Jump to content

=IRFC=Hbender

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    1274
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by =IRFC=Hbender

  1. This is the real problem, as technical performance becomes more realistic, the human limitations that are not always present become more obvious. Bullet dispersion is not realistic, but in this case it would lead to more realistic outcomes. The question is: where you draw the line at realistic outcomes? Soon you'll be able to go up in a Breguet and fly it like a heavy turret fighter much like the Bristol F2B — but better. Or you can go up in a Handley-Page O/400 and fly it as a low altitude dogfighting gunship. None of this is realistic, but the machines could have done it if they
  2. Haha, no. Pre-1.034 the Triplane was a decent all-rounder for 1917. It was IRFC's mainstay scout for that era, in the same way we used the Dolphin for 1918. The Triplane is slightly slower than the Camel (~185km/h), climbs slightly worse, doesn't outturn the Albatros D.III/D.Va in a flat turn (it's very close) and only has one gun (muzzle-boosted, though). On the plus side: her stall is far more gentle than the Camel's and Dolphin's and an extra Vickers can be added at the cost of speed, which doesn't matter much anyway. Typically it was chanceless against the Fokker Dr.I, either b
  3. Somewhere on the complete opposite end of the internet there must be an all-female Facebook group completely obsessed and enraged with the cruelty horses have been subjected to in wartime. Meanwhile, here: does this thing come with saddle-mounted Vickers?
  4. Zebras are just horses with Jasta 4 skins. Change my mind.
  5. If you know how to effectively use its massive rudder to roll and snaproll, there's nothing that beats the Breguet. It's by far the most maneuverable French plane, second only to the Sopwith Camel. I actually recommend a twist stick rather than pedals to decrease the travel required to kick full rudder back and forth. If her DM holds a candle to how it was in RoF (a flying tank)... oh boy. Oh boy. Just embrace the madness.
  6. It's an artisanal product made for a very niche market using what limited data was available at the time with no promises to make corrections. That shouldn't stop you from enjoying it for what it is, and keep both researching and sharing data — but manage your expectations. What we have is still a great product overall, even if it suffers from a few well-documented issues that have been acknowledged by the devs, with the DM in particular. I'm sure that gunnery plays a part in it, but probably not to the extent that we think, since it is more or less the same for all planes.
  7. I hate to burst your bubble, but some people have built authentic WWI planes, done measurements, shared them with the developers and still not gotten through. And that was about mere performance in level flight, nothing quite so controversial as gunnery. For the most part it's a take it or leave it affair, and unless you somehow find verifiable data of something that is incorrect or bugged beyond the shadow of a doubt, you'd better accept that nothing will happen. And even then it's not guaranteed. I realise this can be frustrating because this is the kind of game sim that tends to
  8. I had a quick look in RoF just now to remind myself how the Hanriot performs with a similar engine. HD.1 (130hp Le Rhone 9Jby) 187km/h @ ~1325 RPM HD.2 (130hp Clerget 9B) 176km/h @ 1350 RPM The FC Camel has the exact same speed as the Hanriot HD.2 @ 1350 RPM, which, I suppose makes sense, given that it's those huge floaters that keep it from reaching higher RPMs. Oh and I'd forgotten how much fun it is to land on the water in the HD.2. On a sideno
  9. So a final musing: I guess they could spend time and money to review the Camel's FM completely and have it go from 190km/h @ 1450 RPM with failure at ~1600 RPM to 188km/h @ 1400 RPM with failure at ~1500 RPM ...buuuut we already know that's not going to happen for a mere 2km/h. Instead they could just assume that there's a 50-100 RPM margin of error on the Clerget/Le Rhone rotaries and play with it a bit. Which is to say: leave the Camel as-is and give the Fokker Dr.I an extra 100hp. Then we'll have the old pre-RoF 1.034 Dr.I back, with its top speed of around 180km/h. Makes eve
  10. A few more interesting bits from that document (it's too bad that few if any sources are cited): The Sopwith Pup is mentioned as having used a 110hp Clerget (typically this would have been an 80hp Le Rhone). The Camel and Triplane are also mentioned as having been supplied 110hp Clergets. They also feature in this list: Note the Camel top speed of 173km/h, Pup 170km/h and Triplane 180km/h. Finally mention is made of running the engine at "sur régime" (overdrive) for too long (for several hours), which would c
  11. This is everything you need to know, really: it can temporarily reach 150hp @ 1400 RPM in "sur régime" (overdrive/overspeed). Normal speed is 130hp @ 1200 RPM. Tolerated/authorised speed is 1250 RPM. This appears to be 135hp, which is its cold speed. 1700 RPM is waaay too high. The cylinders should begin to physically depart at 1500 RPM, this is the case for all Clerget/Le Rhone-type rotaries. Likely Gnome Monosoupapes could go higher because they had fewer moving parts, but not by much. Anyway this is likely the same bug that allows the Fokker D.VII to go far over its
  12. No, I meant the 180hp and 200hp Hispano-Suiza 8Ab and 8Ba (those names are not at all confusing), as found on the SPAD VII and HS S.E.5a (and all Sopwith Dolphins). The regular old Albatros D.III and Albatros D.V(a) with either "late" 160hp Mercedes D.III or "regular" 170hp Mercedes D.IIIa should be able to climb above all of these, though it will likely take them longer to get there as their fuel mixtures are already optimized for high altitude even at sea level. Maybe the SPAD VII would have had a similar ceiling (5500-6000m), in spite of having a slightly less powerful engine than the S.E.5
  13. Sounds like a 145hp Clerget 9Bf, and you would be right about increasing RPMs at altitude, though they still wouldn't have reached 1400. That was likely the max attainable at sea level, for fear of detonation. No idea what their top speed would be at 1400 RPM, but more than the 190km/h which we have now. Some Camels also used the 160hp Gnome Monosoupape, so that might be worth looking into. In any case, 190km/h for the Camel ASL is too high anyway. According to the Belgians the Nieuport 23, Hanriot HD.1 and Camel all could reach about 180-185km/h, and their engines were often used
  14. Great, now I want a horse carriage collector vehicle. Fun fact: a horse has around 15hp peak power output (a human being around 5hp), but I also want a late war 20hp aü horse, or even better a 24hp horse F with an altitude whip.
  15. The N28's flight modeling and its sustained turn in absolute terms wouldn't matter all that much if everyone on both sides was flying only the N28. You could still say: well, the sustained turn at sea level should be 9s or 10s instead of 11s and I have this or that calculation to prove it — but it really doesn't matter, as everyone is flying the same plane anyway. But of course that is not the case, hence what really matters is to compare its sustained turn to an enemy plane which we can assume it performed similarly to, and for which we have verifiable data in relative terms. It's
  16. Yes, and this is a prime example of what I dub the Law of Universal Elitism. If given the choice, people will go fly on the "fullest realest" server with the hardest possible rules, regardless whether they reflect reality or not, as long as those rules apply to everyone. A few examples of the law in action: Look at how realistic this sim is, my plane can even pull its wings off in a dive! Look at how unrealistic this sim is, his plane can't even pull its wings off in a dive... Look at how realistic this sim is, my plane even has control cable fail
  17. Yeah, the damage feedback effects are a design decision I’m willing to defend, though it’s not a hill I’m willing to die on either. I really quite like them. I don’t think they’re very realistic, but they don’t truly matter all that much in the first place. It’s definitely something that’s the same for everyone, too, much like the fire effects. That said, much like kill messages, it’s something that would be nice to have in the hands of server operators. For the record: I’m a big supporter of kill messages, and I think their absence on Flugpark is what leads to some of the question
  18. I think the devs must read these threads (because they do, even if you think that they don't) and think: "Not this, again." There's really no need to reinvent the wheel here. What we're seeing is just a reflection of a more complex engine and how it affects the early RoF planes with varying degrees of complexity. Basically, all we need are 3 things: All wings built more or less the same way should behave more or less the same when it comes to g tolerance, before and after damage (most notably the Pfalz behaves differently) All planes with similar
  19. I just demand equal rights for Dolphins. If they get to have balloon guns and cannons, why lock out overwing Lewis guns?
  20. To be fair I had two wingless crashes that should have killed me, but she sliiiiiiiiiiides. Dat Becker hit, tho. It was literally 1 bullet.
  21. I think it offers valuable feedback in multiplayer where server latency is a reality, something that obviously didn’t exist back in the day. As always, and as with almost everything in this sim that is open to interpretation (visibility, tolerance to G forces etc.), I think a user/server toggle would be nice.
  22. What have you been doing, playing on your refrigerator? Anyway, also works on mobile.
  23. And I would have gotten away with it if it weren’t for those meddling Becker cannon AI gunners.
×
×
  • Create New...