Originally posted by Bruno
I am not gonna play the same game with you as you did with HoHun in the other thread.
Turn times for the Spit Ia and 109E can be found on the web.
I didn't say all 'calculations' or all 'data' is 100% correct. Read what I wrote:
"The truth is always some where in the middle and the best way to make any judgement is based on real data (when possible) not on what Mr. SuperAce recalls or thinks happened."
I didn't reply to your last post and I won't reply to another if you don't at least make an attempt to read what's written with out jumping to unfounded conclusions or strawmen.
Hi,
i did read what you wrote, i dont disagree to what you wrote in general, only to the point where you write that "Anecdotal evidence is completely worthless when it comes to accurately modeling aircraft for a game...".
The 'when possible' is the problem, at the end its never exact possible, cause we never have exact datas, made by one and the same windtunnel, or hundrets of tests, where we can choose the middle. Our datas base on some lonly tests, often bad documented, made by different testers and nations, under different circumstances. To leave the anecdotes absolutly out is like believing that a bumble-bee cant fly, only cause a calculation say so.
And who decide which of the calculations are 100%(or 50%, 70%) correct?
Please, show me the turn times of a combatworthy Me109E4, for now i dont found any! A 109E turntest where the pilot turn with slats open also would be nice.
btw, why do you think the 109E4 was faster above 22k alt? The Spit1a had the higher max alt and i dont found a hint that the DB601A or Aa had a power peak at 22k. If the 109E was slower below 20k, there is no logic in estimating it as the faster plane above 22k, if we look to the max alt.
Actually i doubt that the Spit1a was faster in low alt, but in around 17000ft. Of course if you compare the Spit1a 100octan Wep with the DB601A 5min rating, maybe, but also the 109E had a TO power to be used as emergency(at least some datas, lately displayed, show a pretty fast 109E with this powersetting). With 5min power for both planes the Spit dont seems to be faster below 15000ft(the 109E had more power there, was smaler and more light, although the tail and spinner probably was a handycap regarding the drag).
Please, take one of the many open source games out there and start to create FM/DM´s, very fast you will see the limits of the known test datas regarding modeling a credible FM.
btw. your comment regarding HoHun maybe show that you go the same way like he? Dont look sideward, keep on believing only in datas(which obvious dont be exact or objective) as only credible facts is more a religion than science.
Originally posted by Kweassa
The difference is, Knegel, numbers can be tracked down, verified, and recalculated to prove which is right and which is wrong. Not to mention physics don't lie. The physics and principles of flight have been long reseacrhed, about what makes a plane perform in what way. If calculations are wrong, then people can easily find and point out exactly which of the variables are wrong.
Compared to that, how do you verify conflicting memories? Brain biopsy? Not to mention the fact that psychologically, people either, a) remember only what they want to remember, or b) remember it in their own version, or c) both.
When modelling something, the line has to be drawn somewhere. If both calculations and memories are not objective, as you say, still I'd take calculations over memories.
Hi,
the problem is: The WWII Numbers cant get tracked down in most cases!!
Physics dont lie, yes, but what do you wanna calculate if you have many different datas to the same value, which all result in absolut different performences, while you dont have enough tests to determine a middle value?
Today we have supercomputers and much knowledge and specialy experiences regarding flightphysics, but still windtunnels and real flighttests are needed to get the wanted knowledge. To believe to beeing able to calculate the 109E turn rate in relation to the Spit1a´s turnrate seems to be a bit strange, same like believing in one existing turntest of this planes. If we base the calculations on the Clmax resulting out of the stallspeed, both planes had a pretty similar liftload, but then again almost every Spit1a test i saw show a different stall speed(up to 10mph difference), some tests refer to a faster stallspeed than the 109E got in the british tests, some to a same fast, some to a bit slower stall speed.
I actually only know one turn test between the 109E and Spit1a, but is a turn of a 109E with a cocked engine and possible closed slats something worth?
I dont know any perfect documented WWII plane, all test results of different tests show big discrepancys or miss documentation here or there, which would allow to create absolut different performences in a Simulation without to leave the range of possibilitys(greyzone of realism).
Maybe noone took notice, but i also dont would like to base a FM/Dm only on anecdotals, but they are same much worth like the testdatas.
I prefer to use what seems to be more credible, sometimes its the test, sometimes its the anecdote, most both together show the best picture.
At the end our decision make the datas subjective!
Since 5 years i create FM/DM´s, i know there have to be a line, but the real plane performences are often not that different, smal differents often result in a 'super plane' or a sitting duck, what often cant be realistic at all, at least it dont seems to be credible and most isnt wanted in a game.
With very smal changings we can change the whole picture. For example with super combat flaps, or changing the inertia or one of the other E-bleed related values, or the stall behaviour, or make one plane a bit more slow or fast can result in extreme different results while gaming, without to leave the range of tested results. Our planeperformences can fit very good to the known testdatas, but still we dont have any exact datas regarding the most important E-bleed, neighter to the dive acceleration at different speeds, neighter to the upzoom behaviour and i hope you dont expect from a gameengine to be able to calculate this datas out of simplyfied wingare, weight and drag datas.
At the end we need to believe this or that value, this or that anecdote, or we need to buy some Spitfires, some 109´s and make testflights under same conditions like we do it in game, or we need a very good windchannel. But who realy wanna know that the 190D9, or Spit14 or La7 or P51D was a super mega über plane?? Iam happy with our greyzone of realism, otherwise we maybe would get absolut realistic FM/DM´s, but a horrible gameplay.
Greetings, Knegel
