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

[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.

[Crumpp]

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

Flying as a "virtual test pilot" is not my dream with my off time. I don't have an issue with any of the specific performance.

I do enjoy this game because of the detail in the gameshapes. It is not realistic or equal to actual flying but it is better than anything in the past.

It should be pretty easy to figure out if the density altitude is modeled. The altimeter is adjustable and you should have to change it based on conditions.

Is the Wellington flyable? It has an OAT gauge in the panel as standard equipment.

The temperature and altimeter setting can be used to figure out the density altitude. Once you have that then performance can be converted from standard to that condition to check on specifics.

[IvanK]

Already looked at the atmosphere in CLOD in an an attempt to map it to determine lapse rates, density altitude etc.

Default QNH in CLOD would appear to be 992mb and is easily determined on any map .... search for the thread "Full real Altimeter'.

The Wellington as we all know is not flyable. The Ju88 and HEIII have OAT gauges. Their out put is erratic and they return questionable values that are not usable imo .... or the atmosphere is totally porked !

Looking in FMB I woould have thought there would have been an option to allow the map builder to set basic pressure and temp settings for the map. In IL2 classic they are hard wired as part of the Map file put there by the original map builder.

[Crumpp]

Already looked at the atmosphere in CLOD in an an attempt to map it to determine lapse rates, density altitude etc.

Default QNH in CLOD would appear to be 992mb and is easily determined on any map .... search for the thread "Full real Altimeter'.

The Wellington as we all know is not flyable. The Ju88 and HEIII have OAT gauges. Their out put is erratic and they return questionable values that are not usable imo .... or the atmosphere is totally porked !

Looking in FMB I woould have thought there would have been an option to allow the map builder to set basic pressure and temp settings for the map. In IL2 classic they are hard wired as part of the Map file put there by the original map builder.

It seems to me that if the developers are serious about having the game checked for bugs and accuracy, this information would be available being that is absolutely essential for aircraft performance determination.

It really looks like there is an issue with atmospheric modeling.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by IvanK

.... or the atmosphere is totally porked !

Originally Posted by Crumpp

It really looks like there is an issue with atmospheric modeling.

Tum te tummmm.....

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...160#post428160

[Crumpp]

Great minds think alike, and fools seldom differ.

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/22602.html