Damage model and observations thus far from MP

[BMA_Hellbender]

4 minutes ago, US103_Talbot said:

Would like to see incorporated slower head movements when wounded.

 

Get VR and smack yourself in the head every time you get shot.

[No.23_Starling]

Another observation- so good to see a busy server J5 last night!!! I was grinning like mad at one point as so many old names kept popping up from the RoF days! Hurrah!

 

flying through the clouds in my Spad and then pouncing on a Fokker (then making like the wind back West) was hugely thrilling in VR. 

 

Long may it continue! I can’t wait to see how the sim grows with full release. Expect to see more YouTube action from Waggaz ?

[J2_Trupobaw]

Trying to bail out under new physiology in situations where bailing is literally only option left (plane ooc, spin, lose of wings, diving away from certain death) is close to imposible. Bail out becomes more of choice of voluntinary ceading the victory when you are still able to fight than out of the jail card, at the plane must be controllable.

Camel entering a tight turn after fast dive can withstand g-forces that send pilot unconcious.

Edited October 9, 2019 by J2_Trupobaw

[J2_Jakob]

15 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Camel entering a tight turn after fast dive can withstand g-forces that send pilot unconcious.

 

Tried that in a Dolphin, it'll shed its wings instead. At least I can very consciously scream until lawn darting.

[Panzerlang]

[edited]

 

17. Spreading false or harmful information about the product is prohibited and will be deleted by forum administration. Claiming ignorance of the subject to justify harmful or obviously untrue info will not be tolerated.

 

18. Claiming that FM is incorrect without the required proof and starting a flame thread based on such claim is prohibited.

The form for an FM claim consists of:

• short but consistent description of the claim;
• link to a reference and to a specific part of such reference that describes correct behaviour of a disputed element/situation;
• game track record and the list of conditions used to recreate disputed element/situation.

Exception to this rule: FM discussion

Edited October 10, 2019 by SYN_Haashashin

[unreasonable]

On 10/8/2019 at 5:00 PM, Zooropa_Fly said:

I didn't know he was coming, but Hotwing put my lights out in around 1/10th of a second the other night.

There's a few who can manage that in RoF with alarming regularity, although I've no idea how - never managed to do that myself after many years of play.

So I'm not seeing much difference in the crack-shots being able to hit me at least !

 

I think fuselage's and wings aren't showing the damage they should after lots of hits. I think they're too strong now.

About every other plane I shoot down ends up a flamer. Same in RoF even after the devs made the change to that.

I can bludgeon away from close range at the cockpit area in RoF but nothing ever seems hit the pilot (or gunners).

Having said that, in FC I'm getting the odd pilot kill, so they don't seem to be taking as many hits, probably as it should be.

 

That is actually about right for late war, according to MvR's combat reports.  My only real gripe about the DM currently is the carpet beating dust effect, which just looks silly. 

[SeaW0lf]

The damage model in Flying Circus is a game changer. Bullet dispersion and the new physics as well. It made ROF became outdated pretty fast.

 

Here you can duke it out against two or three foes, get beat the hell out and still be able to fly until someone hit your engine, injure you or damage the structure of the airplane. The jitters come late, when you start to fell structural damage or you have too many holes. That's exactly what I expect from a damage model and a canvas airplane.

 

You can also have hits on the wings and fuselage and keep on patrol, just as they did back then. In ROF you have to return to base as soon as you get a couple hits, because the plane starts to jitter and bob and weave.

[J2_Trupobaw]

In RoF, you can jump a guy and spend few minutes killing him then retreating before someone notices tracers and comes to interfere. Here, the moment two planes among the swarm behave like they are positioning for a fight, everybody starts going their way. And, even if you get the kill after all, you are to weak from g-forces to defend yourself. BoX favours fast, clean kills or tactical retreats while you have advantage and disfavours minutes-long duels in middle of frontline... which is extremly historical. 

Edited October 10, 2019 by J2_Trupobaw

[SeaW0lf]

Just now, J2_Trupobaw said:

And, even if you get the kill after all, you are to weak from g-forces to defend yourself. 

 

Too soon to tell, but I'm not experiencing that. I'm even liking the physical effects. In what way do you become too weak? Because that would be extremely unrealistic. Although I still have to be in a long dogfight. But I would not expect to become numb after a while. 

[No.23_Gaylion]

2 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

Too soon to tell, but I'm not experiencing that. I'm even liking the physical effects. In what way do you become too weak? Because that would be extremely unrealistic. Although I still have to be in a long dogfight. But I would not expect to become numb after a while. 

 

There was something posted somewhere that said you get "tired" after continuous g's. Dont remember where it was, maybe even the last dev diary or one before?

 

I'm really liking the new DM. Really adds to the game and sorta levels the playing field in a way. Anyone can get killed in one pass. I've seen it done with 4 bullets! 

 

Theres also plenty of historical accounts of planes flaming after very short bursts. One in mind was Fredrick Libby's first kill as an observer in an Fe2-his first flight, first time behind gun. An alb comes in to attack another Fe crossing in front of Libby. He fires a quick burst, not even aiming and it immediately went in flames. He was very surprised and by his own account didnt think he'd hit him. 

 

Last night I was reading Fighting Airman where Charles Biddle, while trying to find his aim over the course of several combats, was wondering why he wasn't flaming planes as much as he thought he should have been. He attributed to firing too soon, being too eager.

 

Noob.

 

Edit: I'm enjoying the flaming engines/quick engine damage vs the wing shedding of that other game...

Edited October 10, 2019 by US103_Talbot

[HagarTheHorrible]

 I  wonder if, given the open cockpits and no oxygen, that fatigue goes up and therefore "G" tolerance goes down with altitude and flight time at altitude.

[SeaW0lf]

1 hour ago, US103_Talbot said:

There was something posted somewhere that said you get "tired" after continuous g's. Dont remember where it was, maybe even the last dev diary or one before?

 

I read that too, that the pilot would need some rest after a dogfight. I did some tests now and looks like sustained [continuous] turns at higher Gs could be affected. Looks like you black out easier as it goes. Looks like the effect remains if you go for a second round. I'm not sure how long you have to easy on the step to regain strength though.

 

Edited October 10, 2019 by SeaW0lf

[Chill31]

G tolerance on a WWI plane doesn't even need to be modeled.  These planes can barely sustain 2 5 Gs.  

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

26 minutes ago, Chill31 said:

G tolerance on a WWI plane doesn't even need to be modeled.  These planes can barely sustain 2 5 Gs.  

 

I blacked out in a camel and burnt up my engine two days ago.  Could have been a lot worse!

[SeaW0lf]

The question is what kind of Gforces math they are doing, because we can black out flying these crates here (and now we have G tolerance). From accounts and some footage, they could do some tight acrobatics in the war, then perhaps the Gforces calculation is overdone for us WWI buffs?

 

Because we have some [not so in shape] real life pilots saying that they can pull constant 5Gs with no effort in modern airplanes.

[Chill31]

23 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

The question is what kind of Gforces math they are doing, because we can black out flying these crates here (and now we have G tolerance). From accounts and some footage, they could do some tight acrobatics in the war, then perhaps the Gforces calculation is overdone for us WWI buffs?

 

Because we have some [not so in shape] real life pilots saying that they can pull constant 5Gs with no effort in modern airplanes.

The average resting G tolerance for people is about 3.5 Gs.  That is just sitting in a chair, no G strain exercise or anything to counter them. 

 

For me personally, I have to start doing anti-G strain at 4-5 to keep 100% vision. I've heard of guys (VERY rare) who have a resting tolerance of 6 Gs!  Below 5 Gs, I can fight all day, but it is tiring.  After a 4-5 G fight, it would probably be challenging to go hammer away at 7 Gs or more. 

 

Regarding small radius maneuvers, at these low airspeeds, the maneuvers look very tight! One of my friends watched me looping the DrI and said it was the smallest loop he'd ever seen (this coming from an aerobatic pilot) and I never hit more than 2.5 G doing it. 

 

The WWI planes just cant sustain G forces long enough for G forces to be significant.  I imagine if you black yourself out in the Camel, it is a pretty short duration? I have yet to try it myself,  but I will.

Edited October 11, 2019 by Chill31

[SeaW0lf]

2 hours ago, Chill31 said:

I imagine if you black yourself out in the Camel, it is a pretty short duration? I have yet to try it myself,  but I will.

 

No, you can pass out here with a Camel. Then you stay several seconds out until you regain consciousness (sometimes you crash before coming back). Yesterday I almost passed out bouncing a foe (when I ascended and made a turn to bounce him again).

 

Kind of made me think the effects are overdone.

Edited October 11, 2019 by SeaW0lf

[Panzerlang]

I was wounded by an Se5 online half an hour ago, was deep-redded for 30 seconds, came out of it in a level right-hand turn, just in time to see an Se5 going past my nose and shot him down. My view was very poor though and plane controls were mushy. The whole damage/wounded thing is superb.

[J2_Trupobaw]

As g-force is fancy name for change in acceleration (hard to miscalculate) and g-tolerances are well researched, I suppose either the planes resistance to g-forces is to high and we black out in maneuvers that should damage the plane IRL, or just that we black out in maneuvers no sane person would dare to use in real life. The greyouts and g-loc happen to me when going into tight turn at high speed (spiral dive, or entering tight turn fight from dive to have big reserve of energy). This make sense, as changes of acceleration depend on how fast you go and how tight your turn is (and if your crate turns very tight, you don't need to go very fast to generate relatively strong force!!!). The only inconsistency I see is, according to Chill planes should not be able to survive the maneuver in first place. Perhaps RoF Pfalz D.XII was the only plane with properly modeled g-tolerance? 

 

Remember also that medical research of g-tolerance started after the war, during WW1 there was no proper selection of candidates and no conditioning of the pilots other than doing general exercises to keep in good shape. Pilots were recruits with few months training or ground troops transfered to aviation, and I have no doubt many of them would be disqualified for anything but weekend Cessna driving by examination by modern avistion medic. 

 

Since greyouts, blackouts etc were less understood - by unprepared people put in crate and told to go flying and medics qualifying them - I suppose most people just avoided and feared them, and eased on controls when "something funny with their eyes" started. They did not know what g-loc is, or that it takes up to 15 seconds, and stayed away from unknown.

 

Also, while I don't remember many reports of WW1 pilots going into g-loc (and living to tell the tale), I do remember that g-loc involves short amnesia - pilot may not even be aware of what happened - and that there ware many "out of control" planes reported by their opponents.

[unreasonable]

Perhaps another consideration is the way that WW1 pilots would turn: rather than just do flat turns, they would pitch up, quarter roll and then push the rudder hard over: if you do that, much of the G force of turning the plane would be, from the pilot's point of feel, sideways, not down. To give an example at the limit, if the infamous Dr.1 "flat turn" were a thing (which I do not actually believe) it would have no more than the normal 1 G downwards force: all the rest of the acceleration would be sideways. 

 

  

[SeaW0lf]

Dressing for Altitude / U.S. Aviation Pressure Suits–Wiley Post to Space Shuttle

 

During one of these tests, in December 1903, Dr. Albert P. Thurston, an engineer working for Maxim, took a ride and promptly lost consciousness as the car exceeded +6-Gz of centrifugal force (…) Despite this early introduction to the potential problem, the issue of what is now called gravity-induced loss of consciousness (G-LOC) was not widely recognized for over a decade. An article published in 1919 by Dr. Henry Head (1861–1940), an English neurologist knighted for his pioneering medical research, observed a phenomenon he called “fainting in the air” in pilots of highly maneuverable airplanes such as the Sopwith Camel. By 1920, experiments had shown that these blackouts lasted about 20 seconds and began as the vertical acceleration exceeded approximately +4.5-Gz. The pursuit airplanes (what are now called fighters) of World War I were certainly capable of rendering their pilots unconscious, but popular legend indicates that the pilots who could train themselves to withstand the maneuvers did not want to talk about it because it made them appear less professional, and those who could not adequately adapt were dead. After the war, air racers frequently talked about fuzzy vision or loss of concentration while making sharp turns around marker pylons. By the time the Coupe d’Aviation Maritime Jacques Schneider (commonly called the Schneider Trophy) for the highest speed by a seaplane was permanently secured by Great Britain in 1931, loss of visual acuity, or blacking out, had become a serious problem in closed-circuit air racing. The Supermarine S.6B used during the last Schneider Trophy race could easily sustain 6-G in turns around the course markers, but the physiological implications were not thoroughly understood at the time.

 

The bold part is what happened to me yesterday at the server. The detail is, the blackout is not what is causing the problem, although I think the Gforces might be off. As I mentioned, looks like those videogame life bars that get depleted as you do things and you can't recover unless you disengage or flight straight, which in this case means death. I experienced it in two short dogfights when I was not even pushing it (I'm not one of those turn and burn guys), so I imagine that we can’t go on for more than a couple minutes before having to take a break? Which sounds silly. I also have to test which planes have this behavior, because I could not force me to black out in Albatroses and Pfalzes pulling up from dives in one of these days. So that might give people a wrong impression (that the model is OK) if they are not flying the Camel - which might also explain why I even liked this effect at first, although I had mentioned that I had not been in a true dogfight yet, I was flying D7 Vanillas and Dolphins to balance the field.

 

I also read posts regarding the tight maneuvers we see in movies like Hells Angels, and the common sense is that the lack of power of those engines made the airplane bleed energy too fast to experience these effects for long periods of time to be a concern. 

 

From the books I have with search engine (Kindle or Word), wich might come close to two dozen, I did not find any accounts of faints or black outs. I found one regarding a pilot who spun down from two miles until he fainted, and then he woke up to regain control near the ground. From what I recall, those long spins or maneuvers in deep dives were what caused faints. I don’t recall ever pilots saying that they had a ‘videogame life bar’ and that they had to worry to not get to the point when they could not turn anymore [unless they were above 18.000feet?]- which this is the case here with the Camel as far as I experienced yesterday in two fights. I also mentioned in those occasions that I wasn’t pushing it. What I felt was that my life bar was getting shorter until I could not turn anymore (to avoid a blackout) and had to disengage (in one of them) and flares to ask for help in the other.

 

EDIT: today I'll try to fly the Dr1 to see how she goes.

Edited October 13, 2019 by SeaW0lf

[=IRFC=Jorri]

That's a great quote, SeaW0lf. This jumps out, although it's not really substantiated in the quote:

 

Quote

The pursuit airplanes (what are now called fighters) of World War I were certainly capable of rendering their pilots unconscious

 

[SeaW0lf]

2 hours ago, hq_Jorri said:

That's a great quote, SeaW0lf. This jumps out, although it's not really substantiated in the quote:

 

Yeah, I expected this. But you are not seeing the bigger picture. The *life bar is a killer.

Edited October 13, 2019 by SeaW0lf

[unreasonable]

2 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

Yeah, I expected this. But you are not seeing the bigger picture. The videogame life bar is a killer.

 

Actually, not having a visible videogame life bar is what is killing you, because you do not know how "tired" you are and adjust your behaviour accordingly. 

[SeaW0lf]

11 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

Actually, not having a visible videogame life bar is what is killing you, because you do not know how "tired" you are and adjust your behaviour accordingly. 

 

It gives you a better idea in multiplayer. My impression is that the life bar is over-modeled / at least it seems so on the Camel, a plane with some torque. It becomes a quicksand effect. I'm flying right now. Lets see.