Some Thoughts and Questions on the Damage Model

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I'm glad that FC damage model is less about wings cut off. This with less spread to guns is great addition. Similar to ROF with lethality mod % reduced rate of fire and improved gunnery option enabled. What I miss from Il-2BG is damege to control cables for sure. I woud like to see more small deatils from ROF like abality to shot off wheel or destroy tension cables or spars. What both lack is propeller damage from bullets and case of engine torn loose from mountings.

DM model is going in the right direction and I have hopes to see more to come in the future.

 

 

[US103_Baer]

7 hours ago, Rattlesnake said:

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nice flying!

But yeah, it's exactly the type of thing that i feel doesn't work as well now in FC against human pilots. Combo of better prop-hang capability and faster energy loss makes it dangerous. Not saying impossible, just much tougher.

 

Having said that, when alone against a D7f in RoF I'd still hit and run , but Albs and PD3s are ok. 

Edited April 29, 2019 by US103_Baer

[unreasonable]

I also like that FC rewards more "meat and metal" hits rather than random hits anywhere on the wings.  @Ceowulf is right: I did some analysis of MvR's victories in the "Red Baron and the Damage Models" thread. Wing or other structural collapse did happen, but they were in the minority (except for Be2s), while flamers became commonplace in the later period. The current FC DM seems to get the incidence of flamers at a plausible level as though the guns were firing incendiaries in their mix, so given that FC is pitched as a 1918 game that looks right to me.

 

Reducing the "dust puffs", increasing turbulence and introducing permanent jams might all help reduce the efficiency of long range shooting that bothers the OP so much.

The fact is, however, that if the physics of the FM that dictate the speeds and turn rates of the aircraft, and the ballistics of the guns are both broadly correct, and I have no reason to think that they are not,  then it is an inescapable fact that at the rather low speeds of WW1 planes you cannot easily get separation out of gun range, even in the OP's head on pass scenario. If you do not want to get shot at stay behind the bandit's wing line. 

 

 

 

 

 

[yaan98]

Also consider the time it takes to reload a drum fed gun. On some aircraft like the S.E. 5, the pilot would have to unmount the gun in order to remove the empty drum and fix a new one. I would imagine that If the pilot is performing hard maneuvers and being shot at, then reloading would be nearly impossible. The same can almost be the case for observers during intense combat maneuvers. 

 

Probably another thing to code would be random engine failures in aircraft which were prone to such occurrences. 

Edited April 29, 2019 by yaan98

[Rattlesnake]

13 hours ago, US103_Baer said:

Nice flying!

But yeah, it's exactly the type of thing that i feel doesn't work as well now in FC against human pilots. Combo of better prop-hang capability and faster energy loss makes it dangerous. Not saying impossible, just much tougher.

 

Having said that, when alone against a D7f in RoF I'd still hit and run , but Albs and PD3s are ok. 

That was a fight against a human.

 

”Combo of better prop-hang capability and faster energy loss makes”-Every flight sim I’ve ever played has been (it was said) the final word in realism, and I’m sure that was the devs sincerely intended this in every case. And in every case people start noticing discrepancies like this. I sincerely wonder about those who aren’t a at least a little agnostic about how realistic any of these sims are after playing a variety of them. 

 

[Guest deleted@83466]

Quote

And in every case people start noticing discrepancies like this.

 

I'm not understanding what the discrepancy is in this situation.  It is said that the real D.VII was good at hanging on it's prop, and apparently in Flying Circus, it's good at hanging on it's prop.  So you made a manuever that set you up for a prop hang, against a plane that can do it well, and then the spraying-and-praying D.VII hit the soft, meaty pilot.   I don't understand where there is a discrepancy or an implausibility here.

Edited April 29, 2019 by SeaSerpent

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

13 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

Rattlesnake, you refer to a discrepancy in the video you posted, but I'm not sure what the discrepancy is.  It is said that the real D.VII was good at hanging on it's prop, and apparently in Flying Circus, it's good at hanging on it's prop.  So you made a manuever that set you up for a prop hang, against a plane that is good at prop hanging, and then the spraying-and-praying D.VII hit the soft, meaty pilot.   I don't understand where there is a discrepancy or an implausibility here.

 

Are you saying that he should accept the shoot down like a man ?

[Rattlesnake]

2 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

I'm not understanding what the discrepancy is in this situation.  It is said that the real D.VII was good at hanging on it's prop, and apparently in Flying Circus, it's good at hanging on it's prop.  So you made a manuever that set you up for a prop hang, against a plane that can do it well, and then the spraying-and-praying D.VII hit the soft, meaty pilot.   I don't understand where there is a discrepancy or an implausibility here.

I’m not referring to any specific video. People (like the one I quoted) are reporting prop-hanging is better and energy retention worse in FC than in RoF. I don’t honestly know myself, to confirm or deny something so slippery would require testing in both sims that AFAIK no one has done.

 

 But it is observable many times that various sims will model the same aircraft and they will end up performing differently. By definition they can’t all be correct, right? Plugging the physical attributes of aircraft and weapons systems into a computer model and getting the “right” answer is apparently no easy task because so many intelligent, dedicated teams of developers have arrived at  multiple different answers doing so. By simple logic the maximum number of different answers that can possibly be correct for the question “how should X plane fly?” is 1, with 0 being a distinct possibility as well.

 

 But all sims have adherents who claim they are the final word in accuracy. I don’t frankly see how someone can have that kind of faith after having flown the same aircraft in multiple sims over the years. Myself, I have not done extensive scientific test-flying of various replica WWI airplanes with an emphasis on dogfight maneuvering and performance, including live ammo shooting at on-the-wing targets. Nor has anyone else AFAIK. The only people who have done anything even  remotely like that are long dead, and we have only their writings.

2 hours ago, Klugermann said:

 

Are you saying that he should accept the shoot down like a man ?

Snarking from the sidelines is not a trait generally considered an expression of manhood. Do web-search the term “Gamma male” when you get the time, it might put you on a path that eventually leads to a happier life.

Edited April 29, 2019 by Rattlesnake

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

I am extremely content. Perhaps it stems from the fact that when I get shot down I automatically assume it was my error or inability to take full advantage of the situation, not some FM disparity, bug or hack. Or perhaps its the knowledge that I can always employ my chute when I screw up.?

[Rattlesnake]

2 hours ago, Klugermann said:

I am extremely content. Perhaps it stems from the fact that when I get shot down I automatically assume it was my error or inability to take full advantage of the situation, not some FM disparity, bug or hack. Or perhaps its the knowledge that I can always employ my chute when I screw up.?

Then use your moments of contentment to reflect upon the bad taste inherent in attempting to turn what has been till now a fairly civilized discussion into something else by acting like a third grader.

 

You are disputing with an opinion you only hallucinate I possess. To question whether a given modeling feature is either realistic per war-time descriptions and/or ultimately good for gameplay is not the same as to say that it is “unfair” somehow. Since we all operate under the same physics  “rules” the game can’t possibly be unfair. If the various bi and triplanes modeled were capable of scoring kills at 5000 meters and accelerating straight upwards the game would still be fundamentally “fair”, that’s not an issue.

 

Thus I post a film and ask my peers how to better fly an E-fighting profile with the modeling *we have* for the foreseeable future.  Interestingly some such adjustments are nearly always necessary when going from one sim to another, despite the fact that they are all the last word in accuracy according to fans. 

 

On that subject, any tips/film on how to better fly a hit and climb profile you have to offer against lighter-wingloaded bandits in FC, as opposed to juvenile silliness, would be much appreciated . It is rather important that a system of workable techniques in that vein be refined and made accessible to the player base, otherwise there is a chance that online play will be a rather stale affair of Camels and Dr1s circling each other and everything else rarely trying to actually fight at all.

Edited April 29, 2019 by Rattlesnake

[BMA_Hellbender]

13 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

It is rather important that a system of workable techniques in that vein be refined and made accessible to the player base, otherwise there is a chance that online play will be a rather stale affair of Camels and Dr1s circling each other and everything rarely trying to actually fight at all.

 

If it’s any consolation, Dr.Is will never be circling Camels for very long.

[Rattlesnake]

20 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

If it’s any consolation, Dr.Is will never be circling Camels for very long.

It is not sir. Although I am primarily interested in Entente aircraft I am not unsympathetic to the problems game design choices may present for my fellow enthusiasts flying Central. If DVII experts  can learn to use the above-mentioned energy maneuvering tactics to regularly defeat good Camel pilots then that is just great as far as I’m concerned.

Edited April 29, 2019 by Rattlesnake

[SeaW0lf]

2 hours ago, Rattlesnake said:

It is rather important that a system of workable techniques in that vein be refined and made accessible to the player base

 

You have many options on this regard, from this forum to ROF’s forum, tutorials and whatnot. People will help, or else there are squadrons where training sessions are common. Besides a lot of practice.

 

But I don't think you will find a common solution or a group movement on this regard / nor a way to break down personal players styles in public (I don't think it would be allowed in the forum or fair). Besides squadrons, people won't generally be telling you how to shoot them down. It is part of the fun to learn how to know your ride and get good at it. And as I said, you have a wealth of knowledge and people to learn from. It is not going to happen overnight though. 

 

But we are off-topic (sorry). Won't extend on the subject, I just think that there is no magic pill. People are different, their learning curve and setups might differ, time available to dedicate themselves, drive to dedicate themselves, etc. but the information is here available to all.

 

I think that's the beauty of it. This game can get addictive.
 

Edited April 30, 2019 by SeaW0lf

[Rattlesnake]

24 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

, people won't generally be telling you how to shoot them down.

 

Well that is a bit shortsighted  because it is greatly to the benefit of Camel and Fokker pilots if more DVII, Pfalz, Se5 and Spad pilots can find a way to adapt the general principles of the energy fight to the specific eccentricities of the FC modeling in a way that gives them a reasonable chance of success against the lighter wing-loaded fighters. The turnfighter pilots will thus get to enjoy more actual fights, as opposed having the higher-wingloaded fighters just plunging on targets they hope are AFK and then diving away, or only engaging at all when it is a muh hordev1 situation. 

 

I’ve told fellow players how to better shoot me down (in effect) in the past many times in games. It’s the right thing to do because that’s how the art advances, how an online games retains players and  prospers. Secret techniques are for cheesy Kung-Fu flicks and fechtbucher.

Edited April 30, 2019 by Rattlesnake

[BMA_Hellbender]

5 hours ago, Rattlesnake said:

Well that is a bit shortsighted  because it is greatly to the benefit of Camel and Fokker pilots if more DVII, Pfalz, Se5 and Spad pilots can find a way to adapt the general principles of the energy fight to the specific eccentricities of the FC modeling in a way that gives them a reasonable chance of success against the lighter wing-loaded fighters. The turnfighter pilots will thus get to enjoy more actual fights, as opposed having the higher-wingloaded fighters just plunging on targets they hope are AFK and then diving away, or only engaging at all when it is a muh hordev1 situation. 

 

You're describing the exact fighter doctrines as they existed during WWI.

 

Yes, a turnfighter is a "pilot's plane" with the ability to stay and fight, but it makes it inherently dangerous. You're far better off flying a fast machine, climb as high as your body will allow it, dive on an unsuspecting foe, and then dive away to safety if your engagement goes south. I may sound very critical of the SPAD, but really, along with Fokker D.VII (overcompressed Mercedes or F), it's the only plane I'd want to fly if my life truly depended on it. Cowards live to fight another day.

 

 

Quote

I’ve told fellow players how to better shoot me down (in effect) in the past many times in games. It’s the right thing to do because that’s how the art advances, how an online games retains players and  prospers. Secret techniques are for cheesy Kung-Fu flicks and fechtbucher.

 

There really are no secret techniques, it boils down to pushing the limits of each plane to achieve a situational advantage. I agree that this isn't always for the betterment of the multiplayer experience, as a large part of it is attempting to frustrate your opponent and make him give up his advantage. Better yet: with a sufficient altitude advantage and the element of surprise, it mostly doesn't matter what you're flying. If the other guy knows you're there, you've already lost 51% of your advantage.

 

As for the other 49%, with the Camel you have its sustained turn and ability to retain energy during most maneuvers. With the SPAD: its speed and dive (and zoom climb provided you started with enough vertical separation / potential energy to begin with). With the Dolphin you get to do a bit of both, but it's mostly an inferior machine.

 

On the Central side, the Fokker D.VIIF has superb high altitude performance, meaning you can cautiously engage anything above 2000m and have almost free rein above 3000m. The Fokker D.VII doesn't exist, and the Pfalz is great at being thrown around with reckless abandon or for pulling out of dives, but much like the Dolphin, it's mostly an inferior machine.

 

 

Remains to be seen what the last two scouts will bring to the table. I'm especially curious about the SE5a's staying power in a fight (it's very fragile in RoF) and the Albatros' speed, dive performance as well as its energy retention in maneuvers and shallow dives.

 

The two-seaters are a different topic altogether.

[Rattlesnake]

10 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

You're describing the exact fighter doctrines as they existed during WWI.

 

Yes, a turnfighter is a "pilot's plane" with the ability to stay and fight, but it makes it inherently dangerous. You're far better off flying a fast machine, climb as high as your body will allow it, dive on an unsuspecting foe, and then dive away to safety if your engagement goes south. I may sound very critical of the SPAD, but really, along with Fokker D.VII (overcompressed Mercedes or F), it's the only plane I'd want to fly if my life truly depended on it. Cowards live to fight another day.

 

One pass, haul ass is a very useful tactic. It is also clear that it is not the ONLY thing Spad Se5 etc pilots ever did. Not all combat situations allow that luxury. Writings about dogfights from that time are often rather vague about maneuvers  and do not have the sort of standardized and precise technical vocabulary of air combat that would evolve later, but it seems very likely that what we would call energy maneuvering must have played some part, as obviously in some of these cases the one plane could not have been expected to match the other in level turning contests.

 

 

[Cynic_Al]

On 4/29/2019 at 4:19 AM, yaan98 said:

Probably another thing to code would be random engine failures in aircraft which were prone to such occurrences. 

 

Why not extend the concept to making the plane unavailable to the player for the few days it could take to repair? Certain engine failures like for instance cylinder blowouts on rotaries, could be instantly fatal. It's possible to take things too far.

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

32 minutes ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

Why not extend the concept to making the plane unavailable to the player for the few days it could take to repair? Certain engine failures like for instance cylinder blowouts on rotaries, could be instantly fatal. It's possible to take things too far.

 

Why not extend to the nth degree where the plane and pilot can be absconded by randomly generated UFO's

[yaan98]

5 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

Why not extend the concept to making the plane unavailable to the player for the few days it could take to repair? Certain engine failures like for instance cylinder blowouts on rotaries, could be instantly fatal. It's possible to take things too 

 

Try to think outside the box and expand your knowledge and check out how other sims handle such events before making assumptions. Thats what reserve planes were for. How would a cylinder blow out be fatal? Do you mean igniting fuel or how? and yes, engine failures did occur both on the ground and in the air. That's how it was. Or do you prefer a perfectly flying plane without engine failures, or dud bombs, or gun jams, or time to replace drums, or having to abandon the observer on some missions due to weight, or a bunch of other things? basically have no flaws and no problems like arcade games. To each his own.

[Cynic_Al]

1 hour ago, yaan98 said:

 

Try to think outside the box and expand your knowledge and check out how other sims handle such events before making assumptions.

 

We're discussing only this game, and I have assumed nothing.

 

How would a cylinder blow out be fatal?

 

If a cylinder of a rotary engine detaches (and they did), imagine the damage as it punches its way through the cowl if there is one. Although the engine is no longer working, the intense vibration of an out-of-balance rotating mass is likely to make the plane uncontrollable. A well-known example is the case of the DH2, on which the errant cylinder inevitably would smash the tail with inevitable consequences.