Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover

IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #321  
Old 02-13-2012, 04:53 PM
Osprey's Avatar
Osprey Osprey is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 1,264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kwiatek View Post
Here is link to some data from manual:

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...chreibung.html

Here is data for V15a - German prototype of 109 E with Db601

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...15a_blatt6.jpg

Here is for German test of 109 E-3 Db601A at 1.3 Ata (1/4 radiator open)

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_test...MP16feb39.html
With Kurfurst's track record I take anything he publishes with a large pinch of salt.
  #322  
Old 02-13-2012, 04:55 PM
csThor csThor is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: somewhere in Germany
Posts: 1,213
Default

Are you taking the spitfireperformance.com site with a pinch of salt, too? Cause that webmaster is under similar suspicions (spit-polishing the Spitfire's halo by posting selected data).

Every coin has two sides.
  #323  
Old 02-13-2012, 05:05 PM
Osprey's Avatar
Osprey Osprey is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 1,264
Default

Depends who is suspicious doesn't it?

I'm happy to go with results data from wartime testing though, I don't think you'll get more believable than that, and if that is still something we cannot believe to be true then forget any progress in WW2 flight simming forever.
  #324  
Old 02-13-2012, 05:07 PM
csThor csThor is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: somewhere in Germany
Posts: 1,213
Default

Problem is too many people take such websites and the tests they publish as eternal truth and ignore that circumstances have to be taken into consideration. I, personally, take any website with a pinch of salt because you never know who made it and what motives that person has. I mean it's so damn easy to leave out data that doesn't fit an agenda ...
  #325  
Old 02-13-2012, 05:11 PM
Al Schlageter Al Schlageter is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 657
Default

So very true about the Hungarian's site.
  #326  
Old 02-13-2012, 05:16 PM
csThor csThor is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: somewhere in Germany
Posts: 1,213
Default

Careful or we're going to fall into a "topic pit" which we wouldn't want. Okay?
  #327  
Old 02-13-2012, 05:32 PM
Chivas Chivas is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,769
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tree_UK View Post
Regarding CLOD as I predicted some time ago the game is effectively dead, with no plans to add any more aircraft, no dynamic campaign or weather all we can hope for is a fix to finally make the game work without crashing. Maybe if the devs are feeling generous the FM and DM's will get a makeover but other than that the game is finished, to me Luthier as made it quite clear the future is BOM. CLOD was just a way to finance BOM.
I agree that the developers probably won't make a dynamic campaign for COD, but I'm sure other talented people in the community, and third party groups will. COD isn't dead and far from it.

Currently the developers are reworking atleast the graphic engine, and fixing bugs in other features.

Aircraft made for the other theaters, will include some that were used over England and France.

The Dynamic Weather feature will be available to all theaters when implemented.
There is no reason that any feature built for the series can't be applied to COD if its applicable. ie DX11 water etc etc etc

The SDK will be released to the community. This will mean every aspect of COD could change and evolve over the next ten years.

You are right that COD financed BOM........... then BOM will finance The Med, then The Med will finance The Pacific, then The Pacific will finance Europe, etc etc etc etc

Right now, I'm hoping the series will survive long enough for the SDK to be released so that the community can get their hands on what the developer couldn't afford to continue work on.
__________________
Intel core I7 950 @ 3.8
Asus PT6 Motherboard
6 gigs OCZ DDR3 1600
Asus GTX580 Direct CU II
60gigSSD with only Windows7 64bit, Hotas Peripherals, and COD running on it
500gig HD Dual Boot
Samsung 32"LG 120hz
MSFF2 Joystick
Cougar Throttle
Saitek Pro Rudder pedals
Voice Activation Controls
Track IR 5 ProClip
  #328  
Old 02-13-2012, 05:41 PM
ACE-OF-ACES's Avatar
ACE-OF-ACES ACE-OF-ACES is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NM
Posts: 2,248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by csThor View Post
Problem is too many people take such websites and the tests they publish as eternal truth and ignore that circumstances have to be taken into consideration. I, personally, take any website with a pinch of salt because you never know who made it and what motives that person has. I mean it's so damn easy to leave out data that doesn't fit an agenda ...
Agreed 100%

Even when the whole report is provided (read not just the cherry picked data) little things can be missed that can make a big difference in the results. Things like ballest to simulate ammo loads, fuel loads, fuel type, carb jetting, etc just to name a few.

Therefore when the website does not provide the whole report for review, these little things will surly be missed
  #329  
Old 02-13-2012, 06:25 PM
Kurfürst Kurfürst is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 705
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Schlageter View Post
Everyone has there knickers in a knot about max speed but what speeds are obtained at lower the ata. Hense what I posted.

If the 1.23 ata speeds can't be met, then there is something definitely wrong with the FM.
The problem is the Il-2/COD engine seem to just state the max. power, and max. speed at max power. The engine calculates the rest. And then engine power calculations are again relate only to max power, and a generic formula takes care of the rest for lower powers.

I guess , so you probably won't get exact speed results for lower RPM/MAP combinations, for example you probably won't get the exact cruise speed at ~1 ata cruise settings as in real life.
__________________
Il-2Bugtracker: Feature #200: Missing 100 octane subtypes of Bf 109E and Bf 110C http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200
Il-2Bugtracker: Bug #415: Spitfire Mk I, Ia, and Mk II: Stability and Control http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/415

Kurfürst - Your resource site on Bf 109 performance! http://kurfurst.org
  #330  
Old 02-13-2012, 06:26 PM
Kurfürst Kurfürst is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 705
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey View Post
With Kurfurst's track record I take anything he publishes with a large pinch of salt.
Well its a good thing then that it was Messerschmitt AG that published these papers, so you can trust them with your life for authenticy.

Anyone wishing to check the original Me 109E specs paper should check here - there is not much to add except that this is the official performance guaranteed by manufacturer within +/- 5% in speed (ie. 475 - 525 km/h at SL) and +/- 8% in climb.

http://www.2shared.com/document/-XYw...chreibung.html

This tended to be an average of performance - any plane that did not meet the above specs within tolerance was rejected by the LW's quality control group, abbreviated BAL.

Here is how the speed scatter works - the following is a test result compilation of thirteen 109G machines tested at ERLA producer. The thick line in the middle is the nominal (guaranteed) speed performance at altitude, the two other thinner lines are the +/- 3% tolerance on speed. The small dots are the speeds achieved by individual planes. The box is the nominal performance - 660 km/h at 7000m. Most flew quite close, but there were three that didnt match the specs and were rejected, while three were a bit faster than the nominal. The thick box is the median of the non-rejected planes. A small note that the speed runs were flown with the radiators 120 mm open, whereas nominal speed was understood with 50mm open radiators, so the tested planes should be a bit slower than the nominal speed anyway (more drag in tested condition than in standard condition).

http://www.kurfurst.org/Performance_...catter_web.jpg
__________________
Il-2Bugtracker: Feature #200: Missing 100 octane subtypes of Bf 109E and Bf 110C http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/200
Il-2Bugtracker: Bug #415: Spitfire Mk I, Ia, and Mk II: Stability and Control http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/415

Kurfürst - Your resource site on Bf 109 performance! http://kurfurst.org

Last edited by Kurfürst; 02-13-2012 at 06:39 PM.
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.