|
Author
|
Topic: Zur's refurbished FMs
|
Zurawski
Pilot
|
posted 03-26- 09:50 AM
   
OK boys and girls ...It's that time again. Ol' Zurs been bitten by the insideous FM bug again ... Which means the planes I have "touch" go back through the recycle-hopper.  The following planes will be worked on in the order listed below: 1.) P47D (Sorry .. It's a love afair)
2.) Fw190D9 (This guys needs a serious facelift)
3.) P38J (Tail and I will be tag-teaming this guy)
4.) All versions of the 109 (Minor changes)
5.) Fw109A8 (The redheaded step-plane) I'm assuming alot of you have flown these planes and have formed an opinion regarding them ... Being that as it may, I'd like as much feed-back/opinions/impressions/rants as my beloved fellow fliers can generate! Bare in mind ... I trust "DATA" first ... and opinions/impressions "LAST". Keep that in mind when flaming me! BTW ... let's keep this thread on topic? I'd like to build a solid list of things to address in the coming weeks. Thank-you. IP: Logged |
Yardstick
Pilot
|
posted 03-26- 11:41 AM
All my favourites, keep me in touch with the progress pls. I'm in love with the Jug at the moment - that thing does south like nothing else ------------------
Yardstick painted this
IP: Logged |
bjorn
Pilot
|
posted 03-26- 01:34 PM
Yard,You mean the p47 has the same flight characteristics as your average steam locomotive? I think that's pretty much spot on. What specifically are your thoughts on improvement, Zur? Just curious?
_
/Bjorn. IP: Logged |
Zurawski
Pilot
|
posted 03-26- 01:59 PM
..Bjorn,As far as the P47D goes ... My primanry concern is the "flight departure" (or lack there of..) CFD is "there" ... However, you really have to man-handle the 47 near stall to get it to depart. Also it would be nice if some one would test it's climb to alt. Basicly all I tested was: 360-degree turn speed, roll speed, top speed, and stall speed. [This message has been edited by Zurawski (edited 03-26-2000).] IP: Logged |
Ishmael
Pilot
|
posted 03-26- 02:57 PM
Zurawski, I really like the way the 47 handles, and from what I've read you had to practically "make" it spin. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to perform much different at varying altitudes which makes for very complete and detailed fm. I'm really excited to see that more aircraft are going to get new fm treatment! Congrats on a job well done with that 47 as with all the new user made aircraft, which are IMHO, the best looking of any sims.
IP: Logged |
Zurawski
Pilot
|
posted 03-26- 03:10 PM
... Ishmael,THANKS! Problem is there is a point (I see it because I know exactly where it's supposed to be).. where it "should" drop a wing or even depart violently ... and it's just not happening! Now keep in mind Tailslide and myself are well...um... uh... "anal" when it come to the flight-models doing what they are supposed to do. What we do is liken to "baby-steps" ... We've actually gone through several FM revisions that the community has never seen ... each one bringing the FM closer and closer to what the FS community is expecting. Now we are getting down to the "nitty-gritty" stuff ... along the way we've stumbled (and I mean stumbled).. upon previously unknow data ... better ways of modeling things ... and shortcuts to making the FM better! I guess what I'm saying is ... No matter how "good" an FM is ... Tail and I will find a reason to make it better! IP: Logged |
bjorn
Pilot
|
posted 03-26- 03:34 PM
I can't see the difference between the FM's of a brick or a swallow (european or african,) but I've noticed many of the planes are no longer "auto coordinated." You really have to use the rudder to keep the ball centered. I like that! Keep up the good work. Even FM novices like me enjoy it when you can really feel the difference between the planes.
_
/Bjorn.
IP: Logged |
JT
Pilot
|
posted 03-26- 03:35 PM
Anyone able to do the "dead stick landing" training mission without breaking the gear? I was able to do it once after about 50 tries.
Ofcourse, it's OK if you break the gear.... a lot of pilots felt that landing the 47 on it's belly was just as safe as landing it normally.IP: Logged |
Zurawski
Pilot
|
posted 03-27- 09:25 AM
Hello? ... Is this thing on?People ... I'm doing this so "ZUR" is not the final word in the flight models for these aircraft ... I don't know ... Maybe they are "fine" ... but YOUR input is inportant to me, in order to keep an un-bias and impartial perspective on the FMs. IP: Logged |
Snickers
Pilot
|
posted 03-27- 01:32 PM
I'll leave opinions on the P47 to those who love it so. The 38 on the other hand is a different story. I realize the tail was its weakest point. However, it seems that the tail is now almost the exclusive point of failure.It was over powered before, but IMHO its a touch underpowered now. In its current configuration it would have earned the nickname "forktailed dog" not "forktailed devil".  It is still fun to fly, it just doesnt power through the turns, and I feel just a touch too much like a target (HEY! Careful on the response to the last... )
------------------
Snickers
=FC= IP: Logged |
Gunner
Pilot
|
posted 03-27- 02:01 PM
Call me strange,
I like to test the aircrafts time to climb capabilities. Thus my "Bolt from the blue" post.
I will put the P-47 thru its TTC paces tonight and let you know what i come up with in the morning Zur.
------------------
(Kill'em All, Sort'em out Later )
-=BAB=- Gunner
IP: Logged |
bolillo_loco
Pilot
|
posted 03-27- 02:06 PM
Hi, I could post more on the 47's stall, but I feel it would be useless cause all my books give it a docil stall characteristic.I will post some turning data today if it lets me cause I seem to be having problems with either the net or my pc today. The 38 had the best power to weight ratio of all the fighter types during the entire war from 10,000 ft up to 30,000 ft it also had the best acceleration of them all also IP: Logged |
Spanky the Mad Dog
Pilot
|
posted 03-27- 02:26 PM
Spanky here.. Yep I LOVE that Zur and Tail are anal about the FM's. I would be too. It also helps when new hardcore users try out this sim and see a plane act like it should. I personally could fly all the planes like they are but some people NEED to have them Dead on. Also if you start to study tactics and they planes in the game don't fly right then its useless to ya. I also think the tail on the 38 is too weak. Maybe in real life they did come off that easy. BUT its so weak I never fly in it. Could we at least make it stronger for now until we get the DMs all balenced?
IP: Logged |
JT
Pilot
|
posted 03-27- 02:30 PM
Zur, don't know if I sent you this, but in case not... From the book, Fighter Command, by Ethell and Sand... Harrison B. Tardoff, P-47 pilot, 363rd Fighter Group "... It got nose light in a stall, and nose heavy in a dive- had a very nasty spin- violent and hard to stop. I spun out of a slow turn at high altitude with full wing tanks once, by accident, while trying to keep in formation on a combat mission. It tore the wing tanks off and scared hell out of me. But the general way I felt in a '47 was invincible. I had complete faith in the plane and would excuse its shortcomings to anyone." IP: Logged |
Ishmael
Pilot
|
posted 03-27- 03:08 PM
I'm glad to see the 38 will be worked on! Also, the 190a seems to climb at hard angles of attack for too long without performance loss, and doesn't suffer at high alt the way I've read it should. Seems I can just keep climbing. Anyone else notice this or am I the only one? I like the way it rolls and turns though. You plane builders have my respect and appreciation for building these artworks and reevaluating the flight mods! Where else can you find a Yak, Corsair, 47, or any of the user made planes of type that look better? heheIP: Logged |
Tailslide
Pilot
|
posted 03-27- 03:14 PM
Same as last week the initial climb rate and sustained climb from sea level to 10,000 feet was tested on the 190a4 and found spot on.. if you can test higher up or double-check my tests and tell me whats off by how much I can fix it. TS
[This message has been edited by Tailslide (edited 03-27-2000).] IP: Logged |
Ishmael
Pilot
|
posted 03-27- 03:49 PM
I don't have any data to back it up, but I just took it up to test it again. I didn't time it, yet as long as I stayed between 120 to 160mph the alt on the hud kept going and the ground getting further away in a hurry. I tried the 51 and 47, which I know didn't have as good a climb rate, yet there was performance drop off at much less angle of attack. They each went nose down, and again it's subjective. I'm awful at numbers and should probably be quiet about it . It's just I've never seen that in other sims, which is all I have to equate it too. I love the 190a, and from what I've read it could outrun the 51 on deck, but its performance dropped at high alt which I don't see. I don't really know how to articulate it other than feel and comparing.[This message has been edited by Ishmael (edited 03-27-2000).] IP: Logged |
Tailslide
Pilot
|
posted 03-27- 04:06 PM
Ishmael, can you give the 5.4 beta version of the 190 on the opp forum a try and let me know if it still feels wrong? (just so we are talking about the same version) http://firelight.dynip.com/oppforum Look under flight models forum. Thanks! TS
IP: Logged |
Ishmael
Pilot
|
posted 03-28- 08:30 AM
Sorry Tailslide, I was talking about pp5.3a. I did a very subjective test. Since I don't have a stopwatch I used the 1-1000, 2-1000 method of counting lol. Now both these were done right after takeoff. I'm really talking about the extreme angle of attack in their climbs, but between speeds of 160 to 120 the 190a reached 5200k in 30 secs, and the 190a3 4900k. The 190a3 wobbled more and felt heavier, but neither dropped a wing and went nose down. Another test I did on the 190a3 with the same type of hard attack climb reached 8000k in 60secs. I could be way off, it just seems unreal in performance to me to climb that way with no departure. Seems as though it actually climbs better between 135 to 120 or so.
The reason I started thinking about it was the post about the 51, and again all I really have is "feel" to go by, but it feels compatable with 51s in other sims--kinda like the one in "Aces high," which I have very limited experience with. I could be wrong on all this, because as "feelings" should come last with fm, just thought it deserved a look from you guys that know more about fm than I ever could. Let me add that I am often wrong, but you should get similar results.[This message has been edited by Ishmael (edited 03-28-2000).] IP: Logged |
Gunner
Pilot
|
posted 03-28- 09:21 AM
FM Gurus,
Took the P-47 up last night from sea level to 30,000 feet. Findings as follows:
10,000' - 2 min. 30 sec.
20,000' - 10 min. 20 sec.
30,000' - 20 min. 40 sec.
This data is subjective and I don't know if it helps, but I enjoyed it.
It was kinda funny, at around 20,000 feet I developed a con-trail that lasted all the way to the ground and even after I taxied to a stop. It looked like the pilot was taking a shower in the cockpit with steam rising up, lol.------------------
(Kill'em All, Sort'em out Later )
-=BAB=- Gunner
IP: Logged |
Yardstick
Pilot
|
posted 03-28- 09:58 AM
Tail,I know its a minor point but it seems that the loadout designation of the Fw190a-4 was inadvertantly altertered back to its original Fw190a with PP5.3(a). To avoid confusion could you or whoever puts together this part of the next pack, change it back to a-4 pls. ------------------
Yardstick painted this
IP: Logged |
Tailslide
Pilot
|
posted 03-28- 10:40 AM
The A3 should have the same FM as the A4 since they were almost the same plane, I don't know what happened to the FM after it left my hands. Was the 190A4 FM copied to one of the texture fixed planes? Did anything get altered in the process? Is the version I sent out the same as the one in the plane pack? I didn't change the loadouts at all I'm not really sure what happened. TS IP: Logged |
Hedgehog
Pilot
|
posted 03-28- 10:47 AM
What? The P-51 in SDOE "feels" like the one in Ace's High? Not a chance.I've been flying the P-51 in Ace's High since the beta. The SDOE version does not fly like the Ace's High version. This is the standard problem in building a flight model - 99% of the time, people use subjective criteria. Don't waste your time doing that. If you are going to do time tests, I would also suggest that using some sort of time recording device (like, uhm, a watch) be used. It's kinda like a, how should I say, a prerequisite? I am a staunch proponent of seeing the SDOE flight model be the best out there. But to do this we need tools, people! Sheese, if MH could just provide them. TS, Zur, etc. - I'm not knocking this effort - I'm just frustrated. It's like seeing the "neighboring" companies build superior flight models using great tools, right next door, while you're tasked to build better flight model with a blindfold on and a sliderule when you really need a powerful computer. =Grrr, =Hedgehog
IP: Logged |
Tailslide
Pilot
|
posted 03-28- 11:35 AM
Yup.. since I sit here for hours with a stopwatch and get all these things the same as the docs I have dunno if its a good idea to change things based on the 1 mississippi 2 mississippi method It's normal for a plane to depart at a lower speed when climbing vertical. I'll give the steep climbs a try though. [This message has been edited by Tailslide (edited 03-28-2000).] IP: Logged |
Ishmael
Pilot
|
posted 03-28- 11:50 AM
Please don't think I don't appreciate your efforts. I just meant in my opinion the 51s performance seems more real---again subjective. I'm more excited about your work and this sim than I can say. I'm sure the "tests" I ran are next to meaningless, but it's a rough sketch and felt the angle of attack climb should be looked over by gents with more knowledge. Don't take me the wrong way, i wasn't trying to be critical cause I wouldn't know where to begin on fm. I haven't been here long, but can't stop playing this sim, and hope I wasn't speaking out of turn. IP: Logged |
Tailslide
Pilot
|
posted 03-28- 11:58 AM
Did you try the 5.4 beta version of the 190? The departure characteristics are different on it since it has wing sweep modelled now. It's great that you're providing feedback! Please don't stop, but I do need something a little more concrete like I tested 190A4 5.4beta with a full tank: -Initial rate of climb from 1000 feet 220mph to 6000 feet 220mph was 3800fpm when it should be xxxxfpm
-Zoom climb on full tank from 300mph sea level reached 3000 feet, XXX plane only reached 2000 feet but it should zoom climb better. I'm just making these up, but you get the idea.. TS
IP: Logged |
Tailslide
Pilot
|
posted 03-28- 12:15 PM
Ishmael, since you suspect steep climbs, some zoom climb tests with a watch or stopwatch of the 190a4 and the spit IX will highlight any problems. There is zoom climb data comparing the real life planes out there somewhere. TS
IP: Logged |
Tailslide
Pilot
|
posted 03-28- 12:19 PM
Ahh found some info that may help you test:
http://firelight.dynip.com/PlaneStats/Spitfire/Spitfire%20Mk%20IX%20Testing.htm
"Climb - During comparitve climbs at various heights up to 23,000 with both aircraft flying under maximum continuous climbing conditions, little difference was found between the two aircraft, although the Spit IX was slightly better. Above 22,000 ft the climb of the Fw190 is falling off rapidly, wheras the climb of the Spit IX is increasing. "
This is after they switched to 150 octane fuel to boost performance, the doc also lists performance with regular 100 octane. [This message has been edited by Tailslide (edited 03-28-2000).] IP: Logged |
Yardstick
Pilot
|
posted 03-29- 04:45 AM
Tail, I think the Fw190a-4 loadout file was overlooked or an old version was used for PP5.3. It's a minor issue but I just though I would flag it for future reference.------------------
Yardstick painted this
IP: Logged |
Tailslide
Pilot
|
posted 03-29- 10:49 AM
Ishmael said the A3 and A4 fly differently though?IP: Logged |
Yardstick
Pilot
|
posted 03-29- 11:58 AM
As far as I know, the FM used was identical and the 3DOs are very similar. I can't say I have noticed any difference in the performance and I fly both quite a bit on-line.------------------
Yardstick painted this
IP: Logged |
Zurawski
Pilot
|
posted 03-29- 12:41 PM
...Tail,Just a thought, Maybe you could outline the "exact proceedures for all the tests? I mean ... quite honestly "I'm" not exactly sure what is "right" ... IP: Logged |
Ishmael
Pilot
|
posted 03-29- 01:54 PM
I used a stopwatch today lol, and hope I,m not working your last nerve. I'm not talking about its climb rate from a standard 170mph or so, which is probably the way it's tested and is accurate at that consistant speed. I hope I'm explaining this correctly. I started the timer at 200ft above the runway immediately after take-off at 170mph and gradually pulled back until reaching 135mph. Now at no time did I drop below 120mph, and in 1min was able to reach 6500k. Subtract the 200ft from start and that's 6300k in 1 min at very low speeds. I'm just saying you can almost climb staight up for very extended times and had I not stopped at 1 minute, it would have continued climbing that way. It's not the zoom climb I'm talking about. This point is probably moot as it appears you're working on a new fm. This is the standard 190a which I guess came with the game since it's in most default missions. I did this with full throttle and I hope I've explained myself better this time. I wasn't able to maintain a dead on speed, yet was between 135 and 120 mph. [This message has been edited by Ishmael (edited 03-29-2000).] IP: Logged |
Ishmael
Pilot
|
posted 03-29- 02:14 PM
sorry, double post[This message has been edited by Ishmael (edited 03-29-2000).] IP: Logged |
Tailslide
Pilot
|
posted 03-29- 04:20 PM
Thanks Ishmael! I just verified this and got something like 5200 fpm initial climb which is way too high. I'll fix this and email you a copy to check out if that's ok? When I tested it before I was climbing around 200mph I never even thought to climb at such a steep angle. TS IP: Logged |
Tailslide
Pilot
|
posted 03-29- 04:27 PM
Umm, whats your email?
IP: Logged |
FSIC Messageboard
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
