Jump to content
Hellbender

Camel 195km/h at sea level + Pfalz slowed down to 171km/h [Done in 3.008]

Recommended Posts

People might fly the DVIIf, when it's available, but that is a very late war craft.  Usually it's gonna be the sputtering 180hp, 118 mph fokker.

 

It seems like all the pro-121mph-camel folks are hanging their hat on that DVIIf being available to balance things out.  Well that's not going to be the case a lot of the time.

 

If things are staying as-is, the D.IIIau engine would go a long way toward the long-term viability of this planeset.

Edited by hrafnkolbrandr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wolfram-Harms said:

 

 

Biasing the Camel or other Entente aircraft, is an insult for the real WW1 pilots.

 

When you realize the incomplete and inconsistent data on just how a given plane performed and combine that fact with the doubtful nature of simulator accuracy (the same plane and/or guns package behaves differently  in different simulators) you become immune to notions of “A hah! Now we have it right for sure!”.

Any dev of any game about planes, particularly with WWI planes, is choosing from a range of plausible performance and handling traits. Might as well make choices within that range that enhance gameplay. So I say again, I’m personally okay with flying  a slightly worn and  out-of-rig Sopwith Camel, as a given Camel may well have been in on a given day it met the foe, because a plane that can run down most while out-turning all on the enemy team is generally no bueno in a dogfighting game. This is not a selfless request btw: Having a freely-available plane that’s  too uber on one’s own side incentivizes the other side to timidity, climbing to the stratosphere, hording, or otherwise making the game worse and boring. It reaches a point where in many mp servers you’re much more likely to stare at air for half an hour than anything else. You either find no enemy or when you do find him he’s invariably brought 27 of his closest friends along on TS...I mean these things are going to happen some anyway, but one at least doesn’t want the other side to *know* they haven’t much chance if they DON’T do these things. 

Share this post


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

incentivizes the other side to timidity, climbing to the stratosphere, hording, 

You are describing WW1 air combat.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

You are describing WW1 air combat.

I described SOME WWI combat. There are also countless accounts of dogfights, from that and many other major air wars.

 Actual pilots would have been charged with cowardice for flying like a lot of people do in games. They simply didn't have the luxury of always having alt, always having numbers, and always running away if the slightest thing went wrong. Air combat never consisted exclusively of refusal to engage unless all the odds are on your side and one pass haul ass, etc. I'm sure you're familiar with the American experience in the skies of Vietnam, including the realization that fighter planes needed to have qualities other than speed and that pilots needed to learn dogfighting.

  Even Hartmann didn't "Hartmann it" to the extreme that is common in games.  This is an e-sport with zero bloodshed is no stakes, thus "Hartmann'ing" it all the time isn't braggable, and if game conditions mandate one side doing so that situation is highly undesirable over the long term.

Now it is possible that most people sign on for games of this nature purely to make screaming one-pass, haul ass dives on targets they pray never see them, but I doubt it. It's vastly more likely they want to put that stuff in "Fighter Combat" to the test in what is, at its best, one of the greatest "chess" games one can play. That's what we're after.

You are going to eat dinner with your family tonight whether you win or lose the online dogfight, so might as well try to be Marseille.

Edited by CMBailey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didin‘t mean to take the argument that far, but getting higher and getting higher numbers was a general trend.

 

Regarding our current FC planeset, I‘d wait before making a conclusion. Fact is that the present aircraft do reasonably correspond to scources besudes the Dr.I. Right now, especially with the Dr.I being „post-patch“ variant, things are lopsided.

 

Myself, I liked the nerf patch, as it is my imprssion that the RoF sim engine has some shortcomings that made both the Dr.I and the Camel planes far above their actual league (not only those), being superior at all altitudes.

 

I‘m not sure this will turn out like that in FC. Especially when comparing the SPAD with the Camel you can see that the SPAD is the much better war machine as it gives you way more options than the Camel which has really only his righthand turn on the  plus side (besides a steeper but not better best climb). Woth sufficient speed, you can even turn with the Camel in a left turn.

 

The Pfalz as we have it does exactly what it did back then. Nobody wanted it but it was great for diving on balloons.

 

That both the Camel and the Dr.I are the best rides for close combat down low is also how it should be. A great limitation to the real Camel is the justified fear of its pilot possibly killing himself in maneuvering, thus playing with handicap. In the sim, unrealistically, we take a hilariously dangerous plane (we are not flying it like you would fly a Cessna) to its limit. Like that, it sure does perform.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

In what is, at its best, one of the greatest "chess" games one can play. That's what we're after.

^^ This, I don't agree with all you said but I do agree it is chess.

On that note I might as well air my .5's, all I personally ask for is that care is put into the FM's matching what history already told us, regardless what we feel about it as anPetrovich already said.
To which anPetrovich should get a props for btw, it's warming up several ex-RoF'ers (no names, as usual).
To put it another way:
If a plane was quirky some way or another, on, or indeed beyond, the ragged limit of it's performance = That's what I want to struggle with as well.
DR.1's and D7's were great but they were not as fast, they were limited in numbers, and as we know there are ways for servers to alleviate this (limited numbers) and from there it's up to the pilots: Expend the aircraft for short-term gain in furious last-stand's but risk losing the match in long-term as availability of good planes plummets because of your choice.
If you're struggling, learn to see alternatives, use your maneuverability to fire only a few effective bursts on the opponent then re-assess if one of your friends flying a lesser planes could deliver the coup-de-grace on a now reduced opponent, while you find safe ground, pre dec-2014 this was common tactics in my clique (don't know what was common after that, most pilots sadly left).

IRL for Central the DR.1's would break up the enemy formations, then the Albs would come in and select their targets while the DR.1's reformed.
The Spad's and SE's would be up high, ready to pounce whatever the Camel's were having issues with at lower altitudes,  the Camel's would reform and re-assess.

Same thing will happen with the game: They build them as close to "as they were" as they were, and then we'll sift through historical information to figure out how to fly them.

Ultimately we play the game the way we see fit!

If you don't like a plane being good or bad, don't use it on your server, don't fly it, don't fight against it! Re-assess your situation and work it over.
Like in real life, options are available, like in real life: Use available options and WORK the problem
with all means at your disposal.
Isn't this what a true simulator is all about? :)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the new match planes to data policy,  the best solution for those in the MP community to get the balance and "chess game" that they say they want would be to have servers with the same aircraft on each side. These could be set in an immediate post war environment - Civil War Russia, or Turkey, using war surplus sold to both sides.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

Given the new match planes to data policy,  the best solution for those in the MP community to get the balance and "chess game" that they say they want would be to have servers with the same aircraft on each side. These could be set in an immediate post war environment - Civil War Russia, or Turkey, using war surplus sold to both sides.  

Exactly what I've been thinking as well, and with BoX that's fully possible, the players merely have to use the functions the product provides (ME) to create the scenario they want :) 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

That both the Camel and the Dr.I are the best rides for close combat down low is also how it should be. A great limitation to the real Camel is the justified fear of its pilot possibly killing himself in maneuvering, thus playing with handicap. In the sim, unrealistically, we take a hilariously dangerous plane (we are not flying it like you would fly a Cessna) to its limit. Like that, it sure does perform.

 

Combined with the fact that almost all of the combat should take place over Central lines (up to mission builders to get this right), that the Camel is a very fragile machine, that the vast majority of online squadrons are Jastas and that every Central plane has a parachute which works 100% of the time, I honestly don't think there is a great imbalance right now.

 

In 1 vs. 1 Berloga style duels, sure, it might be rough until the Fokker Dr.I gets its FM review, but other than that, I will still feel much safer in large numbers flying Central over my own lines.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, CMBailey said:

Even Hartmann didn't "Hartmann it" to the extreme that is common in games.  This is an e-sport with zero bloodshed is no stakes, thus "Hartmann'ing" it all the time isn't braggable, and if game conditions mandate one side doing so that situation is highly undesirable over the long term.

 

Good point! I agree fully. 
Especially Erich Hartmann was anything but a "Kamikaze Kid", as we see them in sims. For him it was most important firstly to return alive and well.
And to bring back his wingman - though he was the "highest scorer", he never lost a wingman in the whole war.

 

It is problematic with data anyway.
Was Hartmann better than Guenther Rall? Hartmann flew on the Eastern front, Rall on the Western. Quite a difference of opponents/aircraft.

 

The chart I showed before seems to be settled - the aircraft producers usually pointed out the maximum speed of the craft.
That could be measured at sea level for one craft, and at 2000 meters for another.
So, if that chart is validated, we see that the "average forward speed" of Nieuport 17, Sopwith Camel, Fokker Dr.I and Albatros D.III lie close together, at ca. 170 - 177 km/h.


But lift, drag, weight and engine power can lead to differing results in flat climbs, steep climbs, shallow or steep dives etc.
The Sopwith Pup, which was a great little airplane (but no war machine with one slow firing gun) did won'fully well at altitudes,
where the Albatros D.III could merely stay "afloat" - so the Pup would have been superior here (and I bet they desperately desired a second gun there!)

 

One day we may see more complex simulations, which can generate all that.
Albatros which climb good until 2400 meters, after that less good, and they would do really bad high up. For example.

 

Until then, I think we shouldn't have too unrealistic values. 
The Sopwith Camel was definitely a turn fight, like the Fokker Triplane - not a "racing machine" like SPAD XIII and S.E.5a.
It should be the flyer's talent to achieve something, even with a lesser plane.
And achieving something must not be more victory marks - it might be a safe return, with your wingman alive.

 

(I recommend Arthur G. Lee's book "No Parachute!" to all who haven't read it yet. You will feel with his everyday war life,
and if you are not a "Kamikaze Kid", you may become more modest, and less craving from that read.)

 

 

Edited by Wolfram-Harms

Share this post


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

 

… and that every Central plane has a parachute which works 100% of the time, ...

 

 

Just makes me wonder how long it will take allies to start shooting those?

Share this post


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

I will still feel much safer in large numbers flying Central over my own lines.

You are equally safe whether you are in a horde in the stratosphere over your own lines or turning and burning in the enemy ack. Why? Because this is a game and you’re going to get up out of your computer chair at the end of the sortie no matter what happens.

I will submit to you that if a multiplayer flying game makes you feel compelled always fly boringly in a high horde over your own lines just to give as good as you get then the game design is flawed in a way no amount of quoting performance figures at each other will will make this situation desirable.

3 hours ago, Hellbender said:

 

that every Central plane has a parachute which works 100% of the time, I honestly don't think there is a great imbalance right now.

I can’t for the life of me figure out why people are attaching so much importance *in a game* to the parachute or why you consider it a balancing factor. If you have to use it you lost the dogfight and it little matters whether the collection of pixels plunges quickly to Earth or floats slowly.

 

I’d even say that in-game parachutes on the German side could be considered an advantage to Entente, since a player one has damaged may choose to bail out instead of going for the desperation ditch after getting hammered that was common in ROF.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

... and that every Central plane has a parachute which works 100% of the time, I honestly don't think there is a great imbalance right now.

 

Well, we must not struggle that a historical sim will get well-BALANCED - it should be HISTORICALLY correct, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

If this game has a 195kph easy-mode Camel, then it won’t be historical or balanced.  

“My video game is totes the last word in historicalness. I’m 100% confident that we are correct and others who tried to do the same thing and came up with different results were just incompetent.”

Imagine thinking that one has all historical factors accounted for. Should I tell them that “historicalness” is mostly chasing a mirage, or are they not ready for that yet?

Edited by CMBailey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many interesting points being raised, let me address them.

 

4 hours ago, West said:

 

Just makes me wonder how long it will take allies to start shooting those?

 

As far as I can tell, you can finish flight as soon as the parachute deploys. This may be a server setting, though.

 

If shooting chutes is on your mind, then on the other end you should also consider the topic of intentional ramming, in the knowledge that a parachute is your ticket out.

 

It's perhaps better left for another thread altogether.

 

 

3 hours ago, CMBailey said:

You are equally safe whether you are in a horde in the stratosphere over your own lines or turning and burning in the enemy ack. Why? Because this is a game and you’re going to get up out of your computer chair at the end of the sortie no matter what happens.

I will submit to you that if a multiplayer flying game makes you feel compelled always fly boringly in a high horde over your own lines just to give as good as you get then the game design is flawed in a way no amount of quoting performance figures at each other will will make this situation desirable.

I can’t for the life of me figure out why people are attaching so much importance *in a game* to the parachute or why you consider it a balancing factor. If you have to use it you lost the dogfight and it little matters whether the collection of pixels plunges quickly to Earth or floats slowly.

 

I’d even say that in-game parachutes on the German side could be considered an advantage to Entente, since a player one has damaged may choose to bail out instead of going for the desperation ditch after getting hammered that was common in ROF.

 

All of which you mention seems historically accurate to me, including the high altitude horde diving on a small number of better performing but unsuspecting enemy planes. This was (and still is) a Jasta tactic, including having localised numerical air superiority.

 

For the purpose of multiplayer campaigns and online events such as Flanders in Flames, Bloody April and Black September, where your "vlife" absolutely matters, a parachute is a godsend. Even if you're just into building up a streak on a public server, I'd still consider it a massive advantage.

 

If you approach it purely as a dogfighting game and your life doesn't matter much, and it is certainly your right to do so (I often do too on public servers), there's really not much else to hope for than a complete revision of the Fokker Dr.I which brings it back to its former self. I'm with you there. Her top speed in literature is 185km/h (compared to 188km/h for the Camel), though it is listed at 178km/h in the RoF store (the pre-1.034 figure) and @Chill31 likely has an even better idea. The Fokker D.VIIF, while certainly a force to be reckoned with at high altitude, can't really hold its own against the Camel down low. I also want to point out that while a Pfalz D.IIIa or Albatros D.Va would greatly benefit from a mid-1918 Mercedes D.IIIau engine modification, they still wouldn't be quite a match for the Camel at any altitude, especially not with a 195km/h Camel.

 

 

3 hours ago, Wolfram-Harms said:

 

Well, we must not struggle that a historical sim will get well-BALANCED - it should be HISTORICALLY correct, right?

 

The planeset must be both historical and balanced for gameplay purposes. What if the roles were reversed and we would have a Siemens-Schuckert D.III/D.IV added to the game? People would immediately be asking for a Sopwith Snipe to balance it out (which ironically performs quite the same as our current 195km/h Camel), even though they were both contemporaries of the Fokker D.VIIF and there is no particular reason to have both except in terms of game balance. It is unlikely they ever actually met in combat, though. Considering in the low numbers the Siemens-Schuckert operated, it would also immediately be overrepresented. We already had that problem with the Fokker Dr.I.

 

Not that I would mind having the Siemens-Schuckert.

 

 

In conclusion:

 

No, in order to give the game some weekday night AirQuake appeal (and sell copies), it makes no sense to have a 171km/h Pfalz and a 195km/h Camel. If it's about who can win in a straight up dogfight, and fragility of the airframe or parachutes don't matter, there's really not much of a question.

 

Spoiler

It's the Bristol Fighter.

 

And yes, in order to have the historically accuratest of historically accurate online simulators (and sell copies) where you play fully dressed in period gear, use historically accurate tactics, no comms and dead is dead, you can still probably make a case for a 171km/h Pfalz and a seriously souped up Clerget 195km/h Camel which is accurate within 5% of what it should be.

Edited by Hellbender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Hellbender said:

As far as I can tell, you can finish flight as soon as the parachute deploys. This may be a server setting, though.

TAW makes you hang by your strings for 15 long seconds.

Share this post


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

No, in order to give the game some weekday night AirQuake appeal (and sell copies), it makes no sense to have a 171km/h Pfalz and a 195km/h Camel. If it's about who can win in a straight up dogfight, and fragility of the airframe or parachutes don't matter, there's really not much of a question

Agreed, but if the game engine requires it to keep things under wraps, I can accept a deviation of top speeds IF it's across the board for the whole set.

Edited by Red_Von_Hammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hellbender said:

What if the roles were reversed and we would have a Siemens-Schuckert D.III/D.IV added to the game? People would immediately be asking for a Sopwith Snipe to balance it out...

 

Well, the Siemens-Schuckert might have been great - when it flew! It had a lot of diseases (overheating).

 

But I'm not into flying the high-end planes anyway. I'm into "dying pretty and with style".  :dance:
So, the Albatros D.V would be my choice. The Roland D.VI would be great to have! (Dreaming must be allowed...)

 

 

Edited by Wolfram-Harms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Kilrain said:

TAW makes you hang by your strings for 15 long seconds.

 

Corresponding with the server time span option “Finish mission time out”

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

×