Jump to content

SeaW0lf

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    747
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

215 Excellent

About SeaW0lf

  • Rank
    Founder

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Rio de Janeiro

Recent Profile Visitors

724 profile views
  1. I think we're all looking forward to the results (damn, we have a player who owns Le Rhônes and Clergets?!)! No matter the result, we will be satisfied. I just hope we don't have to argue about rpms, prop pitch and such with the devs, because the Camel is pretty much out there with more than 1400rpms, and like I said many times before, the Oberursel manual states 1380rpm for max speeds, the same rpm used (1390rpm by the way) by the Fokker D8 tests at McCook Field in1921. So there has to be calculations coming from the cruise speed these engines will be experiencing in real life. I think we are all rooting for relative performance (for all aircraft), not if the Dr1 is a 180km/h plane or a 165km/h plane.
  2. Damn, I forgot about the Camel 😂 I added it to the list. I had tested together with the bunch. I'm testing a mission to calculate the speed through distance vs time using landmarks (buildings). This way I can calculate the altitude performance. The HUD does not have a chronometer, than I have to make the run in real time (takes time), but I'm doing some tests to see if the time constraint is consistent and will not give much difference. For example, if I make the run with 2X, I just have to multiply the time by two at the end. On an 80km run, a couple of seconds oscillation will not be relevant I suppose. Let's see.
  3. I'm not saying we should stop citing sources and asking for changes. I just find it to be odd that they need to redo their tests for us to base our data. What I'm saying is that we already know their performances, the performance in-game, where it really matters. Because then what? The in-house numbers could differ from the in-game numbers and if they kind of come close to the norm they can call it a day? I think we should base our opinions on in-game data. Hence why I said it is easy. Just take them for a ride and take note of the numbers. Otherwise we are comparing two universes, and if you combine real data with either one of them, you could be kind of right in some situations without making any changes. Hence why I took all of the aircraft for a spin. It seems in accordance with what they said, that we are back to pre 1034 patch (except for the Dr.1). If people disagree, I think the right thing to do is to open threads asking for changes.
  4. I'm not really sure what they mean by that. They stated that all the planes are back to pre 1034 patch. And I just tested all of them and they all match the same speed both in ROF and Flying Circus (except the Dr.1, which remains nerfed both in ROF and in Flying Circus). Here is what I found (if I'm not mistaken): Dolphin ROF 199km/h - Flying Circus 199km/h Spad 13 ROF 215km/h - Flying Circus 215km/h SE5a ROF 219km/h - Flying Circus 220km/h Camel ROF* 190km/h - Flying Circus 190km/h Fokker D7 ROF 189km/h - Flying Circus 189km/h Fokker D7F ROF 193km/h - Flying Circus 194km/h Fokker Dr.1 ROF 164km/h - Flying Circus 165km/h (still nerfed both in ROF and in Flying Circus, so they are not all in accordance with the pre 1034 patch, when the Dr.1 had a 179km/h speed). Pfalz D3a ROF* 165km/h - Flying Circus 167km/h DVa ROF* 171km/h - Flying Circus 169km/h ROF* - data from IAS calculations made by Gavagai before the 1034 patch if I'm not mistaken, witch from my experience can oscillate from 1 to 2km/h (or more) from the true airspeed if we calculate distance traveled versus time (the tests that I did in ROF). So I'm not sure why the confusion. The speed of all planes is matching the speed of the flight models from before the 1034 patch of 2014, except the Dr.1. I don't think anyone diverges from that or that we need confirmation of that. I mean, the proof is in the pudding (aham... planes themselves). The only odd ball is the Dr.1, whitch remains nerfed. They could tell us why, since they mentioned "flight characteristics of all Flying Circus planes fully correspond to RoF before update 1.034". Perhaps waiting for Chill to test his engines on his Dr.1? I would not mind, but it would be nice to know what's goin on with the Fokker, because other than that, I don't think people are lost on the numbers. You just have to take them for a spin and take note of their speeds (the ones with mixture are a bit trickier).
  5. Fair enough, I edited that. But yes, I'm flying once a week at best when I used to fly everyday.
  6. None of them did in turnfights, just in a sort of straight line and in zoom up manouvers. You can discuss it here if you want. I never found a quote of any of them saying they were firing across the circle in turnfights. Alex Revell (who wrote High in The Empty Blue) told me it would be impossible for several reasons, and he knew some of the pilots of the 56th Squadron. Then to use it to gain across the circle against better turning fighters is a hack in my opinion. Hence why I might open a thread here to discuss it in a civil manner with the community. Like I said, we can discuss it at the thread I linked (ROF).
  7. The tilting thing is what adds a bad / unhistorical twist to it in multiplayer. But this is off-topic. I'm considering opening a thread about it, but we all know the hassles.
  8. Someone might have found info that a pilot used one captured Lewis gun, or that it was used in some other front by a pilot or a squadron. But I agree, it is not representative of the plane. I think with all these modifications, they tried to give an arcade tone to lure the 'War Thunder' crowd, but I think these things are only negative.
  9. It would be interesting to ask The Vintage Aviator if they use real data for their descriptions (vide below, I think they are talking about the D3 at 109mph).
  10. I'm not sure of it, because they say "flight characteristics of all Flying Circus planes fully correspond". Besides, I'm not seeing the Pfalz being sluggish as she got after the 1034 patch (although no one flies the Pfalz in ROF anymore, so I can't really compare). Were you a Pfalz player before the 1034 patch? Does the Pfalz in FC have the same turn rate of the current Pfalz in ROF?
  11. Well, the Fokker Dr1 remains nerfed according to Bender's tests, so I'm not sure what they mean by "flight characteristics of all Flying Circus planes ". It is not true. But I had sensed that the Pfalz had been rolled back to pre 1034 when they corrected her speed, and it was now confirmed. Did they forget about the Dr1? It happens, right? But they should fix her as well.
  12. I might open a thread to ask for answers, but it is a task of a lot of hassle and very little reward, especially now. Yesterday [and today] the reception of the new aircraft is lackluster to say the least. I imagined that people would go nuts about the DVa and SE5, and that we would get people flying on the servers… Well… I think I'll go overclock my rig, which is a more interesting task at this point
  13. I think this is rather unlikely. They cannot use a wear and tear standard for the Dr1 in particular and do not apply the same standard to other aircraft. Some pilots used Le Rhônes and Clergets to the end of the war, there was the winter period and so on. People could create a campaing with it, but I don't think the BOX engine can manage wear and tear at this point. And they said "In this update this error is fixed, so flight characteristics of all Flying Circus planes fully correspond to RoF before update 1.034", so perhaps they forgot about it, which is odd anyways. Boy oh boy...
  14. As it is, we are already having a lot of problems to convey some relevant information. If we account for wear and tear and modifications, we could sway the needle to wherever we want, and then comes into play a negative aspect of simulation to unadvisedly lean the needle towards some aircraft, intentionally or not. If you read High in the Empty Blue, the squadrons were very resourceful when working with the engines, guns and such. Guttman, in his book about the Camel and Dr1, tells about wear and tear, but that the Camel in general was faster, so it is reasonably to work with a faster Camel, and so on so forth. I just think that a developer then should choose a particular engine and time frame and work with factory specs. If the simulator is really advanced, then people could tweak wear and tear in the future.
  15. Did they forget about the Dr.I? It is odd then to say that we are back to pre 1034, which is not true. Did you guys noticed any changes in the feeling of flight? Because Flying Circus is (or was) way better than ROF.
×
×
  • Create New...