Jump to content

unreasonable

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    4631
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1759 Excellent

About unreasonable

  • Rank
    Founder

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Bangkok

Recent Profile Visitors

1045 profile views
  1. What I suspect is that the forces are not undermodeled - because they are fairly easy to calculate, except possibly the asymmetric airflow on the wing and tail. The resistance of the plane to the forces might be off, at least in some circumstances, since this will vary enormously depending on the situation and may be harder to model. Push the "correct" force against something with the "wrong" resistance and you will get the "wrong" answer.
  2. When people say that they either do not know what they are talking about or are just using hyperbole. Torque, P-factor and precession forces are all modeled, and I expect with considerable accuracy. The tricky question is how the plane responds to those forces, which depends on its status and speed, AoA etc. A more complex question that might have some simplifications. I can live with the current take off and landing behaviour in BoX: I still have to pay close attention. But it would be fun if the FC crates were a little more unstable. (We are a horribly demanding lot....)
  3. unreasonable

    Which DM do you like more - before 3.008 or after?

    The Williams/Gustin index is a way to come up with an overall ranking and score for the weapon systems as a whole, including factors such as hit probability, rate of fire and weapon weight, as well as destructiveness per hit. People might read the the table titled "cartridge destructiveness" as an index of the destructive power of a single hit. It is not. They use momentum instead of KE to come up with an index number for the impact effect, the reasons given being relevant to hit probability, which is an entirely different issue, and because they falsely claim that KE is less relevant for an HE shell. Their "cartridge destructiveness" index is unusable in principle in looking at the destruction per hit: actually your attempt was much better. They should have used KE as in the Janosek paper, which is much, much better in laying out the steps of the calculations explicitly and justifying why certain short cut assumption are made. The key assumption in both cases being that the average contribution from HE is ten times the HE % of weight. This is an assumption, not a finding, but we can live with it. The other point Janosek discusses is that the actual effect of a single shot will vary immensely around this average figure: this is as true for HE as it is for AP. The usable evidence we have so far comes in the form of the reports on German, UK and US test firings, with the best documentation in the US report. That gives the closest to "objective" calculations on the probability of kills from hits from various shells, the German and UK firings showing, IMHO, the most effective hits. There is plenty to go on there without bothering about Williams' and Gustin's confused treatment.
  4. unreasonable

    Tempest

    Glad you enjoyed it and agreed with my assessment. It is good to know that we share some tastes; but you are welcome to Miss Dolphin. As Descartes says, CanadaOne's book thread is not about aviation, he enjoys philosophical and literary works, so you get a different kind of debate. Socrates had it coming! I think there was a compendium of aviation relevant books started once, but as is usually the way with forums it has got lost. A forum works so much better as a conversation/debate than as a reference library.
  5. More likely just the trajectory. A rather low MV gives a "droopy" trajectory: hard to judge how far above the target to align the sights, and this is changing rapidly as you close the distance. So the faster you are closing the faster the correct point of aim changes. Firing from long distance would be rather like doing an artillery shoot but without being able to use the shell bursts to adjust fire.
  6. unreasonable

    Which DM do you like more - before 3.008 or after?

    Maybe - but: what the survivor side knows is not only the number of planes RTB with 1 hit, 2 hits etc but also the total number of planes hit out of X sorties: being all the hit survivors + the lost planes. The Germans could not know that. So the Wald type analysis in reverse would not, I suspect, work, but I admit this is beyond my pay-grade.
  7. unreasonable

    Which DM do you like more - before 3.008 or after?

    A is crashed or out of control within five minutes of being hit. B is fails to RTB, base being two hours away. B includes A. Note that not even the "A" is the insta-kill people crave. Read/download here. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a800394.pdf
  8. unreasonable

    Which DM do you like more - before 3.008 or after?

    Yes, that is what the table says for one hit - from that angle. But the second section is not how you calculate cumulative probabilities. Say for a one hit probability of 0.288 - then the probability of surviving one hit is 1 - 0.288 = 0.712 If the hits have independent effects (not entirely true but establishes one limit) the the probability of surviving 2 hits = 0.712 * 0.712 = 0.507, so the probability of being downed on hit one or two is 1 - 0.507 = 0.493 and so on: 3 hits survival is 0.507 * 0.712 = 0.361: so even after three hits about a third of the planes are not downed. You can trust me on this or consult a statistic textbook. The larger the target and the smaller the effect of each shot the more closely the assumption that the hits have independent effects will hold. Later hits may have an increasing probability of causing a kill if they strike an already damaged area, and it would be possible to make some heroic assumptions to calculate the revised probability distribution for larger shells and smaller targets, but given the overall uncertainty I see little point. The pictures of devastating damage posted (again and again) are not the only contemporary evidence. The GAF probably derived it's estimates of how many shots were required from examining downed planes where these were in a suitable state. So what they could see had a selection bias: they could not see the planes that managed to RTB after being hit. So while I think it is entirely possible that the average number of 3cm hits on the downed bombers they could examine was say 3-4, there is no way AFAIK of telling from that what proportion of bombers that took 3-4 hits were downed. You have to be able to count all the hits to tell that, and they could not do it. The US OR study, in contrast, had people estimate the results from tests and use a variety of assumptions and calculations. IMHO it is a much better source.
  9. unreasonable

    Which DM do you like more - before 3.008 or after?

    But not by the US tests. B-25 is twin engined: you can expect the B-17 to be somewhat tougher.
  10. unreasonable

    3cm MK108: Historical test data vs ingame test data

    Calm down. They are called "mods" and there is a "mods on mode". The data for various elements of weapons effectiveness and plane damage were made available for use in RoF - actually it was only mods that made the game remotely realistic in SP: from a realism standpoint it was pretty much a joke without mods. To my knowledge, there never has been any issue of this leaking into MP. Same in BoX - the server determines Mods use. I agree that BoX is much better in these respects that RoF was - and it appears FC is benefiting from this improvement. So they are not necessary in the way they were for RoF. But the sky will not fall down if SP was more extensively mod-able.
  11. I suspect it is all mixed up with the general changes to roll/yaw coupling and stability in an update a while back, which increased stability generally. At the time this was hailed as an improvement in realism, and for high speed flight it might well be, but I wonder about the low speed effects. FC planes, which are all slow, seem to have much greater yaw stability than expected and less adverse yaw when turning. This is confirmed by our friendly, neighbourhood real Dr.1 flier.
  12. unreasonable

    A.I. in 3.008 patch

    I suspect that is because air gunners calculate as though they were stationary at the moment of firing, ie not taking into account the forwards vector of their plane. You can see this most clearly if you set up a mission and get He111 side gunners to fire at ground targets while your player plane flies straight and level, low. Every burst misses in the direction of travel. The gunners are aiming at the target rather than behind it, which is where a side gunner needs to aim. Having said that, my AI 109 flight managed to destroy a number of artillery emplacements while strafing in career: that might be because when they get very close this effect no longer gives a big enough error to cause misses, or it might be because they are firing cannon and MG together with different trajectories.
  13. unreasonable

    3cm MK108: Historical test data vs ingame test data

    I can only assume that you are inferring that from Jason's post in the poll thread that "Any theoretical models/calculations are considered to be too controversial to be used as base." I have not seen that description anywhere else: and I do not agree with your characterization, which seems to me to be somewhat misleading. Making a statistical interpolation is a theoretical model. Personally I just wish that the files were made available so that they can be 1) analysed and 2) modded. The most extensive report that does this is the US OR report that gives single shot probability of kill for a range of munitions against P-47 and B-25 aircraft, from a single angle. Those tests can be very roughly approximated in the game using ground fire, which shows that the 20mm HE (conventional) and 37mm HE are both much more effective in game (~double) than the US testers estimated. My hypothesis is that the reason is much the same as the issues with the mineshells: splinter damage is too effective in the game, and blast not effective enough.
  14. unreasonable

    Which DM do you like more - before 3.008 or after?

    Prefer the new DM for SP. Too many wings coming off after a couple of 20mm hits in the old one. Still a bit uncertain how each sort of round does what sort of damage for a particular sort of hit in the game.
  15. I have not seen this particular one: but there was someone posting a case where a flight of Russian aircraft were labeled and acting like Germans in flight, with the ME revealing that their nationality was set as German despite all having Russian pilot names. It looks to me as though this was a variant of that bug. If you have not yet generated another mission in career or QMB you could check the mission using the ME. As for resuscitation: there was a thread about how to revive a stalled career by making some text edits. I have no idea if that will work for you but it might be worth a try.
×