Upon Inspection I have found ..... inaccuracies

[NachtPiloten]

The 190 experten thread stirred my curiosity so I began looking at a few planes.

The Spitfire ETO_spitMkIX-F has a rollrate of 328 degree per second and a climb rate of over 6500 feet per minute ... ok, this is interesting

The other spits are around 101 degree per second and a climb rate of 3500....

The F4U 150 degrees per second.

ok lets investigate some more and we will find ETO_190a5_sk10.air 211 degree rollrate and climbs at over 4100 ft per minute

Aside from the F4U and other spits these figures are well amazing because they are not real. I point all this out because these issues raise concerns about dogfighting etc.

What to do .... who knows just points to consider the next time you want to dog fight a 190 against the XIV and can't understand why the two planes that were roughly similar the 190 gets it butt kicked in. Especially when you compare the facts http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9.html
that the spit was not much better at all.

Glad I just intercept bombers as these seems to be a bit better.

[popsaka]

...6500fpm?? ...yeah, the PR blue Hurry seemed to have rather an INTERSTELLAR performance as well... ...ah well and 'so I see' sayeth the blind pilot...:kilroy:.....

[hairyspin]

Something that occurred to me Ted was whether the measured performance figures were maximum sustained roll rates - how quickly an airframe achieves these roll rates would also have a bearing on combat performance. If a big, heavy fighter had an identical maximum roll rate as a smaller, lighter aircraft but took several seconds more to get up to that rate, then give me the lighter aircraft for air combat. so what am I building? - a 7 ton monster!

When it comes to FM building, one man's accurate figures are the next man's guesswork and the quest for accurate and equivalent data for various aircraft is a well-known problem. When Gregory and co. were building them for CFS3 we at least had a consistent approach.

[greycap.raf]

The Spitfire ETO_spitMkIX-F has a rollrate of 328 degree per second and a climb rate of over 6500 feet per minute ... ok, this is interesting

I wouldn't say interesting, I would say bone stock Mk IXe flight model. Because that's exactly what it is.


What to do .... who knows just points to consider the next time you want to dog fight a 190 against the XIV and can't understand why the two planes that were roughly similar the 190 gets it butt kicked in. Especially when you compare the facts http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9.html
that the spit was not much better at all.

The Fw 190 had two things on a Spitfire IX - roll rate at all altitudes and straight line performance at low altitude. On the other hand the Spitfire had the edge in climb rate at all altitudes, turn radius at all altitudes and straight line performance at high altitude. Pretty much all a Fw 190 pilot can do when there's a Spitifre on his tail is shoving the throttle to the firewall and getting away as fast as the aircraft goes because once engaged in a turn the Spitfire will turn inside him and win. On the other hand when a Spitfire pilot has a Fw 190 on his tail he can pull the aircraft into a defensive turn and try to force the German into a turning fight - and eventually win unless the opponent manages to break away.

For the record, wing loading tells a lot about how an aircraft turns. Naturally it can't be taken as the end-of-all rule but it's a good guide.

Fw 190A: combat weight around 9700 lbs, wing area 200 sq ft, wing loading around 48 lbs per sq ft - source http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/td284.pdf
Spitfire IX: combat weight around 7400 lbs, wing area 242 sq ft, wing loading around 30 lbs per sq ft - source http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-fix-ads.jpg

[dancat]

unfortunately none of this really matters due to the fact that cfs3 makes all ai planes into turn fighters.
yet another reason I stopped wasting my time on this "sim"

[NachtPiloten]

You are correct, even bombers can be fighters. However, I mention this only to point out that there are issues that exacerbate the poor data used in the airfiles. And mostly that is what it is bad data. Dan, if you put in real bad data then the AI will be unbelievable. I am successful when I fight AI's as long as the files are accurate or at least fair.

That is my I like attacking bombers as they seem to act more reasonable. However, IL2 has crap for airfiles bias toward the allies. WOI/WOE are better. It wouyld be nice if someone would approach this with fidelity and model accurate AI's use good data, and have 6 DOF airfiles. There is a sim that is free and fully open to be modified that all of this can be done, but would take a bunch of programing.

[dancat]

where exactly is the problem info found in the files?
is it related to size and shape of wings, fuselage, tail, etc. ?
I'm not too good at working on air cfg's..

[NachtPiloten]

Most of the faulty data has to do with airplane performance such as speed, climb rate, roll rate, cruise speed, Vmo etc. I found a few errors in some of the stuff I did a few years back, I must have been lazy and did not pay attention to the details as I should have.

This is mostly a frustration thing that's all. I just hate planes on steroids. Now once and a while you need to fiddle with the numbers, especially rate of climb for the bombers to get them to take off. But other than that the rest of the data usually are spot on.

[lewis11777]

I don't know how accurate this data is but I have used it to adjust the FM's of most of my fighters. It takes a little work because you have to time your turns and climbs but it's easy to set top speed. Roll rate is also easily adjusted. However accurate its definitely better than the stock FM's.

http://www.gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php?p1=p51d&p2=la7&p3=spit16&p4=n1k2j

[NachtPiloten]

Lewis, no issue with me on fixing them other than the time it takes to do it correctly. There are several factors that need to be adjusted to make the plane "right", what ever that means.

[lewis11777]

Ted my problem with the stock models besides performance parameters is the handling. The stall or spin characteristics for many airplanes are too agressive a classic example is the stock P-51D. If you are flying along well above the stall speed and you pull the stick back very hard the plane immediately tries to enter a roll, to the left I believe. Although I have never flown a P-51 mustang I have flown a variety of both high and low wing aircraft. Airplanes just don't do that unless you get nose high below stall speed. For me that is a realism killer and I don't think CFS3 simulates that part of flight accurately.

[NachtPiloten]

The issue with many of the stock models is that some of the parameters used to model stall etc are not coded correctly. The avh models are much better, as Greg did a nice job trying to adjust the parameters to eliminate such nasty behavior. I was juts commenting on the bad data used to model the planes, it seems crazy to me that this was done, that's all. As these differences screw up not only on-line fights but you vs the AI.