Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SharpeXB

Classic RoF Flight Models Return?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Do I understand this right? Per the last update 3.101

“flight characteristics of all Flying Circus planes fully correspond to RoF before update 1.034”

 

1.034 was the last update to RoF that changed all the FM

https://riseofflight.com/forum/topic/44725-version-1034/?p=620399

 

So we are returning to the “classic” FM? Cool! 😁

 

Edited by SharpeXB

Share this post


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

Do I understand this right? Per the last update 3.101

“flight characteristics of all Flying Circus planes fully correspond to RoF before update 1.034”

 

1.034 was the last update to RoF that changed all the FM

https://riseofflight.com/forum/topic/44725-version-1034/?p=620399

 

So we are returning to the “classic” FM? Cool! 😁

 

 

Just to be clear, I take it you refer to this quote from here.

 

Quote


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 the devs finally did admit that update to be a mistake. When you admit a mistake it's customary to correct it, which contrary to popular belief among non-programmers, would not be a huge task. More importantly perhaps, does this mean that what were seen as improvements in flying characteristics in FC, have now vanished?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the Fokker Dr1 remains nerfed according to Bender's tests, so I'm not sure what they mean by "flight characteristics of all Flying Circus planes ". It is not true. But I had sensed that the Pfalz had been rolled back to pre 1034 when they corrected her speed, and it was now confirmed. 

 

Did they forget about the Dr1? It happens, right? But they should fix her as well.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2019 at 2:32 AM, SeaW0lf said:

Well, the Fokker Dr1 remains nerfed according to Bender's tests, so I'm not sure what they mean by "flight characteristics of all Flying Circus planes ". It is not true. But I had sensed that the Pfalz had been rolled back to pre 1034 when they corrected her speed, and it was now confirmed. 

 

Did they forget about the Dr1? It happens, right? But they should fix her as well.

 

Not exactly, slower but no Pfalzcopter.

Share this post


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

Not exactly, slower but no Pfalzcopter.

 

I'm not sure of it, because they say "flight characteristics of all Flying Circus planes fully correspond". Besides, I'm not seeing the Pfalz being sluggish as she got after the 1034 patch (although no one flies the Pfalz in ROF anymore, so I can't really compare). Were you a Pfalz player before the 1034 patch? Does the Pfalz in FC have the same turn rate of the current Pfalz in ROF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think you can scissor as well as pre patch. Best way to check is to see whether you can hang with Camel. Definitely doesn't appear to prophang as well as pre nerf Pfalz. I suspect you got worst of both versions in this case. Still better than the Alb though imo.

 

 

Waiting for the US 103 ranks to swell with pilots looking to fly good planes.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2019 at 10:24 AM, Klugermann said:

 

Waiting for the US 103 ranks to swell with pilots looking to fly good planes.

Might have to join a German squad just so they have someone to fly against...:ph34r:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2019 at 4:24 PM, Klugermann said:

Don't think you can scissor as well as pre patch. Best way to check is to see whether you can hang with Camel. Definitely doesn't appear to prophang as well as pre nerf Pfalz. I suspect you got worst of both versions in this case. Still better than the Alb though imo.

 

 

Waiting for the US 103 ranks to swell with pilots looking to fly good planes.

 

I actually wonder if the Camel still climbs as well as it did pre-1.034.

 

The only way to know for sure is to have the Fokker Dr.I restored to its former glory, as the Camel could outclimb it in a turn, but not straight up outturn it. Obviously it can do so now, but that has more to do with the reduced RPM of the Dr.I.

 

It would honestly be great if the Camel could neither outclimb nor outturn the Dr.I, but only have a moderate speed advantage over it, that would mean that Camels need to actively avoid dogfighting the Dr.I 1 on 1. As a (former) Camel Fag myself, that really isn't a bad thing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Had a chance to fly the SE5a over the weekend and it is quickly becoming my favorite FC ride.

 

However, I have to admit the FC fms feel very different to me from the ROF ones. As I recall, in ROF, both the SPAD and the SE5a were finicky planes that would stall with little warning if I pushed them too hard in a turn. A wing would drop and you have to quickly counteract to prevent a stall.

 

In FC, the SPAD and SE5a are both very tossable and you can push them hard without having to worry about stalling. Even with a high AOA and low speeds, it is very easy to put the nose down and recover speed. As I recall from ROF, you could easily get into a nasty, sometimes irrecoverable spin if you pushed some ACs too hard. I have not seen this yet in FC.

 

Am I the only one noticing this? At first I thought it was because FC was early access, but it has been almost a year now.

Edited by Sgt_Joch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read the quote, you'll see that, of the FC planes, only the SE and The DVa have the new-old FMs - the rest will be updated-backdated to them with the next update.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =CfC=FatherTed said:

If you read the quote, you'll see that, of the FC planes, only the SE and The DVa have the new-old FMs - the rest will be updated-backdated to them with the next update.

 

Hmmm.... that's not the way I'm reading it. The in-game descriptions for the rest of the aircraft will be completed in the next update, but the performance changes have already all been implemented.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jack59 said:

 

Hmmm.... that's not the way I'm reading it. The in-game descriptions for the rest of the aircraft will be completed in the next update, but the performance changes have already all been implemented.

 That is how I understood it as well.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So do we agree that the FC fms are, shall we say, more forgiving that the ROF ones?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this update this error is fixed, so flight characteristics of all Flying Circus planes fully correspond to RoF before update 1.034.

 

I wonder exactly how this should be interpreted. Should it be taken absolutely literally or should we understand that they match as far as possible under the IL2 engine?

If it's the former, perhaps perceived differences are just psychosomatic and FC users are having a group hallucination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys and ladies. Please see this post.

 

Also we have been made flight tests in RoF in hand-mode, therefore the results might be not very precise.
Now, in GB and FC we do these tests using special dev tools, and now the result of these tests is very precise. We are going to retest all the flight performances of the FC planes soon, and then you'll be able to make your own conclusions about their compliance with the sources.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Sgt_Joch said:

Had a chance to fly the SE5a over the weekend and it is quickly becoming my favorite FC ride.

 

However, I have to admit the FC fms feel very different to me from the ROF ones. As I recall, in ROF, both the SPAD and the SE5a were finicky planes that would stall with little warning if I pushed them too hard in a turn. A wing would drop and you have to quickly counteract to prevent a stall.

 

In FC, the SPAD and SE5a are both very tossable and you can push them hard without having to worry about stalling. Even with a high AOA and low speeds, it is very easy to put the nose down and recover speed. As I recall from ROF, you could easily get into a nasty, sometimes irrecoverable spin if you pushed some ACs too hard. I have not seen this yet in FC.

 

Am I the only one noticing this? At first I thought it was because FC was early access, but it has been almost a year now.

I did some quick and dirty testing in both sims with the SPAD and can't see much difference in stall characteristics when hauling back on the stick into a horizontal turn at 180kph.  They seem about the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, Luger1969 said:

Also we have been made flight tests in RoF in hand-mode, therefore the results might be not very precise.
Now, in GB and FC we do these tests using special dev tools, and now the result of these tests is very precise. We are going to retest all the flight performances of the FC planes soon, and then you'll be able to make your own conclusions about their compliance with the sources.

 

I'm not really sure what they mean by that. They stated that all the planes are back to pre 1034 patch. And I just tested all of them and they all match the same speed both in ROF and Flying Circus (except the Dr.1, which remains nerfed both in ROF and in Flying Circus). 

 

Here is what I found (if I'm not mistaken):

 

Dolphin         ROF 199km/h - Flying Circus 199km/h

Spad 13        ROF 215km/h - Flying Circus 215km/h

SE5a              ROF 219km/h - Flying Circus 220km/h

Camel            ROF* 190km/h - Flying Circus 190km/h

Fokker D7     ROF 189km/h - Flying Circus 189km/h

Fokker D7F   ROF 193km/h - Flying Circus 194km/h

Fokker Dr.1   ROF 164km/h - Flying Circus 165km/h (still nerfed both in ROF and in Flying Circus, so they are not all in accordance with the pre 1034 patch, when the Dr.1 had a 179km/h speed).

Pfalz D3a      ROF* 165km/h - Flying Circus 167km/h

DVa                ROF* 171km/h - Flying Circus 169km/h

 

ROF* - data from IAS calculations made by Gavagai before the 1034 patch if I'm not mistaken, witch from my experience can oscillate from 1 to 2km/h (or more) from the true airspeed if we calculate distance traveled versus time (the tests that I did in ROF).

 

So I'm not sure why the confusion. The speed of all planes is matching the speed of the flight models from before the 1034 patch of 2014, except the Dr.1. I don't think anyone diverges from that or that we need confirmation of that. I mean, the proof is in the pudding (aham... planes themselves). The only odd ball is the Dr.1, whitch remains nerfed. They could tell us why, since they mentioned "flight characteristics of all Flying Circus planes fully correspond to RoF before update 1.034". Perhaps waiting for Chill to test his engines on his Dr.1? I would not mind, but it would be nice to know what's goin on with the Fokker, because other than that, I don't think people are lost on the numbers. You just have to take them for a spin and take note of their speeds (the ones with mixture are a bit trickier). 

 

 

 

Edited by SeaW0lf
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

So I'm not sure why the confusion. The speed of all planes is matching the speed of the flight models from before the 1034 patch of 2014, except the Dr.1. I don't think anyone diverges from that or that we need confirmation of that. I mean, the proof is in the pudding (aham... planes themselves). The only odd ball is the Dr.1, whitch remains nerfed. They could tell us why, since they mentioned "flight characteristics of all Flying Circus planes fully correspond to RoF before update 1.034". Perhaps waiting for Chill to test his engines on his Dr.1? I would not mind, but it would be nice to know what's goin on with the Fokker, because other than that, I don't think people are lost on the numbers. You just have to take them for a spin and take note of their speeds (the ones with mixture are a bit trickier). 

 

We should make a clear distinction between speed readings that are off by 1 or 2 km/h compared to pre-1.034 (Pfalz, Albatros), and speeds that did not get reverted at all (Fokker Dr.I).

 

Since we still have a number of "adjusted" planes that could make it over in later volumes (Albatros D.III, Sopwith Pup, Sopwith Triplane), this is something that both devs and testers should be aware of. Hence the need to cite sources.

 

That's not saying that all of 1.034 should be undone. The Nieuport 28 heavy tail and takeoff fix, Bristol Fighter climb and roll fix, Sopwith Dolphin wings durability fix, Nieuport 11/17 tail durability fix, and Handley/Gotha engine durability fix were more than welcome additions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying we should stop citing sources and asking for changes. I just find it to be odd that they need to redo their tests for us to base our data. What I'm saying is that we already know their performances, the performance in-game, where it really matters. Because then what? The in-house numbers could differ from the in-game numbers and if they kind of come close to the norm they can call it a day? I think we should base our opinions on in-game data. Hence why I said it is easy. Just take them for a ride and take note of the numbers.

 

Otherwise we are comparing two universes, and if you combine real data with either one of them, you could be kind of right in some situations without making any changes. Hence why I took all of the aircraft for a spin. It seems in accordance with what they said, that we are back to pre 1034 patch (except for the Dr.1). If people disagree, I think the right thing to do is to open threads asking for changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What sort of changes?  After what happened in RoF, I’m reasonably certain that they’re not making any more changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seaw0lf, very helpful listing of planes side by side.   The Camel was conspicuously absent from the list however.  If this was by accident, perhaps you would consider adding it to your list for the sake of documenting the complete list?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn, I forgot about the Camel 😂 I added it to the list. I had tested together with the bunch.

 

I'm testing a mission to calculate the speed through distance vs time using landmarks (buildings). This way I can calculate the altitude performance. The HUD does not have a chronometer, than I have to make the run in real time (takes time), but I'm doing some tests to see if the time constraint is consistent and will not give much difference. For example, if I make the run with 2X, I just have to multiply the time by two at the end. On an 80km run, a couple of seconds oscillation will not be relevant I suppose.

 

Let's see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not get too excited about the Dr I yet.  I think they are waiting for some real world data...I'm really looking forward to providing it.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/19/2019 at 7:26 PM, Chill31 said:

I would not get too excited about the Dr I yet.  I think they are waiting for some real world data...I'm really looking forward to providing it.

 

Incorporate a strong tailwind into your results.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Incorporate a strong tailwind into your results.

 

I know it’s a joke, but I’m screaming internally either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So am I but it's more likely related to the amount of peppers I had with my sausage last night.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we're all looking forward to the results (damn, we have a player who owns Le Rhônes and Clergets?!)! No matter the result, we will be satisfied. I just hope we don't have to argue about rpms, prop pitch and such with the devs, because the Camel is pretty much out there with more than 1400rpms, and like I said many times before, the Oberursel manual states 1380rpm for max speeds, the same rpm used (1390rpm by the way) by the Fokker D8 tests at McCook Field in1921. So there has to be calculations coming from the cruise speed these engines will be experiencing in real life.

 

I think we are all rooting for relative performance (for all aircraft), not if the Dr1 is a 180km/h plane or a 165km/h plane.

Share this post


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

I think we are all rooting for relative performance (for all aircraft), not if the Dr1 is a 180km/h plane or a 165km/h plane.

 

I still want the old 178km/h Dr.I back. Though I tend not to be overly critical of the devs as they are working with sketchy data and attempting to make it all work, I do wonder why, of all planes, the original Dr.I data was “wrong” or at least not reverted to.

 

We can speculate until the cows come home, and at this point the best thing I can come up with is that the Dr.I is slower in relation to the Central inlines, similar to how the Camel is slower than the Entente inlines. Still, there’s little data to back this up. Then again, there is little data about actual production Dr.I machines equipped with an Oberursel, as opposed to prototypes equipped with a Le Rhône.

 

The only good thing to come from all this, in my opinion, is that the D.VII is getting the attention it deserves. I meant the F, obviously.

Edited by J5_Hellbender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...