Jump to content

US93_Larner

Members
  • Content Count

    991
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by US93_Larner

  1. Yep, and of course you have to remember that when considering the result, but unless Rocard's theory comes up with wildly inaccurate results then I think there's something telling between his predicted crucial flutter speed of over 483 km/h. They've mentioned the Albatros' potential crucial flutter speed with Rocard's prediction and an applied error margin of 15%, so lets go with the 483 km/h figure and apply the same margin of error for the SPAD: When increased by 15%, that places the SPAD's potential crucial speed at 555.5 km/h, or 345 mph. When decreased by 15%, that puts the SPAD at 410.5 km/h, or 255 mph. If we take the critical flutter speed to mean the moment where flutter causes a failure in the wing, then both figures make for an interesting comparison with the FC SPAD. I went back and looked at some of the data I'd collected on the FC SPAD's diving capabilities, for which I recorded the following: -Control surfaces flutter at approx. 320 km/h, and shear away at approx. 350 km/h. -Complete wing failure occurs at approx. 360 km/h. Compared to Rocard's analysis, that's a pretty big difference. For comparison's sake, if we ignore the 'over' in over 483 km/h, and call it just 483 km/h, that's a difference of approx. 123 km/h. However, like you say, this is a pretty extreme speed, and it could be called into question if anyone ever came close to that. In short - we don't know. Looking then at a possibly more reasonable figure, the modified prediction with 15% subtracted as an 'error margin' (410.5 km/h), there's still a 50.5 km/h difference between the prediction and the in-game number. Unfortunately there isn't any data that I've found yet that gives a figure for maximum diving speed of a SPAD XIII, but there are some anecdotal pilot accounts that are interesting when compared with the predicted figures. To paraphrase one, Charles J. Biddle, C.O. of the 13th Aero Squadron, mentioned in his memoir one occasion where one of his wingmen was surprised and attacked by Fokkers over the front. However, the Fokkers shot from too far out and only put a couple rounds through the wing of the SPAD. Naturally quite alarmed by this, the SPAD pilot proceeded to go into an extreme dive. Biddle described it something along the lines of "I have never seen a plane dive that fast, and I thought for sure he would lose his wings". A later inspection of the SPAD revealed that the wings had actually bent back "1 or 2 inches" in the dive, and that all the flying wires had become de-tensioned. There's obviously no statistical figure given for how fast the pilot in question dived his SPAD, but I contend that you'd have to be diving pretty damn fast for another experienced SPAD pilot to see you and expect your wings to tear off - never mind the fact that it warped the wings! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I also find it interesting comparing the predicted 'Rocard' figures for the Albatros VS. the in-game FC Albatros. In 'Defeat by Design', the given figure for the Albatros' theorised crucial flutter speed is 190 km/h, with the article stating that a 15% increase to account for the margin of error would put that figure closer to 217 km/h, cited as being "probably easily attainable in a power dive". When dive-testing the Albatros in Flying Circus, I collected the following results: Control surfaces flutter at around 268 km/h, and control surfaces shear off at approx. 292 km/h. I actually recorded no failure speed in the Albatros, as I simply couldn't get it to go fast enough in a dive to break up without applying G-loading to the wings (mainly due to the engine conking out, IIRC) Now, compared to Rocard's predicted results this is obviously a lot higher, with a difference between the base predicted figure and the FC figure (using the top recorded speed of 292 km/h) being 102 km/h, and the difference between the upper +15% modified prediction being 75 km/h. This is really interesting when comparing to the 'Rocard' figures for the SPAD vs the FC figures for the SPAD, and would suggest that, if Rocard's theory can be taken with any seriousness, one of the two aircraft can either dive faster than it could, or can't be dived fast enough. I've yet to test both aircraft post-new-DM, which I'm quite eager to do in order to compare again with Rocard's predictions. I'm guessing the results should be the same, as the new DM shouldn't have changed undamaged aircraft strength, but it's good to have an up-to-date figure anyway. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Disclaimer: What I'm not saying is "Oh my god, look at this number I found! Quick, change the FC SPAD!" but, unless Rocard's analysis just produces wildly random results, I definitely think there's something very interesting and worth exploring some more in there! What I want to do now is try to get my hands on some other sources to see if any data out there backs up the figures ascertained by Rocard's theory!
  2. It was a valiant attempt - but I think this is the Tripehound Woes thread now πŸ˜„
  3. Exactly my sentiment. An is going to great lengths to walk us through exactly what the Dev team's thoughts and actions are regarding the WW1 Damage Model, in great detail. If we can agree to all be courteous and patient and, most importantly, give the revised DM a chance to be released(!) before we condemn it, then I'm positive we can continue to have this valuable dialogue with An, and can continue to report our thoughts and feelings about how the DM affects our gameplay. It's easy when we're as invested as we are in this game to jump to conclusions, and allow ourselves to become over-impassioned by how we think the revised DM will be, but I think the best thing to do now is give the discussion a little room to breathe, sit tight, and see what the revised DM feels like once it's released. Then, once we know what the changes feel like, we can make a more informed opinion and report back to An.
  4. So I found an article the other day entitled "Defeat by Design" which examines the Albatros' nasty habit of losing its wings in dives. While reading through, I found a really interesting section where the Albatros is compared to the SPAD XIII, where both types' top speed in a dive are predicted using French Engineer Professor Y. Rocard's method of Flutter Analysis: Where this gets really interesting for me is when the article starts giving some numbers for predicted aircraft speeds: Unfortunately, a hard number is not given - rather a "ball park figure" ... but compare that figure to the Flying Circus' SPAD's capabilities! It is stated here that the SPAD's predicted crucial flutter speed is above 483 km/h!! In Flying circus, the SPAD reaches crucial flutter speed at around 320 km/h ... drastically lower than the article would suggest! Now, it is mentioned that this does NOT deal in absolute accurate figures, but nonetheless there is a huge difference in speed between the top dive speed of the FC Spad and the top dive speed cited here, leading me to believe that perhaps the FC Spad is (dare I say it?) too slow in a dive! I wonder if this should possibly be researched further? Maybe even passed on to the Devs, if some other sources are found to accompany this one? For those wishing to give the full article a read, it can be found here. It's really interesting stuff! http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31781#content_start
  5. Oh my god. Who is responsible for this.
  6. I think they do. I've seen Albs lose their wings in flat breaking turns from level flight, I've seen Albs and SPADs lose their wings VERY quickly without pitching at all (which, obviously should be 1G), hell, in QM I shot the wings off a Halberstadt in level flight...and all my rounds hit the fuselage!! (That actually hints at a bug as far as I could see). I'll reiterate as well that a lot of the times I've seen this kind of stuff, the bullets have been hitting the flat of the wing from above, and not the dead-six-super-spar-shot as referenced in the DM poll. Anything other than a Spar hit should really be superficial damage. This leads me to believe that the overall structural damage is too severe in addition to the Spars. Buttzzell raised a great point earlier that we've become fixated with the Spars being the source of dodgy wings ever since Petrovich mentioned that our planes' spars were too thin. Before that, I don't think we were even considering Spar damage. Just overall wing damage. Re: Pulling out of a dive - I've lost my wings after light damage (no more than 10 rounds) simply by setting the stick to neutral in a fast dive. EDIT: What I really want now is to get my hands on the revised DM to do some testing. On Paper, it looks like SPADs, Albs, Halbs etc are going to continue to have a hard time. Sopwiths are screwed. However, An has mentioned both Spar and overall durability changes if I'm not mistaken. It could be the case that we get a DM that's only marginally better than what we expected (Unless you're an Indestructible-superspar-D.VII pilot!). It might also be the case that, despite the changes only looking small on paper, the actual revised DM turns out really good. If An will continue to chip in to the DM dialogue and consider the FC community's input after letting us test the new DM, then I'm not really worried. If he keeps working with us to find a resolution, I'm sure we can find that 'happy fix'.
  7. You'd have to assume so, seeing as everybody's losing their wings in every fight atm! I think it's dependent on the fight. I also think that hitting the wings, more often than not, is a result of your aim being slightly off when trying to aim for the pilot / engine. In a scissors, for example, when you have to snap-shot when he scissors in front of you. Of course, you're aiming for the fuselage and the pilot seat, but naturally in a 'knife fight' like that some of your rounds will go astray and the wings will be taking hits here or there. In a turn fight, I think targeting the wings isn't so easy. Hitting them while aiming for other components is pretty common, though. And that's exactly where I stand with the new DM...with the old DM, those glancing hits to the wing didn't really matter an awful lot. If you were shot down, it was likely due to being flamed, PK'd, or forced down with a dead engine. Now, however, these glancing wing hits are lethal, and strip you of the ability to manoeuvre without breaking up in the air or dive at any kind of high speed. And it really doesn't take many rounds at all to fold a wing. And that's what I mean by there's no skill left in gunnery...nobody needs to be accurate enough to hit vital components. They only need to be able to shoot at the overall plane, and the inevitable hits on the wings will do the rest. In fact, with the new pilot wounding being so underwhelming unless you get a very good burst in, I think it's probably more lucrative to spray n pray.
  8. You might be surprised how many D7s try to straight-line-dive away once they're really in trouble...at 200m, sure I could probably land a good pilot hit - at 300m, it would have to be a good shot...anything past that and, in my own personal experience, you need a lucky shot. At those ranges, you'll be wasting way more bullets than you'll be landing. But sure, if they stay in a straight line for long enough you can dial them in within a few bursts, or even just spray at them until you eventually get them. I'm talking about more of a dogfight, rather than firing at someone running in a straight line, when I talk about 'skill'. Someone with good marksmanship will be able to hit a manoeuvring pilot far more consistently than someone who sprays and prays. To my way of thinking, which is informed generally by pilot accounts of the day, that level of marksmanship should dictate whether or not you make the kill. How that ties into the new DM discussion is simple: it's now more a case of who can shoot the other's wings first, which is far more rewarding for Spray n Pray pilots and almost totally negates the ability to shoot a pilot. NOT because you might blow his wings off while trying to get the pilot, but because the reason you'd even bother to train your gunnery to hit the pilot / engine is because hitting the wings or the fuselage with the odd burst isn't (wasn't) going to be good enough bring the other guy down. I hope I'm explaining my logic well enough. With the old DM, I feel that the individual's marksmanship was infinitely more of a defining factor than it is now. Re: "Laser Hoses" - yes, the guns are more accurate in FC. It's a double-edged sword. In FC, your bullets go where you aim them. If your aim is on, you get hits. If it's off, you miss. Just because the guns are deadly accurate, it doesn't mean the pilot is as well. It's the ability to manipulate your machine to get the firing angle that constitutes the skill, in my eyes. Short answer: After testing it, taking even a single hit makes me sweat. Long answer: 3rd P.G's general consensus is that a short burst into a SPAD wing renders it useless. You might be able to get up to speed in a dive with that much damage, provided you aren't loading the wings at all, but you'll be pretty damn lucky to come out of it. It can be fairly tanky if it fights in the horizontal though...but we all know what happens to SPADs who try and flat-turn with German planes. The worst example we had in the training server was when Biddle (SPAD) and myself (Pfalz) went into a vertical head-on...him diving, me prop-hanging. I fired a short burst at him and didn't see any more than 3 or 4 hits on the right wings. The SPAD's wings collapsed a second later, before it had even started pulling out of the dive. I'd put it just a little bit more durable than an S.E. Certainly not as atrociously bad as the Alb or Halberstadt, but still unsettlingly weak. Combine that with its proper style of fighting, and the new DM is absolutely lethal to SPAD pilots.
  9. Really? Is that what you've been doing? Killing pilots from 400m out? I can think of just one occasion, out of hundreds and hundreds of kills, where I've nailed a pilot at anything near 400m range. And I'd consider myself a pretty decent shot. I can think of many more occasions where I've had a D7 or an Albatros all over me, at near point blank range, only for the guy to be a lousy shot and for me to end up killing them when they give me a good firing angle. In all of those fights, I likely would have lost my wings with the new DM.
  10. I think he means like when someone would practice their gunnery so that when they hit the pilot they got a KO, then a kill. In the old DM, a fight between someone who sprayed wildly vs someone with good aim would have a largely different outcome - the 'sprayer' might get a handful of hits into the wings, tail, etc, but if he didn't get that 'lucky shot' and the other guy got a good shooting angle then it would be lights out. Now, the 'sprayer' can fire as wildly as he wants, and the other guy will probably fold up while manoeuvring against him. There's much less skill involved in gunnery with the current DM, to the point that it feels like having the skill to hit pilots barely even dictates the outcome of a fight. This is what I'm starting to think. Spar toughness IN ADDITION to overall toughness is a combo that creates the current wing shedding as we see in-game. I've had plenty of times where I've shot the wings off an Alb that's been in a hard bank away, hitting the flat of the wing at a 70-90 degree angle, where hitting the spars should be highly improbable (supposedly).
  11. I think that a z prefix should be on all fictionals. Saves everyone else having to sift through all your 'personal' skins to get to the historical one they want. I also think there should be a historical naming system in place. In RoF, most skins seemed to follow the pattern of [Squadron, Service, Pilot], AKA: 93rd Aero Squadron USAS, Lt. Leslie J. Rummel No. 24 Squadron RFC, Maj. Lanoe Hawker etc. although, everyone has to willingly participate for that to work - I doubt that some will...
  12. Not when it's chasing a SPAD at redline speed! Some sources have claimed the SPAD could get above 300 mph without breaking!
  13. Adjutant services required? Gotcha. Some context for everyone else in the thread: Within the 3rd Pursuit Group we have our own little game-within-the-game on Thursdays, where we track pilot's scores and victories are awarded via After Action Reports and Confirmations, rather than Parser results. As the Adjutant, I am in charge of keeping track of, logging, and awarding or rejecting any reported victories. This includes how the EA was shot down! I will note that, although the parser is not involved within our game, we still check track recordings, parsers, live streams, etc, after the reported kills have been "Confirmed". So, looking through my logs, we can get an idea of how the DM has affected the 'type' of kill that pilots are scoring: Taking pre-DM logs from February 27th and April 2nd, we see the following results (listed in the spoiler below). Both D.VIIs and D.VII Fs are listed as 'Fokker D7'. Out of a pool of 20 victories, that makes a total of: -17 Pilot Kills -2 Down in Flames -1 Crashed on the Ground Now taking post-DM logs from April 17th - April 30th, we get the following results: Out of a pool of 18 victories, that makes: -11 "Wing Kills" -3 Pilot Kills -2 Crashed on the Ground -1 Down in Flames -1 Forced to Land These victories were scored by the same group of pilots and all were scored in SPAD XIIIs. I also feel bold enough to say that the pilots scoring these victories are among some of the most accurate marksmen I've seen in FC, and are more than capable of scoring pilot hits (as the amount of pre-DM change pilot kills would suggest). This tells me two things: 1) The structural strength of aircraft is drastically reduced (But we all knew this πŸ˜„) 2) The new wounding system has actively made it harder to kill pilots, and by a fairly decent margin. Perhaps this post could offer a more practical 'report' for the Devs as to how the gameplay feels post-update! (P.S - there aren't as many post-DM logs, naturally, but I can grab a full list of air kills with reported 'type' of shoot-down if need be)
  14. I'm actually glad that the D7's wings are going to hold better for exactly this reason. It's been frustrating to fire at something and have its wings just pop off after specifically working on my aim to kill pilots. That being said, I'd rather the other guy needed to be good enough (or even just lucky enough) to score a PK in order to bring me down in turn. Firstly, thanks for continuing to keep in touch with the FC community about the DM developments! Be the responses happy or unhappy, I'm sure that everybody is equally glad to be able to communicate directly with you and know what work is being done with the DM. For what it's worth - I would consider "Trialling" the updated spars - that is to say, letting the community 'test' them to see how they feel when they are implemented, and being prepared to continue communicating with and receiving feedback from the community. From there, it's all down to how the devs feel, in regards to their historical research VS the 'in-game experience'. It may be the case that, despite how the chart appears, the DM with the new Spars will feel great, and everybody will carry on as normal! But, it could also be the case that the community thinks more work should be done - that, of course, is ultimately up to you - but I'd give the community the chance to 'test' the DM with the new spars and report back I also would like to point out, unless I have misread, that Mr. Petrovich has mentioned that the overall durability (not just the SPARS) of WW1 aircraft is being considered as well. It's possible (and I suspect it may be the case) that the current DM perceptions come from a combination of spar damage mixed with other non-spar damage. If this is the case, we may yet see WW1 aircraft being very tough until the spars have been hit. In any case, I very much hope that @AnPetrovich can keep working alongside the Flying Circus community to reach a happy conclusion, and thank him for taking the effort to begin doing so!
  15. My thoughts exactly! There have been times for me where I've come very close to losing my 'big streak' because I've turned back into a fight where my wingmen are in trouble. No man left behind!
  16. Congratulations to Drookasi - 70 is a hell of a score! And congrats to Oliver, Zatch, and Lucas!
  17. Interesting. I find the retention to be the complete opposite. The dive speed feels okay - I've yet to test VS. RoF. As for the energy loss - I think it'll become a lot more apparent if you get into some combats with her. My experience is that the first dive feels okay, but more than two and you're struggling to zoom back up. After a half-turn in the flat, the S.E. often won't even be able to bring its nose 90 degrees up in a stall-climb. Comparing with the SPAD in terms of energy retention is night and day - it's no contest.
  18. Hahahah I wondered what it sounded like! If only we could put the audio side by side πŸ˜„ That certainly was a desperate fight on my part - I don't think I was out of an Albatros' guns from start to finish...I was amazed the Biff was holding together so well, actually - especially when I saw the missing struts! Anything else and I most likely would have been in long before. But, hell, I'd been ordered to defend that tank, so defend it I did (only for it to be bombed about 15 mins later) πŸ˜‰
  19. It's absolutely fine but ONLY if you shout "I'll get you next time!" as you run away.
  20. It's as Talbot says...I've got a couple big books on listed victories for the Germans and the French in WW1, but it only goes as in-depth as "Destroyed", "In Flames" or "Forced to Land"., with the usual "KIA", "MIA", "Wounded" etc etc etc for aircrew. Naturally, "Destroyed" could mean many things... ...if you had the time, you could sift through pilot memoirs and create a spreadsheet of all the different types reported destroyed and how they were reported destroyed...I might consider doing that with Mac's memoir (although I expect I'd get bored about 15 mins in)
  21. Looking about TVAL's website for some bits n bobs on the S.E. Here's what I found (chopped up a little bit to be less of a wall of text, and put in the spoiler below) Here are TVAL's specs when compared to the RoF Store's specs. Both specs are for the V8 Wolseley equipped S.E. Some interesting discrepancies here and there. TVAL written in RED, RoF Store written in BLUE. Length: 6.38m / 6.3m Height: 2.89m / 2.7m Wingspan: 8.11m / 8m Empty Weight: 639 kg / 635 kg Loaded Weight: 880 kg / 886 kg Maximum Speed: 222 km/h* / 218 km/h Sea Level Service Ceiling: 5185 m / 6500 m *Alt not specified A couple things really stood out for me among the pilot report from TVAL. Among them, "it can maintain 120 mph right up to about 15,000 ft". 120 mph is 193 km/h, and 15,000 ft is about 4,500 m. The RoF S.E.5a's stats claim that it could do just 165 km/h at 4,000 m and 151 km/h at 5,000m. Bearing in mind also that the TVAL S.E. was only sporting a 180hp Hisso, it would seem that we're being short-changed a little in this department. The next quote I found interesting was "The controls feel good at low speed and there is plenty of warning before the stall. The Se5a isn't overly agile but it can be thrown around with little effort and has the ability to dive away and pick up speed rather quickly". For me, some of this rings true in FC, and some of it most definitely does not. When I put the S.E. through its paces, I found that, although there is plenty of warning before a complete stall (usually a lot of shaking), the S.E. is actually incredibly hard to control at low speed, and constantly wants to drop into the ground, kick you out of a turn, etc. The controls feel wholly unresponsive at low speeds. Unless you have lots of alt as well, dropping the nose will hardly replenish any airspeed at all. I certainly didn't feel like it took 'little effort' to control it at low speeds. Will be very interesting to compare with Shuttleworth once we get a message back from them. Still a minimum two-month wait for that though πŸ˜” As a side note, I'm hoping Shuttleworth will be happy to answer some questions about the D.Va, Bristol and Camel as well, just out of curiosity's sake and to see how their experiences compare with FC aircraft.
  22. Funnily enough, while doing some DM-tests I fired up TacView to do some 'no damage' G Limit testing and I was recording between 4-7g manoeuvres for several aircraft without any adverse effects past a very unhappy pilot...weirdly enough, at higher speeds, wings were failing at as little at 2g. I can't profess to have any in-depth knowledge about aerodynamics, but I was under the impression that airspeed shouldn't affect the load-limit of a plane - the only thing I can think is that: A) The increase in G-forces was so quick when pulling sharply out of a dive that Tacview didn't register it in time B) Airspeed has an effect on airframe durability within IL2
×
×
  • Create New...