Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

You state that the goal is to reduce air combat losses. There are many ways to do so such as increasing durability ratings. If you believe than the maneuver rating is responsible for excessive combat losses, why not use a multiplier and apply it to the stock ratings. Try a value of 0.5 or 0.75 multiplied by the stock rating.

REPLY: I do not believe maneuver rating is "responsible for excessive combat losses." I think grossly exaggerated weapon ranges, grossly (relative) firepower to machine gun ratings, and lack of ammunition limits, plus a routine issue when more than 50 planes appear on one side - are far more the issue. However, there is evidence that maneuverability ratings in the higher ranges may be a serious contributing factor. Your proposal would have merit IF stock (or CHS) values were reasonable in a relative sense - but they are not. It would, however, work statistically speaking (preserving the relative errors) - to the extent maneuverability is an issue. Mostly it is not an issue - because mostly ratings are not in the high 30s and 40s - and because other things are unrelated (planes can shoot 100 times if need be).

Let me blunt here. The formula that you propose to use for RHS is flat out wrong! It has more holes in it than the USS Arizona. Any formula that refuses to recognize the importance of roll and turn rates will never reflect reality when it comes to maneuverability.

REPLY: There is no data in the set for roll or turn rates. There is no way to get that data for all planes in the data set in any single source (e.g. Aircraft of WWII) or set (like Osprey books) which use the same standards of data. It is not part of the existing model - which works well as you admit - and no way to get the data to an honest and easily verified standard with a reasonable amount of effort. If there was a way - and please tell me I am wrong about no data and you have it all ready to post from IISS or any good place - we don't have a proposal for how to use it in the maneuverability field. This field - which may be misnamed to an extent - must always include what the model needs it to include - even if we modify it for your pet factors.

And I WANT to include your factors. Not as dominant - they are not. You are the one who is wrong when you say they are "the most important." The most important factors are not plane performance in the first place. When the guy we are attacking does not see us, and flies on fat, dumb and happy, your factors matter not a whit: and that is the vast majority case. When we see something we dare not engage (we being in a C-47 and they in Ki-84s say) - and we go hide in clouds and open the range so they don't ever see us - your factors matter not a whit. IF we use these factors, we need DATA on the portion of the time they DO matter a whit. Much more often speed is going to matter (as we dive with our P-38s on the vastly more maneuverable - in your beloved horizontal - Zeros) - and win or lose we are going to keep on going -
not try to turn and fight him if he is still there to fight. How often does horizontal maneuverability matter? You tell me - and it decides the weight it gets. This is how to do proper analysis. Don't be emotional about a datum.

If all that mattered was horizontal - Ki-27 will win - and we will lose. You are going to give Japanese planes an undo advantage if you make this the main thing. A Ki-43 will be a giant!

My goal here is not to offend or to piss you off. That does no good. My goal here is to offer constructive criticism, heavy handed though it might be. I will refrain from any more posts on this discussion unless invited.

REPLY: You are civil here. So you are invited. My frustration is that your criticism is too short sighted: you never go all the way to a solution. The whole concept of using your factos is moot UNLESS you give us the data - data to CHS/RHS standards - data ANYONE can find in a proper source in a public library. It is also useless UNLESS you can balance it - although I can do that for you if you trust me - with other things. Just because you like maneuveraiblity does not make it king - it isn't - and we learned how to beat more maneuverable planes in fact in this campaign. Before we did, the turning in maneuver worked for Japan even against better planes. There is a lot going on - and no one fact is king all the time. Help us compromise the factors - which cannot happen by making anything king. And we will use it. We will use it the miniute it is clear you got it right. No delay. No pride in our past work. Better data is ALWAYS in in RHS - right now.

Chez

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Drongo (what does that mean ? just curious)it isn't helpful to bicker

I won't

I also have made promises not to say every last thing - and I am sorry if being ethical
prevents me from clarifying every last thing as much as I might like

I love to get technical and to explain - it is what I do. I have gone as far as I can here -
possibly one or two steps farther than I should - and the journey is over.

I do think your interest is laudable. I do not think your opinion is unreasonable either.
But I am just the point - the guy out in front - taking the heat. It is not my data. It is not
my code. And I also do not know all there is to know about it. In the nature of these things,
maybe no one does know everything about it - it may well have evolved - and to some degree
I know this is the case here. If the poor fit of data with algorithms bothers you - well we are
much more in harmony than in opposition about such matters. If I had done the original data I
assure you it would be at least 90% consistent. I didn't. It isn't. It is confusing. But you cannot
understand where to go unless you know where we began and where we are. I tried to help you
understand - as I have been led to understand. I made nothing up. It is not my data, my theory,
my code. All I did was go on and make a modified algorithm. You got a better one - I will
instantly adopt it - and say it is yours for the rest of my life. You got better data - I will instantly adopt
it and say it is yours - until still better data comes along. That is as constructive as I know how to be.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Chez:

What really matters in air combat is actual speed. What is actual speed? Whatever it is, we cannot put it in a field! It is anything but constant. The air model does this for us. How does it know what to use? It uses at least three fields:

max speed
cruise speed
ROC

It may also use altitude.

It also used die rolls. Each pass each plane gets a new positional record.

As outsiders to the code routine executing an attack, ALL we can play with is the input data.

It is actually silly to object as you do to max speed. Right or wrong, it is what is used. And code is right.

Think of it like this: Whatever the ratio of acceleration to max speed may be, at any altitude, it is related to the max speed
of the plane first of all. And the routine DOES know the altitude too. It ALSO knows "this plane was cruising at the start of the engagement" - or "this plane was on an attack run at max speed" - so it knows initial speed. From there on the routine tracks the situation - not us.

Not sure what you want to do? But complaining about how the routine works is not productive. Ain't gonna help nothin'
And it can be made to work. Run 100 tests with RHS. Surely it works better than CHS or stock - and slightly better
than Nick Mod. Not bad for a crude first guess. Now - if you can make it better still = tell me how?

I do not use sustained ROC. I use initial ROC - FYI. The routine is set up for that - using anything less is not going to model well. It reduces ROC as altitude increases - as it should.

ROC matters in the same sense speed does - it is a single value the code can look at - combine with other things - and play with. It turns out to be directly related to power loading and speed - as either goes up so does it. These are not bad things to be considering in an air combat routine.

I do not like, did not design in, and would not design in, no fields for various other factors. I myself have THREE different "agility" factors for every plane (at 5000, 15000 and 25000 feet - and sometimes at 35000 as well), plus wing loading, power loading, weight, power, ROC, a correction factgor for ROC, a dive speed, and a dive speed limit, among others, in my own models. If data was available - it isn't - I would have things like sustained turn rates - as a direct rather than combined or derived value. But I do figure it out - and it is in my agility ratings. What shocks me is that this - taking over an hour per plane to work out - only gives virtually IDENTICAL values in air combat to my planes. WITP works - better than I think it should work. Maybe we will always do it this way - since we can do a plane in about 2 minutes - and it works.

I do not use sustained ROC. I use initial ROC - FYI. The routine is set up for that - using anything less is not going to model well. It reduces ROC as altitude increases - as it should.

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

I do not use sustained ROC. I use initial ROC - FYI. The routine is set up for that - using anything less is not going to model well. It reduces ROC as altitude increases - as it should.

Thanks for clarifying where you obtain the ROC. What do you use for max speed? Many sources list various ways, some at sea level, some at other altitudes, some you never know when it was calculated.