Thanks guys.
Just as the mark of a truly musician is arranging the music of great musicians, the mark of truly professional game developers is modding the great games. In both cases, standing on the shoulders of giants, it is almost impossible not to make a better product: even a slight improvement is still an improvement. There is no need to be insecure about it - and no need to be upset when someone feels "his" work is being "ruined" - or you get "too much" credit. Those who are serious - and professional - are above such things. The real work lies in suggestions like yours - not arguing over style or things that can't make anything better.
RHS Maneuverability Review: Data [ALL Data Done]
Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review
When I remember the manual, the game distinguishes well between speed advantege combat (slashing attacks) and turn&burn combat. So speed shouldn´t be used too much for the actual maneuvrability ratings. Otherwise fast planes will be better in t&b combat and for slashing attacks. I don´t think this was intended my Matrixgames, when they implemented speed combat - well working for example with the P-40 vs. A6M2 in stock WitP. So when considering maneuvrability three things should be respected:
1: Horizontal and vertical maneuvrability, used for t&b combat (A6M2, K-43) and used boom and zoom aircraft (Bf-109, Fw-190, Ki-44). The latter planes not only possesed excellent sustained climb ratings, they also possesed good vertical fighting ability because of relatively light weight to power. This also is true for most japanese planes, which could make very snap turns (break-dancing in the air) without stalling the aircraft or fly very aggressive vertical maneuvres. These abilites are NOT represented by the sustained climb abilitied, i.e. rate of climb (rate of climb is, as far as I know, only used for the calculations, which plane can climb fast enough to intercept) - so they should be respected by the mvr-ratings. In fact the vertical fighting ability (loops, spiral climb, Split S, Zooms) is in fact the most important dogfight concept, so it should be properly represented with high mvr ratings for aircraft which are either maneuvrable in the horizontal or in the vertical manner. Planes which are both (N1K1/2, Ki-84, Spitfire VIII and XIV) should get very high mvr ratings.
2: Speed advanteges in regards of maximum speed should be the primary advantege for the Allied aircraft and not mvr, since the superior speed is used for an attack style of its own - slashing attacks. If the superior speed alone would be the reason for high maneuvrability ratings this would mix up with the dogfighting abilities and would hamper the original intention of matrix by seperating both fighting mehtods.
3: No complex formulas, which don´t hold truth to real values more than sheer historical comparison should be used. 1st - use historical information about the plane, i.e. its t&b abilities, its b&z abilities (i.e. vertical maneuvrability), power to weight, speed to set the relative stregth of different aircraft. 2nd - use modern air simulations, which by now do quite a good job in simulating plenty of the planes available in WitP. For example Il-2 Forgotten Battles/Pacific fighters fields many of the available planes in WitP and gives good hints about the characteristics mentioned abobe (snap turn, sustained turn drag, combat climb, time for 360 turn).
I´ve created scenarios back to the times of PacWar and War in Russia before matrixgames modified them. The good thing about the more modern games is, that they seperate speed and maneuvrability for combat purposes. For example, I´d give the following mvr values to some known planes of stock WitP. Important are the relative aspects between the aircraft, compared to historical records about combats between these planes and the used fighting method, for instance: F4U´s would never turn with a Zero! They fly wide turns over the battle area and make ful use of their speed advantege. If someone has any questions, how I argue exactly for any of those values, don´t hesitate:
Some examples:
A6M2 - 35 (taken as first fix point)
A6M3 - 36
A6M5 - 35
F4F3 - 32
F4F4 - 32
F6F3 - 33 or 34 (Hellcat was more mvr than Wildcat in sustained turns, but heavier.... worse snap turns, also couldn´t stand in turn fights vs A6M2/3/5, N1K-J, Ki-61 (Biak!!!!)
F4U1 - 34
Ki-27 - 34 very good horizontal mvr
Ki-43-I- 35 not as good as Ki-27 in horizontal mvr, but better vertical fighting abilities
Ki-43-II- 34 or 35 heavier than original design, worse snap turn abilities
Ki-44- 32,33,34 though good climb, I don´t know about its vertical fighting abilies (propably like 109 - if so higher mvr, poor horizontal mvr. abilies for jap standarts). It´s propable that this plane would fought in a similar way like the 109 or the P-47. That´s why the jap. pilots didn´t like it
Ki-61-I 32 or 33, good horizontal mvr, medium sustained turn drag, medium to good vertical fighting ability (loops & stuff), below average snap turn (stalls easily for jap planes)
Ki-84 36 good vertical and horizontal mvr, mediocre snap turn ability
N1K2-J 37 superb plane in regards of vertical and horizontal mvr, also good snap turn abilites. Her very good mvr characteristics suggested the japs to construct a land fighter version
J2M 32/33/34 similar arguments like Ki-44... this plane propably has some similarities in fighting style to the Fw-190
Ki-45 30 quite good horizontal mvr for 2E-Fighter, sustained turn drag high, though, vertical fighting ability worse than P-38
P-38F/G 31
P-38J/L 32/33 P-38 had good turning characteristics once banked into one direction, later versions added aileron boosters to help solving the banking problem
Hurricane 31 good hor. mvr, poor vert mvr.
Spitfire V 35
Spitfire VIII 36
Spitfire XVIII 36/37 tough plane to fight against, maneuvrable in all regards!
P-47B/C 33 classic boom&zoom aircraft, poor sustained turn drag because of heavy weight, poor acceleration
P-47D 34 added engine booster support boom and zoom fighting abilies of this plane
P-51B/C/D 34 or 35 didn´t have to good turning horizontal turning abilities, even a 109 turns tighter than a P-51 in slow and medium speeds... pacific war turnfights are even with tighter circles, due to the superior turning abilities of jap planes, so her main mvr aspects are her vertical fighting abilities, which are good, despite her mediocre climb rate.
P-51D 34 or 35
These were some examples. The more famous and wide spread a plane is, the more I can tell from my 12 year experience with aircraft simulations and reading, in regards of direct comparison to another aircraft. And Direct comparison is the way maneuvrability values should be generated, as air simulations also rate the flight model of a plane of how well it compares to other aircraft in different regards (a lot more aspects than just 3 or 4 ratings like in WitP).
1: Horizontal and vertical maneuvrability, used for t&b combat (A6M2, K-43) and used boom and zoom aircraft (Bf-109, Fw-190, Ki-44). The latter planes not only possesed excellent sustained climb ratings, they also possesed good vertical fighting ability because of relatively light weight to power. This also is true for most japanese planes, which could make very snap turns (break-dancing in the air) without stalling the aircraft or fly very aggressive vertical maneuvres. These abilites are NOT represented by the sustained climb abilitied, i.e. rate of climb (rate of climb is, as far as I know, only used for the calculations, which plane can climb fast enough to intercept) - so they should be respected by the mvr-ratings. In fact the vertical fighting ability (loops, spiral climb, Split S, Zooms) is in fact the most important dogfight concept, so it should be properly represented with high mvr ratings for aircraft which are either maneuvrable in the horizontal or in the vertical manner. Planes which are both (N1K1/2, Ki-84, Spitfire VIII and XIV) should get very high mvr ratings.
2: Speed advanteges in regards of maximum speed should be the primary advantege for the Allied aircraft and not mvr, since the superior speed is used for an attack style of its own - slashing attacks. If the superior speed alone would be the reason for high maneuvrability ratings this would mix up with the dogfighting abilities and would hamper the original intention of matrix by seperating both fighting mehtods.
3: No complex formulas, which don´t hold truth to real values more than sheer historical comparison should be used. 1st - use historical information about the plane, i.e. its t&b abilities, its b&z abilities (i.e. vertical maneuvrability), power to weight, speed to set the relative stregth of different aircraft. 2nd - use modern air simulations, which by now do quite a good job in simulating plenty of the planes available in WitP. For example Il-2 Forgotten Battles/Pacific fighters fields many of the available planes in WitP and gives good hints about the characteristics mentioned abobe (snap turn, sustained turn drag, combat climb, time for 360 turn).
I´ve created scenarios back to the times of PacWar and War in Russia before matrixgames modified them. The good thing about the more modern games is, that they seperate speed and maneuvrability for combat purposes. For example, I´d give the following mvr values to some known planes of stock WitP. Important are the relative aspects between the aircraft, compared to historical records about combats between these planes and the used fighting method, for instance: F4U´s would never turn with a Zero! They fly wide turns over the battle area and make ful use of their speed advantege. If someone has any questions, how I argue exactly for any of those values, don´t hesitate:
Some examples:
A6M2 - 35 (taken as first fix point)
A6M3 - 36
A6M5 - 35
F4F3 - 32
F4F4 - 32
F6F3 - 33 or 34 (Hellcat was more mvr than Wildcat in sustained turns, but heavier.... worse snap turns, also couldn´t stand in turn fights vs A6M2/3/5, N1K-J, Ki-61 (Biak!!!!)
F4U1 - 34
Ki-27 - 34 very good horizontal mvr
Ki-43-I- 35 not as good as Ki-27 in horizontal mvr, but better vertical fighting abilities
Ki-43-II- 34 or 35 heavier than original design, worse snap turn abilities
Ki-44- 32,33,34 though good climb, I don´t know about its vertical fighting abilies (propably like 109 - if so higher mvr, poor horizontal mvr. abilies for jap standarts). It´s propable that this plane would fought in a similar way like the 109 or the P-47. That´s why the jap. pilots didn´t like it
Ki-61-I 32 or 33, good horizontal mvr, medium sustained turn drag, medium to good vertical fighting ability (loops & stuff), below average snap turn (stalls easily for jap planes)
Ki-84 36 good vertical and horizontal mvr, mediocre snap turn ability
N1K2-J 37 superb plane in regards of vertical and horizontal mvr, also good snap turn abilites. Her very good mvr characteristics suggested the japs to construct a land fighter version
J2M 32/33/34 similar arguments like Ki-44... this plane propably has some similarities in fighting style to the Fw-190
Ki-45 30 quite good horizontal mvr for 2E-Fighter, sustained turn drag high, though, vertical fighting ability worse than P-38
P-38F/G 31
P-38J/L 32/33 P-38 had good turning characteristics once banked into one direction, later versions added aileron boosters to help solving the banking problem
Hurricane 31 good hor. mvr, poor vert mvr.
Spitfire V 35
Spitfire VIII 36
Spitfire XVIII 36/37 tough plane to fight against, maneuvrable in all regards!
P-47B/C 33 classic boom&zoom aircraft, poor sustained turn drag because of heavy weight, poor acceleration
P-47D 34 added engine booster support boom and zoom fighting abilies of this plane
P-51B/C/D 34 or 35 didn´t have to good turning horizontal turning abilities, even a 109 turns tighter than a P-51 in slow and medium speeds... pacific war turnfights are even with tighter circles, due to the superior turning abilities of jap planes, so her main mvr aspects are her vertical fighting abilities, which are good, despite her mediocre climb rate.
P-51D 34 or 35
These were some examples. The more famous and wide spread a plane is, the more I can tell from my 12 year experience with aircraft simulations and reading, in regards of direct comparison to another aircraft. And Direct comparison is the way maneuvrability values should be generated, as air simulations also rate the flight model of a plane of how well it compares to other aircraft in different regards (a lot more aspects than just 3 or 4 ratings like in WitP).
Bis dat qui cito dat!
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16982
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review
We have a number of problems - and no option whatever about compromising. That is, we simply do not have any choice but to compromise - because we cannot change the structure of the system - and there are not a lot of values to program.
Even if we could change the structure of the system - we simply do not know the turn data - with rare exceptions we don't know it at all - and those exceptions are NOT in the standard materials available to all. So we are limited in what data we could get. Which is to say we don't have the option of going with what pure theory might indicate. Like it or not -
turn data is not going to be in - probably ever - simply because it is not in even one standard source - and certainly no comprehensive source lists all planes of interest.
We have what I take to be a difinitive statement by a Matrix Programmer that the primary value used by air combat is maneuverability. We further have other information from a different Matrix programmer - partially supported by the data - that maneuverability is either substantially or entirely based on speed data. Liking it or not is not the issue: that is the system. We cannot take speed out of maneuverability and not trash the ssytem. We can put in other data. But turn data isn't going to be part of it - unless heaven opens and a miracle appears unexpectedly. My best hope is that wing loading will be a good indicator of horizontal maneuverability.
Even if that hope is justified - not much will change. Not much SHOULD change either - since we now have the routine working fairly well for small air combats (and the big ones need Matrix to fix). What we seek is a RELATIVE change among types - and again these are pretty right - so not a great change. I fear - however - two things:
1) Using wing loading will benefit a biplane like Pete more than a two engine fighter like P-38
2) A great deal of calculation will yield the most marginal of shifting.
So far a vast amount of playing (no where near complete with all 245 plane types) indicates only slight impacts. I am very inclined to adopt one of the following options:
a) Make no change whatever;
b) Make a minimal change in the formula by adding wing loading and power loading; [It appears the best K (constant) factors may be one - very unusual - so it is very easy to do this]
Course (b) would benefit planes more "maneuverable" in the way we usually understand the term and (relatively speaking) penalize the dogs.
However, this is only going to make 2 engine fighters look better relative to multi-engine planes - not relative to 1 engine planes. And the conservation of angular momentum issue makes me think that may be quite correct: a 2 engine plane does NOT compete with a 1 engine plane in terms of roll.
c) Reduce the proportion of speed in the formula - as I originally proposed to do. This is not going over to "maneuverability has nothing to do with speed" as advocated above - but it would increase the non-speed factors by 100%. Since I already increased the non speed factors by 100% that is 400% greater than the original system. But still LESS than half (although nearly half at 40%).
Even if we could change the structure of the system - we simply do not know the turn data - with rare exceptions we don't know it at all - and those exceptions are NOT in the standard materials available to all. So we are limited in what data we could get. Which is to say we don't have the option of going with what pure theory might indicate. Like it or not -
turn data is not going to be in - probably ever - simply because it is not in even one standard source - and certainly no comprehensive source lists all planes of interest.
We have what I take to be a difinitive statement by a Matrix Programmer that the primary value used by air combat is maneuverability. We further have other information from a different Matrix programmer - partially supported by the data - that maneuverability is either substantially or entirely based on speed data. Liking it or not is not the issue: that is the system. We cannot take speed out of maneuverability and not trash the ssytem. We can put in other data. But turn data isn't going to be part of it - unless heaven opens and a miracle appears unexpectedly. My best hope is that wing loading will be a good indicator of horizontal maneuverability.
Even if that hope is justified - not much will change. Not much SHOULD change either - since we now have the routine working fairly well for small air combats (and the big ones need Matrix to fix). What we seek is a RELATIVE change among types - and again these are pretty right - so not a great change. I fear - however - two things:
1) Using wing loading will benefit a biplane like Pete more than a two engine fighter like P-38
2) A great deal of calculation will yield the most marginal of shifting.
So far a vast amount of playing (no where near complete with all 245 plane types) indicates only slight impacts. I am very inclined to adopt one of the following options:
a) Make no change whatever;
b) Make a minimal change in the formula by adding wing loading and power loading; [It appears the best K (constant) factors may be one - very unusual - so it is very easy to do this]
Course (b) would benefit planes more "maneuverable" in the way we usually understand the term and (relatively speaking) penalize the dogs.
However, this is only going to make 2 engine fighters look better relative to multi-engine planes - not relative to 1 engine planes. And the conservation of angular momentum issue makes me think that may be quite correct: a 2 engine plane does NOT compete with a 1 engine plane in terms of roll.
c) Reduce the proportion of speed in the formula - as I originally proposed to do. This is not going over to "maneuverability has nothing to do with speed" as advocated above - but it would increase the non-speed factors by 100%. Since I already increased the non speed factors by 100% that is 400% greater than the original system. But still LESS than half (although nearly half at 40%).
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16982
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review [Updated]
We have some tentative data using a new maneuverability formula - adding power loading and wing loading
to the factors considered (deried from aircraft empty equipped weight, enginer horsepower and wing area).
Here are some sample results:
Axis aircraft sample Me-264=3, A5M4=29, A6M2=30, Ki-27=32, Ki-43-1=32,
Ki-45KAIa=14, Ki-61-1b=32, Ki-84=38, Ki-100=30. Allied aircraft sample
F2A-3=27, F4F-3=26, F4U-1=34, F6F-5=33, P-38J=15, P-47D=35, P-51B=35,
Spitfire VIII=36, B-17D=5. How do these numbers look to you?
to the factors considered (deried from aircraft empty equipped weight, enginer horsepower and wing area).
Here are some sample results:
Axis aircraft sample Me-264=3, A5M4=29, A6M2=30, Ki-27=32, Ki-43-1=32,
Ki-45KAIa=14, Ki-61-1b=32, Ki-84=38, Ki-100=30. Allied aircraft sample
F2A-3=27, F4F-3=26, F4U-1=34, F6F-5=33, P-38J=15, P-47D=35, P-51B=35,
Spitfire VIII=36, B-17D=5. How do these numbers look to you?
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review [Updated]
ok to me
ok
looks really good
ok
looks really good
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review [Updated]
Here are a few more to look at. Axis aircraft Me-109E-4=32, Ki-46II=14, J2M2=37, G3M2=9, G4M1=9, E7K2=15, E13A1=21, H6K4=4, H8K2=5. Allied aircraft F4U-4=42, B-18A=7, B-24D=3, P-35A=29, P-40B=26, P-40E=27, P-43=30, SwordfishIII=15, IL-2M=21.
Perennial Remedial Student of the Mike Solli School of Economics. One day I might graduate.
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16982
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review
Duplicate of above post - I am too late. Now you know who the volunteer is!
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review [Updated]
ORIGINAL: el cid again
P-38J=15
I realize (more accurately - 'my impression is') that the good single engine fighters were certainly more maneuverable than even a great (off-axis) double engine fighter like the P-38, but I assumed the gap was a good deal smaller? Is there a second part of the revision that might deal with that? I know that speed plays a part, I'm just talking about maneuverability. I know, for example, that the P-38's props turned in opposite directions so the torque cancelled out.
Second,
ORIGINAL: el cid again
P-47D=35, P-51B=35
Likewise, it's been my impression that the P-51 was considered better air-to-air than the P-47 (even as fine as the P-47 was). With the maneuverability the same and the P-47 speed higher (going by memory of RHS data), the P-47 comes out better in WITP.
Is my impression of the comparison between the two correct (historically speaking)? Is the difference really one of variation in altitude, which I know WITP does not handle? Or, is my impression (of the comparison between the P-51 and P-47) incorrect?
BTW, I haven't chimed in on this thread before - this review is fantastic, and I am in awe of the work involved in yet another evolution of RHS.
Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review [Updated]
Can you post the new formula?ORIGINAL: el cid again
We have some tentative data using a new maneuverability formula - adding power loading and wing loading
to the factors considered (deried from aircraft empty equipped weight, enginer horsepower and wing area).
Here are some sample results:
Axis aircraft sample Me-264=3, A5M4=29, A6M2=30, Ki-27=32, Ki-43-1=32,
Ki-45KAIa=14, Ki-61-1b=32, Ki-84=38, Ki-100=30. Allied aircraft sample
F2A-3=27, F4F-3=26, F4U-1=34, F6F-5=33, P-38J=15, P-47D=35, P-51B=35,
Spitfire VIII=36, B-17D=5. How do these numbers look to you?
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review [Updated]
ORIGINAL: el cid again
Here are some sample results:
P-38J=15,
I can understand your rationale regarding 2-engine fighter types before the use of PL and WL. By using these in the calculation, are you sure that you are not penalizing 2-engine fighter types twice? If not, what is inherently unmanueverable about them when combining speed, ROC, PL and WL? I understand reduction added to 4-engine planes as they were not built to withstand excessive G forces. This would impact many 2-engine bombers as well. Are you also saying that 2-engine planes designed as interceptors could not handle the G forces that a single engine plane could?
-
goodboyladdie
- Posts: 3470
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:35 pm
- Location: Rendlesham, Suffolk
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review
To get back to the complaints that featured on page 1 in regard to your latest figures:
15 for the P-38J is not supported by any reading I have done on this subject over 30 years. It was an agile fighter - a P-38 group commander once challenged a P-51 group commander to a mock dogfight and beat him on one engine! The P-61 had serious issues - the Northrop test pilot had to do tours to show fighter pilots that this medium bomber sized aircraft was highly agile and could dogfight and had to teach them to fly it as they would fly a fighter. These planes appear to be considerably short changed by your formula. The formula would seem to work for most planes, but witchcraft and educated guesswork will have to cover the anomalies...
15 for the P-38J is not supported by any reading I have done on this subject over 30 years. It was an agile fighter - a P-38 group commander once challenged a P-51 group commander to a mock dogfight and beat him on one engine! The P-61 had serious issues - the Northrop test pilot had to do tours to show fighter pilots that this medium bomber sized aircraft was highly agile and could dogfight and had to teach them to fly it as they would fly a fighter. These planes appear to be considerably short changed by your formula. The formula would seem to work for most planes, but witchcraft and educated guesswork will have to cover the anomalies...
Art by the amazing Dixie
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review [Updated]
ORIGINAL: Herrbear
ORIGINAL: el cid again
Here are some sample results:
P-38J=15,
I can understand your rationale regarding 2-engine fighter types before the use of PL and WL. By using these in the calculation, are you sure that you are not penalizing 2-engine fighter types twice? If not, what is inherently unmanueverable about them when combining speed, ROC, PL and WL? I understand reduction added to 4-engine planes as they were not built to withstand excessive G forces. This would impact many 2-engine bombers as well. Are you also saying that 2-engine planes designed as interceptors could not handle the G forces that a single engine plane could?
Three-part answer:
a. Twin-engined fighters can't roll as fast. Hence they can't go into a turn as fast.
b. Twin-engined fighters have to deal with higher stresses, potentially limiting the Gs they can pull.
c. Twin-engined fighters tend to have higher wing-loadings and lower power-loadings, reducing their maneuverability.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review [Updated]
ORIGINAL: herwin
ORIGINAL: Herrbear
ORIGINAL: el cid again
Here are some sample results:
P-38J=15,
I can understand your rationale regarding 2-engine fighter types before the use of PL and WL. By using these in the calculation, are you sure that you are not penalizing 2-engine fighter types twice? If not, what is inherently unmanueverable about them when combining speed, ROC, PL and WL? I understand reduction added to 4-engine planes as they were not built to withstand excessive G forces. This would impact many 2-engine bombers as well. Are you also saying that 2-engine planes designed as interceptors could not handle the G forces that a single engine plane could?
Three-part answer:
a. Twin-engined fighters can't roll as fast. Hence they can't go into a turn as fast.
b. Twin-engined fighters have to deal with higher stresses, potentially limiting the Gs they can pull.
c. Twin-engined fighters tend to have higher wing-loadings and lower power-loadings, reducing their maneuverability.
Thanks for your answer. I certainly understand your "c" and now El Cid is taking into account of WL and PL in his formula. His formula causes 2-engine fighters to be almost 1/2 as manueverable as a single engine figther. In your estimation, would your "a" and "b" cause that much deviation?
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16982
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review [Updated]
ORIGINAL: Herrbear
ORIGINAL: el cid again
Here are some sample results:
P-38J=15,
I can understand your rationale regarding 2-engine fighter types before the use of PL and WL. By using these in the calculation, are you sure that you are not penalizing 2-engine fighter types twice? If not, what is inherently unmanueverable about them when combining speed, ROC, PL and WL? I understand reduction added to 4-engine planes as they were not built to withstand excessive G forces. This would impact many 2-engine bombers as well. Are you also saying that 2-engine planes designed as interceptors could not handle the G forces that a single engine plane could?
All simulation involves simplification of reality and compromise. There are two different cases involved here:
2 engine bombers pretending to be fighters (see in particular night fighters) and
2 engine planes designed as fighters.
To help the latter - I use a code trick you cannot see in this field - because it isn't in this field.
WITP rates a fighter as better than a fighter bomber in certain respects - and a plane DESIGNED to be a fighter
is STILL classified as a fighter EVEN if it has two engines. On the other hand, a plane that is designed to be a bomber,
or a plane designed to be a fighter bomber that is only a marginal fighter, is rated as a fighter bomber (or a night
fighter).
So to this extent, it is possible - and RHS attempts - to rate these similar looking planes differently.
Further, in all versions of WITP a plane potentially gets its correct speed, rate of climb, and firepower.
Further, in RHS system, engines are a factor in durability - so in this sense a two engine plane ALWAYS has
an advantage over a single engine plane. All else being equal, the 2 E plane is going to have a durability
of 2 more than a 1 E plane (we have a basis calculus and we apply a K factor of 2 to it - so a difference of 1 E
= a durability of 2 points).
One simply cannot understand a modeled plane by looking at a single field. One must consider ALL the values -
and what they mean - even the classification as fighter or not.
It is by no means perfect. Nor even satisfactory. So we keep trying to get it better.
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16982
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review
ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie
To get back to the complaints that featured on page 1 in regard to your latest figures:
15 for the P-38J is not supported by any reading I have done on this subject over 30 years. It was an agile fighter - a P-38 group commander once challenged a P-51 group commander to a mock dogfight and beat him on one engine! The P-61 had serious issues - the Northrop test pilot had to do tours to show fighter pilots that this medium bomber sized aircraft was highly agile and could dogfight and had to teach them to fly it as they would fly a fighter. These planes appear to be considerably short changed by your formula. The formula would seem to work for most planes, but witchcraft and educated guesswork will have to cover the anomalies...
You are not going to be able to "support by any reading" ANY value for ANY plane in the data set. So to that extent, this comment is meaningless: no one is writing about how we rate planes in WITP except in these threads.
Further - the entire debate about "this plane vs that one" is somewhat misleading:
90% of what matters in air combat - both offensive and defensive - is surprise!!
I can beat your P-38 in a doggie L2D2 IF I see you first - and use that advantage to elect not to engage.
We are talking about the tiny marginal case (statistically) where things get close and nasty. And THEN
what matters most is STILL not the machine - but the skill of the pilots and the initial tactical situation as a whole.
Bear this in mind when you compare a P-38 and a P-51 in some specific pretend dog fight:
I bet that outcome was quite strange and not statistically valid. Certainly no wise P-38 pilot is going to
fight on one engine if he has a choice. And certainly many P-51 pilots could beat a P-38 - at least
sometimes: surely you don't believe it is impossible? This case has a great deal more to do with the
pilots than with the planes. In simulators - where I can program any modern plane on either side -
I do not care what plane you want to take - I will win. I make USAF types furious by flying against them in
"inferior" planes - and showing they might not be as "superior" as they think they are. But I am an anti-air
warfare specialist and I have a whole host of tricks up my sleeve unlikely to be found in most real world
fighter pilots: it says little about the plane except - use something right - it works.
Somehow you have missed an important post by a PhD in this thread: off axis engines are going to impose a penalty due to conservation of angular momentum. This is not the same thing as torque - momentum related to the spin of the engine. There is only one exception: a 2 E plane on ONE axis is not going to have this problem: a Ki-62 would not be counted as a 2 E plane for this reason.
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16982
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review [Updated]
ORIGINAL: Herrbear
Thanks for your answer. I certainly understand your "c" and now El Cid is taking into account of WL and PL in his formula. His formula causes 2-engine fighters to be almost 1/2 as manueverable as a single engine figther. In your estimation, would your "a" and "b" cause that much deviation?
There needs to be some way to determine the effects of engines. This must apply not just to fighters, but to fighter bombers, bombers and transports. It may be there is a better system. In stock and CHS they DOUBLE the number of engines for heavy bombers: that is they divide by 8!!! They use EXACTLY the number of engines for two engine bombers: that is they divide by 2 - and the same for two engine transports. [Lacking 4 engine transports in stock and CHS I cannot say what they do in that case?] But RHS HAS 4 engine transports - and it is hard to see how an LB-30/C-87 is much different from its B-24 parent? So I choose to treat them the same. Similarly, I fail to see how taking a Ventura bomber and making it a night fighter makes it more maneuverable? So I treat them the same. I will consider a different factor - propose one. But remember it must work for ALL cases - not just one plane or one plane type.
I have tried square root of number of engines - and the impact on 4 E planes is not acceptable.
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review [Updated]
Sid,
I understand your answer to other folks' questions here, but mine still stands. Should the P-38 be rated that much lower in maneuverability? It's the degree that I'm concerned about. I fully understand angular momentum - that's why I initially said I understand an off-axis two-engine fighter will be inherently less maneuverable than a single engine fighter.
BTW I agree with rating bomber 'night-fighters' the same as the bomber. I just asking about a purpose built high-performance machine.
I understand your answer to other folks' questions here, but mine still stands. Should the P-38 be rated that much lower in maneuverability? It's the degree that I'm concerned about. I fully understand angular momentum - that's why I initially said I understand an off-axis two-engine fighter will be inherently less maneuverable than a single engine fighter.
BTW I agree with rating bomber 'night-fighters' the same as the bomber. I just asking about a purpose built high-performance machine.
Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review [Updated]
ORIGINAL: el cid again
ORIGINAL: Herrbear
Thanks for your answer. I certainly understand your "c" and now El Cid is taking into account of WL and PL in his formula. His formula causes 2-engine fighters to be almost 1/2 as manueverable as a single engine figther. In your estimation, would your "a" and "b" cause that much deviation?
There needs to be some way to determine the effects of engines. This must apply not just to fighters, but to fighter bombers, bombers and transports. It may be there is a better system. In stock and CHS they DOUBLE the number of engines for heavy bombers: that is they divide by 8!!! They use EXACTLY the number of engines for two engine bombers: that is they divide by 2 - and the same for two engine transports. [Lacking 4 engine transports in stock and CHS I cannot say what they do in that case?] But RHS HAS 4 engine transports - and it is hard to see how an LB-30/C-87 is much different from its B-24 parent? So I choose to treat them the same. Similarly, I fail to see how taking a Ventura bomber and making it a night fighter makes it more maneuverable? So I treat them the same. I will consider a different factor - propose one. But remember it must work for ALL cases - not just one plane or one plane type.
I have tried square root of number of engines - and the impact on 4 E planes is not acceptable.
But should all 2-engine planes be treated the same? Are not planes designed to intercept built and shaped differently than a 2-engine type medium bomber. Certainly speed, ROC, PL and WL play a part and all 2-engine designs apparently are less manueverable than a single engine, but is a 2-engine fitghter and a 2-engine bomber with the same characteristics handle the same?
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review [Updated]
ORIGINAL: Herrbear
But should all 2-engine planes be treated the same? Are not planes designed to intercept built and shaped differently than a 2-engine type medium bomber. Certainly speed, ROC, PL and WL play a part and all 2-engine designs apparently are less manueverable than a single engine, but is a 2-engine fitghter and a 2-engine bomber with the same characteristics handle the same?
I believe Sid is agreeing with you. he has noted that planes that are really bombers that have been drafted into the role of night-fighters are being treated like the bomber version.
Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home
RE: RHS Maneuverability Review [Updated]
ORIGINAL: witpqs
ORIGINAL: Herrbear
But should all 2-engine planes be treated the same? Are not planes designed to intercept built and shaped differently than a 2-engine type medium bomber. Certainly speed, ROC, PL and WL play a part and all 2-engine designs apparently are less manueverable than a single engine, but is a 2-engine fitghter and a 2-engine bomber with the same characteristics handle the same?
I believe Sid is agreeing with you. he has noted that planes that are really bombers that have been drafted into the role of night-fighters are being treated like the bomber version.
Yes that is true, but I think he is treating all 2-engine planes the same.