Prayers and thoughts are with you both Zoe.
Prayers and thoughts are with you both Zoe.
See you on the Dark Side......
My prayers are with you and your father-in-law, Zoe.
Zoe: Prayers and good hopes for your father-in-Law.
Heмaњa: I'll have to break open my decks to check your work, but since I'm packing for a week away right now, it will have to wait at least a week, maybe 2.
Karl
It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus
Best wishes to your dad-in-law Zoe ... be good to him, rest assured we lot here are nowhere as important as he is
cheers,
Guus
Oh my, I should have read your post in the Officers Club first I'm sorry to say ...
Last edited by Aardvark1430; 05-09-2016 at 03:19.
"zet 'm op ... witte muizen !" (strijdkreet van 1e JaVa, Luchtvaart Afdeling, Nederland 1940)
"let's go get them ... white mice !" (battlecry of the 1st Fighter Group, Army Air Force, Netherlands 1940)
Hi All-
First off, want to say a very big thank you to everyone involved in this effort, it is most appreciated. This spreadsheet is a wonderful example of the fantastic community behind this game, and I am so grateful for your work on this.
As my own WGS collection is now transitioning into Shapeways and AIM miniatures, this resource is getting heavy reference, along with lots of web searches and similar.
I have some feedback, for what it's worth:
- The A6M2 Reisen on line 383 should have a damage value of 16 per the WoW official mini, not 18.
- From all sources I've seen, the I-153 Chaika had a slower top speed than all versions of the I-16, yet has been assigned the faster L maneuver deck as compared to the slower J deck officially released for the I-16. However, because the I-153 fell in between the I-15 and I-16 in speed, it doesn't seem fair to assign it the ZL deck. A conundrum.
- The Russians tested a captured Ki-27 against the I-15, I-153, and I-16 and determined it was a better dogfighter than all of them, yet it has been assigned the same J deck as the I-16. Another conundrum! In fairness, other sources seem to indicate that they held a pretty close parity. So maybe it's a wash.
- The F4U-1 Corsair was evaluated by the US Navy to be faster and more maneuverable than the P-51B Mustang in all except dive acceleration and dive speed, yet it is assigned the same P deck that the P-51D Mustang uses (which was actually a few mph slower than the -B/C version of the Mustang that the Navy tested). I propose that the assigned P deck be replaced by either the R or S deck, to give the F4U-1 Corsair a small boost in agility while not reducing its top speed. I generally feel the R deck (from the FW-190D) is the more appropriate of the two, as the Corsair was (as I understand) still very much a "boom and zoomer." That would give it the same turn radius as the P deck, but add the extreme sideslips to give it some enhanced maneuverability. This would also prevent flying the six 50 caliber version of the Corsair from feeling "samey" to the P-51D, which it is otherwise a proxy for with the maneuver deck as currently indicated.
Please do not take these comments as criticism, because I do not mean to throw cold water on such a cool effort. I'm hoping just to provide worthwhile feedback and possibly encourage discussion on revisiting a few of these planes and tweaking them slightly to better match their documented performance.
Last edited by surfimp; 01-21-2018 at 11:19.
Thanks, Steve! *Heavy sarcasm intended*
I am not finished my WGS MATES II project, now that someone has advised me that I'm missing some of the latest released planes' decks. I went back the Ares WWII Plane Packs page, and there are, at least, three decks I haven't done. These include the S, T, and V decks.
I can't find anything on their page that flys a "U" deck, BTW. Anyone know what's flying with that deck? Has Ares released a plane with that deck? Any rumors? Did I miss something more than the latest release, and did we all miss something?
Mike
"Flying is learning to throw yourself at the ground and miss" Douglas Adams
"Wings of Glory won't skin your elbows and knees while practicing." OldGuy59
Thanks for the comments. For the A6M2 Reisen, I can only plead a few stray gremlins in the worker sprites I had typing for me
For the Corsair: most of my reading have both the P-51B/C/D and the F4U-1 close on speed and maneuverability. In fact, I recently relooked at it, and
most places I could find have them at pretty much a dead heat in a dogfight. Now, one problem I had with deck assignments was what did the extreme SS represent.
The best guess from the examples was a good/great roll rate, which was why the Fw-190D has it. Now why the Spitfire Mk.IX (O deck) have one isn't clear, as it's roll rate was average.
That said, I can't see giving the Corsair the extreme SS, and the slower slow speed arrow (better maneuverability) than the Mustang.
This was why I was really looking forward to the Series 7 release, for both the Corsair and the Lightning.
Karl
It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus
I too am looking forward to the (eventual) PTO release, for the same reasons (P-38, Corsair, etc)
The link I posted (the Navy test of the P-51B vs F4U-1) was admittedly only one document, and possibly biased (i.e. I can't ever imagine the Navy determining that the Air Force had the better plane) but it was an actual head-to-head comparison of the aircraft by qualified test pilots:
"The F4U-1 is everywhere superior in maneuverability and response."
Source: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...1-navycomp.pdf
Here's a comparison the US Navy did between the FW-190A4 and the F6F and F4U-1:
"The FW-190 and F4U-1 were found to be about equal in roll."
Source: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...0/ptr-1107.pdf
If there are similar historical records comparing the aircraft head-to-head like that, I'd love to see them!
And, of course, all of that is besides the point of which of the extant WoG maneuver decks is the most appropriate gross approximation of such a nuanced and complex subject as "aircraft performance." But hey!
Thanks again for all the hard work on this, it is very appreciated.
Last edited by surfimp; 01-21-2018 at 18:15. Reason: Added an additional document comparing the FW-190A4 to the F4U-1 and F6F
Guys, I'm looking for Zoe's ZJ, ZL etc. decks, but I can't find them at Files section... Where are they actually?
ZL: https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/do...o=file&id=1242
ZM: https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/do...o=file&id=1243
ZJ: https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/do...o=file&id=1244
A tip from experience: if you know the file poster, go to their profile page, and click on the files tab.
Karl
It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus
Hey, Karl, thanks a lot
I have one more question. According to unofficial stats Nakajima "Kate" uses ZJ deck. This deck seems to be too maneuvreable for torpedo bomber. Does it have some limitations?
And what about 90° turns? Should they remain in deck or not?
(Sorry, I wrote 45, but I ment 90.)
Last edited by Пилот; 12-26-2018 at 14:48.
Thanks a lot, Karl! Now we have it
OK, in discussing a few plane off-site with a member, it came up about where to put the firing arcs. I'll admit, this completely blew past me in doing this project.
Until a complete review, here's some guidelines:
if the front gun is a flexible mounting, move the base of the arc forward to the nose of the plane, as other bombers have it.
If it is fixed (like the Ju.88C), base the arc in the planes peg.
All planes on heavy fighter bases with flexible rear guns (assuming they are not mounted on the tail; none come to mind right now) use the arc found on the Bf-110 base.
Oh, and ignore what I did for guns on the Ju.88P model. I must have been confusing it with something else.
It was a dedicated AT plane with either 1x75mm, 2x37mm or 1x57mm. Very few built and none really used successfully. Rear gun is standard A/A and the front ones are:
P-1 is a 75mm ground attack only. P-3 is 3 37mm, so D-D/D. P-5 has a single 50mm, D/A.
Karl
It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus
Aircraft notes for the WGS unofficial committee plane stats. Version 1.0 :
Ť Any maneuver deck with the modifier (Z) uses Zoe Brain’s system of moving just the length of the arrow on the card. These are for very slow planes, and may be further modified. ť
What does this sentence mean ? :
Ť moving just the length of the arrow on the card ť
Isn’t it the usual way of moving the plane ?
Thank you for your explanation.
the Z modifier indicates that it used Zoe Brain's movement method for very slow planes.
https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sh...-cards-needed)
Basically, you just move the length of the cards arrow, not the arrow and the plane's base, as normal.
Not to be confused with the Z decks Zoe Brain developed for some slower fighters. Those decks start with a Z.
Karl
It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus
I am sorry the link is inoperative.
And I don’t understand this sentence Ť move the length of the cards arrow ť.
Is the movement card is placed in front of the base as normal ?
And then ?
https://www.wingsofwar.org/forums/sh...-cards-needed)
Try this link.
If it doesn't work again, Go to WW2, House rules, page 2, Slow aircraft rules without special cards needed.
It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus
Guys, what is exact size of bomber base (B)?
Also, check me if I'm wrong, please:
Fighter base (F) is 67mm x 43mm
Heavy fighter base (HF) is 67mm x 86mm
Balloon base is 195mm x 90mm (19.5 cm x 9cm)
@ Karl
What do you think about editing post #1 and puting base sizes there?
I know the bomber base is 8cm long, but I don't know it's width.
If no one else chimes in, I'll check tomorrow, if I'm not too frozen to go in the basement.
Karl
It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus
Bombers are 8cm x 11cm, at least the ones from Keith are.
Thanks!
According to my measuring, original it was 111mm x 80mm (11,1cm x 80cm), but I used just a ruler. So, second oponion would be very welcome
Also, I have non of Keith's bomber bases.
Actually, it doesn't make such a difference (1mm is 1/25") but I believe it would be nice to have correct and exact measures.
The base sizes are the same as the WGF ones Nemanya - Andrea has given those for the bigger Giants (ie WGS Bomber Bases) as 8 x 11cm; the next size down for the lesser Giants (ie WGS Heavy Fighter) as 6.8 x 8.8cm - twice as wide as a standard base which is 6.8 x 4.4cm.
Sapiens qui vigilat "He is wise who watches"
Dave, thanks!
I measured three different F bases (Ares), and they definitely were 67 x 43.
Than I measured Caproni's and Me-110's bases (Ares again) and they were 66 x 87 each.
I checked B-17's bomber base and it is 80 x 110 (my last masuring was actually wrong). Staaken's base (Ares), howerer, did show 80.something x 110. But it may be manufacturing flaw.
So, question is: should base dimensions be as Andrea said (as they should be in theory) or as produced?
So, we have (Ares vs. Andrea)
F base 67 x 43 vs 68 x 44
HF base 66 x 87 vs. 68 x 88. (However, theory says that HF should be double F, so maybe even 67 x 86 should be considered?)
B base in practice basically responds to 110 x 80 in both cases.
If someone could measure their bases it would be nice to know.
P.S. During weekend I'll get some measuring tools better than ruler, so I'll repeat measuring, just in case.
Last edited by Пилот; 02-01-2019 at 17:34.
I did measure my bases to confirm what Andea said before I posted if that helps Nemanya. I think the sizes stated are what they should be, whether that translates to manufacture or measurement is another matter
Sapiens qui vigilat "He is wise who watches"
Definitely, practice and theory differ...
Here are the dimensions after using calliper for measuring:
F 67 x 43
HF 66 x 87
B 80 x110 (one was 80.5 x 110, but that one probably shold be ignored)
I'm not sure an odd mm here or there matters to the game.
Karl
It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus
It basically doesn't, but I was curious
Karl,
what would be stats for Aichi E13A "Jake"? Wikipedia gives this:
Crew: 3
Wing area: 36.0 m˛ (387 ft˛)
Powerplant: 1 × Mitsubishi MK8 Kinsei 43 14-cylinder air-cooled twin-row radial engine, 810 kW (1,080 hp)
Maximum speed: 375 km/h (234 mph)
Service ceiling: 8,700 m (28,500 ft)
Rate of climb: 8.2 m/s (1,610 ft/m)
Armament
Guns: 1× flexible, rearward-firing 7.7 mm (.303 in) Type 92 machine gun for observer
Some aircraft fitted 2× 20mm Type 99-2 cannons in a downwards firing position in the belly
Bombs: 250 kg (551 lb) of bombs
EDIT
Deck: ZL, but less maneuverable?
Rear Arc: А/А
Climb rate: 6? (8.2 m/s)
HP: 15
Last edited by Пилот; 02-25-2019 at 08:59. Reason: HP edited
HP = 10 + (2xEWIT).
Empty weight: 2,642 kg (5,825 lb) so 10 + (5.284). So 15.
Thank you, Zoe!
Is formula same for bigger and smaller planes? Because I guess "Jake" goes on HF base (what was the limit, 35m2)?
And, according to above formula, Mitsubishi A6M should have 13HP: 10 + (2x 1,680 Kg) = 13HP (13.36 precisely). But, depending on a version, they have from 14 to 18 HP. Does (lack of) armour have some part in it?
What are actual tools for calculating all stats (including firepower, maneuver deck, HP, climb rate and ceiling)? If it's not inappropriate to ask.
EDIT
Should it's deck look like (card numbers are put in the same order as they appear in PDF file ZL deck:
Page 1
1,2,3,4
5,6,7,8
9,10,x,x (11,12 are 90 degree turns)
13,14,x,x (13 is stall, 14 is Immelmann, 15 and 16 are steep sideslips)
Page 2
13,14,x,x (Card numbers are repeating, 13 and 14 are fast only sideslips, and 15 and 16 are 2-speed sideslips)
17,18
How this deck should be named?
Last edited by Пилот; 02-25-2019 at 13:02. Reason: Added deck description
Sorry Heмaњa; I missed this post of yours.
I'm actually not sure what is proprietary information and what's not. Zoe gave the basic formula for hits. It can be modified a bit based of known factors (like the B-17's robustness).
Guns is pretty much what you see:
A is 1 or 2 7.62mm MGs or 1 12.5mm MG.
B is twice that.
C is 1 15-20ish mm cannon.
D is 37-40mm cannon.
At long range, halve everything, so an A stays an A, a B goes to A, (here's the tricky one) a single C goes to A and a D goes to C.
So a P-51 with 6 50 cal MGs is B-B-B/B-A.
The D-520 with 4 MAC 1934 M39 7.5 mm MGs and a 20 mm HS.404 cannon is C-B/B: the C goes down to an A, and the B goes down to an A, so A+A=B
Ceiling is the ceiling in 10Kms +1.
Climb rate is by a chart, which I'll let Zoe decide if it gets posted; it might actually be in the files.
Maneuver deck......here's the tough one. Obviously, the choice of deck based on top speed. From there, I look at wingloading and P/W ratios. Frankly, it's as much of art as a science (or a guess and by gosh).
For the Aichi E13A, I'm more inclined to give it a ZJ deck, for 2 reasons: first, you don't have to take out the 90 degree turn, which it shouldn't have, and second, though it has a very good wingloading and P/W ratio,
with the floats, I'm guessing the stall speed is higher than a CR.42s. So the slow speed arrow of 1.2cm is better for it than the 0.3cm of the ZL deck.
Climb rate is a 6.
I'm going to guess the downward firing 20mm cannon were for strafing, and in the place of the observer?
Karl
It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus
Helpful as always! Thank you!
So, stats should be:
Base: F
Rear Arc: А/А
Climb rate: 6
Ceiling: 10 or 9 (8.7 Km)?
HP: 15
About ZJ Deck (deck also needs name in ZJ family)
Please, see post 117 for reference, but ignore yellow crosses on the pictures :
1,2 (streights) 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 (gentle turns), 13,14 (stall, Immelmann), 17,18 (gentle fast-only sideslips), 21,22 (dive and climb) stay in the deck.
11,12 (90 degree turns) discarded.
What about:
15,16 (steep sideslips)
19,20 (gentle two-speeds sideslips)
Discard or not?
About Armament:
(Guns: 1× flexible, rearward-firing 7.7 mm (.303 in) Type 92 machine gun for observer
Some aircraft fitted 2× 20mm Type 99-2 cannons in a downwards firing position in the belly)
Did “Jakes” fitted with belly twin guns keep 7.7 MG too? Also, did observer use both of them (probably not at the same time)?
About crew
What were the roles of 3 crew member in the aircraft?
Hmm....my excel file doesn't have the ZJ as having a 90 turn (the deck clearly does though; cards 11 and 12)
And I can't fix it in this computer because MS Office if turned off, so read only
OK; deep breath: Delete cards 11 and 12. And the Immelmann (14).
Ceiling 10
Per the cannon: a quick google search gives a very confusing picture. The basic models had no cannon. Some were fitted in the field, and some in the factory with a flexible 20mm. But nothing about the arc.
It's really only the wiki article (and obvious copies on other sites) that mention 2 fixed guns. In all cases, they were for anti-ship or anti-sub use. So you can decide. The rear gunner would use the cannon (in absence of other info).
They did keep the flexible MG; use the standard rear arc of fire.
Karl
It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus
As an old Wings of War player, and Dogfighting enthusiast, I've since found good reason to further flesh out some of the Japanese fighters, and would love some help in this regard.
See, I ran across this anime that's a must see for any fan of Dogfighting, called, "The Magnificent Kotobuki"; if you don't believe that it's a must see, click here, and fast-forward to 9:15, for when the planes take off, and the combat starts; then, once all the planes have re-boarded the carrier, go back to 8:09, for the historically accurate flight-check sequence; you'll be glad you did.
Anyway, most of these aircraft aren't represented in WoW/WoG in the specific, historically accurate, models used; I've gone to some effort to work some of that out, and I'd love some feedback on what I've put together, as there are some differences from the existing list, and some potentially worthy inclusions, as well.
Try to make your text editor's window widescreen and/or landscape; tabs may need adjustment; a Word file is also available, in a later post.
WoW Stats.txt Views: 10 Size: 7.8 KB">The Magnificent Kotobuki Aircraft WoW Stats.txt
Last edited by Sixer; 02-28-2019 at 14:05.
The Magnificent Kotobuki is also available on Youtube.com
Thank you very much, Karl!
So,
Aichi E13A "Jake" stats (version without belly twin guns) would be:
Deck: ZJ(-). Take out cards 11,12,14 (90ş turns and Immelmann card).
Base: F
Front arc: None
Rear Arc: А/А
Climb rate: 6
Ceiling: 10
HP: 15
It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus
Zoe Brain, any feedback on the stats I posted?
Just watched episode 1. Urge to play WoG while drinking beer and eating pancakes
It is impossible for a man to begin to learn what he thinks he knows. -- Epictetus
Bookmarks