Camel vs Dr.I: My assessment.

[unreasonable]

Is tracer in the game anything other than just a graphical effect?

[ZachariasX]

29 minutes ago, HiIIBiIIy said:

vid

 

Spoiler

 

 

Doesn't explode if you use fuel indead of gas. That's why on YT they almost exclusively shoot things like propane tanks. In the vid, you can see that he has to shoot the barrel several times, until the leaking fuel burns ouside the barrel.

 

Had that guy spilled all the fuel on the ground (don't, it's really bad for the environment) and then shot just one tracer at it it would have made a kaboom and the entire pasture would go up in a fireball.

 

 

13 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Is tracer in the game anything other than just a graphical effect?

I would think so. I mean, in the hangar you can only select ball rounds for the WWI kites. Just one in 5 or so draws a line. But tracers don't light stuff as good as incendaries. treating traces dother tahn regular ball rounds would be hard to model I would guess.

 

Like in the video I posted above, the tracer only set the can on fire once fuel was leaking already. At no point did the can get other damage than just the holes from the bullet (plus heat).

Edited December 19, 2018 by ZachariasX

[BMA_Hellbender]

The Camel has a very large fuel tank and people tend to fly it at least half empty. This could create an explosive fuel/oxygen combination, in much the same way that a lean mixture can lead to detonation. Has anyone tested whether it is less likely to occur with 100% filled tanks?

 

As for fires without explosion, they were at least as likely to occur as catastrophic structural failure does now.

[ZachariasX]

1 minute ago, Hellbender said:

This could create an explosive fuel/oxygen combination, in much the same way that a lean mixture can lead to detonation.

Way too much fuel for an explosive mixture. It's basically almost empty barrels that do the trick.

[SP1969]

If I recall correctly, tracer ammunition had been invented before 1914, but was certainly seen by the British, at least, as falling foul of the Hague convention's ban on explosive munitions being fired from balloons or aeroplanes. It wasn't until the invention of the De Wilde ( which wasn't the De Wilde tracer round in service, but the name stuck ) in the very late '30's that aeroplanes regularly carried tracer at all. 

 

Incendiary bullets ( 'Buckingham' ) could, and were, carried and used against airships and balloons, but ONLY against the gas bags, not against the crew, and, again as far as the RFC was concerned, the pilot had to be carrying written orders that he was to be engaging this type of target.

 

Aeroplanes on anti Zeppelin operations loaded a mixture of Pomeroy ( explosive ), Brock ( Explodes on impact with a mild incendiary effect ) and Buckingham ( incendiary ( ignites on leaving the barrel and effective to =/- 350 yards )), the idea being to blow a hole in the envelope with the Pomeroy and Brock, and ignite the escaping gas with the Buckingham.

[unreasonable]

18 minutes ago, SP1969 said:

If I recall correctly, tracer ammunition had been invented before 1914, but was certainly seen by the British, at least, as falling foul of the Hague convention's ban on explosive munitions being fired from balloons or aeroplanes. It wasn't until the invention of the De Wilde ( which wasn't the De Wilde tracer round in service, but the name stuck ) in the very late '30's that aeroplanes regularly carried tracer at all. 

 

Incendiary bullets ( 'Buckingham' ) could, and were, carried and used against airships and balloons, but ONLY against the gas bags, not against the crew, and, again as far as the RFC was concerned, the pilot had to be carrying written orders that he was to be engaging this type of target.

 

Aeroplanes on anti Zeppelin operations loaded a mixture of Pomeroy ( explosive ), Brock ( Explodes on impact with a mild incendiary effect ) and Buckingham ( incendiary ( ignites on leaving the barrel and effective to =/- 350 yards )), the idea being to blow a hole in the envelope with the Pomeroy and Brock, and ignite the escaping gas with the Buckingham.

 

This is rather misleading. By some point in 1918 British squadrons were using all of those incendiaries/explosive bullets in their normal western front load out, to be used on whoever and whatever got in the way. This is attested to in the Australian Official history of WW1 (which I cannot get my hands on) but it has been quoted from in a thread in the Aerodrome forum. See post by totalspoon. 

 

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49899

Edited December 19, 2018 by unreasonable

[SP1969]

Happy to be corrected - memory is not as accurate as looking up a post on another site.

 

 

[HagarTheHorrible]

Knock yourselves out:

 

Effectiveness oF Incendiary Ammunition Against Aircraft Fuel Tanks

[unreasonable]

11 hours ago, SP1969 said:

Happy to be corrected - memory is not as accurate as looking up a post on another site.

 

 

 

It is not that what you said was wrong - it would be exactly right about earlier in the war, and you often see this account. But by late 1917 attitudes had hardened dramatically. I only found this out relatively recently too: if you had asked me 2-3 years ago when playing RoF I would have made similar points that you made.

 

Hence we should get quite a few flamers in FC dogfights.  The developers giving us a belt mix with an incendiary/explosive round, or the DM interpreting some hits from generic bullets as incendiary, are just two ways of getting there. I would prefer the former, but would not get heated about it if we stick with the latter.

[unreasonable]

10 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

Knock yourselves out:

 

Effectiveness oF Incendiary Ammunition Against Aircraft Fuel Tanks

 

Good find. For those without the time to read it all, these two extracts may be of immediate interest. 

 

 

[ZachariasX]

Nice finds!

[SP1969]

Until we get some more aeroplanes and a Western Front map as a very minimum, FC is just a very complicated ( very good fun ) arcade, even in MP.

 

Elsewhere in the BoX universe, the types of aeroplanes are tailored very specifically to the time frame of the individual battles - FC desperately needs this kind of detailed scenario.

 

Historically, FC is a bit of a hazy 'Spring 1917 to Summer 1918' scenario at the present stage of development.

 

The Pfalz DIII was introduced to frontline service around April 1917, the DIIIa we see in game in the November of that year.

 

The Dr1 entered service around October 1917 and was already being withdrawn from service in July of 1918.

 

I struggle to find an exact date for the introduction of parachutes in the Jastas, but it would appear to be around the March / April 1918 period, and it seems that they were far from universally adopted. 

 

They were also highly unreliable - and, if I understand correctly, only worked about 2/3 of the time.

 

As the game progresses, and more aeroplanes are introduced, I would prefer the parachute to be transferred to being an optional modification, to be unavailable before a certain date for all aeroplanes and to have a success rate in keeping with historical data.

 

The same wish applies to any anachronistic 'feature' within game.

 

Do not misunderstand me, these observations are comments, not criticism.

 

I am thoroughly enjoying FC so far and my only doubt about its future lies with the apparent lack of people actually using the game.

 

Obviously this is a chicken and egg scenario at present, the early access is not a convincing buy for any but the most die hard WW1 aeroplane enthusiast and most of us already have 30 odd aeroplanes, three maps and all the mods over in RoF - along with PWCG and a fair number of play options within the game. 

 

FC has no immersion at the moment, despite being clearly more technically advanced than RoF.

 

The announcement posted at the time of the 08 revision got my hopes up for the imminent arrival of solid WW1 specific content and 09 dashed them.

 

 

 

[HagarTheHorrible]

Providing there is no statistical differnce to Camel and Dr1 shoot downs, how it happens should really be nothing more than semantics.  While the Camel might statistically catch fire more often because of the size and placement of the fuel tank statistically if you shoot the same area on a Dr1 you are going to hit the pilot.  Both aircraft are approx the same size with the same compact layout of vital organs, if arranged differently, a few hits in this area is probably going to do some significant damge whatever it hits.  I wouldn't like to argue the difference between a bullet, incendary or otherwise, starting a fire anymore than I would about whether any particular round might injure or kill a pilot, it's probably all down to chance and luck.

 

 

Liked this project:

http://www.johnsshawaviation.co.uk/wordpress/sopwith-camel-f1-2/sopwith-camel-introduction/