Dropping Flaps??

[Stoney]

did you miss the part where i asked for HTC's data?  if i had the data i would post it. 

What Moot is asking is what sources are you using to form your opinion that the flap deployment speeds in AH2 are incorrect?  Not which sources list the flap deployment speeds.

[moot]

What Stoney said.  I'm not sure if I'm understanding you right.. But if you have data that contradicts HTC's modeling, you're welcome to share that data with them, and us if you're ok with that.  It's best to make the sources as clear as possible if you do either.
Whether HTC discloses their data or not is up to them.. The ethics of disclosing data like that to customers, I can't comment on.  I doubt disclosing it is part of the EULA or any US law, though.  They won't refuse your data input, for sure.  One of the latest planes added, the Ki84 was finished with data from Japan that a player was kind enough to go dig out in person and then send to Pyro.

[thorsim]

sorry no data

i ask the questions because i am curious why a system that is modeled to handle a force that is applied to it at 60 degrees of deflection at 140 mph is modeled so that it can only handle 180 mph at what 1/6th to 1/3 of the deflection.

a 350% reduction in deflection results in only a 20% increase in speed able to be sustained by the very same structure ...

 ? ? ?

those types of curious inconsistencies attract my attention.

the actuality in game results in a flap setting described as "flight" ...
(as opposed to "take off" and "landing" in the translated pilots handbook)
unable to be used above most dogfight stall speeds of the unadjusted wing, and very suspiciously at the same speed as the landing gear.

as i have explained there are no warning speeds for any of the flap settings other than the landing flap settings in any of the data i have found.

i have also stated my willingness to review any data HTC has to support it's interpretation RE the Luftwaffe flap deployment safety speeds.  

the reply i received from hitech was a less than satisfactory statement on my approach,
which included no relevant information one way or the other.

asking a question and receiving only questions about why i ask the question is less than satisfactory.  
nothing like an answer, nothing like it at all actually.



 

[moot]

I agree with the flap argument itself, but

1) HTC have no obligation to share their data, data sources, or data interpretation
1b) They're not likely to share it because it's private and would lead people to try and pick it apart > you give people an inch and they'll want a mile, and then you have to justify yourself and your methods.  It's just not worth the hassle.
1c) They won't share it or give you that inch for sure if you try to get it out of them by force, esp if it's done by accusing (implicit or explicit) them of being unfair, etc.

2) If you want to go somewhere with this, you need to work out the whole of your argument.   E.G. Show your math from A to Z - how the structure meets with and can bear [a,b,c,d,...] amount of aerodynamic force at [s,t,u,v,...] speeds (not just dimensional rules of thumbs), as well as it being allowed by the appropriate specific documents.  You can't just say you have those docs.. You have to show the full details, to make a real solid case.

[thorsim]

i explained that i am looking for better data, it is just odd that ...

A) i need to do this at all since i am not the game developer.

B) why the reasons for my question did not arouse the same curiosity and dissatisfaction in the design team     as it did in me.

C) i am pretty sure that having a document does not make you the owner of the intellectual property on that   document.     

[Lusche]

i explained that i am looking for better data, it is just odd that ...

A) i need to do this at all since i am not the game developer.  

Because it is you that is questioning the correctness of the game data & values. So it's up to you to find evidence, not them.

BTW, I'm pretty sure HTC would be very interested to find any "better" data then what they already have. It's just nothing they usually talk about in public, for various reasons.

B) why the reasons for my question did not arouse the same curiosity and dissatisfaction in the design team     as it did in me.

You don't know if it does or does not. Keep in mind discussions & questions like this one are not new to them.

[mtnman]

B) why the reasons for my question did not arouse the same curiosity and dissatisfaction in the design team as it did in me.

C) i am pretty sure that having a document does not make you the owner of the intellectual property on that document.     

How do you know it didn't raise the same curiosity?  That doesn't mean they stopped there, or that their interpretation will match yours.

Having the document doesn't make them the owner of the information.  It also doesn't mean they need to hand it over.

There are an awful lot of german fighter "buffs" in the game, some of which have been here a long time, and have lots of information on those aircraft.  Maybe they have access to some of the information you're looking for?  If you're on to something, I would think you'd have plenty of support if any supporting evidence can be presented.

HTC desires their product to be seen as the "best", and most accurate, since the crowd they cater to desires that as well.  I'm sure they'd love to have the most accurate information, so they can have the most accurate product (if they don't already).  It's not far-fetched to think that if a better product was available, many of the subscribers would migrate to that.  HTC doesn't want that.

In other flight sims, how have the flap deployment speeds on the aircraft you're questioning compare?  Does AH stand alone in its interpretation of the german fighter flap performance?  These planes have been modeled elsewhere, and in theory at least real-world data was probably used as a basis for at least some of them.

[thorsim]

look i just saw something that i felt did not seem "right" so i asked a question ...

since then people have asked me to justify my asking the question ...

i have done that over and over in different ways and responding to all these "why are you asking the question" questions which is making me appear to be argumentative here ...

i just asked a question, if HTC doesn't feel they need to answer then fine.

it is their game they can handle things as they choose.  

[Stoney]

look i just saw something that i felt did not seem "right" so i asked a question ...

since then people have asked me to justify my asking the question ...

i have done that over and over in different ways and responding to all these "why are you asking the question" questions which is making me appear to be argumentative here ...

i just asked a question, if HTC doesn't feel they need to answer then fine.

it is their game they can handle things as they choose.  

Look, you appear to be earnest in your search for this information, so most of us are being patient with you...But, apparently something is getting lost in translation.  Most of the people in this thread currently have questioned HTC on flight modeling data at one or more points in the past.  When we do it, we usually have researched the issue and present our data, articles, resources, etc. in our posts to illustrate the departure in-game from what we feel existed in real life.  What you need to understand, being new to this community, is that players come in here all the time trying to say a certain airplane did this or a certain airplane did that, more often than not without anything to back up their statements except a "gut feeling", an anecdotal story from some Ace, or something they saw on a TV history show. 

So, that being said, most of us, in trying to enable a discussion about your perceived inconsistency, are trying to make recommendations to you about how best to present it to the community and HTC.  If you want to pursue this, the community will support you 100% as long as you show evidence that is credible, and make an argument that is logical.

[moot]

look i just saw something that i felt did not seem "right" so i asked a question ...

since then people have asked me to justify my asking the question ...

i have done that over and over in different ways and responding to all these "why are you asking the question" questions which is making me appear to be argumentative here ...

i just asked a question, if HTC doesn't feel they need to answer then fine.

it is their game they can handle things as they choose. 

Like Stoney says - With all due respect, why don't you just show the data you have?  No one here is going to steal it from you, and you can always decide to submit it directly to HTC to be sure that they're aware of it, even if the consensus (assuming there'd be one) on the forum ends up being that the data is somehow wrong or inconclusive.
There's only two paths that I can see.
1) You post the data here for everyone to look at and constructively debate.
2) You send it in to HTC with a concise but compelling case made for adopting what this data suggests or clearly states.

There's nothing wrong with asking if something's right, but since no one outside of HTC is responsible for or working on the game, the answer is always going to be that the way the game is is how HTC deems it best. The justification people are curious for isn't your motivation but what data you have that supports the assertion that the game is incorrect.

[thorsim]

yes FYI other sims have flap deployment speeds on german planes twice that of those found in AH.

How do you know it didn't raise the same curiosity?  That doesn't mean they stopped there, or that their interpretation will match yours.

Having the document doesn't make them the owner of the information.  It also doesn't mean they need to hand it over.

There are an awful lot of german fighter "buffs" in the game, some of which have been here a long time, and have lots of information on those aircraft.  Maybe they have access to some of the information you're looking for?  If you're on to something, I would think you'd have plenty of support if any supporting evidence can be presented.

HTC desires their product to be seen as the "best", and most accurate, since the crowd they cater to desires that as well.  I'm sure they'd love to have the most accurate information, so they can have the most accurate product (if they don't already).  It's not far-fetched to think that if a better product was available, many of the subscribers would migrate to that.  HTC doesn't want that.

In other flight sims, how have the flap deployment speeds on the aircraft you're questioning compare?  Does AH stand alone in its interpretation of the german fighter flap performance?  These planes have been modeled elsewhere, and in theory at least real-world data was probably used as a basis for at least some of them.

[thorsim]

like i said i do not have the data sheets just the uncontested posted conclusions from those data sheets.

i have an idea where i can find them but it is not online and it may take a while.  in the meantime i asked why  HTC had come to it's conclusions, i don't even really need the data, just an answer.

"those were the best numbers we could find from XXXX documentation" or
"we drew our conclusions based on XXXX. NACA report" ...

would have sufficed without giving away any real "trade secrets".

however without any better data something that resulted in a combat flap that deployed before the landing gear could be deployed would have made sense IMO.

i suspect a reasonable estimation could be derived at by looking at the posted 60 degree deflection speed and translating the forces to other lower degree settings.

[Ack-Ack]

I agree with the flap argument itself, but

1) HTC have no obligation to share their data, data sources, or data interpretation
1b) They're not likely to share it because it's private and would lead people to try and pick it apart > you give people an inch and they'll want a mile, and then you have to justify yourself and your methods.  It's just not worth the hassle.
1c) They won't share it or give you that inch for sure if you try to get it out of them by force, esp if it's done by accusing (implicit or explicit) them of being unfair, etc.

I believe at one time it was stated because of the cost associated with the research...i.e. they spent a lot of money to get that data and aren't willing to part with it for free (or for any cost).  Not sure though.


ack-ack

[HPriller]

From a gameplay standpoint, I can easily see the appeal of having flap control at higher airspeeds, even if it's just a notch or two.  Particularly for my beloved 190's whose flaps are all but useless currently in combat.   Unfortunately,  the data for what flap speeds these various aircraft are capable of probably simply doesn't exist anymore.  So finding data to support a change of the current system is probably gonna be tough and it'll have to be done on an individual basis for each model of plane.  I would be curious to know where the current flap deployment speeds came from (hopefully not just a recommendation written in some tech manual).   The fact is regardless of any recommendation, if a 190 pilot is chasing some p51 and he sees the 51 drop flaps to aid in a turn, the first thing he's going to think is "I should do the same thing" and if it was technically possible for the flaps to be lowered it probably would've happened at some point.  The question is what are the mechanical limits of operation for the flaps not the recommended settings.  One possibility is to find a gun cam with a 190 in the frame with flaps partially extended and airspeed can be accurately estimated.

Thorsim I support your crusade to find this out for us.  It would certainly be entertaining to fly a 190 that could put down a notch or two of flaps at 250mph.

A lot of the problem with this is that flap use in combat wasn't standard practice for probably the majority of world war 2 pilots.

As to the value of this information with regard to HTC.  Whether they want to share how they got their numbers or not is really their perogative.  Though I don't see how sharing this particular information could in any way compromise the quality or earnings for Aces High.   It's not like they're asking for a chunk of the netcode or a piece of the physics engine (which would quite understandably be trade secrets).  It also might be a case of them having bigger fish to fry and this matter is eclipsed by others such as making more players have decent framerates in the current version.  So again it's really down to the players to find data to support and change and then submit it to HTC for review and possible patching.  I posted such a thread about R-2800 fuel burn rates being off (too high on the p47s, too low on the F4Us) data was supplied to confirm this and Hitech did acknowledge my thread.  Whether or not that item makes it into a patch remains to be seen but I do appreciate that the devs of this game actually read the forum and make such and effort to make it as good as possible and I applaud their dedication on the matter.

[Stoney]

The question is what are the mechanical limits of operation for the flaps not the recommended settings.

No.  This question is a hypothetical nightmare for HTC.  Without extensive FEA analysis or structural testing, it would be impossible to know where failure for flaps or landing gear would occur.  The landing gear deployment speed for a P-47 was close to 200 mph in the POH.  Does that mean you couldn't open it at 225?  Of course you could, but you risked damaging the linkages, fasteners, and other components that made it work.  In the interest of not wearing those parts out prematurely, the manufacturer listed a speed above which you didn't operate the gear.  This is what HTC uses for the gear limit speed in game.  Similarly, flaps are controlled by book numbers, not by failure speeds, perceived, tested, or otherwise...