Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by US93_Larner

  1. According to Aeronautical Engineer & Scientist Leon Bennett's research & theorising, the S.E. was more manoeuvrable than the Albatros (the D.Va, more specifically)! But, yes, I don't think that this particular example helps in the case of the DM (or any modern mock dogfights, for that matter). Simply put, safety measures in place when putting on such displays will undoubtedly keep these historical planes from performing at the apex of their ability. Unless a pair of mad pilots come along and have an actual tail chase in a D.Va and S.E, as if they were really in a fight for their lives, I doubt we'll learn much from modern displays. The more I've thought about the DM, the more I've been considering that the wing spar damage might not be the sole issue contributing to the paper mâché wings. I suspect that an extremely significant factor in WW1 aircraft battle damage hasn't been implemented at all - namely, a bullet passing through empty canvas - and that the absence of that as a factor is leading to the perceived 'unrealistic' wing-shedding. The strongest and weakest scouts (D.VII and Camel), according to AnP's data, take something like 1500 and 200 rounds to sever the wing from a 90 degree angle at close range. Imagine just for talking's sake that all those rounds passed through nothing but canvas, and sailed through the spaces between ribs and spars. I'm no aeronautical engineer, but I suspect both types would require thousands of rounds to sever the wing purely by perforating the fabric. Probably more than 1500, and definitely more than 200. I could be totally wrong, and 'empty air' hits might be implemented after all, but so far my experiences of FC have been that all wing hits do some degree of damage to the aircraft, and therefore reduce its G-tolerance. To my thinking it stands to reason that, in the same way there is a modifier for chances of hitting spars, there should also be a modifier for "thin air" hits which would only perforate the canvas and cause mere cosmetic damage, with no adverse effects to airframe durability. Naturally, the effect of such a modifier being implemented would be all-round tougher, more survivable aircraft. ------------------ Going back to the Spars and how they do affect the DM, I've had a bit of a sneaking suspicion. As far as I know, the game will 'predict' a control surface being disabled in a similar way to how it predicts a spar hit. Now, it's been virtually impossible for the player without any dev tools to figure out when a spar has been hit - but this is a totally different story to being able to ascertain when a control surface has been severed as, well, it's plainly obvious when that happens! To my thinking, it seems that severing a control wire with a bullet during a dogfight would be pretty damn lucky, and I'd speculate that for every bullet that connected with a wire cleanly, and cut through it, there are hundreds of other rounds that would not hit the wire cleanly. As for surfaces being jammed in place...well, I don't really even know how that would happen with a WW1 airframe. But, in FC, it seems to be an all-too-common occurrence for a control to be severed, and IMHO it's just simply ridiculous how often a control is shot out. I've flown on occasions where wingmen have gone 2-for-2, 3-for-3 and even 5-for-5 on engagements VS controls being lost. During one sparring session with another of the 3rd PG guys I shot at least one of his controls out something like 17 or 18 times out of 20 fights - and it never took more than one short burst connecting to do the damage. The point of this probably over-long post is, I can't help but wonder if the probability of a Spar being hit is similarly overdone to that of a control wire being severed.
  2. 300 seems to 'feel' good for me, but if changing convergence has a significant effect I haven't really noticed...
  3. I keep wondering what FC would be like if the S.E. could take on an Alb in a turn-fight. I actually think it might not be the worst thing in the world...certainly it would give the Entente noobies something a little more reasonable than their current options - all of which are great planes, but all require experience to use properly. If the S.E. could be flown in a more 'Albatros-esque' way then it might have more appeal for rookies starting out. I can see why the Centrals might not be thrilled by that idea, though...a plane that can turn with and outrun Albs...but, honestly, I think a lot of pilots would be more likely to fight to the end. It's usually the V-Lifers that will cut and run from a fight, and I think there are less v-lifers than other pilots...
  4. Edit: Noticed some mention of Player vs AI earlier. I think the biggest difference in perception with Player vs AI and Player vs Player doesn't come from attacking targets - instead, it comes from evading them. VS. an AI you often won't need to do much to evade, but against a player you find yourself in situations where you have to evade harshly or die. Its the kind of evasions that you have to perform vs players that most frequently tears wings off, IMO. I think you need to do some MP to better understand the effect of the new DM on the gameplay. ...which puts us at an impasse, as IIRC the Devs have said previously that MP testing is negligible in their eyes due to the various factors in internet connection, speed, net code, etc.
  5. US93_Rummell - 05.06.20 to 01.07.20 -- twenty-four PvP air victories!
  6. Yeah, it's a bit of a problem - I've seen both be referred to as a 'Vrille', depending on the pilot, and sometimes it's a little bit confusing which one they are referring to...some pilots will say something like a "Wide vrille", or a "Sharp vrille" etc, etc. It seems like they used it as a one-size-fits-all for any kind of corkscrewing motion. From looking through the reports, the "Not Specified" are the most absolutely frustrating of them all - because there are so many types of outcomes that they could be! A couple of the ones in 'Other', IIRC (I looked at this a while ago) had very specific mentions that did sound visually similar to cut controls in-game. Stuff like "Went down in a wobbly zigzag" and things like that. If I was going to really try to build a case for a DM revision (which, TBH I don't see much point in doing atm - the Devs don't seem engaged with the community at the moment) then I'd make a note of recording any specifics like that and trying to find a way of categorising them into neatly presentable data. Interesting, thanks! I'm curious about wing failures only appearing in any kind of significant number once he switched to D.III / D.Vs...I wonder if that's just a coincidence, or if there is some other factor at play? Also seems like B.E's were especially prone to shedding...
  7. Looking at AEF reports from 1918, the most common outcomes are 'Out of Control' (as in, the pilot is killed, wounded, or pretending to be either) or 'No Result' (as in shots were exchanged and both planes flew away intact). A while ago I looked at some 190 combat claims of the AEF, of which only 3 cited wings coming off. To further clarify the term "Out of Control" I tried to sub-divide the different wordings of reports. Here's how that went: (Vrille being the AEF term for a spiral, or a spin). It would appear that wing-shedding wasn't even close to being half as common as it is in FC if the AEF reports are anything to go by. But, I think other data that people have already posted aligns with that anyway.
  8. It's as Thomson says - I've been off on home establishment...the brass hats have been 'giving me a rest'
  9. And to think, No.24 is a borrowed ship! Definite KP duty.
  10. During the fly-in? Odd. I saw lots of players.
  11. New 3rd Pursuit Group USAS skins are here (US93, US103). Current link you have is outdated - we don't use those skins anymore!!!! JG1's FC skins are here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ah9909uyne0zdpa/2020-0605_JG1FCPP.zip?dl=0
  12. Thanks again to J5 et al for setting up the communal awards system - it's added a great element to the community and chasing those medals was tons of stress fun! The prospect of eventually getting my paws on the 'Big One' certainly influenced my flying and added a whole new element to the game! There were plenty of pulse-quickening moments along the way - to be exact, my ship caught fire on no less than two occasions and somehow survived three collisions (two in Hunland, which I only just managed to glide back to my lines from!). Thankfully, despite all the Hun bullets I've caught over the last few months, she never broke apart on me in the air, even after the new DMs were introduced! I must just be lucky 😉 Salute to the Bosches, who never made it easy up there
  13. That pesky "Real World" has been getting in the way! Things over here are starting to stir back into life as the Covid lockdown has been easing, so I've had some catching up to do That being said - I've finally gotten around to getting issue No. 30 of the Chronicle ready! Apologies for the delay, all!
  14. The good thing about the 4.007 DM thread being shut down was that everybody got the chance to let the discussion breathe and get a little more in-game context. Personally, I think the following: 1) In the "weak" planes, you absolutely can keep your wings on, even after being seriously damaged - but, if you have someone engaging you then you essentially have to choose between tame manoeuvres and getting shot in the back, or proper evasive manoeuvres that pull your wings off. 2) Control surface damage still seems to be, just, far, far too frequent. During one training night I was doing a bit of sparring with one of the 103rd guys. We must have had about 20 duels - about 18 of which resulted in me shooting out one or more of his controls, or vice versa, with the first burst that landed. It might not have been clear from my comments regarding the DM in previous discussions, but I actually like the direction the Devs are taking - introducing more complexity and different outcomes to battle damage - I think it's great, and can create a more interesting experience! However, the current implementation of the new features does feel exaggerated to me. At the moment I think the Pfalz and D7 are exhibiting pretty good DM characteristics in the wing-shedding department - they are tough, and can certainly take a few bursts and continue to manoeuvre pretty hard - but doing anything extreme will take your wings off. I'd want to see the other planes come closer to those characteristics. Talbot & I are just about done collecting data from USAS combat reports and other period sources, with illuminating results. We're just working on formatting what we've collected into something presentable!
  15. Yep. Ain't like RoF - those Fs will get ya unless you clear out early enough!
  16. Keep meaning to do it, but keep forgetting! It's pretty amusing - looks like every piece that breaks off the D.VII 'spawns' an extra engine
  17. All dead, I'm afraid! Apart from one, who was just off having lunch 😄
  18. Awesome! My fave is "against all odds" I think I was in the middle of that big fur ball - I distinctly remember a very similar scrap and seeing two D.VIIs falling in flames within seconds of each other....and spotting a certain sky blue Camel in amongst the excitement Ended up cooking another D.VII down low before high-tailing it home! Ah, wasn't the old DM such fun?
  19. Bullshit. EVERY KNOWN SOURCE proves that the SPAD could easily withstand a bird strike. This needs fixed now.
  20. Yeah, just fired it up to look at some skins I'm working on...defo updated
  21. I think we should all pool our research together and write a book on combat damage during WW1 dogfights...raise some money for 1C to release FC Vol. 2
  • Create New...