[DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

[Alpha Star]

@Alpha Star - We're not so much shaking hands and forgetting about it - We're shaking hands, only to turn around and have a gunsmoke-style shootout.

Ahhh. Thats better.

[Flake]

Statistics checked all stock aircraft's thrust to weight ratio.

Code: Select all

ThrustToWeightRatio: 
----MODE: 1.8833333333333333333333333333
----MEAN: 1.3227188188165157222869494325
----STDDEV: 0.63606509729114
----MAX : 3.0289241379383873368778349466
----MIN : 0.5018464680851063829787234043

So 68% of aircraft will have a thrust to weight ratio of 0.6867 to 1.9587.
95% of aircraft will have a thrust to weight ratio of 0.0507 to 2.5947.
98.7% of all aircraft will have a thrust to weight ratio of 0 to 3.2307.

I'll give a score out of 0 to 10 based on the standard deviations away from the mean that the addon is.

This means most aircraft should fit within a score of 2-8. A 747 may be a 3 for thrust to weight ratio but an f22 would be a 7.

I can apply this same testing techinque to the other five variable types, then I'll be able to show each addons specific standardised performance scores in a report on all current combat packs.

[decaff_42]

Is that empty weight of the aircraft? Because T2W of ~2 is really up there!

Just a suggestion, but would 50% fuel or some other fuel percentage be more representative of combat conditions and thus more accurately reflect the true performance of the aircraft? I think weapon weights can be safely ignored for a2a (missiles are only like 200lb each) but for a strike aircraft with some a2g ordinance it may be something to consider. Perhaps the default weapons load from the dat file could be used?

[Flake]

Yes it is empty weight - I'm calculating the maximum potentials.

EDIT:

Perhaps the default weapons load from the dat file could be used?

That's the plan anyway.

Regarding the 50% fuel I might throw that into the calculation. We'll see.

Truth be told this is exactly why I asked for input on the calculations to be made - It's no god just having one guy decide how this stuff if measured and assessed.

[Midnight Rambler]

Once again there seems to be some disgruntled people arguing about combat in YS. As usual, ys-drama is at an all time high and we as admins can only do so much to help the situation resolve itself.

So, what does the community want? Do we need a forum where everyone get vent their frustrations about this Grun v. 49th thing and just get it over with? Get your pent up rage regarding aircaft .dats outwards and just plain lay everything out on the table?

It's obvious that tensions are high and spilling out into topics where it's:

A) Not appropriate.
B) In some cases, not really warranted.
C) Plain derailment.
D) Random.

So rather than have us simply clamp down on it and lock a topic/move the posts, shall we set something up to allow some healthy discussion that doesn't affect the rest of the community?

[Vic Viper]

Have the admins been deleting the offending posts pretty quickly? (Not a criticism, just trying to figure out what's going on) I haven't noticed on HQ besides in this topic. Then again I only check HQ a few times a day

[Midnight Rambler]

Have the admins been deleting the offending posts pretty quickly? (Not a criticism, just trying to figure out what's going on) I haven't noticed on HQ besides in this topic. Then again I only check HQ a few times a day

Yes and no. We've been discussing it a fair bit and come to the conclusion that we're better off staying far away from the discussion from an admin point of view. More or less, we're happy for the discussion to take as many turns as possible and delve deep into the politics or whatever you want to talk about. As long as you don't break the forum rules, we won't step in and close it down any more.

[Vic Viper]

Ah I see. Thank you. Please, everyone, let's keep it civil, myself included.

[Flake]

♫ All the things he said All the things he said ♫

Yes. Yes yes yes. Yes.

Bamp. Some of the results of my latest testing.

Code: Select all

----====Aircraft: [VFA-49]S-38D (user/49th_V/DV1-NightCobras/s38/S38D.dat)
----====----ThrustToWeightRatio: 9.393415
----====----MaxCruiseSpeed: 5.386219
----====----MaxTurnRate: 4.708649
----====----MaxStrength: 5
----====----WeaponScore: 1.4896
----====----Stealth: 0

----====Aircraft: F/A-28P (user/PalmSecurity/FA28P/FA28P.dat)
----====----ThrustToWeightRatio: 10
----====----MaxCruiseSpeed: 7.549382
----====----MaxTurnRate: 10
----====----MaxStrength: 5.82
----====----WeaponScore: 0.3789333
----====----Stealth: 0

----====Aircraft: [VFA-49(GAC)]F-35_[DV2-BLACKFALCONS] (user/49th_V/GAC/blackfalcons/F35B/f35b.dat)
----====----ThrustToWeightRatio: 10
----====----MaxCruiseSpeed: 5.386219
----====----MaxTurnRate: 7.198779
----====----MaxStrength: 5
----====----WeaponScore: 0.846475
----====----Stealth: 0

----====Aircraft: [8TFS-Grun-FGTR]F/A-18F_SUPERHORNET (user/Grun/f18f/f18f.dat)
----====----ThrustToWeightRatio: 7.880801
----====----MaxCruiseSpeed: 5.229176
----====----MaxTurnRate: 4.978293
----====----MaxStrength: 5.82
----====----WeaponScore: 0.3789333
----====----Stealth: 0

----====Aircraft: F-16C_FIGHTINGFALCON (aircraft/f16.dat)
----====----ThrustToWeightRatio: 10
----====----MaxCruiseSpeed: 5.386219
----====----MaxTurnRate: 4.708649
----====----MaxStrength: 5
----====----WeaponScore: 0.3789333
----====----Stealth: 0

----====Aircraft: F-22_RAPTOR (aircraft/f22.dat)
----====----ThrustToWeightRatio: 10
----====----MaxCruiseSpeed: 5.386219
----====----MaxTurnRate: 10
----====----MaxStrength: 5
----====----WeaponScore: 0.3789333
----====----Stealth: 0

[Swift]

o,.,o damn the hornet is better than a flanker

[m88youngling]

Code: Select all

----====Aircraft: F-22_RAPTOR (aircraft/f22.dat)
----====----Stealth: 0

it has all been a lie e__e

[Flake]

Fixed a simple error with the stealth calculation. A ">" need to be a "<".

Now working properly. Also note change in how strength is calculated. (Quadratic corners at points 0,0; 10,5; 100;10.)

Report attached.

EDIT: Weapons loading score is still not loading correctly. Some issue with LINQ. It's really doing my head in. I'll have to re-approach this problem.

201612162228_SpiderTest.zip

(54.66 KiB) Downloaded 159 times

[Alpha Star]

A possible solution to these problems. Anyone can make a DAT OP and break these regulations with a few clicks.
If you have a squadron, make whatever planes you want. Make the DAT OP. All other squadrons, learn and adapt your fighting style to destroy these enemies. 3 F-8s, with pilots in constant communication can destroy an OP aircraft with ease. Teamwork can make the dream work.
As a member of a squad, if it were to come active again, I would hope we would be taught ways to combat these new types of enemies.
So I encourage squads to make what they want. Change it up a bit. I would quite enjoy learning a new fighting style.

[VNAF ONE]

The only problem is, that will quickly lead to UFO's fighting 42South Admin planes. I mean that's not even fun at all. I don't care if one squad has realistic aircraft and DATs and another has 2099 scramjets.

The problem comes when you have a squad of rather inexperienced pilots who use the aircraft DATs to make up for lack of skills in certain areas. It becomes clear that to other squads who are or potentially are adversaries that this is unwise and rather unfair when pitted against squads who may have skill, but are outmatched by OP aircraft.

Rather than attempt to use the DATs to make up for pitfalls in training, start with the basics such as stock or HQP, then make minor changes to fit the style of the squadron, not the imaginary technology. It may even be cool to look up real concepts and determine what the stats are on them and use it to your advantage.

I will use the VFA-49 only as an example. Our style is 5th Generation naval airpower. Most aircraft are based around the 5th generation of aerial warfare, with some in the late 4th and some in the early 6th. Those are the limits we set forth when we rebuilt the squadron and we prefer to remain within those limits rather than creep up past them to accommodate another group who is forever advancing faster than they can train. I am not talking about ANY group in particular, but rather just trying to present an example from my perspective and understanding.

[m88youngling]

Over at SARF I have started an XP based ranking system. Through completing objectives you are rewarded in numerical XP. These objectives also include flying patrols on servers on a self determined basis. You have to use both a SARF nick tag and use aircraft within your XP ranking restriction to get XP. This is where it gets related,

SARF has a variety of aircraft, some perhaps pretty OP. (the X-49 Night Raven for example.) However to help balance this and teach new players to fly, they need to start with aircraft like F-16XFUs and other begginer planes before they can start darting around in Su-43s.

As for the more OP planes in our arsenal, like the Aurora, I dont fully know what to do with these yet. Some have suggested they be used as rulebreaker killers.

Anyway, the XP system can be used as a form of growth for squadrons who might be accused of using these advanced aircraft to make up for lack of skill. They can gradually grow into them.

(Also SARF pilots can lose XP for dying in ops and for teamkilling. Its frustrating but motivating when you get 12 kills, 4 deaths and only gain a little bit of XP total since a2a kills are worth 10 XP and deaths are worth -20 :p)

[Midnight Rambler]

I've always thought that having numerous... classes of squads could be fun. We've always had the 171/49/grun/nun type squads where everyone tries to keep combat similar even though some aircraft are clearly inappropriately matched.

Maybe something like:

Class 1 - WW2 Era squadron
Class 2 - current 171/49/grun/nun
Class 3 - futuristic combat
Class 4 - space/robot combat

People can join a squad in a class, and only squads in a particular class would fight each other (no class 1 vs class 5 for example). This would also open up the opportunity for traditional squad members to mix up rosters; for example I fly with 171 in Class 2, but my main squad mates in class 3 or class 1 may be pilots originally in NUN or 49th.

I'm only on my phone and thinking on the fly but what are peoples thoughts? It could really open up combat and make it more interesting to a greater range of people amd potentially have increased participation.

[Margatroid]

A possible solution could be letting the server owners decide what the performance of military dats would be, since the server side dat always overrides the client dat.

If server owners enforce no-cheatplane rules and squad planes are seen as such, then the server owner can alter the dat to be more appropriate as per their own rules.

[Vic Viper]

You weren't around when I did that Margatroid (But yes, Pat, CP, and I do have the right)

Mid, I'm warming up to your idea, especially the more classic eras, like WWII and early Cold War. Could be fun.

[Alpha Star]

Grun got butthurt when Vic tried to make their planes somewhat competitive. However I think this may be the only choice as server admin is god.
There have been a few squads in the past to purely use cold war and ww2 planes.

[ZaurixAiprax]

Not only do they use "Improved" airplanes but I've found some using SpeedHack that gives them a lot of advantage over a DogFight, it's very stressful that that happens and you have to take action against these members, it's too unfair for others to have Deal with this