Mudpond

[MustangNightFighter]

Does anyone know how accurate the Mudpond aircraft are? I got their P-51H, production model P-80A, and P-63A and find them to all perform as I think they should from the research I have done but there are a few things that I am weary about such as the P-80's much improved performance over even the AvHistory YP-80. I know that they had a lot of engine trouble but I didn't think they changed things that much. If someone knows that would be great because I love the planes but I want to fly the most accurate planes.

[NachtPiloten]

You need to read this:

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?t=8861

and this:

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?t=7955

[MustangNightFighter]

I did and I'm still clueless. Maybe I should clarify. I know AvHistory creates the best air files but are the Mudpond accurate as well. I have compared Firepowere and AvHistory FM's and found them to both be completely accurate. I'm just concerned with the flight performance of the P-80A production series. I don't know what to beleive. I read that the XP-80 was wonderful, the YP-80 sucked, and the production models got back to the original flight characteristics. I have also heard that it was horrible compared the the Me 262 but was better than the He 162 which was far better that the Me 262 for performance. I think that Mudpond has created top notch stuff but I wasn't sure and was asking if anyone who had flown their stuff knew. Thanks for the prompt reply though.

[ndicki]

In their day, the Mudpond ones were first-class. If I remember correctly, they used the same workbook as the AvHistory 2.XX ones. However, things have moved on, and they are no longer cutting edge. They are, however, far better than the stock ones, so you can use them anyway, if there is no AvH 4.00 (ie, the latest) version available.

[NachtPiloten]

One has to be very careful when looking at the accuracy of flightmodels. As you folks know there are hundreds of data points in each model and how they are handled will impact the performance of the plane. Just because you (me) like the way a plane handles does not mean it was modeled accurately.

[crossram]

Just my two cents worth...fully agree with what Ted just said.

Fooling with FMs, and considering them right, is a real toss-up.
Realisticly (especially for CFS3 FMs), to make one 'correct', it needs to be run through one of the right workbooks. CFS3 FMs have many of the newer entries in 'em, so, if you try to adjust something in an airfile, there is a good chance there is another entry that also needs that adjustment. That won't happen, unless the airfile gets worked correctly. There are literally too many 'unknowns' in the airfiles.

I've gotten racked for saying this before, but what the hell. For any FM, they have what I call hard numbers...and soft numbers. Hard numbers??
That's what I call any measuring number, weights, dimensions, control surface movements, climb rate, etc.
Soft numbers are any other entries, such as prop settings, lift, drag. Each of those you adjust to get the right performance, etc.

To me, those 'hard' numbers need to be right first, or it's just a waste of time. That's the starting point.
A good example is a new P-47D-25 FM I've worked on. NO names, but once I put in my 'hard' numbers, which I fully researched, I compared with two other FMs for the same airplane.
Just a simple matter, but one FM had all the control surfaces dimensions too big, the other too small. Yup, double-checked all numbers. Any idea how much just those particular numbers affect the accuracy of a FM?

My point, if the hard numbers are wrong, what else is wrong. Alot of FMs also have interpetation needed for many entries. Interpetations that need to be at least somewhat realistic.

Lol! Okay...three cents worth.

[NachtPiloten]

You are so right. The data use din many of the FM's is just plain (plane:woot:) wrong. The unknown numbers are real killers since they have functions but are unknown to many folks. Only a few have discovered them but will not divulge their hard earned secrets. Us mere mortal just have to do our best.

BTW - made a Fw190 A-8 FM and what do you know? Flies like the A-5. I'll upload her soon.

TaTa!

[lewis11777]

Don't get too hung up on absolute accuracy because even some of the new Avhist hist 4.0 models are more than 1% off the mark. Some of those aircraft make unusual movements in a stall that a real aircraft would never make. Avhist 4.0 aircraft have the most accurate CFS3 aircraft FM's but getting an exact representation of some aircraft flight characteristics is not always possible.

[MustangNightFighter]

Thanks everyone for their replies. It's good to see that there is still an active CFS3 community. I have realized after looking at numerous pilot accounts, data charts, books on performance etc. and testing of various aircraft that performance is relative. With the numerous variations on planes etc. that were made, some planes of the same "type" will perform very differently. These various versions of the same plane are recreated through the best means possible and to the best quality possible for these simulations. So thanks again for everything. Just in case anyone was curious, after lots testing in CFS3, I found Mudpond to be equal in quality to AvHistory, they just have different interperations of certain things as is the case with many other individually made planes as well.