Editor question, P-39 / P-400 slots

[Big B]

Quick question,
The P-39D slot (#161) has an altitude limitaion hard coded (10,000') as I recall.
Does the P-400 slot (#160) have the same code attached?
I searched the Editor Manual and could not find any info on this ...any one out there know the answer?

B

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: Big B

Quick question,
The P-39D slot (#161) has an altitude limitaion hard coded (10,000') as I recall.
Does the P-400 slot (#160) have the same code attached?
I searched the Editor Manual and could not find any info on this ...any one out there know the answer?

B

I believe it is not an altitude limitation that impacts these two planes but a manuever penalty that impacts them. IIRC they lose 1 point of manueverability for each 1000 feet over 10,000 feet.

[Big B]

Yes, that's true -

my only question is do BOTH slots share the same code?[8D]

...

B

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

ORIGINAL: Big B

Quick question,
The P-39D slot (#161) has an altitude limitaion hard coded (10,000') as I recall.
Does the P-400 slot (#160) have the same code attached?
I searched the Editor Manual and could not find any info on this ...any one out there know the answer?

B

I believe it is not an altitude limitation that impacts these two planes but a manuever penalty that impacts them. IIRC they lose 1 point of manueverability for each 1000 feet over 10,000 feet.

[Herrbear]

According to the user manual, YES -- Sec 17.3

[Big B]

Muchos Gracias Amigo![8D] (I couldn't find that bit)

B

EDIT: No wonder I never found it - I was searching in the Editor Manual, not the game manual.[8|]

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

According to the user manual, YES -- Sec 17.3

[el cid again]

The P-39D slot (#161) has an altitude limitaion hard coded (10,000') as I recall.

I do not know this -

and I do not believe this either.

But it IS the way lots of things in WITP are done and it is entirely possible.
It is bad software design - but this is beyond our control.

I don't put P-39 in these slots - and the plane in slot 161 works fine above the "hard code" ceiling - more than twice as high - so I think it is not a valid concern.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The P-39D slot (#161) has an altitude limitaion hard coded (10,000') as I recall.

I do not know this -

and I do not believe this either.

But it IS the way lots of things in WITP are done and it is entirely possible.
It is bad software design - but this is beyond our control.

I don't put P-39 in these slots - and the plane in slot 161 works fine above the "hard code" ceiling - more than twice as high - so I think it is not a valid concern.

Works yes...but plane put into those slots will lose 1 point of manouverability for every 1000 ft over 10 000. So it is bad idea to put other planes into those slots. I *hate* hard-coded stuff !! [:@][:@]

[Herrbear]

I agree with Sardaukar Sid.  I think the planes that you added to slot 160 and 161 will suffer the manuever penalty over 10000 feet.

[Sardaukar]

Those slots have to be hard-coded for P-39 and P-400 since there is no other way to set that penalty in editor... There are some annoying hard-coded slots that should be avoided to mess with (like the nuclear attack bomber unit XXX NBS which should always remain in original slot or it won't get Atomic Attack option). Kind of annoying for modders. And I'm quite sure there are more of those.

[el cid again]

I am with you Ron - hard code is a very bad idea.  [Once upon a time we hard wired our computers.  Then Commander Grace Hopper suggested we write a programming language.  The first one of the modern era - a theoretical one was done for a mechanical computer by Charles Babbage's daughter/girlfriend/wife? Ada I believe - the new one was called COBOL.] 
 
And you are quite right about hard code and WITP - there are a fantastic number of slots with hard code.  Sometimes you put something in a "safe" empty slot - and it begins to march like a monkey on perade:  even if it is wholly unable to move in game terms!  Horrible.  There is some hope many of these slots will be cleaned out - and a list published.

[el cid again]

Does anyone LIKE the P-39 and P-400 being so penalized?
They are hardly the only such planes in theater.  I think it might be better to put planes that cannot go above 10,000 feet in those slots.
But moving planes is a big deal - so if you WANT these planes penalized, say so.

[Sardaukar]

Yea...I'd give my left lil finger for getting that kind of list. Or at least list of slots "to be avoided".

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Does anyone LIKE the P-39 and P-400 being so penalized?
They are hardly the only such planes in theater.  I think it might be better to put planes that cannot go above 10,000 feet in those slots.
But moving planes is a big deal - so if you WANT these planes penalized, say so.

 
Well...I like them penalized like that. And since there are limited number of slots, those 2 are best to be used as was original meaning. I think treatment of P-39 and P-400 in game is "sort of towards accuracy" even not really accurate.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Does anyone LIKE the P-39 and P-400 being so penalized?
They are hardly the only such planes in theater.  I think it might be better to put planes that cannot go above 10,000 feet in those slots.
But moving planes is a big deal - so if you WANT these planes penalized, say so.

Yes, the P-39 & P-400 should have the penalty.
 
But I think that other aircraft should have a penalty at altitude.
 
The Buffalo is another contender for 10,000ft +
 
I also think there should be a penalty for 20,000ft +, and lotsss of research into performance at height.

[el cid again]

OK - here is what I did:

First, I OPPOSE hard code for a particular plane.  I want ALL planes treated the same.  IF we penalize a plane, it should be based on a SYSTEM we can apply to any similar plane - and hopefully it can be on a graduated basis (not equal for all, but different for each, based on real performance data).

Second, I felt we had a big problem with ceilings.  In two different senses:  the data set was full of lies, but take them out, the truth is not very good simulation:  service ceiling is an awful place to be performance wise.  By definition you have a climb rate of 100 feet per minute or 30 meters per minute (the same number oddly enough).  That is awful.  Then too, at very high altitudes it is COLD.
Cold freezes your guns (and your aircrew) - maybe frosts your windows too.  Giving planes their full service ceiling also means they can often escape AAA altogether - and it means they fight EQUALLY WELL way up there - where they cannot really do that.

What to do?  We don't get to change the system itself - put in more variables.  I defined a new kind of service ceiling - operational ceiling.  I also changed AAA to effective ceiling - not full theoretical ceiling (which is nonsense at full range and often nonsense altogether - for fusing reasons you cannot fire shells that work that high).  I then did a statistical analysis and found an interesting thing:  the fraction of service celining at which a plane has good performance is almost always the same depending on ENGINE TYPE.  That is, normal engines give less performance at altitude than turbo-supercharged engines.  Similarly, jets and rockets give more performance at altitude than turbosupercharged piston engines do.  I defined "optimum operating altitude" in a technical way, and used a value halfway between that and "service ceiling" - calling that "operational ceiling."  That turned out to be very close to 95% for jets, 90% for supercharged engines, and 80% for normal engines.  [OOA was 90%, 80% and 60% respectively].  Thus RHS altitudes are performance altitudes - and somewhat in compensation - AAA cannot reach too high to get you and still be effective.  [I made an operating assumption that a plane with high altitude engines also had oxygen for aircrew, heating, and other provisions against cold]

In this system, the P-39 and P400 - and Buffalo - and MANY other planes - get a lower game ceiling than other planes - even if they have the SAME service ceiling. 

[Sardaukar]

Well...since those slots *are* hard-coded for P-39/P-400...either we use them or not. If not, we lose 2 slots. It's a trade-off. And as I said, I *hate* hard-coded stuff. It's almost like GG tries to make modding as difficult as possible in his games....[:@][:@]
 
At least he should document what he has hard-coded...[:(]

[Sardaukar]

BTW, P-400 didn't have oxygen system, so it's ceiling was something like 14 000 ft, IIRC.

[el cid again]

I do not think it is that bad:  we just put planes in the slots that don't need to operate above 10,000 feet.

I have put the OS2U and the SOC3 in those slots.  They barely can get above 10,000 feet and would be dogs up there.

I thought about putting the PBM Mariner and the PB2Y-3 Coronado in them - but they are better performers than the observation planes and can reach about 17,000 feet- and I don't like penalizing Allied heavy patrol planes without doing the same for Japanese ones.  I will allow my altitude rating system to penalize the P-39 and P-400, unless this is widely felt to be inadequate in the context of our options.  They are not great high altitude planes in my system of ratings.  The P-400 in particular has an operational ceiling of only 14,933 feet - not very impressive for a hot fighter plane. 

[Sardaukar]

Ah !! Never thought of that...floatplanes fit fine to those limitations. But do you intend to modify P-39/P-400 climb rate or something for compensation of hard-coded limitations ?

[el cid again]

I wish we could highlight text - can't any more!
 
Yes and no.  I am using a system wide approach.  P-39 and P-400 are "penalized" to the extent they have been given a lower fraction of their service ceiling than planes with turbo-supercharged engines do - in effect they are unable to engage at all in the upper 20% of their actual altitude regime - while a plane with such engines only loses 10% of its actual altitude regime.  In the case of P-400 that is severe - because its service ceiling is pretty low (its "operational ceiling is under 15,000 feet).  The P-39 is about 23,000 feet.
This is worse than it sounds like - due to the bounce bonus - a plane that has a lower altitude regime really is not as likely to get the bounce. 

Nevertheless, this is not an ideal solution.  Plane performance should vary with altitude - and actually I think it IS hard coded that way.  The chance you can intercept at  all is very low at very low altitude - or at very high altitude - implying it may be a fairly sophisticated model.