Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

N17 FM - review & fixes! [BIG THANKS TO 777!]


  • Please log in to reply
140 replies to this topic

#1 =Fifi=

=Fifi=
  • Posts: 10329

Posted 21 September 2011 - 22:20

Hi,

Could you guys post here any data charts and info about N17, so it could help An Petrovitch and 777 team for an N17 revision, please?

This bird as everybody knows, isn't very accurate imo, and has to be next on the fix list, as it has a high place in everyone's heart :P

Really hoping N17 could have a fix like his brother in arms the SE5, but it seems very hard to find any official document… :?
  • 0

#2 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 21 September 2011 - 22:36

Change the title to "N17 climbrate." Then your wish might come true. :P
  • 0

#3 Greywing2

Greywing2
  • Posts: 433

Posted 21 September 2011 - 22:46

Change the title to "N17 climbrate." Then your wish might come true. :P

fixing (fine tuning) FM of a plane means fixing everything, including reducing parameters if they are wrong. So if you have some doubts about climb rate of N17 post here please. Thanks! :D
  • 0

#4 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 21 September 2011 - 22:53

Tvirdi,

"SE5a climbrate" was the original thread title for "SE5a - review & fixes."

;)
  • 0

#5 =Fifi=

=Fifi=
  • Posts: 10329

Posted 22 September 2011 - 02:15

For a start, let see the speed ;)

N11 is 80hp, and ROF store speed:
sea level — 165
1000 m — 158
2000 m — 151
3000 m — 144
4000 m — 136

N17 is 110hp, and ROF store speed:
sea level — 156
1000 m — 152
2000 m — 145
3000 m — 136
4000 m — 125
5000 m — 115

N17 Windsock data files 20:
sea level, 166 km/h
2000m, 161 km/h
3000m, 154.5 km/h
Climb to 2000m: 6 minutes 50 seconds
Climb to 3000m: 11 minutes 30 seconds

Interesting to note that N11 climb to 2000m in 8 minutes 30 seconds, and to 3000m in 15 minutes (Windsock Data files)
I'm not sure our N17 ingame climb that good, in regard of our N11…
  • 0

#6 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 22 September 2011 - 02:21

For the N17, profile publications says

6500ft (2km): 107mph (172kph)
1000ft (3km): 101mph (163kph)
  • 0

#7 =Fifi=

=Fifi=
  • Posts: 10329

Posted 22 September 2011 - 03:08

In any figure case, i really don't know why devs gave the N17 speed slower than N11… :?

And if the speed is wrong, climb rate too! (they have to be related)
ROF store:
2000 m — 7 min. 43 sec.
3000 m — 12 min. 42 sec.
  • 0

#8 volatile_void

volatile_void
  • Posts: 55

Posted 22 September 2011 - 03:42

Speed:
sea level: 165 km/h
2,000 m: 160 km/h
3,000 m: 154 km/h
4,000 m: 137 km/h

Climb:
2,000 m: 6 min 50 sec
3,000 m: 11 min 30 sec
4,000 m: 18 min 5 sec

Ceiling: 5,300 m

Source: Davilla, Soltan - "French Aircraft of the First World War"
  • 0

#9 =Fifi=

=Fifi=
  • Posts: 10329

Posted 22 September 2011 - 04:05

Speed:
sea level: 165 km/h
2,000 m: 160 km/h
3,000 m: 154 km/h
4,000 m: 137 km/h

Climb:
2,000 m: 6 min 50 sec
3,000 m: 11 min 30 sec
4,000 m: 18 min 5 sec

Ceiling: 5,300 m

Source: Davilla, Soltan - "French Aircraft of the First World War"

Thanks Volatile :)
Your source is so close to WDF…in fact i rounded to top number the Data Files speeds ;)
At least those 2 sources are giving same thing :P
  • 0

#10 volatile_void

volatile_void
  • Posts: 55

Posted 22 September 2011 - 06:44

Your source is so close to WDF…in fact i rounded to top number the Data Files speeds ;)
At least those 2 sources are giving same thing :P

The WDF is from J. M. Bruce and since James Davilla lists some of his books as secondary sources, I suspect that these numbers are actually from J. M. Bruce's books (or are based on the same primary source). ;)

I am just wondering where the data for 4,000 m is from.
  • 0

#11 jeanba4

jeanba4
  • Posts: 1257

Posted 22 September 2011 - 07:03

Thank you, I did not realise that the N17 was so slow in the game, if this is the case, I hope the FM will be revised
  • 0

#12 =Fifi=

=Fifi=
  • Posts: 10329

Posted 22 September 2011 - 07:24

I am just wondering where the data for 4,000 m is from.

Yes, cause it's not in the WDF…
  • 0

#13 =Fifi=

=Fifi=
  • Posts: 10329

Posted 22 September 2011 - 09:11

From Nieuport 1-27 by Tomasz J.Kowalski - Kagero (thanks to E.Razor)

Attached File  Sans titre2.jpg   91.94KB   439 downloads

Speed sea level = 175 (!)

Attached File  Sans titre.jpg   293.66KB   439 downloads

Interesting note about N17 C1…but we knew it :)
  • 0

#14 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 22 September 2011 - 10:26

I would be more interested in the rollrate, but that's a lot harder to solve as we don't know in which component the problem lays.

I have the feeling that the N17 rolls way too slow and bleeds energy too easily, but nobody can expect the devs to fix it based on a feeling - they wouldn't even now what to fix.
  • 0

#15 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 22 September 2011 - 10:28

Very frequently, if you see the exact same numbers, then it is the same source, ultimately.

Anyway, in past threads I remember seeing some numbers for the N17's prop pitch, and they were very fine IIRC.

I would be more interested in the rollrate, but that's a lot harder to solve as we don't know in which component the problem lays.

I have the feeling that the N17 rolls way too slow and bleeds energy too easily, but nobody can expect the devs to fix it based on a feeling - they wouldn't even now what to fix.

I suspect the 'bleeding energy part' is caused by the crap rollrate, and the consequent huge rudder deflections in order to do anything.
  • 0

#16 JimmyBlonde

JimmyBlonde
  • Posts: 2346

Posted 22 September 2011 - 14:39

My impression of it remains that the CofG is too far aft. That's just what my hands tell me, I don't have any proof.
  • 0

#17 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1892

Posted 22 September 2011 - 15:43

The roll rate is wrong. Top speed is wrong. No question about that.

The N17 was one of the first additional planes made for ROF and it shows, so a FM review for this plane should turn out an almost completely new aircraft.
  • 0

#18 J2_Adam

J2_Adam
  • Posts: 2453
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 22 September 2011 - 19:33

While the FM is being tweaked for the N17, I'd also like to see them move the external camera position to an axis point more in relation to where the pitch axis should be IE: 25-35% the chord. Since day one it's been behind the pilot and looks funny and unrealistic when the aircraft is pitched up and down. The D8 is also the same way.

Fokker DVIII Pitch Axis incorrect/Rotary A/C whining

Cheers
  • 0

#19 MattM

MattM
  • Posts: 2595

Posted 22 September 2011 - 19:48

And if the speed is wrong, climb rate too! (they have to be related)
No, they don't have to be related.

The recent SE5a fix is a good example. They fixed the too good climbrate, while the speed remained pretty much the same.

(side-note, the DR.I and Camel in ROF are also good examples, which show that speed might be off, while climbrate might very well be correct)


The N17 in ROF is most likely too slow for a brand-new plane.

Since most rotary engine planes (DH2 might be the only other exception? not sure) in ROF are performing either as good as a brand new plane should or even better than that, the N17s in ROF is too slow, compared to the rest of the planes (especially rotary engine planes). It's not necessarily too slow for the average frontline plane, which already flew a few days, but then the other planes in ROF feature this "brand-new" performance.

Of course there's still the problem with some N17 (even non "bis") being equipped with 130 HP Clergets instead of Le Rhones, aswell as the Le Rhone 9J and 9Ja variants. Unless someone has hard data, that only the 9Ja engine has been used in N17s. I was unable to find such data.

The rollrate is most likely also too low, again compared to the other planes atleast.

I'm surprised that nobody mentioned the extreme fragility of the plane in a dive yet. Yes it was a sesquiplane and no, it shouldn't be nearly as sturdy as a SPAD, but the N17 is probably the most fragile plane in a dive in ROF. And according to pilot reports, diving attacks were a very common tactic for Nieuport pilots, as was diving away, when overpowered by enemies.
  • 0

#20 DidNotFinish

DidNotFinish
  • Posts: 4454

Posted 22 September 2011 - 19:50

My impression of it remains that the CofG is too far aft. That's just what my hands tell me, I don't have any proof.

I've said this many times before and many people just say that's how it is supposed to be. I don't buy it! Just pull back on the stick when in external camera mode. You can see the nose rise without the tail dipping slightly. The nost seems to swing up and down like a hammer. It is as if the elevators are on the nose rather than the tail. Notice the N11 doesn't do this.
  • 0

#21 =Fifi=

=Fifi=
  • Posts: 10329

Posted 22 September 2011 - 20:08

Well in the absolute, a faster plane should climb faster :) but i agree it's not an evidence. I think propeller shape and engine torque is much involved.

The roll rate is wrong. Top speed is wrong. No question about that.

Yes it is question about that. Everyone who can find charts and datas to help 777, please post here!

so a FM review for this plane should turn out an almost completely new aircraft.

Completely agree here! This plane (at least in my mind) should be almost night and day from what we have ingame actually…
Shortly, N17 should be a better N11 :)
  • 0

#22 JimmyBlonde

JimmyBlonde
  • Posts: 2346

Posted 22 September 2011 - 20:53

My impression of it remains that the CofG is too far aft. That's just what my hands tell me, I don't have any proof.

I've said this many times before and many people just say that's how it is supposed to be. I don't buy it! Just pull back on the stick when in external camera mode. You can see the nose rise without the tail dipping slightly. The nost seems to swing up and down like a hammer. It is as if the elevators are on the nose rather than the tail. Notice the N11 doesn't do this.

How do the RoF team calculate for the CofG for each aircraft? Would their formula differ for a sesquiplane that has such a marked offset between the upper and lower sets of wings?
  • 0

#23 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 22 September 2011 - 21:30

I'm surprised that nobody mentioned the extreme fragility of the plane in a dive yet. Yes it was a sesquiplane and no, it shouldn't be nearly as sturdy as a SPAD, but the N17 is probably the most fragile plane in a dive in ROF. And according to pilot reports, diving attacks were a very common tactic for Nieuport pilots, as was diving away, when overpowered by enemies.

I can dive pretty well in my N17, although in a sustained dive I do have to slip a lot, or pull out. But I don't think the N17 is too fragile for the sesquiplane that it is.

I'm basing this judgement also on the N11, which is a LOT more fragile in a dive. The N11 rolls better and is faster than the N17, but one of the reasons to fly an N17 over an N11 is certainly its strength in a dive.
  • 0

#24 Josh_Echo

Josh_Echo
  • Posts: 3931

Posted 22 September 2011 - 21:55

I've said this many times before and many people just say that's how it is supposed to be. I don't buy it! Just pull back on the stick when in external camera mode. You can see the nose rise without the tail dipping slightly. The nost seems to swing up and down like a hammer. It is as if the elevators are on the nose rather than the tail. Notice the N11 doesn't do this.

Did you miss Adam's point? The effect you describe could easily be because of the camera axis and not the aircraft's C.o.G. In other words, the C.o.G. et al. might be perfectly fine, but the spot that the camera points at and tracks is odd and so it makes the movement look unnatural. I've seen this in other sims.

So you cannot use the external aircraft camera to judge C.o.G. Use the free camera and aim the camera yourself, and see if the movements still look unnatural.

Well in the absolute, a faster plane should climb faster

Absolutely not. Faster airplanes often also climb better, but this does not need to be true. In reality, as in the simulator, a faster airplane might still climb worse than a slower one. There are many factors, but airfoil shape is a big one. Thicker airfoil is good for climb but bad for speed; thinnner airfoil is good for speed but bad for climb. And that isn't the whole story, or even almost all of it. I don't know much about aspect ratio, induced drag, etc., but lots of things play a part. The reason why many (but not all) airplanes climb better when they are faster is because of powerloading. Increase the horsepower and both climb and speed will improve, all other factors constant. But that doesn't necessarily counter the other factors.

One real-life example of an airplane which was faster but worse-climbing than its primary opponent was the P-40. The P-40 was faster than its contemporary A6M Zero, but the A6M out-climbed the P-40.
  • 0

#25 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 23 September 2011 - 01:20

I'm surprised that nobody mentioned the extreme fragility of the plane in a dive yet. Yes it was a sesquiplane and no, it shouldn't be nearly as sturdy as a SPAD, but the N17 is probably the most fragile plane in a dive in ROF. And according to pilot reports, diving attacks were a very common tactic for Nieuport pilots, as was diving away, when overpowered by enemies.

Right now you're most likely to rip the ailerons off, and not the lower wing, which is screwy.
  • 0

#26 JimmyBlonde

JimmyBlonde
  • Posts: 2346

Posted 23 September 2011 - 01:46

Right now you're most likely to rip the ailerons off, and not the lower wing, which is screwy.

Definitely, I've only ever lost the ailerons or an elevator flying it. Never had problems with the lower wing.

What I don't get is how the aircraft is described as being 'nose heavy' in so many accounts. The 17 series was actually a modification of the 16 which was too nose heavy.

My impression on the rate of roll is that it's actually quite good, instantaneously, but the nose hunts so much when you try to co-ordinate your turn that you end up losing aileron responsiveness very quickly due to the amount of rudder and elevator you need to use to keep the nose from wandering around.

I'm certain that CofG is the 17s' main problem. I just wish I had the reference material and technical knowledge to prove it.
  • 0

#27 DidNotFinish

DidNotFinish
  • Posts: 4454

Posted 23 September 2011 - 01:51

My impression of it remains that the CofG is too far aft. That's just what my hands tell me, I don't have any proof.

I've said this many times before and many people just say that's how it is supposed to be. I don't buy it! Just pull back on the stick when in external camera mode. You can see the nose rise without the tail dipping slightly. The nost seems to swing up and down like a hammer. It is as if the elevators are on the nose rather than the tail. Notice the N11 doesn't do this.

How do the RoF team calculate for the CofG for each aircraft? Would their formula differ for a sesquiplane that has such a marked offset between the upper and lower sets of wings?

The fact that it's a sesquiplane may make it fly differently than a normal biplane but as I said before the Nieuport 11 (which has a very similar if not identical sesquiplane wing structure) does not respond in the same manner at all. For the N17, the CoG seems to be very far back (at least in terms of pitch). It just looks to move around vertically very awkwardly.
  • 0

#28 Josh_Echo

Josh_Echo
  • Posts: 3931

Posted 23 September 2011 - 03:01

AJ94CAP, I don't know why you're refusing to respond to Adam and me, but it's making me think you aren't interested in how things are actually modelled.
  • 0

#29 DidNotFinish

DidNotFinish
  • Posts: 4454

Posted 23 September 2011 - 03:09

Didn't see your posts, my apologies. The fact that the camera is offset makes a bit more sense. I notice it in the DVIII as well. So, that should not be a difficult fix. The real FM issues remain the problem now.
  • 0

#30 pollux18

pollux18
  • Posts: 154

Posted 23 September 2011 - 07:17

Here is my modest contribution, a link found on C6:

http://www.hydroretro.net/etudegh/les_nieuports_de_la_guerre.pdf
  • 0
"Il faut préférer la modestie de ceux qui s'associent pour combattre aux triomphes passagers de celui qui s'isole."
 
Cdt De Rose

#31 =Fifi=

=Fifi=
  • Posts: 10329

Posted 23 September 2011 - 07:32

Here is my modest contribution, a link found on C6:

http://www.hydroretro.net/etudegh/les_nieuports_de_la_guerre.pdf

Thanks for the link :S!: At least i got one in French now :lol:
  • 0

#32 pollux18

pollux18
  • Posts: 154

Posted 23 September 2011 - 09:31

Here's another source on the N11 and N17 in the journal ICARE

Image

Image
  • 0
"Il faut préférer la modestie de ceux qui s'associent pour combattre aux triomphes passagers de celui qui s'isole."
 
Cdt De Rose

#33 =Fifi=

=Fifi=
  • Posts: 10329

Posted 23 September 2011 - 09:45

An other source (thanks again E.Razor):

Crowood Aviation - Nieuport aircraft of WW1

Image
  • 0

#34 An.Petrovich

An.Petrovich
  • Posts: 565

Posted 23 September 2011 - 13:34

Hi guys,
I've been not reading yet everything in this thread (because I'm working on R.E.8 right now) but I'd like to inform you about Nie.17 true level speed in RoF (v.1.021b) against known sources (just for information; I'm not ready to discussion right now, but I certainly will read your messages later).

Attached File  Speed.jpg   679.22KB   212 downloads
Attached File  unknown.jpg   215.41KB   196 downloads
  • 0

#35 Greywing2

Greywing2
  • Posts: 433

Posted 23 September 2011 - 13:39

Andrey, so N17 is too fast above 2500m in ROF…according to windsock docs….would be interesting to see the same comparision with camel and DRI since it seams they are slightly too fast at alt too…
  • 0

#36 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 23 September 2011 - 13:43

In Mig's test of the N17, it flew 150 at 1km.

But I think his test was done before the latest change to the N17 flight model.
  • 0

#37 jeanba4

jeanba4
  • Posts: 1257

Posted 23 September 2011 - 13:50

Hi guys,
I've been not reading yet everything in this thread (because I'm working on R.E.8 right now) but I'd like to inform you about Nie.17 true level speed in RoF (v.1.021b) against known sources (just for information; I'm not ready to discussion right now, but I certainly will read your messages later).
Thank you, it is always good to see developpers results point of view and results
  • 0

#38 An.Petrovich

An.Petrovich
  • Posts: 565

Posted 23 September 2011 - 13:52

I think his test was done before the latest change to the N17 flight model.
Last change were in April 2010, when I've corrected the CL and CD curves of airscrew blade (it gives +2..3 km/h). No changes more since that time.
  • 0

#39 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 23 September 2011 - 13:52

In Mig's test of the N17, it flew 150 at 1km.

But I think his test was done before the latest change to the N17 flight model.

My test were IAS not TAS, in 1.015. ;)
  • 0

#40 An.Petrovich

An.Petrovich
  • Posts: 565

Posted 23 September 2011 - 14:07

Note: IAS at altitude 1km is 155.0km/h.
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users