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

[Crumpp]

Because there is a severe problem with the FM.

Where?

I don't see it in terms of speed and climb numbers. All aircraft performance is a percentage range even under fixed standard conditions.

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.

If you are told best climb speed is 250km/h and you stick to that IAS throughout your test surely you have done it wrong? Same for spit, hurricane and flying pigs...
Today 09:57 AM

Exactly.

You were correct and I only posted to confirm you had the same ones as found for the Bf-109E.

You are correct too in not only do you to have to maintain the correct climb speed, you have to fly the test correctly.

Climb test generally are conducted by begining at a lower altitude and do not start until the climb is stabilized as well as at the starting target altitude. They end at a target altitude, too. That becomes a raw data point for that altitude band. Typically this is a 1000 foot band with the test airplane begining its climb 500 feet below and ending it 500 feet above that 1000 foot band. In otherwords, 2000 feet of altitude are required to estabilish climb rate data in a 1000 foot band.

Those "climb charts" guys like to quote are extrapolated from a few of these points and the raw data converted to standard conditions. There is insturment error, flight error, and pilot error in all it.

The pilot does not hop in and start from the runway to reach altitude with the stop watch running and marking the VSI. The chart is an idealized extrapolation of a few data points.

[5./JG27.Farber]

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

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

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

Lol how it could be correct if both these planes are just way too slow even for 87 octan fuel versions? You people read what was written in these forum?

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Where?

I don't see it in terms of speed and climb numbers. All aircraft performance is a percentage range even under fixed standard conditions.

I see what you mean with the percentage range and relative performance, but this is not the case. No one would complain this much if it would be.

I am sorry but this is quite obvious to any virtual pilot who actually flies this sim.

[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.