Matrix Games Forums

Characters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Deal of the Week: Combat Command Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the FamilyTablet Version of Qvadriga gets new patch
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Aircraft Stats

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Aircraft Stats Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Aircraft Stats - 10/12/2012 11:18:34 PM   
Natali

 

Posts: 96
Joined: 9/18/2012
From: Ocatillo Land
Status: offline
Is it aircraft or aircrafts, I don't know. Does anybody care about modifying aircraft stats to reduce some of the more egregious uber-CAP, uber-Sweep results; basically all the uber-altitude things?

Have lots of hard flight test data and I found a lot of places where planes can, and should be modified in many ways.

This is a biggie and I can't do it myself. The Babes guys from Miramar are willing to help, but only peripheraly. So I will need some forum support.

Is this something I can post here and get reasonable responses? CommanderStormwolf is not invited to comment and should butt-out. Other thoughts and comments will be eargerly listened to.

Thanks in advance. Sam
Post #: 1
RE: Aircraft Stats - 10/13/2012 3:52:21 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2232
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
If its just data entry, I can help. If its more analytic help your looking for, not so sure.

_____________________________


(in reply to Natali)
Post #: 2
RE: Aircraft Stats - 10/13/2012 11:59:36 AM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 5955
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Israel
Status: offline
That is major undertaking.

As JWE said some time ago, one would need to know how the game engine deals with ALL planes and modify them all in relation to each other... And...not sure if anyone would be allowed or willing to disclose that information.

It would be interesting to see if data changes would remedy those things, but basically, they can also be remedied with some common sense and not playing "stratosphere sweeps/CAP". Those things are done by players who like to exploit game engine and play really competitively.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 3
RE: Aircraft Stats - 10/13/2012 2:46:16 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5618
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

That is major undertaking.

As JWE said some time ago, one would need to know how the game engine deals with ALL planes and modify them all in relation to each other... And...not sure if anyone would be allowed or willing to disclose that information.


+1

And it would take a LOT of play testing as there are so many variables involved, not to mention Gary's built in random outcomes (Gary's law states that even a Piper Cub has a chance to drop a P-51 ) that you have to sift through.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 4
RE: Aircraft Stats - 10/13/2012 3:32:17 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 2861
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
And a very good law.

Maybe a big reduction in maneuverability at high altitudes?

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 5
RE: Aircraft Stats - 10/14/2012 6:23:14 PM   
sandman455


Posts: 201
Joined: 7/5/2011
From: 20 yrs ago - SDO -> med down, w/BC glasses on
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Natali

Is it aircraft or aircrafts, I don't know. Does anybody care about modifying aircraft stats to reduce some of the more egregious uber-CAP, uber-Sweep results; basically all the uber-altitude things?

Have lots of hard flight test data and I found a lot of places where planes can, and should be modified in many ways.

This is a biggie and I can't do it myself. The Babes guys from Miramar are willing to help, but only peripheraly. So I will need some forum support.

Is this something I can post here and get reasonable responses? CommanderStormwolf is not invited to comment and should butt-out. Other thoughts and comments will be eargerly listened to.

Thanks in advance. Sam


I'm personally of the opinion that the A2A model is far from needing a fix.

The high altitude sweep/cap you speak of is only an abstraction of most allied a/c able to go higher and climb better than their opponents. So when you set a 40k sweep altitude, the planes don't really climb into a digital atmosphere and sweep over a base 8 miles up. They merely launch with a tactical doctrine of using energy tactics exclusively. This carries through to the combat reports. They are not factual summaries. They only reflect aircraft scoring hits/victories by using what was a very good tactic on their opponents. Trying to fix "some of the more egregious the uber-CAP, uber-Sweep results" has you really setting about trying to modify tactical doctrine rather than aircraft attributes.

The airspeed issue is the only place I would look to implement minor individual fixes since it seems to play a more important role in our game than it did in reality, IMHO. This might require ignoring real data and setting values to achieve different subjective results. PLEASE NOTE: All results - whether stock or some mod - are someone's subjective assessment of what might have been. You will never end up with more than that.

"Have lots of hard flight test data. . ."
"The Babe guys from Miramir are willing to help. . ."

I can assure you that you don't really have much data. And your Babe guys from Miramar (?) will be of no help. This is because so many of the Japanese air frames have unknown values when compared directly to allied aircraft. Almost none of these aircraft exist in a flyable state. Many more don't even exist at all. Worse yet, what little that has been left behind such as TAIC flight test data, has significant unreconcilible anomolies when you start to dig deeper. Then there is the huge historical issue of Japanese aircraft build quality. How can this be modeled? How relevent would it be if the air war or the war in general is going differently within our personal games?

Ultimately, you just got to accept that the air model is what it is. A very nice abstraction of the Pacific air war that actually recognizes that pilot skill, aircraft quantity and aircraft performance can all influence the outcome of individual engagements. This gives all of us players a ton of options.

Pretty damn good in my book.

PS: Sam, Commander Stormwolf has been a member of these boards for a lot longer than yourself. Your knowledge of his posts would make you an avid stalker (no issue at all) or we have another issue of someone creating multiple accounts. Anyway, the Commander's post history clearly shows he has a decent understanding of aerodynamics at least. His conclusions can be comical but his data is usually factual. If retarded conclusions is a non-starter for you with regard to an internet forum then I strongly suggest you remove your TCP/IP drivers right now before you do any more damage to your cardiovascular system.

_____________________________

Gary S (USN 1320, 1985-1993)
AOCS 1985, VT10 1985-86, VT86 1986, VS41 1986-87
VS32 1987-90 (NSO/NWTO, deployed w/CV-66, CVN-71)
VS27 1990-91 (NATOPS/Safety)
SFWSLANT 1991-93 (AGM-84 All platforms, S-3 A/B systems)

(in reply to Natali)
Post #: 6
RE: Aircraft Stats - 10/14/2012 6:37:10 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 845
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Natali

Is it aircraft or aircrafts, I don't know. Does anybody care about modifying aircraft stats to reduce some of the more egregious uber-CAP, uber-Sweep results; basically all the uber-altitude things?

Have lots of hard flight test data and I found a lot of places where planes can, and should be modified in many ways.

This is a biggie and I can't do it myself. The Babes guys from Miramar are willing to help, but only peripheraly. So I will need some forum support.

Is this something I can post here and get reasonable responses? CommanderStormwolf is not invited to comment and should butt-out. Other thoughts and comments will be eargerly listened to.

Thanks in advance. Sam


Natali,

I bumped into the issues you talked about a year back when I was looking at updating my mod scenarios; I posted about some of my proposed fixes and ideas in this thread. Mainly the bits under aircraft are relevant to your points, though the AA changes may be of interest too.

I still have most if not all of the data I used for the process, so if you'd like I can pass them along and talk about them and any other ideas you have over PM or email.


quote:

ORIGINAL: sandman455
PS: Sam, Commander Stormwolf has been a member of these boards for a lot longer than yourself. Your knowledge of his posts would make you an avid stalker (no issue at all) or we have another issue of someone creating multiple accounts. Anyway, the Commander's post history clearly shows he has a decent understanding of aerodynamics at least. His conclusions can be comical but his data is usually factual. If retarded conclusions is a non-starter for you with regard to an internet forum then I strongly suggest you remove your TCP/IP drivers right now before you do any more damage to your cardiovascular system.


Its not that uncommon for people to visit and follow a forum without registering if they have no need to do so, so for all you know he could have been here longer than either of us.

And I fairly certain the comment regarding Stormwolf was to head off this thread getting 'hijacked' again so to speak. I have nothing against his suggestions or data, but its not just one or two threads that have ended up buried under his 'conclusions' and at times entirely unrelated suggestions.


Regards,
Juan

< Message edited by JuanG -- 10/14/2012 7:56:16 PM >


_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to Natali)
Post #: 7
RE: Aircraft Stats - 10/14/2012 6:45:24 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
I was just going to mention, that JuanG modified all aircraft weapons some time ago

I think, elCid also modified all aircraft stats.


Personally - I think, that it would be worth to experiment with planes armor. Currently they either have 0, or 1. If it will be changed to more options, we can get interesting results with different weapons.

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 8
RE: Aircraft Stats - 10/15/2012 6:56:05 PM   
Natali

 

Posts: 96
Joined: 9/18/2012
From: Ocatillo Land
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG
Its not that uncommon for people to visit and follow a forum without registering if they have no need to do so, so for all you know he could have been here longer than either of us.

And I fairly certain the comment regarding Stormwolf was to head off this thread getting 'hijacked' again so to speak. I have nothing against his suggestions or data, but its not just one or two threads that have ended up buried under his 'conclusions' and at times entirely unrelated suggestions.

Regards,
Juan

Juan G,

Thank you I would like that very much. Yeah, I have seen threads go crazy over aircraft and wanted to warn away hijackers. Just who are these self appionted forum cops anyway.

Some inconsistencies I want to try and fix is between fighters and fighter bombers. Most aircraft are fighters but still have full bombloads as well as full droptanks and have the performance specs of ‘clean’ fighter configured aircrafts at military power. This works much too well for the benefit of the Allies. They can be queen of the sky as well as king of the ground with the same aircraft configurations. This is not right.

Fighter bombers do not use droptamks if they have a full load of bombs. Fighters do not have any bombs if they use droptanks to extend their range. Fighter bombers do not have anyway near the performance of a fighter when carrying bombs. Every aircraft has signifigantly reduced performance when just carrying droptanks, to say nothing about carrying ordnance too. And the range figures are off by a lot.


What can I do? I can make separate F and FB squadrons and with separate aircraft for each of them. And I could just remove bombs from fighter configured aircrafts. I guess what I want to know is –

1 Is there any way to make droptanks as an “alternative” to bombs?

2 is there any way to make FBs have lower specs as Fighters other than making a new Aircraft?

3 is there any way to make F and FB squadrons swap aircraft?

What I’m looking at. Would love and thoughts that people have .Have a lot of data from test results and can give it to you. I have lots of numbers, I have numbers to choke a boggie. I have numbers tat show the point and maybe show the way out.

You can reach me through the forum link and then I will give you my private info and we can talk.


(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 9
RE: Aircraft Stats - 10/17/2012 10:32:15 PM   
Natali

 

Posts: 96
Joined: 9/18/2012
From: Ocatillo Land
Status: offline
From my spreadsheet so you can see what I mean. Performance vs config/load is way off and the whole DT thing is crazy except for raw fighters, And Not my opinions, but official reports by USN.

RoC RoC RoC CAlt CAlt Cmbt Spd Spd Spd CAlt CAlt Gross Power
@SL @C1 @C2 @C1 @C2 Ceiling SL LB ACA LB ACA Wt lbs Stng/Config
F4F-4
2470 2140 1650 11500 13500 29000 284 310 320 11800 18800 7975 Military Std
2200 2030 1650 11200 13000 29000 274 305 320 11700 18800 7975 Normal Std
1850 1700 1300 11200 14000 26000 253 283 294 11600 18800 8762 Normal Loaded
F4U-1A
2890 2675 2290 12400 16900 33000 359 415 417 15500 19900 12039 Combat Std
2550 2050 1690 15700 21000 33500 350 400 407 18500 23900 12039 Military Std
1990 1820 1560 16700 22000 33500 328 393 405 19300 24800 12039 Normal Std
1490 1340 1100 16500 22000 29500 315 374 384 19300 24600 14003 Normal Loaded
F4U-1D
3370 2900 2560 12500 17000 36000 358 402 409 15500 19900 12175 Combat Std
2930 2250 1950 16000 21000 35500 343 390 396 18500 23900 12175 Military Std
2280 1980 1720 17000 22100 35000 321 384 394 19500 24800 12175 Normal Std
1775 1425 1175 16900 22000 31200 290 347 353 19500 24200 14370 Normal Loaded
F4U-4
4770 4810 4350 10800 17000 39000 374 435 452 15500 20500 12480 Combat Std
3760 3050 2715 19000 25600 38000 349 423 443 23000 29200 12480 Military Std
2910 2475 2120 20000 28000 37200 322 406 430 24600 31800 12480 Normal Std
2275 1925 1600 19800 26000 34800 299 363 375 22000 28800 14558 Normal Loaded

F4U-1(A) was a “fighter” configured aircraft and had 2 62 gallon unprotected wing tanks and 1 center-line hardpoint for either a 175 gallon drop tank or a bomb. F4U-1A had cosmetic changes and introduced the R-2800-8W engine with wet injection, but no changes to fuel or ordnance capability, except that there were field modifications to the outer wing to allow carriage of a “few small” bombs, given the unprotected wing tanks were considered disadvantageous and never used.

F4U-1D was a “general purpose fighter” configured aircraft and got rid of the wing tanks and added 2 wing-root hardpoints for either a 150 gallon drop tank or a bomb. The plane was weight limited so it couldn’t carry 2 big bombs and a belly tank. Max load would be 2x 500lb bombs and a 175 gallon belly tank; or 2x 1000lb bombs and no tank; or a CL tank and 8x 5” HVARs; or 2x 11.75” ARs, 8x 5” HVARs, and no tanks. Weight is everything.

F4U-4 was a “general purpose fighter” configured aircraft with the R-2800-18W engine. It had higher general performance but only simple minimal changes to ordnance attachment over the later marks of 1As. Outer wing pylons were adaptable between HVARs and bombs <250 lbs.. The definitive “FB” version of the aircraft.

I would guess, IRL, that over 90% of F4U-1(A)s were fighter configured and didn’t GA much.

I would guess, IRL, that maybe 40% F4U-1Ds were fighter configured and 60% were GA loaded.

I would guess, IRL, that maybe 10% F4U-4s were fighter configured and 90% were GA loaded.

How does thiss all game work? Don’t know. But I’m creeping up on a solution.

[tried to edit the stupid column alignment but couldn't, please use rational rule of reason. Thanks}

< Message edited by Natali -- 10/17/2012 10:37:08 PM >

(in reply to Natali)
Post #: 10
RE: Aircraft Stats - 10/18/2012 1:07:45 AM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

have been saying for some time the air model is totally broken

one of the ac team said it himself, that simply the data space available
per battle calculation is too small (96 bits or something like that)

too small for the amount of detail the Witp players wanted

max. alt bonus and mvr penalty and their implications are totally wrong

pacwar (the first one) had a generic "dogfight" value,
and it seemed more accurate than present


right now my pbem uses another system

all fighters set max alt to 30,000 feet (mitigates the max alt phenomenon)

a generic mvr forumula for all fighters based on wing loading, no alt penalties

also changed the gun values (accuracy based on muzzle velocity and ammo, instead of ROF)


_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to Natali)
Post #: 11
RE: Aircraft Stats - 10/18/2012 1:25:55 AM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

you could technically classify all fighters as fighter-bmbr

that way they don't suffer the 50% penalty at low alt ground B

_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 12
RE: Aircraft Stats - 11/12/2012 6:42:34 AM   
Erkki


Posts: 1413
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

all fighters set max alt to 30,000 feet (mitigates the max alt phenomenon)

a generic mvr forumula for all fighters based on wing loading, no alt penalties

also changed the gun values (accuracy based on muzzle velocity and ammo, instead of ROF)



The first one could be a very good idea in a game that does not use altitude rules, just to make some planes at least have the chance to fight back...

The second, not so sure. Would you agree that maneuverability is more than wing loading? Should maneuverability be more than best rate of turn and 180 or 360 degree turn time from top or cruise speed(without altitude loss)? If maneuverability is defined as ability to change the aircraft's speed vector's direction, shouldnt the rate of roll and the the high speed(for the individual aircraft) behaviour also be accounted for? What about the speed vector's "length"? Thrust-to-weight(or power-to-weight) ratio together with wing loading has lot to do with turn rate, radius, climb and many other things. Should it also be part of the MVR?(myself I do think it is in witpae)

Currently in WitPAE the MVR stays constant(and at its highest) until (very, very roughly) the altitude at which the plane achieves its highest level speed. MVR change with altitude ss IMHO necessary because its not possible to change the most important thing, speed, with altitude, but MVR has to be used as a some kind of a modifer for it(AFAIK, in air battles, MVR values are played against each other with AIR and DEF skill, plane with higher speed has the change to reduce the other plane's MVR to half). Instead of keeping the MVR constant through all altitudes, it could be changed so that MVR is at its best at the altitude of best level speed, and lower both above and below, to simulate a "best altitude" or best altitude area. That system would allow to, for example, give Ki-84 more than double the MVR rating of, say, P-47, at low altitudes, to make Ki-84s eat P-47s for breakfast there(because at low altitudes, the Ki-84 is arguably better in everything but top speed, which they have roughly even), to have their stats roughly even at 20 or 15kft and finally to make the P-47 be better above that.

The last thing about weapon accuracy... Would you agree that if that system of yours works linearly, then weapons with lots of ammo get way, way too high accuracy value? How many times does a fighter get to fire in an average combat(when it gets to fire at all) - once, twice, 3 or 4 times? Of bursts of how many seconds on the average, 1 to 2? If those are assumed, then the ammunition of anything above 100-120 per gun could be considered simply sufficient, as it would be unlikely to run out of ammo(or run out of ammo before jamming). Guns with ammo for only a couple of seconds of firing time, such as the 40mm caseless ammunition gun on the Ki-44-IIb, on the other hand could be considered to have insufficient amount of ammunition, and have a modifier for its accuracy.

Thoughts?


(Yes I do think the current system works already. Just throwing out ideas. )

(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 13
RE: Aircraft Stats - 11/12/2012 4:47:54 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14950
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Natali

Is it aircraft or aircrafts, I don't know. Does anybody care about modifying aircraft stats to reduce some of the more egregious uber-CAP, uber-Sweep results; basically all the uber-altitude things?

Have lots of hard flight test data and I found a lot of places where planes can, and should be modified in many ways.

This is a biggie and I can't do it myself. The Babes guys from Miramar are willing to help, but only peripheraly. So I will need some forum support.

Is this something I can post here and get reasonable responses? CommanderStormwolf is not invited to comment and should butt-out. Other thoughts and comments will be eargerly listened to.

Thanks in advance. Sam



One idea I work with is "effective ceiling" vs "service ceiling."

Operational missions are not generally flown at the highest theoretical altitude. Service ceiling is defined as the altitude at which the maximum
rate of climb is 100 feet per minute (which, oddly, is exactly 20 meters per minute) - in still air. [Absolute ceiling is the altitude at which there is no rate of climg in still air). The practical performance of aircraft varies slightly with the type of power plant. I use 80 % for propeller driven aircraft which have "standard" engines and 90% for propeller driven aircraft with "turbo-supercharged" engines. For jets and rockes, 95%.

This concept has two effects on the game. One is it makes it harder to fly above the AAA - particularly if you also use EFFECTIVE ceiling vice absolute ceiling for AAA ( which obviously cannot reach maximum altitude at maximum range - and which has other problems as well too complicated for this discussion). The other is that it makes it harder to gain a great altitude advantage over enemy aircraft in air combat.

However, the best idea I have yet seen for improving air combat performance, and also attrition rates, comes from Mifune. This is to wholly change the way durability is defined. [It took three years to come up with a standard "fair" to all types of aircraft - and long heated debates in the forums - with Mifune finally figuring out the best compromise - long ago] Basically, the problem is that the values of durability are vastly too large and skew the outcomes badly. When reduced to a reasonable range, better outcomes happen. Unfortunately, there is a limit to how low we can go and still have a relative aircraft to aircraft model which is reasonable - and that limit is still too high for outcomes to be "bad" enough (that is, enough vulnerability, enough attrition, etc)
Nevertheless, this is probably the most important reason air combat works better in RHS. The other reason is that using actual standard definitions creates valid relative type to type outcomes. Not that the outcomes are truly "right" - they are just "more correct" - as good as we can get within the ranges of values permitted by the structure of code itself.

The basic air combat model is surprisingly good considering how primitive it is. But you must give it good data to see it. That starts with making sure the values of planes are relatively correct compared to each other - no seat of the pants system does that. And it critically depends on defining a durability value which is not large - else you get "durable" planes (go figure).

(in reply to Natali)
Post #: 14
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Aircraft Stats Page: [1]
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

0.090