ENY and performance, your opinion desired

[Saxman]

Saxman, that's an excellent criticism.  It's hard to compare the fighters that have the same weapon in both banks vs the ones that have drastically different weapons.  For instance, if we say that secondary weapon ballistics are important, e.g. we assign it a value of 1, then aircraft like the 109F-4 and SpitfireV gain too much for something that's really insignificant.  If we assign it something less, like .5, then an aircraft like the P-47 or Typhoon is cheated.

That's why gun package should be an average of factors combined: Lethality + Fire Duration + Ballistics, rather than rating each one individually. Usefulness of the weapons package is determined by ALL these characteristics together.

That way planes like the K4 that have one big but VERY hard to utilize gun aren't overestimated due to sheer hitting-power in comparison to something like the F4U-4, which has a lighter weapons package but the advantage of A) being easier to hit with and B) having consistent ballistics and fire duration across both banks. The case can then be made that despite the lower lethality the F4U-4 still has the advantage in armament.

[Anaxogoras]

What I've done for now is to split lethality among both weapon banks.  That way they can be independently manipulated by a multiplier (if desired).

I found more data on our aircraft compiled by others and added it in.  The categories are now as follows:

Speed at sea level
Speed at 10k ft
Speed above 10k ft
Climb at sea level
Climb at 10k ft
Climb at 15k ft
Turn radius
Turn radius w flaps
Primary Lethality
Secondary Lethality
Primary Firing time
Secondary Firing Time
Primary Ballistics
secondary Ballistics
Flight Time (at full throttle)
Ordinance
Roll Rate
Cockpit Visibility
Dive Acceleration
Energy Retention
200-300mph acceleration

[Saxman]

Keep in mind you should also account for both maneuverability AND roll at different speed rates.

For example: If you were to judge based on turn radius only and using an absolute measurement, the Zero is the best plane in the game. But if you start breaking it down by high, medium and low speeds the picture looks RADICALLY different. The Zero will out-turn the F4U handily at low speeds, but any Zero that tries to match the F4U in a high-speed turning contest above 300mph is in deep trouble.

The same goes for rate of roll. Some aircraft excel at rolling within certain speed bands, (IE, low, medium or high) others are more balanced and have good roll response at all speeds.

If you're going to break speed and climb down by altitude, turning and roll should be broken down by speed bands (say, 150-250 / 251-350 / 351-450 / 451+ ).

Turn RATE should be a factor as well.

[BnZs]

Anax,
I'm thinking on it. Got quite abit on the old plate right now.

[Anaxogoras]

Keep in mind you should also account for both maneuverability AND roll at different speed rates.

For example: If you were to judge based on turn radius only and using an absolute measurement, the Zero is the best plane in the game. But if you start breaking it down by high, medium and low speeds the picture looks RADICALLY different. The Zero will out-turn the F4U handily at low speeds, but any Zero that tries to match the F4U in a high-speed turning contest above 300mph is in deep trouble.

The same goes for rate of roll. Some aircraft excel at rolling within certain speed bands, (IE, low, medium or high) others are more balanced and have good roll response at all speeds.

If you're going to break speed and climb down by altitude, turning and roll should be broken down by speed bands (say, 150-250 / 251-350 / 351-450 / 451+ ).

Turn RATE should be a factor as well.

I have access to turn rate data, but not to data for roll rate or turn at different speeds.  So far the A6M2/5 ends up being one of the worst fighters, so not having that data isn't going to change much.

The excel sheet I'm using computes data like this:

Take a category, like top speed on the deck.  Subtract the average top speed from the aircraft's top speed, and divide by the standard deviation.  The results are usually in the range of -1.9 to 1.9.  Anything below or above that is extreme.  That score, called the Z-score, can then be modified by a multiplier to accentuate one category or another, and to de-emphasize others.  Then you simply take the average for all categories to get a total score.

With multipliers set like this

1.5   Speed at sea level
1.75 Speed at 10k ft
.75   Speed above 10k ft
1.0   Climb at sea level
1.0   Climb at 10k ft
0.25 Climb at 15k ft
1.25  Turn radius
1.5   Turn radius w flaps
1.5   Primary Lethality
1.5   Secondary Lethality
0.5   Primary Firing time
0.5   Secondary Firing Time
1.0   Primary Ballistics
1.0   secondary Ballistics
.75   Flight Time (at full throttle)
0.5   Ordinance
1.25  Roll Rate
0.5   Cockpit Visibility
.75   Dive Acceleration
.75   Energy Retention
1.5   200-300mph acceleration

these are the results (no P-39 or F4U-1A):

Tempest   0.64
F4U-4   0.62
Spit XIV   0.54
Spit XVI   0.50
F4U-1C   0.44
P47N   0.43
LA7   0.37
F4U-1D   0.34
Spit VIII   0.33
P51D   0.32
P51B   0.29
F4U-1   0.28
190D-9   0.26
109 K-4   0.25
P47D-40   0.24
P47D-25   0.18
KI84   0.17
P38L   0.16
P47D-11   0.15
TA152   0.15
Mossie   0.14
P38J   0.13
LA5   0.12
Typhoon   0.12
109 G-14   0.10
Spit IX   0.10
F6F   0.08
109 G-2   0.06
190A-5   0.06
N1K2   0.06
110 G   0.04
190A-8   0.03
YAK 9U   0.01
109 F-4   -0.01
109 G-6   -0.08
C205   -0.11
190F-8   -0.13
P38G   -0.13
Spit V   -0.18
YAK 9T   -0.25
KI61   -0.28
Seafire IIC   -0.29
C202   -0.33
FM2   -0.51
Hurri IIC   -0.56
P40E   -0.59
Spit I   -0.63
110 C   -0.70
A6M5   -0.74
Hurri IID   -0.79
109 E-4   -0.85
F4F   -0.88
P40B   -0.90
A6M2   -0.92
Hurri I   -0.97


P.S. For the La's I divided their lethality between the primary and 2ndary weapons.

[BnZs]

Okay, I thought of one thing. For MA purposes, speed on the deck should weigh *more* than speed at 10K, not less, IMO. Whether running or chasing something down, the chases that don't start on the deck will tend to end up there with a dive.

Also, you think acceleration should be factored in? It could be argued that one category that reflects on t/w ratio, climb, is enough, I suppose, but acceleration might be nice to see.

[Saxman]

F4U-1A would be relatively easy to calculate:

Take the F4U-1 and use the 1D's figures for rate of climb and acceleration.

[Anaxogoras]

Okay, I thought of one thing. For MA purposes, speed on the deck should weigh *more* than speed at 10K, not less, IMO. Whether running or chasing something down, the chases that don't start on the deck will tend to end up there with a dive.

Also, you think acceleration should be factored in? It could be argued that one category that reflects on t/w ratio, climb, is enough, I suppose, but acceleration might be nice to see.

Acceleration is there, 200-300mph.

[Chalenge]

Hitler lost the war because he was fouled up waiting on ENY to kick in.

[Delirium]

Gavagi is just continuing to push an agenda no one either agrees with or really cares about.

Hate to say it...

[Anaxogoras]

Gavagi is just continuing to push an agenda no one either agrees with or really cares about.

Hate to say it...

Oh, come on now.  Is this discussion harming you?   The concept outlined here is not even my own, but was graciously delivered to me by another bbs member.

[BnZs]

Oh, come on now.  Is this discussion harming you?   The concept outlined here is not even my own, but was graciously delivered to me by another bbs member.

Just for the sake of argument, could we see what results one gets when the value of speed at SL is set to 1.5, 10K to 1.25, and 15K to 1?

[mensa180]

Pilot skill: 14

[Anaxogoras]

Pilot skill: 14

   I tried that half-way and only one or two people liked it.

Just for the sake of argument, could we see what results one gets when the value of speed at SL is set to 1.5, 10K to 1.25, and 15K to 1?

Which other factor would I change to compensate for the .25 total difference?

Here is what I get with the following settings, a more extreme version of what you're asking for (turn rate added):

1.5   Speed at sea level
1.0   Speed at 10k ft
.5    Speed above 10k ft
1.5   Climb at sea level
1.0   Climb at 10k ft
0.5   Climb at 15k ft
1.0   Turn-rate
1.0   Turn radius
1.0   Turn radius w flaps
1.5   Primary Lethality
1.5   Secondary Lethality
0.5   Primary Firing time
0.5   Secondary Firing Time
1.25  Primary Ballistics
1.25  Secondary Ballistics
.75   Flight Time (at full throttle)
.75   Ordinance
1.25  Roll Rate
.75   Cockpit Visibility
.75   Dive Acceleration
.75   Energy Retention
1.5   200-300mph acceleration

F4U-4   0.62
Tempest   0.59
Spit XIV   0.55
Spit XVI   0.53
F4U-1C   0.41
Spit VIII   0.38
LA7   0.34
P47N   0.34
F4U-1D   0.33
P51D   0.28
P38L   0.25
P51B   0.24
190D-9   0.23
P47D-40   0.23
KI84   0.22
P38J   0.21
F4U-1   0.20
109 K-4   0.18
P47D-25   0.16
F6F   0.13
LA5   0.13
N1K2   0.11
Spit IX   0.11
109 G-14   0.09
190A-5   0.09
P47D-11   0.09
TA152   0.09
Typhoon   0.09
109 G-2   0.07
Mossie   0.02
109 F-4   0.01
190A-8   -0.01
110 G   -0.02
YAK 9U   -0.03
P38G   -0.08
109 G-6   -0.09
C205   -0.12
Spit V   -0.15
190F-8   -0.16
YAK 9T   -0.26
Seafire IIC   -0.28
KI61   -0.31
C202   -0.32
FM2   -0.45
Hurri IIC   -0.46
P40E   -0.57
Spit I   -0.58
Hurri IID   -0.69
A6M5   -0.70
110 C   -0.75
A6M2   -0.82
109 E-4   -0.83
F4F   -0.87
Hurri I   -0.87
P40B   -0.90


The biggest surprise to me is the low rankings of the Hurri IIc and N1K, both slow, nimble aircraft with 4 cannons that enjoy main arena success.  They're just not well-rounded enough to do well when so many things are considered, but a lot of their success comes from fundamental mistakes by their opponents.  The N1K suffers most from its cannon ballistics.

I've toyed with all sorts of settings but it's very difficult to make the SpitXVI rank lower than the C-hog.   Perhaps if I upped ammo duration a bit at the expense of something else.

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

Edit:  If you want the spreadsheet so you can toy with the numbers yourself pm me your email address.

[Saxman]

I still think you need to differentiate high-speed vs low-speed rate of roll and maneuverability.