Analyze This: QPM vs. grizz Venn

[dtango]

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.

Intriguing. I've left my programming days in the dust though.  Not enough braincells left for that.  I leave the coading to the coaders .  But if someone wants to have it, hey more power to them!

[grizz441]

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

I define visibility as basically how much deflection visibility you have in the cockpit, or how the cockpit obstructions impede your ability to aim.

[grizz441]

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

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

TBH i was trying to be generous with my numbers so the haters didn't accuse me of being biased.  I don't think they are as low as you have listed them though.  65 taters is plenty if you fire them correctly, which i kind of tie into ballistics.  It would not be fair to give it a 3 for quantity when you have planes like the Yak9T and Yak9U that have certainly worse quantities.

[ink]

TBH i was trying to be generous with my numbers so the haters didn't accuse me of being biased.

I know that is why I  you back to reality 

[mensa180]

Intriguing. I've left my programming days in the dust though.  Not enough braincells left for that.  I leave the coading to the coaders .  But if someone wants to have it, hey more power to them!

Could you PM me the excel doc you created? 

[dtango]

Could you PM me the excel doc you created? 

Would be happy to.  It'll have to be later this evening when I get home.

[dtango]

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.

Been meaning to reply to this Ardy.  Assume we put two average Joe MA k/d .5 players into AH Sweet 16’s: one in a I-16, the other in a Spit-16.  Assuming the only skill they have is yanking back on the stick & chasing the other guy around a circle like the proverbial dog-and-tail routine, who wins?  My bet:  very high odds the Spit-16 wins each and every friggin’ time.  Why?

The sustained round & round, dog-chasing-tail turn-fight is nothing more than a nose-to-tail/2-circle fight.  In a 2-circle fight higher turn rate dictates advantage, not smaller turn radius.  For a discourse on this see the following: Which Way Do I Turn?

Sustained turn rate is determined by airplane specific excess power (Ps).  The greater the Ps in maneuver, the higher the turn rate.  Steady rate of climb is essentially a measure of an airplane’s specific excess power at 1g load-factor.

From the AH ROC compare tool the Spit16 outclimbs the I-16 by a gi-normous margin- 4760 fpm vs 2870 fpm.  The Spit-16 has more than 1.5x’s the Ps for maneuver vs. the I-16 meaning the Spit16 probably has the higher turn rate.  In a yank the stick back ‘round ‘round dog-chase-tail 2 circle fight, higher turn rate wins.

[morfiend]

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.  

  I'm not sure I'd agree with this as it stands,while ballistics are very important I'd think the actual ammo amount would have a larger impact.

     Think if you had 2 or 3 hundred 30mm rounds,even with it's terrible ballistics you'd have more chances of scoring kills.So if I was going to agree with you I'd want to see ammo count and ballistics as being equal,40% ballistics,40% ammo and 20% vis.

   Look at the P47 vs P51,use max loadout for both,dont you think that extra 1000 or so rounds makes a difference? Yes the 47 has 2 more guns but I still think I made my point.




    

[TonyJoey]

Ok, a few things. At the risk of sounding like an idiot, what does ^ mean in your equation, and what is the necessity of the ranked ratio? On the topic of visibility, the "page-up" ability to look over the nose makes aiming in some planes much easier. While a P-40 may seem like it has about an equal visibility or atleast reasonably close to that of a P-51, the Pony driver can look over his nose much much farther to see the enemy plane for a shot.

[grizz441]

  I'm not sure I'd agree with this as it stands,while ballistics are very important I'd think the actual ammo amount would have a larger impact.

     Think if you had 2 or 3 hundred 30mm rounds,even with it's terrible ballistics you'd have more chances of scoring kills.So if I was going to agree with you I'd want to see ammo count and ballistics as being equal,40% ballistics,40% ammo and 20% vis.

   Look at the P47 vs P51,use max loadout for both,dont you think that extra 1000 or so rounds makes a difference? Yes the 47 has 2 more guns but I still think I made my point.
    

That is fair and I agree.  I almost made it that 4 4 2 ratio to begin with but I have a moment of weakness and made it 5 3 2.  Thanks for keeping me honest.

[grizz441]

Ok, a few things. At the risk of sounding like an idiot, what does ^ mean in your equation, and what is the necessity of the ranked ratio? On the topic of visibility, the "page-up" ability to look over the nose makes aiming in some planes much easier. While a P-40 may seem like it has about an equal visibility or atleast reasonably close to that of a P-51, the Pony driver can look over his nose much much farther to see the enemy plane for a shot.

Sometimes you have to take a risk.  ^ Means to the power. 2^3=8.  I like the exponents because it gives less dispersion than a linear one, making it more fair Imo.  Ranked Ratio is required to give a plane rank based on the three metrics I listed.

Visibility should take into account the ability to page up over nose.  So, the mossy should have great visibility.

[ink]

Sometimes you have to take a risk.  ^ Means to the power. 2^3=8.  I like the exponents because it gives less dispersion than a linear one, making it more fair Imo.  Ranked Ratio is required to give a plane rank based on the three metrics I listed.

Visibility should take into account the ability to page up over nose.  So, the mossy should have great visibility.

or the ability to slid your views way over like in the spits.

I really think 3 metrics are just not enough for a true comparison.

[Ardy123]

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 .

well comparing fps isn't that complicated, if your talking about comparing fps and say parabolic distribution of the projectile then it is.

I believe at one point I saw a chart that had the fps of the most common guns in AH.
I suppose if one had a lot of time to find all the info, one could use the BC (balistics coefficient) too, as a measure of the viable 'range' of the weapon.

I call it 'viable range' because at some point the aiming becomes too difficult that the odds of making the shot drop off drastically due to the arc the shooter has to shoot at and the limited time the shooter has to place his shot (the shooter is hopefully shooting at a moving airplane from an airplane, he can't break out with a calculator and calculate the exact amount of angle needed to make the shot).

[dtango]

Also, the 51Deltas viz is a 10

Really???  I guess that would make the F4U-1A, and P-38's, etc. all like +11 or more on the Spinal Tap scale then! I'd expect nothing less from an okie  .

[morfiend]

That is fair and I agree.  I almost made it that 4 4 2 ratio to begin with but I have a moment of weakness and made it 5 3 2.  Thanks for keeping me honest.

  Grizz what might be interesting would be to see how the planes match up using both ratio's,sure it's more work but I'd be interested to see if there would be much difference. To make it somewhat easier maybe just use 4 or 5 of the popular rides and use both ratios and see how the whole thing come out of the wash!

   This might give you a better idea of which way is best,for all I know your 5,3,2 is a better ratio than my 4,4,2. Only an example of both would give us something to go on.



   



  PS: wasnt trying to keep you honest,just thought ammo count was a bigger factor,if you shot like I do you need all the ammo you can carry...