Se fosse da comunidade mesmo essa lista teria mínimo 100 intens (ou mil

).
Esta list acima é baseado no que foi pedido no Sukhoi forum, agora vão fazer uma do Banana's, logo
chega nos 99.
Consegui entender isto:
2. Realize the effect the opening of the lantern on the characteristics of the aircraft in flight
Ou "2. Realize the effect on TTX-light opening in flight. " ??????????????
+ - "Atualizar o efeito de abrir o canopi no desempenho do avião".
Atualmente voar com o canopi aberto não influencia no desempenho (não gera arrastro), assim tem muito "gerson" voando no ATAG de canopi aberto para o Batfino escutar melhor...
Note-se: o BlackSix, B6 - o atual "comunication mannager" da Maddox - não entende lhufas de ingles, o que causa estas postagens sem nexo.
Isso remete ao chororo do "avião X é uber, Y é under...", com ingles deficiente fica dificil para os russos pesquisar dados corretos de desempenho de aeronaves da WWII, tarefa por si praticamente
impossível, vide esta postagem do Peril - envolvido na ciração do FM do (RiP) projeto do Targetware (cujos aviões eram difíceis de pilotar).
Originally Posted by Peril
I'll have a stab at commenting on this.
I have pondered this topic for awhile, being a FM builder for Targetware for 6 years gave me a unique view on the issues involved with the quest to achieve close to reality (having been involved at the pointy end).
Data vs RL. Will IL2 guys be interested in the finer points, spending the time seeking the 'quality' data ie. the data varies and we need to make a call on which data or blend of data is most 'logical'. Then there is the accuracy, I have 70Gs of tested data, some has error and these are only evident after much research and time invested. So whilst someone can quote data, there is nothing to say it's the 'best data' or more representative average performance data.
I am willing to offer up my collection of original manual and tested data to help define/refine performance targets. Most of my good data streams start post BoB as the sim I build was WW2 Pacific. However; I do have a Gig or so on 109s and 110s, some good stuff on Spits from the MkV onwards, especially tropical varients. If the requests are specific I'm more able to possibly locate the answer and supply proofs, perhaps a few proofs that give a better average.
Anyway, point being it's not as simple as finding one source and saying it's 100% correct. Even tested data has a 10% margin of error, and planes do vary. Clean, dirty, which time period, what fuel etc etc. BUT if the data is clear and specifies the details then you can make a good representation.
I agree, some planes seem 'estimated', there would be much room for improvement, if we are allowed to help. I think this sim could get on top of any failings rather more quickly than going it alone with the one source of data that IL2 had used now.. to be more accurate IL2 CoD could call on the vast collections of the hard core FM guys like myself, it does exist and can be used to fill the data gaps.
I only ask that the data is used to improve the accuracy of ClOD, not to 'sell' to another company.
Veja que mesmos testes de epóca representam uma aeronave especifica, para condições (clima, combustível... especificos), então é preciso definir o que seria uma média dos dados pesquisados.
Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles View Post
A lot of us were under the impression that the flight models were undergoing review and would be fixed in the upcoming patch.
Is this still true?
Without depressing you, I spent 6 years doing nothing but FMs, they are never 'fixed' in one patch hehehe.
But they do change for the better over time as more data presents itself and the game engine evolves.
O tal manual em criação citado anteriormente não é um manual sobre o FMB, e sim um manual de informações "históricas" sobre a Luftwaffe a VVS para criação de missões para (possíveis) futuras expansões.
Como tem muito dado em russo sobre a VVS não traduzido, os usuários do forum Sukhoi colaboram nesta parte e os usuários do Banana's colaboram sobre a Luftwaffe.
Sokol1