So I want Terrible Frank (Ki-84).

[Sikboy]

While I don't know what effect it might have, I would suggest providing as much primary source material on the aircraft as possible. I think that the CASE has been made for the Ki-84, but the information necessary for modeling isn't going to compile itself. So if you know of any official records from WWII relating to the Ki-84, send them on to HTC. I imagine that would go a long way towards getting it modeled. But try not to get sucked into the trap of the "definitive source" trap. The only data worth a damn is compiled from multiple sources, so as much info as possible should be gathered. Anyhow, that's probably the best way to get a plane modeled. But then, Im not in HTC, so Im just talking out of my ass.

-Sikboy

[Bullethead]

Sikboy said:

Everyone has thier own rational for how to advance the plane set. Some Choose National Balance (Build the Itlalian Airforce up) Others choose historical numbers/Role (Build the P-40e) Others choose MA utility (Build the Ki-84) Others Choose Scenario/CT Utility (Build the Mig-3)

You forgot the method that SHOULD be the most important, both to HTC and its customers, because we have to live with whatever HTC does.

That method is simply:  what effect will turning this ride loose have on gameplay in the MA?  This is, after all, where almost all AH action is and will be.

This question is the most important because it's what actually affects how much we enjoy playing AH.  Having X planes for Y country doesn't mean toejam when anybody can fly every plane.  As a result, that method should never be considered at all.

With 1.09, AH now has a total of 43 different fighters (counting all models), of which 38 are un-perked.  Of these 38, however, only a few get any real use and totally dominate play in the MA.  These planes are (in order of popularity in TD 25):  spit9, N1, 51D, La7, spit5, P38, F6F, Typhoon, and Dhog.  Together, these 9 planes (less than 25% of the total available) account for over 50% of the total sorties in a TD.  In fact, the spit9, N1, and 51D by themselves usually account for about 25% of all sorties.  Throw in the La7 and you've got a bit more than 30% of sorties flown in less than 11% of the available planes.

Why these planes and not the others.  Simple.  The 5 most popular planes have the best combinations of speed, maneuverability, and firepower for typical MA combat:  low-alt furballs.  The rest of the top 9 offer the best of these qualities when combined with a useful jabo load.  IOW, they at least bend, if not altogether break, the rule Tac posted up above.

As it stands, the situation offers at least some minimum of variety.  At least we see 4 or 5 different types of planes on a regular basis instead of just 1 or 2.  This is because these planes are competitive with each other when flown by the average dweeb.

If you upset this limited balance, however, by introducing a plane that bends Tac's rule even further, or actually breaks it, then that plane will subplant the other popular rides.  Such, IMHO, would be the case with the Ki84.  At the low alts in which the vast majority of MA fights take place, the Ki84 combines the speed of the 51D with the maneuverability of the spit9.  At least that's what it had in AW and WB.  If one guys brings a Frank to the fight, others will have to do likewise or accept a disadvantage.  This isn't something dweebs naturally do, so I figure the Frank would become as popular as the spit9, N1, and 51D combined are now.

For this reason, the Ki84 should not be introduced into the MA.  At least not as a free ride.

[Sikboy]

You're absolutly right about that Bullethead. I mention this in point 3, MA utility. By saying that it may be too utilized, and have to be perked, I do acknowledge that it will likely be perked, and perking is how HTC controls game ballance.

Personally, like many others, I'd like to see earlier planes modeled, but the problem with choosing between old planes and perked planes is the same: They stand a good chance of becoming hangar queens.

In the end, I don't think that this reason supersedes the others. If for no other reason, than because through perking it can be controlled, and while the MA is the bread and butter for most players, there is the CT and SEA to consider.

-Sikboy

[Bullethead]

Sikboy said:

Personally, like many others, I'd like to see earlier planes modeled, but the problem with choosing between old planes and perked planes is the same: They stand a good chance of becoming hangar queens.

Yup.  Outside of scenarios and the CT, early planes won't be used unless they can compete with the un-perked rulers of the MA.  Or unless AH gets an RPS.  However, if that happens, I hope at least they do it different than WB.  That compressed the early war so much and so extended the late war that it was effectively like not having an RPS.

In the end, I don't think that this reason supersedes the others. If for no other reason, than because through perking it can be controlled, and while the MA is the bread and butter for most players, there is the CT and SEA to consider.

HTC makes its money on the MA.  I expect HTC loses money on the CT and SEA, considering the insignificant numbers in CT and the periodic nature of the SEA.  IOW, the CT and SEA exist only as long as the MA makes enough money to cover their costs and still keep HTC solvent.  If the MA becomes less popular, the 1st things to suffer, therefore, will be the CT and SEA.  Thus, adding planes simply to fill roles in these arenas isn't a good business strategy.

[Sikboy]

I dissagree with your stance if for no other reason than this: failure to continue to grow the planeset (especially to include aircraft which may not have the highest MA utility) may lead to loss of market share to their competitors. This might not be the biggest problem right now, because the main competition is going to release their latest version in the imediate future. But if the competition continues to improve their product, it would help HTC to have as large a stable as possible. I think that any aircraft which meet the four conditions I set fourth would be worth modeling to fill that out.

This is good stuff though. I've asked about what people feel should qualify an aircraft as a modeling candidate, but this is the first real feedback I've gotten on the subject. Thanks Bullethead

-Sikboy

[Bullethead]

Sikboy said:

I dissagree with your stance if for no other reason than this: failure to continue to grow the planeset (especially to include aircraft which may not have the highest MA utility) may lead to loss of market share to their competitors.

Well, I got a counter-argument for that, too .  HTC is a very small firm so the amount of development hours it can muster per day is quite limited.  I don't know how they divide up the work but I'm sure HT has to do something fairly significant whenever planes get added.  The time he spends on adding planes is time he can't spend adding new game features, improving old ones, and patching bugs.

As I see it, plane selection isn't a real customer draw.  I mean, look at AH now:  43 fighters of which 3 or 4 get way more use than any of the others, and of which 9 get as much use as all the other 34 put together.  The market has spoken there, IMHO.  Nobody much wants to fly planes that can't hang with spits and N1s in the low-alt landgrabbing vulchfest that is the MA.  

Therefore, IMHO, developing features of the game itself is more important at this juncture than adding more planes.  HTC should add more realism, add more things for players to do, etc., and maybe enhance the graphics (which are fine with me but you know how that goes).  This is what draws and keeps customers IMHO.  Any added planes should be done very carefully.  And given the limited manhours HTC has available, it's just counterproductive to spend a lot on planes that won't get much use.

I think 1.09 had about the right mix of stuff.  The emphasis was on features, although the new planes got all the notice.  But look at the new integral vox that now works, the way cool film viewer, the new strat system, the improved padlock (I have a handicapped squaddie who loves this), etc.  The added planes were good choices, too.  The whole BoB set of fighters for the scenario crowd, a new buff with a good balance of strengths and weaknesses, and a new heavy fighter that's quite useful without being dominating.  I'd like to see more updates along these lines.

This is good stuff though. I've asked about what people feel should qualify an aircraft as a modeling candidate, but this is the first real feedback I've gotten on the subject. Thanks Bullethead

Back at ya.  Nice to be able to discuss this with somebody for a change, without it degenerating into dweebs whining about wanting plane X because it's better than existing plane Y, and inventing some BS, insincere PC argument to justify it ("it's unfair that country Z doesn't have an uberplane like the other countries") without realizing that they'll never be able to spank plane Y because the nme will all be flying plane X, too.

As for my own choices for additions to the planeset....   Very hard to say, at least for fighters.  Any new fighter added must IMHO meet the following criteria:

• it must be good enough to hang with the usual MA suspects (spit, N1, et al)
• it must not be significantly better than the usual MA suspects

If the plane fails the 1st test, the plane won't get used much if at all, outside of the occasional scenario that calls for it.  So this rules out most early war planes, at least doing new ones from scratch.  OTOH, if the plane fails the 2nd test, it will get used too much until it gets perked, at which point it won't get used much at all.  There just ain't any fighters I can think of off the top of my head that meet these criteria and ain't already in the game.  

But AH fortunately has more things in it than fighters.  There are buffs, boats, ships, and GVs.  New things can be added in all these areas to enhance overall gameplay without upsetting balances.  Some of these will be perk jobs, but we need more perkies in these areas anyway.

Buffs:

• C46:  perked transport, capable of carrying multiple sets of troops, supplies, or some combination of both.
• SB2C:  we need a late-model divebomber.
• A20 and Pe2:  light bombers with decent speed
• A26:  perked vulchasaurus rex :)

Boats:

• E-boat of the S100 class:  alternative to current PT, trading guns and 2 immediate torp shots for more speed and some armor.

Ships:

• Submarines and ASW weapons on DEs
• Allow players to control DEs individually to conduct ASW and torp attacks.  Also let players man more guns on them.
• Convoys of transport ships for strat supply
• Player-controlled LSTs that can spawn player-controlled GVs on the beach.

GVs

• SdKfz 7/1:  unarmored flak halftrack with 4x20mm.  
• T34/76:  a match for the Pz4H in gun and armor (both can kill each other at normal battle ranges), with higher speed compensated by lack of commander hatch view (commander was gunner, open hatch blocked frontal view, and doctrine was to fight buttoned anyway)
• SU-85:  a gun dangerous to the perked tanks but with limited traverse and armor of unperked thickness.  Built on T34 hull so might be easy to do along with the T34/76.
• Sherman M4A3(75):  weaker gun than Pz4H or T34/76, but carries more ammo and climbs hills better.
• JPz IV/70:  Pz4 hull with Panther gun in limited traverse mount and nasty armor up front.
• T34/85:  slightly perked tank.  Good gun, slightly better armor than T34/76, and no view restrictions.
• Panther G:  medium perked tank.  Better gun than other tanks and frontal armor proof against other tank guns at normal ranges, but sides and rear are vulnerable to even the M8.  Thus, it's not invincible, as a King Tiger might prove to be.
• JS-2:  medium perked tank.  monster gun and massive armor, but very slow and with an extremely low rate of fire.
• King Tiger:  highly perked tank.  Great gun and good armor all around, but slow.

[Sikboy]

I've heard people talk about how fast the Frank will be, but I'm not sure where this is coming from. I do recall the quote:

"Forget it - it's a Frank." It is said that this comment was made frequently by USAAF personnel watching radar screens on Okinawa in the closing weeks of the Pacific War.  It was customary to watch for a contact to appear and then to scramble P-51 Mustangs to intercept the enemy aircraft.  But when the blip was moving so fast that it was inferred to be one of the advanced new Japanese Hayate fighters it would be assumed that the P-51s would stand no chance of catching the intruder. From http://www.angelfire.com/fm/compass/Hayate.htm

I've read similar accounts in other sources as well. I think that some people take this to mean that the Hayate was as fast or faster than a P-51. I'm pretty sure that this isn't the case. In fact, I've never read anything that lists the Ki-84 speed at or over 400mph at any altitude. I think the above quote indicates that by the time the P-51s launched and reached altitude, the Hayate would be halfway back to Kyushu. The Hayate was only SUPERFAST when compared to the Zeke I think.

Anyhow, does anyone have a source, even the cheesiest "little golden book of WWII Airplanes" citation, that would list the Hayate at 400mph?
-Sikboy

[Bullethead]

Sikboy said:

Anyhow, does anyone have a source, even the cheesiest "little golden book of WWII Airplanes" citation, that would list the Hayate at 400mph?

400 ain't the magic number.  The magic number is the difference is speed between the Frank and other planes in the key altitude band where the vast bulk of MA combat takes place:  0-10k.  The fastest planes only reach 400 at the upper end of this zone, so what's of interest is speeds in the upper 300s between 0-10k.  The plane might be faster or slower above 10k, but that doesn't have much effect on gameplay.

Because of this, just looking at stats that show absolute max speed isn't really important.  These numbers are almost always taken at somewhere above 20k, where hardly anybody ever goes in the MA except orbital buffs and the few who bother to hunt them.  What we really need is a chart for the Frank like we have for most planes in AH, that shows speed at all altitudes.

I don't have such a chart these days.  I used to back when I flew AW, however, as well as AW's chart for the 51D.  I assume that AW's charts were based on good numbers, even if in the actual game the inaccuracies of the flight model might have made some planes act differently.  Anyway, IIRC, AW's charts showed that from 0-10k, the Frank was always within +/- 5-10 knots of the 51D.  It was a bit slower from 0-3k, a bit faster from 3-5k, and a bit slower again from 5-10k.  But none of these differences were large enough to have any real effect in combat, due to differences in fuel load, starting conditions, etc.   For all intents and purposes, the 51D and the Frank had the same speed in the critical 0-10k region.  Above 10k, however, the 51D started building up a significant speed advantage.

This was certainly how things worked in the AW arena, too.  Below 10k, the 51D couldn't catch a co-alt Frank that didn't want to be caught.  The Frank, however, come sometimes catch a co-alt Pony because the Frank had much better acceleration.  Apart from the 51D, the Frank had no trouble at all running down every other prop plane in the game below 10k.  And when it caught them, it could out-turn them.  Things were pretty much the same in WB, if not worse.

The only real limits the Frank had in other games were a relatively short clip of cannonballs and serious compression problems at relatively low speeds (low as opposed high 400s).  In AW, the ammo limit was significant due to the rapidity with which ammo was used there combined with a lack of pieces coming off the target.  In AH, where you can kill nmes with minimal ammo by removing key pieces, and where you can fire bursts of well less than 1 second's duration, a little cannon ammo goes a long way.  Also, the compression problem really isn't a factor in the low-alt furballs that dominate the MA.  So in AH, the Frank would be that much more formidable than in AW.

Anyway, I've seen the Frank in 2 games already.  In both, in the critical 0-10k zone, it combined the speed of a 51D with the maneuverability of a spit9.  Is that something we really need to have in the MA?  I don't think so, but that's just my opinion.

[Sikboy]

It seems to me that the Frank would have simliar speed to the La-7, 109G10, Yak-9u and P51D, even under 10k. All of these can exceed my magic 400mph number, even under 10k (admittedly, some of them have to use WEP). I remember the Ki from AW,  and I never did understand why it was so fast there either. I'm just trying to figure out where the data comes from.

-Sikboy

[J_A_B]

FYI...

The AW version of the KI-84 was modeled using the best possible figures for this plane--in other words, from the post-war USAAF flight test data using high quality American fuel.  Unlike AH, AW was not very good in regards to airplane modeling and many of the planes in AW performed nothing like their real-world counterparts.  

The AW Ki-84 had a top speed of 353 MPH at sea level--this is comparible to the AH FW-190A-8.   The AW Ki-84 would do about 420 MPH at 20,000 feet.  I never tested it at high altitudes other than 20K so it might be slightly faster at some other altitude (I bet it reaches 427 at some altitude).

This is only speed data.  Although I don't feel like digging up my climb data, suffice it to say the AW Ki-84 (even with its over-modeled performance) wasn't a very good climber.  Average at best.  It particularly sucked in a zoom climb.

If modeled in AH the Ki-84 would likely conform to Japanese data, which would make it slower than the speeds it achieved in AW (especially at high altitudes).   And, it still couldn't quite turn with a Spit 9.  So it should fit into AH quite nicely.  


J_A_B

[HoHun]

Hi Bullethead,

I presume you are Bullethead of the Bullethead Air Warrior tactics pages? Great work! The best pages on that topic that I ever found (and lost :-), and I consider myself lucky that I had them to guide my through my clueless newbie days!

>I used to back when I flew AW, however, as well as AW's chart for the 51D.  I assume that AW's charts were based on good numbers, even if in the actual game the inaccuracies of the flight model might have made some planes act differently.  

The numbers of a US intelligence report someone posted here on this board a while back match the Air Warrior speed numbers quite well, so I think this report probably was the basis for the Ki-84's portrayal.

These numbers are: 348 mph @ sea level, 422 mph @ 21000 ft. That's performance slightly superior to that of the Fw 190A, but not quite up to the Fw 190D-9 or the P-51D.

However, the report is only a calculated estimate based on the assumed engine power combined with the aerodynamic characteristics of the Ki-43 Oscar, apparently prepared without the benefit of even a wrecked example for checking them. (Still, a good approach :-)

>Anyway, I've seen the Frank in 2 games already.  In both, in the critical 0-10k zone, it combined the speed of a 51D with the maneuverability of a spit9.

However, in the end, the Ki-84 lacked the edge in speed to compete with a P-51, and it didn't have the high-speed handling to really benefit from the speed either. In Air Warrior, the margin was narrower than in Warbirds, but in both games, I'd rather have been at the controls of the P-51 than the Ki-84 in any fight.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Bullethead]

J_A_B said:

The AW version of the KI-84 was modeled using the best possible figures for this plane--in other words, from the post-war USAAF flight test data using high quality American fuel.

And you don't think the Kesmoids took that into account?  Also, how was it modeled in WB?  

Unlike AH, AW was not very good in regards to airplane modeling and many of the planes in AW performed nothing like their real-world counterparts.

Hehehe, you don't have to remind me of that.  Hell, it just got worse as time went on.  But no flightsim gets things completely right.  Remember the WB P39?  And judging from these boards, there are quite a few people who take exception to how AH models the performance of various planes.  I don't claim to be an expert on the subject of knowing plane performance to a gnat's bellybutton so I stay out of such fights.  But I do know, from having built, fixed, and sometimes flown real airplanes for many years, that no 2 planes of the same type will ever fly exactly the same, and none ever exactly match theoretical projections.  

So the question for game designers becomes:  what numbers do we use?  All designers try to get the best numbers and make the best flight models to use them, but there are inaccuracies, approximations, conflicting data, and swags all along the line.  Thus, I doubt it will ever be possible to make a sim where planes perform "everything" (as opposed to nothing) like their real counterparts.  Game designers come close, but there's plenty of room for argument with the results.

If modeled in AH the Ki-84 would likely conform to Japanese data, which would make it slower than the speeds it achieved in AW (especially at high altitudes).   And, it still couldn't quite turn with a Spit 9.  So it should fit into AH quite nicely.

As I said before, the differences in speed between the 51 and the Frank, which were not very big in absolute terms, vanished completely in the circumstances of arena combat.  Both are wicked fast planes, pure and simple.  It doesn't really matter if one was 5-10 knots faster in real life.  In the arena, such small differences are totally washed out by situational differences.  The same goes with turn performance.  In other games, a spit pilot could outturn a Frank pilot of equal skill, under co-E circumstances.  In all other situations, however, it was a toss-up.

So in the practical terms you have to deal with day-to-day in the arena, the Frank is as fast as a 51D and turns as well as a spit9.  That on paper it might be a tad slower than the 51, or a tad less turny than the spit, doesn't matter a bit.  The differences are too small to notice in the circumstances of the arena.

[Bullethead]

HoHun said:

I presume you are Bullethead of the Bullethead Air Warrior tactics pages? Great work! The best pages on that topic that I ever found (and lost :-), and I consider myself lucky that I had them to guide my through my clueless newbie days!

Thank you.  Glad you found it helpful.  Although these days, saying so is like telling me I used to chip a pretty good flint spearpoint  The damn thing is still up at http://people.delphiforums.com/jtweller/training/train.htm if you want to visit it for nostalgic reasons .  One of these days, I'll update it for AH, but that'll be some ways down the road.

However, the report is only a calculated estimate based on the assumed engine power combined with the aerodynamic characteristics of the Ki-43 Oscar, apparently prepared without the benefit of even a wrecked example for checking them. (Still, a good approach :-)

Heheh, that's what I meant in my reply to JAB about there being all kinds of room for argument about what numbers a game designer choses to use.

However, in the end, the Ki-84 lacked the edge in speed to compete with a P-51, and it didn't have the high-speed handling to really benefit from the speed either.

In real life, or in scenarios, I'd agree.   In the MA, planes ain't usually going as fast as they can.  The high speed handling therefore doesn't become an issue--most planes only push the red line in a straight line during a chase.  What matters is having good acceleration to a top speed that's effectively as fast as there is.  This the Frank has got.

In Air Warrior, the margin was narrower than in Warbirds, but in both games, I'd rather have been at the controls of the P-51 than the Ki-84 in any fight.

Me too, but that's just my style.  I refuse to fly planes that are both very fast and very maneuverable.  Such planes are crutches for dweebs.  However, there's way more dweebs than people who feel like me, by a damnsight.  So if the crutch is availalbe, I'll be beaten over the head with it every time I turn around.

[J_A_B]

Keep these things in mind:

1.  The AW P-51D was 10 MPH too slow at low altitudes until version 3.5 of AW3 (aka AWMV), after which point it was completely FUBAR.  Using it as a comparison is therefore pointless.   The AH P-51D has a top speed on the deck of 368 MPH, which is 15 MPH faster than AW's Ki-84.  This IS a signifigant difference.  Nobody ever accuses the AH FW-190A-8 of having too much speed!

2.  AH may not use the same data set that AW used when the Ki-84 finally is added to AH.  According to the Japanese themselves, the Ki-84's top speed at alt was a little under 400 MPH, which is noticably slower than the 420+ posted by the USAAF's post-war tests.  This means that if the AH were to use the "right" data set (Japanese), it wouldn't be as fast as the AW version was.  The reason for the discrepancy between USAAF and Japanese data is fuel quality--Japan simply didn't have good fuel.  Essentially the Ki-84 in AW wasn't modeled as a WW2 fighter, but as a post-war hotrod testbed airplane.

Yes, the Kesmoids took into account which data set they used.  However, there reasons for using the best possible data had little to do with WW2 and everything to do with the fact that the Ki-84 was added to AW because a Japanese firm paid Kesmai to add Japanese aircraft to AW.  HTC is not affected by such "political" situations and so it's safe to assume that when the Ki-84 is added to AH, it'll better reflect its WW2 counterpart.

I've not done enough flight testing in WarBirds to be able to say much about that game, except the Ki-84 doesn't seem as good there as it was in AW.  

Yes the Ki-84 could turn fairly well (about on par with the F6F).  However, if modeled with Japanese data (which IMO is the only way it should be modeled), it will have an average top speed and average rate of climb, with utterly horrible performance over 20,000 feet.  Its gun set will be about equal to the Ki-61.  It won't be able to maneuver well at high speeds.  What again is so "uber" about it?  Seems to me like it'd be a great, competative addition to AH.  Now if HTC decides to go with USAAF data like AW did.....then there might be a problem.  

So I guess it all boils down to whether HTC ends up modeling the Ki-84 as a WW2 Japanese fighter, or a post-war hotrod that never fought for anyone.   They WILL eventually model it, one way or another.  The only question is when.


J_A_B

[-=Silo=-]

You know what bugged me about the Ki-84 performance enigma? What exactly WERE the test numbers to the Ki-84 shown here, which was obviously tested by the Allies using 92 octane Japanese fuel.


-To add more to the pot, I have also heard the Japanese had a tendancy to not list their planes maximum speeds like the Allies, but rather a more conservative suggested speed. The 388mph often quoted as a Japanese top speed for the Ki-84 and the 427 mph post war trial is too great a gap to simply say it was US fuel. Also the Ki-84 used four different engines under the Ki-84-1a designation. The earlier 1800hp and not the common 2000 hp engines yielded the 388mph (or so I have heard)

-To further complicate things, the TAIC tested the J2M2 top speed at 405mph at its critical altitude. However, the Japanese say 371mph. There were also graphs made for the Raiden illustrating speed curves and engine power ratings by the TAIC. Were those graphs and charts estimated as well?

-Yet even more mystery, what exactly were the testing prcedures used by the Japanese? How did (if at all) their tests differ from other countries?

-I also often wonder if the low-gloss IJ paint schemes had a perfromance impact as well. The F4Us shinny blue paint added about 8-10 mph to its top speed over the older flat colors and tri tone schemes. If the planes  tested by the TAIC and later the US at Clark were bare aluminum finish, that could account for such a high speed (427mph @ Clark).

-If we consider all factors involved starting from 427mph @ 100 octane using a 2000hp engine, we can subtract 10mph for the paintjob. Now I am not sure how much of a difference 100 vs 92 octane fuel would make. I would leave it to those more mathematically inclinded to clue me in here I will make a laymen estimate and say -10mph for the sake of conversation. We are down to 407 mph now. Now, if the Japanese tested the 3rd or 4th production Ki-84-1a's with 1800hp engine and the Allies tested a more common 1990hp engined Ki-84, could that finish the gap between the 388mph Japanese number, and our estimate of 407mph??

Who knows. I dont But these are things to consider when dealing with such varied performance numbers like what we see with the Ki-84.

>>Pardon my longwindedness and bad spelling <<