Analyze This: QPM vs. grizz Venn

[ink]

  Grizz what might be interesting would be to see how the planes match up using both ratio's,sure it's more work but I'd be interested to see if there would be much difference. To make it somewhat easier maybe just use 4 or 5 of the popular rides and use both ratios and see how the whole thing come out of the wash!

   This might give you a better idea of which way is best,for all I know your 5,3,2 is a better ratio than my 4,4,2. Only an example of both would give us something to go on.



   



  PS: wasnt trying to keep you honest,just thought ammo count was a bigger factor,if you shot like I do you need all the ammo you can carry...

 

Grizz hasn't shot the way we mere mortals shoot since he was in a crib

its funny when I am fighting the hoard I hear my self think damn you bastages if I had Grizz aim



 

[TonyJoey]

Sometimes you have to take a risk.  ^ Means to the power. 2^3=8.  I like the exponents because it gives less dispersion than a linear one, making it more fair Imo.  Ranked Ratio is required to give a plane rank based on the three metrics I listed.

Visibility should take into account the ability to page up over nose.  So, the mossy should have great visibility.

Ok, I see how the exponents just make the numbers closer together while still being the same relative distance apart. And on the ranked rating thing- all I have to say is that was a brain fart. The first couple times I looked at it I thought the "Ballistic Ratio", for example, meant the rating you gave it, not the 50% of the overall gunnery score that it actually does correlate to. Thanks for clearing those things up. One thing I do disagree with is how this would be implemented onto the data. Moving the points at a 45* angle would screw up the other measurements for the particular plane. For example, I'm estimating that the relative ease of gunnery on the F4U-1 and the difficulty of gunning in the La-5 would move the points to where it would appear that the La-5 has a faster max speed at sea level.

[grizz441]

Ok, I see how the exponents just make the numbers closer together while still being the same relative distance apart. And on the ranked rating thing- all I have to say is that was a brain fart. The first couple times I looked at it I thought the "Ballistic Ratio", for example, meant the rating you gave it, not the 50% of the overall gunnery score that it actually does correlate to. Thanks for clearing those things up. One thing I do disagree with is how this would be implemented onto the data. Moving the points at a 45* angle would screw up the other measurements for the particular plane. For example, I'm estimating that the relative ease of gunnery on the F4U-1 and the difficulty of gunning in the La-5 would move the points to where it would appear that the La-5 has a faster max speed at sea level.

Yes, which kind of how we are struggling implementing this because after you adjust for ballistics the X and Y axis names become meaningless.  It might even be better just to give a Y Axis Score, and an X axis score, then explain somewhere else how the scores are calculated. 

[ink]

Yes, which kind of how we are struggling implementing this because after you adjust for ballistics the X and Y axis names become meaningless.  It might even be better just to give a Y Axis Score, and an X axis score, then explain somewhere else how the scores are calculated. 

to truly understand I think you need more "qualities" 3 aspects out of what 10 or more?   just don't cut it...

first i think it needs to be decided~discussed WHAT aspects should be factored in, once that is done, why cant you just give those aspects a % of the over all "score" and from there just take raw data and some math....dont ask me to do the math though....and bingo you have a chart that shows unbiased results




not in any way saying anyone's chart is or was biased , but they need more then 2 or 3 of the qualities that make a dogfighter.

[Shane]

Hey, that's more my style , .....but the math to do all that gets way more complicated than my way of simply multiplying "random" aero ratios together .

As long as you end up with the 109K being the hardest to use, it's all good.    

[Karnak]

I define visibility as basically how much deflection visibility you have in the cockpit, or how the cockpit obstructions impede your ability to aim.

In other words, "How can I define it to make the Bf109 rate poorly?"

[morfiend]

Grizz hasn't shot the way we mere mortals shoot since he was in a crib

its funny when I am fighting the hoard I hear my self think damn you bastages if I had Grizz aim



 

  Oh I hear you on this one Ink,a couple of frames ago in FSO I saw I was getting hits,rare for me,and I got so target fixated that I flew into the hurrie as it blew up!   Sure I can fly almost every plane in the hanger but I'd trade half them for a 2 or 3 % increase in hit percentage. This is something that cant be factored in,even a mediocre pilot that shoots well will be more successful that a great stick that cant shoot.



  

PS: plz dont infer that I think I'm a great stick,at best I'm mediocre and still cant shoot for beans.

[Shane]

Grizz hasn't shot the way we mere mortals shoot since he was in a crib
 its funny when I am fighting the hoard I hear my self think damn you bastages if I had Grizz aim
  

QFT... I out fly 99% of the players, but my gunnery... it's the suxxorz, at least percentage-wise. I get my fair share of awesome shots, but they're far outweighed by the amount of lead I spray.  

Free tip (and I'm serious): the best way to survive an encounter with me is on my dead 12, nice and level-ish.  

This is what truly separated myself from someone like Levi... his gunnery was so much better, our flying was slightly weighted in his favor. And he excelled in furballs, whereas I'm more a lonewolf on the fringe.

[ink]

QFT... I out fly 99% of the players, but my gunnery... it's the suxxorz, at least percentage-wise. I get my fair share of awesome shots, but they're far outweighed by the amount of lead I spray.  

Free tip (and I'm serious): the best way to survive an encounter with me is on my dead 12, nice and level-ish.  

This is what truly separated myself from someone like Levi... his gunnery was so much better, our flying was slightly weighted in his favor. And he excelled in furballs, whereas I'm more a lonewolf on the fringe.

after about 6 years I finally have worked my hit % up in the 7% range, I know I can fly with the best of them, hell I have beatin a lot of the "top tier" sticks,(if not all of them at one point or other) but guys like Grizz, Krup, bruv.....all great shots that I want to strangle    not really at least for Grizz and Krup......... na im kidding Bruv....you know though ultimately I don't care about being the "best" I just want to be the best I can be, I am a very competitive guy though so fighting guys like them get me all hyped up haha...also I don't mean they are the only great sticks in Game...they are just the top three off my head...

I think I should a taken ya up on that DA offer, we will have to go give each other some target practice

  Oh I hear you on this one Ink,a couple of frames ago in FSO I saw I was getting hits,rare for me,and I got so target fixated that I flew into the hurrie as it blew up!    Sure I can fly almost every plane in the hanger but I'd trade half them for a 2 or 3 % increase in hit percentage. This is something that cant be factored in,even a mediocre pilot that shoots well will be more successful that a great stick that cant shoot.



 

PS: plz dont infer that I think I'm a great stick,at best I'm mediocre and still cant shoot for beans.

dood...bro....buddy...I flew into a AFK plane guns blasting away and missed every bullet, only to collide with him and me go down.... ...and that was last week

I don't remember what ace said it but one was quoted as saying the better shot will almost always win over the better stick, who was it? anyone know?

[TonyJoey]

Ok, thenthe first step will be to compile a list of plane qualities and rate their importance, which will be difficult to say the least.

[grizz441]

In other words, "How can I define it to make the Bf109 rate poorly?"

Or in other words, "How can I define it to make the Mossy rate really EZ to irritate Karnak?". 

[grizz441]

to truly understand I think you need more "qualities" 3 aspects out of what 10 or more?   just don't cut it...

first i think it needs to be decided~discussed WHAT aspects should be factored in, once that is done, why cant you just give those aspects a % of the over all "score" and from there just take raw data and some math....dont ask me to do the math though....and bingo you have a chart that shows unbiased results




not in any way saying anyone's chart is or was biased , but they need more then 2 or 3 of the qualities that make a dogfighter.

That's cool, I can add more and their respective weight in regards to my original three.  Which others do you propose are added in regards to guns?

[morfiend]

That's cool, I can add more and their respective weight in regards to my original three.  Which others do you propose are added in regards to guns?

  rate of fire,weight of guns/ammo.




    

[ink]

Ok, thenthe first step will be to compile a list of plane qualities and rate their importance, which will be difficult to say the least.

it shouldn't be that difficult, but you are right that's what needs to be done`to get the best most accurate unbiased results.

so Ill start, first I would think this is about "dog fighting" and not dropping bombs or that sort of stuff, so that type of info does not need to be equated in.

max speed at low, med, high, ALTs  these three like "lethality" combined to make up one %age of over all score.

max turn radius at  best speed,

max dive speed

min speed for flap usage

minimum stall speed

visibility for SA

lethality of guns  (should be broken down to three aspects ballistics, amount of ammo, visibility for firing)

acceleration

that is 8 aspects of info that is already compiled

anything I miss?

  rate of fire,weight of guns/ammo.




    

I dont think weight of guns play a part in it, isn't that included in the weight of plane?

That's cool, I can add more and their respective weight in regards to my original three.  Which others do you propose are added in regards to guns?

I think you are dead on where the guns should be equated, those three should make up the "lethality" aspect/ratio


also I am not sure say the importance of each ratio...

gonna guess

speed being the highest weighted ratio

lethality next

best instantaneous turn rate next

min flap speed next

the rest I am not so sure...hell I am not sure if those are in the right order

[grizz441]

it shouldn't be that difficult, but you are right that's what needs to be done`to get the best most accurate unbiased results.

so Ill start, first I would think this is about "dog fighting" and not dropping bombs or that sort of stuff, so that type of info does not need to be equated in.

max speed at low, med, high, ALTs  

max turn radius at  best speed,

max dive speed

min speed for flap usage

minimum stall speed

visibility for SA

lethality of guns  (should be broken down to three aspects ballistics, amount of ammo, visibility for firing)

acceleration

that is 8 aspects of info that is already compiled

anything I miss?

Eek.  If we added all of this it would almost make more sense to only use dtango's graph to calculate an aircrafts performance score, which would be worth a significant percentage of the overall score.  Dtango, can your performance scores somehow be normalized on a scale to 10, with whatever the best plane is as a 10?