Interesting Reply from Oleg on FB FM Debates

[Batz]

From this thread at SinHQ

http://oldsite.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=004876

To be fair "Cube" has started several posts in attempt to show how wrong Olegs FMs are. He has some good points but lotsa whines as well.

Yes, Cube is cool guy comparing to all other real whinners. He try to make something that usually do good engineers when try to explain some others that know close to nothing about it...

I just would like to point that he missed many other things. Let say that some of them are:

1. Airfoil profile also plays _very_ great (some time major) role for turn time, radius, lift, etc. For that he need simply take the test of Hurricane.... Russian planes had "wide" airfoil profile and if he will take in calculation such things he will get REALLY other results then in his curves. Some time dramatically other.

2. He use Il-2 compare, but that isn't our own program at first and in the game REAL things are other. Before to post it he need to test it himself in a sim for the listed by him aircraft with methods that he describe. Il-2 compare is good just for novices that like to select for the first time the plane for online dogfight... Only for this. In the sim real turn times are greater than in Il-2 compare, ESPECIALLY for Russian planes. What Youss's program reads from sfs files is just "cover" of the tunes in code of FM.... lets say that it use just for intial tunes. Other tunes are absolutely in other places and do not show any digits - that are special formulas that do not use direct digits from the data that he reads with his porgram.  

3. For each type of plane we can find many different sources.
Let say for example that Russian tables posted here are from the tests of broken series...where the special comission (Defined by Stalin himself!) defined why and were was in use non-original technology or bad workers on the manufacture.... But why nobody that post them do not translate other than tables pages? Interesting, isn' it?  ....
Then we can find German tests that show what _should be_ and test of serial aircraft produced in Germany, Italy, Czech and Hungary... and then we may find easy that just Hungarian production Bf-109G series planes match the test data..... But other are slowly on 20-30 km/h due to used of "erzatz", non original technologies on these Messerschmitt owned manufactures..... If to model by such way what LW fans will say?  

Then we may found data for Mustang P-51D in UK.... where several just arrived units where tested with very serious settings (using theodolits, radars, etc) and no one of them was able to match declared performance and on WEP power they were able to run just about 40 sec before total overheating..... Why some don't like to post that trial? However we don't model it by the test of Uk or USSR (that was also similar to UK trials for 10 units sent as lend-lease P-51B in SU as a sample for selection together with other type of fighter planes)... We model it by NACA and USAF _official_report.... Becasue the whinners of "realistic" will again say something and we are tired of that. Very tired.

So now and later we select the best known for western and Japanese aircraft performance data and middle calculation of Soviet. Thats all.

If someone like to post tables of Soviet fighter planes then look for Stepanetz book about Yak series planes. He was one of the test chiefs in NII VVS and write even all weaknes of _all_ soviet figher planes...(La series there are for comparison with Yak) Turn times we took from that book. That is really documeted data for each type, experimental or series, engines, etc. But not selection of some misses on SOME manufactures due to production failures...

The FM in FB isn't perfect in terms of what I would like to get in a HOME PLAYING SIM. But with limits that we have in speed of processors and if you are looking with attention to other aspects that should work together with FM calculation on a single _home PC_ processor (AI, Graphics, etc) probably you may be agree that it is still the best implementation that created for the last time.

Thats all what I would like to say today.
Sad that some people (Not Cube) do not understand many things and try to say something that they realluy don't know.


PS. Cube, you are wrong very much about Bf-109E. If to follow your statement then we need to say that 109E was better turner than Spit Mk.I or Hurricane MK.I. But we all know that it wasn't... and the differences was really great in that Item.
And we also all know that the Spits were not better turners than Soviet planes, except high altitude turns. That confirm easy the only tests of NII VVS of lend lease Spitfires V and IX, including low altitude versions and French pilots that flew both Yak-3 and Spit IX in trials of August 1945....

And you are wrong that Germans didn't test for turn time. There are such digits for a half turn in comparison to Soviet fighters and recommendation to German pilots to do not stay in turn with Yaks and LaGGs (They wrongly named till the end of war Las by LaGGs in many doc..Even Gunter Rall in his one of the latest interview said "LAGG-7" was the best from Soviet planes...    )....

It is also good to remind the special 1944 order of Luftwaffe High Command for LW pilots on Russian Front: "To avoid any fights bellow 5,000 meters altitude against new Russian Yak with inclined antenna and removed oil radiator from under nose" It was about Yak-3 and Yak-9U.
And we don't model the best known data for these planes.... The best for Yak-9U if to do not use the troops made limit screw for full throttle due to periodical oil leak in reductor of propeller for example will be 600-610 on SL and 700 at altitude for 20 min without overheating.  Is it in our sim?

Looks like whiners may decide the fm debate. Oleg may give in to to the pony mafia without a fight.

In his original posts there were lotsa smileys so who knows.

[udet]

I totally agree with using tables for aircraft characteristics in sims.
Accurate computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for any 3d body takes weeks to compute.
At the same time, a rough approximation of the calculations that are performed in CFD analysis might lead to gross errors at certain flight conditions.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Originally posted by Batz
Looks like whiners may decide the fm debate. Oleg may give in to to the pony mafia without a fight.
 

Well, you must admit - he's been worn down considerably by just about every concievable whiner ever invented before the pony mafia has even had a chance to whine.

VVSwhiners, luftwhiners, realismwhiners, etc.

In terms of percentages, the amount of a well supported complaint pointing out in error in one or more aircraft is somewhere near 2%. The other 98% is just a bunch of BS and hearsay, but in the boxed game market - majority rules.
-SW

[Batz]

Oleg may give in to to the pony mafia without a fight.

Yeah I hear you, I just threw that in to illicit some response....

[FUNKED1]

Funny thing is, USAF and NACA are not the most optimistic data for US planes.  Manufacturer's data generally showed higher performance.  How about a 453 mph P-51B?  

[ra]

I've heard Oleg say that the most scientifically sound measurement of the P-51 gave it a top speed of around 408 mph.
Yet he is choosing to use higher numbers from NACA and USAAF in FB.  I don't think he is yielding to the Mustang Mafia in this case.  The problem has to do with relative airplane performance.  

The Spit IX used nearly the same engine as the P-51B, and is said to have maxxed out at about 411 mph.  When the RAF 1st began using P-51's there were many occasions were Spit IX's and P-51B's flew missions together.  The pilots noticed that at all power settings the P-51 was faster than the Spit IX.  So if the P-51 was really a 408mph plane, how fast was the Spit IX?  And if the Spit IX was really a 385mph plane, how fast was the Bf-109G-6?  Pretty soon you have to lower the speeds of all planes in the FM to keep their relative performance in line.  

If NACA and the USAAF came up with similar numbers, then those numbers are probably reasonable.  The RAF test may have been conducted on a less than optimum aircraft.

ra

[GRUNHERZ]

Whatever.... We just now that La7 was most fastetest of all and the best.  And also the P39 - but only in russian service.

Tsagi tests, conducted by Stalin himself, scientifically proved adding red stars to a plane made it faster and handle better. They were the "Type-R"  stickers of the day. The Japanese, as usual, took the idea, made them better and smaller.

[Batz]

a previous post frpm oleg on this forum (this was back when the 1st il2 demo was out)

Before to make any summary and conclusions, please make sure that you know what you said...

Sounds: NO ONE PLANE IN THE WORLD WAS ABLE TO OUTROLL FW-190.... ARE YOU SURE? LET SAY that YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT SUCH PARAMETER OF LAGG, LA-5FN, LA-7, or say any of Yaks?

I promissed to do not post, but someone still think that he is right.... and last work should only his word. Here is nothing personal it is nature of human

I said that I will post some time later data... isn't it? Not all data I have but data for which I HAVE PERMISSION to post. Do you know that when you work with REAL archives, no matter where In Germany, USA, UK or in Russia the person who work there and copied docs MUST sign AGREEMENT ABOUT NO DISTRIBUTION ANY OF THE COPIED DOCS WITHOUT PERMISSION (for books, or for something other.....) AND IT COST MONEY, SOMETIME GREAT MONEY (some time ROYALTY if in commercial producs use original pages, etc...)

Do you think about it? Take a look for that problem from other side!
Do you know how much money I paid for some of docs? (most I got for almost free but with no permission to print in any print and internet sources)
And you offer me to post it for free not at time when I want it or when I will have official permission?

Georg Adam. That to speak about this veteran YOU SHOULD KNOW HIS HISTORY WELL BEFOR TO SAY SOMETHING.
Ace or not ace - for me is no matter. He was on Russian front and Western front. That is matter. AND HE HAS CLEAR MEMORY. I'm happy that I was able to get a help (any) from him and other German, American and Russian veterans. And I happy that I get VERY DIFFERENT OPINIONS OF EACH of them.

Georg Adam never said me that 109 can outroll 190. As I understood he loves very much FW-190D-9. At the same time his granson Steffen helped me to make interview with other veteran... And there I got very intersting data for 109, including rollrate - which fully corresponds to aerodynamics calculation in aerodynamic tunnel for 109.

The theme closed UNTIL IL-2 will be released and you'll be able to fly there FW-190 and compare with others. I never say that we HAVE 100% corresponding charts to original. But I will say that we have very close to what those planes perform.

I will not name anymore on the boards ANY names who helped me to get true data and consulted me untill release.

Some people don't understand some terms or, on the contary, understand it and that to confirm "ONLY ONE TRUTH they know" - speculate on that. That isn't correct way of discussion.

Show me diagramms of roll rate of 109F,G,K!
Can't?
Show me diagramms of forces on the control column of 109 during dive from 350 to 850 km/h and recover after that dive!
Can't?

I will be very glad to see such charts of UK/US tests (for sure I have also some German such docs) for these planes which we need to model.

I know some veterans who flew other German planes.... Experimental and serial....
They all like to help that to get some of them flyable in a sim such as our IL-2...

So, if you or anybody flame me in terms of Rollrate of FW-190s compare to other MODELED planes, make sure to have REAL arguments.

Here above I have read translation of document which I have as original book... (Soviet fighter tacitcs) By bold selected things which shows "confirmation" of summary....
But you don't see other description, which totally in contradiction about climb data comparing to the west data, but fully corresponds to MANUFACTURE DATA.

Recommendations to do not follow the dive of 109 doesn't means that ONLY 109 will have large curve to recover from that dive WITH SUPERIOR SPEED...At such big speed whe you try to recover you may loose the mind, because of HIGHEST CONTINUES G-LOAD(what about modeling of that?). There you should read also that in Soviet LaGG-3 (that description is for such fighter type like LaGG - the most mass produced fighter in the end of 1942, when this doc was existed) unable to reach the same speed in dive and better to wait and keep the maximum speed if POSSIBLE in level flight that to reach German fighter in the cross of your and enemy trajectory (really it was hellpless for many soviet early war planes, such as I-16, I-153 or for lend lease Hurricanes and P-40).
I would like to say, if possible... That is doc how to fight with ENEMY fighter tactis and how they escape attack ... That means that pilots of 109 USED OFTEN SUCH TACTIC - dive on large speed and they USED the advantage in that case over the enemy.

At the same time FW-190 was new in 1942 for Soviets and this doc have not all the recomendatios. The only one captured by Soviets FW190A-4 was tested at that time and recomendations how to fight with that plane based on that test and on soviet pilots descriptions from the front. Real recomendations were done in late 1943. There is description that only way to escape attack from six, pilot of 190 uses half roll and dive, because impossiblity of quick level acceleration and lack of climb comparing to Soviet planes of that time... In that terms, haf roll and following 190's dive, La-5FN for example was superior (recomendations for pilot of La-5FN in case if German pilot of 190 uses that common for them tactic on Russian front).

There is also recomendations for IL-2 pilots how to escape attacks from six .... there is description markered top secret and not for IL-2 pilots eyes that FW-190 attack of IL-2 was in 50%-60% fatal if FW-190 begins to shot from long distance and kill rear gunner... Not so many plots of IL-2 recalls that they successfully escaped FW-190 attack from rear... Most of them died after that attack... But a lot of survived after attacks of Bf-109...

So all terms are subjective... depends of situation and methodics of calculations/computations....

Each try to see what he want to see in one or other doc... Developer can't follow his own favorite plane. He need to learn all things....


My device is "The truth is somewhere in between"

I said many times, if I'm wrong and you have data to correct where I'm wrong - I will do corrections.

So...

[nuchpatrick]

Well.. all I'm going to say is it's Oleg's game.. and he does't give a flip.  So why be concerned over it.

I love the graphic's, and the cool planes that are in the game. Other then that it's just another flight sim.

[straffo]

I loved the turn time comparaison ...
especially when knowing that Normandie-Niemen pilots had to make a 360 in less than 19 seconds to be considered combat ready ...

It's extremely hard to do when your plane make it in 22 seconds ...

[Furball]

Originally posted by Batz
From this thread at SinHQ

http://Then we may found data for Mustang P-51D in UK.... where several just arrived units where tested with very serious settings (using theodolits, radars, etc) and no one of them was able to match declared performance and on WEP power they were able to run just about 40 sec before total overheating..... Why some don't like to post that trial? However we don't model it by the test of Uk or USSR (that was also similar to UK trials for 10 units sent as lend-lease P-51B in SU as a sample for selection together with other type of fighter planes)... We model it by NACA and USAF _official_report.... Becasue the whinners of "realistic" will again say something and we are tired of that. Very tired. So now and later we select the best known for western and Japanese aircraft performance data and middle calculation of Soviet. Thats all. [/B][/QUOTE] You want to try and get that data?ask here [url]http://www.rafmuseum.org/hendon/research/contact.cfm