Testing the n1k

[StSanta]

I wonder if you can do this in WB?

Not that it matters, justcurious.

FWIW, I think this benefits the planes which require low speeds for looping/turning the most, as speed is rapidly lost at higher speeds.

I.e spits, zekes and n1k's.

a8 and tiffie should be the worst planes in this regard, especially the a8 with its high stall speed.

------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
while(!bishRookQueue.isEmpty() && loggedOn()){
30mmDeathDIEDIEDIE(bishRookQueue.removeFront());
System.out.println("LW pilots are superior");
myPlane.performVictoryRoll();
}

[gatt]

.

[This message has been edited by gatt (edited 12-05-2000).]

[fscott]

What burns me most is that the HT team will swear by whatever the latest version number is. Oh this one is accurate, or this one is accurate...well seeing that each version has modifications made, which one is accurate?

Also, I get a kick out of the people who actually defend the modelling be it the damage model or the gun model or the fm model.  They too will swear by it and say this is accurate. And then when the next version comes out, they too will swear by it. Face it, there are many improvements that need to be made. TO ever say that this is accurate is farfetched and wishful.

fscott

[fscott]

Additionally, I think modelling so mnay planes is a difficult matter to get right.  The problem is that you have to also rely upon pilot stories, but this too is can be in error.

It is natural that many pilots exagerate their experiences, saying that their plane did this at this speed. Perhaps it did but the truth is that it probably didn't. Just because someone flew a P47 for a few sorties in WW2 does not make him an expert on all the aspects of planes performance. Disagree if you like but we are all human and tend to exagerate in almost every aspect of our life.

It seems logical then that HT team uses these testimonies as a basis for some of their modelling.  One example is the Niki's amazing ability to take damage. How do you know how much damage it could take? You have to rely on pilot stories from American pilots who shot the Niki's down.  Obviously their account will be somewhat exagerated because they were used to shooting down brittle zeke's.

Just a thought.

fscott
 

[Lephturn]

fscott,

Anybody can claim things are "wrong" and should be "fixed".  What does that mean?  On what do you base your conclusion that it's wrong, and exactly how should it be "fixed".

I'm not saying it's accurate.  I'm just pointing out that even if you suspect something is wrong you don't know for sure.  Even if you do, how do you fix it?  Pyro does his best, but he is not some all-knowing god who can wave a magic wand and have all be "fixed".  Pyro just does his best to make the flight models match the data he has.  The best thing we can do is test the game to see if it's performance matches the data.  We can also dig up our own flight test data to see what we think it should be in case Pyro doesn't have the right data.

I've never heard the HTC gang claim that everything was accurate, have you?  I know Pyro gets as much data as he can, and then tries to get the game to match that test data as best he can.  He has also shown repeatedly that if the users can demonstrate that for some reason the game does not match the test data, he will try and fix it when he can.

What more could you expect of a developer?

------------------
Lephturn - Chief Trainer
A member of The Flying Pigs  http://www.flyingpigs.com
 
"A pig is a jolly companion, Boar, sow, barrow, or gilt --
A pig is a pal, who'll boost your morale, Though mountains may topple and tilt.
When they've blackballed, bamboozled, and burned you, When they've turned on you, Tory and Whig,
Though you may be thrown over by Tabby and Rover, You'll never go wrong with a pig, a pig,
You'll never go wrong with a pig!" -- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"

[fscott]

Don't go misreading what I said.. I didn't say I expected them to be accurate.  I said that when it comes to certain things tey have to rely on pilot stories for their data. Odds are these things are inaccurate, of course its the best they have.

Also, I have never agreed that anything was accurate. I get a kick from those who swear by the altest version. The rule of thumb it seems is that "your" ride is accurate, all others need tweaking.  I say all models need a good E-retention tweaking. I think common sense will tell you that ALL these WW2 planes could not do loop after loop on takeoff.  No flight test data needed, common sense takes front stage on that one.   Maybe a few planes could, but not ALL the ones that others are doing it with.

fscott

[wells]

 

OK wells, so a Spit IX has a sustained turn speed of, say, 160 mph.
                I'm tooling along in a Spit IX at 150, and go into a hard horizontal
                left bank and pull the stick back in my gut.

                And I'll GAIN energy?

Yep, you'll *accelerate* to 160

RAM, none of these planes can pull 5G's in a sustained turn.

[Pyro]

 

Originally posted by fscott:
What burns me most is that the HT team will swear by whatever the latest version number is. Oh this one is accurate, or this one is accurate...well seeing that each version has modifications made, which one is accurate?

Please point out the post where we swear to whatever it is you think we're misleading you on.

Aside from the changes we made in 1.03, what are all these version to version modifications that have been made post-beta?  

If we do make a change, why wouldn't we think the change is more accurate?  Isn't that the point?

People make a lot of arguments about stuff based on how it seems it should be to them.  There's nothing wrong with that because that's usually going to be the first step to identifying a problem.  Where to goes awry is when people expect us to enact changes based entirely on that rather than anything solid.  It doesn't work that way, there has to be a scientific method or we're just changing stuff back and forth for whoever gripes the loudest.

In this case, we started off good with an observation but then most people skipped to the conclusion they'd like to see.  I still have yet to see anybody state what exactly the results should be and why.  There's been a couple of statements about thrust or hp to weight ratios, but that's not what this is about.  It doesn't require a 1:1 thrust to weight ratio to maintain loops.  An Extra 300 can probably loop all day and its HP/W ratio is about 6-7lb per HP.  What you're really looking at is the ability of the engine to match the energy losses due to drag.  If the engine can't do that, altitude is lost with each loop.  If it can exceed it, altitude is gained.  

P.S. Ram, are you trying to make sure that nobody misses your whining?



------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations

[LJK Raubvogel]

Ummm...so is there any basis to the original question? Also, will the N1K2 gain a few pounds when it gets its proper ammo load next version? Or is it already at the right weight?

------------------
LJK_Raubvogel
LuftJägerKorps

[gatt]

As far as I remember some FM's have been fine tuned after the so called "whining" and "guts feeling". I mean the C.205 and C.202's FM. Poor hard data have been provided to support "whines", simply becouse a few reliable hard data were available.
The "whiners" simply said that max speed was clearly wrong (C.202), climb rate was probably wrong (C.205 and C.202) and that those fighters could not have had such horrible performances in comparison with others.

One of the three:
a) HTC got new Macchi data no one else owns (hmmmmmm, almost impossible);
c) HTC simply could not stand anymore whiners (hmmmmmm, again);
b) some FM recalculation have been done and something wrong discovered (now's better, uh?);

So, dont call idiots or whiners guys with doubts and not enuff time or skills to perform extensive tests. Sometimes they could be right in their "guts feelings", even if not scientists or FM gurus. 27 loops after gaining 170mph IAS allow everyone, idiot or scientist, to have some doubts.

Regards,

------------------
Gatt
4° Stormo Caccia - Knights
Macchi C.202's sting (1,9MByte film)

[RAM]

I read your words and I will have to believe you ,Pyro.

But, we still need to know a couple of things:

1-Where is the torque?. Dont tell me it is now at the level it should because it isnt. Historical problems with tiffies smashing against hangars because they had not enough lateral control at low speeds to overcome the torque are well documented. The planes now have few, if any , noticeable torque problems.

2-If the N1K2's combat flaps are modelled, is the correspondent drag added?. IF not (and after 27 low speed tight lopps I dont think that the drag is there), will it be added?.

3-Isn't N1K2's laminar flow wing very similar to that in the P51?. If yes (and I recall that laminar flow wings are optimiced fom hispeed low G environments and act badly-add a lot of drag- in a low speed hi-G enviromnent) then why is it able to pull so much low speed high G moves with so low E-burning? do I have the concept of laminar flow wings screwed?. If not, will this be looked into?.

Thanks.

[fscott]

Here's the problem Pyro... you are not afraid to come on here and put the burden of proof on us to state raw numbers and give "facts" as a basis for our argument, rather than just using the common sense approach or the feel of the aircraft. Our job is not to post raw numbers, that is the HT team's job.

Secondly, no one on the HT team is saying that they need to improve the flight model in these areas and we are actively looking to do this. If you don't state that E-retention is inaccurate in a forum where E-retention is the subject, then in essence you ARE claiming that the E-retention IS accurate.

Please put this all to rest now and state one of the following.

1) Our E-retention model is accurate.

2) Our E-retention model is inaccurate and we are working to make it more accurate.

I don't think there's any middle ground Pyro. It is #1 or #2. If you select #1, then our "baseless" argument is based on something very real.

fscott

[fscott]

A second point. When does the team decide to update a specific area of the modelling? You say that you will change areas when raw numbers are brought to light rather than "baseless" gut feelings.  

So when you updated 1.03 to 1.04 did a huge pile of aircraft records suddenly drop from heaven and onto HT's desk? Now suddenly you had all this wealth of new information about aircraft performance.

I don't mean to sound so rash, but what bugs me is that you are defending the modelling. Well, it don't feel right and common sense says it ain't right.  

Either the E-retention modelling is 100% PERFECT, or it is not. If it isn't then a answer that the team is working on it would be in order.

fscott

[funked]

It's pretty simple Fscott.  All simulations are inaccurate.

[Jigster]

 

Originally posted by RAM:

3-Isn't N1K2's laminar flow wing very similar to that in the P51?. If yes (and I recall that laminar flow wings are optimiced fom hispeed low G environments and act badly-add a lot of drag- in a low speed hi-G enviromnent) then why is it able to pull so much low speed high G moves with so low E-burning? do I have the concept of laminar flow wings screwed?. If not, will this be looked into?.

Thanks.

Okay before I do write something stupid, how much did the wing change between the N1K1-J (mid wing, first land based fighter variant, NOT the float plane..) and the N1K2-Ja? I don't mean location, but the actual design of the wing. I know it was moved down to take care of the landing gear problems, but the N1K1-J has an almost gull-like (further out, past the section of the wing where airflow to the flaps pass, it is symmetrical) wing shape where the chord narrows towards the fuselage where the combat flaps are.

If anyone has any detailed information on how the flap system on the N1K2 works I'd greatly appreciate it as well (curious on how exactly the system worked). Given the size of the rudder on the N1K1-J (which obviously changed to the length of the entire vertical stabilizer in the N1K2-J)I don't see how they got it off the ground with a 2000 HP radial. Sadly ya never hear about this kinda stuff