Aces High Bulletin Board
Help and Support Forums => Help and Training => Topic started by: Fry on October 21, 2005, 04:07:37 PM
-
Hi everyone! Well, after finding virtually no information online about AH2's aircraft performance (I'm not talking about the easy stuff like top speed or low stall speeds), I've decided to shut up and try and do something about it, hehe.
I've created a doghouse performance comparison website (http://k.gach.home.comcast.net/Doghouse_Plot_Script/doghouse.html) that I hope will eventually develope into something that the AH community can find useful. Once you've selected your aircraft and pressed the "Compare their Doghouse plots!" button, you'll be presented with a .jpg of a doghouse plot of those two aircraft....along with some key performance data at the bottom of the page.
Right now, I'm simply using pictures of some plots I've copied from Badz/Badboy's .pdf's as those are the only plots I could find for this demonstration. I don't plan on using them for the site once it's in it's final form, but I hope I can get some REAL AH2 data from HT and Co., where I can make my own plots. Badz/Badboy, I hope you don't mind ;)
The only aircraft comparisons that I have set up using those demo plots are:
F4U-1C/F6F-5
F4U-1C/P-51D
F6F-5/Spit Mk IX
Spit Mk IX/P-51D
Spit MkV/Spit Mk IX
Please feel free to compare those aircraft and let me know if you think such a website is a good idea. And if so, please offer any suggestions on how I could improve it. Please be gentle as I'm new to coding scripts in HTML:D
One other thing, unless I can get some data from AH, there's really no use in pursuing this. So if folks really think this might be beneficial, please let AH know on these boards and emails :aok
Thanks much!
-
Fry, you appear to have deleted the titles, my name and the copyright notices that were originally part of those images. I don't understand why you would do that and I can't agree to them being used in that condition under any circumstances. Please remove the images from your site, I'm sure you can find other suitable place markers.
Badboy
-
Originally posted by Badboy
Fry, you appear to have deleted the titles, my name and the copyright notices that were originally part of those images. I don't understand why you would do that and I can't agree to them being used in that condition under any circumstances. Please remove the images from your site, I'm sure you can find other suitable place markers.
Badboy
Sorry about that, I stand corrected. I didn't mean any harm or ill intent and I even mentioned that they're yours in every post I've made about these. I only needed something that looked like a doghouse plot there temporarily until I get some data to make my on...if AH would give it to me.
I'll remove them right away.
I sincerely apologize for offending you or your work in any manner.
-
Oh, Badboy, one other thing I need to mention aside for apologizing once again. I didn't intentionally delete the titles or the copyright notices as I just did a quick 2 second cut and copy of just the plot themselves....in fact, on one of the plots you can even see the top part of your name and the copyright. I have no excuse other than being very naive about the legal issues concerning copyrights etc.
I just wanted to make it clear to you that I had no intention of ever claiming these as my own or to defame you or the work you've contributed over the years to AH.
-
Fry, I think yours is a great idea. I always wanted to see EM diagrams for AH planes since I read for the first time Badboy's column (great work, Badboy, I'm really fond of what you and Andy Bush wrote at Simhq, but... no more new columns! :( ).
Unfortunately, I can't be of any help in drawing these diagrams, I have no idea of the formulae needed for them. I think you know this thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=155592), there are some valuable data there and some suggestion by HiTech about how to draw a doghouse plot (I would have tried by myself, but, as said, I don't know where to start from), and, if I understood correctly, Soda said that he was going to try and draw some EM diagram. Maybe you can contact Kweassa and Soda and ask them if they can help you.
-
Hi, great idea! However i think if you were to do a static HTML page for each of the possible plane permitations, you will be here till the next milenia...
Why not approach HTC to get the raw data figures and store them in a database and use PHP or ASP etc with some graph plotting module to dynamically plot the comparisons? Would save a lot of time and maintanence hassle.
PS - im not trying to belittle your effort, i think its a great idea.
-
Yep, a dynamic web page is the best thing... or, if you're able, even a little program like the ones I saw for IL2 planes... (you may find them at http://www.airwarfare.com).
Anyway, it will be a lot of work. The EM diagram for a plane change depending on a lot of variables, at least fuel loading and altitude... so, to give a representative picture of what the plane can do, you have to provide data for the four different fuel loading at, at least, 5 typical altitudes... so at least 20 different diagrams for each planes... you'll definitely need some help!
I don't know if HTC will give you raw data... but I'd say it's worth trying!
Hold on, Fry!
-
Fry did you search around at http://www.netaces.org?
DmdMax
-
Good idea, but, unfortunately, Netaces still has old data... :(
-
How about this:(http://home.midsouth.rr.com/rwysairwar/pictures/p51d.gif)
RWY
-
Nice. But it lacks part of the house! :p Did you use Kweassa's data to plot that line?
EDIT: I wasn't that smart to immediately check the picture's address... :p Nice site, Robert. Can you build a simulator for me, too? :D
-
I actually created quite the monster of a spreadsheet using Kweassa's raw data and it produces Doghouse diagrams for instantaneous performance. My understanding of the sustained calculations wasn't quite sufficient to derrive that line (weight/thrust/drag numbers were a bit hard to come by). I can't claim to have distributed it but I might be able to post a couple of examples of the graphs if people are interested. I can't vouch for their accuracy, there was a lot of "learning" going on when I created them but they seem to have come out reasonably.
-
You can bet we're interested! It's since Kweassa posted his data that I eagerly wait for some news from you!
Can't you ask HiTech for help with the sustained turn rates? IIRC he posted something in Kweassa's thread...
-
Soda, I'd be interested. Thanks.
-
Ok, try this link.
AH2 Spitfire Mk V EM Diagram (http://members.shaw.ca/soda_p/SpitV_EM.JPG)
Now, I don't have all the labels on it but essentially it's a standard EM diagram though calculated through the raw data Kweassa provided. The radius lines are (left to right) at 400 through 900 feet while the G's are only shown from 2 through 6. The yellow dot on the left is the actual Kweassa derrived point but it doesn't quite follow on the calculated line due to some calculation rounding issues I was having. The small red triangle is the max level speed so anything to the right of that is not sustainable from engine thrust. Peak instantaneous in this case was 216mph and 34.716 deg/sec at a radius of 522.95 ft and 6G. The chart itself is mapped every 1mph to an arbitrary 507mph.
I never got the sustained curve line on it, I think I know the theory but turning a single measured point (from Kweassa's tests) into a excess thrust related curve was a bit beyond me (plus I really ran out of time to work on it). The spreadsheet seemed to work pretty well though but I can't claim total accuracy since it was judged on a single point of data, the rest was simply extrapolated.
Enjoy, comments/questions welcome. I could pop in the numbers to another aircraft and see what it turns out if you'd like. Remember, the data Kweassa put together is at 75% internal fuel so in some cases these aircraft are pretty heavy so they don't match up against Badboys diagrams all that well (and Badboys were for AH1 not AH2).
-
You did a great job, Soda! :aok
The only things I'm afraid of are the "rounding issues" and the fact the the curve is extrapolated from a single point data... if you want more measurements I volunteer (though I can't assure the quality of the job, maybe you need a better pilot than me :p)
Just one thing... IIRC Kweassa's data were about sustained turn performance, not instantaneous. So, shouldn't you be able to draw the sustained turn curve??? Sorry if I'm saying BS, I have no idea of the process needed to obtain that curve... :p
-
I can probably clean up the rounding with a bit of work. The thing with sustained turn performance is it's based on excess power while the instantaneous is based on lift potential. I think I have some ideas on how to calculate the sustained curve but never really got very far into it. The curves are really easy to produce though using my spreadsheet, it's all automatic once you drop in a couple of numbers so I can use it for any configuration/aircraft. I'd really like to test a single aircraft through a range of configurations and weights though and see what sort of trends/differences there are.
If there is another aircraft you'd like me to post I'll see what I can do.
-Soda
-
C205 soda , please.
-
Lol, well, yes, guess that, being italian, I'd like to see the EM diagrams for C.202 and C.205...
But I'd really like to see them for all the planes (well, all the fighters, at least). As said, Soda, I volunteer for testing, but I need a brief to know what to do: is it sufficient that I follow Kweassa's testing parameters, as shown in his thread? Or do you have in mind some different drill? You said the process is automated, just tell me what number you need and I'll try to get them.
And (outrageous request! :p) can you mail me that spreadsheet with the instructions needed?
-
Hey guys. Sorry for this late reply but I've been out of town at a technical users conference all week.
First of all, I'd like to thank you all for the support for a project like this as it really is a long time in coming. But I have to say that I'm going to table this indefinitely as I was informed by HiTech Creations that they have something like this already in the works:aok Given that they're the trained professionals for this kind of stuff, I'd rather them do this 'right' than me doing a mediocre job;)
So, lets just wait and see what they come up with...and no, they didn't give me any dates. Let's wait the standard "two weeks" and follow up at that time:D
-
Great new, Fry! I'm afraid that this job is not at the top of HTC to-do list, but, hey, it's years I'm waiting to see it, so, "some" weeks more don't really matters... after all, we have Soda's spreadsheet in the meanwhile... isn't it, Soda? :)
-
I sure hope they complete the diagrams as it would be much easier to them to do them based on the source data, everything we do is based on "testing" that have quite a bit of variance built in.
Anyway, I processed the C202 and C205 in my spreadsheets, the links are below:
C202 (http://members.shaw.ca/soda_p/C202_EM.JPG)
Peak instantaneous on the C202 comes at ~246mph, 578ft radius, 35.75 deg/sec.
C205 (http://members.shaw.ca/soda_p/C205_EM.JPG)
Peak instantaneous on the C205 comes at ~261mph, 663ft radius, 33.06 deg/sec.
These graphs came VERY close to Kweassa's test (the yellow point) so I have a bit more faith in them than the Spit V one that came out close to 50ft off on radius at some points. I think Badboy had some C20X diagrams in one of his articles although they were at lighter fuel loads (25% internal). I have a summary from that Badboy data though and it showed 31deg/sec @ 240mph for the C205 and 22deg/sec @225mph for the C202. Given the extra weight involved in our numbers at 75% internal, it is probably feasible we'd lose 2 deg/sec and gain 20mph required to make max.
-
Thanks Soda, Much appreciated
-
Thank you Soda, good to have this graphics.
One doubt about the data you posted, from Badboy's article: haven't you exchanged the data for the 2 planes? Shouldn't the 202 turn faster than the 205, given the lighter wingloading? Or the speed difference matters in this case? As said, I'm not well versed in the math behind this stuff. :p
-
I also started making something like this but since u have i wont haha.
I can help u a great deal if u want me to. I'll offer you a subdomain on my server (if u want it).
I can code.
Are u using sql? or just basic html?
I'll post what i have later =)
-
Originally posted by Gianlupo
Thank you Soda, good to have this graphics.
One doubt about the data you posted, from Badboy's article: haven't you exchanged the data for the 2 planes? Shouldn't the 202 turn faster than the 205, given the lighter wingloading? Or the speed difference matters in this case? As said, I'm not well versed in the math behind this stuff. :p
Sloppy typing sorry:
plane sustained instant
MC 205 19 deg/sec@160mph 31 deg/sec@240mph
MC 202 21 deg/sec@152mph 33 deg/sec@225mph
These numbers came from Badboy's graphs and some other info I got from a BBS source so I can't claim the accuracy/method used to test them. I just used them for comparison purposes to my calculations.
-
Originally posted by Gianlupo
Good idea, but, unfortunately, Netaces still has old data... :(
Actually, I've recently tested the P-51D and Spitfire Mk IX and found them both to be within 1mph of AH1 "old" data with the exception of the P-51 at 26k up. The WEP no longer seems to have any effect at those altitudes.
The only other planes that have had their flight models altered (as far as I can tell) is the Spit V/Seafire (which will be changed again at next patch) and possibly the 190s.
-
Soda: np, everyone makes typo! ;)
Hammer: sorry, I just looked at what the "Plane comparison page" said («Note: All tests were done in late versions of AH 1. AH 2 test data coming soon.») and assumed it was right and there were differences between the previous and actual FMs.
One little provocation for you: why don't you have an italian card in the Netaces emblem? :D Btw, no need to say, since I linked it in my signature, but great site!
-
Hammer,
The Ki-84 data at Netaces is for the original one w/o WEP. They remodeled it and added WEP which changes the speed/climb java charts quite a bit.
Unfortunatley HTC has never posted a speed chart for the new version as far as I know. Can you add data to the Java chart program or do you have to have the HTC line drawings to create the charts?
It irks me a bit that we've had the Ki-84 for a year, but still no write-up or charts on it at the Aces High Game Info > Planes pages. It's said "Coming Soon" for a year.
*********
I'd love to see EM diagrams for all the planes in AHII on a dynamic chart page!
I figure we'll have it in two weeks.
-
MOS,
cc on the Ki... I've known for a while but, just couldn't bring myself to do the tests again (yet)
-
Originally posted by hammer
MOS,
cc on the Ki... I've known for a while but, just couldn't bring myself to do the tests again (yet)
Hammer,
I'll do the tests if you do the charts. Do you need the speeds at every 1,000 of alt?
Mosq
-
Originally posted by Gianlupo
Fry, I think yours is a great idea. I always wanted to see EM diagrams for AH planes since I read for the first time Badboy's column (great work, Badboy, I'm really fond of what you and Andy Bush wrote at Simhq, but... no more new columns! :( ).
Hi Gianlupo
Yep, Andy Bush has retired, and I no longer write for SimHQ because over the last year or so I have lost interest in most other flight sim's and I'm only having fun in Aces High these days.
Badboy
-
Originally posted by Robert
How about this:(http://home.midsouth.rr.com/rwysairwar/pictures/p51d.gif)
RWY
Ahhh, that takes me back a few years... That diagram background was originally posted by an old buddy and mentor, Stuart Butts, a USAF test pilot who played AW, and produced EM diagrams for every aircraft in the game, way back then. Those were good days :)
Badboy
-
Originally posted by Badboy
Andy Bush has retired, and I no longer write for SimHQ because over the last year or so I have lost interest in most other flight sim's
How sad... :( I was a big fan of your work, you two wrote great stuff, really useful... now I guess I really need to buy the Shaw... ;)
However, thank you for all the good work you have done in the past years, Badboy, I hope you can find new enthusiasm for flight sims.
See you. :)