Poking my nose in again where it's not welcome...
What folks tend to ignore sometimes is that it ALWAYS comes down to two things eventually: do the planes match the "real" numbers, and do they "feel" right? You can crow all you want about which sim models what advanced flight physics "feature" and how this sim has a "new" FM and that one is "old," but the bottom line will ALWAYS be how it FEELS to the players and how it MATCHES the anecdotal and recorded data.
Discounting the flight manual performance data and pooh-poohing the comparitive tests on the basis of "oh it's all just average performance that no two aircraft will ever match" is tantamount to saying that the flight model itself doesn't even MATTER! Or worse, that the gee-whiz PROGRAMMING of the flight model is more important that what comes OUT of it! You HAVE to have a baseline to work with, and it HAS to be something the players will believe. That leaves only two options in my mind. You have to either use the REAL performance data as your guide, or the REAL comparison test data as your guide.
(OK, third option: use a single source like Jane's or AHT, and ignore anyone who has "better" data)
Now, neither HTC nor iEN is in the habit of sharing their data with us, in even the smallest way. They both CLAIM to be using "real, primary sources," which, for business reasons, can't be shared with the lowly customers (a huge bite of cowcrap we've all swallowed for years--like telling us the top speed they consider correct for the FW-190 would bring the Godz' temple down on top of them)
However, that said, I've plenty of faith that both companies are using what we would consider "good" data, that matches up well with anything we could throw at them, within a few percentage points.
The problem comes when the planes don't match that data. The solution is staring us all right in the face: if the "real" data is based on averages of varying performance of groups of planes and pilots, then bring that varying performance into the sim. Build your planes based on the "ideal" numbers, whatever they may be. Then simply build in a random deviance in the engine's power output (say, plus or minus 10% from ideal "standard"). Your engine's power output is determined at startup for that sortie only. Some days you get the hot rod, some days you get the hangar queen
Just like the real thing. And as a bonus, you get an automatic explanation why that 190 outturned your Hog-dog on that particular day.
Oh, I can hear the wailing already: "I don't pay good money to have my spark plugs fouled!" Whatever. You're also gonna get "bonus" power on some missions, but I don't guess you'll complain about that, willya?
Amazing to me that no one has figured out a way to build this into their sims so far. (Well, no one except the hopeless dweebs who make the player-designed aircraft in Screamin Demons--we've been building in variable power and loss of engine performance from combat damage for months now). Anyway, my original point still stands. You have to have a performance standard to build the flight models to. It would seem equally logical that you should make that standard KNOWN to your customer base, so THEY can agree that you know what you're doing. I've never gone along with the "WE know the FM is perfect because WE built it and WE spent money doing it and WE are the ones who have been doing it since DOS AW and YOU guys don't know as much about flying as WE do, so just shut up and color" approach that BOTH companies use, and I never will. It's much more likely that showing us the shortcuts taken and errors considered "acceptable" would turn up the heat a lot more than they could stand.
A mite too arrogant for my taste, coming from a bunch of twenty-thirty-something software engineers whose COMBINED flight time in anything that doesn't have a stewardess isn't even into the triple digits yet...
Slinkin back under my rock now...
------------------
