RE: Aircraft 'Manuever'

RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design

Message

el cid again -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/4/2006 4:22:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: treespider quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again Unless you can show how to use something, I am unable to use it. This is not directed at El cid but to the audience in general prompted by Cids above statement Two points: 1. Do any of you even know what Manueverability is supposed to represent in the game? A layman may look at the word Maneuverability and think that it is supposed to represent turn rate, roll rate and a variety of other rates. However what if it also represents things like target size, profile, or any number of other intangible items??? The P-47 for example may have a tremendous roll rate but is this counterbalanced by the size of the target profile presented...which may or may not be factored into maneuverability. So now once you figure out what Maneuverability is supposed to represent on to point # 2 2. How does the game even utilize it? As Cid stated above you cannot use it unless you know how to use it. Thanks. The technical answer is that maneuverability seems to be a simple value. A programmer suggested it was probably just speed. Turns out some times (in stock) it is - speed divided by 10. Other times it was apparently speed plus a fraction of ROC. But there is one other factor used: number of engines. 4 engine planes of all types, and 2 engine bombers and transports, REDUCED maneuverability values by division. [2 engine fighters and night fighters were an exception to this- I have no clue why?]. So technically a third factor is involved, but for a 1 engine plane you never see it because divide by 1 equals the same value. It does not appear that target size matters. But about 1/3 of stock values diviate from the equations - and may represent deliberate consideration of other things - like being a biplane perhaps? Few of the diviations are great, but some are. It may be some people didn't have access to definitions and just guessed. We see a lot more of that in CHS -- which had no benefit of the definitions to work with. And that is not a criticism - they came up with very reasonable maneuverability ratings almost 100% of the time for CHS. Just by looking and saying "It is just a bit better than a blankety blank" or whatever.

el cid again -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/4/2006 4:27:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez quote: The P-47 for example may have a tremendous roll rate but is this counterbalanced by the size of the target profile presented... The Corsair was the largest single engine fighter in the war and its maneuver rating is excellent so I doybt that size is a part of it. Chez It appears in this case you are correct: I see no statistical evidence size is a factor in WITP maneuverabilty - except insofar as it is related to engine count. 4 E planes have 1/8 the maneuverability of a 1 engine plane of the same speed and ROC. 2 E planes have 1/2 the maneuverability of a 1 engine plane of the same speed and ROC (unless it is a 2 E fighter or night fighter - which for some reason is not penalized- even when it otherwise is IDENTICAL to a 2E bomber!) RHS changed this to divide by engine count consistently - 4 E divide by 4 not 8 - 2 E divide by 2 in all cases - but IF we had a plane with two engines on the same propeller axis - we would count every pair as one. There is a cousin of the Ki-61 like this - not in the game - and there were a few other such planes in the world - not in the game - what matters is the propeller resistence - not the size per se.

ChezDaJez -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/4/2006 9:09:05 AM)
I do not know how GG defined what maneuver is but it is not maximum speed nor is it ROC related. If speed and ROC were the primary factors in maneuverability then the X-15, Mig-25, SR-71 and others would all be extremely maneuverable. That is not the case. Maneuver is also not a straight line. It is, simply put, the ability to change direction. Speed certainly influences maneuver but it is not a component of it except when a maneuver may require a minimum amount of speed such as when performing a loop. For the sake of simplicity I will confine my comments to single-engine fighters. Roll rate, initial turn rate, sustained turn rate, acceleration, zoom climb and initial dive acceleration are all part of what I believe constitutes "maneuverability." These factors are heavily influenced by the aircraft design and include factors such as weight, drag coefficient, horsepower, # of propeller blades, length, wingspan, and wing area along with many others. Wing loading and wing aspect ratios can be computed if necessary. And all of this data is readily available in books and some is on the web. Again an aircraft’s maximum speed and sustained rate of climb are not generally maneuverability factors but aircraft speed at the beginning of the maneuver does influence the ability to complete or prevent a maneuver. Roll rate is the ability of the aircraft to revolve around its longitudinal axis. As the ability to roll is not a true maneuver, roll rates are not very important in and of themselves. The importance of roll rate however becomes clear as the aircraft needs to roll in order to begin most maneuvers except a zoom climb. Roll values for a 360 degree roll (in seconds) for selected aircraft at 200 knots and 10K feet are as follows: A6M2: 5.9 seconds A6M3: 4.3 seconds Ki-43-II: 5.7 seconds F4F-4: 5.5 seconds F6F: 5.4 seconds F4U-1D: 3.7 seconds P-40E: 4.6 seconds As you can see, the Corsair is the king in rolling ability but the A6M3 and the P-40E aren’t far behind far behind. However as speed increases, the time required for Japanese fighters to complete a roll climbs tremendously. For example, an A6M2 at 300 knots requires 14.8 seconds to roll whereas a Corsair requires 2.5 seconds! An A6M2 at 330 mph requires 21.6 seconds! The initial turn rate is the maximum turn rate that can be temporarily achieved at the during a turn. It will result in stalling if held to long. It is not a sustainable turn rate. Many pilots refer to this as the ability to pull your own aircraft's nose to a target. I do not have initial turn rate values for any aircraft but I do have 180 degree turn times. In other words, what is the fastest an aircraft can complete a 180 degree turn at 250mph (The time needed to roll 90 degrees for the maneuver is factored in): A6M2: 5.1 seconds A6M3: 5.1 seconds Ki-43-II: 5.2 seconds F4F-4: 5.8 seconds F6F: 6.8 seconds F4U-1D: 7.3 seconds P-40E: 6.5 seconds This gives you an idea of what the initial turn rate might be like. As you can see, the Japanese aircraft can turn very quickly. The F4F-4 is the only US aircraft that comes close though the P-40 also could pull lead for a short time. The Hellcat and Corsair were both prone to stalling when pulled too tight too fast. You could divide the time into 180 degrees to compute a # degrees per second rate but I’m not sure it would accurately reflect their true ability. Sustained turn rate is the ability to maintain the smallest possible turn radius without stalling. The Zero and Oscar excelled at this due to their excellent wing loading values. The following sustained turn times apply (250mph @ 10K feet) and depict the time required for an aircraft to complete two 360 degree circles: A6M2: 25.7 seconds A6M3: 27 seconds Ki-43-II: 25.4 seconds F4F-4: 33.6 seconds F6F: 36 seconds F4U-1D: 49 seconds P-40E: 25 seconds The following data represents the sustained turning radii (in feet) for various aircraft: A6M2: 339 feet A6M3: 403 feet Ki-43-II: 338 feet F4F-4: 519 feet F6F: 646 feet F4U-1D: 700 feet P-40E: 597 feet As good as the Corsair was, the Japanese fighters would be on its tail within 2 circles if it attempted a turning fight. There was a reason pilots said “never turn with a Japanese fighter.” Acceleration is the ability to increase speed and its rate is altitude dependent. It technically is not a component of maneuver but can be an important factor in combat nonetheless. The following values represent the time required for an aircraft to accelerate from 150mph to 250mph: A6M2: 55.7 seconds A6M3: 49.6 seconds Ki-43-II: 32.7 seconds F4F-4: 73.1 seconds F6F: 34.1 seconds F4U-1D: 33.2 seconds P-40E: 55.4 seconds The Oscars could out accelerate the Corsair and Hellcat at low speeds. The Zero could also but the advantage was fleeting once those 2000 hp engines with their 4-bladed props got going. The Wildcat couldn’t out accelerate a seagull. A zoom climb is simply the ability to gain as much altitude in as short a time before stalling and is typically measured in feet per minute. A6M2: 4400 fpm A6M3: 4900 fpm Ki-43-II: 5100 fpm F4F-4: 4300 fpm F6F: 5100 fpm F4U-1D: 5300 fpm P-40E: 4900 fpm I don’t have much faith in these particular values as I think they are too low, especially for the A6M2 and the F4U-1D. Plus they don’t indicate how much altitude is gained before stall occurs. Like I said, the data is out there if you want to take the time and effort to produce an accurate product. Using maximum speed and sustained rate of climb is not going to give accurate maneuver values. I obtained this data from a variety of sources over several years. Unfortunately some of my notes failed to attribute some of the sources but the vast majority were found in Francillon’s works and quite a bit was obtained from US flight training manuals for various aircraft. Sufficient data does exist to build accurate aircraft performance models for any one who is willing to take the time to research and develop it. Chez

Drongo -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/4/2006 11:05:04 AM)
I'm still hoping that el cid again will demonstrate in detail how his equations relate to the manuever values contained in the stock database. Everytime I try applying his stated approach to stock, my most common result is a non-match with the listed manuever value. Must be the calculator.

el cid again -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/4/2006 11:23:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez I do not know how GG defined what maneuver is but it is not maximum speed nor is it ROC related. If speed and ROC were the primary factors in maneuverability then the X-15, Mig-25, SR-71 and others would all be extremely maneuverable. That is not the case. Maneuver is also not a straight line. It is, simply put, the ability to change direction. Speed certainly influences maneuver but it is not a component of it except when a maneuver may require a minimum amount of speed such as when performing a loop. For the sake of simplicity I will confine my comments to single-engine fighters. Roll rate, initial turn rate, sustained turn rate, acceleration, zoom climb and initial dive acceleration are all part of what I believe constitutes "maneuverability." These factors are heavily influenced by the aircraft design and include factors such as weight, drag coefficient, horsepower, # of propeller blades, length, wingspan, and wing area along with many others. Wing loading and wing aspect ratios can be computed if necessary. And all of this data is readily available in books and some is on the web. Again an aircraft’s maximum speed and sustained rate of climb are not generally maneuverability factors but aircraft speed at the beginning of the maneuver does influence the ability to complete or prevent a maneuver. Roll rate is the ability of the aircraft to revolve around its longitudinal axis. As the ability to roll is not a true maneuver, roll rates are not very important in and of themselves. The importance of roll rate however becomes clear as the aircraft needs to roll in order to begin most maneuvers except a zoom climb. Roll values for a 360 degree roll (in seconds) for selected aircraft at 200 knots and 10K feet are as follows: A6M2: 5.9 seconds A6M3: 4.3 seconds Ki-43-II: 5.7 seconds F4F-4: 5.5 seconds F6F: 5.4 seconds F4U-1D: 3.7 seconds P-40E: 4.6 seconds As you can see, the Corsair is the king in rolling ability but the A6M3 and the P-40E aren’t far behind far behind. However as speed increases, the time required for Japanese fighters to complete a roll climbs tremendously. For example, an A6M2 at 300 knots requires 14.8 seconds to roll whereas a Corsair requires 2.5 seconds! An A6M2 at 330 mph requires 21.6 seconds! The initial turn rate is the maximum turn rate that can be temporarily achieved at the during a turn. It will result in stalling if held to long. It is not a sustainable turn rate. Many pilots refer to this as the ability to pull your own aircraft's nose to a target. I do not have initial turn rate values for any aircraft but I do have 180 degree turn times. In other words, what is the fastest an aircraft can complete a 180 degree turn at 250mph (The time needed to roll 90 degrees for the maneuver is factored in): A6M2: 5.1 seconds A6M3: 5.1 seconds Ki-43-II: 5.2 seconds F4F-4: 5.8 seconds F6F: 6.8 seconds F4U-1D: 7.3 seconds P-40E: 6.5 seconds This gives you an idea of what the initial turn rate might be like. As you can see, the Japanese aircraft can turn very quickly. The F4F-4 is the only US aircraft that comes close though the P-40 also could pull lead for a short time. The Hellcat and Corsair were both prone to stalling when pulled too tight too fast. You could divide the time into 180 degrees to compute a # degrees per second rate but I’m not sure it would accurately reflect their true ability. Sustained turn rate is the ability to maintain the smallest possible turn radius without stalling. The Zero and Oscar excelled at this due to their excellent wing loading values. The following sustained turn times apply (250mph @ 10K feet) and depict the time required for an aircraft to complete two 360 degree circles: A6M2: 25.7 seconds A6M3: 27 seconds Ki-43-II: 25.4 seconds F4F-4: 33.6 seconds F6F: 36 seconds F4U-1D: 49 seconds P-40E: 25 seconds The following data represents the sustained turning radii (in feet) for various aircraft: A6M2: 339 feet A6M3: 403 feet Ki-43-II: 338 feet F4F-4: 519 feet F6F: 646 feet F4U-1D: 700 feet P-40E: 597 feet As good as the Corsair was, the Japanese fighters would be on its tail within 2 circles if it attempted a turning fight. There was a reason pilots said “never turn with a Japanese fighter.” Acceleration is the ability to increase speed and its rate is altitude dependent. It technically is not a component of maneuver but can be an important factor in combat nonetheless. The following values represent the time required for an aircraft to accelerate from 150mph to 250mph: A6M2: 55.7 seconds A6M3: 49.6 seconds Ki-43-II: 32.7 seconds F4F-4: 73.1 seconds F6F: 34.1 seconds F4U-1D: 33.2 seconds P-40E: 55.4 seconds The Oscars could out accelerate the Corsair and Hellcat at low speeds. The Zero could also but the advantage was fleeting once those 2000 hp engines with their 4-bladed props got going. The Wildcat couldn’t out accelerate a seagull. A zoom climb is simply the ability to gain as much altitude in as short a time before stalling and is typically measured in feet per minute. A6M2: 4400 fpm A6M3: 4900 fpm Ki-43-II: 5100 fpm F4F-4: 4300 fpm F6F: 5100 fpm F4U-1D: 5300 fpm P-40E: 4900 fpm I don’t have much faith in these particular values as I think they are too low, especially for the A6M2 and the F4U-1D. Plus they don’t indicate how much altitude is gained before stall occurs. Like I said, the data is out there if you want to take the time and effort to produce an accurate product. Using maximum speed and sustained rate of climb is not going to give accurate maneuver values. I obtained this data from a variety of sources over several years. Unfortunately some of my notes failed to attribute some of the sources but the vast majority were found in Francillon’s works and quite a bit was obtained from US flight training manuals for various aircraft. Sufficient data does exist to build accurate aircraft performance models for any one who is willing to take the time to research and develop it. Chez This is all very interesting - but before going into tiny little things like how does it apply to the model - where do you get this data? Is it possible to get this data for the complete plane set of interest? Is it possible to determine these datum points for planes that we don't have actual data for? If so - how do you determine it - exactly? Next, what does it mean? That is, how can we plug this data into the model and get reasonable results? I probably need to answer that - or perhaps our resident mathmetician - but I prefer to listen before I stick my neck out with a theory. Finally - I think you may be confusing reality with WITP. Maneuverability is a name given to a field - and it may or may not be a very good name for that field. But we are stuck with a very small number of fields to use with each plane. It is quite clear that speed is a major determinant in maneuverabilty as used by the model - and we cannot expect the model to work if we were to remove it entirely. It must remain a major determinant - even if we reduce it (as, in fact, I did, for RHS).

ChezDaJez -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/4/2006 8:15:46 PM)
As I said I got most of my data from Francillon's and Mikesh's books on Japanese aircraft and from various US flight training manuals. The Osprey books on individual aircraft have some good data but you have to weed through tons of fluff to find it. Unfortunately I only have this kind of data on about 12 aircraft, none of them bombers. I gathered most of it a few years ago when I was keenly interested in just what made a good fighter good. No one source contained all the information on any one model and data on many aircraft in this detail is simply unavailable. This is especially true of the late war Japanese fighters like the Shiden and Raiden. Data on nearly all of the US aircraft is available. The flight training manuals are very good and contain tons of information, not all of it germane though. Much of it is chart format. They are available for many US aircraft I listed including the P-51 and P-38. I think there may be others available also. They don't always cover all models but they make a good starting point. These can be purchased on CD. Some of my A6M2 and A6M3 data came from US flight testing. You should be able to find Rene Francillon's and the Osprey books on Amazon, Barnes and Noble or eBay. He has several out. I used the ones from the U of WA library and scanned pertinent pages. One last note on maneuverability in regard to bombers, especially 4Es. Maneuverability should not be an issue here as these bombers flew in formations most of the time. That meant they flew straight and level with jinking as their only defensive maneuver available. During the bomb runs they didn't even have that option. I would greatly decrease their maneuverability ratings to reflect this. 2Es typically had greater freedom to maneuver BTW, I may come across as a PITA at times. That is not my intent. I want to see WitP be as accurate as possible and I do supprt the goals RHS and CHS strive for. I am just against changes that yield a less hsitorical model than what was originally present in WitP. You have done a lot of research and put in many hours as have the others working on this project with you. I respect that. Chez

ChezDaJez -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/4/2006 8:39:35 PM)
quote: Finally - I think you may be confusing reality with WITP. Maneuverability is a name given to a field - and it may or may not be a very good name for that field. But we are stuck with a very small number of fields to use with each plane. It is quite clear that speed is a major determinant in maneuverabilty as used by the model - and we cannot expect the model to work if we were to remove it entirely. It must remain a major determinant - even if we reduce it (as, in fact, I did, for RHS). I have also been told that speed is a major determinant in WitP maneuverability ratings. However, I don't believe that the game computes the maneuverability rating. It was computed by the designers and input via the editor. As such, it should be possible to give a more accurate rating without changing speed parameters. Even if the data is missing for a particular aircraft, reasonable ratings can be determined by using a baseline aircraft model. Computations for wing aspect ratio and wing loading are easily determined as is weight to horsepower ratios. Say we had data for the A6M2 but not the A6M3. Comparing WAR and WL values would tell us that the A6M3 would not turn as well but would roll faster. The way to apply this to WitP would be to first determine the order of importance for various maneuver components. I personally would rate them in the following order: (1) roll rate, (2) turning ability, (3) zoom ability and (4) dive speed. (Disclaimer: Other people's opinions may differ[:D]). And then determine a value for each aircraft. I am not a mathmatician so I don't know what the best way is to incorporate these values into a single maneuver rating. I wish I were so that I could offer a solution rather than a problem. CHez

Mifune -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/4/2006 9:05:16 PM)
Two thoughts right off the bat, 1) Francillion does not mention Roll rate, initial turn rate, sustained turning radii, aircraft acceleration from 150mph to 250mph, or Sustained turn rate. So what reference material do you advocate to be the standard? 2) What formula are you advocationg to use with WitP "manuever" rating? With the silence of the WitP gods, one must surmise that they do not care to divulge any information. El Cid has offered a formula and an explanation, given the fact the "manuever" is somewhat of a misnomer. We might be arguing with over-analysis over a value that we do not know of with definite conviction. I am sure El Cid would consider any suggestions that would additionally improve the game play. But I do not agree your point if no other formula is offered so a comparison can be made.

ChezDaJez -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/4/2006 10:26:25 PM)
quote: Two thoughts right off the bat, 1) Francillion does not mention Roll rate, initial turn rate, sustained turning radii, aircraft acceleration from 150mph to 250mph, or Sustained turn rate. So what reference material do you advocate to be the standard? 2) What formula are you advocationg to use with WitP "manuever" rating? With the silence of the WitP gods, one must surmise that they do not care to divulge any information. El Cid has offered a formula and an explanation, given the fact the "manuever" is somewhat of a misnomer. We might be arguing with over-analysis over a value that we do not know of with definite conviction. I am sure El Cid would consider any suggestions that would additionally improve the game play. But I do not agree your point if no other formula is offered so a comparison can be made. You are correct. Francillon doesn't give exact numbers but it soes provide a wealth of other information that can be used to determine wing loading factors, aspect ratios, and weight to H/P ratios. As I said most of my research was conducted a few years ago and I didn't log all of my sources. Francillon was one that was very helpful. Some of the Osprey books gives some data. Some came from captured aircraft flight testing. Some comes from sources like Bauer and Mikesh. Mikesh is particularly helpful. Some of it even came from magazine articles such as in Air Classics and I used that data when I had no other choice. There is no single source where you will get all of this information. The data that I presented above is a compilation from literally dozens of sources that I have put into a spreadsheet. Much of it came from the public library, some came from books I purchased. Some of it was interpretations that said XXX aircraft could climb at 3000 fpm and the YYY aircraft was 300 fpm slower. So I took that to mean YYY aircraft could climb at 2700 fpm. A good deal also came from written interviews from fighter pilots. They were particularly helpful when I had data that contradicted other data. Some of it even came from various flight simulators and the forums that supported them. Quite a bit came from warbird forum discussions similar to the discussions we have on this forum. Unfortunately, the data I have is not complete and I am missing chunks that adversely affect the quality of the data. Some of it I've had to extrapolate such as for the A6M3 roll rate. I had 3 or 4 different sources that listed different rates. So I averaged them. But the data is certainly a good starting point for determining COMPARATIVE maneuver ratings. It really doesn't matter whether the Corsair's roll rate was 2.5 seconds at 300 mph and that the A6M2's roll rate was 14.8 seconds so long as it is recognized that the Corsair rolled about 6 times faster at that speed. As far as how to develop a formula for maneuverability, I don't know. I'm not a mathmatician. I do know that using maximum speed and ROC of climb values will produce a highly flawed model. Otherwise the Me-163 Komet would be the most maneuverable fighter of the war. I happen to believe roll rate is more important than turn rate. I also believe that zoom ability is more important than maximum dive speed. Dive ability has one brutal limitation... its called the ground, you can only dive so far and if your at less than 5000 feet diving ability is greatly restricted, especially in a P-40 that needed nearly that much altitude just to pull out of any dive over 350mph. Maneuverability is a very complex attribute given that it changes based upon airpeed and altitude. A P-39 is fast and maneuverable at 5000 feet. At 20000 feet it is a sitting duck. The Zero is a very fine aircraft below 250mph. Above 275, it sucks. But surely there is some way to meld the numbers into a single value that yields a reasonable representation of the aircraft being modeled. Once that is straightened out, I have another wrench to throw into the works. And that is tactics. Team tactics are far more important than any aircraft's individual physical maneuvering ability. The Wildcat proves that. Taken one on one, the A6M2 should tear up the Wildcat. Taken 2 on 2 and the story begins to change. 4 on 4 and the Wildcat becomes the favorite. The problem with incorporating tactics into maneuverability is that it is time based. The allies used poor tactics early in the war but pioneers such as Thach helped changed that so that by 1943 everyone knew what not to do against a Zero. BTW, the data I presented in my post above should not be taken as gospel on the whole. Most of it is correct but some of it was computed and some of it was averaged from multiple sources. Those numbers were the best that I could come up with and still reasonably defend. The main point in showing those numbers is that they accurately reflect the relative differences between aircraft more so than absolute differences. I developed them for my own personal use. Chez

Big B -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/5/2006 12:17:10 AM)
A good place to find a wealth of data like this is Hoof's Warbirds Performance Page. http://www.rdrop.com/users/hoofj/index.html Like you said - it's not Gospel, but it's a rich source of comparative data. B quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez quote: Two thoughts right off the bat, 1) Francillion does not mention Roll rate, initial turn rate, sustained turning radii, aircraft acceleration from 150mph to 250mph, or Sustained turn rate. So what reference material do you advocate to be the standard? 2) What formula are you advocationg to use with WitP "manuever" rating? With the silence of the WitP gods, one must surmise that they do not care to divulge any information. El Cid has offered a formula and an explanation, given the fact the "manuever" is somewhat of a misnomer. We might be arguing with over-analysis over a value that we do not know of with definite conviction. I am sure El Cid would consider any suggestions that would additionally improve the game play. But I do not agree your point if no other formula is offered so a comparison can be made. You are correct. Francillon doesn't give exact numbers but it soes provide a wealth of other information that can be used to determine wing loading factors, aspect ratios, and weight to H/P ratios. As I said most of my research was conducted a few years ago and I didn't log all of my sources. Francillon was one that was very helpful. Some of the Osprey books gives some data. Some came from captured aircraft flight testing. Some comes from sources like Bauer and Mikesh. Mikesh is particularly helpful. Some of it even came from magazine articles such as in Air Classics and I used that data when I had no other choice. There is no single source where you will get all of this information. The data that I presented above is a compilation from literally dozens of sources that I have put into a spreadsheet. Much of it came from the public library, some came from books I purchased. Some of it was interpretations that said XXX aircraft could climb at 3000 fpm and the YYY aircraft was 300 fpm slower. So I took that to mean YYY aircraft could climb at 2700 fpm. A good deal also came from written interviews from fighter pilots. They were particularly helpful when I had data that contradicted other data. Some of it even came from various flight simulators and the forums that supported them. Quite a bit came from warbird forum discussions similar to the discussions we have on this forum. Unfortunately, the data I have is not complete and I am missing chunks that adversely affect the quality of the data. Some of it I've had to extrapolate such as for the A6M3 roll rate. I had 3 or 4 different sources that listed different rates. So I averaged them. But the data is certainly a good starting point for determining COMPARATIVE maneuver ratings. It really doesn't matter whether the Corsair's roll rate was 2.5 seconds at 300 mph and that the A6M2's roll rate was 14.8 seconds so long as it is recognized that the Corsair rolled about 6 times faster at that speed. As far as how to develop a formula for maneuverability, I don't know. I'm not a mathmatician. I do know that using maximum speed and ROC of climb values will produce a highly flawed model. Otherwise the Me-163 Komet would be the most maneuverable fighter of the war. I happen to believe roll rate is more important than turn rate. I also believe that zoom ability is more important than maximum dive speed. Dive ability has one brutal limitation... its called the ground, you can only dive so far and if your at less than 5000 feet diving ability is greatly restricted, especially in a P-40 that needed nearly that much altitude just to pull out of any dive over 350mph. Maneuverability is a very complex attribute given that it changes based upon airpeed and altitude. A P-39 is fast and maneuverable at 5000 feet. At 20000 feet it is a sitting duck. The Zero is a very fine aircraft below 250mph. Above 275, it sucks. But surely there is some way to meld the numbers into a single value that yields a reasonable representation of the aircraft being modeled. Once that is straightened out, I have another wrench to throw into the works. And that is tactics. Team tactics are far more important than any aircraft's individual physical maneuvering ability. The Wildcat proves that. Taken one on one, the A6M2 should tear up the Wildcat. Taken 2 on 2 and the story begins to change. 4 on 4 and the Wildcat becomes the favorite. The problem with incorporating tactics into maneuverability is that it is time based. The allies used poor tactics early in the war but pioneers such as Thach helped changed that so that by 1943 everyone knew what not to do against a Zero. BTW, the data I presented in my post above should not be taken as gospel on the whole. Most of it is correct but some of it was computed and some of it was averaged from multiple sources. Those numbers were the best that I could come up with and still reasonably defend. The main point in showing those numbers is that they accurately reflect the relative differences between aircraft more so than absolute differences. I developed them for my own personal use. Chez

ChezDaJez -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/5/2006 4:10:24 AM)
quote: A good place to find a wealth of data like this is Hoof's Warbirds Performance Page. http://www.rdrop.com/users/hoofj/index.html That is a good site and I have filled many holes in my data with theirs. But I try not to use it unless I already have a basis for the data. I do use some stuff like the 180 degree turn times freely because I haven't found a source yet except his that gives that kind of data. What's interesting is that his data, at least for the US fighters, came from flight performance charts found in the flight training manual excerpts that I have seen. If it didn't, it certainly is from a source that agrees very closely with the charts. He also lists more aircraft than I do because I didn't have the basic research done on those aircraft so had nothing to compare it to. Chez

el cid again -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/5/2006 12:29:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Drongo I'm still hoping that el cid again will demonstrate in detail how his equations relate to the manuever values contained in the stock database. Everytime I try applying his stated approach to stock, my most common result is a non-match with the listed manuever value. Must be the calculator. If this is not rhetorical, in response to you or some identical request, I did this. You can look it up. I found a large number of perfect matches for the two different formulas I give - and many more values were within a point. I posted every case - by aircraft designation. Some reaction comments indicated this was clearly understood. Now if you have an algorithm that fits the data better still - I would love to see it. It took a lot of time to look up and type all those values - and I am not going to do it again. I need to move on. Moving on means - advance the discussion. Give us better data - better algorithms - ways to interpret the data - etc. I don't care how good the current model is - and testing indicates even critics like the RHS effects on "uber cap" - it can be better still. How do we get there? THAT is my interest and focus. Spending hours repeating old stuff is not helpful.

el cid again -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/5/2006 12:39:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez As I said I got most of my data from Francillon's and Mikesh's books on Japanese aircraft and from various US flight training manuals. The Osprey books on individual aircraft have some good data but you have to weed through tons of fluff to find it. Unfortunately I only have this kind of data on about 12 aircraft, none of them bombers. I gathered most of it a few years ago when I was keenly interested in just what made a good fighter good. No one source contained all the information on any one model and data on many aircraft in this detail is simply unavailable. This is especially true of the late war Japanese fighters like the Shiden and Raiden. Data on nearly all of the US aircraft is available. The flight training manuals are very good and contain tons of information, not all of it germane though. Much of it is chart format. They are available for many US aircraft I listed including the P-51 and P-38. I think there may be others available also. They don't always cover all models but they make a good starting point. These can be purchased on CD. Some of my A6M2 and A6M3 data came from US flight testing. You should be able to find Rene Francillon's and the Osprey books on Amazon, Barnes and Noble or eBay. He has several out. I used the ones from the U of WA library and scanned pertinent pages. One last note on maneuverability in regard to bombers, especially 4Es. Maneuverability should not be an issue here as these bombers flew in formations most of the time. That meant they flew straight and level with jinking as their only defensive maneuver available. During the bomb runs they didn't even have that option. I would greatly decrease their maneuverability ratings to reflect this. 2Es typically had greater freedom to maneuver BTW, I may come across as a PITA at times. That is not my intent. I want to see WitP be as accurate as possible and I do supprt the goals RHS and CHS strive for. I am just against changes that yield a less hsitorical model than what was originally present in WitP. You have done a lot of research and put in many hours as have the others working on this project with you. I respect that. Chez OK - I have Francillon - but fail to find a single datum of the sort we discussed above. Similarly, I have many Osprey publications - but they are not telling me the roll rate, engine torque, control surface area, etc, turn rates, etc most of the time. All I gleaned from your source list is "no - there is no single comprehensive source" - a bad thing - because data from DIFFERENT sources probably is to different standards. Further, I am not going to look this up in every last flight manual - even if it is in there. I need some source that has this data in a way we can use it - or this is an academic discussion. Next - I see nary a word on HOW to use the data if we had it. Nary a theory and it is worthless to get the data. We cannot use it unless we can plug it into this filed in this system. You cannot ignore this aspect of the issue. That is, you cannot say "you have it wrong" without saying at the same time "here is how to do it right." I cannot use a criticism uncoupled with a proposal to fix it. Even if the criticism is valid - I cannot fix it - until it is understood how. Last - thanks. I understand you are thinking about how things really work - and taking issue when something seems to contradict that. This is not entirely bad - it is just not what we need to get things done. It is a starting point - go farther: how can we do better? but unless you can show a better way to calculate maneuverability AND unless we can find the data to a constant standard - we cannot deal with this in fact.

el cid again -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/5/2006 12:46:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez quote: Finally - I think you may be confusing reality with WITP. Maneuverability is a name given to a field - and it may or may not be a very good name for that field. But we are stuck with a very small number of fields to use with each plane. It is quite clear that speed is a major determinant in maneuverabilty as used by the model - and we cannot expect the model to work if we were to remove it entirely. It must remain a major determinant - even if we reduce it (as, in fact, I did, for RHS). I have also been told that speed is a major determinant in WitP maneuverability ratings. However, I don't believe that the game computes the maneuverability rating. It was computed by the designers and input via the editor. As such, it should be possible to give a more accurate rating without changing speed parameters. REPLY: This seems to be a contradiction. I agree with you - thegame does not compute the maneuverability - it is indeed put in via the editor - that is why I can change it. But that means is impossible to be "more accurate" if we ignore speed where designers and code require it to be - in the maneuverability rating. We CAN create a new scale without speed - but it won't work in the model - if it helps to put it that way. It won't be "more accurate" at all - it will prevent valid outcomes. And I am geting valid outcomes in a historical sense. Even if the data is missing for a particular aircraft, reasonable ratings can be determined by using a baseline aircraft model. Computations for wing aspect ratio and wing loading are easily determined as is weight to horsepower ratios. Say we had data for the A6M2 but not the A6M3. Comparing WAR and WL values would tell us that the A6M3 would not turn as well but would roll faster. REPLY: Sorry- I do not see wing aspect ratio (but I do see wing loading - and anyway can derive it if I have wing area and weight). But the aspect ratio is rarely stated. The way to apply this to WitP would be to first determine the order of importance for various maneuver components. I personally would rate them in the following order: (1) roll rate, (2) turning ability, (3) zoom ability and (4) dive speed. (Disclaimer: Other people's opinions may differ[:D]). And then determine a value for each aircraft. REPLY: These values require even more data. Dive speed, zoom ability - how do you even measure the latter? Where is it listed? And surely turning is more important than rolling - most of the time. What we need is to know what % of the time a particular thing is tactically decisive? And you MUST include ROC and speed in the list. No other option will work. For a total of 100% what is the % of the time all factors are decisive? I am not a mathmatician so I don't know what the best way is to incorporate these values into a single maneuver rating. I wish I were so that I could offer a solution rather than a problem. CHez

el cid again -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/5/2006 12:53:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez Unfortunately, the data I have is not complete and I am missing chunks that adversely affect the quality of the data. Some of it I've had to extrapolate such as for the A6M3 roll rate. I had 3 or 4 different sources that listed different rates. So I averaged them. But the data is certainly a good starting point for determining COMPARATIVE maneuver ratings. It really doesn't matter whether the Corsair's roll rate was 2.5 seconds at 300 mph and that the A6M2's roll rate was 14.8 seconds so long as it is recognized that the Corsair rolled about 6 times faster at that speed. Chez It also does not matter at all unless we know that at least 10% of the time a Corsair was in a situation with an A6M2 at that speed in which the roll rate was tactically decisive. If it was, we need to know how many incriments of 10% of the time that was the case. It is useless to say "it is six times better" if it never mattered - or if it mattered so little we can ignore it. This is not germane unless you make it germane - turn it into something we can apply. Further - I will confess I doubt your data is correct - although I believe the Corsair to be the best piston engine fighter of all time I doubt it can out turn a Zero six to one at any speed. And I also am curious to know why it would help in a fight? Seems to me just a way to get dizzy.

el cid again -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/5/2006 12:58:58 PM)
I do know that using maximum speed and ROC of climb values will produce a highly flawed model. Otherwise the Me-163 Komet would be the most maneuverable fighter of the war. You are not listening. I am reporting to you that - for a crude model - it works remarkably well. I did not say there are no exceptional cases. An Me-163 is a very strange - and unsuccessful - aircraft - in large part due to a lack of range (more or less zero range) - and even more due to a lack of powered range. Maybe the statistics rate it wrong. No matter - while I put the Me-163 in RHS - it is not as an aircraft at all - but as a device. It won't ever leave its hex. Or participate in a dogfight in the usual sense. It may or may not hit a plane - once per flight. For normal planes, the code works rather well. Things wrong with it - like no ammo limits - were not originally part of it - and can be easily fixed (unremark the code lines). We have something that is working well in a statistical sense. You want to do better - you need to come up with something that works better in a statistical sense - and give us the data and detailed algorithms - or point us at ways to figure them out.

el cid again -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/5/2006 1:07:03 PM)
[. I also believe that zoom ability is more important than maximum dive speed. Dive ability has one brutal limitation... its called the ground, you can only dive so far and if your at less than 5000 feet diving ability is greatly restricted, especially in a P-40 that needed nearly that much altitude just to pull out of any dive over 350mph. Maneuverability is a very complex attribute given that it changes based upon airpeed and altitude. A P-39 is fast and maneuverable at 5000 feet. At 20000 feet it is a sitting duck. The Zero is a very fine aircraft below 250mph. Above 275, it sucks. But surely there is some way to meld the numbers into a single value that yields a reasonable representation of the aircraft being modeled. Planes inherently lose maneuverability with altitude. I call this "agility" and I rate planes for it at different altitudes - 5000 feet - 15000 feet and 25000 feet. It is - as you say - complex. I actually have something like your tables - but ONLY for Japan - and neither yours nor mine are scholarly sources. If you do not identify a proper source - or set of sources - and if you do not identify something more specific than "some way" - we are at a dead end here. In WITP I have a crude system - it restricts "effective altitude" according to a broad criteria. In no case can any plane use its full service ceiling - because by definition ROC at that altitude is 30 meters / min (or 100 feet / min - same same). But the fraction changes with engine type. We might let it vary with other factors - but ONLY factors we have. Not "it should be possible" (with a couple years of work) to find most of them." We need ALL of them BEFORE we use any data at all.

Mifune -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/5/2006 1:17:08 PM)
"Dive ability has one brutal limitation... its called the ground" LMAO, way too funny.

Drongo -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/5/2006 6:29:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again quote: ORIGINAL: Drongo I'm still hoping that el cid again will demonstrate in detail how his equations relate to the manuever values contained in the stock database. Everytime I try applying his stated approach to stock, my most common result is a non-match with the listed manuever value. Must be the calculator. If this is not rhetorical, in response to you or some identical request, I did this. You can look it up. I found a large number of perfect matches for the two different formulas I give - and many more values were within a point. I posted every case - by aircraft designation. Some reaction comments indicated this was clearly understood. Cid, It doesn't concern me what formulas you use in RHS to establish aircraft manueverability, why you think those formulas are great, what you think are the most important factors in air combat, etc. It's your mod to do as you see fit. However, I pointed out to you a while ago that your continued suggestions that your formulas produce some sizable number of matches with the stock data base manuever values for aircraft was not correct. The extremely low number of matches that did occur indicated that your formulas had no real similarity to whatever was used to determine the stock values. After we discussed it, you then stated that the formulas were based on analysis of the CHS values and not stock and that after reviewing the stock values yourself, appeared to agree that the formulas did not have much relevence to the stock values due to the high number of mis-matches. I noticed in this thread that you appeared to be once again implying that use of your formulas could achieve a large number of matches with stock aircraft manuever values. The last time your tried to demonstrate this, you managed to match only about 10-15% of the stock manuever values. Has something changed since or have I missed a more comprehensive list of your stock matches somewhere? quote: Now if you have an algorithm that fits the data better still - I would love to see it. It took a lot of time to look up and type all those values - and I am not going to do it again. I need to move on. Moving on means - advance the discussion. Give us better data - better algorithms - ways to interpret the data - etc. I don't care how good the current model is - and testing indicates even critics like the RHS effects on "uber cap" - it can be better still. How do we get there? THAT is my interest and focus. Spending hours repeating old stuff is not helpful. If I were to create a "better" manuever algorithm, it would obviously be based on something less convenient but more relevent than a calculation based on the game values of max speed and ROC. I also notice that you seem happy to look beyond these values as well. Hopefully nothing but good will come from that. Cheers

ChezDaJez -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/5/2006 9:44:01 PM)
quote: I will confess I doubt your data is correct - although I believe the Corsair to be the best piston engine fighter of all time I doubt it can out turn a Zero six to one at any speed. And I also am curious to know why it would help in a fight? Seems to me just a way to get dizzy. Who said anything about turn rate. I'm talking roll rate. And roll rate is probably the single most decisive factor in air-air combat for piston aircraft. It determines how quickly you can get your aircraft into position for the next maneuver for all but zooming. It is what allowed the Wildcat and the P-40 to compete with the Zero (along with better tactics). Consider this: A P-40 can perform a 360 degree roll in about 4.6 seconds at 250mph. A A6M21 Zero can do it in 5.9 seconds. The Zero is on the tail of the P-40 at 100 yards. Assume that both are temporarily flying straight and level. The P-40 pilot recognizes the threat and decides to roll left 180 degrees and dive out. The maneuver will take him about 2.3 seconds. The Zero begins to roll at the exact same instant (this pilot has perfect reaction time). The Zero takes 2.95 seconds. The P-40 has just gained .65 seconds over his oppoenent. Translate that into distance and you can easily see why it was crucial. You say you don't believe that a Corsair can roll 6 times faster than a A6M2 at speeds over 275mph? That the Corsair pilot will just get dizzy? You're obviously assuming that the Corsair is going to keep corkscrewing which means you don't understand what rolling was used for. Seriously, if you don't understand the importantance of the various maneuver components, maybe you aren't the best choice to be determining the relative merits of the aircraft. But it is your mod so do with it what you will. I've tried to keep my comments constructive. BTW, I agree with Drongo. Your formula bears little resemblance to reality. It misses more than it hits. Chez

Distiller -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/5/2006 10:58:25 PM)
the problem with these figures is that transient values are probably just as important , but these are next to impossible to find....

Herrbear -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/6/2006 3:19:05 AM)
Chez -- IIRC from reading many other posts, what I think you are forgetting is that Manuever used in the game is more of an offense ability. I think Mogami has mentioned this. The manuever rating is used primarily to determine who attacks first and the durability rating is used to determine how well you can take the hit. If I am right, your example about the ME-163 is quite correct. In the game it would be very manueverable as its speed and rate of climb would make it attack first before any could react. The plane receiving the attack may be able to fire back depending on the damage results. It could be destroyed, hit or forced to break off. After the result was determined, it would fire at the ME-163 depending on range, accuracy and so forth then either hit or miss the target.

el cid again -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/6/2006 4:49:34 AM)
QUOTE: However, I pointed out to you a while ago that your continued suggestions that your formulas produce some sizable number of matches with the stock data base manuever values for aircraft was not correct. REPLY: Yes you did. You were wrong then and you are still wrong. I spent hours of time posting this - and it was recognized as such - with appropriate comments. Why do you "hope" I will do so again? What was the point of saying that? If you cannot read the data for yourself - and cannot read it when posted - well that is not my problem. If you have something constructive to contribute - fine. If you want to know what the field means you also may ask Matrix. As someone posted, many of the values in stock were probably not calculated at all - but seat of the pants guesses in the context of certain calculated cases (the ones that fit perfectly). No great amount of time (because time = money) was spend on the data set. Neither in research nor in calculation. Ball park was good enough. Later in time, probably others added things without even knowing the field definitions the originator had in mind. So they - like CHS folks - had to guess on the basis "it is slightly less than a Zero" or whatever. I have lots of respect for people working with severe time constraints, with limited data, and/or with no field definitions. I don't have time to argue though. If you don't offer a constructive comment - I will just ignore what you say. I am a big boy who admits mistakes, confusion, lots of other errors: I have no time for endless rehashing. The data matches the formulas the programmers say it does - near enough - and we need to act as if that is knowledge - if we want to understand how the system works. I can imagine no reason for them to lie either. You really can look this up in this forum - and it isn't going to change because you say it isn't so.

el cid again -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/6/2006 5:07:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Drongo [If I were to create a "better" manuever algorithm, it would obviously be based on something less convenient but more relevent than a calculation based on the game values of max speed and ROC. I also notice that you seem happy to look beyond these values as well. Hopefully nothing but good will come from that. Cheers I should have read your entire post before responding - and I will back up a yard or two. Yes - I am willing to look at other factors. Know, however, I do not see any serious attempt to provide EITHER the data OR a way to make it fit THIS model. So I have faint hope we will get anywhere. No matter what you think maneuverability should be based on - unless and until you can relate that to real air combats in this period you have nothing at all. Some arbitrary systems may make this clear; 1) All planes are equal. 2) All float planes are 1, all bombers are 2, all fighters are 6. Clearly the second proposal is better than the first. But it is almost hopelessly worthless in giving us model by model statistical outcomes. I submit to you that the most important factor in air combat is surprise: it determines success in both offensive and defesive combats the vast majority of the time: as much as 90% of the time. [Note, however, that this includes the peculiar case of "combat without combat" when a plane sees an enemy and retreats, undetected]. If an attacker is undetected, victory normally occurs with no return fire. The attacker was unseen. The second most important factor in tactical air combat is actual speed at the time the combat begins. Related to this are things like maximum speed, speed in certain attitudes and at certain altitudes. Speed ALONE - in the case surprise has not determined the outcome - is MORE important than ALL other factors combined. Wether it is 90% - as in some cases in the data set I used originally had it - or 80% as I now use - or perhaps only 60% - that is subject to calibration, analyisis, discussion and change. But if you are saying something else - anything else - indeed everything else - matter even as much (50% of the time) as speed - you are factually wrong. The reason Gary's system works is that it uses speed - and speed usually is what counts. All the other stuff is dressing on the salid. It may make you more accurate - but if you throw out speed - you will not be in the ball park. Other things matter - sometimes. Since this is a distinct minority case, it does not justify man-years of research to get it right. Whoever came up with using ROC as the other factor was clever - it really is a factor in its own right - it is directly related to factors like power loading - and it really helps shift relative statistics correctly in the direction of planes that are not well modeled when only speed is considered. Only if you can identify factors as easy to obtain as this - ideally factors already in the data set - and the proportion to which they need to be weighted - can we actually improve on this model in an immediate sense. Instead of abstract criticism - make specific contributions in the form of data, sources (which are scholarly), algorithms and analysis that suports them. That is the only way to change things. All else is grousing or similar. Yes - we can and will consider things. In the context of the way the system works. If we based a field like maneuverability on something other than speed - when it is mainly speed- we would bust the model. Note the model is working pretty well. You only can help by making it work better.

el cid again -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/6/2006 5:08:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez quote: I will confess I doubt your data is correct - although I believe the Corsair to be the best piston engine fighter of all time I doubt it can out turn a Zero six to one at any speed. And I also am curious to know why it would help in a fight? Seems to me just a way to get dizzy. Who said anything about turn rate. I'm talking roll rate. Yes you are - and I meant roll rate - typo - sorry. Read my words as if I said roll rate.

el cid again -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/6/2006 5:12:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez quote: I will confess I doubt your data is correct - although I believe the Corsair to be the best piston engine fighter of all time I doubt it can out turn a Zero six to one at any speed. And I also am curious to know why it would help in a fight? Seems to me just a way to get dizzy. Who said anything about turn rate. I'm talking roll rate. And roll rate is probably the single most decisive factor in air-air combat for piston aircraft. It determines how quickly you can get your aircraft into position for the next maneuver for all but zooming. It is what allowed the Wildcat and the P-40 to compete with the Zero (along with better tactics). Consider this: A P-40 can perform a 360 degree roll in about 4.6 seconds at 250mph. A A6M21 Zero can do it in 5.9 seconds. The Zero is on the tail of the P-40 at 100 yards. Assume that both are temporarily flying straight and level. The P-40 pilot recognizes the threat and decides to roll left 180 degrees and dive out. The maneuver will take him about 2.3 seconds. The Zero begins to roll at the exact same instant (this pilot has perfect reaction time). The Zero takes 2.95 seconds. The P-40 has just gained .65 seconds over his oppoenent. Translate that into distance and you can easily see why it was crucial. REPLY: IF a Zero is on the tail of anything at 100 yards and both planes are flying strait and level - the correct action for the Zero is to fire. It is then too late for maneuvering to matter. I like the idea of combining a roll with a dive - because a Zero has problems diving as well as many other planes. Nevertheless, in many cases such a maneuver failed. Beginning at only 100 yards in level flight, odds are very high it won't work: way better than even.

el cid again -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/6/2006 5:13:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez You say you don't believe that a Corsair can roll 6 times faster than a A6M2 at speeds over 275mph? That the Corsair pilot will just get dizzy? You're obviously assuming that the Corsair is going to keep corkscrewing which means you don't understand what rolling was used for. Seriously, if you don't understand the importantance of the various maneuver components, maybe you aren't the best choice to be determining the relative merits of the aircraft. But it is your mod so do with it what you will. I've tried to keep my comments constructive. BTW, I agree with Drongo. Your formula bears little resemblance to reality. It misses more than it hits. Chez Since you have consistently failed to put your remarks in the context of what really matters in air combat - situational awareness - initial position (altitude, aspect, speed) - I confess I don't think you are "the best choice to be determining the relative merits of the aircraft." And neither you nor Drongo have posted any better explanation for what maneuverability means - indeed neither of you ever have proposed any actual formal definition - nor even a poorly fitting formula. If the data does not fit as well as you like please do not blame it on me. I neither wrote the algorithms nor created the data in stock or CHS. I observed it is a mess - and set out to offer something better. You have not yet offered anything better still. Do so and I will shamelessly agree with you and adopt it - instantaneously.

el cid again -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/6/2006 5:21:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Distiller the problem with these figures is that transient values are probably just as important , but these are next to impossible to find.... I think you have a point. I do not understand it. Please amplify and clarify. What are "transient values?" And why does it matter if we cannot determine them?

ChezDaJez -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/6/2006 6:10:40 AM)
quote: IIRC from reading many other posts, what I think you are forgetting is that Manuever used in the game is more of an offense ability. I think Mogami has mentioned this. The manuever rating is used primarily to determine who attacks first and the durability rating is used to determine how well you can take the hit. Hi HerrBear, I do understand how it is used in the game and I don't necessarily disagree with the way its used though I would think that maneuverability should also be used to determine the ability to evade an attack. What I don't agree with is Cid's use of max speed and ROC to dteremine a maneuverability rating. IRL, max speed and ROC are straightline flight profiles and are not what constitutes maneuverability. The point that I was trying to make to him is that there is enough data available to determine the comparative reasonably accurate maneuverability ratings between aircraft. Chez

Big B -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/6/2006 6:26:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez quote: IIRC from reading many other posts, what I think you are forgetting is that Manuever used in the game is more of an offense ability. I think Mogami has mentioned this. The manuever rating is used primarily to determine who attacks first and the durability rating is used to determine how well you can take the hit. Hi HerrBear, I do understand how it is used in the game and I don't necessarily disagree with the way its used though I would think that maneuverability should also be used to determine the ability to evade an attack. Chez For what it's worth, when I did an extensive test on the Zero Bonus late last year, I found that the difference in combat with the full ZB compared to without the ZB - seemed mainly DEFENSIVE. The ZB (5 points mvr at full strength), did not change the number of kills the Zero was getting, nor the kill rate per sortie - but the Zero LOSSES were less (by about 15%-20%) with the bonus at full strength - as compared to no ZB. My conclusion was that maneuvereability in the game seems to be a defensive bonus, not offensive (I suspect that's where speed predominates). B

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.75