Fuelling the fun

[HagarTheHorrible]

Flying he Camel, if you want to be competitive, you don’t take a full tank of gas, if you do, then a sharp stall will most likely follow when you start turning in ernist.  I normally take about 50%, as a good compromise, between agility and duration.  Last night I managed to fly a Camel for over an hour on 36%, an hour is probably longer than most flights that I take part in.  Personally, I can’t see much point in going less than 35%, is there any point in less, does the Camel really perform any better, he lower you go, is taking the bare minimum not just trying to game the game ?  I only take half a tank to stop the sharp spins, in the Camel, but I notice other players also reduce fuel in other aircraft, sometimes by quite a margin, does it really make such a difference, taking less fuel, and if so, is it consistent as you reduce the amount, or is there a point at which no further advantage is achieved ?  I wouldn’t have thought there was a tremendous amount to be gained, particularly in Central aircraft, that have a small tank and shorter flight endurance to start with, maybe taking the edge off the top of the tanks (70%) but that’s about it ?

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I need to calculate the distance and chance to get full leak which is very common in Camel furballs. Since we are flying offensive patrols and great deal escort missions deep into enemy territory very low fuel is not an option. But I do reduce it somehow anyway. For other than Camel which do not spin so readly, less weight mean less lift needed to fly level.

[Cynic_Al]

5 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

Flying he Camel, if you want to be competitive, you don’t take a full tank of gas, if you do, then a sharp stall will most likely follow when you start turning in ernist.

 

This is really informative stuff!  You've obviously spent many hours doing in-depth research on the subject  Keep-up the good work.

[HagarTheHorrible]

39 minutes ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

This is really informative stuff!  You've obviously spent many hours doing in-depth research on the subject  Keep-up the good work.

 

Piss off.

 

 If you haven’t anything better to say, don’t say it, go and troll somewhere else.

 

How much in-depth research do you need ?  A simple cause and effect, trial and error, is sufficient.  Only the person who designed the flight models can say with any certainty why the models behave as they do, what compromises and limitations are present.   The only time in depth study is needed is if players are regularly pushing the bounds of fuel endurance, finding out the balance between fuel load and manoeuvrability.  In game flight time, player skill levels and style rarely require such finesse, we have umpteen possibilities to tinker with how we, personally, set up our aircraft depending on what we intend to do and how we play.   Those possibilities will vary from player to player, not on historic or actual aircraft reality, but on personal preference playing the game, and that alone.  Out of laziness, or lack of knowledge or experience, we can use other players rule of thumb.  If you want to analyse it to death, be my guest, I’d rather just play the game and have fun.  

 

If I ask lots of stupid questions, it’s because I have an enquiring mind, defer to other peoples experience, and don’t claim to know everything, so “Yar boo sucks to you”, you cynical old git.

[BMA_Hellbender]

So I was about to report this thread for, well, everything — but I think it's just what we need on a lazy Sunday afternoon. Some good old RoF Camel bickering.

 

I've been trying to convince my superiors in charge of the J5 Flugpark to let the Camel operate as it did historically: with (nearly) full fuel tanks (say 75%), Cooper bombs as a default/locked loadout and in very, very large (unlimited) numbers. As you can imagine, this is not a particularly popular opinion, even though it's what Trenchard wanted back in 1918. Well, what he really wanted was the S.E.5a, even if he did have a personal history with Tommy Sopwith, but engine problems plagued that design at least until the second half of the year.

 

As for what you can do with a properly fuelled Camel with bombs still attached: everything. Well, you will struggle to fight off a Fokker D.VIIF above 2000m, but you can always drag him down to the deck. If you're struggling with anything else, it's quite honestly your own fault for not attacking from a better position or choosing not to attack if you are at a numerical/positional disadvantage. It's not like you can't disengage. Yes, it can turn and loop around very well, and yes it can turn and loop around even better when it's nearing an empty tank. However, the moment you have to rely on its good, but not amazing aerobatic abilities, rather than its otherworldly energy retention, you've already given up much of your advantage in a dogfight.

Edited February 23, 2020 by J5_Hellbender

[Chief_Mouser]

Hagar mentioned the Camel's tendency to spin with full tanks, something I experience frequently, so it's 75% or less for me now. Thanks .

Now, does anyone have any tips on how to get out of a Camel spin? Traditional methods, throttle back, nose down and opposite rudder don't seem to work. At least not always. I think I've only escaped from one or two spins out of many and I put them down to luck rather than technique. Cheers.

[No.23_Gaylion]

RNAS camel or RFC camel?

40 minutes ago, 216th_Cat said:

Hagar mentioned the Camel's tendency to spin with full tanks, something I experience frequently, so it's 75% or less for me now. Thanks .

Now, does anyone have any tips on how to get out of a Camel spin? Traditional methods, throttle back, nose down and opposite rudder don't seem to work. At least not always. I think I've only escaped from one or two spins out of many and I put them down to luck rather than technique. Cheers.

 

Go to the thread on bender and trupos guide and in there you will find a sheet with all planes recovery techniques.

 

(Psst.... 20% fuel)

[BMA_Hellbender]

23 minutes ago, US213_Talbot said:

(Psst.... 20% fuel)

 

Don't give them any ideas.

 

The problem with 20% fuel is that it turns casual Camel drivers into ramming suicide commandos, who pull as hard as they can in an effort to make up for poorly planned attacks, because any bad position can be saved in the Camel if you turn hard enough and don't care for anybody else's personal space, not even that of your teammates. Well, this is your typical lone Camel hero, so disregard the bit about teammates. Other players on your team are just shoulder-shooting kill-stealers getting in the way of your Vickers anyway.

 

The solution so far has been to limit the amount of available Camels on the server, and for Central flyers to engage lone Camels with extreme prejudice. If you don't kill or flame him within the first 30 seconds, and even then make sure that he's not allowed to land his crippled plane, you can be sure of it that he will splat across your windshield eventually. Considering how the engine calculates collisions (the faster you're flying the less likely you are to suffer damage), and how taking evasive action yourself means giving up what little energy you were trying to hold on to in the diesel-powered Mercedes kite of your choice,  you're going to have a bad time either way.

 

Locking 75% (or at least 50%) fuel means you need to think ahead at least a tiny wee bit. Or burn a lot of fuel before you engage. Or get creative with fuel leaks. And maybe do a bit of ground attack with the Camel in the meantime.

[SeaW0lf]

Instead of going fuel lock to just some planes, better to just open threads asking for the unerfing of the Pfalz and Albatros / give it the later engine names, whatever necessary to unerf them. Although the post 2014 Pfalz has less turn ratio, so there is a compromise, but the DVa is an excellent ride in ROF.

 

But I would not complain to lock some planes with a minimum, let's say the Dr1 with 60% minimum (she's still nerfed), the Camel with 50/60% minimum. The D7F would require a minimum as well. The rest is fine.

 

To force the Camel to 75%, knowing that you are carrying more fuel that every other plane in the roster, sometimes double / triple the fuel, better to lock it at 100% and call it a nerfing, which comes with bad feedback in general (people don't like to be ripped off).

 

Some people would complain about minimums though. I've seen people flying with less than 15% out there (all kinds of planes). Perhaps place a minimum for the front airfields on these planes and unlock the back ones would be a good start.

Edited February 23, 2020 by SeaW0lf

[Zooropa_Fly]

I don't think handicapping certain planes via fuel load is within the spirit of warfare.

[HagarTheHorrible]

I was only really interested in seeing how long a Camel could fly, when the fuel gauge appears empty.  I’ve been told that the fuel gauge doesn’t indicate less than 30%, that just seemed odd, not because it’s wrong, but because I wondered how Camel pilots knew how long they could still fly for, once the gauge stopped indicating fuel remaining.  I reckoned they must have used duration of flight, rather than quantity, I was therefore interested to know how long, because, in my ignorance I tended to head for home when the fuel gauge showed empty.  Last night, by accident, escorting some Brisfits, way, way over Bosche territory, a flight exceeding an hour, with only 36% in the tank on take off, I found out, more or less, or at least enough to be practical.  I tend to fly with about 50%, the Camel becomes manageable and it doesn’t seek to exploit the game mechanics, if any exist, or reduce fuel to absurd levels  just to seek momentary advantage to the detriment of any historical consideration.  Historical norms should however be treated with a grain of salt, FC is NOT the Western front 1918,  the imperatives in the game are not those that dictated choices during the war and the game has never pretended to be 100% historical role play, as much as many of us try to head in that direction as far as is enjoyable and practicable.

 

[BMA_Hellbender]

38 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

To force the Camel to 75%, knowing that you are carrying more fuel that every other plane in the roster, sometimes double / triple the fuel, better to lock it at 100% and call it a nerfing, which comes with bad feedback in general (people don't like to be ripped off).

 

14 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

I don't think handicapping certain planes via fuel load is within the spirit of warfare.

 

Ah, the n-word, I was waiting for it. I'll count "handicapped" as a politically correct version of it.

 

I'm not seeing it that way. I would prefer it if all planes operated with a realistic, historical fuel load. If some plane somehow behaves better and is more popular with pilots than it actually was in real life when you fly it with a less-than-historical load, then maybe the opposite of n-word is going on here. Considering how many people killed themselves simply learning to fly the Camel and how it was outright disliked by former British Pup pilots and Belgian Nieuport 23 / Hanriot HD.1 pilots, I'm thinking this is the case.

 

For the record: it goes both ways, and there are other planes, most notably the Halberstadt, which simply do not have safe takeoff performance with 100% fuel, full bomb loads and extra machineguns. In my opinion: fuel takes precedence over exotic bombloads and experimental machineguns.

Edited February 23, 2020 by J5_Hellbender

[HagarTheHorrible]

Thinking about fuel does actually raise lots of interesting questions (at least I think so, Cynic_Al would probably disagree).

 

I get the impression that FC, and no doubt RoF before it, treats fuel, or at least fuel damage in a rather simplistic manner.  I don’t know, for instance, if where a fuel tank is holed makes any difference ?  Do pressurised fuel systems make any difference , when a main tank is damaged, in the British aircraft, that are I think pressurised, does the game automatically switch over to the reserve, (in the case of the Camel, 7 gallons)  when the fuel tank is hit and pressure is lost, and if that is the case, and the reserve capacity is part of a Camels total flight duration of 150 minutes (2.5 hrs) then the reserve tank should provide 28 minutes of flying time (4 minutes per gallon, as best I can work out).  I’ll have to check out, if I put 0% in the fuel load out, if that is the total or the total minus the reserve, as I was a bit surprised that I flew for over an hour on just 36%, my reckoning is, if the reserve was included in total capacity, I should have run out after about 40-50 minutes.

[ZachariasX]

Can we talk litres when talking about fuel tanks?

[HagarTheHorrible]

16 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

 

Ah, the n-word, I was waiting for it. I'll count "handicapped" as a politically correct version of it.

 

How very dare you. ?  I’ll think you’ll find the politically correct term (for the moment at least, it may change tomorrow) is physically, or mentally, disabled. 

Just now, ZachariasX said:

Can we talk litres when talking about fuel tanks?

 

 

Just going by how it was quantified then.  If I was talking about Central, or French aircraft I would naturally refer to units in metric.

[ZachariasX]

27 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

fuel takes precedence over exotic bombloads and experimental machineguns.

No. Without fuel is best. You can load more bombs, yet you will never bring grief to anyone. It might be argued that like this it is unfairly peaceful.

 

 

5 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

Just going by how it was quantified then.  If I was talking about Central, or French aircraft I would naturally refer to units in metric.

 

Bender would love that. Just force 30 of each.

Edited February 23, 2020 by ZachariasX

[No.23_Gaylion]

1 hour ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

Don't give them any ideas.

 

The problem with 20% fuel is that it turns casual Camel drivers into ramming suicide commandos, who pull as hard as they can in an effort to make up for poorly planned attacks, because any bad position can be saved in the Camel if you turn hard enough and don't care for anybody else's personal space, not even that of your teammates.

 

 

[J2_Trupobaw]

4 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

I've been trying to convince my superiors in charge of the J5 Flugpark to let the Camel operate as it did historically: with (nearly) full fuel tanks (say 75%), Cooper bombs as a default/locked loadout and in very, very large (unlimited) numbers. As you can imagine, this is not a particularly popular opinion, even though it's what Trenchard wanted back in 1918. Well, what he really wanted was the S.E.5a, even if he did have a personal history with Tommy Sopwith, but engine problems plagued that design at least until the second half of the year.

 

 

The only thing we should use Trenchards example for is Dunning–Kruger effect  . For Camel, there were more competent users, like RNAS and BMA. Or Italians. (Or anyone who wasn't Trenchard, really).



The British planes in general had absurd tank capacities and endurance for usage on Western Front. 3.5 hour might be great for long, pointless, offensive patrols Trenchard loved to demoralise his pilots with.  Otherwise, 90 minutes (endurance of D.VII) is sensible endurancet for pilot stationed close to the front going to hunt down some enemies. In case of Camel, this "worst case" 90 minutes loadout is about 43% percent of tank. The rest is there only to torture the pilot, and to make sure he could flee all the way to England in non-stop flight when front collapses. In two hours missions, with refuel option on airfield, on map that goes 100km in longest dimension, 75% will only be needed if pilot gets his tank punctured behind enemy lines and decides he still has to make tour of the map before going back home. Fileas Fogg syndrome aside, it's dead weight.

While the idea of forcing this load on Camel pilots because Trencherd did appeals to my Schadenfreude sense, I think it's going to far.

Edited February 23, 2020 by J2_Trupobaw

[HagarTheHorrible]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

Can we talk litres when talking about fuel tanks?

 

The Camel tank(s) hold 168 litres or 37 gallons (Imp).  The minimum the game allows is 20% which equates to, near as damn it, 7 gallons (31.8 litres), which is the size of the reserve tank.

[BMA_Hellbender]

16 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

While the idea of forcing this load on Camel pilots because Trencherd did appeals to my Schadenfreude sense, I think it's going to far.

 

Trenchard was an idiot who tortured his pilots. Von Hoeppner was an idiot who tortured his pilots.

 

Both did what they could with the men, equipment and knowledge available to them at the time. While flying Camels with 20% fuel and no bombs for leisurely frontline patrols makes perfect sense today, that's not how they were used — at least not in its most common fighter/bomber role. I still think that portraying the Camel with a more accurate loadout and in great numbers, is better than to allow it to be something that it wasn't, and then have to artificially limit its availability because it's perceived as too good.

[Zooropa_Fly]

Did any real pilots ever actually worry about the fuel to performance ratio ?

 

I was always under the impression that it was standard for planes to be filled up before sorties. 

[HagarTheHorrible]

14 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

Did any real pilots ever actually worry about the fuel to performance ratio ?

 

I was always under the impression that it was standard for planes to be filled up before sorties. 

 

 

The frag fest we have in FC, should not be confused with WW 1.  Sizzlorr can shoot down as many aircraft, in an afternoon, as MvR managed in 3 years ?

[ZachariasX]

49 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

I was always under the impression that it was standard for planes to be filled up before sorties. 

It is and was always standard that you fill up the aircrafts tank that it could do what you want with it. More lessens your mileage. If that is no issue, you gan go with too much instead of syphoning out gas. But nobody in their right mind takes on purpose 4 hours worth of fuel on an one hour flight, regardless of the airctaft.

[BMA_Hellbender]

43 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

Did any real pilots ever actually worry about the fuel to performance ratio ?

 

I was always under the impression that it was standard for planes to be filled up before sorties. 

 

26 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

The frag fest we have in FC, should not be confused with WW 1.  Sizzlorr can shoot down as many aircraft, in an afternoon, as MvR managed in 3 years ?

 

There was no reason not to fuel planes up to 100%, though honestly it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't also air force, squadron, mission and even pilot dependent. However, I've never read anywhere about pilots asking to have lower fuel loads just because it would benefit the aircraft's flight envelope. I don't think that this was their primary concern, but rather: will I be able to make it back with x gallons/liters if something goes wrong. That's typically what's on my mind as well when I go flying, and I'm not usually getting shot at.

 

You also don't want to completely simulate reality, which was 95% long, boring patrols with nothing much happening. Unless you're into that, and for this there are single player careers to do just that. There's also no sense in locking fuel to 100%, because planes didn't usually take off with full tanks by the time they were properly warmed up and ready to go. And unless it was a scramble scenario, they also wouldn't meet the enemy quite so quickly as we typically do. So for all intents and purposes, have the fuel at a realistic level, as if you'd meet an enemy in the middle of a long boring patrol, without having to suffer through first. In other words: for a Camel somewhere between 50 and 75%, and for most other planes somewhere between 40 and 60%. Two-seaters often need more than that since you actually need to fly a long (and hopefully boring) route to your target anyway.

 

There's really nothing wrong about getting 3 years' worth of dogfights in a single afternoon and cut out the hundreds of hours of tedium, just have it so that the dogfight itself is more or less representative of the real thing.

[1PL-Sahaj-1Esk]

Against any restrictions. 

 

Maybe altitude restriction for D7F?

 

Or on the deck bombing restrictions for two seaters? Hmm, Bender ? Were low level raids behind the frontlines like those we experience on Flugpark that common in WWI? I guess not at all.

 

Is the use of coms by squadrons not even more unrealistic? 

 

The forced decision what is realistic and what not on a virtual server is very tricky. 

 

Let's play more with mission objective/mechanics this ought to force players to change their fuel strategy what so ever. 

 

Finally when the average flight time on Flugpark is 20-30 minutes or less on a mission why do you want to lock fuel levels at 75%? This is the wrong way in my view. 

 

S!

 

Edited February 24, 2020 by 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk

[HagarTheHorrible]

12 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

 

There was no reason not to fuel planes up to 100%, though honestly it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't also air force, squadron, mission and even pilot dependent. However, I've never read anywhere about pilots asking to have lower fuel loads just because it would benefit the aircraft's flight envelope. I don't think that this was their primary concern, but rather: will I be able to make it back with x gallons/liters if something goes wrong. That's typically what's on my mind as well when I go flying, and I'm not usually getting shot at.

 

You also don't want to completely simulate reality, which was 95% long, boring patrols with nothing much happening. Unless you're into that, and for this there are single player careers to do just that. There's also no sense in locking fuel to 100%, because planes didn't usually take off with full tanks by the time they were properly warmed up and ready to go. And unless it was a scramble scenario, they also wouldn't meet the enemy quite so quickly as we typically do. So for all intents and purposes, have the fuel at a realistic level, as if you'd meet an enemy in the middle of a long boring patrol, without having to suffer through first. In other words: for a Camel somewhere between 50 and 75%, and for most other planes somewhere between 40 and 60%. Two-seaters often need more than that since you actually need to fly a long (and hopefully boring) route to your target anyway.

 

There's really nothing wrong about getting 3 years' worth of dogfights in a single afternoon and cut out the hundreds of hours of tedium, just have it so that the dogfight itself is more or less representative of the real thing.

 

I think, if I was even remotely considering a fuel level minimum, it would be based on flight time rather than percentage.  That way it doesn't allow for gaming the game, but at the same time it doesn't particularly favour aircraft that already had small fuel tanks, because they were designed with a different mission philosophy. 

 

I would be interested to know, if fuel leaks are a consistent loss and if so what the loss rate is, so that it might be possible to calculate remaining flight time, rather than just winging it, so to speak ?

 

Anyway, this thread wasn't really about fuel levels generally, but what sort of endurance the Camel still had, after the fuel gauge stops showing how full the tank is.  The 20% minimum pretty much equates to the quantity in the reserve tank, 31.8 ltrs, which should be good for about 28 minutes flight, although anyone starting on that quantity isn't really playing in the spirit (in joke), a dogfight server, with icons and external views, and all the other helpers would probably be a better fit.  The problem, for Entente pilots (I don't know what Central aircraft used a secondary tank), is, as far as I can see, there is no seperation of the main and reserve tank.  When you lose fuel, you lose fuel and no indication that the system has swapped from the pressurized, main, tank to the gravity fed reserve.  Obviously the real fuel system was so designed to guard against system failure, or loss of pressure, rather than battle damage.

All I can really say however, is that I use the watch, on the Camel dash board, far more than I ever used to, which was never.

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 hour ago, 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk said:

Maybe altitude restriction for D7F?

 

I think my opinion on the F is not too controversial: it's a necessary evil because Central has nothing else that can catch a Bristol bombing at high altitude. I'd like to see it gone, in the same way that I'd like to see 200hp Fokker D.VII / Albatros D.Va take its place. Probably not going to happen, so the only option we have is to strictly limit its numbers and place it in rear fields. Below 1000m it's really not a match for multiple Camels, and that's where Camels should be flying.

 

 

Quote

Or on the deck bombing restrictions for two seaters? Hmm, Bender ? Were low level raids behind the frontlines like those we experience on Flugpark that common in WWI? I guess not at all.

 

Apart from the fact that the Halberstadt didn't carry any actual bombs but grenades (and small throwable bombs), it performed some low-level attacks behind front lines: mostly infantry columns and troop transport infrastructure. Funnily enough its most destructive weapon may have been its flare gun (and later on its morse radio), which was used by the observer and served to direct artillery fire and infantry charges. Bombing or photographing strategic targets didn't happen. Photo recon happened with higher horsepower two-seaters specially designed for that purpose, such as the high-altitude Rumpler C.VII "Rubild". Most actual bombing would have happened with heavy bombers such as the Gotha or Zeppelin airships during night raids.

 

On Entente, the Bristol was used as a recon / turret fighter / top escort for Camels. It could carry bombs and it did have a bombsight, but that wasn't its typical role. Daytime bombing of airfields, infantry camps, weapons / fuel depots and artillery position from high altitude may have happened, but wasn't all that common. Photo recon and nighttime bombing was common, althought this was done by older semi-obsolete two-seaters, such as the R.E.8. This is simply because there were not enough Rolls-Royce engines being delivered to power more Bristols, and the Bristol's main task was escorting Camels during the day. Low-level ground attack was entirely the domain of Camel fighter/bombers, which were considered lower value assets than their two-seater escorts, a stark contrast with the Luftstreitkräfte, who considered the two-seater escort Halberstadt to be of less value than either scouts or higher horsepower recon two-seaters.

 

In many ways the Camel and Halberstadt were each other's counterparts when it comes to low level ground attack, and it's no wonder that almost all enemy scout reports of Schlachtflieger mention "Sopwiths". For the record: the CL.II fared very well against the Camel, but that may have had more to do with the numbers in which they were deployed, which is anywhere from 6 (a Schlasta) to 24 machines (a Schlagru), while Camels usually operated in pairs or groups of 4.

 

 

Quote

Is the use of coms by squadrons not even more unrealistic?

 

Eh, I'm on the fence about that one.

 

Comms are a good substitute for the hours of training which squadrons would log outside of combat to maintain some form of cohesion before and during fights. They're also a substitute for non-verbal communication, which would have been perfected during training. Typically I find comms very useful before a fight, but they become more of a distraction during. I suppose if you put in many hours of comms training, you can definitely reach unattainable levels of cooperation by WWI standards and perform beam defense positions (Thach Weave) and other complex air combat maneuvers that didn't exist in WWI, but I trust that most of us are too lazy to do this and that Discord is mostly used to rant about how your wife doesn't let you "fly your little planes" enough.

 

 

Quote

The forced decision what is realistic and what not on a virtual server is very tricky. 

 

Let's play more with mission objective/mechanics this ought to force players to change their fuel strategy what so ever. 

 

Finally when the average flight time on Flugpark is 20-30 minutes or less on a mission why do you want to lock fuel levels at 75%? This is the wrong way in my view. 

 

In my opinion it's entirely up to the developers first, then mission builders second, to create a realistic environment that can withstand the "gaming" that players throw at it (comms etc.).

 

While it's certainly true that most of us have little time to play and it wouldn't make sense to force people to fly a 90-minute patrol before getting into a 3-minute fight, only then to fly home for another 30 minutes, I do think you should start most fights with a fuel load that represents the fact that you're in the middle of a long patrol. Camels, in particular, would not typically find themselves attacking trenches and Halberstadts with only a reserve tank left.

 

The fact that this gives them an artificial buff is a very unfortunate side-effect of this, and one of the reasons why the Camel has always had such a bad reputation in multiplayer with Central flyers ("It creates energy out of nowhere!"), even back when I flew the Camel full-time. This is a stigma I'd really like to see gone, since Camels should be the most common Entente type in the sector. A rightly feared, highly effective but also somewhat dangerous machines to fly. Most of this danger is just lessened at lower fuel loads.

 

Does that make any sense?

[ZachariasX]

15 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

There's also no sense in locking fuel to 100%, because planes didn't usually take off with full tanks by the time they were properly warmed up and ready to go.

 

You don‘t want to lock fuel at „100%“ because then added cargo (weapon) and pilot weight might result in a non permissive weight and balance sheet. It would not only be dumb, but very lethal.

 

I repeat NOBODY defaults their aircraft as „100%“ full and then looks whether he can still bring a passenger. (If not, tough luck for that guy.)

 

You always start with a flight plan. THEN you put in what you need. Only dead pilots make exception to that rule.

 

The Halb is a good example that you better not take all of everything to have a competitive plane. This is not the Halbs fault, it is how aircraft are.

 

EDIT: Thinking of it, it would probably be best if a mission designer would state that the Camel on his map would be „110 hp“ ones and then then give it a 75% fuel „penalty“. Or whatever.

 

A nerf is a nerf. One should use the word here, because sometimes that can make sense too. The mission designer has free choice of how much is needed to balance his map.

 

We don‘t really have to find other rationale than balancing purposes to make a game more fun.

 

Edited February 24, 2020 by ZachariasX

[SeaW0lf]

Yeah, since we have a bunch of things that are far from realistic, makes no sense to single out a plane to handicap it. I think there was also a Camel with a 27 gallon tank, or even a short range one, and then we can play with some loads and roles. They don’t have all to be for ground strafing and such.

 

Although I agree that some Camel pilots are rowdy out there (fuel loads are unrelated, since they can ram you with 100% fuel). Got friendly rammed again yesterday. He came into my kill and just front rammed us both without reason, since I did not see the D7 change his course.

 

By the way, on a primarily test yesterday, I ran a Camel with 12% fuel at 2000m, 76% mixture and it gave me 22 minutes of flight, which is less than double. If I’m not mistaken, the Camel before the prop fix would give me around 30 minutes. I have to do some longer tests (there is no stopwatch on the hud) and vary the mixture, but I don’t think any variable can fill the gap from 22 to 30 minutes.

 

So the Camel is less economical, perhaps the reason why I kept increasing my fuel load, since I go for long lone wolf patrols.

[BMA_Hellbender]

4 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

You don‘t want to lock fuel at „100%“ because then added cargo (weapon) and pilot weight might result in a non permissive weight and balance sheet. It would not only be dumb, but very lethal.

 

I repeat NOBODY defaults their aircraft as „100%“ full and then looks whether he can still bring a passenger. (If not, tough luck for that guy.)

You always start with a flight plan. THEN you put in what you need. Only dead pilots make exception to that rule.

The Halb is a good example that you better not take all of everything to have a competitive plane. This is not the Halbs fault, it is how aircraft are.

 

I'd be very careful with "nobody statements". Several schools at the airport where I got my license practice the strict rule that all planes take off with full tanks and the mass & balance be calculated accordingly. As in: how many passengers and cargo can you still take when you're fully fueled. This is exactly to counter some student pilot killing himself because he thought he had less fuel than he actually did and couldn't make it off the end of the runway with an extra passenger on board. Alternatively, because the student refused to refuel in order to take that extra passenger, got off the ground alright, but overestimated the actual fuel quantity on board and ran out of fuel 10 miles away from the airport (this has been a problem in aviation since day 1, especially with fuel indicators being as inaccurate as they are and people incorrectly logging the number of hours flown).

 

On the other hand, I do agree that everybody who wants to stay alive should load up according to their plane's capabilities. In that respect it's absolutely possible to overload either on weapons or fuel, even with mods selected by default in certain missions.

 

Since we don't have the actual balance sheets for the aircraft we're flying (not that people would actually use them), it's all trial and error, and most of the time, the machines are flying in configurations that differ wildly from reality. Most notably the Camel and the Halberstadt.

 

 

Quote

EDIT: Thinking of it, it would probably be best if a mission designer would state that the Camel on his map would be „110 hp“ ones and then then give it a 75% fuel „penalty“. Or whatever.

 

No, I don't agree there. Loading a Camel with a higher fuel load is not somehow reducing its engine power output.

 

70% (120l):

 

 

20% (30l):

 

 

 

It will lengthen the takeoff roll, reduce climb performance and increase stall speed (hence how "tight" you can pull it around a corner), but its top speed should remain largely unaffected. Lift/weight induced drag is almost not a factor at these low airspeeds anyway.

 

Compare this to the "110hp" Camel, which is what we have in RoF,  and the actual 110hp Nieuport 17 and Fokker Dr.I (in both RoF and FC).

 

 

Setting a historical fuel load is by no means a nerf or a penalty, it's an added layer of realism.

 

The only real penalty the Camel suffers in multiplayer, is already in place today: in some maps it's limited in number because it's perceived as being "too good" and there have been plenty of threads and posts here about how it is "too easy to fly" with nearly empty tanks. It gets an undeserved bad rap because of this.

 

 

 

Quote

A nerf is a nerf. One should use the word here, because sometimes that can make sense too. The mission designer has free choice of how much is needed to balance his map. We don‘t really have to find other rationale than balancing purposes to make a game more fun.

 

2 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

Yeah, since we have a bunch of things that are far from realistic, makes no sense to single out a plane to handicap it. I think there was also a Camel with a 27 gallon tank, or even a short range one, and then we can play with some loads and roles. They don’t have all to be for ground strafing and such.

 

Although I agree that some Camel pilots are rowdy out there (fuel loads are unrelated, since they can ram you with 100% fuel). Got friendly rammed again yesterday. He came into my kill and just front rammed us both without reason, since I did not see the D7 change his course.

 

 

Flying with 70% is as much of a nerf, as flying with 20% is a buff.

 

 

You can throw in as many gaming terms as you want, the fact of the matter remains that we have a 130hp Clerget Camel (at least according to the developers) regardless of fuel loadout, and it will have a different flight envelope depending on how much weight it carries. The question is: how much did it carry when it went into battle? Bombs can be easily dropped, so I would discard those as a factor.

 

You can cut the apple down the middle and say 50% fuel (80l), and quite honestly I see most people who fly the Camel and intend to get into action right away take off with a similar load. However we do know that large fuel tanks were a feature of the Camel and it was assigned long patrols which, in 1918, included ground attack. We can argue about Belgian Camels, RNAS Camels and even American Camels until the cows come home, those are not representative of how the Camel operated with the RFC/RAF in the Arras sector in the of Spring 1918.

 

My only wish is to see more Camels being flown in multiplayer, not fewer, and without the associated stigma of attracting "rowdy" behaviour.

Edited February 24, 2020 by J5_Hellbender

[SeaW0lf]

Then you have to lock all planes at 100%. No two ways about it.

[BMA_Hellbender]

6 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

Then you have to lock all planes at 100%. No two ways about it.

 

I'm all for it, though I think 100% (170l) is a lot on the Camel.

 

Vintage Missions used to do that, so it may be a worthwhile experiment. Perhaps not for every day of the week, but during the large events that draw 50+ people, just to keep some of the rowdiness down a bit, even if you can just as easily ram someone at high loads, you'll also put yourself at a an energy disadvantage quicker. And it would mean that you can still fly with whatever fuel load (and bomb load) you want at other times.

[SeaW0lf]

I think it is not a popular choice in open servers. I think it works in coops or closed events. But if people decide to lock all planes at 100%, I'm all in.

[ZachariasX]

26 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

I'd be very careful with "nobody statements". Several schools at the airport where I got my license practice the strict rule that all planes take off with full tanks and the mass & balance be calculated accordingly. As in: how many passengers and cargo can you still take when you're fully fueled. This is exactly to counter some student pilot killing himself because he thought he had less fuel than he actually did and couldn't make it off the end of the runway with an extra passenger on board. Alternatively, because the student refused to refuel in order to take that extra passenger, got off the ground alright, but overestimated the actual fuel quantity on board and ran out of fuel 10 miles away from the airport (this has been a problem in aviation since day 1, especially with fuel indicators being as inaccurate as they are and people incorrectly logging the number of hours flown).

 

OMFG. Ok, I stand corrected and there's seemingly always a great reason to do absolutely stupid things. I mean, when you do create a flight plan, there is a required minimum of extra fuel required to safely and in all circumstances reach your alternate. Always going tipped off, you're transforming some two seaters into one seaters. You will most likely die in vintage aircraft on hot days. But your flying club has more tolerant aircraft I'm sure. Anyway, what works on coldish sea level aircraft would get you killed in the Alps. Promise me you never do this kind of BS when flying where be less margin and you make sure instead that you have the best chances possible to do what you want.

 

33 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

This is exactly to counter some student pilot killing himself because he thought he had less fuel than he actually did and couldn't make it off the end of the runway with an extra passenger on board.

This is weird though. You have students taking passengers?

 

From now on, surprises me anymore.

 

33 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

No, I don't agree there. Loading a Camel with a higher fuel load is not somehow reducing its engine power output.

That's certainly not the case. But make your flight trial at 3000 meters.

 

And yes, the Camel is less fiendish when flying on fumes than with 100 kg of added fuel in a skirimsh. So you may have to imagine some things.

 

36 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

You can throw in as many gaming terms as you want, the fact of the matter remains that we have a 130hp Clerget Camel (at least according to the developers) regardless of fuel loadout, and it will have a different flight envelope depending on how much weight it carries. 

It's not helpful if you want it to be too good without having real options. There's a limit to wanting to do good.

 

In the end, who cares? If it's aloft, shoot it down. You can shoot down any aricraft wth any plane if you are better and know how to aim.

 

37 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

My only wish is to see more Camels being flown in multiplayer, not fewer, and without the associated stigma of attracting "rowdy" behaviour.

Yesterday I was alone in the Camel with maybe 40 L fuel left over Baupame when I got bounced by two Dr.I. I made some holes in the first one, then guiess what they did? The RAMMED themselves! I had ONLY one victory insead of two in the end. Talk about rowdy... ?

[2nd_TAF/602Sqn_Puff]

Late to the party but been around since a tester in ROF...what gets me is that , as a camel pilot, I have to suffer the feeling that I’m doing something wrong in taking the aircraft...but I always fly with 100% fuel,

sad but true I know ...but no combat pilot in his right mind took off with less than full tanks, I asked this of two WW2 pilots when the same argument arose in RoF years ago and was told this from both of them. 
I have no problem with others doing whatever they wish, but please don’t tar all Camel pilots with the same brush.

Some of us are mad ?

Edited February 24, 2020 by 602EAF_Puff

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, SeaW0lf said:

I think it is not a popular choice in open servers. I think it works in coops or closed events. But if people decide to lock all planes at 100%, I'm all in.

You just alienate players. On top of that you can ram with any aircraft.

 

55 minutes ago, 602EAF_Puff said:

, I asked this of two WW2 pilots when the same argument arose in RoF years ago and was told this from both of them. 

When all the fuel you have is never enough, then you sure tip off the tank. 

 

Now go and lock the P-51 on 100% fuel on Berloga. That will be fun.

 

55 minutes ago, 602EAF_Puff said:

I have no problem with others doing whatever they wish, but please don’t tar all Camel pilots with the same brush.

This!

Edited February 24, 2020 by ZachariasX

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

OMFG. Ok, I stand corrected and there's seemingly always a great reason to do absolutely stupid things. I mean, when you do create a flight plan, there is a required minimum of extra fuel required to safely and in all circumstances reach your alternate. Always going tipped off, you're transforming some two seaters into one seaters. You will most likely die in vintage aircraft on hot days. But your flying club has more tolerant aircraft I'm sure. Anyway, what works on coldish sea level aircraft would get you killed in the Alps. Promise me you never do this kind of BS when flying where be less margin and you make sure instead that you have the best chances possible to do what you want.

 

Well, I don't pretend to be a mountain flyer, although field elevation of Madrid-Cuatro Vientos (LECU) is 2,269ft, and we're at the foot of the Sierra de Guadarrama (where the practice areas are) which puts the MEF up to 8900ft in places. Realistically you will clear most passes at 7000ft and it's hardly the Alps, although density altitude at the field can easily rise to 5,000ft in summer. As a rule of thumb nobody takes off when it's more than 35C (not that you would want to in these old American wrecks without air conditioning). We get plenty of visiting flight clubs from all over Europe during summer who come and practise high density altitude flying. For the most part LECU is considered to be a hard place to learn, so I accept that it's not standard procedure everywhere. I solo'ed at 45 hours, which is not unusual here (at least 20 of those hours were spent unlearning RoF antics). Actually, this summer I took off for the first time ever at sea level on a cross country flight to the coast.

 

 

None of this changes the fact that (for the most part) all planes operated by schools and local flight clubs are fuelled to the max for every flight. Especially in high density altitude conditions it makes you even more diligent with regards to the limits of the POH. As for most four-seaters below 150hp, they are most definitely considered to be two-seaters (one-and-a-half-seaters, really) and don't even have seatbelts in the back. Even for the 180hp PA-28 I usually fly, I'd never take more than just my kids in the backseats.

 

There are very few accidents due to either DA or students running out of fuel (duh), although we've had 2 fatal mid-air collisions with ultra-lights this year alone. Scares the hell out of me, really. Still, let me know if you're ever in the area, we have some lovely views here.

 

 

Quote

This is weird though. You have students taking passengers?

 

From now on, surprises me anymore.

 

Most students here are Modular ATPL, so you're PPL way, way before your final IR/ME/MCC and CPL checkrides. Hey, what do you expect? It's Spain and Modular means cheaper!

 

Time building alone is boring, anyway. Plus, having someone with you is the best possible opportunity to be an insufferable know-it-all and ramble on about aviation facts. They have three options: jump from the plane, crash it and kill everyone on board, or sit still and listen. I'm still alive!

 

 

Anyway, back to the topic at hand.

 

Quote

That's certainly not the case. But make your flight trial at 3000 meters.

 

And yes, the Camel is less fiendish when flying on fumes than with 100 kg of added fuel in a skirimsh. So you may have to imagine some things.

 

So you're flying your low level trench attack fighter/bomber at 3000m and complaining that it doesn't climb when properly fuelled.

 

Shall I introduce you to my friend Thea and her sisters?

 

 

Quote

It's not helpful if you want it to be too good without having real options. There's a limit to wanting to do good.

 

In the end, who cares? If it's aloft, shoot it down. You can shoot down any aricraft wth any plane if you are better and know how to aim.

 

You certainly can, there's still no reason to have people set it at an artificially low level in order to do unlikely aerobatics with it.

 

I'm not doubting that the machine could do it, only that real life pilots were a lot less keen on putting it through the ringer like we are, and the low fuel levels only exacerbate the problem. If you have sufficient energy and practice a little bit of energy management, you can still do everything you want with that plane, and more, even with 100% fuel. She's still the best energy fighter in all of FC and all of RoF. (pre-1.034 Pup came close)

 

 

Quote

Yesterday I was alone in the Camel with maybe 40 L fuel left over Baupame when I got bounced by two Dr.I. I made some holes in the first one, then guiess what they did? The RAMMED themselves! I had ONLY one victory insead of two in the end. Talk about rowdy... ?

 

I rest my case.

Edited February 24, 2020 by J5_Hellbender

[1PL-Sahaj-1Esk]

8 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

Apart from the fact that the Halberstadt didn't carry any actual bombs but grenades (and small throwable bombs), it performed some low-level attacks behind front lines: mostly infantry columns and troop transport infrastructure. Funnily enough its most destructive weapon may have been its flare gun (and later on its morse radio), which was used by the observer and served to direct artillery fire and infantry charges. Bombing or photographing strategic targets didn't happen. Photo recon happened with higher horsepower two-seaters specially designed for that purpose, such as the high-altitude Rumpler C.VII "Rubild". Most actual bombing would have happened with heavy bombers such as the Gotha or Zeppelin airships during night raids.

 

On Entente, the Bristol was used as a recon / turret fighter / top escort for Camels. It could carry bombs and it did have a bombsight, but that wasn't its typical role. Daytime bombing of airfields, infantry camps, weapons / fuel depots and artillery position from high altitude may have happened, but wasn't all that common. Photo recon and nighttime bombing was common, althought this was done by older semi-obsolete two-seaters, such as the R.E.8. This is simply because there were not enough Rolls-Royce engines being delivered to power more Bristols, and the Bristol's main task was escorting Camels during the day. Low-level ground attack was entirely the domain of Camel fighter/bombers, which were considered lower value assets than their two-seater escorts, a stark contrast with the Luftstreitkräfte, who considered the two-seater escort Halberstadt to be of less value than either scouts or higher horsepower recon two-seaters.

 

In many ways the Camel and Halberstadt were each other's counterparts when it comes to low level ground attack, and it's no wonder that almost all enemy scout reports of Schlachtflieger mention "Sopwiths". For the record: the CL.II fared very well against the Camel, but that may have had more to do with the numbers in which they were deployed, which is anywhere from 6 (a Schlasta) to 24 machines (a Schlagru), while Camels usually operated in pairs or groups of 4.

 

 

Bender, I am talking about how YOU use that plane (Halberstadt CL.II/Bristol) on FLUGPARK to sack thousands of points with it for the side that you are flying. Why don't you bring it up that it is 'maybe' even more unrealistic? 10% objectives are on the trenches only the rest is scored with raids on the back of the enemy with 20m altitude. This is certainly not how it was used and yes I also know how it was used historically.

 

... and there are the coms that squads are using (which is by far the most unrealistic feature) and planes have different fuel tank sizes and the biggest problem is Camel-ramming? because of low-fuel levels? I don't believe that. Intensive furbals result in collisions and always will.

 

I am all for freedom of choice, if you plan a long offensive patrol/strategic mission you take more fuel than for patrolling the front where you know that you flight will not last over 40 min.

 

At the end it is all about competing, e.g. in Formula 1 10l of fuel can make a lot of time difference on a lap and teams are using it to gain edge over their opponents, I see it in the same way on the server, full load can give you the edge in a fight or decide that you will lose on the other hand if you take not enough you want be able to return and your streak may end with a capture.

 

Mission objectives/plane return incentives/strategic goals - those ought to be the factors which determine the fuel loads.

 

S!

Edited February 24, 2020 by 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk

[ZachariasX]

30 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

None of this changes the fact that (for the most part) all planes operated by schools and local flight clubs are fuelled to the max for every flight.

I said I believe you. Maybe it‘s even a good idea for flight schools to make their students fly pattern like that.

 

But as you put it.. it is like a general consensus that pilots of the club can‘t be expected to do proper weight and balance nor be expected to do a flight plan.

 

As for the topic of the game, I just fail to see that problem as you do. Some players sometimes act like jerks, some are nice. But I couldn‘t link their criminal disposition to certain aircraft lest their fuel loads.

 

37 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

I rest my case.

It did look good though.

 

[BMA_Hellbender]

45 minutes ago, 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk said:

Bender, I am talking about how YOU use that plane (Halberstadt CL.II/Bristol) on FLUGPARK to sack thousands of points with it for the side that you are flying. Why don't you bring it up that it is 'maybe' even more unrealistic? 10% objectives are on the trenches only the rest is scored with raids on the back of the enemy with 20m altitude. This is certainly not how it was used and yes I also know how it was used historically.

 

I don't fly the Bristol anymore and I have no idea how the parser calculates points, all I know is that I'm using a trench attack plane to attack "trenches". Well, we don't really have trenches, so that means I'm attacking AAA machinegunners with machineguns and heavy tanks with P.u.W. bombs. My main intention wasn't to rack up points (you don't win missions for your side with those anyway, only through completing objectives), but to get up to a streak of 75 ground kills and get the Military Merit Cross in Gold, the so-called "NCO Pour le Mérite". No, don't get up, Prussian NCOs don't celebrate like officers do. I do hope many other Schlachtflieger will follow and do the same!

 

As for those raids in the back aimed at bridges and factories: they are not particularly representative of what a CL.II's mission was (fun to do, though), although attacking trains and troop transport may have happened. Sometimes they went for infantry columns on the march. Personally I like to bomb from around 50-100 meters, give or take, though historically they would have dropped their clustered potatomasher grenades from below 30m (100ft), directly into trenches below.

 

 

I wish we could do just that.

 

Look at how happy and eager they look about it:

 

 

 

War.

 

It's fantastic!

 

 

 

Quote

... and there are the coms that squads are using (which is by far the most unrealistic feature) and planes have different fuel tank sizes and the biggest problem is Camel-ramming? because of low-fuel levels? I don't believe that. Intensive furbals result in collisions and always will.

 

I agree, though low fuel loads on the Camel appear to be a factor that makes collisions more likely to happen. I simply speak from repeated experience.

 

 

For the record: I certainly don't have anything to say about how you fly the Camel. I was making a point about it the other day how you're one of the only ones to always take around 50% fuel, and also one of the only people last month to put Cooper bombs under it and actually bomb something with it.

 

So if more people could fly the Camel like you do, I'd be happy. And it's not like you're doing poorly in terms of points, either.

 

But since I'm being accused of favouring Central, next month I'll do just that: fly a ground attack Camel. That Belgian 100 ground streak medal looks very appealing.

Edited February 24, 2020 by J5_Hellbender