P-51D Speed Observations in Network Play

[NineLine]

I dont think its all the unreasonable for the FM of the 51 to be re-looked at now that the details of its performance matter more than ever.

 

The FMs arent about balance, just because a new plane comes along doesnt mean all of a sudden the Mustang FM is wrong, the FMs are built with that pane in mind, to get the FM as close to the real thing as possible in a simulation. It should be judged on its own, not in comparison to any other aircraft. The sources used for these FMs is much broader than what is found on the internet.

 

So at the end, its not reasonable to suggest the Mustang needs looking at if there is no hard evidence to suggest that, ED has been very open to all the bugs reported so far, but they need to be explored and backed up with good data, not stuff like, I kinda flew right, but not really... that doesnt cut it.

 

Everyone needs to remember that these guys building these products take this stuff very seriously, Yo-Yo especially is very passionate about these planes, you can see it in the way he discusses them, when I started helping him with research, I was amazed at how in-depth he was, how dig it made me dig for information on the 190. These FMs are not like anything else out there. I know your heart was in the right place, but you need to make sure your data is solid, or it just pops the bubble on your argument.

 

I am not trying to be mean, but you need to take your work on trying to find a bug as serious as ED did trying to build these FMs, any less isnt good enough.

[USARStarkey]

The FMs arent about balance, just because a new plane comes along doesnt mean all of a sudden the Mustang FM is wrong, the FMs are built with that pane in mind, to get the FM as close to the real thing as possible in a simulation. It should be judged on its own, not in comparison to any other aircraft. The sources used for these FMs is much broader than what is found on the internet.

 

So at the end, its not reasonable to suggest the Mustang needs looking at if there is no hard evidence to suggest that, ED has been very open to all the bugs reported so far, but they need to be explored and backed up with good data, not stuff like, I kinda flew right, but not really... that doesnt cut it.

 

Everyone needs to remember that these guys building these products take this stuff very seriously, Yo-Yo especially is very passionate about these planes, you can see it in the way he discusses them, when I started helping him with research, I was amazed at how in-depth he was, how dig it made me dig for information on the 190. These FMs are not like anything else out there. I know your heart was in the right place, but you need to make sure your data is solid, or it just pops the bubble on your argument.

 

I am not trying to be mean, but you need to take your work on trying to find a bug as serious as ED did trying to build these FMs, any less isnt good enough.

 

My data is quite solid. Primary source data from actual flight tests. More than one. My point about the proportions is that if one plane is going to be wrong by a certain margin, they better all be. I don't doubt Yo-Yo's passion etc. But that doesn't mean these FM's are perfect. Real life data trumps a sim any day of the week. If the real data says one thing, the sim is wrong not the other way around. People have been making flight sims for years, and every time the Dev thinks they are perfect or near perfect and oddly enough, alot of passionate people over several decades have produced all sorts of variations in flight performance. Simulators are not the final word in aircraft performance. Assuming they are is just the easiest way of viewing things. Its nice to think the games we play are perfect, when they aren't. As I understand it, the DCS FM's dont differ hardly at all from SFM's of varying quality in level flight. The difference was described as being much more accurate during high AoA maneuvers. Also as I understand it, the DCS FM's simplify the naiver-stokes equations by pre-calculating as many foreseen variations on a flight surface as possible. It isnt done in real time because it is apparently impossible to do in game in real time with current CPU power. Im no expert on how DCS works, but I dare say its not perfect. One only has to look at the numerous errors in other aircraft, some of which are not FM related-like no F-15 data link- to understand that this game like others has flaws. Calculated values have always been at odds with RL performance. There is a reason that you have to test aircraft IRL and not just assume the design will function as intended. Therefore, the FM should be as close to the real data as possible. When you have several difference flight tests, each one consisting of a average of many different runs, the margin of error due any sort of calibration becomes a small issue. Especially when it is taken into account that any FM had to use data from the 40s as well, which means any calculations done are subject to similar errors. to just sit back and declare this is the most advanced sim ever, all the real data be damned is just ridiculous.

Edited August 28, 2014 by USARStarkey

[NineLine]

My data is quite solid. Primary source data from actual flight tests. More than one. My point about the proportions is that if one plane is going to be wrong by a certain margin, they better all be.

 

I am talking about data you collected from the sim, and trust me, ED has the same real world data you have, plus much more.

[GGTharos]

My data is quite solid. Primary source data from actual flight tests.

 

ED works with TFC who own their own P-51. Flight data for the sim is at least partially if not wholly collected by flying that aircraft.

 

As I understand it, the DCS FM's dont differ hardly at all from SFM's of varying quality in level flight. The difference was described as being much more accurate during high AoA maneuvers.

 

They differ greatly, especially for a prop powered aircraft.

 

to just sit back and declare this is the most advanced sim ever, all the real data be damned is just ridiculous.

 

Would you like to fly TFCs P-51 to show ED who's boss? :)

[USARStarkey]

ED works with TFC who own their own P-51. Flight data for the sim is at least partially if not wholly collected by flying that aircraft.

 

 

They differ greatly, especially for a prop powered aircraft.

 

 

 

Would you like to fly TFCs P-51 to show ED who's boss? :)

 

Something tells me they didn't stick it in a wind tunnel. Modern P-51s are not flown at full power settings. And previous sim companies have had access to said planes, nothing new.

 

Differ under what regimes?

 

That last comment is completely non-sequiter.

 

Perhaps you'd like to pilot a AMRAAM up ED's tailpipe and show them how it really is? :smilewink:

 

I also remember you saying something not that long ago the PFM on the F-15 has flaws in certain flight regimes....double standard much?

[USARStarkey]

I am talking about data you collected from the sim, and trust me, ED has the same real world data you have, plus much more.

 

 

Sure they do. And from what I can tell, the plane isn't matching it. USAAF did their own calculations and they stated 440mph, non unlike the 3 trials I posted. I think the USAAF knew what they were doing. Furthermore, calculations are just that. They are estimates, not real flight data. Guess what flight models are? Estimates. If the Fm doesn't match the RL data, it is wrong. Every other sim company has been this way about their FM's. They refuse to show their raw data, or where they got it from. Every ww2 flight sim shows variations in performance from sim to sim. I'm quite sure they all did their research as well, and they were just as insistent that it was all correct. Every simmer generation swears up and down that the sim is perfectly accurate where it counts. However, the difference in sim performance should be evidence enough that they are not definitive accounts of performance are are just estimates that routinely conflict with real world data. Everyone always wants to place their favorite sim on a pedestal because that is easier than admitting things are more complex than a sim shows, or is capable of rendering.

[NineLine]

 

I also remember you saying something not that long ago the PFM on the F-15 has flaws in certain flight regimes....double standard much?

 

P-51 is not in beta, F-15 is still be worked on (this has been acknowledged), SME is still actively giving input, so no double standard what so ever. So just stop.

[NineLine]

Sure they do. And from what I can tell, the plane isn't matching it. USAAF did their own calculations and they stated 440mph, non unlike the 3 trials I posted. I think the USAAF knew what they were doing. Furthermore, calculations are just that. They are estimates, not real flight data. Guess what flight models are? Estimates. If the Fm doesn't match the RL data, it is wrong. Every other sim company has been this way about their FM's. They refuse to show their raw data, or where they got it from. Every ww2 flight sim shows variations in performance from sim to sim. I'm quite sure they all did their research as well, and they were just as insistent that it was all correct. Every simmer generation swears up and down that the sim is perfectly accurate where it counts. However, the difference in sim performance should be evidence enough that they are not definitive accounts of performance are are just estimates that routinely conflict with real world data. Everyone always wants to place their favorite sim on a pedestal because that is easier than admitting things are more complex than a sim shows, or is capable of rendering.

 

 

This isnt about putting a sim on a pedestal, you havent offered any concrete proof that the numbers dont closely match, that is the issue here.

 

I know my flying isnt perfect, so feel free to test yourself.

 

Think USAAF pilots came back and said that after a test flight?? Come on...

Edited August 28, 2014 by NineLine

[USARStarkey]

P-51 is not in beta, F-15 is still be worked on (this has been acknowledged), SME is still actively giving input, so no double standard what so ever. So just stop.

 

Beta it may be. But when its finished and whatever regime was referring to doesn't change because the supposedly penultimate calculations declare real life obsolete I don't think anyone will change their mind. Just because it is in beta does not mean the final product will be perfect. The USAF operates multi-million dollar sims that are almost certainly more advanced than what ED produces, and I have read quite a bit of pilot accounts that state the sims never quite represent the real thing.

[NineLine]

Beta it may be. But when its finished and whatever regime was referring to doesn't change because the supposedly penultimate calculations declare real life obsolete I don't think anyone will change their mind. Just because it is in beta does not mean the final product will be perfect. The USAF operates multi-million dollar sims that are almost certainly more advanced than what ED produces, and I have read quite a bit of pilot accounts that state the sims never quite represent the real thing.

 

The SME already said the ED FM surpasses the sims he has used, and that was before the latest round of fixes...

[USARStarkey]

This isnt about putting a sim on a pedestal, you havent offered any concrete proof that the numbers dont closely match, that is the issue here.

 

 

 

Think USAAF pilots came back and said that after a test flight?? Come on...

 

Yo-Yo posted charts the differ with the flight tests.....

 

Also when I say my flying wasn't perfect, I mean that I cant fly like the AI. Ive been doing more tests quite a bit this evening, and I cannot get the thing past 374 knots. Also, if someone else has tracks in perfectly level flight showing 440mph then fine.

 

And speaking of the burden of proof, where are the ED charts at 67 inches for the human PFM showing that the indeed are accurate?

[NineLine]

Yo-Yo posted charts the differ with the flight tests.....

 

Also when I say my flying wasn't perfect, I mean that I cant fly like the AI. Ive been doing more tests quite a bit this evening, and I cannot get the thing past 374 knots. Also, if someone else has tracks in perfectly level flight showing 440mph then fine.

 

And speaking of the burden of proof, where are the ED charts at 67 inches for the human PFM showing that the indeed are accurate?

 

 

Its on you to prove them wrong, they dont need to prove they are right.... some dudes from the Horsemen commented on it though... look it up.

[USARStarkey]

The SME already said the ED FM surpasses the sims he has used, and that was before the latest round of fixes...

 

As I recall, SME stated the ED Fm surpassed the sims in certain areas. Not all. What does ED need SME for if they are already perfect? Sounds like SME would need ED. But thats not whats happening.

[NineLine]

As I recall, SME stated the ED Fm surpassed the sims in certain areas. Not all. What does ED need SME for if they are already perfect? Sounds like SME would need ED. But thats not whats happening.

 

WTF are you talking about now, now it sounds like you are just trolling this thread... they need the SME because they want the best possible FM they can make, same reason the got the input in from P-51 pilots and from and Fw 190 pilot for that.... you need to quit while you are behind.

 

 

No one claimed it was perfect, except you, who seems to think you know what perfect is....

[USARStarkey]

WTF are you talking about now, now it sounds like you are just trolling this thread... they need the SME because they want the best possible FM they can make, same reason the got the input in from P-51 pilots and from and Fw 190 pilot for that.... you need to quit while you are behind.

 

 

No one claimed it was perfect, except you, who seems to think you know what perfect is....

 

Right. Im trolling my own thread........

 

In the stuff posted on the Forum, the SME stated that in some regards the ED FM was more advanced. Not all. ED also has a video out there where they state the pilot anecdote is not something that care too much about regarding specific number values, but it is used for adjusting oddities in the aircraft and specific aircraft behavior.

 

Perfect is real life.

[NineLine]

Right. Im trolling my own thread........

 

In the stuff posted on the Forum, the SME stated that in some regards the ED FM was more advanced. Not all. ED also has a video out there where they state the pilot anecdote is not something that care too much about regarding specific number values, but it is used for adjusting oddities in the aircraft and specific aircraft behavior.

 

Perfect is real life.

 

So go play real life, this issue appears done to me until you can show some real substance and not a bunch of fluff.

 

 

FYI the quote:

Our F-15 SME had commented that the DCS F-15C has superior flight modeling in many ways to the 3 million dollar trainer.

 

This was in Dec of last year... very early in...

Edited August 28, 2014 by NineLine

[USARStarkey]

So go play real life, this issue appears done to me until you can show some real substance and not a bunch of fluff.

 

Nice deflection. I play games like the rest of us, but unlike some I don't bury my head in the sand when RL doesn't conform to the game, and pretend the sim is perfect so I dont have acknowledge my favorite game might not be the holy grail.

 

So far as testing goes, I am finding downright impossible to fly with the needle on the variometer exactly at zero, regardless of trim settings. I imagine the real test pilots would have finer control with a longer control stick. I gain some speed in minute dives, then lose it again is minute climbs. Sometimes I hold level for some time. It never goes over 374 in level. I cant exceed that speed unless I nose down slightly, and I lose speed if I nose up. How do you propose I make it more perfect?

 

Regardless of who is trying to prove what, its kind of hard to make a statement one way or another unless ED produces speed charts are full power for the 51 like they did with the F-15.

[USARStarkey]

So go play real life, this issue appears done to me until you can show some real substance and not a bunch of fluff.

 

 

FYI the quote:

 

This was in Dec of last year... very early in...

 

Oh wait, that is exactly what I said he said. Many- or some ways. etc. Turns out he didn't flat out state the ED sim was superior overall.

[NineLine]

Oh wait, that is exactly what I said he said. Many- or some ways. etc. Turns out he didn't flat out state the ED sim was superior overall.

 

But since then he has put in tons of input on the FM.... as I said that was early on. But I see you have it stuck in your head that there is issues with ED's FM.... as I said, come back with some real hard proof, or dont post another one of these threads, please.