Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Widewing on May 16, 2006, 01:16:46 PM

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: Widewing on May 16, 2006, 01:16:46 PM

Since 2.07 introduced a new drag model and some aircraft display significant changes in some areas of performance, I have re-tested all 55 prop driven fighter types for sea level acceleration. Being home with the flu has at least one benefit...

Set-up was simple. 50% fuel regardless of capacity. Altitude of 100 feet +/- 25 feet. Begin at 150 mph TAS, add full power (including WEP if available), measure time required to reach 250 mph TAS. Fuel burn was 0.001 (essentially zero). All times should be accurate within 0.1 seconds. Each plane tested twice and the average of the two runs was used for data.

There are some surprises, such as the SpitI accelerating faster than the SpitV. P-38J and L now accelerate faster than the P-51D, which was not the case with 2.06 and before.

Obviously, variables in fuel weight will change acceleration accordingly. The below listed performance figures are meant strictly as a nominal baseline and will vary with load-out and changes in altitude. For example: At 25,000 feet, the P-38J ranks near the top in acceleration, while the Tempest falls to barely mid-pack. These numbers reflect acceleration performance on the deck only.

Data is sorted in descending order from fastest to slowest.

Plane: Time in seconds

Tempest: 18.51
Spitfire Mk.XVI: 18.72
Spitfire Mk.XIV: 18.81
Bf 109K-4: 18.97
La-7: 19.15
Bf 109G-14: 19.57
Spitfire Mk.VIII: 19.90
La-5FN: 20.06
F4U-4: 20.59
Fw 190D-9: 20.75
Ki-84: 21.56
Bf 109G-2: 22.19
N1K2-J: 22.42
Bf 109F-4: 22.93
Bf 109G-6: 23.18
P-38J: 23.23
Yak-9U: 23.43
P-38L: 23.47
C.205: 23.70
Ta 152H: 24.12
Typhoon: 24.13
Fw 190A-5: 24.34
F4U-1D: 24.50
Spitfire Mk.IX: 24.72
Fw 190A-8: 24.94
P-51D: 25.11
F4U-1C: 25.59
Fw 190F-8: 25.94
F6F-5: 26.35
P-47N: 26.37
P-47D-40: 26.50
P-51B: 26.51
C.202: 26.62
Mosquito: 27.69
P-38G: 28.25
P-47D-25: 28.34
F4U-1: 28.69
P-47D-11: 28.75
Spitfire Mk.I: 28.88
Spitfire Mk.V: 29.87
Yak-9T: 30.31
A6M5: 30.69
FM-2: 30.78
Ki-61: 31.28
Bf 110G-2: 31.84
Seafire Mk.II: 32.38
P-40E: 33.16
Bf 109E-4: 34.60
Hurricane Mk.IIC: 36.62
Bf 110C-4b: 37.51
F4F-4: 41.44
A6M2: 44.37
Hurricane Mk.IID: 46.25
Hurricane Mk.I: 53.88
P-40B: 54.50


My regards,

Widewing

Title: Re: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: Hap on May 16, 2006, 02:14:58 PM

Quote

Originally posted by Widewing
Ki-84: 21.56
Bf 109G-2: 22.19
N1K2-J: 22.42
Bf 109F-4: 22.93
Bf 109G-6: 23.18
P-38J: 23.23
Yak-9U: 23.43
P-38L: 23.47
C.205: 23.70
Ta 152H: 24.12
Typhoon: 24.13
Fw 190A-5: 24.34
F4U-1D: 24.50
Spitfire Mk.IX: 24.72
Fw 190A-8: 24.94
P-51D: 25.11
F4U-1C: 25.59
Fw 190F-8: 25.94
F6F-5: 26.35
P-47N: 26.37

thanks widewing.  always enjoy you info though i probably don't make the best use of it.  the list above is part of your report, 2nd tier accelerating planes, some surprises, no?  niki and a8 and f6f ahead of n model jug.  niki ahead of a 9u.  i didn't know that.  also much ahead of the pony.

i wonder to what degree these facts we adequately exploit and to what degree hay can be made of them in the ma.  and look at the franz.  with what you said about its low speed turning, it's looking better all the time.

hap

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: DoKGonZo on May 16, 2006, 04:40:50 PM

Just how much tabular data do you guys have? I just read MOSQ's thread on turn rates too. So I'm assuming there's a bunch.

I've been playing around with a cool PHP-XML-Flash charting package for a project and I think it could be useful to allow people to compare planes. I threw this together in like 10 minutes, but imagine being able to pick 6 planes from the list and compare them this way for accel, speed, climb, turn, etc. ... whatever we have:

Charts Demo (http://www.gonzoville.com/charts/)

This package also does line charts (it actually does a ton of stuff ... pretty awesome), so it could plot climb/speed v. altitude and stuff like that as well.

Let me know,

    -DoK

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: Urchin on May 16, 2006, 04:42:36 PM

Why on earth does the Spit 16 out-accelerate the Spit 14?  

The Spit 14 should have at least 300 more horsepower... and it weighs the same on the same airframe.  

I'm confused.

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: Karnak on May 16, 2006, 05:13:08 PM

The Spit XIV may well not have more horsepower at that altitude as it is tuned for high altitude performance whereas the Spit XVI is tuned for low altitude performance.

Also the Spit XIV's radiators are deeper and thus a bit more drag, though the XIV does overcome that to have a higher deck speed than the XVI.

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: hammer on May 16, 2006, 06:34:10 PM

Quote

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Just how much tabular data do you guys have? I just read MOSQ's thread on turn rates too. So I'm assuming there's a bunch.

I've been playing around with a cool PHP-XML-Flash charting package for a project and I think it could be useful to allow people to compare planes. I threw this together in like 10 minutes, but imagine being able to pick 6 planes from the list and compare them this way for accel, speed, climb, turn, etc. ... whatever we have:

Charts Demo (http://www.gonzoville.com/charts/)

This package also does line charts (it actually does a ton of stuff ... pretty awesome), so it could plot climb/speed v. altitude and stuff like that as well.

Let me know,

    -DoK

DoK,

I have speed and climb data from the new charts on a couple of excel spreadsheets. I'm re-doing the climb charts so they are all sitting on a graph with the same scale for easy comparison.

Question: Does your charting package allow for pre-entered data where someone can just pick the planes (like the chart on this page (http://www.netaces.org/ahplanes/comparisons/speed.htm#title) ) or do you have to select data etc? All of those types of charts are available straight out of excel, but you have to manually select the source data to look at it.

Anyway, I've got lots of space at netaces to put stuff like this.

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: DoKGonZo on May 16, 2006, 06:46:34 PM

Quote

Originally posted by hammer
DoK,

I have speed and climb data from the new charts on a couple of excel spreadsheets. I'm re-doing the climb charts so they are all sitting on a graph with the same scale for easy comparison.

Question: Does your charting package allow for pre-entered data where someone can just pick the planes (like the chart on this page (http://www.netaces.org/ahplanes/comparisons/speed.htm#title) ) or do you have to select data etc? All of those types of charts are available straight out of excel, but you have to manually select the source data to look at it.

Anyway, I've got lots of space at netaces to put stuff like this.

Yeah ... basically there's a PHP driver to the Flash package, so I can have data aranged any which way and then condense it down to the package at run time. The nice thing is I can do multiple-entry column graphs (i.e. turning radius at full, 1-click, and no flaps) all together on the same display.

What I'm going to do first is rig the plane selector mechanism and then see how it all looks.

What I'm shooting for is a really easy to read display of all the data, kind of like the recent web-stats package, Mint (http://haveamint.com/) .

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: MOSQ on May 16, 2006, 07:08:25 PM

Quote

Originally posted by Urchin
Why on earth does the Spit 16 out-accelerate the Spit 14?  

The Spit 14 should have at least 300 more horsepower... and it weighs the same on the same airframe.  

I'm confused.

It does blow it away...above 250 mph. I'll post the figures later tonight.

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: MOSQ on May 16, 2006, 07:16:49 PM

Quote

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Just how much tabular data do you guys have? I just read MOSQ's thread on turn rates too. So I'm assuming there's a bunch.

I've been playing around with a cool PHP-XML-Flash charting package for a project and I think it could be useful to allow people to compare planes. I threw this together in like 10 minutes, but imagine being able to pick 6 planes from the list and compare them this way for accel, speed, climb, turn, etc. ... whatever we have:

Charts Demo (http://www.gonzoville.com/charts/)

This package also does line charts (it actually does a ton of stuff ... pretty awesome), so it could plot climb/speed v. altitude and stuff like that as well.

Let me know,

    -DoK

Dok,

I have a scary amount of data all in Excel. The problem is every time I think I'm done HTC changes the FM and the data is out of date!

For instance I have accel times for almost all the planes at 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% fuel from 150 to 350 (or their top speed if less than 350). That was done over a long time, but now 2.07 has made it all outdated. Not by much, the change is minor, but enough to cause arguments here. And about the time I update it HTC will change the FM again!

That said, I'm interested in making it graphical and available to the community. If I give you the spreadsheet, what could you do?

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: hammer on May 16, 2006, 08:08:47 PM

Quote

Originally posted by MOSQ
Dok,

I have a scary amount of data all in Excel. The problem is every time I think I'm done HTC changes the FM and the data is out of date!

For instance I have accel times for almost all the planes at 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% fuel from 150 to 350 (or their top speed if less than 350). That was done over a long time, but now 2.07 has made it all outdated. Not by much, the change is minor, but enough to cause arguments here. And about the time I update it HTC will change the FM again!

That said, I'm interested in making it graphical and available to the community. If I give you the spreadsheet, what could you do?

MOSQ,

Acceleration is the next thing I was planning to test. Thinking about time for 50mph increments at 100ft, 5k, 10k, 15k, 20k (100ft, 10, & 20 first, then back to 5 and 15). Maybe some collaboration is in order!

Along the lines of collaboration, I have tons of web space and can set up individual FTP accounts and even sub-domains off of netaces if anyone needs a place to post plane data.

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: DoKGonZo on May 16, 2006, 09:11:24 PM

What I'm looking at doing is having a semi-flexible way to incorporate new data into the display. Everything would be referenced by some predefined tagging (i.e. "typh" for Typhoon data, etc). Which would be the mechanism for looking up a given plane's data in whatever table there was.

What I should probably do is look for a CSV importer and use that to build data tables on the fly. It's not like the files are that big or the demand will be that high - it's just a little more processing than reading in raw PHP arrays. The spreadsheets will need to conform to some regimentation, though: left-hand column will have to be the plane tag, top row will have to be the column labels, and so on. Give me a few days to track down a CSV importer, I know they're around for mySQL.

Once the data import problem is solved, then it's just configuring the various charts based on what datasets are available. There's just a lot of options to wade through with this thing.

But in the end I think it'd be worth it. To have one page where you can see all the data compared and get a good feel for how Plane X stacks up against Plane Y and Plane Z - would be huge help to newbies. We could do lethality, MA kills/deaths, all of it.

As for where to host this, I don't mind mirroring it to NetAces as long as my copyright and link ain't removed. If people are more likely to find it there then its all good.

I should be able to work on this some more this weekend.

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: 38ruk on May 16, 2006, 10:37:32 PM

Thanks for your work WideWing . Its appreciated .

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: Nashwan on May 17, 2006, 01:08:18 AM

Quote

Why on earth does the Spit 16 out-accelerate the Spit 14?

The Spit 14 should have at least 300 more horsepower... and it weighs the same on the same airframe.

The Spit XIV weighs about 1,000 lbs more than the Spit XVI.

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: bozon on May 17, 2006, 03:50:42 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Nashwan
The Spit XIV weighs about 1,000 lbs more than the Spit XVI.

And carries more fuel. They were all tested with 50%.
This is also important to consider when talking about the P47N. 50% in that monster is about 75% of the D40, which is also the fuel load of 2.5 109s...

Bozon

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: Urchin on May 17, 2006, 10:28:05 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Nashwan
The Spit XIV weighs about 1,000 lbs more than the Spit XVI.

HTC's got them at the same weight on the planes page.

This gigantic book I have on Spitfires has a chart with the Spit 14s weight given as 8,475 with 4 303s and 8513.5 with 2 50s (typical takeoff weight).

Same book has the Spit 16 at 8,288.5 (take off) for an LF Mk XVI.

That is what? 200 pounds?  Granted, it isn't nothing, but it isn't a half ton either.  

What is the boost rating on the Spit 16?  This book has 1372 hp @ takeoff on 12 lbs, and 1702 hp @ 3000 ft on 18 lbs, and 1410 @ 9000 ft on 12 lbs.

The Spit 14 is given as 1540 @ takeoff (if it is a griffon 65) 2035 @ 7000 ft (no boost ratings).

Is 300 more horsepower enough to offset 200 lbs of weight?  

Or does our Spit 16 have more horsepower than that?

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: Nashwan on May 17, 2006, 10:55:42 AM

Quote

Same book has the Spit 16 at 8,288.5 (take off) for an LF Mk XVI.

I just checked in Spitfire the History. They give figures for 3 Spitfire XVIs weighed, one was approx 7,400 lbs, the second approx 7,500 lbs (with a modified radiator) (which is expected because the Spit XVI was a Spit IX with a US made engine). However, they also give a figure for SM 410, approx 8,300 lbs. SM410 was fitted with a bubble canopy and a 67 gallon rear fuel tank, the 8,300 lbs weight included full fuel in all tanks, including the rear tank.

In other words, the Spitfire XVI should weigh approx 7,400 lbs, only with a rear tank does the weight go up to 8,000+ lbs.

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: Speed55 on May 17, 2006, 12:03:22 PM

Thanks to all of you who are doing this work! :aok

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: MOSQ on May 17, 2006, 12:26:49 PM

Hammer,

All my Accel testing is at 500 ft. However I have more than the usual tests, I have w/wo Gondolas on the 109s, 6 vs 8 MGs in 47s ect.

I'd be happy to  collaborate with you. I have to admit I'm not fired up about redoing all the tests right now because I'd bet HTC is going to redo the drag model again soon.

I did it in AHI, then AHII changed the numbers. Redid it for AHII, now 2.07 has changed it again. Pyro has said the drag model is wrong for the P-38, so I'm waiting for that to be changed.

But I did go ahead and do the sustained turn testing. WW pointed out I wasn't hitting the max rate, so I'm 2/3 of the way thru redoing that. Once it's done I'll repost it in this forum, and if it passes peer review here I'm hoping you'll post it on NetAces.

Dok, if you can get your charts to work at NetAces, I'd be happy to supply my part of the data.

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: DoKGonZo on May 17, 2006, 02:43:57 PM

How do you like it so far:

Demo 2 (http://gonzoville.com/charts/index2.php)

The only real restriction is just one datapoint per plane. So basically pick the most common MA configuration (3-cannon La7, 8-MG P47, etc.). And the plane names in the CSV need to be normalized, I already have a translation table to expand these to the full names for display.

This is now reading the raw CSV data with nomalized plane tags.

I replicated the first chart just for the purpose of tuning the layout.

It can handle combining data from multiple CSV's, and directories. So if you wanted to have a chart with data that MOSQ and Widewing compiled independantly, and uploaded to their own dirs on a ftp server, it's only like 3 or 4 more lines of code in the data-builder than is normally needed to build a dataset for a particular chart. I built this to be easy to modify as opposed to the most elegant thing on earth.

Adding a chart to the console is easy. I've condensed that down to a 1-liner. The tricky stuff is in the data-builder PHP file which grabs the raw CSV and builds the data set to send to the chart display. It's not that bad, but it does require some basic programming skills to deploy a new dataset. No real way around this.

There are no database or file-writing requirements. So this should pretty much run anywhere. If the concensus is to host at netaces, then I'd treat the installation on my server as a perpetual beta release and send updates to the netaces guys whenever I added a feature or a new dataset.

I'll probably add a PayPal Donate button - the freeware version of this charter has the default link back to their site. So if I get enough donations I'd put that towards a license to get rid of that.

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: hammer on May 17, 2006, 04:14:48 PM

DoK,

Looks good. No need to host at netaces, it was just an offer. I can link to anywhere.

When I get home, I'll post the spreadsheets I made with speed and climb data and send you the link. They are based on the new charts, not on tests.

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: Mister Fork on May 17, 2006, 09:07:03 PM

Good work WideWing.  My earlier tests are definately different from these ones.  Great work! :aok

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: DoKGonZo on May 17, 2006, 10:36:32 PM

Quote

Originally posted by hammer
DoK,

Looks good. No need to host at netaces, it was just an offer. I can link to anywhere.

When I get home, I'll post the spreadsheets I made with speed and climb data and send you the link. They are based on the new charts, not on tests.

Thanks. Once I get a few data sets in there I'll have a better handle on how to build the various kinds of charts.

I've tweaked things a little more since earlier today:

- Added a linksbar include to allow easy adding of link-outs
- Tweaked the CSS for better readability
- Added ability to include notes/credits for each chart
- Various internal modifications so I don't gotta type as much to add new charts

Once it goes live I'll rig a support forum ... and a debug install, and upload account so that the data gurus can upload and test stuff.

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: Spatula on May 17, 2006, 10:44:19 PM

I read on a post a little while back that the climb figures bare a direct relationship to the accleration figures - eg they're really one in the same.
So why not just use HTCs graphs for acceleration data?

Im not trying to belittle anyones effort. Its a genuine question.

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: bozon on May 18, 2006, 03:50:45 AM

Spatula, climb is proportional to acceleration but depend on the speed.

The HTC climb charts are done at some given speed (plane auto-climb speed?). So the climb rate is proportional to the acceleration at that speed (normally 160-180 mph).

WW's test measures averaged acceleration over the 150-250 mph range. If he'd use a higher upper speed the order will change dramatically and will favour the planes with higher top speed. Consider an extreem case in which you measure acceleration around 350mph sea level. Spit 16 will not accelerate as this is about its top speed, but P51 will still be accelerating.

Bozon

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: Spatula on May 18, 2006, 04:17:18 AM

Cheers Bozon, explained like that, it makes pefect sense - thanks :)

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: hammer on May 18, 2006, 07:32:53 AM

DoK,

You have a PM.

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: DoKGonZo on May 18, 2006, 03:43:56 PM

Quote

Originally posted by hammer
DoK,

You have a PM.

Thanks ... I'll work on that data this weekend ... and whatever else I get between now and then.

I'd love to see a dataset on lethality. Specifically:

• max lethality at takeoff for "typical" loadout (i.e. no gondies, just max internal guns).
• number of seconds of firing secondary weapon (i.e. how long do the cannons last?)

Based on those cool dispersion charts I saw at netaces (I think) we could probably even take a stab at "effective range."

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: hammer on May 18, 2006, 04:57:13 PM

Here is my Weapon Lethality Page (http://www.netaces.org/ahweapons/roundpwr.html). It's based on how many rounds it takes to kill a fighter hangar with a .50 cal being a "1". I am partially finished with a plane lethality rating based on these numbers. I'll finish it up and post it.

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: DoKGonZo on May 18, 2006, 05:09:59 PM

Cool ... that's probably close enough ... I'll look at an Excel version too.

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: Widewing on May 18, 2006, 07:35:55 PM

Quote

Originally posted by bozon
Spatula, climb is proportional to acceleration but depend on the speed.

The HTC climb charts are done at some given speed (plane auto-climb speed?). So the climb rate is proportional to the acceleration at that speed (normally 160-180 mph).

WW's test measures averaged acceleration over the 150-250 mph range. If he'd use a higher upper speed the order will change dramatically and will favour the planes with higher top speed. Consider an extreem case in which you measure acceleration around 350mph sea level. Spit 16 will not accelerate as this is about its top speed, but P51 will still be accelerating.

Bozon

To provide examples of the differences in sea level acceleration based upon starting speed, here's some data I took measuring time to accelerate from 200 mph to 300 mph. Same criteria as before, 50% fuel regardless of capacity. Understand that not all aircraft can attain 300 mph at sea level and some barely get there. The Bf 110C-4b required almost 2.50 minutes to reach 300, largely because it can only manage about 302 mph at sea level.

Those tested represent a sampling only, with some slow-pokes thrown in at the end for perspective.

In descending order, from fastest to slowest tested.

Type/time

Tempest: 25.97
La-7: 27.87
Bf 109K-4: 28.50
Spitfire XIV: 29.44
F4U-4: 30.07
Spitfire XVI: 31.53
Bf 109G-14: 31.62
La-5FN: 31.62
Fw 190D-9: 31.63
Typhoon: 33.98
Ki-84: 35.44
Spitfire VIII: 35.60
Yak-9U: 36.19
Bf 109G-2: 37.22
P-51D: 38.16
P-47N: 38.31
P-38J: 39.06
Bf 109G-6: 39.91
Bf 109F-4: 41.41
N1K2-J: 42.91
C.202: 57.89
Bf 110G-2: 67.01

Note that the Spitfire Mk.XIV now accelerates faster than the Mk.XVI.

My regards,

Widewing

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: DoKGonZo on May 18, 2006, 08:00:51 PM

I've added the chart for lethality based on Hammer's hanger killing technique. I multiplied everything by 10 (so the US M2 is now 10 instead of 1 ... just because) and cross referenced with the load-outs as they usually appear in the MA.

For acceleration, the 100mph to 200mph number is probably meaningful as well - that's the range where you need the ability to close or break off.

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: hitech on May 19, 2006, 09:21:50 AM

Note: Lethality against buildings will not always be the same as against planes.

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: Pooface on May 19, 2006, 09:58:47 AM

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
Note: Lethality against buildings will not always be the same as against planes.

yeah i thought so... especially the non-explosive rounds. i noticed that the 40mm on the hurri2d can take out about 5 planes at once lol, but take loads of rounds to take a building down. 50cals also, as convergence on buildings doesnt matter, as all over it's the same damage required to kill it, while on a plane you can aim for a wing or the like...

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: DoKGonZo on May 19, 2006, 10:11:26 AM

All true enough, and ballistics make a big difference on A2A effectiveness as well.

But the results came out feeling pretty close to the way things work in the MA and for the sake of comparing relative punch (which is all I'm after), I think it's a good first pass at it.

What I can also do is add a second plot for the calculated (the TW numbers) lethality and let people make up their own minds.

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: Sikboy on May 19, 2006, 10:20:33 AM

Quote

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
I've added the chart for lethality based on Hammer's hanger killing technique. I multiplied everything by 10 (so the US M2 is now 10 instead of 1 ... just because) and cross referenced with the load-outs as they usually appear in the MA.

For acceleration, the 100mph to 200mph number is probably meaningful as well - that's the range where you need the ability to close or break off.

I have a map somewhere that has giant "Monoliths" on the end of a runway. It made things a lot easier for testing lethality against buildings.  I'll see if I can dig that up.

-Sik

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: hammer on May 19, 2006, 11:43:40 AM

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
Note: Lethality against buildings will not always be the same as against planes.

I figured as much, but since I couldn't get a plane to hold still in a position where I knew every round hit and since hits to different places have different effects anyway, I figured this was as good a measurement as I was going to get.

If you (HiTech) would care to provide more accurate data, I'm sure DoK and I would be glad to manipulate it. :D

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: DoKGonZo on May 19, 2006, 12:07:30 PM

I can think of some reasons why HT wouldn't want to divulge the lethality and armor values in the game. Which is why I haven't pushed for it.

I think the rounds-to-kill-something approach is a good measure of what happens in the MA. Provided it's the same class of target as a plane ... or at least close enough.

And there's some things that the reader will just have to figure out - like that the lethality of kinetic rounds drops off at range - or that the odds of hitting a full-lethality burst from a N1K over 400yds ain't very good - and so on.

---- EDIT ----

Added the Tony Williams data to the lethality chart.

Still TBD:

- Hammer's speed/climb data under WEP
- MOSQ's accel, turn, and top speed data

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: DoKGonZo on May 19, 2006, 09:43:06 PM

( LINK (http://gonzoville.com/charts/) )

OK ... I have Hammer's speed and climb data in ... MOSQ's accel and turn rate ... plus Hammer's and TW's lethality.

I decided to break out the speed/climob charts into MIL and WEP. Putting 8 plots on one graph was too confusing to look at, and you really want to compare WEP to WEP and MIL to MIL. Having them side by side shows where there are significant improvements well enough.

This could probably use more detailed turn rate info instead of just full-flaps. Turn-radius is probably as good a number to use as any as it's easy to visualize and newbies will understand what it means.

But I'm pretty happy with how this turned out. It's interesting to compare planes you fly with planes you face.

I want to tidy up the code some this weekend and then I'll release it. There may still be glitches in the data since I had to translate plane names more or less by hand to the standard ones I use internally.

    -DoK

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: MOSQ on May 19, 2006, 10:15:04 PM

Quote

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
( LINK (http://gonzoville.com/charts/) )

This could probably use more detailed turn rate info instead of just full-flaps. Turn-radius is probably as good a number to use as any as it's easy to visualize and newbies will understand what it means.


    -DoK

I still have my No Flaps data, I just didn't send it to you. I can send it, but it's not the absolute max possible turn rate with no flaps. The max possible with no flaps is in a deep, shaking stall, and my no flaps data is just above that, right on the edge of when the shaking starts.

I didn't send it because when I though about it, it seemd to be useless in the game. Afterall if you're that slow and in a stall, you'll be hitting your flaps, so what difference does it make what your no flaps radius?DPS make?

The only use I see for it is a feel for how well your plane "naturally" turns without flaps which could be useful to know.

If you want the data for a No Flaps chart, I'll send it.

Good work on the charting tools.

 Is there a way the user can select the order of the planes in the charts (the column order)?

And I think a white background on the charts would make them easier to read, the colored lines would be more apparent.

Also my Accell data is not Sea Level, it's at 500 FT. It makes a slight difference.

To make the speed and climb charts consistent with the java applet at Net Aces and the charts here on the HTC plane data pages I think you need to revese the X/Y axis, That is the speed is the X axis and the altitude is the Y axis. Same for the climb rate charts.

There's something wrong with the Spit 9 data. it goes off the chart.

The Ki-84 has a weird WEP speed chart.

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: DoKGonZo on May 19, 2006, 11:30:58 PM

Spit and Ki are fixed .... just typos.

I don't know if it's possible to rotate the charts. I suppose I could flip the data around internally ... yuck.

Only issue with the full-flaps only turn data is that it doesn't convey the "normal" turning ability well. Especially with planes with Uberfplappen like the Corsair.

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: MOSQ on May 20, 2006, 02:09:57 AM

No Flaps OTW.

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: DoKGonZo on May 20, 2006, 11:38:21 AM

Thanks. I've added that data, and also a comment about being sampled at 500ft.

The no-flaps turn rate is interesting - comparing the 38L, 51D, and 47N the turn-rate ranking inverts going from no flaps to full flaps.

-- edit --

I also flipped the CSS on the charts panel to be more light-on-dark for readability as suggested.

I'm still catching occasional data errors due to typos on my part, but everything else is looking OK.

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: MOSQ on May 20, 2006, 01:09:20 PM

Two more suggestions:

Add the 300 to 350 accel times. That really separates a lot of the planes.

Put the total time value on the top of the accel columns the same way you do on the flaps and lethality charts.


I like the white chart backgrounds, they are easier for my old eyes to see now.

It's looking great. This will be a good resource for the AH community.

Good work Dok

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: DoKGonZo on May 20, 2006, 01:32:52 PM

Yeah ... now that I have it as stacked columns I could add the 250-300 without it looking odd. I originally did it as a curve. My concern would be that it'd compress the lower number (150 to 200) so small on the plot that it was unreadable.

It can't put the total at the top of the column, it can only put in raw data values, not ones calculated on the fly.

Hopefully this will bring more people with data out of the woodwork too.

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: Murdr on May 22, 2006, 02:55:40 AM

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
Note: Lethality against buildings will not always be the same as against planes.

Will take a hand a translating....  As modeled 1 .50 cal hitting a ground object will always do the same amount of damage.  1 .50 cal hitting a plane can vary in damage amount depending on velocity of impact.

I kind of like the "damage in pounds of ordinance" metrics for measuring a planes Weapon lethality:

Quote

Originally posted by scJazz
This update includes PT Boat's 37mm and 40mm guns as well as damage from Shore Batteries and Cruiser main guns.

Gun Type                Dam in #
.303 Browning AC 0.296
.303 Browning GV 0.3125
7.6mm ShKAS 0.296
7.7mm Breda - SAFAT 0.28
7.7mm Type 97 0.296
7mm MG 17 0.3
.50 M2 AC 1.17
.50 M2 GV 1.25
12.7mm Breda - SAFAT 0.95
12.7mm Ho-103 0.998
12.7mm UBS 1.15
13mm MG 131 0.92
20mm B-20 3.47
20mm Hispano Mk II 4.03
20mm Hispano Mk V 3.94
20mm Ho-5 3.36
20mm M2 AC 4.03
20mm MG 151/20 3.55
20mm MG-FF 3.25
20mm ShVAK 3.47
20mm Type 99 Mk 1 3.42
20mm Type 99 Mk 2 3.85
23mm VYa 5.62
30mm Mk 108 11.63
37mm NS37 16.67
40mm Vickers S 13.89 *
37mm PT Boat            13.2
40mm PT Boat            15.6
37mm HE Ostwind 15.15 *
37mm AP 15.6  #1
37mm HE 31.2  #1
75mm AP 78.1  #1
75mm HE       156.2  #1
88mm AP       117.1  #1
88mm HE       234.3  #1
3.5" Rocket       140.0  #1
4.5" Rocket        93.0  #1
5" Rocket       156.0  #1
RS132       125.0  #1
RS82        93.0  #1
WGr21       200.0  #1
Shore Battery          250 - 500 #2
Cruiser Gun            250 - 500  #2



* The Vickers S and 37mm HE Ostwind are the only weapons I
am not 100% certain of the full series of tests had very
inequal results. The value shown is the maximum damage
inflicted per round. I suspect that the variance is caused
by a bug in the burst dispersion code.
#1 Testing for the GV main guns and rockets was different.
I fired 1 round into a hanger and constantly tweaked the
hanger's damage resistence until I found the maximum single
round damage.
#2 The Main Guns on the Cruisers fire 3 shells at a time
each shell does 250lbs to 500lbs of damage. If all 3 hit then the
target just took 750lbs to 1500lbs of damage. The damage is scaled by range 250lbs at maximum range, 500lbs at point blank, 390lbs at 6400 yards.

[/B]

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: Hap on May 24, 2006, 04:24:15 PM

Quote

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Especially with planes with Uberfplappen like the Corsair.

Dok, should i look for the "uberfplappen" comparision next?

hap

Title: Sea Level Acceleration Revised For 2.07
Post by: DoKGonZo on May 24, 2006, 04:25:52 PM

Full-flaps is in there - and the uber-ness of the F4 in that regard is quite aparent.