Aircraft 'Manuever'

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

You state that the goal is to reduce air combat losses. There are many ways to do so such as increasing durability ratings. If you believe than the maneuver rating is responsible for excessive combat losses, why not use a multiplier and apply it to the stock ratings. Try a value of 0.5 or 0.75 multiplied by the stock rating.

REPLY: I do not believe maneuver rating is "responsible for excessive combat losses." I think grossly exaggerated weapon ranges, grossly (relative) firepower to machine gun ratings, and lack of ammunition limits, plus a routine issue when more than 50 planes appear on one side - are far more the issue. However, there is evidence that maneuverability ratings in the higher ranges may be a serious contributing factor. Your proposal would have merit IF stock (or CHS) values were reasonable in a relative sense - but they are not. It would, however, work statistically speaking (preserving the relative errors) - to the extent maneuverability is an issue. Mostly it is not an issue - because mostly ratings are not in the high 30s and 40s - and because other things are unrelated (planes can shoot 100 times if need be).

Let me blunt here. The formula that you propose to use for RHS is flat out wrong! It has more holes in it than the USS Arizona. Any formula that refuses to recognize the importance of roll and turn rates will never reflect reality when it comes to maneuverability.

REPLY: There is no data in the set for roll or turn rates. There is no way to get that data for all planes in the data set in any single source (e.g. Aircraft of WWII) or set (like Osprey books) which use the same standards of data. It is not part of the existing model - which works well as you admit - and no way to get the data to an honest and easily verified standard with a reasonable amount of effort. If there was a way - and please tell me I am wrong about no data and you have it all ready to post from IISS or any good place - we don't have a proposal for how to use it in the maneuverability field. This field - which may be misnamed to an extent - must always include what the model needs it to include - even if we modify it for your pet factors.

And I WANT to include your factors. Not as dominant - they are not. You are the one who is wrong when you say they are "the most important." The most important factors are not plane performance in the first place. When the guy we are attacking does not see us, and flies on fat, dumb and happy, your factors matter not a whit: and that is the vast majority case. When we see something we dare not engage (we being in a C-47 and they in Ki-84s say) - and we go hide in clouds and open the range so they don't ever see us - your factors matter not a whit. IF we use these factors, we need DATA on the portion of the time they DO matter a whit. Much more often speed is going to matter (as we dive with our P-38s on the vastly more maneuverable - in your beloved horizontal - Zeros) - and win or lose we are going to keep on going -
not try to turn and fight him if he is still there to fight. How often does horizontal maneuverability matter? You tell me - and it decides the weight it gets. This is how to do proper analysis. Don't be emotional about a datum.

If all that mattered was horizontal - Ki-27 will win - and we will lose. You are going to give Japanese planes an undo advantage if you make this the main thing. A Ki-43 will be a giant!

My goal here is not to offend or to piss you off. That does no good. My goal here is to offer constructive criticism, heavy handed though it might be. I will refrain from any more posts on this discussion unless invited.

REPLY: You are civil here. So you are invited. My frustration is that your criticism is too short sighted: you never go all the way to a solution. The whole concept of using your factos is moot UNLESS you give us the data - data to CHS/RHS standards - data ANYONE can find in a proper source in a public library. It is also useless UNLESS you can balance it - although I can do that for you if you trust me - with other things. Just because you like maneuveraiblity does not make it king - it isn't - and we learned how to beat more maneuverable planes in fact in this campaign. Before we did, the turning in maneuver worked for Japan even against better planes. There is a lot going on - and no one fact is king all the time. Help us compromise the factors - which cannot happen by making anything king. And we will use it. We will use it the miniute it is clear you got it right. No delay. No pride in our past work. Better data is ALWAYS in in RHS - right now.

Chez

[Drongo]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Drongo (what does that mean ? just curious)it isn't helpful to bicker

I won't

I also have made promises not to say every last thing - and I am sorry if being ethical
prevents me from clarifying every last thing as much as I might like

I love to get technical and to explain - it is what I do. I have gone as far as I can here -
possibly one or two steps farther than I should - and the journey is over.

I do think your interest is laudable. I do not think your opinion is unreasonable either.
But I am just the point - the guy out in front - taking the heat. It is not my data. It is not
my code. And I also do not know all there is to know about it. In the nature of these things,
maybe no one does know everything about it - it may well have evolved - and to some degree
I know this is the case here. If the poor fit of data with algorithms bothers you - well we are
much more in harmony than in opposition about such matters. If I had done the original data I
assure you it would be at least 90% consistent. I didn't. It isn't. It is confusing. But you cannot
understand where to go unless you know where we began and where we are. I tried to help you
understand - as I have been led to understand. I made nothing up. It is not my data, my theory,
my code. All I did was go on and make a modified algorithm. You got a better one - I will
instantly adopt it - and say it is yours for the rest of my life. You got better data - I will instantly adopt
it and say it is yours - until still better data comes along. That is as constructive as I know how to be.

I'm not sure why your response has drifted into discussing some pact you appear to have made with the Lord of all Secrets.

It may well be that the aircraft manuever ratings in stock were originally derived from a formula that used speed and ROC as a basis and then over time, were adjusted subjectively by various parties until almost 90% had completely different values.

It may also be that someone originally trained 216 groups of 8 monkeys to each roll a six sided dice to establish the manuever ratings for the stock aircraft and then the subjective changes occured. Who knows.

It matters little given that I've only been asking you why continue to claim your two formulas were producing some significant match rate with the stock database. Since they are "your" formulas and both their workings and the values involved are public, there should be no real reason to refer to the Public Secrets Act in making your answer.

As one final attempt at clarification, the claims you make about the results of your formulas when applied to the stock database do not appear to match what I am achieving when I attempt the same exercise. Only by broadening the criteria (by a point) for a successful match do the total results start to approach the "1/3 of all aircraft" and only by broadening it further (IIRC, by allowing a match to be between 2 or 3 points of the stock value), do the totals of matches from both formulas produce a result that exceeds half the aircraft present.

By broadening the criteria for success, the specific formulas themselves start becoming less and less relevent to the exercise, especially since the values you are trying to match against can vary only between 0 and 40. That's not a lot of room to manuever ('scuse the pun).

If you are unable to actually achieve any true match rates of significance with your formulas for the stock database, then wouldn't it be easier to just say so (or just make no claim) rather than stretching the success criteria to make the formulas appear relevent?

I don't think doing so will make acceptance of your equations in RHS less palatable. Nor will it make any difference as to what people believe was the original basis for establishing the stock manuever values. Everyone has their pet theories anyway.

Cheers

BTW - "Drongo" - Some say it means wise man from the bush, others say it means a dumb country twat.

[Drongo]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Chez:

What really matters in air combat is actual speed. What is actual speed? Whatever it is, we cannot put it in a field! It is anything but constant. The air model does this for us. How does it know what to use? It uses at least three fields:

max speed
cruise speed
ROC

It may also use altitude.

It also used die rolls. Each pass each plane gets a new positional record.

As outsiders to the code routine executing an attack, ALL we can play with is the input data.

It is actually silly to object as you do to max speed. Right or wrong, it is what is used. And code is right.

Think of it like this: Whatever the ratio of acceleration to max speed may be, at any altitude, it is related to the max speed
of the plane first of all. And the routine DOES know the altitude too. It ALSO knows "this plane was cruising at the start of the engagement" - or "this plane was on an attack run at max speed" - so it knows initial speed. From there on the routine tracks the situation - not us.

Not sure what you want to do? But complaining about how the routine works is not productive. Ain't gonna help nothin'
And it can be made to work. Run 100 tests with RHS. Surely it works better than CHS or stock - and slightly better
than Nick Mod. Not bad for a crude first guess. Now - if you can make it better still = tell me how?

I do not use sustained ROC. I use initial ROC - FYI. The routine is set up for that - using anything less is not going to model well. It reduces ROC as altitude increases - as it should.

ROC matters in the same sense speed does - it is a single value the code can look at - combine with other things - and play with. It turns out to be directly related to power loading and speed - as either goes up so does it. These are not bad things to be considering in an air combat routine.

I do not like, did not design in, and would not design in, no fields for various other factors. I myself have THREE different "agility" factors for every plane (at 5000, 15000 and 25000 feet - and sometimes at 35000 as well), plus wing loading, power loading, weight, power, ROC, a correction factgor for ROC, a dive speed, and a dive speed limit, among others, in my own models. If data was available - it isn't - I would have things like sustained turn rates - as a direct rather than combined or derived value. But I do figure it out - and it is in my agility ratings. What shocks me is that this - taking over an hour per plane to work out - only gives virtually IDENTICAL values in air combat to my planes. WITP works - better than I think it should work. Maybe we will always do it this way - since we can do a plane in about 2 minutes - and it works.

Just out of curiousity (and assuming I understand what you just said),

If you really believe that the individual game factors of speed and ROC are already being used and tracked by the combat routine (and assumedly so as part of determining the combat result), aren't you then further exaggerating the combat abilities of aircraft with high values for these factors by using these factors again as the prime variables in your calculation of an aircraft's manuever value?

I'm not sure about your availability dates but did you really intend to have a situation where the JAAF gets a "fighter" (Ki-44) in late '42 that will considerably outperform all available contemporary Allied fighters other than maybe the Spitfire?

Cheers

[Herrbear]

I do not use sustained ROC. I use initial ROC - FYI. The routine is set up for that - using anything less is not going to model well. It reduces ROC as altitude increases - as it should.

Thanks for clarifying where you obtain the ROC. What do you use for max speed? Many sources list various ways, some at sea level, some at other altitudes, some you never know when it was calculated.

[el cid again]

Thanks Drongo. I should have guessed it might be an Aussie term. We have lots of OZ types here.

It actually matters what formula or criteria were intended. We cannot make any formula or criteria that will work better
until we understand what was originally intended. My formulas are not what I would do - they are modifications of what
Matrix did. I WISH they would use my formulas - and probably so do you - but they did not (meaning formulas I use
in completely different models). No one can understand either RHS formulas or propose anything better UNLESS they
know what Matrix did. I knew that up front - and I hate guessing - so I asked. I was given considerable help - but
not the code to study - because it is propriatory. We even got a bit posted on the board officially. But nothing like enough
to please those of us - including you and I - who like total microscopic detail. I do not understand what part of this is
hard for you to come to terms with - since you are obviously very well informed and a superb writer in English? This
is just a tiny bit of what a modder needs to deal with - and in WITP the water is more often muddy than clear. If you
want it to make total sense - don't look too close.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

I do not use sustained ROC. I use initial ROC - FYI. The routine is set up for that - using anything less is not going to model well. It reduces ROC as altitude increases - as it should.

Thanks for clarifying where you obtain the ROC. What do you use for max speed? Many sources list various ways, some at sea level, some at other altitudes, some you never know when it was calculated.

Very good question. And very right - sources often use different criteria - and do not always say which.

I use maximum speed in level flight at optimum operating altiude. I also use optimum cruising speed for range at optimum operating altitude. There is often a different cruising speed for other purposes - but since our players love absolute max range - we must use the cruising speed associated with that to be realistic.