Matrix Games Forums

Community impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!Ageod's To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!To End All Wars: Artillery Battle Academy 2: Eastern Front - End of Early Access Space Program Manager unveils its multiplayer modes Another update for Commander: The Great War!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: RHS Maneuverability Review

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review - 8/17/2006 6:12:09 PM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nicholas Bell

Here is another run. This is using RHS aircraft. All devices removed from both aircraft and units.................

I can't comment on what occurs with RHS but I was unable to achieve your results by applying the stated changes in stock.

I grabbed one of the small stock scenarios and cleared all devices from the aircraft and air groups entries for the air units involved in a quick test.

This is the result.
Day Air attack on Dobodura , at 55,91

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 60

Allied aircraft
P-40E Warhawk x 60
B-17E Fortress x 58

No Japanese losses

No Allied losses

Aircraft Attacking:
54 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 15000 feet
4 x B-17E Fortress bombing at 15000 feet

Lots of reports of attacks during the combat replay but no actual firing and no hits.

Cheers


_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Nicholas Bell)
Post #: 61
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review - 8/17/2006 6:13:13 PM   
Nicholas Bell

 

Posts: 423
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

>Nic is hijacking this thread - and is NOT contributing to developing a better formula or criteria to define maneuverability. I object. He is, in fact, trying to say "don't bother - it cannot be worth the effort." Explicitly so. Well - he is twice wrong: it does matter - and it is something I have been asked to do; and he is wrong to interfere with the process on principle even if it didn't matter.


How about I post some test runs with radically different manueverability ratings to show you how little difference it makes? Would that be okay? All your calibration calculations may result in manuever ratings shifting a couple of points, which has little or no impact in the current game engine. Why not spend your time and energy pushing those programmers to get the code fixed and released ? Then address calibrating the model once you know what the model is. IMO you're putting the cart before the horse. That is of course your right to do.

I also have the right to express my opinion regarding the data and the program, do I not?

quote:

and it is something I have been asked to do


Pray tell, by whom?

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 62
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review - 8/17/2006 7:45:08 PM   
Nicholas Bell

 

Posts: 423
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

I was unable to achieve your results by applying the stated changes in stock.


Well, I must be doing something wrong and will have to recheck my test. Thanks.

(in reply to Drongo)
Post #: 63
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review - 8/17/2006 10:11:42 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
"Nic is hijacking this thread - and is NOT contributing to developing a better formula or criteria to define maneuverability. I object. He is, in fact, trying to say "don't bother - it cannot be worth the effort." Explicitly so. Well - he is twice wrong: it does matter - and it is something I have been asked to do; and he is wrong to interfere with the process on principle even if it didn't matter. "


You're being a bit tough on Nic here, CID. If there is any truth to his data (and he seems to have reproduced the results several times), then you may be fighting a battle you can't win without going "outside the box". That would be valuable information which would save you a lot of wasted effort. I think he's trying to be helpfull, and at the same time hoping he's wrong. He's just pretty depressed about the results he's gotten...., and we've all been there a time or two.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 64
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review - 8/17/2006 11:50:13 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14983
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Nic: I am a libertarian - and on principle believe in freedom of speech/etc.
But I don't think it is proper to prevent us from doing a task in a dedicated thread. IF you have something to contribute - contribute.
But don't go on at great length about why it cannot matter - particularly after I show why you are incorrect about that.

As for advocating code reform, I began by doing that. We got the critical change - a decision to support and develop WITP. We got real money committed to do that - and recruits from our own ranks as programmers - people dedicated to that reform. This has well and truly begun and already produced meaningful results. I see no point in not giving them the time it takes to do more, nor for being negative and assuming they won't do it. We have a posting by David Heath himself about the plan - so this is not tea leaf reading. More than that, the problem of getting this routine right is two sided: without good data it isn't practical to calibrate anything. My instructions are "you fix the data and I will fix the code."

I believe you are brilliant. I believe you could be constructive. Suppose for a moment that we will get the critical code reform we want: can we also have good data for it to use ready to go? We can read speed, weight, ROC, etc in books. But we cannot read maneuverability. We have only one field. How SHOULD it be used?

(in reply to Nicholas Bell)
Post #: 65
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review - 8/18/2006 12:00:19 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14983
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

"Nic is hijacking this thread - and is NOT contributing to developing a better formula or criteria to define maneuverability. I object. He is, in fact, trying to say "don't bother - it cannot be worth the effort." Explicitly so. Well - he is twice wrong: it does matter - and it is something I have been asked to do; and he is wrong to interfere with the process on principle even if it didn't matter. "


You're being a bit tough on Nic here, CID. If there is any truth to his data (and he seems to have reproduced the results several times), then you may be fighting a battle you can't win without going "outside the box". That would be valuable information which would save you a lot of wasted effort. I think he's trying to be helpfull, and at the same time hoping he's wrong. He's just pretty depressed about the results he's gotten...., and we've all been there a time or two.



Yes we have. And it may be you are right. Nic has at all times been civil - a big deal to me. He has obviously wasted his time reading this thread and running special tests for us - asked or not. So that implies he is committed to setting us strait for some reason. So I am inclined to agree with you. I do sympathize with his depression. But there is more to the story. I have tried to say in broad terms that there are things happening - exciting and constructive things - and since it is not practical to let outsiders inside the propriatory code world - we need to trust our friends who are inside will do well what we all want to see done. We need to do what we can do.

Don't worry - this is going to happen. It is happening. And we might be able to make it better.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 66
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review - 8/18/2006 10:50:40 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6057
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nicholas Bell

Mike, you're random thoughts are spot on.  El Cid & Herwin, your desire to mathematically calculate manueverability values is commendable.

Hate to be pessimistic, but it's all meaningless in game terms because the air combat formula is broken, nerfed, borked or what ever you want to call.  No matter how good the data is, it's going to spit out junk.  It's just a numbers game - who's got more planes - with the differentials between manueverability and speed, etc modifying this. 

Please try setting the all the aircraft values to 0 and see what happens.  Then set them all to 10.  Then try speed at 0 and manueverbility at 30.  Ensure all pilots are set at the same experience level (99).

Understand better how the engine works (or doesn't) first, then consider how to standardize the values, is what I am saying.  I've wasted too many hours playing with the values attempting to find some basis to work from for at least somewhat historical results.  What you do with your time is of course your business, but I hate to see you spend so much effort on something which will have so little results.



As long as pilot experience is modeled reasonably, the rest of the numbers can probably be tweaked to get realistic results.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Nicholas Bell)
Post #: 67
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review - 8/18/2006 11:04:30 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6057
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
Land combat: operational model. Note that my model is generally consistent with the OCS model, which is the only modern/WWII board game system that actually is realistic IMHO as a retired tactical analyst.

Morse and Kimball indicate that the exchange rate (US losses/Japanese losses) between US and Japanese fighters in 1943-44 was approximately independent of the size of the forces involved in each engagement. The percentage of Japanese fighters lost per engagement was independent of the numbers involved--i.e., Japanese losses were proportional to the size of the Japanese force. The percentage of US fighters lost increased with more Japanese fighters and decreased with more US fighters, so US losses were proportional to the size of the Japanese force. The exchange rate during 1943-44 was about 10 Japanese fighters lost per US fighter lost. A difference of 40 knots in airspeed resulted in an exchange rate of 2-1, all else being equal. This analysis was the starting point for my analysis.

< Message edited by herwin -- 8/18/2006 11:08:39 AM >


_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 68
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review - 8/18/2006 1:39:21 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14983
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Note I also use OCS -

< Message edited by el cid again -- 8/18/2006 1:41:03 PM >

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 69
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review - 8/18/2006 2:11:44 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6057
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Note I also use OCS -


The model you referred to was not statistically valid--it had more free variables than data points. I did a similar model that *was* valid--a much larger underlying data set and a much smaller set of free variables--and used it develop that CRT I posted.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 70
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review - 8/18/2006 8:07:47 PM   
Nicholas Bell

 

Posts: 423
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
More than that, the problem of getting this routine right is two sided: without good data it isn't practical to calibrate anything. My instructions are "you fix the data and I will fix the code."

Then I stand corrected. That is quite a breath of fresh air if they are going to take your data and work the code to get realistic results. I apologize for ranting, and will get off my high horse. I admit to being very frustrated with my inability to alter the data to get what I consider historically acceptable loss rates in the current engine (I would like to be able to play this game now, as opposed to some unknown distance future date). That frustration was inappropriately directed at your work.

You might consider the information provided in Alfred Price's books "The Hardest Day" and "Target: Berlin". In summary, in both major air battles the approximate loss rate was 1/6 of the enemy sortie rate. Both books describe in detail high sortie/high loss missions, and 1/6 of enemy sorties between fairly equal forces would equate to "average best possible result." My studies of other missions with actual sortie & loss rates (as opposed to claims) indicate the most combats result in less than 1/6 E.A./friendly destroyed.

(Of course, in the Pacific the forces engaged where hardly ever "equal" in even rough terms. We however have the advantage of creating equal opposing forces by ensuring pilot training and fatigue levels are identical. We can even have the opposing forces use identical aircraft in tests.)

Regarding the game value manueverability, it would be better if the game engine allowed for offensive and defensive manueverability ratings. While the code change is not likely to happen, might I suggest that in your creation of a formula for manueverabilty, that you consider breaking it down this way and then weighing each to reach a single value.

As long as pilot experience is modeled reasonably, the rest of the numbers can probably be tweaked to get realistic results.

True in small engagements using the current game engine. There is of course the well known major problem with engagements over 50 a/c ( which El Cid has confirmed with the programmers). I have also observed instances of extreme statistical aberration, probably caused multiple bad die rolls. This may have to do with the randomizer, but in any case it can skew even small combats out of the realm of plausible historical results.




(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 71
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review - 8/19/2006 1:07:17 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14983
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Note I also use OCS -


The model you referred to was not statistically valid--it had more free variables than data points. I did a similar model that *was* valid--a much larger underlying data set and a much smaller set of free variables--and used it develop that CRT I posted.


You refer here to one field only - the maneuverability field - which this thread is meant to work on improving - if we ever get back to doing that.
RHS does not strive for perfection - it strives to do something quick better than we had. Then to do something better still. Integrated with changes in the code and changes in general understanding of how it works. We want to get something better - but within the limits of what we can do at any given time. It seemed better to start with the design than with something purely theoretical - and I was guided by a programmer in my methodology - one who knows more than either of us about how WITP works. If you want a better algorithm - help me define it.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 72
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review - 8/19/2006 9:12:42 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25302
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:


Then I stand corrected. That is quite a breath of fresh air if they are going to take your data and work the code to get realistic results.


Cid is not part of the developer team.


(in reply to Nicholas Bell)
Post #: 73
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review - 8/19/2006 11:40:07 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14983
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
What is the point of this remark?

In a technical sense, it is certainly true. No one said otherwise either. Yet in a broader sense it may actually be false. I certainly have been surprised at the degree of interaction and cooperation which has occurred in the last year - and it may indeed be that CHS and RHS are part of the Matrix developer process in some semiofficial sense. The coordinators of both have been given unsolicited technical help - and official responses to even suspected techincal problems seem to be virtually instantaneous.
Other forms of communication have also occurred - details of which we are told not to disclose. At a very minimum we feel valued by, and supported by, Matrix, specifically in the quest for a better WITP product line.

I do not see how this remark helps us define a better maneuverability rating? Nor do I see how it helps anyone do anything better? It is beyond dispute formally true - and it may be less than accurate in a broader sense. Why say such a thing at all?

And can we please get back on topic - or is that for some reason not an option?

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 74
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review - 8/19/2006 8:32:31 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25302
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:


I do not see how this remark helps us define a better maneuverability rating? Nor do I see how it helps anyone do anything better? It is beyond dispute formally true - and it may be less than accurate in a broader sense. Why say such a thing at all?


Are you even capable of speaking simply and concisely?

The 'remark' was not meant to address the topic of maneuverability. It was meant to clarify to Mr. Bell the question you avoided answering. You stated and it is something I have been asked to do and he asked Pray tell, by whom?

You are free, as is every other owner of WitP to mod to your heart's content. What you do with your mod is your own business. To continually imply however that your goals somehow/maybe/otherwise/hint-hint are connected with Matrix are erronious and misleading. As such, i provided clarification. You are not under contract to "fix" any data.

quote:


Other forms of communication have also occurred - details of which we are told not to disclose


Yet, if this were true, you nevertheless continue to feel compelled to tell people that such and such has occured with a wink and a nudge whenever someone questions a part of your reasoning or something involving your mod. When someone is told not to disclose a communication, it means don't mention it.....at all



< Message edited by Nikademus -- 8/20/2006 5:55:47 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 75
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review - 8/19/2006 10:43:12 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14983
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

Are you even capable of speaking simply and concisely?

Most people familiar with me would say "no." Or even "NO!!!"

The technical answer is "yes" - but only with great effort - and
careful planning. The web is not the best way to see me do that -
I write quickly whatever pops into my mind.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 76
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review - 8/19/2006 10:45:12 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14983
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Quote
The 'remark' was not meant to address the topic of maneuverability. It was meant to clarify to Mr. Bell the question you avoided answering. You stated and it is something I have been asked to do and he asked Pray tell, by whom?

REPLY: Since I have agreed not to disclose the answer - and since I keep my promises - I studiously avoid answering questions outside the bounds of what I agree to.

I am, however, impressed with your diligent attention to detail. And also with your picture!

< Message edited by el cid again -- 8/19/2006 10:55:41 PM >

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 77
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review - 8/19/2006 11:09:57 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25302
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:


REPLY: Since I have agreed not to disclose the answer - and since I keep my promises - I studiously avoid answering questions outside the bounds of what I agree to.


How very convenient.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 78
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review - 8/20/2006 9:11:48 AM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3423
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
El Cid,

This flight data may help you with your modeling. It is based on the same type data (wing loading and others) that you intend to use. It goes into a fair amount of detail into how it was determined and what parameters were used.

The link is: WWII Fighter Data

Take a good look through the entire site. There is a lot of good data there. The formulas used are listed also.

A few others:

Speed Graph

Climb Graph

Roll Rate Graph

Acceleration Graph

Chez

< Message edited by ChezDaJez -- 8/20/2006 10:14:41 AM >


_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 79
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review - 8/20/2006 12:02:11 PM   
Iron Duke


Posts: 520
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: UK
Status: online
Hi cid

Have you looked at 'America's Hundred Thousand' it has quite a bit of info on the tech side of the a/c's covered in the book including graphs showing roll rates at various speeds.



_____________________________

"Bombers outpacing fighters - you've got to bloody well laugh!" Australian Buffalo pilot - Singapore

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 80
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review - 8/20/2006 12:29:46 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14983
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Thanks guys.

Just as the mark of a truly musician is arranging the music of great musicians, the mark of truly professional game developers is modding the great games. In both cases, standing on the shoulders of giants, it is almost impossible not to make a better product: even a slight improvement is still an improvement. There is no need to be insecure about it - and no need to be upset when someone feels "his" work is being "ruined" - or you get "too much" credit. Those who are serious - and professional - are above such things. The real work lies in suggestions like yours - not arguing over style or things that can't make anything better.

(in reply to Iron Duke)
Post #: 81
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review - 8/21/2006 9:30:32 AM   
Reddon45

 

Posts: 135
Joined: 2/25/2002
Status: offline
When I remember the manual, the game distinguishes well between speed advantege combat (slashing attacks) and turn&burn combat. So speed shouldnīt be used too much for the actual maneuvrability ratings. Otherwise fast planes will be better in t&b combat and for slashing attacks. I donīt think this was intended my Matrixgames, when they implemented speed combat - well working for example with the P-40 vs. A6M2 in stock WitP. So when considering maneuvrability three things should be respected:

1: Horizontal and vertical maneuvrability, used for t&b combat (A6M2, K-43) and used boom and zoom aircraft (Bf-109, Fw-190, Ki-44). The latter planes not only possesed excellent sustained climb ratings, they also possesed good vertical fighting ability because of relatively light weight to power. This also is true for most japanese planes, which could make very snap turns (break-dancing in the air) without stalling the aircraft or fly very aggressive vertical maneuvres. These abilites are NOT represented by the sustained climb abilitied, i.e. rate of climb (rate of climb is, as far as I know, only used for the calculations, which plane can climb fast enough to intercept) - so they should be respected by the mvr-ratings. In fact the vertical fighting ability (loops, spiral climb, Split S, Zooms) is in fact the most important dogfight concept, so it should be properly represented with high mvr ratings for aircraft which are either maneuvrable in the horizontal or in the vertical manner. Planes which are both (N1K1/2, Ki-84, Spitfire VIII and XIV) should get very high mvr ratings.

2: Speed advanteges in regards of maximum speed should be the primary advantege for the Allied aircraft and not mvr, since the superior speed is used for an attack style of its own - slashing attacks. If the superior speed alone would be the reason for high maneuvrability ratings this would mix up with the dogfighting abilities and would hamper the original intention of matrix by seperating both fighting mehtods.

3: No complex formulas, which donīt hold truth to real values more than sheer historical comparison should be used. 1st - use historical information about the plane, i.e. its t&b abilities, its b&z abilities (i.e. vertical maneuvrability), power to weight, speed to set the relative stregth of different aircraft. 2nd - use modern air simulations, which by now do quite a good job in simulating plenty of the planes available in WitP. For example Il-2 Forgotten Battles/Pacific fighters fields many of the available planes in WitP and gives good hints about the characteristics mentioned abobe (snap turn, sustained turn drag, combat climb, time for 360 turn).

Iīve created scenarios back to the times of PacWar and War in Russia before matrixgames modified them. The good thing about the more modern games is, that they seperate speed and maneuvrability for combat purposes. For example, Iīd give the following mvr values to some known planes of stock WitP. Important are the relative aspects between the aircraft, compared to historical records about combats between these planes and the used fighting method, for instance: F4Uīs would never turn with a Zero! They fly wide turns over the battle area and make ful use of their speed advantege. If someone has any questions, how I argue exactly for any of those values, donīt hesitate:

Some examples:
A6M2 -  35    (taken as first fix point)
A6M3 -  36
A6M5 -  35
F4F3 -   32
F4F4 -   32
F6F3 -   33 or 34 (Hellcat was more mvr than Wildcat in sustained turns, but heavier.... worse snap turns, also couldnīt stand in turn fights vs A6M2/3/5, N1K-J, Ki-61 (Biak!!!!)
F4U1 -   34
Ki-27 -   34 very good horizontal mvr
Ki-43-I-  35 not as good as Ki-27 in horizontal mvr, but better vertical fighting abilities
Ki-43-II- 34 or 35 heavier than original design, worse snap turn abilities
Ki-44-    32,33,34 though good climb, I donīt know about its vertical fighting abilies (propably like 109 - if so higher mvr, poor horizontal mvr. abilies for jap standarts). Itīs propable that this plane would fought in a similar way like the 109 or the P-47. Thatīs why the jap. pilots didnīt like it
Ki-61-I   32 or 33, good horizontal mvr, medium sustained turn drag, medium to good vertical fighting ability (loops & stuff), below average snap turn (stalls easily for jap planes)
Ki-84     36  good vertical and horizontal mvr, mediocre snap turn ability
N1K2-J   37 superb plane in regards of vertical and horizontal mvr, also good snap turn abilites. Her very good mvr characteristics suggested the japs to construct a land fighter version
J2M      32/33/34   similar arguments like Ki-44... this plane propably has some similarities in fighting style to the Fw-190
Ki-45     30 quite good horizontal mvr for 2E-Fighter, sustained turn drag high, though, vertical fighting ability worse than P-38
P-38F/G  31
P-38J/L  32/33   P-38 had good turning characteristics once banked into one direction, later versions added aileron boosters to help solving the banking problem
Hurricane 31   good hor. mvr, poor vert mvr.
Spitfire V  35
Spitfire VIII 36
Spitfire XVIII 36/37 tough plane to fight against, maneuvrable in all regards!
P-47B/C    33   classic boom&zoom aircraft, poor sustained turn drag because of heavy weight, poor acceleration
P-47D       34   added engine booster support boom and zoom fighting abilies of this plane
P-51B/C/D  34 or 35 didnīt have to good turning horizontal turning abilities, even a 109 turns tighter than a P-51 in slow and medium speeds... pacific war turnfights are even with tighter circles, due to the superior turning abilities of jap planes, so her main mvr aspects are her vertical fighting abilities, which are good, despite her mediocre climb rate.   
P-51D       34 or 35

These were some examples. The more famous and wide spread a plane is, the more I can tell from my 12 year experience with aircraft simulations and reading, in regards of direct comparison to another aircraft. And Direct comparison is the way maneuvrability values should be generated, as air simulations also rate the flight model of a plane of how well it compares to other aircraft in different regards (a lot more aspects than just 3 or 4 ratings like in WitP).

_____________________________

Bis dat qui cito dat!

(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 82
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review - 8/21/2006 11:08:39 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14983
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
We have a number of problems - and no option whatever about compromising. That is, we simply do not have any choice but to compromise - because we cannot change the structure of the system - and there are not a lot of values to program.

Even if we could change the structure of the system - we simply do not know the turn data - with rare exceptions we don't know it at all - and those exceptions are NOT in the standard materials available to all. So we are limited in what data we could get. Which is to say we don't have the option of going with what pure theory might indicate. Like it or not -
turn data is not going to be in - probably ever - simply because it is not in even one standard source - and certainly no comprehensive source lists all planes of interest.

We have what I take to be a difinitive statement by a Matrix Programmer that the primary value used by air combat is maneuverability. We further have other information from a different Matrix programmer - partially supported by the data - that maneuverability is either substantially or entirely based on speed data. Liking it or not is not the issue: that is the system. We cannot take speed out of maneuverability and not trash the ssytem. We can put in other data. But turn data isn't going to be part of it - unless heaven opens and a miracle appears unexpectedly. My best hope is that wing loading will be a good indicator of horizontal maneuverability.

Even if that hope is justified - not much will change. Not much SHOULD change either - since we now have the routine working fairly well for small air combats (and the big ones need Matrix to fix). What we seek is a RELATIVE change among types - and again these are pretty right - so not a great change. I fear - however - two things:

1) Using wing loading will benefit a biplane like Pete more than a two engine fighter like P-38

2) A great deal of calculation will yield the most marginal of shifting.

So far a vast amount of playing (no where near complete with all 245 plane types) indicates only slight impacts. I am very inclined to adopt one of the following options:

a) Make no change whatever;

b) Make a minimal change in the formula by adding wing loading and power loading; [It appears the best K (constant) factors may be one - very unusual - so it is very easy to do this]

Course (b) would benefit planes more "maneuverable" in the way we usually understand the term and (relatively speaking) penalize the dogs.
However, this is only going to make 2 engine fighters look better relative to multi-engine planes - not relative to 1 engine planes. And the conservation of angular momentum issue makes me think that may be quite correct: a 2 engine plane does NOT compete with a 1 engine plane in terms of roll.

c) Reduce the proportion of speed in the formula - as I originally proposed to do. This is not going over to "maneuverability has nothing to do with speed" as advocated above - but it would increase the non-speed factors by 100%. Since I already increased the non speed factors by 100% that is 400% greater than the original system. But still LESS than half (although nearly half at 40%).

(in reply to Reddon45)
Post #: 83
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review [Updated] - 9/8/2006 2:10:07 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14983
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
We have some tentative data using a new maneuverability formula - adding power loading and wing loading
to the factors considered (deried from aircraft empty equipped weight, enginer horsepower and wing area).

Here are some sample results:


Axis aircraft sample Me-264=3, A5M4=29, A6M2=30, Ki-27=32, Ki-43-1=32,
Ki-45KAIa=14, Ki-61-1b=32, Ki-84=38, Ki-100=30. Allied aircraft sample
F2A-3=27, F4F-3=26, F4U-1=34, F6F-5=33, P-38J=15, P-47D=35, P-51B=35,
Spitfire VIII=36, B-17D=5. How do these numbers look to you?


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 84
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review [Updated] - 9/8/2006 3:19:03 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2651
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline
ok to me
ok
looks really good

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 85
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review [Updated] - 9/8/2006 8:34:52 PM   
Mifune


Posts: 776
Joined: 4/28/2005
From: Florida
Status: offline
Here are a few more to look at. Axis aircraft Me-109E-4=32, Ki-46II=14, J2M2=37, G3M2=9, G4M1=9, E7K2=15, E13A1=21, H6K4=4, H8K2=5. Allied aircraft F4U-4=42, B-18A=7, B-24D=3, P-35A=29, P-40B=26, P-40E=27, P-43=30, SwordfishIII=15, IL-2M=21.

_____________________________

Perennial Remedial Student of the Mike Solli School of Economics. One day I might graduate.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 86
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review - 9/8/2006 11:45:30 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14983
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Duplicate of above post - I am too late. Now you know who the volunteer is!

< Message edited by el cid again -- 9/8/2006 11:53:18 PM >

(in reply to Drongo)
Post #: 87
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review [Updated] - 9/9/2006 3:44:41 AM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14640
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

P-38J=15



I realize (more accurately - 'my impression is') that the good single engine fighters were certainly more maneuverable than even a great (off-axis) double engine fighter like the P-38, but I assumed the gap was a good deal smaller? Is there a second part of the revision that might deal with that? I know that speed plays a part, I'm just talking about maneuverability. I know, for example, that the P-38's props turned in opposite directions so the torque cancelled out.


Second,

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

P-47D=35, P-51B=35



Likewise, it's been my impression that the P-51 was considered better air-to-air than the P-47 (even as fine as the P-47 was). With the maneuverability the same and the P-47 speed higher (going by memory of RHS data), the P-47 comes out better in WITP.

Is my impression of the comparison between the two correct (historically speaking)? Is the difference really one of variation in altitude, which I know WITP does not handle? Or, is my impression (of the comparison between the P-51 and P-47) incorrect?

BTW, I haven't chimed in on this thread before - this review is fantastic, and I am in awe of the work involved in yet another evolution of RHS.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 88
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review [Updated] - 9/9/2006 11:33:11 PM   
Herrbear


Posts: 859
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

We have some tentative data using a new maneuverability formula - adding power loading and wing loading
to the factors considered (deried from aircraft empty equipped weight, enginer horsepower and wing area).

Here are some sample results:


Axis aircraft sample Me-264=3, A5M4=29, A6M2=30, Ki-27=32, Ki-43-1=32,
Ki-45KAIa=14, Ki-61-1b=32, Ki-84=38, Ki-100=30. Allied aircraft sample
F2A-3=27, F4F-3=26, F4U-1=34, F6F-5=33, P-38J=15, P-47D=35, P-51B=35,
Spitfire VIII=36, B-17D=5. How do these numbers look to you?



Can you post the new formula?

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 89
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review [Updated] - 9/9/2006 11:45:37 PM   
Herrbear


Posts: 859
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Here are some sample results:

P-38J=15,


I can understand your rationale regarding 2-engine fighter types before the use of PL and WL. By using these in the calculation, are you sure that you are not penalizing 2-engine fighter types twice? If not, what is inherently unmanueverable about them when combining speed, ROC, PL and WL? I understand reduction added to 4-engine planes as they were not built to withstand excessive G forces. This would impact many 2-engine bombers as well. Are you also saying that 2-engine planes designed as interceptors could not handle the G forces that a single engine plane could?

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.555