Author Topic: Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests  (Read 34860 times)

Offline Raptor

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7577
Re: Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests
« Reply #180 on: October 26, 2009, 03:15:07 PM »
Thorsim, I suggest you fly in a scenario in Aces High. You see much different tactics because you are limited on the number of aircraft. There you will rarely see a P38 trying to turn with a zero, but in the MA there is no consequence for trying.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Re: Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests
« Reply #181 on: October 26, 2009, 03:24:57 PM »
where the differences are wide i fail to see how there could be much of a argument against my point as i would not give much of a chance for the p-51 or the jugg vs say a spitfire in a low and slow turn fight no matter how much flap was used or who was piloting each aircraft.  the american planes are not designed or suited for that kind of fight vs. a spitfire that excelled in it.  i requested a different opinion from an expert before, and none was offered, i suspect because one could not be found.
Any Merlin Spitfire in AH will eat the P-51 or P-47 for lunch in that scenario.  The Spit XIV might as well, I haven't tried it.

I remember being in the TA one night when a new player started asking for help.  He'd seen the advert on TV and jumped into a P-51, which was the fighter he was hyped about.  After about a day in the MA of having his bellybutton handed to him he was in the TA trying things out and he concluded that the game was BS because the Spitfire Mk V was obviously a vastly better fighter than the P-51D.  In his mind, the P-51D was the greatest fighter of WWII and he was expecting to easily kill other aircraft with it.  Problem was, like most players new to the genre, his only tactic was to roll onto his side and pull the stick back as far as he could in luftberry turn fights.  Obviously any Spitfire is going to destroy a P-51 in that kind of fight, and that is exactly what happened.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline hammer

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2198
      • netAces
Re: Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests
« Reply #182 on: October 26, 2009, 07:37:30 PM »
i understand that opportunity to explore is a factor, it is not the only factor and it is limited to the FM limits, another factor is that the "absolute limits" are different FMs to reality, as has also been noted by many of you in other threads and those are the limits i think should be addressed.

As has been pointed out numerous times, well documented differences have been addressed in the past and, I'm sure, will continue to be addressed in the future. As has also been pointed out numerous times, anecdotal evidence is not reliable for a number of reasons. Making inferences based on one pilot's account provides no data, just opinions. Without precise data on all of the variables applied to both planes in an engagement, you are trying to distill facts from thin air. While it is true that anecdotal evidence can provide you with a theory, you still need hard facts to prove it.

It has also been pointed out that many sources differ on the performance of different planes. The completeness of the data about the plane being tested (i.e. load-out) must be known before the recorded performance can be duplicated. Just as with anecdotal evidence, if there is an unknown variable, it can skew the entire model.
 
Quote from: thorsim
i fly the a8 mostly because as i have pointed out i enjoy more of a challenge than most seem to want in here.
doing that my k/d is some 5x better than the average a8 pilot in here.
 

[ Golf Clap ] BnZing while maintaining an energy advantage is a very basic form of e-fighting but not what I'm talking about here. that may not be how you fly the A8, but it's what I see most often in that plane. Also, the A8 would not be a good candidate for the type of e-fighting I'm talking about.

Quote from: thorsim
point being that compared to most i could write the book on energy in these games.  at least compared to the B&Z pilot who likes to "saddle up" i suggest you read a little on energy and see how truly unlikely that would be in TRW.

 :huh

Quote from: thorsim
, lets try this on for size ...

Most of those planes might be able to get slow and turn that tight circle, but that will always leave them at a disadvantage to a better TnB plane.  negating their advantage in gaining E. always "."
you get multiple lives to figure that out, so even the "slowest" learn that given the choice, you do not want to fight in the other guys area of advantage, ever.

There are so many things a "lesser" turning plane can do to a better turning one that it's not even funny. The 38 was famous for the "cloverleaf". A barrel roll in the opposite direction your opponent turns can make it seem like your screaming BnZer followed his slow TnBer in a turn. Putting the nose down can let a plane cut inside the circle of one that is flat turning. Nose up with the power to sustain it can stall out a low powered turner if it tries to follow. So no, I don't agree with you assertion that saddling up on a "better" turner always results in death for the "lesser" turning plane.  As many people have figured out, you don't have to out-turn a plane to out maneuver it.


Quote from: thorsim
when you can say the above, then you will be getting closer to reality and the game gains back a dimension it has lost from it's origin games.

So what you're really saying is that you don't like the fact that people don't fly the way they did in the war. I submit that, just as you point out, flying that way gets people killed on a regular basis. It's not the flight model that's screwed up, it's the fact that we don't die so we're willing to try to saddle up and figure out a way to beat a "better" plane in a "lesser" plane in some way other than trying to pick an unsuspecting enemy off as we zoom through a a furball. Sure, that's a better way to survive the sortie, but it sure gets boring sometimes! Instead, we try things that someone concerned about their own skin wouldn't try. Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. The F4U that throws out its flaps might get the unsuspecting spit, but he's easy prey for the next enemy in line. That's why they didn't do it in real life, not necessarily that their plane wasn't capable of doing it. In the game, a kill is worth a death to many people. In real life mission objectives could often be accomplished simply by chasing an enemy away. In the game, for the fighter pilot, the kill is the mission.


Regards,

Hammer
Hammer

JG11
(Temporarily Retired)

Offline thorsim

  • Parolee
  • Restricted
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
      • The Luftwhiner Lounge
Re: Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests
« Reply #183 on: October 26, 2009, 08:30:27 PM »
no hammer what i am saying is what i have said, nothing else so lets please not start that again.

the hog that "catches" the unsuspecting spit by giving away it's E advantage should not be worrying about the next spit but the one he just "saddled up on" because i assure you that in most states the spit should fly circles around the hog and if that is not happening and the spit does not reverse on the hog in very short order then something is very wrong with the respective FMs.

that is what i am saying, and in this instance you can project along the entire very big vs. pretty small planes in the set. 

regards,

t
 
THOR C.O. II ~JG-27~ Afrika-AH
Axis Co-Op
Quote from: any number of idiots here
blah blah Blah
Quote from: oldman
Good call.  Ignore the people who actually flew the real planes against each other.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Re: Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests
« Reply #184 on: October 26, 2009, 08:43:48 PM »
no hammer what i am saying is what i have said, nothing else so lets please not start that again.

the hog that "catches" the unsuspecting spit by giving away it's E advantage should not be worrying about the next spit but the one he just "saddled up on" because i assure you that in most states the spit should fly circles around the hog and if that is not happening and the spit does not reverse on the hog in very short order then something is very wrong with the respective FMs.

that is what i am saying, and in this instance you can project along the entire very big vs. pretty small planes in the set. 

regards,

t
 
You need to provide some evidence to support that claim.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests
« Reply #185 on: October 26, 2009, 08:46:43 PM »
s the spit should fly circles around the hog and if that is not happening and the spit does not reverse on the hog in very short order then something is very wrong with the respective FMs.

Why?  Err, Karnak beat me to it...
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech

Offline Brooke

  • Aces High CM Staff
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15737
      • http://www.electraforge.com/brooke/
Re: Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests
« Reply #186 on: October 26, 2009, 09:07:58 PM »
the spit should fly circles around the hog

A Spit V seems to me to handily beat an F4U-1D in a stallfight.

In AH, one plane that outturns another with no flaps generally (maybe not always, but generally) outturns it when both are flying around with full flaps.  Your turn-rate hierarchy is thus generally preserved there.  There are perhaps a couple of exceptions, but that is to be expected.  Flaps do change lift and drag, and thus turn rate and turn radius.  Some flaps will be more effective than others, naturally.

It seems to me that you feel that plane A should outturn plane B based on a handful of anecdotal quotes.  Anecdotal quotes, as pointed out, can be quite inaccurate.  Much better is flight-test data; and even one example of flight-test data is not necessarily as good as several examples of flight-test data, so that you can spot means, anomalies, and outliers.

My guess is that the performance of planes in AH is typically backed up by multiple sets of flight-test data.

If you come up with some flight-test data that contradicts performance of a plane in AH, I'd bet HTC would be interested to know it.  But anecdotal statements from pilots here and there are not something solid on which you can base a simulator's settings.  Anecdotal statements have way too much noise in them, and you can find examples of such statements supporting opposite conclusions.

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests
« Reply #187 on: October 26, 2009, 09:12:44 PM »
A Spit V seems to me to handily beat an F4U-1D in a stallfight.

All other things being equal, it should.  However, the great thing about this game is that it doesn't always.  And that has nothing to do with the FM.
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech

Offline mtnman

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2438
Re: Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests
« Reply #188 on: October 26, 2009, 09:23:49 PM »

the hog that "catches" the unsuspecting spit by giving away it's E advantage should not be worrying about the next spit but the one he just "saddled up on" because i assure you that in most states the spit should fly circles around the hog and if that is not happening and the spit does not reverse on the hog in very short order then something is very wrong with the respective FMs.
  

You're all sorts of wrong with this statement.

A- "unsuspecting spit" implies what?  If I can drop onto an "unsuspecting spit" in almost any plane I shouldn't have to worry about him flying circles around me...  If he's unsuspecting because he's not paying attention, he may not even turn, and if he does, why would I expect him to out-turn me (in an F4U, in this argument)?  If he's unsuspecting because I can surprise him with a brief turning advantage in the right situation, I also don't need to worry about him flying circles around me then either...

Now, if I saddle up, and don't make a quick kill, then guess what?  He can fly around the circle quicker, and I'm going to die if I allow that.  No amount of flaps will save me in that situation, and actually, the incorrect or overuse of flaps is probably what got me in that situation to begin with...  Low, slow, flat turning, and flaps out will favor the spit (or a multitude of other AC) over the F4U.  Regardless of the turn radius, the turn rates will come into effect, big time.

For that matter, the F4U (or any other flap-using American plane) that drops flaps and gets slow is fairly easy pickings for a whole lot of planes (even the German ones).  Possibly not easy pickings for a whole lot of pilots, but that's not the fault of the plane or the FM.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2009, 09:25:50 PM by mtnman »
MtnMan

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not". Thomas Jefferson

Offline Widewing

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8802
Re: Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests
« Reply #189 on: October 26, 2009, 09:43:09 PM »

Most of those planes might be able to get slow and turn that tight circle, but that will always leave them at a disadvantage to a better TnB plane.  negating their advantage in gaining E. always "."
you get multiple lives to figure that out, so even the "slowest" learn that given the choice, you do not want to fight in the other guys area of advantage, ever.

when you can say the above, then you will be getting closer to reality and the game gains back a dimension it has lost from it's origin games.

The game is its own reality... You need to grasp that.

I can take a Boston III into a dogfight (dueling as well) against a Spit8, and win more than 90% of the time. That's a reality. Can a Boston out-turn a Spitfire Mk.8? Not even close... For example a typical difference could be that I can fly that Boston to the absolute edge of its flight envelope, while 90% of the players in the game can't even come close to attaining the limits of their Spitfire. Adding to their dilemma is being freaked-out that they have to fight for their life against a medium bomber in the first place. That psychological edge should not be underestimated. That's part of the game reality too. Getting inside the other guy's head is part of the reality. Are you familiar with John Boyd's OODA loop?

BFM and ACM skills, rock solid SA, complete knowledge and understanding of all aircraft capabilities and good tactical sense... Add to this aggressiveness. These are the things that enable pilots/players to fight and win engagements in a manner counter-intuitive to accepted norms.

Another factor touched on is experience. A player who logs 100 hours a month for 5 years will have 6,000 hours of combat experience and probably more than 20,000 engagements. Some players have been in this game much longer than that. Compare that to the typical WWII pilot with 300 total hours in fighters and a tiny number of actual engagements. This difference in experience is mind boggling. That difference is seen in how they are able to do things a WWII pilot would think impossible. Now, add in the fact that being shot down is without the slightest penalty and you have the reality that is Aces High.


My regards,

Widewing
My regards,

Widewing

YGBSM. Retired Member of Aces High Trainer Corps, Past President of the DFC, retired from flying as Tredlite.

Offline Chalenge

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15179
Re: Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests
« Reply #190 on: October 26, 2009, 10:36:32 PM »
Thanks a lot for making me add all those hours up Widewing.  :mad:
If you like the Sick Puppy Custom Sound Pack the please consider contributing for future updates by sending a months dues to Hitech Creations for account "Chalenge." Every little bit helps.

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Re: Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests
« Reply #191 on: October 26, 2009, 11:02:48 PM »
Thanks a lot for making me add all those hours up Widewing.  :mad:

Yeah, made me wonder if I had broken the 500,000 sortie mark.  Then I started to cry.


ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23939
      • Last.FM Profile
Re: Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests
« Reply #192 on: October 26, 2009, 11:48:49 PM »
Yeah, made me wonder if I had broken the 500,000 sortie mark.  Then I started to cry.


ack-ack

Maybe you don't need to cry..
If AKAK is your only handle, you have "only" 22,716 fighter & attack sorties (and 37,648 kills) in AH so far (all Main Arenas only)
I doubt even with all AW sorties added you are even remotely approaching 500,000 ;)
Steam: DrKalv
E:D Snailman

In November 2025, Lusche will return for a 20th anniversary tour. Get your tickets now!

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22416
Re: Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests
« Reply #193 on: October 26, 2009, 11:59:14 PM »
i fly the a8 mostly because as i have pointed out i enjoy more of a challenge than most seem to want in here.
doing that my k/d is some 5x better than the average a8 pilot in here.  point being that compared to most i could write the book on energy in these games.  at least compared to the B&Z pilot who likes to "saddle up" i suggest you read a little on energy and see how truly unlikely that would be in TRW.

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%?  
FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline thorsim

  • Parolee
  • Restricted
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
      • The Luftwhiner Lounge
Re: Turn rate hierarchy correlation from actual flight tests
« Reply #194 on: October 27, 2009, 01:00:17 AM »
yep gunnery pretty poor, that is different in this game.  not sure why you think that would mean that i know less about energy fighting though, as i am making up for my gunnery with my flying. 

 

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%?  
THOR C.O. II ~JG-27~ Afrika-AH
Axis Co-Op
Quote from: any number of idiots here
blah blah Blah
Quote from: oldman
Good call.  Ignore the people who actually flew the real planes against each other.