|
Post by williammiller on Aug 21, 2020 10:24:39 GMT -6
But an aircraft can only carry one torpedo load, which is either heavy or medium. The load only applies to the endurance. Why would we need a heavy load at medium endurance? Now you are arguing semantics - the core thing to get from all this has been stated clearly I think - some aircraft models can carry a torp and use their medium load endurance while doing so, while some aircraft can carry a torp but have to use their heavy load endurance while doing so due to it requiring a greater % of their payload capacity.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Aug 21, 2020 10:33:22 GMT -6
I have been following this thread a bit and I'm imagining @ dohboy is about to start to bang his head on the table Seriously people, afaict, the issue is rather simple: A plane that can carry a torpedo at medium load is obviously capable of carrying a torpedo at heavy load. Is there an in-game reason for me to use heavy load, when I could use medium load (as in, is Avgas modeled in the game)? Because if the answer is no, then showing M/H instead of just M makes no sense whatsoever. Currently there is no reason in the game to have an "H" load when carrying a torpedo, although for the future we have thought about adding the possibility of drop tanks and/or extra internal fuel for such a load situation. The reason for the 'M/H' as it currently stands I mentioned above.
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Aug 21, 2020 10:55:02 GMT -6
The reason it reads "M/H" is that if we had it showing only an "M" load and no "H" load was our concern that players would be confused/concerned about the missing "H" load value. Possibly you? But... There IS an "M" torpedo load rating. Then there's the "M/H" that's apparently the same thing. That's why I'm confused, and it seems you are too.
|
|
|
Post by dia on Aug 21, 2020 12:08:53 GMT -6
Currently there is no reason in the game to have an "H" load when carrying a torpedo, although for the future we have thought about adding the possibility of drop tanks and/or extra internal fuel for such a load situation. Would it have been that difficult to say this from the beginning? The whole argument could have been avoided.
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Aug 21, 2020 12:48:25 GMT -6
A page and a half into the discussion and the guy attempting to answer the question hasn't figured out there are 3 different load ratings. Seem like maybe he read the title, assumed we are all stupid, and punted?
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Aug 21, 2020 16:16:06 GMT -6
The reason it reads "M/H" is that if we had it showing only an "M" load and no "H" load was our concern that players would be confused/concerned about the missing "H" load value. Possibly you? But... There IS an "M" torpedo load rating. Then there's the "M/H" that's apparently the same thing. That's why I'm confused, and it seems you are too. I believe what originally happened was a disconnect between the raw aircraft data and the final presentation of that data in the game: originally we had a few (carrier) plane models that could carry 2 torps during typical combat ops, but later on discovered that never ever happened in real life. The original data had "M" or '"H" load for those which could only carry a payload with 1 torp (depending upon how much of their max payload was taken up), and "H" only for certain models carrying 2 torps - when the game data was switched to single torp carry only, the "M/H" replaced the "H" setting on certain models that originally would have carried 2 torps previously.
I'll take the blame for any confusion that resulted from this, so my apologies.
|
|
|
Post by dia on Aug 21, 2020 16:47:43 GMT -6
That makes a lot of sense. Just the other day I was thinking about why there was an "M/H" too. Thanks for the explanation.
|
|
swang
Junior Member
Posts: 97
|
Post by swang on Aug 21, 2020 17:34:37 GMT -6
Like he said, none did so operationally, they all had either logistical, operational, or structural issues. I don't recall ANY models operating with two torpedoes operationally. If there were real ones, I don't mind doing a what-if. But there wasn't, and so there's probably a myriad of reasons why not. I have no problems with excluding two torp loadouts.
PS. Didn't the forum have a huge argument about this at one point already?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 21, 2020 18:50:10 GMT -6
All my informational posts in this thread have been moved to the Development of Carriers, Naval Aviation, Land-Based Aviation thread on the General History Forum.
|
|
|
Post by redmabuse on Aug 25, 2020 5:51:09 GMT -6
But... There IS an "M" torpedo load rating. Then there's the "M/H" that's apparently the same thing. That's why I'm confused, and it seems you are too. I believe what originally happened was a disconnect between the raw aircraft data and the final presentation of that data in the game: originally we had a few (carrier) plane models that could carry 2 torps during typical combat ops, but later on discovered that never ever happened in real life. The original data had "M" or '"H" load for those which could only carry a payload with 1 torp (depending upon how much of their max payload was taken up), and "H" only for certain models carrying 2 torps - when the game data was switched to single torp carry only, the "M/H" replaced the "H" setting on certain models that originally would have carried 2 torps previously.
I'll take the blame for any confusion that resulted from this, so my apologies.
So, actually, it is a bug when an "M/H" load is showing? There are basically only two cases? 1) a plane is loaded with a torpedo and uses the range given under heavy. 2) a plane is loaded with a torpedo and uses the range given under medium. This is a better plane The latter should be indicated only by "M", but sometimes is shown as an "M/H" but that has no effect anymore?
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Aug 25, 2020 11:20:24 GMT -6
I believe what originally happened was a disconnect between the raw aircraft data and the final presentation of that data in the game: originally we had a few (carrier) plane models that could carry 2 torps during typical combat ops, but later on discovered that never ever happened in real life. The original data had "M" or '"H" load for those which could only carry a payload with 1 torp (depending upon how much of their max payload was taken up), and "H" only for certain models carrying 2 torps - when the game data was switched to single torp carry only, the "M/H" replaced the "H" setting on certain models that originally would have carried 2 torps previously.
I'll take the blame for any confusion that resulted from this, so my apologies.
So, actually, it is a bug when an "M/H" load is showing? There are basically only two cases? 1) a plane is loaded with a torpedo and uses the range given under heavy. 2) a plane is loaded with a torpedo and uses the range given under medium. This is a better plane The latter should be indicated only by "M", but sometimes is shown as an "M/H" but that has no effect anymore? We might change this display item...however, there is a possibility that we may have a use for it in the near future, will need to wait and see how that works out before any final determination.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 25, 2020 12:23:32 GMT -6
So, actually, it is a bug when an "M/H" load is showing? There are basically only two cases? 1) a plane is loaded with a torpedo and uses the range given under heavy. 2) a plane is loaded with a torpedo and uses the range given under medium. This is a better plane The latter should be indicated only by "M", but sometimes is shown as an "M/H" but that has no effect anymore? We might change this display item...however, there is a possibility that we may have a use for it in the near future, will need to wait and see how that works out before any final determination.
Thanks. Why don't you use three load condition designations: Torpedo Normal, Torpedo Overload, Bomber. Normal means half fuel load, overload means full load fuel, bomber is full load fuel. Range is dependent on fuel load.
|
|
|
Post by broadsides on Aug 25, 2020 14:25:16 GMT -6
Always seemed clear to me. A Swordfish verses a TBM with the same torpedo would have different definitions of what constituted a light/medium/heavy load which would dictate to what range it was possible to haul ordnance. In abstraction, early A/C with less HP and Speeds consider the same weight as 'heavy' that a more developed (later) A/c would consider the same weight to be a medium load and haul it further.
|
|
|
Post by hawkeye on Aug 26, 2020 0:49:31 GMT -6
Always seemed clear to me. A Swordfish verses a TBM with the same torpedo would have different definitions of what constituted a light/medium/heavy load which would dictate to what range it was possible to haul ordnance. In abstraction, early A/C with less HP and Speeds consider the same weight as 'heavy' that a more developed (later) A/c would consider the same weight to be a medium load and haul it further. While different A/C obviously can carry various amounts of load and thus what is a heavy load for one might be a medium or even a light load for others (a B-17 sure could carry a lot more than, say, a BF-109 in a fighter-bomber role), I always assumed light/medium/heavy applied on an A/C for A/C basis, i.e. if an a/c can carry a torpedo as medium load then the torpedo is a medium load for this specific a/c.
|
|
|
Post by redmabuse on Aug 26, 2020 5:18:32 GMT -6
So, actually, it is a bug when an "M/H" load is showing? There are basically only two cases? 1) a plane is loaded with a torpedo and uses the range given under heavy. 2) a plane is loaded with a torpedo and uses the range given under medium. This is a better plane The latter should be indicated only by "M", but sometimes is shown as an "M/H" but that has no effect anymore? We might change this display item...however, there is a possibility that we may have a use for it in the near future, will need to wait and see how that works out before any final determination.
Thanks. When I first saw the "M/H" rating I expected to be able to chose between two different types of torpedoes - one regular, usable on "M" range and one "special torpedo" usable on "H" range. I have to admit I was a bit disappointed that that was not the case!
|
|