Spit/109 sea level speed comparisons in 1.08 beta patch

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

Which from the minute amount of this information I followed before - I thought as much...

Shame.

Agreed

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

However hopefully we can come to some kind of accord and present the data to 1c:MG...

When it comes to calculating data.. I am sure 1C can do it as well if not better than any member of this forum.. The math is the math! The only time the math comes into question is when it does not match reality.. And in this case, where we have no reality to compare to, no one can say one way or the other how good the math is doing in simulating the aircraft.

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

This is the part where we must choose what I would call "Folklore" (eye witness accounts) and "facts" actual graphs... I don't see how you can truly have purely one or the other and I think this is where the real nitty gritty arguments break out...

Considering the fact that people can find a way to argue about the hard data (graphs) it is no wonder they can argue about the folklore.

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

So with an open mind I am finding myself more in the "feeling" group than the facts but with a balance of both.

The difference is the hard data (graphs) can be reviewed such as to minimize the errors..

Which is not the case with folklore!

There are just too many unknowns associated with the folklore to make it useful. Some people think they can do some statistically analysis of all the folklore and come up with some sort of consensus.. But it is just not the case.. Or should I say that in the past 20 years of flight simming, I have seen many make that claim, but no one has yet do pull it off.

Which is not surprising, in that we are NOT talking about gathering up folklore statements that somewhat agree..

For example, assume 3 WWII pilots said they could climb to 20kft in 9.2min, 10.2min, 9.8min.. And we say, hey that is great, we will just take the average of those three staments and call it good. NOPE! What we have is folklore that is many cases is 180 out! Fore example, there are WWII Spitfire pilots that said they could easily out turn or turn with a Bf109.. At the same time we have WWII Bf109 pilots who say they could easily out turn or turn with the Spitfire.

What do we do in that case?

Flip a coin?

I think not!

That is why most if not all folklore (pilot accounts, pilot action reports, etc) are so useless! In that they typically never provide enough information to even recreate the scenario in the game.

For example, a P51 pilot reports says he got behind a Bf109, closed in on it, and shot it down.

Ok..

Did he dive down from above to get on the 109s six? Or did he climb up to the Bf109? Or was he at co-alt and got in behind the 109? Did the 109 even know the P51 was behind him? Was the 109 pilot wounded and just trying to make it home, was the 109 engine damaged from a previous dog fight that just ended..

The list of un-knows is ENDLESS!

Which is why most if not all folklore is useless when it comes to tweaking the FM! IMHO your better off relying on the math and leaving it at that!

Long story short, typicall folkloare (pilot accounts and reports) tell us alot about the 'men' and thier 'tatics' but they tell us very little about the 'performance' of the planes.

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

We can have all the facts nailed on the head like ROC and TAS

Most but not all.. In that as I noted above, even with hard data like graphs, there are some unknowns associated with it that can cast doubt on the data..

The funny ones are the folks with double standards that will cast doubt on a test of a plane they don't like but at the same time accept lesser data for the planes they love as proof positive! It would be funny if it was not so sad!

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

but as you say we are still guessing the rest which is where "folklore" fills the gap...

Disagree

There may be a handful of folklore accounts that are 'useful'

But as noted above, most if not all folklore is useless!

Just to many unknowns!

Not to mention the fact that most if not all pilot reports are ONE SIDED STORIES!

That and they typicall dont include enough info to re-produce the scenario in the game to see if the plane the pilot was flying can do what he said, let alone the fact that we have absolutely no idea of what the state of the other plane and pilot was!

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

However then we are down to the spit always out turns the 109 and vice versa... - from pilot accounts...

Bingo!

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

So, its a mine field...

Should we try to get 1c:MG nail the "fact" figures as close as possible and then the "pilot account" things like turn and roll?

No not in my honest opinion, best to rely on the math when there is no real world data to compare to

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

This is my first forray into a FM debate... So forgive the open mindedness and lack of direction.

No worries!