Throwing some light on rates of turn

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Under what data are you looking at? What data are you using for these aircraft.

Are you looking at Indicated airspeed, TAS,..????

By my calculations, the Hurricane for example is within 2% of its data for a standard day. Whether that is optimistic or pessimestic depends on the weight of the aircraft in CLoD.

From the link I supplied you, these are actual in-sim trials conducted by Camber first on the 109 E4, then on the Spitfire Mark Ia, then on the Spitfire Mark IIa. I don't know how to make this any clearer to you -- this is a simple copy & paste from that link:

EDIT: It occurred to me that perhaps a clarification is in order here. What you may not have understood is that a number of us, including Camber below, have been checking the actual in-simulation performance of the aircraft in question to the charts posted by 1C. Under the test conditions in the simulation, the 109 E4 closely matched the STANDARD DAY performance charts (as they should), but the actual in-simulation trials of the Spitfire Ia and the Spitfire IIa did not! These two aircraft performed -- in the sim -- well under the mark that Luthier says they should.

Default weights of each aircraft with fuel at 100% were used.

I can speak from personal online experience on the ATAG Server that many of the air combats that take place are close run things. Even a 10 kmh difference in speed between two aircraft in combat can mean the difference between drawing enough lead or not, or holding a climb just long enough to tag the opposing player -- or not. Each player in this sim continually refines their ACM and engine management techniques to eke out just 1 more mph at the crucial moment. Those who have flown with me or against me know of what I speak. So these numbers below -- taken from that link I had provided you earlier, are not just numbers on a graph to us. We look at them as likely meaning the difference between success or failure of our online endeavours. Hence the passion and hence the scrutiny. Many of us on the Red (virtual RAF) side know there is something very, very wrong with what's happening on this sim. The numbers that Camber has posted, which mirror those that others, including myself, have tested bear out our misgivings.

So, hopefully in a new light, I present again Camber's in-simulation findings:

Camber said:

Quote:

I calculate TAS as 2% greater than IAS per 1000ft altitude using this link (http://www.csgnetwork.com/tasinfocalc.html), there may be a more accurate calculation out there.

I just did some altitude speed tests offline (beta patch), they are OK for 109 but a bit horrifying for the RAF as they are below the B6 patch curves. I tested for full Throttle height (above which boost declines at full throttle). My assumption was that top TAS should be around FTH.

109E4 (prop pitch control on)

FTH: 5000m (boost has dropped a bit to 1.32ata, declines rapidly above 5000m)

425kmh IAS@5000m = 569kmh TAS, exactly right for Messerchmitt official average spec.

Spit Ia

FTH = 16500 ft
at 6.25psi, 2750rpm (rad open) engine fails after about 3 minutes. Just enough time to get stable 245mph IAS (with 3000rpm couldn't get this alt without engine death)

245mph IAS@16500ft = 323mph TAS = 520 kmh TAS

Oh dear, this is under even B6 plot speed (560kmh TAS at 16500ft).

Spit IIa

FTH = 13500 ft (?!)
at 6.25psi, 2750rpm (rad open) engine fails after about 3 mins

260mph IAS@13500 = 328mph TAS = 528 kmh TAS

I really hope I making some kind of testing error here. Tried online and got same values. I wouldn't feel confident taking any Spit against 109s at alt with these values.

camber
Last edited by camber; Today at 03:17 AM.

[Robo.]

What Snapper says Don't get me wrong, the game is still fun to fly, but it can not be called realistic or a 'sim' until they fix the performance issues and untile they incorporate things like radiator drag, open canopy drag, sort out the weight issues, high alt flight behaviour etc. The problem is not -25% for every plane, they simply got the FMs wrong. Some more, some less, but we're currently not flying BoB aircraft.

Regarding the Bf 109E stall, I had this problem when I first applied the patch, but then I did the trick described by DavidRed (deleting the confuser.ini file), reseting my controls settings effectively - voila, no violent stalls, still unstable and different rudder response to what it was prior to the alpha patch. I feel it has something to do with the input sensitivity changes (same with Spitfire throttle or all rudder axes). It just took me a while to get used to it. I will fly more in the coming days and I will report back if I am wrong.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by Robo.

What Snapper says Don't get me wrong, the game is still fun to fly, but it can not be called realistic or a 'sim' until they fix the performance issues and untile they incorporate things like radiator drag, open canopy drag, sort out the weight issues, high alt flight behaviour etc. The problem is not -25% for every plane, they simply got the FMs wrong. Some more, some less, but we're currently not flying BoB aircraft.

I agree... and FM's trustworthiness is really easy to check... Can we talk about DMs?
If the FMs are crap and the overall sim is a mess are we sure that the DMs are correct? Above all then we don't have an SDK to test it with precision.

Really I don't understand how many of you can actually have fun... I have a total of 34 hours on CloD, and most of them are been spent to configure the settings and test the server functions.

[Crumpp]

In a dog fight it is for most of us hard to get max performance out of ac due to work load.

That is realistic and one reason why automation was an advantage in WWII aircraft.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

I agree... and FM's trustworthiness is really easy to check... Can we talk about DMs?
If the FMs are crap and the overall sim is a mess are we sure that the DMs are correct? Above all then we don't have an SDK to test it with precision.

Really I don't understand how many of you can actually have fun... I have a total of 34 hours on CloD, and most of them are been spent to configure the settings and test the server functions.

+1.

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper

Spit Ia

FTH = 16500 ft
at 6.25psi, 2750rpm (rad open) engine fails after about 3 minutes. Just enough time to get stable 245mph IAS (with 3000rpm couldn't get this alt without engine death)

245mph IAS@16500ft = 323mph TAS = 520 kmh TAS

Oh dear, this is under even B6 plot speed (560kmh TAS at 16500ft).

Max TAS for the Spit1a occurs closer to 22000 feet, not 16500.

I really hope I making some kind of testing error here. Tried online and got same values. I wouldn't feel confident taking any Spit against 109s at alt with these values.

The Spit 1a is faster than the 109 above ~6000 meters.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Max TAS for the Spit1a occurs closer to 22000 feet, not 16500.


The Spit 1a is faster than the 109 above ~6000 meters.

Have you actually tested that, Doggles?

[ElAurens]

Does the sim even work above 6000 meters (19685 feet)?

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Does the sim even work above 6000 meters (19685 feet)?

Yep, some intrepid souls have made it to 27,000 feet, but I never have. Even at 6000 meters I find myself singing this song over and over and over.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEaKX...e_gdata_player

[ATAG_Dutch]

Snapper, I thought you'd only starred in the film 'Dogs of Dover'!

How did you land that role?

I myself had the Spit II up to 28,900ft the other night on ATAG server 1. God I must've been bored.

It just wouldn't go the last 1100ft to 30,000, no matter how hard I tried. It was a nice view though.

Here's a couple of shots. Didn't take one of the view, unfortunately.