x.7895 issues and 7.7896 uploading

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again


Well - IF you feel that a P-38 is worthy of a special modifier in the context of current values - suggest what you think the modifier should be for each model - and why in objective terms this plane is an exception. ALSO explain if the SAME modifier would apply to any other similar aircraft - e.g. a Ki-102, or some other Allied aircraft. And on what basis we could know that?

I am not providing a modifier. I am suggesting that historical test data showed where certain models performed in relation to other models. Similar historical data could be used the same way for any other outlying models. I have no information about the Ki-102, so I have no comment.

[witpqs]

BTW, here is the main link for the thread where all of this was discussed. Quite a number of people took part.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1573414&mpage=1&key=P%2D38

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

The P-38 was a better fighter than any other early long range fighter. This fact is well known. The unique design was the main reason for this. I am happy to try out your redesignation, knowing that speed and ROC will also add to the mix, but witpqs has a point and relevant supporting documentation has been posted and lost in the depths of this forum in the past. Early issues effecting the F anf G in the ETO were medium altitude performance and reliability. In the MTO the Axis forces soon came to respect them, although they were less manoeuvrable than Axis single engined fighters. The J model introduced better peformance at all altitudes, chin radiators for better cooling which allowed the use of full take off power up to 26,000 ft AND hydraulically boosted powered ailerons. The L model had more powerful engines. I do not pretend to have your grasp of how the different factors come together in the WitP engine, but there is a case for treating the P-38 as an exceptional case when compared to other two engined fighters with a conventional lay out. The P-38 was the top scoring aeroplane of all US Army fighters in the PTO. This may in part be due to the fact that they could turn up where the Japanese were not expecting them and the better tactics employed after 1943, but it is still a fact to be considered when weighed up against the number of P-40s engaged in the PTO. In comparative terms you have the G model about equal to the P-40E, when it was a little better. The J and L are the most severely underrated models.

Note in this context that J and L are given the rating of "fighter" - in the present RHS issue - which seems to jive with the performance material you are describing here. It may be that is good modeling.

But what about LATE model two engine fighter bombers? Are any others good fighters? There certainly were a number of two engine fighter projects as such. And why is a P-38 a better fighter than other two engine fighters early one? I am a moderate - and I tend to think really good designs are good because of the combination of basic things they have is well balanced. I am not convinced the P-38 is NOT the best long range fighter right now. This debate is not about that - it is about wether maneuverability in the strange WITP sense is not rated high enough. Any thoughts about that?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

The document that GBL is referring to was first posted on the forums by someone else - I forget who. I am uncertain, but I think it was this site:

WWII Aircraft Performance

The site contains many actual reports from WWII. Happily, they are in two formats - nice clean text in HTML, and the original scans (accessed by a link on each corresponding HTML page).

They have lots of documents and I am still searching for the one that was posted here before. It was a record of a flight test comparison of a P-38 model versus a P-40 model, a P-47 model, and a P-51 model. It included several comments in the results that made specific comparisons. As such it provides a way to peg the MVR performance of the P-38 model to the other aircraft models.

Therefore, if one of the comparison models is rated (made up example here) MVR 32 and the P-38 model is best estimated at 90% of that, it would be rated a 28 or 29. This is just an example, not real numbers unless by coincidence.

Notice that this is about the real MVR performance of the airplanes - there is no consideration given to whether something is called a fighter or a fighter-bomber. The MVR rating should speak for itself. The F vs FB designation has only to do with the WITP game engine.

I remember the document - and I printed and filed it - and I accept it as fine primary material for analysis/discussion.

The problem here is that (sorry to say) I am right - and you are still confusing "maneuverability" as we usually think of it with "maneuverability" a la WITP. A senior programmer said "try speed" - and I did - many stock values were ONLY speed divided by 10. If we added ROC divided by 5 or something like that we found more values still. Matrix seems not to have even considered other factors in maneuverability at all. RHS changed that - but it is not safe not to have speed dominate (a factor which HELPS the P-38 no little bit - as indeed does ROC). But stock DID put in number of engines as a factor - oddly they seem to have divided by the square of the number of engines (see the 4 engine types to make this clear). RHS reduced that to only number of engines. And THAT is the source of the difference between stock and RHS and your thinking - the maneuverability due to speed, ROC, loading, whatever is very high - but we DIVIDE it in our algorithm by 2 - and you are never going to get 90 per cent if we do that. As was explained (by a PhD as well as myself - who have worked on aircraft computer models at Boeing Software Integration Laboratories plural) you may not escape the problem of non-centerline engines - it is physics.

What we could do to reduce this effect is divide by the square root of engines. That would double the maneuverability of 4 engine planes. Is that better than what we now have? In such a case - it would divide a 2 engine plane by 1.414. And it means recalculationg a vast number of planes - man weeks of work. With AE coming out - not sure I want to go that way. But a 40 per cent offset for one plane is not in the cards - it is not good practice.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Here is the post were I responded to Sid's request for a specific recommendation:

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




< Message edited by witpqs -- 10/2/2007 3:36:10 PM >

Now - do I know if these are the very best recommendations? No. You asked for my best estimate at the time and this was it. Maybe someone has a better idea for the percentages?

BTW, I have since learned that the P-38J model also had powered flight controls, so relatively speaking that would rate a little higher (closer to the L model than to the G model).

If you look at Japanese aircraft - A6M for example - you will see these recommendations are very incorrect. Nothing about the problems of wide turning are indicated in this data, for example. And once again - you are confusing maneuverability in the tests cited with maneuverability as a composite value in WITP. I really hate being faithful to this awful design variable - but we cannot come close to doing so if we pretend a two engine plane is not much less than a single engine plane is - at least in terms of the Matrix design. We are hurt badly because Japanese planes that are far more maneuverable (in your sense) are not so fast or good at ROC - and won''t appear better as they should do if we adopted this approach. Relative performance to American fighters is not important in game terms - relative performance to enemy fighters is critically important. P-38 should do well because it has punch, durability and range - also speed and ROC to get the intercept - but in air combat itself - not because it can out turn any of the Japanese planes - which it could not do.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: el cid again


Well - IF you feel that a P-38 is worthy of a special modifier in the context of current values - suggest what you think the modifier should be for each model - and why in objective terms this plane is an exception. ALSO explain if the SAME modifier would apply to any other similar aircraft - e.g. a Ki-102, or some other Allied aircraft. And on what basis we could know that?

I am not providing a modifier. I am suggesting that historical test data showed where certain models performed in relation to other models. Similar historical data could be used the same way for any other outlying models. I have no information about the Ki-102, so I have no comment.

You contended P-38 was different in design in a way that resulted in a better fighter. Yet if this is not evident in pure statistics, how is it better? And why is a Ki-102 not equally better? [Granted it took many more years to get it] Special flaps were used on Ki-43s - if that is the issue - do we give it to Ki-43s? I want to understand why it is better in a technical sense - so I can tell when it applies to other designs (if it does). Is it not possible that battle statistics are critically determined by training and pilot quality and tactical concepts? Might not a plane that is NOT better - just good in many respects - to show up as a champion? Note the P 38 does not seem to be the best in ETO - where perhaps the tactical matters or relative training matters were possibly different.

IF we adopted a modifier, it can not be allowed to dominate the equation. IF the basic equation is reasonable, we need to keep modifiers below 10 per cent - and ideally well below that. Otherwise we have the wrong equation - and we need to understand this matter better.

[witpqs]

A couple of things (okay more than a couple).

I am not confusing maneuverability in any sense.

I am looking only at data and conclusions that the professionals drew from tests, in comparison with other aircraft. There is much text in the various reports that I looked through last time we did this. I am not going through all the documents again.

I still do not have similar data about other 2 engine fighters so asking me over and over is pointless.

I do not care about the equation, hence I have not, am not, and will not make recommendations for one. I do care - only - about the various aircraft performing accurately to the degree practicable. See prior comments for my recommendations on how to achieve that.

I am well and truly done with this topic! Good Bye. [8D]

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

A couple of things (okay more than a couple).

I am not confusing maneuverability in any sense.

I am looking only at data and conclusions that the professionals drew from tests, in comparison with other aircraft. There is much text in the various reports that I looked through last time we did this. I am not going through all the documents again.

I still do not have similar data about other 2 engine fighters so asking me over and over is pointless.

I do not care about the equation, hence I have not, am not, and will not make recommendations for one. I do care - only - about the various aircraft performing accurately to the degree practicable. See prior comments for my recommendations on how to achieve that.

I am well and truly done with this topic! Good Bye. [8D]

I think there seems to be a case for the adjustment of the P-38 and I agree it has been shorted in comparison to real life performance. However, I am very sympathetic to what Sid has been saying (if I understand it right). Without a total rework of all the aircraft using consistent standards for each, how can we just give one model the benefit of under the microscope analysis. And, who then would go back over any rework to make sure the work was done correctly which surely would need to be done.

I'm begining to think we will never be able to play the game with any sort comfort level or even at all. Come on AE and then the battle starts all over again (in more ways than one).


BTW each of us may make any adjustments we want within the limitations of our own consequences and opponents opinion. Which in my case is made simple by only playing the old dumb AI.

[witpqs]

Buck, I said I was done with this but I will make an exception to answer you. [:)]

If you know it is wrong why leave it wrong? Just because others might be wrong? I disagree with that logic. Otherwise, why not put them all back the (wrong) way they were? That's taking what you said to an extreme (I know it's not what you mean) - and I only do it to illustrate my point.

I understand what you are saying, and my reasons for advocating fixing it are 1) it is wrong and we do know it, plus 2) it is a very important airplane in the simulation and being wrong it has a significant impact. These particular changes are very easy to make and also very easy to check in any scenario you choose to play. As you point out, any of us can easily make them to our own tastes anyway!

I have high hopes for AE too. I never noticed any problem with P-38 ratings in stock or CHS, just that in the latest re-work of a/c in RHS I noticed it was way lowered (relative to other a/c). So I don't really anticipate any big deal with AE ratings of planes. Especially with the number of people doing research. I'm sure folks will find some errors, that's just the nature of the beast.

As for this:

I'm begining to think we will never be able to play the game with any sort comfort level or even at all.

That's why I've switched back to CHS.

[okami]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Buck, I said I was done with this but I will make an exception to answer you. [:)]

If you know it is wrong why leave it wrong? Just because others might be wrong? I disagree with that logic. Otherwise, why not put them all back the (wrong) way they were? That's taking what you said to an extreme (I know it's not what you mean) - and I only do it to illustrate my point.

I understand what you are saying, and my reasons for advocating fixing it are 1) it is wrong and we do know it, plus 2) it is a very important airplane in the simulation and being wrong it has a significant impact. These particular changes are very easy to make and also very easy to check in any scenario you choose to play. As you point out, any of us can easily make them to our own tastes anyway!

I have high hopes for AE too. I never noticed any problem with P-38 ratings in stock or CHS, just that in the latest re-work of a/c in RHS I noticed it was way lowered (relative to other a/c). So I don't really anticipate any big deal with AE ratings of planes. Especially with the number of people doing research. I'm sure folks will find some errors, that's just the nature of the beast.

As for this:

I'm begining to think we will never be able to play the game with any sort comfort level or even at all.

That's why I've switched back to CHS.

In relation to Japanese aircraft the P38 should have less maneuverability than the A6M2 and that is for all models. The maneuver rating in Witp is not just maneuverability, otherwise only the F6F and the P51D would have a rating equal to or greater than this 1940 aircraft. You can not make your arguement vs Allied aircraft without arguing it vs all aircraft. If we look at the maneuver rating as just maneuverability then all allied aircraft would need to be adjusted downwards. The allies depended on speed and numbers and if you have these then you will see historical A2A. The P38 is certainly fast and if you have equal or great numbers than the Japanese then you will see the results you expect to see.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Buck, I said I was done with this but I will make an exception to answer you. [:)]

If you know it is wrong why leave it wrong? Just because others might be wrong? I disagree with that logic. Otherwise, why not put them all back the (wrong) way they were? That's taking what you said to an extreme (I know it's not what you mean) - and I only do it to illustrate my point.

I understand what you are saying, and my reasons for advocating fixing it are 1) it is wrong and we do know it, plus 2) it is a very important airplane in the simulation and being wrong it has a significant impact. These particular changes are very easy to make and also very easy to check in any scenario you choose to play. As you point out, any of us can easily make them to our own tastes anyway!

I have high hopes for AE too. I never noticed any problem with P-38 ratings in stock or CHS, just that in the latest re-work of a/c in RHS I noticed it was way lowered (relative to other a/c). So I don't really anticipate any big deal with AE ratings of planes. Especially with the number of people doing research. I'm sure folks will find some errors, that's just the nature of the beast.

As for this:

I'm begining to think we will never be able to play the game with any sort comfort level or even at all.

That's why I've switched back to CHS.

I hear you. However, I love the level 7 concept and the movement of troops and resources/supplies and the challenges of the 1st year of the war trying to get in a position to put up a fight. This is where I derive my main source enjoyment. Good luck and have fun.

[m10bob]

Like many others in these forums, I have flown. I learned to fly in a war veteran Piper J3 by Tommy Thompson,who had flown anything in the American arsenal since the mid 30's.
My dad supported my flying (in high school) because he had learned to fly in a Cornell PT 19 at Kelly Field soon after Pearl.(He washed out and later became an infantry officer).
Sometime after I DEROS'd, I got involved in miniature aircraft wargaming and adhered to rules of that genre which I was able to relate to real life aerial physics.
I have shared those formulas on these forums, but they were never adopted, (except for the ROC), which Sid was able to work into the current RHS equation using the same books I use.

As of roughly 6 months ago, I continue to download each "installment" of RHS, because (to me) it is the most detailed and historically accurate (verifiable) mod going, with the most research, but since those 6 months, I have altered the values of certain aircraft depending on other known (and verifiable qualities of the planes.)
Of course, it is not easy and I must take my time.
This is my own personal "mod within a mod", and I do not offer it publicly, because I don't have Sid's patience.
The value of a planes' turn ability is measured by how long it can turn, continuously before it reaches stall.
At high speed, the P 38 can turn inside an A6m2.
This cannot be reflected using current WITP parameters, so I had to look at every plane and compare the flight module of every one, to arrive at my own numbers.
They may not be accurate to some.
I don't care.
I believe they are, and I know the two most important things to a pilot turning is
1.How long can I turn?, and
2.How much altitude do I lose in turning?
The P38 loses speed and altitude a lot quicker than an A6m2, but way less per second than planes like the P 39, P 47, etc.
Giving a P39 a maneuver quality of 28-32 and a P 38 a rating less, is simply laughable, (and wrong), but it is correct using the *original* WITP formula.

For the basic formulas I use, you may search these forum threads.
I recommend Eric Bergeruds' FIRE IN THE SKY for fine notes on handling characteristics of the planes of this theatre.........

[m10bob]

7.7896 RHSCVO issues: 1.I can no longer purchase units to change their headquarters, because when I try, none of the other HQ show up in a list at all.
2.Vickers Vildebeest only has machine guns,(no torp nor bombs, but in the editor, it shows the torp?) I wonder if the radar showing on the editor screen is messing this up?
3.The Swordfish is showing bombs as the default weapon in game, yet it shows the torp in the editor!)Again, can RADAR be the culprit??

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Buck, I said I was done with this but I will make an exception to answer you. [:)]

If you know it is wrong why leave it wrong? Just because others might be wrong? I disagree with that logic. Otherwise, why not put them all back the (wrong) way they were? That's taking what you said to an extreme (I know it's not what you mean) - and I only do it to illustrate my point.

I understand what you are saying, and my reasons for advocating fixing it are 1) it is wrong and we do know it, plus 2) it is a very important airplane in the simulation and being wrong it has a significant impact. These particular changes are very easy to make and also very easy to check in any scenario you choose to play. As you point out, any of us can easily make them to our own tastes anyway!

I have high hopes for AE too. I never noticed any problem with P-38 ratings in stock or CHS, just that in the latest re-work of a/c in RHS I noticed it was way lowered (relative to other a/c). So I don't really anticipate any big deal with AE ratings of planes. Especially with the number of people doing research. I'm sure folks will find some errors, that's just the nature of the beast.

As for this:

I'm begining to think we will never be able to play the game with any sort comfort level or even at all.

That's why I've switched back to CHS.

If you "switched back to CHS" - one wonders why you are on the RHS threads? CHS seems to have adopted an inconsistent approach re aircraft data - but JF Dunnigan says in the end it is the way to go: he shamelessly puts down us formula guys in favor of "seat of the pants" values for everything. One wonders how one can even have an opinon about obscure planes that way?

As for other two engine types that might be as good or better than the P-38, our best test pilot said that the F7F was "the best fighter" he ever flew. [It never did serve as a carrier fighter in WWII, but it did serve as a night fighter, and eventually it served as a carrier plane as well]

I still am seeing no technical fourndation for your opinion RHS has P-38 "wrong." You DO have a case in air combat data tht it is a superb fighter - and even a case in test data that it maneuvers well - but you have no basis whatever for saying it can violate the principles of angular momentum. Let me help you:

In the matter of durability, we made two exceptions FOR CAUSE:;

1) Sturmovik (in two flavors - with two different modifiers) was given a boost because of the massive forbody armor - the entire front end is made of armor - and this was improved measurably in the later version - so we give them 1 and 2 points respectively.

2) Sterling was given a boost due to geodesic structure and operational indications it was far more difficult to shoot down even with what normally would have been fatal structural damage.

For maneuverability, at least later P-38s could be given a maneuverability boost because of powered flaps. IF we did that - and I would immediately do so IF YOU liked it and endorsed it - we could apply the SAME exception to ANY OTHER aircdraft with powered flaps. It is a REASON with some hope of validity that a change is justified.

I don't think we (WITPQS and I) are going to reach an agreement on this matter (though a consensus may occur he seems to "know" there is no possibility a structured approach is "right"). So the offer is on the table more generally. But IF we adopt a change - it will be for a known cause - which then is applicable in ALL similar cases

AND we will NOT let the modification dominate the formula. It may be our simplistic formula (I will go farther - it is certain our simplistic formula) is not perfect. But it is better than what Matrix or CHS did - in terms of defining and publishing a standard that works remarkably well. And it is a WE thing - it was done by the Forum - not by me - and the final form of it was devised by Mifune - not I. We use it because it is better than a score of variations I did. It can be improved - no doubt. But improvement is not going to come from ignoring the principles of why it is a good approach - nor doing what WITPQS does (and doesn't understand he is doing): allowing the formula to be dominated by speed, ROC and number of engines (which after all is what Matrix did).

There is a reason stock and CHS have the P-38 "right" - in WITPQS view. While they DO divide by 2 for 2 engine bomberrs, they do NOT do so for fighters. This is bad science. The REASON two engine fighters are less maneuverable is the same as for 2 engine transports, bombers and recon planes (which all get this treatement by them). RHS reformed it by taking that exception out - and we are right to do it that way. This is the reason no variation of the formula ever pleases WITPQS - and why he likes the relative values in stock and CHS (which - at least as they were when RHS began - were significantly inconsistent - and two engine fighters not being divided is one of the more serious inconsistencies).
I am not king - I don't control thought or opinion - and I am frustrated becqause WITPQS "knows" I am wrong - although I put more work in pleasing him on this one matter than on any other element of RHS - four different times. It is clear that in spite of nice noises about the formula - which only needs this exception - he does not intend to honor the principle of relateing objective data to field values. I mean data like speed, weight, not kill rates. We want a system that allows anyone to go to a reference, look up the data, and get a result (with the only variation being that between different sources of data).

Now about development: RHS is approximately done. But in a sense it is never done. And it is USER requests that make it dynamic.
If YOU want it to be stable do not YOU ask for a change. If you want to be honored when you ask for consideration for a change, do not THEN object it is not stable when you get it. It is a case where you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Development is going to slow. I am playing - not developing now. But I am playing to find things that can be tweeked as well as for fun. So there will be occasional updates - none I hope critical.

IF WITPQS really liked the massive research and data entry effort represented by RHS, he could modify the "one problem" case in an editor. Clearly there must be more at stake for him to "go back to CHS." Most comments I get are "you cannot go back" - even to earlier levels or RHS - due to the richness of the effort. The only question is - why is he here - if he does not like the effort? It is a contradiction to say one likes the idea of published standards and consistent application of reference data - and then "know" we have it wrong when we do it that way. In the end this discomfort is based on a preference for wargaming Dunnigan style - where the seat of the pants (which is faster I admit)
values are used - and then they naturally show up with performance one expects / likes. That is not the way of a scientist or a simulator - but it is the way war games for fun are usually done. It isn't "wrong" - it is a choice. I choose to simulate rather than honor prejudices - and I need a reason to change a value.

Give me a reason - it is in. I suspect P-38 is superb right now in RHS. I also suspect it might be better if we boost the maneuverability field slightly (note the slightly). I suggest this could be done on the basis of its special flaps - which indeed were intended to help it over come maneuverability issues - and were successful in that. But IF we do that - it is a PRINCIPLE which we will apply in all similar cases - and like the Sturmovic or Stirling - the choice is "give it one point" or "give it two points" for these flaps. If we say P-38 is truly exceptional (and I am willing) - then we might give it two points - and say a less developed flap system gets only one point (on some other aircraft). But I want a consensus - and only in the case of WITPQS (who has invested so much energy in this and who is very informed on the history of this one type) will I take one person's view as sufficient. It is a heroic effort by me to compromise after I understand it is impossible to compromise - but it is also my style to be as inclusive as is possible within the framework of my operating principles.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Like many others in these forums, I have flown. I learned to fly in a war veteran Piper J3 by Tommy Thompson,who had flown anything in the American arsenal since the mid 30's.
My dad supported my flying (in high school) because he had learned to fly in a Cornell PT 19 at Kelly Field soon after Pearl.(He washed out and later became an infantry officer).
Sometime after I DEROS'd, I got involved in miniature aircraft wargaming and adhered to rules of that genre which I was able to relate to real life aerial physics.
I have shared those formulas on these forums, but they were never adopted, (except for the ROC), which Sid was able to work into the current RHS equation using the same books I use.

As of roughly 6 months ago, I continue to download each "installment" of RHS, because (to me) it is the most detailed and historically accurate (verifiable) mod going, with the most research, but since those 6 months, I have altered the values of certain aircraft depending on other known (and verifiable qualities of the planes.)
Of course, it is not easy and I must take my time.
This is my own personal "mod within a mod", and I do not offer it publicly, because I don't have Sid's patience.
The value of a planes' turn ability is measured by how long it can turn, continuously before it reaches stall.
At high speed, the P 38 can turn inside an A6m2.
This cannot be reflected using current WITP parameters, so I had to look at every plane and compare the flight module of every one, to arrive at my own numbers.
They may not be accurate to some.
I don't care.
I believe they are, and I know the two most important things to a pilot turning is
1.How long can I turn?, and
2.How much altitude do I lose in turning?
The P38 loses speed and altitude a lot quicker than an A6m2, but way less per second than planes like the P 39, P 47, etc.
Giving a P39 a maneuver quality of 28-32 and a P 38 a rating less, is simply laughable, (and wrong), but it is correct using the *original* WITP formula.

For the basic formulas I use, you may search these forum threads.
I recommend Eric Bergeruds' FIRE IN THE SKY for fine notes on handling characteristics of the planes of this theatre.........

Fire in the Sky is indeed great.

And nothing is quite as frustrating as trying to work out complex "maneuverability" values for code which does not permit us to have anythign close to the number of things separated out we really need. We need ratings at different altitudes. We need to distinguish between the ability to turn (which most of us think of as maneuverability), the ability to roll (and for most planes, which way), and both ROC and the ability to dive - which are anything but equal or identical. Then too, raw speed counts, and it is not just one value, but changes in lots of senses. We need a set of fields to describe these factors - and in actual air combat (once it is decided this plane fightes that plane) - we only have one field for maneuverability (there are also fields for weapons and durability - but they are not related to moving in the sky per se).

I cannot be happy with being forced into this box. But the choice is - live with it - or not do WITP. One hopes AE addresses some of this better.
And WITP 2 better still.

The data set is so gigantic that a big problem is time. RHS formulas are so complex it takes man weeks to redo aircraft - and I have done so several times (as has Mifune). I don't want to do it again. It is a very courteous thing we have listened to frustrations and modified many things due to player feedback. Please be sympathetic. At this point about all that I think can be reasonably done is to look at the flap thing - and apply it to 3 or 4 types - no need to recalculate the lot. But if someone had a truly better way - we would redo the lot. But better in the context of this awful limitation - one field for all things at all flight regimes - and a method that lets us plug in speed, weight, etc and know what the "right" answer should be.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

7.7896 RHSCVO issues: 1.I can no longer purchase units to change their headquarters, because when I try, none of the other HQ show up in a list at all.

Which side?
EDIT: OK - just checked both sides. This "problem" either exists for both sides - or does not exist at all. It depends ONLY on political points. Pick a unit too big - you get greyed out options. Pick a unit with PP requirements below the number of PP remaining for that side on that day - purchase of new command works fine. At source, as issued, just checked.


2.Vickers Vildebeest only has machine guns,(no torp nor bombs, but in the editor, it shows the torp?) I wonder if the radar showing on the editor screen is messing this up?

Radar cannot do that. Vildebeeste should show an 18 inch torpedo in the type database and player screens. It sometimes has bombs in unit databases. It NEVER has radar.
EDIT: OK - just looked. It shows up as a "torpedo bomber" and lists in player reports with an 18 inch torpedo. Some units substitute bombs for this - but you cannot see it in the aircraft type screen - you will only note these units never deliver torpedoes - just bombs or DC. None have radar.

3.The Swordfish is showing bombs as the default weapon in game, yet it shows the torp in the editor!)Again, can RADAR be the culprit??

No - the Swordfish is default bombs. Some UNITS have torpedoes. This is a RHS thing - a trick to let us de facto have more kinds of planes. the Swordfish in the game are mainly NOT torpedo bombers - but ASW planes - with radar - and rockets too - for night ASW work - and to help carriers find the enemy ships. But the ability to use torpedoes remains - for poorly defended targets - in certain units.

[goodboyladdie]

"If you "switched back to CHS" - one wonders why you are on the RHS threads? CHS seems to have adopted an inconsistent approach re aircraft data - but JF Dunnigan says in the end it is the way to go: he shamelessly puts down us formula guys in favor of "seat of the pants" values for everything. One wonders how one can even have an opinon about obscure planes that way?"

The difference is that you can actually play CHS for more than a week without having to restart. Surely if your mod cannot gain the following it deserves it defeats the entire purpose of all the hard work you and others put in? How many recent changes (merchant ship costs springs to mind) were actually necessary? All we want is a stable platform that makes sense so that we can enjoy this wonderful mod. The more persistent gripes you hear ARE worth listening to and making adjustments because if people are annoyed by results they can attribute to something that is not generally accepted it puts other potential fans off the mod. We are all here because we WANT to play. Why not just fix things so we can happily play and stop tinkering? At the moment I am leaning towards Nemo's mod because I get the RHS flavour, but he has not chased himself down some of the blind alleys you seem to have done. It is such a shame because I love RHS and really want to play EOS, BUT there are too many things that get in the way.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

7.7896 RHSCVO issues: 1.I can no longer purchase units to change their headquarters, because when I try, none of the other HQ show up in a list at all.
2.Vickers Vildebeest only has machine guns,(no torp nor bombs, but in the editor, it shows the torp?) I wonder if the radar showing on the editor screen is messing this up?
3.The Swordfish is showing bombs as the default weapon in game, yet it shows the torp in the editor!)Again, can RADAR be the culprit??

Attention Sid!!!!!!I saw your response to the two aircraft foibles, but the #1 problem ref the headquarters transfer screen is truly the "game-breaker". (Please forgive that I have not figured out how to copy-paste within the Firefox environment yet...)[:)]

[el cid again]

Since Matrix cut two engine plane maneuverability in half

but did NOT do that for two engine fighter planes

and DID classify such fighter planes as "fighter bombers"

it may be that they knew it would not work to classify them as "fighters" - because their
simple routine was dominated by a "maneuverability" rating which was not taking
into account the maneuverability problems of a two engine fighter.

The idea may have been to give such planes a better shot at fighting than would
be the case if they were given a maneuverability rating cut in half

They may have believed that this was appropriate for transports, bombers, etc - but
no way an air combat routine would give a fighter so reduced much effectiveness.

In which case - our more sophisticated maneuverability rating system - which accounts for several
factors and which gives more emphasis on ROC than the original did - may combine with our
reclassification into the "fighter" category to result in a solution they did not consider (and - due to the
great amount of time required to calculate complex durability formulas for almost 250 planes - one
they probably did not want to do in cost terms).

Iti s just a theory, and it is not likely we will find out if this was the thinking. [Who is going to write a book
"this is what I was thinking when I designed WITP routines"???] But it may be this partially explains the
wierd "fighter bomber" category which - quoting Joe - "is not what you think it is."

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

"If you "switched back to CHS" - one wonders why you are on the RHS threads? CHS seems to have adopted an inconsistent approach re aircraft data - but JF Dunnigan says in the end it is the way to go: he shamelessly puts down us formula guys in favor of "seat of the pants" values for everything. One wonders how one can even have an opinon about obscure planes that way?"

The difference is that you can actually play CHS for more than a week without having to restart. Surely if your mod cannot gain the following it deserves it defeats the entire purpose of all the hard work you and others put in? How many recent changes (merchant ship costs springs to mind) were actually necessary? All we want is a stable platform that makes sense so that we can enjoy this wonderful mod. The more persistent gripes you hear ARE worth listening to and making adjustments because if people are annoyed by results they can attribute to something that is not generally accepted it puts other potential fans off the mod. We are all here because we WANT to play. Why not just fix things so we can happily play and stop tinkering? At the moment I am leaning towards Nemo's mod because I get the RHS flavour, but he has not chased himself down some of the blind alleys you seem to have done. It is such a shame because I love RHS and really want to play EOS, BUT there are too many things that get in the way.

I do not do changes that are not necessary. Minor changes are folded in with more important ones.

The root of the problem is that RHS attempted a great deal - and did so without a proper set of definitions of how things work or shold work. Not because we wanted to do it that way, but because no proper technical manual exists, nor is anyone able to produce one - no matter how much we offered to pay for it. We began in an age when it was posted that WITP was NOT going to be supported any more - and we could not know when or to what extend that would change? So when there was a solution - sometimes there is not - we tried for it. That means there is a risk - a grave risk if all the risks are compounded - that something would need to be changed. It is the flip side of attempting so much - and at times I regret having tried to do this or that. I never intended to review every ship, every LCU, every air unit - but as time passed it became clear the data set was inconsistent and incomplete - and in the end we did that - often more than once. Not sure it was a good idea - but that is history now. What is clear is there is no point in continuing to develop - so ALL we are doing is addressing problems. At the moment I am not aware of any - unless the two engine fighter controversy is a problem. I am making a polished final version of Levels 5 and 6,
which will be laid to rest at last - and I am modifying 7 as I do turns - just to make it easier to play (if a player is going to do this every time, I make it pre set, not just eratta)- and make AI "smarter" in two scenarios that need it to be. But I am in no hurry to complete this - and am waiting for some significant issue. If none appears, we will also issue a final version of 7, pending long term game issues (which I am sure must exist but which we cannot know at this time).