Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I am doing a comprehensive review (field by field) of all Japanese aircraft for CHS - and I have found NO CASE where EITHER full speed or cruising speed are not too fast. In the 30 cases (out of 75) so far examined, the record is 70 knots too fast for full speed - and 30 knots too fast for cruising speed.

According to what?

Much depends on your sources for speed. I look for independant (most sources aren't) that agree before suggesting a speed. Anyone can find most any single source that doesn't agree with what is in the game....most often via the internet.

Lemurs, what was your source for US speeds?

Worr, out

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

But if we were going to pick a zigzag/reserve speed modifier ... would have have scientifically just happened to have selected 0.868 ??? It is a convenient choice because this is the size of the "error" we have to correct. But now that we're talking about it - would .75 be a better choice ?

I would stay with 0.868. No need to add another layer of complexity...

Andrew

This may not be such a bad thing, as in the real world ships (and especially groups of ships) rarely moved at the speeds most gamers will push them at. When Mikuma pushed into Ironbottom Sound for the Battle of Savo Island at "Flank Speed", he was doing 27-28 knots---as opposed to the 30+ all his ships were rated as capable of. It's not just a matter of fuel consumption, but of maintaining a "manuever reserve"
to enable the outermost ships to keep formation. Having the ships rated in knots, but moving in miles is actually an "error that works" insofar as keeping the game more historical.

This is a good point - but it misses a stronger variation on the reasons why. Ships have problems with wind and currents and navigation errors the sum of which usually means you don't go as far as you theoretically could go. [Rarely you may go farther than you theoretically could go, if you get into a current and stay there a long time]. The ship problem is not as bad as the air problem.

The significant point is this: IF the distances between land masses are not using the same units as the airplanes, you are "cheating" by about 1/6 by using the wrong units. Since game distances usually are already too short - you only make it worse.

Another point is that the databases are, well, inconsistent. They need review and revision in any case. No matter the unit, it is not used by all planes, and some have serious errors anyway, particularly in endurance. In no case should we consider leaving this bad data as is. And if we fix it, we should try to fix it properly - to line up with the land masses. Thus, if you use Brown's map, he has persuaded me that the distance from Truk to Rabual is correct - IF you use nautical miles.

Of course "purists" would argue that the game data should be correct to the best of our knowledge - i.e. what is in the books - that is the only way to ensure it is all consistent and there is a point to this. So to borrow one of your earlier arguments...let's get everything correct first .. and then start modifying for effects !!!

And anyone NOT wanting to use accurate data should not be whining about people not being "historical." I see little point in so much work on such a fine sim only to throw it all away by sloppy data. When we KNOW the data is bad, we should fix it. If you are unwilling to do that, don't tell me how devoted you are to "historically accurate" models.