Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by US93_Larner

  1. Great work @GCF , a real credit to the community. If it's no hassle, any skins with a z US or zzz US prefix can safely be deleted, as can current historical skins of the 103rd and 93rd Aero Squadrons that are NOT named to the new naming convention - these are old, outdated versions of the newly released 3rd Pursuit Group skins. Cheers!
  2. Found this quite interesting - doubly so because it's written by my historical namesake, Capt. G. DeFreest Larner! For context, Larner flew SPAD VIIs and XIIIs with Escadrille SPA.86, and later XIIIs with the 103rd Aero Squadron.
  3. Didn't notice it yesterday - I suddenly discoed in the middle of a patrol, but that was definitely a problem on my end.
  4. I wondered about that, too. I saw in one of Chill's flight videos he attempts a hard break (right-hand, I think?) turn and his aircraft wingtip-stalls. I haven't noticed the same effect in FC when flying the Dr.I... ...on a semi-related side note, I often wondered what the game would be like if full-deflection (or really aggressive) break turns induced more side-effects. I heard reference once or twice of pilots talking about how well their opponent turned, etc, which might imply that it isn't so easy as in FC to chuck a WW1 ship around the way we do! I'd need to find it again but there was a USAS pilot that said something along the lines of "the Spad is a handful for a new pilot, but with some experience you can hang a pretty tight turn" (paraphrasing)
  5. Decided to do my due diligence this morning and revise the previous comparison with your MvR results 😉 I also added all the current data I have for 4.006. This includes our testing dogfights and the (limited) combat reports we have from our Thursday Operations. It's important to note that these data pools are quite widely spaced apart in size, but it should give a rough idea! Seeing as the concern at the moment is wings, and owing to our earlier records showing pilot kills as simply 'crashed', I decided to lump everything that WASN'T a structural break up or a flamer in together.
  6. True - comms went to hell in about 2 seconds flat once we got mixed up in an 8vs8, but yeah would have been way different. Always wanted to give it a try - if we could convince everyone else to do the same! It would have been spooky to think that one of your guys could be 'picked off' without you ever knowing... Re: the big wings issue - I don't really know where to go from here! I'd think that a good bounce would result in a PK...and a bad bounce would result in the guy running the hell away or turning round to fight you....I would suspect it would be more in a manoeuvring fight that wings would eventually come off after being peppered - unless aiming for wings was viable (I don't think it was from the historical accounts...it seemed more like a waste of both bullets and the element of surprise) From my experiences with 4.006, wings are still coming off some aircraft with an (apparently) unlikely frequency and ease in dogfights. Certainly not as bad as 4.005, though. More worrying probably is how often MP pilots think their wings are going to come off...it means pilots are running from fights after what should be totally superficial damage (E.G - my wingman heading home after catching 1 or 2 bullets in the wings yesterday). That goes back to the whole "unrealistic flying" debate. EDIT: In that regard, I find it dubious that a real WW1 pilot would be so fazed by one or two holes in the canvas...much less an experienced one! It'll be very hard to divide our claims into bounces and furballs for a few reasons...sometimes our guys will simply report a time, place and EA fate (I.E "Shot down XXX in enemy lines at [time]. EA went down in flames) and sometimes a bounce will develop into a fight, which can blur the lines a bit. Personally, I only remember one bounce I had (in 4.005) which resulted in the wing coming off before the EA had reacted! Usually it's a PK (or it's botched and becomes a dogfight)
  7. Agree fully, and it's an important piece of context in the discussion. I've mentioned the old US103 / JG1 fights in RoF where both squadrons put a LOT of emphasis on keeping alive over scoring kills, and how I think it really gave us a much better glimpse into what a WW1 dogfight was like, so I won't bore anyone by repeating the whole thing...but I can say one thing for certain: When both sides are fully committed to not dying, and put that at greater importance to scoring kills, the dogfights, and even your mindset, are simply unrecognisable compared to the usual FC multiplayer experience.
  8. So here's something to add fuel to the fire. Out of curiosity I compared the 3rd PG's combat reports (pre-4.005) to the analysed historical reports (sans MvR reports).... In our squadron log, typically, every confirmed pilot kill was logged as "Crashed" as, well, an EA with nobody flying it is going to end up crashing. So, in order to represent that against the historical claims, I lumped in "Pilot Incapacitated" with 'Crashed'. It's a little crude, but it'll have to do (there's no way for me to go back and separate the PKs from the in-control crashes). One of the virtues of FC being a game is that we have a far better sense of what actually happened in our combats, so that must be considered versus the 'unspecified / unknown' analysed claims. I've substituted our 'out of control' claims (where EA would appear dead but no visual confirmation could be made) as 'unknowns'. Again, crude, but it'll have to do. However - the former value (crashes) can thankfully be ignored if we want to compare historical known 'in flames' and 'broke apart' victories with those reported in-game by our guys. Looking at Pre-4.005 is really interesting when compared to the German Aces' claims: So, what does this mean? In terms of IN-GAME EXPERIENCE, the "first" FC damage model appears, actually, almost bang on the money! But - this is factoring OUT the current points of conversation surrounding the 'violence' of a human multiplayer pilot's manoeuvres. NOT included in the historical data I collected were other reports included in the two books (I.E, aircraft mentioned as having been shot down by other pilots, or, of course, the German Aces' deaths!). Perhaps these should have been factored in at first - but I can do so now to see how they alter the figures: So, again, it seems to fall to the question of "What's more important? The Simulation aspect or the 'Fun' aspect?" As an amusing side note...out of the nine cases of aircraft being confirmed as having broken up from the historical reports, there were only two from our plane-set...a Fokker Dr.I in November 1918 and a Fokker D.VII in August 1918!! Even weirder - both pilots survived! (one via crash-landing - this was LvR's famous missing top wing, the other parachuting to safety). I'd love to put some 4.006 figures in there to compare but, simply put, we just don't have anywhere near enough reported kills to realistically compare just yet. I could add the results from my previous tests...but, again - the data pool would be comparatively small to the other two. DISCLAIMER #1: This is NOT me calling for the DM to be reverted to pre-4.005. That's clearly off the table, as the Devs have all but said. DISCLAIMER #2: Nor am I now calling for every Dr.I and D.VII to go to pieces, just because I found two examples of that historically happening! DISCLAIMER #3: I'm willing to bet that MvR's reports, if added to this data, would tip the historical figures further in favour of structural break-ups.
  9. Agree - but right now, to my knowledge, we don't know if @AnPetrovich has factored this in or not!
  10. @Unreasonable "Some other Huns" and "All the Huns" gave me a laugh hahah
  11. Well, I'm presenting this data simply a historical reference point. Nothing more, nothing less. The oneness is now on us to argue for or against "reality" vs "in-game experience", and to discuss (hopefully reasonably - ha!) if our in-game experience is a consequence of unrealistic flying, unrealistic modelling, or both. I wrote some cliff notes while collecting the data as to crashed and forced to land. Admittedly, for von Tutschek's victories I got lazy and tried to save time by listing both outcomes as just "Crashed / FTL", but I made the distinction for the other seven aces. The victories were split about half and half for crashes and forced to land. I would need to go back and go into more specifics about the cause of crashes and forced to land (I just added small one-line cliff notes), but it seems that the majority of these were either from the pilot / observer being wounded or the engine stopping through damage or loss of fuel.
  12. @unreasonable Having run out of coffee, I haven't yet checked if my count is off. But, fascinating stuff! Contrary to MvR figures it seems like the numbers remain largely comparable throughout the years. Especially fascinating seeing as just about all of Immelmann's were in 1915!!! The real question is, how much would change if we had certain outcomes for the 30-or-so per cent of unknowns? Also well worth mentioning that two of the 'Broke Apart' aircraft were actually Morane Monoplanes (a 'Parasol' and a 'Bullet' IIRC)
  13. Put simply - because I don't think that an aircraft being shot to pieces was a frequent occurrence in general. No matter how tough the airframe, you can still set it on fire and you can still shot its engine or pilot out. Talbot and I have been looking at USAS reports of the period to analyse. We haven't sorted it into presentable data yet, but one thing is common - there were NO (None! Zero!) reports of D.VIIs breaking apart in the air in the whole operational recorded history of the 93d / 103d aero squadrons. EDIT: weirdly, there was one account by a French SPAD pilot that cited three D.VIIs falling to pieces back to back in one engagement. Perhaps that Jasta got a 'bad batch'! AFAIK there were no reported cases for SPADs either, but Talby would be able to speak with more authority on that - he's been analysing the reports.
  14. Just a heads-up...was getting occasional huge lag spikes yesterday which would freeze everything up for a good 10 seconds. Every aircraft around would then 'rubber-band' back into place. I noticed another pilot get dropped by the server during one of these spikes, and another player said he'd encountered the same thing at the same time. Never had anything like that on Flugpark before...but I did just "upgrade" (apparently) my internet so it could be on my end.
  15. Afternoon, all! I'm proud to finally be able to publicly release the Third Pursuit Group's NEW AND IMPROVED skin pack! Featuring a mix of 25 historical skins and the new US93 / US103 SPADs have a whole host of aesthetic improvements and are looking better than ever! The first release here will be the CORE skin-pack, which has the personal skins as well as a good chunk of the historical 103rd and 93rd aero squadron aircraft. I hope in future to release a second pack with the rest of the 103rd / 93rd, as well as the historical 28th and 213th aero squadron skins! More info on the historical research and work put into these skins can be found Here! DOWNLOAD HERE (Readme is there for 3PG pilots) Markings and insignia of the Third Pursuit Group explained in the spoiler below:
  16. That image is unholy and perverse. My problem at the moment isn't the D.VII / D.VII F's apparent super-strength. Ok, sure, the wings virtually can't be shot off. Big deal, I aim for pilots anyway. where my problem lies is that the SPAD is, just, weak. Yesterday we had a pilot with a complete positional advantage over a D.VII F, only to RTB after taking a couple rounds from a prop-hang because he "didn't feel like it was safe to dive anymore". Pre-DM changes, and even in RoF, he would have pressed that attack, no question. And I don't blame him for flying off after that video of the SPAD falling to pieces almost instantly in a dive after taking five rounds. You have to understand how extremely frustrating that is - especially when there are sources floating around boasting how structurally resilient the SPAD was.
  17. Okay, I've finished sorting the claims from Norman Franks' two 'Under the Guns' books. The results are very interesting, actually, and do help a little in trying to ascertain the 'truth' of how these aircraft behaved when being pelted by bullets. HOWEVER - it NEEDS to be considered that a large portion of the kills come under the 'Not Specified' category. This is relevant because: Analysed victories that I have logged as 'Not Specified' have typically been described as having "Fell" or being "Brought Down" - with NO additional information, except that the victims were confirmed killed or missing. Ergo - these could very well be ANY of the other categories (Pilot killed, In Flames, Broke Up in Air, etc etc etc). That being said, it must be considered that it would be likely (as stated by Franks himself in one victory analysis) that pilots would make the distinction of mentioning if an aircraft fell in flames or broke up in the air - as both would be far better confirmation than simply saying the aircraft "went down". Franks cites the actual reports of the German (and Entente witnessing) pilots multiple times when analysing the claims, and I am sure he would mention the aircraft falling in flames or in pieces if he had proof of this. However - that is NOT to say that those outcomes aren't a possibility. Similarly, 'Pilot Incapacitated' refers to the pilot being severely wounded or killed in the air being the DIRECT cause of an UNCONTROLLED crash - resulting in a fatality. There were cases where mortally wounded pilots made forced landings while in control of their aircraft, or out-of-control aircraft with temporarily incapacitated pilots crashed, only for the pilot to survive. This category is, essentially, comparable to my FC data's "Pilot Killed" category. I want to really go in-depth with the analyses of these victories, as there are quite a few circumstances that need to be examined in further detail, but that'll be a LONG post when I do that. For starters I'll just post the raw overall numbers: It's also worth mentioning that claims that were impossible to validate by Franks & Co., as well as claims disproven by all evidence, have been omitted from this data, for obvious reasons.
  18. Must have breezed past that when trying to catch up - apologies, I might have read your post out of context! Also, for what it's worth, if you prefer SP then good for you! I certainly won't look down on you for not seeing any interest in MP.
  19. A SP dogfight isn't even remotely close to an MP dogfight. This is both true of your opponent (obviously a player manoeuvres much better than an AI) and yourself (as you have to match your opponent's manoeuvres). You can't use SP to determine the effects in MP.
  20. WoFF had some pretty decent sound cues. Creaking when pulling hard Gs, and a 'whistling' sound when your fuel tank had been shot through. The latter seemed a little bit...weird...but you sure as hell knew your situation!
  • Create New...