Seafire Vs SpitV (2011)

[dtango]

So all we want is a chart generator based on current game data where we can specify the loadout and get climb rate, speed, turn rate, and turn radius.   

     

[dtango]

....
The argument is the AH charts are wrong because they don’t represent what the weight of the aircraft would probably be in-game.  

Here’s the thing.  It doesn’t matter what the probability of a given weight is.  The performance of a plane in-game is based EXACTLY on its EXACT weight at that EXACT moment in time!  The probability of it being that weight at that time doesn’t change the fact the plane is at that weight.
...

Alright, time for me to own up for my mistake and trying to suck others into a black hole of intellectual oblivion of my own making. After thinking this through some more the argument I'm trying to make in this statement doesn't make sense.   No excuses.  I'm confused by the concept of relative probable performance and need to think it through more.  My argument is wrong though I can only partially explain why at the moment. 

[moot]

It's a good metric for measuring the airframe's climb and level speed performance.  
But then, IMO, if you want to see/compare its practical MA performance (meaning the way you'd load up a car "turkey" ready for a road trip instead of as it comes from factory) in climb and speed, standards like [50% fuel or 20min MIL's worth of fuel + some given weapons loadout] become the right metric to choose.

edit.. Turnkey, not turkey 

[dtango]

I think everybody might agree that the info on a chart is useless if the datapoints are irrelevant.

You could compare a B-25 with a Fw190, and depending how HEAVY they were the B-25 could outclimb the 190. Technically it's grounded in a physics engine, and may be true, but only for when based in nonsensical loadouts. If you looked up a chart that showed the Fw190A8 doing 1800 fpm and the B-25C doing 3500 fpm you would cry foul instantly. It's nowhere near representative of actual performance.

It's not a physics test. It's a top level speed and max climb rate chart. If the 190A8 is many hundreds of pounds lighter than the F8 and both planes have the exact same engines, drag, lift related to their airframes being identical, under no realistic situation should the charts show cookie-cutter identical lines.

You're debating the physics of it. As soon as we accepted that HTCs charts are WRONG, it's not about that any more. It's now about why don't they show actual useful information? That's the issue. It's not one of debating the science behind WHEN they are the same... It's one of reasonable expectations when you look at a max speed and max climb chart. You reasonably expect it to be relative to other craft and reasonably expect it to be indicative of perfomance versus other craft.

Krusty, I humbly agree with the essence of your quoted statements above.  There are points here you make that I would still disagree with you on, particularly using the term "ACTUAL performance" and the definition of what's RIGHT/WRONG, etc., but these don't take away from your key point that its much more useful to have charts that give you comparison of the PROBABLE performance between planes.  The SpitV/Seafire & 190A-8/F-8 charts are examples of charts that aren't meaningful from this view.  I was wrong in challenging the PROBABLE performance concept.

[BaldEagl]

I was the first to say the charts as they are are useless.  I stand by that statement.  After 15 years I have no idea what weights the planes I fly most often are.  I'm actually expected as a player to go "well the charts say these two planes are identical but, this plane weighs more than that plane so it won't be identical so it will actually fly worse"?  I really really doubt that many of the players go through that exercise.  I know I never have.  And therefore yes, the current charts are misleading at best and, in fact, useless for practical purposes.

[FLS]

Anybody wondering why those particular weights were used instead of just 25% fuel?

[RTHolmes]

I'd guess its the weight from the RL test data HTC used for the modelling.

[FLS]

I'd guess its the weight from the RL test data HTC used for the modelling.

That would be my guess too. Seems like a useful chart given all the FM complaints.