Ran some more tests today, 100% fuel, gear up, power off, level wings: Again to qualify these: they are the numbers you would calculate if you flew a plane IRL at the quoted "loaded weight" and it stalled at the speeds that it did online. I know it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison with how the FM's are programmed, but it shows what doesnt match up (especially relative to each other). Even without having to do any math, it's easy to see how the F6F & A6M are screwed and the F4U, Yak3 and 110 are at crazy levels. Here is the spreadsheet of the results of all the tests. Someone let me know if you disagree with the weights, as they are important in the calculation of Cl max. I flew all the tests at 100% fuel and took that to represent the "loaded weight" figures I found.
110g2r3 already fixed in 1.68 beta, and now not have crazy level... Just big, heavy, dangerous... but - not ufo-plane.
ghandi, what does the "Inst G @ 250 kmh" column mean? Is that the number of instantaneous G's you were able to pull without stalling at that speed? If so, how did you obtain that number? I'm confused because the next column "Radius" implies to me that you flew a sustained turn (with or without a net loss of altitude?) to obtain these figures. I think it's great that you go to such lengths to run these tests and supply your findings to the devs, though I must admit that I can't make sense of it all.
It's obtained by finding the maximum lift at that speed by doing Max Lift = Clmax*.5*ro*v^2*WA ro=air density (1.2 kg/m^3) v = 69.4 m/s (250 kmh) WA = wing area Once you have the lift force you can divide it by the force needed for 1g (mass*9.8) to find the number of g's it can pull at that speed. And once you have that you can use acceleration = (v^2)/r to find the radius (you have accel. and v). I forgot a factor of 9.8 in that formula as well, so those radii are 9.8 times too large. So for the P38: 1. max lift = 1.384*.5*1.2*(69.4^2)*30.43 =121705 N 2. max G = 121705 N / (7940 kg * 9.8 m/s^2) =1.56 G 3. r = (69.4^2) / (1.56 G * 9.8) =315 m Note that this radius assumes a 90-degree banked turn, so you will lose altitude. Lift coefficient is important because if you have two wings of equal wing area but with maximum lift coefficients of 1.5 and 1, the first could generate 50% more lift than the second at the same speed. So if you have a Bf-110 that has 24% more wing area, but 47% more mass than the F6F5, it comes out to roughly 84% of the G-pulling ability of the Hellcat (1.24/1.47). So the F6F will fare better in a turning battle, right? But currently the 110's Clmax is 29% better than the Hellcat's, so it turns out the 110 can achieve about 9% more "G-pulling" than the F6F (which you can see in the "Inst. G @ 250 kmh" column). So the Bf-110 has higher wing loading than the F6F, but the FH FM gives it better lift loading. This makes all the difference in many cases. If you look at the F4U-4, it's heavier and has a smaller wing, but can pull more G's than the F6F5. It's faster and climbs better too.
lot's of work, good to be back in the saddle ey? though I'm still sceptic as to whether any of your work will actually influence FH development
Boa is now almost the biggest FH admin so everything will be great! btw: Boa, send me your photo, pls, i want it to my t-shirt ;-)
Soap and education are not as sudden as a massacre, but they are more deadly in the long run. Mark Twain
Anybody see this yet? http://www.gonzoville.com/ahcharts/ also on excel this may help in data comparisons?
Great work Gandhi.Ty for this thread. Also, Joseh tnx for pulling those charts out. Very constructive work. I am thanking from position of someone who spent too much time here on forum crying out loud, and bitching against all those not creative creatures. I am amazed and i feel great . I just dropped by to share my positive thinking with u all , because from what I have seen in last few days, Fas and other admins are working hard and have same amount of enthusiasm as players about new fh ver. Do not be sceptical, everything will be just fine, mb not tomorrow, but will be. As Fas said, 110 is changed, i tried it , its good. Not the best, but just good. All these charts from Gandhi, show what we noticed already in arena and that is good, finally there are some proofs. I was writing already about some of those planes, now we have data to support "feeling", and they will be on the list as suggestions for future modification. I am not quite sure that A6M or something like that will be improved, but im sure that many of planes we have , need to be tunned dwn . This way or another we will have more balanced game and planes i hope. And the most important thing, if we keep continue to work together, more of us will be satisfied in the end.
Definately great work. I was wondering that full flaps might not be the best test setting since most planes that benefit from any flap action at all usually respond best to the first stage of flaps and many planes have specific maneuvering flaps while full flaps don't help turning at all.
1. install ms office 2007 or newer 2. install new open office 3. try some kind of viewers 4. imo the best choise for you - http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...70-3ae9-4aee-8f43-c6bb74cd1466&DisplayLang=en
So basically you're trying to sacrifice the realism on behalf of the gameplay? Easiest solution is to turn back to earlier wb's, since they made them just like that. The demand of realism came later to FH, and after that things got out of hand..
