*Personally, I don’t see the need for jets (especially top tier), but because I have yet to unlock any jet (my previous account was lost right before I got my first jet) I don’t know how important it is. So let me know if I should also do this for jets.
Any help on accumulating this data would be appreciated, I have a guide on how to do it yourself. Also, I will likely not maintain this very much, so I’m kinda expecting people to learn how to do this themselves (it’s isn’t that complicated)
If any data I provide is incorrect, or there is any mistakes, please let me know as soon as possible, I hate spreading misinformation.
Thanks to gszabi99 for taking the time to create and maintain a War Thunder Datamine.
Yes I am aware, but the data seems outdated (to what extent, I don’t know), and from what I understand he guess and checked every plane (something I will never have the patience to do) and it appears the data he gathered is slightly different than mine. (I would put more faith into his data, rather than mine). Also, I think it’s somewhat useful to know bomber’s optimal climb speeds, for when you land and may need to get back to altitude. I’m not sure if his climb speeds would accelerate my development. But (in conjunction with the data here) I would use his data and my climb speeds (given my climb speeds are accurate). Either way, thanks for the recommendation.
An update:
I have developed a C++ program that automatically finds and converts all the info I need, now it is just a matter of transferring the data to the spreadsheets.
Also, is there a way to edit a post you have created. It was my intention to update it this way but I cannot seem to figure out how to do it.
You wont need to worry about jets as the “Climb” method is totally different so it wont really be relevant, but I’m excited to see this develop and if there’s anything I can do to assist the progress let me know
The data is flawed for several reasons. airspeed affects cooling, if on a moderate or hot map you might blow your engine.
Secondly, the slower u go the more u engage your radiator slowing u down further.
Third, you might be climbing at an optimal speed but that doesn’t mean you can engage at that climb speed. Example: your min turn speed might be 330kph but u climbed at 280kph… that makes u a sitting duck in the merge.
Remember, everything is contextual. There is no one size fits all solution
with all due respect, this is bad advice. The radiator effectiveness can determine the lowest speed you can climb or you will damage your engine (AEC and MEC).
Example: British planes are not the fastest nor due they need 300 kph to engage but they do need 300kph in order to not damage the engine with heat.
On a few planes that have major overheating problems that might be the case but most planes can run WEP on AEC while climbing without cooking their engine.
There is a lot more that you’re not seeing and taking into account.
Even if you are under engine over heat temps, the radiator most likely will be fully open. So when you do try to accelerate your plane will not accelerate as it should.
try it with a yak 9 or bf 109 f4, the radiator will slam wide open at lower speeds.
It doesn’t help that auto radiator is very broken even on planes where it doesn’t over heat in that in the example above (109 f4) it shuts the radiator completely weping but then slams it fully open at 100% throttle this is catastrophic for performance and engine health
I agree with your points, but those points don’t make my data inherently flawed, in fact, I have been using your MEC settings with the climb speed in the charts, and have had no problems. (though I’ve flown few planes) Maybe I should recommend MEC settings for the climb and not worry about MEC for combat situations.
Sorry for the lack of continuation for this project, if it is not clear I am extremely lazy, (dropped out of college because (among other things) the only class that could entertain me as a freshman was Calc 3, and even then I devoted some of my time researching the Goldbach conjecture). Also, I set myself back, because I reset my PC and thus many of my files, including the ones that had the final data. So I have to rewrite the program and continue transferring the data to a spreadsheet.
I know first hand how much work getting this data is. I had variations creep into testing several times that invalidated all the testing up to that point. To put it in perspective, I redid the American tree and German tree at least 3 times due to unexpected findings which invalidated all findings to that point.
When I use the word flaw in this case, it’s in regards to the fact that there are contributing factors to climb speed that make it dynamic. Wind direction, Air temp, radiator performance, prop pitch, engine mixture (rarely), fuel load, compressor stage power curves and aec/mec settings. In addition, air temp does not change with altitude.
Reducing the spread of variation data had everything to do with starting on the same map, runway, starting elevation, minimum 30min fuel tank etc.
That is the reason I give a minimum climb speed to (ideally) not go under, but not a specific absolute ideal climb speed. I hope that clarifies better.
Finding flaws is a good thing, especially early on. ( although painfully disheartening). Please realize when I use the word flaw it’s to warn you to be cautious and constantly recheck your results and more importantly your methodology.
If there is any help I can offer I’m willing to provide it.
This is why I hate virtual communication, Miscommunication. I misunderstood your usage of “flawed”. If there is so much variation, then should I even continue this project? Also, (I’m asking because of your wording) are you aware of where/how I am obtaining this data?
There is variation, but you just have to recognize it and account for it. It’s very manageable and imho, not a reason to be discouraged
As for your methodology, with out over simplifying it, it seems your data mining the results from the actual game files with an intent to automate updating it.