Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests

[hitech]

Thorism wrote.

stoney, i can't discuss anything with nothing, no data, no point, no discussions ...

Since you do not wish to do simple testing. You have no data, and you can not discuss anything.

I suggest you

1. Get some data, or do some testing.

2. Or stop speaking about something that YOU ADMIT you can not speak about because have no knowledge of, or data for. And are not even willing to simply go fly ah with a stop watch and get all the data you need.

P.S. We do publish all climb and speed data for all our planes.

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/newscores/planeperf.php

HiTech

[ghostdancer]

Hmm, something might be wrong with that page HiTech. I remember just last month having bombers in the drop down selections to get their speed and climb rates. Today, it doesn't show any bombers in the drop down selections.

[thorsim]

hitech if you read i said that one can't do the real world/in game comparisons in my first post.
what is the point of collecting game data for a game that refuses to share it's historic reference data for comparison?  what conclusions could be drawn from only one side of the picture?

btw why should we need to do any simple testing of in game performance anyway,
don't you do that yourselves when you test the FMs?
i mean i think that information should be available to you already.
why not share it like the other in game performance data?

i suggested that we may be able to have a discussion about in game turn performance however there is no official data available for that discussion either.  now i don't have time to do that kind of testing, and quite frankly it should be done officially as turn rate would be better shown with an AI or projected from the code than from a player pilot for consistency.

now if you want to provide that info than great, if you don't well fine.  however it is not my job, or place,
to provide the performance numbers for HTC, however nice they would be to have for discussion purposes.

i see no reason for you to get snippy with me for me letting another player who suspects something is not correct in on the difficulties associated with trying to prove anything in these discussions for the reasons stated above and the hostility one faces when they question the status quo around here.

especially for something as elusive as turn performance as we have had better smarter more experienced than  any of us arguing about the real world aircraft for what 6+ decades now with no real consensus so far, at least none that i have seen.

no offense

+S+

t

Thorism wrote.

Since you do not wish to do simple testing. You have no data, and you can not discuss anything.

I suggest you

1. Get some data, or do some testing.

2. Or stop speaking about something that YOU ADMIT you can not speak about because have no knowledge of, or data for. And are not even willing to simply go fly ah with a stop watch and get all the data you need.

P.S. We do publish all climb and speed data for all our planes.

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/newscores/planeperf.php

HiTech

[Karnak]

Thorsim,

That makes no sense.  You test the aircraft in the game and you compare the results with the available documentation.  It doesn't matter what HTC's particular sources are.

Just make sure not to pick the one historical source that most favorable to your chosen aircraft or most unfavorable to other aircraft.  Use as wide a cross section of data as you can.

[BnZs]

Is there in fact any such thing as data on sustained rate and radius of turn for WWII aircraft at all?

[thorsim]

it is necessary to have the pertinent data when your discussion will involve the interpretation of that data.  otherwise all you have is "that is not what the data that we use says" ...

that is an issue that can not be resolved unless everyone presents their data.  HTC will not do that,
so these discussions can not be resolved and are there by pointless.  

Thorsim,

That makes no sense.  You test the aircraft in the game and you compare the results with the available documentation.  It doesn't matter what HTC's particular sources are.

Just make sure not to pick the one historical source that most favorable to your chosen aircraft or most unfavorable to other aircraft.  Use as wide a cross section of data as you can.

not a consistent single source one that i know of or have ever heard of for that matter, there are even disagreements on the physical basics of many types.  that is why we need to know exactly what we are discussing before it would be worth having a discussion.

Is there in fact any such thing as data on sustained rate and radius of turn for WWII aircraft at all?

no offense

+S+

t

[Karnak]

it is necessary to have the pertinent data when your discussion will involve the interpretation of that data.  otherwise all you have is "that is not what the data that we use says" ...

that is an issue that can not be resolved unless everyone presents their data.  HTC will not do that,

That is not the way HTC has behaved in my experience.  They have modified many flight models when data was presented showing their model was in error.  You don't need their data to do so.

However, as I noted, if you just cherrypick the most favorable data and pretend the rest doesn't exist, well, you won't get very far.

[thorsim]

i am not talking about behavior, behavior and attention wise i think HTC is ahead of the curve in a big way.

however it is impossible to address where HTC may be incorrect in their data if they do not show it.

there are many many many factors that determine different kinds of performance so without the source data how would we know if for example the lift, power, wing loading or drag or acceleration is the reason things are incorrect and the cause of our concern if we do not know what any of those values are?

do you get my point ...

i may feel very strongly things are incorrect, but without knowing what or how things are done how can i possibly address something like turn rate when there are so many unknown value/factors contributing to turn performance.

no offense

+S+

t

That is not the way HTC has behaved in my experience.  They have modified many flight models when data was presented showing their model was in error.  You don't need their data to do so.

However, as I noted, if you just cherrypick the most favorable data and pretend the rest doesn't exist, well, you won't get very far.

[TequilaChaser]

what is the point of collecting game data for a game that refuses to share it's historic reference data for comparison?  

If HTC were to share their historical reference data openly in public on this board, some in which possibly other competing flight sims might not have available to them, that would be the same as shooting yourself in your own foot.......wouldn't you agree? and for the record....why should they share something that has taking thousands of manhours, possibly including traveling to different states, countrys, museums and researching thru archived records to for years to find the data needed just to add each plane to a flight sim........ show it publically and then all other flgiht sim creators gets to go down easy street....

i suggested that we may be able to have a discussion about in game turn performance however there is no official data available for that discussion either.  now i don't have time to do that kind of testing, and quite frankly it should be done officially as turn rate would be better shown with an AI or projected from the code than from a player pilot for consistency.

you are very new to the flight sim world of games. or have no idea what you are talking about......... as a matter of fact 2 of the most qualified Aces high participants in the game, are as well trainers for the game and their efforts and consistency has never came into question ....... going back more than a decade of test data for various flight sim games.......  this being Leon "Badboy" Smith and Widewing........

it appears you have went up the creek without a paddle........ so sad

[Karnak]

however it is impossible to address where HTC may be incorrect in their data if they do not show it.

This is incorrect.

What you do is you show how the performance in AH conflicts with sources x, y and z and then HTC, if they agree with the conclusions, will make changes.  You aren't testing it against their data, you are testing it against the best historical data you have.


Doing that I got the fuel consumption on the Mosquito changed.  I saw another person get the Ki-84's roll rate increased dramatically.   Those are just a couple of examples, but there have been many more.

[hitech]

To paraphrase Thomism argument.

Thor: I think htc's flight models are incorrect and that they are biased to make American planes better than the LW, but I do not have any data to back it up.

HiTech: If you believe so, what data do you have showing so.

Thor: None, therefore you should show me all your data so I have some.

HiTech

[thorsim]

more like ...

thor: why does this plane do that so well when its physical characteristics and pilot reports and POHs all say it shouldn't be able to ...

hitech: because i say so ...

thor: your kidding right?

hitech: "we have the proof, it is irrefutable"

thor: oh could we see it ?

hitech: no it is top secret

thor: that was 60 years ago ...

hitech: it's mine ... what do you know anyway?

etc. etc. till the end of time

so like i told gaston, why bother ...

no offense ...

+S+

t

To paraphrase Thomism argument.

Thor: I think htc's flight models are incorrect and that they are biased to make American planes better than the LW, but I do not have any data to back it up.

HiTech: If you believe so, what data do you have showing so.

Thor: None, therefore you should show me all your data so I have some.

HiTech

...

[thorsim]

historic data is historic, exactly who would have the resources to develop a competing sim that does not have the resources to acquire the data themselves?  i.e. snowjob.

been a flight sim player since the dos hornet game, actually played that "hit return to refresh" jet ACM game "pre mass internet" with my brother at the college he was attending.  MMOL since AW classic ...

other experts not affiliated with HTC have very different conclusions about the specifics of my issues with hitech's games.  asking for the reasoning is not unreasonable.  

If HTC were to share their historical reference data openly in public on this board, some in which possibly other competing flight sims might not have available to them, that would be the same as shooting yourself in your own foot.......wouldn't you agree? and for the record....why should they share something that has taking thousands of manhours, possibly including traveling to different states, countrys, museums and researching thru archived records to for years to find the data needed just to add each plane to a flight sim........ show it publically and then all other flgiht sim creators gets to go down easy street....


you are very new to the flight sim world of games. or have no idea what you are talking about......... as a matter of fact 2 of the most qualified Aces high participants in the game, are as well trainers for the game and their efforts and consistency has never came into question ....... going back more than a decade of test data for various flight sim games.......  this being Leon "Badboy" Smith and Widewing........

it appears you have went up the creek without a paddle........ so sad

i did that, it resulted in discussions with other "interested" players which degraded to the point of rule number 4 being used to censor my responses.  at that point i smelled the coffee and moved on, as i will now.  for those of you who have been around there is a discussion on an uncensored board going on, it may be more enlightening.

AGW for those who know enough to know.

This is incorrect.

What you do is you show how the performance in AH conflicts with sources x, y and z and then HTC, if they agree with the conclusions, will make changes.  You aren't testing it against their data, you are testing it against the best historical data you have.


Doing that I got the fuel consumption on the Mosquito changed.  I saw another person get the Ki-84's roll rate increased dramatically.   Those are just a couple of examples, but there have been many more.

back to smelling the coffee, i think i will leave you all to your discussions ...

no offense ...

+S+

t

[hitech]

HiTech Wrote.

Thor: I think htc's flight models are incorrect and that they are biased to make American planes better than the LW, but I do not have any data to back it up.

Thore wrote.

thor: why does this plane do that so well when its physical characteristics and pilot reports and POHs all say it shouldn't be able to ...

Hmm I am still waiting for that proof you claim to have, but then again you say you have no data to back up your claims.

And finally , as many players have said. No one ever gets any grief from me when speaking analytically about airplane performance. I am always open to learning new things, but I am NOT open to discussing flight dynamics,or be criticized  by someone who has the knowledge of a Kindergartner , but with the attitude he has a PHD in Flight Modeling. You would be hard pressed to ever find me taking the attitude on this BBS or in person of ever stating I am write because I know I am write. That attitude is the death of a good programmer. As I said way back when, If you wish to show us we are incorrect, get off your duff and do some research and flight testing. Show us where we do not mach the real world. But do not expect us to do the work for you when it is YOU claiming there is a problem not us.

The only time they get grief is when they speak as you with nothing but pure BS and their only desire is to make the plane they love the most fly better.

I have seen 2 out comes from this.
1.
f4udoa used to do the same type of cherry picking wanting to make is F4U better. After getting no where he started doing real research and looking at all information, and also taught himself to do some number crunching. He then was able to start to talk in an informed and intelligent fashion , he also found out that things were not as he first envisioned them.

2.
Crump used to do but could not hold a solid arguement. He had a fair amount of data but never learned to analyze it. He ended up getting kicked of from the boards.

HiTech

[thorsim]

you bumped one of the guys restoring White 1 who had good data (obviously) but did not meet your standards for argument?

really?

hehe ok what are those standards ?

just out of curiosity ...

you know my issues with your game, they are pretty specific.  initially you expressed some interest that is true, however you did "rule number 4" me when defending my point of view with other people who i proved knew less about the issues than i did. so why should i waste my efforts here?  

why should i work to help you improve your product when it seems to be in areas you just don't seem interested in addressing.  

give me a reason and i will post some data.  otherwise i will wait to make my case elsewhere, or here at a time when it is irrefutable.  

why am i being harassed for informing another that his case was not going to sway anyone here,
when his case was not going to sway anyone here?

? ? ?

t

HiTech Wrote.
Thore wrote.
Hmm I am still waiting for that proof you claim to have, but then again you say you have no data to back up your claims.

And finally , as many players have said. No one ever gets any grief from me when speaking analytically about airplane performance. I am always open to learning new things, but I am NOT open to discussing flight dynamics,or be criticized  by someone who has the knowledge of a Kindergartner , but with the attitude he has a PHD in Flight Modeling. You would be hard pressed to ever find me taking the attitude on this BBS or in person of ever stating I am write because I know I am write. That attitude is the death of a good programmer. As I said way back when, If you wish to show us we are incorrect, get off your duff and do some research and flight testing. Show us where we do not mach the real world. But do not expect us to do the work for you when it is YOU claiming there is a problem not us.

The only time they get grief is when they speak as you with nothing but pure BS and their only desire is to make the plane they love the most fly better.

I have seen 2 out comes from this.
1.
f4udoa used to do the same type of cherry picking wanting to make is F4U better. After getting no where he started doing real research and looking at all information, and also taught himself to do some number crunching. He then was able to start to talk in an informed and intelligent fashion , he also found out that things were not as he first envisioned them.

2.
Crump used to do but could not hold a solid arguement. He had a fair amount of data but never learned to analyze it. He ended up getting kicked of from the boards.

HiTech