Matrix Games Forums

To 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!Distant Worlds: Universe gets a new updateDeal of the Week: Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich Advanced Tactics Gold is coming to SteamMatrix Games now speaks German!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Aircraft Performance

 
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 Performance Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Aircraft Performance - 3/16/2013 4:17:45 PM   
HistoryGuy


Posts: 80
Joined: 1/7/2009
From: Woodbridge, VA
Status: offline
Now that I have been playing WITP AE enough to start looking at the minor details, and accepting that some of the real life dynamics cannot be modeled, I only one major question............why do all fighter aircraft have decreasing performance capabilities as their operational altitudes increase? I cannot think of one exception. But there are real life design capabilities that ensured some aircraft performed BETTER at higher altitudes, e.g. the P-47 which was nowhere near as effective against Luftwaffe fighters at lower altitudes, but which could outmaneuver them at 30,000 feet plus. Seems like the maneuverability parameters dont take into effect technologies such as superchargers and turbochargers? Anyone who doesnt believe P-47Ds are effective should take a gander at the cause of death/wounds for the 50+ Luftwaffe day fighter experten shot down in the West during the Winter/Spring 1944........(hint, only one fell victim to the RAF).

V/r

Mark R.

PS While it is somewhat disconcerting to see that one of my own books has been turned into a Matrix Games (CC:PiTF) product, I remain a die hard WITP AE fan.

< Message edited by HistoryGuy -- 3/16/2013 4:30:16 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Aircraft Performance - 3/16/2013 4:31:57 PM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14619
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
IIRC most scenarios have the P-47 (or at least certain models of it) with the same maneuver ratings at all altitudes.

Besides, it's the relative performance of the two aircraft in question that matters.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to HistoryGuy)
Post #: 2
RE: Aircraft Performance - 3/16/2013 4:37:27 PM   
HistoryGuy


Posts: 80
Joined: 1/7/2009
From: Woodbridge, VA
Status: offline
True, if one plane gets worse and the opposing plane gets better performance at altitude, then the difference is significant. If they both get better, then it cancels out. I never thought about this factor until I began doing research for a book on aviation warfare and delved a bit more deeply into tactics, pilot training, and specific airframe performance. Then I seemed to notice that almost all WITP aircraft performance fell off as the altitude increased. Seemed like a bit of a generic thought process to me. I also understand that I would be free to modify scenarios to reflect my own beliefs, but wanted to avoid going off half-cocked in that regard, especially since my current "expertise" is limited only to a small range of USAAF airframes.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 3
RE: Aircraft Performance - 3/16/2013 5:47:45 PM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14619
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
Although I'm not an expert nor have any inside knowledge about the inner working of the game engine, I've been on the forums reading what those who do have expertise and/or inside knowledge have to say about it. Some thoughts.


First one must understand that the parameters in the scenario files should not be considered as plugging into a laws-of-physics simulation - they don't. Instead, they are simply input into formulae in the game engine. They have names that are often useful ('maximum speed', 'cruise speed', etc.) but only sometimes are literal values applied to them ('maximum speed' being one good example). Stating the obvious, the objective is to try and produce what is believed to be (or have been) the real life performance characteristics of the weapon/plane/ship/etc. in question. When serving that objective, the values of the parameters often times must be 'tuned' to achieve the desired outcome. Importantly, some parameters are used for multiple purposes and that sometimes causes conflicts.

- There are no parameters for zillions of things that matter to real-life performance (take your pick of examples: wing shape, fuel injection vs carburetor fueled engines, roll rate, dive speed, and on and on).

- The numbers given for maneuver are not literal in any sense AFAIK.

- Speed matters a great deal and weighs heavily in the air combat routines. You will notice that many well performing planes have lower maneuver ratings compared to slower aircraft that they outperform in combat.

- Rate of climb seems to be important as well, but less so than speed.

- The 'Accuracy' parameter of various guns on aircraft is sort of a combination of accuracy and rate of fire.

- There is no ammunition parameter for aircraft guns.

- Very few aircraft get an armor rating of '2' as that implies very heavy armor.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to HistoryGuy)
Post #: 4
RE: Aircraft Performance - 3/16/2013 7:31:50 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5667
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
P47 not only has armor, but high DUR.  combination is appropriate as it was a tough aircraft.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 5
RE: Aircraft Performance - 3/16/2013 8:56:17 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8139
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HistoryGuy

Mark R.

PS While it is somewhat disconcerting to see that one of my own books has been turned into a Matrix Games (CC:PiTF) product, I remain a die hard WITP AE fan.


What is the title (and ISBN) of the book?

(in reply to HistoryGuy)
Post #: 6
RE: Aircraft Performance - 3/17/2013 1:17:13 AM   
HistoryGuy


Posts: 80
Joined: 1/7/2009
From: Woodbridge, VA
Status: offline
Don - Victory at Mortain:Defeating Hitler's Panzer Counteroffensive. Kansas University Press, 2002. LOL - I dont know the ISBN! But its on Amazon. PM me your address and I will send you a free autographed copy!

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 7
RE: Aircraft Performance - 3/17/2013 1:19:47 AM   
HistoryGuy


Posts: 80
Joined: 1/7/2009
From: Woodbridge, VA
Status: offline
WITPQS,

Although I used the P-47 as an example, I am not focused on a single airframe. The parameters I mentioned (increasing performance at altitude) might apply to multiple airframes across the entire spectrum of combatants. Didnt meant to sound like a P-47 fanboy.

(in reply to HistoryGuy)
Post #: 8
RE: Aircraft Performance - 3/17/2013 2:40:38 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5667
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HistoryGuy

increasing performance at altitude

Doesn't exist.

Turbo/Super/Twin charger technology allows a piston engine to generate horsepower that will approach sea level performance ... but you cannot exceed that. Jet/rocket technology is completely different and so excluded from this discussion.

Now, as you increase altitude, air density drops. Thus, for the same engine output, some performance characteristics can potentially improve (climb rate), but in practice rarely do. Others though that rely on control surfaces (roll, turn, etc) generally degrade as altitude increases.

The net effect for this era is that theorectical maximum plane manouverability degrades as altitude increases. Now, by judicious use of twin chargers and design you can come ever closer to these maximums. P51 is the standard against which all air frames of this era are measured. That is why it was used in racing even into the 70's as the very best aircraft.

< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 3/17/2013 5:41:54 AM >


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to HistoryGuy)
Post #: 9
RE: Aircraft Performance - 3/18/2013 5:55:44 PM   
HistoryGuy


Posts: 80
Joined: 1/7/2009
From: Woodbridge, VA
Status: offline
Pax,

My bad. I ruefully remembered that this technology is meant to maintain performance, not increase it. :-(

Chalk it up to a land warfare guy tenatively exploring the airy bounds of flight (in preparation for writing a book on the US 12th AF in Tunisia).

Turns out that players can tweak a/c performance at altitude with affecting maneuvrability parameters at other altitudes, so I guess it would be up to the individual player rather than a mandated fix for the game.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 10
RE: Aircraft Performance - 3/18/2013 10:24:00 PM   
JeffK


Posts: 5153
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline
I still think you dont understand the system.

If my mythical P47 has the following mvr stats
Low 25
Medium 25
High 20
V-High 15
It looks like its performance is dropping.

Its opponent, the Ki-125 has the following
Low 25
Medium 20
High 12
V-High 6

So the P47 goes from being equal to being 250% of the mvr rating of its opponent.
In early threads it was discussed what went towards the numbers, maybe someone can find these.

Add to this rating, the max speed, climb, durability, pilts ratings etc etc and you then can work out exactly how good an aircraft is.

I believe very few tweak mvr stats, when you start down this track you can unbalance the whole equation.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to HistoryGuy)
Post #: 11
RE: Aircraft Performance - 3/18/2013 10:34:41 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 5987
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Israel
Status: offline
When altitude increases, raw power comes to premium with piston-engined fighters. That is why P-47D was so great at high altitudes and could outperform e.g. most of German fighters.

_____________________________

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


(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 12
RE: Aircraft Performance - 3/20/2013 1:00:11 AM   
barkorn45

 

Posts: 284
Joined: 1/17/2010
Status: offline
Would'nt the use of nitrous and methonal water injection increase performance at higher altitudes not just maintain it?

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 13
RE: Aircraft Performance - 3/20/2013 2:12:01 AM   
Captain Cruft


Posts: 3648
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline
I think that without knowing the formulae it is highly suspect trying to fiddle with the manouver values. These do not map to reality in any simple way.

For example, I tried cranking up the Ki-83 values by between 5 and 10 (which still kept it well below the values of 1E fighters like the Frank and Tojo) but as a result it turned into a uber monster that could eat all the late war Allied piston engine fighters for breakfast. Not realistic.

Messing with speeds, climb rates and armament is IMO fine since these map directly to reality, but I would strongly advise against changing manouver which is a totally abstract value.

(in reply to barkorn45)
Post #: 14
RE: Aircraft Performance - 4/4/2013 11:25:50 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4132
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Just over there.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: HistoryGuy

increasing performance at altitude

Doesn't exist.

Turbo/Super/Twin charger technology allows a piston engine to generate horsepower that will approach sea level performance ... but you cannot exceed that. Jet/rocket technology is completely different and so excluded from this discussion.

Now, as you increase altitude, air density drops. Thus, for the same engine output, some performance characteristics can potentially improve (climb rate), but in practice rarely do. Others though that rely on control surfaces (roll, turn, etc) generally degrade as altitude increases.

The net effect for this era is that theorectical maximum plane manouverability degrades as altitude increases. Now, by judicious use of twin chargers and design you can come ever closer to these maximums. P51 is the standard against which all air frames of this era are measured. That is why it was used in racing even into the 70's as the very best aircraft.


I'm late to comment on this, but - and as a matter of fact, having worked on this part of the game - I can tell you without reservation that some WWII piston engine aircraft CAN and indeed DID make more horsepower and produce greater speeds at higher altitudes than at sea level.
I am not responsible for the final MVR Ratings in the game, the head of the Air Team was directly responsible for choosing those - though he did have a consistent methodology.

I therefore cannot state with certainty that some aircraft in the game have higher MVR ratings at high altitude than they do at Low Altitude (for reasons beyond this discussion), but there certainly ought to be.

For example, the maximum speed of the above mentioned P-47D is 333MPH @ 2,110 HP at sea level, increasing as altitude climbs to 390MPH @ 2335 HP at 15,000 feet; maxing speed to 435MPH @ 31,000 feet (though HP drops a bit). Look HERE for aircraft test and acceptance documents.


< Message edited by Big B -- 4/4/2013 11:26:55 PM >

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 15
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Aircraft Performance 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

0.078