Jump to content
J5_Hellbender-Sch27b

Albatros D.Va top speed at sea level 169km/h (+analysis)

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

While the rest of the lot are setting their little jet ablaze on the runway, I'm obviously busy testing the real star of this update:

 

MpOPgSH.jpg


RyXcR5j.png

 

 

Now 169km/h top speed is not entirely historically accurate for the Albatros D.V and "early" D.Va with 160/180hp Mercedes D.IIIa engine.

 

It's actually 165km/h (103mph), which was no doubt originally used by the developers of Rise of Flight, as it comes from German Aircraft of the First World War (Peter Gray and Owen Thetford, 1962), which contains the records of historians Egon Krueger and Peter M. Grosz, which is about as close to a primary source as is available for Central aircraft. The references listed in Flying Circus (Windsock, Osprey, Profile publications etc.) indeed all use the figures from this book, which I also have in my possession.

 

However, the problem with that figure of 165km/h is that it's likely not at sea level. In fact, we don't really know.

 

Albatros D.Va specifications:

Avp11XP.jpg

 

 

What we do know is that the top speed of the Pfalz D.IIIa (similar airframe, same 160/180hp engine) is also listed at 165km/h (103mph), and that its top speed at 3000m (10,000ft) is also 165km/h (102.5mph) — and at 4500m (15,000ft) is 147km/h (91.5mph).

 

Pfalz D.IIIa specifications:

KvdEToQ.jpg

 

 

We also have data for the Albatros D.Va with 200hp Mercedes D.IIIau floating around the web coming from the 1918 Adlershof competition, which is 186km/h. If these measurements were taken at sea level, it shouldn't matter much if the engine is overcompressed or not, since altitude throttle is not to be engaged at sea level, and thus there is no difference with a non-overcompressed 180hp Mercedes D.IIIa.

 

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/showpost.php?p=128661&postcount=17

 

Quote

From the official German flight trial records of the First Fighter Competion
conducted at Adlershof during the period of 21 January to 12 February 1918 for the following aircraft.

1. Alb. D.Va 180ps D.IIIaü, 5000m, 32 min. max air speed 186 km/hr (116mph).
2. Fok.D.VII 160ps D.III " 38 " " " 186 kph (116 mph).
3. Pfal.D.IIIa 180ps D.IIIaü " 33 " " " 185kph (115 mph).

 

 

 

In the end, I have to admit that I'm quite surprised that the Albatros D.Va ends up being marginally slower than its RoF pre-2014 predecessor (originally 170km/h) and the Flying Circus Pfalz D.IIIa (171km/h).

 

Speeds changed, see below.

 

 

@AnPetrovich, perhaps it really is time to sell us those overcompressed 200hp Mercedes D.IIIau versions as collector planes?

 

Other than that, the climb figures seem to match both the Albatros D.Va and Pfalz D.IIIa very accurately in-game and the 3D modelling is fantastic. Thank you!

Edited by J5_Hellbender
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Something I started back then as we may never get accurate absolute data, at least consider the relative performance characteristics:

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N3uVPKS38BwZ4hufXgSuekn26NiPytZeMAshIqXAflY/edit#gid=0

 

However, when it comes to Albatros DV(a) it is always very difficult which engine variant they were talking about.

Edited by SYN_Vander
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the over-wing Lewis on the DVa bugged or am I being stupid because I can't seem to get it to fire? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You are opening up the same can of worm that was discussed over and over again on the ROF forum with no reliable answer.

 

There is no source for the 186 kmh top speed. It does come from the 1918 German tests, in fact it is never mentioned in the Profile series.

 

The 165 kmh top speed was the factory figure which was probably conservative, but the highest speed I saw in an actual reported flight test was 172 kmh.

Edited by Sgt_Joch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, SYN_Vander said:

Something I started back then as we may never get accurate absolute data, at least consider the relative performance characteristics:

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N3uVPKS38BwZ4hufXgSuekn26NiPytZeMAshIqXAflY/edit#gid=0

 

However, when it comes to Albatros DV(a) it is always very difficult which engine variant they were talking about.

 

I've always been a big fan of correct relative performance. The main problem is that some planes may have been considered fast/slow, good/bad climbers depending on circumstances. It's also that quest for correct relative performance which has currently given us the 167km/h Camel in RoF, while the Hanriot HD.1 with the same engine is 20km/h faster.

 

For example, a Sopwith Camel may very well have been a fast machine both at sea level and at high altitude (as rotary engines have good compression ratios compared to inline engine) — however, by the time that actual overcompression was introduced on in-line engines and that fighting would take place above 3000m, they would now have been regarded as slow compared to an Albatros D.Va with overcompression, while they were in fact still faster at sea level. Since the Germans by now had learned that Camels were only to be attacked at high altitude and with hit and run tactics, those Camel pilots would have obviously felt slow.

 

As for the engine variants of the Albatros, there really only existed the Mercedes D.III 160hp, with incremental updates to the D.IIIa 180hp (oversized cylinders fitted) and finally the field modification to D.IIIaü 180hp (overcompression fitted) for high altitude operations — post-war rated at 200hp at sea level by the British.

 

I don't think that asking for complete FM overhauls is realistic as everything is quite functional as it is, with every plane having a very distinct character. Top speed isn't the be-all end-all. After all, we have a Pfalz that can pull 9g without breaking a sweat, or a strut. Let's call it artistic license.

 

There's definitely a business opportunity for the devs to give (or sell) us engine variants, though.

 

10 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

You are opening up the same can of worm that was discussed over and over again on the ROF forum with no reliable answer.

 

There is no source for the 186 kmh top speed. It does come from the Aldershot tests, in fact it is never mentioned in the Profile series.

 

The 165 kmh top speed was the factory figure which was probably conservative, but the highest speed I saw in an actual reported flight test was 172 kmh.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not asking for anything but the privilege of giving more money to 777.

 

As far as I'm concerned the Albatros D.Va 180hp is fine as-is. It is what it is, and as I said quite clearly before: there is no figure at sea level. Yes, there is a maximum speed provided by the factory, but it doesn't state at what altitude. We just don't know, so we may as well accept this.

 

I do find it curious that it ended up slightly slower than its old RoF counterpart as I was expecting it to be closer to 175km/h (which your figure confirms, wherever it is you got that from), but that matters very little.

Edited by J5_Hellbender
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

Is the over-wing Lewis on the DVa bugged or am I being stupid because I can't seem to get it to fire? 

 

There's a separate control for forward and upper guns. Also get a handy button for tilting the gun, as it may prove useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, J2_Bidu said:

 

There's a separate control for forward and upper guns. Also get a handy button for tilting the gun, as it may prove useful.

 

Ah...thanks Bidu.:salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J5_Hellbender said:

While the rest of the lot are setting their little jet ablaze on the runway, I'm obviously busy testing the real star of this update:

 

I'm lost for words... A curve ball out of left field perhaps? Now if you guys excuse me im gonna go cry in the corner 😭😭😭

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps better than perpetuating the current embarrassment in RoF, whereby the DVa completely outclasses the Fokker DVII. Now all they have to do is justify why the DVa gets left standing by the Camel, which (leaving figures aside) we know didn't happen. There'll never be an answer to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, J2_Bidu said:

 

There's a separate control for forward and upper guns. Also get a handy button for tilting the gun, as it may prove useful.

I can't find anything in settings for the over the wing gun tilt, what am i missing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, =AVG77=REDMAN said:

I can't find anything in settings for the over the wing gun tilt, what am i missing?

 

Weapon controls > Change firing position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

Weapon controls > Change firing position.

That was it,Thank you Sir. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

169km/h top speed

 

giphy.gif?cid=790b76115cfed1d26e4c556e6b

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

KvdEToQ.jpg

The in game Pfalz DIIIa doesn't go that fast at that altitude.  This definitely needs to be seen by the devs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it to be a heavy aircraft to dogfight in, I had no chance of following the Se.5 in a turn. So I assume it is more a BnZ aircraft, right? 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

EDIT: I wrote the below before reading about the propeller changes in this update which could have some bearing on performance figures. The concept still applies though

 

69. The error that caused the Flying Circus aircraft propellers to have more power than RoF ones has been found and fixed. The notable difference was found at lower flight speeds, but additional research showed that this error made during porting of RoF planes to Flying Circus more or less affected all flight characteristics of the Flying Circus aircraft. In this update this error is fixed, so flight characteristics of all Flying Circus planes fully correspond to RoF before update 1.034. You can see the updated flight characteristics of Albatros D.Va and S.E.5a in their in-game descriptions, while updated descriptions for other Flying Circus aircraft will follow in the next update when we redo all the required measurements;

 

 

777 would do well to have all the planes perform in-game to their own data spec at launch, ie RoF store speeds when using standard air temp, pressure.

 

Then we can 'discuss' data sources separately.

 

The current situation feels totally arbitrary.

 

The Fokker DVIIf is 4/13kph FASTER (depending on AT, which everyone will use when they want to) than 777's own data spec. If ever there was a plane that didn't need to be overpowered, it's the d7f.

 

The Camel is about 5-8kph faster (from memory), but the Spad 1-2kph slower than spec.

Edited by US103_Baer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

Perhaps better than perpetuating the current embarrassment in RoF, whereby the DVa completely outclasses the Fokker DVII.

 

You miss understand.  In 1918, the German were worried about lossing honor, so to make the fighting more challenging and the wins more honorable, they decided to phase out their best fighters.  The Pfalz (just like in ROF)  is the best so it was first out.  The Albie is better than the D.VII so it was next to go. 

 

You can see an example of this in the genuine combat film,  'Blue Max'.  You can see how upset Stachel is when he's told he'll be flying the vastly superior Pfalz and hence winning no honor with it's easy kills while Kluger wins all the glory in the hopeless Fokker! 

 

/s

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, US103_Baer said:

EDIT: I wrote the below before reading about the propeller changes in this update which could have some bearing on performance figures. The concept still applies though

 

69. The error that caused the Flying Circus aircraft propellers to have more power than RoF ones has been found and fixed. The notable difference was found at lower flight speeds, but additional research showed that this error made during porting of RoF planes to Flying Circus more or less affected all flight characteristics of the Flying Circus aircraft. In this update this error is fixed, so flight characteristics of all Flying Circus planes fully correspond to RoF before update 1.034. You can see the updated flight characteristics of Albatros D.Va and S.E.5a in their in-game descriptions, while updated descriptions for other Flying Circus aircraft will follow in the next update when we redo all the required measurements;

 

 

Well, well...

 

Some initial testing (Kuban, Autumn at sea level):

 

KgyHVX4.png

 

ipxOuAS.png

 

zPE5gA7.png

 

yqmCczk.png

 

 

So except for the Fokker Dr.I, it really does appear that we are back to pre-1.034 (within 1km/h).

 

 

5 hours ago, -332FG-Garven said:

The in game Pfalz DIIIa doesn't go that fast at that altitude.  This definitely needs to be seen by the devs.

 

In all likelihood the only reliable data which was collected (not counting the Adlershof competition) were post-war trials performed by the British.

 

Since all Mercedes D.IIIa-powered planes received an altitude compensating carburetor field modification in 1918 (some straight from the factory, such as the Fokker D.VII after April 1918), it goes without saying that the British tested on these overcompressed engines after the war. These were officially still 180hp Mercedes D.IIIa engines (170hp according to German measurements), which in turn were a production line change from the earlier 170hp Mercedes D.III (160hp according to German measurements), flattening the cylinder heads to achieve better compression. In other words, the actual physical engine block and its outward appearance had remained unchanged at least since June 1917, when production of the standard Mercedes D.III was shifted in favour of the improved Mercedes D.IIIa.

 

If you're confused yet, then hold on, it gets worse. We also know that Anthony Fokker had some real trouble securing new overcompressed D.IIIa(ü) engines for his D.VII in early 1918, as priority was given to Albatros and other German manufacturers. It is even stated that the Fokker D.VII joined the Adlershof competition with a 170hp Mercedes D.III — but this appears not to have been the case and an actual 180hp Mercedes D.IIIa was in fact used.


 

To sum things up:
 

  • I believe we currently have more or less accurate 170(180?)hp Mercedes D.III(a?)-powered Pfalz D.III(a?) and Albatros D.V(a?), representative of how these scouts performed until early 1918 — note that the "a" designation was more than just an upgraded engine, since both the Pfalz and the Albatros underwent airframe modifications for the Adlershof competition. I also don't think it's worth the headache attempting to "fix" these planes by chasing figures and test data that just doesn't exist.
     
  • I also believe we currently have a very accurate 180hp Mercedes D.IIIa-powered Fokker D.VII, exactly how it would have appeared at Adlershof — and since it lacks overcompression it's pretty much useless in its intended role as a high altitude scout when pitched against the likes of a Sopwith Camel, which has better high altitude performance by virtue of its lighter weight and rotary engine. This is really nothing new, even in the days of the Sopwith Pup it was ordered to Albatros pilots to avoid them at altitudes over 3000m.
     
  • I do think it would be worthwhile to have the 200hp Mercedes D.IIIau versions of the Albatros D.Va, Pfalz D.IIIa and Fokker D.VII. Development work on those ought to be minimal as we are already getting the 3D model on the 200hp Halberstadt CL.II. Actual performance figures should match those Britsh post-war figures found in the book very closely.

    Yes, I will just keep repeating this over and over again until they sell me these planes.

     

A few caveats:
 

  • At 200hp with overcompression, those machines are going to be monsters at high altitude (and even at low altitude if you're willing to break your engine). For example: your typical 200hp Sopwith Dolphin with no overcompression, already struggles to dogfight with a Pfalz today. I find that a little bit hard to reconcile with history, and this has likely more to do with the extremely forgiving flight characteristics of the Pfalz when compared to the Dolphin. If Rise of Flight is anything to go by, then the Albatros D.Va / Sopwith Dolphin match is about as close as it gets.
     
  • Even the 220hp SPAD and SE will have a very hard time without high compression pistons and should logically also be given those engine variants. The SPAD XIII ended up with a 235hp Hispano-Suiza 8Bb by the end of the war. Likewise there were a few SE5a V8 that had these modifications added, most notably on James McCudden's machine — though this was by no means standard practice in the RFC/RAF. The SE5a already has the high compression Wolseley Viper V8.
     
  • Nothing is going to matter when the two-seaters are released and gunnery remains as it is today. Trust me on that one.
Edited by J5_Hellbender
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Interesting.

What did you get for the D7f and Spad?

As i mentioned above, the D7f was overperforming its specs in FC prior to this update. An advantage it really doesn't need.

 

See my signature for data on that 235-238hp Spad. Should've  been quite common by mid-1918. Its rev limit was increased, but compression remained same as the 220hps afaik

By wars end top aces like Fonck had 300hp Spads.

Edited by US103_Baer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, US103_Baer said:

Interesting.

What did you get for the D7f and Spad?

As i mentioned above, the D7f was overperforming its specs in FC prior to this update. An advantage it really doesn't need.

 

D.VIIF without Hohengas overcompression:

MhsLgcT.png

 

 

D.VIIF with Hohengas overcompression:

xZ6igqd.png

 


SPAD XIII:

nRvENNV.png

 

 

SE5a:

f8C8hYC.png

 

 

SE5a officially:

cONoIMA.png

 

 

As far as the SE5a goes, it has the 200hp Wolseley Viper V8, which is a high compression variant of the 200hp Hispano-Suiza 8A. In other words, we have a 1918 SE5a and a 1917 SPAD XIII. I still wouldn't call the SPAD a poor performer with its 220hp Hispano-Suiza 8B, it was already way ahead of its time in 1917, but I do agree that it needs its high compression variant to fight the likes of the Fokker D.VIIF at altitude.

 

In essence there is nothing wrong with the F. It was a late war machine that operated in small numbers. It is, however, currently the only Central machine which can go toe to toe with the Camel and SPAD, at least if you subscribe to the mad rantings of these two raving lunatics. I'm sure that the SE5a will complement that list very shortly.

 

 

Again, I'm not overly critical of any of the FMs (with the very notable exception of the Fokker Dr.I, already acknowledged by the devs). It's a functioning compromise of the available data. I'm not saying that's how I would do it, but as always that is the opinion of an armchair general/backseat pilot.

 

However, since Flying Circus is aimed almost entirely at multiplayer, lacking official career and campaign modes, I'd strongly suggest to add more engines to add variety to the game. Not that I don't like flying the F, but not flying it takes nerves (and balls) of steel.

Edited by J5_Hellbender
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

So except for the Fokker Dr.I, it really does appear that we are back to pre-1.034

 

Did they forget about the Dr.I? It is odd then to say that we are back to pre 1034, which is not true. Did you guys noticed any changes in the feeling of flight? Because Flying Circus is (or was) way better than ROF.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Multiplayer will be ridiculously stupid since it will be hordes of Camels vs the few Central pilots who will try to take a crack at them with DrIs and Pfalzes. No one will fly high which will negate any DVIIF advantage. The Spad and the Se5 are better than all the Central crates with the exception of the F.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

In all likelihood the only reliable data which was collected (not counting the Adlershof competition) were post-war trials performed by the British.

Calling post war testing of clapped out captured planes a reliable data source for obtaining performance values is laughable when the Camel is given factory new performance that was most likely rare among front line in service machines.  

Edited by -332FG-Garven
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Klugermann said:

Multiplayer will be ridiculously stupid since it will be hordes of Camels vs the few Central pilots who will try to take a crack at them with DrIs and Pfalzes. No one will fly high which will negate any DVIIF advantage. The Spad and the Se5 are better than all the Central crates with the exception of the F.


IIRC it was supposed to be worse in RoF before 2014 patch, and yet RoF skies were full of hardened Jasta pilots blowing guys like me from the sky whenever I showed my face on Wargrounds :P.

Back when Adam was training me  on New Albies in 2015 there was lots of tactics and teamwork staff he was really putting emphasis on; it since fell into misuse because Central planes were on longer underdogs. I guess we have to revisit this.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

 

As far as the SE5a goes, it has the 200hp Wolseley Viper V8, which is a high compression variant of the 200hp Hispano-Suiza 8A. In other words, we have a 1918 SE5a and a 1917 SPAD XIII. I still wouldn't call the SPAD a poor performer with its 220hp Hispano-Suiza 8B, it was already way ahead of its time in 1917, but I do agree that it needs its high compression variant to fight the likes of the Fokker D.VIIF at altitude.

 

In essence there is nothing wrong with the F. It was a late war machine that operated in small numbers. It is, however, currently the only Central machine which can go toe to toe with the Camel and SPAD, at least if you subscribe to the mad rantings of these two raving lunatics. I'm sure that the SE5a will complement that list very shortly.

 

 

Again, I'm not overly critical of any of the FMs (with the very notable exception of the Fokker Dr.I, already acknowledged by the devs). It's a functioning compromise of the available data. I'm not saying that's how I would do it, but as always that is the opinion of an armchair general/backseat pilot.

 

However, since Flying Circus is aimed almost entirely at multiplayer, lacking official career and campaign modes, I'd strongly suggest to add more engines to add variety to the game. Not that I don't like flying the F, but not flying it takes nerves (and balls) of steel.

 

 

I like the sound of the re-engined SE5a.  I was just a tad disappointed with it in RoF (for several reasons), I always thought that the power to weight grunt should have given it an edge against the likes of the Alb, the Albatros still seems to be one tough old bird though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The in game Spad XIII is the standard 1918 version. The 235 hp version was only deployed in the fall of 1918.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

The in game Spad XIII is the standard 1918 version. The 235 hp version was only deployed in the fall of 1918.

Source please?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:


IIRC it was supposed to be worse in RoF before 2014 patch, and yet RoF skies were full of hardened Jasta pilots blowing guys like me from the sky whenever I showed my face on Wargrounds :P.
 

 

That's probably because you sucked before Adam got his mitts on you.😁

 

Your other point is well taken...we will have to see.  I wonder how many of the "alte kampfers" will play FC ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, -332FG-Garven said:

Calling post war testing of clapped out captured planes a reliable data source for obtaining performance values is laughable when the Camel is given factory new performance that was most likely rare among front line in service machines.  


Having to face Brits who kept getting factory-new replacements in the same clapped out patched up plames was one of German pilots complains in forst half of 1918.
 

40 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

 

 

I like the sound of the re-engined SE5a.  I was just a tad disappointed with it in RoF (for several reasons), I always thought that the power to weight grunt should have given it an edge against the likes of the Alb, the Albatros still seems to be one tough old bird though.


It was high altitude recon interceptor, optimailsed against fast, high ceiling German recons, not a superiority fighter. In FC it will suffer from BoB Me-262 syndrome (planes it was best at killing are not there).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, -332FG-Garven said:

Source please?  

Like a lot of stuff about WW1 AC, it is hard to get a definitive source. There are several threads on The Aerodrome forum discussing engines.  The consensus seems to be that the 220 hp version was in service from february 1918 onwards while the 235 hp version was in service from august 1918 onwards. Both were in service at the same time.

 

The 235 hp version was introduced to counter the 7F at high altitude. I suspect the high compression ratio may have been an issue at lower altitude since the french in 1918 were using relatively low octane U.S. avgas.

 

 

Edited by Sgt_Joch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the same compression ratio (5.3:1) as the 220hp Spad. It seemed to have higher usable rev range

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -332FG-Garven said:

Calling post war testing of clapped out captured planes a reliable data source for obtaining performance values is laughable when the Camel is given factory new performance that was most likely rare among front line in service machines.  

 

As it is, we are already having a lot of problems to convey some relevant information. If we account for wear and tear and modifications, we could sway the needle to wherever we want, and then comes into play a negative aspect of simulation to unadvisedly lean the needle towards some aircraft, intentionally or not.

 

If you read High in the Empty Blue, the squadrons were very resourceful when working with the engines, guns and such. Guttman, in his book about the Camel and Dr1, tells about wear and tear, but that the Camel in general was faster, so it is reasonably to work with a faster Camel, and so on so forth. 

 

I just think that a developer then should choose a particular engine and time frame and work with factory specs. If the simulator is really advanced, then people could tweak wear and tear in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

Did they forget about the Dr.I? It is odd then to say that we are back to pre 1034, which is not true. Did you guys noticed any changes in the feeling of flight? Because Flying Circus is (or was) way better than ROF.

 

I honestly don't know. At one point I thought it had to do with the whole Voltol affair, but as there are currently no devs specialised in WWI on the team, it may have just been an oversight.

 

It would certainly be easier to just go back to the pre-1.034 Fokker Dr.I (top speed 178km/h) and save @Chill31 the hassle. In any case, he's said it's a 175km/h machine and I'm sure he's not been flying her 10m above the sea in perfect 15C wind free conditions. If nothing else, it would restore the old Camel vs. Dr.I rivalry.

 

As for the improved feeling of flight, I think it's still there, but that's highly subjective.

 

 

2 hours ago, -332FG-Garven said:

Calling post war testing of clapped out captured planes a reliable data source for obtaining performance values is laughable when the Camel is given factory new performance that was most likely rare among front line in service machines.  

 

To be fair, 165km/h at 3000m is pretty darn fast for a "clapped out" Pfalz. That's on par with a Sopwith Dolphin, also rated at 200hp.

 

Either the Germans knew a thing or two about manufacturing aero engines, or the British got very proficient at fixing them.

 

 

2 hours ago, Sgt_Joch said:

The in game Spad XIII is the standard 1918 version. The 235 hp version was only deployed in the fall of 1918.

 

It was certainly a late war machine, whereas the latest plane we have right now is the Fokker D.VIIF, which saw service from June 1918.

 

That's not to say that the 235hp SPAD shouldn't happen. In fact, one of the best things the devs could do, in my opinion, is develop a new late war fighter or two as collector planes to garner interest in Flying Circus (and hopefully Vol.2 down the line). The Sopwith Snipe and Siemens-Schuckert D.IV have always been obvious candidates.

Edited by J5_Hellbender
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

I honestly don't know. At one point I thought it had to do with the whole Voltol affair

 

I think this is rather unlikely. They cannot use a wear and tear standard for the Dr1 in particular and do not apply the same standard to other aircraft. Some pilots used Le Rhônes and Clergets to the end of the war, there was the winter period and so on. People could create a campaing with it, but I don't think the BOX engine can manage wear and tear at this point.

 

And they said  "In this update this error is fixed, so flight characteristics of all Flying Circus planes fully correspond to RoF before update 1.034", so perhaps they forgot about it, which is odd anyways.

 

Boy oh boy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SeaW0lf said:

And they said  "In this update this error is fixed, so flight characteristics of all Flying Circus planes fully correspond to RoF before update 1.034", so perhaps they forgot about it, which is odd anyways.

 

I had the same thought when I read that line.

 

@AnPetrovich said a little while ago that an FM rework was still being considered, but if going back to pre-1.034 RoF is an option it would save them precious time to work on other things. Perhaps we could get some clarification?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

235hp SPAD is contemporary of D.VIIF, Fokker E.V / D.VIII and Pfalz D.XII. 

Part of the problem is, in "porting the RoF" approach developers have brought together planes from two pretty distinct time periods: Spring 1918 and late summer 1918. We have planes that didn't appear until summer, and planes with engine variants were no longer used in summer, flying together. In fact, there is enough leftover variants to produce Flting Circus vol 1.5  without building single new airframe :)

 

  Fall 1917 Spring 1918 Summer 1918
Albatros D.Va 180hp, no parachute 180hp,  parachute 200hp, parachute
Pfalz D.IIIa 180hp, no parachute 180hp, parachute 200hp, parachute
Fokker Dr.I factory new, no parachute factory new, parachute kaputt, parachute
Fokker D.VII   180hp, parachute 200hp, parachute
SPAD 13 220 hp 220 hp 235 hp
S.E.5a Hispano-Suiza 4-blade Viper 2-blade Viper 2-blade
Camel RoF Camel RoF Camel FC Camel


 

Edited by J2_Trupobaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

To be fair, 165km/h at 3000m is pretty darn fast for a "clapped out" Pfalz. That's on par with a Sopwith Dolphin, also rated at 200hp.

 

Either the Germans knew a thing or two about manufacturing aero engines, or the British got very proficient at fixing them.

Then why doesn't the in game one go that fast at 3000m it is currently much slower.

Edited by -332FG-Garven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

I had the same thought when I read that line.

 

@AnPetrovich said a little while ago that an FM rework was still being considered, but if going back to pre-1.034 RoF is an option it would save them precious time to work on other things. Perhaps we could get some clarification?

 

I might open a thread to ask for answers, but it is a task of a lot of hassle and very little reward, especially now.

 

Yesterday [and today] the reception of the new aircraft is lackluster to say the least. I imagined that people would go nuts about the DVa and SE5, and that we would get people flying on the servers… Well… I think I'll go overclock my rig, which is a more interesting task at this point :dance:

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

×
×
  • Create New...