Disengaging behaviour

[HagarTheHorrible]

4 hours ago, J5_Hellbender-Sch27b said:

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.

 

Playing dead is dead isn’t really an answer, or even realistic, because you are playing against other players who aren't constrained by the same rules and will behave accordingly, usually suicidaly. WE might also be constrained by. or at a disadvantage, that is entirely out with the actual game or the aircraft of choice.

 

I won’t argue with you about dispersion, I don’t know what it is or know what is realistic although, given your statement, you seem quite certain, so I will bow to your superior knowledge (I’m not being sarcastic).  What I would say though, is that dispersion discussions in RoF weren’t ever really about dispersion, as I’m sure you know, they were about a crude fix to short comings in other aspects of the game that led to ahistorical outcomes, suffice it to say, in a historically based combat flight sim, if the weapons element isn’t as rigorously researched and defined then it makes discussions about FM’s rather pointless as they then play second fiddle to simply having guns on target.  It’s one reason I like MY solution to potentially overlong engagement ranges and disengaging opponents, I freely admit it was nothing more than a notion that occurred as I composed my OP, so isn’t particularly considered, although I’d be more than interested to hear constructive arguments against, or for, the suggestion

Edited December 2, 2019 by HagarTheHorrible

[BMA_Hellbender]

 

26 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

I won’t argue with you about dispersion, I don’t know what it is or know what is realistic although, given your statement, you seem quite certain, so I will bow to your superior knowledge (I’m not being sarcastic).  What I would say though, is that dispersion discussions in RoF weren’t ever really about dispersion, as I’m sure you know, they were about a crude fix to short comings in other aspects of the game that led to ahistorical outcomes, surface it to say, in a historically based combat flight sim, if the weapons element isn’t as rigorously researched and defined then it makes discussions about FM’s rather pointless as they then play second fiddle to simply having guns on target.  It’s one reason I like MY solution to potentially overlong engagement ranges and disengaging opponents, I freely admit it was nothing more than a notion that occurred as I composed my OP, so isn’t particularly considered, although I’d be more than interested to hear constructive arguments against, or for, the suggestion

 

Bullets simply do not disperse that way when fired from a static mount. Even the "gun overheat" effect is overdone. The real problem with aerial gunnery in those days were catastrophic stoppages and the often lack in quality of the synchroniser gear (one of the reasons the S.E.5a didn't rely solely on it for its armament). To get even close to reality, we would need to simulate all kinds of random failures, including random engine failures, random structural failures and more. Not only is it a coding nightmare, people would cry foul all the time.

 

As for the FM discussion: beyond the measurable numbers of speed, climb and ballparking maneuverability, it's pretty pointless as well. If planes behaved exactly like they did in real life, people would say they feel "Arcade", in much the same way that even the most realistic PC driving simulators don't come close to representing how it is both harder and easier to drive a car in real life. You rely on so much more than just visual cues to do so. Even with force feedback and VR (which I have yet to try), it can only be a limited experience as you simply lack the seat-of-the-pants feeling, or in more scientific terms: your vestibular system doesn't play a part. I'm willing to bet that VR comes very close to visual reality, which is why many get so horribly motion sick with the conflicting sensory information.

 

Then there's the flight times. Pilots would take off and climb until their machines either couldn't climb anymore, or they were beginning to suffer from hypoxia without even realising what was happening to them. And they'd be happy to have done so in 30 minutes, and they'd be even happier never to spot a soul on their patrol. Most average pilots in the air were just not aces looking for a fight, they were looking to complete their mission and survive another day.

 

Which brings us right to my main point: the fear. Now we're going to have experts come on here and say "Yeah well I pull 6g in my Extra 300S every weekend and I betcha I coulda been a real good Camel driver". Sorry, I have no idea where the American accent suddenly came from, that was insensitive of me. My point being: we have more than 100 years of aviation history, theory and technique behind us. Those guys back then didn't. Many of them hadn't even been inside a car, though I will admit that some were indeed used to riding horses, especially in the German and British air forces.

 

Now me, personally, "the expert" (a.k.a. the most average private pilot you've ever met), when I'm sitting in my Piper 28 bugsmasher with my fully enclosed cockpit and my iPad with GPS and three radios to call for help, in the knowledge that this machine is not made of wood, canvas and wires, and can survive a reasonably executed emergency landing almost anywhere — I am scared shitless. And it's a good fear, mind you, it's a fear that keeps me honest and respectful of the machine. And sure I can do some 2g turns (though technically we can't go beyond 45 degree bank angles in these rentals, but whatever, I'm "an expert"), all that I can think of when picturing myself doing this in a dogfight 100 years ago is: "Yeah, no."

 

Not to mention the spotting, or should I say, the absolute impossibility of it. At least to me it is, the one time I took Darling up he was able to spot planes way better than I ever could. There are naturally talented people out there, and I do not represent them. And again, I understand that when it's a matter of life or death, and that it's that or the trenches, and that you've received special instruction (including how not to have your engine suddenly quit in the middle of a fight because of a wrong mixture setting), then sure, maybe you can push it all back and it becomes more like the video game we play today. Sure, at least a few of us could. I can already tell you I'm not one of them.

 

I maintain that if you brought MvR back to life, gave him some basic instruction on how to fly this sim, then let the man loose in AirQuake, he'd be shot down momentarily. Maybe he might get an S! out of it. On the other hand, I'd love to see most of us go up there and have to fight for real, see just how much you like vertical scissors and prophanging and other crazy stuff that is perfectly possible but would almost never have happened in real life, with the constant fear of sudden death on your shoulder. Oh and after lunch, you get to do it again. I'd sooner choose the trenches.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

1 hour ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

 

Playing dead is dead isn’t really an answer, or even realistic, because you are playing against other players who aren't constrained by the same rules and will behave accordingly, usually suicidaly. 

 

 

Indeed, the number 2 threat to a conscientiously played dead is dead run in my experience...

 

Still the best way to play though.

[HagarTheHorrible]

I think it was the Shuttleworth pilot, talking about the Sopwith Tripehound, that said it could easily fly faster than they would dare, or be brave enough, to take it, with the wings flapping about in a very dramatic and unnerving way as speed built up.  Unfortunately we don’t have peripheral sounds to impart a sense of nervous dread, the engine screaming, the wind roaring, airframe creaking, the wires singing........... I digress !

 

 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

53 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender-Sch27b said:

 

 

Bullets simply do not disperse that way when fired from a static mount. Even the "gun overheat" effect is overdone. The real problem with aerial gunnery in those days were catastrophic stoppages and the often lack in quality of the synchroniser gear (one of the reasons the S.E.5a didn't rely solely on it for its armament). To get even close to reality, we would need to simulate all kinds of random failures, including random engine failures, random structural failures and more. Not only is it a coding nightmare, people would cry foul all the time.

 

As for the FM discussion: beyond the measurable numbers of speed, climb and ballparking maneuverability, it's pretty pointless as well. If planes behaved exactly like they did in real life, people would say they feel "Arcade", in much the same way that even the most realistic PC driving simulators don't come close to representing how it is both harder and easier to drive a car in real life. You rely on so much more than just visual cues to do so. Even with force feedback and VR (which I have yet to try), it can only be a limited experience as you simply lack the seat-of-the-pants feeling, or in more scientific terms: your vestibular system doesn't play a part. I'm willing to bet that VR comes very close to visual reality, which is why many get so horribly motion sick with the conflicting sensory information.

 

Then there's the flight times. Pilots would take off and climb until their machines either couldn't climb anymore, or they were beginning to suffer from hypoxia without even realising what was happening to them. And they'd be happy to have done so in 30 minutes, and they'd be even happier never to spot a soul on their patrol. Most average pilots in the air were just not aces looking for a fight, they were looking to complete their mission and survive another day.

 

Which brings us right to my main point: the fear. Now we're going to have experts come on here and say "Yeah well I pull 6g in my Extra 300S every weekend and I betcha I coulda been a real good Camel driver". Sorry, I have no idea where the American accent suddenly came from, that was insensitive of me. My point being: we have more than 100 years of aviation history, theory and technique behind us. Those guys back then didn't. Many of them hadn't even been inside a car, though I will admit that some were indeed used to riding horses, especially in the German and British air forces.

 

Now me, personally, "the expert" (a.k.a. the most average private pilot you've ever met), when I'm sitting in my Piper 28 bugsmasher with my fully enclosed cockpit and my iPad with GPS and three radios to call for help, in the knowledge that this machine is not made of wood, canvas and wires, and can survive a reasonably executed emergency landing almost anywhere — I am scared shitless. And it's a good fear, mind you, it's a fear that keeps me honest and respectful of the machine. And sure I can do some 2g turns (though technically we can't go beyond 45 degree bank angles in these rentals, but whatever, I'm "an expert"), all that I can think of when picturing myself doing this in a dogfight 100 years ago is: "Yeah, no."

 

Not to mention the spotting, or should I say, the absolute impossibility of it. At least to me it is, the one time I took Darling up he was able to spot planes way better than I ever could. There are naturally talented people out there, and I do not represent them. And again, I understand that when it's a matter of life or death, and that it's that or the trenches, and that you've received special instruction (including how not to have your engine suddenly quit in the middle of a fight because of a wrong mixture setting), then sure, maybe you can push it all back and it becomes more like the video game we play today. Sure, at least a few of us could. I can already tell you I'm not one of them.

 

I maintain that if you brought MvR back to life, gave him some basic instruction on how to fly this sim, then let the man loose in AirQuake, he'd be shot down momentarily. Maybe he might get an S! out of it. On the other hand, I'd love to see most of us go up there and have to fight for real, see just how much you like vertical scissors and prophanging and other crazy stuff that is perfectly possible but would almost never have happened in real life, with the constant fear of sudden death on your shoulder. Oh and after lunch, you get to do it again. I'd sooner choose the trenches.

I would rather lose my nerve being myself doing reconnaissance with no experience in fighting. But there were young chaps doing stuns for fun too. They came unprepared but if lucky they do the job. As they often say they left fear on the ground. Only good flyer would stay to tell the story tho. I can imagine trauma of repeated exposure to aerial combat couple thousand ft , far behind enemy lines, surrounded by angry bees...

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

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

 

 

Still the best way to play though.

 

I cannot comment on MP as my connection has never allowed it, but DiD is certainly the best way to play Career or PWCG, especially once modded to get some semblance of realism in Archie accuracy, gunner arcs and wing strength.   Attacking 2-seaters in RoF became a very nerve wracking proposition and by the end of my PB I was dreading crossing the lines: actually not enjoying flying at all!  

 

Had to remind myself from the RoF forum:   Dead 14 August 1918: "172 victories, 307 sorties, 214 flying hours (and 13 wounds, mostly from RE8 gunners ) this is a personal best for me by a considerable margin - TBH I doubt if I will ever beat it, given the number of close shaves I had to get to this point."  [I never got anywhere close again: obviously I had a considerable amount of luck as well as being careful].

 

Unfortunately not much point trying PWCG in FC until (if) we get a couple of plausible recce/spotter 2-seaters to chase. 

Edited December 2, 2019 by unreasonable

[Cynic_Al]

11 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

 

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. 

 

So is a piece of string,  at least subjectively. Unless you can prove a significant departure from historical reality,  I'd say we're done here.

 

11 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

What do you think ?

 

 I think once again you've put us on a road to nowhere.

[HagarTheHorrible]

Well, look who crawled out of bed the wrong side this morning.

 

Thank you for that constructive criticism. For someone, so full of positive energy it seems a pity that that energy doesn’t extend far enough to actually support the sim financially, putting, quite literally, your money where your mouth is.

 

If you have a beef with me, then take it up on “PM”, otherwise enter into the spirit of the GAME and take that stick out of your arse, maybe even, horror of horror, spend some money and buy a module or two. 

 

Like I said in an earlier post, if you don’t like what I have to say then don’t feel compelled to read it.  No one is forcing you, or anyone els, to read, or react, to my drivel.

[Zooropa_Fly]

Cynic runs a server occasionally, so I presume he has put his money where his mouth is. Must have had to spread the notes out a bit though ! 

[Cynic_Al]

15 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

For someone, so full of positive energy it seems a pity that that energy doesn’t extend far enough to actually support the sim financially

 

Just to be clear, when FC was first released,I bought BoS (in a handy sale) just to get access to the environment, enabling me to develop and host an FC server. Since current demand for FC multiplayer is easily met elsewhere, I'm disinclined to run a server I can't use myself, preferring to support RoF with servers financed by myself and appreciated by that community's cognoscente.

 

15 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

if you don’t like what I have to say then don’t feel compelled to read it

 

It's not often I concede any shortcoming on my part, but in this case I'm compelled to admit that I have yet to evolve the ability to assess text without first having read it.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Cynic_Al

[No.23_Triggers]

On 12/2/2019 at 1:40 PM, J2_Trupobaw said:

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.

 

This doesn't make sense to me - I can't see how changing a prop and adding a high-compression engine would affect the airframe's turn rate! Where did you find this out? 

 

On 12/2/2019 at 1:46 PM, J28w-Broccoli said:

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.

This sounds like it might be the best solution. A level of dispersion that, at close ranges, is negligible, but at far ranges is enough to throw the pilot's aim. I also agree that high turbulence would be irritating - I was flying on a turbulent map the other day and getting quite frustrated cause I couldn't land any killing blows while shooting at under 100m because the nose was rocking all over the place! 

 

 

 

I am with the 'lesser dust puffs' crowd - I think RoF's 'hits' looked much more tasteful and, although I LOVE watching a line of dust puffs walking the length of a side-on D.VII F from the tail fin to the cockpit, the effect does seem quite overdone. That being said, I've never shot a sheet of Irish linen full of holes, so what do I know? Perhaps one of our buddies in the States could take a doped linen target next time they go out to the shooting range and report back the results ?

As for gunnery itself, I'm a little torn. I love the effect it produces at close range, where a single well-placed burst can end the fight in an instant (as it should at those ranges), but on the other hand it definitely feels like you can snipe people at unrealistic ranges. For context, during 3rd PG's training night yesterday I was the 'Designated Hun' during a training exercise - I sniped a SPAD pilot in a dive when he was 400m away and extending, killing him outright with a half-second burst. That seems a little too accurate, even if you're a crack shot. 


 

[unreasonable]

22 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

This sounds like it might be the best solution. A level of dispersion that, at close ranges, is negligible, but at far ranges is enough to throw the pilot's aim. I also agree that high turbulence would be irritating - I was flying on a turbulent map the other day and getting quite frustrated cause I couldn't land any killing blows while shooting at under 100m because the nose was rocking all over the place! 

 

 

At long range a shotgun effect will actually increase the number of poorly aimed bursts that score a hit, while reducing the number of hits from the well aimed bursts.  That is the exact opposite of what I want, especially now that pilots are easier to kill. Poor shooting should not be rewarded, especially just to give people a smooth flight. 

 

You said that with high turbulence you found it hard to score hits at 100m: which is exactly the effect that people claim they want to see!

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

32 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

At long range a shotgun effect will actually increase the number of poorly aimed bursts that score a hit, while reducing the number of hits from the well aimed bursts.

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

Except that isn't what actually happens during the mission.

 

Anyone who has tried to extend away in a SPAD in this game vs Rise of Flight can assure you of that.  In RoF where there is dispersion, poor shooting still results in poor outcomes, as it should.

 

We have to look at the outcomes that are actually produced in-game, rather than the theory of what "shotgun" dispersion would "theoretically" produce.

Edited December 3, 2019 by J28w-Broccoli

[unreasonable]

Just now, J28w-Broccoli said:

 

 

Except that isn't what actually happens during the mission.

 

Anyone who has tried to extend away in a SPAD in this game vs Rise of Flight can assure you of that.

 

We have to look at the outcomes that are actually produced in-game, rather than the theory of what "shotgun" dispersion would "theoretically" produce.

 

This is exactly what happens in my experience of RoF with the old high dispersion. You can aim perfectly, the bullets spray all over the place, and if you are lucky you get one hit.

You can aim off - and get one hit.  There is nothing complicated about this: spread the bullets over a larger area and the aiming point required to get a hit gets bigger. This is simple mathematics, true in the game.

 

If you want people to have more trouble hitting, advocate for more turbulence, perhaps model the difference between tracer and ball trajectories, and get rid of fixed head positions/ gunsight views. That is the realistic answer. Otherwise you may as well get rid of the ballistics altogether and just roll an RNG for a plane in your sights.

 

Anyway, I am confident that the developers will not agree to an arbitrary increase in dispersion, still less Hagar's vaporizing bullets idea, even if FC gets continued development. 

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

5 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

This is exactly what happens in my experience of RoF with the old high dispersion. You can aim perfectly, the bullets spray all over the place, and if you are lucky you get one hit.

You can aim off - and get one hit.  There is nothing complicated about this: spread the bullets over a larger area and the aiming point required to get a hit gets bigger. This is simple mathematics, true in the game.

 

If you want people to have more trouble hitting, advocate for more turbulence, perhaps model the difference between tracer and ball trajectories, and get rid of fixed head positions/ gunsight views. That is the realistic answer. Otherwise you may as well get rid of the ballistics altogether and just roll an RNG for a plane in your sights.

 

Anyway, I am confident that the developers will not agree to an arbitrary increase in dispersion, still less Hagar's vaporizing bullets idea, even if FC gets continued development. 

 

 

You're experience is biased.  You're remembering the times you *were* hit- and besides, you have no idea where the other pilot's point of aim was when it happened.

 

Increased chance of a hit from "shotgun spread"  is not reflected in actual hit percentages.  If you hose all around at long range, you will hit less than if you are on target.  Test it, you'll see.

 

For the record- While I prefer your solution to the problem, I highly doubt we'll ever see anything like those in game.

Edited December 3, 2019 by J28w-Broccoli

[No.23_Triggers]

19 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

If you want people to have more trouble hitting, advocate for more turbulence, perhaps model the difference between tracer and ball trajectories, and get rid of fixed head positions/ gunsight views. That is the realistic answer. Otherwise you may as well get rid of the ballistics altogether and just roll an RNG for a plane in your sights.

Yeah, that sounds like it would be a good "Fix". 

Re: long-range shooting, I definitely don't want the return of the aerial shotguns. It always bugged me in RoF when an otherwise-fatal attack was thrown off by guns spraying all over the sky instead of shooting straight - perhaps dispersion isn't the best fix, but I also think it just doesn't seem realistic that you can kill a pilot in a dive at 400m range with around 10 rounds per gun. Then again, what do I know? I wasn't flying in 1918! 

 

Edited December 3, 2019 by US93_Larner

[unreasonable]

9 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

 

 

You're experience is biased.  You're remembering the times you *were* hit- and besides, you have no idea where the other pilot's point of aim was when it happened.

 

Increased chance of a hit from "shotgun spread"  is not reflected in actual hit percentages.  If you hose all around at long range, you will hit less than if you are on target.  Test it, you'll see.

 

For the record- While I prefer your solution to the problem, I highly doubt we'll ever see anything like those in game.

 

I am not talking about my experience of being hit but my experience of shooting with both dispersed and non-dispersed RoF ballistics models.  I am not comparing hosing with non-hosing, but a non-hosed dispersed burst with a non-hosed non-dispersed burst.  Actual hit percentages (I assume you are talking about current FC MP data) just reflect the fact that gunnery is easy in the game because most of the things that made it hard in life are not simulated, although some of them could be, perhaps partly because players want to have fun and not too much realism.  

 

BTW, I use TiR with up and down and sideways movement, so I have to use gunsights (except the Aldis type) by actually lining up front and rear sights.  No fixed views. It makes gunnery quite a bit harder and more satisfying, especially at longer range.

 

If there were optional settings for gunnery so that MP servers can use a dispersed or Hagar model if they want I would have no complaints, even though I obviously find it unrealistic, provided that the developers "best estimate" model was available for SP.  

 

 

[US103_Baer]

On 12/2/2019 at 9:46 PM, J28w-Broccoli said:

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.

 

Not really. Try a Quick Mission using turbulence at 2m/s and wind at 2m/s, clouds at 2000m and start fighting at 3000m against enough ai's that you end up low to finish the last couple.

Flying around is not bad, aiming is slightly affected above the clouds but as you get closer to the deck it becomes trickier especially at speed.

 

It's not a workaround or fudge and doesn't require an FM change. So that, plus getting rid of most of the dust puffs would make 400m+ sniping a lot more difficult and allow for a reasonable disengagement if you'd achievement decent separation.

 

Modeling tracer and non-tracer ballistics would be excellent, but FM changes and all that...

Edited December 4, 2019 by US103_Baer

[SeaW0lf]

Has anyone done any research on distances that they were shooting targets? Because I only have clear shots when people try to turn with me when I'm in a Dr1 (which is a mistake). In bounces and extensions, I think the odds are correct and I just have some chances in some deflection shots. McCudden has several kills around the range of 300 to 400 yards. He even has a paragraph on how people gave wrong distances (shorter than they were) when reporting kills. He also said that if the guns were properly aligned, 400 yards was not that far.

 

I also think that it is the opposite for sticks and online controls. A real pilot piloting a real plane with real rudder pedals and stick has much more control, just by the feel alone. I was a bit bold in my youth, steal my parents' car several times (started at 14) and in a couple years I raced with it on the streets. I had a course that I liked going home, and I entered a turn in a tunnel with the inside wheels bumping on the asphalt ready to take-off, especially because the turn had a negative pitch. I knew exactly the amount of force I had to apply on the wheels to keep me on track and I did not flinch because I felt the car was fine. I could feel it on the wheels. Did that every time I went home. I felt the car as the extension of me. One day I took a friend for a drive and he almost crapped his pants (when we are not on the wheels, the fear factor is tenfold).

 

I would never have that feel racing online, no matter the hardware I got. Perhaps in the future. So I'm sure that real pilots flying these crates had a much better chance to snipe enemy planes with pinpoint precision. They also did not have pots in their rudder pedals ?

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I think aiming in real life is harder because you need to set eye with piper and object to shoot. And head is not that stable  . Taking correction  is easier because you see bullets arc in 3D and also judge distance better. 

Edited December 4, 2019 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[SeaW0lf]

I think the most challenging thing is to come from keyboards to sticks, which was something that happened from the old simulators to the newest ones. I don't think it would be the same to fly a real plane for the first time. I imagine that in six months, flying twice a day or practicing over the airfield, would turn most pilots in experienced fighters. Especially when you are young and dash. And we have the accounts of kills with a few bullets, then I tend to think it was easier for them. Or at least that we don’t have any advantage. Perhaps turbulence would affect, but the fact that we are using online sticks also is not the same to have the aircraft in your fingers in real life.

 

Because then it will happen the same that happened in ROF. They will come with some sort of algorithm to nerf aim or shooting. Something that we praised when FC removed the bullet dispersion and came up with a new damage model.