Which of the files contain aircraft?

[m10bob]

I have now reworked all planes in RHSCVO with the editor..Which sub file contains that data?
Others have expressed interest and I would like to share the info.
Thank you..

[el cid again]

It is called the aircraft file. It can be reached using any of the editors - Matrix database editor - WITP Excel - Editor X - the new Matrix database editor - and probably others.

In what sense did you rework the data?

Also - if you were not using the file itself - you may not have seen all of the fields available to work on. How did you get the data?

This might matter. For example, data reported on game screens for range is not directly in the database. It is calculated by code - and not always properly so either. It is worse in RHS - because we use drop tanks - and they DO show on the game screen - but NOT in the data file (at least not in a way easy to understand). Basically the data file requires an entry for "endurance" in minutes. This is multiplied by cruising speed and divided by 60 - then that is rounded down - and that is the value normally reported on the game screen as transfer range. 33% of that value - also rounded down - is reported as extended range. 25% of that value - also rounded down - is reported as normal range. BUT IF there are drop tanks, each gallon of the drop tank gives you one more minute of endurance. Since you cannot actually enter the drop tank capacity in gallons, it is interpreted in pounds, by some unknown conversion (but probably close to right).
Now if that isn't complicated enough - code does NOT use the reported normal and extended ranges for air transports - but uses 50% instead.

The consensus in the Forum was to make operational ranges right. So we modified endurance values from real data such that extended range = 42% of transfer range. That required increasing ranges of non-fighter (and non-transport) aircraft by 9%. It required reducing ranges of transports by 8%. And we classify flying boat transports as patrol planes - not as transports as in stock or CHS - so they also got a range boost of 9%. This means you must modify your calculated transfer range (ferry range) by these values - or not be in sync with RHS standards for various aircraft.

That is probably the worst case - the hardest to understand.

The worst field is the maneuverability field. It represents a composite value for both horizontal and vertical maneuverability - and it should be different at different altitudes for most aircraft. We have a complex algorithm to generate it - six factors are included - maximum speed - initial rate of climb - empty equipped weight - all up weight - power and wing area. It is impossible to say we got the relationship "right" however. There is no easy way to figure out what this field value should be.

Otherwise, we adopted standards for weapons - derived from weight of shell, rate of fire and range - and a very simple standard for protection (more or less zero or one, with outrageously few exceptions like the IL-2 being two). And of course durability - another composite value based on empty equipped weight, engine count, protection, structure and number of pilots. Again, it is impossible to say the system is "right" - only that it is consistent and the factors that matter are in there.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

It is called the aircraft file. It can be reached using any of the editors - Matrix database editor - WITP Excel - Editor X - the new Matrix database editor - and probably others.

In what sense did you rework the data?

Also - if you were not using the file itself - you may not have seen all of the fields available to work on. How did you get the data?

That latest ref book I referred to in a recent thread had more detailed info than the books you and I have been using, and the climb rates were in some cases drastically improved on some, and reduced on others..
On a couple, the book indicated that while some of the arms agreed with info you had inherited, those particular load-outs,(inherited), were actually the RAREST loads for those planes.
The Japanese "Francis" comes to mind as a stand-out, as does the Lysander, the "Mary/Ann", etc.
I'm at the office so I don't have the stats with me here, but I'm confident the info obtained will be appreciated.

When I asked for the file, what I meant was, within an RHS scenerio file, which of the sub files contans the aircraft stats?.(I have already doctored them with the editor..)

BTW, I used info you gave me in past for formulae, but I notice that while the original designers marked "climb rates" in FT/min, the ceilings must have been in metres, (they are uniformally wrong if in feet)..
No idea why that was done, but in play-testing I have been having a great time with improved historical out-comes.

[DuckofTindalos]

What Bob is asking is which wpXXXX.dat file holds aircraft data. It would mean he wouldn't have to send every file in the scenario to other interested parties.

And sorry, Bob, I don't have an answer. Changing an aircraft attribute seems to update five or so .dat files...

EDIT: damn crossing posts...[:@]

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

What Bob is asking is which wpXXXX.dat file holds aircraft data. It would mean he wouldn't have to send every file in the scenario to other interested parties.

And sorry, Bob, I don't have an answer. Changing an aircraft attribute seems to update five or so .dat files...

Partner, you are absolutely correct..Thank you..

[el cid again]

Original data was bloody awful. I think it was more a case of too many cooks combined with too many sources of data - the latter a plague we all suffer from.

Changing the ROC requires recalculation of the maneuverability factor.

I have sent for the book you mentioned I think - in particular because you said it gives range at load data for transports which otherwise is hard to get (and then spotty and not to a uniform definition). If the data needs changing, I will fold it in - more or less automatically - although in this case it is because you pointed at a better source. It probably will be in an update of x.77 - depending on how long it takes. The more changes - the longer it takes. Air data is an awesome consumer of hours - there being almost 250 plane types - and those in many scenarios. Also - when looking at a plane sometimes other things come to note - and I try to fix em all at once.

[el cid again]

OK - I understand.

wpa000.dat where 000 is the scenario number - with leading 0s if required -

thus wpa050.dat is aircraft for scenario 50

[DuckofTindalos]

Confirmed, wpa0XX.dat it is...

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Original data was bloody awful. I think it was more a case of too many cooks combined with too many sources of data - the latter a plague we all suffer from.

Changing the ROC requires recalculation of the maneuverability factor.

I have sent for the book you mentioned I think - in particular because you said it gives range at load data for transports which otherwise is hard to get (and then spotty and not to a uniform definition). If the data needs changing, I will fold it in - more or less automatically - although in this case it is because you pointed at a better source. It probably will be in an update of x.77 - depending on how long it takes. The more changes - the longer it takes. Air data is an awesome consumer of hours - there being almost 250 plane types - and those in many scenarios. Also - when looking at a plane sometimes other things come to note - and I try to fix em all at once.

I am confident you will like the book, as very few of the WITP planes are missing.
I have spent hundreds of hours going over material on the planes as I have been an aviation nut since the mid fifties.
After deros I got into aviation wargaming and got used to calculating aerial physics "for the layman" thanks to a few other wargamers. (In the research thread I pointed to one of their sites which gives many of the formulae for power/wingloading and weapon calculus.
I have slowly taken the time to figure them into the game, with the help of people on this forum, (like yourself).
I think a lot of fine modders out there have been shooting for the same results but were forced to do it by "fudging" in one area or the other, usually for reasons of either "uniformity within game", or play-balance, (intentional or otherwise).

Sid, you have invested thousands of hours into RHS for which I personally am grateful.
On the other hand, you (by your personality) have also invested too many hours defending your work, your research, and your labours.
I won't.
If anybody desires a copy of what I did to the planes, it will come only with a "caveat emptor", and they will need do their own research to find flaws.
The price is FREE.

[witpqs]

Bob,

Are the updates you're making going to be mainstreamed into RHS? I mean that if there are any changes beyond the ones you make, will your changes be retained or need to be somehow made or folded in again?

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Bob,

Are the updates you're making going to be mainstreamed into RHS? I mean that if there are any changes beyond the ones you make, will your changes be retained or need to be somehow made or folded in again?

Any changes I made are without any official sanction, and therefore would need to be saved by copying the above mentioned file to the desktop (or someplace safe) any time a patch is taken..
After Sid gets that book, I'm pretty certain he will make official changes to his mod..

[witpqs]

Just out of curiosity, what do you consider was (your choice) the greatest or most significant or most visible change that found needed to be made?

[m10bob]

IMHO the climb rate of nearly all was just wrong, and not by a small margin.
The so-called "Zero bonus" was not necessary whatsoever had actual attributes been given the planes, and comparing planes against each other, (the ones in theatre early on), the Japanese can do just fine without the bonus, (which is sadly hard-coded at present).
That is my humble opinion, and if nothing else were changed, that one change can make a world of difference on so many of the planes.
As Sid noted, the book I referred to gives the ranges of planes with and without useful loads, and is therefore a godsend for all of us seeking a quantum of historical correctness.

Please also note, the most glaring problem I discovered was that apparently the service ceiling of *every* plane was apparently measured in metres, while the climb rates,(albeit incorrect), were apparently in feet/min..I cannot begin to guess why this was done??????
Some of the climb rates within the game were nearly 1/3 of what they really were, (depending on the plane.)..No uniformity whatsoever and this may be the singular most important reason for that "bonus"??

[witpqs]

Interesting. Just to make sure I understand, you mean in the game database the service ceiling is in units of meters, while (in the very same game database), the ROC is in feet? Amazing.

BTW, on Zero bonus, the real rationale (right or wrong) is the surprise of the Zero's abilities and the time needed to disseminate and practice tactics to mitigate the Zero's strengths. As surprise and tactical innovation varied, the ZB is one way to deal with them, whereas the aircraft specs are going to remain. Of course, the specs should be accurate to begin with!

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Interesting. Just to make sure I understand, you mean in the game database the service ceiling is in units of meters, while (in the very same game database), the ROC is in feet? Amazing.

Erm, no... That would mean that the Claude is able to fly at 32 KILOMETERS, or about 70,000 feet.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Interesting. Just to make sure I understand, you mean in the game database the service ceiling is in units of meters, while (in the very same game database), the ROC is in feet? Amazing.

Erm, no... That would mean that the Claude is able to fly at 32 KILOMETERS, or about 70,000 feet.

Like I said, there was NOTHING uniform about the specs I found in the database..Some were EXACTLY identical to this book in climbing in feet per minute, but ALL were off on service cieling, and the only thing I can think of is they measured in meters, rather than feet, IN THAT SAME DATABASE...

I blv part of the problem was several different sources were used to come up with "a figure"..Get it? A FIGURE, and when comparing different planes with one another without uniform data, the numbers were skewed..

[DuckofTindalos]

Sorry, Bob... I'm not seeing any evidence of that at all, looking at the DB...

[m10bob]

BTW, here is the info I have used for some years to figure some of the physics of flight of WW2 planes for gaming:

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

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Bob,

Are the updates you're making going to be mainstreamed into RHS? I mean that if there are any changes beyond the ones you make, will your changes be retained or need to be somehow made or folded in again?

Any changes I made are without any official sanction, and therefore would need to be saved by copying the above mentioned file to the desktop (or someplace safe) any time a patch is taken..
After Sid gets that book, I'm pretty certain he will make official changes to his mod..

The RHS process is pretty open. Since I have no planned aircraft updates, I can just adopt the changed files after the "verification" (spot check) process. This is actually a CHS methodology - and I actually did it once for CHS - but the chances of the work being used are far greater in RHS because our standard is: if it is better than what we have now, it is in. We don't have any plank holders (except the Forum) to please. We can do it as a microupdate - meaning that just those files will be distributed - unless something needs to be done in a broader sense. Microupdates are optional - and players only do them so a new game will start with the latest and best files. Comprehensive updates usually involve so much that it is worth thinking about wether or not one wants to restart?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

IMHO the climb rate of nearly all was just wrong, and not by a small margin.
The so-called "Zero bonus" was not necessary whatsoever had actual attributes been given the planes, and comparing planes against each other, (the ones in theatre early on), the Japanese can do just fine without the bonus, (which is sadly hard-coded at present).
That is my humble opinion, and if nothing else were changed, that one change can make a world of difference on so many of the planes.
As Sid noted, the book I referred to gives the ranges of planes with and without useful loads, and is therefore a godsend for all of us seeking a quantum of historical correctness.

Please also note, the most glaring problem I discovered was that apparently the service ceiling of *every* plane was apparently measured in metres, while the climb rates,(albeit incorrect), were apparently in feet/min..I cannot begin to guess why this was done??????
Some of the climb rates within the game were nearly 1/3 of what they really were, (depending on the plane.)..No uniformity whatsoever and this may be the singular most important reason for that "bonus"??

Duh - I forgot to tell you: RHS does NOT use the service ceiling for planes - but an adjusted operational ceiling. This depends on the engine type. Normal (old traditional piston) engines get 80% of SC. Turbosupercharged (piston) engines get 90%. Jets and rockets get 95%.

IF you can show the Zero bonus should not be present - I am skeptical - because I think it reflects the tactical advantage the Japanese had with the "turning in maneuver" and a few other things - which sunsetted - as the rule does -

I can take it out. Just as we did for the P-39 / P-400 code - we give it to a plane that cannot meaningfully use it. Hard with a carrier plane - but we could try. Give it to an obsolete carrier bomber for example.