This has been up before, but the aircraft stats seem completely off the mark in many instances. Here are some formulas to help calculate correct (or at least consistent) values:
Range:Assuming the range of the Bf-109E is correct, each 40 miles (65 km) of range should give 1 unit of range in WIR. If there are droptanks, use the average between droptanked and normal range. If range varies with altitude, again use average. Most ranges in WIR are all wrong, Stukas should have no more than 10, He-111 and Do-17 have around 18 and Ju-88 has 36 (always using the range of the Bf-109E as a baseline).
Cannon rating:in both WIR and PACWAR most cannon values seem consistent with the following formula:
+1 for each light MG
+2 for each heavy MG
+2,5 for each 20mm cannon with little ammo (MG FF on the Bf-109E for example)
+3 for each 20mm cannon with abundant ammo (100+ rounds)
+4 for each 30mm cannon
+6 for each heavy cannon (37mm and the like)
*1,25 for all nosemounted weapons on planes with no nose propeller.
Most planes do conform to this formula, but there are a few unexplicable deviations, notably the Bf-110, both variants should have 12 using this formula.
Load: This is a cryptic value. There seems to be no correlation between the "standard" bombload and the load value. Since mission range vary wildy in WIR, and thus the actual bombload chosen varies too, I think it would be better to base the Load value on the standard warhead load. One way that give values in the ballpark of the current would be 1 point of Load for each 100 lb (50 kg) of bombload capacity, and adding 60% for dive bombers due to greater accuracy. This would yield values of 44 for He-111, 22 for Do-17, 33 for Ju-88, 11 for Bf-110 and 25 for Stuka (all close to current).
[ October 03, 2001: Message edited by: Yogi Yohan ]
[ October 03, 2001: Message edited by: Yogi Yohan ]</p>
Aircraft data calculation
-
Yogi Yohan
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Uppsala, Sweden
- Contact:
-
Ed Cogburn
- Posts: 1641
- Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
- Contact:
Yogi, I put your last post in the issues list (secondary to the bug list). Its gone now, so it must have been looked at, except you've added some new stuff here, I believe. Denis has forwarded it to the mailing list. Maybe something will be done soon, maybe not. Can't make promises. Whatever isn't done (but should be), I'll put back on the issues list.
[ October 04, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]</p>
[ October 04, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]</p>
-
Yogi Yohan
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Uppsala, Sweden
- Contact:
Thanks Ed, in the meantime i'm working on a aircraft types scenario file segment, making it consistent along these lines. I could post it here for those who like it when I'm done.
Ah, one thing I discoverd, there's no 60% bonus to LOAD for dive-bombers, the high Stuka value is an average between the B and D versions payload - makes sense, since both were extensively used and had a very different payload (about 1400 kg for Ju-87D and about 700 kg for Ju-87B). The load values are actually pretty consistent with the "1 per 100 lb rule", i have just found the occasional mistake (Ju-88).
The greatest change will be in range though, German bombers are generally over-ranged while many Soviet fighters are under-ranged...could prove interesting.
Other changes, the He-177 Greif should probably not be available before late 43 since it was so plagued by mechanical problems it was not built in great numbers before that time.
And I'd like to bunch together the Bf-110C and E/F and replace the E/F with the Bf-110G, a brute of a plane with quadruple cannons in the nose (2 30mm and 2 20mm) wich appeared in 1942 (mid?). A great bomber-killer. It would give the German player a reason to keep building those Bf-110s until then.
Ah, one thing I discoverd, there's no 60% bonus to LOAD for dive-bombers, the high Stuka value is an average between the B and D versions payload - makes sense, since both were extensively used and had a very different payload (about 1400 kg for Ju-87D and about 700 kg for Ju-87B). The load values are actually pretty consistent with the "1 per 100 lb rule", i have just found the occasional mistake (Ju-88).
The greatest change will be in range though, German bombers are generally over-ranged while many Soviet fighters are under-ranged...could prove interesting.
Other changes, the He-177 Greif should probably not be available before late 43 since it was so plagued by mechanical problems it was not built in great numbers before that time.
And I'd like to bunch together the Bf-110C and E/F and replace the E/F with the Bf-110G, a brute of a plane with quadruple cannons in the nose (2 30mm and 2 20mm) wich appeared in 1942 (mid?). A great bomber-killer. It would give the German player a reason to keep building those Bf-110s until then.
-
Ed Cogburn
- Posts: 1641
- Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
- Contact:
Originally posted by Yogi Yohan:
Thanks Ed, in the meantime i'm working on a aircraft types scenario file segment, making it consistent along these lines. I could post it here for those who like it when I'm done.
Now here's just to show you what kind of turnaround time we're capable of when presented with good evidence suggesting a change is necessary.
Arnaud Bouis:
Mr Yohan is absolutely correct. The next version will include a new aircraft segment, which incorporates these improvements. You can tell this to Mr Yohan.
How's that for a response Yogi? <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">
P.S. I sent Arnaud a followup with the things you mentioned in the second post.
[ October 05, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]</p>
-
Yogi Yohan
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Uppsala, Sweden
- Contact:
-
Yogi Yohan
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Uppsala, Sweden
- Contact:
I'm gaining a new appreciation of the difficulties involved in calculating a LOAD value for aircraft in WIR.
For some early aircraft its fairly simple, since their standard bombload and maximum bombload seem to be more or less the same (He-111, Ju-88 etc). But as planes became more versatile, things start to complicate.
Take the B-17. It could carry as much as 20,800 lb of bombs (LOAD 208!), but according to "American Warplanes of World War II" by David Donald (Grange Books) it seldom carried more than 5000 lb in combat (LOAD 50). I belive 50 is the more correct value to use in this case.
Consider now the He-177, that could carry up to 5600 kg (12,320 lb, LOAD 123) of bombs. But then I read the internal bomb bays were configured to carry either x16 50 kg bombs or x4 250 kg bombs or x2 500 kg bombs - a bombload of 1000 kg/2200 lb at best, equal to that of the venerable Do-17 - LOAD 22. Then there were external hardpoints for torpedos and antishipping flying bombs to make up for the rest of the weight, but these weapons would not be usable on the Eastern Front... I suppose (but is never said so in any web sources i have found) that normal iron bombs could be attached to these hardpoints, but how big? How many? In the end, I end up guessing that about half max capacity sounds reasonable and end up giving the He-177 a LOAD value of 66 (since it should be better than the He-111). But its pure guesswork!
And how about the Do-217, that could carry 4000 kg of bombs - configuration unknown? LOAD 88 sounds far to much - halve to 44?
For some early aircraft its fairly simple, since their standard bombload and maximum bombload seem to be more or less the same (He-111, Ju-88 etc). But as planes became more versatile, things start to complicate.
Take the B-17. It could carry as much as 20,800 lb of bombs (LOAD 208!), but according to "American Warplanes of World War II" by David Donald (Grange Books) it seldom carried more than 5000 lb in combat (LOAD 50). I belive 50 is the more correct value to use in this case.
Consider now the He-177, that could carry up to 5600 kg (12,320 lb, LOAD 123) of bombs. But then I read the internal bomb bays were configured to carry either x16 50 kg bombs or x4 250 kg bombs or x2 500 kg bombs - a bombload of 1000 kg/2200 lb at best, equal to that of the venerable Do-17 - LOAD 22. Then there were external hardpoints for torpedos and antishipping flying bombs to make up for the rest of the weight, but these weapons would not be usable on the Eastern Front... I suppose (but is never said so in any web sources i have found) that normal iron bombs could be attached to these hardpoints, but how big? How many? In the end, I end up guessing that about half max capacity sounds reasonable and end up giving the He-177 a LOAD value of 66 (since it should be better than the He-111). But its pure guesswork!
And how about the Do-217, that could carry 4000 kg of bombs - configuration unknown? LOAD 88 sounds far to much - halve to 44?
I can't be of much immediate help here but at Christmas time when I fly home I will have access to my WW2 data and reference books and I have several articles-books covering a lot of this stuff (not to mention I can tell you what the average speed of a Korp was with no trouble). If you want to keep a running list of the questions you come up with I will do my best to help you out in december.
I realy never thought the He-177 saw all that much service except with the Kreigsmarine as an anti-shipping plane (launching AS missiles and so on against the landings in Italy and convoys).
The range of the russian planes is probably ok, even if the planes could have flown farther due to fuel they would not have been. The russians never used their planes much beyond the front line for a number of reasons. Such as the lack of radios (which limited coordination) and the fact very few of the pilots could read a map. So the theoretical maximium range of the aircraft hardly ever played a role in its combat radius. It is much the same as with the difficulties the russians had setting up and firing artillary.
I realy never thought the He-177 saw all that much service except with the Kreigsmarine as an anti-shipping plane (launching AS missiles and so on against the landings in Italy and convoys).
The range of the russian planes is probably ok, even if the planes could have flown farther due to fuel they would not have been. The russians never used their planes much beyond the front line for a number of reasons. Such as the lack of radios (which limited coordination) and the fact very few of the pilots could read a map. So the theoretical maximium range of the aircraft hardly ever played a role in its combat radius. It is much the same as with the difficulties the russians had setting up and firing artillary.
-
Yogi Yohan
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Uppsala, Sweden
- Contact:
How is the maneuver value calculated?
And what effect does it have?
I cannot make heads or tails of it, since I learnt that the Bf-110C outperformed the Hurricane Mk I in every aspect except roll rate and that the Fw-190 turns as ponderously as a battleship. To further compound the problem, there is a marked difference between high altitude and low altitude performance for radial enginge fighters (such as the Fw-190A, P-47 etc) putting them at serious disadvantage above 6000 ft. Speed, climbing and diving ability seem to bee the most important factors though, since many famous and feared superfighters actually had so-so to poor turning radius.
However, the present manveuver values cannot be correct. The Bf-110 versus Hurricane for instance, or the P-51 and Fw-190D. The latter was known as the "tangkiller" because it outperformed the famed Mustang so markedly, yet in WIR they have the same Maneuver value: 29.
All in all, I think the maneuver values need to be revised. The one easily available fact on performance, and the single most important one is speed, so the easiest thing would be to make maneuver values proportional to the maximum speed of the plane in question. This is a simplification, and if more data on things like turn radius, climb rate or dive speed can be found on all the planes in WIR, i'd be delighted.
**** EDIT ****
Sorry, the formula I proposed here does not work, apparently we need to take into account things such as rate of climb and dive, or the P-39 Aircobra, which flew like a piano will be among the better fighters in 1941. I'll be back.
[ October 22, 2001: Message edited by: Yogi Yohan ]</p>
And what effect does it have?
I cannot make heads or tails of it, since I learnt that the Bf-110C outperformed the Hurricane Mk I in every aspect except roll rate and that the Fw-190 turns as ponderously as a battleship. To further compound the problem, there is a marked difference between high altitude and low altitude performance for radial enginge fighters (such as the Fw-190A, P-47 etc) putting them at serious disadvantage above 6000 ft. Speed, climbing and diving ability seem to bee the most important factors though, since many famous and feared superfighters actually had so-so to poor turning radius.
However, the present manveuver values cannot be correct. The Bf-110 versus Hurricane for instance, or the P-51 and Fw-190D. The latter was known as the "tangkiller" because it outperformed the famed Mustang so markedly, yet in WIR they have the same Maneuver value: 29.
All in all, I think the maneuver values need to be revised. The one easily available fact on performance, and the single most important one is speed, so the easiest thing would be to make maneuver values proportional to the maximum speed of the plane in question. This is a simplification, and if more data on things like turn radius, climb rate or dive speed can be found on all the planes in WIR, i'd be delighted.
**** EDIT ****
Sorry, the formula I proposed here does not work, apparently we need to take into account things such as rate of climb and dive, or the P-39 Aircobra, which flew like a piano will be among the better fighters in 1941. I'll be back.
[ October 22, 2001: Message edited by: Yogi Yohan ]</p>
Hello Yogi.
P-39's actually performed very well, as long as they stayed below 5000 Ft altitude. It's only over 5000 Ft that they become pianoes.... (Obviously, the closer to the ground you stayed in a P-39 the better it's performance. At 0 ft altitue they were the world's best dogfighter, due to that steerable nosewheel) <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">
P-39's actually performed very well, as long as they stayed below 5000 Ft altitude. It's only over 5000 Ft that they become pianoes.... (Obviously, the closer to the ground you stayed in a P-39 the better it's performance. At 0 ft altitue they were the world's best dogfighter, due to that steerable nosewheel) <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">
"We're having a war, and we want you to come!"
So the pig began to whistle and to pound on a drum.
"We'll give you a gun, and we'll give you a hat!"
And the pig began to whistle when they told the piggies that.
So the pig began to whistle and to pound on a drum.
"We'll give you a gun, and we'll give you a hat!"
And the pig began to whistle when they told the piggies that.
-
Ed Cogburn
- Posts: 1641
- Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
- Contact:
Originally posted by Yogi Yohan:
How is the maneuver value calculated?
To further compound the problem, there is a marked difference between high altitude and low altitude performance for radial enginge fighters
The game doesn't take this into account at all, even worse, speed isn't taken into account at all.
All in all, I think the maneuver values need to be revised.
Its worse. Look at the maneuver ratings for bombers, we're using maneuverability to represent the bombers abilities of self defence, giving maneuver points to bombers that clearly aren't literally that maneuverable. Strange system.
Sorry, the formula I proposed here does not work, apparently we need to take into account things such as rate of climb and dive
As now, you'll just end up having to roll all those numbers together to get a single variable, the maneuver rating, since the game has no other variables to use. No matter what system you decide to use, somebody will find something wrong with it. I'll use the first reply to your post as an example. The system simply can't support multiple maneuver ratings based on altitude. Generally speaking, *anyone* who looks at those numbers can find something to be unhappy about.
Given the lack of variables to support other important capabilities like speed, and maneuver ratings for multiple altitudes, trying to come up with a maneuver rating that makes sense for every plane is a lost cause, and that's why I don't bother expending any energy on this issue. Let's wait for WiRIII, and hope GG does something much better than what he did in WiRII.
[ October 23, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]</p>
-
Yogi Yohan
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Uppsala, Sweden
- Contact:
Ed, the manuever value currently must take speed into account or the Hurricane would have vastly better maneuver than the Fw-190. Fw-190 had terrible turn radius, but it was very fast, could climb like like an elevator and drop like a stone. Same goes for P-47. There is no way Maneuver could currently be based on turn radius/roll rate alone.
All WW2 combat experience showed that speed was far more important than nimbelness. Usally, but not always, greater speed goes hand in hand with a high climbing rate. Dive speed varies wildly though. So what I'm trying to do is indeed to bunch things togheter, but based primarily on speed and climb rate. I'm throwing in some fixed modifiers for fast divers, lousy turn rate, radial engines (a good thing on the east front) and multi-engined planes.
All WW2 combat experience showed that speed was far more important than nimbelness. Usally, but not always, greater speed goes hand in hand with a high climbing rate. Dive speed varies wildly though. So what I'm trying to do is indeed to bunch things togheter, but based primarily on speed and climb rate. I'm throwing in some fixed modifiers for fast divers, lousy turn rate, radial engines (a good thing on the east front) and multi-engined planes.
Hi,
How about some cross-research in other games ?
I think concerning bombloads, range and bombload at range x the game Battle over Britain or Bombing the Reich (same game, different maps <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> ) have some very detailed info on many different planes.
Also Battle over Britain is a very neat strategy game for 'hardcore' strategy players <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> , at least when one plays as Germans (Allied in the Bombing the Reich).
murx
How about some cross-research in other games ?
I think concerning bombloads, range and bombload at range x the game Battle over Britain or Bombing the Reich (same game, different maps <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> ) have some very detailed info on many different planes.
Also Battle over Britain is a very neat strategy game for 'hardcore' strategy players <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> , at least when one plays as Germans (Allied in the Bombing the Reich).
murx
-
Yogi Yohan
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Uppsala, Sweden
- Contact:
I'm currently using data for some German and Western planes from Battle of Britain but also such a venerable source as Lucasarts old jewels BoB and SWOTL manuals - they're great actually, I get top speed, dive speed, climb rate, armament etc.Originally posted by murx:
Hi,
How about some cross-research in other games ?
I think concerning bombloads, range and bombload at range x the game Battle over Britain or Bombing the Reich (same game, different maps <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> ) have some very detailed info on many different planes.
Also Battle over Britain is a very neat strategy game for 'hardcore' strategy players <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> , at least when one plays as Germans (Allied in the Bombing the Reich).
murx
I am getting some wildly varying values though. like the H-111H range. 745 miles or 1680 miles - take your pick!
-
Yogi Yohan
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Uppsala, Sweden
- Contact:
I have put toghether a formula for calculating the Air Combat value (AC) of fighters and fighter-bombers, to make them consistent between each other. I have purposefully tailored it to produce as many of the present values as possible when fed the aircraft data I have found. In this way, I know that those few that are much changed are indeed not consistent with the others, given the input.
The model is based of TOP SPEED (regardless of altitude in miles per hour) and CLIMB RATE (in feet per minute), where possible from 0 to 16.400 feet (5000m). To this, I have added some modifiers based on a decisive advantages/disadvantages of different planes. What I mean by that is factors that will give a fighter a definite edge over an opponent if everything else is equal. In WIR, I'd say 2 points of air combat value constitue such an edge, so each modifier shifts the AC-value by 2, except fast dive, which is mainly good to run away (adds 1). These modifiers are Fast Dive (500 mph+ except for planes faster than 500 mph), Poor Turn Performance (for planes that turned notoriously slow), Poor Roll Rate (mainly for multi-engined planes) and Good Low Altitude Performance (mainly radial engine planes). There is also an reduced agility factor of 1 for planes that lost some agility with modifications.
The model premiates top performance in speed, climb and dive. The first 250 mph speed give only 7 points of AC-value, while every 15 mph over 250 gives 1 point of AC. Every 250 fpm of climb rate over 2000 fpm also give 1 point of AC.
With this system and the data available to me I go the follwing results for some German and Russian planes (I haven't done all of it yet):
German Fighters
Bf-109E 19
Bf-109F 22
Bf-109G 22
Bf-109K 26
Bf-110E 13
Bf-110G 13
Fw-190A 24
Fw-190D 26
Fw-190F 19
Me-410 15
Me-262A 30
Russian Fighters
I-15 12
I-16 15
MiG-1 19
MiG-3 20
LaGG-3 16
LaGG-3s66 19
Yak-1 19
Yak-3 23
Yak-7b 18
Yak-9 ?
La-5 19
La-7 27
If anyone has climb rates (preferably from 0-5000m/16.400ft) for the Yak-3 and Yak-9, I'd appreciate it. There is none at the Russian Aviation Museum.
[ October 24, 2001: Message edited by: Yogi Yohan ]</p>
The model is based of TOP SPEED (regardless of altitude in miles per hour) and CLIMB RATE (in feet per minute), where possible from 0 to 16.400 feet (5000m). To this, I have added some modifiers based on a decisive advantages/disadvantages of different planes. What I mean by that is factors that will give a fighter a definite edge over an opponent if everything else is equal. In WIR, I'd say 2 points of air combat value constitue such an edge, so each modifier shifts the AC-value by 2, except fast dive, which is mainly good to run away (adds 1). These modifiers are Fast Dive (500 mph+ except for planes faster than 500 mph), Poor Turn Performance (for planes that turned notoriously slow), Poor Roll Rate (mainly for multi-engined planes) and Good Low Altitude Performance (mainly radial engine planes). There is also an reduced agility factor of 1 for planes that lost some agility with modifications.
The model premiates top performance in speed, climb and dive. The first 250 mph speed give only 7 points of AC-value, while every 15 mph over 250 gives 1 point of AC. Every 250 fpm of climb rate over 2000 fpm also give 1 point of AC.
With this system and the data available to me I go the follwing results for some German and Russian planes (I haven't done all of it yet):
German Fighters
Bf-109E 19
Bf-109F 22
Bf-109G 22
Bf-109K 26
Bf-110E 13
Bf-110G 13
Fw-190A 24
Fw-190D 26
Fw-190F 19
Me-410 15
Me-262A 30
Russian Fighters
I-15 12
I-16 15
MiG-1 19
MiG-3 20
LaGG-3 16
LaGG-3s66 19
Yak-1 19
Yak-3 23
Yak-7b 18
Yak-9 ?
La-5 19
La-7 27
If anyone has climb rates (preferably from 0-5000m/16.400ft) for the Yak-3 and Yak-9, I'd appreciate it. There is none at the Russian Aviation Museum.
[ October 24, 2001: Message edited by: Yogi Yohan ]</p>