Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Examination of the database for aircraft indicated two patterns were used:
Neglecting the divisor, these were either

Speed/10

or

Speed/10 + ROC/500.

quote:


There is NO case where a SINGLE ENGINE plane EVER had a maneuverability less than 10% of its speed. Many cases have more. This is the simple case: the divisor is one for a single engine plane.

quote:

Could you clarify which d/base you are talking about here? I assume it wasn't the stock d/base as the bulk of the single engine fighters there have stats where their listed manuverability rating < 10% of their listed max speed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
I looked at stock and also CHS scenario 155 to see patterns. Good guess.

quote:

WitP Beta testing of air combat did strongly suggest that the listed max speed rating of an aircraft has a sizeable influence on air combat results (in addition to manuever, durability, etc).

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

WitP Beta testing of air combat did strongly suggest that the listed max speed rating of an aircraft has a sizeable influence on air combat results (in addition to manuever, durability, etc).

IF my understanding is correct, that makes perfect sense. "Maneuverablity" is really mostly speed. It is either a fraction of speed divided by a factor (for plane size) or it is that plus a fraction of ROC divided by the same factor. Of course testing would seem to show speed is critical - that is how the routine works - and I think it is correct.

quote:


I always assumed that speed was used directly in the routine - and so I am in harmony with everyone else who ever assumed that. I was surprised to learn otherwise - but it did help me to understand how to rate planes so we could address the air air combat problem. Someone wanted to make sure I understood - so I got told what matters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

WitP Beta testing of air combat did strongly suggest that the listed max speed rating of an aircraft has a sizeable influence on air combat results (in addition to manuever, durability, etc).

IF my understanding is correct, that makes perfect sense. "Maneuverablity" is really mostly speed. It is either a fraction of speed divided by a factor (for plane size) or it is that plus a fraction of ROC divided by the same factor. Of course testing would seem to show speed is critical - that is how the routine works - and I think it is correct.
And of course durability would matter too - and so does firepower. I always assumed that speed was used directly in the routine - and so I am in harmony with everyone else who ever assumed that. I was surprised to learn otherwise - but it did help me to understand how to rate planes so we could address the air air combat problem. Someone wanted to make sure I understood - so I got told what matters.

quote:

I think you misunderstood. When I said testing strongly suggested that the max speed factor influenced air combat, I meant that it did so not as a component of the aircraft's manueverability factor but on it's own. That is, changing the max speed of an aircraft while leaving it's manuever rating untouched will tend to alter the aircraft's effectiveness in air combat in the same direction as the speed change, ie increase an aircraft's listed max speed (not manuever) and it's effectiveness in air combat will tend to increase.

quote:

Now as to your mention of how manuever is calculated, I'm getting confused again. You describe how manuever is calculated but these calculations will rarely match the stock WitP database aircraft manuever ratings. So are you talking about the CHS database or are you actually saying that the game routines themselves will ignore the aircraft's listed manuever rating and instead generate one based on (speed/10 or speed/10 + ROC)?

quote:

I obviously can't comment on what you've been told but your statement above would seem to put the routine at loggerheads with the way the WitP manual describes how the game uses the manuever and max speed factors in air combat.

quote:

There are a number of elements to maneuverability, but the major one is sustained rate of turn. This is driven by the interaction of power, wing loading, and drag.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

I think you misunderstood. When I said testing strongly suggested that the max speed factor influenced air combat, I meant that it did so not as a component of the aircraft's manueverability factor but on it's own. That is, changing the max speed of an aircraft while leaving it's manuever rating untouched will tend to alter the aircraft's effectiveness in air combat in the same direction as the speed change, ie increase an aircraft's listed max speed (not manuever) and it's effectiveness in air combat will tend to increase.

I understand (and understood) your meaning. I am treading on thin ice and must be guarded in my response: that is not how the routine works.
My knowledge is not based on analysis - it is based on technical fact about the routine. The speed field is NOT used at all for this purpose.

quote:


[It may have some other function, such as when calculating the chance of an intercept to see if there is air combat at all. It may only be so the plane data charts look right to players.....I will say this again - and I am not guessing - speed is in the routine ONLY insofar as it is a component of maneuerability.

quote:

I fully accept you have been told something about that particular routine but I still strongly suggest that an aircraft's max speed rating on it's own is very influencial in determining air combat results.

quote:

Without knowing the actual details of what you were told, I am wondering whether the manueverabilty factor used in the routine is actually a different value to the listed manueverabilty rating from the d/base and is instead a calculated variable passed to the routine that is based on multiple factors, only one of which is the manueverability rating for aircraft as listed in the database. If that is not the case, then perhaps max speed is one of the factors used to influence conditions prior to the determination of whether an aircraft can attack and then again immediately afterwards when determination is made whether an aircraft can evade an attack

quote:

The reason I'm suggesting this is because testing of air combat in WITP (up to and including the current release) has shown when all other factors are equal (including listed manueverability for opposing aircraft), that a difference in listed max level speeds between opposing aircraft will show a favourable trend in results for the faster aircraft. That means that an aircraft's listed max speed rating plays its part in determining the outcome of air combat in WITP, just like an aircraft's listed manueverability rating does. I would strongly recommend you take this on board when deciding on your aircraft stats and not just assume that an aircraft's listed manueverability in the game is the primary factor of air combat.

quote:

On the other hand, when you talk about about speed being a component of manueverability, do you mean (as you suggested with your formula (speed/10 etc)) that the speed has already somehow been built into the listed manuever ratings of aircraft in the database? Your formula certainly failed to show any connection between an aircraft's listed max speed and listed manuever for the stock Matrix database, a database designed specifically with the game routines in mind.

quote:

Either way, I feel that you may be making some assumptions without all the relevent information (much like I have to ) and would certainly suggest some basic testing occur before you go further. Perhaps something simple like combat between two identical aircraft types and then run it again but this time give one of the aircraft a big increase in it's max speed (something like 100 extra speed should prove whether or not listed speed plays any direct role in air combat). You might be surprised.

quote:

I mean exactly that: "speed has already somehow been built into the listed manueverability ratings of aircraft in the database."

quote:


I have no clue to your belief my formula "failed to show any connection" -- first this is bad English - formulas do not "show connections" - and second if I follow your meaning rather than what you said - the data says (within the limits of all WITP data - which is somewhat sloppy) exactly what I say it says.

quote:


More than that, if my formula is the product of insanity (that is, not dervived from the data I derived it from), it does not matter a whit: it works and better than I would have regarded possible for any such simple device.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


Speed/20 + ROC/500 (this total always divided by engine count, no exceptions unless two engines are tandem, reducing the net drag, which is hypothetical: no such case in our data set).

The results are a superb but simple relationship which testing seems to indicates works well in this routine. I no longer care if the reasoning used in determining it was entirely correct or accidental. We have a way to calculate the field value which is easy, fast, consistent, and yet shows differences for performance and configuration which are reasonable.

quote:

However, for high performance twin engined fighters like P-38, F7F and the like what would the results be if you did not devide by 2?

quote:

) They used a formula (either exactly or similar to what you described).

2) They then made adjustments for things like 2 engine fighters.

quote:

1) They used a formula (either exactly or similar to what you described).

2) They then made adjustments for things like 2 engine fighters.

3) They then made adjustments on a case by case basis to achieve what were believed to be historically accurate capabilities (tweak this one up, that one down, etc.).

4) Someone else came along, without knowing about steps 1-3, and defined new aircraft by comparing them to existing aircraft and adjusting as needed.

5) CHS Modders came along, without knowing about steps 1-4. They made adjustments (as in step 3) according to thier beliefs, and the added aircraft (as in step 4) again according to their beliefs.

6) Step 5 continues up to CHS release 1.6 (current release).

Now, you come along and try to decode the data.

Also, at every step of the way, each person had too little time to do what they really wanted in terms of testing, vetting data, etc.

This is just my theory, but it makes loads of sense to me having plenty of experience in business that parallels it. Without fail someone comes along 'today', after years or even decades of work already put in by others, and gets a headache trying to figure it out!

quote:

However, for high performance twin engined fighters like P-38, F7F and the like what would the results be if you did not devide by 2?

quote:

Understood - just a quick note - the P-38 had counter-rotating props so their torque cancelled out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

Understood - just a quick note - the P-38 had counter-rotating props so their torque cancelled out.

That is of course a good thing. The problem is that you have two separate sets of propeller discs and THREE sources of drag (other than the wings and tail): the main body where the pilot sits, and both engine naciles. A single engine plane has only ONE such source of drag - for both engine and main body. Similarly, if the two engines are in the body, and drive one hub - or even a prop aft and one forward - it is only one source of drag. Different proposition than a multi-engine plane of the classical sort.

quote:

Absolutely, they could not make it as good as a single-engine fighter. My point is that they designed in factors so that the P-38 was at least better off than a two-engine bomber.