Page 2 of 5
RE: AFB Request: Hellcat
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:41 am
by TheElf
ORIGINAL: vettim89
ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
I will wait and see, but this just looks wrong........sorry. Note I said "looks" wrong......but I have been looking at WITP since release, so am used to seeing late war allied fighters in the 30's mvr wise.
Why is there a exact double of the F4U-1D? I can see the different versions, but this a/c is exactly the same in the screen shot.
First it is obvious that AE is using a different computational scheme. As to the wrong, no not really. Assuming maneuvabiltyis mostly related to the turning battle, look at some numbers related to wing loading and power ratio. Wing loading is how many pounds of aircraft each sq ft of wing is holding up. Power ratio is how many pounds of aircraft each BHP is pushing around. All this numbers assume a CAP/Escort load
F4F: wing loading 26.5 lb/sq ft, power ratio 6.9 lb/BHP
F6F: wing loading 34.1 lb/sq ft, power ratio 5.7 lb/BHP
F4U: wing loading 38.3 lb/sq ft, power ratio 5.35 lb/BHP
A6M
Model 21: wing loading 22.0, power ratio 5.5 lb/BHP
Model 52: wing loading 26.23, power ratio 5.28
In simplest terms wingloading determines how much drag is induced in a turn and power ratio speaks to how well the aircrafts engine can overcome this drag. Contrary to popular belief, the Allied late war fighters could not stay in a sustained turning fight with their Japanese counterparts. AH. but air combat is in three dimensions not two. Here is where the Allied fighters had the advantage. Not only did they have higher top speeds but the had as odd as it seems a weight advantage. Weight (well mass really) is a very important factor in determining things like momentum and inertia. Fighter pilots call these phenomenae "energy". The USN planes (even the F4F) were better at building up and then ultimately using "energy".
One last thing. The F6F had a notorious poor roll rate at high speeds. This was not true of the F4U. This has to play into the Maneuver Rating too.
So, if I understand what The Elf said, AE ATA combat will give the USN flyboys a random chance to see if they can put their speed/energy advantage to use in combat. If they fail, it means our wily Japanese pilot has suckered the US pilot into a battle on his terms. If you have read
Baa Baa Black Sheep, you will know this is exactly how Boyington got shot down - he ran out of speed and energy
This is essentially correct. There are several things at work in the code. lots of randomness, and things like EXP and LDR ratings, but what your surmise is part of the recipe.
For anyone who insists on knowing the formula behind various routines, trust me when I say it would ruin the experience for you to know the details. Just enjoy the "movie" and don't ask what happens in the end...until you watch it for yourself.
RE: AFB Request: Hellcat
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:47 am
by TheElf
To all the worry warts...remember MVR varies now with altitude.
Add to this variance the likely event that one A/C will enjoy a speed advantage over another, again with varying degrees. For every knot of topspeed the likelihood that MVR will be affected will increase proportionally. Is that to say the Hellcat will always be faster than the Zeke and modify it's MVR down to half it's listed value in the database. No. But more often than not it will and over time the relationship will pay dividends to the F6F. Particularly when Radar, Pilot EXP, LDR ratings, Durability, and firepower are added to the mix.
AE is more complicated behind the scenes. It isn't ALL about MVR or even Speed.
RE: AFB Request: Hellcat
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 5:44 am
by Howard Mitchell
I really like the look of the Altitude/Manoeuvre modifier. Many Japanese aircraft faded away at altitude whereas American types such as the P-47 and P-38 had turbo-superchargers which, at low level were just dead weight but high up gave them much better performance. Intercepting escorted B-24s over Rabaul or much worse B-29s over Japan is going to be painful!
Good to see the 'P' recon and 'N' night fighter versions of aircraft there as well.
For an aircraft geek like me, AE is going to be seventh heaven [:D]
RE: AFB Request: Hellcat
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 7:43 am
by m10bob
Months ago, we were given a peek under the hood of the many variables( checks) the aircraft would go thru in combat. I understand and appreciate the vast differences between AE (as explained, patiently) and vanilla.
To the air team, thank you for the detailed explanations, and for putting up with we ignorant "slobs".[8D]
RE: AFB Request: Hellcat
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:17 am
by R8J
Should not the F4F-3P be recon?
RE: AFB Request: Hellcat
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:34 am
by wdolson
ORIGINAL: R8J
Should not the F4F-3P be recon?
The F4F-3P is a recon plane and is issued to recon squadrons. It was also armed. The F4F-7 had the guns stripped to give it even more range.
The aircraft variety in AE is magnificent. I've always been interested in all aspects of the war, but my first love is aircraft. Each nationality now has it's own pool, so that's why you see multiples of the same aircraft on the list like the F4U-1D.
Bill
RE: AFB Request: Hellcat
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:43 am
by Japan
ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
We'll see what we can do, Chad.
Erik Rutins Could you plese also show a picture of the KATE ??
'
RE: AFB Request: Hellcat
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:51 am
by R8J
"The F4F-3P is a recon plane and is issued to recon squadrons. It was also armed. The F4F-7 had the guns stripped to give it even more range. "
I understand that. But by it being a fighter does it not take away it's recon ability? Not that it's important with it's short legs. Just wondering?
RE: AFB Request: Hellcat
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:40 am
by Erik Rutins
I should have posted a caveat before putting up those screenshots. However, as Elf, Terminus and Vettim89 have noted, you can _not_ read the Maneuver ratings in AE as you did in WITP. If we were still using the WITP air combat system, you'd be right and I can't blame you guys for the reaction given that you haven't played AE yet. In AE, maneuver is a starting point and other factors like speed, altitude, etc. are much more important. Air combat is really done right in AE and you will get realistic results with a F6F vs. a Zero compared to a F4F vs. a Zero.
RE: AFB Request: Hellcat
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:43 am
by Erik Rutins
Here are two shots of the Kate, last request for today!
RE: AFB Request: Hellcat
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:43 am
by Erik Rutins
... and the details.
RE: AFB Request: Hellcat
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:46 am
by Dixie
ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
Here are two shots of the Kate, last request for today!
I may have missed this, but why do some of those types have * next to them? [&:]
RE: AFB Request: Hellcat
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 11:53 am
by foliveti
I generally don't try to micromanage altitude too much in WITP. I will set my Level Bombers at 6K, fighters at 10k and generally just sort of leave them there unless I find a target with a great deal of AAA. Am I going to need to pay more attention to that in AE or can I let the "local commanders" deal with it?
RE: AFB Request: Hellcat
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 12:17 pm
by Odin
What about these radars the Kate has on board...?
RE: AFB Request: Hellcat
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 12:25 pm
by timtom
ORIGINAL: TheElf
ORIGINAL: asdicus
Erik. Thanks for the data on the F6F3 Hellcat.
Using ref America's Hundred Thousand by Francis Dean ( probably the definitive book on usa fighters ww2) I would like to query the following:
Availability start 4/43 - Dean quotes production in 1943 of 12(jan), 35(feb), 81(mar), 131(april), 150(may) rising to 458(dec). Does this not suggest that game availability should be earlier say march not april 43 ? The first planes were issued to the uss essex in jan 43.
Thomas will have to answer #1. But I presume the date has to do with the date that the F6F became operational hence would lead the "on map" date to be a bit later than the actual production date. Remember the game doesn't simulate the introduction of a type, ie. the work up of the first squadron to "fleet" status. This might explain the discrepancy.
As our pointy eared friend says, we generally use the date when an a/c came into use with PTO operational units as the in-game arrival date rather than production dates. To my knowledge, the first such unit on the F6F was the second VF-3 reforming San Diego April '43.
RE: AFB Request: Hellcat
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 12:50 pm
by Chad Harrison
Thanks for all the dev posts. Some many aspects of this game will just need to seen and played for us to really understand how it works.
Feel free to post more screenshots of other planes [:D]
RE: AFB Request: Hellcat
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:42 pm
by witpqs
ORIGINAL: vettim89
First it is obvious that AE is using a different computational scheme. As to the wrong, no not really. Assuming maneuvabiltyis mostly related to the turning battle, look at some numbers related to wing loading and power ratio. Wing loading is how many pounds of aircraft each sq ft of wing is holding up. Power ratio is how many pounds of aircraft each BHP is pushing around. All this numbers assume a CAP/Escort load
F4F: wing loading 26.5 lb/sq ft, power ratio 6.9 lb/BHP
F6F: wing loading 34.1 lb/sq ft, power ratio 5.7 lb/BHP
F4U: wing loading 38.3 lb/sq ft, power ratio 5.35 lb/BHP
A6M
Model 21: wing loading 22.0, power ratio 5.5 lb/BHP
Model 52: wing loading 26.23, power ratio 5.28
In simplest terms wingloading determines how much drag is induced in a turn and power ratio speaks to how well the aircrafts engine can overcome this drag. Contrary to popular belief, the Allied late war fighters could not stay in a sustained turning fight with their Japanese counterparts. AH. but air combat is in three dimensions not two. Here is where the Allied fighters had the advantage. Not only did they have higher top speeds but the had as odd as it seems a weight advantage. Weight (well mass really) is a very important factor in determining things like momentum and inertia. Fighter pilots call these phenomenae "energy". The USN planes (even the F4F) were better at building up and then ultimately using "energy".
One last thing. The F6F had a notorious poor roll rate at high speeds. This was not true of the F4U. This has to play into the Maneuver Rating too.
So, if I understand what The Elf said, AE ATA combat will give the USN flyboys a random chance to see if they can put their speed/energy advantage to use in combat. If they fail, it means our wily Japanese pilot has suckered the US pilot into a battle on his terms. If you have read Baa Baa Black Sheep, you will know this is exactly how Boyington got shot down - he ran out of speed and energy
vettim89 - Thanks. That was a very important post.
RE: AFB Request: Hellcat
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:43 pm
by DuckofTindalos
ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison
Thanks for all the dev posts. Some many aspects of this game will just need to seen and played for us to really understand how it works.
Feel free to post more screenshots of other planes [:D]
Correct, and most especially when it comes to air combat.
RE: AFB Request: Hellcat
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:45 pm
by Big B
From:
http://www.acepilots.com/planes/f6f_hellcat.html
"Grumman had to build a new facility, Plant Number 3, to produce the Hellcat. Obtaining the structural steel for the buildings was a challenge, met in part by the purchase of scrap from the Second Avenue El. Even before Plant Number 3 was finished, Hellcats began rolling off the production lines. Another Grumman test pilot, Selden "Connie" Converse took up a production F6F-3 for the first time on October 3, 1942. Grumman's Hellcat output picked up quickly: 12 planes in the last quarter of 1942, 128 in the first quarter of 1943, and then 130 in the month of April, 1943. Eventually they would be churning out 500 per month. The company built over 12,000 in three years."
ORIGINAL: timtom
ORIGINAL: TheElf
ORIGINAL: asdicus
Erik. Thanks for the data on the F6F3 Hellcat.
Using ref America's Hundred Thousand by Francis Dean ( probably the definitive book on usa fighters ww2) I would like to query the following:
Availability start 4/43 - Dean quotes production in 1943 of 12(jan), 35(feb), 81(mar), 131(april), 150(may) rising to 458(dec). Does this not suggest that game availability should be earlier say march not april 43 ? The first planes were issued to the uss essex in jan 43.
Thomas will have to answer #1. But I presume the date has to do with the date that the F6F became operational hence would lead the "on map" date to be a bit later than the actual production date. Remember the game doesn't simulate the introduction of a type, ie. the work up of the first squadron to "fleet" status. This might explain the discrepancy.
As our pointy eared friend says, we generally use the date when an a/c came into use with PTO operational units as the in-game arrival date rather than production dates. To my knowledge, the first such unit on the F6F was the second VF-3 reforming San Diego April '43.
RE: AFB Request: Hellcat
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 2:04 pm
by Chad Harrison
ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
About 1,300 arrive aboard Sqns
I forgot to ask, but does this mean that the Allies do
NOT draw aircraft from the pool for incoming squadrons?
Do the Japanease?
Thanks in advance.
Chad