Flaps usage in real combat

[Brooke]

at least not for free.

I don't think you need to worry about that. 

However in the case where data is "known" for one plane that data source could be used as a guide for other planes with similar capabilities yet lacking the easy data.  You could estimate conservatively and still be reasonable, that would solve the problems especially with really problem FMs like the a20 190 etc.

You don't know which have data, and which are estimates (if any).  If there are any that are estimates, you don't know how good an estimate it is.  You don't know any of that because all you are doing is assuming that, if one plane as a higher flap-deployment speed than another, that it's wrong.  A-20 and FW 190 don't have flight-model problems.  You keep saying that.  That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that they are the only ones I know of that would benefit from a higher flap-deployment speed, not that the speed picked is wrong.  The P-51 would benefit from another 50 mph in top speed, but I don't think the P-51's top speed is wrong.

I think however you look at the deployment speeds in the game you will find that the FDS speeds/deflections are much more pronounced at low angle setting then they are as you approach max deployment for all the aircraft allowed the higher low deflection angle speeds when compared to those not granted that ability because of the data selection choices.  

I don't think so.

Try the 109 e vs the p51d

I don't care about the 109's.  If they had higher flap-deployment speeds, it would not matter to me at all or be, in my view, any advantage at all.

[save]

190 might not have higher flaps speed, but taking away things like the 2*13mm would make it a bit better plane overall ( they did that on pilots request afaik)
You don't need those considering it already has all the fire-power it needs, and would help its  nose-heavy performance.

[Brent Haliday]

I don't think you need to worry about that.  

I am Sure you are correct, and not worried at all

You don't know which have data, and which are estimates (if any).  If there are any that are estimates, you don't know how good an estimate it is.  You don't know any of that because all you are doing is assuming that, if one plane as a higher flap-deployment speed than another, that it's wrong.  A-20 and FW 190 don't have flight-model problems.  You keep saying that.  That's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying that they are the only ones I know of that would benefit from a higher flap-deployment speed, not that the speed picked is wrong.  The P-51 would benefit from another 50 mph in top speed, but I don't think the P-51's top speed is wrong.

Right HTC keeps all that dark so there is no chance of independent review.

I don't think so.

Well if you look, it is pretty clear.

I don't care about the 109's.  If they had higher flap-deployment speeds, it would not matter to me at all or be, in my view, any advantage at all.

Well you asked for a pair to compare per my version of the barn door example sooo I gave you one.

[BaldEagl]

If I have my facts straight AH doesn't really model plane performance as much as apply it's weight, drag, lift, thrust, etc. to a physics model.  Somewhere around here there's a diagram of the airflow modeling over the wing surface with something like twelve data points across the wing from root to tip and then from leading to trailing edge.  I remember it being a big deal when extra data points were added.

If I'm right about that then flap/control surface size, shape and deflection are simply fed into the physics engine.  The only variable that could be modeled at that point is the strength of the actuating mechanism.  This has to be modeled into each plane otherwise you wouldn't have compression in some planes and not in others.

It seems to work quite well actually as I encountered mach tuck in a Me163 offline going for an altitude record.  I can't think of any other situation in the game where you'd run into that and It doesn't seem like something someone would consiously model for given the low likelyhood of someone entering a state where it would be experienced.

Skuzzy has often said that AH is CPU intensive due to the computational load of the physics modeling and it makes sense in comparison to the better racing games which are also based on a physics model with the car models simply providing the raw data that the physics model then acts on.

So, I wouldn't be surprised if AH planes didn't exactly match real world performance but they seem to be very close in most cases so the physics model must be working well across the variability of the plane set.  The question then is where do you find data on the strength of the actuating mechanisms.  I'd guess much of that is difficult to find and therefor based largely on anecdotal evidence.

Personally I'm happy that they went through all the effort to model all of this and that it turned out so well so would be forgiving of a few issues of which I have no personal experience anyway.  I'm also gald that HT doesn't just start changing plane performance based on every player's wishes but stick to their guns until indesputable proof is provided, the burdon of which is on the person looking for the change.

[Brent Haliday]

Yea B.E.it just seems an odd thing to stake so much of that aspect of the flaps so heavily on the POH.  They are not strictly engineering documents, and there are so many settings not specified by the respective POHs that it is bound to lead to perpetual muttering, and for what?  I mean the lack of specified setting data still leaves you mostly guessing or estimating or whatever they do without the specific spelled out deflection safe speeds.  I would think another route would be more elegant and explainable.  Especially since as you point out they seem to go to so much trouble elsewhere.  Enough muttering, people gonna think I am not a fan and don't enjoy playing.

Best of the season to everyone, I am off Christmas~ing.

[icepac]

HTC has done an amazing job concerning gameplay and I gladly pay to play here when there are plenty of alternatives..........which just don't come close to comparing.

[Brooke]

Well you asked for a pair to compare per my version of the barn door example sooo I gave you one.

Yes, you are correct.  My apologies.

OK, so do you have references for max flap angle of the Bf 109G-2?

Also, what is your calculation of how torque on a flap changes with deployment angle?

[Butcher]

HTC has done an amazing job concerning gameplay and I gladly pay to play here when there are plenty of alternatives..........which just don't come close to comparing.

The whole "realistic vs arcade" argument comes up with many games, Falcon 4 with 110% realism is amazing, except it took me a good year or more to even get near figuring things out. Aces high has a pretty nice balance which I've never seen any simulator come close to this, let alone a WW2 sim.
War Thunder is all for Arcade and cheesy Graphics, while it does look good, I flew for a few weeks with a mouse and would shoot down 5 planes without any effort.

I only wish there were enough subscribers to do Snapshots and FSO more often, this is one thing I really wish someone would do a decent AI for, I'd like to fly a campaign with "BoB" or "Guadalcanal" for more then a single hour.

Something like Battle of Britain IL-2, except without the 10,000 bugs that comes along with it.

[FLS]

Yes, you are correct.  My apologies.

OK, so do you have references for max flap angle of the Bf 109G-2?

Also, what is your calculation of how torque on a flap changes with deployment angle?

The landing flap position, max extension, is 40 degrees.