RE: RHS Maneuverability Review Revisited

RE: RHS Maneuverability Review Revisited (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: RHS Maneuverability Review Revisited (10/7/2006 10:30:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Herrbear quote: ORIGINAL: timtom quote: ORIGINAL: Herrbear Replacement groups come with free pilots that average what the experience level set for that group in the airgroup editor Any idea if that applies to the initial pilot complement only or to all pilots, incl later replacements, drawn for the sqd - ei is the XP set in editor an absolute override? I am assuming that it applies to the initial pilot complement for those squadrons that start on the map also. In a quick check of all the squadrons that start the game on map, all of them have an experience level set. That would, or should, mean that all the pilots in that group must average an experience level of the level set. I know that the experience level can be set for every group in the editor or if left at 0 the game will provide an experience based on the table. The table gives the "0" experience level for each nation by year from 1941 - 1946. This is correct: IF you bring in a new unit in a later year and do not define the experience level you will get the default table values. And in an exceptional case you can define it differently. Genda's Flying Circus is such a case I think. It hand picked pilots and it was the last truly effective JNAF fighter unit. When it set up a patrol line from Tokyo to Kyushu and brought down numbers of B-29s, the American prisoners were very impressed and said so.

timtom -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review Revisited (10/8/2006 4:20:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Herrbear quote: ORIGINAL: timtom quote: ORIGINAL: Herrbear Replacement groups come with free pilots that average what the experience level set for that group in the airgroup editor Any idea if that applies to the initial pilot complement only or to all pilots, incl later replacements, drawn for the sqd - ei is the XP set in editor an absolute override? I am assuming that it applies to the initial pilot complement for those squadrons that start on the map also. In a quick check of all the squadrons that start the game on map, all of them have an experience level set. That would, or should, mean that all the pilots in that group must average an experience level of the level set. I know that the experience level can be set for every group in the editor or if left at 0 the game will provide an experience based on the table. The table gives the "0" experience level for each nation by year from 1941 - 1946. I ran a test, which seems to confirm that subsequent replacements doesn't get the XP level of the sqd as defined in the editor. It is thus possible to put a sqd "in training" on the map as was the case with many US sqds on the west coast.

Herrbear -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review Revisited (10/9/2006 3:13:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: timtom quote: ORIGINAL: Herrbear quote: ORIGINAL: timtom quote: ORIGINAL: Herrbear Replacement groups come with free pilots that average what the experience level set for that group in the airgroup editor Any idea if that applies to the initial pilot complement only or to all pilots, incl later replacements, drawn for the sqd - ei is the XP set in editor an absolute override? I am assuming that it applies to the initial pilot complement for those squadrons that start on the map also. In a quick check of all the squadrons that start the game on map, all of them have an experience level set. That would, or should, mean that all the pilots in that group must average an experience level of the level set. I know that the experience level can be set for every group in the editor or if left at 0 the game will provide an experience based on the table. The table gives the "0" experience level for each nation by year from 1941 - 1946. I ran a test, which seems to confirm that subsequent replacements doesn't get the XP level of the sqd as defined in the editor. It is thus possible to put a sqd "in training" on the map as was the case with many US sqds on the west coast. I guess I wasn't sure what you exactly meant. If you are saying that your test that a squadron listed as arriving on 1 Jan 43 comes in either at an experience level that was entered when the scenario was created or set at 0 and arrived with an experience level based on the table in the manual and a new replacement pilot was needed, it will not come in at that average experience level of the squadron you are absolutly correct. The replacement pilot brought in would be based on the experience level of all new pilots based on the table that is established in the scenario via the scenario editor. If this pilot exceeds the number of pilots for the month, then his experience level will be around half of the original. For example: If the Dutch is allotted 5 pilots per month at experience of 40 and if you bring in a new pilot to a replacement squadron, or any squadron, the pilot will enter the squadron averaging 40 (this may vary between 31 and 49 IIRC). If this pilot was the 6th or later pilot for the Dutch that you requested during the month (whether it was the 6th for this squadron or the 1st for this squadron but the 6th overall), then the pilot would enter with an experience of approx 20 (11-29) and added to the squadron. So if the squadron was showing an experience of 35, it would go up in the first case generally and would go down in the second case. Does that help?

timtom -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review Revisited (10/9/2006 12:43:48 PM)
You understood the question just fine first time round - least going by your answer :) Cheers!

el cid again -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review: To Issue (10/10/2006 12:22:19 AM)
I have Japanese plane data. I should be able to do 5.10 on schedule - tomorrow. I have folded in a lot of corrections until now - except for leader corrections - which remain elusive.

Woos -> RE: second idea (10/10/2006 3:23:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again we say "every 2 points above 29 is needed to up the score by 1" - so 41 (12 points above becomes 4) = 33; 42 (13 points above becomes 4.5 rounding up to 5) = 34 both acceptable. OK, the post is already 3 days old, but still, it looks like a very strange way to compress things as you use a composite function (with special case above 29). So basically you use one "knee" to fight the other. How about using a simple polynom instead, i.e. f(x)=ax^n ? If you use a=1.1 and n=0.9 (so you use 1.1point^0.9) you get 47 down to 35 and the first 'small' number which gets rounded down is the 7 (f(6) and f(7) are both rounded to 6). Assuming that your original formula does produce real numbers anyway, an approach using a polynom is much more continuous (well actually continuously differentiable) than a composite function. Just follow the motto: Use non-linear functions if you want non-linear results.

el cid again -> RE: second idea (10/10/2006 5:10:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Woos quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again we say "every 2 points above 29 is needed to up the score by 1" - so 41 (12 points above becomes 4) = 33; 42 (13 points above becomes 4.5 rounding up to 5) = 34 both acceptable. OK, the post is already 3 days old, but still, it looks like a very strange way to compress things as you use a composite function (with special case above 29). So basically you use one "knee" to fight the other. How about using a simple polynom instead, i.e. f(x)=ax^n ? If you use a=1.1 and n=0.9 (so you use 1.1point^0.9) you get 47 down to 35 and the first 'small' number which gets rounded down is the 7 (f(6) and f(7) are both rounded to 6). Assuming that your original formula does produce real numbers anyway, an approach using a polynom is much more continuous (well actually continuously differentiable) than a composite function. Just follow the motto: Use non-linear functions if you want non-linear results. \ Not a bad idea - altough I am opposed to including the one anomolous 47 in the set at all. If we disregard it, our set ends at 42 - a much better place to begin. The concept of treating jets different probably will be useful: we may run into it again. The problem here is time: it will take time to work this out and apply it to all cases. It is surely faster to just modify a few by a simple rule than to modify them all! Also - I am concerned - we have such nice values for way over 200 data sets that compressing them may cost us this nice relative evaluation scale. I would rather limit what we mess with to the few high end cases. Anyway - its fast - so we will try it first.

el cid again -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review: Data [2nd Pass] (10/10/2006 6:31:31 AM)
Unit # RHSEOS Plane Set Armour Durability old RHS Manueverability new RHS Maneuverability Raw Formula 1 D4Y1-C Judy 0 10 21 20 20 2 A7M2 Reppu 1 14 26 30 31 3 A6M2/Ki-65 Zeke 0 10 22 28 28 4 A5M4 Claude 0 10 19 26 26 5 A6M5 Zeke 0 10 23 30 30 6 A6M7 Zeke 1 12 24 31 31 7 B5N2-Q Kate [ASW] 0 10 14 16 16 8 F1M2 Pete-FF 0 10 15 18 18 9 A6M2-N Rufe-FF 0 10 18 24 24 10 N1K1 Rex-FF 1 12 21 27 27 11 J2M2 Jack 1 12 26 34 34 12 N1K1-J George 1 14 23 29 29 13 J7W1/Ki-99 Shinden 1 14 29 31 33 14 G4M2m34-Q Betty 0 21 8 9 9 15 Ki-44III/A10N3 Tojo 1 12 28 34 38 16 C3N1 Kate 0 10 14 18 18 17 D3A2 Val/Ki-52 0 10 17 20 20 18 D4Y2/Ki-71 Judy 0 10 22 22 22 19 B4Y1 Jean 0 10 10 10 10 20 B5N2/Ki-47 Kate 0 10 14 16 16 21 B6N2 Jill 1 12 20 21 21 22 B7A2 Grace 1 12 21 25 25 23 C6N1/Ki-75a Myrt 0 12 24 29 29 24 C6N1-S/Ki-75b Myrt 0 12 12 29 29 25 G3M2/Ki-42 Nell 0 18 7 7 7 26 G4M1/Ki-50 Betty 0 18 8 9 9 27 G4M2m22 Betty 0 20 8 8 8 28 G4M2e&Okha Betty 0 20 7 7 7 29 P1Y1 Frances 1 20 5 16 16 30 G8N1/Ki-90 Rita 1 32 5 6 6 31 Me-264/G9M1 Marlina 1 32 4 5 5 32 J1N1-C Irving 0 14 11 13 13 33 H6K4 Mavis 0 28 3 4 4 34 H8K2 Emily 1 34 4 5 5 35 H6K2-L Mavis [Xpt] 0 28 3 5 5 36 H8K2-L Emily [Xpt] 1 32 4 4 4 37 Ki-74 I Patsy 0 24 10 11 11 38 L2D2/Ki-92 Tabby 0 18 6 6 6 39 L3Y1 Tina 0 16 6 7 7 40 G5N2-L/Ki-68 Liz 1 30 4 4 4 41 E8N2 Dave 0 10 12 15 15 42 E7K2 Alf 0 10 11 12 12 43 E13A1 Jake 0 12 15 18 18 44 E16A1 Paul 0 12 18 22 22 45 E14Y1 Glen 0 8 10 10 10 46 M6A1 Seiran 0 14 17 18 18 47 2xKu-8 Gander & Tug 1 38 4 4 4 48 Ki-27 Nate 0 10 21 28 28 49 Ki-43-I Oscar 0 12 21 29 29 50 Ki-43-II Oscar 1 12 22 29 29 51 Ki-44IIa Tojo 1 12 26 33 36 52 Ki-45 KAIa Nick 1 14 11 14 14 53 Ki-49Q Helen [ASW] 1 10 9 10 10 54 Ki-45 KAIc Nick-NF 1 14 11 13 13 55 Me-109E-4 Mike 1 12 23 30 30 56 Ki-91/G8K1 Sandy 1 32 5 4 4 57 Ki-83/J9M1 Stan 1 18 14 18 18 58 Ki-84 Frank 1 14 25 31 32 59 Ki-100 Tony 1 14 23 30 30 60 Ki-102b Randy 1 18 12 15 15 61 Ki-32/30 Mary/Ann 0 10 16 14 14 62 Ki-51 Sonia 1 12 17 20 20 63 Ki-48-I Lily 0 16 9 11 11 64 Ki-77/L9T1 Jane 0 20 10 9 9 65 Ki-21-II Sally 0 18 9 10 10 66 Ki-49 Helen 1 20 9 10 10 67 Ki-67/P2M1 Peggy 1 22 10 10 10 68 Ki-36 Ida 0 10 14 17 17 69 Ki-15II/C5M2 Babs 0 10 20 26 26 70 Ki-46-II/C7M2 Dinah 0 14 11 12 12 71 Ki-46III/C7M3 Dinah 0 14 13 14 14 72 J1N1-S Irving-NF 0 14 10 11 11 73 Ki-34/59/L1N1 Thora 0 8 7 8 8 74 Ki-56/LO Thalia 0 16 8 9 9 75 Ki-57/MC-21 Topsy 0 18 8 9 9 76 RN CARRIER AIRCRAFT 0 0 0 0 0 77 Albacore 0 12 10 10 10 78 Avenger I/II 1 12 16 18 18 79 Barracuda 1 14 13 13 13 80 Corsair III/IV 1 14 26 34 39 81 Firefly I 1 14 20 24 24 82 Fulmar 1 14 16 18 18 83 Hellcat II 1 16 25 35 41 84 Martlet II/III 1 12 20 24 24 85 Seafire I/II 1 12 26 34 38 86 Seafire III/XV 1 12 27 35 40 87 Sea Hurricane 1 12 20 24 24 88 Swordfish III 0 10 8 7 7 89 Wildcat/Martlet IV 1 14 20 23 23 90 USN CARRIER AIRCRAFT 0 0 0 0 0 91 F2A-3 Buffalo 1 12 21 25 25 92 F4F-3 Wildcat 0 10 21 26 26 93 F4F-4/FM-1 Wildcat 1 12 20 24 24 94 F4U1D/AU1D Corsair 1 14 26 30 31 95 F4U-2 Corsair-NF 1 14 26 36 42 96 F4U-4 Corsair 1 14 30 34 39 97 F6F-5 Hellcat 1 14 25 35 41 98 F6F-5N Hellcat-NF 1 14 24 35 40 99 F7F Tigercat 1 18 14 17 17 100 F8F-1 Bearcat 1 14 29 34 38 101 SB2C/SBF Helldiver 1 14 18 21 21 102 V-92C Corsair 0 10 12 14 14 103 A-20B Boston 0 16 11 12 12 104 A-20G Havoc 1 18 10 11 11 105 A-24 Dauntless 1 14 14 15 15 106 A-26B Invader 1 20 10 10 10 107 A-36A Apache 1 14 23 26 26 108 B-17D Fortress 1 32 4 5 5 109 B-17E/F Fortress 1 32 5 4 4 110 B-17G Fortress 1 32 4 4 4 111 B-18A/B-23 Bolo 1 20 6 6 6 112 B-24D Liberator 1 32 4 4 4 113 B-24J Liberator 1 32 4 4 4 114 B-25C/D Mitchell 1 22 8 8 8 115 B-25H Mitchell 1 20 8 7 7 116 B-25J Mitchell 1 20 8 7 7 117 B-26A Marauder 1 22 9 9 9 118 B-26G Marauder 1 22 8 8 8 119 B-29 Superfortress 1 36 5 4 4 120 C-46A/R5C Commando 0 20 8 8 8 121 C-47/C-53 Skytrain 0 18 7 7 7 122 C-54A Skymaster 0 26 4 3 3 123 C-60A/R5O Lodestar 0 16 8 9 9 124 C-87/LB-30 Liberator 1 28 4 4 4 125 2xCG-4 Glider & C-47 0 36 4 4 4 126 F-4 Lightning 1 18 12 14 14 127 F4U-1/AU-1 Corsair 1 14 27 31 33 128 F-5C Lightning 1 18 13 15 15 129 F-6A Mustang 1 14 24 27 27 130 F-6D Mustang 1 14 29 33 37 131 PB4Y-1P Liberator 1 32 4 4 4 132 P-26A 0 8 16 21 21 133 P-35A Hawk 0 10 19 24 24 134 P-36A Mohawk 0 10 22 30 30 135 P-38G Lightning 1 18 14 16 16 136 P-38J Lightning 1 18 14 15 15 137 P-38L Lightning 1 18 15 20 20 138 P-39D Airacobra 1 12 22 28 28 139 P-39Q Airacobra 2 12 26 32 34 140 P-40B Tomahawk 1 12 22 28 28 141 P-40E Warhawk 1 14 22 26 26 142 P-40N Warhawk 1 12 22 26 26 143 P-43A Lancer 0 10 23 28 28 144 P-47C Thunderbolt 1 14 27 30 30 145 P-47D Thunderbolt 1 14 28 32 34 146 P-47N Thunderbolt 1 14 28 32 34 147 P-400 Airacobra 1 12 22 26 26 148 P-51B Mustang 1 14 28 31 33 149 P-51D Mustang 1 14 27 30 31 150 P-61A BlackWdow 1 20 11 12 12 151 P-63A Kingcobra 1 14 27 32 35 152 P-66 Vanguard 0 10 22 27 27 153 P-70A Havoc-NF 1 18 10 11 11 154 P-80A Shooting Star 1 16 18 38 47 155 PBM Mariner 0 22 5 4 4 156 PBN/GST/PBY Nomad 0 18 6 4 4 157 PBY-5 Catalina 0 18 6 5 5 158 PB2Y-3 Coronado 1 32 3 2 2 159 PB4Y-1 Liberator 1 32 4 4 4 160 SOC/SO3C Seagull 0 10 10 10 10 161 OS2U-3 Kingfisher 0 8 9 7 7 162 PBJ-1J Mitchell 1 20 8 12 12 163 PV-1 Ventura 0 18 10 12 12 164 PV-1 Ventura-NF 1 18 10 12 12 165 R4D-5 Skytrain 0 18 7 6 6 166 R5D-1 Skymaster 0 13 8 3 3 167 Anson I 0 18 10 9 9 168 Beaufighter VIF-NF 1 18 10 12 12 169 Beaufighter Mk X 1 18 9 10 10 170 Beaufort VII 1 20 8 8 8 171 Blenheim I 0 14 8 9 9 172 Blenheim IF-NF 1 16 8 9 9 173 Blenheim IV 1 16 8 9 9 174 Boomerang II 1 12 21 28 28 175 Brewster 339D/F2A 0 10 21 26 26 176 Buffalo/F2A 1 12 20 26 26 177 Catalina/PBV/PBY 0 18 6 5 5 178 CIXV-W 0 8 9 10 10 179 Corsair I/F4U 1 14 27 31 33 180 CW-21B Demon 0 10 22 30 30 181 Dakota I/C-47 0 18 7 7 7 182 Do 24K-2 1 22 5 3 3 183 Empire (C Class) 1 24 5 5 5 184 F.K.51 0 8 9 10 10 185 Hawk 75/P-36 1 10 20 24 24 186 Hudson IV 0 16 9 10 10 187 Hurricane I 0 12 21 26 26 188 Hurricane IIc 1 12 22 27 27 189 Hurricane IV 2 12 19 23 23 190 Kittyhawk I/P-40 1 14 22 28 28 191 Kittyhawk III/P-40 1 14 22 26 26 192 Lancer/P-43 0 10 23 28 28 193 Lancaster III 1 32 4 3 3 194 Liberator IV/B-24 1 32 4 4 4 195 Lockheed 212 0 12 7 8 8 196 Lysander I 0 10 14 16 16 197 Martin 139/B-10 0 14 7 8 8 198 Mitchell III/B-25 1 20 8 7 7 199 Mohawk IV/P-36 0 12 22 30 30 200 Mosquito B.XVI 0 14 12 14 14 201 Mosquito FB.VI 1 14 12 13 13 202 Mosquito PR.XVI 0 14 12 15 15 203 Spitfire VB 1 14 24 30 30 204 Spitfire VIII 1 14 26 31 33 205 Spitfire XIVE 1 14 28 32 35 206 Sunderland III 1 32 3 3 3 207 Tempest V 2 14 31 36 36 208 T-IVa 0 12 10 5 5 209 Thunderbolt II 1 14 25 32 34 210 Vengeance I 1 12 17 18 18 211 Ventura V 0 18 10 12 12 212 Vildebeest IV 0 10 9 10 10 213 Walrus 0 10 9 10 10 214 Wellington IC 2 22 7 7 7 215 Wirraway CA-1 0 10 14 17 17 216 Spitfire PR.XI 1 14 24 30 31 217 RTAF B-10 0 14 7 8 8 218 RTAF Hawk II 0 10 19 23 23 219 RTAF Hawk III 1 10 20 24 24 220 I-153c 0 8 20 29 29 221 I-16 Type 4 0 10 17 20 20 222 I-16 Type 24 1 12 23 32 34 223 KOR-1 0 10 11 12 12 224 IL-2 Shturmovik 2 16 15 17 17 225 IL-2M Shturmovik 3 18 15 17 17 226 IL-4C/DB-3F 1 18 7 7 7 227 LaGG-3 0 11 23 28 28 228 La-5FN 1 12 27 33 37 229 La-7 1 12 28 33 37 230 Li-2VP/C-47 0 18 6 5 5 231 MiG-3 1 12 26 31 32 232 Pe-2 1 18 11 13 13 233 Pe-2R 1 18 11 13 13 234 R-12/Yak-4 1 10 11 14 14 235 SB-2 1 16 8 10 10 236 SB-2M 1 16 9 11 11 237 Tu-2S 1 20 10 12 12 238 Yak-1 1 12 25 32 34 239 Yak-3 1 12 28 34 38 240 Yak-9D 1 10 24 30 31 241 Yak-9UF 0 10 26 30 31 242 RTAF V-92C 0 10 12 14 14 243 PV-2 Harpoon 0 18 11 14 14 244 SB2U-2 Vindicator 1 12 15 17 17 245 SBD-3 Dauntless 1 14 14 16 16 246 SBD-5 Dauntless 1 14 15 16 16 247 TBD Devastator 0 12 12 11 11 248 TBF/TBM-1 Avenger 1 14 16 18 18 249 TBF/TBM-3 Avenger 1 14 18 21 21

el cid again -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review: Data [ALL Data Done] (10/10/2006 3:22:05 PM)
Note that ALLIED aircraft are identical to the EOS set above RHSCVO Plane Set old RHS Manueverability new RHS Maneuverability Raw Formula A5M4 Claude 19 26 26 A7M2 Reppu 26 30 31 A6M2 Zeke 22 28 28 A6M3 Zeke 22 28 28 A6M5 Zeke 23 30 30 A6M7 Zeke 24 31 31 A6M8 Zeke 24 30 30 F1M2 Pete-FF 15 18 18 A6M2-N Rufe-FF 18 24 24 N1K1 Rex-FF 21 27 27 J2M2 Jack 26 34 34 N1K1-J George 23 29 29 J7W1 Shinden 29 31 33 Q1W1 Lorna 4 4 4 Ki-44III Tojo 28 34 38 Ki-76 Stella 7 7 7 D3A2 Val 17 20 20 D4Y2 Judy 22 22 22 B4Y1 Jean 10 10 10 B5N2 Kate 14 16 16 B6N2 Jill 20 21 21 B7A2 Grace 21 25 25 C6N1 Myrt 24 29 29 C6N1-S Myrt 12 29 29 G3M2 Nell 7 7 7 G4M1 Betty 8 9 9 G4M2m22 Betty 8 8 8 G4M2e&Okha Betty 7 7 7 P1Y1 Frances 5 16 16 G8N1 Rita 5 6 6 C5M2 Babs 20 26 26 J1N1-C Irving 11 13 13 H6K4 Mavis 3 4 4 H8K2 Emily 4 5 5 H6K2-L Mavis [Xpt] 3 5 5 H8K2-L Emily [Xpt] 4 4 4 L1N1/AT-2 Thora 7 8 8 L2D2 Tabby 6 6 6 L3Y1 Tina 6 7 7 G5N2-L Liz 4 4 4 E8N2 Dave 12 15 15 E7K2 Alf 11 12 12 E13A1 Jake 15 18 18 E16A1 Paul 18 22 22 E14Y1 Glen 10 10 10 M6A1 Seiran 17 18 18 2xKu-8 Gander & Tug 4 4 4 Ki-27 Nate 21 28 28 Ki-43-I Oscar 21 29 29 Ki-43-II Oscar 22 29 29 Ki-44IIa Tojo 26 33 36 Ki-45 KAIa Nick 11 14 14 Ki-45 KAIb Nick 11 14 14 Ki-45 KAIc Nick-NF 11 14 14 Ki-61-I Tony 22 28 28 Ki-61-II Tony 24 30 30 Ki-83 Stan 14 18 18 Ki-84 Frank 25 31 32 Ki-100 Tony 23 30 30 Ki-102b Randy 12 15 15 Ki-32/30 Mary/Ann 16 14 14 Ki-51 Sonia 17 20 20 Ki-48-I Lily 9 11 11 Ki-48-II Lily 10 12 12 Ki-21-II Sally 9 10 10 Ki-49 Helen 9 10 10 Ki-67 Peggy 10 10 10 Ki-36 Ida 14 17 17 Ki-15 II Babs 21 26 26 Ki-46-II Dinah 11 12 12 Ki-46-III Dinah 13 14 14 J1N1-S Irving-NF 10 11 11 Ki-34/Ki-59 Thora 7 8 8 Ki-56/LO Thalia 8 9 9 Ki-57/MC-21 Topsy 8 9 9

Zemke -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review (11/23/2006 10:39:32 PM)
I missed this conversation back in August, I was sort of unable to respond, but reading the all this I decided to throw in my two cents worth. I just completed a complete re-work of all plane maneuverability ratings. I used the data from a flight sim game called "IL-2 Pacific Fighters", which of course has its own sub-culture like most games that develop after market tools and aids. One of those "aids" is called IL-2 Compare, which has plane specific data, to include best speed at all altitudes to best turn rate. (There are several versions of Compare, as it is updated each time the game is. For this I used IL Compare 3.01. The newest version is 3.04 which I did not have on my laptop.) If you fly, you realise that manueverability is more than turning and never really constant, because as you turn you "bleed" off energy. The Zero was so maneuverable because it was so light. Anyway, as a compromise I used the best turn rate in degrees per second for each plane, then doubled the number and that was my constant. My reasoning was what better source than the best World War II flight simulation. I play the game IL-2, I have found that every plane has strenghts and weakness. Anyway the results were most Japanese planes gain maneuverabilty, some Allied planes gained and some lost. Of note, the Spit gained, La-7 gained, all bi-wing planes gained, the F4Fs gained, the F4U lost, as did the P-47, and P-38. I also used the best speed rating for the "speed" and found the maxium speeds changed very little, with some exceptions. The P-38s gained speed, and several of the Japanese late war planes gained speed also.

el cid again -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review (11/24/2006 5:04:04 AM)
Well, actually, as you will see in this thread, and two preceeding threads on the same subject, we do understand what maneuverability is. I got to study aircraft maneuvering early in life as an anti-air warfare specialist in the USN, and I also got to learn to fly in a Navy flying club - which helps one have some perspective. Later I worked as a resident computer engineer at a USAF Software Integration Laboratory at Boeing. So aside from some personal interest in these matters, I have also had some formal exposure to them. The basic problem with the simple WITP system is that we must give each aircraft a single rating, regardless of altitude, speed, flight regime, instantenious loading, etc. for both horizontal and vertical maneuvering. We have elected to go with a composite rating system. And we simply do not permit a plane to reach its service ceiling - where its rate of climb (by definition) is 100 feet per minute. [RHS uses an operational ceiling which is halfway between optimum operating altitude and service ceiling - so our planes never are completely at their worst for maneuverability]. The problem with your approach is that we do not have turn rate data. You cannot look this up in a standard reference for most types, and it was not even measured for more than a few types in our data set. Nor is there an easy way to calculate it. We elected to use values which were either directly available in source materials or able to be derived from it. It is present here mainly as a function of wing loading, modified by power loading, and greatly modified by the number of engines (or 1 if the engines are on axis). The goal was to achieve a single, openly defined, objective system permitting anyone to calculate (or verify the calculation of) maneuverability - so we don't have to depend on the game designer's classic seat of the pants guess ("it is not quite as good as a Zero so make it 2 points less"). If one does not expect too much of such a simple rating system - and if one does not place too much weight on a single factor (when several define a plane) - this system seems to be rather good at indicating the average differences betweeen aircraft. Not only does it clearly distinguish between the maneuverability of gigantic 4 engine aircraft and tiny single engine jobs, it usually indicates the relative differences between similar planes correctly. Until we have more fields - and a more sophisticated air combat model to use them - it may be as good as we can do? What might change is the constant K - if we can show a statistical skew we might be able to compensate for it by adding a constant.

elcid -> RE: RHS Maneuverability Review [Updated] (12/20/2011 12:19:08 AM)
In Re this question posted long ago: I can understand your rationale regarding 2-engine fighter types before the use of PL and WL. By using these in the calculation, are you sure that you are not penalizing 2-engine fighter types twice? If not, what is inherently unmanueverable about them when combining speed, ROC, PL and WL? I understand reduction added to 4-engine planes as they were not built to withstand excessive G forces. This would impact many 2-engine bombers as well. Are you also saying that 2-engine planes designed as interceptors could not handle the G forces that a single engine plane could? With the qualifier that this is a simplification of reality, seeking an approximate truth for simulation purposes: It is not a matter of handling G-forces per se - I am not worried about the wings falling off for example. It is a matter of angular momentum. Engine(s) on the centerline have a wholly different impact on roll than engines offset do. Ideally thrust should occur on the centerline of the aircraft, not out on its wings. To the extent this is not the case, there is a penalty to pay in maneuverability. This gets worse as the number of engines increases. And note a twin engine aircraft with BOTH engines on the centerline does NOT pay the penalty. This occurs two ways - when extension shafts permit two engines at the nose - or when there are nose and tail propellers. That is why those designes were done that way - vice putting the engines out on the wings.

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 7 [8]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.84375