Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Flight Model Verification and Data Analysis 101


  • Please log in to reply
445 replies to this topic

#41 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 13 May 2010 - 18:53

While this is certainly a good idea I'd like point out that Mikaels Dr.I is probably in perfect condition regarding the airframe and engine so it probably performs perfectly while a wartime Dr.I might not have, especially with the lubricant shortages. So when using these numbers I'd like to suggest that some sort of "filter" is applied to slightly derate the performance for a more authentic "average".
  • 0

#42 Vati

Vati
  • Posts: 820

Posted 13 May 2010 - 19:02

While this is certainly a good idea I'd like point out that Mikaels Dr.I is probably in perfect condition regarding the airframe and engine so it probably performs perfectly while a wartime Dr.I might not have, especially with the lubricant shortages. So when using these numbers I'd like to suggest that some sort of "filter" is applied to slightly derate the performance for a more authentic "average".
So, Dr1 should be derated, while we are using for other planes in mint condition? Where do we draw the line?
How do you know how WW1 plane really performed? … As you can see, this is a slippery slope… because of the nature of the things related to perf. figures, you must either set for all planes to be treated by best figures or worst. Not this guess work to make 'playbalance' as you see fit ;)
  • 0

#43 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 13 May 2010 - 19:05

No my reasoning is that a plane used in 1918 for testing might not have been in mint condition either. And the lubricants and fuel might have been worse as well.
Though, especially with the Adlerhof planes one would assume that they were in (relatively) perfect condition.

Now one would have to know how well the entente prepared their test planes.
  • 0

#44 Vati

Vati
  • Posts: 820

Posted 13 May 2010 - 19:13

No my reasoning is that a plane used in 1918 for testing might not have been in mint condition either. And the lubricants and fuel might have been worse as well.
Though, especially with the Adlerhof planes one would assume that they were in (relatively) perfect condition.
And how do we know how given engine in replica performs related to 1918? How can you be so sure that this replica is not worser performer than average in 1918? Do you really believe he will do max. power flying risking the life of the engine? … it's not so black and white…
  • 0

#45 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 13 May 2010 - 19:16

If you use replicas…you have to take them at face value. Consider this, his 110 Le Rhone is almost 100 years old!! There are no new Le Rhones currently.

The airframe it self shouldnt matter too much. You will have to be satisfied with "this is how a real triplane flies" as oppposed to "this is how i think a WWI triplane flew"
  • 0

#46 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 13 May 2010 - 19:25

Do you really believe he will do max. power flying risking the life of the engine? … it's not so black and white…

I am afraid that is a good point ;)
I don't want the Dr.I in particular nerfed, I'd like to see all the rotaries nerfed a bit since they all took a performance hit after just a few hours of usage, there is a test of a snipe that shows this quite nicely. The same plane was tested in mint condition and 12 or 24 hours of flight time later (MiG-77 posted the tests on our forums iirc) and the plane had a good 10% less topseed. Of course there could be measuring errors but the climb rates had decreased as well.

Anyway, this whole Dr.I vs Camel balancing is really boring. Once they both perform adequately at altitude and TDM missions are taking the fight to higher altitudes these discussions will hopefully fade away. Dr.I will be exotic rides and Camels will be far from pretty at 3+km.
We might even start to see Camel pilots complaining about the D.VII beeing too good :D
  • 0

#47 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 13 May 2010 - 19:36

Imperator,

2 things…

for me, this discussion (at this point anyway) was to promote NEOQBs investigation in to finding REAL data from REAL airplanes that are currently in existence ie. peter jackson has a hangar full of WWI planes with real rotaries! and real BMW/mercedes/etc!! I'm not supporting the change of specific aircraft. The DR1 was just an example since Mikael has one in some relatively famous youtube footage…The opportunity to collect data is out there…

I made a mission that drives the fight higher. Its fairly realistic when compared to my minds eye ;) but it is centered on the Recon planes and bomber planes

reference this link for details on the mission http://riseofflight.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=131&t=9758
  • 0

#48 Marco_._

Marco_._
  • Posts: 2594

Posted 13 May 2010 - 19:45

I will just show you one post from simhq proving some things can be detected without using any data or documents…such issues are so obvious we dont need any data….imho

"From contemporary accounts the Pfalz D3 had nasty stall characteristics and a tendency to side slip that killed a lot of pilots, the Albatros are also supposed to have stalled sharply. There's none of this in their ROF flight models, they all cling handily to the air at the edge of a stall and slump benignly without ever spinning. The Spad is the same btw."
  • 0

#49 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 13 May 2010 - 19:48

We still don't have Pfalz D.IIIs in the game.

While the Pfalz D.IIIa still had some stall problems the Mercedes D.III engine was the main problem for the relatively heavy D.III. Instead of posting useless anecdotal "evidence" about planes we don't have you could try to find figures.
  • 0

#50 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 13 May 2010 - 19:50

"From contemporary accounts the Pfalz D3 had nasty stall characteristics and a tendency to side slip that killed a lot of pilots, the Albatros are also supposed to have stalled sharply. There's none of this in their ROF flight models, they all cling handily to the air at the edge of a stall and slump benignly without ever spinning. The Spad is the same btw."

Fair enough Trvdi, but whose accounts where they? What reports stated this? Its not something I have ever come across. (Not saying its incorrect but its just anecdotal and open to interpretation).

Now If you could (even if there is availible) some hard data to back it up, thats another matter.
  • 0

#51 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 13 May 2010 - 19:51

Squid he is talking about the Pfalz D.III. We don't have that plane. FFS.
  • 0

#52 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 13 May 2010 - 19:54

Imp, It doesnt matter whether hes talking about the DIII, DIIIa or F16. Its a mute point. "According to contemporary sources" doesnt help anyone
  • 0

#53 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 13 May 2010 - 19:55

Which makes it even worse ;)
  • 0

#54 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 13 May 2010 - 19:58

Lol Imp….honestly http://www.youtube.c...h?v=teMlv3ripSM">
  • 0

#55 Marco_._

Marco_._
  • Posts: 2594

Posted 13 May 2010 - 20:24

"From contemporary accounts the Pfalz D3 had nasty stall characteristics and a tendency to side slip that killed a lot of pilots, the Albatros are also supposed to have stalled sharply. There's none of this in their ROF flight models, they all cling handily to the air at the edge of a stall and slump benignly without ever spinning. The Spad is the same btw."

Fair enough Trvdi, but whose accounts where they? What reports stated this? Its not something I have ever come across. (Not saying its incorrect but its just anecdotal and open to interpretation).

Now If you could (even if there is availible) some hard data to back it up, thats another matter.

I think thers no such hard data for Pfaltz…In fact for most of the planes…NeoQB used some data, yes, but can they prove they have original hard data (for stalls,spins,rolls etc.)?

Where we can find hard data for stall, rudder and spin characteristics, for any plane? I think nowhere….All we can do is to report BIG ILLOGICAL DIFFERENCIES in flight models between 2 planes, some illogical things….

I will give you one example….N17 is slower in roll reponse than N11…hitorically, our sanity (and pilot accounts in books) proved - this is not correct…but I cant provide any hard data so Im WRONG? Where is their hard data proving N17 had so slow roll response?


we should ask ourself why most folks would choose Pfaltz DIIIa over Fokker DVII (regular) online? Was it really Pfaltz a better plane? No….Do we really think N17 was worse in roll than N11? N17 really had nasty stall tendency, more than N11?

They have orig. docs regarding speed and climb rate….but whats about plane behaviour, stall, rudder and spin characteristic?….as you know, its not all in speed and climb rate….I think speed and climb rate is only area where they have (or dont have) original data….

I dont have any hard data so I will stop posting on this thread so devs wont waste their time on my posts….
  • 0

#56 Kwiatek

Kwiatek
  • Posts: 680

Posted 13 May 2010 - 20:42

Very good point =IRFC=Tvrdi


Speed and climb is only some aspects of FM and performacne. Very important thing besied these is also how the plane is handlig in the sky and ground - stall and spin behavior, stability, control response, torque and many others thing which will be very difficult to find primary suorces and prove.


There are some RL WW1 pilots notes, opinions about some planes handling in books, monographs etc. but there are not primary sources.

How to prove these things? E.x. i am RL pilot ( im flying gliders, small prop planes and i flew Bucker Jungmann biplane) - so some things i just know intuitively or by experience or my fligh psyshic knwowledge. It is really hard to prove many things.
  • 0

#57 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 13 May 2010 - 20:52

I dont have any hard data so I will stop posting on this thread so devs wont waste their time on my posts….

No Trvdi, that would be a shame because I think you have good points to make. I agree the lack of data make the whole thing difficult. That said you could provide references. For example where did you read the account that you posted etc.

Whilst it may not be enough to sway the argument, it adds fuel to it.
  • 0

#58 Ogami_musashi

Ogami_musashi
  • Posts: 859

Posted 13 May 2010 - 21:13

The simple rule is to provide with enough elements to eliminate uncertainties.

The first step is to describe the problem with precision.

Saying "the roll response is lower" is not a good start because i bet you didn't measure it at all speeds or at least at some references speeds, nor you checked AOA etc..

Why bother with this? If you say "roll response is too low" and neoqb does the modification based on that fact they'll change the whole Roll Moment parameters which will change the whole roll over the complete speed, altitude and AOA range.

Since any book you want doesn't have roll rate vs all range this would be a kind of wrong thing to do.

That precisely why you need to present the problem in the narrowest conditions possible.


Next step is to bring Facts; Facts are not necessarily hard data, those are certain things that clear uncertainties.
If for example i say to you "this plane shouldn't be able to fly inverted for 30 seconds at least because it didn't have any pump system and was fueled by gravity" there's two facts that we can clear the uncertainties of:

-Checks historical data on the engine (it exists)
-Make reference to simple law of physics

Why you have to do so? Why it is not Neoqd task? THis is because they already did and found out this situation was correct; So yes it is your task to show them they are wrong.
And the more your find it cumbersome, the less we are in the "common sense" bugs you speak about.

See at where we are with N28 facts bring by users..

Nobody ever said things were simple in life, Nature and physics are certainly not.
  • 0

#59 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 13 May 2010 - 21:34

Great post Ogami

S!
  • 0

#60 WW1EAF_Ming

WW1EAF_Ming
  • Posts: 2565

Posted 13 May 2010 - 22:10

can they prove they have original hard data

They don't need to prove anything Tvrdi mate, of course not. It's maybe a little paranoid to be talking amongst friends and then to be talking about people needing to prove something. Neoqb created their sim in good faith to the best of their ability, lucky for us. We can help the neoqb team make more authentic planes, more authentic terrain, more authentic atmosphere. But we have no need to see neoqb's data, we have the planes and we can test them, make the graphs and compare the graphs to original graphs of data taken in the original test flights. If neoqb planes' performance does not seem to correlate with the data we present, then maybe neoqb will make whatever changes might be necessary

First we need the flight-testing data from Rise of Flight planes collated into graphs, then we find original data graphs and compare graphs. Anyone can do this, why not? If someone has a compelling argument then the neoqb team will be very interested, they are flight-sim people.

But we cannot compare expect to compare any graphs we produce to neoqb's data, that is none of our business. And probably equivalent to opening themselves to industrial espionage :)

Ming
  • 0

#61 IRFC_SmokinHole

IRFC_SmokinHole
  • Posts: 1861

Posted 13 May 2010 - 23:38

Ogami, Ming, great posts.

As for the rest of us, we're way off in the weeds. There is no way any of you will ever be able to test your FM assumptions unless they are based on simple historical performance data such as ceiling, climb rate, Vmax, etc. Discussions about rarely recorded criteria such as roll rates, turn rates, and spin recovery are mostly like discussions about the existance of god or the Yeti. People bring to the conversation their own predjudices and beliefs but never anything verifiable.

The job of a good flight sim is to compute AOA, airfoil planform, velocity, atmospheric condition, wing area, control surface area and deflection, and CG values (to name a few) and create an output as close to reality as possible. They have the sim, we don't. So our only recourse is to trust or complain. But resort to the second option only when you are 99% certain of your position.
  • 0

#62 J2_squid

J2_squid
  • Posts: 3815

Posted 13 May 2010 - 23:45

Deffo, Hold the press! Neoqb create the most hi deff flight sim and then reveal inner workings

Oleg is reported to be "pleased"

At the end of the day the common factor here is that we all share a passion for realism. Check this out, so does Neoqb.

There is a vast array of knowledge on these boards, and they appreciate that. But if you want to change something that people have been working on overtime, all they request is a better argument than they already have had.

Time and time again they have proved they are open to suggestion. Just make the suggestions plausible, clear and incontrivertable.
  • 0

#63 Von_Hess

Von_Hess
  • Posts: 9

Posted 14 May 2010 - 01:09

:) +1 for what Ogami wrote. I hope you guys will stick with that and work seriosly towards an overall improovement of the FM ,the rules that apply to all planes before starting to tweak individual flight performance and charactaristics.

I assume you will stay open to questions on how rise of flight handles various aspects of physics and flightphysics and the same goes for imput from us costumers.

Regards VH.
  • 0

#64 Marco_._

Marco_._
  • Posts: 2594

Posted 14 May 2010 - 07:31

can they prove they have original hard data

They don't need to prove anything Tvrdi mate, of course not. It's maybe a little paranoid to be talking amongst friends and then to be talking about people needing to prove something. Neoqb created their sim in good faith to the best of their ability, lucky for us. We can help the neoqb team make more authentic planes, more authentic terrain, more authentic atmosphere. But we have no need to see neoqb's data, we have the planes and we can test them, make the graphs and compare the graphs to original graphs of data taken in the original test flights. If neoqb planes' performance does not seem to correlate with the data we present, then maybe neoqb will make whatever changes might be necessary

First we need the flight-testing data from Rise of Flight planes collated into graphs, then we find original data graphs and compare graphs. Anyone can do this, why not? If someone has a compelling argument then the neoqb team will be very interested, they are flight-sim people.

But we cannot compare expect to compare any graphs we produce to neoqb's data, that is none of our business. And probably equivalent to opening themselves to industrial espionage :)

Ming


Can you kindly ask them to provide hard data for stall, torque, rudder and spin characteristics, for all planes?

You see, there are no hard data for such characteristics…But I hope well see, in future, some of this modelled right (or closer to reality). At least for torque we know they said it will be possible in the future….

for now we have (some) planes hangin out on props in a comic way…..incorrect spin recoveries, almost non existant torque, strange stall behaviour in some planes (btw Oleg Maddox said something about that), bullets with super gravity etc.

forgive me for my poor english and I promise I will stop now so guys with hard data could pop in..Its a shame Im not better in english (or russian) because then I would explain everything much better….
  • 0

#65 WW1EAF_Ming

WW1EAF_Ming
  • Posts: 2565

Posted 14 May 2010 - 09:13

Can you kindly ask them to provide hard data for stall, torque, rudder and spin characteristics, for all planes?

You see, there are no hard data for such characteristics…


You've answered your own question then :)

But I hope well see, in future, some of this modelled right (or closer to reality). At least for torque we know they said it will be possible in the future…

Yes neoqb have told us publicly that they are keeping everything under review, a priority now though is improvements to pilot career

for now we have (some) planes hangin out on props in a comic way…..incorrect spin recoveries, almost non existant torque, strange stall behaviour in some planes (btw Oleg Maddox said something about that), bullets with super gravity etc.

Something to get our teeth into :)

We have the excellent track recorder. All one has to do is provide a track of a plane hanging on its prop in a 'comic way'. That is something that can be tested very simply, I am looking forward to seeing the track you or someone else provides please

If there is no track then please consider this. What you are talking about is 'anecdotal evidence' - you have not seen this hanging on a prop in a comic way: you heard someone talk about it

If you have seen it yourself, you can repeat it but this time with the track recorder running. Then we can look at the track and see exactly what it is you mean by a plane 'hanging on its prop in a comic way'

No worries Tvrdi and you have very good English mate, I know exactly what you mean about a plane hanging on its prop in a comic way. I haven't seen it for myself in this sim but I do believe that you are sincere about helping neoqb out to make flight-model improvements - we al want the most realistic simulator.

My first flight in a flight-simulator was an Evans and Sutherland (pay-to-fly) simulator at the Trocadero in Piccadilly Circus, I eat, sleep and dream physics (particle physics mostly) so we want exactly the same thing :)

No one needs to understand flight-modelling to enjoy talking about it, and about how a simulator can approach real-world flight

Tvrdi these forums are for purchasers of RoF and friends of neoqb, no one wants you to keep quiet if you see something wrong, we can discuss things over a cold beer :)

'I've learned that in the description of nature one has to follow approximations, and that even work with approximations can be interesting and sometimes can be beautiful' : Paul Dirac

This is bottom line after all the (enjoyable) talking :)

Ming
  • 0

#66 Marco_._

Marco_._
  • Posts: 2594

Posted 14 May 2010 - 09:17

Im here because I care…otherwise I would not bother…I think Im their friend, and yours…btw since Im working on movies, one day (if I would be satisfied with results…if ever) I will publish a ROF movie…I have a nice idea and maybe I will concentrate my free time on such work…
  • 0

#67 Hellbender

Hellbender
  • Posts: 3321
  • LocationMadrid, Spain (originally Brussels, Belgium)

Posted 14 May 2010 - 09:21

The problem, Tvrdi, is that even if they do provide the hard numbers and even if those numbers check out, it is no guarantee at all that they've been used correctly. Simply because there is no single correct way to interpret statistics.


Rise of Flight in its current state is and will always be neoqb's very respectable personal interpretation of aerial combat during the Great War.

It's miles ahead of the competition, if there is any competition at all. Red Baron 3D? Over Flanders Fields? No, seriously, I meant real competition.


Eventually, I believe the community will "correct" the flight models to better reflect some of the most common preconceptions, as true or false as they may be.

For now, you should take the sim and its flight models as they are and play with respect to their strengths and weaknesses. Even if they're not quite what you and many, many, many others expect – and even if some planes really do defy both physics and logic (N11 vs. N17 performance being the prime example of this).


In the end, everyone here loves Rise of Flight unconditionally and so badly wishes it to become better and better that we often fail to see how lucky we already are to have all this.
  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#68 PeterGrozni

PeterGrozni
  • Posts: 152

Posted 14 May 2010 - 09:36

I wish I'd see some of the energy, that is put into bashing over the Pfalz, to be spent on the other aircraft that lack some of their main flying characteristics, like the stall and spin of the S.P.A.D. (which is barely ever mentioned as having serious flaws in its FM), the engine effects of the Ni.28 (promoted mainly by the "Ni.28 turned much better" brigade once they were told about it), the handling of the D.VII etc…
We've seen some already, but I hope we won't see too many changes in RoF that are mainly based on frustrated players who are unable to score as they imagined and then blame an aircraft for it. When you think something's wrong on an aircraft always compare it to all the others and see if others have this problem as well. There's always more than one aircraft sharing the same problem and it's such a shame to see people focus on just one aircraft and neglect all the other that share the same problem.
  • 0

#69 Eldur

Eldur
  • Posts: 220

Posted 14 May 2010 - 11:54

Anyway Eldur, I think you have to be careful with the speeds given on wikipedia since they might be TAS and the altitude is not always given so you have to take them with a sack of salt.

At sea level where WW1 planes had their top speed, there should not be much difference between IAS and TAS. But that's an important factor at higher altitudes, of course.
  • 0

#70 Eldur

Eldur
  • Posts: 220

Posted 14 May 2010 - 12:03

Mikeal Carlsons DR1 actually has a Le Rhone engine, on his website he lists the cruise speed (whatever that is) of it as 160 Kph. http://www.aerodrome...&id=10&Itemid=8">http://www.aerodrome...index.php?optio … 0&Itemid=8

I might just trow in this one:
http://de.wikipedia....iki/Fokker_Dr.I">http://de.wikipedia....iki/Fokker_Dr.I

160 km/h in 2800 m
140 km/h in 4200 m

2800 isn't nothing, the engine is already less powerful up there. This shows that the top speed of ~170-180 at sea level is not a fairy tale.

Maybe these guys could eventually provide good data:
http://thevintageavi....co.nz/projects">http://thevintageavi....co.nz/projects
Obviously they even try to reproduce / restore the original engines.
  • 0

#71 IRFC_SmokinHole

IRFC_SmokinHole
  • Posts: 1861

Posted 14 May 2010 - 13:08

Im here because I care…otherwise I would not bother…I think Im their friend, and yours…btw since Im working on movies, one day (if I would be satisfied with results…if ever) I will publish a ROF movie…I have a nice idea and maybe I will concentrate my free time on such work…

Can you please post the movie of yourself flying the real WWI replica of the plane or planes with which you think Neoqb has missed the mark? I know there must be one because no one would have the confidence that you have without such a real-world body of experience to back up his stance.
  • 0

#72 Marco_._

Marco_._
  • Posts: 2594

Posted 14 May 2010 - 13:11

Im here because I care…otherwise I would not bother…I think Im their friend, and yours…btw since Im working on movies, one day (if I would be satisfied with results…if ever) I will publish a ROF movie…I have a nice idea and maybe I will concentrate my free time on such work…

Can you please post the movie of yourself flying the real WWI replica of the plane or planes with which you think Neoqb has missed the mark? I know there must be one because no one would have the confidence that you have without such a real-world body of experience to back up his stance.

Can you post something that is not insulting? Do you think anybody from NeoQB flew in real WW1 lanes? Did you?
  • 0

#73 Eldur

Eldur
  • Posts: 220

Posted 14 May 2010 - 13:26

First we need the flight-testing data from Rise of Flight planes collated into graphs, then we find original data graphs and compare graphs. Anyone can do this, why not? If someone has a compelling argument then the neoqb team will be very interested, they are flight-sim people.

Better instruments would help collecting these data. We'd need at least a variometer / climb rate gauge, an artificial horizon and a 2nd needle showing TAS (similar to the Me-262 gauge) in "Simple Gauges" mode. Just because any measurements without these are prone to errors.
  • 0

#74 WW1EAF_Ming

WW1EAF_Ming
  • Posts: 2565

Posted 14 May 2010 - 13:44

That's interesting Eldur, I wonder if they had more instruments on board to check the real planes' performance? I work in instrumentation (electronics) so this is interesting to me - sorry if my question sounds sarcastic mate in the er, rather delicate climate, I don't mean to be awkward at all. But I have been thinking lately about how they tested planes back then, without the meters and indicators you mention

It doesn't matter too much really because we have climb rate as height/time, hmm no inclinometer - that's an important instrument because they used to paint a white line on an airfield building and instruct rookies to line the wings up to the line for correct lift angle at takeoff (WW2)

Ming
  • 0

#75 Laser

Laser
  • Posts: 1611

Posted 14 May 2010 - 14:06

It is very interesting that technical (empirical) data can indeed provide accurate data and avoid mistakes. On the other hand, Damon Slye said that he wanted to recreate the 'psychological' effect of living in WW1. Of course pilot stories are hard to put together to get details in a useful form. And everyone can interpret those stories in different ways, and the pilots themselves had biased opinions due to the general receiving of a new plane compared with the previous one they flown.

Still, when a plane with accurate technical data won't have the characteristics specified by a certain number of pilot accounts, something should be done (no?) in order to reach that behavior. I mean, for each plane model surely some guesses were employed were data is not known? Tune in those parts, check result etc. Otherwise, … the final result, ww1 recreation, is still missed, imho.

I mean, IMHO, pilot accounts about a certain behavior regarding say spinning, if they agree with each other, should also be accepted; is not our job to provide what NeoQB masters are good at; virtual pilots are not virtual Anthony Fokkers, they must not know why a plane flies like it does.

I also mean, is not fair to ask us only for technical/math data, but for accounts that are to be trusted from real pilots. Of course if a user complains about something he/she should prove it's not their 5 years of flying another game the cause of their complaint.

S!
  • 0

#76 Eldur

Eldur
  • Posts: 220

Posted 14 May 2010 - 14:17

for now we have (some) planes hangin out on props in a comic way…..incorrect spin recoveries, almost non existant torque, strange stall behaviour in some planes (btw Oleg Maddox said something about that), bullets with super gravity etc.

Are there any links to Oleg's statements? I just wonder because Il-2 has practically no stall behaviour as the planes just start to snap roll which develops into a spin if you won't counter act. In any plane, even with engines off.
  • 0

#77 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 14 May 2010 - 14:24

Anyway Eldur, I think you have to be careful with the speeds given on wikipedia since they might be TAS and the altitude is not always given so you have to take them with a sack of salt.

At sea level where WW1 planes had their top speed, there should not be much difference between IAS and TAS. But that's an important factor at higher altitudes, of course.

Well some planes have their top speed higher up when using TAS. And if you don't know where the speed was measured is you can't tell if it is TAS or IAS. I am just saying wikipedia might not be the best and safest of sources but that is pointing out the obvious.
  • 0

#78 WW1EAF_Ming

WW1EAF_Ming
  • Posts: 2565

Posted 14 May 2010 - 14:32

…is not fair to ask us only for technical/math data, but for accounts that are to be trusted from real pilots.

Yes all information is useful if it is given the correct weight

I imagine that Richthofen could be trusted if he speaks about gunnery for example, as he was a hunter and this was his speciality

Anecdotal evidence from pilots is more useful if their intention was to test their plane - but war stories describing amazing manoeuvres will be less useful as we have this blocking feature to our nervous systems. Something gets our attention, we miss other things, we are not even aware of them.

When you are specifically testing something, you concentrate on the important things, the flight-data not the suspicious dot two miles away. They did not know how useful the data (or not-data) would become to us in the Twenty-First Century :)

Ming
  • 0

#79 IRFC_SmokinHole

IRFC_SmokinHole
  • Posts: 1861

Posted 14 May 2010 - 16:12

Can you post something that is not insulting? Do you think anybody from NeoQB flew in real WW1 lanes? Did you?

Sorry to insult you Tvrdi but the absolute assertion that something is wrong is one that I think deserves to be called out when it doesn't have proper backup. No, I have obviously never flown a WW1 replica. But I've flown plenty in my 25 year, 12000hr career and I haven't seen anything in RoF that stands out as obviously wrong. I do have some hunches about FM errors but nothing so glaring or obvious to me that I am willing to throw it at Neoqb and say, "Fix this!" I won't keep repeating my feelings of period pilot accounts other than to say I place little credence in them, unless they are confirmed by other period sources. In other words, a fake example:

Col. Hartney says the N.28 could out-turn a Dr.1. Well that means nothing to me. But if Rickenbacker also says that the N.28 can out-turn a Dr.1 then I'll begin to believe it. And then if a German ace from one of the circuses further states that he was out-turned by a N.28 while flying his Dr.1 then I will take it as fact.

Short of flying a replica with the original powerplant and prop, or uncovering a gold mine of post-war test documentation, the only recourse for any player to verify his/her "feelings" that something is amiss is to design the same plane(s) with X-plane and flight test there. Short of that, this is just the same garbage that happened with IL2 years ago. Hopefully Neoqb will learn from Oleg's experience and NEVER make a change based on the wishes of the mob.
  • 0

#80 Ogami_musashi

Ogami_musashi
  • Posts: 859

Posted 14 May 2010 - 16:19

Replicas usually show significant differences with the actual planes.

Memorial flight planes (in france) for example the SPAD XIII is far less tolerant to spins that replicas that fly out there.

The reason lies in quality of materials, fabrication and joints.
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users