R-105,
You wrote,
"You are correct HTC will not burn resources on the WWI arena as no great number of players us it. As for my opinion of the plane performance in Rise of flight as compared to HTC is a simple fact. The D-VII can just clime away or dive away from a DR.1 in Rise of Flight while there seems to be very little difference to me in HTC planes. While I have played World of tanks and Rise of Flight I find the over all game play of HTC far Superior to any on line game I have ever tried. HTC is the only game I have pay to play for over five years. I just don't happen to like the modeling of their WWI planes."**************************************************************************************************
My reply, "Fair enough ... I'm with you, I've never paid to play as long as I have in AHII for the same reasons"
You have piqued my curiosity (in a good way) as to the question of accuracy of the flight models ... Sadly I can't jump into either a DR.1, nor a D-VII in real life to compare climb data (besides, it's raining here in Seattle), but I can go to acknowledged expert sources for answers.
[Per: Fokker's published data (DR.1) / Peter Grosz's data (DR.1) / NASA data (comparison of time to climb of WWI fighters):
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-468/ch2-2.htm **]
- NOTE: I’ve also added my Observed/Recorded data from AH II…I used time from Throttles-Forward. ¼ bag of fuel. DR.1 fuel expired at 15.5 minutes and 3809 meters (12,500’) in my testing. I do not know if the other sources used Throttles forward, or Weight off Wheels as their Zero point.DR.1: Time to Climb (Mins):ALT (Meters) Fokker / Grosz /
** NASA / AVG /
AHII (Observed/Recorded data) 1,000 1.0 / 2.9 /
1.7 / 1.8 /
3.22,000 4.5 / - /
3.8 / 4.1 /
6.73,000 12.0 / 10.1 /
6.5 / 9.5 /
11.04,000 20.0 / - /
9.5 / 14.8 /
--- (fuel expired at 15.5…12,500)5,000 34.0 / 23.8 /
14.0 / 23.9 /
---*******************************************************************************************
[Per: NASA data (comparison of time to climb of WWI fighters):
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-468/ch2-2.htm ]
- NOTE: I’ve also added my Observed/Recorded data from AH II…I used time from Throttles-Forward. ¼ bag of fuel. D-VII fuel expired at 12.0 minutes and 2862 meters (9380’) in my testing. I do not know if the other sources used Throttles forward, or Weight off Wheels as their Zero point.D-=VII: Time to Climb (Mins):ALT (Meters) **
NASA /
AHII (Observed/Recorded data) 1,000
3.2 /
3.5 2,000
5.0 /
7.53,000
8.2 /
--- (fuel expired at 12.0…9380’)4,000
11.6 /
---5,000
16.0 /
--- Conclusion:In all cases, AH II climb performace was under that of
NASA’s testing , but not by a lot (also remember, I used “Auto Climb” and just let it go. I did not try to max perform the climb data in any way via trim or ‘bunting’, or hanging on the props).
= AHII’s Performance most closely matched that observed by Grosz for the DR.1.
= Different Pilots, different Props, different techniques will always yield differing results ... I went with the Google Glasses-wearing, pocket
Protector clad geeks at NASA for my baseline= DR.1 simply outclimbs the D-VII according to every credible source (that I found)
= Many historical accounts mention DR.1’s performance advantages in climb and turn, D-VII was a better machine at generating top speed.
Lastly, this is a "Time to climb" comparison ... Not to be confused with a zoom climb comparison.
An interesting (short) read from the Smithsonian Air&Space Magazine, “What the Red baron Never knew” … be sure to click on the Sopwith Camel picture to see the associated diagrams.
http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/red_baron.html?c=y&page=2# I leave it to each to draw their own conclusions … I don't have access to code (and wouldn't know how to use it anyhow--I'm just a dumb ol' fighter jock from logging and fishin' country
)
-Rodent57
