Fuelling the fun

[HagarTheHorrible]

It's actually really simple, to be fair, if fuel locks are introduced, then do it based on flight time.  Each aircraft must carry a minimum of fuel sufficient for 1 hrs flight.  If a pilot wants to take more, for shits and giggles, or for a deep penitration mission, then they are welcome.

 

Not all military aircraft take full tanks.  Bombers always balance out fuel load and bomb load with mission requirement, with weather added into the mix.  The danger was when both elements were extreme, as the forest behind my home is testament too, with several bomber wrecks.

 

The style of mission, for both sides in FC, is closer to the German design philosophy, and they chose small tanks to maximise performance, at the expense of range, something that failed them 22 years later, over the channel.  Both sides should seek maximum performance balanced by the style of mission, but not to the point of kamikazi, one way only flights, because death or capture don't matter.  A minimum of 1hr probably fulfills that requirement, the DR1 would struggle to stay airborne for much longer anyway, even with a full tank.

[J2_Trupobaw]

This. If locking *minimal* fuel load is possible, I agree that 1 hour endurance is reasonable minimal load. 

[No.23_Gaylion]

On 2/24/2020 at 3:43 PM, HagarTheHorrible said:

....or for a deep penitration mission....

 

 

 

[SeaW0lf]

Yes, one hour endurance minimum for every plane is a good choice. From what altitude sample? 2.000m?

[J2_Trupobaw]

From maximal endurance given in plane description :P.

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

I usually get shot down with in the first 1/2 hour, so does that mean I get less fuel than the rest of you?

[SeaW0lf]

11 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

From maximal endurance given in plane description :P.

 

We would have to do some tests, because I think the prop fix changed the consumption of the Camel and those stat numbers are prone to errors, especially now with the porting from ROF when they apparently ported some wrong FMs, like it was explained about the Pfalz (?), or whatever was the case.

 

Since the consumption varies with altitude, some altitude sample would be required.

Edited February 26, 2020 by SeaW0lf

[J5_Gamecock]

While not a fan of Camels on fumes... I'm really against fuel locks or minimums. 

[ZachariasX]

On 2/24/2020 at 9:43 PM, HagarTheHorrible said:

Each aircraft must carry a minimum of fuel sufficient for 1 hrs flight.

This translates to about 50 litres of fuel. For all aircraft. The rotaries consume more, but leaning mixture is very effective in getting mileage, far more important than altitude.

[US103_Baer]

3 hours ago, J5_Gamecock said:

While not a fan of Camels on fumes... I'm really against fuel locks or minimums. 

 

Agreed. This is Wargrounds deja vu, but the planes in FC are so different. Impacting all planes to mitigate one doesn't seem like a good plan. 

I'd much rather see missions that rewarded Camel pilots (and others) for things like taking bombs, doing ground attack and maintaining local air superiority.

 

Lets not start putting barriers up, we need all the pilots we can get.

 

PS: Wouldn't it be easier to just avoid low-fueled Camels? They'll probably be low and acting hyper aggressive, or already in furballs over the mud. Just ignore.

 

 

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, US103_Baer said:

PS: Wouldn't it be easier to just avoid low-fueled Camels? They'll probably be low and acting hyper aggressive, or already in furballs over the mud. Just ignore.

This made me chuckle. I bet you'd have a lot of very angry soldiers with bayonets pointed at you in your planning office quickly if your airforce just ignored CAS aircraft. There is hardly anything more irrelevant to the war effort than "free roaming" (fighter) aircraft. A fighter only has purpose when it shoots down spotters or bombers/CAS aircraft. Fighter vs. fighter is only relevant in terms of what is left of them to shoot at meaningful targets.

 

Conversely, you can ignore any Central aircraft besides the D.VIIF when flying the SE5a. Maybe provoke some drag and bag if you drag them near "hyper aggressive" Camels. It depends on what is fun to you in terms of game play.

[BMA_Hellbender]

3 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

This translates to about 50 litres of fuel. For all aircraft. The rotaries consume more, but leaning mixture is very effective in getting mileage, far more important than altitude.

 

This equates to 30% fuel on the Camel, which is not acceptable in my opinion.

 

I think the bare minimum would be 100 litres, which is around 60% for the Camel, Bristol and Halberstadt; around 80% for the Entente in-line scouts; around 100% for the Central in-line scouts; and the outlier being the Fokker Dr.I, which only has a 72 liter tank.

 

 

7 hours ago, J5_Gamecock said:

While not a fan of Camels on fumes... I'm really against fuel locks or minimums. 

 

3 hours ago, US103_Baer said:

Agreed. This is Wargrounds deja vu, but the planes in FC are so different. Impacting all planes to mitigate one doesn't seem like a good plan. 

I'd much rather see missions that rewarded Camel pilots (and others) for things like taking bombs, doing ground attack and maintaining local air superiority.

 

Lets not start putting barriers up, we need all the pilots we can get.

 

PS: Wouldn't it be easier to just avoid low-fueled Camels? They'll probably be low and acting hyper aggressive, or already in furballs over the mud. Just ignore.

 

3 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

This made me chuckle. I bet you'd have a lot of very angry soldiers with bayonets pointed at you in your planning office quickly if your airforce just ignored CAS aircraft. There is hardly anything more irrelevant to the war effort than "free roaming" (fighter) aircraft. A fighter only has purpose when it shoots down spotters or bombers/CAS aircraft. Fighter vs. fighter is only relevant in terms of what is left of them to shoot at meaningful targets.

 

Conversely, you can ignore any Central aircraft besides the D.VIIF when flying the SE5a. Maybe provoke some drag and bag if you drag them near "hyper aggressive" Camels. It depends on what is fun to you in terms of game play.

 

 

So, perhaps surprisingly, I'm also not a fan of locking fuel loads or imposing other limits to planes. However, we have to play the hand we were dealt. I don't think I need to go into more detail.

 

I'm also not going to pretend that locking fuel to a historical minimum is not largely because of the Camel and that the Camel will be among the planes most affected by it (I've cleverly dodged the topic so far, but you should also try a CL.II running on fumes ?). The Fokker Dr.I the least, which I think is fair enough considering its role and performance by 1918 standards.

 

And if it helps you sleep at night, then sure: it's a NERF.

 

 

Other nerfs so far include (both directly from the developers and from mission settings / server policies):
 

• G-forces and G-LOC
   
• the Fokker Dr.I's engine performance
   
• the Fokker D.VIIF being limited in number
   
• the effectiveness of (human) gunners compared to scouts
   
• the overall damage modeling and wings no longer shedding Hollywood-style
   
• and even some "soft nerfs" such as AI airkills being included in streaks and disabling kill messages to reduce chat toxicity which was rampant in RoF

 

All change is hard, and not all change is necessarily good, but the numbers are up, in spite of some gloomy predictions about FC multiplayer, and some annoyingly persistent bugs.

 

I don't want to single out anyone, but there was definitely a sentiment a few months ago that multiplayer would be dead by now, unless FC2 was announced. The opposite is true.

 

 

 

I can't argue with the fact that, in the end, it's all about gameplay.

 

It's all about what makes you come back and fly FC. For my own personal bias: fly on the J5 Flugpark. At the moment there's no shortage of players during the main events, which is great, but we're not out of the woods yet. To avoid FC fizzling out like RoF did, we need to have people online almost all the time. It's always happy hour somewhere in the world. I think ground attack (and attacking ground attackers) and the Camel's role in it, can have a major impact there.

 

Up until a few months ago, I scoffed at the idea of even doing ground attack, until I started doing it and actually began to enjoy it. I'm not saying that everyone should do the same, but it's certainly worth a try. The rewards for doing so are most definitely there: both in terms of personal achievements and in terms of scoring (though completing recon is more helpful to your team, and we're still trying to figure out how to improve scoring there). That is, if you even care about those things, and I understand why some people outright disagree with it being so valuable in the parser.

 

There's the additional difficulty that the Camel, which is not an obvious ground attack plane, is the Entente ground attack plane — which the two-seater Bristol is not, just to make it more confusing. Then there's the extreme difficult that ground attack isn't exactly perceived as sexy or worthwhile and definitely not what people sign up for when they buy this game. It's all about how good of a "fighter vs. fighter" type you are, and that's what's being most openly celebrated — which is normal.

 

 

 

In the end, though, and I will keep on repeating this: even a nerfed 60%-fueled Cooper-bombed ground attack fighter/bomber Camel, is still twice the dogfighter any of the Central scouts are (at sea level). It just requires a tiny bit more finesse and planning.

 

And just to prove my point I'll fly a nerfed 60%-fueled Cooper-bombed ground attack fighter/bomber Camel next month, and attempt to get somewhere near the top of the ranking.

 

See, I've already come down from 75% fuel. Who says I can't be reasoned with? ?

[ZachariasX]

3 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

See, I've already come down from 75% fuel. Who says I can't be reasoned with? ?

Reasoning, that's what we're here for, right?

 

4 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

I can't argue with the fact that, in the end, it's all about gameplay.

This. Absolutely.

 

As the numbers indeed are going up, there should be indeed be possibilities for proper mission creation. I'm thinking of Combat Box as the current benchmark of what is possible, and there not making everything available is a big part of making the gameplay not only fair, but also more enjoyable.

 

Coming up with the "110 hp Camel" by mislabeling a 100% fuel was just a vain attempt to sell something like you were suggesting to the player. I believe that if people understand what you are doing, they are ok with it.

 

15 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

There's the additional difficulty that the Camel, which is not an obvious ground attack plane, is the Entente ground attack plane

Very true. I could well imagine that the only Camels without restrictions in numbers would be mandatory Cooper bomb equiped ones. Depending on the setting there could be limited number of as-you-want-it Camels. Same as there could be a moderated number of D.VIIF's. We have this with the Bristols that are presented as different planes with different availabilities  for different tasks, like the recon one and the bomber one. I don't like the idea of making things unavailable, as it reduces possibilities in mission making. But selctive availability, that can enhance gameplay.

 

It comes of no surprise that I'm not the biggest fan of fuel locks, but if you let those completely to the players discretion, you sometimes get silly things as 10 L fuel for instant fun. Especially when you see a big furball next to the front airfields, and that's your thing, then you'll have some frags before you get yours way before you burned 10 L. Besides being silly, I don't think it is being used too often as one has to fly for some time finding opponents. I don't mind the idea of a reasonable general minimum of fuel, 50 L being about what you need to just make a 15 min flight plus reserve. As you mentioned, people do run their tanks dry, you don't want that if you were to enforce even a remote sense of plausibility. As the Camel is indeed a plane that has to go to the enemy to get shot at, one could use this as excuse to give it a bit more minimum fuel for instance than the Dr.I that had the enemy coming to him for getting shot at.

 

Thus, don't call it a "110 hp Camel" (that was just something that cam eto my mind), call it a bomber/CAS squad and give it the bombs and at least 60 L of fuel. Down low, it is still a dangerous opponent like that. At 3000 m, the Camel much less cool either way. G-loc being the Camels worst enemy anyway, it makes any Central fighter turn equally at higher speeds. The sturdy Pfalz being a particularly nasty opponent. The only way to beat them is to live long enough making them lose more altitude in the turns and then start the energy fight.

 

If you treat the "unlocked" Camel as the D.VIIF, then you can balance a lot. Central can have the monster up high, Entente down low.

 

 

 

[BMA_Hellbender]

4 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Very true. I could well imagine that the only Camels without restrictions in numbers would be mandatory Cooper bomb equiped ones. Depending on the setting there could be limited number of as-you-want-it Camels. Same as there could be a moderated number of D.VIIF's. We have this with the Bristols that are presented as different planes with different availabilities  for different tasks, like the recon one and the bomber one. I don't like the idea of making things unavailable, as it reduces possibilities in mission making. But selctive availability, that can enhance gameplay.

 

If you treat the "unlocked" Camel as the D.VIIF, then you can balance a lot. Central can have the monster up high, Entente down low.

 

See, now you're talking!

 

We could have 60% fuel Camels with Cooper bombs right here at the front as RFC/RAF Camels, and a limited number of "as-you-want-it" Camels in the back (same as the Fokker D.VIIF) as RNAS or even Belgian Camels. Something like this:

 

 

 

It would resolve the problem of one plane having to fulfill two roles and behaving very differently accordingly.

 

We would have had the same problem with the Fokker D.VII and D.VIIF, had they been one and the same plane with the BMW IIIa as a selectable modification.

 

 

Now the question is: can you actually do that in terms of server fuel settings?

[ZachariasX]

4 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

It would resolve the problem of one plane having to fulfill two roles and behaving very differently accordingly.

Sonds like a good idea to me.

 

4 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

Now the question is: can you actually do that in terms of server fuel settings?

Berloga has different fuel locks. AFAIR you can select the same aircraft twice, with two different fuel settings in the menu. I have no idea about mission making, but what is possible there should be possible in your proposed mission, right?

[SeaW0lf]

7 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

I think the bare minimum would be 100 litres

 

That does not work for the simple fact that not every plane has the same consumption. One hour is pretty good as a minimum. What could be done is to have a minimum of 50/60% on the Camel, 80/100% on the D7F and 60% on the Fokker Dr1 (she burns fuel fast and has a small tank).

 

If you come up with an arbitrary number of liters, it is just that, arbitrary. Some planes will get 100%, like the D7 Vanilla, 90% for the Spad, 100% for the Dva and Pfalz, planes that don't need to fly as heavy.

 

As I posted on the study that I did on fuel loads, the best option [in my opinion*] is to match them in flying time / endurance. This way, every player won't be able to complain. Everyone has a minimum fuel for one hour (for example). You could use range, but not in these maps, which are small.

 

6 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

See, now you're talking!

 

We could have 60% fuel Camels with Cooper bombs right here at the front as RFC/RAF Camels, and a limited number of "as-you-want-it" Camels in the back (same as the Fokker D.VIIF) as RNAS or even Belgian Camels. Something like this:

 

Now, if you guys are going to find a reason to handicap the Camel (she had many roles in the war over a long period of time), you have to set minimums for the Fokker Dr1 and the D7F, the latter probably with 100%, since she also has a small tank.

 

But these hidden agendas to handicap a plane usually end up bad. We've seen it in the past. I would not go that route. I can take 60% on the Camel any day, in fact I've been flying her with 60% fuel for the last 27 sorties (before with 54%), but the attempt to handicap her sounds fishy to say the least. 

Edited February 26, 2020 by SeaW0lf

[ZachariasX]

5 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

but the attempt to handicap her sounds fishy to say the least. 

I guess fuel locks are always problematic as they are poorly received by players. But making a bomber squadron carry bombs should be more ovious. That could be a start if there is a desire for balancing a mission.

[SeaW0lf]

25 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

I guess fuel locks are always problematic as they are poorly received by players. But making a bomber squadron carry bombs should be more ovious. That could be a start if there is a desire for balancing a mission.

 

In a specific mission, yes, but in my opinion you can't lock it on every mission and assume the Sopwith Camel was only a ground attacker. Plus, since when do we have a realistic environment to work with? If we use the realistic card just when it suits us, what was already a challenge to work with goes down the drain. And if you suck, you will get killed in droves in all sorts of planes, from Spads to D7Fs. Hotlead just got his Blue Max flying a Pfalz.

 

For it to work, it needs to be unbiased. I agree that something could be devised for people to stop flying on fumes on certain planes, but it is not just about the Camel. To my knowledge, the planes that are most feared in turnfights (we are talking about handicaping turnfighters again) are the Camel, Dr1 and D7F (just for its sheer power). So come up with a reasonable plan for these three, set a light minimum for other planes so that the mission gets more oriented, but make it clean, fair to everyone.

 

I like the minimum locks for front airfields though, even the air start ones.

Edited February 26, 2020 by SeaW0lf

[ZachariasX]

7 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

In a specific mission, yes, but in my opinion you can't lock it on every mission and assume the Sopwith Camel was only a ground attacker.

This is odd, making me defend Benders position after going rabid myself getting triggered by the words "fuel lock" ?

 

By all means it would only make sense mission specific, when you decide what kind of squadrons to place on the map tasked with whatever objectives.

 

12 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

Hotled just got his Blue Max flying a Pfalz.

When it comes to the aerial equivalent of a Saloon fight, that is a good aircraft. I find it a nastier opponent than the Dr.I as people who take it usually know what they are doing, while the Dr.I some seem to see as an easy way to get frags. And IMHO it's not.

[SeaW0lf]

Has the Pfalz being rolled back to the Pfalzicopter? I never flew it in ROF, but the current Pfalz in ROF don't seem to turn as well. Regarding the Dr1, if you get lucky and the pilot is good, you are in for a hell of a ride in planes that are not that fast or if you make a mistake. It is the plane I avoid the most when flying the Camel.

[Cynic_Al]

14 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

Yes, one hour endurance minimum for every plane is a good choice. From what altitude sample? 2.000m?

 

23 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

In a specific mission, yes, but in my opinion you can't lock it on every mission and assume the Sopwith Camel was only a ground attacker.

 

1 hour ago, J5_Hellbender said:

We could have 60% fuel Camels with Cooper bombs right here at the front as RFC/RAF Camels, and a limited number of "as-you-want-it" Camels in the back (same as the Fokker D.VIIF) as RNAS or even Belgian Camels.

 

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

If you treat the "unlocked" Camel as the D.VIIF, then you can balance a lot. Central can have the monster up high, Entente down low.

 

Etc, etc.

 

So what is any server operator to make of all this?  If you want things done your way, you have to do them your way, which is why there are so many servers.

[ZachariasX]

13 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

Has the Pfalz being rolled back to the Pfalzicopter?

No, it has just a think high lift wing and if you give it some speed it will turn with everything. And it will stay intact. If you force him to stay at altitude he'll bleed energy fast enough for turning not being an option anymore. No copter anymore. Then he has his infamous rolling scissors up the sleeve. But it cannot torque in a way as it could back in the old days. It's fine. A well flown Pfalz can be an interesting opponent. In the Camel, you really better get the altitude on him. Following the slow tight turns might turn a bit more interesting than desired.

 

13 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

Regarding the Dr1, if you get lucky and the pilot is good, you are in for a hell of a ride in planes that are not that fast or if you make a mistake.

Oh yess!

 

8 minutes ago, Cynic_Al said:

So what is any server operator to make of all this? 

That's up to him. Maybe he gets some ideas, maybe not. The idea of a discussion is to come up with better ideas. Ideally. No more, no less.

Edited February 26, 2020 by ZachariasX

[SeaW0lf]

24 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

No, it has just a think high lift wing and if you give it some speed it will turn with everything. And it will stay intact. If you force him to stay at altitude he'll bleed energy fast enough for turning not being an option anymore. No copter anymore. Then he has his infamous rolling scissors up the sleeve. But it cannot torque in a way as it could back in the old days. It's fine. A well flown Pfalz can be an interesting opponent. In the Camel, you really better get the altitude on him. Following the slow tight turns might turn a bit more interesting than desired.

 

I have my doubts. The speed matches the pre 2014 and they would not touch these flight models (made by a dev that does not work for them anymore* I believe). So it has a good chance to be rolled back.

Edited February 26, 2020 by SeaW0lf

[ZachariasX]

8 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

I have my doubts. The speed matches the pre 2014 and they would not touch these flight models (made by a dev that does not work for them I believe). So it has a good chance to be rolled back.

 

That may well be. It is the different sim engine that makes the difference. In RoF, air is way too sticky. There is no way you can do in FC what you could do in RoF. To me, the Pfalz does nothing implausible, regardless of how the real aircraft would fly. So for the time being it is a fun aircraft. A bit too slow though.

[HagarTheHorrible]

41 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

Has the Pfalz being rolled back to the Pfalzicopter? I never flew it in ROF, but the current Pfalz in ROF don't seem to turn as well. Regarding the Dr1, if you get lucky and the pilot is good, you are in for a hell of a ride in planes that are not that fast or if you make a mistake. It is the plane I avoid the most when flying the Camel.

 

I’d have been delighted to avoid you, on Tuesday evening ?,  Unfortunately a D.VIIf chased me down, so the rest of the mob, including yourself, in a DR1 could put me through the mill.  I’d seen 4 DR1’s in the distance, thought “No way hosay”  and did the sensible thing and tried to run away, all for nought, as it turned out.

[BMA_Hellbender]

5 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Berloga has different fuel locks. AFAIR you can select the same aircraft twice, with two different fuel settings in the menu. I have no idea about mission making, but what is possible there should be possible in your proposed mission, right?

 

Ah, I see. So it's either everything locked or everything unlocked, but you can have different levels for separate plane instances.

 

For modifications apparently you can have some on by default, that you can still turn off, and have some disabled. Locked on doesn't appear to be an option. This would likely be a good thing for disabling certain very heavy bomb loads and machinegun options on the lower-hp two-seaters, something we've discussed in the past.

 

Seeing that Berloga has fuel locks in place does make me hopeful that it's not the popularity-killer which some claim it is.

 

 

5 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

Now, if you guys are going to find a reason to handicap the Camel (she had many roles in the war over a long period of time), you have to set minimums for the Fokker Dr1 and the D7F, the latter probably with 100%, since she also has a small tank.

 

But these hidden agendas to handicap a plane usually end up bad. We've seen it in the past. I would not go that route. I can take 60% on the Camel any day, in fact I've been flying her with 60% fuel for the last 27 sorties (before with 54%), but the attempt to handicap her sounds fishy to say the least. 

 

I have no problem with revealing my hidden agenda: I want to see more Camels, and I want to see them flying with a realistic fuel load, and if at all possible doing more ground attack, with or without Cooper bombs.

 

I find the word handicap (or nerf) a bit loaded. Fuel is more than just an obstacle to overcome, it offers you advantages as well in terms of range and safe retreat. For the Camel, which can greatly benefit from low fuel in terms of maneuverability, it's as much of a handicap to Entente to have higher fuel, as it is a handicap to Central to limit the amount of Fokker D.VIIFs available on the map. You either need to accept that low fuel on a Camel is a "buff" and high fuel a "nerf", or contest the fact that fuel level matters at all. In that case: have no fuel locks in place, have unlimited D.VIIFs available and everybody should be happy, but that's clearly not the case. In fact it's mostly unfair to the Camel.

 

For players to try and overcome the fact that the Camel was a machine with large tanks by flying on low fuel is just as "gamey" as it is for the server operator to force 100% fuel all the time, which is also not realistic. They had those tanks for a reason: long patrols. Let's at least pretend that most engagements happen somewhere in the middle of those patrols, and not always at the end with almost dry tanks. And if you absolutely need to fly a low fuel Camel, you still could, you would just be limited in terms of range and how quickly you can be at the front with it to AirQuake.

 

 

If you already fly the Camel at 60%, then nothing changes for you, on the contrary.

 

I agree that every plane should be treated realistically and according to its historical role, and taking into consideration that most actual sorties in multiplayer only last 20-30 minutes, but still need to represent a real sortie lasting hours. Besides, to most planes fuel is more of an asset rather than a handicap.

 

For the D.VIIF in particular, considering it actually needs plenty of fuel to climb and has a relatively small tank, I think 70-80l (75-80%) is fair. For the Albatros D.Va, Pfalz D.IIIa likewise. The SPAD, S.E.5a and Dolphin would all end up between 80-90l (80%), with the Dolphin treated more or less equal to the ground attack Camel.

 

 

For the Fokker Dr.I there's no point in hiding that it has a very small tank, and I would approach it similarly (but opposite in terms of placement) to the Camel: have unlimited 70l (100%) Dr.I available further away from the front which you can use to perform an actual patrol with, and a limited number at the front with lower fuel, say 50l (70%) to act as point defense which you can AirQuake with. That's pretty much all they're good for anyway, and even more so than the Camel it's a plane you can safely ignore when flying a fast in-line Entente scout. If you get caught by a 50l Dr.I while flying a 100l Camel, all I can say is: fly faster, bring more Camels.

 

Something like this:

 

 

 

For the two-seaters it's a bit more complex: for the CL.II 100l (65%) is a good average to cover all sorts of sorties and make it so you won't be tempted to overload it with bombs and machineguns. I would even suggest to give the 200hp CL.II a bit more, say 120l (80%), as they typically don't carry bombs and need more fuel for high altitude recon, but can carry additional guns. For the Bristol I'd suggest 120l (70%) for the F.II with or without bombs, and 140l (80%) for the recon F.III with camera.

 

 

In relative terms this really puts the Camel way down low on the list:

 

Fokker Dr.I (100%)

Albatros, Pfalz, Fokker D.VII, 3x D.VIIF, 3x Dr.I, Bristol F.II, SPAD, SE5a (70-80%)

Halberstadt CL.II, Sopwith Dolphin (65%)

Sopwith Camel (60%)

3x Sopwith Camel (30%)

 

 

In absolute terms, for ground attack fighter/bombers:

 

Sopwith Camel (100l)

Halberstadt CL.II (100l)

 

 

In absolute terms for fighters:

 

Bristol F.II (120l)

Albatros, Pfalz, SPAD, SE5a, Dolphin (80-90l)

Fokker D.VII, 3x D.VIIF (70l)

3x Sopwith Camel (50l)

3x Fokker Dr.I (50l)

 

 

And then finally the high horsepower recon two-seaters with the highest loads (120-140l). They are meant to be escorted anyway and fly close to a full historical sortie, often lasting up to an hour.

Edited February 26, 2020 by J5_Hellbender

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Berloga has 30% lock, but you can take another instance of plane if I remember correctly tanked to 60%. But this is airquke type of gameplay only. All other ww2 Il2servers do not have any fuel restrictions, I flew them all. 

 

Camel has very big fuel tank at 1000 meters at nominal combat power it's 2.50 hours of flight, and as we do fly in formations often can reduce to cruise settings, at minimal consumption (cruise) it's 5 hours in the air. For obvious reasons this is just theoretical but more on less we do save some fuel not flying combat all the time - formation flaying.

Dr.1 full tank at nominal combat power has it for 1.40 hours. 

Big difference there but bigger is the handling difference, all planes benefit from higher lift when weight is reduced but they do not have problem which unbalanced aerodynamically rotaries have, this  shows during tight turns and this instability is larger as high the fuel load is. Camel is not boom and zoom figher it's turner at low altitude and depends on it's turning abality to survive. This forced restriction can be  very hard for new players unfortunately.

 

Anyway as if we mainly do deep escort mission we do take enough fuel to stay behind enemy lines for hour or more and also have some reserve for fuel leaks which is so common during fights.

When we flying combat offensive patrols we go behind enemy lines  but not as deep and taking fuel for as much as is enough, one hour would be enough.

We like to do more trench bombing in Camels, it would be great to have some missions concerned on that kind of jobs for Camels. 

 

As 1PL we would fly any type plane  in any restriction without problems, but  this is free server for all and should stay like that, for historical events we should  have realistic restrictions this means only 4 bombs laod in Halberstadt cl.2 Bender.

 

S!

Edited February 26, 2020 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[BMA_Hellbender]

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

Camel is not boom and zoom figher it's turner at low alt and depends on it's turning abality to survive.

 

It's been so long since I've flown the Camel, I'm beginning to wonder if I'm misremembering things. The post-1.034 Camel is definitely a turnfighter that needs to "turn to live" or die, and seems to match historical descriptions a bit more accurately, but the old pre-1.034 Camel is faster and outclimbs everything in a turn, including the Fokker Dr.I. The only Central plane that outclimbs it is the Fokker D.VIIF, which the Camel easily outturns on the level. Even the Dolphin can do that.

 

But the Camel can do everything. It's the energy fighter par excellence. Even without wings!

 

It's actually slightly faster without wings.

 

?

 

 

 

Alright Jeffrey, fetch me my trousers at once! 

 

No, not those, those are my time travel trousers.

 

Those are my tea trousers.

 

That's it, those ones! My fighting trousers.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

The Camel we have can absolutely boom and zoom.  It's part of the reason that the patch of doom happened to begin with.  There was little reason to fly anything else.

 

The challenge is being light and smooth on the controls, and after bouncing somebody- to resist the urge to settle into a turnfight; but why would he?  He'll probably win that too.

Edited February 26, 2020 by J28w-Broccoli

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

You guys fly Camels? , I do  recently and  do never do boom and zoom in it , for that I have Se5. 

[BMA_Hellbender]

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

You guys fly Camels? , I do  recently and  do never do boom and zoom in it , for that I have Se5. 

 

Not recently.

 

 

 

I gave her a quick go in the QMB with 60% fuel and bombs. Except for the G-forces, it's the old Camel alright.

 

I'm rusty, though. I was flying twist stick back in the old days. We'll see how I do in multiplayer.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

17 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

Not recently.

 

 

 

I gave her a quick go in the QMB with 60% fuel and bombs. Except for the G-forces, it's the old Camel alright.

 

I'm rusty, though. I was flying twist stick back in the old days. We'll see how I do in multiplayer.

 

It will be fun for sure and a change

BTW personally I think that Camel should have more gyroscopic force modeled , you shouldn't be able to do horizon turns in  Camel without using rudder. 

[HagarTheHorrible]

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

 

 you shouldn't be able to do horizon turns in  Camel without using rudder. 

 

If you fly the Camel with anything but the rudder, you're doing it wrong.  Lead with the rudder, follow with everything else.

 

...........anyway, let's not pretend any of the aircraft in FC, or RoF before that, are real.  They are are an approxamation of, but they aren't, sure they're amazing, and really good fun to fly but WW 1 aircraft were nothing if not quirky and it's probably beyond what can be reasonably expected in this day and age.  The only thing that we can try and achieve is to iron out exploits or unedifying behaviour.   The article I linked to "Mastering the Dreidecker" is probably as good as any article, that might explain the quirks of flying the Dr1, but just as likely the Camel, details might differ, but the general tone is, I would think, very similar.

 

Anyway, I'm still plumping for a 1hr fuel load, minimum ( if a fuel limit is considered, to stop some players gaming the game, but not to artificially balance out aircraft).  It's easy to work out, from the store figures (Combat power), it doesn't advantage any aircraft and it doesn't disadvantage any aircraft, while preventing any trying to gain undue advantage by taking Kamikaze fuel loads.  It's also a realistic fuel load, after all several of the real aircraft, that are in FC, max out at 70 minutes endurance at combat power, if that was adequate for them, and the rational behind those capacities is similar to how we play FC then it should be good enough for us.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

You guys are packing servers already.  Personally my opinion is don't go dicking with fuel loads.  Things are working, no need to change that.

 

Now the part of me that does like dicking things though, says leave fuel loads unlocked, double the aircraft allotment, and set every 'end flight' to deduct one from the allotment- No matter where it lands.

 

If it doesn't give incentive to take higher fuel loads; it might give some incentive to actually use the repair re-arm function at the airfields.

[SeaW0lf]

I'm of the opinion that the ramming issue should be addressed in a thread, sort of Multiplayer Aircraft Guide. Post some videos of avoidable rams (I have a few), or avoidable engagements, or how to assist a fellow player in a dogfight, etc, etc. Then people might think twice before lunging in. Share some insights, some directives for novices and eager ones to start working together, not against one another.

 

The herding part in an open server stands out pretty quickly, so it has to have some true meaning, or else I agree with Broccoli, don't go dicking with fuel loads.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

9 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

 

If you fly the Camel with anything but the rudder, you're doing it wrong.  Lead with the rudder, follow with everything else.

Anybody know that but my point was that there is not enough gyroscopic precession ,it's to small that you can use only ailerons to move nose over the horizon without problem , second the adverse yaw it's almost not noticable.

[2nd_TAF/602Sqn_Puff]

55 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

I'm of the opinion that the ramming issue should be addressed in a thread, sort of Multiplayer Aircraft Guide. Post some videos of avoidable rams (I have a few), or avoidable engagements, or how to assist a fellow player in a dogfight, etc, etc. Then people might think twice before lunging in. Share some insights, some directives for novices and eager ones to start working together, not against one another.

 

I think the ramming issue stems from the attitude of players..in general, the personal stat attitude. When I was very active in RoF , this was also an issue and its sad to see it hasn't really changed. Is it really that important to show the world you got a kill in a video game? The number of times I used to just break off and leave them to it , would be nice if folks tried to replicate something of how those pilots tried to survive the odds instead of grabbing the limelight....anyways, that's just the opinion of an old flyer, feel free to disagree

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I don't have issue with ramming, speaking  this I would probably be ramed in coming weekend ?

I engaged in furballs with 20 or more airplanes   but manage to avoid be rammed or ramm , it's just me or  luck perhaps. There are Central squadron which do not engage in that kind of thrilling fun , they seldom go behind own lines , bounce and disengage , do not risk much , it's best way to stay out of that kind of ramming probability rising situations. I try predicted ramming situation and do react accordingly, this sometimes me been less aggressive which means  loose some advantage position or angles but also save VR life which is more important.

[ZachariasX]

The highest number of rammings (just subjective stats) is Central scouts stoping, turning on their tails and fall back down straight at you. As soon as they start a scissor, you have to give them room, as they wouldn't be able to evade a ram even if they wanted.

 

Thus, I feel personal flying style greatly decreases the chance of a ramming, without scarificing much of an upper hand.

[J2_Trupobaw]

It's hard to ram someone when scissoring defendively, as he's by definition behind you, you fight to keep him from your straight six and planes don't fly backwards. It is easy to get rammed when scissoring defensively, if other guy foes not give you the room and tries to fly straight into you :).

 

Of course, I had been accursed of ramming even when other guys leading edge smashed into my elevator :D.