CHS - Pilot Database

[wdolson]

I was thinking about what el cid said a few weeks back that a version of the databases with all the errors cleaned up runs much faster. I started going through the pilot database for ver 2.08 of CHS and it was a mess. EditorX found over 1000 errors.

It looks like several changes were made to air units, but the database was not updated. The AVG was split into 3 squadrons and moved so there was no unit in slot 1071. Looking at an earlier version of CHS (2.04), it looks like the 73rd Fighter Squadron was in slot 1071 and somebody just removed it from the game. The 73rd was at Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941 and got a few P-40s airborne to defend the base.

In the pilot DB, all the AVG pilots were pointing to a slot that was empty. Another problem was with the 23rd FG pilots. The 23rd was built from the AVG and served in CBI for the rest of the war. There were a slew of pilots assigned to slot 1111, which was the 23rd FG in the stock scenarios, but it now a P-47 squadron that arrives late in the war. The 23rd was removed from CHS because the AVG never stands down. I assigned all 23rd pilots to the AVG, and they arrive later in the war. The AVG will have a cadre of high quality pilots throughout the war.

Even after fixing those problems, there were still a lot of errors. Virtually all are related to pilots who arrive before their group does, so they could end up getting assigned to another unit when their group shows up. There were also a fair number of pilots who were also leaders where the arrival dates for the leader and pilot were not synchronized.

A couple look like they were assigned leadership by accident. For example there is a pilot named White, H.A. who is a major and USAAF fighter pilot. He was assigned as a leader, but the leader he pointed to was a White, H.A. who was a US Navy surface ship commander.

I also noted some odd things going through the DB. Alan Deere is assigned to 54 Squadron. That was his squadron during the BoB, but I strongly doubt he was still with the unit when it was shipped to Australia in 1943. In fact, I believe Alan Deere was one of the fighter pilots defending the Normandy Beachhead at D-Day. It's been decades since I read his book, but I think his book closes with him flying patrol over the Normandy Beachhead.

A pilot who is missing from both the pilot database and leader database is Clive Caldwell, who is probably one of the most famous Australian pilots and was a significant leader.

I left Alan Deere in there, though I think he probably should be removed. I'm thinking of adding in CC Caldwell. I added the 73rd fighter back in at slot 999 and combined the AVG back into one unit in slot 1071.

Those are the only changes I made to support the pilot DB. Andrew Brown: if you want my pilot DB when I'm done cleaning it up, I can send it to you. You can choose to use it or not in the debugged CHS.

When I'm done with the pilot DB, I was planning on fixing problems with the aircraft DB and you can have that when I'm done too if you want.

Bill

[Ian R]

Bill,
 
are there errors like this in the stock scenarios as well?
 

[wdolson]

The stock DB doesn't have as many, but there are errors. I think EditorX found over 200.

The pilot file in CHS has the same names as stock. Somebody went through and did some updates of the units, but because the arrival times of some units changed, and some units disappeared altogether, the pilot file got pretty messed up.

I discovered one of my problems came from importing the pilot file into WitpExcel.xls and back. That screwed up the arrival dates for everybody. I went back to the original CHS file and it had around 500 errors.

It's all fixed now.

Bill

[Ian R]

Thanks Bill, having used the xls I better have a look at the errors, although I left the few extra air units I added (mostly recon squadrons) with random pick commanders.
 
 

[Andrew Brown]

There are indeed a bunch of pilot errors in CHS 2.08, created by the moving around of air groups (which leaves the pilots left pointing to the old slots). I also did a report of these errors using WitP Editor X and I have been correcting them all.

I am not sure about some of the other things you mention. I moved the 1st Squadron of the AVG back to the "special" AVG slot a while ago. Are you sure you are looking at version 2.08? (There was also a discussion about this topic a while ago, whether to recombine the AVG or leave it as is). The 73rd Fighter Squadron is also still in the database, albeit in another slot (1127). It hasn't been removed. I also see AVG pilots pointing to the AVG in 2.08 as well, at least those that I checked.

Interesting info about the 23rd FG. I will take a look at it as well, and also the leaders that you mention. Leaders is one area that can always benefit from further work.

By the way, what are the problems you see with the aircraft?

Thanks,
Andrew

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

There are indeed a bunch of pilot errors in CHS 2.08, created by the moving around of air groups (which leaves the pilots left pointing to the old slots). I also did a report of these errors using WitP Editor X and I have been correcting them all.

I am not sure about some of the other things you mention. I moved the 1st Squadron of the AVG back to the "special" AVG slot a while ago. Are you sure you are looking at version 2.08? (There was also a discussion about this topic a while ago, whether to recombine the AVG or leave it as is). The 73rd Fighter Squadron is also still in the database, albeit in another slot (1127). It hasn't been removed. I also see AVG pilots pointing to the AVG in 2.08 as well, at least those that I checked.

You are correct. I had some extra errors created by importing the pilots file into the XLS editor and exporting it again. Last night I went back to a version of the pilots file from 2.08 and started over. I missed the 73rd when I was scanning. I see it now.

Interesting info about the 23rd FG. I will take a look at it as well, and also the leaders that you mention. Leaders is one area that can always benefit from further work.

I discovered this by looking at the scenario 15 pilots file and seeing where the pilots pointed to. The three squadrons of the 23rd are missing from CHS. Which makes sense because in the real world, the AVG was disbanded into the 23rd. If you leave both in the game, the Allies get an airpower boost in the CBI.

The pilot database has about 200 pilots going into the 23rd over the course of the war. This is slot 1111. Currently that's occupied by a P-47 squadron that shows up in 1945. I moved them all to the AVG and they appear throughout the war.

By the way, what are the problems you see with the aircraft?

Both Hurricanes are pretty messed up. The range is definitely too short for the Mk IId/IV. The IId and IV are really two different planes. The LB-30 should probably be eliminated and represented with some extra B-24Ds in the pool at start. The TBF/TBM have the wrong machine gun armament. The Beaufort is way too short ranged. The P-51A, which was a significant fighter in the CBI is missing, though the A-36 which was only used by one group is there. I believe the A-36 upgrades to the P-47. It should upgrade to the P-51B.

The artwork doesn't represent the right versions of some aircraft. If you reuse the artwork for some aircraft. For example the P-51A and F-6A were essentially the same plane. Same with the F-6D and the P-51D. The photo recon versions of the P-38 have similar overlap. If artwork was reused, that would make the 4 aircraft slots currently unused usable. I would recommend adding the C-54 and C-87. Possibly the -5 Hellcat.

Most Allied dive bombers should carry a 1000 lb AP bomb, not a GP. The device file should have a 500 lb AP. There is an open slot above the Ohka. CVLs and CVEs that arrive with dive bombers should upgrade to TBFs. It was determined after a couple of months that dive bombers were unsuitable for small deck carriers.

There are more, but I can't recall them off the top of my head.

I'm just getting into making these changes right now. I could send you what I've got when I'm done.

I finished the pilot database last night. I could send you that if you want it. I created Clive Caldwell and added him as CO of one of the squdrons in his wing. One was set with a random CO.

Bill

[Andrew Brown]

Thanks. However, I am only doing bug fixes for CHS at the moment, not changes or additions. For example, no new aircraft are being added. Basically CHS is in abeyance, with the original team all "moved on" and nobody taking over as co-ordinator. Having said that, some things like aircraft ranges and so on, which can be considered errors, could be corrected, so I would be interested in changes for the Beaufort and the Hurricane, for example.

You do need to be careful when looking at aircraft upgrades in CHS. Sometimes aircraft seem to have strange upgrade paths, but it is done to allow for some non-standard upgrade paths to be added for some squadrons, with upgrades for other squadrons set explicitly to compensate. Without going back over the notes I am not sure if that is the case for the A-36, this is just a general comment.

If you send me the pilot file I can take a look and compare it to my own "fixed" one to see what I missed, or can be added (such as the AVG pilot changes and the leader(s)).

Finally, there is nothing stopping you, or anyone else, from using CHS as a base for further modifications. Several others have done this already. Unfortunately (at least in my opinion) these tend to be individual efforts going in different directions, rather than a co-ordinated or combined (as in the "C" in CHS) direction. Who knows, CHS may be re-started again one day. We shall see...

Andrew

[wdolson]

I wish there was more of an ongoing effort to update CHS. I looked at RHS, and I think the changes there are too radical. I don't like the supply sinks and I guess I'm one of the few who prefer the stock air to air model. I like it that CHS gives you a choice of air to air models to use.

I would volunteer to coordinate, but I am stealing time from other projects to do the tinkering I'm doing. Possibly later this year.

Right now I'm going through the aircraft DB and making tweaks. I'm leaving the maneuver and durability alone in ech case. I know those are heavily tweaked by the air to air mods.

A few aircraft have their arrival dates changed. It appears the arrival date for the TBM was the date for the TBM-1, which was essentially identical to the TBF-1. The TBM-3 had some changes, but it arrived later. The stats appear to be for the TBM-3, but the arrival date was for the TBM-1. CHS also has a TBM and a TBM-3d. The 3d is the same plane with search radar. Most -3s were upgaded in the field, so I think the -3d is all that is needed. The forward armament of all Avengers are wrong. The first 50 or so built had a single .50 in the cowling, but everyone built after that had one .50 in each wing.

I also moved up the C-46 arrival date. The first C-46 unit went into service flying The Hump in April 43, but the plane doesn't arrive until July 43 in the game. The first planes were delivered in June 42. I made the arrival date 10/42 to split the difference between the first deliveries and first service.

I bumped the Beaufort's endurance to 350. In reality, it was able to carry a torpedo to a 400 mile radius. That would be 6 hexes in game terms.

I'm still looking at the Hurricane situation.

I changed the A-36 to the P-51A. They were the same airframe, but the A-36 had dive breaks and was intended as a dive bomber, whereas the P-51A was intended as a fighter. One group of 3 squadrons operated A-36s in India for a relatively short while. They upgraded to P-51Bs within a couple of months. The group was transferred to China in early 44 and at that time they only had a few A-36s on strength.

The P-51A, on the other hand, was a work horse in the CBI. The bulk of P-51As were sent to India and they equipped several squadrons. In any case, both the P-51A and A-36 should upgrade to P-51Bs.

Over in the air group DB, I'm going to change the dive bombers that arrive on CVEs and CVLs to upgrade to TBFs or TBMs. SBDs didn't have folding wings and took up too much space on smaller carriers. SB2Cs needed a bigger deck to operate and were never used on smaller carriers. TBFs were found to be much better for the small deck carriers after some initial experience with SBDs on them.

I also am bumping up the initial pool of B-24Ds and eliminating the LB-30. The LB-30 bomber version was similar to the B-24D and only operated for a couple of months. Only one squadron was even close to completely filled out with them. The survivors were either returned to the RAF or converted to C-87s (one of these conversions is still in flying condition with the Commemorative Air Force in Texas). More B-24s were converted to C-87s and used to fly The Hump. I'm going to change the LB-30 into the C-87 cargo version. I'm also adding a C-54, a PBJ, and the Privateer. I combined the graphics for the recon versions of the P-38 and P-51 to free up some graphics slots and allow the new aircraft to go into unused slots in the DB.

These last changes are probably too much for what you want to do at this point. If CHS gets ressurected, I would be happy to contribute them to the cause.

I'll send you the files changed when I'm done and you can pick and choose what you want to do to bug fix CHS 2.08.

Bill

[wdolson]

Anther thing I've noticed, most fighters which have the ability to carry bombs have the wrong number of bombs. If they had only one hard point in real life, they get two bombs and if they had two hardpoints, they get one bomb.

The P-38F doesn't have any hardpoints, though it was the first version of the P-38 to be fitted with shackles. The P-47s appear to be fitted with a bizarre array of fictional hardpoints.

I'm also reading a very long thread from the forum on drop tanks right now. It appears that they do work, but they aren't provided for some aircraft that always used them like the F6F and some aircraft, like the A6M2 have the range calculated with drop tank, even though one wasn't fitted.

All very confusing. Hoping to get it all figured out...

Bill

[Ian R]

Bill, which drop tank do you put on single engine aircraft, the 147 gallon or something smaller?
 
And what do you add to endurance if you do add one?
 
 

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The stock DB doesn't have as many, but there are errors. I think EditorX found over 200.

The pilot file in CHS has the same names as stock. Somebody went through and did some updates of the units, but because the arrival times of some units changed, and some units disappeared altogether, the pilot file got pretty messed up.

I discovered one of my problems came from importing the pilot file into WitpExcel.xls and back. That screwed up the arrival dates for everybody. I went back to the original CHS file and it had around 500 errors.

It's all fixed now.

Bill

Importing and exporting from/to WITPExcel caused untold numbers of errors in fields. Joe said it was dangerous - and he turned out to be right. But we need it for certain functions - because the other editors don't give us all the fields.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Anther thing I've noticed, most fighters which have the ability to carry bombs have the wrong number of bombs. If they had only one hard point in real life, they get two bombs and if they had two hardpoints, they get one bomb.

The P-38F doesn't have any hardpoints, though it was the first version of the P-38 to be fitted with shackles. The P-47s appear to be fitted with a bizarre array of fictional hardpoints.

I'm also reading a very long thread from the forum on drop tanks right now. It appears that they do work, but they aren't provided for some aircraft that always used them like the F6F and some aircraft, like the A6M2 have the range calculated with drop tank, even though one wasn't fitted.

All very confusing. Hoping to get it all figured out...

Bill

Actually, until RHS introduced drop tanks (in a form players can use), the WITP norm was that you calculate the transfer range of the plane - and the code figures from that what is normal range and what is extended range. IF the plane could use drop tanks and/or ferry tanks - it did. Drop tanks existed as devices - but were - as you say - confusing - and no one used them.

Now IF you put drop tanks on a plane you MUST generally REDUCE its range! The drop tank adds range in the form of endurance - apparently one minute per gallon of tank. Thus the amount of range varies with the cruising speed of the plane. And it does NOT matter the size of the plane!!! For fighters this is a reasonable approximation - but for some planes it is not. You can NOT fit a Mosquito with three 2000 gal drop tanks - or the range is too great.

The EFFECT of adding drop tanks is the OPPOSITE of what people think it is. It REDUCES the effective range of an aircraft. If the plane has bombs, it generally does not carry them to extended range any more - it carries drop tanks instead. [This varies slightly with lots of technical stuff - but in general drop tanks specified MUST be carried - and bomb load usually disappears if you carry them.] In a few cases the planes gained range - because someone calculated transfer range wrong to begin with. [There are errors everywhere - and compounding that disagreement about what are the "facts"?]

You may use RHS data as a guideline for drop tanks. We added some - and rated all or most in both gallons and litres.
We usually use the real tanks (size and number) for each plane - but sometimes don't carry them all. [The Mossy recon bird carries only 2 of her 3 tanks]. Getting endurance right is hard - and I have a test bed to do it. You have to calculate backwards - and then confirm experimentally - until the new ferry range is right. RHS makes that harder because we modify ferry range to get better operational ranges:

our fighters are same as everyone else = transfer range is used (because code correctly makes normal range 25% and extended range 33%)

our transports are reduced by 16% (because code gives them 50% of range and we want them to have 42% of range for operations)

everything else is increased by about 18% (so 33% of our new transfer range = 42% of the real transfer range - the right value if you are not patrolling as a fighter)

If you are not confused - you are a genius.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Bill, which drop tank do you put on single engine aircraft, the 147 gallon or something smaller?

And what do you add to endurance if you do add one?

The database comes with a number of drop tank sizes. Different planes carried different size tanks. The code actually use drop tanks if you add them, though none of the aircraft had them originally.

I haven't fully figured out how thet work. There is a long thread on them from April of last year: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1110166&mpage=1&key=external%2Cfuel%2Ctank

I did one experiment and what it looked like happened was the effect of the tank was divided by 60, rounded down, and added to the range. I added a pair of 200 gallon tanks to a P-38J and the range 35/11/8 (ferry/extended/normal) to 41/19/14.

I'm only about halfway through the drop tank thread. I'm sure there's more in there.

el cid put a lot of effort into the ranges for RHS and he added drop tanks to many aircraft. But some fighter bombers have both drop tanks and bombs. More than there were shackles on the real thing. I'm not sure how that works. Does the program load drop tanks for longer missions and bombs for shorter?

Bill

[el cid again]

Essentially you get no tanks at all for normal range. And usually you get the bombs only to normal range.

Usually you must use tanks to go to extended range (or to transfer) - and usually you get no bombs at extended range (or to transfer). HOWEVER - there are special cases:

SOME planes have INTERNAL "drop tanks." THESE are wierd cases in RHS - ways to turn a bomber into a recon plane with more range for example.

SOME planes have several bombs so IF you can pass the code tests I THINK you MAY get 1 or 2 bombs at extended range:

a) You must have drop tanks
b) You must divide the normal bomb load by 2
c) You must not be "lucky" on certain code rolls (which change the loadout)

THEN MAYBE you get a bomb or two at extended range. Maybe. In general this will apply to a plane with several small bombs.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Essentially you get no tanks at all for normal range. And usually you get the bombs only to normal range.

Usually you must use tanks to go to extended range (or to transfer) - and usually you get no bombs at extended range (or to transfer). HOWEVER - there are special cases:

SOME planes have INTERNAL "drop tanks." THESE are wierd cases in RHS - ways to turn a bomber into a recon plane with more range for example.

SOME planes have several bombs so IF you can pass the code tests I THINK you MAY get 1 or 2 bombs at extended range:

a) You must have drop tanks
b) You must divide the normal bomb load by 2
c) You must not be "lucky" on certain code rolls (which change the loadout)

THEN MAYBE you get a bomb or two at extended range. Maybe. In general this will apply to a plane with several small bombs.

So, let me try to get this right... The planes in the database that are listed with bombs and drop tanks, say the P-38J, which gets 2X110gal and 1X500lb bomb, would carry the bomb only for normal range, and the tanks for extended range with no bomb?

And why only 1 500 lb bomb? The P-38J could carry 2 2000 lb bombs.

I also notice you added rockets to some aircraft? I thought I saw a thread somewhere that they didn't work very well. Maybe I was halucinating.

Bill

[BigJ62]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The stock DB doesn't have as many, but there are errors. I think EditorX found over 200.

The pilot file in CHS has the same names as stock. Somebody went through and did some updates of the units, but because the arrival times of some units changed, and some units disappeared altogether, the pilot file got pretty messed up.

I discovered one of my problems came from importing the pilot file into WitpExcel.xls and back. That screwed up the arrival dates for everybody. I went back to the original CHS file and it had around 500 errors.

It's all fixed now.

Bill

Importing and exporting from/to WITPExcel caused untold numbers of errors in fields. Joe said it was dangerous - and he turned out to be right. But we need it for certain functions - because the other editors don't give us all the fields.

Ok what other fields do you need access to give an example.

[Bliztk]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Importing and exporting from/to WITPExcel caused untold numbers of errors in fields. Joe said it was dangerous - and he turned out to be right. But we need it for certain functions - because the other editors don't give us all the fields.

That`s because you use MSExcel to modify the database in csv format.

If you use other software designed to be used with csv (like Openoffice, its free) then 0 errors occur as far I know.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: wdolson
I'm also reading a very long thread from the forum on drop tanks right now. It appears that they do work, but they aren't provided for some aircraft that always used them like the F6F and some aircraft, like the A6M2 have the range calculated with drop tank, even though one wasn't fitted.

All very confusing. Hoping to get it all figured out...

I agree with your comment about some aircraft ranges. I checked a few aircraft and noticed that their ranges matched the quoted ranges with drop tanks, even though the aircraft did not carry the devices in the game data.

I did add drop tanks to one aircraft in CHS, as a sort of in-game test - the F6F. I chose the F6F because it needed the extra range as added by the tanks in real life. When I added the tanks it increased the aircraft range as expected, I think (from memory) in a straight forward fashion the same as your P-38 test.

I do wonder why the devices are in the database but not used in the stock scenarios.

Andrew

[Tanaka]

bump

Hi Wdolsen,

Do you happen to have a copy of these fixes you could share? Thanks!