general aircraft speed bug

[fidd]

1 hour ago, Kidd27 said:

life lessons. No better teacher

That's a very good aphorism, I'll remember that one! Very true. Of course they can also 'lead us down the garden-path' on occasion too, as they also tend to make us more adamant in assumptions when problem-solving. That's led to a few air-crashes too. It's reckoned the Kegsworth crash was caused by the 1st officer - iirc - smelling smoke in ventilation ducts fed by one engine, misidentifying the failing engine, because on previous aircraft he'd flown, the bleed-air was fed by the other engine! That's all IIRC - it's years since I read the AAIB report. So his previous knowledge and experiences actually may have contributed to the accident.

[Kidd27]

1 hour ago, fidd said:

That's a very good aphorism, I'll remember that one! Very true. Of course they can also 'lead us down the garden-path' on occasion too, as they also tend to make us more adamant in assumptions when problem-solving. That's led to a few air-crashes too. It's reckoned the Kegsworth crash was caused by the 1st officer - iirc - smelling smoke in ventilation ducts fed by one engine, misidentifying the failing engine, because on previous aircraft he'd flown, the bleed-air was fed by the other engine! That's all IIRC - it's years since I read the AAIB report. So his previous knowledge and experiences actually may have contributed to the accident.

The aphorism does the thinking for you, don't over analyze it or it all falls apart.

[bogol]

14 hours ago, fidd said:

You misunderstand what I said. My theory was that the bug might have been the bomb being dropped, but the flight-model still treating it as if it hadn't been dropped, ie, the 109 was artificially and incorrectly too heavy. That would have accounted for the relative speed difference, and it occuring after jabo bombs had been implemented with no change the H75. I'm not saying it was that, I'm saying that is was the most likely source for the bug. I have no problem at all with the H75 being removed if it's proven to be bugged. On the other hand, removing it before the bug is nailed down as existing on the H75 rather than the 109 flight model, is silly, especially if there's nothing known to be changed on the H75 model.

I really couldn't care less about the air-game, all I'm saying is that arguing to pull something because of a relative speed error, is daft, if the vehicle or aircraft exhibiting it, is not known to be the flight model at fault. If the 109E does "not have bombs" that does not prove that I'm wrong in suggesting the code error may still be treating it as if it had.

If the bug does prove to be in the H75 model, by all means let it be pulled.

Its is NOT e relative speed error, the H75 is way faster than it's specs say it should be. Here are the specs:

   http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-36/Curtiss_Hawk_75-A_Detail_Specifications.pdf

Tested with JCD yesterday and at sea level both 109E4 and H75 Wep on had max speed of about 500kph. Way faster than the specs you can read there, for any of the engine variants. 

[OHM]

17 hours ago, OHM said:

Looks they found the problem .  

From what i have been told it will be fixed in the next release.

 

Current Hawk 75 is max 31mph too fast. With WEP on its a tad faster than the 109e with its WEP on up to 5000m. Without WEP active in the Hawk, the 109 is still faster with or without its WEP engaged at all altitudes. Climb is a bit more pronounced with a 1223fpm increase over its norm. With WEP hawk climbs 559 fpm faster than 109e4 with its WEP on. Hawk without WEP is equal to Bf109e4 with WEP, on. Hawk still has 267fpm advantage over Bf109 with WEP off in both birds.

did anyone see my post?

[OHM]

 

https://ibb.co/YLdjq0y

 

Click on the link I hate inserting pictures

[fidd]

1 hour ago, bogol said:

Its is NOT e relative speed error, the H75 is way faster than it's specs say it should be. Here are the specs:

   http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-36/Curtiss_Hawk_75-A_Detail_Specifications.pdf

Tested with JCD yesterday and at sea level both 109E4 and H75 Wep on had max speed of about 500kph. Way faster than the specs you can read there, for any of the engine variants. 

Cheers, that's become clear. My point was that until that was determined, and the bug could have existed in either - or both - aircraft, it was premature to suggest pulling one of them, not least because the 109 basically can't be pulled, there being no suitable alternative in tier 0. Like I said upthread, it's fine to pull the H75 if it's wrong, once it's demonstrably the case that it is that FM at fault. I'd be most interested to learn how the FM for it apparently changed with nothing ostensibly being done to the aircraft FM.....

[bogol]

1 hour ago, OHM said:

did anyone see my post?

Yes I did. Thank you!

[Dre21]

On 3/14/2021 at 4:02 PM, fidd said:

Like I said, I've not flown in-game, nor indeed do I have access to the air-forums, so I'm unware of any such testing. What I believe to be the case is that the 109 has had changes made, in terms of adding a bomb, and the H75 has had no changes, it therefore logically follows that it is more likely that the 109 has slowed, than the H75 has become faster, as no known change has occurred to the H75, but one has, to the 109. I'm not saying there are no circumstances where pulling the H75 is correct, but I am saying it's much more likely the difference in relative speeds, that the fault lays with the 109's flight model than that of the H75, and if that's true, then pulling the Char would makes as much sense as a corrective measure, as pulling the H75.

Maybe then not post if you have not flown and leave it to the guys that are in the know, just saying.

[fidd]

1 minute ago, Dre21 said:

Maybe then not post if you have not flown and leave it to the guys that are in the know, just saying.

I havn't flown recently. I can still think logically. There was obviously a problem with the H75 - or the 109 - or both flight models, don't need to have flown recently to twig that. Your point was?

[Dre21]

14 minutes ago, fidd said:

I havn't flown recently. I can still think logically. There was obviously a problem with the H75 - or the 109 - or both flight models, don't need to have flown recently to twig that. Your point was?

Point is that the guys that spend hours and hours in game in these planes know probably better then a part time flyer or a player that has just returned to game. Do you see me make any claims about speed or any of the flight models or any of these other things ? Answer is No, I can think logically too, but as a part time pilot I stay out of these things and let people in the know discuss it.

 

 

[viskov]

So, the H-75 just gained speed for no reason? If it wasn't completely obvious over performance that actually spurred members to test for real data how long would it had gone on for? (still is...) How do I know that other numbers haven't magically changed in regards to armor thickness or penetration performance? It's all just anecdotal claims of "X just killed me, no way!?"

This issue here was the cherry on top of my short lived resubscription where population imbalance determines a vast majority of cities changing hands. Why spend 4 hours defending a city tooth and nail, when in 3 hours you'll lose it and 6 more without a shot being fired.

 

[fidd]

What makes you think I made claims as to which FM was at fault???? Shirely the whole point of the thread was assessing whether or not at the time "pulling the H75" came up, there was a rat-conducted test of the H75 overspeed, (there wasn't that I'd seen), nor had the 109's model been checked to see if it has slowed relative to H75, for which a strong case could be made that this might be at the bottom of the problem, the 109 FM having been changed recently, with no recent known change to the H75 FM. In fact, the only thing that had actually changed, again, that I've seen mentioned on bug-fixes etc, was the introduction of bombs to some 109's.

ALL I was saying was before stuff gets pulled because "someone suspects the H75 is too fast", whereas it might just as easily, indeed was more likely to have been, a fault with a different FM for all we knew at that point. From the testing I'd seen people doing, several did level runs at different alts in the H75 and 109. No-one thought to do say the Spitfire, as the same experiment, which would have told us if the H75 was fast, or, the 109 was slow.

To put this in terms perhaps you can understand, if someone asked for Tiger's to be removed, because they're too fast, because one overtook his Churchill, then you'd probably want to establish if the Tiger was indeed moving too fast, or, if the Churchill was moving too slow, before acceding to the request to "pull the Tiger", especially if there was no definitive proof as to which tank has the error.

Get it?

[madrebel]

19 hours ago, fidd said:

I can still think logically. There was obviously a problem with the H75 - or the 109 - or both flight models

if you could think logically, you wouldn't limit the scope of this issue to two planes.

H75 should be the slowest fighter plane in game. literally every tier0 fighter plane should be faster. if the 109 had an issue logic would dictate that both the spit1 and d520 would now all the sudden be faster than the 109.

Edited March 16, 2021 by madrebel

[vanapo]

Fidd logic:

If more planes have been produced and deployed than tanks, this doesn't mean they should have at least an equal presence at the battlefield than tanks have - because there are only so and so many LMGs and I don't like planes.

also Fidd logic:

If one allied fighter is supposed to be slower and now it is faster than any other fighter it's probably due to one 109 version having a bomb added.

probably upcoming Fidd logic:

It's hard to implement 64bit framework into the game because axis stuka can drop a 500kg bombs now.

Problem: Anything - Solution: Axis AT planes OP

THX @BMBMand everybody involved at CRS for addressing the real problem and I am looking forward to the fix.

Edited March 16, 2021 by vanapo

[fidd]

20 hours ago, vanapo said:

Fidd logic:

If more planes have been produced and deployed than tanks, this doesn't mean they should have at least an equal presence at the battlefield than tanks have - because there are only so and so many LMGs and I don't like planes.

also Fidd logic:

If one allied fighter is supposed to be slower and now it is faster than any other fighter it's probably due to one 109 version having a bomb added.

probably upcoming Fidd logic:

It's hard to implement 64bit framework into the game because axis stuka can drop a 500kg bombs now.

Problem: Anything - Solution: Axis AT planes OP

THX @BMBMand everybody involved at CRS for addressing the real problem and I am looking forward to the fix.

That's complete balls. I'd prefer there were a lot fewer tanks in our TOE's, but that's not viable with the sheer number of threats tanks face in this over-foliaged terrain. In other words, the terrain is driving the requirement for more tanks in the TOE's. AT aircraft being ubiquitous simply applies yet more pressure in the same direction. I'm also on record as suggesting that attackers get their full TOE, but defenders only 1/3rd, in tandem with a few other changes being made to prevent pre-camping by attackers in any fashion by fire or proximity.

No information was initially presented in this thread that the H75 was "faster than any other fighter". The only information that was presented was that the H75 was faster than the 109. I did write in thread that if the 109 speed were compared with the Spitfire, and found to be correct, that would assist in nailing down which FM was at fault. I also posted that as soon as it was established which FM was at fault, it should be fixed. What I objected to, was the notion of the H75 being pulled before such a determination had been made, as to which FM was at fault. I also said that, professionally, I did find the H75's reported turn of speed to be very surprising. With the information present at the time in the thread, the jabo code was the more likely to be in error, because no known change had been made to the H75 raising it's and it's alone, speed.

Regarding AT planes. I have nowhere suggested axis AT planes are too numerous, I have suggested that all nations AT aircraft are too numerous, and sought in the thread covering that opinions from axis tankies, specifically to gain a cross-side consensus. Literally the complete reverse of what you've posted above.

I don't mind criticism or contrary views on what I post, sometimes they are useful, but mis-characterising what I've said, is a waste of your time and mine.

[Kidd27]

Some need to argue sides regardless of what was typed. Taking things out of context to quote and "prove" its you not them.

Its a forum tradition dating back to the early roman era. Sometimes i think its cute.

[undercova]

1 hour ago, fidd said:

That's complete balls. I'd prefer there were a lot fewer tanks in our TOE's, but that's not viable with the sheer number of threats tanks face in this over-foliaged terrain. In other words, the terrain is driving the requirement for more tanks in the TOE's. AT aircraft being ubiquitous simply applies yet more pressure in the same direction. I'm also on record as suggesting that attackers get their full TOE, but defenders only 1/3rd, in tandem with a few other changes being made to prevent pre-camping by attackers in any fashion by fire or proximity.

No information was initially presented in this thread that the H75 was "faster than any other fighter". The only information that was presented was that the H75 was faster than the 109. I did write in thread that if the 109 speed were compared with the Spitfire, and found to be correct, that would assist in nailing down which FM was at fault. I also posted that as soon as it was established which FM was at fault, it should be fixed. What I objected to, was the notion of the H75 being pulled before such a determination had been made, as to which FM was at fault. I also said that, professionally, I did find the H75's reported turn of speed to be very surprising. With the information present at the time in the thread, the jabo code was the more likely to be in error, because no known change had been made to the H75 raising it's and it's alone, speed.

Regarding AT planes. I have nowhere suggested axis AT planes are too numerous, I have suggested that all nations AT aircraft are too numerous, and sought in the thread covering that opinions from axis tankies, specifically to gain a cross-side consensus. Literally the complete reverse of what you've posted above.

I don't mind criticism or contrary views on what I post, sometimes they are useful, but mis-characterising what I've said, is a waste of your time and mine.

what about garrisons with mainly just infantry supply and some scout tanks ?

the extra divisions on map are the ones that act like ARMOURED divisions and have such a supply pool

those divisions could be reduced to 3 flags in total too. 1 HQ + 2 ARM flags

 

Garrison:

- infantry => high supply

- atg => medium supply

- aa => medium supply

- apc => low supply

- light tank => medium supply

 

Armoured (division flags):

- infantry => low supply

- atg => low supply

- aa => low supply

- apc => high supply

- light tank => low supply

- medium tank => high supply

- heavy tank => medium supply

 

HQ (division flags):

- infantry => low supply

- atg => medium supply

- aa => medium supply

- apc => medium supply

- light tank => medium supply

- medium tank => low supply

- heavy tank => low supply

 

this is kinda a "simple"  solution. it will mean that the "real" flags can act as spearheads ... and most of the frontline is covered by infantry supply. the extra divisions can be moved and used for operations to attack towns. ofc you can still attack other towns with garrison supply too

this supply pool idea should be used for AIR flags too imo. every AF gets a small supply list only. so HC has to move FIGHTER or BOMBER flags to frontline AFs.

[fidd]

The difficulty with that approach is that HC officers are not always available 24/7 to move Bde's which can lead to the situation where after a win, a Bde cannot be moved in, or in extremis, a number of attacks from a Bde with HC v the UP side without HC on, could (with the weaker garrison) pinch off a large number of towns causing a major map movement prosecuted by a relatively small number of players.

Whatever is implemented to reduce the TOE's of Bde's and or garrisons, has to work, and work well and fairly, in TZ3, else the idea is basically a bust. IMHO

My preferred solution with TOE's is "asymmetric TOE's":

Each garrison or bde has a notional pile of equipment to use, however how much can be used, depends on if you're attacking or defending, so an attacker would get all of it to use, and the defender only 1/3rd. This would create the necessary 3:1 attacker:defender ratio required for a realistic prospect of success. This would be 1/3rd for the defender per enemy link. So if two links to a town under attack, the defender gets to use 2/3rds of his nominal TOE. I would further vary this so that the UP side got a bonus amount available, and the OP side less.

In order to allow players the maximum ability to spawn what they want, in every tier, every unit would be given a point-value, and each Bde or Garrison given a sum of points representing their 1/3rd or entire TOE. So, if you spawn a high value unit, those points are removed from the TOE. If you return it, they're added back. What you can spawn is only determined by the points you have remaining, run out of points, your TOE is expended. Putting a new Bde in would (gradually) increase points for that new Bde in town, or at the FB.