Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Noir on April 05, 2011, 07:06:16 AM
-
I see in the official stats that a Seafire is almost identical to the current SpitV...did they change it as well when the SpitV got changed to an earlier version?
-
No. As far as I remember only the spit5 got the uber-boost, then was returned to normal.
When you look at the AH charts both of these planes share the EXACT power curve.
This is wrong. This is an AH "cheat" if you will... The Seafire is heavier, and as such turns worse than the Spit5. But because it's heavier it would have slower climb rate, all other things being equal. The weight would also cause a dropoff in climb at higher alts, rather than just an offset in climb. The performance at alt may (or may not) suffer because of the higher weight as well.
You see the same faulty FM on the Fw190F8. It is identical to the A8's power curves and climb rates, but this would not be so.
I think HTC didn't have the real charts or info but wanted to include these planes. I think that at the time they went off info they had and said "it's close enough, let's use the charts for that plane"
And that's how we get identical power curves for radically different airframes.
I do hold out some hope that they will revisit such things in the future and make real flight models for them. It's just not right that they have significant weight increases yet retain identical climb and speed charts. IMO it means something's a little off on those flight models. Who knows what other parts of the FM are unbalanced because of that?
-
well my concern is that I thought the seafire was based on the MkVc (quasi spit9), while our spitV is a Vb
-
I always thought it was modeled after a SpitVc ?
EDIT: Quick search on google:
"The Supermarine Seafire Mk.IIc was the first version of the aircraft to be built from new as a naval fighter, and was developed alongside the Mk.Ib.
Work on the prototype Mk.IIc began in 1941 when a Spitfire Vc (AD371) was converted by Supermarine. This aircraft was delivered to RAE Farnborough on 25 February 1942, and then went onto HMS Illustrious for deck trails. These demonstrated that the fuselage needed to be strengthened for naval use. The increase in weight this caused meant that the Mk.IIc could only carry two of the four 20mm cannon possible on the 'c' wing.
Supermarine
Seafire IIc In March 1942 an order for 213 Mk IIs was placed with Cunliffe-Owen, and for 202 with Supermarine. The first Supermarine aircraft made its maiden flight on 28 May 1942, the first Cunliffe-Owen aircraft only in December 1942."
That's before the spit9, last I recall.
I think what you are thinking about is that people WANT the Seafire that was based off the spit9, rather than we HAVE it. Maybe?
-
ok the AH spit5 got the same boost than the seafire. I was thinking that when our spit5 got "nerfed", the seafire kept the old boost setting, thus being more powerfull than the current spitV. I was wrong.
-
There was no Seafire based on the Spit IX. All the Seafires were single stage Merlin or Griffons until the very last Seafire 46 and 47 which were two stage Griffons but those were well postwar.
The IIc is based on the Spitfire Vc The Seafire III is as well but has refinements like a 4 blade prop, updated tropical filter, multiple exhaust stacks etc so it looks similar to the IX, but it's still a single stage Merlin so it isn't the same length as an IX but is that of the Vc
Seafires were never really meant to operate at the altitudes that a two stage Merlin would have made a difference.
-
I never said there was any spit9 seafire, I just pointed that the old spit5 had pretty similar performance with than the spit9.
-
I never said there was any spit9 seafire, I just pointed that the old spit5 had pretty similar performance with than the spit9.
At certain altitudes the Spit LFV would have similar performance to the Spit IX. It was at higher alts that the two stage supercharger made a big difference.
The reference to the Spit IX was in reply to Krusty saying folks want the Seafire based on the Spit IX
-
Isn't climb rate, speed, etc, calculated using some sort of sim aerodymics based on weight, lift and drag of the airfoil, drag of the fuselage and etc, vs. the power produced by the given powerplant at a given altitude with its historical propellar type, instead of just being read off a set of data points?
What I'm saying is, I always assumed for most part AH just models the physical traits of the plane and then calculates how they will fly in simulated air, and that the climb/speed charts mostly being close to real life is a result of the physics calculating side of the sim being Just That Darn Good...
No. As far as I remember only the spit5 got the uber-boost, then was returned to normal.
When you look at the AH charts both of these planes share the EXACT power curve.
This is wrong. This is an AH "cheat" if you will... The Seafire is heavier, and as such turns worse than the Spit5. But because it's heavier it would have slower climb rate, all other things being equal. The weight would also cause a dropoff in climb at higher alts, rather than just an offset in climb. The performance at alt may (or may not) suffer because of the higher weight as well.
You see the same faulty FM on the Fw190F8. It is identical to the A8's power curves and climb rates, but this would not be so.
I think HTC didn't have the real charts or info but wanted to include these planes. I think that at the time they went off info they had and said "it's close enough, let's use the charts for that plane"
And that's how we get identical power curves for radically different airframes.
I do hold out some hope that they will revisit such things in the future and make real flight models for them. It's just not right that they have significant weight increases yet retain identical climb and speed charts. IMO it means something's a little off on those flight models. Who knows what other parts of the FM are unbalanced because of that?
-
Isn't climb rate, speed, etc, calculated using some sort of sim aerodymics based on weight, lift and drag of the airfoil, drag of the fuselage and etc, vs. the power produced by the given powerplant at a given altitude with its historical propellar type, instead of just being read off a set of data points?
What I'm saying is, I always assumed for most part AH just models the physical traits of the plane and then calculates how they will fly in simulated air, and that the climb/speed charts mostly being close to real life is a result of the physics calculating side of the sim being Just That Darn Good...
I think that's true for the most part... but even being a force-based game you have examples of totally different planes with identical cookie-cutter power and climb charts. That to me indicates there are possible areas where they can fudge the results.
For example: Our 190a8 hits the specs for speed and climb yet is some 250-or-so pounds overweight. If you take that weight off and it meets historic weights, what happens to that climb rate? There's a balance but I think they can tweak all the different variables to hit the right numbers. Another example: Our P-38G was under-weight by some 500lbs for a long time, but it hit all the right numbers. When the weight was added back it still hit all the right numbers, but the handling/feel was different. How would it keep hitting all the right numbers that way? Another example: 190F8 is the heaviest model of the 190 radial series by far, and yet still makes the same rate of climb as the 190a8, still hits all the exact speed points as the a8 does.
So while clearly they have a good flight model system, they still have a balance in play, and any number of variables that can be tweaked to change the end results.
-
What’s the difference between healthy skepticism vs. a conspiracy theory? Answer: the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
What is the Dunning-Kruger Effect? “It is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to appreciate their mistakes.”
Krusty, I’m afraid your mental mythology of flight model injustices keeps you from seeing the flaw in your arguments. In this specific case for AH climb rate charts (Spit5/Seafire or FW190A-8/F-8) you jump to the conclusion that the FM is wrong. Instead you should first ask yourself “Why would the AH rate of climb charts be the same?”.
-
Dtango, your mental mythology that the FM is flawless keeps you from seeing the flaws when they pop up.
See how that works?
I had considered that. Had you bothered to ask, I would have explained I had considered that many times over the years. In fact I considered it with both the 190F8 and the Seafire. However, there is a difference between "close but different" and "cookie cutter identical".
The 190F8 dry weight is 489 lbs more than the A8 dry weight. Even if you are considering a 4-gun loadout on the A8 and a 2-gun standard on the F8, the F8 still weighs 200lbs more than the A8 with full internal fuel.
There is no way these planes should be even close in rate of climb with the exact same identical air frame and engine but hundreds of pounds of extra weight.
This is self evident. The F8 flight model is a kluge, a jurry rig, an effort to give us an extra ride based on HTC available data at the time. It's proven useful in scenarios and FSOs and the like, but it's just not... quite... "right."
P.S. Your insults were not unnoticed, either.
-
For giggles and because I was curious I checked the weights listed on the E6B screen in the TA just now. Loaded both the A8 and F8 with 25% fuel and made sure the fuel load was the same in each plane.
F8: 9089
A8 (4x20mm): 8922
A8 (2x20mm, 2x30mm): 9131
A8 (2x20mm): 8600
-
;) Krusty- I've given you a hint already. Here's another one: exactly what weights are the AH ROC charts for the SpitV/Seafire and Fw190A-8/F-8 based on?
-
The crickets sure are loud here. Never us mind however! To prevent those puzzled by the ROC charts for the SpitV/Seafire (190A-8/F8) from pondering this "many times over the years" without reaching the right answer here's the explanation in 5 minutes.
Krusty's Argument for a Broken FM:
1)The same airplane with a different weight has a different climb rate.
2)The SpitV /Seafire (190A-8/F-8) are the same airplanes but different weights.
3)However the HTC climb rate charts are the same for the SpitV/Seafire (190A-8/F-8); therefore, the FM is wrong!
We have proven the FM is wrong!! Let the FM pot-banging began!! Bring out the torches! Pitch forks for the angry mob! Time to hold Dr. Hitechenstein accountable for his FM abomination!!!
Not so fast. There’s a big assumption. Let’s bring it to light. Assumption: HTC used different weights to calculate the climb rate charts for the SpitV/Seafire (190A-8/F-8). For Krusty’s argument to be correct this assumption must be true.
Well, sadly for all the angry rioters this is false. According to AH the climb rate charts for the SpitV/Seafire (190A-8/F-8) are calculated with the same weight (SpitV/Seafire @ 6622lbs, A-8/F-8 @ 9682 lbs).
Infact if they used the same weight then we would expect to find that the ROC would indeed be the same for these airplanes. So unknowingly Krusty has actually found more proof of the correctness of the FM. Nice work Krusty!
Here’s the correct logic:
1)the same airplane with the same weight will have the same ROC
2)the SpitV/Seafire are essentially the same airplane
3)the HTC ROC chart for the SpitV/Seafire are calculated using the same weight
4)the ROC charts are the same for the SpitV/Seafire; therefore, hitech isn’t as dumb as some of you think he is :huh.
Cheers,
-
All I know is after years of being a Spit dweeb the Spit V feels lighter and more agile than the Seafire even though on paper they're supposed to be similar.
-
All I know is after years of being a Spit dweeb the Spit V feels lighter and more agile than the Seafire even though on paper they're supposed to be similar.
The Spit Vb would be lighter without the weight of the arrester hook and gear, and less ammo carried among other things that were on the Seafire
-
Here’s the correct logic:
1)the same airplane with the same weight will have the same ROC
2)the SpitV/Seafire are essentially the same airplane
3)the HTC ROC chart for the SpitV/Seafire are calculated using the same weight
4)the ROC charts are the same for the SpitV/Seafire; therefore, hitech isn’t as dumb as some of you think he is :huh.
Cheers,
You got it. A pound of lead is not heavier than a pound of feathers. 6622 lbs of Seafire II is not heavier than 6622 lbs of Spitfire V. Performance charts are based on a specific weight which is listed on the chart and does not necessarily represent any particular loadout configuration. The charts don't state that the Seafire and Spit V will climb at the same rate with the same fuel load, they state they'll climb at the same rate at the same weight.
-
The Spit Vb would be lighter without the weight of the arrester hook and gear, and less ammo carried among other things that were on the Seafire
That's what I remember hearing from the spitdweebs back when the V and the Seafire were still running high boost. That otherwise they were as good as identical in all respects.
-
2)the SpitV/Seafire are essentially the same airplane
... and this is where you logic breaks down.
the seafire is heavier (strengthening plates and carrier gear) and draggier (sling points and arrestor hook assembly), and its CoG is further back than the V. even at the same weights the seafire should be a little slower. with the same fuel loadout the seafire should be noticeably slower and have a lower RoC. it should handle a little more tail heavy too (although probably not enough to notice.)
The charts would be a lot more useful if they were based on some standard for fuel across planes. how about 20mins at MP at 10k? then put whatever the fuel % that equates to on the charts. :headscratch:
-
... and this is where you logic breaks down.
the seafire is heavier (strengthening plates and carrier gear) and draggier (sling points and arrestor hook assembly), and its CoG is further back than the V. even at the same weights the seafire should be a little slower. with the same fuel loadout the seafire should be noticeably slower and have a lower RoC. it should handle a little more tail heavy too (although probably not enough to notice.)
The charts would be a lot more useful if they were based on some standard for fuel across planes. how about 20mins at MP at 10k? then put whatever the fuel % that equates to on the charts. :headscratch:
Dear Lord...
-
if that was a criticism, you're gonna have to be a bit more specific if you want a reply ... :)
-
I miss our old Spitfire Mk. Vc :cry
Hopefully when the Spitfires get overhauled when can have one that is also clipped. :devil
-
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/scores/genchart.php?p1=37&p2=17&pw=2>ype=2)
Performance charts are based on a specific weight which is listed on the chart
:headscratch:
-
if that was a criticism, you're gonna have to be a bit more specific if you want a reply ... :)
Oh no that was no criticism. It was a response of exasperation because I can see the various rabbit holes it will go and I'm wondering to myself if it's worth the pain. ;)
As for the AH charts, they've kindly annotated the weights for you if you look at the charts in game by right clicking the airplane in the hangar.
-
:headscratch:
From here: http://www.hitechcreations.com/Flight-Sim/World-War-Two-Planes/planes-of-aces-high.html (http://www.hitechcreations.com/Flight-Sim/World-War-Two-Planes/planes-of-aces-high.html)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/images/2/21/Seafireclmb.jpg)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/images/c/c7/Spit5clmb.jpg)
Btw, thanks for the laughs Tango. :D
-
ahhh ok ty :)
-
What’s the difference between healthy skepticism vs. a conspiracy theory? Answer: the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
What is the Dunning-Kruger Effect? “It is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to appreciate their mistakes.”
Krusty, I’m afraid your mental mythology of flight model injustices keeps you from seeing the flaw in your arguments. In this specific case for AH climb rate charts (Spit5/Seafire or FW190A-8/F-8) you jump to the conclusion that the FM is wrong. Instead you should first ask yourself “Why would the AH rate of climb charts be the same?”.
dtango's description here fits my personality more often than I would like to admit. Heck I don't think I'm smart enough to realize it...
-
Well I'm going to have to eat some crow here and state you're right... I DID take into account many different factors, and I wasn't just saying it without considering it. I was going off an understanding that HTCs charts had been verified with in-game testing. However, I'll explain where I went wrong for my own defense.
2 things. First, HTC has misleading charts. Their new charts CLEARLY use 100% internal fuel (otherwise P-47N climb rates would look different compared to other P-47s). Second, I used Gonzo's charts assuming they were independently verified/tested in-game. There are certain quirks/bugs/kinks in Gonzo's charts where they do not exist on HTCs. I took this as recording errors when taking notes. So, turns out they're just copied from HTC apparently.
9682lbs is exactly the weight of a 190a8 with 4 20mm guns and full internal ammo.
However, HTC just copied and pasted the chart and weight for the F8, assuming (justified or not) that at that same loadout the F8 would be identical. However this is not a valid comparison nor is it accurate. It's just presenting bad info. There is no configuration for the F8 that I know of that gives it 9682 lbs. If you drain the AUX tank down but leave FWD and AFT full you get 9667 lbs. However there is no fuel setting for this -- it would be about 80%-85%(?) internal fuel (between 75%-100%). [EDIT: If you shoot off all your MG ammo you get 9678, shaving 171 lbs off the 100% "stock" configuration]
I had really thought HTC updated that info when they redid the charts, and the Gonzo charts page to me confirmed their validity. Shows me that I can't trust the basic info that HTC puts out about their own planes. I really wish the would update these wrong charts. Use a similar setting, whatever that is (50% internal fuel baseline, standard weapons, clean configuration, whatever -- just be CONSISTENT). It would be infinitely more helpful to have real numbers instead of "Use those numbers, just keep the weight the same".
It would also prevent major blunders like mine, here. Might be worth the time and effort updating the charts to avoid that kind of headache on all parties involved.
-
Bravo Krusty. It’s commendable you owned up to your error. +1 to you for doing so! :aok
Blaming it on HTC having misleading charts? Hmm, I’m afraid we have to go a step further. The problem wasn’t that the charts were misleading, the problem was how the charts were interpreted. A better understanding of the physics would have lead to the realization that there are other ways to interpret the charts with a correct result. Specifically a) if the weights were equal then we would expect to the see the results that we see, & b) aircraft performance is dynamic with many variables changing in flight- weight being one of them as fuel is consumed. The reason it seemed misleading is because you didn’t see a different way to interpret the data.
-
The charts would seem to be misleading to me if they don't represent the same configration for every plane across the board. If a given weight for the chart doesn't match a 'stock' configuration for a plane I would call that chart misleading, even if it is accurate for the given weight.
-
The charts would seem to be misleading to me if they don't represent the same configration for every plane across the board. If a given weight for the chart doesn't match a 'stock' configuration for a plane I would call that chart misleading, even if it is accurate for the given weight.
So are real life climb rate and speed charts misleading since they don’t represent the same configuration for every plane?
-
If Republic had promoted the P-47N as having a climb rate of 6000 fpm because they tested it with only 5 minutes of gas onboard and no ammo, they would have been sued, fined, and lost a lot of business. You'll find most official WW2 test charts were some standardized loadout, mostly full fuel (except where expressly noted in clear text because it was rare not to) and these could be compared to each other.
A baseline is that, something you can compare. If you have to start discussing debating "But what if he had an uplift in that climb test? What if there was a headwind slowing him down 25 mph?" the chart is frakking useless. Same goes for weights. The charts are useless without some standardization of weights, or at least choosing a real possible weight from the hangar loadout screen (rather than some fictional weight part way between 75% gas load and 100% gas load, as on the Fw190F8).
Once you HAVE that baseline, you can compare and consider "What if I flew it lighter" and so forth, but you need the common ground to begin with IMO. What good is a photo finish showing identical winners without the fact that one of them started the race 5 minutes late? (hypothetical, related to the Fw190f8 identical charts though)
-
Krusty answered it before I could, Dtango.
But I believe that most charts reflecting performance ARE standardized - for the reasons that Krusty outlined.
-
That's what I remember hearing from the spitdweebs back when the V and the Seafire were still running high boost. That otherwise they were as good as identical in all respects.
What folks never seem to get about the old LFVc we had, was that it's performance was that good at the alts folks were flying it at. The Spit FIX we have was geared for better performance at higher altitudes, so the LFVc actually had better performance up until about 12K feet over the IX. Figure it's lighter too, and it was going to be a beast in the AH low alt air combat where folks like Lev and others did their best work.
-
Yep. Found out the hard way dragging a Spit IX all the way to 35 kft in a 152 back when it'd just come out. Stayed 3.5 out the whole time.
-
The charts would seem to be misleading to me if they don't represent the same configration for every plane across the board. If a given weight for the chart doesn't match a 'stock' configuration for a plane I would call that chart misleading, even if it is accurate for the given weight.
Agreed. I find it hard to believe that most players playing the game even know what a specific aircraft's weight is. I always thought the charts were based on some standard configuration. As it is I'd say they are pretty much useless.
-
Seriously guys, to suggest real life WW2 flight tests followed some weight configuration "standard" so that you could easily pick up any flight test data and compare airplanes is revisionist history at it's finest. But I acknowledge this isn't your main argument on the concept which does have strength.
Your main argument is about how to have fair comparisons. I'm in absolute-heart-&-soul-city-of-brotherly-love-math-geek agreement with you when comparing things the only way to truly compare is to normalize all the variables. When you compare apples & oranges this can prove challenging. So I see the validity of finding common denominators for comparisons among very unlike things. I accept having AH charts based on a common fuel load %'s in AH is one way of doing this. This is because we can't truly normalize to the degree we would like.
But in our specific case of SpitV/SeafireII or 190A-8/F-8 we're not talking about apples & oranges, it's more like an apples to apples Red Delicious to Honey Crisp comparison. You don't have to find common denominators among the uncommon to compare. You can truly normalize the variables like, *gasp*, comparing them by the same weight.
It might be from a pilots perspective you're not thinking about plane to plane comparisons via a specific weight like this. However when you enter the realm of evaluating flight models you're in the world of aerodynamicists involving many more maths :cry and many more realities to account for. So if someone's going to bring a claim that the flight model is wrong they better have accounted for the myriad of realities before they say something is wrong. And when they haven't done so proving their FM injustice to be mythology to say that the chart "made me do it" is just silly to me.
Peace out :)
-
I'm not saying you are wrong when you say the two planes will have the same performance at the same weight. You either seem to think that will be a common occurance or (which I think is more likely) you are tweaking Krusty for the simple sake of tweaking him.
I know if someone comes up to me and says "Hey, I'd like to test this bullet to make sure it is ballistically matched with this other bullet" one of the first things I am going to check is the weight of the bullet. I don't give two craps if the two bullets are ballistically matched when bullet A is 4 squares if the standard weight for bullet A is 2 squares. Sure, if both bullets weighed 2 squares you wouldn't have to adjust your aim point, but the simple fact of the matter is they aren't going to be 2 squares.
Granted, that is ballistics and not fancy pants aerodynamics... but I think the principle is the same :).
-
I'm not saying you are wrong when you say the two planes will have the same performance at the same weight. You either seem to think that will be a common occurance or (which I think is more likely) you are tweaking Krusty for the simple sake of tweaking him.
I know if someone comes up to me and says "Hey, I'd like to test this bullet to make sure it is ballistically matched with this other bullet" one of the first things I am going to check is the weight of the bullet. I don't give two craps if the two bullets are ballistically matched when bullet A is 4 squares if the standard weight for bullet A is 2 squares. Sure, if both bullets weighed 2 squares you wouldn't have to adjust your aim point, but the simple fact of the matter is they aren't going to be 2 squares.
Granted, that is ballistics and not fancy pants aerodynamics... but I think the principle is the same :).
:aok No issues from me with your statements Urchin. 2 squares, 4 squares??? :headscratch: I have no clue about lead stuff flying out of metal pipes with holes in 'em so that's like quantum mechanics to me :).
But c’mon now, you don't actually expect me to believe that someone who’s intelligent enough to provide expert critique of HTC’s FM, able to dissect & skewer the flaws in them would be so easily tripped up by a couple of charts? I find that very implausible; therefore, I’ved called Krusty out on it to hold him accountable for future intellectual honesty. Don't make a claim you can't back up, & don't make lame excuses when you screw up. Nothing more, nothing less. :)
-
I just reread the first page again, and Krusty was absolutely spot on with his anaylsis. tango your 1st post is the one with the flawed logic, as I pointed out. you seem confused over who was correctly "called out" here. :headscratch:
-
I just reread the first page again, and Krusty was absolutely spot on with his anaylsis. tango your 1st post is the one with the flawed logic, as I pointed out. you seem confused over who was correctly "called out" here. :headscratch:
First logic 101 - an argument that is "absolutely spot on" in it's logic is still wrong if any of it's premises are false. 2nd I was hoping you would sort it out RTHolmes. I fear chasing White Rabbits down various rabbit holes into aero la-la land but if you must here are responses for your shotgun blast of protests of my flawed logic.
1) The SeafireII is heavier than the Spitfire Mk V.
Using Pyro's words, which is heavier, a pound of lead or pound of feathers? 6622 pounds of Seafire or 6622 pounds of Spitfire Mk V? Just because the Seafire II could be heavier than the Spitfire Mk V doesn't mean it is at a given instant. It is called aeroDYNAMICS for a reason because the variables are changing. Make faulty assumptions about these changing variables at your peril.
2) The CoG is further back.
Please tell me, how does this effect speed or climb performance in our specific case? Really, I can't think of why moving CG horizontally with respect to the thrust line would make a difference.
3) The SeafireII is draggier (sling points & hook assembly).
I left this one for last because this is the most rabbity-hole of the rabbit-holes ;). First the specifics. Are the sling points removable (the "catapult spools" appear to be)? HTC could have simply modeled the SeafireII with them off. Bye-bye draggy catpult spools. What about the arrestor hook assembly? The arrestor hook looks like it's stowed and not flapping out in the wind when not deployed. Could I be wrong? You bet.
But this is where it really gets good. Let's say I'm wrong & we do need to account for the drag they add. Just exactly how much impact would the drag have? 10%? 1%? .1%? To claim it's wrong because we've left them out of the physics without knowing the quantifiable impact of leaving them out leads us down a path of aero infinite regress lala land. All our fundamental aero maths are based on reasonable approximations where stuff get's left out all the time. Just because something is left out doesn't mean we don't have a reasonable approximation. Otherwise we might as well go back to cave drawings in aero because none of our aero science is any good.
Cheers,
-
Tango if the Seafire and SpitV are no different except for CV eqpt, then aren't the odds on any given SpitV or Seafire you encounter such that the Seafire will be heavier by that small amount?
Ergo the Seafire's chart ought to reflect it: The aerodynamics would be the same but the Lead Seafire probably doesn't weigh as much as the Feather SpitV.
I screw around with planes' "default" characteristics when I want to make straight dogfighting (as opposed to historical mission/design) comparisons, e.g. reducing all compared planes' ammo (dump all but 10 kills' worth) and fuel (20min at WEP or nearest MIL/WEP), etc, but that's not what the AH charts are about. They're about giving the players a gist of each plane's characteristic performance.
And a Seafire is characteristically heavier than a SpitV. I don't think it's a big deal either way, but where does the above logic's premise go wrong?
-
if it was a shotgun blast it was a slug, not birdshot :D
2 planes with the same weight, same engine and similar airframes except one is a little draggier than the other. the cleaner plane will be faster. I cant state it any simpler than that.
how much difference? not alot, my guess <5mph. the 4 sling/catapult points are not big but they do protrude (spindles were screwed into them when required.) the hook does stick out a few inches below the fuselage, right into what should be clean airflow and its wide and shaped like an air dam. the door has a pretty sizeable gap all around it, not great for drag. most of the strengething plates for the fuselage were riveted to the frame on the outside of the skin, not internally. you can see the main datum one clearly - looks like badly fitted car trim line. also round the radio hatch.
-
moot- I'll get back to you. Thinking about how to be concise & clear in a reply.
RTHolmes- slug vs. birdshot, what's the difference? They're both painful! :D Just don't shoot me on accident like Cheney, deal?
If you think the Seafire II is draggier, bring some data to HTC to have them change it. It's one thing to speculate about it, it's another to have the data that shows it. I'm all for fixing it if you've got it. You won't find me griping about airplane data :). There's a big difference between that vs. making faulty claims about how the physics FM engine is crappy in my book.
-
Moot- I have no issues with the approach to using particular configured weight for performance comparisons. We aren’t evaluating the FM against the laws of physics which is a different animal.
Saying the FM is wrong implies it violates some law of physics. A physics law usually consists of a full spectrum of outcomes dependant on how the governing variables change. To reliably judge against the physics law means judging the law in its entirety and not just a portion to verify violations.
In our case we were judging against the law, RoC = (thrust-drag)*velocity/weight. Specifically we were evaluating RoC as it should compare between two airplanes. We can express the full spectrum of outcomes of the law this way:
Outcome A: RoC_Seafire < RoC_SpitV
Outcome B: RoC_Seafire = RoC_SpitV
Outcome C: RoC_Seafire > RoC_SpitV
Here we only judged the FM against Outcome A because of limiting assumptions made about weight. We didn’t reliably test against the law since we didn’t validate against its entirety. To prove that the RoC law was violated we have to also check the FM against the other outcomes which meant not limiting the assumptions about weight.
-
I must've said something I didn't know meant something else.. I wasn't saying the FM is wrong, only that the charts don't reflect on the probability distribution of spit5/seafire weights encountered in the game.
I understand that the charts show that at equal weights the spitV and seafire have the same RoC.. But why choose to show them as equal weights when they're not? Or are they?
-
Sorry moot- my fault, I didn't mean to imply you said anything about the FM being wrong at all (quite the contrary). My Fail for not being clear! Let me try again.
1) For purposes of basic airplane comparisons I have no problem with your approach using the weights AH allows you to configure (e.g. 25,50,75,100%) to do the comparisons with. Personally you would need to do more to convince me that the spit5/seafire chart based on one of these loadouts is anymore probable than any other weight but this is a minor point. I'd be perfectly fine if they re-did all the AH charts using a consistent configured loadout like this.
2) However if we are to judge a flight model, to assume the AH chart is based on some AH configured weight since that configuration is more probable misses the point of what it means to judge the FM against some law of physics. Please let me know if I need to re-clarify my reasons why I think this.
3) Why did HTC use equal weights for the spit5/seafire (& 190A-8/F-8) chart? Only they know but I strongly think it was to check the FM :). Previously I said there are 3 possible valid outcomes of the "ROC law".
Outcome A: ROC_Seafire < ROC_SpitV
Outcome B: ROC_Seafire = ROC_SpitV
Outcome C: ROC_Seafire > ROC_SpitV
If HTC is treating them as essentially the same plane with differences only in weight then their performance should be essentially the same when their weights are equal. They are testing their FM against one of the valid outcomes of the "ROC law" to check if their FM violates the physics for when the law requires ROC_Seafire=ROC_SpitV (when spit5/seafire are equal weights). If the performance is different when the weights are the same then something is wrong. Equaling the weights is just a really easy way to do this for this case.
The laws of physics don't care an iota about probabilities of when a plane might weigh such-in-such. It doesn't matter. It'll render a judgement for the entirety of valid outcomes within the envelope of that law.
-
Alright maybe #1 or #2 is where you lose me. The average player that looks at these charts isn't in a "test the FM" perspective, he's only looking to know [what the airplane he clicks on will fly like]*. I understand everything else you've explained, but shouldn't this* be the rationale in the plane configurations that these charts represent?
-
The average player that looks at these charts isn't in a "test the FM" perspective, he's only looking to know [what the airplane he clicks on will fly like]*....shouldn't this* be the rationale in the plane configurations that these charts represent?
It depends if HTC intends other purposes for the charts, but yes I'd agree to this rationale. I think you're going somewhere with this. Please continue :).
-
.. Sorry to disappoint, that's all I got :lol I'm all ears if you know the next step.
-
.. Sorry to disappoint, that's all I got :lol I'm all ears if you know the next step.
:D nevermind. :cheers:
-
:rofl :rofl Nice posts Wango Tango!!! :devil
Good info from you as well bud.
-
Wango Tango!!! :devil
:rock woooooo!
I'm just a goofy goober doing my best to imitate "The Nuge" to free minds with aero rock & roll, man....
...sort of like this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xfC7TcXm8E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xfC7TcXm8E)
...the parallels are astonishing!!
-
I think everybody might agree that the info on a chart is useless if the datapoints are irrelevant.
You could compare a B-25 with a Fw190, and depending how HEAVY they were the B-25 could outclimb the 190. Technically it's grounded in a physics engine, and may be true, but only for when based in nonsensical loadouts. If you looked up a chart that showed the Fw190A8 doing 1800 fpm and the B-25C doing 3500 fpm you would cry foul instantly. It's nowhere near representative of actual performance.
It's not a physics test. It's a top level speed and max climb rate chart. If the 190A8 is many hundreds of pounds lighter than the F8 and both planes have the exact same engines, drag, lift related to their airframes being identical, under no realistic situation should the charts show cookie-cutter identical lines.
You're debating the physics of it. As soon as we accepted that HTCs charts are WRONG, it's not about that any more. It's now about why don't they show actual useful information? That's the issue. It's not one of debating the science behind WHEN they are the same... It's one of reasonable expectations when you look at a max speed and max climb chart. You reasonably expect it to be relative to other craft and reasonably expect it to be indicative of perfomance versus other craft.
-
It's quite a stretch to say the charts are useless because they don't use your preferred configuration. Since you won't know the weight of the bandit what does it matter what weight the chart uses? You won't know the exact difference in climb rate in any case but you'll still have the same general idea of relative climb performance.
-
It's also quite a stretch to say they reflect any useful info at all when all planes no matter how similar have no baseline configuration. Why not compare a spit16 carring rockets and bombs to a P-38 clean with 10% gas onboard?
The answer is obvious. It is self evident. You don't do such a thing because it makes no sense and serves no helpful purpose.
Hence why showing random loadouts to match theoretical weights that don't occur with in-game options is "useless" and inaccurate, as has been established.
-
Krusty you've got a valid point. Why the hyperbole?
-
Fair enough. He didn't seem to be getting why it's an issue. Pulled a worst-case-example outta my rear to show him why.
-
Krusty accurate information is always useful when you don't misinterpret it. All you've established is that you'd like to see the charts based on the same configuration. Maybe you should post a wish.
-
Well in my case, if I want to compare the SpitV and the Seafire performance INGAME, the data provided by HTC is utterly useless.
-
Well in my case, if I want to compare the SpitV and the Seafire performance INGAME, the data provided by HTC is utterly useless.
What is it you need that you're not getting?
-
that wasn't well formulated.
the weight of the plane tells me nothing, I'd rather see "50% fuel, no DT, and standard guns"
Also I have a hard time believing that a plane and its navy version have the same exact performance.
-
They don't have the same exact performance. They have the same climb rate at the same weight. Since the Spit5 is lighter for a given fuel load it likely has better performance.
What you suggest would be useful but it would still be misleading with similar models like the F4u's and P-47's with different fuel capacities.
-
It doesn't change the fact that in practice, laymen reliably misread these particular charts' meaning. So if the current choice of charts is what's best, a caption should be added to set laymen straight.
And maybe have another set of charts showing what the average layman player expects to see - standard AH hangar configurations. It'd be a piece of work to figure out which configuration to use as standard, but if it could be done it would be useful IMO.
-
Krusty why are you trying so hard to justify your sloppy homework? You don’t get extra credit for that :). Moot, Noir – flee my friends, flee before you get sucked into a black hole of intellectual oblivion! Apparently some are convinced we’ve moved the argument from the “wrongness” of the FM to the “wrongness” of the charts. Fine, we’ll play by those rules for now.
The argument is the AH charts are wrong because they don’t represent what the weight of the aircraft would probably be in-game.
Here’s the thing. It doesn’t matter what the probability of a given weight is. The performance of a plane in-game is based EXACTLY on its EXACT weight at that EXACT moment in time! The probability of it being that weight at that time doesn’t change the fact the plane is at that weight.
Here’s an imperfect but simple analogy. Kobe Bryant plays basketball. In his last 5 games he scored: 20, 25, 24, 31, & 27 points. He averages 25.2 points/game. The fact that on average he scores 25.2 pts/game doesn’t determine what he actually scores in-game. His in-game performance is exactly what his performance in that specific game was- 20, 25, 24, 31, & 27 pts!
Now let’s compare Kobe Bryan vs. Dewayne Wade.
On average: Bryant- 25.2 vs. Wade- 25.5 pts/game.
But what did they actually score the 2x's they played this year?
Bryant- 17, 24 pts vs. Wade 18, 20 pts.
What their statistical scoring average is doesn’t change what they actually scored in those specific games.
Should I go on? Trust me, it gets even worse from here. There’s even more to dismantle in the house of cards if we pursue it.
-
It'd be a piece of work to figure out which configuration to use as standard, but if it could be done it would be useful IMO.
it would have to be meaningful, which is why I suggested 20mins fuel at Mil, at 10k, MA fuel burn. its enough to fight using WEP and get home, minimum useful endurance. are there any planes which cant manage 20mins at Mil on internal?
-
That's what I've used too. I don't understand Tango's point yet though... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2mqqCMu-LM)
-
That's what I've used too. I don't understand Tango's point yet though... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2mqqCMu-LM)
Cute vid moot :neener: ... EDIT: but I like my Sponge Bob one better!
Honest question, do you think the current charts are wrong? Or do you think they are useless? Useless vs. wrong aren't the same things.
-
its not a matter of right or wrong, it is a matter of useful or not. If I want to know the max level speed of lancs with 25% at 20K and 14x1000kg do I have to take it to the training arena and spend 10mins testing? Or just spawn, check the weight in the E6B and power up the HP48G calculator? :x
-
OK :). Just so we're clear though, you do realize Krusty is saying the charts are both useless and wrong. I've been dealing with the right/wrong part.
But let's address the useless part. I think you're saying that normalizing the charts to some abstract common denominator is more useful when comparing airplanes right? (e.g. all charts should be for 25% fuel). There's some usefulness in this. I understand it completely. It's like in my analogy comparing Bryant & Wade:
Bryant 25.2 ppg vs. Wade 25.5 ppg
Normalized to a per-game basis it gives us some sense of how good they are and how they match up. It would be reasonable to conclude that they look like pretty comparable players with the slight edge to Wade. This is useful. I agree.
But it starts falling apart if you think it's useful to determine what your in-game performance will be for each and every encounter. That's what FLS is hinting at. We can drill this further if you'd like but I'll stop here for brevity. The point is the "usefulness" of this approach of charting is also limited.
-
Cute vid moot :neener: ... EDIT: but I like my Sponge Bob one better!
Honest question, do you think the current charts are wrong? Or do you think they are useless? Useless vs. wrong aren't the same things.
I think they're correct, and useful, but inadvertently misleading to non-aeroheads who mistake their specific intended usefulness. I don't think they're wrong. I'm working on other stuff, I'll have something to add once I understand what you mean in previous reply.
-
I think they're correct, and useful, but inadvertently misleading to non-aeroheads who mistake their specific intended usefulness. I don't think they're wrong. I'm working on other stuff, I'll have something to add once I understand what you mean in previous reply.
Fair 'nuff moot. I'll await your reply.
-
And yeah useless is exaggerated.. It would mean that we are no better off than if we had nothing. I don't think so < an understatement.
-
So all we want is a chart generator based on current game data where we can specify the loadout and get climb rate, speed, turn rate, and turn radius. :devil
-
So all we want is a chart generator based on current game data where we can specify the loadout and get climb rate, speed, turn rate, and turn radius. :devil
:aok :aok :aok
-
....
The argument is the AH charts are wrong because they don’t represent what the weight of the aircraft would probably be in-game.
Here’s the thing. It doesn’t matter what the probability of a given weight is. The performance of a plane in-game is based EXACTLY on its EXACT weight at that EXACT moment in time! The probability of it being that weight at that time doesn’t change the fact the plane is at that weight.
...
Alright, time for me to own up for my mistake and trying to suck others into a black hole of intellectual oblivion of my own making. After thinking this through some more the argument I'm trying to make in this statement doesn't make sense. :rolleyes: No excuses. I'm confused by the concept of relative probable performance and need to think it through more. My argument is wrong though I can only partially explain why at the moment. :salute
-
It's a good metric for measuring the airframe's climb and level speed performance.
But then, IMO, if you want to see/compare its practical MA performance (meaning the way you'd load up a car "turkey" ready for a road trip instead of as it comes from factory) in climb and speed, standards like [50% fuel or 20min MIL's worth of fuel + some given weapons loadout] become the right metric to choose.
edit.. Turnkey, not turkey :lol
-
I think everybody might agree that the info on a chart is useless if the datapoints are irrelevant.
You could compare a B-25 with a Fw190, and depending how HEAVY they were the B-25 could outclimb the 190. Technically it's grounded in a physics engine, and may be true, but only for when based in nonsensical loadouts. If you looked up a chart that showed the Fw190A8 doing 1800 fpm and the B-25C doing 3500 fpm you would cry foul instantly. It's nowhere near representative of actual performance.
It's not a physics test. It's a top level speed and max climb rate chart. If the 190A8 is many hundreds of pounds lighter than the F8 and both planes have the exact same engines, drag, lift related to their airframes being identical, under no realistic situation should the charts show cookie-cutter identical lines.
You're debating the physics of it. As soon as we accepted that HTCs charts are WRONG, it's not about that any more. It's now about why don't they show actual useful information? That's the issue. It's not one of debating the science behind WHEN they are the same... It's one of reasonable expectations when you look at a max speed and max climb chart. You reasonably expect it to be relative to other craft and reasonably expect it to be indicative of perfomance versus other craft.
Krusty, I humbly agree with the essence of your quoted statements above. There are points here you make that I would still disagree with you on, particularly using the term "ACTUAL performance" and the definition of what's RIGHT/WRONG, etc., but these don't take away from your key point that its much more useful to have charts that give you comparison of the PROBABLE performance between planes. The SpitV/Seafire & 190A-8/F-8 charts are examples of charts that aren't meaningful from this view. I was wrong in challenging the PROBABLE performance concept.
-
I was the first to say the charts as they are are useless. I stand by that statement. After 15 years I have no idea what weights the planes I fly most often are. I'm actually expected as a player to go "well the charts say these two planes are identical but, this plane weighs more than that plane so it won't be identical so it will actually fly worse"? I really really doubt that many of the players go through that exercise. I know I never have. And therefore yes, the current charts are misleading at best and, in fact, useless for practical purposes.
-
Anybody wondering why those particular weights were used instead of just 25% fuel?
-
I'd guess its the weight from the RL test data HTC used for the modelling.
-
I'd guess its the weight from the RL test data HTC used for the modelling.
That would be my guess too. Seems like a useful chart given all the FM complaints.