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.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-25-2012, 05:06 AM
Flanker35M Flanker35M is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,806
Default

S!

Zapatista, please calm down. You are crying like a kid with a lollipop pulled out of mouth. Do you really think ANY player of this GAME want it to be handicapped in any way, be it their favorite plane or not. I for sure don't. But by judging your outburst it seems you need every single thing that would give an I-WIN button over the German planes and psuhing that agenda with foam spewing. Really does not help it as said above. Slam the facts on the table and the devs figure the rest. Not a single "thread hundred+ pages of foaming about an agenda" will help.

And even the game would simulate every single plane down to last rivet there would be someone to whine because they do not get same performance for some reason. So after all it is the pilot not the machine After the patch is released will for sure do tests either offline or if enough people are interested online to gather data how things have changed rather than foaming here before the damn patch is even out.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-25-2012, 05:29 AM
ATAG_Bliss ATAG_Bliss is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,156
Default

You guys can argue back and forth about the performance of the FMs but just remember this, when the patch comes out I'm going up in a G50 and going to shoot you all down
__________________

ATAG Forums + Stats
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-25-2012, 05:33 AM
ATAG_Snapper's Avatar
ATAG_Snapper ATAG_Snapper is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,286
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATAG_Bliss View Post
You guys can argue back and forth about the performance of the FMs but just remember this, when the patch comes out I'm going up in a G50 and going to shoot you all down

What....the UBER - G50???? LOL
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-25-2012, 05:45 AM
CWMV's Avatar
CWMV CWMV is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 758
Default

Not this guy. I just want it to work offline!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-25-2012, 06:11 AM
41Sqn_Banks 41Sqn_Banks is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 644
Default

Will be interesting to see how the Spitfire performs below 3000m.

Some notes about the Bf 109 performance:



Anyone else noticed that the "reference graph" of the Bf 109 are factory/manual data? They were not achieved during the actual flight test because the Bf 109 in the test was under-performing.

The "reference graph" of the Spitfire is from a actual flight test, ironically again by a under-performing aircraft (speed dropped from 2800 RPM to 3000 RPM).

In addition WEP of the Bf 109 was only allowed (possible?) for take-off and up to 1-1.5km.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-25-2012, 06:25 AM
Kurfürst Kurfürst is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 705
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks View Post
Some notes about the Bf 109 performance:



Anyone else noticed that the "reference graph" of the Bf 109 are factory/manual data? They were not achieved during the actual flight test because the Bf 109 in the test was under-performing.

The "reference graph" of the Spitfire is from a actual flight test, ironically again by a under-performing aircraft (speed dropped from 2800 RPM to 3000 RPM).

In addition WEP of the Bf 109 was only allowed (possible?) for take-off and up to 1-1.5km.
For comparison, the actual flight test (note the two lines, the bold one is the speed measured with the engine slightly down on power by about 50-60 PS, the thinner line is the measured performance re-calculated for nominal engine output guaranteed by engine manufacturer)

This has been achieved with 1.33/1.35 ata, which is our firewalled throttle setting in the game, without resorting to the 1-min WEP.



Condition of the airframe :

'The surface was painted after the serial production standard. The engine cowling was still rough, exhaust manifolds (DB-type, made at BFW) were lacking top cover.

2 Cowl- and wing-MGs were installed.
Antenna wire.
Undercarriage retracted, tailwheel out.
For air intake, see the reports drawings.

Radiator cooler flaps were 1/4 open. Coolant temperature observed as constant 90 degrees Celsius.
Oil cooler flaps were closed. Oil temperature observed as 62/82 degrees Celsius.'

IMHO the oil/coolant temperatures are also interesting. Coolant seems to boil rather too quickly in the sim.

The following paper is the official type specification for the Bf 109E. Manufacturer guaranteed these specs within +/- 5 % tolerance.

__________________
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; 04-25-2012 at 06:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-25-2012, 02:25 PM
Sven Sven is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The Netherlands, Zeeland
Posts: 787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurfürst View Post
For comparison, the actual flight test (note the two lines, the bold one is the speed measured with the engine slightly down on power by about 50-60 PS, the thinner line is the measured performance re-calculated for nominal engine output guaranteed by engine manufacturer)

This has been achieved with 1.33/1.35 ata, which is our firewalled throttle setting in the game, without resorting to the 1-min WEP.
Would you say that with the data from that flight test that ~500 kmh could be achieved on the deck for a longer period of time in the BF109E without risking overheating ( which would happen only with emergency power of the 1-min WEP? ). And is there a graph which shows us the maximum speed when the BF109E is using the 1-min WEP?

It seems the devs think that ~500 kmh on the deck ( 0m ) can only be achieved with use of this 1 min WEP, which is not what your German Data speed graph lets us believe, Kurfurst's 1.33/1.35 ATA versus 1C's WEP 1.4 ATA to achieve 500. Quite a difference in terms of aircraft modelling.

One last thing, is this also a 'firewalled throttle without WEP' graph?



About the new Spitfire speed data, I don't want to see the SpitII replacing the Spit I on the servers, this should not be the solution. Dev team should look at 100 Octane SpitI speed figures which confirms that both the BF109E and SpitfireIa, if correctly modeled, are very close in terms of speed.

Last edited by Sven; 04-25-2012 at 03:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-25-2012, 12:01 PM
Ataros Ataros is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USSR
Posts: 2,439
Default

Some interesting graphs and historical quotes and references were posted here. Please make sure they are available at the bugtracker for easier access.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-30-2012, 08:11 AM
II/JG54_Emil II/JG54_Emil is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper View Post
What....the UBER - G50???? LOL

ÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜber ÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜber ÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜber ÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜber ÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜber ÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜber ÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜber ÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜber ÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜber ÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜber ÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜber ÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜber ÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜberÜber

???

What are you guys talking and complaining about?

I can´t hear all this complaining anymore.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-30-2012, 08:56 AM
Robo.'s Avatar
Robo. Robo. is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 658
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by II/JG54_Emil View Post
???

What are you guys talking and complaining about?

I can´t hear all this complaining anymore.
Emil that was actually a joke about G.50... Good one btw.
__________________
Bobika.
Reply With Quote
Reply


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 06:15 PM.


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