Since this thread is still in good tone (mainly ;=) Id like to argue a little further on the subject of historical perception or bias in FM's.Further I will stress some fundemantal methological scientific aproaches.
This will conclude in the unevetiable need of choosing the in vivo tests and the anecdotes that *you* define as representative for these planes witch existed some 55 years ago.
____________________________
Quotes from "Warbirds The Story So Far" ISBN 0 9585194 9 8.
Interview with Pyro
Prophet: Can you walk me through the process of developing a flight model? Did you refer to specific data charts and build from there?
Pyro: Depends on what information you have. Typically you try to start with more of the physical data and then work out the performance. I don't know that I can really explain the process.
Prophet: Is that because you're dealing essentially with calculations, numbers etc... ?
Pyro: That's all it is.
Prophet: So are we talking a type of programming here?
Pyro: No, it's not programming; just research, calculations, data entry and a lot of experimentation.
Prophet: So the type of data collected was generated through official USAAF test data etc... ?
Pyro: Sometimes, not all test data is necessarily good to use; much of it can often contradict. You have to read into it, make some sanity checks on it and figure out what you think is most accurate.
Prophet: Can you name some of the reference materials used in compiling your flight data?
Pyro: I don't know, a lot of stuff like USAAF Test #38293282389023 blah blah blah, investigations of combat suitability of blah blah... etc., old pilot manuals were very handy too.
Prophet: Was it a headache reading posts from players that would quote some WWII ace with regards to an aircraft's performance and criticize the WarBirds flight model based on that criteria?
Pyro: Not really, because there's nothing you can do about that. If you read enough literature, you'll always find many contradictions.
Prophet: Did you make use of that kind of information yoursef. In other words, did you ever tweak a plane's performance based on your own perceptions of its capabilities?
Pyro: Of course I did, there's much subjectiveness in all of it. Some things like turn rates can be calculated in the ballpark but there's a myriad of other things that have to be modeled that you're not going to find any real useful data on.
Interviw with Hoof
Prophet: Speaking of flight models.Pyro reveald something to me that few understand I think... that being that
a lot of subjective opinion goes into making a plane behave the way it does... concur?
Hoof: That's an understatement
The flight model that HT made is exceptional at hitting performance numbers of the "real thing" (performance meaning sea level max speed, stall speed,
climb rate, etc). But his flight model doesn't "help" the person making the plane flight model in determining how the "real thing" might have "felt" like. The handling qualities, the stall
characteristics, the roll rate/inertia, etc. All of that has to be determined outside of the program. To top it all off, the numbers that you punch into the program are specific to the flight model, thus its really difficult to take data from the "real world" and plug it straight in. Pyro once told me reason the P-39 before 2.0 was so far off was because he punched the numbers straight in, didn't have the experience yet to know how to "tweak" them to get the model to behave right. im ressed to this day how good an artist Pyro was with those flight models.
Further interview with Hoof
Prophet: Why, in your opinion, did the communication between imagic and its player base fail to connect a lot of the time? e.g., like the stuff you're telling me here is not common knowledge?
Hoof: That's a hot topic
Basically there are two main reasons why. One is that no matter what you say, someone is gonna flame you, and frankly most of us got tired of telling people stuff because of it, But the biggest reason is that there is a fair chunk of stuff in the game that is done with "smoke and mirrors" and a fair chunk that isn't. Players don't know all the time what is done "right" and what is "abstracted". If we tell all the details, then not only is that illusion shattered (and that illusion really helps in the immersion factor), but we spend all our time defending our decisions on what we've chosen to detail out and not. And frankly, that is time that is better spent elsewhere.
_____________________________
_
So there seems to be consensus between Pyro and Hoof that there is some degree of subjectiveness (what i call historical bias) involved when coding your FM.
Now, the game in question is of course WB.There is the possibility that Pyro, Hoof or a third party might join this discussion now and claim that those were the days of WB, what we have now is another game based on much more refined math and coding which eliminates the need for the historical bias when creating the FM.
Somehow I doubt that ;=), most likely the claim would be *less* historical bias than before.
And now a little about fundemantal methological scientific aproaches.
What i would like to stress here is that when you develop a theory about coherence in real life you *have* to show - or at least render - that your theory (calculations of drag, theoretical speed at SL or perhaps a whole FM)is true.
Being involved in medicine and as a spinn off also some medical research for a number of years now, it is a claim for whatever theoretical postulate I propose as the truth that I can relate it to something which is actually happening.If I can not do that it stays as that: a postulate.
Jekyll have allready toutched that principle further up the thread: you have to compare your new FM with whatever you define as your golden standart, what gives you an expectation if you work is right, or might need some changes.
How do you find that golden standart?As funked says "If you look at a broad spectrum of pilot anectdotes and head-to-head comparisons, you will find they often contradict eachother, even when the same planes are used."
There is no way around this problem: you have to choose, you have to get that historical bias and you have to stand by it.But you have to know that it is a matter of debate ,=)
Lets take Hoof one more time:
If we tell all the details, then not only is that illusion shattered (and that illusion really helps in the immersion factor), but we spend all our time defending our decisions on what we've chosen to detail out and not. And frankly, that is time that is better spent elsewhere.
In short: the numbers and the flight tests\anecdotes need each other.Without one or the other they loose meaning.
Ok boys and gals thats it.
Jekyll broght us that beautifull anecdote of Browns enounter with a Fw at +20k feet.Just to show my apreciation I'll bring a tale from Tony Jonsson's "Dancing In The Skies" ISBN 1-898697-03-5
Its the days of the invasion at Normandy -44.Jonsson is on his second tour flying a Mustang III for the RAF.Opponents are JG26 and JG2, all Fw's in area are A8's.
"The enemy split into smaller groups and now a typical aerial battle commenced with aircraft twisting and turning all over the sky. We had only a short distance to go to join our companions, who were fighting great odds, when I searched the sky above and caught sight of another group of Fws approaching from the south and obviously about to join the battle. The R/ T channel was so choked with shouts, oaths and yells of elation that there was no time to give warning. This was a situation fraught with danger but experience had taught me that offence is usually the best form of defence and with that in mind I continued to climb to engage the enemy above. And an extraordinary thing happened-when they saw us coming they turned tail. They probably thought we were part of a larger formation which they did not want to mix with.
Now I felt it appropriate that we make use of the advantage we had gained. We were at 12,000 feet and the Fws climbed for all they were worth, but we gradually caught up with them, and at 22,000 feet we were close enough to open fire. As so often on previous occasions my marksmanship was poor. However, my tracers went close enough to the aircraft I was shooting at to frighten the pilot, for suddenly he rolled over on his back and pulled the nose down into a vertical dive, followed by his wingman.
The Focke Wulf 190 could outdive a Spitfire, but with the Mustang it was a different story. I told Yellow 3 and 4 to continue chasing the other planes, then rolled over and followed the silly fellow, who thought he could leave a Mustang behind in a dive. I told Basil Clapin, my No 2, to follow the Fw on the right and I'd take care of the one on the left. We quickly caught up with them and I was able to direct a long stream of bullets at my adversary before I was forced to pull over to one side as I was about to pass him. I saw that I had obviously hit the plane as one of the landing wheels was halfway extended. Now he would be a sitting duck, I triumphantly thought; the enemy plane was damaged and surely would not fly as well as an undamaged one.
The dog-fight down by the treetops started in the traditional manner with my adversary on one side of a circle in a steep turn and I on the other, each intent on out-turning the other. In the beginning I entered into this game rather placidly, even a little carelessly-this was going to be easy, and I was not going to take any needless risks of stalling out at this low altitude. But, watch out! The German was beginning to gain on me, I'd have to steepen my turn. Bloody hell! I didn't like the look of this; he kept turning still tighter! My engine was now at full power, my wings vertical just above the treetops and the aircraft shuddering on the verge of a stall. I was perspiring and had a tight feeling in my chest. This was unbelievable, and really should not be possible. The Mustang ought to be able to out-turn the Fw 190. This must be an outstanding pilot, or else the Focke Wulf's flying qualities improved with a wheel hanging down! Whatever the reason I now faced disaster. My adversary continued to gain advantage and in a short time it would be my fate either to be shot down or crash due to stalling. Neither choice was very desirable and time was running out. But now my wonderful guardian angels came to my aid once again, and none too soon. The enemy was just about to disappear behind me and I could expect his bullets to start slamming into my aircraft very soon.
A voice whispered in my ear: Use your flaps. In a Spitfire (and Hurricane) such action was unthinkable as in those aircraft the flaps were designed to be either fully up, or fully down (as for landing), but in the Mustang the pilot had the choice of intermediate flap positions. By extending 10 degrees of flap the lift of the wings could be increased without adding too much drag. I wasted no time in selecting 10 degrees and instantly the effect became apparent. The aircraft stopped trembling and 1 was able to tighten the turn so that the circle became smaller. Slowly but surely the situation reversed and I now started creeping up behind my foe, and after a while I was able to open fire on him. When my tracer bullets started shooting past him the pilot no doubt decided that the game was up for he suddenly straightened out, zoomed upwards and baled out just at the moment his aircraft stalled. His parachute only just managed to open before he hit the ground. I was now able to start breathing normally again and rejoice over the outcome. While naturally I was pleased with getting out of this tight spot, it also gladdened me that this plucky and brilliant pilot had also escaped with his life. "
Yo!Wake up!
;=)
danish
