PV-1 Ventura

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

[That is as it may be, however, there are time when we need to "bite" the bullet and restore historical reality if at all possible.

I agree with your sentiments, but when you "restore reality" in one area, you may be "breaking reality" in another area due to the map inaccuracies.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Herrbear
I agree with your sentiments, but when you "restore reality" in one area, you may be "breaking reality" in another area due to the map inaccuracies.

That is certainly true. However, in this case I think it is OK. The distance between Attu and Paramushiro is 10 hexes on my map, whereas it should be more like 12-13 hexes. In other words, that part of the map is a bit "squashed". So giving the PV-1 enough range to cover that distance does not overstate its range elsewhere.

Andrew

[el cid again]

That is as it may be, however, there are time when we need to "bite" the bullet and restore historical reality if at all possible.

I have no clue what you are trying to say?

I think simulation reality strives for statistically average truth.
We cannot look at a single map point pair and, on the basis of that, alter the range of a single airplane. This is plain wrong. Whatever error there may be in the map needs to apply equally to all planes. Sometimes you get too many hexes, sometimes too few - but on the average - the right number. We cannot do better than that until someone gives us a perfect map.

[spence]

The fact remains that the PV-1 was a better plane than the Hudson in terms of speed, armament, bombload and was its equal in range if not better...it was not a "twin-engined SBD" as the range/endurance stats it's stuck with tend to indicate.

[el cid again]

The fact remains that the PV-1 was a better plane than the Hudson in terms of speed, armament, bombload and was its equal in range if not better...it was not a "twin-engined SBD" as the range/endurance stats it's stuck with tend to indicate.

This is utter nonsense. I have been praised (above) for nearly doubling the range of the PV - which I did - but it is NOTHING like the range of the Hudson - and very much in the leage of the SBD. Note that the SBD was also not given correct stats in stock or CHS. All these planes have reference book data in RHS. But one might well prefer a Hudson to a PV for certain missions - and one might indeed think of a PV as a twin engined land based SBD for others. Yet it is in a league of its own - due to radar, depth charges and the ability to engage with torpedoes - and properly should be considered on its own merits.

[spence]

This is utter nonsense

No it is not.  The following additional historical missions were routine for PV-1s and PV-2s (which had replaced other aircraft in approx 50% of Navy Patrol Bomber Squadrons by early 1945).  I know the map is inaccurate however the hex distances below come from many different areas and ought therefore to have some relation to real distances.

PV-1 Base          Target area/city

Iwo Jima---------Coastal Honshu/Kyushu (May/June 45) - 10 hexes on map
Tarawa----------Jaluit/Moelalap - (Jan 44 - Spring 44) 8 & 10 hexes on map
Eniwetok---------Wake (Spring 45 - VJ Day) - 12 hexes
Samar (not sure where the airbase actually was) --- Coastal China (15 hexes on map)*
Tinian -----------Truk (1945) - 13 hexes

The PVs (1&2) are basically pretty obscure.  Their missions were not glamorous...never sank a battleship or carrier or bombed Tokyo.  They did a good job tearing up merchies, submarines and suppressing bypassed airbases and they could reach out and touch somebody to quite a distance.  PV-1s were, when unladen with bombs, fast enough to outrun many Japanese fighters (the game max is closer to the PV2's top speed).  They succeeded on several occasions in attacking and downing Japanese fighters.  They even flew escort for C-47 paratroop missions in New Guinea.

ComAirPac Bulletin No 21-1943 passed the following on to all commanders:

"The PV-1 can outrun any Zero (Zeke or Hamp) and the floatplane Rufe, at sea level which is where the PVs normally operate...in one instance, a Hamp was left behind when the encounter was close enough to the enemy home base for the Japanese pilot to use full power without danger of running out of fuel."

(which one was the Hamp? A6M3?)


* - credit given for sinking a freighter at the mouth of the Canton River to a plane originating on Samar)

[Montbrun]

Unfortunately, the "map thing" has reared it's ugly head again. This as a topic that was flogged to death when the game was first released. I'm a Licensed Professional Land Surveyor - I make maps for a living - and for the life of me, can't figure out how the map was "constructed," or projected. It is, apparently, just something we have to live with, and go with what "feels" right for equipment ranges and endurance...

[el cid again]

It is a misidentification - I think it is an Oscar.  It is documented by Francillon, among others.  It is in his appendix too - so you can find it.
 
I like the Ventura.  I tried to be fair within the limits of the system.  I do not dispute its historical missions.  But I cannot change how the code works - or even how the map works.  .
It is nonsense to say the Ventura has more range than it really has.  Now if you have actual data that the FERRY RANGE is wrong - that we can fix.

[spence]

So ferry range is the determining factor? 
 
Can't say I've found any direct data on this although in the Squadron/Signal Publications booklet on the PV-1 there is a mention of the deployment of elements of VB-142 from Kaneohe Bay NAS to Tarawa.  Obviously they landed somewhere in between and the number of legs is not specified.  The movement was completed in 2 days (19 Dec start - 21 Dec arrival).

[el cid again]

Correct: Ferry range ("transfer range") is the determining factor. As Andrew and I both separately posted already.  The code derives "normal range" (25% of TR) and "extended range" (33% of TR) from it.  Further, an extended range of 9 hexes is only ON THE AVERAGE 540 nautical miles:  sometimes it is more, sometimes less - depending on the map projection at the particular point you try to run it.  This is similar to the discussion of Zeros running between Guadalcanal and Rabaul:  there is a uniform opinion among the moders that it is necessary to use statistically valid data on the average - not give one plane a boost to the disadvantage of others.  It is a problem - that you cannot run every mission as you would like. 

The perfect solution is more complex modeling:
 
I have SEPARATE fields for what I call no load range (transfer range), normal load range (extended range) and maximum load range (normal range).  This means I can give each plane its REAL data - not depend on an algorithm.
Further, I plot on a map where distances are always accurate - at the price of it is not nice looking on a flat surface. 

Is there any interest in using a map that is always right for range, no matter what it looks like?  No matter if "north" isn't always "up"?

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again



Is there any interest in using a map that is always right for range, no matter what it looks like? No matter if "north" isn't always "up"?

Do moose thrive in Anchorage? [:D]

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again


The perfect solution is more complex modeling:

I have SEPARATE fields for what I call no load range (transfer range), normal load range (extended range) and maximum load range (normal range). This means I can give each plane its REAL data - not depend on an algorithm.

And was this an original concept? It should be applied to more than just range, like speed/alt, maneuverability/alt, and the ability to choose what bomb loads you want, to name a few.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: el cid again


The perfect solution is more complex modeling:

I have SEPARATE fields for what I call no load range (transfer range), normal load range (extended range) and maximum load range (normal range). This means I can give each plane its REAL data - not depend on an algorithm.

And was this an original concept? It should be applied to more than just range, like speed/alt, maneuverability/alt, and the ability to choose what bomb loads you want, to name a few.

Well - yes - in principle I agree. The problem is that means a bigger program (more fields) and a bigger manpower budget (more labor to enter data into those fields PLUS more time to debug the bigger data set and the bigger program). What impresses me is how well they did with this "too simple" system. I am less impressed with the diligence in getting the data right - to the extent possible - in the fields. Or with calibration to insure various rates were close to history. But they gave us an editor - so we can in principle do some of this. [In UV we could not]
Maybe someday it will be better. There is some reason to hope.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: el cid again


The perfect solution is more complex modeling:

I have SEPARATE fields for what I call no load range (transfer range), normal load range (extended range) and maximum load range (normal range). This means I can give each plane its REAL data - not depend on an algorithm.

And was this an original concept? It should be applied to more than just range, like speed/alt, maneuverability/alt, and the ability to choose what bomb loads you want, to name a few.

Well - yes - in principle I agree. The problem is that means a bigger program (more fields) and a bigger manpower budget (more labor to enter data into those fields PLUS more time to debug the bigger data set and the bigger program). What impresses me is how well they did with this "too simple" system. I am less impressed with the diligence in getting the data right - to the extent possible - in the fields. Or with calibration to insure various rates were close to history. But they gave us an editor - so we can in principle do some of this. [In UV we could not]
Maybe someday it will be better. There is some reason to hope.

Having an indaquate database sure soes not help

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Correct: Ferry range ("transfer range") is the determining factor. As Andrew and I both separately posted already. The code derives "normal range" (25% of TR) and "extended range" (33% of TR) from it. Further, an extended range of 9 hexes is only ON THE AVERAGE 540 nautical miles: sometimes it is more, sometimes less - depending on the map projection at the particular point you try to run it. This is similar to the discussion of Zeros running between Guadalcanal and Rabaul: there is a uniform opinion among the moders that it is necessary to use statistically valid data on the average - not give one plane a boost to the disadvantage of others. It is a problem - that you cannot run every mission as you would like.

The perfect solution is more complex modeling:

I have SEPARATE fields for what I call no load range (transfer range), normal load range (extended range) and maximum load range (normal range). This means I can give each plane its REAL data - not depend on an algorithm.
Further, I plot on a map where distances are always accurate - at the price of it is not nice looking on a flat surface.

Is there any interest in using a map that is always right for range, no matter what it looks like? No matter if "north" isn't always "up"?

In reading "Fire in the Sky" it appears that the c-47 could ferry from West Coast to Hawaii by adding an 800 gal ferry tank inside with a max of 4. The same for other multi engined aircraft. In Stock/CHS it was noe even possible to cly PBY's from the west coast, where historically they could easily ferry there.

[el cid again]

I bet you can now - I increased the ferry range of the PBY to 1440 minutes (up from 1135 in CHS).

German FW-200s loaded fuel drums on board and refueled from them. The famous Mitchell raid refueled from ONE GALLON gas cans! There is a limit to what we can do in a simplified simulation environment - and these things probably lay beyond it.

Nevertheless, in a couple of cases, I derived ferry range from the needed mission range. [If we don't know the ferry range there is no choice]. In principle we could do that IN SPITE OF knowing the ferry range. That is, if there is a CONSENSUS (not important dissent) on the forum, I would calculate the range of a PV-1 - or an A6M2 - backwards - using the mission range = entended range - divide by .33 and that would be the ferry range (which now code would recalculate backwards and give us the needed mission range every time). In the case of the Rabaul-Lunga mission, where the mission range is 9 and needs to be 10, and the ferry range is 27 and needs to be 30, we have an increase of about 11%. If that worked for the other planes of interest - THEN I would apply it ACROSS THE BOARD TO ALL PLANES.

Note that this is the opposite of what I recommend. As a professional I believe the NORMAL case is you must allow for bad winds, damage, etc. I would only allow ultra long range missions in a game that permits you to crash because you ran out of gas - when the wind shifted - etc.
I think for a game like this we should REDUCE ALL RANGES by 5 or 10%. That is more likely to produce valid normal missions.
But I also listen to what people want.

[JeffroK]

Sid, the deduction of 5-10% sounds right (my vote is 10%)
 
I would also consider what is more relvant to the game, Ferry range or Combat ranges. I would rather see more accurate combat ranges, there are so many variables which can add to ferry range that make use it to base Combat ranges is "inefficient"
 
?? Don't Op losses increase with extended ranges??
 

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Sid, the deduction of 5-10% sounds right (my vote is 10%)

I would also consider what is more relvant to the game, Ferry range or Combat ranges. I would rather see more accurate combat ranges, there are so many variables which can add to ferry range that make use it to base Combat ranges is "inefficient"

A nice conundrum. I think that ferry range should be adjusted in instances where it was historically common. As an example, the c-47 was commonly ferried, not transported, to Hawaii, then this capability should be in the game. Again, the game designers did a not so well job on this one. Max ferry range should be an entirely different field not related to combat range. I guess I am used to playing board gmes where this was seperate.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Sid, the deduction of 5-10% sounds right (my vote is 10%)

I would also consider what is more relvant to the game, Ferry range or Combat ranges. I would rather see more accurate combat ranges, there are so many variables which can add to ferry range that make use it to base Combat ranges is "inefficient"

?? Don't Op losses increase with extended ranges??

We don't have the power to redo the code. Unless and until it is done, we must enter ferry range as the ONLY range value - and derive other ranges from it. The ONLY option open to us are these:

1) Use published (and normal - not wierd special case with 55 gallon drums aboard) ferry range?

2) Use a ferry range derived from extended range.

I think both are perfectly valid - but given the way code works the only "fair" thing is to use whichever concept for ALL planes.

Until we get three fields and can enter it for each plane. IF we ever do.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Sid, the deduction of 5-10% sounds right (my vote is 10%)

I would also consider what is more relvant to the game, Ferry range or Combat ranges. I would rather see more accurate combat ranges, there are so many variables which can add to ferry range that make use it to base Combat ranges is "inefficient"

A nice conundrum. I think that ferry range should be adjusted in instances where it was historically common. As an example, the c-47 was commonly ferried, not transported, to Hawaii, then this capability should be in the game. Again, the game designers did a not so well job on this one. Max ferry range should be an entirely different field not related to combat range. I guess I am used to playing board gmes where this was seperate.

The problem with increasing ferry range in this system is it ALSO increases mission ranges. However,
note that no transport ever can really fly a proper payload/mission range at all - except by accident. The air transport code uses the maxload value - and it also ignores it for certain purposes - and is in general a mess. Being logistically oriented this entire approach offends me. But there is nothing I can do about it. I don't see how increasing ferry range helps much - and to get the "proper" cargo for extended range (which is always max load) maybe we should reduce it! Not exactly where you want to go. As you said - a nice conundrum. I see no "ideal" solution - until someone with code power takes this on.