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

[emely]

1 hour ago, SYN_Mike77 said:

The way I'm reading Pertrovich's post is that the team recently decided to use pre 1.34 RoF flight models and that starts with this latest set, (the Camel and the Pfalz)  He, Petrovich would like to go back and do the same for the Dr. 1 but (as Jason says) that's not a promise.  I hope they do exactly that as pre 1.034 RoF flight models were by far the better set generally thinking.  

The situation with Pfalz3a is such that there is already no return to 1.034. In stock, another version of events. New .

Tell me who wrote it - a simple user fantasizing, or the producer of the project?

" Our Flying Circus planes will still have all the interesting quirks and characteristics that many of you know and love from our previous title." https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/168-developer-diary/?do=findComment&comment=637218

And where is the warning that there will be another model of shooting, another model of dynamic damage? Can you find such information on the forum? I'm not talking about the speed of Pfalz3a, which not only will not be returned to 1.034, but will still lower the speed!

Maybe you will advise me, never believe what this guy writes in his diaries?

I already have one game about planes, where the rules of flight change every week. Damn it, it looks like I bought another one the same!

 

 

[Guest deleted@83466]

1 hour ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

Pre-1.034 was Camel vs. Dr1 and screw everything else.  Not sure how that was better.

 

imho, I think the BF-109K-4 will also be able to hold it's own against the Camel.

 

?

[BraveSirRobin]

1 hour ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

imho, I think the BF-109K-4 will also be able to hold it's own against the Camel.

 

?

 

That's probably why they included the 1.98 ata mod.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

For sure simulated camel do not exhibit same adverse yaw as measurement presented by lectured Dr. John Morrow and Javier Arango at WWI Aviation Symposium. I suspected that for years, without rudder those planes can't turn properly. BTW with engine turned off and stoped prop, left and right turns should be in general the same - no gyro effect.

[BMA_Hellbender]

4 hours ago, SYN_Mike77 said:

The way I'm reading Pertrovich's post is that the team recently decided to use pre 1.34 RoF flight models and that starts with this latest set, (the Camel and the Pfalz)  He, Petrovich would like to go back and do the same for the Dr. 1 but (as Jason says) that's not a promise.  I hope they do exactly that as pre 1.034 RoF flight models were by far the better set generally thinking.  

 

I don't think it's possible to really go back to pre-1.034.

 

https://riseofflight.com/forum/topic/44725-version-1034/?p=620399

 

The Pfalzcopter was also fixed, the Bristol's climb and roll rate was reduced, the Dolphin, Handley-Page and Nieuport 17's durability increased, as well as the Nieuport 28's heavy tail on takeoff. These are changes I'm sure no one wants to see reverted (eventually) in Flying Circus.

 

Regarding the Camel, we may not entirely have the pre-1.034 version, either. We definitely have the 1200 RPM version that's in Rise of Flight now +200 RPM, bringing it to its rated 1400 RPM and making it very easy to overrev to 1500 RPM in a dive or vertical fight. As some others have noted, it doesn't seem to hold its energy quite so well anymore as it did pre-1.034, however it is easier to fly.

 

As for the Dr.I, no question about it, it's the 1200RPM one we have in RoF right now, although it too is easier to fly, and it takes considerable effort to get it near the 1500 RPM which cause engine damage. Funnily enough, there are a few sources that say that the Oberursel Ur.II (a clone of the Le Rhone 9J) was not allowed to run at more than 1250 RPM over 1000m due to the Ersatz oil (as a safety precaution). At sea level it was still allowed to reach its rated 1380 RPM and should reach close to 185km/h. If this is allowed to happen again in RoF, regardless of altitude, we will undoubtedly have something close to the old Dr.I back.

 

 

What worries me more are the Mercedes D.IIIa in-line planes: the Pfalz D.IIIa, Albatros D.Va, and to a lesser extent, the Fokker D.VII.

 

The Pfalz' top speed will be brought back to 171 km/h thanks to some idiot who couldn't keep his dumb mouth shut, however this will undoubtedly once again happen through RPM reduction. This will bring its RPM somewhat in line again with the Halberstadt CL.II, and give an edge to the Halberstadt CL.II 200hp overcompressed over the other Mercedes scouts, although the Halberstadt will only be marginally faster at sea level, due to its added weight and drag caused by the rear gunner, and it will climb nowhere near as well as the Albatros D.Va.

 

The "regular" Fokker D.VII will likely cease to exist altogether, as the BMW IIIa engine turning it into an D.VIIF will be a modification rather than a separate plane — in much the same way that an La-5 can be turned into an La-5F with a Shvetsov M-82F modification (coincidence? I think not!). Unless modifications are locked away server-side, that is.

 

Still, that doesn't take away that the Camel will run down the Pfalz and Albatros again, at least in level flight. All the more reasons that these two absolutely need their 200hp overcompressed engines to bring them back up to 1918 standards. In hindsight, Volume 1 should have included the Pfalz D.XII instead of the Pfalz D.IIIa.

 

 

For the record: the Halberstadt CL.II 200hp will still rule and decimate all. Speed advantage has nothing on its twin Parabellums, all that does is get you closer to death faster.

 

 

P.S. And although it may only seem a very slight concession, I can't stress enough how much of an advantage having a parachute is. Yes, I know, no one likes to get shot down in the first place, but let's just say that intentional ramming might become a far more common occurence.

Edited November 27, 2018 by Hellbender

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

11 minutes ago, Hellbender said:

The Pfalz' top speed will be brought back to 171 km/h thanks to some idiot who couldn't keep his dumb mouth shut

 

I kind of have to agree on this one.  I thought we had the late version III.a Pfalz...  But I guess not?

 

What worries me is that we're going to have this particular camel running down D.VII's.  I'm no expert on Great War aviation, but as far as I know this shouldn't be the case; and if it is, how much incentive do people have to fly the SE5a or SPAD (or anything else, really)?

[BraveSirRobin]

7 minutes ago, hrafnkolbrandr said:

how much incentive do people have to fly the SE5a or SPAD (or anything else, really)?

 

What is the incentive to fly ANY of the German aircraft?

Edited November 27, 2018 by BraveSirRobin

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 hour ago, hrafnkolbrandr said:

What worries me is that we're going to have this particular camel running down D.VII's.  I'm no expert on Great War aviation, but as far as I know this shouldn't be the case; and if it is, how much incentive do people have to fly the SE5a or SPAD (or anything else, really)?

 

In a (likely) worst case scenario, the Camel will run down the regular D.VII at all altitudes, and the D.VIIF below 1000m.

 

Again the only real fallacy here is that our "regular" D.VII doesn't have its overcompressed 200hp D.IIIau engine, but an older 180hp D.IIIa, which makes it an "early" Fokker D.VII. However, I doubt that a Fokker D.VII 200hp would perform any better than the Fokker D.VIIF (232hp). I actually expect hope pray that the measurement in the new Digital Warfare engine is over 200km/h at sea level.

 

Personally I would pick a SPAD or SE5a over a Camel any day when it comes to survivability. The Dolphin is in a tougher spot. And a Bristol still rules supreme, though a lot will depend on its damage model. In RoF I've actually had one fall apart at cruise speed due to heavy turbulence.

 

1 hour ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

What is the incentive to fly ANY of the German aircraft?

 

Fwiw, I plan on flying mostly Central (I did also just join J5). The Pfalz D.IIIa, Fokker D.VII(F) and Halberstadt CL.II are still very versatile, durable and reliable team planes, compared to exploding Camels. A revised Fokker Dr.I might outmaneuver the Camel outright. And the Fokker D.VIIF will still be king up high.

 

If anything, I'm looking forward to the end of the Albatros D.Va's rule as F2P noob plane of choice. It's a machine that just doesn't teach anything other than "pull as hard as you can". At least the Camel and Dr.I require some effort.

Edited November 27, 2018 by Hellbender

[BraveSirRobin]

18 minutes ago, Hellbender said:

Fwiw, I plan on flying mostly Central (I did also just join J5). The Pfalz D.IIIa, Fokker D.VII(F) and Halberstadt CL.II are still very versatile, durable and reliable team planes, compared to exploding Camels. A revised Fokker Dr.I might outmaneuver the Camel outright. And the Fokker D.VIIF will still be king up high.

 

If anything, I'm looking forward to the end of the Albatros D.Va's rule as F2P noob plane of choice. It's a machine that just doesn't teach anything other than "pull as hard as you can". At least the Camel and Dr.I require some effort.

 

lol  I've been through the Camel/Dr1 wars.  I've got the t-shirt.  The Pfalz is NOT going to able to challenge a 195 kph Camel.  Nothing will compete with it down low, and the VII.F will only be able to compete up high until the Camel decides that he's losing the fight and dives out.  The VII.F driver won't have that option.  Especially if the Camels are supported by a few Spads.  You might survive a little longer in your Halby, but only because of your gunner. 

 

But it's great that the Alb will be dead meat again.  Great call on that one!   ?

[BMA_Hellbender]

7 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

lol  I've been through the Camel/Dr1 wars.  I've got the t-shirt.  The Pfalz is NOT going to able to challenge a 195 kph Camel.  Nothing will compete with it down low, and the VII.F will only be able to compete up high until the Camel decides that he's losing the fight and dives out.  The VII.F driver won't have that option.  Especially if the Camels are supported by a few Spads.  You might survive a little longer in your Halby, but only because of your gunner. 

 

But it's great that the Alb will be dead meat again.  Great call on that one!   ?

 

I have nothing but love and respect for the Albatros D.II in 1916 and D.III in 1917, but I'm indeed quite happy that the Albatros D.Va will be back to being a structurally unsound anachronism in 1918, which stuck around for mostly political reasons. With a D.IIIau engine it might just be able to hold its own a little better, so I do hope it gets that down the line. The Pfalz D.IIIa is at least a somewhat more sensible option in that it's durable and can dive.

 

In any case, Albies will still be dangerous in group, and they will still be plenty popular outside of fast food treetop level dogfight. People are free to fly the crap plane of their choosing, I personally can't wait till we get the Hanriot.

 

I'm not happy with the prospect of a Camel that walks all over any German plane down low (except maybe the Fokkers), but it's also not the end of the world. I've seen more of them catch fire and explode during one evening online than any other plane in close to a decade of RoF.

[BraveSirRobin]

3 minutes ago, Hellbender said:

 

In any case, Albies will still be dangerous in group

 

OK, I concede that 4 or 5 Albs might have an advantage against 1 195kph Camel.  That should be loads of fun!

[BMA_Hellbender]

4 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

OK, I concede that 4 or 5 Albs might have an advantage against 1 195kph Camel.  That should be loads of fun!

 

I was thinking 7 or 8, especially if they all fly into each other and bits and pieces start raining down on the Camel. But sure, less might be more!

[BraveSirRobin]

Oh, you meant dangerous to each other?  I would agree with that.

[=IRFC=NakedSquirrel]

6 hours ago, hrafnkolbrandr said:

What worries me is that we're going to have this particular camel running down D.VII's.  I'm no expert on Great War aviation, but as far as I know this shouldn't be the case; and if it is, how much incentive do people have to fly the SE5a or SPAD (or anything else, really)?

 

Great question.  Why would anyone want to fly a plane that goes 220kph+.  The Se5a and SPAD only climb faster, fly faster, and dive faster, but I can't really think of any advantages they have over the Camel....

 

I think it will forever remain a mystery.

 

 

The best tactic for Central is to fly at higher altitudes.  The BMW and Mercedes engines perform much better at altitude.  At 3000m+ you reduce the Sopwith Camel's 20kph advantage to a 10kph advantage with the Pfalz/Alb, and a 10kph difference is pretty negligible if you keep your energy. 

Edited November 27, 2018 by NakedSquirrel

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Mmhmm.

[emely]

10 hours ago, Hellbender said:

 

If anything, I'm looking forward to the end of the Albatros D.Va's rule as F2P noob plane of choice. It's a machine that just doesn't teach anything other than "pull as hard as you can". At least the Camel and Dr.I require some effort.

I thought the same way about Alb. But when we started flying at events against camels, something in my opinion about this plane changed.https://youtu.be/-LAns5Mx-Q0

In the RoF situation as in the case of the first camel. You can keep the height. In the FC will be, as in the case of the second (the Alb engine was damaged and did not give turns)

So what should you do if you meet a camel in FC on an albotross? You can not go upstairs, you can not run away, you can not sit on his tail. All you can do is jump with a parachute ?

 

 

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, emely said:

I thought the same way about Alb. But when we started flying at events against camels, something in my opinion about this plane changed.https://youtu.be/-LAns5Mx-Q0

In the RoF situation as in the case of the first camel. You can keep the height. In the FC will be, as in the case of the second (the Alb engine was damaged and did not give turns)

So what should you do if you meet a camel in FC on an albotross? You can not go upstairs, you can not run away, you can not sit on his tail. All you can do is jump with a parachute ?

 

 

 

As I said earlier, you dive from the sun in superior numbers, take a few shots and then dive towards your own lines.  Just like the Germans did. 

 

You should be able to stay far enough ahead in a dive due to your much heavier aircraft, long enough to drag the enemy down into the ground fire danger zone. Both aircraft will have to throttle back greatly to avoid an over-rev with the current engine model: at least I assume the Albs will, the Camel certainly does when it dives.  That makes the weight more important than the theoretical level top speed.  You should be alright as long as your Albadross lower wings do not fall off.   

[SeaW0lf]

13 hours ago, Hellbender said:

I've seen more of them catch fire and explode during one evening online than any other plane in close to a decade of RoF.

 

So the damage model is also skewed... Let's just hope it does not spread to other planes and that they will look into that. At least for you this should be good news, Bender. Can you imagine the Bristol exploding everything around it with a single turret burst? That would be proper!

[EAF19_Marsh]

20 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

Pre-1.034 was Camel vs. Dr1 and screw everything else.  Not sure how that was better.

 

Define: ‘better’: if you liked Camels or Dr.1s then it was perfect.

 

From a certain point of view...

[unreasonable]

4 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

So the damage model is also skewed... Let's just hope it does not spread to other planes and that they will look into that. At least for you this should be good news, Bender. Can you imagine the Bristol exploding everything around it with a single turret burst? That would be proper!

 

Not necessarily - Camels had about double the fuel capacity of Dr.1s so a tank about 26% larger in each dimension and so 59% easier to hit.  Also I would not be surprised if most on line Camel jockeys are taking off with well below 50% fuel. I am not sure if that also makes fires more likely as well: but if so Camels should be much more likely to light up than Dr.1s 

 

 

[emely]

2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

You should be alright as long as your Albadross lower wings do not fall off.   

Unfortunately, Google translator could not convey to me the meaning of your message. This is some kind of humor, right?

[BMA_Hellbender]

So far I’ve only seem this exploding behaviour with Camels, I also suspect the location of the fuel tank and air/fuel mixture inside the tank at low fuel level. A full fuel tank is far less likely to explode, only catch fire. The end result is the same, only I do like me some pyrotechnics. ?

 

For the most part I will be flying Central and thus the Halberstadt, unless Entente is really outnumbered (they should be fine with 2 Entente for 3 Central really). The Bristol is obviously a supremely powerful machine, but it requires an element of surprise, since it has zero staying power in a fight (especially with a Halberstadt) and tends to shed wings when you sneeze at it.

 

So we may end up with fast and fragile Entente, except for the rugged SPAD — and slow and sturdy Central, except for the structurally inadequate Albatros. And parachutes. It could be worse, I guess.

 

I’m still not happy that they can’t just add the Mercedes D.IIIau 200hp variants to the Pfalz and Albatros, it’s literally nothing more than a max RPM change, an audio cue when using overcompression below 1000m, and, as you can see, a MASSIVE change in the engine’s 3D model:

 

 

P.S. I would kind of miss the little knob on top of the engine, though. It’s nice for aiming.

 

P.P.S. I have a lot of experience aiming with a little knob.

 

 

Edited November 27, 2018 by Hellbender

[EAF19_Marsh]

Camels should be better because...Biggles.

[SeaW0lf]

29 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

Not necessarily - Camels had about double the fuel capacity of Dr.1s so a tank about 26% larger in each dimension and so 59% easier to hit.  Also I would not be surprised if most on line Camel jockeys are taking off with well below 50% fuel. I am not sure if that also makes fires more likely as well: but if so Camels should be much more likely to light up than Dr.1s 

 

From all the books I read, with furballs that could go to 80+ planes, had only a couple planes shot down. How on Earth a furball even in ROF burns itself like a match? As you guys are saying, a Bristol will zap a dozen Camels like pineapple for desert. The quote I have from Stark, of a furball of 80+ planes with a couple planes shot down, would end up in ROF with half a dozen planes going back home after a minute.

 

Gould lee also have innumerable accounts off furballs with no plane shot down, sometimes a probable, or one or two the most, whith several accounts of bullets passing near his head, hitting the canvas and so on. The hitboxes in ROF, apparently now in BOX, must be the size of the whole midsection of the plane. Or then the mistake is in the dispersion. Prove of that is frontal passes. Most dogfights in ROF are decided on the first frontal pass, 300, 400, 500 yards away, unless you bob and weave like a boxer.

 

Udet took seven front passes IIRC to shot down a Spad. Not even a rookie in ROF would take seven passes. It would be most likely be two the most.

 

The air war would be short lived with the DM we have. They would never be able to replace the droves of planes shot down every day. And if now we have planes exploding in a burst like fireflies, at least it will be visually appealing.
 

Edited November 27, 2018 by SeaW0lf

[unreasonable]

15 minutes ago, emely said:

Unfortunately, Google translator could not convey to me the meaning of your message. This is some kind of humor, right?

 

The Albatross V strutters were structurally unsound and the lower wings tended to come off. To be fair a similar problem affected other sesquiplanes such as the N-17.  Various fixes helped at bit worked,  but not reliably, and added weight. So you have a heavy plane which should be able to use that to it's advantage in a dive but at a considerable risk.  By 1918 Albatros really were dross.

 

5 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

 

The air war would be short lived with the DM we have. They would never be able to replace the droves of planes shot down every day. And if now we have planes exploding in a burst like fireflies, at least it will be visually appealing.
 

 

That has been the same in every CFS I have ever flown - I do not think it is due to the DMs as such or even ballistics. After all people complained that the shotgun spread gave an advantage to distant chasers: now they complain that the sniper spread does the same. I think it is all down to the human factor: many on line players have shot down many multiples of MvR's victories, and few of his were in actual dogfights, and they are much less likely to disengage. In short, there is too much unsimulated for a CFS to replicate wartime actions in most cases.

 

Also by 1918 flamers were actually pretty common - as MvR's own combat reports demonstrate.

 

  

[EAF19_Marsh]

15 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

The air war would be short lived with the DM we have. They would never be able to replace the droves of planes shot down every day. And if now we have planes exploding in a burst like fireflies, at least it will be visually appealing.

 

As a rule of thumb, casualties as proportion of engaged tend to decrease as number of aircraft involved increase. This is due to among other things: difficulties of identification, people getting in the way, varying height (probably descending of the engagement), fear of dying and just good old confusion. As a counter-point, over-claiming tends to go up the more aircraft involved, for much the same reasons.

Edited November 27, 2018 by EAF19_Marsh

[SeaW0lf]

5 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

As a rule of thumb, casualties as proportion of engaged tend to decrease as number of aircraft involved increase. This is due to among other things: difficulties of identification, people getting in the way, varying height (probably descending of the engagement), fear of dying and just good old confusion. As a counter-point, over-claiming tends to go up the more aircraft involved, for much the same reasons.

 

On the Gould Lee books alone you have several accounts of small furballs with Albatroses. Seldom you see accounts of planes shot down. Mostly holes in the canvas and near misses. And the front pass thing is a real problem in ROF. I simply avoid the frontal pass, because it is no fun. You have almost 100% chances to hit the fuel tank or disable the engine, the same for the opponent. So why not just ram through the guy and get done with it once and for all? 

Edited November 27, 2018 by SeaW0lf

[EAF19_Marsh]

10 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

So why not just ram through the guy and get done with it once and for all?  

 

The RFC prides itself on this....probably.

 

I totally agree. If your arse is on top of / behind a lot of fuel and you have No Parachute then playing silly buggers (Albert Ball aside) made no sense. Was it Ira Jones who approvingly said of Mannock that he; 'Played every engagement like a chess match'? Get in, get hits, get out. Something totally missing from a sim.

 

Edit: I just stopped to think about it again - those guys must have had balls the size of boulders.

Edited November 27, 2018 by EAF19_Marsh

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

Where can I get a refund on my preorder  ?

[SeaW0lf]

19 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Also by 1918 flamers were actually pretty common - as MvR's own combat reports demonstrate.

 

I'm not questioning the flamers, but how easy you can zap them. At least we multiplayers have ROF online for the time being. It is not perfect, but we kind of got used to its idiosyncrasies.

[BMA_Hellbender]

I don't mind going over everything that should be fixed in Rise of Flight that is now being ported over to Flying Circus.

 

From damage model, to bullet spread, to g-forces on gunners, heck even g-forces on the pilot. I wonder how good your aim and how stable your hand is after sustaining a mix of positive and negative gs for a few minutes straight. Negative gs especially really, really suck. This isn't just isolated to Flying Circus, Great Battles as well could benefit from more realistic gunnery and gunners. I know 109s tend to stay far away from Pe-2s for this very reason. And having a quick look at the GB discussion forum, people are also complaining about the P-47 falling very easily to enemy fire, whereas it was known to be a flying jug.

The truth is, I don't know, and I can only give an opinion, but nothing verifiable.

 

At least top speed and climb to altitude is something that can be (dis)proven with data.

 

 

 

35 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

As you guys are saying, a Bristol will zap a dozen Camels like pineapple for desert.

 

I'd be very concerned indeed if a Bristol took to his own Camels in a brutal display of force over who is the gayest machine in the sky.

 

Gay as in the original meaning of the word: the jolliest plane of them all!

 

And speaking of Camel Fags (they're back!), it's time I ported this skin over to 4K:

 

 

Edited November 27, 2018 by Hellbender

[EAF19_Marsh]

1 minute ago, SeaW0lf said:

Also by 1918 flamers were actually pretty common - as MvR's own combat reports demonstrate.

 

'Common' or 'remembered' - given the human mind vs. physics I suspect the latter

 

Quote

I don't mind going over everything that should be fixed in Rise of Flight that is now being ported over to Flying Circus.

 

Dancing close the the ban, you might be...

[SeaW0lf]

Just as a note March, the MvR quote is from Unreasonable ()

[EAF19_Marsh]

Just now, SeaW0lf said:

Just as a note March, the MvR quote is from Unreasonable ()

 

Sorry!

 

But the point stands ?

[unreasonable]

16 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

On the Gould Lee books alone you have several accounts of small furballs with Albatroses. Seldom you see accounts of planes shot down. Mostly holes in the canvas and near misses. And the front pass thing is a real problem in ROF. I simply avoid the frontal pass, because it is no fun. You have almost 100% chances to hit the fuel tank or disable the engine, the same for the opponent. So why not just ram through the guy and get done with it once and for all? 

 

If IIRC all of the furballs mentioned in Gould Lee's "No Parachute" were in Pups.

 

p 43 GL dives away after being bounced by several DIIIs who eventually leave him alone. 29 bullet holes in his Pup including one through his flying coat collar. He was very lucky.

p 45 patrol kills one alb loses one Pup

pp 46 48 3 Pups and one Tripe fight 7 DIIIs, shooting one down (confirmed). The Albs run.

 

And so on. Plenty of planes shot down. But as I said the loss rate is so high in MP - or even in SP careers - because there human effects are not there. Hellbender mentions the physiological effects; in addition to that are the morale issues. Lots of people failed to engage or took an excuse for an early bath. We just do not have that in any CFS and it is very hard to see how it could be put in.  Perhaps much more turbulence would help throw off people's aim.  But I would not want to have concrete DMs to try to compensate.

4 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

'Common' or 'remembered' - given the human mind vs. physics I suspect the latter

 

 

You would be wrong. MvR's reports are detailed and according to the historians who have pored over them to try to match them with British records, remarkably reliable.  In addition, by 1918 both sides were using incendiaries as a matter of routine. MvR damaged his own plane using them. We even know the belting of the Autralian squadrons.

 

See my thread on the topic here in the FC forum.

[EAF19_Marsh]

1 minute ago, unreasonable said:

 

You would be wrong. MvR's reports are detailed and according to the historians who have pored over them to try to match them with British records, remarkably reliable.  In addition, by 1918 both sides were using incendiaries as a matter of routine. MvR damaged his own plane using them. We even know the belting of the Autralian squadrons.

 

Hmmmmm... I remain doubtful. The variety of critical components / wider areas on WW1 a/c versus parts that would result in a 'flamer' are a good degree of separation. I find it difficult to believe that 'flamers' were common, though a/c going down smoking or similar might (trailing fuel or coolant) well have been a good proportion. Also, once an aircraft had crashed (likely rupturing the tank), determining exact cause of loss was going to depend very much on circumstance.

 

Don't want to get into a fight about it, just a little skeptical.

[unreasonable]

8 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

Hmmmmm... I remain doubtful. The variety of critical components / wider areas on WW1 a/c versus parts that would result in a 'flamer' are a good degree of separation. I find it difficult to believe that 'flamers' were common, though a/c going down smoking or similar might (trailing fuel or coolant) well have been a good proportion. Also, once an aircraft had crashed (likely rupturing the tank), determining exact cause of loss was going to depend very much on circumstance.

 

Don't want to get into a fight about it, just a little skeptical.

 

I was too until I did the analysis.  Have a look at my thread and check out the dramatic increase in the proportion of flamers in MvR's reports towards the end of the war.  On your first point I agree and that probably accounts for why flamers were relatively infrequent early on when everyone was using ball only.  But all you need to light up a WW1 aircraft is to put a bullet through the petrol tank and then put an incendiary bullet into the wet patch.  (I should have done the flamers in red bars  )

 

 

Edited November 27, 2018 by unreasonable

[EAF19_Marsh]

4 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

I was too until I did the analysis.  Have a look at my thread and check out the dramatic increase in the proportion of flamers in MvR's reports towards the end of the war.

 

Interesting, will do.

[SeaW0lf]

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

3 Pups and one Tripe fight 7 DIIIs, shooting one down (confirmed). The Albs run.

 

And so on. Plenty of planes shot down.

 

You should try multiplayer. It is a blast. On the quotes,  of those 11 planes in a furball, in ROF we would have left perhaps 2, 3 planes the most. The rate of kills is just unreal. Looks like FC have less wing shredding, but then we have fuel tanks blowing up at will and whatnot (improved gunnery?).

 

You have to try flying against real players. This is where the problem lays. For who plays online, it is not hard to notice that there is something wrong either with the hitboxes or the dispersion. But you have to play constantly until these things starts to come to attention. The same with aircraft performance. You need to put the time (years) until you can tell when a plane is off, that something does not look right.

 

But I'm not even sure why I brought the subject. I'll let you guys go at it. 

[ZachariasX]

1 minute ago, SeaW0lf said:

But I'm not even sure why I brought the subject.

 

I'm on Berloga, waiting for you.