Some Thoughts and Questions on the Damage Model

[Rattlesnake]

Due to the great Comcast outage of April 2019 I recently did quite a bit of shooting at offline drones, almost entirely in the Spad. Here are a few tentative conclusions:

1. Balloon Guns: They still retain some lethality advantage over regular guns in terms of killing pilots quickly and doing structural damage, albeit it is not as great as was the case in ROF. Regarding structural damage, the new paradigm in FC seems to be that the BGs will *sometimes* remove bits, mostly elevators or ailerons with a heavy burst, while the regular guns hardly ever do so. Removal seems more likely on a dead six shot than a planform shot, I suppose because it is hitting structure instead of just going through fabric.
2. The "Iron tail fabric" problem, IOW bullets not seeming to penetrate to the pilot or other vulnerable bits if they have to pass through any fuselage at all first that was notable in RoF seems largely resolved in FC. You don't have to snipe his head to get a pilot kill  from dead six anymore, rounds seem to be passing all the way through the rear fuselage to hole the fuel tank, etc.
3. It seems like engines are either somewhat more resistant to damage than was the case in RoF or alternatively they put out less "smoke signal" than in RoF when damaged.
4. In the very limited amount of online play I've been able to get in long-range sniping by humans on the level seems much less common/effective in FC. Whether you can say the same about sniping on the vertical prop-hang is a little more dubious, many are people saying that the planes are now more stable nose-up at very low speeds than was the case in RoF.

Questions:
1. Is damage to control cables and aerodynamic degradation of surfaces as they get damaged modeled in FC the same was as in BoX? I haven't noticed any messages about control cables coming up in the technochat but then again I haven't been able to get many hours of being shot by human players in either.

Edited April 27, 2019 by Rattlesnake

[unreasonable]

In my own so far rather limited FC experience - a few large QMB furballs - I agree with point (2).

 

If there is less "sniping" that might have something to do with the lack of aircraft specific control curves rather than the DM or ballistics. Given the number of people complaining about having to have stick forwards pressure, (while flying fast at low altitude ), maybe some people are just finding it harder to get on target.  Just a thought.

 

Overall I find it a huge improvement on RoF's DM. The main thing I do not like is the "dust" effect on hits. It looks like someone beating a very dirty carpet. With luck this will be modable.

 

 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

25 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

Questions:
1. Is damage to control cables and aerodynamic degradation of surfaces as they get damaged modeled in FC the same was as in BoX? I haven't noticed any messages about control cables coming up in the technochat but then again I haven't been able to get many hours of being shot by human players in either.

 

No it is not in the same level as in Il-2 GB

Shooting at FC aeroplanes - the new damage visualization is less visible than in RoF, i speak about wings and fuselage - is less visble from point of person view who is firing at. Im talking about progression of damage there are initial visible effect - and then next is collapse of the wing. No visibe spars damage, broken linkage, the tearing of fabric or big holes, overall deformation on the wings do to the bullets are not enough visible after  first/initial  dameg visalisionation appears. This this is apparent when one in close to enemy plane or use zoom and should be able to see and judge damage better.

This not give us immediate gratification from next good shots and next inflicted damage to the opponent which we all like doing and seeing.
 

[Rattlesnake]

14 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

 

If there is less "sniping" that might have something to do with the lack of aircraft specific control curves rather than the DM or ballistics. Given the number of people complaining about having to have stick forwards pressure, (while flying fast at low altitude ), maybe some people are just finding it harder to get on target.  Just a thought.

 

 

 

 

I was having difficulty with this until I hit upon the simple expedient of reducing my force feedback strength for my Sidewinder from the 100% I use with WWII planes to 30% for FC. Turns out that for the WWI planes the FF forces are higher and you are generally making larger elevator movements, thus I was having to apply so much force to hold the nose down that (given that we are talking about a plastic joystick with very short throws sitting on a keyboard tray, not a full length control stick) that it was making precision difficult. Much better now.

Still, I'm not unsympathetic to those having difficulties with the new controls paradigm, our flight sticks are really very little like handling the real thing after all and given that and other limitations the fact that the real airplanes were tail-heavy isn't necessarily mean it is written in stone that the game should force everyone to have to forcefully hold the nose down to keep it from pitching up at all times.

I'm pretty sure tail-heavy rigging is NOT the primary reason that you don't read about WWI pilots sniping each other at 400 meters, it's more other factors.

Edited April 27, 2019 by Rattlesnake

[SeaW0lf]

I would like to express my appreciation for the damage model used in Flying Circus.

 

Last Sunday (and all these months) I had several clashes with several opponents and I was hit several times in the tail, fuselage and wings, but I could continue to fly normally, only feeling the characteristic tremors when the aircraft was already pretty banged up. This is exactly what I read in all World War I books, and very different from the old damage model present in ROF today, when certain planes lose their wings with short bursts, or when every aircraft begin to shake and wrinkle their wings and fuselage with a few hits (which is not realistic to have wings and fuselage wrinkling with bullets), hindering their ability to fight properly.

 

It seems exaggerated to say so, but the new damage model gives it an incredible atmosphere, at least for me, because while I’m dogfighting I keep thinking about the books I read, and that gives it a huge rapport. Damage model was one of the Achilles heels of ROF. It is very refreshing to see it greatly improved.

 

Kudos for that. I'm also noticing that sniping bullets to glass engines and fuel tanks happens less frequently (I think we need more time to verify that). The visual damage models on the structure of the aircraft appears to be simpler, and if so, I hope they upgrade it later on, but at this moment what matters the most is that it resembles what I read in books, and it makes sense. Which is most important for a simulator.

Edited April 27, 2019 by SeaW0lf

[Rattlesnake]

Regarding sniping, hypothetically would an admittedly artificial limitation on FC gun effectiveness of about 200 meters (as a stop-gap measure) really bother anyone, except the kind who get salty when a bnz fighter refuses to hang around and try turn with their Camel/Dr1? I think it would be interesting to test it as a selectable option for MP servers and see if people like the way it changes the paradigm.

Edited April 27, 2019 by Rattlesnake

[unreasonable]

 

18 minutes ago, 307_Tomcat said:

 

No it is not in the same level as in Il-2 GB

Shooting at FC aeroplanes - the new damage visualization is less visible than in RoF, i speak about wings and fuselage - is less visble from point of person view who is firing at. Im talking about progression of damage there are initial visible effect - and then next is collapse of the wing. No visibe spars damage, broken linkage, the tearing of fabric or big holes, overall deformation on the wings do to the bullets are not enough visible after  first/initial  dameg visalisionation appears. This this is apparent when one in close to enemy plane or use zoom and should be able to see and judge damage better.

This not give us immediate gratification from next good shots and next inflicted damage to the opponent which we all like doing and seeing.
 

 

Speak for yourself!   One of the worst thing's about BoX's damage visualization for me is the way that wings etc exhibit large holes after a few hits from rifle calbre MG bullets.  I expect the problem is that for the game all structural damage is alike, so it cannot distinguish between area effects from HE and holes from AP, it just tots up a number and then applies a generic graphical effect. 

 

I very much doubt that it would be easy to see damage on a WW1 fabric covered plane when you are firing at it unless you get smoke or fuel leaks, until the structure fails in some manner. Certainly not the cartoony effect we have now.  

 

[SeaW0lf]

2 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

Regarding sniping, hypothetically would an admittedly artificial limitation on FC gun effectiveness of about 200 meters (as a stop-gap measure) really offend anyone, except the kind who get salty when a bnz fighter refuses to hang around and try turn with their Camel/Dr1? I think it would be interesting to test it as a selectable option for MP servers and see if people like the way it changes the paradigm.

 

You will find plenty of accounts of planes being shot down at longer distances. These arbitrary measures tend to be just arbitrary, and favoring a particular thought that is not realistic. Just McCudden alone has several accounts of planes being shot down at ranges from 300 to 400 yards.

 

He said: "distances in the air are very deceptive, and four hundred yards is not extreme range either, so long as a pilot has his machineguns aligned correctly and intelligently with his sight."

[unreasonable]

9 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

Regarding sniping, hypothetically would an admittedly artificial limitation on FC gun effectiveness of about 200 meters (as a stop-gap measure) really bother anyone, except the kind who get salty when a bnz fighter refuses to hang around and try turn with their Camel/Dr1? I think it would be interesting to test it as a selectable option for MP servers and see if people like the way it changes the paradigm.

 

Completely unacceptable as a global feature, although if some MP servers did it I would not be bothered.   Also remember that some people like to strafe ground targets.

 

I agree with SeaW0lf as well: MvR's preference for very close range shooting (perhaps) seems to have been more the exception than the rule.  You would expect the aces to shoot at shorter than average ranges, other things being equal. 

[Rattlesnake]

28 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

You will find plenty of accounts of planes being shot down at longer distances. These arbitrary measures tend to be just arbitrary, and favoring a particular thought that is not realistic. Just McCudden alone has several accounts of planes being shot down at ranges from 300 to 400 yards.

 

He said: "distances in the air are very deceptive, and four hundred yards is not extreme range either, so long as a pilot has his machineguns aligned correctly and intelligently with his sight."

Without knowing the context of targets and circumstances it is hard to know what to make of such accounts/quotes. Certainly shooting at a dead-level bomber is different than trying to bring down a scout.

20 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

Completely unacceptable as a global feature, although if some MP servers did it I would not be bothered.   Also remember that some people like to strafe ground targets.

 

I agree with SeaW0lf as well: MvR's preference for very close range shooting (perhaps) seems to have been more the exception than the rule.  You would expect the aces to shoot at shorter than average ranges, other things being equal. 

We would expect aces to if anything to shoot *effectively* at longer ranges than others can manage, owing to their greater experience and better marksmanship. If an ace feels like he needs to get within 100 meters an average joe probably needs to get within 50.

Anyway, my thoughts on the matter are not based on a few MvR quotes, but rather comparing the whole paradigm we see described to the online paradigm we played. You find WWI pilots breezily praising the ease with which the hotter airplane can simply leave whenever they don't like the situation, or talking about how the Dr1's fatal flaw was being too darned slow to prevent that same. And certainly by the latter part of the air war speed and performance was prioritized over maximum turn. But then in online play it was frequently extremely difficult to gain enough separation quickly in the faster plane without quite a large danger of being seriously sniped because of the effective shooting range possible. To the point you'd see Dr1s and full-speed Spads/Se5s passing each other head-on, the latter continuing on its way, the former having to do a 180 degree turn, and yet STILL be able to hurt the faster plane badly before it's out of the danger zone. When you saw server managers having to limit numbers on planes that in reality were considered too slow and a touch obsolete by the end of the war, rather than limiting Se5s/Spads/FokkerDVIIs you can suspect something has been turned on its head.

Edited April 27, 2019 by Rattlesnake

[yaan98]

37 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

MvR's preference for very close range shooting (perhaps) seems to have been more the exception than the rule.  

 

Is there some kind of evidence based research to support your conclusion? It would probably take a WW1 historian to verify that claim.

 

Think about your reaction when someone is shooting at your plane. It's definately not going to be I'm about to die. Psychology of someone getting shot at from the sky in a wooden crate can't be simulated in a PC game obviously and especially reactions of rookie pilots. So the next best thing would be to make AI opponents need to react realistically based on skill level and to a damaged aircraft would be my argument. More so than a realistic damage model. Not much technology in a WW1 aircraft to destroy. Hitting the engine is not always a guaranteed fire, oil leak or whatever. A non-essential component can be hit. Is that modeled? Pilot hits can be anywhere anatomically with a gazillion possible outcomes. This is a very broad topic if you think about it.

Edited April 27, 2019 by yaan98

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

35 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

 

Speak for yourself!   One of the worst thing's about BoX's damage visualization for me is the way that wings etc exhibit large holes after a few hits from rifle calbre MG bullets.  I expect the problem is that for the game all structural damage is alike, so it cannot distinguish between area effects from HE and holes from AP, it just tots up a number and then applies a generic graphical effect. 

 

I very much doubt that it would be easy to see damage on a WW1 fabric covered plane when you are firing at it unless you get smoke or fuel leaks, until the structure fails in some manner. Certainly not the cartoony effect we have now.  

 

 

Yes, I know about that , and now the damage to the wing or fuselage there is not enough visible progression IMHO. Attack Dr.1 and spray it with bullets. 

[SeaW0lf]

31 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

Without knowing the context of targets and circumstances it is hard to know what to make of such accounts/quotes. Certainly shooting at a dead-level bomber is different than trying to bring down a scout.

 

It does not make much sense to fly in a world where we can't fire at a two-seater or a scout flying straight from more than 200 meters. That’s all I’m saying. And I’ve been flying Dolphins and D7F a lot, planes that need to extend from time to time.

 

So far I'm very pleased with the new DM and ballistics. We need more time to settle these assumptions, but the general feeling is that we are way better off than before, in ROF.

[unreasonable]

20 minutes ago, yaan98 said:

 

Is there some kind of evidence based research to support your conclusion? It would probably take a WW1 historian to verify that claim.

 

It is generally a good rule to say that if a leader or lawgiver finds it necessary to continually exhort people to do X, it is because people are generally not doing X. 

 

MvR did not always give the ranges that he fired at in his combat reports, (20 out of 80, including statements stating "close", "near" etc instead of numerical estimates) so it is hard to tell if the occasions on which he gives a range were representative of the other times, or were specifically mentioned as being noteworthy for their closeness. We just do not know and obviously cannot ask him.  What I do recall is an account from people in planes that were attacked by him mentioning that the red painted plane was flown unusually aggressively. 

 

Taken together, my hypothesis is that he did often close to extreme range and this was noteworthy, because many pilots did not. The fact is though, that this latter cannot be proven - or disproved: any more than any other general statement about WW1 flyers behaviour.

46 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

When you saw server managers having to limit numbers on planes that in reality were considered too slow and a touch obsolete by the end of the war, rather than limiting Se5s/Spads/FokkerDVIIs you can suspect something has been turned on its head.

 

I find the idea that you can try to deduce facts about physics or the physical and psychological pressures on real WW1 pilots from the behaviour of gamers on a MP server ridiculous.

 

Recall the word of Mick Mannock - rule 14.

 

"Pilots must never, under any circumstances, dive away from an enemy, as he gives his opponent a non-deflection shot — bullets are faster than aeroplanes."

 

This, however, going away from your original topic, of the DM, which is about what should happen when you hit, rather than how difficult it is to hit, and why.

 

 

Edited April 27, 2019 by unreasonable

[Rattlesnake]

3 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

It does not make much sense to fly in a world where we can't fire at a two-seater or a scout flying straight from more than 200 meters. That’s all I’m saying. And I’ve been flying Dolphins and D7F a lot, planes that need to extend from time to time.

 

So far I'm very pleased with the new DM and ballistics. We need more time to settle these assumptions, but the general feeling is that we are way better off than before, in ROF.

Well yeah I admitted the idea is extremely artificial and not ideal. A rifle caliber machine gun round absolutely could drill a pilot through the head at 400 meters...or 1400 as far as that goes. The question is whether or not a given WWI game is missing a factor or two from the real world that makes said bullet far less likely to connect with target at 400. If this occurs would tend to change what works in the game skies versus the historic ones.

 

It is a geometric quandary. If for instance planes in a hypothetical game were equipped with some kind of death-laser with no range limitations then performance advantages and the separation they created would be irrelevant. The ability to point the nose at the foe quickly would be the end-all be-all. OTOH if effective weapons range were limited to say 20 meters, well then a slower but better turning aircraft would have almost no chance of touching any half-way well-flown faster plane. The reality of how these weapons actually worked of course lies somewhere in between these two extreme hypotheticals. But where exactly? 

[yaan98]

I agree. Setting artificial limitations might be needed to balance the game. Including ability of AI to identify aircraft at long ranges.

Edited April 27, 2019 by yaan98

[unreasonable]

On of the things that is missing from the game - that perhaps does bear on the issue of range -is the absence of real jams, not just easily clearable misfires. We know these were fairly common, for a variety of reasons, and I can imagine that some determined flyers might not want to risk wasting long range shots only to have the gun jam. On the other hand there would have been plenty of others who would have welcomed an early jam as an excuse for an early bath.

 

The trouble is that whenever introducing real jams is suggested - or any other realistic random malfunction - the player base, especially on the MP side, is opposed. I can see why: but the fact is that there are many variables the game either does not or cannot simulate which affect how it is played either in SP or MP. If you start messing around with the mechanisms which are simulated pretty accurately - in this case ballistics - you are going to end up with a pure flight game with not much actual simulation left at all, all in order to get a preferred outcome that not everyone agrees is an accurate interpretation of  WW1 air fighting. 

 

 

Edited April 27, 2019 by unreasonable

[Garven]

19 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

"Pilots must never, under any circumstances, dive away from an enemy, as he gives his opponent a non-deflection shot — bullets are faster than aeroplanes."

To be fair those rules were written while he was flying Nieuports which had no hope of diving away from anything German.  That is not saying that SE5a's could outrun bullets, but they could quickly get out of effective gun range by diving presumably in a jinking manner especially when the Germans would be afraid of their Nieuport knock off wings departing the air-frame.

[unreasonable]

5 minutes ago, yaan98 said:

I agree. Setting artificial limitations might be needed to balance the game. Including ability of AI to identify aircraft at long ranges.

 

There is a huge difference between changing the AI's rules for behaviour, which are to a degree arbitrary, and deliberately introducing incorrect ballistics!  Fortunately this discussion is moot as there is no way the developers will ever do it.

[Rattlesnake]

36 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

It is generally a good rule to say that if a leader or lawgiver finds it necessary to continually exhort people to do X, it is because people are generally not doing X. 

 

I find the idea that you can try to deduce facts about physics or the physical and psychological pressures on real WW1 pilots from the behaviour of gamers on a MP server ridiculous.

 

Recall the word of Mick Mannock - rule 14.

 

"Pilots must never, under any circumstances, dive away from an enemy, as he gives his opponent a non-deflection shot — bullets are faster than aeroplanes."

 

This, however, going away from your original topic, of the DM, which is about what should happen when you hit, rather than how difficult it is to hit, and why.

 

 

 

36 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

MvR and others would have had no reason to exhort pilots to close the distance if firing at long distance was effective. If you could kill the enemy at 400 meters that gives him less time to spot you and leaves you focused on that enemy for less time, less chance of a collision, etc. If we indeed see continuous exhortations to shoot at close  range then this means long range shooting was not effective.

 

Again with the quotes context is important. We don’t know what the situation is before this  hypothetical dive-way is attempted. It seems likely he is talking about situations where one is being bounced by a higher foe. Well of course you don’t begin in that circumstance by simply diving, the enemy already has a speed advantage. When I speak of separation being seeming excessively  difficult for the faster plane to create in sims I’m not speaking of circumstances where the slower plane has a temporary speed advantage via diving. 

 

Why would possessing the faster airplane rather than the most maneuverable have been praised and desires if one *couldnt* engage and disengage at will with the thing reliably? 

 

And if we find different planes and tactics being effective in game our simulation environment than were effective in the real environment then it follows our sim is missing some element that was present in reality.

8 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

incorrect ballistics!  

You do realize that there are other factors in shooting a plane from another plane than the ballistics of the round in question right? No one here is claiming that a pilot couldn’t  be killed by the projectiles in question at 500 meters-IF it hits.

Edited April 27, 2019 by Rattlesnake

[SeaW0lf]

29 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

Well yeah I admitted the idea is extremely artificial (...)

 

We are on the same page on this.

 

 

13 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

There is a huge difference between changing the AI's rules for behaviour, which are to a degree arbitrary, and deliberately introducing incorrect ballistics!  Fortunately this discussion is moot as there is no way the developers will ever do it.

 

+1.

[Rattlesnake]

16 minutes ago, Garven said:

To be fair those rules were written while he was flying Nieuports which had no hope of diving away from anything German.  That is not saying that SE5a's could outrun bullets, but they could quickly get out of effective gun range by diving presumably in a jinking manner especially when the Germans would be afraid of their Nieuport knock off wings departing the air-frame.

Precisely. The Spad replaced the better-turning Nieuport because speed and dive. If these factors hadn’t allowed pilots to disengage reliably without getting sniped on the way out they’d have stuck with the planes that could turn better.

[unreasonable]

3 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

 

MvR and others would have had no reason to exhort pilots to close the distance if firing at long distance was effective. If you could kill the enemy at 400 meters that gives him less time to spot you and leaves you focused on that enemy for less time, less chance of a collision, etc. If we indeed see continuous exhortations to shoot at close  range then this means long range shooting was not effective.

 

Again with the quotes context is important. We don’t know what the situation is before this  hypothetical dive-way is attempted. It seems likely he is talking about situations where one is being bounced by a higher foe. Well of course you don’t begin in that circumstance by simply diving, the enemy already has a speed advantage. When I speak of separation being seeming excessively  difficult for the faster plane to create in sims I’m not speaking of circumstances where the slower plane has a temporary speed advantage via diving. 

 

Why would possessing the faster airplane rather than the most maneuverable have been praised and desires if one *couldnt* engage and disengage at will? 

 

And if we find different planes and tactics being effective in game our simulation environment than were effective in the real environment then it follows our sim is missing some element that was present in reality.

 

Firing at longer ranges is less effective - it is not an either/or issue - both in RL and the game. It is also safer if you are attacking a 2-seater.   If real pilots were all shooting at close range they would not need to be exhorted to fire at close range. 

 

Interestingly the P-47 FM thread currently has a similar discussion, in which the extent to which a P-47 could "outdive" a lighter plane is being discussed. In that case - as I think in this one, some people have an unrealistic expectation of how quickly they can get meaningful separation.  I believe that spinning out was sometimes a preferred tactic to get out of trouble anyway, as it combines a hard to follow move with a "playing dead" element.

 

The main job of a WW1 scout is to neutralize enemy 2-seaters engaged in arty cooperation, recce or bombing. Scouts need to be able to intercept.  If you fly career in RoF you do a lot of this and find that it is incredibly difficult to intercept a 2-seater if you have a slow plane, even if you have a slight level speed advantage.  That is the main reason for the need for speed.  Similarly, a speed advantage allows one to accept or refuse combat from enemy scouts - by moving away from them. Once you are in gun range, the advantage is much less.

 

 

 

 

[yaan98]

32 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

There is a huge difference between changing the AI's rules for behaviour, which are to a degree arbitrary, and deliberately introducing incorrect ballistics!  Fortunately this discussion is moot as there is no way the developers will ever do it.

 

It's not arbitrary if the correct formula is used in the code. It's been done with another sim (WOFF) by mixing varying degrees of skill (Ace, Veteran, Rookie) with morale (scale of 1 to 9) to bring about unpredictable rookie reactions to damage vs an ace with high morale who will be more predictable. With a technologically advanced game like FC, I can't see why this may even be extended to the community to mod AI behavior of Aces, Veterans or Rookies like we can do in WOFF and FE. Modding has always been what brings life to any game. 

[Rattlesnake]

34 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

Firing at longer ranges is less effective - it is not an either/or issue - both in RL and the game. It is also safer if you are attacking a 2-seater.   If real pilots were all shooting at close range they would not need to be exhorted to fire at close range. 

 

Interestingly the P-47 FM thread currently has a similar discussion, in which the extent to which a P-47 could "outdive" a lighter plane is being discussed. In that case - as I think in this one, some people have an unrealistic expectation of how quickly they can get meaningful separation.  I believe that spinning out was sometimes a preferred tactic to get out of trouble anyway, as it combines a hard to follow move with a "playing dead" element.

 

The main job of a WW1 scout is to neutralize enemy 2-seaters engaged in arty cooperation, recce or bombing. Scouts need to be able to intercept.  If you fly career in RoF you do a lot of this and find that it is incredibly difficult to intercept a 2-seater if you have a slow plane, even if you have a slight level speed advantage.  That is the main reason for the need for speed.  Similarly, a speed advantage allows one to accept or refuse combat from enemy scouts - by moving away from them. Once you are in gun range, the advantage is much less.

 

 

 

 

You might think I’m saying that you should be able to dive away with impunity after you’ve burned all your energy and let them saddle you. I’m not. What Im telling you is that textbook separation maneuvers that work perfectly well in other sims and presumably in reality  with significantly faster planes versus slower planes-being on as opposite  a heading as possible, taking away turning room,  and being at high speed-did not work reliably in RoF because the shooting ranges possible allowed the slower bandit to nonetheless 180 and still have plenty of time to aim before you were actually out of range. 

Edited April 27, 2019 by Rattlesnake

[yaan98]

8 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

  I believe that spinning out was sometimes a preferred tactic to get out of trouble anyway, as it combines a hard to follow move with a "playing dead" element.

 

 

 

This was a true tactic which would also benefit if implemented in FC. Again, needs to be coded, but can be done like it is for WOFF.

[Rattlesnake]

To give people an idea of what I’m talking about, study that two geometries (Hit and Run, Hit and Climb)  bad discussed in the short articles here.  These are real-world derived tactics that work perfectly well with no headaches in most sims I’ve tried.

Boom and Zoom Tactics by Andy Bush

[Garven]

20 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Similarly, a speed advantage allows one to accept or refuse combat from enemy scouts - by moving away from them. Once you are in gun range, the advantage is much less.

I think this a big reason why we hear reports of Camels being unable to catch anything simply because the Germans in slightly faster airplanes at altitude avoided getting anywhere close to camels while at a disadvantaged or equal position.  In MP people are way more likely to chase others in a suicidal manner to the ends of the map even if it means sacrificing all your altitude going deeper into enemy territory.

Edited April 27, 2019 by Garven

[Rattlesnake]

7 minutes ago, Garven said:

I think this a big reason why we hear reports of Camels being unable to catch anything simply because the Germans in slightly faster airplanes at altitude avoided getting anywhere close to camels while at a disadvantaged or equal position. 

This is reasonable but keep in mind that the sniping problem we are describing doesnt involve someone trying to win a Luftberry in a slightly faster plane until all their energy is gone and then being unable to get away. Literally in the previous game a flat-out Spad or Se5 couldn’t pass by a DR1 even nose-to-nose without a good chance than the DR1 player would be able to 180 turn and still have a good long time  to aim while the faster plane was in what was effective guns range for that game. You could jink of course, but doing so violently enough to do much  good would bring your separation creation to virtually nill.

[SeaW0lf]

57 minutes ago, Garven said:

In MP people are way more likely to chase others in a suicidal manner to the ends of the map even if it means sacrificing all your altitude going deeper into enemy territory.

 

Yes, a role-playing aficionado needs to take that into account when flying multiplayer to avoid getting a wrong view of it. I've been flying the Camel and Dr1 and the Dolphin and D7F, with their styles, and so far I'm not seeing any bias or difficulty to disengage properly or to put some well aimed bullets at a fleeing plane.

 

Time will tell, but I see no blatant error about it as of right now. It is way better than before.

[US103_Baer]

DM is one of the things I do like and see as improvement in FC. Am sure there's more to come too.

 

It is sometimes difficult to assess how much damage you've done after a pass. 

In training we have the 'enemy' pilot call out where bullets are going as he sees them. Quite often we're getting good hits and wounding the pilot without it being apparent to the attacking pilots. This squares pretty well with written accounts.

 

On dispersion and gun effectiveness at range, I can't see any good coming from artificial constraints, and the fact that Devs have gone back to their data-driven dispersion suggests they're of same mind.

 

In MP I've definitely been fired at accurately and taken hits at 500-600m. That's not necessarily a dispersion problem, it's not necessarily 'wrong' if I'm flying straight away and giving him a low deflection shot. However as pilots get better at long-range shooting in FC (and they will) it could lead to rather arcade scenarios.

 

As I understand it, reality for the actual pilots was that flying, shooting and critically damaging an enemy was difficult. Charles Biddle describes this repeatedly in his book Way of the Eagle. As Sim pilots flying in air-conditioned rooms we're insulated from the impacts of buffeting and turbulence, the real sense of speed/space/time, the cold and the fear.

 

Turbulence can (and should be) modelled more often. Perhaps a small amount built into the map in the 'calm' base level. I don't think I've ever been in a small plane that didn't bounce around more than my virtual Spad. But that's just anecdotal

 

Other factors are less easily modelled but I don't feel we should fall into the trap of building artificial compensation. Rather, keep encouraging Devs toward ever more detailed and accurate modelling in every area.

[Rattlesnake]

2 hours ago, US103_Baer said:

 

In MP I've definitely been fired at accurately and taken hits at 500-600m. That's not necessarily a dispersion problem, it's not necessarily 'wrong' if I'm flying straight away and giving him a low deflection shot. However as pilots get better at long-range shooting in FC (and they will) it could lead to rather arcade scenarios.

 

 

Big if true. And unfortunate if true, because right out the window goes much of any point to flying a "speed" fighter.

Made this example film awhile ago and it is a very simplified situation  in a different game but still illustrative of the principles I've been perhaps failing to describe clearly. Count the number of seconds it takes to get past 600 after the two planes pass. And this is just an inefficiently flying drone, not a human who could turn and pursue much more quickly and closely.  If accurate fire by humans can be expected out to 500-600 then giving up lighter wing loading/maneuverability for 10-15mph more top speed will be a borderline pointless bargain to make in online play. "FC Vol. 1? OH, wait,  you must mean that Camel vs. Dr1 game."

I mean I enjoy a good turn fight as well as the next man, but I *really* enjoy being able to also take up fast plane out-chess the turny birds with energy fighting viably. Not sure how one can do that if the turny bird's long-range sniping ability out-strips the energy fighter's ability to create separation in the vertical and horizontal though.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV8FZDuNxT4

Edited April 28, 2019 by Rattlesnake

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, Rattlesnake said:

Big if true. And unfortunate if true, because right out the window goes much of any point to flying a "speed" fighter.

Made this example film awhile ago and it is a very simplified situation  in a different game but still illustrative of the principles I've been perhaps failing to describe clearly. 

 

We know that you like a chess or fencing style of MP - that is your preference, but not everyone's, and the developers have clearly stated on a number of occasions that they aim to simulate the systems as accurately as they can without balancing.   

 

On the facts of how real WW1 air fighting worked, there is scope for disagreement, but the point of 10-15 mph speed advantage is clear, as I and others have already pointed out. It allows you to chose whether to get in the fight at all, provided that you see your opponent before he gets in gun range. It should not on it's own - because IMHO it did not - provide an easy, quick escape mechanism once you are engaged. 

 

You have been describing your views perfectly clearly. The issue is not clarity - it is simply that some of us do not believe:

 

1) That the elements we are discussing that are simulated in the game are wrong to any great degree, and

2) That those elements that are broadly right should be changed to satisfy a desire for a particular  kind of MP gameplay, especially one based on a contentious interpretation of the historical facts.

 

 

 

 

 

[ZachariasX]

4 hours ago, US103_Baer said:

Turbulence can (and should be) modelled more often. Perhaps a small amount built into the map in the 'calm' base level.

Turbulence is generally excessive in flight sims. Even when there‘s „lots of“ wind, aircraft do not rock constantly like you see that in sims. They only shake when you are crossing zones of different wind directions. If you are sitting in an airliner that is shaking constantly over longer periods of time, then the plane is most likely flying in the vortex of another aircraft. Just slight spacial displacement would end the shake. Rides in todays crowded airspace are markedly rougher than in  the „good old days“.

 

3 hours ago, Rattlesnake said:

If accurate fire by humans can be expected out to 500-600

What makes you so sure that in principle that was not possible back then? Maybe because unless you land a lethal hit on the pilot, there is no way of telling whether you are punching holes in the fabric of a plane or just endangering cows down there. (How often do you land a pilot kill shot over that distance?) But sure enough, the whole sky will take notice of you.

 

Also, in reality, those ground hopping MP contests we often have in the sim (that often turn into tree hugging) are not really what happened back then. Instead, if you had everyone hoarding high up in large formations, doing a long range shot is slightly useless, as if you hit something more vital than air or canvas, the victim would just disengage and return home. Literally, the last thing you ever did was to chase him down far behind his lines to finish him off.

 

Thus, long range shooting was ineffective for other reasons than an alleged general impossibility to land hits over 500 meters. Some are really drawing false analogies here.

[US213_Talbot]

Umm,  I am a tactical flight officer/aerial observer on our departments Kodiak Qwest and we operate typically at 1000-2000ft. In the day time on warm days we bounce all over the place. It is no airliner at 35,000ft lol.

 

 

[Rattlesnake]

9 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

We know that you like a chess or fencing style of MP - that is your preference, but not everyone's, and the developers have clearly stated on a number of occasions that they aim to simulate the systems as accurately as they can without balancing.   

 

On the facts of how real WW1 air fighting worked, there is scope for disagreement, but the point of 10-15 mph speed advantage is clear, as I and others have already pointed out. It allows you to chose whether to get in the fight at all, provided that you see your opponent before he gets in gun range. It should not on it's own - because IMHO it did not - provide an easy, quick escape mechanism once you are engaged. 

 

You have been describing your views perfectly clearly. The issue is not clarity - it is simply that some of us do not believe:

 

1) That the elements we are discussing that are simulated in the game are wrong to any great degree, and

2) That those elements that are broadly right should be changed to satisfy a desire for a particular  kind of MP gameplay, especially one based on a contentious interpretation of the historical facts.

 

 

 

 

 

I make a loose analogy to chess or fencing a bit, but make no mistake the tactics and geometry I understand are derived from real-world ACM. It just so happens that the techniques and strategies of real world ACM can be thought of as a grand game, like chess or fencing. If real world tactics don’t work in a“simulation” them something has gone wrong. 

 

Now if I’m simply technically wrong in some aspect of how to fight the airplane, how to fly a hit-n-run or a hit-n-climb profile for example, that would actually be great and I would like to know because such things are easily corrected. Show me the films of how to fly the geometry against the bandit more correctly. I’ve been a pretty ardent watcher of Waggaz and Requiems materials, but it’s always possible I missed something. 

 

Your idea that “being able to run away if things get too hot” actually  means not going anywhere near the enemy plane in the first place is an idiosyncratic interpretation, not something explicitly stated, it does not jive well with the language of the phrase, and there are practical problems with it. Chiefest of these is that fighter pilots did not invariably have the luxury to ONLY one-pass haul-ass bandits spotted far below them.. Were that all an Se5 or a D7 were really good for against a DR1 or a Camel they would not have largely replaced these two planes in their respective air arms. (The taxpayers would today be funding the latest bi or tri-wing fighter plane for the USAF if WWI has gone more like some of what we see in-game.)

 

There’s a reason why the example I’m using is the Se5 passing the DR1 head-on. It is the best possible geometry for separation. This isn’t about being able to blow all your E and still have a get out of jail free card. If the bandit can pass the faster plane nose-to-nose, reverse 180 and still have an excellent firing window then the faster plane has even less chance of being able to extend after any other kind of pass. Which means having the faster plane is pointless.

 

Perspective: Most people are largely wasting their ammo firing at slightly maneuvering fighters 500-600 meters away in BoX “WWII* simulation, with much more powerful weapons and much more sophisticated sighting systems on tap.  Effective fire is pretty much limited to what it was generally conceded to be by pilots, and as a result the whole store of fighter maneuvers and strategies work well. If effective fire in WWI simulation is pretty much limited to what most pilots recommended then standard real-world dogfighting tactics for disengaging, using the vertical etc work pretty well there as well. For instance, magine if you will a simulation where the Fokker D7’s superior vertical performance and controllability is actually meaningful against a Camel because the Camel can’t simply prop-hang and land hits out to the stratosphere with a high rate  of success. I don’t have to imagine it because through the magic of having played a wide variety of sims I’ve seen it done. And in the process seen enough discrepancies from sim to sim to have developed a healthy skepticism for “our sim is the one that’s finally got everything exactly accurate you guys” ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 28, 2019 by Rattlesnake

[Ceowulf]

If I can add anything on the FC damage model, which I really like, it’s that it seems intuitively to result in the right spread of reasons an airplane goes down.  

 

I think Unreasonable addressed this statistically a while ago and I like that idea.  So many should go down out of control, so many on fire, so many break up, etc.  We don’t have footage but we do have reports and after reading a lot you get a sense for the ratio.   

 

I haven’t kept stats as I’ve played but it feels about right. By contrast ROF gave way too many wings off and no where near enough down out of controls or fires.

 

Ceowulf<><   

 

 

[Rattlesnake]

5 hours ago, Rattlesnake said:

 

 

Now if I’m simply technically wrong in some aspect of how to fight the airplane, how to fly a hit-n-run or a hit-n-climb profile for example, that would actually be great and I would like to know because such things are easily corrected. Show me the films of how to fly the geometry against the bandit more correctly. I’ve been a pretty ardent watcher of Waggaz and Requiems materials, but it’s always possible I missed something. 

 

 

 

 

This is a perfectly serious offer btw. I’ve got film out there, and I’m open to correction. If there is something I need to change about the way I fly a HnC or HnR profile that will make the long-range snipping a total non-issue I would like to learn it. 

But if the answer is “Nah mate, you just gotta invariably fly your Spad  like you’re actively seeking a cowardice charge” then I doubt that is accurate and *know* it isnt good game.

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ybM6WjmArJY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Garven]

Might not be exactly within the scope of the current topic, but currently the visibility of bullet hits are excessive IMO and make long range sniping easier than IRL as one just adjusts fire until they see brown puffs coming off the enemy plane at 500m.  In real life I doubt a FMJ rifle bullet would create a such large puffs (if any at all) striking against a wood and fabric target that isn't dusty.  I think it would be more realistic to not have any rifle bullet strike dust puffs at all on WW1 birds.

4 hours ago, Ceowulf said:

If I can add anything on the FC damage model, which I really like, it’s that it seems intuitively to result in the right spread of reasons an airplane goes down.  

 

I think Unreasonable addressed this statistically a while ago and I like that idea.  So many should go down out of control, so many on fire, so many break up, etc.  We don’t have footage but we do have reports and after reading a lot you get a sense for the ratio.   

 

I haven’t kept stats as I’ve played but it feels about right. By contrast ROF gave way too many wings off and no where near enough down out of controls or fires.

 

Ceowulf<><   

 

 

I agree, FC's damage model is way better than RoF's.

Edited April 28, 2019 by Garven

[Rattlesnake]

5 hours ago, Ceowulf said:

 

I haven’t kept stats as I’ve played but it feels about right. By contrast ROF gave way too many wings off and no where near enough down out of controls or fires.

 

Ceowulf<><   

 

 

One thing to keep in mind about damage modeling in any era of flight gaming:  The reality of most kills being what they were (by surprise from the six) it is entirely natural that most bullets would go into center fuselage. It's natural to aim center of mass on an un-maneuvering target, from behind the wings are razor-thin targets compared to the fuselage, and fuselage hits naturally lend themselves to pilot kills, fires, etc.

In games we are more likely to be making planform deflection shots in dogfights, which makes the wings a broad target while simultaneously subjecting them to G as they are being damaged. This factor alone might contribute to more wing-offs than are seen on historic gun cam footage.