ORIGINAL: Drongo
[If I were to create a "better" manuever algorithm, it would obviously be based on something less convenient but more relevent than a calculation based on the game values of max speed and ROC. I also notice that you seem happy to look beyond these values as well. Hopefully nothing but good will come from that.
Cheers
I should have read your entire post before responding - and I will back up a yard or two.
Yes - I am willing to look at other factors.
Know, however, I do not see any serious attempt to provide EITHER the data OR
a way to make it fit THIS model. So I have faint hope we will get anywhere.
No matter what you think maneuverability should be based on - unless and until you can relate that to real air combats in this period you have nothing at all. Some arbitrary systems may make this clear;
1) All planes are equal.
2) All float planes are 1, all bombers are 2, all fighters are 6.
Clearly the second proposal is better than the first. But it is almost hopelessly worthless in giving us model by model statistical outcomes.
I submit to you that the most important factor in air combat is surprise: it determines success in both offensive and defesive combats the vast majority of the time: as much as 90% of the time. [Note, however, that this includes the peculiar case of "combat without combat" when a plane sees an enemy and retreats, undetected]. If an attacker is undetected, victory normally occurs with no return fire. The attacker was unseen.
The second most important factor in tactical air combat is actual speed at the time the combat begins. Related to this are things like maximum speed, speed in certain attitudes and at certain altitudes. Speed ALONE - in the case surprise has not determined the outcome - is MORE important than ALL other factors combined. Wether it is 90% - as in some cases in the data set I used originally had it - or 80% as I now use - or perhaps only 60% - that is subject to calibration, analyisis, discussion and change. But if you are saying something else - anything else - indeed everything else - matter even as much (50% of the time) as speed - you are factually wrong. The reason Gary's system works is that it uses speed - and speed usually is what counts. All the other stuff is dressing on the salid. It may make you more accurate - but if you throw out speed - you will not be in the ball park.
Other things matter - sometimes. Since this is a distinct minority case, it does not justify man-years of research to get it right. Whoever came up with using ROC as the other factor was clever - it really is a factor in its own right - it is directly related to factors like power loading - and it really helps shift relative statistics correctly in the direction of planes that are not well modeled when only speed is considered. Only if you can identify factors as easy to obtain as this - ideally factors already in the data set - and the proportion to which they need to be weighted - can we actually improve on this model in an immediate sense.
Instead of abstract criticism - make specific contributions in the form of data, sources (which are scholarly), algorithms and analysis that suports them. That is the only way to change things. All else is grousing or similar.
Yes - we can and will consider things. In the context of the way the system works. If we based a field like maneuverability on something other than speed - when it is mainly speed- we would bust the model.
Note the model is working pretty well. You only can help by making it work better.
