general aircraft speed bug

[vanapo]

9 hours ago, madrebel said:

last time i recall a plane being obviously broken was the German 20mm clipping through armor.

it took awhile to fix.

I am talking about a single plane having an obvious flaw giving it a great advantage it shouldn't have. Obviously the 20mm or the 109 flop can not be fixed by taking out one low tier plane for one party of one side. That's pretty complicated. This case however is one low tier plane for one party of one side outperforming the whole competition which it shouldn't do according to any data and even the game documentation itself. Quick temporary fix until this is repaired is obvious. Took me and others less than 20 minutes to validate this problem. Yet all we have is this CRS message from 2 months ago: "I'll check h75 and 109e4 perf asap"

 

Edited March 13, 2021 by vanapo

[BMBM]

OK so I had the opportunity to spot check the H75 vs 109E4 and yes it is critically and unacceptably borked - how and why I cannot tell for I don’t have the first clue about game engine and FM interaction. I cannot say when it can be fixed but clearly this is a high priority. I will however recommend that the H75 be pulled from the list until it’s sorted.

[raptor34]

Dang, haven't had a chance to try it out yet - installing my new Virpil HOTAS setup  

Recommend we rename it the Hawk 75 Super

[BMBM]

If we’re in any luck this is a simple hotfix item. Thanks for bringing it to attention, and apologies for the delay in response.

[fidd]

On 3/13/2021 at 4:14 AM, vanapo said:

Nice whatabout though completely wrong. There are more tanks in game than airplanes.There are more tanks in game than LMGs. Let me repeat:

Operation barbarossa 1941:

German tanks: 3600-4100, planes 2900-4800

Soviet tanks: 11000 - 15700, planes 9900-10700

Furthermore, the 1941 production of German tanks and self propelled guns: 5.200 / German aircraft produced the same year 11.700.

So if you want to argue about historical accuracy, there should be way more planes than tanks in game. If you talk about the game as a game, @delems is completely right - the more players for every branch or cross-branch, the better.

But that's not the topic after all. The topic is the Hawk being broken, making it the best plane of tier 0 and one of the top planes of tier 1, outclassing the complete opposition. This is known for months now, and it is still not banned from the campaign. And now 3 out of 4 allied pilots are exploiting this.

What happened the last time a plane was broken and the balance was shifted due to this?

 

 

Aircraft production numbers bear no relation to those available for combat, the attrition rate for aircraft through mechanical breakdown, loss in accidents, due enemy action is MUCH higher than most medium tanks, the higher production numbers allow for these losses, but they do not, as a rule, mean that therefore there are more aircraft available than tanks with lower production numbers.

Consequently, using production numbers to imply that aircraft available to spawn should be much higher or even equal to, tank numbers is entirely fallacious. Take the Wellington bomber. The average number of ops it flew before being lost or struck off charge as no longer viable to repair was 13 ops. In time terms it was an average, 6 weeks. And that's night-bombing. In daylight ops, the service-life of aircraft drops to even lower values.

I have no difficulty with the occasional arrival of a squadron of Ju87 AT aircraft arriving overhead an AO and cutting the tanks to pieces, as a fairly rare event. I have a big problem with 2-3 of them more or less continuously arriving over an attack and achieving the same end result on almost each and every AO. I had periods in the campaign before last of trying to get a Churchill into an attack and losing every one with the engine shot out before getting within 1000m of the AO. CRS obviously took the view that the plethora of AAA weapons recently added would offset these AT aircraft, however, no such increase in AAA use has resulted, quite possibly because via strafing and jabo bombs, an AAA weapon is more likely to die to a fighter than vice versa. This has left AT aircraft inordinately numerous and powerful. I'm sure axis tankers are similarly frustrated for the same reasons.

[fidd]

On 3/13/2021 at 4:15 PM, BMBM said:

OK so I had the opportunity to spot check the H75 vs 109E4 and yes it is critically and unacceptably borked - how and why I cannot tell for I don’t have the first clue about game engine and FM interaction. I cannot say when it can be fixed but clearly this is a high priority. I will however recommend that the H75 be pulled from the list until it’s sorted.

My guess is an error in the flight-model not recognising the change in weight once a bomb is dropped, so that even after the bomb is dropped the flight model is still working as if the airframe hadnt lost that weight?

It may not be am issue with the H75 at all, it may well be a problem with the 109 carrying bombs. Removing the H75 should only occur if it is the case that it, rather than the 109 is at fault. As the only thing that's changed over the years, is the addition of 109s being able to carry bombs, it's more likely than not, that the 109 is slow, rather than the H75 has become faster - with no changes of code!

I've not flown in game for some years, so disregard this if bombs have been added to the H75, or not to the 109E.

Edited March 14, 2021 by fidd

[madrebel]

1 hour ago, fidd said:

it's more likely than not, that the 109 is slow, rather than the H75 has become faster

so all the testing showing the H75 is in fact significantly faster than it should be is what? fake news? confirmation bias? the players that tested and BMBM are all just imagining it?

[undercova]

25 minutes ago, madrebel said:

so all the testing showing the H75 is in fact significantly faster than it should be is what? fake news? confirmation bias? the players that tested and BMBM are all just imagining it?

H75 should be removed from spawn list until fixed. allies have more than enough other fighters to choose from. 

[fidd]

43 minutes ago, madrebel said:

so all the testing showing the H75 is in fact significantly faster than it should be is what? fake news? confirmation bias? the players that tested and BMBM are all just imagining it?

Like I said, I've not flown in-game, nor indeed do I have access to the air-forums, so I'm unware of any such testing. What I believe to be the case is that the 109 has had changes made, in terms of adding a bomb, and the H75 has had no changes, it therefore logically follows that it is more likely that the 109 has slowed, than the H75 has become faster, as no known change has occurred to the H75, but one has, to the 109. I'm not saying there are no circumstances where pulling the H75 is correct, but I am saying it's much more likely the difference in relative speeds, that the fault lays with the 109's flight model than that of the H75, and if that's true, then pulling the Char would makes as much sense as a corrective measure, as pulling the H75.

[drkmouse]

59 minutes ago, undercova said:

H75 should be removed from spawn list until fixed. allies have more than enough other fighters to choose from. 

this..........

1 hour ago, madrebel said:

so all the testing showing the H75 is in fact significantly faster than it should be is what? fake news? confirmation bias? the players that tested and BMBM are all just imagining it?

rat confermeid it

[fidd]

21 minutes ago, drkmouse said:

this..........

rat confermeid it

That's different if the Rat responsible for the flight models has. If of course it's just an off the cuff remark by (say) "the art guy", then of course that's something else. It still makes no sense at all that the H75 has suddenly got faster, and done so alone, if there's been no change to the flight-model or the way flight is modelled generally. It remains far more likely that the 109 has become slower, due in some way to the change of adding a bomb, than it is that no change has caused the H75 to get quicker.

it is of course possible that the H75 has always been too fast, but then that begs the question, why, after years of play, has that only just been noticed?

Applying Occam's razor - the simplest answer is usually correct - I'd bet that the single change of adding a bomb to the 109 has resulted in it being incorrectly slow despite releasing the bomb, than the H75 has become relatively faster than the 109 for reasons that defy logic.

[drkmouse]

2 minutes ago, fidd said:

That's different if the Rat responsible for the flight models has. If of course it's just an off the cuff remark by (say) "the art guy", then of course that's something else. It still makes no sense at all that the H75 has suddenly got faster, and done so alone, if there's been no change to the flight-model or the way flight is modelled generally. It remains far more likely that the 109 has become slower, due in some way to the change of adding a bomb, than it is that no change has caused the H75 to get quicker.

it is of course possible that the H75 has always been too fast, but then that begs the question, why, after years of play, has that only just been noticed?

Applying Occam's razor - the simplest answer is usually correct - I'd bet that the single change of adding a bomb to the 109 has resulted in it being incorrectly slow despite releasing the bomb, than the H75 has become relatively faster than the 109 for reasons that defy logic.

YEsit is ther no amount of your " not  ther" wil cahnce  the truth........ 

 

[fidd]

26 minutes ago, drkmouse said:

YEsit is ther no amount of your " not  ther" wil cahnce  the truth........ 

 

I have found some posters here have a very flexible idea of "truth", and such "truths" advanced are always and without exception, to their side's advantage. This request for the H75 being pulled being a case in point. So far, you would have us believe that the H75 has magically, and without human intervention, become faster, despite no  known coding change to it's flight-model, whereas the 109, which has had a coding change (in the addition of a bomb), is "not to blame", and therefore the H75 should be pulled. All I've done is ask the question, in what world does that make any sense at all?

CRS changes, such as pulling an aircraft exhibiting issues, needs to be both evidence-led, and if two are incorrect in relation to each other, then the one that has had to most recent change to a flight-model, has to be the leading candidate for causing the problem of incorrect relative speeds. If the H75 has in fact had a flight-model change just before the relative speeds were noticed, then of course, pulling the H75 makes sense. If however, it hasn't but the 109 has, then CRS would presumably look at the degree of the problem before, as the 109 still has to be able to provide the fighters v the RAF.  Pulling the 109 is clearly not an option. Pulling the H75, may, or may not, be required; but there's nothing "certain" about the need to do so; and it remains highly probable that the fault, if fault there is, lies with the 109 model being incorrectly slow due to the bomb coding not working properly.

 

Edited March 14, 2021 by fidd

[drkmouse]

5 minutes ago, fidd said:

I have found some posters here have a very flexible idea of "truth", and such "truths" advanced are always and without exception, to their side's advantage. This request for the H75 being pulled being a case in point. So far, you would have us believe that the H75 has magically, and without human intervention, become faster, despite no  known coding change to it's flight-model, whereas the 109, which has had a coding change (in the addition of a bomb), is "not to blame", and therefore the H75 should be pulled. All I've done is ask the question, in what world does that make any sense at all?

CRS changes, such as pulling an aircraft exhibiting issues, needs to be both evidence-led, and if two are incorrect in relation to each other, then the one that has had to most recent change to a flight-model, has to be the leading candidate for causing the problem of incorrect relative speeds. If the H75 has in fact had a flight-model change just before the relative speeds were noticed, then of course, pulling the H75 makes sense. If however, it hasn't but the 109 has, then CRS would presumably look at the degree of the problem before, as the 109 still has to be able to provide the fighters v the RAF.  Pulling the 109 is clearly not an option. Pulling the H75, may, or may not, be required; but there's nothing "certain" about the need to do so; and it remains highly probable that the fault, if fault there is, lies with the 109 model being incorrectly slow due to the bomb coding not working properly.

 

crs rep ha sai din this post tah it  75 is borked,  ( sorry form a person who  said  that axis have a adv in tier 0 and 1 atm   your cred is not  high  atm)

[griffon]

@fidd did you read anything bmbm said?

did you read anything Cooper or vanapo said Also?

did you read at all?

Also that theory about the 109 and bombs is pretty stupid when we tested it with the 109 that doesn't carry any bombs at all. 

[griffon]

@fiddethe fact that you rail so hard against a tier0 French plane being removed so you can fly more spittys only reinforces how broken the h75 is. Oh please don't take our hack away!

[OHM]

Looks they found the problem .  

From what i have been told it will be fixed in the next release.

 

Current Hawk 75 is max 31mph too fast. With WEP on its a tad faster than the 109e with its WEP on up to 5000m. Without WEP active in the Hawk, the 109 is still faster with or without its WEP engaged at all altitudes. Climb is a bit more pronounced with a 1223fpm increase over its norm. With WEP hawk climbs 559 fpm faster than 109e4 with its WEP on. Hawk without WEP is equal to Bf109e4 with WEP, on. Hawk still has 267fpm advantage over Bf109 with WEP off in both birds.

[GrAnit]

27 minutes ago, OHM said:

Looks they found the problem .  

From what i have been told it will be fixed in the next release.

 

Current Hawk 75 is max 31mph too fast. With WEP on its a tad faster than the 109e with its WEP on up to 5000m. Without WEP active in the Hawk, the 109 is still faster with or without its WEP engaged at all altitudes. Climb is a bit more pronounced with a 1223fpm increase over its norm. With WEP hawk climbs 559 fpm faster than 109e4 with its WEP on. Hawk without WEP is equal to Bf109e4 with WEP, on. Hawk still has 267fpm advantage over Bf109 with WEP off in both birds.

What was the problem?

[B2K]

3 minutes ago, GrAnit said:

What was the problem?

it was apparently to fast

[fidd]

3 hours ago, griffon said:

@fidd did you read anything bmbm said?

did you read anything Cooper or vanapo said Also?

did you read at all?

Also that theory about the 109 and bombs is pretty stupid when we tested it with the 109 that doesn't carry any bombs at all. 

You misunderstand what I said. My theory was that the bug might have been the bomb being dropped, but the flight-model still treating it as if it hadn't been dropped, ie, the 109 was artificially and incorrectly too heavy. That would have accounted for the relative speed difference, and it occuring after jabo bombs had been implemented with no change the H75. I'm not saying it was that, I'm saying that is was the most likely source for the bug. I have no problem at all with the H75 being removed if it's proven to be bugged. On the other hand, removing it before the bug is nailed down as existing on the H75 rather than the 109 flight model, is silly, especially if there's nothing known to be changed on the H75 model.

I really couldn't care less about the air-game, all I'm saying is that arguing to pull something because of a relative speed error, is daft, if the vehicle or aircraft exhibiting it, is not known to be the flight model at fault. If the 109E does "not have bombs" that does not prove that I'm wrong in suggesting the code error may still be treating it as if it had.

If the bug does prove to be in the H75 model, by all means let it be pulled.

[griffon]

4 hours ago, fidd said:

You misunderstand what I said. My theory was that the bug might have been the bomb being dropped, but the flight-model still treating it as if it hadn't been dropped, ie, the 109 was artificially and incorrectly too heavy. That would have accounted for the relative speed difference, and it occuring after jabo bombs had been implemented with no change the H75. I'm not saying it was that, I'm saying that is was the most likely source for the bug. I have no problem at all with the H75 being removed if it's proven to be bugged. On the other hand, removing it before the bug is nailed down as existing on the H75 rather than the 109 flight model, is silly, especially if there's nothing known to be changed on the H75 model.

I really couldn't care less about the air-game, all I'm saying is that arguing to pull something because of a relative speed error, is daft, if the vehicle or aircraft exhibiting it, is not known to be the flight model at fault. If the 109E does "not have bombs" that does not prove that I'm wrong in suggesting the code error may still be treating it as if it had.

If the bug does prove to be in the H75 model, by all means let it be pulled.

Yes I misunderstood what you meant and I hear you know. Pretty solid theory. I believe the fault lies with the h75 based on climb rate and partly on the assumption that if one 109 is fubar most of the variants likely would be and that would stand out more to players on both sides.

[fidd]

2 hours ago, griffon said:

Yes I misunderstood what you meant and I hear you know. Pretty solid theory. I believe the fault lies with the h75 based on climb rate and partly on the assumption that if one 109 is fubar most of the variants likely would be and that would stand out more to players on both sides.

Thanks, I really appreciate you publicly saying that   , after calling the theory stupid in the preceding post, that was good of you, now you've seen what I was driving at, even if it does prove to be the H75 at fault. (Knowing CRS, it'll turn out to be both!)  

[griffon]

8 minutes ago, fidd said:

Thanks, I really appreciate you publicly saying that   , after calling the theory stupid in the preceding post, that was good of you, now you've seen what I was driving at, even if it does prove to be the H75 at fault. (Knowing CRS, it'll turn out to be both!)  

Ha it is not like I've never been wrong or said something dumb before. I was the dummy who misunderstood.. I appreciate your willingness to speak up on many things tbh. Having an opinion and not being afraid to state it is a good thing.. a lot of good ideas come from someone taking the risk of stating a bad or "stupid" idea.. 

If anything I should be more mindful of how I word things as to not discourage people. 

[fidd]

Cheers, it occurs to me that if all the 109's have bombs except the 109E, then it's easy to see how the problem might arise, if the "jabo code" worked something like this:

"Weight of 109's is x Kg plus 250 kg for bomb."

"Bomb dropped by pressing "d" key"

"If 'd' pressed, check for presence of bomb"

"If bomb present, release it and transfer velocity and height to server for onwards tracking"

"And reduce weight by 250 Kg for flight model"

------------

Were the code, logically arranged as above, and the coder forgot that the 109E was not to be equipped with a bomb, then of course as the 109E has no bomb to drop, the reduction in weight could not occur, because the 4th line of my "code" would fail, no bomb being present, leaving the 109E too heavy by 250kg, leading it to being too slow and affecting ROC. Obviously I've no way of testing that as I lack an air-account, but if I were CRS that's where I'd look first, if I'm correct in surmising the 109E is the only variant unable to carry a bomb, and that the code covering 109's or jabos in general was "cut and pasted" into all flight models.

Regarding "not being afraid to comment" - I've come from an industry where there is no such thing exists as a "stupid idea or observation", and where failure to speak-up when you think something is wrong is the epitome of unprofessional stupidity - I was a commercial Flying Instructor, flying light aircraft, and sometimes I - or a student - would find something on the aircraft walk-round, or in the air, which was potentially dangerous. So speaking up and telling someone about it, was a duty. 

The classic example of this for me, as a lowly AFI (Assistant Flying Instructor) was when I did the power check on a Pa28, and the rpm rose with the selection of carburettor heat. (It should fall, as the hot air is less dense, and therefore the rpm should drop 200rpm or so. As I did not understand this behaviour, I returned the aircraft to the flight-line and grounded it until the mechanics looked at it. My CFI threw a fit, and declared he'd fly it. I counselled against in strong terms.  He got more cross, and eventually flew it. The aircraft staggered into the air, flew a close-in very low circuit, and he landed, now somewhat ashen-faced. We eventually traced the fault to the cold air intake hose. This had reinforcing rings to stop it collapsing due the partial vacuum developed at full throttle, and these had broken, causing the hose to partly collapse, but only at full throttle, preventing the engine from developing full power. When carb heat was selected, it used a different hose, without the broken reinforcements, and therefore the rpm rose when it should have fallen. Of course, if you looked at it when the engine wasn't running the hose looked fine.

My CFI never once questioned my judgement in grounding an aircraft after that! (and I privately resolved to treat seriously a student who thought he'd found a problem).

So that's probably why I "wind my neck out" sometimes when I think someone just hasn't understood what I mean.

Edited March 15, 2021 by fidd

[Kidd27]

1 hour ago, fidd said:

Cheers, it occurs to me that if all the 109's have bombs except the 109E, then it's easy to see how the problem might arise, if the "jabo code" worked something like this:

"Weight of 109's is x Kg plus 250 kg for bomb."

"Bomb dropped by pressing "d" key"

"If 'd' pressed, check for presence of bomb"

"If bomb present, release it and transfer velocity and height to server for onwards tracking"

"And reduce weight by 250 Kg for flight model"

------------

Were the code, logically arranged as above, and the coder forgot that the 109E was not to be equipped with a bomb, then of course as the 109E has no bomb to drop, the reduction in weight could not occur, because the 4th line of my "code" would fail, no bomb being present, leaving the 109E too heavy by 250kg, leading it to being too slow and affecting ROC. Obviously I've no way of testing that as I lack an air-account, but if I were CRS that's where I'd look first, if I'm correct in surmising the 109E is the only variant unable to carry a bomb, and that the code covering 109's or jabos in general was "cut and pasted" into all flight models.

Regarding "not being afraid to comment" - I've come from an industry where there is no such thing exists as a "stupid idea or observation", and where failure to speak-up when you think something is wrong is the epitome of unprofessional stupidity - I was a commercial Flying Instructor, flying light aircraft, and sometimes I - or a student - would find something on the aircraft walk-round, or in the air, which was potentially dangerous. So speaking up and telling someone about it, was a duty. 

The classic example of this for me, as a lowly AFI (Assistant Flying Instructor) was when I did the power check on a Pa28, and the rpm rose with the selection of carburettor heat. (It should fall, as the hot air is less dense, and therefore the rpm should drop 200rpm or so. As I did not understand this behaviour, I returned the aircraft to the flight-line and grounded it until the mechanics looked at it. My CFI threw a fit, and declared he'd fly it. I counselled against in strong terms.  He got more cross, and eventually flew it. The aircraft staggered into the air, flew a close-in very low circuit, and he landed, now somewhat ashen-faced. We eventually traced the fault to the cold air intake hose. This had reinforcing rings to stop it collapsing due the partial vacuum developed at full throttle, and these had broken, causing the hose to partly collapse, but only at full throttle, preventing the engine from developing full power. When carb heat was selected, it used a different hose, without the broken reinforcements, and therefore the rpm rose when it should have fallen. Of course, if you looked at it when the engine wasn't running the hose looked fine.

My CFI never once questioned my judgement in grounding an aircraft after that! (and I privately resolved to treat seriously a student who thought he'd found a problem).

So that's probably why I "wind my neck out" sometimes when I think someone just hasn't understood what I mean.

life lessons. No better teacher