general aircraft speed bug

[tcooper]

 

Ahoy!

 

I recently had an intresting engagement with a H75, me flying a Bf109E4. The Hawk was able to catch me in a sustained long run on the deck even though I was going max / max with WEP and he had similar energy like I had in the beginning.

 

Now dont get me wrong, that is just eye witness and not very credible. But considering I heard numerous axis pilots in the last few days complaining about the Hawk overperforming, I decided to run some simple tests:

I took planes up to 1.5 km altitude and ran them straight for 32 kilometers (two squares on the map) with maxed out engine settings, WEP, trim and enough level flight time ahead of the test to accelerate to maximum speed and then measured the time it took them.

The results:

You can run such tests yourself and the results are pretty repeatably with similar strange results at tree top level. Even though the actual numbers might change slightly, the general trend is evident. In the past the 109E4 always was the fastest and best climbing  plane in tier 0, even though just a hair faster than the spitfire. The Hawk H75 used to not even be able to catch 110s. But now it is the front runner for whatever reason.

Looking forward for a fix and a campaign reset. ;-)

 

!S

c00per

Edited January 17, 2021 by tcooper
improved testing technique

[zaltor]

yup ive noticed this alot as of late, the changing dynamics in flight models, making BMBM inpursuit obsolete.

[j10b]

noticed the same hawks know it and will run you down then out turn you.  They know it as well 

[griffon]

Been like this damage model change

[Kidd27]

nice catch, and presentation of testing.

[BMBM]

Interesting and if true very disturbing. Will investigate.

[zaltor]

It might be the 109s are not reaching there stated speeds anymore.

[undercova]

21 hours ago, tcooper said:

 

Ahoy!

 

I recently had an intresting engagement with a H75, me flying a Bf109E4. The Hawk was able to catch me in a sustained long run on the deck even though I was going max / max with WEP and he had similar energy like I had in the beginning.

 

Now dont get me wrong, that is just eye witness and not very credible. But considering I heard numerous axis pilots in the last few days complaining about the Hawk overperforming, I decided to run some simple tests:

I took planes up to 1.5 km altitude and ran them straight for 32 kilometers (two squares on the map) with maxed out engine settings, WEP, trim and enough level flight time ahead of the test to accelerate to maximum speed and then measured the time it took them.

The results:

You can run such tests yourself and the results are pretty repeatably with similar strange results at tree top level. Even though the actual numbers might change slightly, the general trend is evident. In the past the 109E4 always was the fastest and best climbing  plane in tier 0, even though just a hair faster than the spitfire. The Hawk H75 used to not even be able to catch 110s. But now it is the front runner for whatever reason.

Looking forward for a fix and a campaign reset. ;-)

 

!S

c00per

campaign reset ... HAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

nice try

[tcooper]

2 hours ago, zaltor said:

It might be the 109s are not reaching there stated speeds anymore.

 

Yes, this is what I think as well. I am not 100% sure but I am leaning towards the Hawk performing normally and just most other planes accidently got nerfed somehow. The 109 and Spit should be in the 300+ mph range of speeds at the tested altitudes if I remember correctly.

 

[TMAN]

@tcooperPlease see the response from HATCH our production team leader:

"I'll have to see this (in testing) to believe it. I would be more apt to believe he took some damage, was skidding, had deployed flaps or gear, something going on that was robbing him of full speed. As far as the hawk being too fast, actually any if them, you have to make sure you aren't comparing WEP speeds because the majority of the tests are using military power, not emergency/wep, so all of them with a wep setting will be a  little faster and climb a little better when wep is engaged than the test docs demonstrate using military power. The difference dependent on the airframe and the hp boost of that power plants wep setting.

I have noticed quite a few things in the data (not specifically related to speed and climb) that imho warrant an audit of them all that includes the adaptation of the new volumetric mass standard that I have used on all the latest models since I've been back, but I've yet to find the time to start on it. In any case, I'll check h75 and 109e4 perf asap."

Thanks for bringing your concerns to our attention.

[madrebel]

2 hours ago, tcooper said:

 

Yes, this is what I think as well. I am not 100% sure but I am leaning towards the Hawk performing normally and just most other planes accidently got nerfed somehow. The 109 and Spit should be in the 300+ mph range of speeds at the tested altitudes if I remember correctly.

 

109:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109e.html

E1/E3 - appears to be continuous (2200 RPM)

French tests at Military power however with radiator in fully open position as I recall.

British tests of a 109E3 noting the French tests of the same plane

Russian tests of a 109E3

P36 speeds:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-36/P-36A_38-180_PHQ-M-19-1152-A.pdf

P36 test from 41 with different engine and prop, still pretty slow

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-36/P-36A_38-180_PHQ-M-19-1180-A.pdf

Spit 1 tests - http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-I.html

Based on the OPs tests, the H75 isn't very far off from where it should be. US tests show a military speed of 268MPH at 5K' and 287.5 at 10K'. In both of those cases RPM was 2550 and engine was 950 BHP. Those tests showed the P36/H75 at 294.5 at 10K' using 'WEP' 2550RPM and 1045 BHP. So really, the in game H75 tested at 7500'/1.5KM ... really pretty close to what it is supposed to be for WEP speeds.

The 109 and the spitfire though appear to be around 20-25MPH too slow although since WEP was used, around 30-35MPH too slow.

The 110, not sure. Depends on if the in game 110s are supposed to be using the DB601A or N.

Hurricane Mk1 again, depends. If We're sticking with 6lbs boost then right around 280mph. If we're talking 12lbs then around 312MPH at 7500'.

 

[zaltor]

I did More in game testing the 109E-4 is flying about 70kph under speed, no wonder catching Boston and db7s now is extremely hard, and why every allied plane seems to be over performing the 109 is seriously screwed on speed, it  fails to perform as it should, again making the tactics that should be used in this plane useless,  ill bow out of game till this is fixed this to me is a game breaking bug. I hope this wasn't done do to complaining, planes have advantages and disadvantages changing to unrealistic speeds climb etc kills the game, I hope its just a bug.

[j10b]

On 1/15/2021 at 3:58 PM, TMAN said:

@tcooperPlease see the response from HATCH our production team leader:

"I'll have to see this (in testing) to believe it. I would be more apt to believe he took some damage, was skidding, had deployed flaps or gear, something going on that was robbing him of full speed. As far as the hawk being too fast, actually any if them, you have to make sure you aren't comparing WEP speeds because the majority of the tests are using military power, not emergency/wep, so all of them with a wep setting will be a  little faster and climb a little better when wep is engaged than the test docs demonstrate using military power. The difference dependent on the airframe and the hp boost of that power plants wep setting.

I have noticed quite a few things in the data (not specifically related to speed and climb) that imho warrant an audit of them all that includes the adaptation of the new volumetric mass standard that I have used on all the latest models since I've been back, but I've yet to find the time to start on it. In any case, I'll check h75 and 109e4 perf asap."

Thanks for bringing your concerns to our attention.

you realize he was testing right?? not in a fight.

[nkelly]

Typical HATCH response(must of learnt that trait of DOC) didn't even read what coop put up,got me stuffed how coop suffered damage whilst testing these AC most likely on his own,OH Coop dont leave your flaps and gear down in future please whilst testing Aircraft speeds  robs you of speed just plain silly..

[Devildrivr]

Appears to be  a lot of unfamiliar Callsigns flying the H-75 this morning!

[tcooper]

1 hour ago, devildrivr said:

Appears to be  a lot of unfamiliar Callsigns flying the H-75 this morning!

 

I'm not suprised. I bet some people dont want to admit under their "real" names that they like to fly a cheat. 

For whatever reason, we got accelerated into tier 1. Wether this was done due to this bug or not, I dont know. But it doesnt help much beeing in tier 1 instead of tier 0. I ran some more tests and it turned out, that the H75 not only is faster than the 109E4, but also faster than its successor, the Hawk H81 / P40. It is also faster than the Spit IIb and just 5 miles per hour slower than the 109F2.

I improved my speed measuring technique, using a video capture software now and with the help of it measuring the flight-times down to the miliseconds. Thus I updated the OP with the more accurate test results below and added a few more planes of interest.

c00per

Edited January 17, 2021 by tcooper

[tcooper]

On 1/15/2021 at 9:58 PM, TMAN said:

@tcooperPlease see the response from HATCH our production team leader:

"I'll have to see this (in testing) to believe it. I would be more apt to believe he took some damage, was skidding, had deployed flaps or gear, something going on that was robbing him of full speed. As far as the hawk being too fast, actually any if them, you have to make sure you aren't comparing WEP speeds because the majority of the tests are using military power, not emergency/wep, so all of them with a wep setting will be a  little faster and climb a little better when wep is engaged than the test docs demonstrate using military power. The difference dependent on the airframe and the hp boost of that power plants wep setting.

I have noticed quite a few things in the data (not specifically related to speed and climb) that imho warrant an audit of them all that includes the adaptation of the new volumetric mass standard that I have used on all the latest models since I've been back, but I've yet to find the time to start on it. In any case, I'll check h75 and 109e4 perf asap."

Thanks for bringing your concerns to our attention.

 

Thanks for forwarding this and bringing it up for Hatch. As others have pointed out, the engagement with the Hawk was just what got me thinking. And then I ran controlled tests in offline-mode or on the training server. No flaps or gear of course.

As mentioned earlier, I am also not neccesarily claiming the Hawk beeing to fast. I am not certain about the absolute numbers. But the relative speeds to the other planes are just wrong. I m sure when Hatch runs ANY kind of testing, he quickly will discover it as well.

c00per

Edited January 17, 2021 by tcooper

[rfh556]

I personally would really appreciate that any testing done by Hatch be recorded and posted here. Should be easy enough to do and would be very good for transparency.

[zaltor]

I have a feeling with so many hands on the planes over the last few years were going to find broken FM through all tiers, and unfortunately denial seems to reside.

[BMBM]

No one works on or as much as touches the FM of any aircraft except Hatch. No one. The FM is quite separate from the artwork.

Most of the individual flight models have not been touched for years, well before the current crew’s tenure.

Far as I know no FM related work has been lodged lately outside the Ju-88 and the A-20.

I haven’t had any opportunity to look into the issue yet (out of town) but will do so when able.

[j10b]

18 hours ago, BMBM said:

No one works on or as much as touches the FM of any aircraft except Hatch. No one. The FM is quite separate from the artwork.

Most of the individual flight models have not been touched for years, well before the current crew’s tenure.

Far as I know no FM related work has been lodged lately outside the Ju-88 and the A-20.

I haven’t had any opportunity to look into the issue yet (out of town) but will do so when able.

This is the scary thing.   Can someone disable or look at the trims?  its ridiculous that you have people mapping trim to game the game.  Most of the A/C in game didnt even have the option for trim. Now you have guys using trim like it snaps to 100% in an instant.  No its a wheel... usually in a not so user friendly location when you are in a fight.   Its faster and more abused than the automatic stick mounted trim on some of the advanced aircraft I've flown.   at this point with all the abuse it should be removed from game. 

[madrebel]

And remove incremental flaps for the spit and hurricane too, yes?

[KEMPI]

I did a few tests and can confirm.

Took longer than I liked to test but I will try and do one without WEP too.

Edited January 18, 2021 by Kempi

[madrebel]

Lol that test shows the h75 to be significantly faster than any test ive ever seen. Top speed is generally stated as either 311mph or 313mph. Depends on which engine was used. 

three choices for engine, r-1830-sc-g made 900hp equipping the first hundred or so h75s. Then came an improved r-1830 making 1050hp this is the one tested to 311mph and equipped most of the h75s. Later came a r-1830 making 1200hp testing to 313mph equipping the final blocks.

330mph at 1.5KM is extremely broken.

 

[KEMPI]

1 hour ago, madrebel said:

Lol that test shows the h75 to be significantly faster than any test ive ever seen. Top speed is generally stated as either 311mph or 313mph. Depends on which engine was used. 

three choices for engine, r-1830-sc-g made 900hp equipping the first hundred or so h75s. Then came an improved r-1830 making 1050hp this is the one tested to 311mph and equipped most of the h75s. Later came a r-1830 making 1200hp testing to 313mph equipping the final blocks.

330mph at 1.5KM is extremely broken.

 

There is some user error in this also a few seconds from user error can skew the numbers.

Also @tcooper the mph is off I believe.

The only other way to measure this more accurately is to run it for 320km rather than 32km.

Edited January 19, 2021 by Kempi