Aircraft ROC Review
Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16983
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: Brainstorming
Since technical problems forced an update - you can look at the new P-38 ratings in 7.783. Please advise what you think. I will complete this process and do a 7.784 microupdate with the rest of the plane ratings - and we can change P-38 yet again if required. I will also change artillery values if SUGGESTIONS are made (rather than blanket gripes attached to no numbers or detail rationale).
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16983
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
Spitfire
These values will appear in 7.784 microupdate.
Spitfire MK XIV initial ROC 4580 fpm changes maneuverability to 43 (up from 34). Talk about a fighter plane!
Spitfire MK VII initial ROC 4507 fpm changes maneuverability to 41 (up from 31). Still up there.
Spitfire MK V initial ROC 4267 fpm changes maneuverability to 38 (up from 30). And this in early 1942.
Spitfire MK XIV initial ROC 4580 fpm changes maneuverability to 43 (up from 34). Talk about a fighter plane!
Spitfire MK VII initial ROC 4507 fpm changes maneuverability to 41 (up from 31). Still up there.
Spitfire MK V initial ROC 4267 fpm changes maneuverability to 38 (up from 30). And this in early 1942.
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16983
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
Mossy
The Bomber Mosquito variant in RHS (MK XIV) has an initial ROC of 3000 fpm. This increases maneuverability to 17 (up from 14).
The Fighter-bomber Mosquito variant in RHS (MK VI) has an initial ROC of 3214 fpm. This increases maneuverability to 16 (up from 13).
The Recon Mosquito variant in RHS (MK XVI) has an initial ROC of 3000 fpm. This increases maneuverability to 17 (up from 15).
Note the Mosquito variants are very similar in maneuverability rating with the P-38G, but not the L. The reason the "fighter" version is less maneuverable is that it is an earlier version with less power and speed.
The Fighter-bomber Mosquito variant in RHS (MK VI) has an initial ROC of 3214 fpm. This increases maneuverability to 16 (up from 13).
The Recon Mosquito variant in RHS (MK XVI) has an initial ROC of 3000 fpm. This increases maneuverability to 17 (up from 15).
Note the Mosquito variants are very similar in maneuverability rating with the P-38G, but not the L. The reason the "fighter" version is less maneuverable is that it is an earlier version with less power and speed.
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16983
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
P-40 family
Kittyhawk I (P-40D) initial ROC 2400 fpm does not change maneuverability rating of 28.
Kittyhawk III (P-40K) initial ROC 2500 fpm increases maneuverability rating to 28 (up from 26).
[The higher ROC of the III is offset by lower speed. Loadings also changed - and the I and III end up rated the same
for maneuverability. The I has four .50s while the III has six. Range and bomb armament differ. The I is treated as eratta due to armament change.]
P-40B Warhawk initial ROC of 2650 fpm is unchanged, so is maneuverability of 28. It is, however, without self sealing tanks (see AVG P-40B below).
P-40E Warhawk initial ROC of 2100 fpm is almost unchanged, so is maneuverability of 26.
P-40N Warhawk initial ROC 2922 fpm increases maneuverability rating to 30 (up from 26).
AVG P-40B Tomahawk is treated as eratta and retrofitted. Seems it does not have self sealing tanks, but since it has armor, the armor rating is retained, and durability is penalized one point (to 11). Initial ROC of 2650 fpm does not change maneuverability rating of 28.
Kittyhawk III (P-40K) initial ROC 2500 fpm increases maneuverability rating to 28 (up from 26).
[The higher ROC of the III is offset by lower speed. Loadings also changed - and the I and III end up rated the same
for maneuverability. The I has four .50s while the III has six. Range and bomb armament differ. The I is treated as eratta due to armament change.]
P-40B Warhawk initial ROC of 2650 fpm is unchanged, so is maneuverability of 28. It is, however, without self sealing tanks (see AVG P-40B below).
P-40E Warhawk initial ROC of 2100 fpm is almost unchanged, so is maneuverability of 26.
P-40N Warhawk initial ROC 2922 fpm increases maneuverability rating to 30 (up from 26).
AVG P-40B Tomahawk is treated as eratta and retrofitted. Seems it does not have self sealing tanks, but since it has armor, the armor rating is retained, and durability is penalized one point (to 11). Initial ROC of 2650 fpm does not change maneuverability rating of 28.
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16983
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
Russian aircraft
Yak-9D initial ROC of 3795 fpm increases maneuverability to 35 (up from 30). This is a fighter variant.
Yak-9U initial ROC of 4920 fpm increases maneuverability to 42 (up from 30). This is a recon variant. Flying at up to 395 mph, and at altitudes over 31,000 feet, this must be a difficult plane to intercept!
Yak-3 initial ROC of 4265 fpm increases maneuverability to 40 (up from 34). Treated as eratta because the number of guns was wrong for the initial version with this performance. (should be 1x20 mm plus 1x 50cal). The Luftwaffe issued a directive to avoid dogfighting this aircraft below 5,000 meters altitude!
Yak-1 initial ROC of 3942 fpm increases maneuverability to 35 (up from 32).
Tu-2S twin engine bomber initial ROC of 2300 increases maneuverability to 13 (up from 12).
ROC SB-2 twin engine bomber initial ROC of 1458 does not change maneuverability rating of 10.
SB-2M twin engine bomber initial ROC of 2305 fpm increases maneuverability to 12 (up from 10).
Both ROC and Soviet SB-2s are treated as eratta. Neither has armor protection. Durability reduced to 15 (from 16). Armor reduced to 0. This was the most important bomber in the world in the 1930s, and it fought in 5 wars - but it was great because of its high speed, good range and reasonable load. It tended to catch fire when hit.
Su-2 single engine bomber/recon initial ROC of 3482 fpm increases maneuverability to 28 (up from 20). Durability should be 12 (up from 7). Treated as eratta and backfitted.
Pe-2 twin engine dive bomber initial ROC of 1834 fpm decreases maneuverability to 12 (down from 13). Production rate increased to 80 (up from 30). For that reason treated as eratta and backfitted. Durability recalculated at 16.
Pe-2R twin engine recon aircraft initial ROC estimated at 1900 fpm decreases maneuverability to 12 (down from 13). Durability recalculated at 16. Treated as eratta and backfitted.
MiG-3 initial ROC of 3937 increases maneuverability to 37 (up from 31). Durability recalculated at 14. Treated as eratta and backfitted.
La-7 initial ROC of 3940 fpm increases maneuverability to 38 (up from 33). Durability recalculated at 14. Production changed to 45 (when other models vector in it will total 98). Treated as eratta and backfitted.
La-5FN initial ROC of 3565 fpm was unchanged, but maneuverability recalculated at 36 (up from 33). Durability recalculaated at 13 (up from 12). Production changed to 31. Treated as eratta and backfitted.
LaGG-3 initial ROC of 2953 fpm increases maneuverability to 29 (up from 28). This wooden plane was not popular (although it led to outstanding La-5 and 7 variants, the latter all metal) and its initials were said by its crews to stand (in Russian) for "varnished guaranteed coffin".
IL-4 initial ROC of 886 fpm does not change maneuverability of 7. Production changed to 35 and for that reason treated as eratta and backfitted.
IL-2 single engine initial ROC 490 fpm reduces maneuverability to 12 (down from 17). This is a major reduction, treated as eratta and backfitted. It explains why this early version of the aircraft was so unsuccessful (along with no rear gunner). The successful variant was the IL-2M - also in the set. Also changed is the rockets and bombs - but not the rear gun - shown below for IL-2M. They were introduced on this model in 1941.
IL-2M single engine dive bomber initial ROC 710 fpm reduces maneuverability to 14 (down from 17). Armament changed to 6 five inch rockets (representing 132 mm Soviet rockets) plus one 400 pound cluster (representing anti-tank bombs).
Treated as eratta and backfitted.
IL-2 and IL-2M have a special case defined into RHS protection scheme: they are the ONLY aircraft with armor rated higher than 1. Both have a bonus to the durability as well as armor ratings of 2. Sterling is the only other aircraft that was so treated, but it was removed because it did not operate PTO.
KOR-1 floatplane initial ROC of 1025 is unchanged, so is maneuverability of 12. But bomb armament changed to 2 x 100kg bombs (up from 50 kg). Treated as eratta and backfitted.
I-16 Type 24 initial ROC estimated at 2800 fpm. Maneuverability should not have changed, but did, to 29 (down from 32). Drop tanks reduced to 1 x 130 litre (representing 2 smaller), max load redefined as 1102 pounds, endurance redefined as 109 minutes (plus 32 for the drop tank). Treated as eratta and backfitted.
ROC I-16 Type 4 initial ROC 2780 fpm increased maneuverability to 27 (up from 20). Guns reduced to 2 x .30 cal. Max load redefined as 440 pounds. Fitted with 2 x 50kg bombs. Treated as eratta and backfitted.
ROC I-153 initial ROC of 2500 fpm reduced maneuverability to 25 (down from 29).
Yak-9U initial ROC of 4920 fpm increases maneuverability to 42 (up from 30). This is a recon variant. Flying at up to 395 mph, and at altitudes over 31,000 feet, this must be a difficult plane to intercept!
Yak-3 initial ROC of 4265 fpm increases maneuverability to 40 (up from 34). Treated as eratta because the number of guns was wrong for the initial version with this performance. (should be 1x20 mm plus 1x 50cal). The Luftwaffe issued a directive to avoid dogfighting this aircraft below 5,000 meters altitude!
Yak-1 initial ROC of 3942 fpm increases maneuverability to 35 (up from 32).
Tu-2S twin engine bomber initial ROC of 2300 increases maneuverability to 13 (up from 12).
ROC SB-2 twin engine bomber initial ROC of 1458 does not change maneuverability rating of 10.
SB-2M twin engine bomber initial ROC of 2305 fpm increases maneuverability to 12 (up from 10).
Both ROC and Soviet SB-2s are treated as eratta. Neither has armor protection. Durability reduced to 15 (from 16). Armor reduced to 0. This was the most important bomber in the world in the 1930s, and it fought in 5 wars - but it was great because of its high speed, good range and reasonable load. It tended to catch fire when hit.
Su-2 single engine bomber/recon initial ROC of 3482 fpm increases maneuverability to 28 (up from 20). Durability should be 12 (up from 7). Treated as eratta and backfitted.
Pe-2 twin engine dive bomber initial ROC of 1834 fpm decreases maneuverability to 12 (down from 13). Production rate increased to 80 (up from 30). For that reason treated as eratta and backfitted. Durability recalculated at 16.
Pe-2R twin engine recon aircraft initial ROC estimated at 1900 fpm decreases maneuverability to 12 (down from 13). Durability recalculated at 16. Treated as eratta and backfitted.
MiG-3 initial ROC of 3937 increases maneuverability to 37 (up from 31). Durability recalculated at 14. Treated as eratta and backfitted.
La-7 initial ROC of 3940 fpm increases maneuverability to 38 (up from 33). Durability recalculated at 14. Production changed to 45 (when other models vector in it will total 98). Treated as eratta and backfitted.
La-5FN initial ROC of 3565 fpm was unchanged, but maneuverability recalculated at 36 (up from 33). Durability recalculaated at 13 (up from 12). Production changed to 31. Treated as eratta and backfitted.
LaGG-3 initial ROC of 2953 fpm increases maneuverability to 29 (up from 28). This wooden plane was not popular (although it led to outstanding La-5 and 7 variants, the latter all metal) and its initials were said by its crews to stand (in Russian) for "varnished guaranteed coffin".
IL-4 initial ROC of 886 fpm does not change maneuverability of 7. Production changed to 35 and for that reason treated as eratta and backfitted.
IL-2 single engine initial ROC 490 fpm reduces maneuverability to 12 (down from 17). This is a major reduction, treated as eratta and backfitted. It explains why this early version of the aircraft was so unsuccessful (along with no rear gunner). The successful variant was the IL-2M - also in the set. Also changed is the rockets and bombs - but not the rear gun - shown below for IL-2M. They were introduced on this model in 1941.
IL-2M single engine dive bomber initial ROC 710 fpm reduces maneuverability to 14 (down from 17). Armament changed to 6 five inch rockets (representing 132 mm Soviet rockets) plus one 400 pound cluster (representing anti-tank bombs).
Treated as eratta and backfitted.
IL-2 and IL-2M have a special case defined into RHS protection scheme: they are the ONLY aircraft with armor rated higher than 1. Both have a bonus to the durability as well as armor ratings of 2. Sterling is the only other aircraft that was so treated, but it was removed because it did not operate PTO.
KOR-1 floatplane initial ROC of 1025 is unchanged, so is maneuverability of 12. But bomb armament changed to 2 x 100kg bombs (up from 50 kg). Treated as eratta and backfitted.
I-16 Type 24 initial ROC estimated at 2800 fpm. Maneuverability should not have changed, but did, to 29 (down from 32). Drop tanks reduced to 1 x 130 litre (representing 2 smaller), max load redefined as 1102 pounds, endurance redefined as 109 minutes (plus 32 for the drop tank). Treated as eratta and backfitted.
ROC I-16 Type 4 initial ROC 2780 fpm increased maneuverability to 27 (up from 20). Guns reduced to 2 x .30 cal. Max load redefined as 440 pounds. Fitted with 2 x 50kg bombs. Treated as eratta and backfitted.
ROC I-153 initial ROC of 2500 fpm reduced maneuverability to 25 (down from 29).
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16983
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
Other Allied Aircraft
B-17D initial ROC of 1100 fpm does not change maneuverability of 5. It should have a max speed of 323 mph. It could not carry the 8000 pounds of bombs we credited it with - nor even the (later USAAC standard) load of 5,000 pounds - max load being 4800 pounds - and we are giving it 4500. Treated as eratta and backfitted.
B-17F initial ROC of 900 fpm does not change maneuerability of 4.
B-17G initial ROC of 900 fpm does not change maneuverability of 4.
B-24D initial ROC of 1100 fpm does not change maneuverability of 4.
B-24J initial ROC of 1025 fpm does not change maneuverability of 4.
B-29 initial ROC of 900 fpm does not change maneuverability of 4.
Barracuda initial ROC of 1300 fpm increases maneuverability to 15 (up from 13).
C-87/LB-30 initial ROC of 533 fpm does not change maneuverability of 4.
C-60A/R5O initial ROC of 1600 fpm does not change maneuverability of 9. However, load increased to 5200 pounds. For that reason, treated as eratta and backfitted.
C-32/BT-32 initial ROC of 1200 fpm reduces maneuverability to 7 (down from 8).
F8F-1 Bearcat initial ROC of 4570 fpm increases maneuverability to 42 (up from 34).
Fulmar initial ROC of 1105 fpm decreases maneuverability to 17 (down from 18).
Hurricane IIb initial ROC of 3150 fpm increases maneuverability to 30 (up from 27).
Hurricane IIc initial ROC of 2700 fpm increases maneuverability to 28 (up from 27).
Hurricane IV initial ROC of 2650 fpm increases maneuverability to 28 (up from 25).
JRM-1 Mars initial ROC of 400 fpm does not change maneuverability of 2. However, cargo reduced to 26,600 pounds (new standard based on 133 passengers) and range increased to 4945 miles. Most scenarios had too many building too soon - only BBO family gets them early. Treated as eratta and backfitted.
Liberator IV/B-24E initial ROC of 800 fpm does not change maneuverability of 4.
PB2M-1 Mars initial ROC of 400 fpm does not change maneuverability of 2. Found only in BBO/RPO/PPO scenarios.
PB2Y-3 initial ROC of 440 fpm does not change maneuverability of 2.
PV-2 initial ROC of 1630 fpm decreases maneuverability to 12 (down from 14).
Seafire III/XV initial ROC of 3300 fpm - and speed increase to 384 mph - decreases maneuverability to 34 (down from 35).
Sea Hurricane initial ROC of 2010 fpm does not change maneuverability of 24.
Spitfire PR.XI initial ROC of 3705 fpm increases maneuverability to 37 (up from 30). Comprehensive data changes, including altitude rating of 39,600 feet operational ceiling, drop tank, endurance of 236 minutes (plus 205 for tank) make this eratta which is backfitted.
TB-3/G2 (ANT-6) initial ROC of 366 is unchanged, so maneuverability remains 2.
B-17F initial ROC of 900 fpm does not change maneuerability of 4.
B-17G initial ROC of 900 fpm does not change maneuverability of 4.
B-24D initial ROC of 1100 fpm does not change maneuverability of 4.
B-24J initial ROC of 1025 fpm does not change maneuverability of 4.
B-29 initial ROC of 900 fpm does not change maneuverability of 4.
Barracuda initial ROC of 1300 fpm increases maneuverability to 15 (up from 13).
C-87/LB-30 initial ROC of 533 fpm does not change maneuverability of 4.
C-60A/R5O initial ROC of 1600 fpm does not change maneuverability of 9. However, load increased to 5200 pounds. For that reason, treated as eratta and backfitted.
C-32/BT-32 initial ROC of 1200 fpm reduces maneuverability to 7 (down from 8).
F8F-1 Bearcat initial ROC of 4570 fpm increases maneuverability to 42 (up from 34).
Fulmar initial ROC of 1105 fpm decreases maneuverability to 17 (down from 18).
Hurricane IIb initial ROC of 3150 fpm increases maneuverability to 30 (up from 27).
Hurricane IIc initial ROC of 2700 fpm increases maneuverability to 28 (up from 27).
Hurricane IV initial ROC of 2650 fpm increases maneuverability to 28 (up from 25).
JRM-1 Mars initial ROC of 400 fpm does not change maneuverability of 2. However, cargo reduced to 26,600 pounds (new standard based on 133 passengers) and range increased to 4945 miles. Most scenarios had too many building too soon - only BBO family gets them early. Treated as eratta and backfitted.
Liberator IV/B-24E initial ROC of 800 fpm does not change maneuverability of 4.
PB2M-1 Mars initial ROC of 400 fpm does not change maneuverability of 2. Found only in BBO/RPO/PPO scenarios.
PB2Y-3 initial ROC of 440 fpm does not change maneuverability of 2.
PV-2 initial ROC of 1630 fpm decreases maneuverability to 12 (down from 14).
Seafire III/XV initial ROC of 3300 fpm - and speed increase to 384 mph - decreases maneuverability to 34 (down from 35).
Sea Hurricane initial ROC of 2010 fpm does not change maneuverability of 24.
Spitfire PR.XI initial ROC of 3705 fpm increases maneuverability to 37 (up from 30). Comprehensive data changes, including altitude rating of 39,600 feet operational ceiling, drop tank, endurance of 236 minutes (plus 205 for tank) make this eratta which is backfitted.
TB-3/G2 (ANT-6) initial ROC of 366 is unchanged, so maneuverability remains 2.
RE: Other Allied Aircraft
Looking at the trends in your review I have the fear that you are pushing up the MVR ratings of nearly all planes too far.
With the knee of the in-game formula suspected at "35", I think that you are going towards a lot bloodier air combat model, which I think kills one of RHS virtues, the air combat model is far less bloodier than stock
Just my two cents...
With the knee of the in-game formula suspected at "35", I think that you are going towards a lot bloodier air combat model, which I think kills one of RHS virtues, the air combat model is far less bloodier than stock
Just my two cents...
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16983
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: Other Allied Aircraft
Well - that was once a consideration. It is my understanding the "knee" was removed several updates back. Or it may be a different "knee"? My dim memory says the "knee" was in durability, and that the value where it broke was at 42.
In any case - I continuously run tests to detect issues. I am seeing a change in AAA losses - the Allies are losing about 1 per day and Japan about 3 per day - in AI vs AI (so always equal) play. Neither seems excessive. Air to air losses are shifting slightly - but not very much. When I increased Japan's values, they shifted in Japan's favor. Now they have started shifting back. The longer you play, the more they shift, as better Allied planes come on stream.
IF this set does not work, we have this much slop: we can add a K factor as great as 0.5. That is, the minimum maneuverability right now is 2 (for PB2Y-3) - and we can live with a minimum of 1. I don't want to do that (reducing big bombers mainly from 4 to 2), but we can go that far - if we have to. That reduces a 40 to a 20. Obviously we could apply a differnt K between 0.5 and 1. It would be a lot of work - hundreds of values - and I change them in many scenarios. But if we need to - we need to. Time will tell.
In any case - I continuously run tests to detect issues. I am seeing a change in AAA losses - the Allies are losing about 1 per day and Japan about 3 per day - in AI vs AI (so always equal) play. Neither seems excessive. Air to air losses are shifting slightly - but not very much. When I increased Japan's values, they shifted in Japan's favor. Now they have started shifting back. The longer you play, the more they shift, as better Allied planes come on stream.
IF this set does not work, we have this much slop: we can add a K factor as great as 0.5. That is, the minimum maneuverability right now is 2 (for PB2Y-3) - and we can live with a minimum of 1. I don't want to do that (reducing big bombers mainly from 4 to 2), but we can go that far - if we have to. That reduces a 40 to a 20. Obviously we could apply a differnt K between 0.5 and 1. It would be a lot of work - hundreds of values - and I change them in many scenarios. But if we need to - we need to. Time will tell.
RE: Other Allied Aircraft
ORIGINAL: el cid again
... memory says the "knee" was in durability ...
I remember it this way also.
Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home
RE: Other Allied Aircraft
Blitzk is correct that at the time of devising the MVR formula one consideration was that we were trying to keep the MVR scale to reflect the high of 35. Actually only a couple of aircraft were above the magical high of "36". The formula was agreed upon since it consistently delivered within the appropriate MVR scale using statistics that were handy. The load factors used within the MVR formula also reflect this methodology.
Perennial Remedial Student of the Mike Solli School of Economics. One day I might graduate.
RE: Other Allied Aircraft
Sid,
You asked that we look over the P-38 MVR versus other planes' MVR ratings in version the version that just became available. This is my own take on the situation. My approach is to compare the P-38 MVR rating to the MVR rating of other planes where real life comparison tests were made and reported here in the forum. Noted earlier in this thread, the P-38 was compared with P-39, P-40, P-47, and P-51 (see those posts for details).
In current RHS the MVR ratings are as follows.
P-38G 16
P-38J 17
P-38L 21
P-39D 28
P-39Q 32
average P-39 30.0
P-40B 28
P-40E 26
P-40N 26
average P-40 26.7
P-47D 32
P-47N 37
average P-47 34.5
P-51A 26 (not included in P-51 average)
P-51B 34
P-51D 36
average P-51 35.0
Here is how the P-38 models MVR stack up comparatively to the other planes noted.
_____________P-39______P-40______P-47______P-51
_____________30.0______26.7______34.5______35.0
P-38G 16_____53%_______60%_______46%_______46%
P-38J 17_____57%_______64%_______49%_______49%
P-38L 21_____70%_______79%_______61%_______66%
Going by the historical comparisons posted earlier, I have the impression that the P-38L model should be at about 95% of the P-47/P-51, and the other P-39 models should be at about 80-85% of the P-47/P-51.
I recommend we try:
P-38G MVR = 28
P-38J MVR = 29
P-38L MVR = 33
You asked that we look over the P-38 MVR versus other planes' MVR ratings in version the version that just became available. This is my own take on the situation. My approach is to compare the P-38 MVR rating to the MVR rating of other planes where real life comparison tests were made and reported here in the forum. Noted earlier in this thread, the P-38 was compared with P-39, P-40, P-47, and P-51 (see those posts for details).
In current RHS the MVR ratings are as follows.
P-38G 16
P-38J 17
P-38L 21
P-39D 28
P-39Q 32
average P-39 30.0
P-40B 28
P-40E 26
P-40N 26
average P-40 26.7
P-47D 32
P-47N 37
average P-47 34.5
P-51A 26 (not included in P-51 average)
P-51B 34
P-51D 36
average P-51 35.0
Here is how the P-38 models MVR stack up comparatively to the other planes noted.
_____________P-39______P-40______P-47______P-51
_____________30.0______26.7______34.5______35.0
P-38G 16_____53%_______60%_______46%_______46%
P-38J 17_____57%_______64%_______49%_______49%
P-38L 21_____70%_______79%_______61%_______66%
Going by the historical comparisons posted earlier, I have the impression that the P-38L model should be at about 95% of the P-47/P-51, and the other P-39 models should be at about 80-85% of the P-47/P-51.
I recommend we try:
P-38G MVR = 28
P-38J MVR = 29
P-38L MVR = 33
Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home
RE: Other Allied Aircraft
ORIGINAL: Mifune
Blitzk is correct that at the time of devising the MVR formula one consideration was that we were trying to keep the MVR scale to reflect the high of 35. Actually only a couple of aircraft were above the magical high of "36". The formula was agreed upon since it consistently delivered within the appropriate MVR scale using statistics that were handy. The load factors used within the MVR formula also reflect this methodology.
I just looked at the CVO database and only 3 aircraft are above 36. Another handful are at 36.
Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home
RE: Other Allied Aircraft
Yes, I did say only a couple of aircraft were above the 36. I was only relaying what had transpired at that time of the development of the original formula. My intention was just to shed some light during that time. I am not quite sure what your point is.
Perennial Remedial Student of the Mike Solli School of Economics. One day I might graduate.
RE: Other Allied Aircraft
I will let Cid comment on one engine aircraft versus multi engine aircraft in regards to the MVR rating. Angular momentum was the factor on why it gets divided (another factor to be considered is that multi-engine aircraft also a benefit within the RHS durabilty formula). Overall the RHS A2A numbers are accurately represented within the game after many tests. Even after this review the initial RHS numbers still very much hold up. Once again, although not clarified by Matrix. Our impression is the MVR rating is only suppose to effect bounce. Our methodology to derive these numbers is as consistent as possible.
Perennial Remedial Student of the Mike Solli School of Economics. One day I might graduate.
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16983
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: Other Allied Aircraft
ORIGINAL: witpqs
Sid,
You asked that we look over the P-38 MVR versus other planes' MVR ratings in version the version that just became available. This is my own take on the situation. My approach is to compare the P-38 MVR rating to the MVR rating of other planes where real life comparison tests were made and reported here in the forum. Noted earlier in this thread, the P-38 was compared with P-39, P-40, P-47, and P-51 (see those posts for details).
In current RHS the MVR ratings are as follows.
P-38G 16
P-38J 17
P-38L 21
P-39D 28
P-39Q 32
average P-39 30.0
P-40B 28
P-40E 26
P-40N 26
average P-40 26.7
P-47D 32
P-47N 37
average P-47 34.5
P-51A 26 (not included in P-51 average)
P-51B 34
P-51D 36
average P-51 35.0
Here is how the P-38 models MVR stack up comparatively to the other planes noted.
_____________P-39______P-40______P-47______P-51
_____________30.0______26.7______34.5______35.0
P-38G 16_____53%_______60%_______46%_______46%
P-38J 17_____57%_______64%_______49%_______49%
P-38L 21_____70%_______79%_______61%_______66%
Going by the historical comparisons posted earlier, I have the impression that the P-38L model should be at about 95% of the P-47/P-51, and the other P-39 models should be at about 80-85% of the P-47/P-51.
I recommend we try:
P-38G MVR = 28
P-38J MVR = 29
P-38L MVR = 33
OK - but this isn't what I meant by "look at them." Look at how they do. I think that the performance of these planes as fighters - in some sort of constant test bed - will show that the P-38 is great - because of punch, durability and (if you can work it in) range (which means others won't even score in many cases).
The rating system is NOT based on turning maneuvering - so there is no way to compare our "maneuver" rating with the tests as you are trying to do. We have most of the weight to speed and ROC. It is not meaningful to approach rating this one aircraft by a different criteria - we have then no way to know how to rate (say) a Ki-93? Or a Mossy? The exception for armor in the Sturmavik is objective - and if you give me another plane with cast armor structure - we will use the same exception to cover the case. There has to be some objective and quantifiable way to get there - or it isn't objective.
If you want to use real data to measure our P-38 - fine - use it. But use it in a way that applies to ALL fighters. Find some standard basis of comparison - and set up a test bed with that - and plug in the P-38 - and other planes. See what it says. That would "calibrate" (measure) how much difference there is between our ratings and IRL. But note that this sort of measurement is NOT a measure of "maneuverability" - it is a measure of "combat performance" as a whole - ALL factors in the package. A game must simplify reality. We have only so many factors. Have we got ours right - or not - so that TOGETHER we simulate the P-38 well? I bet we do. And I bet we might benefit from calibrating the whole system too. But UNTIL we calibrate - we only have guesses.
Another way to say this is that our P-38 HAS 90% of the HORIZONTAL maneuverability of the P-47. It is in the wing loading factor. Look at that term and you will see it. We are where you say you want to be. But when we combine wing loading, power loading, ROC and speed - "maneuverability" no longer shows just the wing loading comparison. Which is the way it must be - whatever we do. To let wing loading dominate one plane - and not others - is not reasonable, fair, right, fill in the blank.
Another way to look at this is to compare with a A6M2: maneuverability = 28. No way ANY P-38 should be close to that.
Or with an Oscar: maneuverability = 31. IF we put a P-38 - any P-38 - in that class - we have surely got it wrong - and we will not simulate battles properly. Our game P-38 will do well BECAUSE it has lots of punch, lots of survivability, and that is exactly why it should do so. But it should not do well because it is as maneuverable as planes it clearly was not in the same league of.
Exceptions to a data structure like this need to be small to work without distorting the system: see the durability special case. It has a statistical influence on combat outcomes - which we want - without wholly distorting the game with a "superman" plane. IF you want to look at giving a P-38L a point of maneuverability for power flaps - that is a objective proposal - I can appy it to Ki-83 and not to Mossy - and know I have it right in all three cases - and the outcome will be statistical and not create any superplanes. IF you want lots of points - this is not going to work at all - and we have no way to know what to add to whom for what reason? And we will end up having two engine fighters outmaneuvering many one engine ones - utter nonsense.
RE: Other Allied Aircraft
ORIGINAL: Mifune
Yes, I did say only a couple of aircraft were above the 36. I was only relaying what had transpired at that time of the development of the original formula. My intention was just to shed some light during that time. I am not quite sure what your point is.
Supporting your comment by providing a little data (albeit inexact).
Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home
RE: Other Allied Aircraft
ORIGINAL: Mifune
I will let Cid comment on one engine aircraft versus multi engine aircraft in regards to the MVR rating. Angular momentum was the factor on why it gets divided (another factor to be considered is that multi-engine aircraft also a benefit within the RHS durabilty formula). Overall the RHS A2A numbers are accurately represented within the game after many tests. Even after this review the initial RHS numbers still very much hold up. Once again, although not clarified by Matrix. Our impression is the MVR rating is only suppose to effect bounce. Our methodology to derive these numbers is as consistent as possible.
Arguments about how good the calculations are does not address the actual comparisons that were done historically and documented. I do not know why the P-38 historically had better maneuverability than the calculations say it should have had, but it apparently did as that fact was documented.
As far as the A2A numbers holding up after many tests, I am unaware that any results really specific to P-38's have been discussed. And, when a couple of other posters did mention (without real details) being disappointed with P-38 A2A results, Sid rightly pointed out that's pretty tough to track down because there are so many variables.
My approach has been to comment on what I suspect is an incorrect set of MVR values for the P-38 models, based on my understanding of the comparison tests done historically. Again, I do not know why it performed better than the recently used formula said it should, but apparently it did and that is the point of my comments.
Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home
RE: Other Allied Aircraft
ORIGINAL: el cid again
Another way to look at this is to compare with a A6M2: maneuverability = 28. No way ANY P-38 should be close to that.
Or with an Oscar: maneuverability = 31. IF we put a P-38 - any P-38 - in that class - we have surely got it wrong - and we will not simulate battles properly. Our game P-38 will do well BECAUSE it has lots of punch, lots of survivability, and that is exactly why it should do so. But it should not do well because it is as maneuverable as planes it clearly was not in the same league of.
The historical tests performed were quoted by someone else, and you read them as well as I did. The P-38F was compared to the P-47C. It was noted that the presence of powered control surfaces in the P-38L gave that model about the same MVR as the P-47C.
The closest P-47 model in the RHS database is the P-47D. The formula rates A6M2 at MVR 28 and the P-47D at 32. Logic constrains you to two possibilities:
1) You refuse to accept the tests done historically,
or
2) The formula is wrong and it should rate the P-47D lower than the A6M2.
As I have already written, I think the historical evidence trumps the formula.
Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home
-
Mike Scholl
- Posts: 6187
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
- Location: Kansas City, MO
RE: Other Allied Aircraft
ORIGINAL: witpqs
The closest P-47 model in the RHS database is the P-47D. The formula rates A6M2 at MVR 28 and the P-47D at 32. Logic constrains you to two possibilities:
I think the real problem with the numbers in all the databases is that the idiot designers went with a "one altitude fits all" concept. At 14,000 a Zero will fly rings around a P-47 (if the P-47 is flying slow enough to be caught); but at 28,000 feet the opposite is true..., the P-47 is more manueverable than the Zero. If every A/C is rated with it's best performance figures at it's best altitude(s), then the numbers won't make sense depending on the altitude of the fight. It's a basic design problem.
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16983
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: Other Allied Aircraft
ORIGINAL: witpqs
ORIGINAL: Mifune
Yes, I did say only a couple of aircraft were above the 36. I was only relaying what had transpired at that time of the development of the original formula. My intention was just to shed some light during that time. I am not quite sure what your point is.
Supporting your comment by providing a little data (albeit inexact).
Finally - it has come back to me. I didn't put this in writing on my master sheet - but the reason we didn't have a lot of planes over 36 was we COMPRESSED the upper end of the scale. If we go that way - we would do something like:
Formula result = adjusted result
30 or 31 = 30
32 to 34 = 31
35 to 37 = 32
38 to 40 = 33
41 to 43 = 34
44 to 46 = 35
47 to 49 = 36
50 to 52 = 37
I will now check to see if this problem is real - and meanwhile - interested person comment on this process - which indeed has worked in RHS until now. IF the "knee" in the function remains, AND IF this is an acceptable workaround (UNTIL the knee is removed by Matrix) I will adjust the data.
Looks like our highest Japanese rating from the formula is 38 (J7W1) - that would be a 33 under this system - below our critical "knee" if it exists.
The highest Soviet rating is 42 (YAK-9U - which is NOT a fighter plane) - that would be a 34 under this system - also below our "knee" if it exists. The highest Soviet FIGHTER rating is 40 (Yak-3) - that would be a 33 under this system - same as Japan's best rating.
Best British rating is 41 (Spitfire XIV) - that would be a 34 in this system.
These are low enough that we could consider a less aggressive compression scale:
Best American rating is 42 (F8F) - that would also be a 34 in this system. If we go with two to one compression strictly, that would make only the F8F and the Yak recon plane rate at 36.