Matrix Games Forums

Space Program Manager Launch Contest Announced!Battle Academy 2 is out now on iPad!A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Weapon Accuracy for Devices

 
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 >> Weapon Accuracy for Devices Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Weapon Accuracy for Devices - 6/7/2013 7:38:47 PM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5663
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: United States
Status: online
I swear I asked this once before, maybe not. I can't find it when I do a search of all threads I've contributed to, but what determines accuracy for devices? So for instance the 16" Mk7 gun has an accuracy of 20 in the editor. How was this number arrived at? What formula is used or whatever? I'm trying to add some German guns. I was thinking of just mimicking their accuracy with their closest Allied equivalents but I don't know if that is a good idea or not.

Thanks.

_____________________________

Favorite/Awesome games from Matrix

War in the Pacific/AE
Panzer Corps
Commander Europe at War
John Tiller's Campaign Series
The Close Combat Series (all versions)
Post #: 1
RE: Weapon Accuracy for Devices - 6/7/2013 10:51:37 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1486
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
I swear I asked this once before, maybe not. I can't find it when I do a search of all threads I've contributed to, but what determines accuracy for devices?

The code.
quote:

So for instance the 16" Mk7 gun has an accuracy of 20 in the editor. How was this number arrived at? What formula is used or whatever??
You start by graphing what already exists. Then you do a curve fit on the data (it will take you 3 iterations). Once you get it down, the rest is brainless, just plop in your device specs and viola, ...
quote:

I'm trying to add some German guns. I was thinking of just mimicking their accuracy with their closest Allied equivalents but I don't know if that is a good idea or not.

Not
quote:

Thanks.

Ciao. John

_____________________________

Yippy Ki Yay

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 2
RE: Weapon Accuracy for Devices - 6/8/2013 9:02:38 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I swear I asked this once before, maybe not. I can't find it when I do a search of all threads I've contributed to, but what determines accuracy for devices? So for instance the 16" Mk7 gun has an accuracy of 20 in the editor. How was this number arrived at? What formula is used or whatever?

For most Naval Guns it is Rate of Fire per Minute times 10.
So, 16" Mk7 have 20, because it had Rate of Fire equal to 2 per minute.

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 3
RE: Weapon Accuracy for Devices - 6/8/2013 5:15:07 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1486
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: How was this number arrived at? What formula is used or whatever?

Not a good idea to use 10 x RoF. That was back in UV, WiTP and the AE initial release. It caused so many problems, that we decided enough of that nonsense.

Michaelm adjusted the accuracy code and we changed everything back in 2010. Naval and AA accuracy are both changed to take advantage of the new algorithm. I calculated a curve that worked within the algorithm’s sweet spot. Did a spread of 3 iterations – high, low and center, with all three pegged to the same spot, at 16”. Data was very simply extracted from one or another of the curves. This is what exists today.

There is a newer system that performs individual calculations on each gun and it seems to represent historical capabilities better, as well as give smoother results. The resulting data fits into the spread of the graphical curve more reasonably and actually models “better” guns as having better characteristics.

This is how it’s done: Calculate “nominal” RoF (very often less than maximum). Then calculate “factor” RoF = 2x(Sqrt)Nominal. Add Nominal and Factor. Multiply by shell sectional density. Multiply by shell diameter ratio (using 16.1” basis, i.e., 16.1/(shell diameter)). Divide by 2 = Value. If you want to get really fancy, you can factor in crh and L ratio (ratio of ballistic length as a function of tube length compared to 16.1” basis); this is especially useful for representing the Japanese “short” guns.

A very simplified version of this is what was used to generate the graphical curves. You just need to do it backwards; do the curves and pick off your gun stats. Believe me, they are way different from WiTP and the initial release of AE.

Listening to little clones using 2006 RHS data is noooot the greatest idea I ever heard.


< Message edited by Symon -- 6/8/2013 7:41:01 PM >


_____________________________

Yippy Ki Yay

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 4
RE: Weapon Accuracy for Devices - 6/8/2013 7:44:50 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1486
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
Btw, this is all coming to you at a BigBabes theater in your neighborhood, soon. JuanG, I got the spreadsheets.

Ciao, John

_____________________________

Yippy Ki Yay

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 5
RE: Weapon Accuracy for Devices - 6/8/2013 8:48:21 PM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5663
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: United States
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

quote:

ORIGINAL: How was this number arrived at? What formula is used or whatever?

Not a good idea to use 10 x RoF. That was back in UV, WiTP and the AE initial release. It caused so many problems, that we decided enough of that nonsense.

Michaelm adjusted the accuracy code and we changed everything back in 2010. Naval and AA accuracy are both changed to take advantage of the new algorithm. I calculated a curve that worked within the algorithm’s sweet spot. Did a spread of 3 iterations – high, low and center, with all three pegged to the same spot, at 16”. Data was very simply extracted from one or another of the curves. This is what exists today.

There is a newer system that performs individual calculations on each gun and it seems to represent historical capabilities better, as well as give smoother results. The resulting data fits into the spread of the graphical curve more reasonably and actually models “better” guns as having better characteristics.

This is how it’s done: Calculate “nominal” RoF (very often less than maximum). Then calculate “factor” RoF = 2x(Sqrt)Nominal. Add Nominal and Factor. Multiply by shell sectional density. Multiply by shell diameter ratio (using 16.1” basis, i.e., 16.1/(shell diameter)). Divide by 2 = Value. If you want to get really fancy, you can factor in crh and L ratio (ratio of ballistic length as a function of tube length compared to 16.1” basis); this is especially useful for representing the Japanese “short” guns.

A very simplified version of this is what was used to generate the graphical curves. You just need to do it backwards; do the curves and pick off your gun stats. Believe me, they are way different from WiTP and the initial release of AE.

Listening to little clones using 2006 RHS data is noooot the greatest idea I ever heard.



Wish I had the math competency I had coming out of highschool but my math is about as rusty as my Spanish, "no comprende" is about all I know now. lol

I guess it's pretty much the kiddie pool for me and this mod. I'll probably have to stick with something simpleminded like RoF x 10 (which means I'll probably have to recalibrate the existing data to match the new). Though, I do appreciate the attempt to educate me, JWE. I apologize to waste your time. I didn't realize the calculation is as complex as it is. Its reassuring to know that real thought has been put into stock AE and into DaBabes. Kudos!

_____________________________

Favorite/Awesome games from Matrix

War in the Pacific/AE
Panzer Corps
Commander Europe at War
John Tiller's Campaign Series
The Close Combat Series (all versions)

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 6
RE: Weapon Accuracy for Devices - 6/9/2013 2:36:55 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 857
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon
This is how it’s done: Calculate “nominal” RoF (very often less than maximum). Then calculate “factor” RoF = 2x(Sqrt)Nominal. Add Nominal and Factor. Multiply by shell sectional density. Multiply by shell diameter ratio (using 16.1” basis, i.e., 16.1/(shell diameter)). Divide by 2 = Value. If you want to get really fancy, you can factor in crh and L ratio (ratio of ballistic length as a function of tube length compared to 16.1” basis); this is especially useful for representing the Japanese “short” guns.


Hey John, very interesting.

Any chance you could just clarify a couple of things regarding this formula;
Sectional density - I presume this is in lbs / sqin?
L ratio - is this in caliber lengths or physical length?

I'm curious about the choice of some of these variables - a lot of them are more directly related to ballistic accuracy rather than firecontrol accuracy, so I'm left wondering if this is deliberate.

Also - just from some back of the envelope math (waiting on answers to the above units before I mess with it too seriously), it seems like some weapons might be a little undervalued by this approach. In particular, the British 15in/42 which had some of the best dispersion characteristics of any large caliber gun in the war seems to be victim.

Would really appreciate hearing your thoughts (and if you're willing to share that spreadsheet).
Juan


< Message edited by JuanG -- 6/9/2013 5:37:35 PM >


_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 7
RE: Weapon Accuracy for Devices - 6/9/2013 6:41:05 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1486
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG
Hey John, very interesting.

Any chance you could just clarify a couple of things regarding this formula;
Sectional density - I presume this is in lbs / sqin?
L ratio - is this in caliber lengths or physical length?

Hi Juan. Thanks.
Yep, secden is shell weight/diam^2. L ratio is in calibers, so you have to convert your shell ballistic length into its caliber basis.
quote:

I'm curious about the choice of some of these variables - a lot of them are more directly related to ballistic accuracy rather than firecontrol accuracy, so I'm left wondering if this is deliberate.

Yes it is. One must start somewhere and I thought the tube/round combo was a good place to begin. If ya put a stake in the ground it's good that everything bats from the same box. These thingies are 'devices' and I thought it appropriate to treat them as such. So made an algorithm to treat the 'devices'. The game code doesn't have any way of representing fire control, except as a "chunky" update to Allied capability in certain "years". Very unfortunate, but that's how the stock executable works.
quote:

Also - just from some back of the envelope math (waiting on answers to the above units before I mess with it too seriously), it seems like some weapons might be a little undervalued by this approach. In particular, the British 15in/42 which had some of the best dispersion characteristics of any large caliber gun in the war seems to be victim.

Well, yes, perhaps they are. The algorithm is just a basis to get everyone in the same box. It doesn't (can't) allow for the skill of the batter. As you know very well, there's tubes and then there's tubes; and every once in a while somebody gets a tube and a shell design together that hits the sweet spot (and sometimes, it's an utter roach). The algorithm simply provides a consistent and reproducable starting point for individual weapon adaptations. I tweak the algorithm, myself, for those weapons I am familiar with. Folks like yourself, that know other weapons can (and should) do the same. The algorithm is not cast in stone, it's a self-consistent starting point from where folks can depart without wondering "what do I do with this crap, Batman."
quote:

Would really appreciate hearing your thoughts (and if you're willing to share that spreadsheet).
Juan

All I have is yours, my friend. I'm finalizing a PI scenario for porting into AE but soon as that's done, I'll complete the spreadsheet (right now, only Japan and a third of US is done). Btw, it has the complete algorithm as column math and has not a few individual devices manually adjusted, in red.

Regards. John

< Message edited by Symon -- 6/9/2013 7:08:22 PM >


_____________________________

Yippy Ki Yay

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 8
RE: Weapon Accuracy for Devices - 6/12/2013 1:52:38 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 857
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
Gary, if its of any help, the simplest form of the equation John posted can be condensed to;

Accuracy =

where
W is shell weight in pounds,
D is bore diameter in inches,
T is nominal rate of fire in rounds per minute.

This excludes the barrel L ratio and the shellform crh ratio.

So for example, the US 16in/50 Mk7 would work out as;
W = 2700
D = 16
T = 1.8
Therefore A = 30.3

The German 38cm/52 C/34 (Bismarck main battery) would work out as;
W = 1764
D = 14.96
T = 2.3
Therefore A = 28.8

If you factor in the L ratio, just multiply the 38cm/52 by 1.04 (52/50) for an A of 30.
With the shellform crh ratio, the 38cm/52 is multiplied by 0.98 (4.4/4.5) for an A of 29.4.

John,
I find the choice of T + 2sqrt(T) for the RoF factor interesting - I use T^0.34 as part of my own formula, and our final numbers are not massively different (~30 vs ~39 for the 16in/50 Mk7) - the main factor being that my factor tends to favour slower firing (ie battleship) guns slightly more than your formula does.

Its also very intriguing that the W/D^3 factor pops up if one simplifies your equation - this is nice because its both a key ratio for shell design as well as being easy to calculate. Its also fairly constant for shells of the same design generation and nation.


< Message edited by JuanG -- 6/12/2013 1:57:21 PM >


_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 9
RE: Weapon Accuracy for Devices - 6/12/2013 3:10:06 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 217
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Gary, if its of any help, the simplest form of the equation John posted can be condensed to;

Accuracy =

where
W is shell weight in pounds,
D is bore diameter in inches,
T is nominal rate of fire in rounds per minute.

This excludes the barrel L ratio and the shellform crh ratio.


Where did the constant of 10.25 come from? Did I miss that in the explanation earlier?

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 10
RE: Weapon Accuracy for Devices - 6/12/2013 3:37:31 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 857
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MateDow


quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Gary, if its of any help, the simplest form of the equation John posted can be condensed to;

Accuracy =

where
W is shell weight in pounds,
D is bore diameter in inches,
T is nominal rate of fire in rounds per minute.

This excludes the barrel L ratio and the shellform crh ratio.


Where did the constant of 10.25 come from? Did I miss that in the explanation earlier?


It comes from simplifying the constants in the equation. These are 16.1 (from the caliber basis), Pi (from the sectional density calculation), 4 (also from the sectional density calculation, a consequence of converting R^2 -> (D/2)^2 -> (R^2)/4 ) and 1/2 (from the 'divide by 2' final operation).

Equation wise;
Initial equation;


Convert R^2 -> (D^2)/4, 4 moves to top;


Rearrange constants;


Resolve constants = 10.2495 = 10.25.


_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to MateDow)
Post #: 11
RE: Weapon Accuracy for Devices - 6/12/2013 6:19:13 PM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1918
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG


quote:

ORIGINAL: MateDow


quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Gary, if its of any help, the simplest form of the equation John posted can be condensed to;

Accuracy =

where
W is shell weight in pounds,
D is bore diameter in inches,
T is nominal rate of fire in rounds per minute.

This excludes the barrel L ratio and the shellform crh ratio.


Where did the constant of 10.25 come from? Did I miss that in the explanation earlier?


It comes from simplifying the constants in the equation. These are 16.1 (from the caliber basis), Pi (from the sectional density calculation), 4 (also from the sectional density calculation, a consequence of converting R^2 -> (D/2)^2 -> (R^2)/4 ) and 1/2 (from the 'divide by 2' final operation).

Equation wise;
Initial equation;


Convert R^2 -> (D^2)/4, 4 moves to top;


Rearrange constants;


Resolve constants = 10.2495 = 10.25.




Uhhh, what ever happened to "you push the little value down and the music goes round and round and it comes out here"

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 12
RE: Weapon Accuracy for Devices - 6/12/2013 6:41:47 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1486
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG
John,
I find the choice of T + 2sqrt(T) for the RoF factor interesting - I use T^0.34 as part of my own formula, and our final numbers are not massively different (~30 vs ~39 for the 16in/50 Mk7) - the main factor being that my factor tends to favour slower firing (ie battleship) guns slightly more than your formula does.

Juan, you are a man after my own heart. Oh, yeah, I wish to gosh we could have done it right and then tweaked the code to match. But we had to work with the legacy algorithm, that required some 'squeezing' of the data to fit the game curve sweet spot.
quote:

Its also very intriguing that the W/D^3 factor pops up if one simplifies your equation - this is nice because its both a key ratio for shell design as well as being easy to calculate. Its also fairly constant for shells of the same design generation and nation.

I may not be the brightest Nav Gun guy in the box (in fact, I think you are far more knowledgeable) but I was trained at Sill and I do know my ballistics.

Thanks for all your help and comments. John

< Message edited by Symon -- 6/12/2013 6:42:33 PM >


_____________________________

Yippy Ki Yay

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 13
RE: Weapon Accuracy for Devices - 6/12/2013 8:50:05 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 2948
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
Rate of fire wasn't relevant in BB and in practice was lower since some guns missed the salvoes.

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 14
RE: Weapon Accuracy for Devices - 6/13/2013 3:06:37 AM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5663
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: United States
Status: online
Thanks for the explanation JuanG!

_____________________________

Favorite/Awesome games from Matrix

War in the Pacific/AE
Panzer Corps
Commander Europe at War
John Tiller's Campaign Series
The Close Combat Series (all versions)

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 15
RE: Weapon Accuracy for Devices - 6/13/2013 9:46:59 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 217
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline
Are there empirical methods that are used for calculating the ammunition for guns as they are inserted?

It looks like Vanilla uses the following...

Large Caliber - 1 point per 10 rounds
Medium Caliber - 1 point per 19 rounds

I know that there has to be a better method to calculate this.

Any suggestions?

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 16
RE: Weapon Accuracy for Devices - 6/15/2013 4:28:28 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 217
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon
This is how it’s done: Calculate “nominal” RoF (very often less than maximum). Then calculate “factor” RoF = 2x(Sqrt)Nominal. Add Nominal and Factor. Multiply by shell sectional density. Multiply by shell diameter ratio (using 16.1” basis, i.e., 16.1/(shell diameter)). Divide by 2 = Value. If you want to get really fancy, you can factor in crh and L ratio (ratio of ballistic length as a function of tube length compared to 16.1” basis); this is especially useful for representing the Japanese “short” guns.



quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG
If you factor in the L ratio, just multiply the 38cm/52 by 1.04 (52/50) for an A of 30.
With the shellform crh ratio, the 38cm/52 is multiplied by 0.98 (4.4/4.5) for an A of 29.4.


How is crh ratio used? Do I compare the crh of the shell I'm trying to model vs the Japanese 16.1"?

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 17
RE: Weapon Accuracy for Devices - 6/15/2013 8:50:44 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 857
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MateDow


quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon
This is how it’s done: Calculate “nominal” RoF (very often less than maximum). Then calculate “factor” RoF = 2x(Sqrt)Nominal. Add Nominal and Factor. Multiply by shell sectional density. Multiply by shell diameter ratio (using 16.1” basis, i.e., 16.1/(shell diameter)). Divide by 2 = Value. If you want to get really fancy, you can factor in crh and L ratio (ratio of ballistic length as a function of tube length compared to 16.1” basis); this is especially useful for representing the Japanese “short” guns.



quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG
If you factor in the L ratio, just multiply the 38cm/52 by 1.04 (52/50) for an A of 30.
With the shellform crh ratio, the 38cm/52 is multiplied by 0.98 (4.4/4.5) for an A of 29.4.


How is crh ratio used? Do I compare the crh of the shell I'm trying to model vs the Japanese 16.1"?



I actually used the USN 16in 2700lber shellform ratio (4.5) for the Bismarck calculation, since it meant I didn't have to apply it to both. In retrospect the choice of the IJN 16in 2249lbs with crh of 4.24 is probably the original intent.

John, any chance you could clarify which you intended as the basis? Also, should the L and crh basis be applied before or after the divide by 2 bit? I applied them afterwards, but that was in the interest of simplification for the example.

< Message edited by JuanG -- 6/15/2013 8:55:28 PM >


_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to MateDow)
Post #: 18
RE: Weapon Accuracy for Devices - 6/15/2013 9:01:36 PM   
Mac Linehan

 

Posts: 1254
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
Original:

Equation wise;
Initial equation;


Convert R^2 -> (D^2)/4, 4 moves to top;


Rearrange constants;


Resolve constants = 10.2495 = 10.25.

End

I think my head hurts...<grin>

Good Stuff; thanks for the under the hood look, Gents!

Kiddie Pool Mac

_____________________________

LAV-25 2147

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 19
RE: Weapon Accuracy for Devices - 6/15/2013 9:38:21 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 217
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

I actually used the USN 16in 2700lber shellform ratio (4.5) for the Bismarck calculation, since it meant I didn't have to apply it to both. In retrospect the choice of the IJN 16in 2249lbs with crh of 4.24 is probably the original intent.



Have you found a good site that lists crh and information like ballistic coefficient for naval shells? I looked on NavWeaps, and they have some references, but it isn't consistent. I love NaAB for calculating penetration, but not all of the shells have that data, so I have been trying to interpolate based on era and such.



(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 20
RE: Weapon Accuracy for Devices - 6/15/2013 11:25:10 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4158
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Just over there.
Status: offline
A good site for everything you ever wanted to know about naval weapons calculations is here: Nathan Okun

(in reply to MateDow)
Post #: 21
RE: Weapon Accuracy for Devices - 6/16/2013 3:15:44 AM   
bigred


Posts: 2896
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach


quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG


quote:

ORIGINAL: MateDow


quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Gary, if its of any help, the simplest form of the equation John posted can be condensed to;

Accuracy =

where
W is shell weight in pounds,
D is bore diameter in inches,
T is nominal rate of fire in rounds per minute.

This excludes the barrel L ratio and the shellform crh ratio.


Where did the constant of 10.25 come from? Did I miss that in the explanation earlier?


It comes from simplifying the constants in the equation. These are 16.1 (from the caliber basis), Pi (from the sectional density calculation), 4 (also from the sectional density calculation, a consequence of converting R^2 -> (D/2)^2 -> (R^2)/4 ) and 1/2 (from the 'divide by 2' final operation).

Equation wise;
Initial equation;


Convert R^2 -> (D^2)/4, 4 moves to top;


Rearrange constants;


Resolve constants = 10.2495 = 10.25.




Uhhh, what ever happened to "you push the little value down and the music goes round and round and it comes out here"

I this thread. Easy to see why I went infantry.

_____________________________

---bigred---

IJ Production mistakes--
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2597400

(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 22
RE: Weapon Accuracy for Devices - 6/16/2013 3:19:03 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1486
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG
John, any chance you could clarify which you intended as the basis? Also, should the L and crh basis be applied before or after the divide by 2 bit? I applied them afterwards, but that was in the interest of simplification for the example.

Hola,

I use crh more to identify the "performance outliers". Some guns were very accurate, some were very inaccurate (dispersion, range, etc..). Found crh for those and there is some degree of correlation in the ratio. This being one of my more demented periods, I averaged crh for each caliber and ratioed the individual gun values to the caliber average. They are all 'close' to 1, but a few were notably bigger or smaller (looked at things outside +/- 1 and 1.5 sigma from the mean).

Turns out this, in combination with the L ratio, is a resonable way to justify the more spectacular (and notably unspectacular) performers without being arbitrary and capricious

Ciao. John

_____________________________

Yippy Ki Yay

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 23
RE: Weapon Accuracy for Devices - 6/22/2013 9:50:15 PM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5663
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: United States
Status: online
For anyone interested I've made an MS Excel spreadsheet (readable in OpenOffice Calc as well) which does the calculation JuanG posted above. All you need to do is plug in shell weight (in pounds), bore diameter (in inches) and rate of fire (per minute) in the respective cells and the accuracy will be autumatically calculated in the cell labeled "Accuracy". The sheet is protected so the formula cannot be accidentally deleted but the password to unprotect it if you want to throw caution to the wind is "password".

Spreadsheet is attached below:

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Favorite/Awesome games from Matrix

War in the Pacific/AE
Panzer Corps
Commander Europe at War
John Tiller's Campaign Series
The Close Combat Series (all versions)

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 24
RE: Weapon Accuracy for Devices - 6/22/2013 11:10:33 PM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5663
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: United States
Status: online
Hmmm. Maybe I've miscalculated the formula in my spreadsheet but according to what I'm getting for the German 12.7cm/45 SK C/41 which, according to navweapons.com has a RoF of 15 rpm and a shell weight of 61.7 lbs, the accuracy is coming out to 115

Did I calculate something wrong or is that the value I need to put in under accuracy in the DB?

EDIT: Plugging in the Bofors 40mm round I come out with 770 accuracy!

< Message edited by Gary Childress -- 6/22/2013 11:22:45 PM >


_____________________________

Favorite/Awesome games from Matrix

War in the Pacific/AE
Panzer Corps
Commander Europe at War
John Tiller's Campaign Series
The Close Combat Series (all versions)

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 25
RE: Weapon Accuracy for Devices - 6/23/2013 1:45:59 AM   
JuanG


Posts: 857
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Hmmm. Maybe I've miscalculated the formula in my spreadsheet but according to what I'm getting for the German 12.7cm/45 SK C/41 which, according to navweapons.com has a RoF of 15 rpm and a shell weight of 61.7 lbs, the accuracy is coming out to 115

Did I calculate something wrong or is that the value I need to put in under accuracy in the DB?

EDIT: Plugging in the Bofors 40mm round I come out with 770 accuracy!


I get 95.5 for the 12.7cm/45 C/41.

The US 5in/38 Mk12 comes in as ~85 without the L corrections.

I think the issue here is that it is intended to model the larger caliber rifles (probably 8in upwards), so the model may break down for the small fast firing weapons. This is likely because determination of 'nominal' RoF is fairly difficult for these weapons, or atleast moreso than the large rifles. Certainly, 15 which is the 'sustained' RoF for both of these weapons is not the same thing.

To account for that, this is why I use a power of 0.34 for the RoF factor in my own fomula - it gives a fairly gentle increase, which reflects the reality of RoF being of secondary importance in surface combat (firecontrol was much more important). Of course, there are instances in which RoF is important, particularly close range encounters or barrage fire against light targets, but the model cannot cover everything. On the otherhand, when dealing with AA accuracy, I used a power factor of 0.7, which reflects the much greater importance of rate of fire on AA fire compared to surface fire.

The actual formula used in the current iteration of HDM in plain form is;
Surface Accuracy = 5 + ((RoF^0.34) * 20 * Modifier)

The 'Modifier' here is a value the is a composite of the firecontrol system associated with the device, as well as the platform type (BB, CA and CL main batteries receive a bonus) and other modifiers (including my own personal tweaks to some guns up and down depending on historical performance). For most BB's with middle of the road FCS systems (say Nagato or Colorado at the beginning of the war), it works out to ~1.3.

For AA accuracy it is;
Anti-Air Accuracy = 5 + ((RoF^0.7) * 10 * Modifier)

In this instance the Modifier is fed slightly different values, but the general idea is the same. RoF in bothn of the above is simply sustained rate of fire.

I am in the process of (or will be as soon as I move back onto Naval stuff from Aircraft) revising the formula to incorporate some of John's suggestions, though it will in all likelyhood end up looking somewhat different.

< Message edited by JuanG -- 6/23/2013 1:59:18 AM >


_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 26
RE: Weapon Accuracy for Devices - 6/23/2013 1:57:47 PM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5663
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: United States
Status: online
OK, I know this makes no sense whatsoever and is based on nothing remotely corresponding to reality but I toyed around with numbers and JuanG's equation for HDM and came up with this equation which creates accuracy values sort of similar to the current numbers in the version of AE I'm playing. Basically in this equation rate of fire and barrel caliber both factor into the accuracy. Granted there is nothing to take fire control systems into account.

Ideas? Thoughts? Denunciations?




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Favorite/Awesome games from Matrix

War in the Pacific/AE
Panzer Corps
Commander Europe at War
John Tiller's Campaign Series
The Close Combat Series (all versions)

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 27
RE: Weapon Accuracy for Devices - 6/23/2013 4:52:52 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 857
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

OK, I know this makes no sense whatsoever and is based on nothing remotely corresponding to reality but I toyed around with numbers and JuanG's equation for HDM and came up with this equation which creates accuracy values sort of similar to the current numbers in the version of AE I'm playing. Basically in this equation rate of fire and barrel caliber both factor into the accuracy. Granted there is nothing to take fire control systems into account.

Ideas? Thoughts? Denunciations?





A few stray thoughts;
-Dont bother trying to fit the 40mm or other 'rapidfire' weapons into the same formula. I use mine down to ~3inches, as well as the breech loaded smaller guns (6pdrs, etc.). Basically anything with an RoF of over ~20 or so uses a different formula.
-I presume 'Cal.' in your formula is barrel length in calibers. I'm not sure about using that directly, because as mentioned a lot of short barreled weapons actually had better ballistic characteristics from an accuracy standpoint. Typically, it is the weapons that also have high muzzle velocities/energies relative to barrel length that tend to result in dispersion problems.

< Message edited by JuanG -- 6/23/2013 4:53:23 PM >


_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 28
RE: Weapon Accuracy for Devices - 6/24/2013 11:04:18 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 15034
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

quote:

ORIGINAL:
Listening to little clones using 2006 RHS data is noooot the greatest idea I ever heard.



Someone does not understand RHS data. It uses the stock system for naval gun accuracy. OTHER things have been modified, but not accuracy. I will confess to not seeing a problem with the base system and a good deal of statistical testing indicates it is remarkably good for such a simple algorithm. Elaborate changes to it do not appear justified.

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 29
RE: Weapon Accuracy for Devices - 6/24/2013 11:52:36 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1486
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Someone does not understand RHS data. It uses the stock system for naval gun accuracy. OTHER things have been modified, but not accuracy. I will confess to not seeing a problem with the base system and a good deal of statistical testing indicates it is remarkably good for such a simple algorithm. Elaborate changes to it do not appear justified.

Over all the years, I have never once looked at RHS. I have never cared about RHS. None of the AE development team have looked at RHS. Nothing in AE comes from RHS. I know this for a fact.

RHS data is irrelevant. It does not use any of the info gathered over the years and incorporated into Michaelm's beta executables. In fact you have no clue what we have done. You are trying to sell a one-horse buggy with a tired Percheron, in a world of (well, not Porsches, but maybe) Honda Accords or an Infiniti Q.

Someone does not understand the modern world's data. Ciao.

_____________________________

Yippy Ki Yay

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Weapon Accuracy for Devices Page: [1] 2   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

0.125