Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests

[thorsim]

i am not really interested in conversations that are monitored selectively 

the game dictates the behavior, what i describe is far to common to be considered adventure.

if you guys want to believe you are all so much better than the real pilots you are pretending to represent that you can abandon 90+ years of expertise in the area that this game presents itself as simulating,
then you know or care far to little about reality to have any conversation about how this VIDEO GAME does anything in relation to reality.  it is NOT worth discussing in this regard.

[thorsim]

See Rules #2, #4, #5

[Stoney]

i am not really interested in conversations that are monitored selectively 

the game dictates the behavior, what i describe is far to common to be considered adventure.

if you guys want to believe you are all so much better than the real pilots you are pretending to represent that you can abandon 90+ years of expertise in the area that this game presents itself as simulating,
then you know or care far to little about reality to have any conversation about how this VIDEO GAME does anything in relation to reality.  it is NOT worth discussing in this regard.

None of us are saying we could get in the real thing, and perform better than our real life predecessors.  What they're describing is the decision-making process, the use of ACM in a fight, accrued gunnery skills, and overall experience in-game, compared to those same characteristics which were possessed by our real life predecessors during the War.

[Anaxogoras]

I can rattle off 200 names that could hand you your own arse in the A8.   Because it's obvious your gunnery is in need of an overhaul.   3.16%?  

Some people will strafe ground targets while in fighter mode, which I've done on plenty of occasions.  Not shooting an M3 because you're in the wrong mode and it won't score properly is silly.

Fwiw, I would never bring someone's score into an argument, because some of the best pilots I've seen have terrible scores.  We can't insist on the one hand that score is meaningless and then on the other criticize someone for a crappy gunnery %.

Carry on with the flame fest...

[thorsim]

i believe that if the virtual consequences were more representative of the real world consequences,
then the virtual behavior in the virtual environment would be more like the real behavior in the real world,
and the 90+ years of real world expertise would be more applicable to the video game.   

if you do not agree then i guess we will remain in disagreement.

+S+

t

None of us are saying we could get in the real thing, and perform better than our real life predecessors.  What they're describing is the decision-making process, the use of ACM in a fight, accrued gunnery skills, and overall experience in-game, compared to those same characteristics which were possessed by our real life predecessors during the War.

[Masherbrum]

Some people will strafe ground targets while in fighter mode, which I've done on plenty of occasions.  Not shooting an M3 because you're in the wrong mode and it won't score properly is silly.

Fwiw, I would never bring someone's score into an argument, because some of the best pilots I've seen have terrible scores.  We can't insist on the one hand that score is meaningless and then on the other criticize someone for a crappy gunnery %.

Carry on with the flame fest...

He made the "I'm 5x times better in an A8 than the average player" claim, not me.   

[Anaxogoras]

He made the "I'm 5x times better in an A8 than the average player" claim, not me.  

Fair enough.  I've never fought thorsim so I have no way to evaluate such a claim, but based on the average AH 190 pilot 5x better isn't hard to achieve.  There's a bad tendency at the AH bbs to assume that because someone is new to the game, that they have no clue about air combat.  I have a long time friend I grew up with who now flies an F-16C in the air force.  If he came to the AH bbs, I'm sure he would be told he was a noob and needed to read Shaw.  Aces High is not the end all be all standard of who's who in air combat, but you certainly don't get that impression from reading the boards.  And I'm not picking on any one individually, it's a general trait I see time and time again.

-------------

I'm reading through the thread at the moment.  So far as I can tell, real world tests sometimes contradict each other, are conducted improperly, and even after you sort through all of that, the results still may not reflect what we observe in the game.  Is this really so surprising?  However, it's no evidence for intentional bias.

-------------

Here is my own test for turn rate.  Radius data is readily available.  Aircraft were tested with 75% fuel, except in cases where full internal fuel would give more than 45 minutes of flight time with main arena fuel burn.  Those aircraft were tested with 50% fuel.  Altitude is close to 0' asl.  Flaps were used to the extent that they benefited turn rate, where they did not, they were not used, e.g. Spitfire.

The rates are expressed as a zscore:

[mtnman]

i believe that if the virtual consequences were more representative of the real world consequences,
then the virtual behavior in the virtual environment would be more like the real behavior in the real world,
and the 90+ years of real world expertise would be more applicable to the video game.   

if you do not agree then i guess we will remain in disagreement.

+S+

t

How so?

Like, if you die, you're just done playing?  That's what it would take to get people to fly like they're lives depended on it, and even that wouldn't do it.  People would just move to a new game, or create a new account.  Maybe if HTC could add a RL death aspect to the subscription?  You can't expect people to fear death, when death isn't a possibility...

Or do you have specific things you think need to be changed (rather than all the vague claims/references you've made so far) in the FM?

What should specifically happen if an F4U drops two notches of flaps in a fight with a Spit8, if the Spit8 is in front of the F4U, and how does the game differ from RL in this respect?  Or pick your 190A8 as an example.  What does it do differently than it should, specifically?  Since you started with flap deployment, what speed should they drop in the 190A8, and what should be the effect?  And would it be a good idea to drop them anyway?

Can you even present any examples from the GAME (film, maybe) where you believe the FM is wrong?  And back that opinion up with any factual RL examples?

Are you blowing smoke?

Is it possible that your frustration with the "FM" has more to do with your skill level?  I agree with Anaxogoras, in that you don't need a great score to be a decent stick, but at the same time your score doesn't make you look very successful at all.  It looks like I imagine mine would if I just avoided 1v1 fights, and flew around high and fast looking for some cherry picking opportunities (that you then have trouble connecting on).  I could be wrong of course- do you have any film of your fights?  Showing your self-acclaimed 190A8 E-fighting prowess?  I really have no interest in "ripping them apart", I'm just curious as to how you fight, and how it may skew your perception of the FM.  Can you show yourself getting away with things you think you shouldn't be able to?  Out-turning a spit with a full-flaps F4U, maybe?  Or show others doing the same?

This is a crazy argument that just goes 'round and 'round.  Of course, you could take the "easy route" and blame it on our inability to comprehend your writing, or claim that we're only selectively monitoring the conversation, but of course we could do that too.  Look back at your own posts, do they flawlessly present an argument?  How about some specifics for a change?  You're the one claiming the game/FM is "broken"; show us the crack!  

Since you're the one making the claims, the burden of proof falls on you.  Your inability to present that proof doesn't mean we're selectively monitoring your argument, or that we can't comprehend it.  Conversely, it's just as likely that your attempt to present a factual, comprehensive argument is a failure.

[Anaxogoras]

How so?

Like, if you die, you're just done playing?  That's what it would take to get people to fly like they're lives depended on it, and even that wouldn't do it.  People would just move to a new game, or create a new account.  Maybe if HTC could add a RL death aspect to the subscription?  You can't expect people to fear death, when death isn't a possibility...

FSO is exactly what you describe, and it's the only reason I keep an account.

So far as I can see, the 190A-8 is about the only plane thorsim flies.  Let's all be honest and admit that BnZ is about the only thing that plane is good at.  I know someone is going to mention this or that sierra hotel stick, and how he can out turn Ki-84s in the A8, and so on.  Let's be honest again and admit that success stories like that only occur because of massive error on the part of the opposition.  I enjoy BnZ cherry picking just as much as I enjoy a good duel.  The perception that the former is easy is wrong.  It is wrong because good cherry picking requires moderation, being an expert at taking the middle path to conserve energy.  Riding the stall horn is what is easy.  Pull back as much as the plane will allow and turn, turn, turn.

edit:
Burden of proof is always on the affirmative claim.  "I doubt it's true," is immune from burden of proof.  Doubt can always be reasonably maintained where there is lack of evidence on the affirmative side.  For example, I do not require evidence to justifiably say "I doubt the turn rate of the 190A-8 in Aces High," in the absence of evidence to support it.  Even if there is evidence supporting the affirmative, doubt is still reasonable when the evidence is unconvincing, ambiguous, or fails to meet some other epistemic standard, and such doubt does not require a presentation of evidence.  What requires evidence is if I specify how it should turn, relative to other aircraft, or how many circles in so many seconds, etc.

[mtnman]

FSO is exactly what you describe, and it's the only reason I keep an account.

Not really. 

I would still fly differently in an FSO event than I would if it was RL.  After all, I can just log into a different arena after I die in FSO...  "Death" is still no big deal.

[thorsim]

See Rules #2, #4, #5

it's ok i already printed a copy     ...

[thorsim]

the consequences i speak of would be getting shot down or crashing in the video game as often as you would in the real world when you did something that would result in those two things ...

in the real world.  

if that happened the negative feedback would IMO adjust the behavior in the game.

since the behavior persists, than my reasoning is that the consequences RE the way i stated them above are not in line with the real world, and so beyond my "impressions while flying" there is that behavior to lead me to question how well the game reflects reality.

just to clear up the whole consequences thing ...

+S+

t

  

[BnZs]

Okay Anax...how did you end up getting a better turn rate out of the P-38L than the J?

Fair enough.  I've never fought thorsim so I have no way to evaluate such a claim, but based on the average AH 190 pilot 5x better isn't hard to achieve.  There's a bad tendency at the AH bbs to assume that because someone is new to the game, that they have no clue about air combat.  I have a long time friend I grew up with who now flies an F-16C in the air force.  If he came to the AH bbs, I'm sure he would be told he was a noob and needed to read Shaw.  Aces High is not the end all be all standard of who's who in air combat, but you certainly don't get that impression from reading the boards.  And I'm not picking on any one individually, it's a general trait I see time and time again.

-------------

I'm reading through the thread at the moment.  So far as I can tell, real world tests sometimes contradict each other, are conducted improperly, and even after you sort through all of that, the results still may not reflect what we observe in the game.  Is this really so surprising?  However, it's no evidence for intentional bias.

-------------

Here is my own test for turn rate.  Radius data is readily available.  Aircraft were tested with 75% fuel, except in cases where full internal fuel would give more than 45 minutes of flight time with main arena fuel burn.  Those aircraft were tested with 50% fuel.  Altitude is close to 0' asl.  Flaps were used to the extent that they benefited turn rate, where they did not, they were not used, e.g. Spitfire.

The rates are expressed as a zscore:

(Image removed from quote.)

[Anaxogoras]

Okay Anax...how did you end up getting a better turn rate out of the P-38L than the J?

I don't know.  I had the same question, and so I ran the test multiple times with a similar result.  In any case, the difference is small, about .7 seconds difference to complete a 360.  The difference looks large in the chart because of the Zscore scaling, i.e. a very large number of aircraft turn 360 degrees in +/- 18 seconds.

Here are the raw times to complete a 360 in sustained turn:


190F-8   22
P47D-25   21.91
190A-8   21.32
P47D-40   20.99
P47D-11   20.94
P40B   20.46
P47N   20.41
190D-9   20.06
P51D   20
P-39D   19.82
190A-5   19.53
P38G   19.34
P51B   19.26
Typhoon   19.02
YAK 9T   18.91
P38J   18.85
Mossie   18.83
109 K-4   18.57
P40E   18.55
C205   18.47
TA152   18.46
110 C   18.36
F4F   18.31
LA5   18.27
YAK 9U   18.22
109 G-14   18.2
110 G   18.19
F4U-1   18.16
F6F   18.14
LA7   18.13
109 G-6   18.13
P38L   18.13
109 G-2   18.12
Tempest   18.02
F4U-1C   17.94
P-39Q   17.8
F4U-1D   17.73
F4U-1A   17.57
Hurri IID   17.49
109 E-4   17.39
KI61   17.39
109 F-4   17.14
C202   17.06
N1K2   16.84
FM2   16.63
Spit XIV   16.56
Seafire IIC   16.46
F4U-4   16.39
KI84   16.12
Spit XVI   15.77
Spit IX   15.73
Hurri IIC   15.71
Spit VIII   15.66
Spit V   14.97
Hurri I   14.91
Spit I   14.73
A6M5   14.58
A6M2   13.16

Oh, and before someone asks, I turned to the right with the XIV and Yaks, to the left with the rest.

Not really.  

I would still fly differently in an FSO event than I would if it was RL.  After all, I can just log into a different arena after I die in FSO...  "Death" is still no big deal.

That's not how many of us look at it.  1) it hurts the total point score for your team; 2) it impedes on your squad's ability to complete its mission objective; 3) the main arena is a cesspool in comparison to FSO.  Many of us try very hard not to die in FSO because main arena combat is such a boor in comparison.

[Karnak]

How so?

Like, if you die, you're just done playing?  That's what it would take to get people to fly like they're lives depended on it, and even that wouldn't do it.  People would just move to a new game, or create a new account.  Maybe if HTC could add a RL death aspect to the subscription?  You can't expect people to fear death, when death isn't a possibility...

FSO is exactly what you describe, and it's the only reason I keep an account.

Thing about FSO, like reality and unlike the MAs, is that you have orders and a goal.  If you make the death penalty in the MAs too harsh, people just stop engaging unless they have a massive advantage.   There are many examples from history where pilots engaged in a heavily disadvantageous way because they had to do so for war reasons.

the consequences i speak of would be getting shot down or crashing in the video game as often as you would in the real world when you did something that would result in those two things ...

Demonstrate that this does not already happen.  I have pancaked many a Mossie because I pushed the envelope too far.  Unlike reality, I learn and try again.