Analyze This: QPM vs. grizz Venn

[ink]

Eek.  If we added all of this it would almost make more sense to only use dtango's graph to calculate an aircrafts performance score, which would be worth a significant percentage of the overall score.  Dtango, can your performance scores somehow be normalized on a scale to 10, with whatever the best plane is as a 10?

 

maybe drop "visability" for SA

but don't ya think every thing else plays a part on the out come of a dogfight?

or at least could play a part, due to the fact that some players are just better sticks so the fight does not always last long enough to go though all these aspects.

[grizz441]

maybe drop "visability" for SA

but don't ya think every thing else plays a part on the out come of a dogfight?

or at least could play a part, due to the fact that some players are just better sticks so the fight does not always last long enough to go though all these aspects.

They are all factors, but some of those are really small factors compared to the big ones so even if a plane was really good or really sucked at one of the less important metrics it wouldn't matter too much.

[Karnak]

Or in other words, "How can I define it to make the Mossy rate really EZ to irritate Karnak?". 

No, that isn't what you mean.  You are taking "visibility" and narrowly defining it in the way that makes the Bf109 as "hard mode" as you can to make yourself look good.

The Mossie has, cockpitwise, better views than the Bf109, no doubt, but visibility isn't just about over the nose shots.  That is "over the nose view", visibility refers to the ability to see what is happening around you.  It ranges from poor in something like the Il-2 to very good in something like the I-16.  There are even things that affect it beyond the cockpit shape and framing.  The Bf110, P-38 and Mosquito have more airframe obstructions than the Spitfire or Bf109.

I would say the Bf109K-4's over the nose view is poor, but its visibility is average or above average.

[grizz441]

No, that isn't what you mean.  You are taking "visibility" and narrowly defining it in the way that makes the Bf109 as "hard mode" as you can to make yourself look good.

The Mossie has, cockpitwise, better views than the Bf109, no doubt, but visibility isn't just about over the nose shots.  That is "over the nose view", visibility refers to the ability to see what is happening around you.  It ranges from poor in something like the Il-2 to very good in something like the I-16.  There are even things that affect it beyond the cockpit shape and framing.  The Bf110, P-38 and Mosquito have more airframe obstructions than the Spitfire or Bf109.

I would say the Bf109K-4's over the nose view is poor, but its visibility is average or above average.

Well I did rank it a 7 out of 10 (10 being the best visibility you can have) for visibility which is pretty decent.  What would you have ranked it?

[PJ_Godzilla]

I don't remember what ace said it but one was quoted as saying the better shot will almost always win over the better stick, who was it? anyone know?

I know what you're talking about, was thinking the same thing. The best two I could find on short notice was these two, but I suspect it was an LW pilot who was talking about how, if the pilot were an exceptional shot, it changed everything:

Good flying never killed [an enemy] yet.

— attributed to Major Edward 'Mick' Mannock

The most important thing in fighting was shooting, next the various tactics in coming into a fight and last of all flying ability itself.

— Lt. Colonel W. A. 'Billy' Bishop
I'm barely doing 4% with 20 and 12.7s...

[dtango]

Eek.  If we added all of this it would almost make more sense to only use dtango's graph to calculate an aircrafts performance score, which would be worth a significant percentage of the overall score.  Dtango, can your performance scores somehow be normalized on a scale to 10, with whatever the best plane is as a 10?

What ink is asking for is an EM diagram mixed up with a bunch of other stuff .  I'd rather not try that for all sorts of reasons.  Gotta go work on the old house to get it ready for closing.  Will be back later this PM.

[grizz441]

No, that isn't what you mean.  You are taking "visibility" and narrowly defining it in the way that makes the Bf109 as "hard mode" as you can to make yourself look good.

And in regards to my "visibility" definition, it only has to do with aiming visibility.  Look at my three guns related metrics.  That is why visibility is so narrowly defined.  If we were going to add an all encompassing evaluation of the planes then overall visibility like you describe would have to be considered.

[ink]

No, that isn't what you mean.  You are taking "visibility" and narrowly defining it in the way that makes the Bf109 as "hard mode" as you can to make yourself look good.

The Mossie has, cockpitwise, better views than the Bf109, no doubt, but visibility isn't just about over the nose shots.  That is "over the nose view", visibility refers to the ability to see what is happening around you.  It ranges from poor in something like the Il-2 to very good in something like the I-16.  There are even things that affect it beyond the cockpit shape and framing.  The Bf110, P-38 and Mosquito have more airframe obstructions than the Spitfire or Bf109.

I would say the Bf109K-4's over the nose view is poor, but its visibility is average or above average.

lets take away visibility from it, I don't think any MA regular would lose a fight due to visibility....

They are all factors, but some of those are really small factors compared to the big ones so even if a plane was really good or really sucked at one of the less important metrics it wouldn't matter too much.

so the factors that are not so important would have less of a weight ratio, getting rid of visability brings it down to 7, give every thing a 10% ratio except speed and lethality they would get 15%

I really think if we truly want to quantify "easy" "hard" mode unbiased, this is the way.

No, that isn't what you mean.  You are taking "visibility" and narrowly defining it in the way that makes the Bf109 as "hard mode" as you can to make yourself look good.

The Mossie has, cockpitwise, better views than the Bf109, no doubt, but visibility isn't just about over the nose shots.  That is "over the nose view", visibility refers to the ability to see what is happening around you.  It ranges from poor in something like the Il-2 to very good in something like the I-16.  There are even things that affect it beyond the cockpit shape and framing.  The Bf110, P-38 and Mosquito have more airframe obstructions than the Spitfire or Bf109.

I would say the Bf109K-4's over the nose view is poor, but its visibility is average or above average.

I would like to think I have gotten to know Grizz pretty darn good,I find him to be a Honest, straight up guy,  I would be shocked to find out he would purposefully  skew data to make him self look good...nope no friggin way.

[TonyJoey]

Before this goes any further down this path, I'll just say that it was a 7/10 is a very conservative rating for visibility on the K4. IMO, it's more like 5.  Anyway, maybe make one axis on this ultimate plane comparison graph dealing with performance, based off of Dtango's original graph. i.e. the Tempest in the upper right would be a 19/20, while the P-40B in the bottom left would be closer to 2 or 3/20. Then the other axis would deal with the business end of the planes. This would, however, weigh the armament equally with performance, so any suggestions on how to alter that to make it a little more balanced?

[ink]

I know what you're talking about, was thinking the same thing. The best two I could find on short notice was these two, but I suspect it was an LW pilot who was talking about how, if the pilot were an exceptional shot, it changed everything:

Good flying never killed [an enemy] yet.

— attributed to Major Edward 'Mick' Mannock

The most important thing in fighting was shooting, next the various tactics in coming into a fight and last of all flying ability itself.

— Lt. Colonel W. A. 'Billy' Bishop
I'm barely doing 4% with 20 and 12.7s...

that sounds about right, good find

[grizz441]

Before this goes any further down this path, I'll just say that it was a 7/10 is a very conservative rating for visibility on the K4. IMO, it's more like 5.  Anyway, maybe make one axis on this ultimate plane comparison graph dealing with performance, based off of Dtango's original graph. i.e. the Tempest in the upper right would be a 19/20, while the P-40B in the bottom left would be closer to 2 or 3/20. Then the other axis would deal with the business end of the planes. This would, however, weigh the armament equally with performance, so any suggestions on how to alter that to make it a little more balanced?

I'm putting my two week notice in tomorrow at work to commit full time to this project. 

[grizz441]

TBH, I'm not sure if a scatter plot is the correct way of looking at this.  I think the matrix that snail had posted a link to was the right approach, letting the user modify values and then it ranks the plane accordingly, but I don't believe them to have all the required values to make an informed evaluation.  I'll have to mull this over.

[morfiend]

I dont think weight of guns play a part in it, isn't that included in the weight of plane?

I think you are dead on where the guns should be equated, those three should make up the "lethality" aspect/ratio





  Ink,I was thinking along the lines of all things being equal,rate of fire/weight of fire,meaning the weight of the rounds in a given time,say 1 second,then if 1 gun type is lighter than the other the lighter gun would be better as opposed to a heavier gun.

   Take the German Mk 101 30 mm and compare it to the Mk 103,both fire the same rounds basically but the Mk103 is much lighter than the Mk101 so therefore the better weapon. I'm sure there are other comparrisons that are close,look at the Russian 12.7 vs the US 50 cal as an example.


  Your correct that it is included in the plane's weight but I was still looking to answer Grizz's question of other factors to include in the weapons part!


   And maybe just poking a stick in the cowpie while I'm at it.





  

[ink]

I forgot one....Durability

I dont think weight of guns play a part in it, isn't that included in the weight of plane?

I think you are dead on where the guns should be equated, those three should make up the "lethality" aspect/ratio





  Ink,I was thinking along the lines of all things being equal,rate of fire/weight of fire,meaning the weight of the rounds in a given time,say 1 second,then if 1 gun type is lighter than the other the lighter gun would be better as opposed to a heavier gun.

   Take the German Mk 101 30 mm and compare it to the Mk 103,both fire the same rounds basically but the Mk103 is much lighter than the Mk101 so therefore the better weapon. I'm sure there are other comparrisons that are close,look at the Russian 12.7 vs the US 50 cal as an example.


  Your correct that it is included in the plane's weight but I was still looking to answer Grizz's question of other factors to include in the weapons part!


   And maybe just poking a stick in the cowpie while I'm at it.





   

damn you      I think my head is gonna explode

 

















 

[Shane]

I think I should a taken ya up on that DA offer, we will have to go give each other some target practice

if you see me on and feeling fiesty.