Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Well the engines is a completely wrong rule in RHS mvr model and that can be perfectly seen in WITM: Italian bombers that have 3 engines just because they have less power
are artificilaly downgraded by that rule. Specially SM-79 was more maneuvrable than the He-111.

Speed is already rated in independently. The RHS mvr makes the game rate it twice. The main items of mvr for a simple system is Weight/Power relation , Wing Loading and lesser weight Drag(can more or less be calculated by Max Speed Vs Power).

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Well the engines is a completely wrong rule in RHS mvr model and that can be perfectly seen in WITM: Italian bombers that have 3 engines just because they have less power
are artificilaly downgraded by that rule. Specially SM-79 was more maneuvrable than the He-111.

Speed is already rated in independently. The RHS mvr makes the game rate it twice.  The main items of mvr for a simple system is Weight/Power relation , Wing Loading and  lesser weight Drag(can more or less be calculated by Max Speed Vs Power).

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Well the engines is a completely wrong rule in RHS mvr model and that can be perfectly seen in WITM: Italian bombers that have 3 engines just because they have less power
are artificilaly downgraded by that rule. Specially SM-79 was more maneuvrable than the He-111.

Speed is already rated in independently. The RHS mvr makes the game rate it twice. The main items of mvr for a simple system is Weight/Power relation , Wing Loading and lesser weight Drag(can more or less be calculated by Max Speed Vs Power).

Wing loading plays a factor in turning ability. However, as Sid points out, there are different types of maneuver. Ability to dive and climb are factors in maneuverability too. The game does have a field for climb rate. I'm not sure if it is used in combat or not. Diving ability is not directly addressed though. While the P-47 was not a great turning plane, it still could go toe to toe with all German fighters because it could maneuver in other ways. Predominantly, it could dive better than anything. If a P-47 got a height advantage on an enemy, and had a good pilot, the enemy wouldn't know what hit them. The top scoring fighter unit in the USAAF was a P-47 unit throughout the war, the 56th FG. Part of it was being in the right place at the right time, part was an outstanding leader, but part was having a good fighter too.

Another factor in maneuverability that is not factored independently is the maneuverability at speed. Japanese fighters became much less maneuverable at higher speeds. If an Allied pilot could keep the speed of a dog fight over about 220 miles per hour, most Allied fighters could out maneuver a Zero, even in turns. The Zero's controls get very heavy at higher speeds. US fighters were all in their element at higher speeds and could turn quite well. The g-suit was invented in World War II because US fighters evolved to a point where they could physically turn tighter at speed than the pilot could handle.

With their ability to maneuver at high speeds, late war US fighters could dictate the terms of combat in most instances. If the Japanese pilot tried to match them in speed, the US fighter could dog fight better. If the Japanese tried to keep speeds down, the US fighter could use boom and zoom tactics.

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

I have no problem with stock model they rate speed so it has a meaning in air combat, if it doesnt have i dont know what is doing there, like climb ability.
Speed is an end result not a factor. Mixing end results and factors leads to a bad formula. 

REPLY: You are somehow missing that it is not I - but stock - which "mixes factors" - in the maneuverability field.
When I asked what it was - I was told to investigate speed first of all. It turned out to be a mixed bag: some aircraft had speed (divided by 10 if I remember right) while others had speed combined with a different factor - and that turned out to be ROC divided by a certain number. This is hardly ideal or my preferred approach - as I have often stated. I would prefer a different air combat algorithm altogether, and I would prefer to separate maneuverability into different kinds and rate it at different altitudes. It may indeed be "a bad formula" - but that does not change that it works well. Wether or not the RHS maneuverability formula is better than stock is difficult to say - since it isn't published (and appears to have been applied in more than one form). But test results indicate it produces unreasonable outcomes significantly less often.

PowerVsWeight when Drag is constant between 2 planes is essential for continous maneuvrality which is diferent from instantaneous maneuvrality where wing loading have more
"saying" like changing direction. For example Delta planes like old Mirages doesnt suffer much in instantaneous turn rate but are poor in continous turn rate. F104 had wonderfull acceleration, speed and climb but maneuverality = bad!


REPLY: Somehow I have failed to follow your meaning here. But I completely understand your examples - which are quite correct. I learned aviation and air combat in the jet age - so these were the planes of my day.

I dont have a dog in that Thunderbolt fight but special abilities,tactics or defects should be handled by external bonuses. There are several instances where almost same capabilities on paper turn diferent performance planes, things like strutural resistence, commands, control surfaces etc also afect a plane hability.


REPLY: Here I think I must say the charge of a "bad algorithm" applies in spades. In general, IF you have a good model, you should NOT need to have "external bonuses" - your algorithm should explain in numbers why this plane is better than that one with respect to whatever the function is? External bonuses are very difficult to handle, lend themselves to seat of the pants guessing - or to excessive dependence on result oriented modification. [Excessive because we have a limited amount of real world data to work with and correcting toward that may not be correcting toward general truth. Better by far to figure out what the truth should be if you can. In the last generation we got so good at this that no one anywhere ever builds planes that don't fly - which used to be common - and we can engineer solutions to problems that don't even exist (yet) IRL - because we could detect them in the software models.]

Concerning 3 Engines this was a conversation that i was to have with Mifune since he was handling the air combat model of WITM but disapeared. Hope he is okay.

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

The thread is about "radical proposal".

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

All planes in WITP have been graded against one another on a universal grading system which inherently is flawed.
The system allows an equality of "points" based on mechanical considerations with some of the dynamic and physical attributes thrown in, but makes no allowance for the importance of the actual strengths of the planes as considered by the combatants themselves.!

How realistic and for what purpose would we consider the maneuverability of a 4 engine bomber vs ANY fighter??
We can easily surmise the 4 engine bomber will intend to fly a straight line, in company of its' comrades, maybe 95% of the time, therefore the true combat factor is "what kind of defensive cover does this individual bomber have in any box formation, be it 3 planes or thirty?"

http://www.rdrop.com/users/hoofj/

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob


The number of engines would have no consideration in combat, (except in calculating weight to power and ability to sustain ambulation if the plane were to lose an engine, (which would be considered as part of the calculation for "durability".)

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob


The number of engines would have no consideration in combat, (except in calculating weight to power and ability to sustain ambulation if the plane were to lose an engine, (which would be considered as part of the calculation for "durability".)

This is perfectly incorrect:

the number of engines matters in air combat in two senses, and is present in RHS in two different factors for that reason:

a) The number of engines contributes to durability - and it is therefor a factor in the durability rating. [A single engine aircraft that loses its single engine has zero chance of going home, ever. A multi-engine aircraft has severe problems, but may go home. The greater the fraction of engines remaining, the better the chance: thus losing 1 in 4 is not nearly as bad as 1 in 2, and losing 1 in 1 is always fatal to the aircraft.]

b) The number of engines on the wings resists air combat maneuverability - and it is therefor a factor in the maneuverability field (and it was from the beginning). To say (as I did above) that some aircraft had maneuverability values of speed divided by 10 is to omit the fact that 10 was divided by 1 engine: if the aircraft was multi-engine that value was reduced - by 2 for twin engine planes and apparently by 16 for 4 engine planes (in stock). Engines also matter in a different sense if on the centerline - or they can - when the engines are propeller types. They affect the ability of the machine to roll (sans counter rotating props or a reverse prop also on the centerline aft).

Not sure where the idea came from engines do not matter - but they matter a great deal. In a more complex model we would consider them targets, and we would evaluate hits on them. Because matter they really do.

quote:

When I asked what it was - I was told to investigate speed first of all. It turned out to be a mixed bag

quote:

Somehow I have failed to follow your meaning here  

quote:

IF you have a good model, you should NOT need to have "external bonuses" - your algorithm should explain in numbers why this plane is better than that one with respect to whatever the function is

quote:

He is OK. He moved and suffered a computer total breakdown. He has started to come back up.

quote:

If it is a known factor that it is suicide to try to turn with a Zero, then turning is no longer a "strength of my P 39, but speed and diving become primary strengths for my particular plane. If "turning" is not something I plan to value before I go into combat,(since I won't be doing any during my attack), why should I be concerned how my plane will "turn with a Zero"? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

When I asked what it was - I was told to investigate speed first of all. It turned out to be a mixed bag

Okay explained still think speed is overvalued, see below. Now just wanted to know more about it.

REPLY: It may be so. I think a revised air combat routine would be a great investment, even if we were to keep exactly the same data fields. IF it were combined with PUBLISHED definitions for the fields - we could either input data properly or we could modify it with a technical grasp of what that was doing.

quote:

Somehow I have failed to follow your meaning here  

My meaning is that F104 would have been an outstanding fighter in RHS if we overvalue speed.


REPLY: Thanks. I did indeed miss the point - and you did clarify it well here.

quote:

IF you have a good model, you should NOT need to have "external bonuses" - your algorithm should explain in numbers why this plane is better than that one with respect to whatever the function is

So how to handle a good diving speed like in Thunderbolt?

REPLY: Ideally - if we could start with a clean slate - dive speed would be a field of its own. In the present case I have not thought of a good answer - but my first pass brainstorming guess would be we add it in as a factor to the maneuverability function. Just as horizontal and vertical maneuverability are factors, and wing loading and power loading are factors, and ROC is a factor, so could dive speed. But I would want to check to insure we do not already have it in some other form (ie - is it directly proportional to something else in the function now?).


This is a comparative example of 2 real planes w/ same number engines:

Speed:          430 Vs 467 Km/h
Power:          2520CV Vs 3000CV
Wing Loading: 174kg/sqm Vs 219kg/sqm
Climb :            13min Vs 14min to 5000m

One of them was a crappy Torpedo bomber because bad maneuverability. 

REPLY: What is the maneuverability rating comparison of each in our system?

quote:

He is OK. He moved and suffered a computer total breakdown. He has started to come back up.

Good


[
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone knows how WITP how handles  bonus for defense and attack, escort?

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Sir Bob:

I do not mean to imply that opinions are not something which should be expressed. Nor that I am as opinionated to an extreme degree - wether it be good or bad I am guilty of the charge. Also - if the thread has been resurrected and hijacked to a different purpose then I created it for,

a) I am guilty of going along with that
b) the original purpose was long served and the thread was available for changing topic somewhat
c) You DID say you were interested in planes for a personal mod - and I only want to help you figure out what you really want (e.g. see the patrol plane item above) for your mod (and anyone else modding anything)

I regard the discussion as useful in several senses - and it has led to a tentative change in RHS - where I am strongly considering giving the Zero bonus to the Oscar I. It is good to educate our users about the details of the model - stock, CHS, RHS and others (notably Nikmod) being all germane to the air combat situation. And we might learn how to make that model better - even if we have already done that (as is the view of some).

So whatever my opinion about your opinion on a particular point, I regarded your opinion as worthy of reading, thinking about, and in bounds. At no time have you been uncivil - and I do not wish to be regarded as uncivil myself. Instead, I value what has happened here - and wish that to be clear. This even includes a rather sharp disagreement with another person at the moment. [Why we disagree is not yet clear to me? But it is perfectly possible either one of us may learn something - and I value that too - and more if it is me who learns something.]

I do not understand how maneuverability in a bomber does not matter "as a fighter." In a famous case, Adm Nimitz ordered ALL Allied patrol planes (which is to say, mainly 2 engine PBYs) to "avoid approaching" Japanese Mavis 4 engine flying boats - because these had taken to "playing figher plane" and pursuing and attacking planes they encountered. Surely a 4 engine flying boat is not a fighter - but that does not mean it might not act as one. [In a later era the British introduced air to air weapons on gigantic patrol planes in 1981 - radical - virtually unprecedented - but effective - and it now is being copied in several nations].

quote:

This does not seem like an excessive difference - nor does it seem identical. Does the wrong plane have the higher value in your view?

quote:

ORIGINAL: josephw

I hate to bother you all but for some complicated reasons (like I'm playing at work for one) it's hard for me download things, could you post, or direct me to, the game stats for some of the flying bombs and or cruise missiles you've all done.

Thanks