|
|
|
|
#1
10-10-2012, 07:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Welcome Please ignore the trolling members, they are well known, and most posts have been removed already. Try to keep upbeat as some of the usual suspects have already tried to "upset" the thread with thier usual agenda, keep on topic and have fun. Try to get as much stick time as you can with CoD, you will find though as you "master" one aircraft, a patch will come along and change all that, sound familiar (old IL2 series) ? As already stated in CoD structural G and its penalties are not modelled, only blackouts and elevator authorities are limiting factors. 
Last edited by KG26_Alpha; 10-10-2012 at 07:40 PM. |
|
#2
10-10-2012, 08:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Airframes bend in RL and when stressed they bend in IL2COD. I hope you don't think 46's wings flying off is how it happens in real life? Perhaps you could tell us what sim has structural G's modeled right? I'd like to play it. |
|
#3
10-10-2012, 08:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#4
10-10-2012, 07:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#5
10-06-2012, 08:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rather than entertain the topic, and rather than entertain the question, the responses so far are somewhat off topic, so an effort to return to focus appears to be possible if not wanted - yet.
There may be someone, somewhere, sharing an interest in Corner Speed and Energy Maneuverability as it relates to the relatively new game CloD. Case in point: Quote:
Quote:
My hope, which has already been expressed in English, is to discuss the topic with people who share an interest in the topic. This is not a far fetched hope, since I found someone else who may have expressed a similar interest, which has already be quoted several times. Perhaps he gave up without a fight? Hit and run? How about a description of one of the many methods that can be used to accurately determine the vital measure of Corner Speed and again I can access the already linked Navair site. How about The Wind up Turn? Quote:
Knowing Corner Velocity may be of no interest to anyone else, I can't know without asking. |
|
#6
10-06-2012, 09:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Josf, you are right with your point, transparency has to addressed first.
1C publicly stated that they are not prepared to provide us with the performance plots of the current flight models in a way similar to what we had available in IL2FB (see below).   Probably (quote 1C) we will have them with the sequel (I became very modest with my demands after one year CoD experience). So, until I have a possibility to understand the CoD flight models, it is of limited benefit to indulge into a discussion on the theory of dogfight. Actualy, why don't you have a try yourself? Try to fly some planes in CoD (offline and online) and tell us how their performance feels like. ~S~ |
|
#7
10-07-2012, 12:57 AM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
You sound as if you are as interested in Relative Performance as I am; however this type of Forum with this type of responses (off-topic to say the least) has me on guard, so I am going to trust that your intent is to share an interest and I am not going to jump to the conclusion that you are setting me up for something nefarious (some kind of flanking maneuver). I will take this opportunity to work at understanding the differences between our viewpoints in this way: Those IL2 charts offered on this Topic are not on this Topic since those charts have to do with Sustained Turn Performance (maintaining a fixed energy state) and therefore they do not have to do with Maneuvering in Combat (except for a luffberry circle type of defense or attack) and I already offered a question to be answered along those lines. One exception to that above observation, and report, is the climbing data, which is a measure of Excess Power, which can then be extrapolated (roughly) to find the Accelerated Stall line, and the Maneuvering Envelope (as can level acceleration tests) if I understand things well enough. I do not claim to understand things well enough, hence the desire on my part to engage in discussion with people sharing a similar interest. Climb performance and level acceleration performance is at least as good as, and probably much better than, Sustained Turn Performance, when the idea is to compare one fighter to another to see which can outperform the other in very specific and unambiguous ways - not limited to the Luffberry Circle maneuver also known as the Sustained Turn. In Naviar terminology the following English words apply: Ps= 0 I can't show that Navair charts but the WWII era charts (If I am reading them right) and the Korea era chart (Boyd's) shows that Sustained (Ps=0) Turn Performance Curve. Now, please, onto your very welcome words - in English: Quote:
Please consider the possibility that this is not mere theory. Quote:
I can borrow, again, from the Navair site and again, please, consider that this is not theory or "feel", since the time it takes to complete 360 degrees of turn is exactly that much, not more, and not less, and if one of the other variables can be known, then all four variables can be known with enough precision to get well past subjective opinion. Naviar on Corner Velocity: Quote:
1. Turn Rate 2. Turn Radius 3. Airspeed 4. G load To clarify the relevance to the intended focus of this discussion the g load factor is crucial since the g load factor may, or may not, be constant for every plane and therefore some planes (not advertized as such) may be favored over other planes as the CODE (not theory, and not "feel") may CODE a higher g load for one plane compared to another plane. Not knowing that fact may cause someone to focus attention on Sustained Turn Performance as being better in one plane and not as good in another plane when in fact the maximum pilot g load variable may be 1 g higher in the plane with the poor sustained turn rate. A plane with a low sustained turn rate and a better (lower) corner velocity is exemplified in the Mig versus F-86 Maneuvering Diagram supplied by Boyd. If you have read Robert Shaw's Fighter Combat then you may remember something called Double Inferior and Double Superior and this (not theory) is the method by which a plane can be Single Inferior to another plane, such that, for example, the Mig can Sustain a higher level g load, due to higher power loading and lower wing loading while the F-86 has the lower Corner Velocity. Why? Now there may be much in the way of room for theory, but the data is what the data is, not subjective, and not subject to feel, and not subject to opinion. Liars and cheats can divert from the actual data, shooting the messenger, causing flame wars, whatever, but the data is what it is until someone can improve on the accuracy of the data and then there is less error in the data. Who wants error in the data? Not me. Back to your very welcome words: Quote:
Who cares, really, if the players can extrapolate the facts and answer the question ourselves, and then if the game suddenly changes, we know better because we already have the data that proves how the game was, and we have the data that proves how the "patch" changed the game? I'm asking, I'm not dictating, and I hope that you can tell the difference. It is not a subtle difference. As to "feel": I have (in my youth) accumulated 40 hours logged airtime flying Hang Gliders. I know the feel of a wing cutting through the fluid that is known as air. This Clod simulator, to me, feels very good, there are better sounds (or my new system has a better sound card), and the general stickiness, then "buffet", then the break of acceleration on the lift vector is very encouraging, much fun, I can fly around for hours doing nothing more than feeling out the fight model - so far. That is not on-topic. Last edited by JG14_Josf; 10-07-2012 at 01:06 AM. |
|
#8
10-07-2012, 11:52 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Jose I have wondered what became of you...should liven the place up
__________________
 GigaByteBoard...64bit...FX 4300 3.8, G. Skill sniper 1866 32GB, EVGA GTX 660 ti 3gb, Raptor 64mb cache, Planar 120Hz 2ms, CH controls, Tir5 |
|
#9
10-08-2012, 05:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It is good to hear from those who share the interest in World War II Air Combat (if I am not reading too much into the welcome responses).
I saw Gunslinger (text only) on the ATAG server last night. These are off topic (but welcome) words. Stuff that is not welcome are, of course, the words that can be accurately measured as being unwelcome, sparks intending to light flames, diversions, whatever, they are actually against the rules and yet they still happen? <-----more off-topic stuff, but possibly a good separate (diverted) topic. Back to the topic: Quote:
Then we played around some at the German Ships near the French coast, and we tested out our teamwork on a steady supply of Spitfires entering the area one or two at a time. I drug around a few Spitfires, two of my wingmen collided with each other at one point, but for the most part teamwork won that prolonged battle. As far as Level sustained turning or climbing (from the deck) turns: the Spitfire had our heavily loaded (with fuel) 109s handily beaten. The Spitfires could get on our sixes from being in front of us with relative ease, so for my part, having a Spitfire in front of me, where the Spitfire knows I am going to shoot, and then that Spitfire is suddenly behind me, as it can turn so good, I then go relatively straight, and call in my wingmen, who then are soon shooting at the Spitfire going straight and level behind me. Sustained turn performance, so far as I can tell, is a Spitfire advantage, measurably, obviously, and without any controversy whatsoever. I think this Clod game offers the Replay or Track Recording Option, so such things can be well documented. Everyone in our squad, during those fights on the deck, reinforced the accurate understanding: Spitfires turn better than 109s in those types of turns which are not Corner Speed turns. Those are turns that are turned at speeds that are under Corner Speed, and that means, specifically, and without controversy, turns made where there can be no blacking out of the pilots, because the planes cannot generate enough lift to generate enough g force, to the limit of the pilot g tolerance, at least not in the 109s, at least not with the 109 pilot g limit, not at speeds under about 350 km/h, such as was the case in our experience on the deck last night. We were busy during turning fighting stall, we had no trouble with any blacking out, not in those fights where the hard deck, the lower hemisphere of our flight envelope, is ground or water. No diving to gain speed without having to first climb once the fight degrades down onto the deck. The Energy Fight is cut in half, and the ground or water level cuts it in half, leaving no diving for speed at that point, in that type of TEAM fight. Lots of "I've got a drag." "Where are you." "At the point going inland, heading for the airfield." "Got it, turn right and I'll cut the turn." "So will the Spitfire, how close is the Spitfire? I'm not turning to look." "Not too close, but fade left first, then right, I'm cutting the turn now." "I see tracers." "Don't worry, he is begging for you to turn hard, fade left, then right and you have him served up on a platter for me, thanks." We joke, because it is funny, to hear how things can then be turned around by some people into the 109 being over-modeled, because the Spitfires pilots who are all alone, no teamwork, able to out turn us almost 2 to 1 (but we are full of fuel), and because we know how to drag, and because our top speeds are at least equal, if not better (I don't know, I can't look behind when dragging to see if the Spitfire is gaining in straight and level flight, and if I turn, he can cut the turn and close with angles/geometry, not higher top speed, which is, in fact, more Specific Excess Power at that point), but, but, but, somehow, according to some people, the Spitfire is better than the 109? How? Not in turning Sustained Turns - where energy loss is not a factor. We laugh at the claims of Superior Game Performance Coded into the Game, favoring the 109, because, we suppose, our opponents refuse to use their advantages to advantage when fighting against efficient teamwork, and so they blame their deficiencies on the game code? That same night, and before the fight hits the hard deck, a Spitfire was saddled up on Hertt (my historically primary wingman), and in this case the Spitfire is again at advantage in ability to out turn the heavy fueled 109 flown by the capable 109 pilot. Hertt cannot simply turn inside the Spitfire turn. That is what the Spitfire can do, if we are saddled up in our 109s on Spitfires: the Spitfire can turn inside and escape, we cannot, we see this, we know this, this is not now, in this game, subject to arbitrary argument, or contention, this is an obvious fact. Hertt forces an overshoot. I note, and I communicate the fact, with congratulation. "Good work Hertt, that was a classic overshoot." Are the 109s able to slow down faster than the Spitfires to force an overshoot despite anything that the Spitfire pilot can do unless the Spitfire pilot expects an overshoot maneuver and begins to slow down before the 109 pilot, or did Hertt merely cut the throttle while the Spitfire pilot kept his throttle at full power? That was done while Hertt had room to dive for more speed after the overshoot? It was close the ground, but I don't remember exactly, and I did not record a Replay file, I don't know how to, yet, record files, or even for certain if the game allows it. New game, same tactics and maneuvers, same need to figure out what works and what does not work. Lower sustained turn performance does not automatically equate to lower corner velocity as demonstrated by the Maneuvering Diagram supplied by the Korean War example. If, on the other hand, the Maneuvering Diagram supplied by the World War II era Spitfire and 109 example, shows an obvious advantage for the Spitfire over the 109 in both Sustained Turn Performance and Corner Speed, if I can read those Maneuvering Diagrams accurately, and if those Maneuvering Diagrams are accurate, not merely "calculated", and not involving Spitfire pilots who do not know how to turn a 109 with leading edge slats, or any other such possible reason for inadequacies in the production of the Maneuvering Diagram, if on the other hand, Sustained Turn Performance is a Spitfire advantage AND a lower Corner Speed is a Spitfire advantage, then that remains to be known, by me, in this game. How about 2 numbers taken from the World War II era Maneuvering Diagrams, to compare a 109 5 g turn with a Spitfire 5 g turn, where we can assume that both pilots would be blacking out if 5 g is exceeded in flight? Bf 109: 250 MPH (True) Spitfire: 223 MPH (True) Assuming much, including the assumption that I can read the chart, the obvious advantage is a lower 5 g Corner Speed for the Spitfire. Note: The World War II era Maneuvering Diagrams shows some very interesting differences when compared to modern Maneuvering Diagrams not the least interesting being the numbers on the left side are not the same Turn Rate (degrees per second) used in modern Maneuvering Diagrams such as the Korean War example or the examples provided by the Navair documents. The World War II era Maneuvering Diagram lists Time to Turn a 360 degree turn in seconds on the right side of the Maneuvering Diagram. 5 g Corner Speed Bf 109 = 14 seconds (approximate due to diagram imprecision) Spitfire = 13 seconds Sustained turn (assuming that the curve shown on the chart as Angle of Straight Climb is convertible, by some measure, with the sustained turn time on that Diagram) Bf 109 = 25 seconds Spitfire = 18.5 seconds During the time between our Squad Mission Event and my early arrival on the ATAG server I worked on my ability to fly the heavy loaded (fuel) 109 in turns over the channel. The 109 in this game favors a left hand turn, which may be a modelling feature intending to model Prop Wash/ P factor/ Propeller Torque Effect. I noticed a need to push heavily on the left rudder to center the ball and keep the aileron control centered in left level and left climbing turns above the stall and at the beginning of the buffeting area of the flight envelope. I also noticed that using top rudder on right hand turns, or no rudder, appeared to keep the ball centered, and I could avoid having to move the stick left in a right hand level or climbing turn. I also noticed that severe stall could be avoided with a quick closing of the Power Lever (throttle in a 109 does more than just cut the air/fuel mixture) and quick reversal of the stick and rudder, and a need to reverse stick and rudder again to avoid the spin momentum (?), as the spin would slow down in one direction and then (if not caught) the spin would turn the other direction. Corner Speed turns again confirmed a 350 km/h indicated airspeed at the grey out and accelerated stall convergence condition or that data point on a Maneuvering Diagram - again heavy with fuel. I see a need, now, to begin quantifying relative unloaded dive and unloaded zoom performance between our 109s and those pesky Spitfires that have, on occasion, showed up, so far, on the ATAG server while our Squad is patrolling the high and mid altitudes where we can again begin practicing our teamwork in various Mission Profiles. Which plane can unload from level flight and dive like a powered dart at a greater rate of acceleration? Which plane can then zoom climb to a higher altitude after an efficient turn at the bottom of the dive, near corner speed, to then begin an unloaded zoom climb to maximize altitude gain, when the fights may go vertical, such as was described very well in Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw? So far the obvious advantage in slow, turning and burning, or Angles Fighting, favors the Spitfire. What about Energy Fighting in the Vertical? Which plane is the better plane? Is the Spitfire Double Superior or Single Superior? The Spitfire is Superior at Angles Fighting, that is uncontroversial. The Spitfire is Superior at Angles Fighting, and anyone who can demonstrate otherwise can, in fact, prove me, and those other users of the game in my squad wrong - PLEASE. The 109 is Single Inferior, for sure, without controversy, in this game, as the 109 is less able to Sustain higher g, higher turn rate, smaller turn radius, when energy loss IS a factor. What about Corner Speed? What about Energy Fighting Performance Advantages such as unloaded acceleration and deceleration in vertical maneuvering? To be continued Last edited by JG14_Josf; 10-08-2012 at 05:52 PM. |
|
#10
10-08-2012, 06:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Josf, you shld take the Hurri as a ref.
The Spit in CoD is just a a sweet for capricious children (the "hula Hoop queen"). Fight are much more interesting that way (HurriVsBf). You'll even see that the 109 turn a tad too well in fact  Interesting read though. Please goes on ! Last edited by TomcatViP; 10-08-2012 at 06:39 PM. |
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
