Fighting on the edge

[HagarTheHorrible]

One of the problems with flying the Camel in RoF was it's knife edge stall and deadly spin ( given typical MP combat of 3 1/2 feet).  This fatal tendency, in the Camel, was effectively nullified by taking a reduced fuel load, as little as considered necessary, and the use of lots of editing of the response curves.  The solution, if imperfect, worked in balancing out the virtues of the DR1, but not only did it game the game (fuel) but it also,, handling wise, took away the edge off of the aircraft.  Of course MP is never really about reality, 

 

Without response curves in FC, flying the Camel is potentially going to be a lot more challenging at getting the Camel sitting at the edge of a stall, but no further, of fighting it to it's limits, as it was designed to do.

 

Are there adequate indications, in the updated game engine, given the different types of joystick, that will produce enough feedback of flying on the edge.  The real pilots, with sufficient training and experience, presumably had several ways of judging that fine balance between, on the edge and oblivion.

 

 

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

Only editing I did in the camel was adding an s curve to the rudder, other than that I flew her out of the box as is. With the camel you need to fly with little rudder and if you have rudder pedals even better to control the out put on your rudder. Turn down any sensitivity you have in your pedals. On tight turns keep your nose level to the horizon and use your ailerons and elevator mostly, little rudder to keep her level. She wont climb in a turn like the DR1 so try and keep the DR1 below you to win that fight. Any other plane your up against while in the camel will be a breeze unless they have a lot more altitude than you or out number you. 

Just got FC today, so should be exciting to fly the DR1, see how it handles, such an easy plane to fly. 

[J2_Trupobaw]

The Camel became much more docile after 2014 update. Don't expect it to climb, either.. 

Edited July 26, 2018 by J2_Trupobaw

[BMA_Hellbender]

The Camel is best deployed in large numbers at low altitude, preferrably with a contingent of SE5as stacked higher, the lot of it backed up by a Bristol or two.

 

It's a punisher and an executioner, really. It punishes and executes Albies and D.VIIs for not energy fighting, or Dr.Is when they are outnumbered. It also punishes and executes its own pilot for not keeping it in check. Right now the only problem with it in Rise of Flight, is that you no longer see enough of them, as people wisely choose a less deadly but also less dangerous machine to fly around. Historically, British pilots all wanted to transition to SEs as soon as possible, but there just weren't enough of them. Most Belgian pilots also preferred either the Nieuport 23 or Hanriot HD.1 over it — in spite of all three having similar performance characteristics.

 

Regardless, it's going to remain an AirQuake favourite, flown with next to no fuel and ammo, at least until we get the Pup.

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

You'll need a few good wing men to fly with in the camel that's for sure. Just took a ride in the DR1 and man that is a sweet bird to fly. beautiful game. Hope we get to keep the airfields. Makes landings so much nicer and take offs.  

Can't wait for the camel to arrive to the front. 

Hellbender I think the Hanriot handles much nicer than any of the Nieuports, Just as fast or damn close to it and can actually turn but flimsy as hell, not sure if the real Hanriot was that bad.

Will be fun to see the skies filled with these kites again. 

[unreasonable]

30 minutes ago, Hellbender said:

Right now the only problem with it in Rise of Flight, is that you no longer see enough of them, as people wisely choose a less deadly but also less dangerous machine to fly around.

 

No: the problem with it in RoF is that the developers, under pressure from the MP balance lobby, have given it performance figures that match only the worst of the available wide range of documented figures.

 

It was not right in RoF and it will not be right in FC, if either are a simulation. 

 

At some point Jason et al will have to come clean and say whether FC is intended to adhere to the same standards as BoX or just be a fun MP shooter, in which case I can stop wasting time and money.  It is early access, so still too early to tell.

[US103_Hunter]

Regarding the camel, They really need to model about three different versions for early to mid to late production and they can be used based on the time of the scenario. It's the same as the DVII with it's three engines. This was not a concept when the original camel came out, but it can be done in IL2 for sure.

 

S!

Hunter

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

I'll be happy with 1 good non glass engine.

16 hours ago, grahamshere said:

Only editing I did in the camel was adding an s curve to the rudder, other than that I flew her out of the box as is.

 

That's it....nothing else ???

[SeaW0lf]

10 hours ago, unreasonable said:

At some point Jason et al will have to come clean and say whether FC is intended to adhere to the same standards as BoX or just be a fun MP shooter, in which case I can stop wasting time and money.  It is early access, so still too early to tell.

 

That's about right.

[ZachariasX]

10 hours ago, unreasonable said:

At some point Jason et al will have to come clean and say whether FC is intended to adhere to the same standards as BoX or just be a fun MP shooter, in which case I can stop wasting time and money.  It is early access, so still too early to tell.

Looking at how the Spad and the Camel made their appearance in FC, we can have hope that the Camel will be just fine, right?

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

2 hours ago, Klugermann said:

I'll be happy with 1 good non glass engine.

 

That's it....nothing else ???

Yes that's it, nothing else, why, what are you trying to say?

Edited July 26, 2018 by grahamshere

[BraveSirRobin]

11 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

At some point Jason et al will have to come clean and say whether FC is intended to adhere to the same standards as BoX or just be a fun MP shooter, in which case I can stop wasting time and money.  It is early access, so still too early to tell.

 

He has already said about 5 times that the FMs will just be ported from RoF.  If that's not good enough for you then I'm not sure why you're still here.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

17 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

He has already said about 5 times that the FMs will just be ported from RoF.  If that's not good enough for you then I'm not sure why you're still here.

Yes, but then FC Dr.1 is different and this is not placebo I think.

[BraveSirRobin]

7 minutes ago, 307_Tomcat said:

Yes, but then FC Dr.1 is different and this is not placebo I think.

 

Level flight max speed matches RoF version.  It does not match the store page specs.

[ZachariasX]

7 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

Level flight max speed matches RoF version.  It does not match the store page specs.

It‘s quiet obvious that flight characteristics have been fine tuned for FC. But there is no need for Jason to advertise this as such, since it will expose him to endless complaints when in fact the aircaft is near spot on to how the real thing handles. This just according to Chill31‘s comments comparing it to the real thing (and RoF).

 

 

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

1 minute ago, ZachariasX said:

It‘s quiet obvious that flight characteristics have been fine tuned for FC. But there is no need for Jason to advertise this as such, since it will expose him to endless complaints when in fact the aircaft is near spot on to how the real thing handles. This just according to Chill31‘s comments comparing it to the real thing (and RoF).

 

 

I didn't notice much difference if there is one, But I sure do love flying it. I fly the DR1 in ROF lots and seemed the same, Might be that every thing is so much more clearer than in ROF, sounds are different and guns seem to fire different. I know I'm sold on this sim, even the ai are a hand full compared to ROF. Flew with a J5 on ts today, both of us couldn't tell if it was ai or human until we shot them down. So way to go developers. You have a winner in my books.

[BraveSirRobin]

5 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

It‘s quiet obvious that flight characteristics have been fine tuned for FC. But there is no need for Jason to advertise this as such, since it will expose him to endless complaints when in fact the aircaft is near spot on to how the real thing handles. This just according to Chill31‘s comments comparing it to the real thing (and RoF).

 

 

 

I think this is due more to how the new engine models flight rather than any changes that were made to individual aircraft FMs.  In any case, it's still slow.  So the people who complain constantly about the updated RoF flight models should already have a pretty good idea what we're getting.

[ZachariasX]

9 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

I think this is due more to how the new engine models flight rather than any changes that were made to individual aircraft FMs.  In any case, it's still slow.  So the people who complain constantly about the updated RoF flight models should already have a pretty good idea what we're getting.

 

What is the speed that you are getting? At how many rpm?

 

With the default prop with a pitch of 2.3 meters it should go 165 km/h @ 1‘200 rpm and 110 hp. Maybe a very tiny bit slower, but in no case faster. At 1’300 rpm it should go 179 km/h.

[BraveSirRobin]

Currently the max speed at sea level according to people who tested it (not me) is 161 kph.  The store page says 174, or something close to that.  So the people who have been constantly complaining know what they're getting.  They might be wrong about how fast it can go, or they might be right.  It doesn't really matter.  They've been complaining for years, and now the same basic FMs are being implemented in FC.  

[HagarTheHorrible]

.........and there was me, just wondering if, the Camel being a seat of the pants type fighter, had enough seat, or pants to be able to judge if it was safe, to let one go, without the risk of potentially following through.  The Camel should be able to be taken to the edge when fighting against something like the DR1, that can only be done if the aircraft provides enough cues to put it there, hold it on the precipice and no further.

[BraveSirRobin]

16 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

.........and there was me, just wondering if, the Camel being a seat of the pants type fighter, had enough seat, or pants to be able to judge if it was safe, to let one go, without the risk of potentially following through.  The Camel should be able to be taken to the edge when fighting against something like the DR1, that can only be done if the aircraft provides enough cues to put it there, hold it on the precipice and no further.

 

So you're upset that a question, which can't possibly be answered, isn't being properly considered?

[HagarTheHorrible]

14 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

So you're upset that a question, which can't possibly be answered, isn't being properly considered?

 

Yeh, what's wrong with that ? 

 

Isn't it called philosophy and isn't that what we spend much of our time doing in places like this, philosophizing ?

 

That said, it's far more fun when done, down the pub, over a beer or two ? ?

Edited July 26, 2018 by HagarTheHorrible

[BraveSirRobin]

There really isn't much to philosophize over.  Most likely the people who could fly it to the edge in RoF will be the same people who can fly it to the edge in FC.  And the people who can't fly it to the edge will come to the forum to complain about the FM (as will some of the people who can fly it to the edge, but still need an excuse for the few times that they're shot down).

[HagarTheHorrible]

How philosophical of you. 

[BraveSirRobin]

Glad I could help!

 

 

Also, you misspelled "cynical".

Edited July 26, 2018 by BraveSirRobin

[DD_Arthur]

@Graham; you appear to have become "Rabbid_Dog". 

 

 

[SeaW0lf]

2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

 

What is the speed that you are getting? At how many rpm?

 

With the default prop with a pitch of 2.3 meters it should go 165 km/h @ 1‘200 rpm and 110 hp. Maybe a very tiny bit slower, but in no case faster. At 1’300 rpm it should go 179 km/h.

 

Something does not add up. The Oberursel can go near 1400rpm. 1350rpm seems to be a max standard for these types of engines. The D8 tested at McCook Field (Oberursel 110hp) was done at 1390rpm at ground level. I might be wrong, but I think the cruise speed is at 1100rpm (it's been a while).

 

For example, this post on The Aerodrome states:

 

The original oberursel operating manual states that the engines are not allowed to be run over 1250rpm.
 

Nonetheless they indicate the following rpm for best results:
 

Groundlevel 1360-1380 (consistant with the McCook Field test).
1000m 1260-1280
2000m 1240-1260
3000m 1220-1240
4000m 1200-1220
5000m 1180-1200

 

And what people might perceive as "flight model changes" could be the new atmosphere and ambient temperatures of the new engine.

Edited July 26, 2018 by SeaW0lf

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

3 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

Level flight max speed matches RoF version.  It does not match the store page specs.

 

We all know that from day one dude. Do you have any comments about Chill31 findings about FC Dr.1 comparison to RoF?  

[BraveSirRobin]

3 minutes ago, 307_Tomcat said:

 

We all know that from day one dude. Do you have any comments about Chill31 findings about FC Dr.1 comparison to RoF?  

 

Does that make it go any faster?  If not, then the people who complain that it's too slow are still going to complain.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

9 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

Does that make it go any faster?  If not, then the people who complain that it's too slow are still going to complain.

No, I don't know anyone who do complain sorry. If FC Dr.1 has better FM according to Chill31 this is good information. I think there will be no back to pre 2015 FMs, just better adjustems to that change. 

Edited July 27, 2018 by 307_Tomcat

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

I'm hunting rabbid's and puddy cats, you know who I mean.

[ZachariasX]

6 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

Something does not add up. The Oberursel can go near 1400rpm. 1350rpm seems to be a max standard for these types of engines. The D8 tested at McCook Field (Oberursel 110hp) was done at 1390rpm at ground level. I might be wrong, but I think the cruise speed is at 1100rpm (it's been a while).

 

For example, this post on The Aerodrome states:

 

The original oberursel operating manual states that the engines are not allowed to be run over 1250rpm.
 

Nonetheless they indicate the following rpm for best results:
 

Groundlevel 1360-1380 (consistant with the McCook Field test).
1000m 1260-1280
2000m 1240-1260
3000m 1220-1240
4000m 1200-1220
5000m 1180-1200

 

And what people might perceive as "flight model changes" could be the new atmosphere and ambient temperatures of the new engine.

 

Flight speed and prop pitch are almost hard linked and gives you a TAS. This is why I was asking about the rpm at which flightspeed was recorded.

 

I only have sources stating the 1‘200 rpm for the Oberursel, but I would not be surprised if actual rpm would deviate from that. 1‘350 rpm should give about 125 hp for the Oberursel, and that I consider still in line with a good engine. I mean, they got this very design principle up to higher ratings than that. So your find for rpm are very interesting to me.

 

1‘100 rpm for cruise sounds plausible, it would give abour 151 km/h speed and still keep the plane easily controllable long term, as forward push of the stick I guess would be tolerable.

 

 

[SeaW0lf]

9 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

 

Flight speed and prop pitch are almost hard linked and gives you a TAS. This is why I was asking about the rpm at which flightspeed was recorded.

 

I only have sources stating the 1‘200 rpm for the Oberursel, but I would not be surprised if actual rpm would deviate from that. 1‘350 rpm should give about 125 hp for the Oberursel, and that I consider still in line with a good engine. I mean, they got this very design principle up to higher ratings than that. So your find for rpm are very interesting to me.

 

1‘100 rpm for cruise sounds plausible, it would give abour 151 km/h speed and still keep the plane easily controllable long term, as forward push of the stick I guess would be tolerable.

 

Since I started researching the Dr.1 that I found these numbers -- around 1350rpm for these rotaries. There is a post in The Aerodrome saying that the power of these engines were measured at 1200-1250rpm, perheps why it gives the impression it is the max rpm. 

 

For example, In Moteurs de légende – Clerget 130 ch (by Gérard Hartmann), the Clerget 9B (Camel engine in ROF) can temporally run at the max speed at 1400rpm, just like the Oberursel 110hp can reach 1380rpm by factory standards. And it says that the Clerget 9B delivers 130hp in normal use (1,200rpm) and can temporarily (whatever that means) provide 150hp at 1400rpm. The allowed speed is 1250rpm, the same of the Oberursel.

 

So the power of the engine is rated at 1200rpm (130hp), but it can provide 150hp at 1400rpm.

 

I have to check on the cruise speed, but I think it is 1100rpm for the Le Rhône 80hp for the Nieuport 11.

[ZachariasX]

27 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

For example, In Moteurs de légende – Clerget 130 ch (by Gérard Hartmann), the Clerget 9B (Camel engine in ROF) can temporally run at the max speed at 1400rpm, just like the Oberursel 110hp can reach 1380rpm by factory standards.

Great find!

[HiIIBiIIy]

Guys, given Horse Power for a certain RPM  usually means top horse power, by increasing RPM doesn't mean a increase in Horse Power.

This is a typical Horse Power curve, It shows max-HP@RPM then HP drops with increase in RPM  

[ZachariasX]

38 minutes ago, HiIIBiIIy said:

Guys, given Horse Power for a certain RPM  usually means top horse power, by increasing RPM doesn't mean a increase in Horse Power.

 

Usually very true. But with old engines, I‘ve become weary of these (reasonable) assmptions. 

 

In the case of the rotaries, they are at very low rpm, meaning an, say 10%, increase in rpm doesn‘t bring along iginition timing problems in a way modern high rpm engines are experiencing. Thus I would expect this „shoulder“ of the power vs. rpm graph to continue more and drop off less steep.

 

What is important as difference between good engines and lemons is that lemons have less hp at similar rpm as good engines, meaning good engines find their max power equilibrium at a later (higher rpm) point than lemons.

 

Energy required for speeding up rpm grows exponentially while power output is increasing linear, meaning for a given prop there is a always a rather hard barrier up to where the engine can spin up. The ideal prop will allow the engine to reach highest (permissible) hp output. Having the same engine for a similar prop means you can see on the rpm gauge how well your engine is feeling today. And the prop used on those planes has to suit the lemons as well, meaning they are they are a tad on the small/fine side and let the engine speed up above stated average rpm. If they were on the large/coarse side, they would prevent the lemons from reaching even their sub par power output which in turn would worsen the situation considerably.

 

You have such an indicator on vintage cars with automatic transmission. there, the gear shifts depending on clutch pressure. On good days, the engine shifts down readily, on other days, they don‘t feel like shifting down that much. There, produced torque gives you an idea about how your engine is feeling that today. And that can vary a lot.

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

On 7/26/2018 at 8:35 PM, Rabbid_Dog said:

Yes that's it, nothing else, why, what are you trying to say?

 

Rudder input is important on the camel,  just was wondering if you were compensating for it.

 

[edited]

Edited July 29, 2018 by SYN_Haashashin

[BMA_Hellbender]

Jason did say that they would change the flight models.

 

He then later issued a statement saying he misspoke and that he meant to say wouldn't.

 

 

 

 

But in all seriousness, two years ago I thought it would be impossible for Trump to be president.

 

Only a year ago I thought it would be impossible to ever see Rise of Flight 2.0.

 

Yet here we are. Think of what will be possible next year!

 

 

 

I suggest we wait and see before we crucify anyone and ask for our money (or country) back. We all want to see the most realistic simulation possible of these planes, though many will agree that the old 190km/h Camel was not that, including those who flew the beast — even if it did match the numbers provided by the manufacturer. Manufacturers lying about performance is still around today. I do expect to see the numbers in the documentation corrected to match in-game "real world" performance at some point before release.

[Trooper117]

Quote

But in all seriousness, two years ago I thought it would be impossible for Trump to be president.

 

Jaysus!... He might even take over FC development, never say never!

[BMA_Hellbender]

Just now, Trooper117 said:

 

Jaysus!... He might even take over FC development, never say never!

 

Make Albatros Great Again