jabo wrote:
Our numbers are about half of what we expected during the development of the larger terrains. At one time a 128 mile terrain was just too crowded for the average numbers of players for any S3 frame. Unfortunately that is no longer the case so we will use the larger terrains and limit the area of operations etc.
I believe the new FMs will make the S3s a better event and allow historical matchups to be historical for good and bad. It may take us a bit to figure out the proper way to balance said matchups but in the end it will breathe fresh air into the S3 events. I have always believed we needed two games in WBs, the introductory one and the hardcore one. Some people just do not have the time to immerse themselves into a game and need the light version. Others, ie us, need to simulate air combat as realistically as possible in a video game and want the data to be a close as possible to what we perceive as the historical truth.
So find your truth and provide data to back it up. Its a lot to ask a few guys to do all the FM revisions and historical research. New terrains could be developed quicker if we had more historical research and I assume its the same with FM revisions and new aircraft.
When I build an FM I go off of a datasheet prepared by someone else to the maximum extent possible, referring to other sources when necessary and out right making a SWAG when there is no data available.
As an example, the ONLY data for maneuvering flaps effect on stall speed is a report on the P38G but I used that data to apply new lift numbers to the first 0-15 degrees of flaps on every aircraft that gets revised. Obviously I don't have time to test EVERY model when a broad based change like that is made.
The players have to be the testers as well as the researchers to get the data in the first place. A new FM and engine can be built in about 2 - 4 hours if the datasheet is complete and very detailed. Without a datasheet it takes weeks. And my hope is that the datasheets will be used AFTER the new build to wring out the models and see how close they match.
And not everything is possible. It may not be possible to get climb rates AND speeds correct. I am certainly going to try.
Maximum gross weight plays a big role in FM fidelity. The higher the weight, the less fidelity over the entire range of possible performance.
As an example, in order to build a Lancaster that performs at its maximum weight near what it should, it becomes a physics defying UFO at unrealistically light weights. Hence the repeated calls for a minimum fuel load of 50% for bombers.
Heavier fighters will see some of this phenomenon as well but they already have minfuel of 50%.
I have built an awful autopilot bug into the P38 series because I slowed down the roll rate (and it is still a tad too good). I am not sure I can keep the roll rate where it is AND fix the bug.
The N1K1 that I just revised to go faster (current release FM was built using very sparse data on the datasheet. I rebuilt in when Jman pointed out it had a speed chart on WWIIAP.com...doh) is going to be a world beater below 25,000 feet. It stalls at the same speed as a Spit 9, has maneuvering flaps, gigantic guns and is as fast or faster than nearly everything else. That's the data it was built to.
I appreciate the performance reports on the new FM's. I just wish they were in their own threads with clear titles instead of buried in other threads.
=dobs=
