calistor

Free Play Account
  • Content count

    1,908
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Green Tag

About calistor

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday
  1. Funny, so have I. When I looked it up on the net most came back as an explaination for some kind of error in the programming of simulators.
  2. I'll give those a try. When I checked the error log in vista it had labelled these problems as a "program compability problem".
  3. I got a new ASUS GTX260 graphic card installed thursday. It works well enough in other games and when I tried WWIIOnline thursday it worked as well. Yesterday when I tried to log on I get a black screen, nothing else, until I press ctrl+alt+del and activate the, activity manager or what ever it's called. Then the black screen will disappear and I'll see the log in select screen or similar. But it won't be responsive to any action. Same thing when I try the game offline. I removed the graphics drivers and reinstalled them, nvidia 191.07. I also removed and reinstalled the game. But I still get the same problem as mentioned above. Anyone got any idea of what the problem can be? As for the rest of the computer spec. are: Vista 32 Dual Core E8400 3.0GHz 4 GB Ram Creative SB X-Fi
  4. I think most of us know by now that the in-game vehicle cards are stated without WEP. However, the point here is that your model, the Mk IIb here for example, is over-performing when compared against its real life counterpart. This being due to the fact that you take the WEP performance of the real life aircraft, with the above mentioned slip up regarding the effectiveness of the 12 lb sq/in boost, and bump it back the in-game continous power setting. This gives the aircraft a very powerful boost at WEP (or Combat power as the British called it) compared to its real life performance. Now as shown, and I'll go out on a limb here and actually assume that you know what you're doing after 15 years of simulation programming, the latest models tested do hit their numbers pretty perfectly so we know you can do it. But I can't understand why, when you have the tools in the game engine with economy, continous, maximum and war emergency power, you want the aircraft to reach its historical maximum speed already on continous power when you just as well could put it in its real life power slot. Which for British aircrafts would be WEP aka Combat power in british terms. For american aircrafts it's pretty much the same as for the british since military power was the highest setting until mid 1943 when the aircrafts got their war emergency rating (WER). Then that would be question of concious I'd guess, if you want to teleport the WER back in time for the P40C and F, from my point of view either is ok so it would come down to a choice based on history. Thus modelling military power on the in-game maximum power setting would be correct way to go about it and then have one power slot left if or when you want to give the aircraft its WER. Same thing for german aircrafts, btw, their combat power was the same as british climb power or american late war military power. So that too should be modelled on in-game maximum power leaving the WEP setting open for the emergency power setting, be it WER, MW50 or GM-1. As for performance at altitude, I again assume that you knew what you were doing, and compared it to the real life counter part. That's what so nice about equipment simulators, if you got a known value and a mean to test it you can then compare the two. If they don't match up, then you got something wrong with either the simulator or the test method. So in regards to performance at altitude, sea level is sea level (except in the Dead Sea), thus by testing an in-game aircraft against its real life altitudes you get a graph that can then be compared to a real life graph to see how conforming the simulation is to the real thing. And yes, I'm well aware that 100 m difference in altitude can produce quite different results. But by getting numerous data recorded and then put into a graph that reveals a lot. Now, from my point of view, a simulation of, for example a 1941 Spitfire Mk IIb, should perform AS a Spitfire Mk IIb in terms of full throttle speed at respective altitude. Not a Spitfire Mk IIb with a speed bonus of up to 35km/h at FTH, then it's no longer a Spitfire Mk IIb. Of course as with everything there is always room for error, but since we're talking about about a computer simulation where everything can be controlled, I'd say that variance from real life performance should not be more than +/-3-5 km/h compared to real life data. You have shown that you can do that, but why you don't implement it in their correct power slot, that is the question.
  5. Of course, all numbers are TAS. For in-game fun you could correlate the real life IAS with the in-game IAS at any given level but that's not something I'd want to do.
  6. P38F engines was never rated for 1325 HP with the exception for take off. So using that in the graph would be as intelligent as using the 1400 PS take off power in the 109E and calculate its top speed from it. Military power rating for the P38F was finally settled at 1240 HP in 1943, same as the G and H-series. A comparison between the G and F-series showed them to be compariable (around 395 mph) with the exception of the G being more maneuverable/ better turner due to its ability to use combat/maneuver flaps.
  7. Let me put it this way. In 1942 the British tested the effect of external fuel tanks (drop tanks) mounted on a Kittyhawk (P40B). The total effect of the external tank was a decrease of approximatly 10 MPH from the top speed of the aircraft. Of these 10 MPH only 1/2 to 1 MPH (1-2 km/h) could be accounted due to the increased weight of the drop tank (360 lbs, including fuel). The rest was due to drag caused by the externally mounted drop tank.
  8. Perhaps, but any combat where the pilot planned to return after it was concluded would not engage an enemy unless he had enough to fly home after the combat was over. So that would be the guiding beacon for tests. Then again, going by examples in real life tests, the speed difference between a fighter with a full main fuel tank and one with an nearly empty fuel tank (10 min. fuel left [giving the pilot 5 minutes of combat power and then another five minutes to fly over the lines and jump]), would probably be around 5 km/h.
  9. Never said LW is nerfed in WWIIOL, on the contrary the in-game performance of LW planes are quite compareable with the real life graphs presented here. I also have extensive data on the in-game performance of the above mentioned planes with similar graphs for that, but that's not what this discussion is about. However, if you have practical examples and documents to back them up where I've misrepresented a plane model, feel free to post it here or send me a pm about it. But only coming with insinuations and poorly disquised accusations without anything to back them up with is a waste of time and pointless opinion.
  10. I have been collecting data and information regarding the performance of WWII fighters for some years now and a while ago I decided to try and compile this information in a way to easily see the capacity of each aircraft in relation to the others in terms of top speed. Below I have compiled the information in accordance to how they are divided by tiers in this game. Please note, these are real life numbers and I have labelled the power setting according to the USAAF standard WER or military (so not to confuse people with different terms such as combat power vs climb & combat power, etc), but I don't pretend that these numbers have any relation to any aircraft performance in-game. This is presented purly for your information and basis for discussion on real life performance of these aircrafts. Some numbers are from direct tests, others are official numbers (calculated averages, usually) and others I have had to extrapolate from third hand sources and compare them to any real life first hand source of similar models, most noteably are the D.520, P36, P40C, Bf110C4 and Bf110C4/BN. Planes tier 0 Planes tier 1, here I have included the real life performance of the in-game new F1 and IIb. Planes tier 2 Planes tier 3 As mentioned, these are real life numbers, not in-game performance. If someone have copies of real life performance tests done on the D.520, P36 or P40C and would like to share them, please let me know. Would be nice to see if they are compareable to the numbers I have received earlier.
  11. IIRC battle of Caen was not on the 6 of June, which I believe was what gongor refered to.
  12. I had the same problem when I moved over to Vista on a new computer. First time it was faulty memory in the GPU, second time (after they replaced the GPU) it was just a question of sync, as mentioned above. So run some really tough GPU test programs and see if you can get the same error message. When I get back home I'll see what programs they ran on my computer to give you an idea of what to test.