Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

173 Excellent

1 Follower

About US93_Rummell

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Using actual real-world tactics and making YouTube videos about them

Recent Profile Visitors

891 profile views
  1. Yeah, dialling back the Dvii and control failures would make a difference for sure
  2. Interesting! Thanks for sharing. In which case I’ll amend my suggestion to: - Strengthen weakest (dv) and dial back toughest (dvii) factoring that spar size shouldn’t be the only determinant of toughness (not to mention that larger spars would be easier to hit whereas bracing wires are thin) - Reduce critical hit probability for wings and particularly control surfaces - Increase probability of flamers / model effects of incendiary rounds Id love to see us somewhere between initial modelling and the position now. Launch modelling was definitely a bit arcadey (if hugely fun!!).
  3. I’m with you on the incendiary rounds. The balloon guns in particular don’t seem to have this modelled. I already took your point on the overall strength of the Dvii structure vs earlier designs, but you’ve not convinced me that it should be as tough as it is at present. There’s anecdotal evidence to suggest that the Dvii could and did break up after typical battle damage; the modelled plane in sim now can take an absurd beating. The weakness of other wings is open to debate. My feeling is that we have extremes at the moment with say the Dva and the Dvii; one too weak and one too strong. Likewise, the amount of flamers was probably too high when the game released; now it feels too rare and well off the various firsthand accounts. The point about the 0.1% damage is that we have accumulative damage (as I understand it) where a single hit will always have an effect on the Gs you can pull, rather than (far more likely) travelling through the canvas and having a negligible impact on structure or performance. Surely a hit should have a low random chance of hitting a spar and most others doing little to nothing. If wings were so weak and easy to shoot off, why did MvR, McCudden, Fonck etc etc all aim for meat and metal? It seems insultingly obvious to point out that this was the best way to take down a plane - one or two rounds in the wing usually did nothing; one or two in the pilot or tank was often fatal. My suggestion: randomise the chance of wing hits landing on a spar and causing additional damage/critical hit (higher chance with a bigger spar), strengthen the weaker wings and dial back the toughest ones, increase flamer chance, and model incendiary rounds. Salute! PS I don’t think you’re unreasonable! You’re very reasoned for a forum poster 🙂
  4. Addendum: Sous Lt Risacher witnessed three DVIIs disintegrating on 18/10/1918. “Suddenly I saw a SPAD coming in shooting. The Germans saw the source of the attack - one German passed to my left with the SPAD on his tail. The SPAD shot him and he fell to pieces...At the very same moment a second SPAD - I knew it was American aeroplane by his cockade - coming in at full speed took on another hun and shot him to pieces. I said ‘God save America!’, and at that moment I put speed into my old aeroplane and took a third DVII in a loop. He looked behind me and then fell to pieces, crashing to earth”. The only time I have ever seen a DVII break up under the current model in FC is when they dive and pull violently after heavy damage. I’ve never managed to saw off wings on one remotely as easily as you can with the CL2, Dv or even Dr1.
  5. Sorry, to clarify I accept that the undamaged Fokker structure was likely more durable. I’m unconvinced on the level of disparity between the durability of a damaged Dvii wing to say a Spad wing, particularly after 0.1% damage and the impact even a single bullet has permanently on the wing strength regardless of which part it hits. If you read Leon Bennett’s study on bullet grouping from actual ww1 experiments, it seems unlikely that the majority of hits to anything but meat and metal would result in catastrophic damage; there is little to no evidence I’ve seen that the Dvii design was substantially stronger after damage than the Spad. Please cite multiple sources if you have them. I question whether spar strength should be the single measure of durability and the now tank-like Dvii. Bennett also notes the large number of bullets fired by MvR for some of his kills, including where broke up occurred. In some cases breakup was possibly dude to a dead or wounded pilot losing control and over stressing - hard to be 100% sure without subsequent autopsy. The higher the number of bullets fired the more likely it was to hit a smaller key component: “...but given some thought, he decided that close range was overly dangerous - a few well-aimed rounds might find him or, and far more likely, collision might result. As he put it: “I had gone so close that I was afraid I might dash into the Englishman.”...Richthofen officially expended bullet counts ranging from 200 to 300 to 400 and even 800 cartridges.” Just reading through Under the Guns of the Red Baron, the first dozen kills mostly required hundreds of rounds; even at kill 54 he’s firing 300 odd rounds. I regularly snap Dva wings with a single Vickers burst from 300m+. Here is a thought experiment: do you think a burst of 50 rounds at 200m from astern are more likely to hit multiple c.5mm or smaller bracing wires and a smaller spar in the wing, or a bigger spar? I welcome evidence that the Dvii could take several times the wing punishment than say a Spad and still be able to pull substantial G loads; the weight of evidence from what I’ve read does not match our current situation.
  6. Thanks for the replies. I still don’t see why a damaged Fokker wing spar would be a stronger structure than a damaged Sopwith wing spar with all bracing still in tact. Surely the bracing shares some of the load with the spars? Without wires, wouldn’t the Fokker spar represent a greater risk of failure to the overall wing? Moreover, the spar is a bigger target than the tiny metal wires. I get that it could potentially absorb more hits than the Sopwith, but the way it’s modelled it feels like the Fokker wing is all metal and near indestructible like the RoF dviii. Ive not come across a single source in the main literature that the Fokker wing was known to be considerably more resistant to damage than Entente mainstays allowing pilots to stay longer in fights. The only reference I have found is to a pair of Fokkers losing their wings following a Spad XIII down in a dive. There’s lots of evidence to show the Fokker model benefited from less wire drag and allowed for excellent lift and turn - that makes a lot of sense.
  7. On the topic of spars and bracing wires, I’m assuming a wing with smaller spars and lots of bracing wires would still offer similar strength to a wing with thicker spars and no wires? Also surely wires are harder to hit than a thick wing spar? The Dvii may have a thickish spar but it will still break after a certain amount of bullets, and without additional bracing wouldn’t that be weaker than say a Bristol wing with a hit spar? What I’m trying to get at is why Fokker went for wings without wires - was it to make the wings much tougher? I’ve not come across much in the literature to suggest the Dr1 or Dvii was considerably more durable than the Spad xiii.
  8. Great read. The thread is pointing towards the idea that some Tripes built by subcontractors had structural weakness, but that the issue was fixed later and Collishaw was satisfied with the modification. Reminds me of the issues with some of the early Dr1s with substandard glue. Clearly some examples of both types with inherent structural issues from construction would risk wing failure, but it doesn’t add much to the discussion on the FC DM.
  9. Control Surface Jam is the new name for my band
  10. Salute to you D. I’ve seen you online loads and you stick to a bird disproportionately affected by the DM change. MP needs more chaps like yourself. We need more armchair pilots and fewer armchair critics who skulk on forums but never in our virtual clouds.
  11. Or come and play online? Why care about a forum for a sim you don’t support with your time?
  12. That’s smart! Hit and run is the name of the game. If I get as much as a tickle on my wings I’ll rtb now. At least in the se5 you have speed; not an option as easily in the Albi
  13. The Dr1 is a tough bugger. Do you suffer from se5 wing issues?
  14. Out of interest, which plane do you usually fly? Do you do much MP?
  15. I’ve not heard from them for a few weeks. I’m loathe to bother them again given the current situation and impending 2nd wave lockdown. Given the size of their estate and fleet I would imagine they’re highly dependent on income from large events which have been decimated this year. I’m hoping they’ll weather the storm. Fingers crossed
  • Create New...