Allrighty, test scen, save, and instructions please .

Do ATA values take into account pilots G force capability? ONce an aircraft is sufficiently agile this would be the limiting factor wouldn't it.

Do ATA values take into account pilots G force capability? ONce an aircraft is sufficiently agile this would be the limiting factor wouldn't it.

They probably have some bearing much like many factors go into a probability of hit but there is no direct link that is visible to any of us lowly folks, you'd have to ask Bond/Carlson/et al.

Also, it's a great difference between instantaneous turn rate and sustained (or continuous) turn rate, but I think we can't stop to needle it.

Also, it's a great difference between instantaneous turn rate and sustained (or continuous) turn rate, but I think we can't stop to needle it.

I did a quick calculation in my head while feeding the horses assuming that 5Gs for more than a couple of seconds was a limit for the pilot (no idea just a guess) and I think I came up with 10 secs to do a 180 deg turn at 500 kts. (If I remember)

This led me to think that the ATA values might be fine for things like dog fights and missile avoidance or for larger aircraft but not for big turns, a bit like you're saying Enrique

This led me to think that the ATA values might be fine for things like dog fights and missile avoidance or for larger aircraft but not for big turns, a bit like you're saying Enrique

That was their intended purpose, i.e. to resolve air combat.

Here are a few links I found interesting in looking at this:

https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2014/01/11/comparing-modern-western-fighters/

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=52006

http://www.aviation.org.uk/docs/flighttest.navair.navy.milunrestricted-FTM108/c6.pdf

in the first link there are some figures for a few modern fighters giving instant and continuous turn rates, a continuous turn rate of 25 deg / sec looks like top dog ie ~ 8 secs for a 180 turn.I've only looked briefly but it looks like enough info to get a ball park figure for our factoring.

Test scenario and savegame attached.

 

EC2003 GIUK battleset, HCDB 150621, beta 2015.015

 

All aircraft are at Med altitude, ordinary cruise speeds, making a manually set 180 degree turn.

 

(Because RTB orders are always obeyed immediately, without the turn penalty).

 

My results as follows:

 

C-5B ATA 5/5, 180 deg turn, delayed 75 sec

 

F-22A ATA 60/35, 180 deg turn, delayed 1 sec

 

A-10C ATA 30/10, 180 deg turn, delayed 15 sec

 

CH-53K ATA 20/15, 180 deg turn, delayed 15 sec

 

Set a new course to observe your own results.

 

The F-22A is the only one that appears to be out of whack on its face.

 

My WAG is that the GE is picking up on some ceiling value in its calculation?

turntest.zip

Also, it's a great difference between instantaneous turn rate and sustained (or continuous) turn rate, but I think we can't stop to needle it.

I see I wrote just the opposite to my aim!

My idea was to express "but I think we CAN stop to needle it" !!!

Fixed for 2015.016 (F-22 Raptor)

21 Sep 2015, 13:08:05 Group ACA 160 degree turn delayed 7 seconds; Group ATA=60, OldCourse=39, NewCourse=199

Thanks Tony.

How has everyone been liking (or not) the adjusted turn rates for aircraft?

I like it very much, but I did not exhaustive test on it.

I like it very much, but I did not exhaustive test on it.

 

I like it as well. AAM exchanges between combat aircraft are not as easily avoided, and any support aircraft (transport, AEW, etc) that find themselves needing to "get the heck out of Dodge" are more vulnerable now than ever.

I've started laying the groundwork for gradual altitude changes. We now have an Altitude property on each unit that will indicate the altitude above sea level (negative for underwater) in meters. This accompanies the previously existing AltBand property.

 

The saved game converter is done and population of initial values is done.

Next up is actually triggering the gradual altitude changes.