Aircraft Testing CriteriaDoes anyone have information regarding testing procedures and guidelines to check accuracy of the various aircraft performance within AH?
The real aircraft when manufactured, or the nme planes when captured went through extensive testing, but that’s not what I’m looking for I don’t believe. I’d like a scaled down protocol for testing the virtual planes in Aces High for authenticity, but something a little less complex or involved/time consuming.
Im looking for GLARING mistakes that confirm discrepancies in the flight models. Certainly Pyro and crew do something to verify the numbers in the code, I’d like guidelines for testing.
The reason I ask is, the N1K2 debate isn’t even a debate anymore; it’s just one long witch-hunt. I can't say I care one way or another, just as long as the tests are done and facts are made, because the squeaking is becoming down right silly.
People have even been arguing that there is no way the Nik should have cannon with so many rounds. It’s getting hard in cases like that to argue, as if it’s somehow not fair in 1945 Japan had armed then that way. Then good old Stopmer3 informed me that you have to squeak to get things like the Nik perked, mentioning it worked with the F4UC. With that new info, I knew this mindless channel one banter will not cease, ever.
Soooo, to address the performance debate, I have been doing aircraft testing (well, trying tests on my own that I think would show performance), to find this elusive “E” retention and super “UFO” zoom climb of the N1K2 George. Well, mainly the George, but to check other aircraft as well.
Thing is, I must be doing something wrong, or this simple test is hiding something like zoom time, or something else that would skew performance. Also, I’m not timing the time to alt in this test, just at what ALT the aircraft reaches, and if it “hangs like a helicopter” or “UFO”.
Here’s what I did.
The Simple TestI went offline, went to “Medium Alt Field” A4 in the Dueling Arena. I then loaded 4 aircraft - N1K2, 109G10, LA7 and a Yak9-U with 50% fuel, biggest ammo load (no wing mounted cannon for the G10).
After take off, I leveled at 5K until each aircraft reached it’s top speed of aircraft in full WEP.
Once there, I smoothly pulled the aircraft in a full up climb straight up vertical and set autopilot on “green” to take any control inputs I’d make out of the test. I let it climb, noting at what ALTITUDE each aircraft would stall out. I also noted if there were any abnormal “hanging on the prop” characteristics, but other than that time was not noted. I don’t have a stop watch.
Ok, so that’s just bare essentials testing of climb, but I think it is a good indication of how far a aircraft can climb at it’s level top speed at 5K, and also to find this helicopter/ufo stuff.
ResultsWell, aside from the G10 just sky rocketing and me actually starting the climb early with it at 300kts indicated (not actual) and still accelerating. I found out something interesting.
1. AH has cool stall modeling. I got the Yak to almost flat spin me to impact had I not been at 10K.
2. In this test the N1K2 did not out climb ANY of the aircraft tested.
ConclusionThere need to be more tests, but if I was a betting man, noone, with a stopwatch, official testing method guide from the government or anyone else, is going to find this HUGE error in the N1K2 fm.
As the Typhon was recently tweakes in the roll issue, I have every reason to believe that HTC is not God on aircraft modelling, and there are probably mistakes here and there.
Thing is, people are confusing a great late war aircraft (under 20K anyway), with a good cannon punch, to a uber ride of death that does impossible things. It aint so.
So, can someone get me a better testing criteria so we can put this to rest?
[ 06-11-2001: Message edited by: Creamo ]
