Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Champagne

Camel vs Dr.I: My assessment.

Recommended Posts

FourSpeed steps out the spin recovery for RoF planes including the Camel's quirks in Diggun's "Sexy Dolphin" thread. I think you have to get it right in the first couple of revolutions in the Camel's case.

 

Essentially Arango found that banking the real aircraft to the left with ailerons only, produced so much adverse yaw that the plane would not turn to the left at all. (Ours is not that bad). To turn to the left you use hard left rudder first: that tips the plane on it's side and keeps the nose down and it then turns just as easily and fast to the left as to the right. This is also the best way to turn in the game: indeed it took me weeks to learn not to do it with the WW2 planes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You too? You can't get out of the spin? I was hoping you could tell me how to get out of the Camel's spin. 

Again, it is simple:

 

If you are in an established LEFT spin then:

- cut power

- rudder full right

- aileron full left

- push fully with the stick.

 

If you are in an established RIGHT spin then:

- cut power

- rudder full left

- aileron full right

- push fully with the stick.

 

In other words, always cut power, push stick in the forward corner into the turn, rudder full outside the turn.

 

Just follow these instructions immediately and you will hardly spin a full turn. If you let it go and wait until it settles into the spin, do the same and by doing so you should stop the spin within about 2 to 3 turns at the max. I just did that a couple of times with 100% fuel to make it more unstable and tail heavy. Also, the Camel does not enter the spin / flick roll readily towards the left. If you are still overdoing it and it becomes uncontrollable, just release the stick even at full power and it should stabilize itself.

 

With a little care you should never again enter a left spin. And to the right it is also srtaightforward to get out, just do as I've written. That is what works for me perfectly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

I did all of that (LH spin) with absolutely no effect for 4,000ft. :(  

Really? I have more problems getting it into a nice LH spin than getting out of it. I try some more configurations, also waiting longer in a settled spin before stopping the spin.

 

What is the loadout that you are using? How do you initiate the spin? Just trying to replicate your conditions.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My memory is a bit hazy; still in hospital with concussion; the spin must have been very flat as the plane was lying on the ground the right way up and I did not die. I think I was near to 100% fuel and standard ammunition. How I got into it: I think it was full left rudder in a right turn.

 

I will try again once the doctors let me out....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

My memory is a bit hazy; still in hospital with concussion; the spin must have been very flat as the plane was lying on the ground the right way up and I did not die. I think I was near to 100% fuel and standard ammunition. How I got into it: I think it was full left rudder in a right turn.

 

I will try again once the doctors let me out....

I will try to reproduce that hazy stuff.

 

You get well soon!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

In other words, always cut power, push stick in the forward corner into the turn, rudder full outside the turn.

 

If you were ham-fisted, you could push the Camel into a spin in the other direction. I think input curves are important.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Again, it is simple:

 

If you are in an established LEFT spin then:

- cut power

- rudder full right

- aileron full left

- push fully with the stick.

 

If you are in an established RIGHT spin then:

- cut power

- rudder full left

- aileron full right

- push fully with the stick.

 

In other words, always cut power, push stick in the forward corner into the turn, rudder full outside the turn.

 

Just follow these instructions immediately and you will hardly spin a full turn. If you let it go and wait until it settles into the spin, do the same and by doing so you should stop the spin within about 2 to 3 turns at the max. I just did that a couple of times with 100% fuel to make it more unstable and tail heavy. Also, the Camel does not enter the spin / flick roll readily towards the left. If you are still overdoing it and it becomes uncontrollable, just release the stick even at full power and it should stabilize itself.

 

With a little care you should never again enter a left spin. And to the right it is also srtaightforward to get out, just do as I've written. That is what works for me perfectly.

Yes, that spin recovery procedure is what works great for me :)

Hardly ever crash on my own now.

 

My big problem is that against human flown German aircraft I almost always get shot down; only got one kill so far and that was more luck than judgement.  Opposition AI are easy to shoot down in a Camel for me, but I am getting shot down a lot by human pilots when I try fighting in the Camel, even though I am turning like blazes.  I definitely need some help with combat tactics in the Camel, LOL.  How is it done to shoot down the enemy I would like to know.  How the hell did Biggles do it?

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should "Like" all of the responses in this thread. I appreciate them very much.

 

The Sopwith Camel was really a lovely and wonderful airplane. It must have been the best Dogfighter in the skies during The Great War.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

If you were ham-fisted, you could push the Camel into a spin in the other direction. I think input curves are important.

I have everything linear, but even at fill power I can exit the LH spin in about 3 to 4 turns by doing what I mentioned. You can often slow down the pendulum motion by full pull back (have the stick in the rearward corner) and as soon you reach a moment where the spin oscillation slows, push to the forward outer corner and out you are. It works reliably. Left hand side needs some 300 m to exit, but that's about it. Well, 300 m above ground it WILL require 350 m but that's just life. ;) 

 

6 minutes ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

but I am getting shot down a lot by human pilots when I try fighting in the Camel, even though I am turning like blazes. 

Don't turn unless you are entering with a lot of speed. On Berloga, use the Pfalz and do rolling scissors down low and you'll be planting a lot of Camels with maneuver kills. Just put a pop in them once they are suck in tomake it count. ;)

 

I find the Pfalz enters the turn much faster, doesn't shed wings and through the first half of the turn it's no problem to catch the Camel. If you end up down there, as said, rolling scissors and the other guy can prove that he has a nerve or saparates.

Edited by ZachariasX
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

 How is it done to shoot down the enemy I would like to know.  How the hell did Biggles do it? 

 

Despite the dismissive attitude often given to W.E.Johns, he described the general elements of air combat fairly well as far as he understood it. 'Biggles' either stalks and attacks or turns hard once in a fight against enemies that seem to be roughly co-E. He gets shot up by people he did not see and 'his heart sinks' when he sees people climbing above him in a turn [presumable as he knows he cannot follow them in a Camel].

 

So, attack people below or get the fudge out of dodge if someone gets above you because you likely need some horizontal separation or friends around.

6 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

I have everything linear, but even at fill power I can exit the LH spin in about 3 to 4 turns by doing what I mentioned. You can often slow down the pendulum motion by full pull back (have the stick in the rearward corner) and as soon you reach a moment where the spin oscillation slows, push to the forward outer corner and out you are. It works reliably. Left hand side needs some 300 m to exit, but that's about it. Well, 300 m above ground it WILL require 350 m but that's just life.

 

I have never flown a rotary, but opposite rudder, pro-spin / fwd stick and cut power should be good. What I meant was merely that - in our feed-back limited universe - a pilot might accidentally throw the aircraft into a spin the other way given the low speed and accentuated rudder input.

Share this post


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

I have everything linear, but even at fill power I can exit the LH spin in about 3 to 4 turns by doing what I mentioned. You can often slow down the pendulum motion by full pull back (have the stick in the rearward corner) and as soon you reach a moment where the spin oscillation slows, push to the forward outer corner and out you are. It works reliably. Left hand side needs some 300 m to exit, but that's about it. Well, 300 m above ground it WILL require 350 m but that's just life. ;) 

Don't turn unless you are entering with a lot of speed. On Berloga, use the Pfalz and do rolling scissors down low and you'll be planting a lot of Camels with maneuver kills. Just put a pop in them once they are suck in tomake it count. ;)

 

I find the Pfalz enters the turn much faster, doesn't shed wings and through the first half of the turn it's no problem to catch the Camel. If you end up down there, as said, rolling scissors and the other guy can prove that he has a nerve or saparates.

Must have been you in a Pfalz on Berloga the other night then, shooting me down in my Camel every 5 minutes, LOL.

8 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

Despite the dismissive attitude often given to W.E.Johns, he described the general elements of air combat fairly well as far as he understood it. 'Biggles' either stalks and attacks or turns hard once in a fight against enemies that seem to be roughly co-E. He gets shot up by people he did not see and 'his heart sinks' when he sees people climbing above him in a turn [presumable as he knows he cannot follow them in a Camel].

 

So, attack people below or get the fudge out of dodge if someone gets above you because you likely need some horizontal separation or friends around.

Thanks, good old Biggles, my son still has my old books I gave him (they were second hand when I got them) and now the grand kids look at them.  I will have to claim those books back and study them hard, LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

Must have been you in a Pfalz on Berloga the other night then, shooting me down in my Camel every 5 minutes, LOL.

Thanks, good old Biggles, my son still has my old books I gave him (they were second hand when I got them) and now the grand kids look at them.  I will have to claim those books back and study them hard, LOL. 

 

They are now also on Kindle - I have them on my iPhone 😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2018 at 11:12 PM, Champagne said:

Yes, I have the Microsoft Sidewinder FFB version with the red lighted buttons and the rubberized joystick handle. No trimming whatsoever. The aircraft are flown as presented by the game developer. I barely know how to set the Cockpit view. Even with Rise of Flight, I didn't set trim for any aircraft. I saw the x/y graph in the RoF settings and said to myself: "Nah, I'll leave that alone".

 

I agree. To me, the FC Dr.I feels like I'm piloting a Kite, not an airplane.

 

I don't understand. We have the same stick on the same settings and have different results. 

 

I have another observation that's strange: the Camel is supposed to be tough to turn Left. The FC Camel turns Left with ease, MUCH more easy than turning the FC Dr.I to the Left. 

 

One final observation of mine: once the Camel is in a spin I cannot get out of it no matter what I do -- I'm going to crash and burn into terrain. It is a totally helpless and awful feeling. BUT, so long as I maneuver carefully, it's an easy stable flight that reminds me of a nice Albatros D III

High Champagne,

 

Just to compare, my in-game joystick force feedback level is set to 70% and shake to 100%, with in-game joystick control settings for pitch and roll sensitivity both set to 0%.

I don't use any software to support my MSFF2, just plug and play on Windows 10.  I test it is working before loading BoX by using the devices and printers option under the control panel.

My MSFF2 has a green power light with grey trigger and grey throttle lever (which I don't us as the throttle).  These are my settings for all WWII aircraft and WWI.

 

I have only recently got into WWI aircraft and have never flown RoF.  I have only flown more recently in FC and it is all a fresh experience for me.  I have flown WWII MP with an organised squad for many years with IL-2 46, CloD and now IL-2 Great Battles.  I am reasonable at the WWII stuff, but very much humbled by my recent foray into WWI, LOL.

 

To me, the Camel seems to fly with all the difficulties that history attributes to it, but none of the advantages :(  I feel such a noob.

 

Seeing as my virtual squad is 56 Sqn I should be flying the SE5a when it comes out, but as a Biggles fan, "Biggles of 266 squadron" and all that, I find I have an attraction to the Camel from boyhood.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

 

 

To me, the Camel seems to fly with all the difficulties that history attributes to it, but none of the advantages :(  I feel such a noob.

 

Seeing as my virtual squad is 56 Sqn I should be flying the SE5a when it comes out, but as a Biggles fan, "Biggles of 266 squadron" and all that, I find I have an attraction to the Camel from boyhood.

 

 

The key to flying the Camel is to use the rudder - not ailerons -  to enter turns.  Left rudder: the plane rolls onto it's left side very quickly. Try to roll it over with ailerons alone and it takes forever.  Once banked, neutralize the rudder and use ailerons for fine control of the bank angle.  Use small rudder inputs to keep the nose down (LH turn) or up (RH turn).

 

Actually this technique works for all RoF WW1 planes, but is crucial for the FC Camel and Dr.1 

 

Having learned it by flying nothing but RoF for years, I then had to unlearn it for BoX where excessive rudder inputs at higher speeds are a very bad thing: now I am having to make it second nature again in FC!

Share this post


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

 

The key to flying the Camel is to use the rudder - not ailerons -  to enter turns.  Left rudder: the plane rolls onto it's left side very quickly. Try to roll it over with ailerons alone and it takes forever.  Once banked, neutralize the rudder and use ailerons for fine control of the bank angle.  Use small rudder inputs to keep the nose down (LH turn) or up (RH turn).

 

Actually this technique works for all RoF WW1 planes, but is crucial for the FC Camel and Dr.1 

 

Having learned it by flying nothing but RoF for years, I then had to unlearn it for BoX where excessive rudder inputs at higher speeds are a very bad thing: now I am having to make it second nature again in FC!

Yes, rudder, rudder and rudder, that's the way I do it; I did a lot of research before giving it a go.  I have a nice set of FMG Crosswind pedals too, which helps a lot.  Like I say, against AI no problem at all and I can whip that Camel around the sky like a real wiz and feel like a hot shot.  I can put it out of control and recover, I can recover from spins and fly it between the trees, LOL.  However, soon as I try the Camel against opposition aircraft flown by human pilots I come up short.  Yet, I read on the forums it is supposed to be some super machine and I find all that very confusing. 

 

Of course, I am fresh to this WWI stuff so it is probably me and not the aircraft.  I still have to remember to cut the throttle quick enough when nose down in a dog-fight or I have lost the engine and I still need to develop the gunnery skill to kick the rudder for a snap shot on a head on pass, and the like, even though it looks for all the world like a fly by (could be lag though); so even though I think I have avoided the head-on, my adversary manages to put a few rounds into my engine and its kaput, LOL.  I think the bottom line is that I need to be faster to move the aircraft around, which I realise is possible in the slower moving WWI aircraft.  So, although the aircraft are slow in speed compared to WWII and jets, once engaged in a close in turn fight the actual movements of fighting are faster and I need to be more aggressive I think.  Anyway, still learning, as ever :) 

 

Like you say, the difference in rudder input is something to be managed with aircraft from different points in history and aircraft evolution.  As a side note, I fly the DCS Mig-15 and that can be flown much better too by using stronger rudder lead inputs and that too is a handful to fly and makes me think of the Camel in a strange kind of way.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

However, soon as I try the Camel against opposition aircraft flown by human pilots I come up short. 

The key to success is here to not follow an oponent that has an easier job when flying in weird flight attitudes.

 

What you can do with the Camel is point your nose in the direction of your opponent and then let him have it. If he manages to escape your considerable "off boresight" capabilities (such as they also are in the Dr.I !!), you must separate and prepare for a new shot. in my experience you do that best (with the planes as they currently are for FC) in a climbing turn, easier to the left, but also possible to the right. After 2, 3 turns, you will be directly overhead your opponent and you can dive down on him. Keeping yourself positioned as close as possible to him while directly over him, you will force him into prop hanging such that will make it impossible for him for a shot at you as the angle up at you will be too steep, even for the Pfalz. Also it makes it almost impossible for him to separate, as you remain well within shooting distance while at considerably higher energy. He disengages, you blip, dive down on him and finish your well earned "check mate".

 

That is why I recommended rolling scissors down low for the Pfalz as defense, as it can barrel roll much tighter, especialliy to the left, than the Camel and you might force the (careless) Camel into a maneuver kill. As for the Camel, you separate and try to position yourself directly above him. He straightens out to gain energy for a prophang, that is your moment to dive and let him have it. Don't forget to blip before pushing down, the Camel doesn't like being pushed forward like that. You follow a slow speed scissor, you probably lose, he has much better controls at slow speed.

 

As of now, the Camel is an energy fighter with the upshot of being able to pull very quick righthand side turns.

 

The SPAD requires much more room for essentially the same strategy, as it doesn't climb as steep as the Camel, but it's much faster than the currently available German planes. But Waggas made a great display of how that strategy works over both the current Dr.I and the Pfalz. At good speed, the SPAD in FC can well stay in the turn with the Pfalz, as I had to find out on the receiving end when Waggas showed me how it's done.

 

This just what I could make so far from the planes we have now. Other oppinions appreciated.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

What you can do with the Camel is point your nose in the direction of your opponent and then let him have it. If he manages to escape your considerable "off boresight" capabilities (such as they also are in the Dr.I !!), you must separate and prepare for a new shot. in my experience you do that best (with the planes as they currently are for FC) in a climbing turn, easier to the left, but also possible to the right. After 2, 3 turns, you will be directly overhead your opponent and you can dive down on him. Keeping yourself positioned as close as possible to him while directly over him, you will force him into prop hanging such that will make it impossible for him for a shot at you as the angle up at you will be too steep, even for the Pfalz. Also it makes it almost impossible for him to separate, as you remain well within shooting distance while at considerably higher energy. He disengages, you blip, dive down on him and finish your well earned "check mate".

 

That is why I recommended rolling scissors down low for the Pfalz as defense, as it can barrel roll much tighter, especialliy to the left, than the Camel and you might force the (careless) Camel into a maneuver kill. As for the Camel, you separate and try to position yourself directly above him. He straightens out to gain energy for a prophang, that is your moment to dive and let him have it. Don't forget to blip before pushing down, the Camel doesn't like being pushed forward like that. You follow a slow speed scissor, you probably lose, he has much better controls at slow speed.

 

As of now, the Camel is an energy fighter with the upshot of being able to pull very quick righthand side turns.

 

That is a very accurate assessment. The left hand climbing turn is the true hallmark of a Camel fag. It used to be the only viable strategy against a Dr.I with an equal energy state. RoF 1.034 kind of wrecked this tactic for the Camel, as her climb was slashed and her turn never did quite matched that of the Dr.I.

 

The "soft counter" for the left hand climbing Camel used to be the judicious use of a Fokker D.VIIF, or even better a Pfalz D.XII. Neither of these planes are great energy fighters down low, so they rely mostly on getting a lucky pass early on.

 

The "hard counter" for the fast Camel down low — don't laugh now — is the Halberstadt CL.II. In fact, a fast Camel's only advantage is that it can disengage or avoid the encounter altogether, as a slower Camel (or one which you've purposefully throttled down) has a slightly smaller turn radius to go with virtually the same rate of turn, and thus a better chance to get on a slow two-seater's six without overshooting it. Since any plane is most vulnerable to fire from the gunner while maintaining a steady closing turn with said two-seater, this makes the Camel an ideal target. In fact, the only way it can possibly be more vulnerable, is if it holds a steady climbing turn above said two-seater. Where a Camel wants to be is either DIRECTLY above, beyond the range of where the gunner can point his guns at, which a SPAD still does better, as they are better at engaging and disengaging vertically. Better yet, below the two-seater in the gunner's blind spot is probably the safest place to be, it also presents you with an opportunity to attack from below. This is easily countered by the two-seater by taking the fight as low as possible. If you pair this with the fact that the Halberstadt is a plane of exceptionally strong build, compared to the Camel which will lose much of its advantage after taking any kind of fire, I'd say that it's a fair encounter, and the outcome depends mostly on the skill of the Camel pilot and the accuracy of the gunner.

 

Whether all of this is historically accurate is a good question. Schlastas did indeed not need fighter escorts for their ground support operations, they were very suited at handling single seaters and losses of Halberstadt were relatively low. In fact, by the end of the war, Bristols would escort Camels on their own ground support operations.

Share this post


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

Whether all of this is historically accurate is a good question. Schlastas did indeed not need fighter escorts for their ground support operations, they were very suited at handling single seaters and losses of Halberstadt were relatively low.

I agree completely with those tactics.

 

In FC I notice a drastic increase of energy bleeding in turns. This to such an extent that even the Camel now can be brought down slow enough, where its maneuvrability is critically impaired, same of course withthe „tame“ Dr.I. The ability of just driving up behind everyone is mostly gone, even with superior planes. You have to fly them all in the sensible manner to exploit their abilities.

 

Thus, I would expect the CL.II and especially the Breguet to be in coffin corner rather soon if you try a stunt like out turning a Camel.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SeaSerpent, Hagar,

 

Thank you very much for the link to that video.

 

I thought it one of the most informative and eloquent lectures I have ever seen and I would completely agree that it is essential viewing for any would be Camel pilot, virtual or otherwise. 

 

What a charismatic and learned man the world lost with Mr Arango's death, such a shame.

 

One of the most interesting aspects of the lecture for me was the section where Mr Arango looked at the terminology of the day in determining what constituted a 'turn' in the mind of the 1917 scout pilot.

 

When he described the 'expectation' of control input result for a pilot accustomed to the characteristics of a wing warp controlled machine, it suddenly became very clear to me that I needed to look again at so many of the books I have read about Great War aviation through the language and eyes of the era and reinterpret what it is the pilots of that era were saying.

 

I'm also going to nip back to RoF and see if the Eindecker can be better used with more cowbell, uh, I mean more rudder and less aileron ( you know what I mean ) than I have hitherto been applying.

 

Interesting stuff, this.

 

Thoughts on FC Camel vs RoF Camel.

 

The FC Camel performs more like the real Camel I had read about in speed, acceleration, climb and general 'handiness' than the post-nerf RoF Camel, and the wings don't fall off as easily, which is always a useful trait in an aeroplane, I feel.

 

It 'feels' too stable and not nearly twitchy enough, when compared to the RoF version.

 

It actually 'feels' more like a more responsive, lighter, SE5a to me.  It doesn't perform like one, it just 'feels' like it does.

 

I find it a little difficult to know when I have landed, because the wheels don't make that reassuring rumble as yet.

 

Another minor niggle is that the guns 'seem' to fire very quickly, although I am used to using the Gavagai / Bucksnort rate - of - fire mod in RoF.

 

While I'm on the subject, I like to get in close before I fire. I'm a terrible shot. Gun harmonisation at a minimum of 100 yards isn't close enough, I want 50, please..... 

 

The FC version runs rings around an AI piloted Dr1, even with a superannuated, myopic slug at the controls like me.

 

All of which is completely subjective, of course, I'm loving it, so far. 

 

FC Dr1 vs RoF Dr1.

 

Performance wise, FC version seems very similar to the RoF variant, post nerf.

 

The RoF Dr1 is, I freely admit, one of my least favoured aircraft in the whole RoF stable and one I never really enjoyed flying. I anticipate a similar story being played out with FC.

 

The FC Camel absolutely outclasses the FC Dr1, which, IN MY OPINION ONLY, is exactly as it should be.

 

As a whole, I'm in two minds about FC so far. 

 

I have BoS and BoM and a couple or three extra aeroplanes and will, I think, buy BoBP and BoK at some point.

 

Flying a simulated Second World War aeroplane does not capture my heart in the same way that flying the Great War aeroplanes does, and, although I still enjoy the BoX experience very much, my virtual air time is still mostly spent playing RoF, usually in PWCG, rather than BoX.

 

I don't like to fly jet sims at all.

 

My thoughts are as follows; until 1CGS brings us a Western Front Map and the associated goodies, FC is going to feel slightly sterile and considerably less engaging than RoF, even without irritating anachronistic things like 20mm fast firing SKdF mounted flak whumping extra ventilation holes into my already quite draughty cockpit, so at this early stage in the development, it is impossible to say whether the undoubtedly better graphics ( Some aspects of RoF look a little cartoonish, post BoX, I have to confess ) and much smoother game play experience will draw me completely away from the complete, highly immersive and cohesive (if slightly dated graphically) world of RoF.

 

It is impossible to say, based on four aircraft and with the fun limited to quick encounters over a WW2 landscape.

 

It took RoF/ PWCG for me to invest in stick, throttle and pedals. If FC becomes a still more immersive game than RoF, it could be the game that makes me invest in VR.  

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SP1969 said:

Gun harmonisation at a minimum of 100 yards isn't close enough, I want 50, please..... 

The guns shoot almost straight for 200 meters. They are about 12 inches apart from each other. There is no real difference between harmonizing your guns for 50 meters or 150 meters.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zacharias,

 

My long range gunnery skills are such that if any bullet hits the target I aimed at, it is more likely down to the target's pilot having been recently cursed by a Gypsy than any skill on my part.

 

Given the unlikelihood of any bullet fired by myself striking at any range greater than about 50 yards, I just prefer the idea that I can double my chance of actually knocking something down without actually having to cut his elevators off with my airscrew.

 

Your point, is of course, entirely valid.

 

Chuckle.

 

Regards

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Camel pilot isn't very experienced you can usually just rolling scissors down to treetop level and wait for the inevitable stall. You'll know if he is experienced as you won't make it that far..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've noticed the Camel really lights up in FC1, the DR1 by comparison seems pretty tricky to set on fire. The fuel tank fires really make a difference! 

 

I was doing a little testing to see how frequent 'flamers' are in FC...in a DR1 against 4 camels I flamed 3/4 in attempt 1, with the opposite setup I didn't flame a single DR1! 

Edited by Larner

Share this post


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

I've noticed the Camel really lights up in FC1, the DR1 by comparison seems pretty tricky to set on fire. The fuel tank fires really make a difference! 

 

I was doing a little testing to see how frequent 'flamers' are in FC...in a DR1 against 4 camels I flamed 3/4 in attempt 1, with the opposite setup I didn't flame a single DR1! 

 

Can't understand the logic of why one should be significantly more than the other.  A fire in a fuel tank would explode (?)  Everything else being equal,  the metal frame of the DR1 fuselage or closer proximity of tank and engine wouldn't make fuel soaked pilot or doped linen less likely to catch fire.  The only reason that I can see the DR1 being less likely to go down in flames, game mechanics aside, is that the pilots body is in the way, but that doesn't really help the pilot much.  As for the game mechanic, DR1 pilots can start at several thousand feet with a full tank and not consider it's effect on stability thus reducing potential fuel tank fires, as opposed to fuel leak fires.  Meanwhile, to minimize  stalls the Camel pilot has to consider total fuel contents.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Can't understand the logic of why one should be significantly more than the other.  A fire in a fuel tank would explode (?)  Everything else being equal,  the metal frame of the DR1 fuselage or closer proximity of tank and engine wouldn't make fuel soaked pilot or doped linen less likely to catch fire.  The only reason that I can see the DR1 being less likely to go down in flames, game mechanics aside, is that the pilots body is in the way, but that doesn't really help the pilot much.  As for the game mechanic, DR1 pilots can start at several thousand feet with a full tank and not consider it's effect on stability thus reducing potential fuel tank fires, as opposed to fuel leak fires.  Meanwhile, to minimize  stalls the Camel pilot has to consider total fuel contents.

 

Yeah, makes no sense at all. If the Camel tank is bigger (the explanation of the devs), it won't make a difference if you fire a burst in any of the tanks - unless the Dr.1 tank (and of all other planes) is the size of a golf ball. I guess people feel happy because they have a chance to blow up the Zippo, but that does not help either, because if one wrong justifies the other, then we are literally hopeless. And FC has just begun.

 

I like how planes need to be shot at the cockpit / engine area to go down quickly, but if the Camel is blowing up like popcorn, they need to review these things.

Edited by SeaW0lf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The factors that should influence the probability of flamers are:

 

1) Ammunition type. But AFAIK there is no significant difference between the planes' ammunition, and no incendiaries. (?)

 

2) Size of the target's fuel tanks.  The Camel full can contain 168 litres, the Dr.1 72.

 

   So the mass of the Camel's tank =  2.33 times that of the Dr.1

   To contain that mass in a cubic tank the Camel's tanks would have 1.53 times the area of the Dr.1

 

 So if the tank's sides are roughly square, the probability of a hit on the Camel's tanks should be 1.53 times that of the Dr.1, other things being equal. From this alone you should see ~50% more Camel flamers.

 

(I am sure the tanks are not exactly cubic, but cannot easily find the plans to measure area exactly.)

 

3) Shielding of the tank. Assuming no armour, there is the possibility that the Dr.1's tanks are more effectively shielded by the pilot from a rear aspect (as pointed out by Hagar) and the engine from the front.  Although absorbing a bullet to save the tank might not be much consolation for the pilot, if that is happening it would lead to fewer observed Dr.1 flamers.

 

This factor might be very significant, given that a fairly high number of hits are from the rear, assuming that not all hits on the pilot pass through the body. 

 

4) The fuel content of the tank. I do not know how sophisticated the DM is in determining when a flamer occurs.  It is possible that the DM models the leaking fuel on structures being ignited by subsequent hits: but I doubt it. Unless the developers say otherwise I would assume that the flaming is a direct function of hits on the fuel tank.

 

In theory, I believe that flamers are more likely with a tank that is only partially full.  I would not be surprised if people fly Camels with a lower % of full fuel than in the Dr.1, so if this effect is modeled it  would also disadvantage the Camels flammability.

 

All in all, that Camels should be seen to light up much more often than Dr.1's makes perfect sense.

 

 

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gasoline is extremely flammable. I had a friend who caught fire in the sky from a broken fuel line near the engine while flying a WWI era aircraft...he did not survive. 

 

One major difference between the Camel tank and the Dr1 tank is that the Camel tank is pressurized. A puncture will result in fuel spraying out of the tank vs the Dr1 where suction from the engine would result in a slower leak.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one tends to overinterpret a nice but not perfect damage model here.

 

What I gather from Gavs reply is that the Camel has a larger tank that is, hit box whise, more exposed, hence you see more exploding Camels.

 

I understand „flamers“ as a term for an aircraft that catches fire, not necessarily one that explodes (the term may apply here as well?).

 

In reality, especially with the 100% fuel loadout as we have it on Berloga, there we should never see an explosion, but just fires. What does happen in this case is that gasoline starts to leak from punctures on the tank and when they reach parts of the canvas that is on fire (tracers can do that, the dope used was very flamable) and then catching fire.

 

Another hazard specific to the Camel is mentioned by Chill above. Pressurization of the tank with air. Normally, if you have a fuel fire in a container, all you need to do is put the lid on and the fire will suffocate, meaning a fire from tracer lucky enough to start a fire in a full tank will extinguish. An explosion requires an almost empty tank. Full tanks don‘t explode. They only do so in the movies.

 

This means that in a Dr.I, tracer holes will become wells for fuel that is less likely to burn already than in the Camel, where pressurization is not only a scource of fresh air for the fire but also for a larger flow of burning fuel from the tank.

 

Hence the fire hazard in the Camal is indeed much higher than in the Dr.I.

 

Assuming no requirement for parachute (as detailed on another thread), the Camel pilot however has the advantage of fuel leaking behind him and away from him instead if being drenched with it and maybe then set on fire, making for an impressive candle on the chute.

Share this post


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

I think one tends to overinterpret a nice but not perfect damage model here.

<snip>

Another hazard specific to the Camel is mentioned by Chill above. Pressurization of the tank with air. Normally, if you have a fuel fire in a container, all you need to do is put the lid on and the fire will suffocate, meaning a fire from tracer lucky enough to start a fire in a full tank will extinguish. An explosion requires an almost empty tank. Full tanks don‘t explode. They only do so in the movies.

 

This means that in a Dr.I, tracer holes will become wells for fuel that is less likely to burn already than in the Camel, where pressurization is not only a scource of fresh air for the fire but also for a larger flow of burning fuel from the tank.

 

Hence the fire hazard in the Camal is indeed much higher than in the Dr.I.

 

<snip>

 

I suspect that you are doing a bit of over-interpreting yourself there; is there any indication at all the effects of fuel tank pressurization is modeled, or that there is a "first hit caused leaks and second hit ignites fuel soaked canvas" mechanic?  Anyway, you do not need pressurization to drive liquid out of a container with holes in it: put the plane under gs and you are already getting the same effect. I am sure this is not modeled either.

 

I suspect it is all more just based on RNG * table base probability of fire/explosion assessed per hit on the fuel tank hit box.

 

Simply put: it is a significantly bigger hit box, less well shielded by other hit boxes that could absorb hits.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

I suspect it is all more just based on RNG * table base probability of fire/explosion assessed per hit on the fuel tank hit box.

 

Simply put: it is a significantly bigger hit box, less well shielded by other hit boxes that could absorb hits.  

Yes, exactly that. Other factors may apply in real life, but I have my doubts that such is modelled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a problem, a discrepancy, then it possibly has more to do with the way we fly our sim's rather than justifiable probability.  When we attack opponents we tend to do it repeatedly and terrier like continuing until a conclusion.  The reality was probably quite different with a single strike and a subsequent fire happening from other factors rather than direct enemy action.  I can't recall many instances of reports of aircraft exploding, midair, so if that is true I think we can dispel any notion that the tanks themselves caught fire, regardless of ammunition type used, but rather it was the leaking fuel from bullet strikes coming into contact with sparks or hot surfaces that caused fires, as such I fail to understand the logic of why one aircraft would catch fire over any other.  If it's leaking fuel, it's leaking fuel, and it's just as likely to catch fire, or not, as the next aircraft, remaining fuel quantity in a tank being irrelevant.

 

N.B . Pushers are a different story to tractors.

Share this post


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

If there is a problem, a discrepancy, then it possibly has more to do with the way we fly our sim's rather than justifiable probability.  When we attack opponents we tend to do it repeatedly and terrier like continuing until a conclusion.  The reality was probably quite different with a single strike and a subsequent fire happening from other factors rather than direct enemy action.  I can't recall many instances of reports of aircraft exploding, midair, so if that is true I think we can dispel any notion that the tanks themselves caught fire, regardless of ammunition type used, but rather it was the leaking fuel from bullet strikes coming into contact with sparks or hot surfaces that caused fires, as such I fail to understand the logic of why one aircraft would catch fire over any other.  If it's leaking fuel, it's leaking fuel, and it's just as likely to catch fire, or not, as the next aircraft, remaining fuel quantity in a tank being irrelevant.

 

N.B . Pushers are a different story to tractors.

 

Even if it is the leaking fuel and not direct hits to the tank that caused fires (or explosions) in reality, the probability of making the tank leak in the first place, other things being equal, is still a function of the size of the tank; specifically the projected area from the direction of fire, modified by any chance of something else getting in the way, like the pilot.  After getting a hole, getting a wet patch of  certain size is a function of how much fuel there is to leak. Fires would start because the wet patch was hit by incendiaries, tracer, or just a ball round that caused a spark, in addition to fuel reaching hot engine components like exhaust pipes.   The Camel should still be subject to this effect far more often than the Dr.1 simply because it's fuel tank is much more likely to be hit.

 

Looking at MvR's kills in the late war, over 40% of them were flamers, including four out of nine Camels. He was using incendiaries, which we do not have explicitly, but perhaps the probability of a flamer in the game is capturing this effect indirectly.   

Share this post


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

remaining fuel quantity in a tank being irrelevant.

That is very important in reality. If you puncture a tank above fuel level, it will not leak fuel, hence chances for a flamer are much lower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at blue prints, the Fokker Dr.1 fuel tank is fully protected by the ammo case, which lies in between the pilot and the fuel tank. But the Fokker Dr.1, as people say, never had an official blue print; so much of the work is guesswork as well. I'm not sure if the fuel tank is questioned or has different versions from different builds. I've been doing some tests, but I don't know exactly where the hitboxes are and what they are taking into account as well, so we can only do guesswork.

 

I did not see much difference in shooting down Camels and Dr.1s in single player, but I can tell that the only time that I was shot down in Berloga or Shooting Stars (as I recall) was in Camels that blew up: once in a bounce and once in a burst from the 10 o'clock position. Both times just a burst and I was gone. We have to keep an eye on it, because these things have bugs (N17 rudder bug that was never fixed, even after the 'fix'). And we also, like I said, have no information on the hitboxes, where they are, how were they done and the algorithms for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well bugs are always possible, but best tested systematically. It is not just you getting shot down in flames: 

 

 

Camels of Fire.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Well bugs are always possible, but best tested systematically. It is not just you getting shot down in flames: 

 

You said it yourself: he was using "incendiaries". So you cannot compare normal bullets with incendiaries. Right there your methodology / comparison is completely flawed. 

 

I'm not saying it is a bug or that it is wrong, but if people are seeing Camels blow up like fireworks, we need to keep an eye on it. The same way happened with the Nieuports. Rudders flying off like butterflies. We noticed it for years and reported it for years until they apparently fixed in that last fatidic patch, although Nieuports continue to lose rudders like butterflies after the fix.

 

I'm just saying we should keep an eye on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I am not disagreeing with keeping an eye on it. Just noting that planes with larger, more exposed fuel tanks will tend to have more fuel tank hits, and that in a late war setting getting many flamers is realistic.   

 

As for the incendiary vs ball issue: unless we know exactly what probabilities are modeled in the game, you cannot say for sure if the default ammunition is acting like an incendiary or an inert round.  In other words, whether the game "ball" ammunition is incendiary is a question of whether it incendiarizes, ( ;) ) not what it is called on the load-out page.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

I'm not saying it is a bug or that it is wrong, but if people are seeing Camels blow up like fireworks, we need to keep an eye on it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...