1C Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official 1C Company forum > 1C Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover > Technical threads > FM/DM threads

FM/DM threads Everything about FM/DM in CoD

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-13-2012, 08:32 PM
LoBiSoMeM LoBiSoMeM is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 963
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kwiatek View Post
At 28 000 ft RL Spitfire MKII had 1230 ft/min climb rate and at 30 000 ft it had still 995 ft/min ( near 1000 ft/min). Co CLOD SPitfire MKII above 20 000 ft has at least 2 times worse climb rate then RL plane.



CLOD is way off regarding high alt performacne of all planes. It is the fact. Planes dont reach their historical service celling and above 20 000 ft they have seriously performacne drop which casue that above that height they are practically flightless planes. Not mention that 109 could climb only for ab. 7.5 km.
Using your source (Spitfire Performance) as I said, in CloD we have lower values comparing with the RL sources, but if you scale tings down (the maximum ceiling), it's not "at least 2 times worse climb rate then RL plane".

And this discussion about FM is forever. You believe that your work is the best in the world, and your sources are correct. I just want some balance and fly.

Mod the FMs and release to the community to test. CloD engina can achieve +32.000ft of maximum ceiling easily.

Bye!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-14-2012, 03:52 AM
trademe900 trademe900 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 186
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LoBiSoMeM View Post
I don't tried, i do that.

And i compare the climb rates with some "real life data". It's not so "way off".

By the way, you tested anything? People here say that things are "broken", wrong", but based in what? Please, numbers, tests in CloD (with engine settings used), etc.

People just spread some info that things are "way off" and nothing to do the comparisons.

As I said up, Spit IIa can sustain a climb rate off 500ft/m until 29.000 celing, and i don'y see why things above 17.000 "goes out the window"... I can fight in such high.
You are digging yourself a hole here. The Cod climb rates are way, way off. Takes 7.7 mins to climb to 17,000 in cod, real life spit can get there in just over 6 mins, and that is only with 6.4lbs boost!

Also, the hurricane climbs faster than the spit. Hurricane is closer to its real life performance but still climbs too slow.

Last edited by trademe900; 11-14-2012 at 03:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-14-2012, 01:16 PM
ACE-OF-ACES's Avatar
ACE-OF-ACES ACE-OF-ACES is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NM
Posts: 2,247
Default

Truth be told

Most so called 'errors' in the FM can be found in the mirror..

see sig
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-14-2012, 05:33 PM
LoBiSoMeM LoBiSoMeM is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 963
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES View Post
Truth be told

Most so called 'errors' in the FM can be found in the mirror..

see sig
Second time i agree with you. People just can't fly right.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-14-2012, 06:23 PM
ACE-OF-ACES's Avatar
ACE-OF-ACES ACE-OF-ACES is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NM
Posts: 2,247
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LoBiSoMeM View Post
Second time I was brave enough to admit i agree with you. People just can't fly right.
Fixxed that for ya!
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-18-2012, 06:20 PM
trademe900 trademe900 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 186
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES View Post
Fixxed that for ya!
Yes, very funny... but I'm sorry, there is no denying the climb rates are appallingly slow. The plane is basically not even in a state of flight up there. Above 10,000k the time to height vs real life just plummets through the floor.

Good luck getting to 20k in 7 mins in cod spit! Hurricane will get there faster

Last edited by trademe900; 11-18-2012 at 06:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-19-2012, 03:10 PM
Kwiatek's Avatar
Kwiatek Kwiatek is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 367
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LoBiSoMeM View Post
Second time i agree with you. People just can't fly right.
Yea? Did you try DCS P-51? It is more complex then CLOD but their P-51 could get much more realistic performacne then any CLOD plane:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=95479

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=94020&page=2

Speed and climb rate is very close to RL data in DCS P-51. Also i could reach service celling 41 000 ft ( RL data claim 40 000 - 41 600 ft depending of combat load). Plane is flown according to RL manual.

Pity that CLOD is way off comparing to RL data. RL SPitfire MKII between 20 000 ft and 30 000 ft should have sustained climb rate between 2200ft/min to 1000 ft/min. Try the same in CLOD.

So it is no pilot error just game bugs which confirm even 1C.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-19-2012, 03:39 PM
ATAG_Snapper's Avatar
ATAG_Snapper ATAG_Snapper is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,205
Default

This is a recent post I placed in another forum. It's a quick comparison between the ROC of the real Spitfire 2a P.7280 and its counterparts from this sim and A2A Wings of Power 3. I hasten to add that I make no claim of high precision that would be achieved via Ace of Ace's or Klem's data gathering methodology just a quick, one-trial test of each sim vs 1940 data. Still, it's a good indication that somethin' ain't right:


I did some climb tests with the Spitfire 2a in Cliffs of Dover, then compared it to the results of the actual trial done on the real Spitfire 2a P.7280; then for smiles and chuckles ran the same test on the A2A Wings of Power 3 Spitfire 2a. I don't know the precise methodology used for the real test done back in 1940/41, but for the two sims I used the same procedure. Radiator was set to Full Open (100%). Per the Pilots Notes and the test run on P.7280 I ran both sim Spits at 2850 rpms, boost 9 lbs (= 100% throttle), flew at sea level until speed stabilized, then pulled up and started the stopwatch. I did my very best at maintaining the same climb speed of 168 mph IAS for both aircraft. I filmed both cockpits with FRAPS and timecoded both in real time. My data was taken from reviewing this video (link at bottom of this post).

Note: The Cliffs of Dover Spitfire 2a temps began getting dangerously high at 14,500 feet, so I coarsened pitch to reduce rpms down to 2600 which kept the engine from overheating. I concluded both tests at 20,000 feet as we all know the CoD flight model is borked above this -- no point extending the agony. OTOH, the A2A Spitfire 2a continued merrily on up past 25,000 feet at 2850 rpms with no overheating problems at all. I tried to get all the weights in line; the A2A Spitfire 2a came in a little light even with full ammo load, fuel 100%, and pilot weighing 300 lbs (burp! Supersize me!). Here are the numbers (video to follow):

Aircraft_____________ P.7280 _______________CoD _______A2A
Weight (lbs)__________ 6172 _______________6158 _______6086

Altitude -------------------- TIME ELAPSED FROM START (' minutes " seconds)
(feet)_______________P.7280________________CoD____ ___A2A______
SEA LEVEL _________0'00" ____________________0'00"_______0'00"
1000______________0.35 = 0'21"_____________ 0'11"_______0'06"
2000______________0.7 = 0'42"_______________0'34"_______0'15"
3000______________1.0 = 1'00"_______________1'10"_______0'30"
5000 ______________1.7 = 1'42"_______________2'12"_______1'01"
6500 ______________2.2 = 2'12"_______________3'04"_______1'24"
10000_____________3.4 = 3'24"_______________4'57"________2'25"
13000_____________4.3 = 4'18"_______________6'42"________3'14"
15000_____________5.0 = 5'00"_______________7'56"________3'51"
16500_____________5.6 = 5'36"_______________8'46"________4'17"
18000_____________6.1 = 6'06"_______________9'46"________4'45"
20000_____________7.0 = 7'00"______________11'58"________5'21"
12800*____________4.3 = 4'18"_______________6'27"________3'11"
* FTH
So, depending on the methodology used by the RAE testers, the A2A Spitfire 2a looks a little optimistic compared to the Real McCoy, but certainly closer in the ballpark compared to the John Deere edition of the Cliffs of Dover Spitfire 2a. But it certainly answers one aspect as to why Red players keep their Spits under 10 angels!

Top speeds of the two sims are a little off at 1000 feet (as tested):

P.7280: 294 mph IAS
CoD: __280 __"__ "
A2A: __301 __"__ " (Holy Moley....close to the dreaded Uber-Sissyfire 2a of the previous 1.59 Retail Version!!!!! Who'da thunk?)

Boring video alert!!!!!!

http://vimeo.com/53746471
__________________

Last edited by ATAG_Snapper; 11-19-2012 at 03:49 PM. Reason: spelling, grammar, and trying to line the data up into even columns!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-19-2012, 04:03 PM
Kwiatek's Avatar
Kwiatek Kwiatek is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 367
Default

These test show how far from RL data are CLOD Spitfire MK II up to 20 000 ft, not even mention that above 20 000 ft difference will be even more.

FSX flight model engine is not so good so i think it is not really good base for test.

I'm really impressed with DCS engine and how they manage to model P-51. It is very close to RL data and flight model is also very good ( much better then CLOD and sometimes it seemed to be more difficult then IRL ).

Last edited by Kwiatek; 11-19-2012 at 04:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-20-2012, 01:50 PM
ACE-OF-ACES's Avatar
ACE-OF-ACES ACE-OF-ACES is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NM
Posts: 2,247
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trademe900 View Post
Yes, very funny...
What can I say.. It's a gift!

Quote:
Originally Posted by trademe900 View Post
but I'm sorry, there is no denying the climb rates are appallingly slow.
Don't be sorry, because no one is denying the aircraft performance is poor at high altitudes, in that even 1C (Luthier and BS) said a long time ago that the performance is poor at high altitudes due to limitations in the FM. Which I find hard to belive and is just a cop out IMHO to explain why they are not going to put any more effort into fixing the FM

Quote:
Originally Posted by trademe900 View Post
The plane is basically not even in a state of flight up there. Above 10,000k the time to height vs real life just plummets through the floor.

Good luck getting to 20k in 7 mins in cod spit! Hurricane will get there faster
Than the new patch made things worse, because that was not the case in the previous patch, performance drop didn't occur until you got to around 15kft and it was not as bad as you described. That or your doing something wrong, but we will never know for sure because you did not make use of one of the C# scripts to record and log your data during flight.
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 01:33 PM.

Based on a design by: Miner Skinz.com

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 1C Company. All rights reserved.