Analyze This: QPM vs. grizz Venn

[dtango]

Tango,  I see your point. You make no distinction b/w the "energy" and "angles" fighters of E-M diagram analysis but rather rate how much overage each has in it's particular forte.

Well...truth be known I totally aero-geek-out on E-M analysis.  However the cost/benefit of geeking-out vs. mind-numbing data collection & maths exponentially increases the fun suckage. 

....yet I agree with Ardy that energy fighting a s a rule is more demanding of the pilot since it requires at-times counterintuitive maneuvering (i.e., I agree the knee-jerk noob thing to do is to go for angle).

I quite agree.  However does noobage-ness = "EZ"?  IMHO, they aren't the same thing.
   

I like your topological approach. You can almost chop the isoperfs (coining here) into an upper and lower for angle/energy. Notably the Spit XVI splits the difference so well that you'd have a hard time binning it.

I quite like the term "isoperfs"!    I tried harder than I wanted to auto-plot various forms of isoperfs like your suggestion.  Couldn't think of a way to do so on the QPM dimensions so I manually drew 'em for now.  Definitely various ways to geek-out here too but it escapes me how to do it so far. 

Why those particular exponentials on the critical synthetic X, btw? The selection of those strikes as unnecessary since I see no correlative fit with X - i.e., why select a synthetic critical x abscissa cut from whole cloth? Those exponents seem to buy you nothing in terms of correlation...

Otherrwise, it's good to see an active mind applying some analytical tools.

Very perceptive.  I expected no less from you sir.   The reason is I was trying to scale the weighting between S/W, P/W, and P.  Without the exponents I thought S/W*P/W*P gave too much impact to P/W and P, and not enough to S/W.  Your right, it doesn't change the shape by a whole bunch, but it did increase the spread a bit.

[dtango]

I was thinking representative and enlightening...

I was thinking tedious and exhausting .

[ink]

I'd refer you to USAF tactical/Bad Boy E-M diagrams. In any given matchup and per the E-M, one opponent can be classified as the energy fighter, the other the angles fighter. See, for ref: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?topic=96366.15

In this first example, the A-5 is clearly the energy fighter, the Spit V the angles fighter. Sometimes, however, distinguishing can be tricky, depending on how the E-M overlaps. Non e of this diminishes the value of the E-M though.

 my memory is shot or I would site were I read about energy fighting.

 to many diagrams just confuse most people, I am far from an expert in the numbers and what not, but I do know what works, not from reading diagrams and charts, but from fighting the red hoard.

I know if you think about something to much it just makes it more difficult...whats that old acronym.... K.I.S.S.

I know many here that can site so much more info on planes and numbers then I.....their head is full of info, they can tell ya anything about any plane in the hanger......but still can not put into practice and die just as easily as a two week noob.

 then make some excuse why they died or ran as soon as they lost "advantage"

Kinda reminds me of Bruce Lee and the way he trained and fought and lived......."no style as style" "If you spend too much time thinking about something, you'll never achieve it"

[PJ_Godzilla]

Kinda reminds me of Bruce Lee and the way he trained and fought and lived......."no style as style" "If you spend too much time thinking about something, you'll never achieve it"

Sport is a good analogy. I do some competition still in the USTA and I'm always wracked by this continuum - one end of which is all adventure/study the other of which is all action no study. The risk on one side is never getting a confident playing style, the other settling into a groove of no surprises. We all find our point on the continuum - and if we find it right it's an effective one. I will say, your battles versus the red horde speaks well for your intuitive approach.

Myself, I think it is very difficult to remember, for example, the corner speed of any opponent you might encounter. However, knowing that the Ki-84 with flaps  has a decisive flat turn advantage over Mr. Spitty untill he pops flaps is useful. I try to shorthand stuff like that from the E-M's. I can't fly with my nose down to the gages either.

[grizz441]

Okay Tango so I have come up with something pretty simply yet valid imo.

Three basic metrics in regards to Guns -

Ballistic Rating (The difficulty in which the given ammo is to aim with in combination with lethality)
Ammo Quantity
Visibility

Of these three they are weighted based on my perceived gauge of their importance in a total of 10 parts and are as follows:

Ballistic Rating: 5 parts
Ammo Quantity: 3 parts
Visibility: 2 parts

So with 10 parts, ballistic rating is worth 50% of the weight, ammo quantity 30% of the weight, visibility 20% of the weight.  If these can be agreed upon then we can move on to next step.  

Now we have to rate each of the previous 3 with a rank of 1 to 10, 1 being the absolute worse, 10 being the absolute best.  And we then take the ratio of their score out of 10 divided by 10 for their Ranked Ratio.

Now to calculate an airplane's ballistic score you apply in following equation: (Ballistic Ratio)^(Ballistic Ranked Ratio) + (Ammo Quantity Ratio)^(Ammo Quantity Ranked Ratio) + (Visilibilty)^(Visibility Ranked Ratio)

We now need to determine what our Base 1.0 aircraft is.  I believe this to be the P51D.  This is how I rank it: 8 of 10 for ballistic, 8 of 10 for quantity 9 of 10 for visibility

Net Score = (5/10)^(8/10) + (3/10)^(8/10) + (2/10)^(9/10) = 1.19

All other planes ratios are taken off of this 1.19

So for the K4 I rank it: 5 of 10 for ballistic, 7 of 10 for quantity, 7 of 10 for visibility

Net Score = (5/10)^(5/10) + (3/10)^(7/10) + (3/10)^(7/10) = 1.46

Now Take Ratio of Base Aircraft/Test Aircraft = 1.19/1.46 = 0.814

Now take 0.814 reduction of the Bf109K4 from the X and Y axis of Dtango's chart to "correct" its performance based on ballistics.

This can be done for all aircraft and will be pretty accurate if we can agree on reasonable ranked values for each aircraft.  The most sensitive inputs will be the ranked inputs of the P51D if it is playing the role of our Base Aircraft as well as the weighted ranked of the three metrics I described at the beginning of this post.

Another example: Tempest would rank 10 for ballistic rating, 10 for visibility and 8 for ammo quantity.  Its base rating is 1.08.  1.19/1.08 = 1.1 which is then multipled to the X and Y axis and Tempest becomes 10% "more easy".

P38: 9 for ballistic rating, 9 for visibility, 10 for ammo quantity, Ratio = 1.11

Ta152: 6 for ballistic rating, 8 for visibility, 10 for ammo quantity, Ratio = 0.963

The adjustments relative to the metrics on the axis are a little too high though so perhaps cutting them in half would adjust more reasonable.  So the K4 instead of a .81 ratio has a 1-((1-.81)/2)=0.905
Tempest 1.05 instead of 1.11, etc.

[Ardy123]

I quite agree.  However does noobage-ness = "EZ"?  IMHO, they aren't the same thing.

My understanding was that the this was for the 'average MA player'. The average MA player has a k/d around .5 (according to snailman's findings). Secondly, noobage-ness == EZ because I translated 'EZ' as requires less skill to fly.

[ink]

Okay Tango so I have come up with something pretty simply yet valid imo.

Three basic metrics in regards to Guns -

Ballistic Rating (The difficulty in which the given ammo is to aim with in combination with lethality)
Ammo Quantity
Visibility

Of these three they are weighted based on my perceived gauge of their importance in a total of 10 parts and are as follows:

Ballistic Rating: 5 parts
Ammo Quantity: 3 parts
Visibility: 2 parts

So with 10 parts, ballistic rating is worth 50% of the weight, ammo quantity 30% of the weight, visibility 20% of the weight.  If these can be agreed upon then we can move on to next step.  

Now we have to rate each of the previous 3 with a rank of 1 to 10, 1 being the absolute worse, 10 being the absolute best.  And we then take the ratio of their score out of 10 divided by 10 for their Ranked Ratio.

Now to calculate an airplane's ballistic score you apply in following equation: (Ballistic Ratio)^(Ballistic Ranked Ratio) + (Ammo Quantity Ratio)^(Ammo Quantity Ranked Ratio) + (Visilibilty)^(Visibility Ranked Ratio)

We now need to determine what our Base 1.0 aircraft is.  I believe this to be the P51D.  This is how I rank it: 8 of 10 for ballistic, 8 of 10 for quantity 9 of 10 for visibility

Net Score = (5/10)^(8/10) + (3/10)^(8/10) + (2/10)^(9/10) = 1.19

All other planes ratios are taken off of this 1.19

So for the K4 I rank it: 5 of 10 for ballistic, 7 of 10 for quantity, 7 of 10 for visibility

Net Score = (5/10)^(5/10) + (3/10)^(7/10) + (3/10)^(7/10) = 1.46

Now Take Ratio of Base Aircraft/Test Aircraft = 1.19/1.46 = 0.814

Now take 0.814 reduction of the Bf109K4 from the X and Y axis of Dtango's chart to "correct" its performance based on ballistics.

This can be done for all aircraft and will be pretty accurate if we can agree on reasonable ranked values for each aircraft.  The most sensitive inputs will be the ranked inputs of the P51D if it is playing the role of our Base Aircraft as well as the weighted ranked of the three metrics I described at the beginning of this post.

Another example: Tempest would rank 10 for ballistic rating, 10 for visibility and 8 for ammo quantity.  Its base rating is 1.08.  1.19/1.08 = 1.1 which is then multipled to the X and Y axis and Tempest becomes 10% "more easy".

P38: 9 for ballistic rating, 9 for visibility, 10 for ammo quantity, Ratio = 1.11

Ta152: 6 for ballistic rating, 8 for visibility, 10 for ammo quantity, Ratio = 0.963

The adjustments relative to the metrics on the axis are a little too high though so perhaps cutting them in half would adjust more reasonable.  So the K4 instead of a .81 ratio has a 1-((1-.81)/2)=0.905
Tempest 1.05 instead of 1.11, etc.

no way..   .the K$ numbers are more like

 3 of 10 for ballistic, 3 of 10 for quantity, 5 of 10 for visibility...

[dtango]

Three basic metrics in regards to Guns -

Ballistic Rating (The difficulty in which the given ammo is to aim with in combination with lethality)
Ammo Quantity
Visibility

Can you define visibility?  Just wanted make sure I understand. 

The gunnery adjustment algorithm seems fine to me.  Personally, the less arbitrary the better.  This seems to be on the more-arbitrary end of the spectrum but what the hay.  I'll provide the spreadsheet when I get a chance (probably later this PM) and you can go fill out the gunnery adjustments.

The adjustments relative to the metrics on the axis are a little too high though so perhaps cutting them in half would adjust more reasonable.  So the K4 instead of a .81 ratio has a 1-((1-.81)/2)=0.905
Tempest 1.05 instead of 1.11, etc.

Yeah, I'd want to think about that a bit, both a) which axis it changes (x,y,both) and b) how much weight do you give the ratio as you've alluded to.

[Changeup]

no way..   .the K$ numbers are more like

 3 of 10 for ballistic, 3 of 10 for quantity, 5 of 10 for visibility...

Actually I agree with INK...the K4 is for crap in exactly those areas.  Also, the 51Deltas viz is a 10

[ink]

Actually I agree with INK...the K4 is for crap in exactly those areas.  Also, the 51Deltas viz is a 10

say it aint so.....

[dtango]

no way..   .the K$ numbers are more like

 3 of 10 for ballistic, 3 of 10 for quantity, 5 of 10 for visibility...

See what I mean about the arbitrariness?  I dread using virtual pilot anecdotes for performance as much as I do historical anecdotes .

[dirtdart]

IIRC the energy numbers used on the gonzoville charts were the reduction in speed from top speed at XXXX k, turn engine off, time to XXXX kts.  Not very scientific, but at least a start.  I like the ratios on armament.  How are you all looking at determining "energy"?  Seems to me Drag C/D and a bunch of things outside of my engineering background.  

[Ardy123]

See what I mean about the arbitrariness?  I dread using virtual pilot anecdotes for performance as much as I do historical anecdotes .

you could use the fps of the trajectory as a way to classify 'ease to aim'.

[mensa180]

I'm actually pretty intrigued with the system Grizz has suggested to alter the plane placement in dtango's chart with.  It would be pretty reasonable to set up a java [or something] applet online with the planes in their respective places as ordained by dtango's original methods, and then have sliders at the bottom for visibility, ballistics, and qty.  Click a plane's dot to select it, move the sliders from 1-10 in your opinionated leisure, then post the results.  It'd be neat to see how people's perception's vary.

Or an additional change could be to give the user the ability to hold and drag the plane dots around, for a more individualized graph.

[dtango]

you could use the fps of the trajectory as a way to classify 'ease to aim'.

Hey, that's more my style , .....but the math to do all that gets way more complicated than my way of simply multiplying "random" aero ratios together .