Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: calan on March 22, 2006, 09:45:01 PM
-
Hey guys (and gals)!
Sorry for cross-posting, but in case you don't often check out the Planes and Vehicles forum...
I am creating an online and active AH plane database:
http://www.jcsautomation.com/AH_View_Vehicles.asp
It has (and will have many more) sorting and filtering options, as well as advanced tools for organizing planes in different ways. The primary target is for us newbs, but I think even you dusty old AH aces will be able to benefit from it. :)
We need a few knowledgable and open-minded AH veterans to take a minute or two and rate any planes that you are familiar with. It is really simple and self-explanatory, and only takes 20-30 seconds per plane. If you do rate a plane or add comments, please enter your AH name in the space provided.
Please read the disclaimer at the bottom of the page... I know this is SUBJECTIVE :)
Once we get a general consensus on the information, we will lock the data entry and start adding tools, links, and info pages.
Eventually, we will be adding pics, charts, and other goodies.
TIA!
Calan
-
Very cool setup Calan big
:)
Might have to do the Hurri Mk1 ;)
Also might need a comment pop-up or something, I added some info about the N/A's I put in the Hurri's write up.
-
Tks Zor.. it should be interesting to see where it goes :)
I should mention...
If any of you guys modify the data and add comments (or see that something has changed since you modified it), please check the comments field every now and then for the planes you've modified.
Also be sure to update the "best alt" and "nickname" fields.
While we are in the initial "population" mode, I might make minor adjustments due to something I have in mind with the data. In this case, I'll post something in the comments field to explain the method behind my madness :)
Tks
Calan
-
If I'll choose to edit a plane that was already rated, will it delete the first rating or be an average of the two?
-
LLv,
It will replace the existing rating. (I actually have the functionality to average multiple ratings already set up, but it's disabled for the moment).
I'm hoping that we can get a consensus on ratings by using the experience of the AH vets. My thinking is that if someone rates a plane, then they are at the mercy of someone with more knowledge of that plane and how it relates to the "elite" plane in the category. By including the pilot name in the rating, I hope to aleviate some of the arguments that are bound to happen with people that are rating based on preference rather than fact. :)
Eventually, I hope to get a group of well-experienced and non-subjective AH vets to put their mark of approval on the ratings that people have submitted. I'm not quite sure how or when that will happen, but it seems like it needs to. :)
Right now I just want to get as much reasonable information as possible entered, so I can start playing around with different ways of analyzing the data.
Calan
-
excellent job calan!
However, like Snefens, I hope 'replacing' or 'updating' a specific aircraft's desciption will be up for review (or maybe a vote?) before replacement. False or misleading information can easily be transmitted in the current format.
-
Thanks octavius...
Yeah... not quite sure how to handle the review/validation thing yet.
Right now I just wanna get everything populated, so I can play around with some advance queries, sorting, and filtering. We definitely need to come up with a plan though, to:
1. Validate the numbers as closely as possible with agreed upon values, based on the "usual" gameplay
2. Prevent some 12 yr old with an attitude from skewing everything.
Ideally, I'll get a couple of experts who are familiar with all AH planes to help validate the ratings, once they are populated. Otherwise, I may just end up using the rater's name (and reputation in AH) as validation.
I dunno... we'll see how it works out. But the possibilities (as my beer-induced vision sees them) are very interesting ;)
Calan
-
Just wana point one thing out...
A plane cant have a different rating in accelleration and in climb rate... In your chart the F4U-1D has 4 3 and the F6F 3 4.. it doesnt make sence... climb rate IS accelleration..
Other wise very good charts.
Tex
EDIT: Another thing Low Speed and High Speed turns should be split into sustained turn and instant turn.
Plus that you should add roll rate, flaps rating and rudder rating as these are even MORE important then turn rate.
-
Great stuff man, I added my 2 pence. :aok
-
note: seafire is f/a now
Wtg on that
-
Looks great! Are you going to take an average for each plane and post it as such, after everyone has put their 2 cents in?
-
Originally posted by TexMurphy
Just wana point one thing out...
A plane cant have a different rating in accelleration and in climb rate... In your chart the F4U-1D has 4 3 and the F6F 3 4.. it doesnt make sence... climb rate IS accelleration..
Other wise very good charts.
Tex
EDIT: Another thing Low Speed and High Speed turns should be split into sustained turn and instant turn.
Plus that you should add roll rate, flaps rating and rudder rating as these are even MORE important then turn rate.
Also, "deceleration" and "energy retention" are 2 sides of the same coin, arent they?
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Also, "deceleration" and "energy retention" are 2 sides of the same coin, arent they?
This depends on what deceleration means.
If it means "Ability to Bleed E" then no it doesnt have to be the same. E can be bled with rudder, combat flaps and instant turn rate.
If Deceleration means how the plane slows down when you cut throttle or how it slows down in a sustained turn then yes it is the same as energy retention.
I do think that this hasnt been clear to the people who have evaluated the planes....
As it sometimes looks like the evaluation is made based on Deceleration=Energy Retention and sometimes E Bleed ability=Deceleration.
Imo a name change of the variables should be done to make this clearer.
-
A thought....
One wasy to deal with the consensus problem would be to handle it the way that Wikipedia does. People can change others input, but there is a coupled discussion thread that is open for controversy and clarification.
In fact, it occurs to me that DoKGonzo has set up a Mini-Wiki on his website with the specific goal of creating a combat sim aircraft oriented encyclopedia. I wonder if you two could work something out between you, so that you cross link each others work? That way, controversy in your ratings could be read by others and a better sense of consensus could emerge, while his encyclopedia approach would benefit from more content....
-
Very cool!
! :aok
-
Originally posted by TexMurphy
Just wana point one thing out...
A plane cant have a different rating in accelleration and in climb rate...
The way I'm defining them (based on planes having different amounts of lift, drag, etc.) is:
Accelleration - going from a low speed (stall speed) to top speed in level flight.
Climb Rate - going from low alt (100ft?) to a typical AH furball alt (7-12k).
So for example... a jeep could have great acceleration, but it won't climb for crap
:)
Calan
-
Originally posted by TexMurphy
...
Plus that you should add roll rate, flaps rating and rudder rating as these are even MORE important then turn rate.
Tex,
Roll Rate is already there. What would the flaps and rudder ratings be based on?
Thanks for the input
Calan
-
So this is a subjective rather than objective database?
-
LOL Chop
I think it depends on who is rating the planes at any given time. :)
-
Calan,
I think the A6M5b is actually a better turner than the 2.... not by much, but enought to make the 5b elite and the 2 excellant in the low sp turn catagory.
-
Also... there is no F4F in your list.
-
Originally posted by Scrap
Calan,
I think the A6M5b is actually a better turner than the 2.... not by much, but enought to make the 5b elite and the 2 excellant in the low sp turn catagory.
Thanks Scrap...
Anyone want to second this?
-
Originally posted by Scrap
Also... there is no F4F in your list.
It's there... not sure why it doesn't show up... I'll look into it.
Tks
Calan
-
In the climb rate please lock the Me-163 as the "elite", since there's nothing in the game that can come even remotely close to it.
In "weapon power" the elite is the Me 262.
-
Originally posted by calan
The way I'm defining them (based on planes having different amounts of lift, drag, etc.) is:
Accelleration - going from a low speed (stall speed) to top speed in level flight.
Climb Rate - going from low alt (100ft?) to a typical AH furball alt (7-12k).
I will say it again for a plane the climbrate is directly proportional to the accelleration.
Accelleration == Climbrate
Planes that have different values on climbrate and accelleration have been rated by someone who doesnt have a clue.
The F6F is rated Accel 3 and Cr 4
The 190A8 is rated Accel 4 and Cr 3
This cant happen. A plane cant out accellerate one plane that outclimbs it and vise versa.
Tex
Edit: Here are a few discussions on the topic
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58498
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=142818
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=150423
-
Originally posted by calan
Thanks Scrap...
Anyone want to second this?
I think thats just Scrap. The two are close enough that pilot skill will be the deciding factor most of the time, with a slight edge in turning going to the A6M2. You start using the vertical at all, and the A6M5 will show its edge. Snapshot ability goes to the A6M5 as well, better guns. Scrap is a little above average as a pilot, probably gets more out of the A6M5 than someone else might.
-
Originally posted by TexMurphy
I will say it again for a plane the climbrate is directly proportional to the accelleration.
Accelleration == Climbrate
...
I read the posts and understand that they are mathematically colinear, but as a newb running for my life in the MA (and I may be off base here) ...
Let's say I've got a bad guy on my six and I have two plans of action running through my head for whatever reason: run low and level, or try to gain alt on him.
If I'm running level, I'm thinking of "Acceleration" as a rating that will tell me how fast I can reach top speed.
I'f I'm climbing, I'm thinking of Climb Rate (should probably be renamed to "Climbing Ability") as a number that describes the plane's ability to rapidly get from the deck to the top of the furball (let's say 10k).
Since the engine performance and other factors will change as I gain alt, my "Climbing Ability" and "Acceleration" ratings aren't necessarily the same thing. My hypothetical plane may go from 0 to 400mph in a snap at 100ft alt, but dramatically lose performance as I start climbing through 3k due to engine problems at higher alts, etc.. So my acceleration rating is high, but the climbing ability isn't because of those last painful 7k.
Assuming my hangover isn't affecting my judgement too much :confused: , these two ratings seem to make sense to me. (They aren't being used in the instantaneous mathematical sense, but rather as a guideline for certain situations).
Regardless, I can avoid the controversy and combine them in the chart if I need too. :)
Tks
Calan
-
Calan
IF you can out accellerate me then you can out climb me, that is always true.
From HTs post in the first thread I posted
When we say Climb rate is always perportional to acceleration we meen that if you have an accelerations of 10 mph per sec and a climb rate of 5000 fps, at 160 mph.
Then if acceleration at 200 mph = 5 mph per sec the climb rate at 200 mph must be 2500.
Note you must hold a constant 200 during climb by either raising or lowering the nose.
And they will always be directly perportional.
One thing that you might be mixing into this is Zoom climb...
Zoom climb is basicly just energy retention. Trade alt for speed and then trade it back to alt the alt lost is the energy bled.
Still this doesnt change things. Climbrate is accelleration.
Tex
-
Originally posted by TexMurphy
I will say it again for a plane the climbrate is directly proportional to the accelleration.
Accelleration == Climbrate
Planes that have different values on climbrate and accelleration have been rated by someone who doesnt have a clue.
The F6F is rated Accel 3 and Cr 4
The 190A8 is rated Accel 4 and Cr 3
This cant happen. A plane cant out accellerate one plane that outclimbs it and vise versa.
Tex
Edit: Here are a few discussions on the topic
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58498
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=142818
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=150423
OK, 1st off, Great site Calan!
2nd. Let me state right away I know climbrate=accelleration. However, as an example as to why people percieve them to be different look at the climbrate charts of the LA5 and LA7. Almost identical max climbrates of 4500fpm, but the LA7 is almost 20 mph faster. So even though the climbrates are identical the LA7 is faster and has better acceleration. Simply put, in a drag race the LA7 will beat the LA5. In a time-to-climb contest, to say 5000 feet, they will be almost identical.
I think many percieve acceleration as a sort of combination of both the actual acceleration plus the top speed. I think it's a usefull data point.
-
Originally posted by TexMurphy
Calan
Still this doesnt change things. Climbrate is accelleration.
Tex
I understand and agree... but as I stated, I'm not referring to instantaneous Climb Rate. I'm refering to the ability to climb from the deck to 10k over a period of time.
If my engine power decreases by 50% at 5k, then my actual climb rate (and actual acceleration) will also decrease in a colinear fassion. I'm not arguing this. But an "Acceleration at level flight" rating (call it AR), and a "Climbing ability (0 to 10k)" rating (call it CA) can definitely be different.
This is totally subjective, but may illustrate my point...
Plane 1:
At level flight, 1k:
Acceleration = climb rate = good
AR = my opinion = "Good"
From 0 to 10k:
Acceleration = climb rate = good below 5k,
Acceleration = climb rate = poor above 5k
CA = my opinion = "Fair"
Plane 2:
At level flight, 1k:
Acceleration = climb rate = good
AR = my opinion = "Good"
From 0 to 10k:
Acceleration = climb rate = good below 5k,
Acceleration = climb rate = excellent above 5k
CA = my opinion = "Good"
Thanks for the input Tex... I'm still working this thing out :)
Calan
-
Only 19 planes to go ... Great work!
Calan
-
interesting :)
Hey i would hasten to add that your categorisation of the P51-D as a mid-high alt, and the B as Mid alt is prob not accurate IMO. Check out the climb and speed data on the HTC site and you will quickly note that the P51-B is significantly superior to the P51-D at High altitudes, and the D significantly better at mid-lower altitudes.
Where:
High = 20K +
Mid-High = 15-20k
Mid = 10K-15K
Mid-Low = 5-10K
Low < 5K
So based on the above definition the P51-D is more a Mid-Low to Mid and a P51-B definitely a High.
-
Feel free to update the alts Spatula... (If it has my name, I just took a best guess). Just be sure to put your name in, so people will know who to argue with if they want :lol
-
Ok, done. I think they better reflect the P51s in Aces High now.
But, IMO, the P51s have elite status on the range and not the P47N As it was the P51 which was the fighter which could escort the B17s all the way to Berlin and back. Untill the arrival of the P51, the P47s, and P38 escort fighters had to leave the bombers to fend for themselves for their final leg over Germany as they hadnt the fuel to continue - even with drop tanks.
-
calan
The alt where engine performance starts to change is usually above 10-12k... difference between 0-5 and 5-10 is usually not that big...
I feel its kind of strange that you judge climbing over a alt span, you have turning at high and low alt but accel only at low level.
What I would sudgest that would make this clear is that you merge Climb and Accel into the following:
C/A Low alt (sub 12k)
C/A High alt (above 12k)
That would accomplish what we both want.
You can see if a planes Climb rate (accell) changes vs another plane with alt difference. For example Spit 9 gets relativly (relative towards avg) better at higher alt while its relativly weak at lower alts. La-7 is relativly weak at high alt while its relativly very good at low alt.
So that would give you the pointer you want. Dont try to out accell or out climb the LaLa at low alt. Plus that you will see that you should get the fight to higher alts and if you decend then you will hand over the advantage to the LaLa...
Tex
-
Originally posted by TexMurphy
calan
...
What I would sudgest that would make this clear is that you merge Climb and Accel into the following:
C/A Low alt (sub 12k)
C/A High alt (above 12k)
That would accomplish what we both want.
...
I like it!
I'll try to change it around on the next release of the site... and see if we can get the data updated. (I'm trying to make the changes all at once if possible).
Thanks Tex