Ship Class Endurance

[JWE]

Oohhh ... mathematics ... bad anarchy, bad anarchy, very bad.

Sorry Gary. If you need to know how this stuff plays together you need to understand the math. It ain't that hard, it's middle school level, but you have to grunt through it. You don't want to grunt through it, then don't ask the question. It really is that simple.

[ed] look, the entire game system is built on math. The whole premise of Babes and Spidey's mods is predicated on math. And now you want to come along and say well, gee whiz, gosh, I don't do math, so what do I do now?

Specific questions will always get you specific answers. You may not like the answers, but they work within the defined game system, given some pretty dispositive design data. We do not tweak on the basis of one internet source, even if it is the Word of God. Data comes from a collective of sources where things are uniform. If God says that ship X should be bigger, then good for God, because that ain't happening. It's happening because of what the game requires and what the frikkin "math" says the spread ought to look like.

Am I making things a bit more clear now?

[anarchyintheuk]

I went to a liberal arts school and think I understand.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk
I went to a liberal arts school and think I understand.

Gosh all hemlock, so did I (but I'm still struggling to understand).

I went to Bates College, in Lewiston, ME.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

The document defines 'engine miles' in the Introduction:

"It appears preferable to specify radius in engine miles. This term is used throughout the following pages. An individual ship can determine her radius in navigational miles by multiplying the endurance at a given propeller speed by the corresponding ship speed found by navigational means.

I was a liberal arts major too. OK. So I'll try to learn some math. If I take the numbers in the chart for "endurance" and "speed" and multiply them I come up with:

631 hrs x 15.2kts = 9591.2 "navigational miles" which corresponds to the number in "engine miles" on the chart for CB Alaska at 33650 tons. So this in effect is telling me "engine miles", but in the editor the endurance for CB Alaska is listed at 12,000 at 15kts, not 9591.2.

If I could see a sample calculation, say just for CB Alaska, that shows how the number 12,000 was arrived at that would help tremendously.

[treespider]

I went to school as a physics major and left with a sociology degree...[:D]

[GaryChildress]

Actually it would probably help modders tremendously if the editor manual gave samples of the calculations used for the various data pieces. Basically it would help to see what numbers are plugged in where in a formula or if it's some sort of chart or diagram, to see what it looks like and how to make it (what values go on what axis and how to plug different numbers into the chart). Then the formula could be repeated for other ships, planes or devices using their relative stats.

Otherwise modders may as well just give up modding. WITP players are notorious for demanding accurate and sound data. [:(]

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
If I could see a sample calculation, say just for CB Alaska, that shows how the number 12,000 was arrived at that would help tremendously.

I can see where this is going and you're not going to like it. Not at all.


<pulls out lounge chair, beer buddy, and sun screen; ready for the show>

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
If I could see a sample calculation, say just for CB Alaska, that shows how the number 12,000 was arrived at that would help tremendously.

Because the person who did the Alaska specs was using Gardiner, Dulin, Chesneau, Osbourne, Pike, Garzke, and Baur (and Friedman) as references, just like the people who did every other ship.

The advantage in this is that these references deal with ships of every nation and data is determined in exactly the same way for every ship of every nation. It is internally self-consistent.

20 internet sites will give you 20 different numbers. All of them right, and all of them wrong. One is not able to pick-and-choose which number they like best when designing a game where these numbers are important. It matters not whether any number is accurate (it will never be so) it only matters whether the numerical value is consistent (and calculated in an identical fashion) with that of a different national vessel.

As I mentioned earlier, it wouldn’t matter if St Peter said Alaska was ‘x’. I would ignore it, unless he gave the same data value, calculated in the same way, for every single other ship in the game. Alaska has 4 different standard tonnages (and just which one was used by BuShips for the calcs?), none of them are even close to the tonnages used in the USN Fuel Consumption chart “advisements”. So if you want to ping off those, you must do exactly the same thing for every single other ship in the game. In fact, I think if you check that fuel consumption website, every single US ship in the game is different from what that website says.

The website is not wrong, the game is not worng, but how each of them looks at things is different.

So one must use a standard type of calculation (done for you by Gardiner, et al). If you want to develop a number for a ‘what-if’ ship, and want that ship to be consistent within the game system, it is more important for you to understand the internal self-consistency of the game system, than it is to ping off some internet site, no matter how dispositive it might appear.

You were told how to tweak ‘what-if’ ships. Find a similar ship in the database, with similar displacement and horsepower, and use your linear method so long as the speed differential was low (less than 5 knots, and both speeds were less than 80% of hull speed). If you do this, you will know just what your numbers mean, and you can tell your mod’s players just how they were arrived at.

Are they precise? Yes. Are they consistent? Yes. Are they accurate? No. But neither is any other number.

[ed] So for 'what-if' ships, ping on the game. Thats where thay are supposed to go, yeah? If all you want to do is create nice editor panels, then go for it and do what you think best. But if you want your ship mods to work within the existing game system, I wouldn't spend much time worrying about how one game number relates to some internet number.

[oldman45]

Gary, when I added my ships to my mod, I did it the way JWE describes. I knew it was not perfect but it was at least in the ball park of similar ships. Really takes the stress off by doing it that way.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk
I went to a liberal arts school and think I understand.

Gosh all hemlock, so did I (but I'm still struggling to understand).

I went to Bates College, in Lewiston, ME.

Wasn't taking a shot. It's just that learning math at a liberal arts school (at least for me) was about as effective as being irish and tanning. The results just don't live up to the effort and I didn't make much of an effort.

BTW, I went to the University of Dallas which is located in Irving for no real reason.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
If I could see a sample calculation, say just for CB Alaska, that shows how the number 12,000 was arrived at that would help tremendously.

Because the person who did the Alaska specs was using Gardiner, Dulin, Chesneau, Osbourne, Pike, Garzke, and Baur (and Friedman) as references, just like the people who did every other ship.

The advantage in this is that these references deal with ships of every nation and data is determined in exactly the same way for every ship of every nation. It is internally self-consistent.

20 internet sites will give you 20 different numbers. All of them right, and all of them wrong. One is not able to pick-and-choose which number they like best when designing a game where these numbers are important. It matters not whether any number is accurate (it will never be so) it only matters whether the numerical value is consistent (and calculated in an identical fashion) with that of a different national vessel.

As I mentioned earlier, it wouldn’t matter if St Peter said Alaska was ‘x’. I would ignore it, unless he gave the same data value, calculated in the same way, for every single other ship in the game. Alaska has 4 different standard tonnages (and just which one was used by BuShips for the calcs?), none of them are even close to the tonnages used in the USN Fuel Consumption chart “advisements”. So if you want to ping off those, you must do exactly the same thing for every single other ship in the game. In fact, I think if you check that fuel consumption website, every single US ship in the game is different from what that website says.

The website is not wrong, the game is not worng, but how each of them looks at things is different.

So one must use a standard type of calculation (done for you by Gardiner, et al). If you want to develop a number for a ‘what-if’ ship, and want that ship to be consistent within the game system, it is more important for you to understand the internal self-consistency of the game system, than it is to ping off some internet site, no matter how dispositive it might appear.

You were told how to tweak ‘what-if’ ships. Find a similar ship in the database, with similar displacement and horsepower, and use your linear method so long as the speed differential was low (less than 5 knots, and both speeds were less than 80% of hull speed). If you do this, you will know just what your numbers mean, and you can tell your mod’s players just how they were arrived at.

Are they precise? Yes. Are they consistent? Yes. Are they accurate? No. But neither is any other number.

[ed] So for 'what-if' ships, ping on the game. Thats where thay are supposed to go, yeah? If all you want to do is create nice editor panels, then go for it and do what you think best. But if you want your ship mods to work within the existing game system, I wouldn't spend much time worrying about how one game number relates to some internet number.

Thank you JWE. Much appreciated. [&o]

[msieving1]

I think what Gary was asking was, "How do I set endurance so that it is accurate for both cruising speed and maximum speed?" The answer seems to be: "You don't." The game does not accurately calculate fuel consumption at maximum speed. It simply multiplies cruising speed fuel consumption by 6 (or looking the other way around, divides cruising speed endurance by 6).

Now, that 6:1 ratio between cruise speed endurance and maximum speed endurance is probably about right for a destroyer, but it's way off for larger ships. For battleships and aircraft carriers, the ratio should be more like 3:1.

[dwg]

There's a lot of talk about maths here, but there's a lot to be said for finger-in-the-wind estimates. And that's not unreasonable from the engineering standpoint, even in the real world. Even with safety critical stuff like flight controls (the day job) sometimes the best approach is still to make a ballpark estimate, then try it out and see what happens.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: dwg


There's a lot of talk about maths here, but there's a lot to be said for finger-in-the-wind estimates. And that's not unreasonable from the engineering standpoint, even in the real world. Even with safety critical stuff like flight controls (the day job) sometimes the best approach is still to make a ballpark estimate, then try it out and see what happens.

[X(][X(][X(]