place your vote... fix the turn rates in AH?

[-lazs-]

Should they fix the turn rates in AH and speed up the game but take the chance of having the horrible warps of WB?   Or would you rather have stability and pretend everything is ok?
lazs

[funked]

Lazs, If you can provide one shred of evidence that the turn rates are inaccurate, I might consider it.

[Dingy]

Wha??  Huh?

Is this a troll?  I didnt know there was anything wrong with the turn rates.  

-Ding

[Saintaw]

Lazs forgot to put his anty-slipery shoes when going in the bath this morning, meaning , I believe that the "Flush-O-matic" attached to his Toilet was still stuck to his mouth when he wrote this  

Turn problem ?

Put that man in a FW 190 for a week and let him write this sentece again  

[Jochen]

 

Should they fix the turn rates in AH and speed up the game but take the chance of having the horrible warps of WB? Or would you rather have stability and pretend everything is ok?

AH is different from WB, that's about all we know in this stage. Which one is more accurate, well, I can't honestly say I have enought data to make claims.

I don't think it has anything to do with warp prevention, roll rate causes most warps and I haven't seen any yet, even we have much faster rolling planes than in WB.

------------------
jochen Jagdflieger JG 2 'Richthofen' Aces High
jochen Geschwaderkommodore (on leave) Jagdgeschwader 2 'Richthofen'  Warbirds

Thanks for the Fw 190A-5 HTC!

Ladysmith wants you forthwith to come to her relief
Burn your briefs you leave for France tonight
Carefully cut the straps of the booby-traps and set the captives free
But don't shoot 'til you see her big blue eyes

[Hooligan]

Here are some times it took fighters to turn 360 degrees.  This information is off the Sturmovik BBS and some of it was posted by Oleg Maddox (designer of Sturmovik).

by Oleg Maddox:
The best circle times of German fighters had 109F-2,F-4 and G-2(3 guns) - others worse and some much worse.
At 1000 m altitude:
F-2 - left turn - 20,5 sec, right turn - 19,6 sec.
G-2(3 guns) - left turn - 20,0 sec, right turn - 21,5 sec.
La-5F - left turn - 19,0 sec, right turn - 19,5 sec.
La-5FN - left turn - 18,5 sec, right turn - 19,0 sec.
La-7 - left turn - 18,3 sec, right turn - 18,9 sec.
LaGG-3(M-105P, 1941) left turn - 22,5 sec, right turn - 23,0 sec.
LaGG-3(M-105PF2, 1944) left turn - 19,0 sec, right turn - 20,1 sec.

Here are sustained turns of Bf-109s from NII-VVS:

Bf-109B1 - 16,0 sec left; 15,9 sec right
Bf-109E3 - 26,5 sec left; 29,5 sec right
Bf-109F2 - 20,5 sec left; 19,6 sec right
Bf-109G2 - 20,0 sec left; 21,5 sec right
Bf-109G2/R6 - 22,6 sec left; 22,8 sec right

Data from NII-VVS (Russian aircrafts-research centre) tests.
There are also several interesting results on the turn radius of different fighters tested in NII-VVS.

(in metres)

SpitfireIX - 235m
P-40E - 242m
P-39 - 253m
Yak-1 - 275m
Yak-9D - 290m
Bf-109G2 - 290m
P-51A - 290m
La-5FN - 295m
La-5 - 310m
Bf-109G2/R6 - 315m
FW-190A4 - 340m

----------------------------
Wells recently posted the following:
For sustained turns at sea level with full internal fuel, I measured the following:
N1K2: ~24s @ 130 mph
SpitV: ~24s @ 105 mph
Spit IX: ~25s @ 125 mph
C202: ~25s @ 150 mph
C205: ~26s @ 175 mph
109f4 & La5: ~ 28s @ 150 mph
109G2 & G6: ~ 29s @ 160 mph
P-38L: ~29s @ 175 mph
109G10: ~30s @ 170 mph
P-51D: ~31s @ 150 mph
190A8: ~ 31s @ 175 mph
F4u-1C: ~32s @ 150 mph
F4u-1D: ~33s @ 140 mph
Typhoon: ~34s @ 130 mph

------------------------------
Lets compare the data for the 109g2 and La5.
AH 109g2 360 degree turn and radius 29s, 160mph, 330m
Real life measurements 20.75s, 195 mph, 290m
AH La5 28s, 150mph, 300m
Real Life 18.75s, 220 mph, 295m
------------------------------

Something seems a bit odd.

Hooligan

[Kieren]

I guess I'll keep pretending.  

Seriously, provide me with proof that the turnrates are porked (i.e., timed turns at sea level, both AH and published data, flap settings, fuel loads, etc.).

Not really intending to flame (not my style) but unless you can *prove* what you say in this matter, it is only an opinion, and one (at the moment) I don't share.  

Hooligan-

Your post happened immediately before mine; the three points I would make would be:

• How do we know that the Il-2 programmer is an expert on flight data? Not saying he isn't, but he is a relative unknown to me.
• Wells's data is just that- Wells's data. You may find that you can tweak the turnrate a bit and get a little more out of any of the planes.
• What does actual, published flight data on each of the referenced aircraft specify for respective turnrates?

[This message has been edited by Kieren (edited 06-01-2000).]

[Badger]

Hi -lazs-...

Fix the turn rate in relation to what?

If your comment is based upon comparing flying the WB's game software aircraft, then you've posted to the wrong BBS.

The software programming approaches of both games, specifically relating to the flight model you question, demonstrate the following:

WB v2.76
=======
System =Full force 6 degrees of freedom
Basic System = 2 point lift and drag model
Dynamic CofG Changes = Weapons ONLY
Moment of Inertia Changes = NONE

AH v1.02
======
System = Full force 6 degrees of freedom
Basic System = Sectional airfoil component model, covering all components of the airplane.  Also uses CM,CP changes
Dynamic CofG Changes = All loaded components of the airplane.
Moment of Inertia Changes = All loaded components of the airplane.

Therefore, if one feeds the same empirical data specifications for any given aircraft into both programs, the AH software will produce a more accurate result, purely from a physics software modeling point of view.  Simply put, it should fly more like the real world aircraft of the same type actually did.

If your conclusion is based upon someone having sufficient real world flight experience on any of these aircraft, nobody using any of these games has the "flight time" on the various aircraft types to support the presumption you have made.  Again, in attempting to find real pilots, the closest I got to locating reasonable "air time" was a virtual pilot named AKNiteflyr who has logged 50 Hours second in command time of a B25.  So, the conclusion must be that the rest of us are actually using mathematical manufacturer's flight test data fed into the software program code as variables, in order to draw conclusions about the validity and realism of these simulators.

Hope this helps clear any confusion you might have drawn using incorrect hypothesis or anecdotal information.

Regards,
Badger

[funked]

Wow thanks Jay!  

I don't think it's clear that the VVS turn rates belong to the radii.

Are the VVS figures sustained turn times or just one turn?  Obviously if you start with a high speed you can do a circle above the sustained turn rate.

And do we have information on the fuel/ammo load used for the VVS tests?

Still need to answer these questions before going on a witch-hunt.    


[This message has been edited by funked (edited 06-01-2000).]

[funked]

nm

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 06-01-2000).]

[Kieren]

Funked-

You will note we posted virtually at the same time, and I did read it after I posted (when it first became available to me).  

My initial response was to Lazs, not Hooligan. Read my edit.  

[Badger]

Hi funked....

Thanks for the feedback.

I did scroll up and read hooligan's post.

It's still changes nothing I had to say.

Unless one runs the data through programs that use exactly the same physics software modeling to simulate flight, it's an academic and irrelevant exercise.

It simply goes down the same mental and mathematical gymnastics road that creates huge threads arguing about a "false generalization" in the first place.

What a waste of energy and I for one, am tired of the professorial approach to what is simply a GAME that's supposed to be about camaraderie and fun.

Regards,
Badger

[Baddawg]

Well well  another day  and another person jumps on the bash Pyro,and AH bandwagon.
 

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds"
--Albert Einstein


[This message has been edited by Baddawg (edited 06-01-2000).]

[Westy]

 I vote -lazs-  to lose his UBB  posting privileges for a week for posting this.

 -Westy

[RAM]

 

Originally posted by Westy:
I vote -lazs-  to lose his UBB  posting privileges for a week for posting this.

 -Westy

Nah, let him...he is funny. I laugh a lot reading his posts.