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

Bodhi -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/6/2006 6:29:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again The technical answer is that maneuverability seems to be a simple value. Correct, from Mike Wood's database editor structure post: unsigned char mvr[MAX_AIR]; So it seems to be a value between 0 and 255 quote: 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. If it were derived simply from other data already present, such as max spped or climb rate, what would be the purpose of storing it as a separate value when it could easily be calculated?

ChezDaJez -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/6/2006 6:40:52 AM)
quote: 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. I remember those tests and also felt that the bonus yielded a defensive benefit more than an offensive one. Funny as the Zero bonus is a transient increase in maneuverability. Chez

Drongo -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/6/2006 8:06:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again 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. There does not appear to be any post from you in this forum that does a comparison of the stock aircraft manuever values with values calculated from your two equations to show a large number of matches. I chose to stop the search I was doing at the thread that contained our original discussion as you mentioned that I was wrong then just I am wrong now. At the time of that original thread, you did not seem to quite feel the same way about my opinion. The following is what you said after reviewing the stock database and finding only 27 matches (3 of which were actually the same aircraft under a different name) with your equations for the entire aircraft database:- "However, on visual examination of stock values, I see that many cases involve maneuverability values less than MaxSpeed/10 for single engine planes or half that for twin engine planes - which cases could not be correct by my formulas (although they might be within a point in some cases). It is indeed possible that the values in the table are "seat of the pants" (as was suggested as a hypothetical possibilty by a mathmetician on the basis of what he expected game designers to do) or are based on some other algorithm. It is equally clear they used something completely ficticious for twin engine fighters and night fighters - in the sense that they are not similar to otherwise similar bombers or transports with twin engines. I also note that cases of four engine aircraft I manually checked (B24D, PB4Y and LB30) indicate that where my calculated value (in all cases) was 8, the value in the field in the table was 4. I assumed this was deliberate, to give heavy bombers a greater chance of being shot at, and little chance to close successfully and shoot offensively. Again, this was an assumption, and it may not have been correct. It no longer is germane. I decided I liked formula B since it said something besides speed and engine count matters. I decided to cut the result in half to reduce air air lethality. And then I decided to double the relative value of the non-speed factor - in effect creating a new formula." It looked very much like you were acknowledging at the time that your formulas can't serve as the rule if applied to the stock database but since you thought so highly of them anyway, you fully intended them to serve as the rule in your own mod. So, what has changed since then that makes your equations once again capable of being considered the rule rather than the exception with the stock database manuver values? Just to be clear, while I disagree with some of your assumptions about how WITP handles certain aspects of combat, I have no concerns with what you do in your own mod. The only reason I commented on your manueverability statements in this thread is because you claim that calculations involving speed and ROC were the prime determinants used in establishing the stock manuever values for aircraft. Since this wasn't backed by any meaningful match rate in stock and because you seem obligated to authoritatively repeat this claim whenever a poster asks a question on aircraft manuever ratings in the game (including stock and mod), I felt it was worth asking why you do so.

Drongo -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/6/2006 8:09:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again 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. Just a few points, I was not asking you for an explanation of what manuever means in the game, I was asking you why you continue to make claims about the relevence of your equations to the stock manuever values when there doesn't appear to be any of statistical significance. It's interesting to note that your guesswork above of how the manuever ratings began and then evolved over time seem to suggest that almost any combination of any formulas and/or judgements could have been used in the process that gave us the current stock manuever values. So why do you continue to champion your own equations as the ones most likely? As to your attitude that only "constructive comments" will be responded to, who defines "constructive"? Why wouldn't a comment pointing out to another person that their statement contains a factual error be constructive? Cheers

el cid again -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/6/2006 10:41:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bodhi quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again The technical answer is that maneuverability seems to be a simple value. Correct, from Mike Wood's database editor structure post: unsigned char mvr[MAX_AIR]; So it seems to be a value between 0 and 255 quote: 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. If it were derived simply from other data already present, such as max spped or climb rate, what would be the purpose of storing it as a separate value when it could easily be calculated? This is of course a rhetorical question: only the designer could answer and he won't. You mean it instead to suggest that there is someting wrong with the concept. This isn't really helpful. We cannot reform the data if we do not know how to do so. I set out to find out - and was given some help - some of it posted right on this board by a programmer of long standing at Matrix. Disbelieving what they did is not germane. The system is what it is - and we either work with it - or we cannot make it better. Actually, there are fine reasons to do it the way it was done. WITP is full of memory inefficient things - which speed up turn processing - beginning with a complete duplicate set of maps (you select which when you use the hex/no hex toggel). Lots of sound technical reasons might make this a wise choice. More interestingly - the system is not that bad. I am using it with ROC and PLA aircraft with some success. This is not that bad a system - and it is indeed possible to make it better still. But only by cooperation.

el cid again -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/6/2006 10:45:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez quote: 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. I remember those tests and also felt that the bonus yielded a defensive benefit more than an offensive one. Funny as the Zero bonus is a transient increase in maneuverability. Chez IF the Zero bonus is as advertised, AND IF Mike Wood is correct that the primary determinant of air combat success is maneuverability then it is indeed funny - and it may be that the tests were affected by other factors. The model is very complex - and also few testers use the same seed for each run - - so it is easy to get apparent results which are misleading. It is likely that the effect is both offensive and defensive.

el cid again -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/6/2006 10:55:20 AM)
I am trying to promote understanding at the technical level of WITP. I am advocating the publication (for a fee) of a technical manual or some other similar product. I think you have misunderstood what I said: I did not claim that my modified formulas fit the stock data set. I tried to explain how they work in stock - an entirely different thing. If you elect to think I have misunderstood what I was told - or what I see in the data - that is your choice: but only if you listen will you learn something that might be useful.

Drongo -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/6/2006 12:33:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again I think you have misunderstood what I said: I did not claim that my modified formulas fit the stock data set. I tried to explain how they work in stock - an entirely different thing. I'll keep it simple. You keep stating that your two equations, when applied to the aircraft values of max speed and ROC in the stock database will produce some significant number of matches. You also seem to regularly imply that this has some significance to your comments on how the stock manuever values are derived. I'm not going to ask for further clarification on this last point as it will probably just muddy the waters. When I last looked at your list of equation "matches" with the stock manuever value, it was less than 15%. Given that two different equations had to be applied to the database to achieve this, it's hardly germane to then state that some relationship definitely exists between a stock aircraft's listed manuever rating, max speed and ROC because your own equations (that use these last two values) produce a substantial number of matches. The number of matches they do achieve in stock is so low that the formulas actually tell little about the stock manuever values. If your earlier comments were simply to illustrate how the formulas work by applying them to the stock database, no problems but I'd then suggest you correct comments like "about 1/3 of stock values deviate from the equations" to be something a bit more representative of the number of matches achieved. Cheers

ChezDaJez -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/6/2006 12:45:57 PM)
quote: In stock the A6M2 has a speed of 33x mph and a maneuverability of 33. It was suggested by a Matrix programmer that maneuverability was probably related to speed - and in this case I got the idea it was 10% of speed. A number of other cases in stock also show 10% of speed. Other planes seem to add to this 10% figure a fraction of the rate of climb - usually ROC/500. RHS tried this function and settled on 5% of speed plus ROC/500 - in effect doubling the proportion of maneuverability related to ROC vice just speed. RHS does NOT use the mixed system of stock and CHS - where some planes get a maneuverability purely based on speed - other planes a composite value - the latter system is used in all cases. Since RHS wanted to reduce air combat lethality, we wanted to reduce the maneuverabilty rating. Particularly after Joel Billings informed us that maneuverabilty was the PRIMARY variable used in tactical air combat code. So the fact a Zero has a much lower maneuverabilty rating in RHS was considered good. Since ALL planes are similarly reduced - and use a consistent definition - we feel we got a better relative result. Ok, giving that you say that maximum speed and ROC should be the primary factors in determining maneuverability ratings in the game, I would like to see you defend these numbers derived by using YOUR formulas: Maneuver Aircraft Speed ROC Stock RHS P-40B 352 2860 31 23 Ki-44 376 3832 32 26 Ki-61KAIc 368 2970 32 24 F4F-4 320 1950 32 20 A6M5 351 2810 34 23 A6M2 332 2642 35 22 F6F 380 2980 36 25 F4U-1 415 3120 37 27 *RHS values rounded to nearest integer. The first problem that immediately stands out with your formula is that it rates the Ki-44 Tojo as the second best maneuvering fighter on this list while stock lists it as one of the worst. The stock game lists the A6M2 as one of the better maneuvering planes yet your formula reduces it to a piece of crap. How does this provide a �better relative result?� With the Tojo being that highly rated, the Japanese player is going to build tons of them. Bring on the Corsair now. Also your idea that the stock ratings were based on 10% of speed is obviously false else the Corsair would have a rating of 41! Adding a factor of ROC/500 only makes the comparison worse, not better. In fact only the F4F-4 fits into your 10% formula and I�m sure that�s more by chance than anything else. The P-40B and the A6M5 have very similar maximum speeds and ROCs yet the A6M5 was a much better maneuvering aircraft IRL. How do you account for that? Now you can always say �It�s my mod and I�ll do with it what I want.� Power to you but if you want the rest of us to accept it as a viable and historical alternative to stock then you need to convince us why your numbers are correct and the stock numbers wrong. Chez

Distiller -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/6/2006 1:22:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again 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? aircraft specs usually contain static values, ie. sustained climb, sustained turn and sustained roll rate. roll or turn rate do not build up in an instant, at the very least, inertia has to be overcome and some aircraft tend to dislike certain combinations like rolling out of high G turns, in which case roll rate may drop severely, even if it's sky high in the standard test, which is flown level, without G's. so, even if the Corsair rolls within a few seconds (360 deg roll), it's rarely done, ~90deg are used more often to initiate a hard turn, but the real question is how long does it take our simulated aircraft to roll a mere 10 or 15 degrees - at high g loads, preferably. roll rate is not a constant, it varies with time (increases with time until it reaches the published value), the question is how quickly this transition occurs. while a slowly rolling / turning plane will not magically outmaneuver one with high turn/roll rate, if both have similar book specs, rate of change may very well be the deceisive factor. of course, there's more to it, especially considering we're talking about propeller driven planes, which exhibit predictable asymmetrical rolling characteristics - unless you're using counter-rotating props, like the P-38J or later models, which therefore deserves a higher mvr value and that's before you take its dive brakes into account - effectively reducing the pilot's options and therefore our single, abstracted maneuver value. the Corsair may be unable to compete with a Zero in sustained turn, but it won't matter if it can keep up for a quarter turn with combat flaps, in the case of a miss, high excess speed and high speed handling allow a quick escape, while the Zero pilot is busy dodging and if he hits, the game's over.

el cid again -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/6/2006 1:33:55 PM)
No point in going around again. You are not required to believe what I was told - or what I see - or even each other (one sees 15% support for each formula, the other sees only one plane - while I see 1/3 within a point or so of both formulas). You want to say I am "wrong" about this data because it is sloppy - but it isn't my data and I won't accept blame because that makes things relatively confusing: I did not invent this. For whatever reason you also are not interested that the model is working well. If Ki-44 was rated poorly in stock or CHS - they were wrong. Look it up. It is so clearly better than German fighters they lost out after winning licence production deals: both Me-109E and He-100 were licenced for Japanese production IRL - buit the decision to go with Ki-44 is lauded by Francillon. The A6M2 is winning well in many tests - so it is hardly worthless - and the Ki-44 cannot replace it as a long range fighter - ever. Anyway - I don't care if a plane is better or worse - I am not a partisan. I do not "defend" a plane. It is what it is. Go argue with Francillon. I won't play CHS or stock because they got the specs wrong on most of hte planes -- and they are there for all to see and check. A professional programmer and mathmetician verified my data - and it stands on its own merits - complete with citiations. One person objected to my "changing the long range Pete" - but Pete was not long range - however passionately someone may believe otherwise. I found horrible errors, sometimes overstatements of speed or ROC or service ceiling by more than 100%. Ki-44 is great because of its ROC - its speed - and its reasonable punch. It is weak in range - well you cannot have everything. Yes - I expect to see it as a player preferred plane - because it should be - not because it is somehow wrong.

Drongo -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/6/2006 5:08:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again No point in going around again. You are not required to believe what I was told - or what I see - or even each other (one sees 15% support for each formula, the other sees only one plane - while I see 1/3 within a point or so of both formulas). It's not my fault if you get dizzy. "1/3 within a point or so for each formula" - A point or so? Stretching the criteria for a successful result there a bit aren't you? When you keep stressing how important an aircraft's manuever rating is in the game, it seems a bit strange that a "point or so" manuever difference is considered acceptable when generating the values via the formulas. FYI, when I checked the stock database, the results were: Total aircraft - 219 Total results that matched (after rounding) - 29. Total of those results that either matched or were out by no more than a point (after rounding) compared to stock - 62 So even if a generous criteria of success is used, more than 2/3 of the results still fail to be matched. quote: You want to say I am "wrong" about this data because it is sloppy - but it isn't my data and I won't accept blame because that makes things relatively confusing: I did not invent this. For whatever reason you also are not interested that the model is working well. Well, maybe it wouldn't be sloppy if you'd just stop using the formulas on the stock database and claiming convincing results. And I am interested to see how well your model is working but what has that got to do with my questioning of your claims about the stock database values? Cheers

RETIRED -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/6/2006 5:14:51 PM)
CID. Just a point of interest. The Ki-44 was designed and built as an "interceptor". Get up quick, with a reasonably heavy armament package, and a steady gun platform, and shoot down bombers. That's what the plane was all about, and it was good at it. But it wasn't nearly as effective against fighters because it wasn't designed or built to be manueverable. Like the Me-210...., which was also a great platform to shoot down bombers---but regarded by escorting fighters as "duck soup"

Drongo -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/6/2006 5:56:03 PM)
Actually, I didn't see much in Francillon that would justify it having one of the highest manuever ratings for Japanese fighters:- When B-29s began their bombing campaign....the Ki-44 "was the fastest climbing fighter and it demonstrated it's superior performance in defence of Japan's Home Islands". Late in the war the JAAF pilots "learned to full advantage of the Ki-44s rate of climb and diving speed". "The Ki-44 was restricted against snap rolls, stalls and inverted flight at high speeds...". "Despite these shortcomings, the aircraft performed effectively, and the JAAF which, after competitive trials, had selected the Ki-44 over the (Me 109) as the standard Army interceptor, had no reason to regret their choice". So it really came down to the Ki-44 proving to be an effective interceptor and the JAAF having no reason to regret their choice of it over the Me-109 for that role.

Big B -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/6/2006 6:08:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez quote: 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. I remember those tests and also felt that the bonus yielded a defensive benefit more than an offensive one. Funny as the Zero bonus is a transient increase in maneuverability. Chez IF the Zero bonus is as advertised, AND IF Mike Wood is correct that the primary determinant of air combat success is maneuverability then it is indeed funny - and it may be that the tests were affected by other factors. The model is very complex - and also few testers use the same seed for each run - - so it is easy to get apparent results which are misleading. It is likely that the effect is both offensive and defensive. Cid, Just an FYI, in the tests I ran I wanted to make sure it was only pure fighter vs fighter combat on as equal and as consistant terms as possible. So I arranged the test map with about 12 airbases (6 for each side) only 2 or 3 hexes apart, each base was airfield size 9 with 300 air support, thousands of supply, an Air HQ in each base with only two squadrons per base. Alternating missions of CAP/Sweep each at equal number of opponents (1sqd vs 1sqd, or 2sqd vs 2 sqd) with rest in between missions. I ran up over 8,000 combat sorties (over 12,000 sorties per side since CAP flies twice per day) so I could get a large sample. Then I posted the results, and some daily combat reports. I think everyone was surprised to see that the ZB (maneuverability) bestowed a notable defensive bonus (consistant lower losses) but no notable offensive bonus (increased kills). I don't know, maybe maneuverability does help offensively, but that's not what the ZB test suggested. B

ChezDaJez -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/7/2006 2:52:08 AM)
quote: If Ki-44 was rated poorly in stock or CHS - they were wrong. Look it up. It is so clearly better than German fighters they lost out after winning licence production deals: both Me-109E and He-100 were licenced for Japanese production IRL - buit the decision to go with Ki-44 is lauded by Francillon. The A6M2 is winning well in many tests - so it is hardly worthless - and the Ki-44 cannot replace it as a long range fighter - ever. Anyway - I don't care if a plane is better or worse - I am not a partisan. I do not "defend" a plane. It is what it is. Go argue with Francillon. I won't play CHS or stock because they got the specs wrong on most of hte planes -- and they are there for all to see and check. A professional programmer and mathmetician verified my data - and it stands on its own merits - complete with citiations. One person objected to my "changing the long range Pete" - but Pete was not long range - however passionately someone may believe otherwise. I found horrible errors, sometimes overstatements of speed or ROC or service ceiling by more than 100%. Ki-44 is great because of its ROC - its speed - and its reasonable punch. It is weak in range - well you cannot have everything. Yes - I expect to see it as a player preferred plane - because it should be - not because it is somehow wrong. The Ki-44 was a good, not great, interceptor. It was a fair dogfighter. But it was not designed to dogfight, it was designed to intercept bombers. To say that has virtually the same performance abilities as a Corsair is ludicrous. Any military aircraft buff can tell you that. I am keenly interested in WWII aircraft, especially Japanese fighters of the 1942 period. I believe I know what I am talking about. I do not believe that you are as knowledgable when it comes to WWII aircraft. Your claim that maximum speed and ROC are the major determinants of maneuverability in the game can not be verified even when using the formula you say is applicable. Aircraft in combat needed to maneuver to hit and avoid being hit. They used both the vertical and horizontal planes to do so. Your assumption totally ignores performance in the horizontal plane and unduly rewards those that use the vertical. Vertical performance is certainly more important than the horizontal but the ratio of importance is probably something on the order of 55/45 or 60/40, not 100/0. Aircraft seldom achieved maximum horizontal speed in a fight unless they could dive. A typical WWII aircraft required a long time to accelerate to its maximum speed and sufficient time was seldom available in combat. Given that the greatest rate of acceleration occurs at low speed and drops off as speed is gained should tell you something. A P-40 needs more than 55 seconds to accelerate from 150mph to 250 mph. My guess is that it will take far more than a minute to accelerate from 250mph to 350mph and that's an awfully long time with a Zero on your tail! So how again is maximum speed a major factor in combat? Sustained rate of climb? Just like with maximum speed, it gets you to where the enemy is quicker but it does nothing for you once you are there. Rolling, turning ability, zooming and diving are the major factors in combat. Most fighter pilot will tell you that it is virtually impossible to maintain high speeds when yanking and banking in combat. Air combat between fighters typically became slower and lower as it progressed. The game actually does a fair job of presenting the relative merits of one aircraft versus another. Granted some of their hard data is suspect such as maximum speeds and we know that a single numerical value for maneuverability will never be representaitve of all flight regimes, but their relative performance to one another as listed in the game is within the realm of reality. Maneuverability should be an abject rating that reflects the ability to change direction. If WitP does not use it in this way (and I think it does to a certain extent), then why make the same mistake? You state that the goal is to reduce air combat losses. There are many ways to do so such as increasing durability ratings. If you believe than the maneuver rating is responsible for excessive combat losses, why not use a multiplier and apply it to the stock ratings. Try a value of 0.5 or 0.75 multiplied by the stock rating. Let me blunt here. The formula that you propose to use for RHS is flat out wrong! It has more holes in it than the USS Arizona. Any formula that refuses to recognize the importance of roll and turn rates will never reflect reality when it comes to maneuverability. My goal here is not to offend or to piss you off. That does no good. My goal here is to offer constructive criticism, heavy handed though it might be. I will refrain from any more posts on this discussion unless invited. Chez

el cid again -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/7/2006 3:29:57 AM)
Drongo (what does that mean ? just curious)it isn't helpful to bicker I won't I also have made promises not to say every last thing - and I am sorry if being ethical prevents me from clarifying every last thing as much as I might like I love to get technical and to explain - it is what I do. I have gone as far as I can here - possibly one or two steps farther than I should - and the journey is over. I do think your interest is laudable. I do not think your opinion is unreasonable either. But I am just the point - the guy out in front - taking the heat. It is not my data. It is not my code. And I also do not know all there is to know about it. In the nature of these things, maybe no one does know everything about it - it may well have evolved - and to some degree I know this is the case here. If the poor fit of data with algorithms bothers you - well we are much more in harmony than in opposition about such matters. If I had done the original data I assure you it would be at least 90% consistent. I didn't. It isn't. It is confusing. But you cannot understand where to go unless you know where we began and where we are. I tried to help you understand - as I have been led to understand. I made nothing up. It is not my data, my theory, my code. All I did was go on and make a modified algorithm. You got a better one - I will instantly adopt it - and say it is yours for the rest of my life. You got better data - I will instantly adopt it and say it is yours - until still better data comes along. That is as constructive as I know how to be.

el cid again -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/7/2006 3:37:11 AM)
Chez: Please note I do not say the Ki-44 is similar to the Corsair. Also note in this very thread I said that IMHO the Corsair is the best piston engine fighter of all time. It still sets records (along with the P-51) - and no other plane with piston engines is regularly doing that. So we are in harmony about that. Further note that Ki-44 has nothing like the range or payload of a Corsair in our statistics. It is outstanding from an AXIS point of view - what is better (before the Ki-44III)??? If I have a controversial view about it, here it is: I think it is probably a better interceptor than the FW-190 in marks contemporary with it - version for version. I completely agree it is an interceptor, intended to get bombers. It also was a technical failure - outstanding against B-17 class planes it was designed to hunt (and got to play with - Japan had 5 in service for practice) - it could not harm the B-29 - a terrible disappointment for Japan. But before the late war period this is a very fine figher plane - particularly compared to those otherwise available. Nothing wrong with saying that - it is objectively true.

el cid again -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/7/2006 3:48:11 AM)
Chez: Ironically you are preaching to the choir. I am the apostle of "horizontal counts" in air warfare - and am regarded as radical on the matter in PLA debates. On the other hand, I have seen MiG-17s be a problem when they were technically obsolete - and I know you are right. We do not disagree. Stop ignoring that I posted I use many factors when I build the model - and that the list includes all you do - and more. I am quite famous for "complex" modeling - not for simplistic modeling. And I was once resident computer engineer at Boeing (employed by a different defense contractor) at a USAF Software Integration Laboratory at the Boeing Spaceflight Center in Kent, Washington. I have a clue how to model this stuff. I tried to say I felt this model must be too simple. I tried to say I am surprised how well it works. It probably is too simple - but there was no money to make it really complex - and the basic system is remarkably good. We can plug in historical situations and get outcomes within the right range. The comment on another threat that not once has a result been implausable is normal: I have not seen any - and neither has any other tester so reported - period. To get it right we had to first of all get the real speeds right. I did that. Next the real ROC. I did that. No arguments about that - data is impersonal and no interpretation is required for these. Then is armament: harder to get right - but wrong it clearly was. I fixed that too. In range, effect, and accuracy. There is durability - harder still - but we have a first pass system and it is producing the desired effect: losses are proportional to real world data by type. Last - most difficult - and most vital - because it is the MAIN factor in air combat in our model - is maneuverability. At least I defined a standard and applied it consistently. Without regard to anyones feelings about a pet airplane. Data is data. Doing all this has worked - superbly - better than it should have for a first pass (we DID have to double durability though). We will make it better still - IF you tell us how. You see a better anything - I will do it. What I want is positive stuff - not complaints. Don't tell me what you know is wrong. I am uninterested in subjective opinion. Tell me what is better? Tell me that the proportion of ROC should be 40% instead of 20%. Tell me that I can calculate power loading (I can) from weight and power - both available- and it should be 20% - and I will adopt it. A complaint not combined with a solution is worthless - an axiom from my mother. I never go to the admiral without a solution - he would bite my head off.

el cid again -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/7/2006 3:54:04 AM)
Chez: What really matters in air combat is actual speed. What is actual speed? Whatever it is, we cannot put it in a field! It is anything but constant. The air model does this for us. How does it know what to use? It uses at least three fields: max speed cruise speed ROC It may also use altitude. It also used die rolls. Each pass each plane gets a new positional record. As outsiders to the code routine executing an attack, ALL we can play with is the input data. It is actually silly to object as you do to max speed. Right or wrong, it is what is used. And code is right. Think of it like this: Whatever the ratio of acceleration to max speed may be, at any altitude, it is related to the max speed of the plane first of all. And the routine DOES know the altitude too. It ALSO knows "this plane was cruising at the start of the engagement" - or "this plane was on an attack run at max speed" - so it knows initial speed. From there on the routine tracks the situation - not us. Not sure what you want to do? But complaining about how the routine works is not productive. Ain't gonna help nothin' And it can be made to work. Run 100 tests with RHS. Surely it works better than CHS or stock - and slightly better than Nick Mod. Not bad for a crude first guess. Now - if you can make it better still = tell me how? I do not use sustained ROC. I use initial ROC - FYI. The routine is set up for that - using anything less is not going to model well. It reduces ROC as altitude increases - as it should. ROC matters in the same sense speed does - it is a single value the code can look at - combine with other things - and play with. It turns out to be directly related to power loading and speed - as either goes up so does it. These are not bad things to be considering in an air combat routine. I do not like, did not design in, and would not design in, no fields for various other factors. I myself have THREE different "agility" factors for every plane (at 5000, 15000 and 25000 feet - and sometimes at 35000 as well), plus wing loading, power loading, weight, power, ROC, a correction factgor for ROC, a dive speed, and a dive speed limit, among others, in my own models. If data was available - it isn't - I would have things like sustained turn rates - as a direct rather than combined or derived value. But I do figure it out - and it is in my agility ratings. What shocks me is that this - taking over an hour per plane to work out - only gives virtually IDENTICAL values in air combat to my planes. WITP works - better than I think it should work. Maybe we will always do it this way - since we can do a plane in about 2 minutes - and it works.

el cid again -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/7/2006 4:15:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez [quote Chez] You state that the goal is to reduce air combat losses. There are many ways to do so such as increasing durability ratings. If you believe than the maneuver rating is responsible for excessive combat losses, why not use a multiplier and apply it to the stock ratings. Try a value of 0.5 or 0.75 multiplied by the stock rating. REPLY: I do not believe maneuver rating is "responsible for excessive combat losses." I think grossly exaggerated weapon ranges, grossly (relative) firepower to machine gun ratings, and lack of ammunition limits, plus a routine issue when more than 50 planes appear on one side - are far more the issue. However, there is evidence that maneuverability ratings in the higher ranges may be a serious contributing factor. Your proposal would have merit IF stock (or CHS) values were reasonable in a relative sense - but they are not. It would, however, work statistically speaking (preserving the relative errors) - to the extent maneuverability is an issue. Mostly it is not an issue - because mostly ratings are not in the high 30s and 40s - and because other things are unrelated (planes can shoot 100 times if need be). Let me blunt here. The formula that you propose to use for RHS is flat out wrong! It has more holes in it than the USS Arizona. Any formula that refuses to recognize the importance of roll and turn rates will never reflect reality when it comes to maneuverability. REPLY: There is no data in the set for roll or turn rates. There is no way to get that data for all planes in the data set in any single source (e.g. Aircraft of WWII) or set (like Osprey books) which use the same standards of data. It is not part of the existing model - which works well as you admit - and no way to get the data to an honest and easily verified standard with a reasonable amount of effort. If there was a way - and please tell me I am wrong about no data and you have it all ready to post from IISS or any good place - we don't have a proposal for how to use it in the maneuverability field. This field - which may be misnamed to an extent - must always include what the model needs it to include - even if we modify it for your pet factors. And I WANT to include your factors. Not as dominant - they are not. You are the one who is wrong when you say they are "the most important." The most important factors are not plane performance in the first place. When the guy we are attacking does not see us, and flies on fat, dumb and happy, your factors matter not a whit: and that is the vast majority case. When we see something we dare not engage (we being in a C-47 and they in Ki-84s say) - and we go hide in clouds and open the range so they don't ever see us - your factors matter not a whit. IF we use these factors, we need DATA on the portion of the time they DO matter a whit. Much more often speed is going to matter (as we dive with our P-38s on the vastly more maneuverable - in your beloved horizontal - Zeros) - and win or lose we are going to keep on going - not try to turn and fight him if he is still there to fight. How often does horizontal maneuverability matter? You tell me - and it decides the weight it gets. This is how to do proper analysis. Don't be emotional about a datum. If all that mattered was horizontal - Ki-27 will win - and we will lose. You are going to give Japanese planes an undo advantage if you make this the main thing. A Ki-43 will be a giant! My goal here is not to offend or to piss you off. That does no good. My goal here is to offer constructive criticism, heavy handed though it might be. I will refrain from any more posts on this discussion unless invited. REPLY: You are civil here. So you are invited. My frustration is that your criticism is too short sighted: you never go all the way to a solution. The whole concept of using your factos is moot UNLESS you give us the data - data to CHS/RHS standards - data ANYONE can find in a proper source in a public library. It is also useless UNLESS you can balance it - although I can do that for you if you trust me - with other things. Just because you like maneuveraiblity does not make it king - it isn't - and we learned how to beat more maneuverable planes in fact in this campaign. Before we did, the turning in maneuver worked for Japan even against better planes. There is a lot going on - and no one fact is king all the time. Help us compromise the factors - which cannot happen by making anything king. And we will use it. We will use it the miniute it is clear you got it right. No delay. No pride in our past work. Better data is ALWAYS in in RHS - right now. Chez

Drongo -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/7/2006 4:55:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again Drongo (what does that mean ? just curious)it isn't helpful to bicker I won't I also have made promises not to say every last thing - and I am sorry if being ethical prevents me from clarifying every last thing as much as I might like I love to get technical and to explain - it is what I do. I have gone as far as I can here - possibly one or two steps farther than I should - and the journey is over. I do think your interest is laudable. I do not think your opinion is unreasonable either. But I am just the point - the guy out in front - taking the heat. It is not my data. It is not my code. And I also do not know all there is to know about it. In the nature of these things, maybe no one does know everything about it - it may well have evolved - and to some degree I know this is the case here. If the poor fit of data with algorithms bothers you - well we are much more in harmony than in opposition about such matters. If I had done the original data I assure you it would be at least 90% consistent. I didn't. It isn't. It is confusing. But you cannot understand where to go unless you know where we began and where we are. I tried to help you understand - as I have been led to understand. I made nothing up. It is not my data, my theory, my code. All I did was go on and make a modified algorithm. You got a better one - I will instantly adopt it - and say it is yours for the rest of my life. You got better data - I will instantly adopt it and say it is yours - until still better data comes along. That is as constructive as I know how to be. I'm not sure why your response has drifted into discussing some pact you appear to have made with the Lord of all Secrets. It may well be that the aircraft manuever ratings in stock were originally derived from a formula that used speed and ROC as a basis and then over time, were adjusted subjectively by various parties until almost 90% had completely different values. It may also be that someone originally trained 216 groups of 8 monkeys to each roll a six sided dice to establish the manuever ratings for the stock aircraft and then the subjective changes occured. Who knows. It matters little given that I've only been asking you why continue to claim your two formulas were producing some significant match rate with the stock database. Since they are "your" formulas and both their workings and the values involved are public, there should be no real reason to refer to the Public Secrets Act in making your answer. As one final attempt at clarification, the claims you make about the results of your formulas when applied to the stock database do not appear to match what I am achieving when I attempt the same exercise. Only by broadening the criteria (by a point) for a successful match do the total results start to approach the "1/3 of all aircraft" and only by broadening it further (IIRC, by allowing a match to be between 2 or 3 points of the stock value), do the totals of matches from both formulas produce a result that exceeds half the aircraft present. By broadening the criteria for success, the specific formulas themselves start becoming less and less relevent to the exercise, especially since the values you are trying to match against can vary only between 0 and 40. That's not a lot of room to manuever ('scuse the pun). If you are unable to actually achieve any true match rates of significance with your formulas for the stock database, then wouldn't it be easier to just say so (or just make no claim) rather than stretching the success criteria to make the formulas appear relevent? I don't think doing so will make acceptance of your equations in RHS less palatable. Nor will it make any difference as to what people believe was the original basis for establishing the stock manuever values. Everyone has their pet theories anyway. Cheers BTW - "Drongo" - Some say it means wise man from the bush, others say it means a dumb country twat.

Drongo -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/7/2006 7:23:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again Chez: What really matters in air combat is actual speed. What is actual speed? Whatever it is, we cannot put it in a field! It is anything but constant. The air model does this for us. How does it know what to use? It uses at least three fields: max speed cruise speed ROC It may also use altitude. It also used die rolls. Each pass each plane gets a new positional record. As outsiders to the code routine executing an attack, ALL we can play with is the input data. It is actually silly to object as you do to max speed. Right or wrong, it is what is used. And code is right. Think of it like this: Whatever the ratio of acceleration to max speed may be, at any altitude, it is related to the max speed of the plane first of all. And the routine DOES know the altitude too. It ALSO knows "this plane was cruising at the start of the engagement" - or "this plane was on an attack run at max speed" - so it knows initial speed. From there on the routine tracks the situation - not us. Not sure what you want to do? But complaining about how the routine works is not productive. Ain't gonna help nothin' And it can be made to work. Run 100 tests with RHS. Surely it works better than CHS or stock - and slightly better than Nick Mod. Not bad for a crude first guess. Now - if you can make it better still = tell me how? I do not use sustained ROC. I use initial ROC - FYI. The routine is set up for that - using anything less is not going to model well. It reduces ROC as altitude increases - as it should. ROC matters in the same sense speed does - it is a single value the code can look at - combine with other things - and play with. It turns out to be directly related to power loading and speed - as either goes up so does it. These are not bad things to be considering in an air combat routine. I do not like, did not design in, and would not design in, no fields for various other factors. I myself have THREE different "agility" factors for every plane (at 5000, 15000 and 25000 feet - and sometimes at 35000 as well), plus wing loading, power loading, weight, power, ROC, a correction factgor for ROC, a dive speed, and a dive speed limit, among others, in my own models. If data was available - it isn't - I would have things like sustained turn rates - as a direct rather than combined or derived value. But I do figure it out - and it is in my agility ratings. What shocks me is that this - taking over an hour per plane to work out - only gives virtually IDENTICAL values in air combat to my planes. WITP works - better than I think it should work. Maybe we will always do it this way - since we can do a plane in about 2 minutes - and it works. Just out of curiousity (and assuming I understand what you just said), If you really believe that the individual game factors of speed and ROC are already being used and tracked by the combat routine (and assumedly so as part of determining the combat result), aren't you then further exaggerating the combat abilities of aircraft with high values for these factors by using these factors again as the prime variables in your calculation of an aircraft's manuever value? I'm not sure about your availability dates but did you really intend to have a situation where the JAAF gets a "fighter" (Ki-44) in late '42 that will considerably outperform all available contemporary Allied fighters other than maybe the Spitfire? Cheers

Herrbear -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/7/2006 8:01:44 AM)
quote: I do not use sustained ROC. I use initial ROC - FYI. The routine is set up for that - using anything less is not going to model well. It reduces ROC as altitude increases - as it should. Thanks for clarifying where you obtain the ROC. What do you use for max speed? Many sources list various ways, some at sea level, some at other altitudes, some you never know when it was calculated.

el cid again -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/7/2006 1:08:05 PM)
Thanks Drongo. I should have guessed it might be an Aussie term. We have lots of OZ types here. It actually matters what formula or criteria were intended. We cannot make any formula or criteria that will work better until we understand what was originally intended. My formulas are not what I would do - they are modifications of what Matrix did. I WISH they would use my formulas - and probably so do you - but they did not (meaning formulas I use in completely different models). No one can understand either RHS formulas or propose anything better UNLESS they know what Matrix did. I knew that up front - and I hate guessing - so I asked. I was given considerable help - but not the code to study - because it is propriatory. We even got a bit posted on the board officially. But nothing like enough to please those of us - including you and I - who like total microscopic detail. I do not understand what part of this is hard for you to come to terms with - since you are obviously very well informed and a superb writer in English? This is just a tiny bit of what a modder needs to deal with - and in WITP the water is more often muddy than clear. If you want it to make total sense - don't look too close.

el cid again -> RE: Aircraft 'Manuever' (8/7/2006 1:12:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Herrbear quote: I do not use sustained ROC. I use initial ROC - FYI. The routine is set up for that - using anything less is not going to model well. It reduces ROC as altitude increases - as it should. Thanks for clarifying where you obtain the ROC. What do you use for max speed? Many sources list various ways, some at sea level, some at other altitudes, some you never know when it was calculated. Very good question. And very right - sources often use different criteria - and do not always say which. I use maximum speed in level flight at optimum operating altiude. I also use optimum cruising speed for range at optimum operating altitude. There is often a different cruising speed for other purposes - but since our players love absolute max range - we must use the cruising speed associated with that to be realistic.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.859375