Aircraft Maneuverability (Final? Adding PR Spitfire)

[el cid again]

The following rate of climb data is provided for the P-38. Source is the "Pilots Flight Operating Instructions for Army Model P-38.

P-38H Standard Day 54"Hg/3000rpm to 20,000'

The only problem is that we are using P-38G, J and L models.
The first value you give in your list is the initial ROC - the one nearest the ground. And it does help. But we need that value for all the models, and as it happens your manual is NONE of the models we need. It is a thousand feet per minute higher than we are using though - it might matter.

[el cid again]

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.

I doubt it.

I wonder why? When a max speed = 350 and the maneuverability = 35, I see a formula max speed / 10

why don't you?

I am trained to reverse engineer codes and formulas - and this was a trivial exercise for me. Particularly since our resident mathmetician (Joe) advised me to begin with speed as a possibilty.

[el cid again]

El Cid where are you getting this from? The only tests I have seen are not supporting this view at all. The Zero bonus (which boosts Zero manouverability) was shown to have NO impact on the number of kills the Zeros scored, but did reduce their casualties.

This suggests very strongly that the manouver values (perhaps relative manouver values and perhaps not) act as a saving throw / avoid damage or hit chance when a plane is attacked and do not help at all with attacking.

From my own experience of the game and the general feeling on the boards I believe that speed and pilot experience seem to be the chief determinants of attack success (with firepower vs durability / armour then seeing if you get a damage or a kill). You appear to now be doubleing up the speed advantage by making it a chief determinant of manouverability. I am sure it is important anyway from the stats. Fast, late war planes tend to have good manouver values. If this is your intention fine, but I am not sure why exactly you want to do this.

When you say it is very likely it works like.... that all sounds very plausible. But the testing done in the zero bonus thread does not support you at all. Manouver was shown to have no impact at all on kills (in a single air combat - obviously preserving good pilots longer has a long term boost). Why do you believe your ideas in this case to be correct? Have the developers said something?

I am not really guessing about what factor is used. Speed as such is NOT used in the air-air combat routine. Instead maneuverability is. However, after analysis of the maneuverability value, I find speed really is the dominant element in it anyway - disguised by a divisior for multi-engine bombers and transports. It is not wise to say more than "I am not making this up."

I do think your concept that things like pilot experience matters is correct. I also think altitude, surprise and other things matter. I am only describing the heart of the routine - omitting all the modifiers and conditional jumps. For the purpose of this discussion, the only thing I am interested in is the technical factors of the aircraft which are used in the air combat routine. I don't need to consider any non-aircraft factor when rating a plane. I do need to understand how the values work in order to rate planes properly - and to insure that all the planes are done to the same standard (which, clearly, they have not been, which seems typical of this game - NO database is consistently done).

[worr]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I wonder why? When a max speed = 350 and the maneuverability = 35, I see a formula max speed / 10

why don't you?

That certainly is possible, but not probable.

There are aircraft that have a max speed over 400 and do not have a maneuverability of 40 plus.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

.. by simply reinstating the code that was written to do it (it is almost certainly still there - just remarked out or branched around). This takes no programming talent at all - and we probably will get it done fairly soon.

... get the data right and we will fix the code presently. Probably sooner than you expect.

It sounds like you know somthing the rest of us would like to know. Are you talking?

What I did with rockets was define them as a single shot weapon! This is done by the accuracy setting - no other weapon has a setting of 1 - but all air-air rockets do. Accuracy is really square root of ROF - and sq root of 1 = 1 - so this is the correct value.

I take it this will make the rockets single shot per plane fired at, but that it will still be able to fire at multiple planes if so engaged in combat (one after another, the way the model works).

[el cid again]

That certainly is possible, but not probable.

There are aircraft that have a max speed over 400 and do not have a maneuverability of 40 plus.

The key to decoding the algorithm was to add in the divisor for multi-engine planes. 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. Turns out it was ALSO one for a twin engine fighter or night fighter. But it was two for a twin engine bomber or transport - and interestingly apparently 8 for a four engine plane of any sort.

[el cid again]

It sounds like you know somthing the rest of us would like to know. Are you talking?

I have been told to shut up.

[el cid again]

I take it this will make the rockets single shot per plane fired at, but that it will still be able to fire at multiple planes if so engaged in combat (one after another, the way the model works

Maybe. It won't be the SAME plane - the rockets have the broadside of a heavy cruiser! In fact, if there WAS a "target rich environment" (say a bomber formation densely packed) it would be hard NOT to get several kills per salvo!

Another factor is "are the rockets used?" That is, when given multiple weapons, the code does not always elect to use all of them (see submarines - I have torpedoes and midgets - and fore and aft versions of torpedoes and kaiten - but I never see ALL used at the same time).


However, I agree with you - IF there is a multi-round air combat, AND IF the rockets are chosen for use by the "code" pilot, it may be we have somehow got "reloadable" rockets (which is perfectly possible - just not historical). It is as bad as the guns that never run out of ammunition. But I know of one Japanese pilot who engaged 18 F6Fs, shot down something like eight of them, and the rest ran - for fear he was NOT out of ammo! Clearly he fired short bursts. Maybe if we have such a case with rockets, they do not fire all at once?

If you have a solution to this problem short of code changes, I am all ears too. For example, you might propose "put rockets on bombers, but not on fighters, until we fix the ammo problem."

For the record, rockets so far have worked on ship targets. They have yet to be selected for use in air combat - it may only be they are chrome and do not work at all. This is a test mod - in its pre release test mode - time will tell.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

If you have a solution to this problem short of code changes, I am all ears too. For example, you might propose "put rockets on bombers, but not on fighters, until we fix the ammo problem."

I wish I did. Maybe the best thing is to see how they work and, if too powerful (unrealistic), then take tehm off the fighters. Without code changes I don'r see a better way.

I suppose it's also possible that the code will only see rockets as an air to surface weapon (I do not know how you defined them - like a gun or like a bomb? - so I don't even know if this is actually a possibility).

[el cid again]

I suppose it's also possible that the code will only see rockets as an air to surface weapon (I do not know how you defined them - like a gun or like a bomb? - so I don't even know if this is actually a possibility).

My "rockets" are not like the "ss rocket" devices in the game. They are renamed aircraft guns! This so they should work in air air mode.

I suppose if they are too powerful, we might reduce the salvo on fighters to only 2 - that way it gets 3 or 4 shots with correct values - which should cover most battles. Due to reduced durability ratings, I do not expect many planes to survive hits by heavy weapons!

[Drongo]

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.

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.

El Cid,

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.

Cheers

[el cid again]

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.

I looked at stock and also CHS scenario 155 to see patterns. Good guess.

[Drongo]

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

OK, thanks for that clarification. I was getting a bit confused with your discussion of what the Matrix designers came up with and then seeing you state that your two base manuverability formula had been produced from reverse engineering the database. It sounded like you were saying that they were derived from a direct analysis of the stock Matrix database (only).

Since what I've seen of the aircraft manueverability factors in the stock Matrix database, your formulas don't appear to produce many matches at all, indicating that the designers most likely calculated their manuver values in some other way. So is it correct to assume then that it is the CHS database that produced your stated formula when it was reverse engineered (I haven't yet had the chance to look at that one)?

BTW, just one caveat. 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).

This is in line with what is stated (and described with an example) in the manual. If you are aware of some additional knowledge about the game that discounts the max speed factor as having any influence, feel free to ignore my caveat.

I just thought it was worth mentioning as building your manuever rating primarily around speed and ROC might then be expected to double up on the effectiveness of these two factors as they are (supposedly) designed to be an influence on air combat results in their own right (ROC is one of the factors influencing CAP intercepts).

Cheers

[el cid again]

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.

[Drongo]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

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.

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.

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)?

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.

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.

It would almost seem possible that you may have been told details of the way one part of the routine works but not neccessarily all the parts.

Anyway, I'm sure whoever told you knows best. [:)]

Cheers

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

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.

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.

About 25 years ago, I decided I wanted to design an air-to-air combat game that modelled the technical factors correctly. I found it had to keep track of energy, but it allowed me to model maneuvers (in both horizontal and vertical dimensions) and performance realistically. Later, when I did my PhD research into how bats capture insects in flight, that work helped me develop an accurate model of how bats fly and maneuver. Insects can react much faster than bats, but bats respond by using scissors maneuvers to turn inside the insects. The usual action of an insect on hearing a bat cry is to dive, but it has to time its dive very carefully. If it dives too early and picks up airspeed, it lacks the power to maneuver, and the bat can chase it down. If it delays its dive too long, it's dinner.

[el cid again]

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.
[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 don't know. It is similar to the "max load" field. This field IS used by transport planes - apparently we "cheat" and ALWAYS carry maxload to transfer range when we air transport! But the max load field is NEVER used by bombers for bombload! It is used to decide about the base required for bombers to work as bombers, but it is not used for bombing itself! It is the way it is, right or wrong, like it or not, it just is and we cannot change it.] I will say this again - and I am not guessing - speed is in the routine ONLY insofar as it is a component of maneuerability.

[el cid again]

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)?

I did a "quick and dirty" reverse engineering of the field values. My work is based on an unissued version of CHS - with spot checks back into CHS scenario 155 and stock scenario 15. You cannot look at the data I used because Andrew has not quit issued it yet. [It is in proof release to the CHS team now - I got my copy last night and have not yet examined the latest form]. But this IS based on analysis - and a very fast and limited one at that. I made some guesses - and found many points of agreement with both - and decided this probably was correct. Regardless, these guesses led me to a method that is very simple and works remarkably well. I don't think I invented it - I think it was invented at Matrix - and if that isn't so probably by someone at CHS - and I have tried to say how impressed I am such a simple value works in such a simple routine to show the differences for all planes so well. But maybe I was totally confused and invented it all by mistake and accident? [I did run into the theory there was NO method at all - that it was all "seat of the pants guesses" - and I think any modder must have done that because there was no stated definition to use. But maybe some modder invented his own definition and I just decoded it? Does it matter? No longer - we have a way to get the value for each plane that works to show in a reasonable way the differences for all types of planes. I at least do not care. For political reasons - and to keep my ego in line - I prefer to think Matrix is peopled by brilliant programmers who came up with a very clever idea - and if that is false - that CHS has another genius besides Andrew the mapmaster - who invented it. I am not believing I came up with this.]

[el cid again]

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.

In US Navy ET school they tell you "You may end up alone, in a submarine cut off from communcations or some other isolated place, working on something with NOTHING but the manual - but that is enough." I found it to be true. But WITP does NOT have a manual (four inches or so thick) like I used to use on Navy gear. It is very frustrating for me. I think if something is wrong in the manual there is a moral obligation to fix it. But obviously my idea is not profitable or otherwise germane: Matrix thinks it is fine to say "you can mod this game" without telling you how it works! I proposed that they create an editor's technical manual and charge for it - but either they have not done - or it is in the works and a secret from me. MANY things in the manual either were wrong in the first place, missing altogether, or have changed without a revision of the manual being made. I wish it were not so. I would pay for it not to be so. But it is so and we must live with it. Probably forever, but at least for now. Fact of life.

[el cid again]

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.

Try not to confuse reality with WITP! Names of fields are often quite misleading. "Accuracy" is NOT accuracy, for example. I didn't name it and it isn't my fault. Similarly, "maneuverability" is not exactly maneuverability as I would define it - and I used to care for aircraft simulators costing 7 figures you could climb inside (nice ones with moving scenery out the windscreen, and the whole thing turns to simulate the way it feels in a cockpit). I think you need to think about power loading, wing loading, rate of turn, lots of things. This has nothing whatever to do with the value called maneuverability in the game - except to the extent those things are related to ROC - and that only if I decoded the field values properly. Clearly many cases are PURELY speed divided by 10 for single engine planes and divided by 20 for twin engine bombers/transports. and divided by 80 for all four engine planes.

When I said "maneuverability is" I mean, here, in this code, for our purposes, not "maneuverability really is." I understand what you are saying, and I have a different meaning in my own simulations.