Jump to content


Patton's Guide To Air Combat - Part 1


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

GeorgePatton #1 Posted 14 October 2020 - 06:14 PM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 1685 battles
  • 5,521
  • [SCHLD] SCHLD
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

Hello Everyone!

 

I've decided to once again start posting some air combat guides here. Special thanks to Moonrider for pointing out what was going on with the image links which had previously discouraged me from continuing these guide series.

 


 

Horizontal Turn Fighting

 

In this first part, I'm going to talk about horizontal turn fighting with no vertical component. For this part, I'm going to be discussing 'circle fighting' - I'll be talking about the difference between 'one-circle' and 'two-circle' fights as well as defining each of these.

 

Let's start with definitions:

 

  • One Circle: A combat scenario where both aircraft are tracing a single circular shape in the sky.
  • Two Circle: A combat scenario where each aircraft is tracing a separate circular shape in the sky.
  • Rate Fight: A rate fight is a combat scenario where the rate of turn is important.
  • Radius Fight: A radius fight is a combat scenario where the radius of turn is important.

 

 


 

Single Circle Flows

 

In a single circle flow, both aircraft are tracing the same circle in the sky as we've defined above. Single circle flows are considered to be radius fights because the turn radius is the most important piece of the fight's geometry. Being able to get the maximum radius performance out of your aircraft is the most important consideration and this can be achieved by out-of-plane maneuvers. For this particular part, we're only going to look at the geometry to establish a firm foundation to begin building on in later parts.

 

Now let's take a look at some diagrams:

 

One Circle One Direction Case

One Circle, One Direction

 

As we can see here, both aircraft are traveling in the same direction around a singular circle. Given equal performance between aircraft, this turning fight will continue with no aircraft gaining an advantage without utilizing other maneuvers. This circular scenario is most often entered when a pilot has not maintained proper situational awareness and gets 'bounced'.

 

One Circle, Two Directions

 

Here we see a single circle engagement where both aircraft are traveling in opposite directions around the circle. This scenario is most often entered when aircraft engage in a 'merge' or 'head-to-head' pass and then both aircraft turn towards the same heading. In this scenario, given equal performance, there will be a merge at the top and bottom of the circle where each pilot will have an opportunity to shoot at their opponent.

 

 


 

Two Circle Flows

 

In a two circle flow, both aircraft are tracing separate circles in the sky as we've defined above. Two circle flows are considered to be rate fights because the turn rate is the most important piece of the fight's considerations. Being able to maximize your turn rate will make the difference between gaining an angular advantage or losing it.

 

Let's take a look at a diagram:

 

Two Circle Flow

 

As you can see, in the two circle flow each aircraft traces a separate circle. The turn rate determines which aircraft will reach a position where a gun solution is viable first, which determines the fight's advantage. If both aircraft are equal in performance, a 'merge' will occur at the circle meeting point. 

 

A point to note regarding two circle flows - the aircraft involved could also fly 'figure eights' based on the two circles and that would still be considered a two circle flow. The aircraft are not 'locked' into their own circles, it's simply the fact that both circles are being traced that defines a two circle flow.

 


 

This will conclude the first part of this mini-series of guides focusing on the geometry of air combat. In the next part, we'll talk about some energy management techniques and how they relate to gaining and maintaining an advantage in maneuvering.

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn


                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


WhoaBlackBetty #2 Posted 14 October 2020 - 07:24 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 3517 battles
  • 2,722
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    07-27-2014

Reading and digesting every word and concept my little brain can, sir. Thank you.  :honoring:

 

WBB


De-arse your bunks! Man the planes! The Fokkers are in sight! BAM ba LAMMM!

                                                                                                                     

       


losttwo #3 Posted 14 October 2020 - 07:26 PM

    which way do we go?

  • Community Ace
  • 9356 battles
  • 14,916
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    05-15-2012
:great:

GeorgePatton #4 Posted 14 October 2020 - 08:28 PM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 1685 battles
  • 5,521
  • [SCHLD] SCHLD
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

How to Choose a One Circle or Two Circle Flow

 

I touched briefly on the concept of one circle flows being 'radius fights' while two circle flows are 'rate fights'. That is essentially the choice you face going into an engagement - does your aircraft have a better turn rate or a better turn radius than your opponent?

 

Let's take a look at how to engage in each of these flows:

 

One Circle Flow (Deliberate):

 

If you know that your aircraft has a better turn radius, you're going to want to force a one circle flow. Assuming a neutral merge (same altitude, similar airspeeds as you pass each other head-to-head) you know that your aircraft will turn tighter than your opponent's aircraft. You're going to want to watch which direction your opponent turns as they maneuver through the merge. If they roll left, you're going to want to roll right at the merge and immediately set up for your aircraft's best turn radius. This will get you an inside angular advantage giving you control of the fight.

 

Two Circle Flow (Deliberate):

 

If you know that your aircraft has a turn rate advantage - that is your time to turn 360 degrees is lower than your opponent's - you're going to want to force a two circle flow. Again, assuming a neutral merge, you're going to watch your opponent's maneuvers as you fly through the merge. If your opponent turns right (going to your left side as they get behind you) you're going to turn right. This will essentially force a 'merge' where the two circles meet and if you have the rate advantage, you will gain an angular advantage coming into the merge which allows you to shoot your opponent before they can bring their guns to a viable firing solution.

 

So you're in a one circle flow with a radius disadvantage:

 

If you get caught in a one circle flow and you don't hold the turn radius advantage, don't panic! You can still turn the tables! The fastest way to switch from one circle to two circle flow is to reverse. Maintaining a visual on your opponent is a must going through the merge and as soon as you realize you messed up and went into a one circle flow, you reverse your turn as quickly as possible to go into a two circle flow. The earlier you catch your mistake, the higher your chance of success, so pay attention as you engage! 

 

You got caught in a two circle flow with a rate disadvantage:

 

Again, don't panic! If you have a radius advantage, you're just going to change circles at the merge to join the same circle your opponent is flying! Of course, if your opponent is sharp, they're going to reverse and try to force another two circle fight, so pay attention! 

 


 

Important notice: the maneuvers described here are purely horizontal and do not take into consideration vertical components which will be discussed later on. These are the very basic building blocks of ACM (Air Combat Maneuvering) and these maneuvers have been described in order to begin establishing thought processes of rate versus radius which will become important as we begin looking at the vertical components of ACM in addition to the purely horizontal.

 

Experiment with rate versus radius and have fun seeing how they play out in different scenarios! The great thing about virtual air combat is that you don't die when you fail, so go out and learn from your mistakes!

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn

 


                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


Ju4mpi #5 Posted 15 October 2020 - 11:49 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 4158 battles
  • 15
  • Member since:
    07-19-2013
Great info. Thanks for taking the time to share.

Edited by Ju4mpi, 15 October 2020 - 11:50 PM.


mnbv_fockewulfe #6 Posted 16 October 2020 - 04:00 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 661 battles
  • 3,565
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

Sorry to say, this doesn't really apply a whole lot to wowp.

Two circle rate fights are extremely rare, and considering most planes can pull in excess of 12gs to complete a full circle in under 10sec a rate fight won't last for more than 1 turn.

Most fights come down to who can abuse the funky physics of the game.

A standard circle fight with no vertical component is determined by who's planes has the faster turn time.

Believe it or not, aircraft have the same turn time for their whole optimum airspeed range. This means the tightest turn you can perform is at the minimum opt speed before stall.

If the pilot employs rudder in a horizontal turn fight to introduce a vertical component, they will be able to achieve a faster turnrate than an opposing pilot in a purely horizontal turn. I don't know exactly why this is the case, I believe it to be the way climbrate and altitude compression affects the game.

Climbrate rate is essentially a magic number given to the plane, it's not based on any conventional physics as I understand it's implementation ingame.

This also means that on occasion a completely vertical loop will be able to get shots/out turn a purely horizontal one. This is in general more risky since yuo put yourself in a low energy position at the top of the loop.

 

 


Edited by mnbv_fockewulfe, 16 October 2020 - 04:04 PM.

Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.

 


 


GeorgePatton #7 Posted 16 October 2020 - 05:03 PM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 1685 battles
  • 5,521
  • [SCHLD] SCHLD
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View Postmnbv_fockewulfe, on 16 October 2020 - 11:00 AM, said:

Sorry to say, this doesn't really apply a whole lot to wowp.

Two circle rate fights are extremely rare, and considering most planes can pull in excess of 12gs to complete a full circle in under 10sec a rate fight won't last for more than 1 turn.

Most fights come down to who can abuse the funky physics of the game.

A standard circle fight with no vertical component is determined by who's planes has the faster turn time.

Believe it or not, aircraft have the same turn time for their whole optimum airspeed range. This means the tightest turn you can perform is at the minimum opt speed before stall.

If the pilot employs rudder in a horizontal turn fight to introduce a vertical component, they will be able to achieve a faster turnrate than an opposing pilot in a purely horizontal turn. I don't know exactly why this is the case, I believe it to be the way climbrate and altitude compression affects the game.

Climbrate rate is essentially a magic number given to the plane, it's not based on any conventional physics as I understand it's implementation ingame.

This also means that on occasion a completely vertical loop will be able to get shots/out turn a purely horizontal one. This is in general more risky since yuo put yourself in a low energy position at the top of the loop.

 

 


I agree - rate fights are pretty rare in WoWP. I think that's more to do with people being unaware of when to use rate over radius than an issue with the game.

 

You mention a 'standard circle fight with no vertical component' - I assume you're referring to a one circle flow when you say this as you said that two circle flows are extremely rare. A one circle flow will always be about turn radius, not turn rate. The reason for this is that it doesn't matter if you can turn 720 degrees in one second if your turn radius is outside of your opponent's. You're always going to be outside his or her turn radius which means you will never get a weapon solution. Sure, you may be able to go around the circle faster because of your turn rate, but if you've got a larger turn radius that's just going to put you out in front of your opponent at some point. Radius wins a one circle flow. Every time.

 

You comment "Believe it or not, aircraft have the same turn time for their whole optimum airspeed range. This means the tightest turn you can perform is at the minimum opt speed before stall." which is extraneous to the discussion. I never brought up SEP curves or anything like that as I realize they have no bearing on the game.

 

Let's go back to your opening statements where you said that a two circle flow will not last beyond one turn. It would appear from your statement and subsequent arguments that you don't really understand the concepts of one versus two circle flows, or even really how an engagement develops. I get it, though - you don't really need to know about air combat to manage a decent victory rate in this game. Most people try to kill from range and avoid actually tangling with an opponent. It's not very exciting and doesn't really require much brain power, but it's mostly effective. Back to the two circle flow - you're partially correct - due to the high G loadings and fast turn rates, it generally only requires one turn in a two circle flow for either pilot to achieve an angular advantage. That doesn't mean they've won the fight, it just means they've achieved an advantage. Most aircraft in this game have the HP to survive multiple snapshots in a two circle flow and if you got the short end of the stick on the two circle flow, you have plenty of opportunities to try to force a one circle flow.

 

The one big exception to what I just said above is, of course, A2A rockets. Specifically I can speak to my personal experience with the BV P.210 and the R4M weapon system. I have earned the 'Rocketeer' achievement 434 times, mostly on the BV P.210. I've earned the 'Golubev' medal 105 times, again mostly on the BV P.210. I've achieved 20 kills in a single sortie on the BV P.210. Most of my kills with this aircraft are rocket kills. The way I have my plane configured it has 280 HP and an extremely high chance of catching fire. Of course, it also has one of the highest roll rates in the game, and will win a rate fight against any tier 8 or 9 except the Yak-15. I generally approach any engagement when I'm flying my P.210 with the game plan of forcing a two circle flow. I know I can rate almost any opponent and the snapshot just before the merge as I gain that angular advantage is a guaranteed kill with the R4M rockets. I don't care if someone can 'out turn' me because I know I can 'out rate' them as well as out roll them. 

 

So why am I so focused on this roll statistic? Roll is your ability to 'reverse'. When you're engaged with an opponent and you're in a one circle flow and losing the radius fight, having the ability to reverse almost instantly allows you to force a two circle flow where you have the rate advantage. When engaging an aircraft like my BV P.210, the smartest thing someone can do is avoid engaging unless they're flying a Yak-15. Even a Yak-15 has to be careful of attack vectors as the tiniest miscalculation can result in an R4M solution which will instantly end the engagement. Specifically, because the Yak-15 has a very strong advantage in the rate fight, the Yak-15 can get about 1 second of 'gun time' before the merge in a two circle flow. If the Yak pilot uses more than about 1/2 a second of gun time, he's getting a face full of R4Ms because the BV P.210 will pull the nose around right at the merge. The Yak literally has to continue his circle beyond the merge and then quickly reverse to continue the two circle flow and avoid that last second salvo of R4Ms. The place where I usually win engagements with 'smarter' Yak pilots is in the second turn - because the Yak had to take the time to pull through the merge and then reverse, I am able to use my roll rate advantage to reverse sooner which allows me to bring my rockets to bear earlier in the next merge which means the Yak can't get out of the way. Of course, with less experienced Yak pilots, they don't usually know that they need to break their attack early to avoid the R4Ms in the first merge and so it generally won't continue past that point.

 

In summation, don't knock my tutorials just because you don't use the information provided. It all can be useful and you may just pick up a new trick or two reading what I have to say.

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn

 

 


Edited by GeorgePatton, 16 October 2020 - 05:13 PM.

                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


mnbv_fockewulfe #8 Posted 16 October 2020 - 08:13 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 661 battles
  • 3,565
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

View PostGeorgePatton, on 16 October 2020 - 05:03 PM, said:


I agree - rate fights are pretty rare in WoWP. I think that's more to do with people being unaware of when to use rate over radius than an issue with the game.

I said two circle fights are rare in the game, not rate fights. By the definition that ingame, faster turnrate = tighter turn radius, also all 1one circle fights are rate fights in wowp. The only possible way for a plane with a slower turn rate to have a smaller turn radius than a plane with a higher turnrate is if you have a lower optimum speed. The only plane I can think of that fits this criteria is the pancake.

You mention a 'standard circle fight with no vertical component' - I assume you're referring to a one circle flow when you say this as you said that two circle flows are extremely rare. A one circle flow will always be about turn radius, not turn rate.

See above.

The reason for this is that it doesn't matter if you can turn 720 degrees in one second if your turn radius is outside of your opponent's. You're always going to be outside his or her turn radius which means you will never get a weapon solution. Sure, you may be able to go around the circle faster because of your turn rate, but if you've got a larger turn radius that's just going to put you out in front of your opponent at some point. Radius wins a one circle flow. Every time.

Again, the physics of wowp means this doesn't apply.

You comment "Believe it or not, aircraft have the same turn time for their whole optimum airspeed range. This means the tightest turn you can perform is at the minimum opt speed before stall." which is extraneous to the discussion. I never brought up SEP curves or anything like that as I realize they have no bearing on the game.

Maybe we are talking past each other a little bit. You seemed to be talking about the general concept of turn fighting in real aviation. I commented on the relevance to the game (which as far as I can tell, there is precious little that applies).

To be doubly clear, that quote about optimum speed is only relevant to how it works in the game. Real life does not work this way.

Let's go back to your opening statements where you said that a two circle flow will not last beyond one turn. It would appear from your statement and subsequent arguments that you don't really understand the concepts of one versus two circle flows, or even really how an engagement develops. I get it, though - you don't really need to know about air combat to manage a decent victory rate in this game. Most people try to kill from range and avoid actually tangling with an opponent. It's not very exciting and doesn't really require much brain power, but it's mostly effective. Back to the two circle flow - you're partially correct - due to the high G loadings and fast turn rates, it generally only requires one turn in a two circle flow for either pilot to achieve an angular advantage. That doesn't mean they've won the fight, it just means they've achieved an advantage. Most aircraft in this game have the HP to survive multiple snapshots in a two circle flow and if you got the short end of the stick on the two circle flow, you have plenty of opportunities to try to force a one circle flow.

In order for a two circle fight to develop need the two aircraft to be turning around two separate points.  To sustain a two circle fight both planes must be starved enough for energy so they can't make up the distance to merge the centerpoint to a one circle fight. This is easily accomplished in wowp with powerful and quick supply of boost.

The one big exception to what I just said above is, of course, A2A rockets. Specifically I can speak to my personal experience with the BV P.210 and the R4M weapon system. I have earned the 'Rocketeer' achievement 434 times, mostly on the BV P.210. I've earned the 'Golubev' medal 105 times, again mostly on the BV P.210. I've achieved 20 kills in a single sortie on the BV P.210. Most of my kills with this aircraft are rocket kills. The way I have my plane configured it has 280 HP and an extremely high chance of catching fire. Of course, it also has one of the highest roll rates in the game, and will win a rate fight against any tier 8 or 9 except the Yak-15. I generally approach any engagement when I'm flying my P.210 with the game plan of forcing a two circle flow. I know I can rate almost any opponent and the snapshot just before the merge as I gain that angular advantage is a guaranteed kill with the R4M rockets. I don't care if someone can 'out turn' me because I know I can 'out rate' them as well as out roll them. 

That's nice. Again, the two circle fight doesn't last long. Proving my point that it's rare.

So why am I so focused on this roll statistic? Roll is your ability to 'reverse'. When you're engaged with an opponent and you're in a one circle flow and losing the radius fight, having the ability to reverse almost instantly allows you to force a two circle flow where you have the rate advantage. When engaging an aircraft like my BV P.210, the smartest thing someone can do is avoid engaging unless they're flying a Yak-15. Even a Yak-15 has to be careful of attack vectors as the tiniest miscalculation can result in an R4M solution which will instantly end the engagement. Specifically, because the Yak-15 has a very strong advantage in the rate fight, the Yak-15 can get about 1 second of 'gun time' before the merge in a two circle flow. If the Yak pilot uses more than about 1/2 a second of gun time, he's getting a face full of R4Ms because the BV P.210 will pull the nose around right at the merge. The Yak literally has to continue his circle beyond the merge and then quickly reverse to continue the two circle flow and avoid that last second salvo of R4Ms. The place where I usually win engagements with 'smarter' Yak pilots is in the second turn - because the Yak had to take the time to pull through the merge and then reverse, I am able to use my roll rate advantage to reverse sooner which allows me to bring my rockets to bear earlier in the next merge which means the Yak can't get out of the way. Of course, with less experienced Yak pilots, they don't usually know that they need to break their attack early to avoid the R4Ms in the first merge and so it generally won't continue past that point.

Two circle fights usually devolve in rolling scissors. That's fairly common knowledge. Rolling scissors don't really happen properly in the game because of the "impreciseness" involved with the mouse controls. You could have a rollings/flat scissors but since it's so easy to aim and it's not really important to have the same orientation in order to follow your target (thanks mostly to third person view) scissors are not generally a viable defensive maneuver given the better options of just having more energy. 

In summation, don't knock my tutorials just because you don't use the information provided. It all can be useful and you may just pick up a new trick or two reading what I have to say.

Growapair :P I hope I depended your understanding of the game's mechanics.

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn

 

 

 


Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.

 


 


GeorgePatton #9 Posted 16 October 2020 - 09:05 PM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 1685 battles
  • 5,521
  • [SCHLD] SCHLD
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

Block Quote

I said two circle fights are rare in the game, not rate fights. By the definition that ingame, faster turnrate = tighter turn radius, also all 1one circle fights are rate fights in wowp. The only possible way for a plane with a slower turn rate to have a smaller turn radius than a plane with a higher turnrate is if you have a lower optimum speed. The only plane I can think of that fits this criteria is the pancake. 

 

 

I think you're assuming a lot about the game mechanics. To an extent, faster turn rate = tighter turn radius, but that's only at a surface level. The issue with this argument, IMO, is that Wargaming doesn't give us good numbers to base aircraft performance on. For the most part, a faster turn rate = a smaller turn radius as we've agreed, but that's not always the case. My F-86A has the same turn rate as the I-15 but a much larger turn radius. (I may have the wrong early tier Russian plane, ask Reito - he was flying the low tier for comparison) He could have destroyed my F-86 in a pure horizontal turn fight as long as I remained in a one circle flow with him. Going to two circle, with the same turn rate and different turn radii we still would have merged and we both would get shots on target. 

 

Saying that all one circle flows in WoWP are rate fights is a massive oversimplification. Rate is obviously important, but it is not what determines a winner in a one circle flow. Radius is the determining factor - again as I stated - because you can't shoot what you can't aim at but you can run circles around it all day.

 

Block Quote

Again, the physics of wowp means this doesn't apply. 

 

Disagree. Radius > Rate in a one circle flow. See the example of F-86A vs I-15.

 

Block Quote

Maybe we are talking past each other a little bit. You seemed to be talking about the general concept of turn fighting in real aviation. I commented on the relevance to the game (which as far as I can tell, there is precious little that applies). 

To be doubly clear, that quote about optimum speed is only relevant to how it works in the game. Real life does not work this way. 

 

Agreed on most of this. I do believe (and my experience supports my assertion) that radius vs rate applies as it does in the real world. I can agree that the differences are much less obvious in the game than in the real world, however if you know what to look for and how to exploit it you will see success switching between the two. I gave a really good example of this with the Yak-15 vs BV P.210 illustration.

 

Block Quote

In order for a two circle fight to develop need the two aircraft to be turning around two separate points.  To sustain a two circle fight both planes must be starved enough for energy so they can't make up the distance to merge the centerpoint to a one circle fight. This is easily accomplished in wowp with powerful and quick supply of boost. 

 

But you're missing the point here - a two circle fight is a choice made by at least one pilot who believes his or her rate is better than their opponent's. As such, they are going to reverse at the merge and run a figure eight to maintain a two circle flow. A pilot who knows they have the rate advantage but not the radius advantage will not engage in a one circle flow, period.

 

Block Quote

That's nice. Again, the two circle fight doesn't last long. Proving my point that it's rare.

 

With the specific case of the R4Ms, a two circle fight generally doesn't last long with a competent rocketeer. That doesn't mean that it wasn't a two circle flow, or that two circle flows are rare. It just means that with a skilled player, they tend to be ended before more than one trip around the circles.

 

Block Quote

Two circle fights usually devolve in rolling scissors. That's fairly common knowledge. Rolling scissors don't really happen properly in the game because of the "impreciseness" involved with the mouse controls. You could have a rollings/flat scissors but since it's so easy to aim and it's not really important to have the same orientation in order to follow your target (thanks mostly to third person view) scissors are not generally a viable defensive maneuver given the better options of just having more energy.  

 

Rolling scissors are two circle fights - there's just a vertical component to them as well as horizontal. The altitude compression and other changes to physics really did make the rolling scissors pretty impractical, so I agree we don't usually see that in the game. It's a shame that the developers decided that this was an unimportant maneuver for players to execute as it is one of the most important maneuvers for forcing overshoots, etc. Toss a little lag roll in there while you pop the boards and watch your opponent ride out in front.

 

Block Quote

Growapair :P I hope I depended your understanding of the game's mechanics.

 

Everything I said in my initial response is valid. You're welcome to do your thing like you do, I'll keep doing mine. IIRC we have had one of these paper fights before about the BV P.210 vs XP-72 and I did come out on top in that exchange.

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn

 


                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


mnbv_fockewulfe #10 Posted 16 October 2020 - 10:02 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 661 battles
  • 3,565
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

Block Quote

 I think you're assuming a lot about the game mechanics. To an extent, faster turn rate = tighter turn radius, but that's only at a surface level. The issue with this argument, IMO, is that Wargaming doesn't give us good numbers to base aircraft performance on. For the most part, a faster turn rate = a smaller turn radius as we've agreed, but that's not always the case.

I verified this empirically, you're welcome to test this yourself and do the math.

You're slightly overestimating the realism of the flight model.

Block Quote

 Saying that all one circle flows in WoWP are rate fights is a massive oversimplification. Rate is obviously important, but it is not what determines a winner in a one circle flow. Radius is the determining factor - again as I stated - because you can't shoot what you can't aim at but you can run circles around it all day.

 https://i.imgur.com/TKhUiZg.png

https://i.imgur.com/K0puXqS.png

Images are left as links because they're kind of large pictures.

Block Quote

 Disagree. Radius > Rate in a one circle flow. See the example of F-86A vs I-15.

 As proof from the graphs, in the game, radius is proportional to rate.
https://i.imgur.com/Qn2r8QB.png

(Notice that the plane with the fastest turnrate has the lowest radius, and that planes with the same turnrate have virtually the same radius)
It isn't until you get to high speeds that the difference in radius becomes enough to matter (therefore making rate the determining factor). At low tiers these aren't reasonable speeds to dogfight at. The story is different at high tier but you can't "turn fight" at max speed without losing energy so...yeah, if you are zooming around at 800kph it's not because of your turn radius that you're out flying a yak15 at 500kmh.

Block Quote

 Agreed on most of this. I do believe (and my experience supports my assertion) that radius vs rate applies as it does in the real world. I can agree that the differences are much less obvious in the game than in the real world, however if you know what to look for and how to exploit it you will see success switching between the two. I gave a really good example of this with the Yak-15 vs BV P.210 illustration.

I would disagree based off the graphs that you can apply 1:1 the real world tactics/principles to the game.

Block Quote

 

But you're missing the point here - a two circle fight is a choice made by at least one pilot who believes his or her rate is better than their opponent's. As such, they are going to reverse at the merge and run a figure eight to maintain a two circle flow. A pilot who knows they have the rate advantage but not the radius advantage will not engage in a one circle flow, period.

 Two circles hardly ever happen. And the reason is the game doesn't support it mechanically. Sure it's possible it could happen but even when I talked to players much better than I about two circle fights they confirmed this to be the case.

Block Quote

 Rolling scissors are two circle fights - there's just a vertical component to them as well as horizontal. The altitude compression and other changes to physics really did make the rolling scissors pretty impractical, so I agree we don't usually see that in the game. It's a shame that the developers decided that this was an unimportant maneuver for players to execute as it is one of the most important maneuvers for forcing overshoots, etc. Toss a little lag roll in there while you pop the boards and watch your opponent ride out in front.

 A rolling scissors is a one circle fight. Both aircraft are turning about a single axis, same with a flat scissors.

This is easily confirmed by the observation that the winner of a scissors is the one that can pull more alpha/lead and get guns on target, or as you would say as matters in a one circle fight, whoever can pull the smaller turn radius.

Block Quote

 

Everything I said in my initial response is valid. You're welcome to do your thing like you do, I'll keep doing mine. IIRC we have had one of these paper fights before about the BV P.210 vs XP-72 and I did come out on top in that exchange.

 Good times. :(

Too bad wowp's ded gaem.


Edited by mnbv_fockewulfe, 16 October 2020 - 10:02 PM.

Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.

 


 


GeorgePatton #11 Posted 16 October 2020 - 10:32 PM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 1685 battles
  • 5,521
  • [SCHLD] SCHLD
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

Block Quote

I verified this empirically, you're welcome to test this yourself and do the math.

You're slightly overestimating the realism of the flight model.

 

I looked at your graphs - given that Wargaming has not supplied the data and there is no real measuring system in the game I would not call the data you've compiled 'empirically verified'. It can be a close approximation, sure. At the end of the day, in a radius fight the plane with an inch better radius will eventually win. Accurate measurements are important to calling anything empirical. I have a lot of respect for the time you put into researching all of this, but at the end of the day I don't think it's accurate enough to make statements about the viability of radius vs rate decisions.

 

Block Quote

 As proof from the graphs, in the game, radius is proportional to rate.
https://i.imgur.com/Qn2r8QB.png

(Notice that the plane with the fastest turnrate has the lowest radius, and that planes with the same turnrate have virtually the same radius)
It isn't until you get to high speeds that the difference in radius becomes enough to matter (therefore making rate the determining factor). At low tiers these aren't reasonable speeds to dogfight at. The story is different at high tier but you can't "turn fight" at max speed without losing energy so...yeah, if you are zooming around at 800kph it's not because of your turn radius that you're out flying a yak15 at 500kmh.

 

Again, aircraft can have the same rate and still have different radii. This is most often seen when you have aircraft of different periods in the same battle. 

 

The concept I'm seeing you avoid in my argument is the decision making process - are you going to force a radius fight or a rate fight. You say 'making rate the determining factor' which completely ignores that rate can be combatted by forcing a radius fight. If somebody tries to rate you, reverse and force a radius fight. Rate or radius is not the 'determining factor' unless a pilot doesn't play his or her aircraft to its strengths or the opposing aircraft is superior in both areas.

 

As far as the Yak vs BV example - I don't know much about how most people set up the BV, but the Yak is considerably faster than my BV setup. The Yak has the radius advantage and a very slight rate advantage that as I said in my initial example can get him into trouble. The BV does have the roll advantage which means that it can pull off an angular advantage going into the second merge of a two circle flow.

 

Block Quote

I would disagree based off the graphs that you can apply 1:1 the real world tactics/principles to the game.

 

Even without the graphs, I would never say you can apply real world tactics/principles 1:1 to the game. You can't - but that doesn't mean that they don't apply at all. It's just less obvious how they apply.

 

Block Quote

 Two circles hardly ever happen. And the reason is the game doesn't support it mechanically. Sure it's possible it could happen but even when I talked to players much better than I about two circle fights they confirmed this to be the case.

 

I don't know who you've talked to that confirmed your theory. Also, just because people you talk to don't see it often doesn't mean that it doesn't happen often - the definition of 'often' is actually probably rather important here. One thing I will give you - most fights never develop into either a one or two circle flow. Most kills happen from a ridiculous range where maneuvering is less important than positioning and timing on the map. When people do get into a BFM engagement most people aren't smart enough to think of going the other way. Everybody's stuck in that NASCAR mindset of turning one way and seeing who can get the inside track. You will often see a two circle flow develop at the merge near the start of a battle - due to people's 'NASCAR mindset' they often think they messed up and will quickly engage in a one circle flow to 'fix' what they perceive to be wrong. It still started as a two circle flow.

 

Block Quote

 A rolling scissors is a one circle fight. Both aircraft are turning about a single axis, same with a flat scissors.

This is easily confirmed by the observation that the winner of a scissors is the one that can pull more alpha/lead and get guns on target, or as you would say as matters in a one circle fight, whoever can pull the smaller turn radius.

 

A quick google search with the query "Is a rolling scissors a one or two circle flow" yielded the following result:

 

"Although circle flow is often described using neutral merges, the concept applies anytime two aircraft maneuver in relation to each other and the horizon. For instance, the "flat scissors" is an example of one-circle flow, while the "rolling scissors" is an example of two-circle flow."

 

This is consistent with my conversations with several real-world pilots and readings from training manuals. 

 

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn

 

 


                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


GeorgePatton #12 Posted 16 October 2020 - 10:39 PM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 1685 battles
  • 5,521
  • [SCHLD] SCHLD
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

I think something we can probably all agree on is that, as it stands now, World of Warplanes severely limits the tactical viability of many common real-world maneuvers. Limiting tactical options for players is never a good thing and leads to stale, position-based gameplay like we see now. 

 

There are some people that enjoy that (they mostly drive buses at 5k meters) but if Wargaming wants to increase player engagement and retention, they need to work on making the game more exciting which means making engaging in ACM a strategically important aspect of the game, fun to do, challenging but not impossible, and rewarding. For my thoughts on that, I have a thread where I talk about how to fix the game.

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn


                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


mnbv_fockewulfe #13 Posted 16 October 2020 - 11:47 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 661 battles
  • 3,565
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

"flow" has a different definition than "axis".

A one flow flight means the aircraft are always turning towards each other.

A two flow means they turn towards and away from each other.

My point still stands. Scissors are a one axis turnfight.

Nice strawman.


Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.

 


 


GeorgePatton #14 Posted 17 October 2020 - 12:24 AM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 1685 battles
  • 5,521
  • [SCHLD] SCHLD
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View Postmnbv_fockewulfe, on 16 October 2020 - 06:47 PM, said:

"flow" has a different definition than "axis".

A one flow flight means the aircraft are always turning towards each other.

A two flow means they turn towards and away from each other.

My point still stands. Scissors are a one axis turnfight.

Nice strawman.


You can have a one circle flow where both aircraft are traveling the same direction around a circle as well. My understanding of the difference between the flat scissors and the rolling scissors is that the flat scissors is a series of single circles that are being flown by both aircraft with a reversal at each 'crossing' while the rolling scissors is a set of circles overlaid on each other. This explanation is primarily due to the difference between goals in the two maneuvers. The flat scissors has a goal of shortening your turn radius to get 'inside' your opponent while the goal of the rolling scissors is to utilize your turn rate to move into the control zone. It's a two circle flow because you're constantly keeping your lift vector aft of your opponent in order to avoid an overshoot while using your turn rate to shift positions into a pursuit before reaching the hard deck. From there, you go into a horizontal two circle flow if you've got the rate, or you go into a one circle if you've got the radius.

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn


                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


_Panzerkunst_ #15 Posted 17 October 2020 - 05:48 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 7706 battles
  • 220
  • Member since:
    01-11-2014

GeorgePatton, Glenn, "Cheers man", 

 

I appreciate you sharing some ACMs to the WOWP forum. Even though this game isn't a sim like WT or DCS, it certainly helps to know the basic real life ACMs. If someone doesn't agree with your posts that's solely their opinion, you don't need to start a forum war to prove how "right" your tutorials are. You could have said something like, "I know ACMs don't really apply in WOWP but just throwing it out there, <o". Instead you choose to debate overly technical circle fight mechanics which completely toss the original reason of your post out the window. Just let it go man, who cares. Keep posting your ACMs and if someone doesn't like or agree with it that's on them. 

 

You have a questionable forum history here at best, a lot of your posts have gotten out of hand and were borderline ridiculous. Multiple posts of yours have been blocked, YOU are the reason for that. You started a useless debate over clouds that got blocked, you posted a sad novel about being in OWSS's discord that got blocked, you were spamming the I-21...the list goes on...There are plenty of people that are happy to see your content on the forum, but please, don't make this forum into a circus again, it has been nice since you were gone but now you're back in full swing.  Seeing this banter is not fun and doesn't make anyone feel good about this game, in fact it's kind of a downer. Just do your thing and move on to the next Tutorial. <o

 

 


"If You Want Peace, Prepare For War."

SkyWolf__WM #16 Posted 17 October 2020 - 06:53 PM

    Major

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 13763 battles
  • 5,270
  • [GW__S] GW__S
  • Member since:
    07-13-2012

 

Robert Shaw's "Fighter Combat: Tactics and Maneuvering". Although a bit of overkill for this game.   :hiding:


***************Fail to Suck****************

I shall use my aircraft and my skill to slightly inconvenience mine enemies.


GeorgePatton #17 Posted 17 October 2020 - 07:57 PM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 1685 battles
  • 5,521
  • [SCHLD] SCHLD
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View Post_Panzerkunst_, on 17 October 2020 - 12:48 PM, said:

GeorgePatton, Glenn, "Cheers man", 

 

I appreciate you sharing some ACMs to the WOWP forum. Even though this game isn't a sim like WT or DCS, it certainly helps to know the basic real life ACMs. If someone doesn't agree with your posts that's solely their opinion, you don't need to start a forum war to prove how "right" your tutorials are. You could have said something like, "I know ACMs don't really apply in WOWP but just throwing it out there, <o". Instead you choose to debate overly technical circle fight mechanics which completely toss the original reason of your post out the window. Just let it go man, who cares. Keep posting your ACMs and if someone doesn't like or agree with it that's on them. 

 

You have a questionable forum history here at best, a lot of your posts have gotten out of hand and were borderline ridiculous. Multiple posts of yours have been blocked, YOU are the reason for that. You started a useless debate over clouds that got blocked, you posted a sad novel about being in OWSS's discord that got blocked, you were spamming the I-21...the list goes on...There are plenty of people that are happy to see your content on the forum, but please, don't make this forum into a circus again, it has been nice since you were gone but now you're back in full swing.  Seeing this banter is not fun and doesn't make anyone feel good about this game, in fact it's kind of a downer. Just do your thing and move on to the next Tutorial. <o

 

 


Thank you for your input. You're wrong about ACM not applying to World of Warplanes, but you're entitled to your opinion. As far as 'starting a forum war to prove how "right" your tutorials are.' goes, when someone comes into a thread that was intended to get new players started and help them understand the three-dimensional air combat environment and starts saying that it doesn't apply - I'm going to tell them they're wrong. They're not going to come in here to my thread and start telling people that things don't apply just because they don't personally think those things are important. I believe I said multiple times that FW is entitled to his own opinion.

 

My forum history - let's talk about it. Over 2,000 in-depth feedback items, hundreds of guide posts, community newsletters, free user signatures, 'State of the Game', etc. No forum strikes, no rule violations, none of my posts removed unless they wouldn't make sense in the context of a thread that was heavily moderated. The one time I received a forum strike it was reversed - and that was back in closed alpha when I made a post about why a certain English leader made some tactical choices during WWII and it was struck for being 'political'. The decision was quickly reversed.

 

The OWSS saga - that's a good one. There was a lot of drama surrounding a silly situation and some members of OWSS decided to spread false information about me and I defended myself. I initially attempted to keep the identity of both the clan and members who came at me anonymous, but they outed themselves.

 

Spamming the I-21 - I was told by WG to enjoy flying it and there was nothing wrong with the aircraft. I compiled a lot of evidence to the contrary and got them to change the stats. It certainly was fun to beat up tier 10s with a tier 5, though!

 

For whatever reason, some people decide that they'd rather try to fight me on everything rather than get along. I don't go starting fights, but if somebody wants to fight, I'm not going to back down. I'll always stay within the rules, but I will fight.

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn


Edited by GeorgePatton, 17 October 2020 - 09:06 PM.

                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


_Panzerkunst_ #18 Posted 17 October 2020 - 09:06 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 7706 battles
  • 220
  • Member since:
    01-11-2014

Now you're doing it to me :facepalm:. As a highly esteemed Community Ace with 1000's of posts & accolades shouldn't you be above it? You said this post was created to help new players, so how is debating a fickle point with FW helping new players? It's not, it's only helping your need to "fight" people over trivial things. If you want to discuss details with FW why not DM him as to not clutter your thread meant for learning? I'm only saying this because I've seen you do this many times in the forums, you seem to have a "Me vs.The World" attitude. It doesn't have to be that way. I create content on YT and I'm sure there are players who don't like or agree with my opinions and that's fine. If I were to "fight" every comment, my channel would be filled with debates & negativity that would completely undermine the reason I started it. 

 

I admit that I've made some mistakes in creating content and learned from them. You on the other hand, cannot admit to mistakes and are quick to fire back saying how someone else is to blame. What you practice is different from what you preach. If you really are a beacon of hope and leader in this game, why expound such trivial points? You cannot shy away from the fact that multiple posts of yours have been removed and have been the seed of controversy. But, as you have done time and time again, you will fail to see this and continue "fighting" me to prove how just your actions are and how wrong I am. I hope you continue posting Tutorials to help new players and not sweat the small stuff. 

 

Cheers!, _PK_

P.S. After your rebuttal (which I know you cannot resist, but if you did would be the first step in becoming a true forum leader), I will retire from this thread as I do not wish to add to what has become a debate thread. <o


"If You Want Peace, Prepare For War."

GeorgePatton #19 Posted 17 October 2020 - 09:13 PM

    газета

  • -Community Ace-
  • 1685 battles
  • 5,521
  • [SCHLD] SCHLD
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

_PK_,

 

This is the way I see the argument, and why I believe it is important for me to push the point:

 

  1. FW came into a thread which was intended for new players and said that the information I had provided was wrong and/or irrelevant to the game,
  2. He made some statements that are simply not true regarding aircraft performance in the game,
  3. By engaging in this behavior, he called into question my knowledge of air combat and also of World of Warplanes which could potentially damage my ability to assist new players.

 

In light of those points, I felt that it was important for me to demonstrate that FW's arguments were inaccurate. He brought up some counter points, I countered those, and eventually it died down. 

 

Enter yourself - bandying false narratives and further attempting to damage my reputation. I defended myself and then decided to write this reply to show you a little insight into why I decided to engage with FW in the first place. 

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn


                                                                                                                                 Click the Pictures to Visit My YouTube Channel.


CorvusCorvax #20 Posted 17 October 2020 - 09:40 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 4930 battles
  • 5,545
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostGeorgePatton, on 17 October 2020 - 09:13 PM, said:

_PK_,

 

This is the way I see the argument, and why I believe it is important for me to push the point:

 

  1. FW came into a thread which was intended for new players and said that the information I had provided was wrong and/or irrelevant to the game,
  2. He made some statements that are simply not true regarding aircraft performance in the game,
  3. By engaging in this behavior, he called into question my knowledge of air combat and also of World of Warplanes which could potentially damage my ability to assist new players.

 

In light of those points, I felt that it was important for me to demonstrate that FW's arguments were inaccurate. He brought up some counter points, I countered those, and eventually it died down. 

 

Enter yourself - bandying false narratives and further attempting to damage my reputation. I defended myself and then decided to write this reply to show you a little insight into why I decided to engage with FW in the first place. 

 

 

Cheers!
Glenn


I think you missed the point, spectacularly.






3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users