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

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

13 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

He died in a Nieuport 28 crash.

Yes, I remember now I read the news. I'm sure he didn't work alone with this project ,this data  can't be lost - it's to valuable. 

[SeaW0lf]

On 11/26/2018 at 10:06 PM, 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 shu

 

Sorry for the delay, but don't beat yourself too much. In fact, the 171km/h figure for the Pfalz D.IIIa is wrong (I'm not sure where that came from). After the fix of 2014, the Pfalz was updated to 175km/h on the HUD (11m of altitude) and 176km/h on the real speed over terrain (on my tests at 100m). And the 178/km/h figure that I can reach in BOX is on par with the small increment the Dr.1 and the Spad 13 got, around 1,7% in speed with the new engine.

 

So the Pfalz is in fact correct at 178km/h. There is nothing wrong with it, no need to fixes. 

Edited November 29, 2018 by SeaW0lf

[Rattlesnake]

What exactly is the impediment keeping an AI from being a formidable flyer?

[HagarTheHorrible]

3 minutes ago, CMBailey said:

What exactly is the impediment keeping an AI from being a formidable flyer?

 

Stupidity !!!!!!!

 

A canned set of maneuvers that once you work them out are easy to counter.  The A.I rarely push the flight envelope.  The A.I rely on sharpshooting sometimes during silly maneuvers.  Multi-aircraft engagements can be fun and more challenging however.

Edited November 29, 2018 by HagarTheHorrible

[BraveSirRobin]

4 minutes ago, CMBailey said:

What exactly is the impediment keeping an AI from being a formidable flyer?

 

Lots and lots of money.

 

Actually, the problem isn't making it formidable.  They could easily make all the AI expert snipers.  The problem is making it realistic.

[unreasonable]

8 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

Which document?

 

Obviously nobody knows since he does not say in the lecture.   The man clearly is not an idiot, so it seems implausible to me that he would be comparing his 160 Gnome Camel (IIRC) with some other type.  Given that he has prima facie more credibility on Camel issues than anyone posting here, I am inclined to give his statement due weight. 

 

  

 

 

[BMA_Hellbender]

6 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

Sorry for the delay, but don't beat yourself too much. In fact, the 171km/h figure for the Pfalz D.IIIa is wrong (I'm not sure where that came from). After the fix of 2014, the Pfalz was updated to 175km/h on the HUD (11m of altitude) and 176km/h on the real speed over terrain (on my tests at 100m). And the 178/km/h figure that I can reach in BOX is on par with the small increment the Dr.1 and the Spad 13 got, around 1,7% in speed with the new engine.

 

So the Pfalz is in fact correct at 178km/h. There is nothing wrong with it, no need to fixes. 

 

I'm sorry, I wish I could share your optimism, but @AnPetrovich has confirmed that the Pfalz is too fast at 177km/h, it still has that RoF 1.034 RPM hack attached to it.

 

For the record, the original RoF Pfalz had a max speed at sea level of 168km/h, so 171km/h in Flying Circus doesn't sound far off..

 

https://riseofflight.com/store/aircraft/pfalz-diiia/

 

 

Again, the number in literature is 181km/h, but that may very well be with the D.IIIau engine. 

 

D.IIIau engine.

 

D.IIIau engine.

 

 

...

 

 

It works with summoning Beetlejuice, this was worth a try, I guess.

[Sgt_Joch]

I was looking at the in game performance data, both climb and level speed.

 

Although, the engine is listed as a 130 hp Clerget, the performance is more in line with the performance of the 140 hp Clerget 9BF and the 150 hp B.R.I, in fact it looks like an average of the two, since the flight test of the 140 hp Clerget turned in faster speed and climb rate than the in game Camel.

 

Of course, that would make sense for the april-may 1918 period when the top of the line Camels were equipped with the 140 hp Clergets/150 hp B.R.I.

[SeaW0lf]

5 hours ago, Hellbender said:

has confirmed that the Pfalz is too fast at 177km/h, it still has that RoF 1.034 RPM hack attached to it.

 

He might have said that just because of the aleatory 171km/h figure that does not exist in both BOX and ROF. Sounds like he did not know the figures of the Pfalz in both engines.

@Hellbender you could even edit the title of the post to don't force it. I would delete the Pfalz announcement (Pfalz will be slowed down to 171km/h) and Leave just the Camel one. 

[BMA_Hellbender]

 

54 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

I was looking at the in game performance data, both climb and level speed.

 

Although, the engine is listed as a 130 hp Clerget, the performance is more in line with the performance of the 140 hp Clerget 9BF and the 150 hp B.R.I, in fact it looks like an average of the two, since the flight test of the 140 hp Clerget turned in faster speed and climb rate than the in game Camel.

 

Of course, that would make sense for the april-may 1918 period when the top of the line Camels were equipped with the 140 hp Clergets/150 hp B.R.I.

 

Looking at this graph below (which isn't easy to read, I'll give it that), it's definitely on-par with a Bentley, well below a Clerget 9Bf or a Gnome 9N Monosoupape (the Nieuport 28's engine), but above a standard Clerget 9B.

 

188km/h is the number that keeps popping up for an actual Clerget 9B Camel, but to get that we would need an FM review, and apparently they are unwilling to do that since the current FMs are "good enough". The RoF post-1.034 Camel is not an FM review, for the record, it's just the same "Bentley" Camel we had in RoF (and have now in FC) @ 1200RPM, which plainly doesn't exist, even though it almost matches one of the lower end Clergets (hard to tell at what RPM setting).

 

We could ask for them to add an engine variant, but that is pretty much the same as asking for an FM review. Especially if they consider the Clerget 9B to be correct as-is, then we can only ask for the Bentley, which has the same performance according to this graph, or the 9Bf Camel, which is basically an RPM upgrade of the Camel we have now. We definitely don't need that.

 

I don't disagree with you, but I also think we need to "pick our fights" and the low-hanging fruit for the developer to pick, which is, well (broken record player) adding the RPM upgrade engine to the Mercedes scouts. That way all planes in FC Vol.1 would be valid for past May 1918.

 

 

51 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

He might have said that just because of the aleatory 171km/h figure that does not exist in both BOX and ROF. Sounds like he did not know the figures of the Pfalz in both engines.

 

He's using the 10 year old data from the RoF developers for the engine performance. I don't believe they have direct control over the speed, only the power rating and RPM, and the 171km/h is what was measured in alpha. Then somehow they ended up with the 1.034 Pfalz in beta and in production. Don't ask me how, I haven't been a tester since well before 1.034.

 

I honestly thought it was an error in the measurements, and that it needed to be corrected to read 177km/h in the documentation, but I'll admit that the Pfalz's RPM matches that of the 1.034 RoF Pfalz, and so it had to be brought down again to match a pre-1.034 180hp engine.

 

Quote

 

@Hellbender you could even edit the title of the post to don't force it. I would delete the Pfalz announcement (Pfalz will be slowed down to 171km/h) and Leave just the Camel one. 

 

As long as @AnPetrovich doesn't come back here and says otherwise, I'm leaving it. I'm not the one making the decisions, I only want people to quickly find the relevant posts in this thread so we can discuss them.

 

I do want to be 100% clear on the fact that although I did point out the supposed error in measurement, a 1918 Pfalz has a top speed of 181km/h, not 171km/h, and whether that is with a D.IIIa or D.IIIau engine is left for someone else to decide.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Hellbender

[SeaW0lf]

I really do think it was just a misunderstanding. If you keep the title, you are kind of rubbing it in on the face of everybody and things might really come to fruition based on a mistake, which in this case would make it a double / triple mistake?

 

Anyway, it is not up to me or in my hands.

[unreasonable]

It is the OP's call, but if you want to stick to comparing FC and historic data, I would have thought we are better off with a Camel performance thread and a Pfalz performance thread.  Otherwise it gets hard to follow. 

[BMA_Hellbender]

I'm only an amateur aviation historian (hello Wikipedia!) and an amateur pilot (PPL since June!), but having worked in software development, more specifically in requirement analysis and testing (it's as glamourous as it sounds), there are no two ways about it: the product must meet the requirements.

 

If the Pfalz is listed at 171km/h and it does 177km/h, then either the product is wrong or the requirements are wrong. Or they're both wrong.

 

What disturbs me most about RoF to this day, is that the store pages still have the pre-1.034 numbers. First and foremost it's misleading to (new) customers, and second it means that any kind of measurement made or argument towards proving or disproving historical accuracy is futile. I think it's an historic occasion that a dev came out here and told us how they are once again committed to having a WWI flight simulator based primarily on data, with a clear way to measure the data for ourselves in the sim.

 

I also understand those who just wanted to see the RoF planes ported over to the new engine and care mostly about game balance. They deserve to be heard, too, as in the end this is the product that was promised.

 

Now we can discuss the validity of that data and people can make up their own minds when presented with factual information, especially when a dev comments that this or that plane will be changed or not changed. I hope that the developers will approach it in the same way and accept that it's impossible to have this discussion without some kind of emotional investment from all parties involved. If we didn't care, we wouldn't even bother to post in this thread, and it would quickly be forgotten.

 

Those are my two cents.

[Cynic_Al]

On 11/29/2018 at 4:35 AM, CMBailey said:

What exactly is the impediment keeping an AI from being a formidable flyer?

 

The competence of the associated programmer. Don't accept the oft-repeated mantra that it would cost a fortune; the algorithms controlling the bots in these games cannot be described by any standards as Artificial Intelligence, and their enhancement would not be a prohibitively expensive undertaking. That said, it costs nothing to persuade a non-programming manager to the contrary.

[BraveSirRobin]

Stalker_Al talks a good game.  I’m looking forward to his impending WW1 combat sim!

 

Unfortunately, no one has ever released a WW2 or WW1 flight sim with AI that was even marginally realistic.  So by Stalker_Al’s standards, all flight sim programmers are incompetent.  Except him, of course.  That’s why I can’t wait to see the game that he’s developing!

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Machine learning combat , just watch human and learn  

Edited November 30, 2018 by 307_Tomcat

[Zooropa_Fly]

47 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Stalker_Al talks a good game.  I’m looking forward to his impending WW1 combat sim!

 

Unfortunately, no one has ever released a WW2 or WW1 flight sim with AI that was even marginally realistic.  So by Stalker_Al’s standards, all flight sim programmers are incompetent.  Except him, of course.  That’s why I can’t wait to see the game that he’s developing!

 

Hosting Bot planes that disappear in front of your eyes as you're trying to shoot the little buggers, is far from competent.

[ShamrockOneFive]

On 11/30/2018 at 1:52 AM, Cynic_Al said:

 

The competence of the associated programmer. Don't accept the oft-repeated mantra that it would cost a fortune; the algorithms controlling the bots in these games cannot be described by any standards as Artificial Intelligence, and their enhancement would not be a prohibitively expensive undertaking. That said, it costs nothing to persuade a non-programming manager to the contrary.

 

Yeah.. "AI is so easy" but I've yet to see a video game do a really good AI impression. If it was so easy we'd see plenty of titles supporting some strong AI and we'd have better digital assistants than we do (although Google's new assistant taking phone calls for your is pretty cool).

 

The cost is in a specialist to do the programming and people are expensive.

 

On 11/30/2018 at 1:34 PM, Zooropa_Fly said:

 

Hosting Bot planes that disappear in front of your eyes as you're trying to shoot the little buggers, is far from competent.

 

That wouldn't be AI. That's mission triggers.

Edited December 2, 2018 by ShamrockOneFive

[Cynic_Al]

On 11/29/2018 at 4:09 AM, SeaW0lf said:

 

 

 

So the Pfalz is in fact correct at 178km/h. There is nothing wrong with it, no need to fixes. 

 

You mean correct relative to its current speed in RoF, which is itself higher than their own published figures. What could be a better basis for correctness(?)

On 11/30/2018 at 6:34 PM, Zooropa_Fly said:

 

Hosting Bot planes that disappear in front of your eyes as you're trying to shoot the little buggers, is far from competent.

 

Just for clarification, I will not be induced into taking this thread any further OT than it is already. The provoker is always free to start a new topic, but from past experience he should know even that to be inadvisable.

[BraveSirRobin]

1 hour ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

Just for clarification, I will not be induced into taking this thread any further OT than it is already. The provoker is always free to start a new topic, but from past experience he should know even that to be inadvisable.

 

Don’t worry.  The “competent” reference was sarcasm.  No need for a new thread to expand on that.

[Zooropa_Fly]

16 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

You mean correct relative to its current speed in RoF, which is itself higher than their own published figures. What could be a better basis for correctness(?)

 

Just for clarification, I will not be induced into taking this thread any further OT than it is already. The provoker is always free to start a new topic, but from past experience he should know even that to be inadvisable.

 

I'll make the assumption that you can't spell provocateur

 

[J2_Trupobaw]

On 11/30/2018 at 6:47 PM, 307_Tomcat said:

Machine learning combat , just watch human and learn  

Machine learning still needs to be set up in meaningful way; if you get the bot to just try use random plane controls until it learns to fight a player, it will result in lot of spinning AIs. 

RoF/BoX uses the same physics a us, and supposedly is advanced enough to control RC planes IRL. It means we don't have to fight UFO AIs (*cough* CloD *cough*), but is a BIG limiter on what the AI can do, and can be taught. You can't apply the monkey with straightrazor machine learning approach any more than to flying IRL - the space of valid maneuvers that won't result in crash is just to tiny compared to all wild things a bot can do with plane controls. It has to go with canned maneuvers (and perform them with inhuman efficiency), but to use these it neds to plan ahead. Compared to genres like FPS, flight-sim bots don't need to just learn what the human did, but why he chose that move.

(And yeah, calling these bots AIs is even worse lie than marketting HMD googles as "VR").

Edited December 3, 2018 by J2_Trupobaw

[Wolfram-Harms]

On 11/28/2018 at 4:41 PM, Sgt_Joch said:

 

...the speed of the Camel is supported by multiple flight tests and IS faster than the speed of a Albatros V. 

 

From what I read (A. G. Lee for example) the Albatros D.V could escape the Camel by diving away.

This can easily be mistaken for the "Albatros being faster than the Camel".
It is possible, that a slower heavier aircraft can be faster in a dive than a light fast one.
The light aircraft is simply lacking one bit of the dive speed force: the weight.

 

Lee also wrote, that the RNAS boys, who were equipped with the very agile Sopwith Triplane at that time, eagerly waited for the Camel,
because they were (or felt) inferior to the Albatros D.V (see Arthur G. Lee: "No Parachute").
What they all wanted was the weaponry the Albatros had since the first model: twin machine guns.
Cause all flying ability and turning agility do not get you more victories, when your guns cannot do enough harm to the opponent - quickly!
That's what twin machine guns can do in an instant, when they hit.

 

Sopwith Pup and Triplane were GREAT airplanes - but not so effective as war machines.
So, the iconic fame of the Camel may originate in this ability: she was the first British scout that could REALLY do instant damage.

 

We will not end the everlasting dispute about the true quality of the Sopwith Camel as a fighter - she will always be more famous
than the Scout Experimental 5a.
It appears to me that the S.E.5a was overall a much more modern fighter. It was the fastest fighter of WW1;
it could pick a fight or withdraw from it without. It was very sturdy and relyable.

And it also carried two machine guns - the concept for bringing down E/a.

 

 

Edited December 3, 2018 by Wolfram-Harms

[Cynic_Al]

7 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

 

I'll make the assumption that you can't spell provocateur

 

 

I can't in an English-language forum.

[PatrickAWlson]

From what I know both the Pfalz and Albatros should be faster than the Camel.  Not by much but a bit.  Anything from parity to slight advantage would IMHO be OK.  Significantly slower ... no.  The horrible speed numbers generally quoted for the Pfalz (102 MPH) were from a war weary captured plane at altitude, not a factory fresh example at sea level.  

[=IRFC=NakedSquirrel]

On 11/29/2018 at 4:56 AM, Hellbender said:

Again, the number in literature is 181km/h, but that may very well be with the D.IIIau engine. 

 

D.IIIau engine.

 

D.IIIau engine.

 

 

...

 

 

It works with summoning Beetlejuice, this was worth a try, I guess.

 

This was brought up in one of Jason's last Q/A sessions.

 

To paraphrase, he basically said that they would love to make the D.IIIau variant, but it would take a considerable investment of labor from @AnPetrovich , who is one of the few (if not only) programmer who works on flight models.  He also has a lot of other tasks besides just the aircraft FMs of FC and BoX.  Additionally, they would have to set aside man hours to update the 3D models for each aircraft.  

 

It would make sense for the Pfalz to have its sea level speed bumped to 181kph with the D.IIIau variant, since the Halberstadt in RoF bumps from 165kph to 174kph from the upgrade (at sea level).

 

It also made sense in RoF pre patch for the Camel to fly around 190kph at sea level when the Sopwith Tripe  was flying 185kph, and the Hanriot at 184kph (roughly).  The tripe is heavier and has more wings and cables, and the Hanriot has a slightly weaker 120hp Le Rohne engine.  Is it 100% accurate to real life?  Until we get a time machine , who knows!  But the FMs of FC mostly make sense relative to each other.  

 

Maybe one day we'll see some additional variants and aircraft, but it isn't planned.  

 

Hopefully FC is a success and we see more content in the future, because I really enjoy this era of aircraft, and how they fly in this game.  

 

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

That D.IIIau would solve enough problems that it would seem to be worth it to me.

 

But I don't run a game company, so whatever.

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

2 hours ago, NakedSquirrel said:

 

Hopefully FC is a success and we see more content in the future, because I really enjoy this era of aircraft, and how they fly in this game.  

 

 

I cannot share your optimism for MP if the Camel  kicks butt on everything.

[BMA_Hellbender]

4 hours ago, NakedSquirrel said:

To paraphrase, he basically said that they would love to make the D.IIIau variant, but it would take a considerable investment of labor from @AnPetrovich , who is one of the few (if not only) programmer who works on flight models.  He also has a lot of other tasks besides just the aircraft FMs of FC and BoX.  Additionally, they would have to set aside man hours to update the 3D models for each aircraft. 

 

I seriously hope they will consider it in time for Volume 2. The code that needs to be added should already happen for the CL.II, including the menu graphics etc.

 

As for the 3D modeling, it's not major and I'd prefer not to have the correct 3D model for the time being than not having the D.IIIau altogether.

 

That said, obviously some work needs to be done, it will not appear there magically overnight.

 

 

 

 

 

As it stands, I think people who are hesitant about purchasing Volume 1 because of these 1917 planes should simply consider that Central only has 3 1918 planes capable of dealing with the Camel instead of 5: the Fokker Dr.I (hopefully after an FM update), the Fokker D.VIIF and the Halberstadt CL.II 200hp.

 

In hindsight, we would have been better off with the Pfalz D.XII and Fokker D.VIII instead of the Pfalz D.IIIa and Albatros D.Va, but no one knew we were going to get the old figures back. Other than that I'm quite happy with a return to data, even if 195km/h still seems a bit optimistic and a 190km/h Camel would be a vast improvement.

 

You're right about the Triplane (pre-nerf) and the Hanriot (forgot to nerf that one?). If these planes get ported over someday, they will probably also be some 3-5km/h faster than they are today in RoF.

[Wolfram-Harms]

Not sure if anyone before had pointed to the NASA data web pages about WW1 aircraft - so I point them out here.
 

On that site are several charts. One shows a comparison of air speeds, corrected by a formula, to eliminate the differences caused by different test altitudes.
You can see in the chart, that the Nieuport 17, Albatros D.III, Sopwith Camel and Fokker Dr. 1 are lying pretty close to each other.

 

 

 

If you want to check the whole site and all the details, here is the link: https://history.nasa.gov/SP-468/ch2-2.htm

 

 

It must be pretty much wrong to make the Camel as fast as 192 km/h, while the Pfalz D.III gets reduced to 172 km/h. 
 

[edited]

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2018 by SYN_Haashashin
Dev Bias accusation of any type wont be tolerated

[SeaW0lf]

Just to chime in, the Pfalz was fixed according to the latest anouncement - on the item 44. Pfalz D.IIIa performance corrected. I'm not really inclined to do any checks at this point, but perhaps some of you guys who fly the Pfalz might want to know.

 

Cheers (Christmas is just around the corner).
SeaW0lf.
 

[ZachariasX]

171 km/h is the figure now.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

"Fixed".  Phwew, thank God!

[Wolfram-Harms]

I don't mind the Pfalz being fixed. But the Camel set to more than 190 km/h - that would be crapp.

[Rattlesnake]

Potentially unpopular opinion: I am perfectly willing to fly a slightly “war-weary” Camel (again) if it makes the game better by 1. Incentivizing the Entente to take something ELSE out sometimes 2. Incentiving the Central guys to do something besides always take DR1 or else play very timidl-, er, CAUTIOUSLY  in the stratosphere.

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, CMBailey said:

Potentially unpopular opinion: I am perfectly willing to fly a slightly “war-weary” Camel (again) if it makes the game better by 1. Incentivizing the Entente to take something ELSE out sometimes 2. Incentiving the Central guys to do something besides always take DR1 or else play very timidl-, er, CAUTIOUSLY  in the stratosphere.

 

Not gonna happen. Petrovich has made that clear. 

[Rattlesnake]

35 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Not gonna happen. Petrovich has made that clear. 

Who really needs people in multi-player anyway?

[Wolfram-Harms]

1 hour ago, CMBailey said:

2. Incentiving the Central guys to do something besides always take DR1 ...

 

I never took the Dr. I in RoF - I did all my fights in Albatros versions.
 

Biasing the Camel or other Entente aircraft, is an insult for the real WW1 pilots.
Cause, why should it have taken them 4 years to win that war - with much higher numbers of men and material -
why could they never really beat the Luftstreitkräfte, when their fighters had been so much better?

 

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

Hope they leave the camel as is, face it, we'll have 5 central to every 1 allied again like in ROF, 

I'd fly something else other than the camel if we get something that resembles the real thing like a se5 that won't fly apart at the sniff of the enemy's rounds coming at it. Dolphins wings that actually used to fly the plane other than debris to throw at the enemy. 

Don't think the central need to worry, you'll get your D7F soon enough and that's all that you will fly, Doubt the camel will catch you and hell, you'll have a 5 on 1, sure you can handle that. 

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

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 December 6, 2018 by hrafnkolbrandr