|
timtom -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (12/7/2009 5:42:51 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jcjordan
There's also several VFB units set to arrive in Jan 45 that arrive on the different Essex class carriers but they show in the air reinforcement queue. I wonder if, with the above problem w/ the VMF squadrons on Lex & Sara, if they will arrive or not? I've also found some FAA units the same way - FAA 1830,1836, 1835, 1841, 1842, VBF units - 1,7,9,10,11,12,13,14,16,17,82
Code should account for these as part of the CAG resizing (famous last words).
quote:
ORIGINAL: jcjordan
Also found that VBF6 is set to come in on Essex, shouldn't that be Enterprise?
Correct.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Fishbed
Hello Air chaps!
Sorry if this has already been brought up, but I wondered what was the official position on the "uber single-engined carrier torpedo bombers" issue? Namely the fact that Kates and Avengers have a distinctive tendency to be better at 20.000 ft horizontal bombing than Val and Dauntless crews are at dive bombing ^^
Cf my earlier post
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2294064
Any plan to look into this, if it hasn't been done yet?
Thanks in advance!
Odd...
quote:
ORIGINAL: Pascal
quote:
ORIGINAL: witpqs
quote:
ORIGINAL: Pascal
Yes, this is going to be a pet peev. I've seen this error since WitP.
The Catalina flying boats (almost all versions) are not given enough range compared to actual, historical ranges (verified by actual test documents from WWII which can be found at
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/flight-test-data/pby-performance-data-14239.html
Not just the PBY-5 could make it to Pearl Harbor from the West Coast, but so could the PBY-5A. This has an influence on strategic flexibility.
Similarly, according to Francillion's work on Japanese aircraft (and some Japanese sources), both the Mavis and Emily flying boats are also under-ranged in WitP AE.
I've looked at the DB all the way up to the 1094 beta patch.
I'll post revised data shortly.
According to his bio by Potter, whenever Nimitz had to attend meetings in the San Francisco area he flew in a PBY. That is until one time when upon landing they struck a submerged log (not visible to the pilots). The plane flipped over and seriously injured the pilots and Nimitz himself had minor injuries. After that the 'even higher' brass detailed a 4-engine land based transport for his personal use.
Pascal - they set aircraft ranges to get the mission ranges as correct as possible. Perhaps (due to the formulas in the code) they simply had to sacrifice some transfer range?
Each range in the database can now be set individually, not like in WitP. So transfer range, extended range and normal range are now independent of each other. In WitP everything was dependent.
Yes, I read in a number of books the story of Nimitz and his PBY flipping. He was very lucky.
Here are my range numbers based on original military docs and published sources for the PBY's
PBY-5
Max range: 2850
Extended range: 2350
Normal range: 1950
Max DT: 3350
Ext. DT: 2650
Norm. DT: 2350
PBY-5A
Max: 2790
Ext : 1940
Norm : 1650
Max DT: 3300
Ext DT: 2540
Norm DT: 2290
The Catalina I's (PBY-5), Dutch PBY-5's and Canadian Canso A (PBY-5A) have to be modified accordingly.
[:)] -> http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2239022
quote:
ORIGINAL: timtom
Actually arriving at range numbers and applying them with some sort of consistancy across the hundreds of different a/c in the game has been a headache of epic proportions. We've comprehesively reviewed our original data set twice.
The problem is in part the quality of data available. In my experience, with only a few exceptions technical aviation literature on the period is remarkably light on "hard" data, and if any is presented it's usually in isolation - the reader is presented with a couple (at best) of range numbers without any elucidation on a/c load conditions etc. Often the more detailed/technical a reference is, the less "hard" data it'll have, perhaps in aknowledgement of the ultimately futile nature of the quest - an aircraft after all is a rather different piece of technology from, say, a dishwasher and its performance can vary greatly depending on load state, altitude, speed, weather, wear, and pilot experience. Lastly aviation literature seems to shun references and footnotes like the plague, so it's usually nay impossible to establish interdepence. Lastly, performance data is usually (always) arrived at under test conditions under ideal conditions with mint aircraft and top-notch air- and ground crews. In other cases, range performance is arrived at mathematically.
The second challenge is then to translate the data into game terms with the inherent constraints therein. In all cases we've presumed that a/c always operates with a fuel reserve plus that flying at "extended" range is inherently more risky than the more conservative "normal" range. Different presumptions have been made about different categories of aircraft depending on different presumptions about load states and mission types undertaken. Compressing a large, varied and three-dimensiona data-set into a smaller, simplified and two-dimensional but set of game data invariably leads to compromises etc. Fx if one strips a PBY-5 of its armour, self-sealers, armament and any other tactical equipment, top up on fuel, keep the load to a minimum, and then chug along at optimum speed-for-range you'll get quite the milage on her - fx Quantas operated a connection from Perth (IIRC) to Colombo direct, which is well over 3,000 miles.
In fact the BuAer data on the PBY-5 dated August 19th 1942 states a maximum range of 4,100 statute miles on 1750 US gallons @ 7,000 ft/114mph, clean (no armour, self-sealers removed, no guns, ammo or tactical load) at 30,470 lbs and no fuel reserve. Just copy-pasting this figure into the game presents two methodological problems: 1) Should we automatically presume a best-case scenario on transfer range? This might make sense when considering, say, a San Fran to Pearl flight where one can ride a radio beacon and get all the tactical equipment replaced on arrival, but perhaps less so if the destination is some SoPac "dot base". 2) Applying the best-case scenario here demands that it be applied in ALL cases, which in turn requires that the necesary data is available. The detail given in the BuAer source is the exception rather than the norm however, so using this range number then poses the question whether this a/c has now been given an advantage over other a/c for which less detailed data is available.
Screen is of the data we chose to use on the PBY-5. However it is recognised that the PBY ought to be able to reach PH (it's a hex short IIRC). Fear not, I'll suitably chastice the dumbo responsible. ALL in-game ranges are less that RL theoretical ranges though, to account for operational realites such as fuel reserves etc.
Miles = Statute ->
[image]local://upfiles/8484/68C950F0B8B444818726023BD0756C44.jpg[/image]
|
|
|
|
