wishes for new planes: NOTAM

[Shane]

Look guys, I'd like the planeset to be fully fleshed out as much as the next guy, but bear in mind HTC needs actual test data to plug in numbers, which is not the same as simply tossing a 3d model of whatever together.

Unless you'd just prefer HT make a WAG on the numbers just to get something in game... not good, huh?

This is one reason why it's been so difficult to fill out the IJN/A and VVS planesets, availbility of data - or rather lack of it. 

[LilMak]

We interrupt this thread for clarification...

Just for those that aren't real pilots "NOTAM" stands for NoTice to AirMen. Just a little FYI.

...Now back to you're regularly scheduled thread. 

[Wmaker]

This is one reason why it's been so difficult to fill out the IJN/A and VVS planesets, availbility of data - or rather lack of it. 

Your comment is an opinion that isn't really based on any facts.

Especially when it comes to the VVS / Japanese planesets. We already have planes from the Yak-9/7 series and Lavochkin-series for example. So the basic flight model based on the geometry of the plane (drag coefficient/air foils) is already there. The speeds for these planes are known at atleast in one altitude and a complete speed curve can be made based on that if the way how the supercharger is geared is known. Max. engine hp is also widely known data, with the right weight and power climb rate should be automatically close to correct as well.

When it comes to the individual small quirks of certain planes, yes, there is more info on some planes over others. That shouldn't be and isn't (and really hasn't been when looking at the planeset) a reason not to model certain aircraft either. This isn't a multimillion dollar/euro airlinersim.

[Martyn]

...and furthermore an exact performance isn't necessarily accurate to RL anyway. Some planes went airborne with bits not working properly, or the tuning not quite right, or a bit failed/got clogged during flight, or a patch from a previous skirmish came off leaving a bit of a hole.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that let's try to make the models as accurate as possible - but let's not avoid doing planes because our knowledge on their performance isn't 100% - I bet few planes actually ever achieved their 100% potential in practice.

[Shane]

it'd be nice if someone at HTC could chime in... they may have in the past?

but for further understanding, you have to keep in mind things like flap settings, control deflections, fuel tank(s)capacities and locations, power curves and fuel consumption at various settings/alts... etc. etc.

sure a lot of this can be "found" on the internet, but they often contradict each other or use different baseline comparisons. i seem to recall HTC more being interested in seeing actual techincal data, or at least "official" ones. and of sufficient detail to be able to work with.

for many of the planes (and to lesser extent, GV's) the availbility of such data is scarce, incomplete or perhaps too expensive to obtain.  of course HTC could always slap a 3d model and do a little bit of WAG in their coding, but i get the distict impression HTC doesn't work that way.

[humble]

Your comment is an opinion that isn't really based on any facts.

Especially when it comes to the VVS / Japanese planesets. We already have planes from the Yak-9/7 series and Lavochkin-series for example. So the basic flight model based on the geometry of the plane (drag coefficient/air foils) is already there. The speeds for these planes are known at atleast in one altitude and a complete speed curve can be made based on that if the way how the supercharger is geared is known. Max. engine hp is also widely known data, with the right weight and power climb rate should be automatically close to correct as well.

When it comes to the individual small quirks of certain planes, yes, there is more info on some planes over others. That shouldn't be and isn't (and really hasn't been when looking at the planeset) a reason not to model certain aircraft either. This isn't a multimillion dollar/euro airlinersim.

Hmmm....

When you look at just how much argument we have on planes that are "well known" like the F6F and 190A5 and then look at planes who's true field performance #'s are very murky (like the Ki-84) shanes point is very good. A lot of the planes that are requested have very spotty surviving data. I don't disagree that reasonable "best guess" modeling is better then not having certain planes. The other variable is usage. A lot of planes that make sense for scenarios would see minimal use in the MA's (Ki-43, Laag-3 etc).

[Wmaker]

When you look at just how much argument we have on planes that are "well known" like the F6F and 190A5 and then look at planes who's true field performance #'s are very murky (like the Ki-84) shanes point is very good.

I really don't think the amount of arguing has much correlation wheater certain plane's numbers are more "murky" or clear. I think that planes that are popular and have a fanbase that is interested in its' history and technical details get argued over more. Exceptions are planes like the La-7 which has a stellar performance in AH...and most of its' fanbase is formed around that fact. I also think that having more test flight samples also greates more discussion about which data set should be used to model the AH-example of the plane in question.

My main point here is that Shane is basically just guessing that HTC might not have the data to produce certain IJN/A and VVS planes. He does not know weather or not it is true...and he still wants us to "bear that in mind". Not bashing HTC's flight model as that is the main reason I've flown this sim so long, but really the fidelity of individual planes is far from being so accurate that there should be much concern about the lack of data for the planes would be logical to add in the near future.

This discussion might be more fruitful if guys that are concerned about lack of data would name the planes they think this issue might involve.

About VVS and IJA aircraft:

- KI-43 was already in WarBirds, AHs FM is more detailed but I just don't see the "lack of data" here.

- Pyro himself said that he'd like to do KI-44...yes, he didn't say he had the data for it but from the data I've seen I'm sure it can be modelled.

- AH basically has a modified radial engined LaGG-3 in the game. There's Tsagi-performance data available for both speed and climb.

- Pyro included Yak-3 in the vote, that seals it for the Yak-1b as well...Tsagi-data can be found for it too.

- Yak-7b and Yak-9 are just variants of our current Yak-9T, also Tsagi-data available for them.

- I have very detailed describtions about handling characteristics for Pe-2, Tsagi data also available again.

So I really can't see a problem when it comes to the most relevant VVS and IJA aircraft.

The other variable is usage. A lot of planes that make sense for scenarios would see minimal use in the MA's (Ki-43, Laag-3 etc).

The other variable is usage, yes. But it isn't the topic of this thread.

[BMathis]

Why is this in the wishlist? Or do you wish for more data collection?

This should be in the Gen Discussion, let the wishers wish on!

[Shane]

Why is this in the wishlist? Or do you wish for more data collection?

This should be in the Gen Discussion, let the wishers wish on!

just trying to make wishes a little more "possible"  asking for some semi-obscure model has a pretty low chance considering the scarcity of data available.  otherwise i'm all for zuii's snake shooting pirhana nukes. 

and in partial response to WMaker... HTC has their own standards of fidelity (which are subject to change of course), but I think HTC prides themselves on putting out an accurate as possible modeling.

like i said it'd be nice if HTC chimed in with what it actually takes in terms of data to *potentially* get something in game. 

[Wmaker]

...but I think HTC prides themselves on putting out an accurate as possible modeling.

Yes, of course! And like I said that is one of the biggest reasons why I'm here. Just my assumption, but I think Hitech "prides himself" on the fact that he has done a massive amount of homework to make the core FM where the numbers can be "plugged in". That is the biggest reason behind the success of AH's FM IMO. Of course there are nice easily recognisable individual "quirks" built into some planes. For example, P-39's sensitive elevator comes to mind.

like i said it'd be nice if HTC chimed in with what it actually takes in terms of data to *potentially* get something in game. 

Would be great! I'd love to talk about that stuff. Some of my thoughts on the subject, lot of these make each other redundant (can be calculated from each other), though:

- Structural limitations
- Reliable speed/climb curves --> drag coefficient
- Stall speeds (clean/"dirty") /airfoil data /lift coefficient
- Extensive CoG-data
- Accurate fuel consumption figures
- The obvious technical specs (wing area, hp, weights)

Not show stoppers if missing but definately nice to have:

- Accurate handling characteristics describtions (not just pilot anecdotes, but based on the test pilot's reports)
- Rollrate: dgs per sec/speed -curve

[BMathis]

like i said it'd be nice if HTC chimed in with what it actually takes in terms of data to *potentially* get something in game. 

Yes this would be very nice... I'm sure they're busy, but it'd be great to have their feedback.