FM's the State of Play with empasis on Climb performance.

[Crumpp]

Crump are the fligth models for the SpitIa and Hurri rotol correct then?

In relation to each other, I think the performance is correct.

Is the specific performance of any airplane in the game correct? Spitfire, Hurricane, Bf-109?? Not really.

Is the relationship's based on performance correct for all the fighters? Yes

Aircraft performance comparision is all relative.

The relative performance appears correct. All aircraft have a similar margin of error applied.

What more do you want? That is the most important thing in a "simulation".

It is much more important than specific performance. You can get the specific performance absolutely right within the percentage range and completely screw up the relative performance.

[5./JG27.Farber]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

In relation to each other, I think the performance is correct.

Is the specific performance of any airplane in the game correct? Spitfire, Hurricane, Bf-109?? Not really.

Is the relationship's based on performance correct for all the fighters? Yes

Aircraft performance comparision is all relative.

The relative performance appears correct. All aircraft have a similar margin of error applied.

What more do you want? That is the most important thing in a "simulation".

It is much more important than specific performance. You can get the specific performance absolutely right within the percentage range and completely screw up the relative performance.

So what your saying is... The game feels right from what is in writen in pilots accounts?

Sorry thats what i call folklore. Its not science. Even when written by an ace. Fear adrenaline and other factors which cloud the mind come into play. Ever seen a report of a crime by witnesses where every witness said a different storey? I have. Its not a fact, its a memory.

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

Lol how it could be correct if both these planes are just way too slow even for 87 octan fuel versions?

Kwaitek, you did flight models for UP. It alarms me you cant control yourself when I ask someone else their opinion in a forum specifically and your emotions require you to laugh at me and "state your "expert" opinion". How can you apply scientific thought when you are so easily ruled by you emotions? - I dont require an answer by the way...

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

You people read what was written in these forum?

Yes and do you see what I did in this thread? I analysed, I provoked, I suggested with and without belief, I theorised... -Then I made a judgement... Dont be so ignorant. Assumptions are not always right at first glance.

[Ernst]

If you repeat Ivank's experiment at least ten times for each aircraft, calculate the average climbing curves for each ones, then calculate the standard deviation around the average for both, use it as an error bar and show me that the bars do not superpose themselves I ll agree in the same time.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by Ernst

If you repeat Ivank's experiment at least ten times for each aircraft, calculate the average climbing curves for each ones, then calculate the standard deviation around the average for both, use it as an error bar and show me that the bars do not superpose themselves I ll agree in the same time.

Would there not be a greater degree of confidence if the experiment was done a minimum of 100 times for each aircraft?

[Crumpp]

The game feels right from what is in writen in pilots accounts?

No, I am saying the relative performance is correct. The specific performance is off but not outside the realm of possibility.

In fact it is a little optimistic if you are going to model the atmospheric conditions on a summer afternoon in 1940.

I am much more disturbed by such things as seeing standard data giving good agreement with a high density altitude enviroment than I am in specific cllimb performance.

See below...

If you repeat Ivank's experiment at least ten times for each aircraft, calculate the average climbing curves for each ones, then calculate the standard deviation around the average for both, use it as an error bar and show me that the bars do not superpose themselves I ll agree in the same time.

Exacty and why I said:

You can get the specific performance absolutely right within the percentage range and completely screw up the relative performance.

[IvanK]

Well off you go then Crumpp and Ernst how about you guys do the number of climbs you require and chart the data for us all to see. I have started the ball rolling, over to you guys to finish it.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

No, I am saying the relative performance is correct. The specific performance is off but not outside the realm of possibility.

I repeat that there would be no problem with the performance being correct relative to each other, yet slightly off by the same margin from the reference graphs. This is not the case, unfortunately.

In my opinion, the models should be as close to the reference charts for standard atm. conditions and then affected by actual atmospheric settings on each map. There would be no problem with that, that's how it worked in old Il-2. I am sure it is possible to get the FMs more accurate than this.

You're stating that everything os OK and it's the atmospheric settings of the map (do we know what that is btw?) and the testing method, everybody else sees the FMs are not something to be proud of from the devs perspective.

I really suggest you guys give them aircraft a spin and share your findings with us.

[Crumpp]

I repeat that there would be no problem with the performance being correct relative to each other, yet slightly off by the same margin from the reference graphs. This is not the case, unfortunately.

It sure looks like it based on IvanK's chart.

If you I was doing the performance calculations for the game and you handed me that chart I would tell you there is nothing to fix for the gameshapes based off it. If my numbers werre right on the aircraft characteristics, I would start looking for a global setting instead of monkeying with individual aircraft.

You're stating that everything os OK and it's the atmospheric settings of the map (do we know what that is btw?)

No, I don't know it. I don't work for 1C and I don't think anybody else in this thread does either. It is the most likely explaination given that all the aircraft have a very similar margin of error. That chart is not reason to cry about individual gameshapes. Given that level speeds match standard conditions and climb rates do not, I would think something is up with the enviromental model.