RHS Allied Aircraft Thread: A Radical Proposal (at end)

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: m10bob


I have given the Chinese C 45 aircraft for their much needed early light transportation needs.(This plane was used by nearly every Allied power.)

In RHS there is a ROC civil air unit with 6 machines at Hong Kong (and ground support which won't move from there).
We use a combined light plane for it: C-32 / C-36 / C-39 / C-40 and BT-32. The unit is called China Air because - that is what it was called.

This is the RHS unit I use for the C 45, which I placed in Chungking to represent the civilian types which were there..It is a fact the Chinese had C 45's, so, I call them this. Your idea to name some of the units, to represent several types was IMHO a good one.
It was no mean feat to check load capacity,range,etc, and just make allowance with just how many planes I gave the unit to avoid "cheating"(even solo).

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: m10bob

In my personal mod, the Oscar has been given a much better maneuverability rating to reflect its' ONE true strength.

Perhaps you should give it the zero bonus? Perhaps so should I? In leiu of the Claude - which isn't going to last long in most games. The JAAF adopted the "turning in maneuver" which is one of the reasons a sunset in the bonus is justified: eventually we adopted tactics which rendered it less meaningful - but at the start it was quite effective.

NO!..The Oscar does not need a "Zero bonus", it just needed to have the maneuverability tweaked to the extreme good, which few on the forum seemed to understand or accept.
While a "bonus" is a good temporary fix, it wears out after a few months, but the inherent ability for this under-armed but nimble dogfighter to present itself as a hard target was IMHO never addressed.
The plane was more maneuverable than many bipes, and certainly more than the A6M2, but with a maneuverability in game of "29" just made it cannon fodder.
In fact, many of the other planes in game show "29" to be on the "average side", as fighters go.
For now, I am working with 33-34 being more practical for this particular plane.
My old flying instructor, Tommy Thompson was based all over this theatre and swappped stories with me about the stuff he flew against over there, (in the early days), and this was relevant enough for me to pay attention as I had just built my new Revell 1/72nd scale Hayabusa "Oscar"..
Tommy taught me the value of sideslipping when landing as a means to pretty much "stop" in mid-air and lose altitude fast, (which some of the P 39 pilots had to do to avoid "Oscar"..)
With the "butterfly flap on the Oscar deployed, the plane could do this all day long and then out-accelerate any Allied plane in the air, in the direction of its' choice.

There were very sound reasons for the Allies to avoid dogfighting, and use the "zoom and boom" or "boom and zoom" tactic, (whichever it was called).
The forte of the Allied planes were their guns, not maneuverability, so "29" just was not cutting it for the "Oscar", IMHO.

Sid, you are the last guy who needs any lecturing about planes in WITP, so accept my diatribe for those who cannot accept the Oscar for what it was, and why.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I play solitaire against the Japanese AI 100% of the time. In doing so, I have altered some of the stats for units slightly for my own liking using the editor.In doing so, I research both tech papers AND historical writings, (like the famous Cpt Gunn's modifications.)
EVERY P 47c which came to Gen Kenney was given Australian-manufactured copies of the original P 38 drop tanks, because the P 47 was a huge gas hog.
I have directed the forum to the easily found documentation of this, but sticking solely to "blueprint specs" would never yield this historic modification.
I am in line with Sid's desire to produce the actual planes used in their most produced form (when slots are limited), but I am also on board WDolson's desire to see the planes after field modifications.

I have altered all the Hudson, B-18's, Ansons, Ventura and Harpoon aircraft to their true function of "patrol" planes, (rather than recon or level bomber types).

REPLY: are you aware that makes them flying boats?

Have not noticed this yet..Thank you for the heads up.. I marked them for "patrol" to give them the patrolling AND transport capability. Most of the planes I mentioned had passenger seats or were converted airliners..Of course I do NOT want them to be seaplanes.. BTW, have you found a means to allow the amphib capability of the later Catalina? At present they will only land on the water, (but this question also applies to the later amphib models of the Mariner as well)..

Unless I am confused, all "patrol" are flying boats and all will operate from any port. The only way to tell they are flying boats is they will operate from a level zero airfield in a port hex - that is an undeveloped port airfield wise. This designation has other effects - probably - in search, ASW, air combat, etc - and you probably don't want to classify land bombers this way. RHS did this early on - and we were forced to change back. There is no way to get such an aircraft to be amphibious (code issue). FYI in RHS a wierd Soviet plane - historically a bomber - used as a transport and as a patrol plane - is classified as "patrol" - to permit it to do either type of mission. But it cannot be TRANSFERRED to an inland airfield - which is quite wrong - but the way the cookie crumbles. But look at the 23rd Independent TBAE - a Soviet transport formation at Irkutsk: in spite of the patrol classification it can OPERATE - hence it might be said to be "amphibious." [Note an ANT-3 is assigned patrol for mission reasons and should not be used as a flying boat - which it most certainly is not]

[m10bob]

Again, thank you for the heads up on "patrol" being for seaplanes.
I had not noticed this as the planes were all based on coastal locations anyway.(The icon of the catalina should have been a dead giveaway!)
Made them all bombers again and all works again, (I included the Anson as a bomber to allow attacks on subs- it was maritime coastal patrol for Australia, never a "recon" plane..
Too bad any p[lane that can transport "supplies" cannot do so for "people"..

As for tweaking the fighters, gee, so many of the later American planes have a super high rating they never enjoyed in real life..While the turning attributes of the Zero declined with the need for speed, a Hellcat or Mustang NEVER could turn with an old A6M2, yet in game, they have that high "over 30" maneuverability rating.
The thought of that huge P 47 out-turning nearly everything in the air is simply ludicrous.

Thank God for the editor, and for the modders who have taken flak for daring to show altering can be a good thing..

I will either publish my changes here in the forum, or consider e-mailing them to anyone interested, this will not be a published mod, just an alteration from somebody who has studied the nuts and guts of these warbirds for over 50 years, (starting with Aurora, Monogram, Hawk, Revell, Pyro, Strombecker,Airfix,Frog,Palmer,etc.)[;)]

[el cid again]

I refer you to three or four threads in which we (after several failures) managed to define aircraft maneuverability formally. The final formula is also in the RHS Manual.

The basic problem is that we get only a single value for "maneuverability" - also that it matters a great deal - more than you might guess - in the air combat code (according to a Matrix programmer). Ideally we should separate horizontal and vertical maneuverability - and rate both at different altitude regimes (low, medium and high?).

The solution when we must combine them is to give a plane credit for various abilities - but then a plane with a good ROC has a high value just like a plane with good abilities to turn and roll does. They are not the SAME - but they have a similar value. Some people find this confusing because ROC is a separate field - but then so also is speed - and speed is the primary factor in maneuverability. Not to rate speed, ROC, roll rate, turn rate (etc) is unfair and incorrect in this system. HOW to rate them fairly is a big problem - an almost endless debate - and we worked hard to get this right. Note in particular the impact of multiple engines NOT on the centerline.

Ultimately the Forum - at great agony and effort - was able to suggest mechanisms which finally were tweeked by Mifune in such a way that we get what appear to be relatively fine values. We also partly were able to put in altitude as a factor in a different way: we invented a "operational cieling" derived from "service ceiling" definition/rating. This altitude is halfway between optimum maneuvering altitude and service ceiling - and I was able to build a model of many planes to show that this is very close to a fixed percentage based on plane power plant type (that is, regular piston engines, turbosupercharged piston engines, rockets and jets) - so we could apply that % even if we only had service ceiling data and be very very close (withing 1%). This means that planes cannot fly in combat with a high maneuver rating at an altitude where they behave like dogs. And we adjusted AAA ceilings to effective (vice maximum) to permit planes to overfly AAA even without going to true absolute ceilings (if they could).

In the end, turning is not as useful as speed and ROC - and indeed a Japanese plane shows this - look at the Ki-44 Tojo - DESIGNED from original specs for speed and ROC and not in the Oscar/Zero class for turning. The system works well for both sides - not just one side - and for both kinds of maneuverability. Someday Matrix is going to give us more vairables, and we will then be able to do a better job of modeling this.

[el cid again]

In a sense you CAN have an amphib flying boat - and it is the standard in stock and CHS. Mavis transport flying boats are rated as transports - and fly from any inland or coastal airfield - but they will not fly from an undeveloped coastal airfield like a patrol flying boat can. Still - it is an option. RHS went the other way - and is unique as far as I know in the WITP club (except for RHS derived scenarios like Empire's Ablaze) - and made transport flying boats "patrol" - since

a) these can still act as full transports

b) they can patrol - which transport flying boats can and did do on both sides

c) they do NOT operate from inland - which transport flying boats (sans amphib) could not do

We added this type to the Allies in the form of the Empire Flying Boat - and also a variant of the Emily for Japan

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: m10bob


I have given the Chinese C 45 aircraft for their much needed early light transportation needs.(This plane was used by nearly every Allied power.)

In RHS there is a ROC civil air unit with 6 machines at Hong Kong (and ground support which won't move from there).
We use a combined light plane for it: C-32 / C-36 / C-39 / C-40 and BT-32. The unit is called China Air because - that is what it was called.

This is the RHS unit I use for the C 45, which I placed in Chungking to represent the civilian types which were there..It is a fact the Chinese had C 45's, so, I call them this. Your idea to name some of the units, to represent several types was IMHO a good one.
It was no mean feat to check load capacity,range,etc, and just make allowance with just how many planes I gave the unit to avoid "cheating"(even solo).

But you have lost history here: six China air BT-32s (I think) were lost at Hong Kong. They really should start there.
I have no data on planes at Chunking - what did you find?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: m10bob

In my personal mod, the Oscar has been given a much better maneuverability rating to reflect its' ONE true strength.

Perhaps you should give it the zero bonus? Perhaps so should I? In leiu of the Claude - which isn't going to last long in most games. The JAAF adopted the "turning in maneuver" which is one of the reasons a sunset in the bonus is justified: eventually we adopted tactics which rendered it less meaningful - but at the start it was quite effective.

NO!..The Oscar does not need a "Zero bonus", it just needed to have the maneuverability tweaked to the extreme good, which few on the forum seemed to understand or accept.
While a "bonus" is a good temporary fix, it wears out after a few months, but the inherent ability for this under-armed but nimble dogfighter to present itself as a hard target was IMHO never addressed.


REPLY: It WAS addressed. And this "nimble" fighter was NOT unique. The Ki-27 was in fact even more maneuverable - as was the Ki-10 before it. The Ki-43 represents the popularity of this feature with JAAF pilots - who demanded it - and rejected fine (perhaps better) planes because they were not so good in terms of extreme maneuverability. The problem is that you are not understanding that there is more than one kind of maneuverabilty - and we cannot be fair to the planes of both sides that have other sorts of maneuverability advantages.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: el cid again




Perhaps you should give it the zero bonus? Perhaps so should I? In leiu of the Claude - which isn't going to last long in most games. The JAAF adopted the "turning in maneuver" which is one of the reasons a sunset in the bonus is justified: eventually we adopted tactics which rendered it less meaningful - but at the start it was quite effective.

NO!..The Oscar does not need a "Zero bonus", it just needed to have the maneuverability tweaked to the extreme good, which few on the forum seemed to understand or accept.
While a "bonus" is a good temporary fix, it wears out after a few months, but the inherent ability for this under-armed but nimble dogfighter to present itself as a hard target was IMHO never addressed.


REPLY: It WAS addressed. And this "nimble" fighter was NOT unique. The Ki-27 was in fact even more maneuverable - as was the Ki-10 before it. The Ki-43 represents the popularity of this feature with JAAF pilots - who demanded it - and rejected fine (perhaps better) planes because they were not so good in terms of extreme maneuverability. The problem is that you are not understanding that there is more than one kind of maneuverabilty - and we cannot be fair to the planes of both sides that have other sorts of maneuverability advantages IF we ONLY consider turning (etc) in the factor.

Consider, if you will, that a bi-plane has more wing area - and more horizontal maneuverability in consequence - than a monoplane does. Some of these are in the game. But speed alone can outweigh this feature if the difference is great enough. It is classic: in a different form I ran into it in Viet Nam (when MiG-17s could out turn everything we had so radically we could not engage effectively in many flight regimes - and we went five months in a row with a score of Zero vs all enemy types - while losing planes to them ourselves). It CAN be hard to catch a maneuverable target. But untimately speed gives you a great advantage. In our system - we came up with a combined rating that works because virtually no planes have enough maneuverability in any sense to compete early on - only later do they arrive.

Consider further that the Oscar DID have a TEMPORARY advantage during the period of the Zero bonus - it SHOULD sunset as it does in the code. The "turning in maneuver" was effective even against a plane of greater performance -
and it was deadly until we learned to cope with it. That advantage did not last - and an Oscar late in the war (particularly an Oscar I) was not in a good situation at all.

I myself am a fan of the Oscar ("Almost as great a technical surprise as the Zero" - Francillon) and put the Oscar II in the set (in spite of cries of wasting slots) to show how it developed into a fine fighter-bomber. But just as I resisted over reacting to the P-38 with special ratings for a long time (until we finally came up with a way to measuring ratings that worked for all types and showed the relative P-38 advantage) I resist changing the Oscar from that base formula. I think there is something sound about defining standards and then honoring them. This system is working well - many say better than what came before RHS - and I am loth to mess with it.

[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).

[wdolson]

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

[el cid again]

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).

This is technical confusion - no insult intended.

RHS did NOT invent WITP nor the meaning of maneuverability in the WITP system. Instead, this was defined by Matrix - probably GG himself - and probably long ago in an ancestor product. Speed is the MAIN ingrediant in maneuverability as used in stock and CHS - and remains so in RHS: we didn't make it that way. Similarly, ROC is also rated separately - but it is also part of maneuverability in stock and CHS - and remains so in RHS: we didn't make it that way. Nor is the objection - sometimes voiced - that this "counting twice" is "wrong" - valid. Instead, you cannot come up with a factor for the WITP air combat code that works properly UNLESS you honor the system, as designed. ALL we did in RHS was come up with a way to get the values RELATIVELY correct and consistent. Lack of a published standard prevented this even inside Matrix. It certainly is a big problem for anyone adding aircraft to a mod.

The case of three engine aircraft is special. These planes did indeed have three engines due to power plant limitations - and that is not a good thing - but a bad thing in terms of maneuverability, weight, and other aspects of performance.
Further, it is not considered in the RHS algorithm as such - because we lack any 3 engine case to address. IF you believe there is a problem - I suggest you start by defining the 3 engine case = 2 engines. This neatly accounts for the angular momentum effects of the 2 engine planes - for exactly the same reason (1 engine not on the centerline on each wing) - and we can consider the centerline engine to be "invisible" in terms of angular momentum (which it isn't, but it is a compromise). We were trying to account for differences between 1, 2 and 4 engine planes - and we noticed evidence stock did this in this way (see in particular the case of heavy bombers - which would get higher values if ONLY speed and ROC were used). We succeeded in generating similar values - and really ignored the 3 engine case. But in most respects, rating a 3 engine plane as similar to a 2 engine plane is quite justified - and then if it has better speed and ROC (and in RHS wing loading and power loading) it will indeed have a higher rating. The salient point is you have engines on the wings - 1 each - messing with conservation of angular momentum. Exactly the same for 3 and 2 engine cases.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

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

I concur with all of this. [Note we added power loading and wing loading to maneuverability in the RHS definition - it isn't purely speed and ROC as in stock. But speed and ROC still dominate - and indeed ROC is more of a factor in RHS than in previous usage. By adding loadings - we helped planes with really good horizontal maneuverability. We did this backwards: the algorithm ADDS speed and ROC and then SUBTRACTS wing loading - because the lower the number the better off you are]

I believe we should have DIFFERENT maneuverability factors at different altitudes. And I note that hard code has two slots where this is built in - which because it isn't under control - RHS uses for planes that cannot go high in the first place. But it shows Matrix knew about the idea all planes were not hot at altitude. What we did was put this in a different place - in a consistent way for ALL planes: cieling. Our planes will not go so high they are dogs - never mind the service ceiling or absolute ceiling is over 40,000 feet - up there the pilots of many planes are going to be too cold to function - and older ones would need oxygen not present.

Our basic model is not perfect. Our attempts to make it better do not make it perfect either. But that should not stop us from making it better to the degree we can (with data). And advocating changes in code for future improvements.

Frankly the model works much better than I would have believed possible - as simple as it is. I am used to working with much more complex models - and I find this one amazingly good. One programmer I know calls it the "best commercial air combat model ever devised" - and that says a great deal - and he said it before we tried to iron out inconsistencies (which were amazing). I don't have a wide enough exposure to know - but if you don't talk about software we ran on million dollar computers at Boeing - he might be right.

[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. 
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.

[m10bob]

The thread is about "radical proposal".
I made it clear the changes I am doing to some of my aircraft are in my PERSONAL mod,period.
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.
I.E.: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"?
Individual flight tactics have not been addressed either, and IMHO, knowing that different air forces flew with wingmen should have some bearing on aerial combat.
I mean, this is ALL abstract, but if just comparing the planes in a uniform way like a used car salesman just to make everything fit in the box, we are really limiting those planes for the true strengths and weaknesses as experienced by the combatants.
Radical thought, and maybe not something "for the masses", but if the thought itself makes some budding designer out there see something missed all along, great!

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?"
Colin Kelly's defense (single plane) was only after being forced to leave formation, but that lumbering old plane was still more of a "straight-line target", than a fighter.
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".)

I will also post a link to another set of tactical wargame rules, again, just something to consider for the open-minded of my friends.



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

[el cid again]

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.

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

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

The thread is about "radical proposal".

Yes it is. And it was that we might combine Allied planes of the same type of different nations IF we used a universal art scheme - just as we do for the Japanese in EOS. This would mean more slots become available for sub types/minor types.

This latest turn of discussion is wholly unrelated to the thread subject- which is about RHSEOS (only) - not about other kinds of RHS - not about personal mods - and not at all about aircraft performance! I know - I started the thread.

[el cid again]

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/

From the point of view of computer simulation of air combat - this is about 99% incorrect. The 1% remaining is that the system is inherently flawed - as all models must be - and as simple models must be even more. Nothing short of rebuilding the planes and fighting battles would be "perfect" - and even then - our technical and tactical knowledge would skew the outcomes.

The concept that we use mathmetical functions based on basic performance is valid, and validatable, and can be shown to rigorous standards to work very well - well enough to bet fortunes (billions of dollars on aircraft and missiles) and lives on. Further, the concept that the opinions of the users are MORE valid is backwards: users are inherantly victims of perception, and usually also of assumptions they have - and are anything but a sound basis to build a model that will work similar to reality. Study witnesses - objectively - dispassionately - scientifically - in statistically significant numbers and combine this with our understand of human thought processes. I am big on listening to witnesses - but not big on pretending they produce something BETTER than a good theory based on physical principles - because they are not nearly as good.

The idea that maneuverability does NOT matter to a bomber is also pretty much nonsense. It turns out that every aspect of maneuverability can matter in air combat - and indeed four engine bombers and even flying boats have at times played "fighter plane" and attacked enemy aircraft. The concept of a "escort fighter" based on a bomber airframe was tried by almost every combattant power - and it failed - because the "escorts" were not able to stay with the bombers (of the same basic airframe type) after bombs were released. The difference in performance is significant enough to matter IRL. Because of this, a big bomber could (theoretically) do the same thing fighters do when enemy fighters are sighted: drop its bombs so it is better suited to fight. [It cannot do that and accomplish its mission - but neither can a fighter playing fighter bomber if it drops its bombs. It is a bit of a mystery why it is OK - and SOP - for a fighter bomber to drop its bombs but not the big boys?] In the WITP air combat system it is very likely that the value we give a big plane matters - and when one is 100% greater than another - it will probably mean it gets intercepted less often. It matters enough that we should worry about it - calculate it - and feed the engine the best data we can (relatively speaking). If you have a problem with this, consider the following:

SIGHTING of enemy aircraft first is a 90% determinant for success in both offensive and defensive air combat. If performance really did not matter, big boys wouldn't be able to get away. But IRL they do 9 times in 10 - if they want to.
A big boy usually has an advantage in range - and it can go to full speed on an opening bearing - designed to maximize the intercept problem. Done sufficiently ahead of time - it no longer matters if they get spotted or not before they are out of visual range - because they are too far away and moving too fast for the little guys to catch them. Yet in a relative sense, the ability of a plane to do this varies with its performance - the slower bombers are indeed easier to catch when they do not elect to close on their own (or don't see you).

[el cid again]

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.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

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.

Oh...Of course it matters...but NOT as a "fighter"....

Just trying to provoke a few folks to get out of the box and consider the possibilities.
Like I said, my comments are ref my PERSONAL mod, and likely not for the "general masses" .

Now Sid, don't be a hypocrite and try to say you have not pushed a few envelopes yourself, for the betterment of the game??
I mean, in the beginning, were not your efforts pretty much based on your *opinions*, (whether driven by scientific thought or otherwise)?

Whether you say you can, or say you can't...either way, you are correct.