|
|
|||||||
| FM/DM threads Everything about FM/DM in CoD |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
11-29-2012, 06:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The customary, rational, reasonable, and obvious solution to the pissing contest tactic done by the forum member quoted above is to put their money where their mouth is, and commence a method by which the person puts up or shuts up. The 109 is no better or no worse of an Energy Fighter than any other plane if the answer to the question avoids the question and moves from a discussion about the plane to claims concerning the capabilities of the pilot. The claim that the 109 is a perfect energy fighter (because the pilot is better) works for the Stuka, the Spitfire, the Wellington, or the paper airplane. The paper airplane is the perfect energy fighter (fine print: so long as the better pilot is flying the paper airplane). What is it, precisely, about the performance of the 109, that is unique to the 109, and is not something unique to the opposition, by which the 109 is superior or a "perfect" energy fighter? If there were an operating Dueling Ladder, for example, where controlled engagements of duels, or jousts, or one on one Simulated Ar Combat Fights, scored and documented, track files recorded, then the concept of dodging the question with an ambiguous answer would be meaningless, because the facts would be documented, and the opinions would be meaning-less, as meaning-less, as opinions concerning which pilot is better reported now, on this forum, since the actual answers would be provided in the results of the documented employments of each plane and each pilot over time as the best pilots flying the best planes using the best tactics PROVE which plane is the best Energy Fighter and which plane is the best Angles Fighter. Which plane, in the track file, performs which maneuver against which other plane, right there on track files, leaving no room for subjective opinion. What cannot be said, without resort to complete fabrication, is that the 109 is a perfect angles fighter, so no one dares make such an obvious false statement. But to say that the 109 is a perfect energy fighter because the pilot is better is no different that saying the Spitfire is a perfect energy fighter because the pilot is better. So why not say that the 109 is a perfect angles fighter, turner and burner, b because the pilot is better? Because that would be an obvious fabrication of deception? What is the point of the deceptions? The characteristics that make a plane better at energy fighting are spelled out in Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw, and in all the work done by John Boyd that is well recorded on the Naviar site, which is not "theory". Peak acceleration, which is higher Specific Excess Power, is the performance variable that makes one fighter plane better than another plane, and under which conditions the advantage of having more power to move the airplane from where you are to where you prefer to be, again not "theory", is the ability, the power, to win the fight. Why call the application of science used to discover the accurate measure of relative combat performance a "theory"? What is the point of such deception? If a person purchases the game and is then interested in finding out which plane (not pilot) is better than the other plane, then it may be a good idea to let that person know how the professionals have figured out exactly how to measure that performance advantage, without question. Not theory. Is it a racket? "If you want to know which plane is better, you have to ask me, because all those other false authorities on the subject are only offering theory?" Is that the game being played here? "I know, but they... those people who are or were professional fighter pilots in the business of Air Combat, in reality, are mere "theorists", so ask me, and don't listen to their crack pot theories?" Is that the game being played? "The 109 is, because I say so, a perfect energy fighter." That is fact? Then: "It is the pilot, not the plane, that makes for the perfect energy fighter." Does that work for the perfect angles fighter too? The 109 is the perfect Angles Fighter, because the pilot is better? Is that a form of musical chairs? It is a fabrication of deception to call the Energy Maneuverability application of Science a "theory", when the product of that employment of that work is well documented and proven to accomplish the intended goal of measuring which Fighter Plane has exactly which performance capabilities, such as level flight acceleration, Specific Excess Power, dive acceleration, zoom climb acceleration, corner speed (maximum turn rate and minimum turn radius), and sustained turn performance. To return to a logical, reasonable, precise, and accurate perspective on the matter at hand, the topic, there can be in "theory", people talking shop on a forum is a "theory", or instead of that "talk", there can be "walking", in actual reality, a duel to employ as an example of which plane (not pilot), is, in fact, the perfect energy fighter, and which plane is, in fact, modeled as a target. Both planes in question, are tested, in a mock combat, simulated combat, controlled tests, and pilots are switched from one plane to the other as a "CONTROL" on the test to remove the factor of which pilot is the better pilot. If the fight turns into only a contest of turning and burning, known in the professional Fighter Combat terminology and Angles Fighting, then the claim being made is a baseless claim: This claim: Quote:
If on the other hand, in actual fact, or in theory (so as to explain what the person doing the claim actually means), the 109 is employed as a perfect energy fighter against an imperfect energy fighter, then that can be described, as it works in theory, on a forum, and that can be proven, bypassing theory, it can be demonstrated in actual fact, with a controlled use of the game in fact. Again the book Fighter Combat, which is not a theoretical book, offers many examples of exactly what is, or is not, Energy Fighting. So the claimant who makes the claim about the perfection of the 109 Energy Fighting capability can then, in theory, demonstrate how perfection in energy fighting is done, having made the claim, with that 109. Or not. Which brings up a possible problem encountered by anyone who purchases the game, who is then seeking advice as to which plane is better, and in which ways which plane is better, and then having nothing but baseless claims, that never materialize, such as the 109 being a perfect energy fighter, and finally a confession is made that "it is the pilot" not the machine, which is logically a retraction of the original claim. The 109 is not a perfect energy fighter after all, since the claimant of that baseless claim retracts that claim, and replaces that claim with a new claim, where the new claim is that the pilot is the perfect energy fighter, not the plane. Back to square one? Which plane is better, not which pilot is better, but which plane is better, and the obvious answer remains obvious, as the Spitfire can turn and burn inside any 109 anytime. Both planes have comparable rates of acceleration, apparently, since those who claim that one plane is perfect at energy fighting retract such baseless claims when challenged to put up or shut up. Fabrications of dubious claims of "theory" contained in the information linked, Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw, for example, or Navair web pages, for another example, may misdirect a new player away from those sources of accurate information that can help answer the question asked, the topic question, if that does happen, in fact, someone here on this forum being misdirected by fabrications of nonsense. The fact remains a fact that there are easy ways to find out which plane is better and find out exactly how much one plane is better, and with an easy to manage CONTROL, the factor of the pilot is rendered to be a CONSTANT if two pilots fly both planes in mock combat to see, for themselves, exactly, without doubt, which planes do which maneuvers better according to the GAME CODE that has been "adjusted" to suit whichever opinion has sway over those adjustments. The challenge then, for any new player purchasing the game, and asking the topic question, is to find someone willing to do controlled tests, to eliminate the Pilot variable, to render the Pilot variable to be a CONSTANT, not a variable, and in those controlled tests the person asking the question can get the accurate answer that way. Which way? Side by side level flight acceleration tests can show which plane can get away from which plane or both planes are equal. Either one is superior in level flight acceleration or not. Level flight sustained turn tests, one behind the other, can show which plane can turn inside the other. That is already well known, without controversy. The Spitfire is superior, and the 109 is modeled with a very bad tendency to spin, which is opposite of the actual well documented facts. The two pilots can switch planes to remove the Pilot variable, to make that variable no longer a variable. More than 2 pilots can improve the accuracy of the scientific method of making variables into constants. Corner speed tests offer significant information concerning which plane is better at burning energy, converting that energy into advantageous position, and which plane gains more position with less loss of energy, and those corner speed tests can also be done side by side, and the pilot variable can also be rendered constant by switching pilots and planes. An additional benefit for the new player interested enough in the game to a point where the new player is actually wanting to know the precise advantages one plane is modeled in the game better than another plane, having that interest reaching that point of intensity, to that point of finding another player willing do perform these types of comparative performance tests, is the possibility of finding a wingman, someone other than the lone player, to combine forces, and use the game to then begin to explore the many advantages of teamwork. Team tactics are also well covered in great detail in Fighter Combat by Robert Shaw. So...no need to rely upon "experts" who never actually answer any questions, when the facts of the matter are actually modeled in the game, and with one other player to help the new player to show exactly which plane does which maneuver better, the game can thereby become a much richer experience instead of a struggle against seemingly impossible odds. 
|
|
#2
11-29-2012, 11:15 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I assume that you are in that you are the one that said you have done such and such test.. And you even went as far as to say tests are meaningless unless they can be evaluated.. But you have yet to post the data you collected during said test(s), let alone your analysis methods and results. If so, don't be so hard on yourself! I realise it takes time to pull the data togther to put it in a presentable format.. So instead spending time beating yourself up and talking to yourself in the 3rd person, spend that time pulling your data togther and puting it into a presentable format and post it here for all to see! If you need help with the EM and or Ps charts, feel free to PM me in that I have done those types of tests and the presentation of such data for IL-2 years ago! See attachements for examples
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on. Last edited by ACE-OF-ACES; 11-29-2012 at 11:26 PM.
|
|
#3
11-30-2012, 06:12 PM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
I took a look at the attached zip and pdf file and your work is missing the Energy Maneuverability fan plot where turn rate is on the vertical left and airspeed is on the horizontal bottom, or I missed it in my brief look at those files. Like this:  This:  And this:  You have linked for download a zipped .pdf file that includes a Specific Excess Power chart for the P-51, apparently, and also for the P-51 there is an acceleration chart, which is curiously producing remarkably different curves for Ps and Acceleration, and the cause of those differences could help in understanding relative performance, which is the topic. Thanks for that, it is interesting to me. The topic is relative performance, because that is what new players find out when presented with a game that models one plane to be far superior than another plane, whereby, each new player can succeed measurably better with the better plane and each new player fails more often with the worse plane, and so the new player asks, and then tries to answer, WHY? When the professionals finally figured out which attributes made which plane better, the result was Energy Maneuverability, which started as a Scientific Study, or Theory, during the days when John Boyd was working in the United States Air Force, and the obvious "fruit of that labor" is well documented on the Naviar site, where modern measures of relative performance is mathematically precise. The new player of the game asks WHY? The modern military professionals ask WHY? The same question is answered with the same answer. Which information answers which specific question best? If there is only one chart to use, to know which plane is better, then the EM chart shown above, with one plane superimposed over another plane, showing the Accelerated Stall line, showing the Sustained Turn Stall line, Showing Corner Speed, showing level flight minimum speed and maximum speed for that altitude, and the person, professional fighter pilot or person playing a game, can then compare and know which plane, not pilot, which plane is obviously superior to the other and WHY one plane is obviously superior to the other plane. The F-86 versus the Mig-15 INFORMATION, plotted on that one chart, and most likely based upon actual flight test data, such as the flight tests described in the Navair site, to find that specific flight test data, is a very good Study for this topic in particular. If the only tests being done are climb tests, for example, then the Mig-15 shines as the better plane. If the only tests being done are Corner Speed tests, then the F-86 is the far superior plane. If the only tests being done are Top Speed tests, then again the F-86 is the far superior plane. In fact, and before the scientific methods of measuring relative performance precisely were applied to the F-86 versus the Mig-15, the claim at the time was that the Mig-15, on paper, should be the superior fighter, since the Mig-15 could out climb, out turn in sustained turns, and was capable of much higher altitude than the F-86, but, as happened, the F-86, for many reasons, including the tactics used, the teamwork used, the training, the pilots, and other things, many reasons, the F-86 was dominating the overall tally of victories in the total number of combat sorties at that time. So the question then, before that work was done, was the same question here, now, as to why one plane is better than the other precisely, and in that case the F-86 was so much more successful than the better turning (sustained turn) Mig-15, the same Mig-15, with the faster climb rate. The most obvious result of the tests plotted on the graph is the superior Corner Speed, far superior Corner Speed, held by the F-86. Why might that be significant? You may not have any interest in knowing the answer, and you may only want to turn this discussion into some nebulous pissing match, but there may be other people, in fact I know there are other people, because other people contact me in private and express interest, in knowing these answers to these questions. Examples of which tactics work in the better Energy Fighter, where in this case the better Energy Fighter is plotted on a graph with a better Corner Speed and this better Energy Fighter is plotted on the same graph with a much worse Sustained Turn Performance, so the Angles Fighter can Angles Fight the wings off the Energy Fighter on that Graph, but what actually happened in combat, where are the examples of actual combat? Examples: http://stephenesherman.com/discussio..._vs_sabre.html Quote:
Quote:
A plane with both a better Corner Speed and a better Sustained Turn time would obviously be Double Superior, meaning that the Double Superior plane would be more capable of employing Angles AND Energy tactics over the poorly performing opponent PLANE since the poorly performing opponent plane is modeled with a poor Sustained Performance and a poor Instantaneous Performance - shown uncontroversially on one chart. Your Specific Excess Power chart and your level flight acceleration chart, one chart for one plane, which may be calculated, or may actually be representative of actual flight test data, performed in a controlled environment, repeated for validity, employing more than one pilot to remove the pilot factor, to make the pilot variable into a pilot constant, is ONE plane on the single chart, it is not a superimposed illustration of which plane is capable of greater acceleration or higher Specific Excess Power compared to the other. So...if less work and more benefit is the goal, then the EM chart, rather than the Specific Excess Power chart, and the Level Flight Acceleration Chart is preferable and an EM chart with superimposed Accelerated Stall lines and Sustained Turn lines are preferable to having two separate charts for each plane, because that is how the professionals did it, when they asked the same questions asked by the new players, or the curious Combat Flight Simulator Enthusiasts, where the idea is to know, precisely, which PLANE, not which pilot, is the better performing plane. As to actually putting up or shutting up, my level of interest is well past the need to use your advice, or anyone else's advice, in how I can best know which plane works best in which situations, since I evaluate each combat situation, finding out what I can do, and what I cannot do, each time. My interest has moved from the classic "Duel" into team tactics and that has continued to be a work in progress for over 25 years. If someone wanted to put up or shut up, concerning the claim made by the person making the claim that the 109 is a "perfect" energy fighter, then that person could put up, and that person could describe, or demonstrate, how the 109 is a "perfect" energy fighter, instead of dodging the question and resorting to the diversion from that "put up or shut up" challenge and diverting the "discussion" onto which pilot is better. Then you step in with the chip on your shoulder, for some reason. I appreciate the .pdf files, and that is why I respond to you. As explained above, there seems to be missing in your work those EM charts that work so well in comparing which planes have which advantages (sustained and/or accelerated turn performance) side by side on the same chart. The professionals, such as John Boyd, Eric Brown, Robert Shaw, and others have asked these questions and have provided much in the way of usable answers. If, on the other hand, there was a need for a pissing match, then why not start a Ladder, and start putting up or shutting up, with the game, and have fun with the game, instead of resorting to insulting me on a forum? Quote:
I have my ways of reaching the goals I set, and attacking someone else's character on a forum is not on the list. If you want to begin, with my help, plotting EM charts on a graph, then that can be arranged, but Track Files may work better, in my opinion. Two people on two computers hooked up through the internet and one is in a Spitfire and one is in a 109 and Sustained Turn Performance is tested. That would show the Sustained Turn Performance LINE on the EM chart, and it would be illustrated on the track file, not on an EM chart, so new players would not have to look at and decipher what the Sustained Turn Performance Line is on an EM chart. New players could load up the track file, and see for themselves which plane has the much better Sustained Turn Performance, and by how much the Spitfire can turn right around from being in front of the 109 to shooting at the 109. No more room for subjective opinions and if someone claims to be a better 109 pilot, then they can join in on the fun and produce the track file that proves their claim. You don't want to do that? You do? Let me know. Then both players begin at altitude one plane right behind the other, and both planes find Corner Speed in a diving spiral turn. Again a track file is recorded. That information from that test will prove, without any lingering doubt, which plane is the better Energy Fighter. It will prove to be true when performing those tests, one plane will be either superior to the other or both planes will be the same. If one plane blacks out in a much larger turn radius, there will no longer be any more room to make false claims about one plane being a "perfect" energy fighter. You don't want to do that? No track files for you? You do want to do that, so you will let me know, and we can begin to arrange for that to be done. Next is unloaded dive performance, side by side, from a specific altitude, and then pulling out on the deck, for one test, both planes side by side, level flight, then pitching over into a dive, or rolling into a dive if the Spitfire carburetor is a problem, both planes rolled upside down, level flight, side by side, then pulled into an unloaded dive straight down, then pulled out of the dive, both planes working to pull out at the deck, not one plane sooner than the other, and then unloaded zoom climb, to see which plane tops out higher than the other. Track files. Which plane is the perfect Energy Fighter? Or, start a duel ladder, you, me, whomever, not me, since I'm such a poor pilot according to my personal character assassin, and if such a thing as a Dueling Ladder does take off, with many new challengers vying to be all that they can be, the evidence mounts, without any further controversy as to which plane keeps on winning against which plane regardless of which pilot is flying it. No, you don't want to start a dueling ladder? You do, and you prefer that over the side by side tests that we will both be doing soon on our calenders? I have not been banned and this thread isn't locked yet, so make my day, whoever you are.
|
|
#4
11-30-2012, 06:48 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
have you got some sort of rights deal, where you make money off every forum you post it in?
|
|
#5
12-01-2012, 12:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#6
12-01-2012, 12:40 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
In that by your own definition above, you were referring to yourself! Only question left is whether you realize it or not.. Based on your reply you don’t seem to realize it, or, your just pretending to not realize it.. But that is neither here nor there and not worth the time to figure it out So back on topic That being can you post the data you collected during the tests you said you performed such that it can be evaluated like you said it should be. Thanks in advance!
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on.
|
|
#8
12-02-2012, 03:21 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on.
|
|
#10
12-02-2012, 04:18 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Bobika.
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
