Countering the Rolling Scissors

[TequilaChaser]

One must also realize that they need to take into account the fact "Boyd's - Aerial Attack Study" Document is from a time of "Jet Propulsion Fighters" to where we are working with "Prop driven Fighters" in Aces High ( and same for WWII ).......

a Jet has it's Best Thrust/Speed/E when it is closer to it's Corner Velocity area of the Jet's Performance Envelope......

to where as a Prop Driven WWII Fighter will have it's most/Top thrust/Power attained  when it is at it's Stall Speed of the Performace Envelope.....

one can use "No Guts No Glory" News Letter from the mid 1940's.......

one can use "Boyd's - Aerial Attack Study" Document from the early/mid 1960's

one can use "Robert Shaw's  "Fighter Combat  Tactics & Maneuvering" Book 1985

all of these will give good information on how to use tactics, counter tactics, etc..... but in doing so you must take note that for especially the last 2 documents mentioned ( Boyd & Shaw ) that they are basing most of their writing off of Jet AirCraft.....

now I, personally, have been able to use and have seen those "internal talked about tactics" used in Aces High, AirWarrior, WarBirds, FighterAce, IL2, Traget Rabual/Target Korea <--by TargetWare, 1942, CombatFighter, Janes Series, etc.....

usually fights are struggles over either position or energy but great fighter pilots know that they are the two edges of the same sword, that both are lethal and that you can't really exploit one fully without giving up the other a bit.  the pilot who can exert his will, change his goals, and then reassert his dominance where his best advantage lies at that moment, will be difficult to defeat in ACM.

I agree to this, and this is ever so present in Aces High and in other Flight sims of this genre......

this is where the games fail, as advantages and disadvantages tend to be too great, and limitations to broad to fully explore ACM as they do in the real world ...

imo.   

I disagree with this almost completely......., but have to add, this is only partially true to a point, the point being that the only difference in advantages and disadvantages tending to be too great, is in the knowledge and experience of the (2) players flying against each other...... I do not see and have not seen any limitations that keep one from fully exploring ACM as is done in the real world..... I see it exactly the opposite...... One can fully explore the complete realm of BFM & ACM here in these flight sims more so than they could in the Real World..... that is where the game excels and the Real World fails...... for to do so in the real world would be too risky of making a mistake and ending up dead......

after all, is that not why the US Military ( USN, USMC, USAF etc...) have million dollar Flight Simulators built in the first place? so they can fully explore the complete boundarys of BFM/ACM before they ever let a Pilot to even enter the cockpit and take off in a Real Fighter?

my view /opinion anyhows.....

YMMV   

[FLS]

I agree TC and IIRC Boyd makes the point in the Aerial Attack Study that air combat is an application of physics. This is why it can be modeled so well on a PC. Even with limitations in what can be modeled the limitations are applied equally to all aircraft so the relative strengths and weaknesses of the aircraft remain in play.

[thorsim]

the problem lies in the difficulty in representing limits that were not tested to the extent that one needs to represent them in the games.  so one is left with a mountain of inconsistent and often conflicting data to decide on which too often leaves players wondering why this or that is not "like it was" in TRW ...

in general the vast majority of these planes are far more alike than different and within their performance envelopes should preform almost the same where those envelopes overlap (which is usually far and away the majority of those boxes) there seems to be a lot more variance than the ubiquitous

"performance so close that pilot skill determines the outcome"

is much more rare than those comments suggest.

also i find that some things that the sources attributed above suggest should happen too often do not happen in too many situations.  

the last sentiment above is where i find the games can fall short.  so as TC says, yes you can explore ACM but when highly unlikely things like the downward moving A/C in any kind of scissor fight being able to improve it's position rearward vs. the upward moving A/C is so unlikely in TRW yet seems so common in the games, that is one of the places where i loose faith in the modeling both general and FM specific.

places like that is where my opinion differs from TC, respectfully.  

+S+

t

[FLS]

the problem lies in the difficulty in representing limits that were not tested to the extent that one needs to represent them in the games.  so one is left with a mountain of inconsistent and often conflicting data to decide on which too often leaves players wondering why this or that is not "like it was" in TRW ...

Which players are you referring to that know what it was like in the real world?

[thorsim]

Which players are you referring to that know what it was like in the real world?

not players but accounts and tests that do not agree with each other and or the situation in the games ...

this is sort of off topic btw since the examples are numerous lets not totally derail this thread ...

my asides aside, the countering rules for scissors or maybe better stated as the rules of how to succeed in a scissors do not always apply to the game the way the guides to ACM say they should for similar aircraft.  that was the point i was trying to make.  so i am not trying to derail the thread i was just pointing out that the rules laid out in these guides do not apply absolutely in the games.  so as someone stated before they are excellent guidelines but are not necessarily able to be counted on as reliably as they suggest. 

that is all ...

Which players are you referring to that know what it was like in the real world?

[FLS]

I think you may be confusing how it was in the real world with some players understanding of how it was. I find that ACM works in Aces High. Ack-Ack's example of a lag displacement roll will give you angles and turning room which you wouldn't have if you tried to simply match the turn. Some people try to use a particular move without fully understanding how to apply it. This could lead to the belief that AH does not model air combat correctly and this is where the trainers can help. ACM is not so much basic fighter maneuvers strung together as it is concepts, which can be demonstrated with BFM, that are applied to a fluid constantly changing situation. Your opponent is rarely as cooperative as the bandit in an ACM example.

[thorsim]

that is quite possible, however there are those "WTF ?!?!?" moments in the games that really can not be equated to anything possible in a world where the physics are real as opposed to modeled.  not saying people are doing a bad job, i just think some things are shall we say lost in translation and those things tend to reveal themselves in situations in the games where one plane/pilot does things that the rules of ACM strongly suggest they shouldn't be able to do.  a nose down plane being able to decelerate more than a nose up plane is one of the more obvious situations i can think of that leave me scratching my head ... 

I think you may be confusing how it was in the real world with some players understanding of how it was. I find that ACM works in Aces High. Ack-Ack's example of a lag displacement roll will give you angles and turning room which you wouldn't have if you tried to simply match the turn. Some people try to use a particular move without fully understanding how to apply it. This could lead to the belief that AH does not model air combat correctly and this is where the trainers can help. ACM is not so much basic fighter maneuvers strung together as it is concepts, which can be demonstrated with BFM, that are applied to a fluid constantly changing situation. Your opponent is rarely as cooperative as the bandit in an ACM example.

[FLS]

You have film? Film is a useful tool for understanding things that seemed confusing when they happened.

[mtnman]

that is quite possible, however there are those "WTF ?!?!?" moments in the games that really can not be equated to anything possible in a world where the physics are real as opposed to modeled.  not saying people are doing a bad job, i just think some things are shall we say lost in translation and those things tend to reveal themselves in situations in the games where one plane/pilot does things that the rules of ACM strongly suggest they shouldn't be able to do.  a nose down plane being able to decelerate more than a nose up plane is one of the more obvious situations i can think of that leave me scratching my head ... 

From what I've seen, the VAST majority of those "WTF" moments are a result of inadequate SA.  As my experience and SA built, I've found those have completely gone away.  I haven't had one of those (not even close, as a matter of fact) for years...

Sure, someone may catch me by surprise on occasion, but they're far from "WTF" moments.  More like "Man, I can't believe I didn't see that!" or "I can't believe I fell for that" moments.  Blaming the flight model would be as worth-while (and relevant) as blaming the color of my gravel driveway in those situations.  Maybe the model isn't perfect, but I doubt it's as flawed as most players SA.

I'm having trouble with the example you've used twice with the nose-down vs nose-up plane.  Do you have any (even one) examples you can share?  Film?  It sounds like an SA issue to me...  I could be wrong...

[thorsim]

yes i have the files i have yet to sort out the film doofer, i am not ruling out the possibility it is perception or lag issues but i have quite a bit of time in the games and i hear WTF from even more experienced players than myself.

again i am not saying ACM does not relate at all i am just saying that it does not all translate from the books to the games the way the books suggest it should.  

[FLS]

Specific examples can be explained but generalities are likely to be perceived as false assumptions and suppositions rather than actual problems. If your specific example is off topic just start a new thread.

[mtnman]

yes i have the files i have yet to sort out the film doofer, i am not ruling out the possibility it is perception or lag issues but i have quite a bit of time in the games and i hear WTF from even more experienced players than myself.

again i am not saying ACM does not relate at all i am just saying that it does not all translate from the books to the games the way the books suggest it should.  

Not from an "I want you to post a film" perspective, but from a "Can I help you?" perspective...  What questions do you have on the film viewer?  

Without analyzing films, I don't see how you can have a prayer at a legitimate analysis of the game, especially the flight dynamics.  How do you measure/compare anything?  Discrepancies you see as "fact" could just as easily be (and probably are, IMO) a case of mistaken SA.  

It's amazing how many "WTF" situations are explained with a film.  And then turned into "Oh, I can use that!"  

And not just the ACM ideas...  It's easy to use the "normal", flawed, SA practices against your opponent.  Heck, I spend a fair amount of my time "broadcasting" clues that lead my opponent to make incorrect SA assessments of me, and my relation to him...  Incorrect assessment of the situation leads to incorrect ACM usage, which leads to another scalp fluttering on my lodge poles.

[thorsim]

well the nose up nose down has to do with gravity and the ability to close your turn ...

i.e. in a scissor, as someone stated it is a race to the rear position, the plane that can cross above the other thereby bleeding more e in the climb should be able to use the upward vertical plane to close their turn better than the plane that crosses lower ...

i may be stating it poorly but usually in a scissor you want to try to cross above your opponent.  if the scissor is not in the horizontal plane the pilot should know he is better able to work for the rear position when he is climbing relative to his opponent, conversely when he is descending he is better able to address his speed/energy needs.  working against gravity is counter productive and you are better off holding off on addressing either position or energy until you have gravity working with you.

i.e.

a similar plane diving should not be able to "gain" rearward on a similar climbing aircraft in a near equal energy state.    

conversely a similar plane climbing should not be able to "gain" speed/energy on a similar diving aircraft in a near equal energy state.

i find this happens far to much in the games for me to believe everything is as it all should be.    

so, the ability for some aircraft to do these things out of order so to speak often makes me think things are not quite correct.

if these things never happen to you well we have different experiences and i can only evaluate what i see.

+S+

t

[thorsim]

still sorting out other issues but if i can't get the films to work when i finally get around to setting that up i will ask for help, thanks for the offer though

+S+

t

Not from an "I want you to post a film" perspective, but from a "Can I help you?" perspective...  What questions do you have on the film viewer?  

Without analyzing films, I don't see how you can have a prayer at a legitimate analysis of the game, especially the flight dynamics.  How do you measure/compare anything?  Discrepancies you see as "fact" could just as easily be (and probably are, IMO) a case of mistaken SA.  

It's amazing how many "WTF" situations are explained with a film.  And then turned into "Oh, I can use that!"  

And not just the ACM ideas...  It's easy to use the "normal", flawed, SA practices against your opponent.  Heck, I spend a fair amount of my time "broadcasting" clues that lead my opponent to make incorrect SA assessments of me, and my relation to him...  Incorrect assessment of the situation leads to incorrect ACM usage, which leads to another scalp fluttering on my lodge poles.

[FLS]

Since you state that this happens often it should be a simple matter to post a film of it happening. When you post a specific example of something that actually happened rather than just posting hypothetical examples to suit your point it will be easier to help you.

Edit: Alt R starts film and Alt R again stops it. Just post it to a file sharing site and link it here or PM me and I'll give you an email address to send it to.