Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: DoKGonZo on May 21, 2006, 12:54:21 PM
-
This is the first release of a program I put together to use a really slick Flash-based charting module to show side-by-side comparisons of Aces High prop-driven fighters. Thanks to MOSQ, WideWing, and Hammer I was able to incorporate data for turn rate, acceleration, and lethality in addition to climb and speed information.
(http://www.gonzoville.com/ahcharts/planecomp.jpg)
Aces High Fighter Comparison (http://gonzoville.com/ahcharts/index.php)
The idea was to make it easier for newer players to get a handle on how the planes they were flying compared to the ones they were facing, and to assist in the decision of "which plane should I fly." And some of the information is pretty interesting to veterans too. And there's the ability to create direct reference URL's ... for things like scenarios where you may want to be able to present a page which compares the planes that'll be in use.
You'll notice I split WEP and MIL speed and climb charts out. This was for readability. Putting 8 plots on the same small graph just was too confusing to look at and that defeats the purpose. Putting things side-by-side lets you still see the performance gains of WEP, but more importantly it lets you compare the planes at the same power settings.
I put all the PHP code together in a couple of evenings, so there may still be glitches, I've set up a forum on my server to address these if they come up. The general look is kept pretty lean - no graphics except the actual charts - so it loads as fast as possible for folks.
-DoK
-
Veeeery nice :aok
-
Shouldn't the P-47s all have the same firing time? I thought they all had the same ammo loads...
-
Originally posted by OOZ662
Shouldn't the P-47s all have the same firing time? I thought they all had the same ammo loads...
Fixed.
-
Dok, wow. great work. :aok
hap
-
That was speedy. :O
-
Very cool.
-
nice work!
Pipz
-
Lordy ... I just realized how mangled the subject of this thread was ... I should know better than to attempt proper English before noon.
Scuzzy, if you can please change the thread to: "Announce: Aces High Fighter Comparisons" as it's been 120 minutes since posting and it won't let me edit it.
-
Originally posted by OOZ662
Shouldn't the P-47s all have the same firing time? I thought they all had the same ammo loads...
That was probably my fault... I had times in there for 6 guns light ammo, 6 guns normal ammo, 8 guns light ammo, and 8 guns normal ammo. I had them all generically labeled P-47, but with 4 of them in a row they would have entered nicely as D11, D25, D40 and N.
-
Great work Dok and others! :)
-
Very usefull utility
-
Wow!
Talk about a world of information at a glance!
TY & dok, very nicely done indeed!
-
Very Nice Doc
-
Brilliant, easy to read/compare charts, turn radius especially.
Just one teeny, teeny, weenie, itsy, black mark on otherwise spotless presentation tho'. For "England" it should read Great Britain or British. I know it's nit-picking but there might be a few guys in Scotland, Wales & N Ireland who feel their contribution is devalued.
Great reference material :). Thanks.
Regards
-
superb! :aok
-
That is sick nice.
Sakai
-
fantastic!!!
-
"England" is now relabeled to "Britain"
-
VERY VERY KEWL!
What would be really neat was to add airspeed for min turn radius
-
Might want to check the primary/secondary label on some of your data. Firing time lists a 109E4 as having a VERY short primary but a long-as-hell secondary firing time. I think those are reversed.
EDIT: Come to think of it, I think all primary/secondary are reversed. I selected 4 and all 4 had really short "primary" firing times, but really long "secondary" firing times.
EDIT2: I just read the note under the graphic lol, that explains it. I think it's misleading, however, as AH has primary/secondary priority, and the chart has them reversed. Just my 2c.
-
Yeah ... I went with the logical primary/secondary as opposed to how its mapped on the joystick.
-
Well I'm sure if you asked a pilot that flew, they didn't have "primary" or "secondary" -- they just had "guns". :P
But I see what ya mean.
P.S. bookmarked!
-
I kind of wanted that sort of number. More or less: "How long do my cannons shoot for?" Which is the first half of the chart. That's the number you really care about.
The second number is what you have to defend yourself with when you're RTB. So it seemed like a reasonable thing to include.
What's kind of interesting is comparing a 109G6 with a Yak-9U. The Russians pretty much have everything run out at once - shootsky or no-shootsky. The Luftwaffe plane has a pile of 13mm ammo to spare.
-
Very nicely done. That's some useful information there. I didn't know, for example, that the Spit XVI outaccelerated the Tempest very slightly up to 200mph.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Dok,
Two items:
Firing times were compiled by Hammer, not me.
Can you add the 300 to 350 accel times? That's where you see significant differences between planes.
I'm glad you're getting great feedback on your charts!
-
I don't think the 300-350 acceleration times are going to be very important, personally. Half the planeset can't do 350 at 5k anyways.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I don't think the 300-350 acceleration times are going to be very important, personally. Half the planeset can't do 350 at 5k anyways.
I tend to agree.
If I did a chart like that I'd probably combine it with top speed. So there'd be 3 plots - top speed, 150-300, and 150-350. More or less representing the top-end characteristics, whereas the current chart represents the more typical manouever spectrum.
I was thinking of adding something for fuel duration this weekend, so maybe I'll add the top-end chart at the same time.
The site is getting good traffic. I think once it gets linked into the community links area and some of the more popular AH sites it'll get even better.
-
Dok,
The reason I think the 300 to 350 times are important is they really do make a difference in a fight as compared to the 150-200 times. Here's why:
If the difference between the attacker and the defender in a 150-200 or even 150-250 drag race is a couple of seconds, it's darn close to irrelevant. 2 seconds at 200 mph does not translate into enough distance for the defender to get out of guns range from his attacker. And times of only a half second difference really are irrelevant in the fight.
But of the planes that can reach 350+, there is a significant difference in how long it takes them to get from 300 to 350. As in 20 or more seconds. 20 seconds at 300 to 350 mph translates into a large distance, well out of guns range. So although you know you have a plane that will go fast in top end, you may or may not be able to get the out of guns range distance you need right now.
Why can't you just add the data to the current accel charts as another layer? We already have planes in there that can't reach 300 mph and the charts seem to work when comparing them to planes that will go 300+.
Are you limited to three sets of data for each plane per chart?
My two cents from my experience doing the testing.
-
The biggest issue is that it'd add such a long top segment as it may make those below it unreadable. The 150-200 time block is often just tall enough to fit the text inside. So adding a bar which is likely to be as tall as all three below it will squeeze the rest down pretty badly. Compare a Spit 1 and Spit 16 and see what I mean.
But the accel times at the top end, as you point out, don't always map directly to the planes with the best top ends. Whcih is why I felt it would make more sense to put that figure in with the top end numbers.
-
Thanks for putting this together DoK and company, it is quite cool.
-
Very Professional Dok...
A big to ya
-
Dok,
That makes sense. I like your idea of the additional charts you outlined above.
And please don't forget to change the note on the firing times to Hammer. He deserves the credit, I know how long testing like that can take.
-
- Added charts for Top Speed (low alt) and Top End Acceleration (low alt)
- Fixed credits on firing time chart
-
A really well done piece of work Sir.
Thankyou very much.
-
Thanks.
Note to the data dudes ... the plane tags I list on the Welcome page to encode URL's are the same ones to use in the spreadsheets if you want to update your data anytime. I can put together a quickie CSV of just that column if you prefer.
-
Real quick note on firing times...
I notice that for the Hogs with .50 cal you list them all with firing times of 30 seconds for primary, 28 seconds on secondary. However:
F4U-1 has 400 rds/gun on the inboard 4 and 375 rds/gun for the outboard pair. The F4U-1D and -4 have 400 rds/gun for all six.
Soooo...
Why does the -1D and -4 have the same firing times as the -1? Shouldn't it be 30/30?
-
Get work fellas huge
Is there any way to get roll times at various speeds included? Would help to get a full picture of a planes fighting ability...for example the FW-190F8 has a HUGE turning radius, but with the incredible roll rate it a nimble little plane, but the folks who don't fly 190's can't see that.
Just a thought on a very nice piece of work... again!!
-
Originally posted by zorstorer
Get work fellas huge
Is there any way to get roll times at various speeds included?
Just a thought on a very nice piece of work... again!!
Yes there is. If you get a stopwatch and test every plane. Then send the results to Dok in an Excel spreadsheet I'm sure he will create the graphs.
:D :D
-
Originally posted by MOSQ
Yes there is. If you get a stopwatch and test every plane. Then send the results to Dok in an Excel spreadsheet I'm sure he will create the graphs.
:D :D
Good one :aok
I would do that, but I am pretty sure it was done....gonna do some searching on the boards.... :)
-
I'll take a look at the F4U's firing duration. Probably just a cut&paste error.
I'll also try to post a CSV file with the proper plane tags this weekend so it's easier to update measurements into the system.
Roll rate measurements should probably be taken at multiple speeds. Some low speed to represent "stallfighting", medium speed, and some high speed to represent handling in diving firing run.
1-notch-flaps turn rate would also be neat to have, especially where the US planes are concerned.
Another comparison that would be useful would be MA fuel duration. Full tanks and full plus max drop tanks.
I'm only mentioning these other items because I'm hoping someone might have already sampled the data. I ain't asking anyone to waste a summer afternoon hunched over their PC with a stopwatch.
-
Hey Dok
When I submit and the charts are populated with the data, If I try to print I end up with the list of aircraft on the left this causes me to loose half the right hand side charts...
Is there any chance you could add a button "Submit And Display Printer Friendly Version" Which would display the charts only...?
I can print in landscape but it just does not look very "Clean"... The printout does not do the charts justice.
I am still trying to find a quick and clean way around, this but if you could make a printer friendly version it would be great.
Thanks for the work you and all the other guys have put in..
-
BTW the BF110C4 appears to have somthing wrong with its Max Low alt speed (maybe an extra 0 on the end or somthing)
-
When including fuel duration, I think you should include full power, WEP, and cruise settings.
Another suggestion:
Since it's already set up to select the planes to view, how about options to select the STATS to view. That way as the charts expand and more stats are added you can cut down the clutter and see the relevant information. You could also toss in modifiers like fuel and oridinance loadout which have a BIG effect on performance.
So lets say you want to compare how the Spixteen and Nikki turn, climb and accelerate under 50% fuel loadout. Select the planes, select the performance stat, select your fuel load. Badda-bing badda-boom.
Some possible modifiers:
Fuel loads (25, 50, 75, 100, 100 + 1 DT, 100+ 2 DT, etc)
Alternate gun packages (easiest way would be to find what the HIGHEST number of alternates is, number then from 1 through that, and just display the relevant data)
Alternate ammo loads
Ordinance loadouts
Altitude sampling (maybe in increments of 5000 feet from SL up. Measuring performance on the deck is nice, but not ALL MA fights scrape the sagebrush)
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
I'll take a look at the F4U's firing duration. Probably just a cut&paste error.
I'll also try to post a CSV file with the proper plane tags this weekend so it's easier to update measurements into the system.
Roll rate measurements should probably be taken at multiple speeds. Some low speed to represent "stallfighting", medium speed, and some high speed to represent handling in diving firing run.
1-notch-flaps turn rate would also be neat to have, especially where the US planes are concerned.
Another comparison that would be useful would be MA fuel duration. Full tanks and full plus max drop tanks.
I'm only mentioning these other items because I'm hoping someone might have already sampled the data. I ain't asking anyone to waste a summer afternoon hunched over their PC with a stopwatch.
About 6 months ago, I tested many aircraft for firing duration using a stop watch. I have times for all F4Us.
Primary/Secondary
F4U-1: 28.8/26.8
F4U-1C: 20.5/20.0
F4U-1D: 28.8/28.8
F4U-4: 28.8/28.8
In addition, I have continued high altitude acceleration and speed testing, adding several more to the list.
You may be surprised to learn that at 25,000 feet, the P-47N looks to be the class of the field, capable of 456 mph and shaving several seconds off the Spitfire Mk.IX's best acceleration times (from 200 to 300 TAS) at 20k and 25k. I have yet to test the F4U-4 and Spitfire Mk.XIV, the only two aircraft that may challenge the P-47N at 25k. The P-51s didn't come close.
Also, I have done some turn radius and rate testing with the P-38s using full flaps. They have improved as one would expect, moving up about 12 places in the rankings respectively. I also worked with the F6F-5, looking for the best combination of factors that obtain the best radius and rate. I found that I can get the radius down to 443 feet, while maintaining 21.26 degrees/sec rate (at 112 mph). That means that it has virtually the same radius as the Chog, but has a considerable advantage in turn rate. Indeed, its turn rate is faster than all of the F4Us, an advantage that can be used to defeat the F4U's tighter turn radius. Likewise, a light F6F-5 can compete with a Niki that has 50% of greater internal fuel. One can significantly increase turn rate for little loss in radius by simply keep one's speed at around 122 mph. Under these circumstances, the turn radius grows slightly to 451 feet, but the rate of turn jumps to 22.7 degrees/second. However, the average pilot will not come close to this without a great deal of practice.
As I discovered dueling P-51 vs P-51, limiting flaps, giving up turn radius for rate, can provide an important advantage. Likewise, the same applies to the F6F.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Another comparison that would be useful would be MA fuel duration. Full tanks and full plus max drop tanks.
I'm only mentioning these other items because I'm hoping someone might have already sampled the data. I ain't asking anyone to waste a summer afternoon hunched over their PC with a stopwatch.
You need not even take off to establish fuel burn time. You can do this on the runway using E6B and various MAP and RPM settings. Establishing max range is difficult. This is because your speed and altitude will determine range, and fuel is burning off rapidly with the 2.0 burn rate. Then there is the issue of altitude. The best you can do is provide an estimate or hard fuel duration figures for sea level only. Fuel used to climb will skew the data.
My expectation is that AH2 adheres to published data and that data is probably the easiest source to use. Even then, the typical Flight Operation Instruction Chart is a complex table, not something I would want to try and generate for Aces High.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
You may be surprised to learn that at 25,000 feet, the P-47N looks to be the class of the field, capable of 456 mph and shaving several seconds off the Spitfire Mk.IX's best acceleration times (from 200 to 300 TAS) at 20k and 25k. I have yet to test the F4U-4 and Spitfire Mk.XIV, the only two aircraft that may challenge the P-47N at 25k. The P-51s didn't come close.
Here's the data for the best performing non-perked fighters at 20k-25k. I added the perked Spitfire XIV and F4U-4 for comparison. The 109G-14 was added to show how it fares above 20,000 feet (not very good).
I measured acceleration from 200 to 300 mph TAS at 20k and 25k and max speed at 25k in MIL power and WEP. For aircraft with higher critical altitudes, I also show speed at those altitudes.
So, data will be formatted like this: time/time/MIL speed/WEP speed (critical alt speed, where it applies)
P-47N: 29.53/31.91/418 mph/456 mph (476 mph at 30k)
P-51B: 35.19/34.89/419 mph/428 mph (442 mph at 30k)
P-51D: 36.04/43.53/431 mph/441 mph
P-47D-40: 34.33/36.72/416 mph/432 mph (433 mph at 30K)
P-47D-25: 34.69/37.88/416 mph/430 mph (435 mph at 30k)
P-38J: 33.28/38.07/403 mph/420 mph
SpitIX: 33.62/33.35/397 mph/407 mph
109K-4: 28.38/32.33/429 mph/444 mph
109G-14: 32.53/43.53/383 mph/391 mph
190D-9: 38.53/46.22/417 mph/423 mph
SpitXIV: 28.22/31.31/422 mph/443 mph (445 mph at 28k)
F4U-4: 29.15/37.97/431 mph/446 mph
My regards,
Widewing
-
110C's top end data was an typo in the planeID encoding (110c4b not just 110c4).
The F4U's, according to HT's plane data page, have 375 rounds in the secondary batteries. Which I guess are out of date relative to the game. I've adjusted those numbers.
Flying time - probably the E6B on the runway is good enough. Mainly I'm thinking of people who are new and don't know what an La-7 or Mosquito is. The intent here is comparison rather than mission planning.
I've added a printer-friendly layout to the To Do list.
Saxman, that level of detail is beyond what I'm trying to accomplish. It'd also explode the data gathering requirements for it to be done consistently. That said, I could take the same basic code base and add the ability to specify fuel load and internal ammo configuration to the parameters if there was enough interest. I'd have to flip the data around different internally to get it to line up on the charts, but it's doable. I built the code pretty flexible because I kind of expected follow-on implimentations - like bombers for starters.
-
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
I've added a printer-friendly layout to the To Do list.
DOK ROK's
:aok