple of guys who wrote some realy good programs to do just that! As a mater of fact Im using UDPSpeed to collect data.. Once it is collected then you can plot the data in something like excel. But I am one of the few that realised it also works during TRAK file play back.. Which really comes in handy to look at what peopel did.. or didnt do when they cried wolf.. I mean bug! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Loki-PF:
On the subject at hand though.... I don't think some of the nay-sayers are going to come around until you come up with a graph that shows a more piloty view, like relative position of plane A versus plane B.

Once again, great work!
Loki out<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes.. I think your correct.. That is my goal for this weekend.. But for guys who are use to looking at graphs.. They can get a *feel* for the SEPERATION by noticing that the AREA under the VELOCITY graphs is the POSITION.. So if you take the difference between the two areas you will have the SEPERATION between the two aircrat. Hmmmm is that right? Integrate velocity and you get position.. Yeah.. thats right! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

JG14_Josf
09-03-2004, 04:07 AM
Clint-ruin wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Also: where has that Josf guy gone to? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Clint-ruin,

I read two books one titled "The Lucifer Principle" and the other titled the "Global Brain". I am currently working on subjects concerning those books on a forum started by the author Howard Bloom.

It has also been very long since ORR went down and off the net on my end.

Lexx_Luthor wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>if you see Josf again, tell him he should have listened to me and trusted the numbers all along <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lexx_Luthor,

Numbers are made by whom: test pilots?

I put more weight in combat pilot accounts because they are closer to the action.

The most valid information according to Robert Shaw comes from comparative testing if the idea is to find out how the planes actually stack up against each other and that is sound advice in my opinion too.

Here is one such example of comparative testing:

http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/p47-fw190.jpg

Note:
(a) Acceleration:
(1) 210 m.p.h to 275 m.p.h at 2000 ft: The FW-190 accelerated faster than P-47 and gained approximately 200yards.

This post is a typical case of the Man of Straw (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Straw+Man) argument.

Let me PLEASE make something perfectly clear. I do not have a personal problem with people on this board. I contend with the information being written and I do so with some obvious emotion. I try, very much, to control emotion and see the text as being words from no one in particular. Words have meaning and when the words convey what looks like error to me then I respond to identify what I see as error.

In the past there has been a whole lot of discussion on the subject of acceleration.

Note: We are now working with a new flight model. If anyone can prove exactly what was changed in the flight model then please identify those exact changes, if that is not possible then a problem exists when comparing new tests with the new game version against old tests made by previous versions of the game.

If conclusions were drawn from tests conducted with old versions of the game then how can those conclusions be valid for the new version of the game?

Who has claimed the following and for which version of the game has the following claims been made?:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"All aircraft in IL2 dive the same!"
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"All aircraft have the same dive acceleration!"
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The first claim is very different from the second claim. If the gap between the first and second claim is not recognized then I see a problem.

For example Spitfire may have actually accelerated faster initially than a P-47 in reality and at some point in the dive perhaps at 500kph the P-47 begins to accelerate faster than the Spitfire. This is an dive acceleration difference that may have actually existed in reality (evidence does suggest that this is a fact) and this may or may not be a fact in the current version of the game. This was not a fact in a previous version of the game and led to conclusions like:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"All aircraft have the same dive acceleration!"
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Note: the last quote can be taken out of context.

Example:

All aircraft have the same dive acceleration up until one plane slows down due to the games damage modeling (It shakes and slows down before comming appart).

So my observation is that there are no straw men who have made this claim:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"All aircraft in IL2 dive the same!"
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certainly not that I am aware of and certainly not for the current version of the game.

Why, you may ask, is it a concern of mine, at all, to post my opinion on this subject?

If combat exists between a plane that has an acceleration advantage over another plane between 200kph and 400kph and the combat performed by those two pilots during that fight is kept in between the speed range of say 200kph and 400kph then the plane with the acceleration avantage will have a combat performance advantage. If no such acceleration advantage exists then no such combat advantage exists.

If the combat between two planes is instead conducted in the 400kph to 700kph speed range and in that range the other plane has an acceleration advantage then the combat advantage will swing to the other plane as the combat speeds are increased.

Acceleration is a vital part of Energy Tactics.

If real planes had acceleration differences then real planes had performance advantages that could be utilized in an energy fight with energy tactics. If simulated planes do not have said acceleration differences then simulated planes cannot use those performance advantages that were utilized in energy fights with energy tactics.

I do not know who made this claim:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"All aircraft in IL2 dive the same!"
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was not me.

If anyone really wants to find out just how well one plane does actually stack up against another plane then I suggest using Robert Shaws advice and do comparative testing.

Like this one:

Ring's web page (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/p47-fw190-2.jpg)
Note:
(c) Diving:
(1) 10,000 feet to 3,000 feet, starting at 250 m.p.h., diving at angle of 65 deg. with constant throttle setting. The FW-190 pulled away rapidly at the beginning but the P-47 passed it at 3,000 feet with a much greater speed and had a decidedly better angle of pull out

As to my opinion of the current version of the game:

It is different than the last version of the game and it sure would be nice to know what exactly has changed.

Anyone have a current version of IL2compare?

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
09-03-2004, 04:34 AM
Hi Josf.

About the topic "All planes in IL2 dive the same"....

For the papers. I've picked up the argument weeks ago in our internal forum and on several other boards and of course online.

during the course, I started investigating and maybe during the course of one thread I mistyped it the same way (sorry for that..).
However, what I wanted to test (why all the stuff started) is:
"All planes have the same dive accelaration" (in il2 at least).
This was my claim and tagert along with WWmaxgunz and others participated in either proving me wrong or adding arguments for both sides.

the test begin with a simple track showing that three planes of different character reached 700km/h during a dive in a damn similar time.

Since the tests were made under bad conditions (many factors disturbing the results-&gt; Angle of dive, used trima nd proppitch etc.)
I redid the tests with cockpit OF for the following planes:
P51D, P47D,P38L,SpitIXe, BF109k4, FW190A9 and FW190D9.
I started at about 5k alt and dived at 20? full power(Boost) etc. (no trim and no proppitch if the plane possesed automation).
I then counted the seconds (via Track) to reach 700km/h. (700km/h because a lot of planes have their Terminal velocity in that area or start shaking etc.)
My results so far WERE that all these planes reach 700km/h virtually the same in about 31-32 seconds which may be due to some wrong stick input from me etc. However as you see there's NO big difference. (tracks are posted...)

Tagert has done hell of a job to analyse this and made himself a test with a P47D vs. a BF109g6late if i recall right to show that the P47D wins (although I still fail to see that http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif but I have taken notes and will see it again, no need to bash me Tagert... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ).

As I've stated somewhere else I've just tried to USE what I've read (Osprey documenatation, stuff posted by other, various combatreports) and utilise this.

Again, I am not testing Terminal velocity an d the advantage of a plane withstanding a higher Terminal Velocity os obvious.
What I wanted to show is that regardless of your Terminal velocity your plane wont accelarate faster during a dive regardless of your thrust/drag/weight. (again "Accelarate").

Speaking clearly:
when both planes dive next to each other with the same angle I want to see that there're differences because various reports and comparative testings indicate this has been the case but I fail to see that here in this game. The only thing I see in this game is, if I dive until the TV of the other plane is reached or his controls get jerky THEN and only THEN I may get away because he powers down or breaks off the pursuit and NOT because some planes can build up speed during a dive BETTER than others...

*running into shelter before Tagert fires http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

!S!

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

JG14_Josf
09-03-2004, 04:53 AM
JaBo_HH--Gotcha,

Thank you very much for the update.

I just found out that my favorites link to this forum was wrong, so I've missed much.

So, you are the Straw Man and you do see my point.

Acceleration is not the same thing as terminal dive speed.

Do you realize the importance of an acceleration advantage in energy tactics?

If not I have a few references to illustrate this important point and they are taken from Robert Shaw's excellent book titled: Fighter Combat.

Thanks again for the clarification.

Joe

OldMan____
09-03-2004, 05:25 AM
If you look closely to your graphics you will see in pitch that 109 started with a higher pitch.. and took a fraction of time more to start diving. In that moment P47 and FW got the advantage they kept until 650 kph. Look at speed graph and you will see the advantage is constant. So no diferent acceleration.


Diff acc in dives exist in game, but only at very shallow angles and above 500 kph. And even then are very small.

If brute force does not solve your problem... you are not using enough!

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
09-03-2004, 05:32 AM
Hi JG14_Josf,

np man !

Yes I realize the advantage of accelaration in energy tactics. I happen to be a dedicated 190 pilot (mainlfy A and F series) and as such I think I know that.
The whol reason I started all this is that I want to see whther somebody can show whether there's different acelaration in dives PRESENT or NOT.
Same as when youR'e checking cars for
Car x: 0-100km/h : 5 seconds
car y: 0-100km/h : 6 seconds

Accelarations are vital when it comes to energy fighting. Defensively you can use this to either get seperation or easier reach cornerspeeds, vital for you being effective in combat. There's a magnitude of possibilities from here on. etc.

the point is: do other people see the same ?
Do they know what I am pointing at ?
Do they realise that this is as important as zoomclimbs, E-rentention and turn-rates ?
Do they realise what you're pointing at ?

!S! nice to have you here http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

WUAF_Badsight
09-03-2004, 05:34 AM
what about noseing over & going stright down ?

or even just a very steep dive angle ?

i see planes in FB diving very similer to negate it as a tactic to escape

i can lose/gain distance for sure but its feck all

from reading pilot accounts it seemed a viable tactic

DFing in FB shows the opposite , you just give up alt & usually if your bandit is left alone to chase & fight he can with ease stick with you

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

609IAP_Recon
09-03-2004, 05:36 AM
Thanks Tagert for your work on this - maybe CrazyIvan can make it a sticky... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S!
609IAP_Recon
http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg


Full Real Virtual Online War: Forgotten Skies (http://www.forgottenskies.com)

609IAP_Recon
09-03-2004, 05:49 AM
I'm a novice, but I like reading these threads to learn.

Acceleration: Is there going to be THAT big of a difference in the initial acceleration of a 109 vs p47 ? I gather that initially, you wouldn't see that big of a difference - but then Tagerts charts show that the difference is about the gained speed through the dive.

Even in stories with Robert Johnson, the initial acceleration isn't near the importance as it is that he knows he will catch a 109 diving to the deck - and these charts would seem to back that up.

My 2 cents - I should have taken more physics classes in school http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S!
609IAP_Recon
http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg


Full Real Virtual Online War: Forgotten Skies (http://www.forgottenskies.com)

WWMaxGunz
09-03-2004, 06:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
So I look at the PDF and I look at Alt wrt Time (inc for increment = seconds?) and I notice the 109 curve heading lightly upward while the other two are level and beginning downward.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well.. as with real test pilots there is hallways going to be a small amount of error.. Physics wise all that should mater is..

The initial alt (potential energy)
The initial vel (kinetic energy)

I think I *see* what your thinking though.. Correct me if I'm wrong.. But I think your suggesting that one was climbing and had to push over fighting that upward motion and the others were diving.. thus nothing to fight.. Or worse yet that the others were diving from above and just passed through that point.. That is why I included the track files so people could *see* what was going on. From the track it is pretty clear that was not the case.. The only adj in alt were subtle and slight in an attempt to get them all starting at 7k and 300km/h.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
At about 7 seconds maybe the 109 is finally starting down while the other two are just beginning to drop, they started downward trend about second 3 or 4 if inc is actually seconds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Emmm kind of.. But also take a look at the pitch in and around the 7 sec mark.. You will note that the other planes were actually pitched up and the 109 was pitched down.. So even though the alt of the 109 was slightly above the others.. The 109 was pointing down more and the others pointing up.. Basically the reverse of what was assumed by just looking at the alt graph.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Then I look at pitch and... well what was that about a couple of degrees pitch to path difference?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It was about how it can effect the dive speed.. But I did two tests in the P47.. The first the pitch was way under the other two.. So I ran it again and pushed it a little harder this time.. That is the data I used.. But it didn't really change the results.. So I just stuck with it. In conclusions.. As long as the rate of pitch change is close.. As it is in these tests a little spike does not seem to effect the ultimate outcome.. But further testing will be needed to see if that is the case. As I noted I only did 2 with regards to that issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I look again at your graphs in the PDF you posted which I have saved now.

KE and PE are real but we are looking at differences in time or speeds and distances.

So I look at the altitude curves on the 2D a few pages down and the 109 starts with a rise
that continues even as the other two are beginning to push over. 109 doesn't start to drop
until seconds after the other two. This gives the 109 a slower start wrt time as the first
quite a few seconds as two have the power of gravity over time while the 109 does not.

Suggest you clip and adjust the graphs to start each plane at the 350kph time of each to
cut differences in start wobbles, etc, and replot. There is still divergence but you will
get cleaner comparisons of purely only dive acceleration at speed.

A plot of accel vs velocity would be nice except that air density changes with drop in
alt will tend to dampen the later changes, it would require many flights at different start
speeds although for a short distance maybe 1km drop an entire speed range could be covered.
That would also need to be all the same dive angle and data good only for that angle... it
is a hopeless lot of work, IMO.

Collecting data here running UDPSpeed (still need to get a series of dll's to run Hyperions
program) and getting the stutters. I collect on playback only. Then it occurs to me that
while the sim, I assume, does not move while the stutters are happening (else the track would
not play back right, being made without the bottom alts would differ for one so I think it
is a safe assumption) but the data collector timer does keep moving so it throws my data off
as a second in RT of the collector is NOT a second in the sim, if you follow me. The sim
second does not count the time of pause of the stutter made when the collector logs the
data.

I can hope Hyperions' prog makes less or no pausing during collection. I have noted from
people writing UDP interfaces that DeviceLink is inherently rough on the framerates. Using
WWSensei's DevLink wrapper I may be able to make a collector that writes to memory and avoids
the comparatively slow drive interface, but I'm not real hopeful. I need good time match
of sim to collected data, I have a good chunk of working post-processor finished and I want
to have it crank out approximate positions with time. It's even got an editor to trim the
data down to desired sections.

I see one output of DeviceLink is game time of day.... I think that this will be salvation
of accuracy esp if I get a regular stutter and can adjust collection interval to get clean
game seconds. Good thing I check. (remembering the Chebornik sketch of C&C)


Neal

Willey
09-03-2004, 06:21 AM
Sorry, but WHAT THE HELL is an "inc"??? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

TAGERT.
09-03-2004, 10:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Numbers are made by whom: test pilots?

I put more weight in combat pilot accounts because they are closer to the action.

The most valid information according to Robert Shaw comes from comparative testing if the idea is to find out how the planes actually stack up against each other and that is sound advice in my opinion too.

Here is one such example of comparative testing:

http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/p47-fw190.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I find it odd that you disparage test pilot accounts and say you put more weight in combat pilot accounts.. And then post a link to a test pilot like report that clearly states that the Fw190 pilot had NO COMBAT EXPERIENCE. Typically combat pilot accounts are short on details and long on bias.. That test you posted is not a typical combat pilot report, but more of a test pilot report.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

TAGERT.
09-03-2004, 10:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
If you look closely to your graphics you will see in pitch that 109 started with a higher pitch..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes.. As I pointed out to Max.. The 109 did have a slight adv at the start in that it was pointing DOWN MORE than the others.. i.e. what you call higher pitch.. But is actually 180 out of your argument! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
and took a fraction of time more to start diving.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes it did.. Even though it was already pointing down more than the others it still took a little longer.. but mostly because it was just a few feet higher in alt.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
In that moment P47 and FW got the advantage<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes it appears the 190 and 47 dive better

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
they kept until 650 kph.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Until? No.. they not only maintain and adv over the 109 they increased it!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
Look at speed graph and you will see the advantage is constant. So no diferent acceleration.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I beg to differ, the SLOPES of the velocity curves (i.e. acceleration) are clearly different from start to finish and increasing with time.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by OldMan____:
Diff acc in dives exist in game, but only at very shallow angles and above 500 kph. And even then are very small.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes gravity is the major player.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

TAGERT.
09-03-2004, 10:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Recon:
I'm a novice, but I like reading these threads to learn.

Acceleration: Is there going to be THAT big of a difference in the initial acceleration of a 109 vs p47 ? I gather that initially, you wouldn't see that big of a difference - but then Tagerts charts show that the difference is about the gained speed through the dive.

Even in stories with Robert Johnson, the initial acceleration isn't near the importance as it is that he knows he will catch a 109 diving to the deck - and these charts would seem to back that up.

My 2 cents - I should have taken more physics classes in school http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S!
609IAP_Recon
http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg


Full Real Virtual Online War: http://www.forgottenskies.com<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

Kartveli
09-03-2004, 11:13 AM
Nice work, TAGART, but when it comes down to brass tacks, theres only one thig that matters to me....since the 204 patch, I started flying the Jug again...now, it used to be the case where I would dive from ANY other type, from any alt., and they would stick with me all the way down, unless the speed reached, say, over 700kph, in which case, especially at lower alts., they would break up....but NOW, when I dive that Jug, she will SEPARATE from any other type...

I dont care how, or why, or what numbers are involved, just that my Jug can, while being historically accurate, pull away from any other type in the dive, and retain that get-away E at low alt, or leveling out, or even often on the zoom climb

The Jug is a joy to fight n fly in now, and every time I take off in one, I am confident that I willl come back with kills under my belt, and no ammo left, or at least, come back to base at all, even if in a sorry state

TAGERT.
09-03-2004, 11:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I look again at your graphs in the PDF you posted which I have saved now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>WOW! I did something someone actually considers worth saving! Where is my diary! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
KE and PE are real but we are looking at differences in time or speeds and distances.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True.. I just pointed it out to show that +/- a little alt or speed does exist, so there will be a little +/- on KE and PE. But the little differences does not account for the large difference between the 109 and others.. But.. in the P47 vs Fw190 they are so close that it could mater.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
So I look at the altitude curves on the 2D a few pages down and the 109 starts with a rise that continues even as the other two are beginning to push over.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stop right here for a moment.. Note that even though the 109 is a little higher than the others (i.e. rise that continues) it is actually pointed down more than the other two at the start. So.. even though the other two were lower and loosing alt and pointed up (kind of stall like) the 109 was a little higher and pointing down.. So it ain't perfect.. but I think the two are a wash and may cancel.. But either way it would not account for the velocity difference between the 109 and the others as the dive proceeded.. A late start would and could effect the separation a bit.. but not the velocity profiles.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
109 doesn't start to drop until seconds after the other two. This gives the 109 a slower start wrt time as the first quite a few seconds as two have the power of gravity over time while the 109 does not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You could look at this another way too.. the initial dive of the 109 sucks! Even though it was pointed down more than the others it still took it awhile to start to fall.. Maybe this is where some of that weight plays into it? The fat man 47 wants to fall.. and the light 109 wants to fly! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Suggest you clip and adjust the graphs to start each plane at the 350kph time of each to cut differences in start wobbles, etc, and replot. There is still divergence but you will get cleaner comparisons of purely only dive acceleration at speed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well.. I could.. But it would eliminate something that we may not want to.. Maybe this initial slow start of the 109 is right? Maybe it ain't? I don't know for sure.. All I do know if the pitch down of the 109 was more than the others.. yet it didn't start diving sooner. Basically we need to do more of a statical thing here and get about 10 dives for each plane.. Than we will be able to say more about this issue.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
A plot of accel vs velocity would be nice except that air density changes with drop in alt will tend to dampen the later changes, it would require many flights at different start speeds although for a short distance maybe 1km drop an entire speed range could be covered.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True.. but keep in mind my initial goal.. It was to see if they all dive the same.. They clearly don't. As for hitting the historical correct numbers.. I have no clue! Only because I don't have any real dive test data to math it up to.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
That would also need to be all the same dive angle and data good only for that angle... it is a hopeless lot of work, IMO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes.. More that I think I'm willing to do! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif We can argue about that initial start of the 109.. But even if it did start just like the others it would NOT account for the differences in the slopes of velocity curves. The only thing a late start would effect is the separation between aircraft. Put another way, I could deal a few of the data points at the begging of the 109.. This would shift the whole 109 graphs left in time.. BUT it would NOT change the slopes of any of the graphs. As I pointed out before I like to sync up the data to the initial large deflection of the elevator.. Because that is the indication that the PILOT WANTED TO START.. But the 109 didn't log that data.. So I had to use the pitch angle.. That is kind of bad because it syncs the data to when the PLANE DECIDED TO START.. not when the PILOT WANTED TO START! That is to say there can be some lag between when the pilot paused the stick forward and when the plane actually started to move downwards.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Collecting data here running UDPSpeed (still need to get a series of dll's to run Hyperions program) and getting the stutters. I collect on playback only. Then it occurs to me that while the sim, I assume, does not move while the stutters are happening (else the track would not play back right, being made without the bottom alts would differ for one so I think it is a safe assumption) but the data collector timer does keep moving so it throws my data off as a second in RT of the collector is NOT a second in the sim, if you follow me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Emmm I think so.. But not sure if I do. One thing I should point out here.. The LOGGING of data while you fly is more often than during play back.. That is to say you collect more data samples while your doing the test than you do when you just playback a track. The playback of the track seems to be locked to 1 sec data logging.. Where as the logging during flight seems to be affected by the fwllowing param in the UPDSpeed.ini file

[Main]
TimerMS=1001

I think the purpose of this is to allow you to force the gauges to update faster during flight.. That is to say better resolution so the needles don't bounce around and move more fluidly. But I don't give a rip about that.. to a point.. During test flight (making the track) I just need a good enough update so I can read the pitch. And sense the play back of the track does not seem to be effected by that setting above and is locked into 1s intervals I *think* you could get rid of the stutters by making the TimerMS thing larger.. Prob is it wont update as fast.

here is what you can do.. UDPSpeed does not care where you put it, or the directory name, or how many copys you have on your hardrive. It does not install itself like a lot of windows programs do that have files all over the place and change your registry. So make to copys of the UDPSpeed directory and call one "playback" and the other "test flight" In the test flight dir TURN OFF ALL LOGGING!!! You don't needed it during flight! And only enable the gauges you want to see.. That should speed things up and get rid of some of the stutters.. Then when you play back the track use the playback version where it just Logs everything to a file.. You don't even need to have any gauges displayed.. All you need is the log file after the play back of the track file.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
The sim second does not count the time of pause of the stutter made when the collector logs the data.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not sure.. But in my testing I have found that during playback the data is sampled at the right times.. but the time itself (tod) is a little off.. As if all the data was collected, then just before it writes it out it reads the tod.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I can hope Hyperions' prog makes less or no pausing during collection. I have noted from people writing UDP interfaces that DeviceLink is inherently rough on the framerates. Using WWSensei's DevLink wrapper I may be able to make a collector that writes to memory and avoids the comparatively slow drive interface, but I'm not real hopeful. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I not sure if UPDSpeed is writing to the HD in real time.. Hard to tell on WNT types of systems that have their own file buffering junk. I'm pretty sure it ain't doing it in real time otherwise you would see a lot of HD activity.. So I'm pretty sure it is making use of the WNT file IO buffer.. i.e. writing it to mem or cache and then writing a big chuck all at once instead of every individual write. I had a fun time at work figuring that one out once when we were trying to collect data in real time.. Windows 2000 does make use of the IO buffer junk.. So we just wrote it to memory and then dumped it at the end of the test to a file.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I need good time match of sim to collected data, I have a good chunk of working post-processor finished and I want to have it crank out approximate positions with time. It's even got an editor to trim the data down to desired sections. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Cool! Cant wait to see it!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I see one output of DeviceLink is game time of day.... I think that this will be salvation of accuracy esp if I get a regular stutter and can adjust collection interval to get clean game seconds. Good thing I check. (remembering the Chebornik sketch of C&C)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Note that UPDSpeed AUTOMATICALLY adds tod to any log file.. So you don't need to add in tod.. if you do you will get two copies of it! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif On that note I did check the tod and found out that my inc is basically seconds.. As I pointed out above.. Sometimes the tod gets a little lag in it's value.. But the data didn't.. But the tod should be check because different PCS running at different speeds may have more of a problem.. Thus the tod should be check for larger pauses.. If you use tod as the time axes and you see a big flat spot in a curve that was going along nicely.. then flat.. then picks up again you can rest assured that the tod lagged right there. The data is fine, just the time stamped is off. At least in my test so far.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

TAGERT.
09-03-2004, 11:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Willey:
Sorry, but WHAT THE HELL is an "inc"??? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
inc = seconds

I was not 100% sure of the units when I made the graphs, but sense then I have verified that inc is seconds

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

TAGERT.
09-03-2004, 11:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kartveli:
Nice work, TAGART, but when it comes down to brass tacks, theres only one thig that matters to me....since the 204 patch, I started flying the Jug again...now, it used to be the case where I would dive from ANY other type, from any alt., and they would stick with me all the way down, unless the speed reached, say, over 700kph, in which case, especially at lower alts., they would break up....but NOW, when I dive that Jug, she will SEPARATE from any other type...

I dont care how, or why, or what numbers are involved, just that my Jug can, while being historically accurate, pull away from any other type in the dive, and retain that get-away E at low alt, or leveling out, or even often on the zoom climb

The Jug is a joy to fight n fly in now, and every time I take off in one, I am confident that I willl come back with kills under my belt, and no ammo left, or at least, come back to base at all, even if in a sorry state<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Pull away from any other type? Historicall accurate? I wouldnt go that far.. But one thing for sure.. IN THE GAME.. There are ALOT of planes that can stay with the P47 in a dive and some that can pass it!

So.. check mirror often.. In that objects may be closer than they appear! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

BigKahuna_GS
09-03-2004, 11:48 AM
Salute Tagert !

Sweet looking dive charts, thanks for the hard work. The v2.04 patch seemed different as soon as I jumped in the P47D-27 cockpit in requards to dive acceleration. Slowly were are getting more differences in dive performance that are as important as climbing performance. Thank you Oleg !

I remember having a series of emails with Oleg about this subject and Oleg would always say dive acceleration/speeds were "relative". I have attened many WW2 Fighter Pilot symposioums where both german and allied pilots lectured in agreement on the superiority of P47 & P51 during diving manuevers.

Gunther Rall :

Read the whole interview : http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html


Q: Mr. Rall, what was the best tactic against the P-47?

A: "Against the P-47? Shoot him down! " &lt;Laughter from both Mr. Rall and audience, applause&gt;

"P-47 was not a big problem. The problem was if you were chased by the P-47, he was fast in a dive, had a higher structural strength. You couldn't stand that you know? And they came closer in a dive, because she was faster. But P-47 was a big ship, you know? No doubt. But in a position where you chase him, there was no equivalent condition. By the way, ehh, this was &lt;## garbled: 06:5 tape 4&gt; thing talking about the P-47."

Things are not always relative as Rall points out: "But in a position where you chase him, there was no equivalent condition."

CHDT talked about a "rail" system for dive testing. How about taking it a step further with a program that uses an "auto pilot" hopefully eliminating human error. Testing conditions would be programed in; same altitude, start speed, dive angle, prop pitch controlled by the auto pilot and programmed to fly the same flight path everytime.

Consistancy would be the same. I recently was project coordinator evalutaing 12 different types of thermal imaging equipment for the Fire Dept I work for. What we really strived for was replicating the same exact testing conditions for every thermal imager. Thats whats needed here.


____



"Aggressiveness was fundamental to success in air-to-air combat and if you ever caught a fighter pilot in a defensive mood you had him licked before you started shooting."
Cmdr. David McCampbell, USN

McCampbell's nine kills in 90 minutes set a record in aerial warfare history for a single mission that is believed to stand today. He is the nation's top Navy ace and fourth-leading ace, behind three Army Air Force pilots.

_______

http://www.militaryartgallery.com/Images_b/b-zero-fighter-sweep.jpg
"Angels of Okinawa"

TAGERT.
09-03-2004, 12:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
Salute Tagert !

Sweet looking dive charts, thanks for the hard work. The v2.04 patch seemed different as soon as I jumped in the P47D-27 cockpit in requards to dive acceleration. Slowly were are getting more differences in dive performance that are as important as climbing performance. Thank you Oleg !<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No prob! It was actually kind of fun to do! I love debunking things! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
I remember having a series of emails with Oleg about this subject and Oleg would always say dive acceleration/speeds were "relative".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If I read that it would mean this to me.. It means that the numbers may not be exctally right on the money.. 350 vs 354.7. But *relitive* to other aircraft it is correct. That is to say, the P47 relitive to a Bf109G6 is simulated correctly in that the P47 can leave the 109G6 in the dust.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
I have attened many WW2 Fighter Pilot symposioums where both german and allied pilots lectured in agreement on the superiority of P47 & P51 during diving manuevers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Me too.. There is a great group our here in So. Cal called

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FRIENDS
P.O. BOX 17357
IRVINE
CA 92623-7357

The put tother these weeked event where they invte WWII pilots to come in and talk about the war. It is really interesting to listen to these guys. Now is the time to do it too.. Because these guys wont be around for ever!!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
Gunther Rall :

Read the whole interview : http://www.virtualpilots.fi/hist/WW2History-GuntherRallEnglish.html


Q: Mr. Rall, what was the best tactic against the P-47?

A: "Against the P-47? Shoot him down! " &lt;Laughter from both Mr. Rall and audience, applause&gt;

"P-47 was not a big problem. The problem was if you were chased by the P-47, he was fast in a dive, had a higher structural strength. You couldn't stand that you know? And they came closer in a dive, because she was faster. But P-47 was a big ship, you know? No doubt. But in a position where you chase him, there was no equivalent condition. By the way, ehh, this was &lt;## garbled: 06:5 tape 4&gt; thing talking about the P-47."

Things are not always relative as Rall points out: "But in a position where you chase him, there was no equivalent condition." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Cool!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
CHDT talked about a "rail" system for dive testing. How about taking it a step further with a program that uses an "auto pilot" hopefully eliminating human error. Testing conditions would be programed in; same altitude, start speed, dive angle, prop pitch controlled by the auto pilot and programmed to fly the same flight path everytime. Consistancy would be the same. I recently was project coordinator evalutaing 12 different types of thermal imaging equipment for the Fire Dept I work for. What we really strived for was replicating the same exact testing conditions for every thermal imager. Thats whats needed here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Easier said than done! But it could be done using DeviceLink. Basically you would have to establish a control loop for dive angle.. In theory it sounds easy.. But could be hard to do.. I hope to take a look at making my own UDP interface this weekend.. If I get that far I would like to try doing that.. But.. I dont know if it will be much better than what a pilot could do.. That is to say it may not be on rails and still have a little bounce in the data.. It aint easy.. but the tools are there to do it.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

BigKahuna_GS
09-03-2004, 12:20 PM
S!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
I remember having a series of emails with Oleg about this subject and Oleg would always say dive acceleration/speeds were "relative".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tagert--If I read that it would mean this to me.. It means that the numbers may not be exctally right on the money.. 350 vs 354.7. But *relitive* to other aircraft it is correct. That is to say, the P47 relitive to a Bf109G6 is simulated correctly in that the P47 can leave the 109G6 in the dust.
__________________________________________________ __________________________



This was about 6-8 months ago and Oleg's english was a little tough to understand but I was picking up that Oleg's feeling were that most planes have similar dive perfomance. Along with many others, I kept sending documented sources to show the differences. This is a team win for all and hopefully all planes will have their correct dive performance in FB/AEP, Pacific Fighters.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by 609IAP_Kahuna:
I have attened many WW2 Fighter Pilot symposioums where both german and allied pilots lectured in agreement on the superiority of P47 & P51 during diving manuevers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tagert---Me too.. There is a great group our here in So. Cal called

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FRIENDS
P.O. BOX 17357
IRVINE
CA 92623-7357

The put tother these weeked event where they invte WWII pilots to come in and talk about the war. It is really interesting to listen to these guys. Now is the time to do it too.. Because these guys wont be around for ever!!
__________________________________________________ _________________________



Rgr that mate !

The remaining members of VMF 214 Blacksheep are meeting in San Diego on September 19th. I plan on being there with some friends. Should be great !



___



"Aggressiveness was fundamental to success in air-to-air combat and if you ever caught a fighter pilot in a defensive mood you had him licked before you started shooting."
Cmdr. David McCampbell, USN

McCampbell's nine kills in 90 minutes set a record in aerial warfare history for a single mission that is believed to stand today. He is the nation's top Navy ace and fourth-leading ace, behind three Army Air Force pilots.

_______

http://www.militaryartgallery.com/Images_b/b-zero-fighter-sweep.jpg
"Angels of Okinawa"

JG14_Josf
09-03-2004, 01:40 PM
Tagert,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I love debunking things! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just exactly what is it that you have debunked?

Does your tests show how one plane can reach a faster dive speed if it starts diving before another plane?

To anyone else with a mind for reason,

The new version of the game is different. The P-47 is now more capable relative to some of the planes it fights compared to the last version.

What has changed?

The dive test done by Tagert is seriously flawed if all the planes on that chart did not start their dives at the same time, angle, and speed.

The dive tests on that chart show no change in relative dive acceleration performance between the FW190 and the P-47.

They are virtually the same in dive performance up to terminal Vmax.

This is the same situation the existed in the previous version of the game.

So what actaully has changed from the last patch to this patch to boost the effective realtive performance of the P-47?

Seriously, it is a much better sim if the P-47 lives up to its historical capabilities, but not at the expense of another planes historical capabilities.

What is different now in the current patch that was not possible in the previous patch so that now the P-47 is more capable?

If it is dive acceleration then proof of this fact is still absent.

Has anyone actually flown a P-47 against an FW190 in an on-line session and conducted a comparision test; side by side?

If that is done and both planes are virtually side by side during the on-line comparative dive acceleration test then what has boosted the P-47s relative performance?

If there is a difference in dive acceleration performance between the FW190 and the P-47 is it anything remotely similar to what historically documented dive acceleration comparision testing shows?

Here is another example from Rings page on relative dive performance comparision testing done during WWII:

Only when the FW.190 attempted to dive away was the Thunderbold able to get in effective shooting and hold its position. (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/p47-fw190-4.jpg)

Differences in dive acceleration constitutes a performance advantage in relative ability just as climb, turn, deceleration, and roll performance advantages.

"A fighter's aerodynamic efficiency, in particular its lift-to-drag ratio, is also vitally important to energy performance, especially at high G or high speed. In order to simplify this discussion, however, the term high T/W infers greater climb rate, faster acceleration , and higher maximum speed capability relative to the opponent."
"Obviously fighter performance can be a complex subject, and the numbers alone don't always tell the whole story. Development of effective tactics against dissimilar aircraft is, however, highly dependent on intimate knowledge of all aspects of relative fighter performance and design, as well as total familiarity by the pilot with his own aircraft and weapons system. Comparison testing, in which enemy aircraft are flown against friendly fighters, is undeniably the best method of gathering this crucial information" (Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw)

Note:

Comparison testing is 'undeniably the best method'

also note: 'faster acceleration' is listed in as a high T/W performance advantage.

Back to rings page:

Objective. (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/p47-fw190.jpg)
1. Comparative performance tests wre conducted between the P-47 and the FW-190, for the purpose of ascertaining just what the P-47 airplane could do in combat against the FW-190 at low altitude, and to aid the P-47 pilots in their initial encounters with these enemy airplanes.

If anything is gained by Tagert's tests other than boosting his ego I fail to see it.

P.S. I still prefer combat pilot opinion over test pilot opinion. Combat pilots actually did what we are only simulating. Excuse me, I should say: what 'I' only simulate, it appears as if there are a whole lot of wanna-be test pilots on this forum.

My thanks go to Oleg for the improvement in relative performance afforded to the P-47s. This was a much needed fix, it would however be nice to know just exactly what was changed in the relative flight models.

TAGERT.
09-03-2004, 02:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Just exactly what is it that you have debunked?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The so called straw man statement! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Does your tests show how one plane can reach a faster dive speed if it starts diving before another plane?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No it shows that starting at the same initial alt and speed that a P47 dives much faster than a Bf109G6 and just a little bit faster than a Fw190A-9

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
To anyone else with a mind for reason,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
LOL!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
The new version of the game is different. The P-47 is now more capable relative to some of the planes it fights compared to the last version.

What has changed?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just to be clear, to anyone who actually read my report will notice that no where did I make any claims to older versions of the game. I simply stated that premise that all aircraft dive exactly the same is not true.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
The dive test done by Tagert is seriously flawed if all the planes on that chart did not start their dives at the same time, angle, and speed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Disagree 100%

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
The dive tests on that chart show no change in relative dive acceleration performance between the FW190 and the P-47. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I beg to differ, the change is less noticable that it is to the 109, but there is some.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
They are virtually the same in dive performance up to terminal Vmax. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah.. a retraction so soon? So which is it? "no change" or "virtually the same"? Too flip flop so soon.. ie from one sentence to the next.. Well lets just say you would make John Kerry proud! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
This is the same situation the existed in the previous version of the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>WOW! And now a contradiction? Here you say the current and previous versions are the same.. But at the top of this thread you said "The new version of the game is different. The P-47 is now more capable relative to some of the planes it fights compared to the last version"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
So what actaully has changed from the last patch to this patch to boost the effective realtive performance of the P-47?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Man.. talk about a moving target!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Seriously, it is a much better sim if the P-47 lives up to its historical capabilities, but not at the expense of another planes historical capabilities.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Got Track?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
What is different now in the current patch that was not possible in the previous patch so that now the P-47 is more capable?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Would you mind restating your statement? You can not have it both ways.. Are you saying it is the same or it is different?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
If it is dive acceleration then proof of this fact is still absent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Only to some who have trouble looking at graphs! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Has anyone actually flown a P-47 against an FW190 in an on-line session and conducted a comparision test; side by side?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Even there you will have the same small errors in alt and speed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
If that is done and both planes are virtually side by side during the on-line comparative dive acceleration test then what has boosted the P-47s relative performance?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm not convinced it was not like this in past versions.. One thing I have learned from all this.. Talk is cheap.. Tracks are not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
If there is a difference in dive acceleration performance between the FW190 and the P-47 is it anything remotely similar to what historically documented dive acceleration comparision testing shows? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Find a historically documented dive acceleration comparison test and set up the same scenario in the game and find out for yourself.. If you need help analyzing the track files post test I would be glad to assist you!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Here is another example from Rings page on relative dive performance comparision testing done during WWII:

http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/p47-fw190-4.jpg
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There you go, give it a shot!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Differences in dive acceleration constitutes a performance advantage in relative ability just as climb, turn, deceleration, and roll performance advantages.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As if anyone ever said it didn't?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
"A fighter's aerodynamic efficiency, in particular its lift-to-drag ratio, is also vitally important to energy performance, especially at high G or high speed. In order to simplify this discussion, however, the term high T/W infers greater climb rate, faster acceleration , and higher maximum speed capability relative to the opponent."
"Obviously fighter performance can be a complex subject, and the numbers alone don't always tell the whole story. Development of effective tactics against dissimilar aircraft is, however, highly dependent on intimate knowledge of all aspects of relative fighter performance and design, as well as total familiarity by the pilot with his own aircraft and weapons system. Comparison testing, in which enemy aircraft are flown against friendly fighters, is undeniably the best method of gathering this crucial information" (Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again.. who said it wasn't?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Note:

Comparison testing is 'undeniably the best method'<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes... for Development of efective TACTICS I would think it would be.. But for determining the NUMBERS it is not necessary!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
also note: 'faster acceleration' is listed in as a high T/W performance advantage.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again.. you say that as if someone said it wasn't.. I don't know what thread your referring to.. But nobody said it in this one.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Back to rings page:

http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/p47-fw190.jpg
1. Comparative performance tests wre conducted between the P-47 and the FW-190, for the purpose of ascertaining just what the P-47 airplane could do in combat against the FW-190 at low altitude, and to aid the P-47 pilots in their initial encounters with these enemy airplanes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And this proves what?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
If anything is gained by Tagert's tests other than boosting his ego I fail to see it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well at least your consistent! In that you fail to see a lot of things.. But what really worries me is your seeing things that are not even there! Got Meds?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
P.S. I still prefer combat pilot opinion over test pilot opinion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But it wont stop you from flip flopping a second later and quote a test pilot report where the pilot didn't have any combat time

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Combat pilots actually did what we are only simulating. Excuse me, I should say: what 'I' only simulate, it appears as if there are a whole lot of wanna-be test pilots on this forum.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! You say that like it is a bad thing!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
My thanks go to Oleg for the improvement in relative performance afforded to the P-47s. This was a much needed fix, it would however be nice to know just exactly what was changed in the relative flight models.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Flip.. Flop.. come back in 5 and he will retract his statements!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

MOhz
09-03-2004, 05:33 PM
well personally i think it doesnt really matter what all these graphs and whatsever tell us because we are flying in a combat situation and when someone is on your six who you can only get away from by diving then diving acceleration does matter and in the long run so does the TV.

from flying a lot online in the fw series i have seen and not tested because as i have said, in the end what matters is what happens in combat and not what someone supposedly tested, i have seen that when i enter a dive, no matter what angle, other planes stick to my a** and shoot at me so that i have to barrol roll in the fw until i have reached their TV. and ONLY then do i start pulling away from enemies . i personall have not yet encountered so many p47 and those that i have i either didnt engage or i shot down. but i for shurelw woudlnt try outdiving the p47 because i know the distance remains the same because there is no difference in dive accel until the TV.

with TV btw i mean terminal velocity. so even if as you say tagert it is only a difference of 10km/h it doesnt really matter; that isnt a big difference in combat BECAUSE you reach the TV so quickly that the slight difference in accel just dont matter and the TV counts.

and to be honest guys. dont follow me into a dive because it will lead to your sure doom and seldomly to line; even if you are in the BIG BAD p47. alt is almost everything and actually everything in that precise situation.

conclusion: nice work and probablw true what you found out, BUT it doesnt matter because what does matter is what happens in combat situation, and those little differences aint goin to save noones a**.

see you in the skies
MOhz

MOhz
09-03-2004, 05:36 PM
adding: what i mean with that they stick to me in the second paragraph is that if one watches the distance indicator, then it is constant at eg 600m until the TV counts more than the accel.

peace

TAGERT.
09-03-2004, 05:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MOhz:
well personally i think it doesnt really matter what all these graphs and whatsever tell us because we are flying in a combat situation and when someone is on your six who you can only get away from by diving then diving acceleration does matter and in the long run so does the TV.

from flying a lot online in the fw series i have seen and not tested because as i have said, in the end what matters is what happens in combat and not what someone supposedly tested, i have seen that when i enter a dive, no matter what angle, other planes stick to my a** and shoot at me so that i have to barrol roll in the fw until i have reached their TV. and ONLY then do i start pulling away from enemies . i personall have not yet encountered so many p47 and those that i have i either didnt engage or i shot down. but i for shurelw woudlnt try outdiving the p47 because i know the distance remains the same because there is no difference in dive accel until the TV.

with TV btw i mean terminal velocity. so even if as you say tagert it is only a difference of 10km/h it doesnt really matter; that isnt a big difference in combat BECAUSE you reach the TV so quickly that the slight difference in accel just dont matter and the TV counts.

and to be honest guys. dont follow me into a dive because it will lead to your sure doom and seldomly to line; even if you are in the BIG BAD p47. alt is almost everything and actually everything in that precise situation.

conclusion: nice work and probablw true what you found out, BUT it doesnt matter because what does matter is what happens in combat situation, and those little differences aint goin to save noones a**.

see you in the skies
MOhz<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is your opinion and you are welcome to it.. But the numbers say otherwise. Good luck! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

MOhz
09-03-2004, 05:39 PM
one more thing: the next person to say sim, in my opinion should be roasted. il2 aint no sim.

MOhz
09-03-2004, 05:45 PM
it is not a matter of opinion and luck, it is a matter of that you in your p47 if you should be chasing me wont catch up until the end of the dive at the TV!
MOhz

MOhz
09-03-2004, 05:48 PM
because dive accel is the S A M E, and i wont try further to convince you since like the ancient greek philosophers you seem to have gotten stuck with the paper work and have forgotten about the arcade world of il2

MOhz for the last time
lol

TAGERT.
09-03-2004, 05:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MOhz:
one more thing: the next person to say sim, in my opinion should be roasted. il2 aint no sim.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wrong

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> dictionary def of simulation
n 0: A mathematical exercise in which a model of a system is established, then the model's variables are altered to determine the effects on other variables. For example, a financial analyst might construct a model for predicting a stock's market price and then manipulate various determinants of the price including earnings, interest rates, and the inflation rate to determine how each of these changes affects the market price.

n 1: (computer science) the technique of representing the real world by a computer program; "a simulation should imitate the internal processes and not merely the results of the thing being simulated" [syn: computer simulation]

2: the act of imitating the behavior of some situation or some process by means of something suitably analogous (especially for the purpose of study or personnel training)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=simulation

And just so you know..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> dictionary def of wrong
Not in conformity with fact or truth; incorrect or erroneous<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=wrong

Back it up 101

My next show starts at 8.. Ill be here all week!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

MOhz
09-03-2004, 05:54 PM
not for the last time as i knew ti: i am not saying htat it is not a matrix or whatever but it is not a sim because it supposedly accurate and not so it aint no sim but a game or call it a simgame as far as i care.

was that an invitation?

TAGERT.
09-03-2004, 05:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MOhz:
not for the last time as i knew ti: i am not saying htat it is not a matrix or whatever but it is not a sim because it supposedly accurate and not so it aint no sim but a game or call it a simgame as far as i care.

was that an invitation?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey that is neat and all that you have your own personal dictonary that you wrote.. But here in the real world your still wrong! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

MOhz
09-03-2004, 06:04 PM
well everyone can define things as they like because we are still flying the same ARCADE game. and i will be most happy yo meet you online. even though that wont happen too soon since i am for three months off of il2 but for now, good bye

TAGERT.
09-03-2004, 06:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MOhz:
well everyone can define things as they like because we are still flying the same ARCADE game. and i will be most happy yo meet you online. even though that wont happen too soon since i am for three months off of il2 but for now, good bye<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Im sorry.. you seem to have me confused with someone that gives a rip! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
09-03-2004, 06:53 PM
@Tagert and JG14_JOSF : cooooool down !

@Tagert: the whole thing started just for the reason that I claimed that planes do not accelarate differently in this game during dives as it is claimed and confirmed by historical-DOCUMENTS etc.

So in order to show that this IS the truth it would be easy for ALL here to see that you show something like:
P47 dives from 400km/h at a 20*q angle "and" after
1 second it has 500
2 seconds it has 600
3 seconds .....

whereas BF109 has
1 second 450
2 seconds 500
3 seconds 550

OR
in a parallel dive plane X gained 200m after x second.
after x+1 seconds plane x gained 300m.
after x+10 seconds the p47 hit the sound barrier http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I just don't see that and I think this is creating the same confusion around here...

Simply put: all I see now is that all cars have same accelaration but some happen to have on more gear in order to reach a higher top-speed.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

WWMaxGunz
09-03-2004, 07:32 PM
More like 400 to 390, 500 to 480, 600 to 570... and not 1,2,3 seconds either.

British test P-47 (think it was C model) and FW-190A (think it was modified -3)
starting at 10,000 ft and 250mph (400kph) dive side by side with no throttle
change (same throttle to go 400kph with some degree of accuracy, can't say)
and dive to 3,000 ft at appx 65 degree dive angle. FW pulls away from start
and P-47 does not catch until the bottom of the dive, was this into the
pullout? Report says at 3,000 ft of a 10,000 to 3,000 ft dive. It also
says the P-47 had decidely better angle of pullout. It also says the P-47
when it caught the FW at the bottom had much better speed. By what I have
been told, 20 to 30kph is what for the planes and times rates as much better.

I am driving 55mph and I am passed by someone going 70mph. He is much faster.
I am going 90mph and passed by someone going 105mph -- if anything, it looks
even worse! Try it if you haven't seen it or just forget.

What people expect when their eyes look at numbers but they have no understanding
of the relationships and application of numbers and units... they fill with fantasy.
The big subjective question for many is "does the sim fulfill my ideas?". That is
the whole of it. One sim unchangeable by the users will not work for everyone so
centered.

Look at Mokshas' post. Even close planes in OVERALL abilities dive different and
he shows differences dive angles make. NOT the same. Even trends. Signs there of
good work. Differences in power use at the same angles as well, how the falling
differs from the power plus fall.

What people look for is different from what they need. Need to understand.
Same people b!tch about diving away online, could they handle a P-47 needing to
take 7,000 feet just to catch an FW with both using the same throttle as to run
at cruise? By the time of that dive, I get both in the over 700kph range with
some difference that looks small as a %. So I wrote to Oleg and found that
the difference is not out of line. Anyone else can do the same. Or they can
throw around loose, unqualified (as in no qualifiers/values or only a few that
form no tight picture, as in fill the blanks with fantasy like sea serpents on
old maps that were 'reasonable' long ago) stories and partial data from reports
(here on page 3 it says, without mentioning 3 things that modify that on page 2)
and parts of stories (Shaw says this, Johnson dived quicker, charts mean nothing)
and other unsupported BS.

Believe what you want, it hurts me none at all. Hope you feel the same whoever
you are.


Neal

JG14_Josf
09-03-2004, 08:21 PM
Here is a statement:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Or they can
throw around loose, unqualified (as in no qualifiers/values or only a few that
form no tight picture, as in fill the blanks with fantasy like sea serpents on
old maps that were 'reasonable' long ago) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is an example of a statement that fits the first statements description:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the difference is not out of line <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is a WWII document:

(1) 210 m.p.h. to 275 m.p.h. at 2000ft: The FW-190 accelerated faster than the P-47 and gained approximately 200 yards. (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/p47-fw190.jpg)

210 m.p.h to 275 m.p.h = @200 yards distance

In the time it took to accelerate 65 m.p.h the FW was two football fields ahead.

Does that happen in the game?

210 m.p.h to 275 m.p.h = 200 yards distance

Speed gain in m.p.h = distance gain in yards

compared to:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the difference is not out of line. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which one is loose and unqualified:

Speed gain in m.p.h. and distance gain in yards

0r

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the difference is not out of line. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am curious. How many yards distance does the FW190 gain in the sim?

WWII comparision trial document (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/p47-fw190-2.jpg)
(2) 10,000 feet to 3,000 feet, starting at 250 m.p.h. diving at angle of 65deg with constant throttle setting. The FW-190 pulled away rapidy at the beginning but the P-47 passed it at 3,000 feet with a much greater speed.

Starting speed given
Altitude/distance traveled given
Dive angle given
The FW pulled away rapidly at the beginning
P-47 passed at 3,000 feet

It does not say the FW190 and the P-47 were side by side
It does not say the FW190 and the P-47 were at the same speed after both planes reached the lower altitude.

Does the game show anything remotely similar to those WWII combat test trials where both planes were flown right next to each other?

Or in other words does the game simulated to any degree of accuracy the results of that real world test?

Fill in the blank:

The game_______ reproduce those tests accurately

Does or does not

How about filling in these blanks for the game with either 'did' or 'did not':

Diving:
At 10,000 feet both the FW190 (any model) and the P-47 (any model) fly side by side at 250 m.p.h and they are pitched into a 65 deg dive. The FW-190________pull away rapidly at the beginning but the P-47_______pass it at 3,000 feet with much greater speed.

If the FW190 can gain 200 yards from 210 m.p.h. to 275 m.p.h. over the P-47 will it gain more or less distance in a dive at the same speed?

200 yards in the time it takes to go from 210 to 275 m.p.h.

The pilot of the P-47 had...seventeen months of combat experience (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/p47-fw190.jpg)
24thApril, 1944

TAGERT.
09-04-2004, 01:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
@Tagert and JG14_JOSF : cooooool down !<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Never got hot!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
@Tagert: the whole thing started just for the reason that I claimed that planes do not accelarate differently in this game during dives as it is claimed and confirmed by historical-DOCUMENTS etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Historical documents huh? Please!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
So in order to show that this IS the truth it would be easy for ALL here to see that you show something like:
P47 dives from 400km/h at a 20*q angle "and" after
1 second it has 500
2 seconds it has 600
3 seconds .....

whereas BF109 has
1 second 450
2 seconds 500
3 seconds 550<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The graphs clealy show the speed differences.. Assuming you know how to read a graph. And the slope of the graph shows there is an acceleration differance. As I said, this weekend Ill get around to giving you some acceleration numbers to go along with that.. But in light of the fact alot of people dont understand the *picture* I doubt they will understnad the *number*.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
OR
in a parallel dive plane X gained 200m after x second.
after x+1 seconds plane x gained 300m.
after x+10 seconds the p47 hit the sound barrier http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Unfortianlly I have a little bit of a life left.. Thus can not devote 24:7 to keep up with all your demands.. Im sorry if this weekend is not soon enough for some of you.. I just figured you have waited this long what is a few more days.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
I just don't see that and I think this is creating the same confusion around here...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes.. it was clear to me that alot of people were not seeing it when just the numbers were being cut-n-pasted here in this forum.. Thus my motivation to make a graph of the number.. In the hopes that a picture would be worth a 1000 words.. Yet there are still some that dont see it.. Not much more I can do for them. I guess I just focus on and with the ones that do understand.. or are willing to learn.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
Simply put: all I see now is that all cars have same accelaration but some happen to have on more gear in order to reach a higher top-speed.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry! Dont know what else I can say.. I tried word example, I tried pictures, I tried the train # 1 left the station at time t1 and train #2 left the station at time t2.. None of it has worked.. So.. Sorry, but you can not say I didnt try! I hope you *see* what your looking for because it is becoming clear you dont want to *see* what is there. Good Luck!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

crazyivan1970
09-04-2004, 01:53 AM
Boyz having fun? I`M baack http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

V!
Regards,

http://blitzpigs.com/forum/images/smiles/smokin.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/images/band.gif

VFC*Crazyivan aka VFC*HOST

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/coop-ivan.jpg

http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/vfc/home.htm

Kozhedub: In combat potential, the Yak-3, La-7 and La-9 fighters were indisputably superior to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. But, as they say, no matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down.

WWMaxGunz
09-04-2004, 09:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Here is a statement:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Or they can
throw around loose, unqualified (as in no qualifiers/values or only a few that
form no tight picture, as in fill the blanks with fantasy like sea serpents on
old maps that were 'reasonable' long ago) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is an example of a statement that fits the first statements description:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the difference is not out of line <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is a WWII document:

http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/p47-fw190.jpg

210 m.p.h to 275 m.p.h = @200 yards distance

In the time it took to accelerate 65 m.p.h the FW was two football fields ahead.

Does that happen in the game?

210 m.p.h to 275 m.p.h = 200 yards distance

Speed gain in m.p.h = distance gain in yards

compared to:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the difference is not out of line. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which one is loose and unqualified:

Speed gain in m.p.h. and distance gain in yards

0r

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the difference is not out of line. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am curious. How many yards distance does the FW190 gain in the sim?

http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/p47-fw190-2.jpg
(2) 10,000 feet to 3,000 feet, starting at 250 m.p.h. diving at angle of 65deg with constant throttle setting. The FW-190 pulled away rapidy at the beginning but the P-47 passed it at 3,000 feet with a much greater speed.

Starting speed given
Altitude/distance traveled given
Dive angle given
The FW pulled away rapidly at the beginning
P-47 passed at 3,000 feet

It does not say the FW190 and the P-47 were side by side
It does not say the FW190 and the P-47 were at the same speed after both planes reached the lower altitude.

Does the game show anything remotely similar to those WWII combat test trials where both planes were flown right next to each other?

Or in other words does the game simulated to any degree of accuracy the results of that real world test?

Fill in the blank:

The game_______ reproduce those tests accurately

Does or does not

How about filling in these blanks for the game with either 'did' or 'did not':

Diving:
At 10,000 feet both the FW190 (any model) and the P-47 (any model) fly side by side at 250 m.p.h and they are pitched into a 65 deg dive. The FW-190________pull away rapidly at the beginning but the P-47_______pass it at 3,000 feet with much greater speed.

If the FW190 can gain 200 yards from 210 m.p.h. to 275 m.p.h. over the P-47 will it gain more or less distance in a dive at the same speed?

200 yards in the time it takes to go from 210 to 275 m.p.h.

http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/p47-fw190.jpg
24thApril, 1944<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


So now level acceleration from dead slow in the early stage is the yardstick for dive
comparisons?

You quote the level acceleration difference from line 1 of a document to show the FW
gaining 200 yards -- so now ole buddy quote line 3 of the same set of lines where the
P-47 passed the FW.

200 yards in the time from 210 to 275mph... out of how far did they travel and how long
did that take? Whoops, no data! Fill in the blanks as you want, right?

P-47 passed with much greater speed. We can get that when much greater is in the 20-30kph
range. We can also get other results depending on how we run it. We can find a way to
run things that gives us answers we don't like then go around claiming it is the sim at
fault and that always the dives are the same. We can further claim that our results are
correct because they contain the elements to match a document while ignoring that the
document does not have complete conditions and what details we have filled in. Then
when other people run controlled tests and show differences, we can get upset. Well,
not we but YOU and like minded people.

If the FW can gain 200 yards in level flight going from 200mph to 275 then how does that
relate to DIVING? Answer is: not very well at all. Reason is: do the physics and math.
Why you ask such things: YOU CAN'T. It is that SIMPLE.

Read again the line #3 right under the line #1 you post the link to. Go back and read
page 2 of the same report for more conditions and results that bear directly on the page
you show. I have posted to you the relevant parts before more than once but you are
blind to it. I have posted how and why they are relevant and you still NEVER saw.

You don't understand so you IGNORE for years now. You come back with how theory and
numbers mean nothing. The theory and numbers are taken from reality and more closely
match the reality than anything you will ever be able to predict.

I don't waste time explaining anything to you. Fill in the blanks yourself with crayon
for all the good it does. Draw pretty pictures of P-47's zooming far ahead of pursuing
FW's in no time flat, or FW's gaining 200 yards out of 500 yards distance if you want.
Put in red tracers and make shooting sounds too. That can be your real along with
stories interpreted JUST AS CLOSELY.


Neal

TAGERT.
09-04-2004, 10:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Here is a statement:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Or they can
throw around loose, unqualified (as in no qualifiers/values or only a few that
form no tight picture, as in fill the blanks with fantasy like sea serpents on
old maps that were 'reasonable' long ago) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is an example of a statement that fits the first statements description:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the difference is not out of line <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is a WWII document:

http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/p47-fw190.jpg

210 m.p.h to 275 m.p.h = @200 yards distance

In the time it took to accelerate 65 m.p.h the FW was two football fields ahead.

Does that happen in the game?

210 m.p.h to 275 m.p.h = 200 yards distance

Speed gain in m.p.h = distance gain in yards

compared to:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the difference is not out of line. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which one is loose and unqualified:

Speed gain in m.p.h. and distance gain in yards

0r

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the difference is not out of line. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am curious. How many yards distance does the FW190 gain in the sim?

http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/p47-fw190-2.jpg
(2) 10,000 feet to 3,000 feet, starting at 250 m.p.h. diving at angle of 65deg with constant throttle setting. The FW-190 pulled away rapidy at the beginning but the P-47 passed it at 3,000 feet with a much greater speed.

Starting speed given
Altitude/distance traveled given
Dive angle given
The FW pulled away rapidly at the beginning
P-47 passed at 3,000 feet

It does not say the FW190 and the P-47 were side by side
It does not say the FW190 and the P-47 were at the same speed after both planes reached the lower altitude.

Does the game show anything remotely similar to those WWII combat test trials where both planes were flown right next to each other?

Or in other words does the game simulated to any degree of accuracy the results of that real world test?

Fill in the blank:

The game_______ reproduce those tests accurately

Does or does not

How about filling in these blanks for the game with either 'did' or 'did not':

Diving:
At 10,000 feet both the FW190 (any model) and the P-47 (any model) fly side by side at 250 m.p.h and they are pitched into a 65 deg dive. The FW-190________pull away rapidly at the beginning but the P-47_______pass it at 3,000 feet with much greater speed.

If the FW190 can gain 200 yards from 210 m.p.h. to 275 m.p.h. over the P-47 will it gain more or less distance in a dive at the same speed?

200 yards in the time it takes to go from 210 to 275 m.p.h.

http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/p47-fw190.jpg
24thApril, 1944<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


So now level acceleration from dead slow in the early stage is the yardstick for dive
comparisons?

You quote the level acceleration difference from line 1 of a document to show the FW
gaining 200 yards -- so now ole buddy quote line 3 of the same set of lines where the
P-47 passed the FW.

200 yards in the time from 210 to 275mph... out of how far did they travel and how long
did that take? Whoops, no data! Fill in the blanks as you want, right?

P-47 passed with much greater speed. We can get that when much greater is in the 20-30kph
range. We can also get other results depending on how we run it. We can find a way to
run things that gives us answers we don't like then go around claiming it is the sim at
fault and that always the dives are the same. We can further claim that our results are
correct because they contain the elements to match a document while ignoring that the
document does not have complete conditions and what details we have filled in. Then
when other people run controlled tests and show differences, we can get upset. Well,
not we but YOU and like minded people.

If the FW can gain 200 yards in level flight going from 200mph to 275 then how does that
relate to DIVING? Answer is: not very well at all. Reason is: do the physics and math.
Why you ask such things: YOU CAN'T. It is that SIMPLE.

Read again the line #3 right under the line #1 you post the link to. Go back and read
page 2 of the same report for more conditions and results that bear directly on the page
you show. I have posted to you the relevant parts before more than once but you are
blind to it. I have posted how and why they are relevant and you still NEVER saw.

You don't understand so you IGNORE for years now. You come back with how theory and
numbers mean nothing. The theory and numbers are taken from reality and more closely
match the reality than anything you will ever be able to predict.

I don't waste time explaining anything to you. Fill in the blanks yourself with crayon
for all the good it does. Draw pretty pictures of P-47's zooming far ahead of pursuing
FW's in no time flat, or FW's gaining 200 yards out of 500 yards distance if you want.
Put in red tracers and make shooting sounds too. That can be your real along with
stories interpreted JUST AS CLOSELY.


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Man.. Neal thanks for makig sense of all that.. He was going off in so many different directions I couldnt keep up! Nice job! SALUTE!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

JG14_Josf
09-04-2004, 10:58 AM
Neal wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I don't waste time explaining anything to you <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yet Neal wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>200 yards in the time from 210 to 275mph... out of how far did they travel and how long
did that take? Whoops, no data! Fill in the blanks as you want, right? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speed is given in miles per hour. Math can fill in the blanks with crayon if you prefer.

We all have our ideas or form our own Hypothesis concerning the value of the game.

I tend to value the game on how accuratly it simulates history.

If I want to judge how well the FW stacks up against the P-47 then I turn to a source of history like this:

Source of Historical data (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/p47-fw190.jpg)
______________________
Note:

Objective.
1. Comparative performance tests were conducted between the P-47 and the FW-190, for the purpose of ascertaining just what the P-47 airplane coudl do in combat against the FW-190...
___________________________


I am much more inclined to utilize information found on that web page to form my opinion of how well the game simulates history than to utilize ideas like this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Why you ask such things: YOU CAN'T. It is that SIMPLE.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can.
It makes me happy to find sources of information that can add to my knowledge base used to judge just how accurate the current best simualtion manages to do the job it does for me. i.e. simulate WWII Air Combat.

TAGERT.
09-04-2004, 01:42 PM
Here is a graph of the separation vs time. The separation is found by taking the difference in velocity at each second. Than I take that difference and multiply it by a second to get the distance (separation) due to that velocity difference over a second. Then I sum up the distances over time. I also converted the distance to feet. This is the velocity of the aircraft, to get the X and Y componets you would have to use the pitch angle.

SEPARATION 2D PLOT
http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/divetests/DT_7k-25p_100f_SEPERATION.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

WWMaxGunz
09-04-2004, 01:59 PM
Uhhhhhh.... what are they seperatin from?

TAGERT.
09-04-2004, 02:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Uhhhhhh.... what are they seperatin from?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Each Other.. where the two graphs are

P47D-27 vs Bf109G-6 (late)
P47D-27 vs Fw190A-9

And the SEPARATION between them.. ie the distance the P47 will put between the other two during a dive per seconds. Straight line distance roughly between the two asuming they both have near the same picth.. As they do.. Except ner the end where the Fw190 starts to break up and pull up

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

WWMaxGunz
09-05-2004, 04:59 PM
Ahhh... works better when I look at the whole graph and see the whole labels.
Just tried rt-click-&gt;view image... doh!

But that can't be right, everyone KNOWS the planes all dive the same! Just ask!


Neal

moksha
09-05-2004, 05:42 PM
Tagert-that's *the* graph.
This what counts-at a given time, in similar conditions (qualifiers are pilot reaction time, start speed, pitch etc etc causing deviations during dive) at points in time during dive plane x will have travelled this distance and plane y this distance.
Repeat over various angles, throttle settings, prop.pitch etc and you get a profile of when it's possible to pull away, when not etc etc.

This is handy because in a "real" situation it will be rare the chaser travels to the same point before commencing dive, at same speed going into same pitch and holding it...so if you see a dora ahead from your ixe, and he noses down steeply - near vertical if you are lucky-chase him! If he noses down shallow and you have no speed advantage at this point maybe pick another target , or at least don't expect to catch him if he goes full out..

I would not be surprised, given the wealth of detail that IS modeled in the sim if we see planes having unique dive performance profiles.

(as has been said how accurate this is is another subject, but we are now testing and illustrating what is here).

Josf-forgive the gross simplification here but you seem to be advocating comparison tests, side by side envelope mapping - would you be prepared to do this in your way and in your time-it would be excellent to compare the results with the devicelink based testing, track by track.
I would also be interested to see what you would expect to show up as different/more accurate.
Or perhaps I misunderstood? Are you saying give up testing it's not worth it?
No dig here, my questions might sound loaded but that's not the intent just the questioner's clumsy grammar!

S!

WUAF_Badsight
09-05-2004, 05:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
But that can't be right, everyone KNOWS the planes all dive the same! Just ask!

Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok what Tagert has done is show that these 3 planes do indeed have a difference in dive

but go online & try using Dive as a form of escape

its really ineffective , yes you can open a seperation , but the distance you gain is feck all

i can shadow ppl that dive away from me or simply follow them down to their Alt with ease

the way FB works favors climb & turn performance as diving doesnt do enough to loose bandits

certian planes are not very good in dives , for sure , like the Migs , but i dont see much difference in diving performance when im in a fight to say at all that its a effective tactic

this is probably where the opinion that planes in FB dive the same comes from

especially when ppl read pilots accounts where you hear about guys who lost bandits from diving away (especially in pilots of planes that were historically good at diving a'la P-47 Thunderbolt)

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WUAF_Badsight
09-05-2004, 06:05 PM
wasnt Tagerts originall purpose to show a difference in planes at diving in FB

i mean in FB & not FB vrs RL ?

the results Tagert got might not reflect RL accounts , but meh , so what . . . . . that wasnt Tagerts aim to test FB against RL was it ?

.
__________________________________________________ __________________________
actual UBI post :
"If their is a good server with wonder woman views but historic planesets...let me know!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

TAGERT.
09-05-2004, 06:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
ok what Tagert has done is show that these 3 planes do indeed have a difference in dive<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That too.. But the real purpose was to de-bunk the statement that "all planes dive the same" which implied a bogus FM. That I have proved to be wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
but go online & try using Dive as a form of escape

its really ineffective , yes you can open a seperation , but the distance you gain is feck all

i can shadow ppl that dive away from me or simply follow them down to their Alt with ease

the way FB works favors climb & turn performance as diving doesnt do enough to loose bandits<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which brings up a good point.. What we do online is for the most part NOTHING like what went on during the war. Most online servers never use the bad weather options.. Only blue skys with a few clouds.. Which was the exception not the rule! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
certian planes are not very good in dives , for sure , like the Migs , but i dont see much difference in diving performance when im in a fight to say at all that its a effective tactic<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agin.. Online and Real War.. Two very differnt things.. Most 8th air force encounters with the Lw were at high alt therefore lost of room to make use of your dive speed in a P47.. Where as in comparions what you see Online most people nerver get above 3000ft let alone 30,000ft.. And then the sit back and wonder why they could not out dive that 190 in a race to the ground..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
this is probably where the opinion that planes in FB dive the same comes from<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yup! Because so many just dont realise that Online is nothing like the real deal.. The majority of fights online are at low alt and consist of lone wolf tatics.. Which were the exception to the rule

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WUAF_Badsight:
especially when ppl read pilots accounts where you hear about guys who lost bandits from diving away (especially in pilots of planes that were historically good at diving a'la P-47 Thunderbolt)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yup.. becuse they dont fly them the same.. Why should they act the same!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

TAGERT.
09-05-2004, 07:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by moksha:
Tagert-that's *the* graph. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by moksha:
This what counts-at a given time, in similar conditions (qualifiers are pilot reaction time, start speed, pitch etc etc causing deviations during dive) at points in time during dive plane x will have travelled this distance and plane y this distance.
Repeat over various angles, throttle settings, prop.pitch etc <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yup! But as Max pointed out.. This is just one part of it! When you read what a combat pilot said he could "pull away and out dive another" you have to look at more than the push over of the nose.. A good example was someone was comp the Spit to the 190.. In a test like mine the TRUE advantage of the 190 might not show up.. In that in my test is just part of a bigger picture.. A 190 with it's great roll rate and good dive speed could out roll a Spit and pull into a dive before the Spit even started to dive.. That little time difference would put a lot of distance between (SEPARATION) the two aircraft.. But if all you did was a side by side push over they might look the same.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by moksha:
and you get a profile of when it's possible to pull away, when not etc etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmmm That would be cool.. But a lot of work.. In that you would want to do at least 3 different angles with about 3 tests per angle (statical avg of the dives).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by moksha:
This is handy because in a "real" situation it will be rare the chaser travels to the same point before commencing dive, at same speed going into same pitch and holding it... so if you see a dora ahead from your ixe, and he noses down steeply - near vertical if you are lucky-chase him! If he noses down shallow and you have no speed advantage at this point maybe pick another target , or at least don't expect to catch him if he goes full out..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True.. and little things like all of that can make the SEPARATION better or worse.. Problem is a lot of peoples expectations are absolute! They expect it in every condition.. And whine when it is not the case.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by moksha:
I would not be surprised, given the wealth of detail that IS modeled in the sim if we see planes having unique dive performance profiles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which is why I did all this.. I got very tired of all the self appointed know-it-alls that based their statements on nothing more than their say so.. Now with the DeviceLink stuff we can check their statements out and see if they are full of it, ignorant, or on to something. My future mantra will be {g]Got Track?[/b] and if the answer is no.. Then my reply will be "than STHU!" http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by moksha:
(as has been said how accurate this is is another subject, but we are now testing and illustrating what is here).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True That! But relatively speaking the P47 thus far exhibits it's historical advantage.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

WWMaxGunz
09-05-2004, 09:44 PM
I read from the real Gunther Rall "Anyway, I was chased by P-47. I knew exactly that in
a dive P-47 is much faster than 109. And the P-47 has a much higher structural strength.
They can go up to 1400 kilometers per hour. The 109, if you go down to 1000, pull it up,
you risk the wings come off."

Gunther Rall flew captured Allied planes is how he 'knew' the speeds.

But -- 1400kph is over mach 1 sea level. Reason Gunther can say that is because the
pitot tubes and guages of the times couldn't handle transsonic speeds. So the guage
reads 870mph (1400kph) and no way it's true. The 109 guage read 1000kph... was that
true either? Bet some people will swear it is so. Anyhow, what Gunther has down
solid is the P-47 catching the 109 in a dive and the reason being top dive speed the
pilot would dare use and the plane handle. So that is ONE kind of dive advantage,
do we see it in FB? The guages... the closer to mach they get the wilder the reading
so I don't expect the P-47 was 400kph faster or even 1400/1000 times as fast as the
109. Just faster, I dunno how much. In the story of that paragraph Gunther had just
nailed a P-47 escorting bombers high enough for contrails, over 20,000ft my guess.
He dove and was chased. He started with speed as he was 3000m over his interceptors
and came down to hit the escort. The escorts had speed as they were not tied to the
bombers but roamed at speed. So he zooms on down and a bunch of them follow and shot
his plane up, shot his thumb off. But he was able to pull out and he says they couldn't
follow because they wanted to fly back to England. He had to have been heading the
opposite way from where they wanted to go or they wouldn't go any lower, one or the
other.
Nobody there was starting out at any 300kph and whizzing down side by side looking
for 100m or more. He hit top speed soon into it and so did they, then it was a matter
of closing range and firing. 20,000-25,000 ft in vertical probably isn't far enough
to have time for all that so I'd guess a steep dive at best -- but I can tell you that
30 degrees nose down is plenty steep! Go out and stand on a 30 degree hill or roof
sometime if you don't believe.

Many, many hits for stories about fighter dives in WWII on the net. Dive speed is the
main topic but dive acceleration being desired gets mentioned. It's nice to accelerate
to full speed asap. Perhaps some story sharing would be good?


Neal


p.s.

http://www.aafo.com/library/history/B-17/b17part3.htm
Part about the P-47 had tremendous acceleration in a vertical dive (don't say how much)
but get this Gibbage -- and had eight forward firing 50's synchronized at 500 yards to
an area about six feet high and three feet wide. I saw Walker mahurin dive on four
Me-110's on one flight, and he flamed all four. &lt;== yessiree them 50's, way overmodelled!

JG14_Josf
09-06-2004, 01:37 AM
What is incredible to me is how some people can claim how accurate this game is over and over again through countless revisions of the flight model and yet after every patch the relative performance of the planes being modeled changes.

When a game does finally simulate history enough so that there is no need to change the flight models again then on that day perhaps there will be less contention among the players.

The ones who are fond of reapeating that everything is modeled correctly will still be right in their minds and at that point they will actually be right.

I hope that day arrives sooner rather than later.

TAGERT.
09-06-2004, 02:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
What is incredible to me is how some people can claim how accurate this game is over and over again through countless revisions of the flight model and yet after every patch the relative performance of the planes being modeled changes.

When a game does finally simulate history enough so that there is no need to change the flight models again then on that day perhaps there will be less contention among the players.

The ones who are fond of reapeating that everything is modeled correctly will still be right in their minds and at that point they will actually be right.

I hope that day arrives sooner rather than later.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually IMHO only someone who is out of their mind would think a simulation was, is, or ever will be totally accurate.. ie real.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

BaldieJr
09-06-2004, 02:10 AM
Which is faster in a dive: the P47D or...

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<A HREF="http://officemax.secureportal.com/" TARGET=_blank>
Hey ya'll prepare yourselves
for the rubberband man!</A>
http://www.fighterjerks.com/rbman.png
http://www.fighterjerks.com

JG14_Josf
09-06-2004, 02:51 AM
Tagert,

Do you really think your opinion is humble?

Who is this person that you refer to that is out of their mind and that thinks a simulation is totally accurate.. ie real?

WOW! Look how easily you stand humbly over his opinion and expose his lunacy.

Seriously:
This dive acceleration subject is not new. It remains a contradiction between what is in the game and what is recorded in history even after numerous flight model changes.

It does strike me as odd that every time a player notices this contradiction there are other players who prove how accurate the dive acceleration is modeled in the game despite the flight model changes.

My question then is to those who prove that this time the dive acceration is now accurate:

Did the game change it's dive acceleration modeling from the last patch?

I am almost curious enough to do the tests myself.

If I were to do tests. This time I am certain that a need exists to fly with another player on-line and duplicate the documented tests on Ring's very valuable web page.

I am pretty sure what my results will be and perhaps I am simply expecting a higher standard from what currently is the best WWII flight simulator on the market, in my opinion.

P.S. It is an obvious problem that you have Tagert by associating my words with your imaginary friend. Please spell it out; are you claiming that I am the one that is out of their mind?
If not then please quote someone else to begin your statements concerning your imaginary friend.

TAGERT.
09-06-2004, 03:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Tagert,

Do you really think your opinion is humble?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, just painfully accurate.. Like my graphs! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Who is this person that you refer to that is out of their mind and that thinks a simulation is totally accurate.. i.e. real? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If the shoe fits!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
WOW! Look how easily you stand humbly over his opinion and expose his lunacy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In light of your post it was clear that it had to be said.. In that you seem to be under the false impression that someone here is.. how did you put it? claiming how accurate this game is. As a mater of fact I don't think I seen anyone make such a claim in this thread.. If anything I think several people have noted that even though it has been proving that NOT all airplanes dive the same.. It does not mean they are accurate. You and yours seem to be the ones that *think* people are makings such claims.. Your seeing things that are not there and not seeing what is here.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Seriously:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Always

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
This dive acceleration subject is not new.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Again.. please show me where someone in this thread said it was new! I don't see it!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
It remains a contradiction between what is in the game and what is recorded in history even after numerous flight model changes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is your opinion and your welcome to it, but, you have yet to provide ANYTHING that would prove otherwise. Your *opinion* on what was said or meant to be said is just that.. Your opinion. As Max has shown you the errors in your ways and how the conclusions (opinion) you have drawn can not be done so.. In that there is a lot of information missing. I personally found that you miss-read things.. As you did with regards to Robert Shaw comment where you thought he was saying you had to do plane on plane tests to determine fighter performance.. When he was actually saying it was necessary to develop fighter tactics.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
It does strike me as odd that every time a player notices this contradiction there are other players who prove how accurate the dive acceleration is modeled in the game despite the flight model changes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It only strikes you odd because you fail to realize that people are human and that people make mistakes.. That and you fail to realize that no one here is saying the simulation is 100% accurate.. Many went out of there way to note that it is not. All I did is debunk the statement that they all dive the same.. I went on to point out that the P47 in these tests does exhibit a dive advantage.. Just like many combat pilots said it did.. To what degree? We will never know because they themselves don't know.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
My question then is to those who prove that this time the dive acceleration is now accurate:

Did the game change it's dive acceleration modeling from the last patch?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
First things first.. I have not tested the older versions yet.. So your just assuming something has changed.. You have presented nothing to prove otherwise.. Except your opinion that frankly means nothing to me! And you really need to read things twice.. I think it will help you out a lot! Things like that Robert Shaw mistake you made.. Take your time and read it again and note that I never said it is now or ever was accurate.. Only because I know I don't have any data to compare to make such a claim.. And neither do you! Your reading of the word FAST written by some combat pilot 60+ years ago means nothing really.. In that another person may read that and have a whole different idea of what FAST is.. That is to say if a race car driver says fast and a school bus driver says fast.. who do you think fast is faster? Only when the school bus driver and race car driver both say 20mph faster can you calibrate what is being said to your frame of reference.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
I am almost curious enough to do the tests myself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Please do! In that I know for a fact that your a paranoid person that thinks someone like me is trying to pull something here.. I also knew that guys like you would eventually show up.. Which is why I put a link to all the tracks used and explained my test methods. You really should take the time to do it.. In that it might help you see what *is* here and stop seeing what *is not* here.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
If I were to do tests. This time I am certain that a need exists to fly with another player on-line and duplicate the documented tests on Ring's very valuable web page.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You only feel the need because you don't understand there is no need.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
I am pretty sure what my results will be and perhaps I am simply expecting a higher standard from what currently is the best WWII flight simulator on the market, in my opinion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again.. that is your opinion.. Which means nothing to me! Fly it, save the trak, then we will talk.. But in the mean time I don't care how sure you think you are.. Just do it!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
P.S. It is an obvious problem that you have Tagert by associating my words with your imaginary friend. Please spell it out; are you claiming that I am the one that is out of their mind?
If not then please quote someone else to begin your statements concerning your imaginary friend.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You are a very paranoid person! Seek help! Please!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

JG14_Josf
09-06-2004, 09:16 AM
Tagert,

You are stepping well over the boundaries of reasonalbe disscusion.

It is quite obvious to me, if not to the moderators, that my personal integrity is being directly attacked by you.

I am no losing my mind. That shoe does not fit me, and if I need help it has absolutely nothing to do with what I have written on these boards.

Inflamatory remarks are one thing, direct accusations like these are criminal:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You are a very paranoid person! Seek help! Please!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your opinion on personal matters of serious careful thought are obviously not the same as mine.

Discussion requires inspection of the facts and debate requires boudaries of common sense.

Directly attacking someone else's integrity can have only one expected result i.e. to end the debate.

Your words, not your person, suggest a mindset that fits your sig.

Moderators please note that during this or any of my posts my efforts to consider only the words being written and avoiding any personal considerations of the writers has been if not anything else; consistent.

TAGERT.
09-06-2004, 10:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Tagert,

You are stepping well over the boundaries of reasonalbe disscusion.

It is quite obvious to me, if not to the moderators, that my personal integrity is being directly attacked by you.

I am no losing my mind. That shoe does not fit me, and if I need help it has absolutely nothing to do with what I have written on these boards.

Inflamatory remarks are one thing, direct accusations like these are criminal:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You are a very paranoid person! Seek help! Please!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your opinion on personal matters of serious careful thought are obviously not the same as mine.

Discussion requires inspection of the facts and debate requires boudaries of common sense.

Directly attacking someone else's integrity can have only one expected result i.e. to end the debate.

Your words, not your person, suggest a mindset that fits your sig.

Moderators please note that during this or any of my posts my efforts to consider only the words being written and avoiding any personal considerations of the writers has been if not anything else; consistent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Integrity? Please! I guess your pretty upset about that Robert Shaw mistake?

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

JG14_Josf
09-06-2004, 11:18 AM
Tagert,

Your words constitute what I call mental masterbation. In my opinion the words you write may service the source of those words or anyone else inclined to join the circle.

Your words do not contain any other value in my opinion.

The fact remains that your words on this board do constitute libel.


B(1): a statement or representation publeished without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Libel)


If I am not mistake there are legal reason why such conduct is forbiden on public forums.

moksha
09-06-2004, 11:31 AM
Any chance this vituperative stuff could be taken and carried on via PM/private topics?

moksha
09-06-2004, 11:34 AM
Tagert-thanks re trk/ntrk advice, ntrk playback does seem more reliable from pc to pc vs that of trk.

TAGERT.
09-06-2004, 12:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Tagert,

Your words constitute what I call mental masterbation. In my opinion the words you write may service the source of those words or anyone else inclined to join the circle.

Your words do not contain any other value in my opinion.

The fact remains that your words on this board do constitute libel.


http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Libel


If I am not mistake there are legal reason why such conduct is forbiden on public forums.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>moksha has a good point.. It is clear that I dont care what you think.. And you dont care what I think.. So lets agree to disagree and if you have any further problems with me or what I say then please spare the rest and PM me. Thanks! And Good Luck!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

TAGERT.
09-06-2004, 12:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by moksha:
Tagert-thanks re trk/ntrk advice, ntrk playback does seem more reliable from pc to pc vs that of trk.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>NP! Hey.. did you try making a *.ntrk while watching the playback of a *.trk? I never tried it.. But it may work if you use that hot key setting to capture *.ntrk. Thus you might be able to salvage the *.trk you made up to now by making a *.ntrk out of them?

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

moksha
09-06-2004, 12:12 PM
I got sidetracked-It'd be a bit of work saved if it works out so I'll give it a whirl now.


PS Pm'd you re the new ntrk's
S!

Edit-yes you can record ntrk's of trks!. Excellent.
No way I can see to do this in reverse but then again I don;t need to..
Cheers once again!

[This message was edited by moksha on Mon September 06 2004 at 11:28 AM.]

JG14_Josf
09-06-2004, 12:52 PM
Tagert,

A. If you were serious about sparing 'the rest' then why did you post your concern on the public forum?

B. I do not have a problem with you. My concern is what you write.

C. I can agree to disagree with what you write except when you attack me personally on a public forum and when I have a contention with your claims of accuracy.

I normally avoid posting to people who exibit this 'attack the messenger' mentality however this thread included a direct invitation to me.

And in my first post I wrote this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Let me PLEASE make something perfectly clear. I do not have a personal problem with people on this board. I contend with the information being written and I do so with some obvious emotion. I try, very much, to control emotion and see the text as being words from no one in particular. Words have meaning and when the words convey what looks like error to me then I respond to identify what I see as error.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree with your claims posted on this thread and my reasoning is explained in my responses for anyone to read and make up their own minds. I have no desire to PM you, I have little respect for people who resort to personal attacks and that includes your personal attacks.

Furthermore I would very much like to discuss
opinions concerning the meaning behind Robert Shaw's words, however, not with you.

My reputation cannot stand much more abuse.

There are reasons why libel is considered a crime in a civilized socielty. Damage done by libel is unrecoverable.

If your attack has managed to swing anyone's opinion against my character then I can suffer this damage comfortably in knowing the loss is tempered with an undersanding. I have no desire to win anyone respect based upon deceit.

If my integrity suffers from my open, honest and frank discussion here then I certainly deserve it.

TAGERT.
09-06-2004, 01:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Tagert,

A. If you were serious about sparing 'the rest' then why did you post your concern on the public forum?

B. I do not have a problem with you. My concern is what you write.

C. I can agree to disagree with what you write except when you attack me personally on a public forum and when I have a contention with your claims of accuracy.

I normally avoid posting to people who exibit this 'attack the messenger' mentality however this thread included a direct invitation to me.

And in my first post I wrote this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Let me PLEASE make something perfectly clear. I do not have a personal problem with people on this board. I contend with the information being written and I do so with some obvious emotion. I try, very much, to control emotion and see the text as being words from no one in particular. Words have meaning and when the words convey what looks like error to me then I respond to identify what I see as error.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree with your claims posted on this thread and my reasoning is explained in my responses for anyone to read and make up their own minds. I have no desire to PM you, I have little respect for people who resort to personal attacks and that includes your personal attacks.

Furthermore I would very much like to discuss
opinions concerning the meaning behind Robert Shaw's words, however, not with you.

My reputation cannot stand much more abuse.

There are reasons why libel is considered a crime in a civilized socielty. Damage done by libel is unrecoverable.

If your attack has managed to swing anyone's opinion against my character then I can suffer this damage comfortably in knowing the loss is tempered with an undersanding. I have no desire to win anyone respect based upon deceit.

If my integrity suffers from my open, honest and frank discussion here then I certainly deserve it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So.. what part of PM me did you not understand?

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

WWMaxGunz
09-06-2004, 02:55 PM
Tagert, Moksha, Faustnik......

If you guys want to try out a simple tool at the first stage then ALPHA.0.0 is ready.
It is only so accurate as some things like the clocks and how straight the flight is
but it gets distance flown for any one second and cumulative distance approximately.

Method is very simple and perhaps I can get some pointers on where error is.
TAS at every second is found by:

TASkph = (( IASkph / 3.6 ) x ( 1 + Alt m / 15000 m )) x 3.6 &lt;== that from SimHQ forum

Average TAS is gotten by (TAS at first point + TAS at next) / 2.
So one source of error is when acceleration is uneven, the degree of error is what can
be over 1 second only so that should be worked out and maybe a new method devised.

Time... collection time by UDPSpeed at 1000 ms interval shows to be right in step with
the game hour reported except in places the game hour jumps two seconds. On those data
lines I look at the VSI and change in alt and it is not 2 seconds but only one. I look
at game time interval with VSI and alt data point to point and the 1 second holds up
as far as I can tell, no bad accuracy there.

So this program as is now gives an approximate distance flown. The path must be as
straight as possible but level, dive or climb matter not. The editor capability of
the loaded UDPSpeed data lets you decide which line the flight is to be looked at
by deleting above and ends at by deleting below. Then just use the Run, Ctrl-R to
see the output.

Alpha testers get 2nd look for errors, programmer gets the first.
BS criticisms by outside parties will be ignored.
Next step will be X-Y plotting.
After that it gets serious as to curve fitting and ways to cut error.
From UDPSpeed initial setup, 1/10th second sampling is possible?

http://www.telerama.com/~maxgunz


neal

TAGERT.
09-06-2004, 03:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Tagert, Moksha, Faustnik......

If you guys want to try out a simple tool at the first stage then ALPHA.0.0 is ready.
It is only so accurate as some things like the clocks and how straight the flight is
but it gets distance flown for any one second and cumulative distance approximately.

Method is very simple and perhaps I can get some pointers on where error is.
TAS at every second is found by:

TASkph = (( IASkph / 3.6 ) x ( 1 + Alt m / 15000 m )) x 3.6 &lt;== that from SimHQ forum

Average TAS is gotten by (TAS at first point + TAS at next) / 2.
So one source of error is when acceleration is uneven, the degree of error is what can
be over 1 second only so that should be worked out and maybe a new method devised.

Time... collection time by UDPSpeed at 1000 ms interval shows to be right in step with
the game hour reported except in places the game hour jumps two seconds. On those data
lines I look at the VSI and change in alt and it is not 2 seconds but only one. I look
at game time interval with VSI and alt data point to point and the 1 second holds up
as far as I can tell, no bad accuracy there.

So this program as is now gives an approximate distance flown. The path must be as
straight as possible but level, dive or climb matter not. The editor capability of
the loaded UDPSpeed data lets you decide which line the flight is to be looked at
by deleting above and ends at by deleting below. Then just use the Run, Ctrl-R to
see the output.

Alpha testers get 2nd look for errors, programmer gets the first.
BS criticisms by outside parties will be ignored.
Next step will be X-Y plotting.
After that it gets serious as to curve fitting and ways to cut error.
From UDPSpeed initial setup, 1/10th second sampling is possible?

http://www.telerama.com/~maxgunz


neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey Neal!

I just ran it and got the following error

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/temp/maxvberror.jpg

It has been awhile.. but I think that is due to not having the visual basic thing installed? Do you got a link to that stuff? I forget where I got it last time I needed it.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

moksha
09-06-2004, 03:31 PM
WW,
will definitely give this a try-thanks.
(I haven't bothered with distance flown until converting logs into excel, then use change in alt & pitch, velocity to work out horizontal component then hypoteneuse for distance travelled. )

Yes you can set the timer/timing to whatever value in milliseconds you want by editing the ini.
[Main]
TimerMS=1001 &lt; or whatever you want in ms..

Loki-PF
09-06-2004, 04:45 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif
@ Tagert, Maxx, Moksha, Robban et al. GREAT work fellas. This thread until recently was really a great exchange of ideas and info.

@Josf, I and other readers have no idea what you are ranting about. Your posts are contradictory and emotionally charged even though you professed in your first post in this thread that you just read the words and don't get emotional about them, then go on to prove to everyone that you are very emotional about them as well as contradictory. Lets see if we can't figure out what your angle is.

Just to be clear, (because I think you have misunderstood what this whole thread is about) lets recap. This topic has been around for quite awhile as you know. Everyone likes to discuss which plane should be better in a dive etc. Then invariably someone would trot out a tired old report comparing a captured enemy plane to another. The other side of the argument would then trot out their tired old report between the same two planes, and then the argument would be about which report was "most" valid. Recently, some people in this community have taken a different approach. The approach is this in summary, "Lets not worry about which report is better for now, lets see if we can figure out exactly what the "GAME ENGINE" is giving us as accurately as possible, and then worry about if it matches with real life. Robban and others had spent a considerable amount of time doing flight tests with the latest patch. Others worried that the actual flying of the planes might be different enough from test to test that it could affect the results. Tagert took the time to apply himself and use Devicelink as a means to ensure that the three planes in question were flown in exactly the same initial conditions and stayed that way thru out the dive. He simply presented the numbers and specifically said, "here is what the game engine is telling us, not making any statements about if it's historically accurate or not" (sorry for the paraphrasing Tagert)

In your first "I'm not emotional" entry into this thread you call JaBo_HH--Gotcha "the man of straw". (By the way if you are interested it's "straw-man" not "man of straw"). JaBo_HH--Gotcha's position was that his test's weren't showing much if any difference between planes in a dive. By calling him the "man of straw" you are putting forth the argument that planes really do dive differently in the game. Thus you basically are agreeing with Tagert. Or would you like to change your position? Or would that be to contradictory? Let us know!

Loki Out

JG14_Josf
09-06-2004, 05:38 PM
Loki-PF,

If you have no idea what I am ranting about then I have no expectation of communicating with you.

You have already formed your opinion.

'Ranting' means what?

Seriously, I do not know you. This is our first communication and I am being accused of ranting.

There is value in this communication. I can see some education to be earned. What I am finding difficult is what motivates the contention and subequent lack of manners.

Communication requires that each of us understand the need to both speak clearly and listen with an open mind.

For example:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>you professed in your first post in this thread that you just read the words and don't get emotional about them <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that really what I said?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I do so with some obvious emotion. I try, very much, to control emotion <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What possible reason can I find to continue communicating to someone so obviously not willing or able to understand the words that I write?

I am passionate about WWII combat flight simulation.

Why did my name get mentioned in this thread, can you see that my inspiration in joining this thread may have something to do with their reference to me?

Just to be clear; why are my words 'rants' and why did you assume that my claim was of no emotion when in fact I clarified the opposite?


Man of Straw (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Straw+Man)

Websters uses both man of straw and straw man.

I will definitely agree with anything Tagert says that is true. Why on earth would I not?

If you are actually serious about communicating then we have a huge whole in which to dig out the garbage.

I am not particularly fond of being misrepresented but these mistakes happen, what is by far more serious is the personal attacks.

Do you too think I am in need of help?

Am I a ranting lunatic? Please clear this up as my opinion concerning your perspective is an open book waiting to be filled in with data.

Clarifying points of contention can be made more effective with good manners and careful consideration.

I am as guilty as the next guy in not being careful enough when trying to communicate.

TAGERT.
09-06-2004, 05:41 PM
Here is a little update on my DeviceLink UDP program I'm making.. Keep in mind this util is geared towards analysis.. Where as DeviceLink's original purpose was to provide access for third party control devices.. Like trim wheels, toggle switches, etc.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/NACA_TP/BETA/NACA_TEST_PILOT_BETA_00.jpg

I have finished the hard part.. parsing out the data string.. Only thing left to do is the dump to file part.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

JG14_Josf
09-06-2004, 06:19 PM
Loki-PF,

Just in case there really is the possibility that communciation can occur I have an idea.

Let's take one point of contention that is within the boundaries of this thread.

Robert Shaw wrote the following in his book Fighter Combat:

"Obviously fighter performance can be a complex subject, and the numbers alone don't always tell the whole story. Development of effective tactics against dissimilar aircraft is, however, highly dependent on intimate knowledge of all aspects of relative fighter performance and design, as well as total familiarity by the pilot with his own aircraft and weapons system. Comparisons testing, in which enemy aircraft are flown against friendly fighters, is undeniably the best method of gathering this crucial information."

Other people have their opinions as to what the above means to them. I have mine and it is formed from the context of the quote in the book from where it is found.

If the idea is to learn how one airplane will perform relative to another then the question goes: what is the best method in finding out this vital information?

In order to answer the above question it may help to go back in time to the summer of 1942.

Imagine that you are a British fighter pilot and your good friends are being shot down by a new unknown German fighter plane.

Now imagine that a German pilot lands at your base with one of those new fighter planes and now you have a 'known' version of that previously 'unknown' fighter plane.

What do you do with that German plane?

Do you take it up a fly it around and perform the classic performance tests and record the results on paper?

Of course you do if you have time.

What do you think about the idea where the German fighter plane is flown in mock combat or comparison test flights right next to the Spitfires that are used to shoot it down?

Let's just say that one of the British fighter pilots had a concern because he tried to dive away from one of those German planes just last week and he wondered very seriously if the FW190 was capable of diving faster than the Spitfire.

Let's go a little further and assume that this particualar British fighter pilot does get a chance to fly one of the comparison test trials.

Suppose that fighter pilot then forms an opinion based upon his personal experience in a side by side dive performance comparison.

My question then is:

Which is more valuable for the British fighter pilot, or which is deemed more accurate to the British fighter pilot:
A. His opinion based upon his own comparision testing.
B. Numbers and lines on a graph.

If you do not see my point nor the relevance to this thread then there is not much point in our continued communication, unless you are actually willing to ask specific questions concerning the words that I have written and you must refrain from drawing baseless assumptions.

If for instance you are inclined to view me as a pompous twit because my words suggest to you that I am then there is not much I can do about it.

When communicating there is a fine line between using too many words and too little. Both extremes are mine fields of misunderstanding.

If I use too few words my message is seen as elitist confusing pompus or who knows what, but if I use too many words the ground explodes with images of pretentious bombast.

And then there is always that passionate emotion oozing in between the lines.

What can be done?

How about manners.

Easier said than done?

WWMaxGunz
09-06-2004, 09:53 PM
Combat pilots ideas and understandings of comparisons may differ from sim players long after.
For sure they check things and discuss with others ins and outs not on the report.

In order to make claims about a sim you have to answer how much is much?
As Loki says, we are trying to find out in the sim that and how the ways we fly affect it.

Ask Oleg about dive speed differences.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
09-06-2004, 10:15 PM
Moksha, yeah I went with 1000ms. I wonder though if 1001 may not be the true second
since clock crystals are rarely exact frequencies.
When I go for X-Y and later Z positions I will first do circular arc curves to fit
the headings and vertical angles and use chord formula to get the "shrinkage" for
speed point to point. Not perfect by pretty close, it should help with upcoming
turn flight analysis. Best I can think of would be parabolic section fitting
along the lines of Rolms' Theorem on trickier -- but my math has not been that
good in 15 years now, even then it would have been hard for me! In the mid-70's
it would have been kinda fun but you gotta be young for that, or at least stay
heavily in practice.
Can't curve-fit since the actual points are what I'm trying to approximate.

Tagert, that is the Borland VCL component. Google got me many hits, match words
vcl60.bpl download

I am looking at a copy on
http://www.sweb.cz/rosisoft/download.html

It's like 506k by my D/L manager -- why the exe is only 50-some k yet does windoze.

Hope that's the only one!

I have Borland Builder 6 Personal, with compiler and linker I could make an all in
one exe but then it would be a big D/L for every new cut.

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
09-07-2004, 12:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Ask Oleg about dive speed differences.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually Oleg or his team seem to ignore this topic or they simply have no time. I've sent them the initial tracks which fired up the discussion here along with a short mail twice.
He didn't respond. Well he's a businessman.

I was doing some more comparisons lately and I wondered why Tagert's results were different at some stage than mine.
He said that the p47 gained on the 109g6 whereas my tracks "indicate" (I wont say show, I am not that arrogant http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) the opposite.
( I took a bf109k4 vs a p47d27)

Right now I'm in the process of doing more flight tests and doing some mega-funky-graphs which seem to be "in" here and almost warranty that everyone takes you for jesus...(I'm Metatron... sorry deviated...)

I noticed that the planes I already tested dive similar BUT you can get different results with planes from other years and Thrust type.
E.G: Jets. The Jets accelarate faster unfortunately all the same... (tested Me262 vs. HE162)

I took a "pilots" approach to the topic and wanted a straight forward comparison in which one could prove Gabreski's quotes like (I could dive away from a 109 -&gt; also stated by Rall etc.) and I couldn't.
I established the average (maybe I am wrong so correct me) combat speed is somewhere between 350 and 450.
I "assumed" that in order to evade/run you would dive and try to build up speed quickly and the pilot would know that the limits of the plane and his physical strength to recover would be around 700kp/h.
In my first tests tagert did show me that I dived at different angles which is of course correct so I redid all the tests with 20? degrees dives and added more planes.
Now Tagert proved that a 1943bf109 dived slower than a 1944-p47 (Tagert I still don't see it, but this may be.)
In my tests the 1944/45 planes dived the same at 20? degrees. (before I used a steeper diver but people started complaining that at this stage gravity is the more depending factor)

As to Tagert and Josf I must admit that reading Tagert's posts is somewhat tiresome at times and I think this is a simple matter of pride where one word lead to another and this went out of control without wanting to punish anyone of them.

@Tagert: this was just for coming back to tpoic and stopping this quarrel so please spare me the QUOTE-Comment combo for the stuff above m8. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Which Bf109 did you take for the test ?
BF109g6 early or late or AS ?

!S!

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

TAGERT.
09-07-2004, 03:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
Actually Oleg or his team seem to ignore this topic or they simply have no time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe because they too have graphs that show it is not the case?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
I've sent them the initial tracks which fired up the discussion here along with a short mail twice.
He didn't respond. Well he's a businessman.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The ones that didn't start at the same alt, speed, or pitch?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
I was doing some more comparisons lately and I wondered why Tagert's results were different at some stage than mine.
He said that the p47 gained on the 109g6 whereas my tracks "indicate" (I wont say show, I am not that arrogant http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) the opposite.
( I took a bf109k4 vs a p47d27)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What part of the 109K being very different from a 109G-6 are you having trouble with? A 109K is a very different bird!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
Right now I'm in the process of doing more flight tests and doing some mega-funky-graphs which seem to be "in" here and almost warranty that everyone takes you for jesus...(I'm Metatron... sorry deviated...)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No problem.. forgiving you is getting easier each time I do it! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
I noticed that the planes I already tested dive similar BUT you can get different results with planes from other years and Thrust type.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Drrrrrrrrrrr!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
E.G: Jets. The Jets accelarate faster unfortunately all the same... (tested Me262 vs. HE162)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Got Track?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
I took a "pilots" approach to the topic and wanted a straight forward comparison in which one could prove Gabreski's quotes like (I could dive away from a 109 -&gt; also stated by Rall etc.) and I couldn't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Key word there being "I"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
I established the average (maybe I am wrong so correct me) combat speed is somewhere between 350 and 450.
I "assumed" that in order to evade/run you would dive and try to build up speed quickly and the pilot would know that the limits of the plane and his physical strength to recover would be around 700kp/h.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sounds reasonable.. But don't forget what Neal pointed out.. The dive.. i.e. nose push over is just one way of doing it.. For example a Fw190 might utlise it great roll rate to FIRST roll the pull into a dive (Split S) where as other plans might not.. That little detail gets left out of a lot of the combat pilots statements of I can out dive a such and such.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
In my first tests tagert did show me that I dived at different angles which is of course correct so I redid all the tests with 20? degrees dives and added more planes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
True!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
Now Tagert proved that a 1943bf109 dived slower than a 1944-p47 (Tagert I still don't see it, but this may be.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not maybe.. is!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
In my tests the 1944/45 planes dived the same at 20? degrees. (before I used a steeper diver but people started complaining that at this stage gravity is the more depending factor)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Got Track?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
As to Tagert and Josf I must admit that reading Tagert's posts is somewhat tiresome at times and I think this is a simple matter of pride where one word lead to another and this went out of control without wanting to punish anyone of them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And I get tired of you saying you don't see it.. Just what is it your not seeing?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
@Tagert: this was just for coming back to tpoic and stopping this quarrel so please spare me the QUOTE-Comment combo for the stuff above m8. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Too Late! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
Which Bf109 did you take for the test ?
BF109g6 early or late or AS ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Late

PS the "All dive the same" has been further debunked here..

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=394001117

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
09-07-2004, 05:51 AM
Ok since you're such a smart guy...
Let's do it your way... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Maybe because they too have graphs that show it is not the case?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe yes, Maybe no ! Tell me !

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The ones that didn't start at the same alt, speed, or pitch?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The first flawed ones, but since they're experts you would think he's not above saying "you're wrong" etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What part of the 109K being very different from a 109G-6 are you having trouble with? A 109K is a very different bird!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Geez didn't knew ! I thought it's 4 gear drive... Really ?
So why didn't you pick a k4 ?

And I asked you WHICH g6 since we got multiple...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>No problem.. forgiving you is getting easier each time I do it! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dunno if you notice but you're getting personal more and more....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Drrrrrrrrrrr!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which means what ?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Got Track?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes !

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Key word there being "I"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
For whom ?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Sounds reasonable.. But don't forget what Neal pointed out.. The dive.. i.e. nose push over is just one way of doing it.. For example a Fw190 might utlise it great roll rate to FIRST roll the pull into a dive (Split S) where as other plans might not.. That little detail gets left out of a lot of the combat pilots statements of I can out dive a such and such.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Obvious ! BUt you can retest that... Tried it often. Ended up with 20mm hispanos down my spine often... explain l8er.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>True !<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thank you lord !


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Not maybe.. is!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So you prove your g6 accelarates slower during dives than the p47 and I prove that the K4 dive-accelaration is as fast as the p47 and we'Re back where we started.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Got Track?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes already posted. Must have vanished somewhere in between all these quotations..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And I get tired of you saying you don't see it.. Just what is it your not seeing?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Since you quote the whole thread in every post just scroll up one post re-read and spot it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Too Late! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As expected... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
BF 109G6 Late
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thank you Sir !
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
PS the "All dive the same" has been further debunked here..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hmmm let me see.
For about 25 seconds all 44er planes dive the same, which is until they all reach about 550km/h. The first visible difference is at 30 seconds where the jet is
about 620km/h
the D9 is 600
and the spit at about 595. (so you'Re enjoying 30 seconds of pure adrenalin since you're enemy is shooting you all the time..)
ten seconds later (40) we'Re at
710kp/h for the D9 and about 695.
That's a difference of 2,0% of speed disadvantge for the SpitIX..
I really see difference now... This is truly some difference. Since we'Re just humans and our stick inputs are 100% the same during all times then the 2% difference now proves everything. *irony
Especially if we see the graphs you posted for the elevator input... (no offence I know that this one is impossible but 2% difference is not what counts as difference right ?)

So when you both start and you dive in a d9 after perfroming a roll (whereas the other guy simply pushes the stick forward, as everyone expects this),
You roll and apply elevator and dive whereas he already pushed forward (no advantage here...)
And then you dive (don't forget to roll back for levelling out, there goes your time-advantage..)for some let's say 40 seconds before you get a speed avantage of lousy 15km/h... What do you expect the other guy to do 300ms behind you ? Being amazed of your dive ?

The dive for the jets is the same what I got. 25 seconds for ME262 and HE162 from 350 - 700. (Yes got track, want mail ?)

Then again: I did tests from 350 to 700km/h and you jumped up saying "you should start with other speeds" and suggested higher speeds(back then when I did the first flawed ones. However you do your tests from 200km/h... (well I never thought this makes a difference anyway)

Yet, I have to correct my view. out of curiosity I made some dive tests with plane like the BF109E4 and the HE111 and checked how accelration is modelled there. (Yes I got track ! Mail ?)
The BF109 took 40 seconds to reach 700 from 350 and the HE111 took 50 (you have to tape the stick forward since the bird will go nose up by itself..).
This alone made me rethink the whole matter and makes me admit that not every plane dives the same.
Yet, a damn lot do...

Recently we've been performing SPIT.IX vs a4 dive tests in which the SPIT.IX didn't fall back, although R.A.F. tests in the quoted Osprey books speak of a initial dive advantage. and yes. I have tracks... My side and the side of my squadmate following me and after that us both changing planes)....

I must however say, I respect your work of taking numbers down and making all these colorful graphs. I Respect that work and patience. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

clint-ruin
09-07-2004, 08:19 AM
All I see Tagert doing is trying to restate the conclusions he can support with his data patiently, over and over again, to people who do not seem interested in talking about dive behaviour based on any kind of repeatable measures in-game.

We are on page 6 here right now, his conclusions have not changed in that time, he is only saying that the data points to different planes having different dive characteristics than others in the game.

Over and over again.

He has moved the debate on this topic forward immensely, the same as Robba75 and Lexx and Max did with their testing data beforehand. The next step forward needs to be based on getting more data together or by trying to replicate Tagerts tests under the same conditions. Tagert himself seems more than happy to have people help out by determining the effects of trim and pitch exactly by doing their own similar tests. No problem there. Just people seeming to feel slighted by someone who put the popular conceptions on this to the test and gained valuable 2.04 data with devicelink. Great stuff. Not everyone seems to think so - but, too bad.

If you are not able to get on the big bus, there will be a short bus along for you .. shortly.

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

WWMaxGunz
09-07-2004, 09:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Ask Oleg about dive speed differences.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

***A***
Actually Oleg or his team seem to ignore this topic or they simply have no time. I've sent them the initial tracks which fired up the discussion here along with a short mail twice.
He didn't respond. Well he's a businessman.

***B***
I was doing some more comparisons lately and I wondered why Tagert's results were different at some stage than mine.
He said that the p47 gained on the 109g6 whereas my tracks "indicate" (I wont say show, I am not that arrogant http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) the opposite.
( I took a bf109k4 vs a p47d27)

***C***
Right now I'm in the process of doing more flight tests and doing some mega-funky-graphs which seem to be "in" here and almost warranty that everyone takes you for jesus...(I'm Metatron... sorry deviated...)

***D***
I noticed that the planes I already tested dive similar BUT you can get different results with planes from other years and Thrust type.
E.G: Jets. The Jets accelarate faster unfortunately all the same... (tested Me262 vs. HE162)

***E***
I took a "pilots" approach to the topic and wanted a straight forward comparison in which one could prove Gabreski's quotes like (I could dive away from a 109 -&gt; also stated by Rall etc.) and I couldn't.
I established the average (maybe I am wrong so correct me) combat speed is somewhere between 350 and 450.
I "assumed" that in order to evade/run you would dive and try to build up speed quickly and the pilot would know that the limits of the plane and his physical strength to recover would be around 700kp/h.
In my first tests tagert did show me that I dived at different angles which is of course correct so I redid all the tests with 20? degrees dives and added more planes.
Now Tagert proved that a 1943bf109 dived slower than a 1944-p47 (Tagert I still don't see it, but this may be.)
In my tests the 1944/45 planes dived the same at 20? degrees. (before I used a steeper diver but people started complaining that at this stage gravity is the more depending factor)


!S!

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For ***A*** -- well, he did reply to me! Maybe he just had time. I've given the same
basic answers as to what to expect. A much bigger difference in speed, expect 20 to
30 kph. Considering the amount of drag at max dive speeds and the way drag increases
as you get into the compression range, that makes extreme sense.

For ***B*** -- his point is that you did use a 109K. Sheesh, look at the top level
speeds of the planes you compare there at the alts you are diving. The K is a hotrod,
the hotrod of 109's!

Factors of dive speeds in order I can think of: Drag, Mass, Excess Thrust.
The outcomes should reflect how the sim is about these and how we use the planes.
It is not hard to increase the drag a planes makes, not hard at all, for instance.
Not hard to get less than full thrust even with throttle at maximum and wep on.
I think serious persons should mess around a check feedbacks, watch the ball and
know of trim and stick and prop pitch. My experiments will be with as much on
auto as possible as I am believing that is what combat pilots would especially
be doing in fights and situations where alt changes fast and/or much.

For ***C*** -- I hope that is a poor joke of some kind. Is your attitude there?
Or maybe some other minds?

For ***D*** -- What do you think of Mokshas' results?

For ***E*** -- I like. I think that with faster planes and tactics, the starting
speeds will be in the higher ranges. Also that 700kph is slower than max safe dive
of even a number of midwar planes, 800kph is not out of line IMO. Then I get that
the planes known best for diving keep getting quoted for dive speed. Gunther Rall
spoke of diving away from P-47's in his 109G and it wasn't the initial acceleration
he gave figures of but the top speeds with the P-47 having a much higher max speed
in the dive. He flew both. Even before then, he knew of both. He knew numbers,
not just "much faster" which I find interesting. The numbers he knew were impossible
for the P-47 but given the guages used, I can believe that is what some pilots saw.
He gave his 109s' max dive as 1000kph and the P-47's behind him as 1400kph. Factor
those down to the 750-800 and 850-900 range (the guages get much worse as the plane
gets into compression) and I think that might be more real, surely less IAS high up.
Others with more knowledge may want to straighten that out a bit and I am sure that
fans of both sides will just because....
Still, if your plane is known for faster dive speed then you fly to that. Once
the plane is into shake it's time to back off a bit and online, who does that?
See how well they roll and turn in the dives and especially when the shake begins.
The plane is stressed and the stick forces are high. No, I haven't tried as a
test of any kind. For me, once shaking I either hold on, reduce power or more
usually bring the pitch up slowly. Maybe I am being too cautious or real and it
is time to test out with unreal actions, the way to really wring a sim out anyway.

I would like to get tracks you would consider as defining points just to see how
they play out in terms of details on speeds along the seconds. If anything, the
error of distance flown in a straight dive will be understatement with the crude
tool I have now so I'd look at distances and TAS's.

I know I forgot to include you as a name for Alphas but sorry, I do value your
view. That file Tagert is missing... just about everyone will be. I just RAR'd
it down to 391k. A best compression ZIP is 561k. WinRAR, if you don't have it
then check it out! The ZIP version is available I have seen, Google Search for
VCL60.BPL DOWNLOAD if you want. I will put the RAR up on my homepage with the
program.


Neal

JG14_Josf
09-07-2004, 10:53 AM
Clint-ruin,

The bus you choose to get on, or the path you choose to take, or the ideas you cling to may not be shared by everyone.

Thanks for pointing out that other buses do exist.

This post has been more than 'only' Tagerts data points. Each of us choose what we recognize as valuable and what is not so.

I am anxious to see how the new patch has changed the relative flight models. Knowing these relative performance variables helps me in determining tactics.

For example:

If Tagerts tests are in fact repeatable then the FW190 pilot in the game cannot use the historically accurate initial acceleration advantage, instead that advantage goes to the P-47, and the same appears to apply to the 109 only more so.

WWMaxGunz
09-07-2004, 11:21 AM
Moksha also got data and AKAIC he has made the best effort at dives so far.
His values show close but not the same behaviours in the planes he chose.
All the same.... not always. In fair, controlled trials, not always!

Hopefully I have made standalone versions of the postprocessor. It is
linked with dynamic linking set off, the exe is 2x the size as before.
I have posted both RAR and ZIP files of the exe.

Advantages:
You can edit off the top lines and get just the data of the dive and eliminate
fudgy starts. This is per-plane. I don't expect to see exact start condition
matches, that would be insane. But taking small differences into account will
help like Plane X data starts with 10 or 10 kph more speed or some small alt
difference that may be taken into account overall. Reason is key. IMHO it
requires relevant data to carry reason through any distance.
Other advantage is you can see all the data at every second. It gives me a
clearer picture but then I learned to read numbers back when I was a kid. I
have added overall distance travelled, distance over the last second (BOTH as
APPROXIMATIONS, the data is there to support them as well as how/what error)
and TAS. A multi-graph with domain as seconds and the other values as the
range curves may work better for some. I just want to see what happens point
to point.


Neal

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
09-07-2004, 11:44 AM
@WWMaxgunz: I will PT you the links !
I am right now testing again since my squadmate still didn't send me his tracks. *waiting

I commented on Mokshas tests (difference visible at 0-power dives whereas the differences melt in powered dives...)

Right now I am measuring times in between also.
Started with 1940 planes... This will take a while..

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

Loki-PF
09-07-2004, 08:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
For example:

If Tagerts tests are in fact repeatable then the FW190 pilot in the game cannot use the historically accurate initial acceleration advantage, instead that advantage goes to the P-47, and the same appears to apply to the 109 only more so.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AHhhhhh! Now we get to the real issue eh? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Not really interested at all in the subject at hand (Do planes all dive the same or not?) what you are really intereseted in is that the FW190 is no longer the king of the B&Z!

LOL tooooo funny! All this posturing and bombastic statements and thats all it was about?! SHEESH.

I'm going to bed.

WWMaxGunz
09-07-2004, 08:55 PM
Since we don't don't know just how they moved into the dive at the ADFU thing
and how the Tagert planes went into their dives (but look at the pitch data,
they nosed down except the 109 that nosed up then down) compared, it is sloppy
to compared Tagerts' flights (gee, what dive angle?) with the ADFU report.
But, very predictable from Josf.

All Tagert went about to do is show the planes not diving THE SAME. He did that.

Oh yeah, using the failure of that to apply to the ADFU report and then saying
it proves the FM wrong.... do I smell hay? Yes! Somebody gimmie a lighter.


Neal

JG14_Josf
09-07-2004, 10:04 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

What can I say, you guys are always on top of things.

I am now exposed.

Good job.

I guess I'll crawl back under my rock.

Next time I'll try to be a little more honest, or would it be better if I simply don't respond to threads that mention me by name and threads that include such obvious indisputable wisdom?

clint-ruin
09-07-2004, 10:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Next time I'll try to be a little more honest, or would it be better if I simply don't respond to threads that mention me by name and threads that include such obvious indisputable wisdom?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Meow!

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/wonderful.gif

http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

TAGERT.
09-08-2004, 12:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
Ok since you're such a smart guy...
Let's do it your way... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Maybe because they too have graphs that show it is not the case?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe yes, Maybe no ! Tell me !

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The ones that didn't start at the same alt, speed, or pitch?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The first flawed ones, but since they're experts you would think he's not above saying "you're wrong" etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What part of the 109K being very different from a 109G-6 are you having trouble with? A 109K is a very different bird!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Geez didn't knew ! I thought it's 4 gear drive... Really ?
So why didn't you pick a k4 ?

And I asked you WHICH g6 since we got multiple...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>No problem.. forgiving you is getting easier each time I do it! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dunno if you notice but you're getting personal more and more....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Drrrrrrrrrrr!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Which means what ?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Got Track?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes !

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Key word there being "I"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
For whom ?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Sounds reasonable.. But don't forget what Neal pointed out.. The dive.. i.e. nose push over is just one way of doing it.. For example a Fw190 might utlise it great roll rate to FIRST roll the pull into a dive (Split S) where as other plans might not.. That little detail gets left out of a lot of the combat pilots statements of I can out dive a such and such.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Obvious ! BUt you can retest that... Tried it often. Ended up with 20mm hispanos down my spine often... explain l8er.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>True !<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thank you lord !


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Not maybe.. is!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So you prove your g6 accelarates slower during dives than the p47 and I prove that the K4 dive-accelaration is as fast as the p47 and we'Re back where we started.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Got Track?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes already posted. Must have vanished somewhere in between all these quotations..

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
And I get tired of you saying you don't see it.. Just what is it your not seeing?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Since you quote the whole thread in every post just scroll up one post re-read and spot it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Too Late! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As expected... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
BF 109G6 Late
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thank you Sir !
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
PS the "All dive the same" has been further debunked here..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hmmm let me see.
For about 25 seconds all 44er planes dive the same, which is until they all reach about 550km/h. The first visible difference is at 30 seconds where the jet is
about 620km/h
the D9 is 600
and the spit at about 595. (so you'Re enjoying 30 seconds of pure adrenalin since you're enemy is shooting you all the time..)
ten seconds later (40) we'Re at
710kp/h for the D9 and about 695.
That's a difference of 2,0% of speed disadvantge for the SpitIX..
I really see difference now... This is truly some difference. Since we'Re just humans and our stick inputs are 100% the same during all times then the 2% difference now proves everything. *irony
Especially if we see the graphs you posted for the elevator input... (no offence I know that this one is impossible but 2% difference is not what counts as difference right ?)

So when you both start and you dive in a d9 after perfroming a roll (whereas the other guy simply pushes the stick forward, as everyone expects this),
You roll and apply elevator and dive whereas he already pushed forward (no advantage here...)
And then you dive (don't forget to roll back for levelling out, there goes your time-advantage..)for some let's say 40 seconds before you get a speed avantage of lousy 15km/h... What do you expect the other guy to do 300ms behind you ? Being amazed of your dive ?

The dive for the jets is the same what I got. 25 seconds for ME262 and HE162 from 350 - 700. (Yes got track, want mail ?)

Then again: I did tests from 350 to 700km/h and you jumped up saying "you should start with other speeds" and suggested higher speeds(back then when I did the first flawed ones. However you do your tests from 200km/h... (well I never thought this makes a difference anyway)

Yet, I have to correct my view. out of curiosity I made some dive tests with plane like the BF109E4 and the HE111 and checked how accelration is modelled there. (Yes I got track ! Mail ?)
The BF109 took 40 seconds to reach 700 from 350 and the HE111 took 50 (you have to tape the stick forward since the bird will go nose up by itself..).
This alone made me rethink the whole matter and makes me admit that not every plane dives the same.
Yet, a damn lot do...

Recently we've been performing SPIT.IX vs a4 dive tests in which the SPIT.IX didn't fall back, although R.A.F. tests in the quoted Osprey books speak of a initial dive advantage. and yes. I have tracks... My side and the side of my squadmate following me and after that us both changing planes)....

I must however say, I respect your work of taking numbers down and making all these colorful graphs. I Respect that work and patience. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dont say I never gave you anything!

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=489004217

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
09-08-2004, 08:05 AM
didn't want to tagert. really...

I am reading your new thread and all the while creating new divetests etc. nothing new really.
I took some suggestions from you and others and go on.
But I don't however think that I picked up TWO similar fighters and expected large differences. If you recall right I tested
Spit IXe
P38-L
P47D-27
P51-D
FW190-A9
FW190-D944
BF109-K4

I think atleast in between these there should have been some difference. I watch and I learn. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Doing new tests and with more checkpoints etc.
I'Ve already partially corrected my view as I said before.
Didn't mean to be offensive but sometimes, only sometimes I think you go too far http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
But that shoe will easily fit me too. !S!

Let's go on in your new thread and see. (although title is crying for attention and I think it's not by accident...) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.g-c-p.de/sigbib/hh/gotcha.jpg

TAGERT.
09-08-2004, 05:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
didn't want to tagert. really...

I am reading your new thread and all the while creating new divetests etc. nothing new really. I took some suggestions from you and others and go on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well I tried.. granted the theme is the same.. thus nothing new there, but I just thought I would give it one more try in explaining how a little speed differences effects separation.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
But I don't however think that I picked up TWO similar fighters and expected large differences. If you recall right I tested
Spit IXe
P38-L
P47D-27
P51-D
FW190-A9
FW190-D944
BF109-K4<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not similar in the sense that they all LOOK similar.. More in the sense that they are all late war best of the best. When you consider how FEW of the 190K there were relative to all the other 109s in service it is not hard to understand that the odds of a P47 encountering a K over a G is LOW! Let alone to be envolved in a high speed dive.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
I think at least in between these there should have been some difference.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Some Differences.. You know that is your problem! Maybe you should draw a picture of a graph of WHAT YOU EXPECT!!! I mean do you expect to see that STAR TREK effect where a P47 accelerates so fast that it stretches out and warps away into a sun burst? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But seriously.. you should take a moment and write down what you EXPECT! A 5mph difference? A 10mph difference? A 15mph difference? A 20mph difference? A 25mph difference? Or A 100mph difference? Just what part of your expectations are not being met? In the process of doing so I think you will realize your expectations were and are too high

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
I watch and I learn. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Doing new tests and with more checkpoints etc.
I'Ve already partially corrected my view as I said before.
Didn't mean to be offensive but sometimes, only sometimes I think you go too far http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
But that shoe will easily fit me too. !S!;<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Guilty as charged! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif It is hard sometimes.. We both love this sim and what the best for it.. There are plenty of times that I was, am, and will be wrong. I just hope others will point out my errors so I can change.. I just hope it does not take as many different explanations as it has for me to you on this velocity vs separation thing! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
Let's go on in your new thread and see. (although title is crying for attention and I think it's not by accident...) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I didn't name any names.. But if the shoe fits! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Don't worry.. I'm wrong a lot.. So I'm sure in the near future you will be able to get some pay back on me! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Heck if you feel the need.. There is allways my spelling and gramer that can be made fun of! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

clint-ruin
09-09-2004, 12:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Some Differences.. You know that is your problem! Maybe you should draw a picture of a graph of WHAT YOU EXPECT!!! I mean do you expect to see that STAR TREK effect where a P47 accelerates so fast that it stretches out and warps away into a sun burst? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do we have the Zero dive test Vs F4F that shows bugger all difference between them posted to this thread yet? The real life USN one, I mean. I don't have any idea what people mean when they say "better" or "worse" in a dive myself either, as far as expectations - the difference is very rarely quantified. Wonder why :&gt;


http://users.bigpond.net.au/gwen/fb/leninkoba.jpg

Kurfurst__
09-09-2004, 05:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Not similar in the sense that they all LOOK similar.. More in the sense that they are all late war best of the best. When you consider how FEW of the 190K there were relative to all the other 109s in service it is not hard to understand that the odds of a P47 encountering a K over a G is LOW! Let alone to be envolved in a high speed dive.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Common misconception. The 109K was fairly widespread in the LW ranks after it was introduced in October 1944 (already 200 seeing service in that 1st month). By the end of Jan 1945, about every 3rd 109 an Allied plane may encountered was a 109K-4. Hardly a few, especially considering that some 1700 were built before the hostilities ended.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/nw2004set7.jpg

We're walking in the air
We're floating in the midnight sky
And everyone who sees us greets us as we fly

TAGERT.
09-09-2004, 09:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Common misconception. The 109K was fairly widespread in the LW ranks after it was introduced in October 1944 (already 200 seeing service in that 1st month). By the end of Jan 1945, about every 3rd 109 an Allied plane may encountered was a 109K-4. Hardly a few, especially considering that some 1700 were built before the hostilities ended.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is your opinion and your welcome to it. But Ill stick with mine, thanks

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

TAGERT.
09-09-2004, 09:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
Do we have the Zero dive test Vs F4F that shows bugger all difference between them posted to this thread yet? The real life USN one, I mean. I don't have any idea what people mean when they say "better" or "worse" in a dive myself either, as far as expectations - the difference is very rarely quantified. Wonder why :&gt;
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally! Like so many things here peoples expectations are based of their interpretations of what some combat pilot said about some specific situation.. In short they read the word FAST and ting apply a number to it.. Even though the combat pilot made no mention of a number.. So how fast is your fast relative to my fast? Is it faster? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

JG14_Josf
09-09-2004, 10:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the difference is very rarely quantified <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"220 m.p.h to 300 m.p.h with full throttle at 15,000 feet: Again the FW-190 initially gained about 200 yards but the P-47 quickly overtook it."

"(c) Diving:
(1) 10,000 feet to 3,000 feet, starting at 250 m.p.h. diving at angle of 65 deg with constant throttle setting. The Fw190 pulled away rapidly at the begining but the P-47 passed it at 3,000 feet with a much greater speed..."


http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/p47-fw190-2.jpg



In the above document a quanity for acceleration in level flight is well defined.

200 yards distance
220 m.p.h.
to 300 m.p.h.


200 yards is about the distance your wingman is in front of you if you are flying an FW190 and your wingman is flying an FW190. Where your wingman is one gunsite reticle radius.

200 yards is two football fields.

In the flight speed envelope between 220 m.p.h and 300 m.p.h. the FW190 can gain two football fields of distance on the P-47 in level flight.

From a level cruise at 220 m.p.h. the FW.190 can go from equal separation to a distance of 200 yards ahead of a P-47 (in real history) in the time it takes for the P-47 to reach 300 m.p.h.

That span of distance equates to an energy performance advantage. In other words if both planes maneuver in that speed range while fighting each other the FW190 will have an energy maneuverability advantage.

So the next question one might ask if they were in fact interested in learning about fighter combat history is what happens if both planes start climbing, diving, or turning in that slower speed range or flight envelope?

"(b.) Climb:

(1) 2,000 feet to 7,000 feet, starting at 250 m.p.h. Both airplaens were pulled up rapidly to the angle of maximum climb and held until an altitued of 5,500 feet was reached. The FW-190 climbed faster than the P-47 through the first 1,500 feet, but the P-47 quickly over took it and steadily outclimbed it by 500 feet per minute. The P-47 used water injection and slightly overheated, while the FW-190 did not overheat."

Note: Starting at 250 m.p.h and the FW-190 climbed faster than the P-47. i.e. from 2,000 feet through 3,500 feet.

Also note the 190A5 in that test did not overheat (possibly no Wep)

Regardless of any other possible quesswork the condition of initial energy gains are documented for climb.

"(c) Diving:

(1) 10,000 feet to 3,000 feet, starting at 250 m.p.h divng at angle of 65 deg with constant throttle setting. The FW-190 pulled away rapidly at the beginning but the P-47 passed it at 3,000 feet..."

Note: starting at 250 m.p.h. the FW-190 pulled away rapidly

Again the initial energy gaining advantage in the slower speed range.

(d) Turning:

"(3) Turning:
(3) Turning and handling in excess of 250 m.p.h. the two airplanes alternately turned on each other's tail, holding in the turns as tightly as possible, and alternating the turns from right to left. The P-47 easily out-turned the FW-190 at 10,000 feet and had to throttle back in order to keep from over-running the Fw-190. The superiority of the P-47 in turning increased with altitude. The FW-190 was very heavy in fore and aft control, vibrated excessively, and tended to black out the pilot."

(2) Turning and handling below 250 m.p.h. turns were made so rapidly that it was impossible for the airplanes to accelerate and the ability of the FW-190 to hang on its propeller and turn inside the P-47 was very evident. The FW-190 was also able to accelerate suddenly and change to a more favorable position. It was found, however, that the P-47 could gain more advantage by making slow turns on an oblique axis. The FW-190 accelerates slowly in the dive and when the P-47 pulls up to the top of the oblique axis, the FW-190 has insufficient speed to follow through."

That last paragraph is telling the entire energy maneuverability story between the FW190 and the P-47.

For those, in the know, for those who have a sense for energy tactics and energy maneuverability that last sentence makes perfect sense. For others it does not and will only confuse them.

Here is more from the same source that supports the slow speed acceleration advantage envelope held by the FW:

The FW was flown by an experienced pilot of A.F.D.U., and the Thunderbolt by pilots of the U.S.A.A.F. The FW.190 was loaded as a fighter to 8,300 lbs., and the Thunderbolt to 13,140 lbs. (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/p47-fw190-3.jpg)

http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/p47-fw190-4.jpg


Back on topic:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I mean do you expect to see that STAR TREK effect where a P47 accelerates so fast that it stretches out and warps away into a sun burst? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hyperbole is a tired old whine just like 'shooting the messenger'. If the argument is baseless and wrong the only remaining use of one's 'Hot Air' is to politicize the debate.

What exactly does this statement communicate?:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I mean do you expect to see that STAR TREK effect where a P47 accelerates so fast that it stretches out and warps away into a sun burst? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about 200 yards from 220 m.p.h. to 300 m.p.h. or better yet how about a combat advantage in that speed range of the flight envelope?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I don't have any idea what people mean when they say "better" or "worse" in a dive myself either, as far as expectations - the difference is very rarely quantified. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now this guy should know better since he is the only one I have found on these boards that questions the often quoted 'Fact' that dive acceleration is determined by level acceleration. Neal, if anyone, should be able to answer this simple question:

If the P-47 is slower in level acceleration from 220 m.p.h. to 300 m.p.h. then will it be slower or faster in acceleration in that same speed range in a dive?

My quess is that Neal will answer correctly with "I don't know for sure" and my guess is that Neal won't offer his best guess on that question because the obvious best guess is:

The distance gained by the FW190 over the P-47 in a dive from 220 m.p.h. to 300 m.p.h will be close to the level distance gain of 200 yards and if anything it will be greater because the forces of drag are less of a factor at these speeds and gravity is constant for both.

So there you have it.

200 yards, two football fields, from 220 m.p.h to 300 m.p.h in level flight and that much or more in a dive.

Now, as to my character my integrity and the question of my sanity.

Seriously?

Have a nice day http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Blutarski2004
09-09-2004, 10:37 AM
Josf,

I see nothing in your posted evidence which disputes Tagert's overall evaluation.

The FW190A series clearly had a power loading advantage over the P47 series and would unquestionably gain separation distance in a contest of acceleration from 220 to 300 mph. The question at hand is what happened after the FW190 had achieved its maximum speed, i.e. - all engine power devoted to maintaining speed and no surplus remaining to further accelerate the a/c.

At that point it becomes an issue of which a/c had the superior ballistic efficiency. Unquestionably, at 14,000 lbs, P47 was superior in this regard to the much lighter FW190.

Although gravity does act equally upon all falling bodies, that statement omits the influence of atmosphere upon the behavior of those falling bodies. An extreme example is that of the bowling ball versus feather test. Under vacuum conditions, both will fall equally fast under the influence of gravity. When falling through a gaseous atmosphere, the much better ballistic co-efficient of the bowling ball permits it to achieve a far higher terminal velocity and accelerate faster in doing so.

In this respect, the observations contained in the report page which you posted make perfect sense. The superior power loading of the FW190 gave it the initial advantage, after which the advantage passed to the much heavier P47 due to its superior characteristics as a purely ballistic projectile. This has far less to do with any sort of streamlining difference than it does with the basic difference in size. For any given form of the same density material, the larger one will show the better ballistic performance.

So ........
In dives of shorter duration - advantage FW190.
In dives of longer duration - advantage P47.

Now can we all hug?


BLUTARSKI

[This message was edited by Blutarski2004 on Thu September 09 2004 at 10:05 AM.]

JG14_Josf
09-09-2004, 11:05 AM
Blutarski,

If you have not or will not read the entire thread than, respectfully, you are in no position to ask that question.

If however you have read this thread from one end to the other than I am going to have to ask why is it important to you to take sides?

Why can't my post be nothing more or less than the words in it based upon the context in this thread?

I started with a statement and answered the statements contention.

I participated in this thread as a result of being personally named during this theads development. In essence I have been invited to join this thread. Read it and try to imagine my perspective for one moment. Be objective and then respond.

My opinion is that I do see a perspective that has validity concerning my posts and a lack of relavance to the original post.

Is there room in this forum, on this topic, in this thread for a viewpoint that is not exacty the same as the original topic?

Is there any validity in the idea that this topic is part and parcel to a broader topic?

If not then perhaps you should take the matter up with those who have mentioned my name during this post.

A. 'nothing in your post' 'disputes Tagert's overall evaluation.'

B. 'What are you driving at?'

A. I have no intention of disputing Tagert's "overall evaluation".

B. Specific documented dive acceleration performance capabilities are not simulated in the game.

Note: I left this thread on what I thought were good terms. I put myself in the shoes of the other side and exited from their perspective. I crawled back under my rock, perhaps I should have said "I am now going to seek professional help".

Note:
After I left I saw more activity in this thread and found this:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the difference is very rarely quantified <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You may not see any reason to contend with that statement. I do.

Does that answer your question?

Blutarski2004
09-09-2004, 11:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Blutarski,
Does that answer your question?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Josf, you apparently are under the impression that I'm trying to pick a fight with you. Not the case.

BLUTARSKI

WWMaxGunz
09-09-2004, 12:03 PM
220mph to 300mph is level flight and that should be checked that way first.
In level flight going from such a low speed for the P-47, the mass of the Jug will be
what keeps it behind. The ADFU page that used to get linked to before also states
clearly that running from 220 up to some higher speed (full?) that at 330mph the P-47
sped up rapidly and passed the FW in question then gained 2000 yards or was it feet?
Not to care too much, the P-47 had engaged WEP and water injection at some point as
well -- how to duplicate what they don't fully say?

In a dive the mass of the P-47 still is a divider on the thrust BUT especially in a
steep dive the acceleration of gravity just overshadows T/W of either plane so I
would expect a closer race once the dive actually begins. Maybe why in combat the
pilots in not-slow rolling planes would invert and pull down, split-essing to pull
up into a dive angle and if needing to change direction then doing that in a roll
during the vertical part of the split-s.

That ADFU dive test, they both start at 400kph and neither adjusts throttle from
there. Any idea how many ways there are to get that speed using manual PP and be
able to set throttle wherever you want??? So auto pitch is my best guess, a guess
only but I think the higher chance. And I'd also guess they nosed over for that one.

Which FW is important. A +good+ source writes me that the A-9 should beat the 47D-27
in such dives although not telling me at what power, I'd guess full but only a guess.
Would the D-9 be much worse than the A-9 in a dive?

Got to take care not to apply comparisons as general or war stories that way either.
'A 190', 'A 109', 'A P-51' or 'A P-47' should 'do this against' &lt;any of the other&gt;
is to me a flag saying 'this idiot very probably doesn't know much'. The more I
learn, the more I know that things vary. Different versions of those planes are not
the same, some ain't even close as the contemporary competition overall. Maybe the
P-47's/P-51's had the least change, they weren't around as long either. Ask Chimp
or Hop maybe....

How many of what plane were made by end of war? Is that also delivered and used????
What had I read about massed new German planes, yours is damaged so they get a new
one because there's not enough pilots and fuel to use more than limited numbers but
the factories keep cranking them out? I suppose the majority of German pilots of
the time could fly the K's as well as the G's even though I understand it takes some
special understanding to use properly? But let's just count the ones made and while
that is good then figure the chances of a P-51H the same way... I don't think so!
Counting all made, good way to say about odds though. Never mind how many US planes
never left the US it makes good numbers to play with statistics. Always fun to throw
convenient numbers around to make any conjecture seem supported.
Surely there are how many of what plane used by what unit and better to show the chance
of meeting some model in some time and place? I'm sure that somewhere and when the
chance of meeting all 109K's was assured! Where and when, I can't say.


Neal

JG14_Josf
09-09-2004, 12:06 PM
Blutarski,

Thanks for clarifying that you are not trying to pick a fight with me.

I did not think so anyway.

Note the time of my answer = the time of your editing work = 10:05.

I answered your shorter pre-edit version of your post and even before the 'group hug' comment I did not think you were picking a fight with me.

Simply, matter of fact, I answered your original (pre-edited) question as best as I could.

Note please that the game does not model an initial acceleration advantage held by the FW190. This fact, if I am not mistaken, is supported by all the information found in this thread.

Blutarski2004
09-09-2004, 01:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Blutarski,

Thanks for clarifying that you are not trying to pick a fight with me.

I did not think so anyway.

Note the time of my answer = the time of your editing work = 10:05.

I answered your shorter pre-edit version of your post and even before the 'group hug' comment I did not think you were picking a fight with me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... No problem, Josf. It's a funny thing that after I posted the first version, I said to myself "hmmm ... this sounds a little bit too aggressive." So I went back and added all the other stuff to clarify my position.

BLUTARSKI

Loki-PF
09-09-2004, 03:33 PM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Funny, I thought this was the "All planes in IL2 dive the same" thread! I thought I was keeping up. I must have missed a page. When did this become the "FW190 is a better accelerator in level flight starting at low speeds thread?"

BTW, Josf the report you have posted proves pretty conclusively the the P47 dives better than the FW190. Good Job! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JG14_Josf
09-09-2004, 04:18 PM
Loki-PF,

High five right back at ya'

Thanks.

Joe

TAGERT.
09-10-2004, 09:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Loki-PF:
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Funny, I thought this was the "_All planes in IL2 dive the same_" thread! I thought I was keeping up. I must have missed a page. When did this become the "_FW190 is a better accelerator in level flight starting at low speeds thread?_"

BTW, Josf the report you have posted proves pretty conclusively the the P47 dives better than the FW190. Good Job! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Me Too! Funny in a sad kind of way.. I have noticed that some peopel here when faced with the fact that thier favorite airplane is not the best at everything they get a little upsete and feel the need to talk about the things that it did do good.. Even though everybody else was talking about something different.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

WWMaxGunz
09-10-2004, 10:20 AM
Don't think you understand his point. In the report, the FW pulls a lead at the start.

I don't expect that in every case but it should be able to happen and no, I don't
say there must be a 200 yard lead on the basis of level acceleration at full power
especially when the dive was done at 400kph power. Still, it should be that there
is a lead gainable and then lost for the FW. I did some flights and looked at the
data, and I find that just a little pitch difference can do that, otherwise if the
planes are anywhere near close overall the differences are very small in the sim
for a lot of runs. But then I can find enough differences in how flown that hey
when you change some the distance opens up more.


Neal

TAGERT.
09-10-2004, 10:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Don't think you understand his point. In the report, the FW pulls a lead at the start.

I don't expect that in every case but it should be able to happen and no, I don't
say there must be a 200 yard lead on the basis of level acceleration at full power
especially when the dive was done at 400kph power. Still, it should be that there
is a lead gainable and then lost for the FW. I did some flights and looked at the
data, and I find that just a little pitch difference can do that, otherwise if the
planes are anywhere near close overall the differences are very small in the sim
for a lot of runs. But then I can find enough differences in how flown that hey
when you change some the distance opens up more.


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No I understand his need to defend his favorite aircraft.. What stikes me FUNNY is that he uses this report and points to all the things in it along the way as to give some creditbility to his arguments.. But in the end he draws a different conclusion then the report did.. His being the Fw190 dove better than the P47

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

k5054
09-10-2004, 10:36 AM
I put the FW and P-47 into my performance calculating excel sheet, and the result was less pronounced than what it says in the report. The report does not say how long it takes to overtake, or which a/c is doing the target speed (300mph? IAS? TAS?) at the end. IIRC the report does not say whether the Tbolt has a paddle-blade prop. In fact it may be suffering a prop efficiency problem at low speeds as well as a power/weight problem. I'm surprised it does so well in this low speed test.
This test is interesting but it STILL does not have enough data and detail to tell us what's going on exactly. We need times, weights, boost, rpm for completeness.


Neal, I noticed you were using an estimated method for IAS/TAS conversion. Do you have the actual formula? If not, I have one used for the modern 'standard atmosphere'

IAS/TAS = (1 - height/145442)^2.127938

That's with the height in ft, for metres use 44342 instead of 145442. This works below 36,089 ft, above that it's a different formula completely. Apologies if this is known to you and you were using the quick method by choice.

TAGERT.
09-10-2004, 11:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by k5054:
I put the FW and P-47 into my performance calculating excel sheet, and the result was less pronounced than what it says in the report. The report does not say how long it takes to overtake, or which a/c is doing the target speed (300mph? IAS? TAS?) at the end. IIRC the report does not say whether the Tbolt has a paddle-blade prop. In fact it may be suffering a prop efficiency problem at low speeds as well as a power/weight problem. I'm surprised it does so well in this low speed test.
This test is interesting but it STILL does not have enough data and detail to tell us what's going on exactly. We need times, weights, boost, rpm for completeness.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>True.. sad but true actually.. In that alot of the reports from that time leave out alot of the things needed to recreate the senarios.. But then again those reports were not intended for some simulation 60+ years later to redo what they did! Their main goal was to pass on basic do's and dont's to the pilots.. Anymore detail was not really necessary for that purpose. Even alot of the very detailed NACA testing reports leave out alot of info. But these at least have more information then just about any after action in the bar combat pilot statements. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/kickme.jpg
TAGERT

WWMaxGunz
09-10-2004, 11:21 AM
Was that a P-47C vs FW-190A-3 in the report?

I used the formula passed on SimHQ.
TASkph = (( IASkph / 3.6) x ( 1 + Alt meters / 15000 )) x 3.6

It goes up to the tropopause which from charts the graph line looks pretty linear on
the sites that show that information. That's 15000m alt.

My old scientific calculator has dead battery, maybe I should write a program to see
how much difference there is between the two, that above and the one you give?


Neal

JG14_Josf
09-10-2004, 01:21 PM
Guys,

Thanks for not ignoring this important performance variable. To do so would be counter productive in identifying accuracy on the basis of principle.

Thank you very much. It is important to more players than you may think to strive for greater accuracy in simulation.

To be clear however the level distance gained was 200 yards from 220 m.p.h. to 300 m.p.h. and that should offer enough information to find the time duration. Then again I am not really good at math but it seems to me the numbers required are present.

Also the P-47 has a air speed indicator that uses miles per hour while the FW has an air speed indicator that uses kilometers per hour so it seem logical to me that the report uses the P-47s starting speed at 220 m.p.h and the P-47s ending speed of 300 m.p.h. to arrive at the 200 yards separation distance.

Regardless the fact remains that the document expresses the condition of superior energy manueverability (acceleration) held by the FW190 in this speed range which is further supported by the end conclusions such as:

"10. The Thunderbolt can only evade the FW.190 successfully by diving; it is out-classed in the climb and general manoeuvrability, with the possible exception of combats at ground level."

Neal wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>especially when the dive was done at 400kph power. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually if a comparision is to be made to identify the relative difference between 200 yards in level flight and 'pulled away rapidly' in a 65 deg dive it should be made clear that the level flight speeds are documented as starting at 220 m.p.h for the level flight test and starting at 250 m.p.h. in the dive test.
(4)15,000 feet & (1) 10,000 feet (http://www.lanpartyworld.com/ww2/images/p47-fw190-2.jpg)

Where the FW190 gained 200 yards in level flight starting at 220 m.p.h. the FW190 'pulled away rapidly' in a dive starting 30 m.p.h. faster or from 250 m.p.h.

So it remains a relatively close comparison in starting speeds and therefore a relatively close comparison in relative drag force.

200 yards being a minimum expected separation in the dive in my opinion supported by Blutarski's words as I interpret them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The superior power loading of the FW190 gave it the initial advantage, after which the advantage passed to the much heavier P47 due to its superior characteristics as a purely ballistic projectile. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Finding specific information to nail down exactly which plane, which fuel, which engine RPM settings etc. is required for some people. This is an obvious fact.

This does not mean that everyone must also share this need. Some of us simply want to simulate WWII air combat accurately and tests like these conducted by A.D.F.U pilots flying the FW and U.S.A.A.F. pilots flying the Thunderbolt are valuable in indentifying relative combat performance to a much higher degree than numbers on a chart.

We get combat pilots opinions as to:

"what the P-47 airplane could do in combat against the FW-190"

To some of us this information is very valuable in identifying how well the current best simulator measures up to the real thing, the real thing described by the real pilots who flew those planes in history.

Yes, it is sad that despite mounting evidence the game remains innacurate in regard to dive performance. However there is reason to be optimistic because at least the game is moving ahead. Where once the P-47 had no dive performance advantage, now it has a dive performance advantage.

Instead of a complex and accurate flight model we have a flat one. Instead of planes that had slow speed strenghts in acceleration and high speed weaknesses those planes either have all or nothing.

The good news is that the game is moving toward greater accuracy, which ultimately could result in simulating WWII Fighter Combat with greater accuracy.

The bad news is that until then some planes will not have historically accurate performance advantages such as the FW190A's well documented initial acceleration advantage.

The game appears to be unable to differentiate between high and low speed acceleration performance and therefore a compromise must be made in the FW190 vs P-47 match-up. In that fight either one or the other plane will have an acceleration advantage and it appears not to be possible to simulate the real world slow speed advantage of one plane and, in the same code, also have a high speed dissadvantage.

Where the FW190 in history was capable of employing a slow speed acceleration advantage the P-47 in the game holds that advantage.

As to the dubious claim that some players simply want an unfair advantage or cheat I can only say that these innaccuracies are only detrimental to my sense of value.

Having an innacurate advantage or dissadvantage remains unnacurate and undesirable.

If anyone must beieve otherwise then I wonder if this is a function of:

Transference (http://www.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/transference.html)

I see no other reason for this error.

Blutarski2004
09-10-2004, 02:40 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Guys,

Thanks for not ignoring this important performance variable. ...


..... Just a thought.

Has anyone closely examined how acceleration is modelled in FB? Is it a static/arbitrary value or does it vary inversely with speed? Level flight acceleration should decrease more or less steadily as speed increases (assuming a constant throttle setting, of course).

If it is modelled as a static value, that would certainly create issues.

As an example, we all agree (I trust) with the above-discussed description of P47 versus FW190A dive performance starting from a low dpeed of 220 mph.

HOWEVER, if the the dive test were to start at 400 mph, the level flight acceleration of the FW190 would not be present and the P47 would then possess an advantage throughout the dive.

Inquiring minds want to know ;-)

BLUTARSKI

k5054
09-10-2004, 02:58 PM
I think that AEP's flight model can duplicate the slow speed acceleration and the high speed. These things are calculated by finding three factors and combinig them in one expression. They are the accn due to g, which is the sine of the dive angle * g, the drag, and the thrust. The drag and the thrust vary according to known rules, in the same way for each type. In fact we know that thrust = drag at high speed, so if we know the power for max speed at any height we can determine thrust and drag. In fact we have to split drag into two parts, one varying with the square of the speed and one inversely as the square, and the thrust has prop efficiency and exhaust thrust to be considered, but it's possible to deduce constants to be put into a common equation with the appropriate speed and air density (and dive or climb angle) to give the acceleration, speed and excess power for each type. What I mean is the equation is the same, the constants for each type are held by the game (presumably) and the speed and density are inserted at calculation time. If this is done correctly the slow and high speed accelerations will come out. The formula and method do not need to be altered to fit the case, climb, dive, level, whatever.

It's my opinion (or informed guess might be closer) that this is how AEP works, and that the game does show us something like real life behaviour, up to a point. It DOES NOT show us good high speed (800kph plus) acceleration, the accn is too high in the game, possibly because sonic drag rise is not modelled, ie the formula is unchanged in an area where drag ceases to behave as at lower speed, and prop efficiency deteriorates at an unknown rate, where a different method is indicated. I got to this conclusion by comparing devicelink info from Hyperion with the flight tests of the spitfire and P-47. Basically Hype's data shows at 600mph the a/c is still gaining 10mph/sec or so, whereas in the real test it was 2-3mph/sec if anything.

And Josf, I assure you that the P-47/Fw test is missing one piece of data, be it the time taken or the distance travelled by one a/c, to fill in the blanks.

robban75
09-10-2004, 03:00 PM
Here's a level acceleration comparison between the ´45 D-9 and La-7. Full fuel for both on the Crimea map. Altitude 10m.

Timer started at 300km/h. Time in seconds.

La-7(left, D-9(right)

350 - 4 - 5
400 - 10 - 12
450 - 17 - 21
500 - 27 - 33
550 - 43 - 52
600 - 87 - 103

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

k5054
09-10-2004, 03:16 PM
Neal, I checked the two IAS/TAS formulae, yours gives answers varying from 100%(S/L) to 96.5% to 106% (at the tropopause) of mine. It's not a bad estimate at all considering it avoids the difficult math of the 'official' one. I'd avoid it if I was intending to use the TAS in a further calculation though, like a drag or lift formula, the errors could snowball.
(This is assuming the formula I quoted (found on the net) is correct.)

JG14_Josf
09-10-2004, 03:52 PM
k5054,

I trust that you know what you are talking about and if you need another number to fill in a blank that you need then that makes perfect sense to me.

On the other hand I have no reason to need any more numbers to make an obvious conclusion:

If the game does not result in 200 yards separation after the P-47 goes from 220 to 300 m.p.h then my opinion is that the game does not simulate the test conducted on that document. The time taken or the distance travelled by one a/c is not my concern although it still seems obvious to me that those blanks could be filled in with math.

That contention is not my concern on this topic but since you bring it up then I ask:

Plane A is traveling at 220 m.p.h
an undetermined time elapses at which it is now traveling at 300 m.p.h.
In between 220 m.p.h and 300 m.p.h. can an average value for acceleration be used to compute a total distance and total time traveled?
I undersand that this calculation would not be absolutely precise, however, here in lies our main contention, I think. I am concerned with fighter combat and not absolutely precise calculations.

Example:
History records that plane A acclerates faster than plane B at speeds below corner veloicty (rounded off speed value)

The game records the opposite condition where plane B holds this advantage over plane A

In my view there is little cause to be precise when the condition of advantage is obvious reversed.

Combat between these two planes (in that slower speed envelope) is not going to be anything resembling historical accuracy unless some other performance variable is changed (inaccuratly) to make up for this obvious contradiction.

I have no problem with someone interested in finding out absolute numbers and anyone interested in making charts based upon these numbers.

Please continue having your fun. I will have mine which is found in simulating WWII fighter combat accurately.

We could bridge the gap of interest between those who are interested in making charts and doing calculations and those who are interested in simulating WWII air combat if the charts being made were something the fighter pilots could use like EM charts with lines of constant Ps.

Now, if we are to continue to discuss the inaccuracies of calculating fighter performance as an absolute (as opposed to a relative value) then the subject of drag force will become, in my opinion, our biggest hurdle, the most elusive absolute value.

Drag as a calculation of the sum of area does not account for the total drag equation that includes the factor of relative density.

I think the real world is not accurately represented with math in the matter of relative fighter performance. I think we are going to get right back to the 'fill in the blanks' arena in short order when effort is finally zeroed in on defining total drag.

That is my take on it. I've been down this road enough times to realize my limitations. If you find reason to continue in the effort to fill in all the blanks to find some absolute accurate performance value then have at it. I wish you the utmost success in your endeavor.

I am going to be concerned with relative performance capabilities as opposed to the absolute.

It is much easier to fill in this blank:

Which plane has the energy maneuverability advantage below corner velocity:
Plane A
Plane B
Neither

Absolute values rather than relative ones can be made more precise once the obvious gross erros in relative performance are fixed.

example:

If plane A is better than Plane B and Plane C is worse than plane A then how does Plane C stack up against plane B?

If plane D is better than plane B...

The more planes that are fit into the flight model the more accurate the absolute values will become and frankly who cares what the absolute values are anyway?

Fighter combat is competition.

Why not model each plane exactly the same?

Historical fighter combat is based upon history and each plane was not the same in history?

So why not simply make each plane different and attach random names onto these different performing flight models?

Documents exist that show particular performance capabilites that were recorded in history like:

The FW190 gains 200 yards in a drag race starting at 220 m.p.h and ending at 300 m.p.h.

2 football fields is a combat advantage both in range and energy.

My concern is the advantage existed in history (not any exact number) and in the game that characteristic of that plane matchup is reversed and does not resemble history.

No big deal, it is simply room for improvement, if possible.

Snoop_Baron
09-10-2004, 05:57 PM
For this level acceleration test, which models where used for the P47 and FW? Do we have them in the game?

:FI:Snoop Baron
http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_01.jpg

WWMaxGunz
09-10-2004, 06:02 PM
Level acceleration physics varies from dive acceleration physics by a lot.
The steeper the dive, the more that gravitational acceleration will swamp
the other factors, period. So I don't expect to see the T/W difference
that gives the FW an initial advantage (find the line about the 220mph to
full speed run where at 330mph the P-47 reverses the trend) is going to
matter as much given that it's minor compared to gravitational effect at
65 degrees and in the start of the dive. Pulling rapidly away can be by
as much as a couple of plane lengths and still be noted as such. What is
there in that report to say WTF they mean? Nada.

The conclusion that the P-47 can only dive away is also BS. An interview
was posted here by a P-47 ace (guess who?) and his reply when asked about
diving was that he didn't, he pulled up in a vertical zoom and never lost
that way. But what does he know? He should have listened to the ADFU guys!
THEY know what to do! ROFL! That about shows how I feel about their
conclusions. Good thing we had people flying the planes that we did.

The discussion has about stopped making headway. It's gathering moss and
other BS. It'd be nicer to know how to maximize performances for one now
we have tools than back to throwing up the same report (sometimes different
PAGES though) and shooting them through the same holes time after time for
the benefit of those who can't see anything but the text itself.

Gotcha, if you read this I have outputs of your dives for days now in a 4k
zip. PM'd and no response where to send the file.


Neal

JG14_Josf
09-19-2004, 09:17 AM
Roban75,

Can you do a level acceleration comparison between the Spitfire MK VB 1941, FW190A-4, FW190A-5, P-47 D-10 1943, and the Spitfire MK IXc 1943?

Can you start the test at 220 mph (354kph) and then stop the test at 300 mph (483 kph)?

This is a request based upon possible comparision value to the ADFU test between the P-47 and FW190 and the FW190 vs Spitfire tests also done by the British during WWII.

The FW190 gained about 200 yards from 220 mph to 300 mph.

The median speed between 220 mph and 300 mph is 260 mph. 260 mph = 127.111111 yards/second

A measure than can be applied to the ADFU test based upon a measure of in game relative acceleration performance.

The FW190A is about 1 and a half seconds faster from 220 mph (354kph) to 300 mph (482.8) than the P-47.

The ADFU also tested the FW190 against Spitfires but the documents describing relative acceleration for those planes are not as specific as the P-47 vs FW test.

The ADFU clearly gave the advantage in acceleration to the FW190 over the Spitfire.

Example for the ADFU test between an FW190A-3 vs a Spitfire VB 1942 (july):

"The Fw 190 has better acceleration under all conditions of flight and this must obviously be useful during combat."

"obvious" may not mean the same thing to us as it 'obviously' did to the British in the summer of 1942.

So what can be expected then from those results, if they are done?

Spitfire VB (left), P47D (middle), FW190A-5 (right)

Timer started at 354kph (350kph). Stopped at 483kph (rounded to 500kph. Time in seconds.

500kph - 20 - 21 - 22

The FW190 should clearly be fastest in level acceleration.

P.S. Thanks for the level acceleration tests done for the La-7 and D-9. Those tests show an 'obvious' advantage held by the La-7 over the D-9.

No wonder the La-7 is a tough opponent!

"Acceleration is of key importance and often overlooked. Lt.General Adolph Galland, Luftwaffe" (Fighter Combat, Robert Shaw, page 406)

[This message was edited by JG14_Josf on Sun September 19 2004 at 10:14 AM.]

JG14_Josf
09-19-2004, 11:15 AM
No hurry http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

robban75
09-19-2004, 12:06 PM
Here you go! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Fw 190A-4/P-47D-22/SpitMkIXc/SpitMkVb

Timer started at 350km/h TAS, altitude SL, full power with boost(when avaliable), full fuel, default weapons. Time in seconds. Crimea map.

350 - ST - ST - ST - ST
400 - 8.5 - 9 - 7 - 13
450 - 21 - 21.5 - 18 - 43
483 - 33 - 34 - 29 - N/A
500 - 42 - 43 - 37 - N/A

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

[This message was edited by robban75 on Sun September 19 2004 at 11:15 AM.]

TAGERT.
09-19-2004, 12:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
Here you go! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Fw 190A-4/P-47D-22/SpitMkIXc/SpitMkVb

Timer started at 350km/h TAS, altitude SL, full power with boost(when avaliable), full fuel, default weapons. Time in seconds. Crimea map.

350 - ST - ST - ST - ST
400 - 8.5 - 9 - 7 - 13
450 - 21 - 21.5 - 18 - 43
483 - 33 - 34 - 29 - N/A
500 - 42 - 43 - 37 - N/A

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

[This message was edited by robban75 on Sun September 19 2004 at 11:15 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Got Track?

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

robban75
09-19-2004, 01:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Got Track?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Got milk?

http://www.idfa.org/images/steventyler.jpg

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

TAGERT.
09-19-2004, 01:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
Got milk?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As a mater of fact I do.. But what does milk has to do with this topic? As for the topic.. I would love to see those tracks that show the Fw190 reaching those speeds prior to the P47.. ie out accelerating it as it said it would in the ADFU report. Would be nice to plot those numbers *see* how they were collected.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

robban75
09-19-2004, 02:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
I would love to see those tracks that show the Fw190 reaching those speeds prior to the P47.. ie out accelerating it as it said it would in the ADFU report. Would be nice to plot those numbers *see* how they were collected.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I have tracks, lots of them! And I wouldn't call it "outaccelerate", were talking about a superiority of less than 1(one) second here. Another tester might get different results.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

hop2002
09-19-2004, 02:16 PM
Any chance of adding the 190 A5 to that? I think the in game A4 is derated.

TAGERT.
09-19-2004, 02:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
Yes I have tracks, lots of them!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's nice.. But do you have them for the tests above? If so can you post them or email them?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
And I wouldn't call it "outaccelerate", were talking about a superiority of less than 1(one) second here. Another tester might get different results.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Which is why I would like to see the Tracks to see how valid the tests were.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

robban75
09-19-2004, 02:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Which is why I would like to see the Tracks to see how valid the tests were.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Give me your E-mail adress and I'll send'em to ya. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

JG14_Josf
09-19-2004, 02:46 PM
Robban75,

Those are very impressive numbers.

Thanks.

It is an eye opener for me to see how well the FW190A-4, P-47D-22 and SpitMKVb stack up in level acceleration as compared to the ADFU report.

Did you use the 1941 version VB?

The FW190A-4 and P-47 leave the Spitfire VB standing still!

This information inspires me to appologize for my zealous campaigning on the issue of relative acceleration for those three planes.

Could you have gotten even more out of the FW with Manual prop pitch set to 100?

Thank you very much for that test.

I really would have guessed the P-47 would be at least equal in level accleration with the FW and the real surprise is the Spitfire VB 1941. Is it possible that the earlest Spitfire modeled in the game does now represent the 1941 variant?

The one second difference between the FW and P-47 is very close to the AFDU report (according to my median acceleration calcuation 1 second equals 127 yards or approximately 200 yards as stated in the ADFU report)

This is good stuff but it sure would be better from my perspective to see this relative performance test done on-line and side by side so the actual separation can be more rather than less accurately percieved.

Using that median distance calculation of 127 yards to calculate separation the above tests show this:

Spitfire VB (left in the dust)

P-47: Last one to reach 500kph

FW190: Ahead of the P-47 by 127 yards or 116 meters

Spifire IX: Ahead of the P-47 by 762 yards or 697 meters

SpitVB -----
P-4720 -----------
FW190A ------------
SpitIX -----------------

Note: separation indicates more than a range advantage it constitutes a speed and therefore an energy advantage. Ps is gaining rapidly
between the SpitVB and the SpitIX. It takes almost twice the time for the SpitVB to go from 350kph to 400kph!

Remember the Robert S. Johnson mock combat battle between the P-47C and the Spitfire IX?

I wonder if in game comparative tests instead of these single tests would be able to more cleary measure actual separation between the planes being tested.

For example was the 6 second difference between the P-47 and the Spitfire IX closer to 5.5 seconds or 6.5 seconds?

and

Is a median calcuation for acceleration over or under representative of actual separation?

I hope these tests stand up to closer scrutiny they sure do attest to relative acceleration performance accuracy much to my embarrassment.

Thanks http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

robban75
09-19-2004, 02:48 PM
Fw 190A-5. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

350 - ST
400 - 7.5
450 - 18.5
483 - 28
500 - 35

Btw, I used the 1941 MkVb, and perhaps an acceleration test from 200km/h could have given the Spitfire better numbers, but from what I understand the MkVb is undermodelled in terms of topspeed at SL, it wont reach 490km/h even.

Lower starting speed or not, I believe the MkVb would still be left behind.

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

[This message was edited by robban75 on Sun September 19 2004 at 02:17 PM.]

hop2002
09-19-2004, 03:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Btw, I used the 1941 MkVb, and perhaps an acceleration test from 200km/h could have given the Spitfire better numbers, but from what I understand the MkVb is undermodelled in terms of topspeed at SL, it wont reach 490km/h even. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, the Spitfire V in game has the speed at low altitude of a Spit V from early 1941 with 9 lbs, and the climb rate of a Spit V from mid 42 with 16 lbs.

What that does to acceleration I don't know, but obviously at higher speeds it's going to affect acceleration dramatically.

Thanks for the A5 tests, although I assume the final figure for the A5 should be 35 secs?

robban75
09-19-2004, 03:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
Thanks for the A5 tests, although I assume the final figure for the A5 should be 35 secs?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oops! Corrected it! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

TAGERT.
09-19-2004, 03:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
This information inspires me to appologize for my zealous campaigning on the issue of relative acceleration for those three planes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
The one second difference between the FW and P-47 is very close to the AFDU report (according to my median acceleration calcuation 1 second equals 127 yards or approximately 200 yards as stated in the ADFU report)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
JG14_Josf.. I know you don't care what I think of you.. But you just went way up on my list of credible people! It takes a big man to admit here that he made a mistake.. And I respect that! I have to admit, after our little run in on these issue with regards to the dive tests I had written you off as just another Luft Whiner! But.. now I see that you can be convinced otherwise.. So please forgive me for assuming your like so many others here and treating you as such. I hope you accept my apology and I look forward to working with you in the hopes of improving the sim we all love so much!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
This is good stuff but it sure would be better from my perspective to see this relative performance test done on-line and side by side so the actual separation can be more rather than less accurately percieved. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
When and if you do, keep in mind what Neal pointed out.. A lot of what counts here is that the pilot chasing the P47 didn't know for sure what he was going to do.. that little hesitation time can add up to a good amount of separation. So, when and if you do such tests try to take that into account some way.. That is if you know the P47 is going to roll left and pull into a dive.. You would be able to anticipate that and thus be ready for it and react sooner.. Thus kind of messing up the test.

Also.. record a TRACK (*.ntrk) on BOTH PC's! Because you can only get the info from the players plane from a TRACK file.. But if you record both you can get both.. And also be able to tell if something *strange* was a net lag thing or game thing.

And if there is an tying I can do to help plot the TRACK file data just let me know!

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

TAGERT.
09-19-2004, 04:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robban75:
Give me your E-mail adress and I'll send'em to ya. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmmm I cant PM you? PM me and Ill give it to you

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

JG14_Josf
09-19-2004, 06:02 PM
Tagert,

I must caution you on making any rash decisions.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I know you don't care what I think of you <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is not accurate.

If anyone can help define reality I am their biggest cheerleader.

Take this for example:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Yes, the Spitfire V in game has the speed at low altitude of a Spit V from early 1941 with 9 lbs, and the climb rate of a Spit V from mid 42 with 16 lbs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is difficult to comprehend.

Specific excess power is a finite value of altitude and speed for each plane and is a measure of the ability to accelerate, climb , dive, turn or maneuver. At any altitude and speed a plane has the capacity to do a specific rate of change expressed in distance per unit time such as feet per minute or meters per second.

How can a plane be so modeld that it converts excess power in a climb at a higher rate than it converts excess power in level flight?

I must be even more stupid than I've deluded myelf into believing.

hop2002
09-19-2004, 06:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>How can a plane be so modeld that it converts excess power in a climb at a higher rate than it converts excess power in level flight?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The easiest way I can think of would be to give it much more drag than in real life.

Regardless, it's beyond doubt that the Spit V in game has the climb rate of 16 lbs, and the speed of 9 lbs. (At least it did when I last tested, in the patch before the current one. excluding the LF V, which I haven't tested at all).

I can post the graphs if you're interested.

TAGERT.
09-19-2004, 06:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Tagert,

I must caution you on making any rash decisions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sometimes it's all I have time for! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:That is not accurate.

If anyone can help define reality I am their biggest cheerleader.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is good to hear.. In that I think it is safe to say that most of us what what is best and by best as real as it can get.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
Take this for example:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>To be honest I have not been following the whole Spit V thing. But in a nut shell it sounds like your saying the Spit V in the game acts like an early spit at low alt (41 at 9lbs manfold) while at the same time has the climb rate of late Spit V (42 at 16lbs manafold)?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
That is difficult to comprehend.

Specific excess power is a finite value of altitude and speed for each plane and is a measure of the ability to accelerate, climb , dive, turn or maneuver. At any altitude and speed a plane has the capacity to do a specific rate of change expressed in distance per unit time such as feet per minute or meters per second.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So far so good.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG14_Josf:
How can a plane be so modeld that it converts excess power in a climb at a higher rate than it converts excess power in level flight?

I must be even more stupid than I've deluded myelf into believing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmmm I think I see what your saying.. Assuming the FM has a model of the engine.. why would it mater to that model if it is climbing or level? Im sure there are limit checks.. but even then you would think it could go as fast as a late Spit V in level flight. I guess the next thing I would want to do is look at the Track file of it climbing.. And the conditions of how teh real Spit V was configured vs. the one we have in the game to see what is different, and if we can try and recreate the situaion in the game to match the real world data. But.. like I said, I have not been following the Spit V thing.. I know in other thereds they is much to do about the raditors being open or closed.

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

WWMaxGunz
09-20-2004, 01:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hop2002:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>How can a plane be so modeld that it converts excess power in a climb at a higher rate than it converts excess power in level flight?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The easiest way I can think of would be to give it much more drag than in real life.

Regardless, it's beyond doubt that the Spit V in game has the climb rate of 16 lbs, and the speed of 9 lbs. (At least it did when I last tested, in the patch before the current one. excluding the LF V, which I haven't tested at all).

I can post the graphs if you're interested.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you sure about much more drag? Honestly, I think just a very little would make
for the noted top speed difference at such low alt. Working with engine HP rating
alone to figure how much drag would give a false result since prop efficiency drops
off with speed. Hey... if the efficiency curve was slightly off then it would be
slower. Also if the player wasn't working the prop right would be the same. And
then there's the radiator flaps thing... is the FB test made the same as the one to
get the speed numbers? We are looking at 40kph less?


Neal

TAGERT.
09-20-2004, 09:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Are you sure about much more drag? Honestly, I think just a very little would make
for the noted top speed difference at such low alt. Working with engine HP rating
alone to figure how much drag would give a false result since prop efficiency drops
off with speed. Hey... if the efficiency curve was slightly off then it would be
slower. Also if the player wasn't working the prop right would be the same. And
then there's the radiator flaps thing... is the FB test made the same as the one to
get the speed numbers? We are looking at 40kph less?


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>All good points.. Also.. were both tests done on the same map? Which map is supose to be the one for testing? And what is different between maps? The air temp?

http://www.geocities.com/grantsenn/4ALL2SEE/PICTURES/UBI_FORUMS/MyUbiSig.jpg
TAGERT

hop2002
09-20-2004, 10:51 AM
Well, "much" more drag is obviously subjective.

Bear in mind we are talking about a speed difference of approx 10% here, so it's not minor.

To put it another way, the Spit V in game has the speed it had at 9 lbs when running at 16 lbs. The difference between 9 lbs and 16 lbs is about 350 hp or more, or about 33% more power.

The Spit V has enough extra drag to overcome 350 hp extra, or 33% more power.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Working with engine HP rating
alone to figure how much drag would give a false result since prop efficiency drops
off with speed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's certainly true, and the Spit V prop had trouble handling the extra power.

However, we have flight tests at both settings.

At 9 lbs, just over 1000hp, W3134 did 290 mph at sea level.

At 16 lbs, just under 1400 hp, AA78 did 318 mph at sea level. However, AA878 was slower than W3134 and another similar Spit V (can't remember which one, and the Spit test site is down at the moment). It was approx 10 mph slower at the same engine settings (AA878 was a test hack)

What we have in game is a Spit V that goes about 295 mph at sea level at 16 lbs. In other words, it's 23 - 33 mph too slow.

robban75
09-20-2004, 11:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Hmmm I cant PM you? PM me and Ill give it to you
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, the PM function doesn't seem to work, so here's my E-mail robbanwesterberg@hotmail.com

http://members.chello.se/unni/D-9.JPG

Oberleutnant Oskar-Walter Romm thoughts on his aircraft.

"I found the Fw 190D-9 to be greatly superior to those of my opponents. During dogfights at altitudes of between about 10,000 and 24,000ft, usual when meeting the Russians, I found that I could pull the D-9 into a tight turn and still retain my speed advantage. In the descent the Dora-9 picked up speed much more rapidly than the A type; in the dive it could leave the Russian Yak-3 and Yak-9 fighters standing."

WWMaxGunz
09-20-2004, 02:40 PM
Hop, without taking engine and prop into the equation a decent but rough measure
would be to take the square root of the 'missing' speed and call that the 'extra'
drag. So the 10% less speed is maybe 3.3% more drag as a *rough* measure only.
Can't we get more than that from the radiator positions? Or a number of other
ways? Even a twitchy pot on a joystick can do that much easily though now we
have the tools to check all these things as far as our ability to know where to
look.
Makes me wish Oleg had the time to give us the clues beyond 'learn to fly!'.


Neal

k5054
09-20-2004, 02:50 PM
But it takes 30% (ish) more power to get 10% more speed. 20% more thrust to get 10% speed. And thus 20% more drag will cost 10% speed, roughly. And 20% is a lot of drag.

hop2002
09-20-2004, 02:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>op, without taking engine and prop into the equation a decent but rough measure
would be to take the square root of the 'missing' speed and call that the 'extra'
drag. So the 10% less speed is maybe 3.3% more drag as a *rough* measure only.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's the other way around, isn't it?

If you increase power by 10%, you get 3.3% more speed.

And we're talking about 10% less speed, which according to my (rather poor) maths works out at 33% more drag (which of course nicely matches up with the fact we have the climb rate produced by just under 1400 hp, and the speed produced by just over 1000 hp, ie 33% more power)

Basically we've got a Spit V that does 290 mph at sea level. The real life Spit V did that with just over 1000 hp. Our Spit V requires 33% more power to get the same speed. Seems to me that requires more than 3% more drag to offset a 33% rise in power.

10% is a pretty large drop in speed. If you take, for example, the Mustang at critical altitude, a 10% drop in speed means it can't quite break 400 mph. The Spitfire IX (the real one, not the in game one) would be down to about 360 mph, the same speed as the Spit I. The 109K4 would be as fast as the F4.

10% is a pretty large difference.

k5054
09-21-2004, 03:12 AM
Hop, in your last post you're equating drag with power, not thrust. 10% less speed is 20% more drag, not 30%, as power is thrust x speed.
However it's still a whole lot, and this error with the Spit V drag would give it too high a climb rate with the same power, as when you go slower with a draggy a/c more power is freed to use to climb with, and in the (best speed) climb for a WW2 fighter some 3/4 of the power is lifting mass and the other 1/4 overcoming drag.

WWMaxGunz
09-21-2004, 04:36 AM
Yeah I got that wrong. And as K5054 points out it's not a matter of engine power
but of specific thrust. Still from the prop efficiency example chart I've seen
the relation is not linear as __power = thrust x speed__ indicates, not by a shot.

Props are wings that can stall both with positive and negative AOA. The things
really have a limited pitch range, not nearly 90 degrees. I read from John Deakin
the range on modern props is more like 15 degrees.

And that doesn't even include the tips going into compression/mach business.

It's worse with fixed props, they are twisted to produce best power on different
segments at different speeds. Parts of those stall really early.


Neal

Blutarski2004
09-21-2004, 08:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
It's worse with fixed props, they are twisted to produce best power on different
segments at different speeds. Parts of those stall really early.


Neal<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... Reminds me of our lengthy discussion regarding the different climb rate test results of the Fokker Dr.I. I am convinced that they were achieved with different prop designs, with one of the designs optimized for climb performance.

This gross engine power versus net thrust delivered through the prop is a good example of how very difficult it is to produce an accurate physics based flight model engine. Accurately identifying and weighing all the various influencing factors is a huge task.

As I recall, the Spitfire series was fitted with a huge array of different prop types - everything from a fixed pitch wooden prop on the prototypes through two-position only props in the Battle of France through adjustable and variable pitch props. It might be useful to investigate exactly what types of props were fitted to the different Spitfire Marks. Judging from the effect that prop change had on P47 performance, it might help explain otherwise inexplicable difference in performance.

Just a thought .....

BLUTARSKI

k5054
09-21-2004, 10:08 AM
Well, power is still thrust x speed, but I should have said propeller output power, not rated bhp.

Prop efficiency is a difficult area, but I usually assume the design points for the prop are between best climb speed and max speed, and efficiency should be around 80% in that range.
I get good results using 80% in performance calcs, where one ought to be able to deduce climb rates from top speeds if the boost and various other things are known.


As fighters got faster the efficiency could not be maintained at ever-increasing speeds. I'd say spit V speeds are OK, Spit 14 speeds are probably in the area where efficiency can't be maintained. As an aside, Boscombe Down got the best speed out of their Mustang III at 2800rpm, not the usual 3000 for this very reason. 455 mph at 28,000ft.

As an exercise, try finding the HP used a lifting your favourite fighter at a known climb rate. Forget the drag bit, just multiply weight by vertical speed and divide by the HP constant (550 ft.lb/sec in imperial). The lifting power is about 75% of the total prop output, and that is around 75% of the engine power. find the actual lifting HP and multiply by 16/9 to get a notional engine power. Then see how close it is to the listed engine HP. For a mid-war fighter it shouldn't be far off, but the numbers here expect the speed for best climb to be around half of top speed.

hop2002
09-21-2004, 10:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Hop, in your last post you're equating drag with power, not thrust. 10% less speed is 20% more drag, not 30%, as power is thrust x speed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I thought it didn't sound right.

LeadSpitter_
09-24-2004, 02:05 PM
now do a test of the energy bleed times from the p47 vs other aircraft after the dive in level flight which is the problem.

Copperhead310th
09-24-2004, 02:12 PM
Amazing how 109 k-4's from the same alt can catch me in a dive from 5000m. that's bullsh*t.

TAGERT.
09-24-2004, 02:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
Amazing how 109 k-4's from the same alt can catch me in a dive from 5000m. that's bullsh*t. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Based on? I mean the 109K was a very different 109! Granted it's basic shape was not that different.. But it was a very different bird from the previous 109s. But like you I dont think it should dive as good as it does in the game.. The 109K can out dive the G-6 easy!! But I dont have any info to back up my feelings.. All I have is the notion that the wings, tail, and elevator are alot like the G models.. Other than the clean nose and tall tail it looks alot like a G-6.. So should it dive that much better than a G-6? Maybe we should do a power off and power on dive test between the G-6 and K?

Diablo310th
09-25-2004, 07:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
now do a test of the energy bleed times from the p47 vs other aircraft after the dive in level flight which is the problem. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah I have to agree with you on this one Leadspitter. I can outdive jsut about anyone in my Jug if I keep the dive shallow...but after I level out they seem to catch me very quickly.

WWMaxGunz
09-26-2004, 01:42 PM
When everyone is flying the superstar planes it shouldn't be any big thing to see
why the results don't fit the stories. Also, the P-47M's are not in the sim if
you want to measure best to best.

moksha
09-26-2004, 01:46 PM
Leadspitter, good idea-how 'bout you do the tests?