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

[SeaW0lf]

Just now, ZachariasX said:

 

I'm on Berloga, waiting for you.

 

LOL... I'll try to be there this week.

[Guest deleted@83466]

32 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

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. 

 

The subject of gunnery model has come up before, as you know.  I had originally thought the "improved gunnery" option in RoF had been intended as an EasyMode, because the result over standard seemed like laser-gunnery.  In fact, it is deemed to be a more accurate model of dispersion by the developers.  I believe that it probably is, based on things I've read and the discussions around it on this very forum.  However, if that dispersion model gets combined with overly stable airframes, and unrealistic damage models, it really does create an unrealistic rate of hits and kills, and feels like you are swatting opponents with a zap gun.  I don't have FC, so I'm just basing this comment on flying on a training server in RoF where the Improved gunnery option was set ON.  The Wider dispersion in RoF,  standard on all of the 1.5 servers, might have been less accurate compared to the real gun, but it at least compensated for other shortcomings, so that the net result of gunnery was likely closer to reality.

Edited November 27, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[No.23_Triggers]

When people mention gunnery I can't help but think of the alleged stories such as Rene Fonck being able to bring planes down with as little as 6 rounds...if such stories are true, the guns can't have been THAT inaccurate..

 

...although, I suppose it wouldn't take 4 rounds to kill a real pilot...

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

LOL... I'll try to be there this week. 

That was fun

 

[SeaW0lf]

18 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

That was fun

 

Yeah, it was. I was not sure how Berloga had prepared the arena for FC, but it looks good and I experienced no lag / stutter. I have to test, because I overclocked my processor and I'm not sure if it is related. I'll come back more often to test these planes.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

2 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

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. 

Dispertion based on real live data test is not wrong or urealistic. Dispertion in ROF is just spray and pray, enemy is disengaging just point somewhere  in the middle  and you guaratie some leakage damage. Good one boom & zoom/run pass on pilot almost ineffective to exaggerate dispersion.

I know that in ROF with realistic dispertion on and without mods like reduced lethality, wings where to fragile for mods off ROF mp. FC is diffrent and there are other kills seen - like pilot, engine, fire - much more that ROF just cuting the wings off with  realistic gunnery enabled.

Simplistic damage model on on wings - like not modeled canvas etc. do not helped ither - you can collapse whole wing shooting only at wing tips

Aiming in 1g chair on 2d monitor - thats what is unrealistic.

BTW FC is  is not as dramatic as ww2 where one good pass on unaware enemy fighter =  destroyed. But nobody complains...

 

This is my opinion based on ROF and some FC experience in mp but need a lot more time in FC...

Edited November 27, 2018 by 307_Tomcat

[unreasonable]

6 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

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. 

 

I have played a fair bit of BoS MP and found it fun on occasion, toxic on others, but in essence: silly.    People also say there that unless you play MP it is impossible to know what you are talking about too.  It is not true in BoS - except for MP specific issues like cheating, scoring, team killing etc - and I do not believe it is true in RoF/FC either.  MP has it's own particular problems of realism: flyers who are way more experienced than anyone in RL, no fatigue of 2 hour patrols at 20,000ft, no fear of death, teamspeak, no wake turbulence or any turbulence at all that I remember, factory fresh machines that all behave just the same ..... as I said before, the idea that you can get MP to simulate the totality of real air combat is a stretch for WW2, and absurd for WW1.   

 

I never played RoF MP because I found the default RoF DM - armoured fuselage and delicate wings - to be be absurd.  I would like to give FC a try as I am sure it can be fun, given the progress that has been made, but unfortunately with my time zone that usually means playing well after midnight. Also lag is an issue, and servers increasingly cut off high-ping persons. I do not think I have ever seen a green number on my MP server list.

 

 No, you do not have to play constantly to notice problems in the simulation, especially not in MP. If you want to check specific outcomes, test them in a way that checks one thing at a time and can be compared against real data: as you yourself have done so thoroughly with speed and climb performance. DMs, ballistics etc: no different. 

[Guest deleted@83466]

I don't want to get in a big discussion about this, Unreasonable, because it would sidetrack this thread, but I feel the need to provide a response.  Multiplayer has something that Single Player will never have:  The ability to take on opponents that range from the truly intelligent, wily, and skillful, who will make you look like a flying fool every time, all the way down to the hopeless inept, is something not recreated by any level of AI found in these games.  It provides the opportunity to exercise real world tactics with sentient wingmen.  The drama on comms that can ensue when you and your wingmen are basically in the thick of it with human flown opponents here there and everywhere trying to bag you brings in an element of simulation Walter-Mitty-ism that simply doesn't exist in an SP.  I'm guessing that fighting and surviving in the real war was pretty tough.  Fighting against AI doesn't recreate that.   It is just fighting against uninspired bots that don't present much of a challenge, and are not capable of outsmarting you (well, at least I would hope not!).  Bots, btw, don't fatigue from a long patrol, have a cruddy day that affects their performance, or fear "death"..human players certainly do, and even the gamiest human warquakers have a better sense of self-preservation that any AI.  I've seen a lot of guys who think they are pretty hot stuff, because they are a bigly ace in SP,  come in to MP and get a very humbling and rude awakening.  It's a whole other world.  But anyway, lets not go more off-topic.  That's all I have to say about that.

Edited November 28, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[unreasonable]

As I said  repeatedly, I have played a fair bit of BoS MP.

 

Took me about five minutes to get my first kill in airquake, after being vulched on take off the first couple of times.  Shot down both Il-2s escorted by Requiem on about my third evening doing it.  Bought down a 109 and a 190 flying together while flying a LaGG - because they were so busy yakking about their recent TV watching or whatever - I was listening on their TS channel -  that they did not see me climbing up directly underneath them in the early morning gloom. It really is not that hard if you use real tactics instead of looking for "duels" as though you are some kind of idiot medieval paladin. (Hi Plank!)

 

I will tell you what is hard: playing career mode DiD and surviving for months, without using icons, technochat and other game helpers, while making a genuine attempt to carry out your missions.  The AI everyone despises is better at spotting than humans, and is a better than average shot in many situations.  They can kill you just fine if you do not see them in time, and you do not have a wingman on TS covering your back.   In a multiplane fight it is hard to keep tabs on them all and you only have to make a mistake once.  Ground fire does not care whether you are in MP or SP.  The main job of scouts is to shoot down or chase away 2-seaters: AI gunners in vanilla RoF were far more dangerous than any human. (Opinions in BoS vary, so it will be interesting to see how that works out with FC AI rear gunners). 

 

I have heard all the MP elitism arguments so many times - and observed for myself how shallow they really are. 

 

 

[BraveSirRobin]

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

As I said  repeatedly, I have played a fair bit of BoS MP.

 

Took me about five minutes to get my first kill in airquake, after being vulched on take off the first couple of times.  Shot down both Il-2s escorted by Requiem on about my third evening doing it.  Bought down a 109 and a 190 flying together while flying a LaGG - because they were so busy yakking about their recent TV watching or whatever - I was listening on their TS channel -  that they did not see me climbing up directly underneath them in the early morning gloom. It really is not that hard if you use real tactics instead of looking for "duels" as though you are some kind of idiot medieval paladin. (Hi Plank!)

 

I will tell you what is hard: playing career mode DiD and surviving for months, without using icons, technochat and other game helpers, while making a genuine attempt to carry out your missions.  The AI everyone despises is better at spotting than humans, and is a better than average shot in many situations.  They can kill you just fine if you do not see them in time, and you do not have a wingman on TS covering your back.   In a multiplane fight it is hard to keep tabs on them all and you only have to make a mistake once.  Ground fire does not care whether you are in MP or SP.  The main job of scouts is to shoot down or chase away 2-seaters: AI gunners in vanilla RoF were far more dangerous than any human. (Opinions in BoS vary, so it will be interesting to see how that works out with FC AI rear gunners). 

 

I have heard all the MP elitism arguments so many times - and observed for myself how shallow they really are. 

 

 

 

Sorry, but that is complete nonsense.  I've spent thousands of hours of MP and SP in both RoF and BoS, and there is no comparison.  The best way to know you're ready for MP is to be capable of fighting  1 v 4 against the AI.  And even then you'll be killed repeatedly in MP.  A few hours on Berloga means you have enough experience to think you know a lot more than you really do.

[unreasonable]

3 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

Sorry, but that is complete nonsense.  I've spent thousands of hours of MP and SP in both RoF and BoS, and there is no comparison.  The best way to know you're ready for MP is to be capable of fighting  1 v 4 against the AI.  And even then you'll be killed repeatedly in MP.  A few hours on Berloga means you have enough experience to think you know a lot more than you really do.

 

If you are calling me a liar, BSR, you can go forth and multiply. I have never played on Berloga - Eagle's Nest as it happens and one of the other early servers whose name I forget.  I gave up MP because of constant deliberate team killing by the toxic jerks that love that environment; and all to often bring it to the forum as well.

 

How long would the self proclaimed MP aces last in a DiD career: that is the relevant question, not messing about in QMB.  Spotting enemy aircraft is no more difficult in MP. Ground fire is just as dangerous in SP. AI rear gunners can still kill you if you get your approach wrong - and sometimes even if you get it right. 

 

I have no doubt that dueling AI fighters is easier than dueling an experienced MP human - I have never said that it is not.   That is not the point: that activity was only a part of real air combat, and it is not simulated any better in MP: arguably worse. 

 

 

[BraveSirRobin]

5 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

If you are calling me a liar, BSR,

 

 

I'm not calling you a liar.  I'm telling you that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.  I've got thousands of MP hours.  You have next to none.  The fact that you were able to kill a few noobs in MP is part of what makes MP great.  Even a complete noob like you can get kills.  But MP has lots of guys who are not noobs.  Guys who will chew you up and spit you out without even breaking a sweat.  It's a HUGE challenge just surviving for a few missions, even flying the best aircraft.   Yeah, I'm sure that surviving 30 or 40 missions against the AI is tough.  But when you're done with that you're just about ready to survive 3 or 4 missions against experienced MP pilots.

 

[JGr2/J5_Hotlead]

36 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

How long would the self proclaimed MP aces last in a DiD career: that is the relevant question, not messing about in QMB.  Spotting enemy aircraft is no more difficult in MP. Ground fire is just as dangerous in SP. AI rear gunners can still kill you if you get your approach wrong - and sometimes even if you get it right. 

 

Everyone has his own opinion, mate. Some guys fall more on the singleplayer side of things and others (like me!) tend to love the taste of fighting flesh and blood opponents. I don't think either playstyle is "better" than the other, per se, but for me personally, one is definitely more attractive than the other.

 

That being said, in JG1 we run a co-op DiD career every Monday evening against AI opponents. While not as full-immersion as say PWCG, it still is quite fun and has its intense moments. We started in Fokker E.IIIs and have progressed through the war until we are now flying D.VIIfs and Pfalz D.XIIs. Personally, I've been very lucky and have not died yet, but the cold fear of death certainly finds you up there. For instance, early on in the campaign, my wingman and I collided over enemy lines while engaged with a mess of bandits. I had a harrowing several minutes of trying to nurse my battered and bent Fokker E.III back to no man's land for an emergency landing. My wingman was not so fortunate...RIP.  I felt pretty bad about his loss! 

 

All that to say, maybe if you got into multiplayer, you'd enjoy these sorts of missions more?

 

PS: If you're interested in this sort of mission, @unreasonable, check out this livestream from last night:

 

Edited November 28, 2018 by II./JG1_HotleadColdfeet

[unreasonable]

27 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

I'm not calling you a liar.  I'm telling you that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.  I've got thousands of MP hours.  You have next to none.  The fact that you were able to kill a few noobs in MP is part of what makes MP great.  Even a complete noob like you can get kills.  But MP has lots of guys who are not noobs.  Guys who will chew you up and spit you out without even breaking a sweat.  It's a HUGE challenge just surviving for a few missions, even flying the best aircraft.   Yeah, I'm sure that surviving 30 or 40 missions against the AI is tough.  But when you're done with that you're just about ready to survive 3 or 4 missions against experienced MP pilots.

 

 

You have zero idea how many hours I have in MP, how many planes I shot down or how often I was shot down.  So I suggest you stop opining on matters where your ignorance is almost total.

 

22 minutes ago, II./JG1_HotleadColdfeet said:

 

 

All that to say, maybe if you got into multiplayer, you'd enjoy these sorts of missions more?

 

I did enjoy one escort mission with about a dozen Pe-2s all taking off together all on TS: but do not enjoy being hit by planes whose nose is pointing behind my tail or firing straight at the body of an enemy aircraft at point blank range to see nothing.  There are quite a lot of technical problems that MP has that make it less fun, quite apart from having to start playing at midnight, let alone the toxic players - a small minority no doubt, but with a disproportionate effect on enjoyment.

 

Do not get me wrong: I quite understand why people enjoy MP - I enjoyed parts of it too.  What I am sick and tired of is having a discussion about game DMs, or ballistics, or handling qualities, and someone comes along and says that you opinion has no validity because they have never seen you on MP. That is what has led to this argument, not the merits of MP as such.  

 

 

 

Edited November 28, 2018 by unreasonable

[BraveSirRobin]

1 minute ago, unreasonable said:

 

You have zero idea how many hours I have in MP, how many planes I shot down or how often I was shot down.  So I suggest you stop opining on matters where your ignorance is almost total.

 

 

I can tell from your comments on this thread that you're a noob.  It's that obvious.

2 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

  What I am sick and tired of is having a discussion about game DMs, or ballistics, or handling qualities, and someone comes along and says that you opinion has no validity because they have never seen you on MP.

 

Do you have any examples of that?  

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

I gave up MP because of constant deliberate team killing by the toxic jerks that love that environment; and all to often bring it to the forum as well.

It is my impression that things are much better these days (YMMV). Seems like everybody is 6 years older compared to the heydays of RoF.

 

But MP and SP „difficulty“ these days I guess is of different nature. Doing PWCG and some careers provided by the BoX vs. flying mainly on WoL (I don‘t have time for longer, more complicated missions on other servers), it is clear that the main threat is of rather different nature.

 

In SP, you have lethal Flak and (if you set them to ace) sometimes a number of sniper planes taking passes at you. It comes down to assessing your situation in time and considering the value of discretion, and you might live, rather quasi successful though.

In MP, you don‘t have that luxury. The good players not only know the map like the back of their hand, they also know where to expect you and often enogh they coordinate on TS. As a loner, consider yourself dead once you leave ground. I also think that being able to deal 4 aces vs yourself in QMB is a prerequisite for MP, as you plainly demonstrate basic shooting skills. But that is about it.

 

If there is one thing Berloga is good for, then it is to show that he who initiates the attack usually wins, regardless of the aircraft involved. Going on MP servers, count on you rarely being the attacker unless you come with friends.

 

Coming back to the Camel that I was happy to fight on Berloga the other day vs Wags, SeaWolf and Talisman, I felt its main strength is the climbing turn making it essentially an energy fighter over both the slow Dr.I and the Pfalz, both of which I find more maneuvrable if it wasn‘t for the right hand turn of the Camel. If you go left in the Pfalz (or Dr.I), the solution is always the climbing turn for the Camel currently. The difference between SP and the guys above that know how to fly is drastic (and it is way more fun!).

 

The speed of the Camel against the slow German planes I find less important, it is the climb that gives it the edge. The speed of the SPAD (and its climb), especially when flown by Wags, is much more of a problem, and all you can do is try make him shed his wings when diving vertically down at you. I was lucky to achive that once (with a little help by him being careless) and as I put some (or maybe just one) bullets in him in a previous pull out, it counted.

 

All things you never have in SP.

 

So, thanks guys, always great having you on the servers!

 

 

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

There are quite a lot of technical problems that MP has that make it less fun, quite apart from having to start playing at midnight, let alone the toxic players -

This!

 

It seems to me that the current player demography clearly favors „European hours“. For MP, the player number and *quality* is what makes it an enjoyable time.

 

If these criteria are not met, in SP you know what you have and you can tailor it to your taste. It is neither better or worse, but different.

Edited November 28, 2018 by ZachariasX

[BraveSirRobin]

44 minutes ago, II./JG1_HotleadColdfeet said:

 

That being said, in JG1 we run a co-op DiD career every Monday evening against AI opponents.

 

 

Years ago I did this on a server that Josh Echo used to run.  We flew the mission about 5 or 6 times.  Humans v AI.  I'm pretty sure that no human pilots were ever shot down.  It was a slaughter.   It was also a waste of time if you wanted to prepare to play MP against humans.

[unreasonable]

Possibly not  from Jason's crew - I expect it all depends on the financials and whether a larger map and more investment has a sufficient ROI, and probably will not be anytime soon. What we can be reasonably sure of is PWCG: I know he loves the WW1 environment so - fingers crossed -  I expect he will create an SP career for FC.   

[Guest deleted@83466]

sorry, I had actually deleted my post, and I can't put it back in above yours.  But for those that wondered, it simply said "Is Flying Circus going to have an SP campaign?"

Edited November 28, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[Feathered_IV]

The official word is that Volume 1 will not have a career mode.  However if the title is a hit despite the limited gameplay options, a tentative maybe was given to a career being a part of Volume 2.

 

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

I can tell from your comments on this thread that you're a noob.  It's that obvious.

 

Do you have any examples of that?  

 

Pure confirmation bias. You already think you know the answers, so everything you see is read in that way, whatever the actual content. Your comment says a great deal about you and nothing about me. I might be wrong but am willing to bet that I have been playing CFS at least as long as you - Noob yourself.  BTW have you comprehended the difference between a standard deviation and the standard error of the mean yet? 

 

 As for examples: SeaWOlf's comment  in this thread to which I was originally responding.   If I had a wife for every time this "argument" has been leveled against me even the religion of peace would expel me.  Reading the thread before leaping in with the "MP rulz" posts might be a good idea. Pointless if you are never wrong of course. 

 

Anyone ever recall an occasion where BSR ever admitted being wrong? Perhaps I should do a poll.  Saying "I was wrong to say you are a noob - you are an absolute "noob" does not count.

Edited November 28, 2018 by unreasonable

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Those post go nowhere, pleas stay on topic

[No.23_Starling]

Salute Zak! Yes there was a wing shedding incident following a prop hanging incident. If only Trenchard had issued me with a silk umbrella. I’m still getting a feel for the physics in the new engine including stresses on wings. The Spad still feels very rugged and is more responsive in a diving turn than before. The only thing I have noticed (which you mentioned on the server) is the energy regain/loss.

 

The Spad feels like it loses energy much faster than in the old engine, and the PIII is now prop hanging very well, better than the Dr1. The Camel has shocked me though compared to the old one. Seawolf was owning us for a while there!

 

I’m pleased though that traditional Spad tactics still work well. Can’t wait to try the SE5

[emely]

18 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

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.

Problems with the wings of the Alb have not been reflected in the game. But also, many of the known problems with other planes in this game are also absent. We have different sources of information about the events of those years, where even the numbers contradict each other. Choosing one thing, but completely ignoring the other - how can you be convincingly accurate?

Memoirs of participants in hostilities, it is also a very unclear source. But it can not just be cast aside. We all know the terms "Fokker Scourge" and "Bloody April", but what did the story tell us about the appearance of a camel at the front? This plane was successful, but not so much that would leave such a strong mark.

If the implementation of FM in FC correct, the British should have such memoirs: "Since we got camels, German planes have ceased to be a problem for us," And the Germans have such "We sadly followed the camels flying away, and nothing could do with them. The only lack of enemy planes was that when they hit them - they often exploded like Christmas fireworks. But it was difficult to get there. "

And yes, the 18th year is the end of an albatross career. But he met a camel earlier, if I do not confuse anything.

 

Edited November 28, 2018 by emely

[BraveSirRobin]

6 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

Pure confirmation bias.

 

I might be wrong but am willing to bet that I have been playing CFS at least as long as you 

 

 

Confirmed by thousands of hours of experience and your own comments.  As for how long you’ve been playing CFS, that is completely and totally irrelevant.  We’re talking about BoX MP.  You clearly have very little experience with that.

 

As for Seawolf, he has no idea what he’s talking about.  But when it comes to BoX MP, neither do you.  

[Cynic_Al]

From everything I've read here and elsewhere, I cannot give credence to such a figure for the Camel. Leaving aside absolute figures, this suggests that at low altitudes the Camel will not be outpaced by any Albatros, which was the historically-unsupportable situation that used to exist in RoF and one of the arguments leading to the overdone performance revision.

[Sgt_Joch]

9 minutes ago, Cynic_Al said:

From everything I've read here and elsewhere, I cannot give credence to such a figure for the Camel. Leaving aside absolute figures, this suggests that at low altitudes the Camel will not be outpaced by any Albatros, which was the historically-unsupportable situation that used to exist in RoF and one of the arguments leading to the overdone performance revision.

 

no, the speed of the Camel is supported by multiple flight tests and IS faster than the speed of a Albatros V. Note this is design speed.

 

some years ago, I had tracked down every recorded existing speed tests of Mercedes Diii engine planes to see what the speed was. I have lost the document, but I had posted the results on the RoF forum, i.e.:

 

Quote

Albatros D.Va speed

Max speed of production aircraft in recorded WW1 tests is most likely in the 165-175 kmh range.

The 186 kmh speed @ 1 km (116 mph @ 3280 feet) appears to be either a mistake or from a D.IIIau/BMW engined prototype.

I have been looking into the existing flight tests of Mercedes D.III engined planes and had produced an excel spread sheet for my personal use.

The data shows 14 tests.



The speed figures in bold are from tests of captured aircraft.


Planes with D.III engines had a max. speed range of 165-175 kmh, although the 175 kmh achieved by a Alb. D.II with a D.III engine looks like a bit of an outlier.

Planes with a D.IIIa engine had a max. speed range of 168-172 kmh.

Planes with a D.IIIau engine had a max. speed range of 178-189 kmh

Test #3 shows the official top speed of the Alb D.V as stated by the Albatros factory: 165 kmh.

Test #9 is the most reliable since we have an english translation of the original German report, which states the type, weight, altitude and RPM of the engine. The test was also measured with the German theodolite method which was accurate within 3%.

The only result which looks really out of place is #12 which is the figure often quoted as the top speed of the Alb D.Va: 186 kmh @ 1 km (116 mph @ 3280 feet). It is very high for a D.IIIa engine and even high for a D.IIIau engine.

I tried to track down the source of this test, but that appears to be lost or non-existent.

The aircraft profile series which came out in the 1960s and which was fairly complete at the time never mentions that figure, in either no. 43 dealing with the Alb.D.I-III or no. 9 dealing with the Alb. D.V. Aircraft profile no.9 only shows the 165 kmh official speed figure. It does however explain that Albatros had entered two special Alb. D.Va prototypes in the 1918 1st fighter competition, one with a D.IIIau engine and one with a BMW engine. The plane with the BMW engine set a climb and altitude record for the type.

The first mention of the 186 kmh speed appears to be in the late 1960s in Purnell’s history of the First World War. Purnell’s was a magazine series which published a history of the Second World War which was very successful. This was followed up by a companion series on WW1. The magazine was aimed at the general public. The series was also reprinted in book form. I own the one on WW1 aerial warfare which came out in 1973 and which lists that speed (116 mph at 3280 feet) without mentioning any source. However, the same book lists the Sopwith Camel as having a top speed of 122 mph.

Some have pointed to the book: "Die deutschen Militärflugzeuge 1914-1918" by H.Stützer and G.Kroschel as a source. That book is out of print, but it was first published in 1977 and looks like a general overview of WW1 German aircraft. It may just be copying the figure from Purnell’s history of WW1.


However, If the 186 kmh speed was recorded by a D.IIIa engined production Alb. D.Va, then it would raise other questions, such as:

1. Why were German pilots disappointed with the performance of the Alb. D.V over the Alb. D.III and only rated it a marginal improvement? a 10-20 kmh speed increase from the Alb. D.III (165-175 kmh) to the Alb. D.V (186 kmh) would have been a substantial improvement.

2. Why was the Alb D.Va scrapped in favour of the Fokker D.VII? If a D.IIIa equipped Alb D.Va had a top speed of 186 kmh, then a D.IIIau engined Alb D.Va would have a theoretical top speed of 196-201 kmh which would be 5-10 kmh faster than the top speed of a Fokker DVII with the D.IIIau engine. Why would the German Air service abandon a proven fighter type (Alb D.V) in favour of a brand new and slower type?

I suspect the 186 kmh figure is either an error in Purnell’s or may perhaps reflect the max speed of the D.IIIau or BMW engined prototype at the first fighter competition. Since there appears to be no source for the figure, it is hard to tell.

 

[Guest deleted@83466]

An aircraft can have good performance numbers, and those numbers can be listed in the Encylopedia as what an aircraft is capable of, but that's only part of the story.  The other part of the story is about how easy it is to fly the aircraft to attain those numbers.  The Camel might have had good numbers, but it was also very difficult to fly.  If you have a simulation of the Camel which has very little adverse yaw, good lateral stability, toned down gyroscopic effects, etc, such that it doesn't really take a lot of skill to be able to fly it on the edge of the envelope, then you've potentially got a killing machine that is far more effective than the real thing would have been.  I haven't flown the FC Camel, only the ROF Camel, so in my own case, determining if the FC Camel is far too "easy" is entirely based on comments about how it flies by people on this forum.  The Camel is considered one of the best planes of WWI, and shot down more enemy aircraft than any other, but could it chase down and kill everything in the sky with ease (as they said the pre-nerf ROF Camel was able to do)?  Arango didn't test the top speed of the aircraft because he concluded that it was totally based on the skill of the pilot...one can take that to mean that attaining maximum performance from the aircraft was difficult. 

[ZachariasX]

It is my impression that FC is heading in a very, very good direction. As of now, it is clear that there is a disparity between the Camel and the Dr.I, them being "pre- and post-patch" RoF ports. But that will be corrected.

 

I would guess that having similar engines, the Dr.I would finally get his remarkable slow speed climb, while on average being a tad slower than the Camel, as defined by the prop itch used for the respective aircraft. Both then becoming the remarkable close quarter combat fighters that they were. Them being such, I doubt that they will make the D.VII redundant as the modest top speed is not that great for intercepting planes.

 

Also the remarkably well performing Camel needs to be flown correctly to really have an edge on a plane like the Pfalz and it requires a MUCH better pilot to make most of it.

 

What I would like to see however is the reduction of the Camels yaw and pitch stability. Telling from Javiers lecture (as unreasonable posted before), the Camel would stay crabwise in flight and not align itself readily. It seems there is little difference in yaw stability between the Camel and the Dr.I. Also reducing pitch stability would increase the tendency of a righthand downward spiral.

 

It appears to me that what we have in the game is that just a little pitchdown is needed and the Camel has sufficient speed to stabilize itself in the pitch axis, much rather than letting the nose down further. This, when countered by pulling on the elevator should lead to a tighter spiral, resulting in a requirement to pull even more until you have a "runaway situation" where you lose control of the spiral, if you don't counter with left rudder.

 

Right now our Camel is essentially neutral, but it should be rather unstable where you have to catch it in time with control responses. The presently modelled gyro I think would be sufficient. Also control efficiency seems ok to me. It should just do more on it's own. Like that, the present adverse yaw would easily keep it from turning. Induced roll with the rudder is wonderful, making it absolutely possibe to fly the aicraft as described by Javier. I really think we are very, very close to "perfect enough".

 

There is one pont though, the damage decals could recieve some love. Once you get perforated by the other team, what you are getting holes like a hole puncher puts them into a sheet of paper. You don't get cracks on the canvas like it was a wall. You get nice round holes. They can be black spots like on a ladybird, or even cooler, 100% tranparency spots on the canvas until DM decides some catastrophic structural failure. Cracks etc. you should only get once part of the wing collapses and the canvas gets torn.

 

Here, Mr. Behernd colleted some love from France, 21 neat little holes in his D.V in total. That man surely deserved a beer after that flight. He definitely looks like it.

Spoiler

 

Also when you hit a strut, you create a little hole in it. There will be cracks only once the wood comes apart. Trying to shoot apart a two-by-four with an automatic of that caliber rifle was rather frustrating, I must say. Anyone succesfull with such?

 

[Cynic_Al]

2 hours ago, Sgt_Joch said:

 

no, the speed of the Camel is supported by multiple flight tests and IS faster than the speed of a Albatros V. Note this is design speed.

 

 

You'll have to define what you mean by 'design speed', however as I stated leaving aside 'measured' speeds, the Camel had an undisputed reputation for having to fight its way out of trouble since running away was not an option, in that it couldn't outpace anything other than perhaps the Dr1; I don't see that situation forming in FC, particularly if in due course the devs consider the DVa to be atypically fast as you suggest.

[Guest deleted@83466]

Given what the developers have said about their intentions for the Flying Circus project, I think it is fair to say that the Camel you have now is the Camel you are going to have for a long time.  It may benefit from global flight model and/or engine revisions primarily intended to enhance the fidelity of the WW2 aircraft, but I don't think anyone should assume that this is just a first cut at it, or a work-in-progress Camel that the developers are going to do this and that to it to improve it over time.  I could be wrong.

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, SeaSerpent said:

Arango didn't test the top speed of the aircraft because he concluded that it was totally based on the skill of the pilot...one can take that to mean that attaining maximum performance from the aircraft was difficult. 

 

Near the start of the video, when he has the stall speed on the slide, Arango is talking about the Vne in dive not the top level speed. That is quite clear from the context: it was not the difficulty that was the issue but the danger!   At the very end he does say that the speed is a function of the pilot's skills, but he also says  (34.06) that the measured performance matched the WW1 documented performance.

 

If they were recording throughout their experiments I expect there would have been times when he was flying level at full power and the speed was recorded. Be nice if the raw data from his tests were available somewhere.

 

As Arango says, someone with only 15 hours total flight time, on comparatively stable planes, would find the Camel difficult, but for an experienced flier it was entirely natural. For someone playing the game who has hundreds of hours in RoF including in rotaries there is no reason why it should be at all difficult to fly.  Personally I think it might be a bit more fun to fly if it were a little worse in  adverse yaw and and stability, which would extend the learning curve for someone not used to it, but that is all.

 

 

[Guest deleted@83466]

Well, whatever, but greater point is that if you have a Camel capable of 120 mph and with a good climb rate, fast turn times etc, but which is really hard to fly, that's one thing.  It means the plane can be quite deadly in the hands of a very good pilot, which it was, in real life.   But if it's able to hit all those great performance marks while being artificially easy to fly, because certain characteristics are too toned down, and any old Joe can make it stand up and talk without too much problem, that seems like a different story.  It can dramatically change the actual effectiveness of a simulated aircraft compared to it's historical performance.

Edited November 28, 2018 by SeaSerpent
typos

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

3 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

From everything I've read here and elsewhere, I cannot give credence to such a figure for the Camel. Leaving aside absolute figures, this suggests that at low altitudes the Camel will not be outpaced by any Albatros, which was the historically-unsupportable situation that used to exist in RoF and one of the arguments leading to the overdone performance revision.

 

I auto-levelled our RoF D.VIIf last night at 10 meters and attained 194/195 without using the altitude throttle.  It was 205 with it.  Seems like the Camel is *a bit* fast.

Edited November 28, 2018 by hrafnkolbrandr

[unreasonable]

18 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

Well, whatever, but greater point is that if you have a Camel capable of 120 mph and with a good climb rate, fast turn times etc, but which is really hard to fly, that's one thing.  It means the plane can be quite deadly in the hands of a very good pilot, which it was, in real life.   But if it's able to hit all those great performance marks while being artificially easy to fly, because certain characteristics are too toned down, and any old Joe can make it stand up and talk without too much problem, that seems like a different story.  It can dramatically change the actual effectiveness of a simulated aircraft compared to it's historical performance.

 

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "any old Joe".  Take someone who has never flown any kind of real plane or flight sim, give them 15 hours in something stable like the RoF Albs - no fighting mind you, just a bit of general flying and some formation work. Then put them into the FC Camel and have them in a furball - even with novice AI - I bet they struggle horribly. Especially if you tell them that their account will be deleted if they "die".   

 

I just do not see how you can get around the fact that many people here have many hundreds of flying hours, including in RoF rotaries. Increasing the instability a bit is not going to make much difference to them: if anything, it will make them even more difficult to shoot down. Edit: if it is measurably off I am all for increasing adverse yaw etc, BTW.

Edited November 28, 2018 by unreasonable

[Guest deleted@83466]

I know the difference between being able to roll out of a turn and draw a steady bead on an enemy with ease, vs doing the same thing in a twitchy, hard-to-control aircraft with a mind of it's own that has your pipper bouncing all over the place.  Flying characteristics of an airplane matter.

[Cynic_Al]

2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

 but he also says  (34.06) that the measured performance matched the WW1 documented performance.

 

 

Which document?

[BMA_Hellbender]

6 hours ago, Sgt_Joch said:

Planes with a D.IIIau engine had a max. speed range of 178-189 kmh

 

This seems about right to me, as the Halberstadt CL.II, a relatively light two-seater, has a top speed of 175km/h with a D.IIIau engine.

 

Again, this is what we need for the Alb and Pfalz to become competitive. In other words: don't ask for FM revisions as they are a) not actually going to help and b) not actually going to happen.

 

 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I know that there is no time for devs to evaluate Camel FM. If any time they would try do it for authenticity and historical true how this particular  kite flew is if we provide solid arguments and data. Those are hard to get for those old aeroplane's. Thanks we got Chill and his dr.1 ,  his feedback might be someday used to evaluate current FC dr.1 FM. This could be similar situation with Camel if Mr. Javier Arango would allow access devs to his camel telemetry data where he accurately measured all sorts of Camel flight  characteristic. Just a thought

[BraveSirRobin]

4 minutes ago, 307_Tomcat said:

This could be similar situation with Camel if Mr. Javier Arango would allow access devs to his camel telemetry data where he accurately measured all sorts of Camel flight  characteristic. Just a thought

 

He died in a Nieuport 28 crash.