Disengaging behaviour

[HagarTheHorrible]

 

I THINK (capitalised because it is an OPINION rather than a TRUTH or statement of FACT) !!!

 

Being able to disengage, once committed to combat, is unduly difficult, and I THINK has a negative impact on the game.  It’s difficult because the range at which the retreating pilot is vulnerable is rather long.  I THINK this skews the game in favour of any aircraft that has a relatively good turn rate, compared to their opponent.  Once any advantage is lost, even if beginning the engagement on advantageous terms, it then becomes a one way ticket to a fight to the death.  If memory serves, Albatri, when engaged with Camels and at a disadvantage, would roll to the left and dive for home, using their acceleration in a dive to quickly distance themselves.  VR, which I use, exaggerates this committing to battle, because often times, by the time your identify a bogie you are committed whether you like it or not.

 

While, I THINK, FC is an improvement on RoF, in that peripheral damage is just that, I THINK more could still be done to address this, what I perceive, as an anomaly with historical account and might allow for a more even fight for some of the less stellar aircraft.  Tinkering with FM’s are obviously out, as being to involved and complex and one aircraft changed has a knock on effect with all, but it might be possible to play around with some other aspects, even if not strictly perfect, when looking at the mechanics under the hood, they might never the less have the effect of having a more honest, true to the period effect on combat.  Dispersion was one method of eliminating the long range sniper tried in RoF (it’s so long ago I can’t remember how it was received) which given the more robust aircraft in FC  might help, another possibility, that might or might not work, I only thought of it as I composed this post, is to have diminishing numbers of bullets reaching a target, dependant on range,  0 -100 yds = 100% of bullets reaching the target, 101 - 200 yds = 50%, 201 - 300 yds = 33% etc etc (example only, not suggested numbers). As bullets are fired, depending on distance, an increasing percentage of the bullets are vanished.  Damage can still be done but with ever diminishing possibilities of success.  I THINK it is important to remember when thinking about this, that we have to consider that we have many advantages over the original combatants when it comes to shooting and this skews the historical aspect of the sim making many of the arguments about the finer points of the FM’s a little bit moot.  One of the advantages of the dispersion method, that was maybe void, in RoF, because of response curves and  because of the aircraft fragility, is that it can be adjusted on an aircraft specific basis, even down to axis by axis adjustment  so aircraft that are more stable have less dispersion and squirrels can have more dispersion, even the Albatros’s rudder flutter at high speed could be taken into account with increased lateral dispersion.

 

What do you think ?

 

 

Just to add.

 

I’m not suggesting there is any long range sniping like there was originally in RoF, but the fact remains that it is very difficult to disengage once committed.  Doing a runner the chaser has all the advantage in that he can keep his manoeuvres to a minimum, thus retaining his speed, relative to the chased, while the victim is plugged away at, unless they manoeuvre, in which case they slow down and are reeled in by any aircraft of comparable speed.

Edited December 2, 2019 by HagarTheHorrible

[US213_Talbot]

I, THINK, you should pick and choose your battles then.

 

I jest. Yeah you pretty much can't get away from anything if you are in reach of the guns. 

 

I tried running, I mean tactically withdrawing from a fokker the other day only to be sniped in the head at 400m. Learned it's best to just try and slug it out. Same chance of dying either way.

Edited December 2, 2019 by US213_Talbot

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Adding artificial dispersion is not the solution. You always can disengage when you are high enough. Seldom someone will follow you behind the mud. It's true that computer aiming is easier than IRL. What would be nice to have is real gun jams plus some vibration of the airframe from engine and on top additional to bad reving engine . Real air turbulences behind  aircraft form the propeller and wake turbulence. Looking at stats accuracy % we are not that good shots anyway

Edited December 2, 2019 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[US213_Talbot]

But when they do....... ?

[US103_Baer]

I don't like the idea of shotgun dispersion.

Air turbulence isn't used enough imho. I hate it too, but you soon see the difficulty it adds to gunnery, especially med-long range stuff.

 

The above and fixing plane speeds of course.

 

14 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Seldom someone will follow you behind the mud.

There are pilots who will chase you to the ends of the map, because its a game.

 

 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Just now, US103_Baer said:

I don't like the idea of shotgun dispersion.

Air turbulence isn't used enough imho. I hate it too, but you soon see the difficulty it adds to gunnery, especially med-long range stuff.

 

The above and fixing plane speeds of course.

 

There are pilots who will chase you to the ends of the map, because its a game.

 

 

 

Yesterday two  were trying they were nicely light up  by AA and Se.5 is steed near top trees , they were so cocky to go so far because numbers were low 5 vs 3 something

[SeaW0lf]

From the perspective of who flies Dr1s, and even the Camel, which gets slower as she climbs, I would say that people can extend. It is not easy if you are already turnfighting with a D7 or a SE5a, with no momentum, and then you are most likely dead unless you dive and pray that the opponent won't waste altitude (altitude is much more valuable than on which side of the mud you are). And it is very hard to hit a plane in a dive, handling blip switch, rudder, trying to avoid your wings to fall off, etc., plus the fact that rotary engine planes are very unstable platforms.

 

But it is nice sometimes when the extending plane is making that perfect arc for a deflection shot. It would be a pity to have our bullets dispersed and missed just because some algorithm. Alex Revell cites McCudden’s aim and thinks bullet dispersion is not realistic.

 

But people can extend with practice if they know how to handle the engine, because most players who are not flying fast planes have no clue how to dive without blowing the engine, so we tend to throttle back and allow some separation from SE5as, Spads and Dolphins.

 

Perhaps work some ways to create more drag in dives for thicker airfoil planes, but I also agree that bullet dispersion would null those long shots that are so pleasurable and seemingly realistic.

 

But fast planes are not my expertise, so I’m not in your shoes.

Edited December 2, 2019 by SeaW0lf

[No.23_Triggers]

Speaking as a SPAD pilot who frequently enjoys ludicrous dive speeds, getting away from an EA is quite literally hit-or-miss. Our dispersion is much better than in RoF, as we know, but it'd usually down to the pilot behind me whether or not I can make a crafty escape. The average pilot might get one or two hits at range, but only the good aerial marksmen can hit you at any kind of extreme range. I'm simultaneously peeved that it's harder to get away and thrilled by the fact that it's harder to get away - it definitely makes things more tense. 

I agree with SW in regards to dispersion. I think it's more realistic than in RoF. Yes, the technology was primitive, but pilots such as Rene Fonck and James McCudden would, on occasion, come back with a victory to their names and an armourer's report of as little as 4 rounds expended. 

I do think some dive speeds / accelerations need to be looked at. The SPAD 13 doesn't match up with historical accounts at the moment. I don't know so much about the Albatros, but if diving from Camels was a known tactic, and the Camel can catch an Alb in a dive in FC, perhaps that needs to be looked into as well. I also have a sneaking suspicion the S.E.5a was more closely matched to an Alb in turn than we see in FC, based on WW1 pilot accounts. But, FM changes are always tricky. 

 

[HagarTheHorrible]

2 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Adding artificial dispersion is not the solution. You always can disengage when you are high enough. Seldom someone will follow you behind the mud. It's true that computer aiming is easier than IRL. What would be nice to have is real gun jams plus some vibration of the airframe from engine and on top additional to bad reving engine . Real air turbulences behind  aircraft form the propeller and wake turbulence. Looking at stats accuracy % we are not that good shots anyway

 

That’s not what Seawolf (DR1) and Slizzor  (“f”) thought as they chased me all the way across the mud ?, and why wouldn’t they, the server was pretty empty so there was little risk in being disturbed.  It was never going to end well for the third pilot in the equation, pulling away from the DR1 wasn’t such a problem as I had a good head start and an initial speed and height advantage but the Fokker started taking shots  as he joined the fray, forcing me to manoeuvre thus allowing both aircraft to get close enough to take me apart, with no mercy shown, even after my engine quit.

 

While turbulence is a possible help, I don’t think it is used very much because it’s tiring, especially if a players frame rate is low, and awkward because there is no physical sensation on the controls to adjust for it, I just think most people don’t find it very much fun.

 

As to low accuracy of players,  I think it actually speaks volumes,  it suggests that there is an awful lot of low probability, hope to hit shooting, as Slizzor knows to his cost, when I landed some lucky hits while he was engaged with two SE’s.  It suggests that there is a perceived advantage to firing at almost any and every opportunity (maybe that’s just me,  I wasn’t always like that but realised that I was being far to conservative and while my percentages now might not be great, my overall success is much improved, even if someone else finally gets the kill)

Edited December 2, 2019 by HagarTheHorrible

[US213_Talbot]

Yeah I'm not on board with dispersion either. Maybe introduce more bullet drop at longer ranges. 

 

 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

8 minutes ago, US213_Talbot said:

Yeah I'm not on board with dispersion either. Maybe introduce more bullet drop at longer ranges. 

 

 

I would like to devs remove those hit - dusting off carpet effect, which is same whatever part of aeroplane you hit. I like to have some feedback but done better not so crude way , not only the tracers but  to visible from to long distance IMHO.

Edited December 2, 2019 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

It's ridiculously easy to hit at long range in this game, and it has nothing to do with the dust effect.  It is the laser beam tracers.

 

I have no idea how much vibration these old engines produced, but our guns are strapped right on top of them.  It seems like it should have more effect; but I don't really know.

Edited December 2, 2019 by J28w-Broccoli

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

2 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

It's ridiculously easy to hit at long range in this game, and it has nothing to do with the dust effect.  It is the laser beam tracers.

 

I have no idea how much vibration these old engines produced, but our guns are strapped right on top of them.  It seems like it should have more effect; but I don't really know.

 

All things add up, agree that tracer would add to this along. They can be made more realistic , what you propose ?

[US213_Talbot]

Burn out faster or even dud tracer rounds.

Edited December 2, 2019 by US213_Talbot

[J2_Trupobaw]

18 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

I also have a sneaking suspicion the S.E.5a was more closely matched to an Alb in turn than we see in FC, based on WW1 pilot accounts. But, FM changes are always tricky. 

 

That was Hispano-Suiza engined, 4 blade prop, air superiority version of S.E.5.a. What we have is Viper engine high altitude interceptor variant.

[unreasonable]

Disengaging from enemy aircraft where the speed differences of 10-20 kph is always going to be hard: introducing gamey elements like shotgun dispersion or vaporizing bullets will simply undermine the credibility of the sim. There are things that might help.

 

Are the AA defenses sufficiently lethal, especially low near the lines, with AAMGs at historically plausible density? I am sure someone could research how many AAMGs per km of front you might expect in 1918.  

 

Real tracers have a slightly different trajectory to ball ammunition, (low and left IIRC), which I do not think is modeled, although the general ballistics are pretty accurate. Modeling that plus getting rid of the carpet beating would make hit detection harder.  I am not in favour of vibration though: the "head shake" option made me ill! Real gun jams would be a plus, but I suspect unpopular.

 

Mannock's rules: 14. Pilots must never dive away from an enemy, as he gives an opponent a non-deflection shot—bullets are faster than aeroplanes.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

12 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

 

All things add up, agree that tracer would add to this along. They can be made more realistic , what you propose ?

 

I don't know, man.

 

Most people feel that the dispersion was overdone in RoF, and maybe it was.  I don't know, because I didn't really took long range shots there like I can here.  When I did, I could still land them, provided not too much deflection- just not nearly at the rate I can here.  But here, you're passing up good opportunities if you *don't* take every shot, no matter the distance.

 

  Maybe we need a lesser version of dispersion.  Turbulence would help a little, but let's be honest, for it to be powerful enough to have an effect; it's going to be a pain to fly in and really detract from the enjoyment of flying since you'll be dealing with it the entire flight.

 

It's a strange issue to tackle, because we can't simulate every factor that went into gunnery while we're sitting in office chairs.  Having historically accurate dispersion leads to ahistorical gunnery when not everything can be modeled.  Any mitigating factor that can be modeled has to be turned up to unrealistic levels to result in realistic outcomes.

Edited December 2, 2019 by J28w-Broccoli

[US213_Talbot]

Getting rid of the puff would be the best option and easiest.

[SeaW0lf]

ROF has a nice, discrete puff. And perhaps bullet drop, as Talbot mentioned, might be the best route to add some realism to it. At the moment we can see tracers travel in a straight line, and that's not realistic. I'm not sure how bullet drop could be modeled though.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

@unreasonable I like head shake option , it's artificial and do not affect airframe anyways. On old movies you see how gun recoli but those look like made from plastic

16 minutes ago, US213_Talbot said:

Getting rid of the puff would be the best option and easiest.

 

There is that nice feeling as you see at your fingertips  bullets traveling along fusulage of hanging uphill albatri before he stalls and falls hehe 

I love to have some kind of feedback, not just holes , but more advance - bullet going through canvas - no effect, hitting wood -  splinters, metal - sparks, flesh - blood. 

Edited December 2, 2019 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[SeaW0lf]

25 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Are the AA defenses sufficiently lethal, especially low near the lines, with AAMGs at historically plausible density? I am sure someone could research how many AAMGs per km of front you might expect in 1918. 

 

I have been researching flak for a while and I found this US manual from 1921. The section below is edited.

 

[Antiaircraft Journal US, Volume 55 / 1921]

The most satisfactory tactical organization of anti-aircraft artillery, machine guns and searchlights would seem to be as follows: to each Army: Each Army was assigned 1 anti-aircraft brigade, consisting of 3 motorized anti-aircraft regiments - each regiment consisting of 1 battalion of anti-aircraft artillery and searchlights (3 batteries of 4 guns each and 1 searchlight company of 13 searchlights). 1 battalion of anti-aircraft machine guns (4 companies of 12 guns each). To each Army Corps: 1 anti-aircraft regiment organized precisely as described above.

[unreasonable]

10 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

ROF has a nice, discrete puff. And perhaps bullet drop, as Talbot mentioned, might be the best route to add some realism to it. At the moment we can see tracers travel in a straight line, and that's not realistic. I'm not sure how bullet drop could be modeled though.

 

Bullet drop is modeled!  Every time someone has actually tested ballistics in this series they have been found to be reasonably accurate. 

 

On the frontages, assuming 10km per division, with a corps with two divisions in the line, with 48 AAMGs per corps (the army troops being deployed further back) that is about 2 MGs per KM of front. 

Edited December 2, 2019 by unreasonable

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

3 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

Bullet drop is modeled!  Every time someone has actually tested ballistics in this series they have been found to be reasonably accurate. 

Yes it's "simple " math in ideal fluid condition. But tracers are just sprites no "physical" objects . Plus when seen from long distance tracer look like laser beams -  old performance optimization I think.

Edited December 2, 2019 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[unreasonable]

2 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Yes it's "simple " math in ideal fluid condition. But tracers are just sprites no "physical" objects .

 

Are you sure about that? (The tracers?) They still have to have the same trajectory calculations, do they not?   

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

11 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

Are you sure about that? (The tracers?) They still have to have the same trajectory calculations, do they not?   

I think , yes they  need to follow something  to have aid us with visual reference - bullet trajectory. I double that they have own independent calculation. 

Edited December 2, 2019 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[US213_Talbot]

26 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

Bullet drop is modeled!  Every time someone has actually tested ballistics in this series they have been found to be reasonably accurate. 

 

Yeah I don't think anyone is saying it's not there. 

 

Maybe add a little more drop? 

 

.303 ballistics from the in game data result in about a 10 foot drop off bore at 500m.

 

I think best option would that does not include altering any ballistics is to reduce or get rid of the puff.

Edited December 2, 2019 by US213_Talbot

[HiIIBiIIy]

28 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Bullet drop is modeled!  Every time someone has actually tested ballistics in this series they have been found to be reasonably accurate. 

Is it really ? A .303 bullet will drop over 30" in 400 yds.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Just now, US213_Talbot said:

 

Yeah I don't think anyone is saying it's not there. 

 

Maybe add a little more drop? 

I do not support artificial not realistic addition to bullet trajectories.

Adding artificial drop in distance would feel odd and discontinuity what you learned so far. 

Anyway after some time you would adjust and hoze it as usual.

Addition of randomness would be bad ass.

 

[US213_Talbot]

Yeah I don't want it messed with either. Once FC came about, the dispersion is what killed RoF for me. 

 

 

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, HiIIBiIIy said:

Is it really ? A .303 bullet will drop over 30" in 400 yds.

 

Yes it really is.  You can see it in the Aldis sight, but if that is not enough, one way to test this is in the ME, where you set up your own plane and a target flying towards a waypoint. Make the target your side and a high priority waypoint.  Get the WPs just right so that you can hit the trailing edge of the wing at close range. Then reset the ME so that you are 500m behind but at the same height. You will now miss.   

 

Edited December 2, 2019 by unreasonable

[US213_Talbot]

One must also consider that when firing downward at an angle, the drop is reduced as gravity is pulling the bullet "down" less, relative to the boreline.

[HagarTheHorrible]

All this talk of tracers, one would ever wonder why they ever felt the need to use gunsights after tracers were first used.  Anyone who thinks that real marksmanship is part of the game should remember that when the DR1 first came out it had no gunsight at all !

 

Whatever, if anything, is ever done, it should ideally be imperceptible to the player.  Playing with tracer drop would soon just become another learned adjustment and quickly be defunct.  While I like the carpet beater effect, I could see it being less prominent with increasing range so that distance shooting is less rewarding or obvious.

8 minutes ago, US213_Talbot said:

Yeah I don't want it messed with either. Once FC came about, the dispersion is what killed RoF for me. 

 

 

 

I can’t remember to much about RoF’s dispersion, apart from the ultra long sniping in the early days, but given the more robust airframe damage model, maybe more sophisticated overall, in FC, dispersion might be a radically different experience to RoF.

[unreasonable]

The MG08s still had front and rear iron sights - you would line up along one of them - the other is only a foot away. I always used the iron sights playing career mode on German planes anyway. The crossed lines or single ring sights only work if your head position is fixed, which mine is not, using TiR.

 

The carpet dust has to go: it just looks plain silly. 

 

12 minutes ago, US213_Talbot said:

One must also consider that when firing downward at an angle, the drop is reduced as gravity is pulling the bullet "down" less, relative to the boreline.

 

Also when firing up....

[US213_Talbot]

13 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

I can’t remember to much about RoF’s dispersion, apart from the ultra long sniping in the early days, but given the more robust airframe damage model, maybe more sophisticated overall, in FC, dispersion might be a radically different experience to RoF.

 

Go jump on there and you'll see they just fly all over the place.

[HagarTheHorrible]

15 minutes ago, US213_Talbot said:

 

Go jump on there and you'll see they just fly all over the place.

? I just can’t get myself enthused enough to re-install it.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

21 minutes ago, US213_Talbot said:

 

Go jump on there and you'll see they just fly all over the place.

 

Yes, but they added to ROF realism option for more real dispersion (better research done on the occasion of work with BOS gunnery) but that was never adopted in multiplayer because of to weak wings , with that low dispersion  you can cut  them away  no time. It turned out that this new  option was great together with lethality mod which added strength or say canvas like behavior to the wings - same thing as FC has now , thanks to devs for that .

Edited December 2, 2019 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[US213_Talbot]

2 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

? I just can’t get myself enthused enough to re-install it.

 

Don't blame you ?

Just now, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

 

Yes, but they added to ROF realism option for more real dispersion (better research done on the occasion of work with BOS gunnery) but that was never adopted in multiplayer because of tto weak wings , with that low dispersion  can cut  them away  no time. It turned out that is  option was great together with lethality mod which added strength or say canvas like behavior to the wings - same thing as FC has now , thanks to devs for that .

 

Interesting. Did not know that. 

 

I'm with Larner where I both loath and love the lethality. 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

7 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

? I just can’t get myself enthused enough to re-install it.

 

Why , there are best organized events ,still only doable in ROF . BA &FIF . Plus old crates are fun to fight and graphics is still in some aspects better to il2GB. No VR do.

[HagarTheHorrible]

Not to shout about it but I do rather like my suggestion of vanishing bullets (diminishing returns).  It would be imperceptible from a visual standpoint by the players, although playing styles would change due to risk reward perception,  it wouldn’t require lots of research and development and a simple test with a considered, but random, number being trialed and if it had a beneficial effect, then a more considered implementation could be included.  It would create the illusion of dispersion over range without the potential downsides of dispersion and it wouldn’t mean having to tinker with other unrelated  aspects of the game just to adjust something else.

3 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

 

Why , there are best organized events ,still only doable in ROF . BA &FIF . Plus old crates are fun to fight and graphics is still in some aspects better to il2GB. No VR do.

 

I just can’t bring myself to fly without VR, plus I donated my TrackIR to another member of these forums when I got my Rift.

[BMA_Hellbender]

There's a reason why a small number of pilots lived so long and scored so many victories: good eyesight, good marksmanship, excellent discipline (so far so good) and juuust the right amount of PTSD, then known as "aero-neurosis". Enough to be completely numb and unafraid of death, but not so much as to be suicidal and shaking all over the place.

 

If you want to experience a tiny fraction of the real fear an average pilot faced, play dead is dead for the remainder of the month. See how long you last and/or how many fights you willfully get yourself into.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with dispersion, for the record.