Friday Update, April 13, 2012

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

1 and 2 are binded. Evaluations are made by tester pilots: they should have the same flight experience in both the planes to gave us a corrected evalutation. And those tests were made with airplane in different mechanical conditions....

there is even a step before that, namely the technical specifications of the manufacturer and the performance/quality of the components, eg HP the engine puts out, reliability of parts and quality of manufacturing (a big problem with some of the russian planes for ex), etc.. but as you correctly point out, "the proof of the pudding" is largely in what performance was then reported by the test pilots who flew the fist prototypes.

no matter how far back we go with this, our starting point (as eager flight SIMULATOR pilots), is to have the technical specifications of the aircraft modeled openly provided by lutier and Co. we can then debate amongst ourselves how correct this is, and compare information from our own (deemed reliable) sources. and that is exactly what i am trying to obtain, so we can start trying to recreate the experience to competitively fly these virtual aircraft and recreate what was historically possible to do with them

even trying to have a sensible discussion about this seems difficult here, seems a bit similar to herding cats

are most of you really just satisfied with "lets just imagine this aircraft is correct", and "its just the pilot who failed/succeeded, no matter how wrong/bad/good the machine" ?. i'd accept that if we were all flying exactly the same planes, but we are not, they are modeled differently, so the question is , how accurately is it in CoD. if they all have a similar margin of error to the real aircraft they represent, it might not even matter, but we dont know that, and there is strong indication this is not the case for some aspects of certain aircraft..

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by zapatista

are you all really just satisfied with "lets just imagine this aircraft is correct", and "its just the pilot no matter how wrong the machine" ?

Of course I'm not!

If I really was why should I've started http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=27410?

A correct visibility simulation would make planes' performance less important during the fight (as they were), but still it would be nice to have them correctly modelled.

Zapatista, I think that's difficult to find the correct answers here. Our target should be to meet a guy who actually can access to a professional software (if his boss let him use it) and compare the result since CloD is a parametric software, not a fluidodynamic one (as XPlane should be IIRC).

There are great limits in the IL2 physic engine (I'm not a real pilot but I've spoken with some military guys) and I think that giving Luthier some good info and documentation is still not enough, since they should redo the engine.
I don't know how the CloD engine works, but IMO it's not so different.

It would be nice to create a very detailed model for X-Plane and then compare it to the pilot's evaluations.

Look, I'm a programmer (industry application, not gaming) and together with my friends (some engineers, historians, other programmers) we are planning to start the model of a plane's motor to see if we are able to create something that could be used in a open source simulator. It's a test...