Jump to content
Chill31

Fokker Dr.I Discussion

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I am starting this thread as an inclusive place to talk about all things Fokker Dr.I.  I have somewhat of an addiction to the plane.  So much so that I own one and now have both an 80 Hp Le Rhone for it and a 120 Hp Le Rhone for it.  (Yes, the Le Rhone, and by extension the Oberursel, did produce 120 Hp.  The Le Rhone 9Jb is the Oberursel URII, both of which are nominally 120 Hp engines).  I am just installing the Flying Circus and have yet to fly the Dr.I.  Does it still carry the same quirky behavior found in ROF?

 

At any rate, some pictures to follow.

120_Le_Rhone.jpg

80 Le Rhone.jpg

Fokker 2.5km.jpg

 

Fokker Post Flight.jpg

Edited by Chill31
Removing Personal Info
  • Like 14
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will be interested to get your thoughts on the feel of the FC Dr.1: I found your comments in the RoF forums most illuminating.

 

I think the emerging consensus is that the FC version handles rather more sedately than the RoF version, but that is just first impressions. What has not changed much is the amount of down elevator needed to fly level: we do not have the same freedom to configure stick inputs as we had in RoF, so it is a bit of a pain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope we can keep the discussion on this magnificent plane respectful and constructive.

 

I really only have one wish: that 777 brings you on as a tester / external consultant and takes some of your experience with it to heart.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The beast is a bit more tamed in FC but generally there are no big differences. Lack of response curves might give different perceptions.

 

It's always a pleasure to hear from real pilots of the aircraft. Wish he could also contribute to the topic.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m finding the new Dr.1 less dramatically quirky and more pleasant.   It’s still got the same personality just not a cartoon version of it.  The ROF version did not feel believable, it was too exaggerated.   This one feels like one guy who reads books thinks it should.  

 

What does a RL Dr.1 pilot think?

 

And what sea level speeds you guys getting?   I got 169 but can’t remember what map.  

 

Ceowulf<><  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

How about it's climb rate?  I could record ACM file and check it in Tacview. Which are the most reliable sources data on Dr1 climb ?

Edited by 307_Tomcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ceowulf said:

I’m finding the new Dr.1 less dramatically quirky and more pleasant.   It’s still got the same personality just not a cartoon version of it.  The ROF version did not feel believable, it was too exaggerated.   This one feels like one guy who reads books thinks it should.  

 

Now I can't wait for the Dolphin!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

What has not changed much is the amount of down elevator needed to fly level: we do not have the same freedom to configure stick inputs as we had in RoF, so it is a bit of a pain. 

 

I'm not finding it very different... however, if the real one had the need for so much down pressure to keep it level it must be extremely tiring to fly...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sluggishness people are experiencing might be related to the senses. The engine has a pretty basic sound (so it seems and sounds) and does not transmit the feeling of speed or any power. I think the sound of wind is also tamed down. I don't fly on FSX for years, but it sounds like the Dr.1 on FSX, a soft buzz to mimic the engine.

 

I had the same feeling people are having (that it was further underpowered), so I took it for a spin and it still reaches 165km/h at the summer map (Kuban, sea level) and it still climbs more or less to 1.000m in 3min. These are the same numbers of my tests on the Channel map (summer, 15ºC IIRC).

 

I think just a more detailed test could tell. But at first glance the RPM can't go over 1275 on Kuban summer (or any season). It goes over 1310 at the Channel map. Just a first impression, but it might have a change there. The Oberusel 110hp test at McCook Field (Fokker D.VIII) was done at 1390rpm at sea level and 1305rpm at 15.000ft.

 

Note that the specifications of the plane on the mission say it reaches 178km/h at sea level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

28 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

 

I'm not finding it very different... however, if the real one had the need for so much down pressure to keep it level it must be extremely tiring to fly...


It supposedly was. It made sense, too; tail heavy planes are more maneuvrable (it's easier to initiate sudden change of heading / attitude) and nose-heavy planes are more stable (it's easier to maintain a heading / attitude ). WW1 scouts were generally rigged for maneuvrability...

 

Quote

The Oberusel 110hp test at McCook Field (Fokker D.VIII) was done at 1390rpm


That's when RoF Oberusel starts to die from overrev...
 

Edited by LsV_Trupobaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

Note that the specifications of the plane on the mission say it reaches 178km/h at sea level.

Only in a dive. In level flight 160-165 if you can hold it level.:fly:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

 

I had the same feeling people are having (that it was further underpowered), so I took it for a spin and it still reaches 165km/h at the summer map (Kuban, sea level) and it still climbs more or less to 1.000m in 3min. These are the same numbers of my tests on the Channel map (summer, 15ºC IIRC).

 

 

Have people said that it feels underpowered? I have not seen that. My observation is that it is easier to make turns than the RoF version without the thing trying to turn itself inside out and eject you. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, unreasonable said:

 

Have people said that it feels underpowered? I have not seen that. My observation is that it is easier to make turns than the RoF version without the thing trying to turn itself inside out and eject you. 

 

 

When you say "it handles rather more sedately than the RoF version" what comes to mind is less power, less snapiness. It might be related to the sound, which gives the sense you are easy going, just cruuuuising. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

When you say "it handles rather more sedately than the RoF version" what comes to mind is less power, less snapiness. It might be related to the sound, which gives the sense you are easy going, just cruuuuising. 

 

What I meant was that I find it easier to turn without losing control: I was not interpreting that as a power issue, but I suppose it could be. And as I said, this could just be the passing of time and change in my skill level or the nuances of translating an old FM into an evolved engine. 

 

Anyway, people are bound to make comparisons to RoF Dr.1s to start with since it is the point of reference for many of us, but at some point we would probably be better off just taking them as they are.  

 

What is fun is to set up a QMB of 4 Dr.1s vs 4 Dr.1s. That really is a furball!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly didn't feel like it is any less powerful than ROF - it just doesn't feel so weird and prone to flip out if you mess up a turn.  

 

RE:  Don't compare to ROF.  It may be right but it'll take a while.  Some of us still fly there and man, have we all put the hours in.  This Dr.1 feels more real compared to Youtube and books, I can say that.

 

It is a little slow though...   (Pistols heard cocking under poker table.)  Seriously I just wish we could split the difference or something.  165+178=343 ,  343/2=171.5 ,  It should go 171.5 

 

That is all.

 

Ceowulf<><

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Jason, they copy pasted the flight models and RoF physics engine into BoX. So it should be absolutely identical. It's been a long time since I played RoF, but it feels just like I remember it. Any differences you find are likely the result of different control curves, sound effects and graphics. The controls can't be underestimated either. If you trimmed the Rof DR.I for level flight, then you had somewhere around 80% of the plane's stick movement mapped to only half of your joystick's movement for up elevator. That will inevitably result in a bird that's super twitchy in pitch up but very sluggish in pitch down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the same kind of feel as described by unreasonable. I don't think that the plane lost agility. But that it now has more the charm of an actual aeroplane. You stall it out like an aeroplane, you bleed speed in substained tight turns and it if you bleed out the speed, you start to lose altitude. In addition to that you need a good speed to fly a nice loop that also requires considerable rudder to not make a 90* turn when going across the top of the loop.

 

55 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Have people said that it feels underpowered? I have not seen that.

 

50 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

what comes to mind is less power, less snapiness.

 

Performance whise, I think it is on the slow side. I get about the same performance as mentioned by Seawolf. I will need some practise with it, but my first impression is reall, as it is now, it wouldn't be a plane that "empties a map" (like the good old RoF variant from old times), but much rather just a very good dogfighter. I do think it is as snappy as before, but you have to have more speed to really do dynamic maneuvering, rather than the dance of kois feeding in a pond.

 

Unfortunately, I will not have too much time for flying, as due to vacations, I will not be near my flight rig. :( But my first impression is really that further engine mods would make sense on this aircraft. "old Oberursels" from what we have now to freshly stolen Clergets... Without creating combat scenes that are what they absolutely were not.

 

Anyway, it will take some time until I can substanciate my "feelings" here.

1 minute ago, BeastyBaiter said:

According to Jason, they copy pasted the flight models and RoF physics engine into BoX.

That is what I read as well. Puzzles me TBH, as I do have a different feel. But it could be due to placebo or just being happy seeing the old crates as new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, BeastyBaiter said:

According to Jason, they copy pasted the flight models and RoF physics engine into BoX. So it should be absolutely identical. It's been a long time since I played RoF, but it feels just like I remember it. Any differences you find are likely the result of different control curves, sound effects and graphics. The controls can't be underestimated either. If you trimmed the Rof DR.I for level flight, then you had somewhere around 80% of the plane's stick movement mapped to only half of your joystick's movement for up elevator. That will inevitably result in a bird that's super twitchy in pitch up but very sluggish in pitch down.

 

I had missed the part about copy pasting the physics engine... but in that case I have to wonder how you can have a Dr.1 vs Spitfire QMB?  What physics is being applied to something that is not a whole aeroplane,  such as debris?  I make no claims to understanding how the game engine works: just seems odd to have more than one physics engine.

 

I used to adjust the Dr.1s elevator to take out some of the worst of the forwards pressure in level flight, but it still needed some. Some sluggishness in pitch down is not so terrible: it is not something you do anything like as often as pitch up. Problem now is that you still need quite a bit of forwards pressure even when turning: relax too much and over you go. Like everything, a matter of practice: I liked the N.17 best of the rotaries: still rotary like but a little more ladylike.

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

but my first impression is reall, as it is now, it wouldn't be a plane that "empties a map"

 

Right now we are just having a single player experience, perhaps with different stick responses from the new engine and with engine noise that is a bit underwhelming. All this combined could trick us.

 

But the loss of rpm seems to be real, but then we would have to create a single mission with the same temperature and test at sea level on the Kuban map (although I was only reaching 1275rpm on all the Kuban seasons.

 

Regarding emptying a map, we need to see how it performs in MP with all the plane set.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

I had missed the part about copy pasting the physics engine... but in that case I have to wonder how you can have a Dr.1 vs Spitfire QMB?  What physics is being applied to something that is not a whole aeroplane,  such as debris?  I make no claims to understanding how the game engine works: just seems odd to have more than one physics engine. 

 

I used to adjust the Dr.1s elevator to take out some of the worst of the forwards pressure in level flight, but it still needed some. Some sluggishness in pitch down is not so terrible: it is not something you do anything like as often as pitch up. Problem now is that you still need quite a bit of forwards pressure even when turning: relax too much and over you go. Like everything, a matter of practice: I liked the N.17 best of the rotaries: still rotary like but a little more ladylike.

 

From a programming aspect, it isn't at all hard to do. The game very likely already has multiple physics engines running in it to cover different types of vehicles, such as planes vs tanks vs ships vs infantry. Splitting planes between two different physics engines should be a fairly trivial thing.

 

As for the Dr.I emptying the map, I suppose it depends on gun dispersion. The biggest thing keeping it from mowing down all the B&Zing Spads in RoF was the fact that you just couldn't hit anything beyond 200m. With effective gun ranges of around 500m, it will be tough to get enough distance between you and a Dr.I before he can line up a shot if you fail to kill him in the initial pass. But I wouldn't worry about it yet, FC is in very EA and what we have is likely subject to substantial change over the next year.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, BeastyBaiter said:

According to Jason, they copy pasted the flight models and RoF physics engine into BoX. So it should be absolutely identical

The FMs have been slightly adjusted to accomodate the support created specifically for FC aircraft within IL2. These do however not significantly change the flight characteristics compared to the RoF version.

Edited by 6./ZG26_5tuka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What certainly is copy pasted from the RoF store page is the text and performance data you get inside the Specifications tab in QMB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chill31,  I'm not really into shades of grey but I'm always open to exceptions.  I hope and pray that the dev's use and abuse you and pump you, repeatedly,  for as much as you can give them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

 

I'm not finding it very different... however, if the real one had the need for so much down pressure to keep it level it must be extremely tiring to fly...

This is true to the real one as well.  After flying for more than an hour, my right hand was cramped up from holding the control stick.  It is a VERY tiring plane to fly due to several features of it (Small vertical tail, constant pitch up).

 

 

6 hours ago, Hellbender said:

I hope we can keep the discussion on this magnificent plane respectful and constructive.

 

I really only have one wish: that 777 brings you on as a tester / external consultant and takes some of your experience with it to heart.

 

 

When I found out 777 was going to pursue Flying Circus here, I messaged Petrovich and gave them the insights I could.  I was happy their team was receptive, and it seems to have helped a little. 

 

1 hour ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

Chill31,  I'm not really into shades of grey but I'm always open to exceptions.  I hope and pray that the dev's use and abuse you and pump you, repeatedly,  for as much as you can give them.

 bahahaha

Some of you may have seen this already, but it is useful for comparison to the FM available here.  I spent about 10 minutes with it before having to work :(  However, it seemed much improved over the ROF FM.  I need to see the left turn a bit more to know if it is still a bit quirky there.

 

The real plane flies like an arcade game.  Yank and bank to your heart's content, and there are really no bad qualities.  The roll rate at slow speed is abysmal in the real plane, but when I did a roll in FC, it seemed to match the rate I achieve in this video.  Same with the loop.  I'll dig into it more this weekend for a full review.

 

 

 

Edited by Chill31
video
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 8
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning chaps!

 

Salute Chill!

 

Oh please can we  have  some A/B tests. With moving pictures! ( They are all the rage I hear...)

 

Virtual DR1 does a routine and is "filmed" from a good vantage point, then,

Simulated DR1 does the same etc.

 

for the RL dr1 it would be great to have cameras on various things:

Controls, airspeed indicators and control surfaces....

 

Compare and contrast.

 

It would be awesome to look at both films and consider their similarities etc. 

 

Yey for actual planes! Without them we wouldn't have simulated ones. : - )

 

Salute!

 

Planky.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Chill31 said:

When I found out 777 was going to pursue Flying Circus here, I messaged Petrovich and gave them the insights I could.  I was happy their team was receptive, and it seems to have helped a little. 

Glad having yo with us here! I think it's amazing what the devs can do regarding FM on planes they *cannot* get a hand on. If thy are rececptive to some real world calibration of their modelling, then making things near perfect should be more straight forward.

 

Besides, I really, really appriaciated the *.air file you made for the original neoqb Dr.I for FSX. That was v2, the last/most recent I found. The only Dr.I I ever liked to fly in ANY sim (till now, actually). And Taking the FC Dr.I as we have it now for a spin, it REALLY gave me the feeling as the one you made, much rather than the original in RoF. You stating that you have contacted the devs is indication to me that the devs did more than "copying" by bringing the Dr.I to FC.

 

I say that because the main differences (the obvious ones) are behaviour of slow flight tight turns plus the loss in speed during a loop. Now, you need to bring some energy to make the cool stunts. But if you do that, you still can do the amazing tricks.

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The physics engine underwent development since it's been copied from RoF 5 years ago.

I did some truck strafing and tree slaloming in the Dr.I... there is definetely less inertia, more certanity. Sudden maneuvers that in RoF require blip switch here can be done without it; I can even line up and strafe trucks without touching the blip switch, while in RoF I have to blip engine to stabilise the flight. There is no question of curves, I use none, and no faulty memory - I still fly it in RoF on regular basis.

Also, the engine goes to 1600 RPM before blowing, in RoF it dies at 1400 RPM. 

Edited by J2_Trupobaw
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all extremely gratifying: great to get some hands on input making a difference to the game and that it has evolved in the transition: thank you Chill31, look forwards to seeing your analysis.  I am also pleased that SYN_Haashashin has confirmed that we can talk about FMs as long as we stay civil, follow BoX rules and do not engage in needless provocations.   With a bit of luck we can forget about cannibal island (great coinage, Mr Trupobaw :) )  and have a new start.   

 

Much as I enjoy BoX, especially the Spitfires, getting back to proper aeroplanes is delightful.

 

 4a.m. here, insomnia, too stimulated... did I say that 4 Dr.1s vs 4 Dr.1s was fun? I going to go for max Dr.1s in QMB next: should be able to get at least 8 vs 8 crazed bumble-bees. Perhaps do a mission in the ME ... I wonder how many Dr.1s the system can take?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3:30 AM last night for me and with work in the morning.  

 

I wish we could get 30 or more planes aloft like in ROF.  I love a sky full of dogfights.  Big hot mess.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ceowulf said:

3:30 AM last night for me and with work in the morning.  

 

I wish we could get 30 or more planes aloft like in ROF.  I love a sky full of dogfights.  Big hot mess.  

 

Yikes, hope you make it through.

 

Thursday felt like Friday, may have been the toys we were given to play with :).

 

I really like the dev's, thanks for giving them feedback and I'm looking forward to what you make of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

 

I had the same feeling people are having (that it was further underpowered), so I took it for a spin and it still reaches 165km/h at the summer map (Kuban, sea level) and it still climbs more or less to 1.000m in 3min. These are the same numbers of my tests on the Channel map (summer, 15ºC IIRC).

 

I think just a more detailed test could tell. But at first glance the RPM can't go over 1275 on Kuban summer (or any season). It goes over 1310 at the Channel map. Just a first impression, but it might have a change there. The Oberusel 110hp test at McCook Field (Fokker D.VIII) was done at 1390rpm at sea level and 1305rpm at 15.000ft.

 

Note that the specifications of the plane on the mission say it reaches 178km/h at sea level.

 In BoX summer maps are at 25ºC, for 15ºC you need to use Autumn maps. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy crap, you own a Dr.I!? With the original engine?! And an awesome paintjob?! :o:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah for sure things are not entirely equal - I landed it in a rush twice without ruining the wings! And never spun it for a full hour.

 

Or maybe I'm now that much better? I'll stick with this thought 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

 In BoX summer maps are at 25ºC, for 15ºC you need to use Autumn maps. 

 

Cool, I tested on the autumn map and the RPM apparently did not change, just the speed (slightly better). I'll see if I can do some more tests today. With more time I need to create a mission to test climb and speed. Too bad the HUD does not have a clock. It is way easier in ROF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I flew the Dr1 some in shooting stars last night it seems easier to control then RoF but still have killer turning. It seemed really easy to fly. I never got into a spin, but I saw a couple players (AI?) spin out in them when I was flying the SPAD. The SPAD feels a little bit more responsive as well. Maybe it's all placebo effect. VR can't be beat for immersion, but spotting and ID sucks.

 

S!

Hunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

8 minutes ago, US103_Hunter said:

When I flew the Dr1 some in shooting stars last night it seems easier to control then RoF but still have killer turning. It seemed really easy to fly. I never got into a spin, but I saw a couple players (AI?) spin out in them when I was flying the SPAD. The SPAD feels a little bit more responsive as well. Maybe it's all placebo effect. VR can't be beat for immersion, but spotting and ID sucks.

 

S!

Hunter

The SPAD 13 seems to feel lighter now that you mention it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, US103_Hunter said:

When I flew the Dr1 some in shooting stars last night it seems easier to control then RoF but still have killer turning. It seemed really easy to fly. I never got into a spin, but I saw a couple players (AI?) spin out in them when I was flying the SPAD. The SPAD feels a little bit more responsive as well. Maybe it's all placebo effect. VR can't be beat for immersion, but spotting and ID sucks.

 

S!

Hunter

 

At least you're not pukeing anymore. barf GIF

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chill31

Did you build that Dr-1 yourself? Is it built as were the originals? What I am curious about is if it is built per the originals, do you have to hold a huge amount of down elevator as is modeled int the sim, to fly straight and level at cruise speed? I would think they would have changed the incidence angle on the horizontal stab to fix that.

Your Tri-plane is a beautiful machine , and my hats off to you for using a real rotary engine. It would take more guts than I have. My only tail dragger time is in a Citabria, much more forgiving for sure.

 

I am also hoping that the developers are going to include some type of response curves for pitch roll  and yaw, in the finial release as in ROF,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DD_APHill said:

Chill31

Did you build that Dr-1 yourself? Is it built as were the originals? What I am curious about is if it is built per the originals, do you have to hold a huge amount of down elevator as is modeled int the sim, to fly straight and level at cruise speed? I would think they would have changed the incidence angle on the horizontal stab to fix that.

Your Tri-plane is a beautiful machine , and my hats off to you for using a real rotary engine. It would take more guts than I have. My only tail dragger time is in a Citabria, much more forgiving for sure.

 

I am also hoping that the developers are going to include some type of response curves for pitch roll  and yaw, in the finial release as in ROF,

 

Hey! 7EC Flier here myself!    It's crazy to me to think that a Citabria / Champ would only have mid-war 'meh' performance in comparison.  Like you said, more forgiving. 

 

But yeah, OP! Amazing aircraft. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DD_APHill said:

What I am curious about is if it is built per the originals, do you have to hold a huge amount of down elevator as is modeled int the sim, to fly straight and level at cruise speed?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×