Damage model: Why do the Spad XIII wings fail?

[JtD]

I don't have FC and don't intend on buying it. I just have a technical question. The way I understand WW1 technology, the first and only fighter to have self supporting wings (thick profiles) was the Fokker D.VII. Which gave it the performance it had. All other fighters required the (mutual) support of the wings by wires and struts. Now I went up against a Spad XIII in the quick mission builder for the fun of it, fired a short burst of 20mm with, hit with a round or two, and the aircraft loses the wings. It was an HE shell only loadout, in a high angle deflection shot, so it just went through the wing.

 

I see no technical reason for the wing to instantly break after such a hit. But then my knowledge of these birds is limited, so before I'm going to blame the simple damage model for yet another issue - what were the Spad XIII standards regarding load limits, in flight stresses, damage resistance and other contributing factors? How could a 20mm hole near the rear edge of the lower wing destroy structural integrity?

[Ehret]

5 minutes ago, JtD said:

I see no technical reason for the wing to instantly break after such a hit. But then my knowledge of these birds is limited, so before I'm going to blame the simple damage model for yet another issue - what were the Spad XIII standards regarding load limits, in flight stresses, damage resistance and other contributing factors? How could a 20mm hole near the rear edge of the lower wing destroy structural integrity?

 

An artifact due too coarse hit-boxes, probably...

It's work in progress after all - no need to overthink it at this point.

 

[JtD]

9 minutes ago, Ehret said:

no need to overthink it at this point

 

Darn, that sucks, thinking is what I do best.

[unreasonable]

25 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

An artifact due too coarse hit-boxes, probably...

It's work in progress after all - no need to overthink it at this point.

 

 

No, it is a crap DM that seems to be trying to imitate RoF's results.

 

People who know anything about WW1 air fighting  have been complaining about RoF's DM for years: Wing shredding in RoF is the preferred strategy contrary to all data.

 

If you want to see some data read my "Red Baron and the Damage Models" thread in the FC reservation. Wing shedding was rare, except perhaps for BE type aircraft, which we do not have.

 

The very first DM for FC got it much more nearly right, at least with respect to wing shedding, except that everyone should be using incendiaries and there should be far more flamers.  Then there was a hotfix, and FC's DM is now a joke.  No explanation, no reason given. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Edited July 29, 2018 by unreasonable

[ZachariasX]

36 minutes ago, JtD said:

I see no technical reason for the wing to instantly break after such a hit.

Wings will go when you cut sufficient bracing wires. The lower wing spar carries little weight. If you want thewing gone at once, you snap the wire(s) that go diagonally upwards from the fuselage to the peripheral side of the upper wing. Alternatively, you can break and misalign the upper wing spar, as this one will carry copression load inwards. As soon as you can push the upper wingtip inwards, there you go.

 

The SE5 actually had redundant wiring because of this, making it hard to come apart. I doubt that SPAD and Sopwith (and the Gremans) did not do so as well.

 

The lower wing acts as torsion (along with most of the other wirings, for positive load) box for the whole wing arrangements. You can cut those wingspars and the wing will stay on, held in place by bracing and outer strut, as well as residual „clothing“. (Unless you pull significant g.)

 

20 mm rounds may be good in cutting a wingspar (whereas an individual 7 mm round just perforates a small, round hole in the wood), but it doesn‘t really increase chances snapping some wiring. Also I stroungly doubt a HE round would go of inside the aircraft, unless it hits the engine. Otherwise it would go through like AP.

 

Biplane DM is clearly someting complicated for producing convincing results.

 

 

[unreasonable]

1 minute ago, ZachariasX said:

 

 

Biplane DM is clearly someting complicated for producing convincing results.

 

 

 

Yes it is, all the more so if the FM actually only uses one wing. Nevertheless, we are not looking for a CLOD type DM that models all the components and damage possibilities down to atomic level.  The results have to be broadly plausible, that is all. If you look at the historic data that we do have, undoubtedly sometimes wing should come off, especially if the pilot puts them under strain in manoeuvring.  But that should still be a fairly rare: around 1 in 10 times would be acceptable. What we have now is very poor. 

[JtD]

Thanks Zach, that's pretty much my understanding, too - at least I didn't miss a major factor. Bottom line, unreasonable is right. It's a shame.

[ZachariasX]

42 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

If you look at the historic data that we do have, undoubtedly sometimes wing should come off, especially if the pilot puts them under strain in manoeuvring.

This is exactly when I would expect catastrophic failure to happen. Else, chances are so small for landing a single lucky punch that you really need a lot of tying (read: big ammo box).

 

I only could spend some time on FC before „the patch“ (jeez, thought that was a historic expression), but reading what you and others are saying, so far the FC planes behave like wood/metal WW2 planes in terms of showing damage. Maybe a suitable FM hasn‘t been ported yet, but who knows.

 

FC is still very much „work in progress“ so I am patient to see what‘s coming in future updates.

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

 

FC is still very much „work in progress“ so I am patient to see what‘s coming in future updates.

 

The trouble is that the 3.05b patch suggests that there is no "work in progress" on the DM, just an attempt to replicate RoF's DM, faults and all. 

 

   

[ZachariasX]

5 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

The trouble is that the 3.05b patch suggests that there is no "work in progress" on the DM, just an attempt to replicate RoF's DM, faults and all. 

 

   

That is one way to look at it. I could also say that the DM changed with the first patch.

 

In the end, I think it willl depend on how FC sells for the degree of FM (and other) improvements. It ain‘t over until it is over.

[DD_Arthur]

Hmmm...wings seem much more sturdy when it comes to heavier calibers.....

 

confused

[JtD]

I suppose you were hit in the aileron, and that the wing around it only took splash damage. Not that it really should take damage at all, but that's how the game works.