New DM

[kendo]

First thing: I'm not posting this to be deliberately annoying to certain people here. If there is an issue or issues I too would like them to be fixed. Consider this 'Devil's advocate' questions from someone who is still unconvinced, but open to changing his mind.

 

After a lot more playing I'm still not seeing the sky in my sim filled with fluttering detached wings. Looking at tracks I record and examining the hits and effects it all seems reasonable. But from all the videos posted here with the Albatros as the common factor, I was wondering did the Albatros wing construction in reality have less structural strength than the other WW1 aircraft? If not, then maybe there is an issue specifically with the Albatros DM? Hellequin's post is good. But  does anyone know how the Albatros wing compares strengthwise to the other aircraft? As for the shaking - I've experienced that and seen it on other aircraft. Maybe it needs a look?

 

I've seen the wing fails after two hits video. It seems a very uncommon occurrence in the DM. And someone posted a historical account earlier about a wing being taken off by 3 pistol shots. So, rare, black swan events happen. In reality, and apparently in the DM. For me, generally, JG51_Beazil gets it right:

8 hours ago, JG51_Beazil said:

The planes don't have hitpoints.  Posting joules of damage or even that you hit someone does not equate testing.  We don't know where, at what point, and what components were hit in any example you refer to.  It's definately better than nothing, but it's not data that can be used to assert anything other than the number of times your opponent was "hit".  2.8 % damage to a critical control surface might be enough.  It's not enough information.

 

6 hours ago, Hellequin13 said:

...

So lets flip the script: in light of pilot accounts of the relative robustness of their air frames, all the records of kites returning to base riddled with holes yet largely unhindered by the damage, as well as the innumerable pictures of wrecks, all of which seem to still have their wings at hand (negating the survivor bias), what evidence does An. Petrovich have to present to demonstrate that the wings are so easily compromised?

 

 

There was evidence posted in this very thread a little while ago:

18 hours ago, US213_Talbot said:

 

 

[No.23_Triggers]

1 hour ago, kendo said:

After a lot more playing I'm still not seeing the sky in my sim filled with fluttering detached wings. Looking at tracks I record and examining the hits and effects it all seems reasonable. But from all the videos posted here with the Albatros as the common factor, I was wondering did the Albatros wing construction in reality have less structural strength than the other WW1 aircraft? If not, then maybe there is an issue specifically with the Albatros DM? Hellequin's post is good. But  does anyone know how the Albatros wing compares strengthwise to the other aircraft? As for the shaking - I've experienced that and seen it on other aircraft. Maybe it needs a look?

 

I've seen the wing fails after two hits video. It seems a very uncommon occurrence in the DM. And someone posted a historical account earlier about a wing being taken off by 3 pistol shots. So, rare, black swan events happen.

Do you play MP? In singleplayer it's not as easy to notice as the AI typically just flat-turn. The wings will stand up to a fair degree of punishment if the EA remains in the horizontal - it's going vertical that will snap them. (Except in the case of the Halberstadt which seems to just collapse if you cough in it's AO) 

The real Albatros V did have some problems with the lower wings (you'll see a 'mini-strut' jutting out from the bottom of the Vee-struts between wings which was an attempt to rectify this in the D.Va variant). However, I've never found any information / historical documents that mention this being a defining factor when it comes to battle damage - rather an engineering flaw that would result in lower wings twisting and collapsing in dives. IIRC the D.Va didn't suffer from this as badly as the D.V, and generally stood up to battle damage the same as other WW1 planes.

The S.E and SPAD were considered to be very structurally sound. There was the quote I posted earlier of a SPAD going down in an extremely fast dive after taking shots to the wings, and back at base it was discovered that the flying wires had essentially had the tension torn out of them, and the wings themselves were warped 1-2 inches backwards - indicating just how much punishment some of these planes could take in a dive, even with prior battle damage. The wings had to be replaced on that particular airframe owing to the damage. 

By comparison, testing of the in-game SPAD with a wingman saw its wings shear off in what should have been a perfectly safe dive, nowhere near the redline speed, after as little as 3 rounds hitting the wings. The structural failure occurred the second my wingman (a very experienced SPAD Ace) tried to come out of the dive. 

My most recent Multiplayer 'kill' was over a D7 - I got some speculative blows into his wings, no more than 10, and he tried to Split-S to evade me...and off came his wings. The D7 was known for being a very tough airframe. 

I think now (as I believe others have said) that we've gone from one extreme to the other. Before planes would take an absolute beating (I remember distinctly messing around on 3rd P.G's training server my SPAD surviving a HE 30mm from a 262) to turning to confetti after almost no real damage at all. 

Re: the 'RoF' DM - that was my initial thought as well. I don't think it is the same DM, it wouldn't make any logical sense for them to just port in the old RoF DM, but it may as well be from the results. Given how similar the graphic effects and 'types' of damage seen on wings, I can also see exactly why people would say it is the old DM. 

 

Someone raised a great point refuting survivor bias that many, many photographs of WW1 aircraft wrecks had all their wings attached - or, at least, attached before crashing. Just punch "WW1 aircraft wreck" into Google images and you can see for yourself. 

 

As far as I know the Devs believe everything's currently working as intended. Personally, I think it needs a very close re-examination. 

 

Edited April 12, 2020 by US93_Larner

[ZachariasX]

57 minutes ago, kendo said:

Consider this 'Devil's advocate' questions from someone who is still unconvinced, but open to changing his mind.

What we have now is that you can make 5 pinky finger size holes in nothing but canvas and the whole wing loses rigidity, when in reality it is not the case at all for practical purposes.

 

Sit in the Bristol and aim for places where be nothing more than two sheets of cloth. yet it does the same damage as hitting the spar.

 

Planes can easily be torn apart in spiral dives (still you can do that today!), this is not the issue. I like the wing shakes during such. That is not unrealistic, on the contrary. But unless you shoot apart support cables or spars/joints there is no weakening of the structure. This is why the spraying shots now has become deadly, after a single hit in possibly a meaningless place, you must assume your plane not lasting through maneuvers.

 

It‘s not ok what we have now. It is flat out wrong in terms of realism and it hurts the game as such as well. There is simply no upside to it.

 

[J2_Trupobaw]

Given the amount of work that went into DM revision, I'd rather suspect that FC planes were affected by changes and tweaks that make wooden WW2 planes more realistics (much like Tripehound was affected by Camel code changes in RoF) , and fact it ended on RoF end of spectrum just happened.

 

Quote

When BoX was first released I was on comms with Jason one night and I asked him why they couldn’t just make the RoF aircraft available in BoX.  Not for anything realistic, of course, but just for fun.  He said the main reason was the damage model.  It’s completely different in BoX.  So any claims that the RoF DM was just ported over are nonsense.

Looking at most serious bugs in FC (not "plane behaves differently", not "they obviously just overlooked that", but stuff obviously not working as devs intended) they were largely in DM. So BSR seems right on the money.

[J99_Sizzlorr]

46 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

The real Albatros V did have some problems with the lower wings (you'll see a 'mini-strut' jutting out from the bottom of the Vee-struts between wings which was an attempt to rectify this in the D.Va variant). However, I've never found any information / historical documents that mention this being a defining factor when it comes to battle damage - rather an engineering flaw that would result in lower wings twisting and collapsing in dives. IIRC the D.Va didn't suffer from this as badly as the D.V, and generally stood up to battle damage the same as other WW1 planes.

 

The lower wing failure on the Albatross DV was due to the V strut. The lower wing was basically connected only at one point on the strut and therfore on the upper wing. The lower wing could then twist and move when under stress and then detach. This was fixed with the added mini strut. The lower wing had now to points at which it was connected to the strut. The Albatros D.V then got renamed Albatros D.Va. But the fixes to the lower wing added to the overall weight of the plane and at the end the performance of the plane suffered a bit. So the Albatros D.Va didn't have the notorius weak lower wing anymore.

 

It seems some planes suffer more from the new DM namely the Albatros, the Pfalz, the S.E5a, the Dolphin and the Halberstadt. Some suffer less. The Camel seems to be the new tank now. Don't know about the Dr,I haven't tested her.

 

 

I don't like the new DM. I'm losing interest in Flying Circus pretty rapidly. I don't own VR so I might as well go back to RoF or shelv my joystick again until better times come. 

Edited April 12, 2020 by J99_Sizzlorr

[ZachariasX]

2 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Given the amount of work that went into DM revision, I'd rather suspect that FC planes were affected by changes and tweaks that make wooden WW2 planes more realistics (much like Tripehound was affected by Camel code changes in RoF) , and fact it ended on RoF end of spectrum just happened.

 

I think so too. But we have whole sections of the aircraft that should be near transparent to bullets, yet they have a hitbox that affects the whole wing. It is conceptually wrong. As long as the hitboxes are not adusted you never have a plausible result.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Camel can take considerable damage to the wings and fly  if he only make horizontal turns which are not that G tasking. Make it vertical at he becomes confetti like others do.

[No.23_Triggers]

9 minutes ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

 

It seems some planes suffer more from the new DM namely the Albatros, the Pfalz, the S.E5a, the Dolphin and the Halberstadt. Some suffer less. The Camel seems to be the new tank now. Don't know about the Dr,I haven't tested her.

Think that just seems to be the case from Camel's typical fighting style (mostly horizontal flat turns). I've seen Camels lose their wings while trying to loop in the vertical. Dr.I is tough for the same reason, but I've seen a sustained burst rip all the port wings off of one in fairly rapid order. Pretty dubious for a plane that didn't even really need outboard struts. I've yet to put a damaged Dr.I through its paces in the vertical, but I'd expect it to fall apart too. 

 

Edited April 12, 2020 by US93_Larner

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

For me quick fix would be just increase the wings resistance to G load and remove this unrealistic shaking of airframe.

[1PL-Lucas-1Esk]

The wings generally feel weaker. I heavily damaged my lower wings couple of times during the landing after the patch had been released. This happened in the Halb and D.VII.

I will not agree about the Pfalz. I flew it couple of times and this bird can stand a lot of punishment. I noticed that a Dolphin became very fragile.

[emely]

1 hour ago, US93_Larner said:

 

As far as I know the Devs believe everything's currently working as intended. Personally, I think it needs a very close re-examination. 
 

Is your information accurate?  While everything looks so that they have more important things to do.  It would be nice if they managed to patch up our wings before the next departure on Bloody April.

[ZachariasX]

Ok, here's why we see absolutely flawed behaviour in WW1 crate DM:

 

See here, I'm aiming at a meaningless part of the aircraft that consists of two layers of doped canvas and air. In the real world, I can fire at this part one milliontrilliongazillion times and the aircraft will only receive cosmetic damage:

 

Yet, when I fire about one and a half drums of my single Lewis, then

pooofff... and there I go. The in-game wing loses progressively static strenght with every shot that I fire at that meaningless part until it loses strenghts such that it cannot carry the aircraft anymore and it folds.

 

Now, guess hat happens when I aim at critical parts?

 

I am aiming now at the front lower spar, near the joint of where the struts and support wires attach. It is also near where contol cables are. So then, dakkadakkadakka and...

... you see the wing spar apprear under the damaged canvas. (it is ok that it just has one way of depicting damage visually.) This means I'm aiming at the right part. Mo' dakkadakkadakka...

 

...and after about as many hits as in the first example, the whole wing collapses in the same way.

 

This means that the wing is essentially one single hitbox accumulating damage. With this you NEVER depict damage in a way such a structure would collapse. It  is ok for cantilever aircraft, especially stressed skin ones. But if all you have is a skeleton box of spars and struts, statically fixed by redundant wiring, then the whole concept does simply not apply.

 

The New DM is great, it is just applied in a wrong way for FC and the game suffers greatly from it.

 

Hitboxes that apply for static strenght of the lower with would more look like that:

 

Ribs could be added but less needed as they are very redundant, but you have to think of the whole arrangement as a box created by the spars, struts and support wires.

 

As long as there is only one hitbox per wing, the whole thing is futile.

 

 

 

[No.23_Triggers]

Any chance a tester could forward Zach's post to the devs or post on the tester forum? 

For reference, here's a Bristol F2B's wing structure: 

Edited April 12, 2020 by US93_Larner

[J2_Trupobaw]

Zaharias, do you have a track of this? We should forward it to devs.

 

AFAIK it's not matter of wings being literal single hitbox, but behaviour of antipersonnel ww1 rounds once it enters a wing - will it bounce inside the wing potentially reaching the spar, or always come clean through? Hence the question of bullets vs wings videos Husar reposted earlier.

Edited April 12, 2020 by J2_Trupobaw

[SeaW0lf]

And what about the shaking? Why did they bring it back? Those two videos that I posted is exactly what we see in ROF. What's new about the DM? We could just go back to ROF, go back to spraying wings and call it a day and it would not make a difference. And why the resistance and silence about it and backchannels to communicate? Fine, they screw up. It happens. Just take a look, see the things that we are seeing, read the thread and get to work on fixes.

 

Now if they think this is the real deal, 'state of the art', we are in trouble. Because we all know the uphill battle that is to come. And we all know how much work is necessary to put these reports together, not to mention all the heat from water down posts and whatnot. It is not easy, it is time consuming and most here still have jobs to take care to.

[No.23_Gaylion]

3 hours ago, kendo said:

 

There was evidence posted in this very thread a little while ago:

 

I think you missed the key point I was trying to make with that quote. Yes, it says watch out for wings etc. "After being fired at alot".

 

Again, you need to be on the recieving end of the DM to see the absurdity of it. 

Edited April 12, 2020 by US213_Talbot

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Wing is not one hitbox it has at least 4 separate segment on ither side plus control surace. But still hiting any were on that one is enough to make it collapse. Ww1 wings should have more complex hitboxes as Zach pointed it out - much complex that ww2 wing but looking at network traffic performance and things like removing plane midair when pilot is dead or removing wings after collision or explosion I have doubt in more detailed mapped hit boxes of ww1 wings in multiplayer.

Edited April 12, 2020 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

5 hours ago, J2_Oelmann said:

Take a rifle to the range shoot at some wooden Boards. Measure how much weight is needed to break them with a few holes and without. 

Someone will have rifle 303 british or 7mm Mauser or whatever close to that should be widespread.

 

 

It's more complicated than that because as was pointed out earlier, the aircraft aren't constructed with simple wooden boards.  Then on top of that, the way that weight would be distributed across the beams and joints- you would essentially need a ww1 airframe to test it on.

"Show us a video guys" mlln

 

But hey, if you build it, I'll be happy to shoot it.

[J2_Oelmann]

Sure its more complicated. Realised that right after I made that answer.

It was more geared toward the "find a Video-Clip with a Wing" Argument.

[J5_Gamecock]

24 minutes ago, US213_Talbot said:

 

I think you missed the key point I was trying to make with that quote. Yes, it says watch out for wings etc. "After being fired at alot".

 

Again, you need to be on the recieving end of the DM to see the absurdity of it. 

 Unless I missed something, nowhere in that paragraph does it say wings weren't still attached to to the aircraft.

 

 I do wish that more was added to the bug reports FM and Damage model section. I wouldn't flood it, but some of the posts here,(Like Olivers and Zacharias), seem very relevant to me.

Edited April 12, 2020 by J5_Gamecock

[RNAS10_Oliver]

1 hour ago, J5_Gamecock said:

 Unless I missed something, nowhere in that paragraph does it say wings weren't still attached to to the aircraft.

 

 I do wish that more was added to the bug reports FM and Damage model section. I wouldn't flood it, but some of the posts here,(Like Olivers and Zacharias), seem very relevant to me.

 

Uploading the track onto google drive atm (40 mins) and going to post up.

[No.23_Gaylion]

1 hour ago, J5_Gamecock said:

 Unless I missed something, nowhere in that paragraph does it say wings weren't still attached to to the aircraft.

 

"Narrowly missed flying through a pair of wings"

 

Implied?

[J5_Gamecock]

1 hour ago, US213_Talbot said:

"Narrowly missed flying through a pair of wings"

 

Implied?

Maybe, maybe not   If I said "I almost went through the windshield of a car" ... you would assume that the windshield was still part of the car. No?  

 

 Just trying to make light of the situation really. It matters not.

[No.23_Gaylion]

U crazy.

[emely]

On 4/11/2020 at 10:26 AM, HagarTheHorrible said:

 

The fact that it is a propeller is interesting, but not essential, to what I was trying to demonstrate.  It simply shows what a bullet, of similar caliber to a 303 or 7.7,  will typically do to a piece of timber, even at point blank range (make a hole, but not much else).  

It seems that you do not understand the fact that a propeller is not just a piece of wood that rotates there for beauty.  Through this piece of wood, all the power of the engine is realized, which would drag this very engine in flight, and all the rest of the crap that is screwed to it.

But you will simply ignore it, because your goal is not to understand the causes of the situation, to receive the missing information, and on this basis to offer developers a way to solve the problem.  Not !  You were just about to dispel any doubt with your emotions.

On 4/11/2020 at 10:26 AM, HagarTheHorrible said:

What I was trying to show earlier, when I talked about rate of fire and distance of travel of an aircraft, was to dispel any idea that just because a machine gun is used that it was producing some sort of death ray stream of bullets.  

It is worth remembering that emotions in this matter are not worth a dime and do not prove anything.

And those of your conclusions that you are trying to present as real evidence often do not stand up to criticism.

On 4/11/2020 at 10:26 AM, HagarTheHorrible said:

The ribs make up the majority of the parts, area wise, but provide shape rather structural strength and there are enough of them that even if one is damaged, and a single bullet is unlikely to damage it much, it’s neighbours will continue to provide all that is required.  

Did you come up with this theory yourself?  Why their function, only create a wing profile ??  And what do you think perceives the main percentage of the wing load and transfers it to the wing spars?  Well, according to your theory of aircraft construction, their function is only form.  Well, if the wing loses shape over a significant area due to the destruction of one rib, will this change the properties of the wing?

I am pretty sure that you will say that it will not change anything.  No, most likely you will simply ignore the question for the reason that you, and similar writers on this forum, ignore any opinions and facts that may contradict their theories.

Is this evidence that a machine gun can cut a thick tree ? Yes

?к

 

Is this video proof that bullet-cutting a thick tree is long and difficult? Yes

 

But both of these examples do not give us anything in our question!  How many percent will the strength of a wooden beam decrease if it is shot with a single 7.7 bullet?  What if this bullet is like expanding bullet?  And what type were the bullets in the ww1 aviation machine guns?  What kind of tracer bullets do we see in the game?  Do they cause such damage as simple ones?  Can they set fire to fuel or something else?  What is the probability of a bullet getting into the power elements of an airplane during firing from a 360 ° angle from all possible sides?

You do not know the answers to very important questions.  But the most important thing is that you are not trying to ask anyone these questions.  You do not need answers, you only need the strength of your inner conviction.

[ZachariasX]

4 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Zaharias, do you have a track of this? We should forward it to devs.

 

AFAIK it's not matter of wings being literal single hitbox, but behaviour of antipersonnel ww1 rounds once it enters a wing - will it bounce inside the wing potentially reaching the spar, or always come clean through? Hence the question of bullets vs wings videos Husar reposted earlier.

No, I didn't record a track. You can do it yourself and aim at spots where you know there be just canvas and air. Just take a two seater and see how your hit boxes accumulate damage.

 

A doped wing offers no real resistance to copper or iron bullets, it goes right through it and leaves a hole on entry and exit as if it was done by a puncher. The bullet really doesn't bunce. It doesn't even bounce much when it hits and perforates a rib. I can only explain what I'm seeing by assuming a single hitbox for the whole wing. This is why they would fix bulletholes in wings and fuselage just by doping a small patch of fresh canvas on it. You could see those overpainted stickers on front aircraft. Canvas is actually rather resilitent, just a couple of holes will not reduce much the strenght ofthe whole arrangement, hence cosmetic fixes were perfectly acceptable.

 

In order to make wooden spars splinter, you need to hit them at a very flat angle and along the fibers. This is also what was shown in pics before. The plywood used in aircraft is of good quality and gued in a way that fibers are in different directions. They should splinter like that, maybe a top layer. But there are many ribs and a rib confers mostly torsional strenght along with maintaining the wing's local profile. It has little static effect on the whole box arrangement of bottom and top wing.

 

3 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

And what about the shaking? Why did they bring it back?

Personally, I do like the wing shaking. Wings tend to do that before they come off in extremis, such as spiral dives. You can destroy most aircraft in spiral dives and it is what is your end if you lose spacial orientation when flying blind. A SPAD sould have a wing shake much later than an Albatros or a Camel, for instance. If it's tuned right, I think it's a cool feature.

 

7 minutes ago, emely said:

But both of these examples do not give us anything in our question!  How many percent will the strength of a wooden beam decrease if it is shot with a single 7.7 bullet?

If you are not hitting a wooden beam but just air between canvas, this is a moot point.

 

Bullets were copper or in iron. They don't expand or do enything fancy when hitting soft tissue. They just pass through.

Edited April 12, 2020 by ZachariasX

[emely]

8 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

 

Bullets were copper or in iron. They don't expand or do enything fancy when hitting soft tissue. They just pass through.

Very important information.  Actually, I had previously guessed that they were not made of clay or glass, but now I know for sure - copper and iron, yes.  But what about lead? ?

There are different types of bullets for one caliber, which have different properties.  Even in our game there are two options.  Some ordinary (unknown sample), others draw a light trail.  This is an example.  Dum-dum bullets were banned by the Hague Convention, but all warring parties accused each other of violating this clause.  This is also an example.  And we need to know what ammunition the developers had in mind, first of all.

p.s.  Tell me, why don’t you make the difference between drilling a hole in a tree with a special drill and breaking through a tree with a bullet?  Why are you also ignoring the fact that cracks are required to appear, which will be mainly along the fibers of the material when hit at any angle?

Just a small hole didn’t weaken the glass at all ... But what about cracks?  ... Forget about that fact bro, just don’t look at them

 

 

[ZachariasX]

16 minutes ago, emely said:

that cracks are required to appear, which will be mainly along the fibers of the material when hit at any angle?

You don't get cracks like in glass when you're shooting trough wood.

 

The nature of bullets is also incnsequencial when my stated example above explicitly ruled out hitting anything other than canvas. Do you think you get cracks in canvas?

[No.23_Gaylion]

See this is why we can't simply go out and shoot wood...

[J2_Trupobaw]

There actually was difference between 7.94 and .303 rounds. One reason Garros' armoured prop solution was used on early Entente planes but not adopted by Germans was, it was sufficient to stop .303 but 7.92 still damaged the prop.

 

Both rounds were soft (lead?) core FMJ, but British jacket was copper, German was either steel or other hard white metal. May be related to debates in 1890s and earlier that led to Hague convention, where British / US favoured stopping power while Germany favoured piercing rounds (which either kill or leave treatable rounds). 

 

I think we'd have to fire the bullets through proper kind and shape of plywood bearing right weight to be 100% sure. The main question still is, why bullets shot at canavas bounce into spars so easily...

Edited April 12, 2020 by J2_Trupobaw

[No.23_Gaylion]

Well at this point, given the information put forward, I highly doubt anything will change. 

 

Might as well get used to it.

[HagarTheHorrible]

34 minutes ago, emely said:

Very important information.  Actually, I had previously guessed that they were not made of clay or glass, but now I know for sure - copper and iron, yes.  But what about lead? ?

There are different types of bullets for one caliber, which have different properties.  Even in our game there are two options.  Some ordinary (unknown sample), others draw a light trail.  This is an example.  Dum-dum bullets were banned by the Hague Convention, but all warring parties accused each other of violating this clause.  This is also an example.  And we need to know what ammunition the developers had in mind, first of all.

p.s.  Tell me, why don’t you make the difference between drilling a hole in a tree with a special drill and breaking through a tree with a bullet?  Why are you also ignoring the fact that cracks are required to appear, which will be mainly along the fibers of the material when hit at any angle?

Just a small hole didn’t weaken the glass at all ... But what about cracks?  ... Forget about that fact bro, just don’t look at them

 

 

 

A bullet will punch its way through wood rather than part the fibres and cause cracks.  You are more than welcome to test this yourself, it isn't difficult and you don't need anything fancy, like a gun.  Take a sharp nail, try knocking it through a piece of timber, with a hammer, there is a distinct possiblity that it will split the wood. Now try blunting the nail with the hammer first, then hit it through the wood, there is a distinct possibility that it won't split the wood.  That is not emotion or connjecture, that is a fact. 

 

I can't even be bothered to respond to the other garbage you've come out with.  Why don't you go and read some books or technical assesments and inform your opinions ?

[SeaW0lf]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

Personally, I do like the wing shaking. Wings tend to do that before they come off in extremis, such as spiral dives. You can destroy most aircraft in spiral dives and it is what is your end if you lose spacial orientation when flying blind. A SPAD sould have a wing shake much later than an Albatros or a Camel, for instance. If it's tuned right, I think it's a cool feature.

 

If you think it should be tuned*, I personally would not say "I do like the wing shaking", because that's exactly the statement that make any of the complaints here irrelevant. In other words, you are contributing for us to have no fixes. Now if you think planes should shake with a few hits, meaning that you have to return to base if you get a couple hits, then we strongly disagree.

 

*Mid that planes did shake before, but just with visible damage. Perhaps this is what you wanted all along, you just did not notice then.

 

We either get together on this or we will be spraying wings and shaking in 2021, 2022 and so on. I mean, whoever is left to be spraying wings, because ROF has much more to offer at this point.

 

 

[ZachariasX]

10 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

There actually was difference between 7.94 and .303 rounds. One reason Garros' armoured prop solution was used on early Entente planes but not adopted by Germans was, it was sufficient to stop .303 but 7.92 still damaged the prop.

Yes, the Germans used iron for bullets due to a scarcity of other metals. The harder bullet couldn't be deflected by Garros' wedges.

 

But the problem here really isn't at all about "what happens when a bullet hits wood?" The probleme a hand is "If I hit just air, the exact same (terrible?) damage as hitting wood is the result." So far, I have no reason to doubt the dev's damage calculation about hitting wood. But it seems obvious that the hitboxes make the wing something that it is not.

 

When hitting plain air does as much damage as hitting a wingspar, then we have a problem.

[emely]

14 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

 

Both rounds were soft (lead?) core FMJ, but British jacket was copper, German was either steel or other hard white metal. May be related to debates in 1890s and earlier that led to Hague convention, where British / US favoured stopping power while Germany favoured piercing rounds (which either kill or leave treatable rounds). 

I know this version: Lead bullets without a metal shell were not particularly suitable for automatic shooting, because soft lead quickly contaminated the grooves inside the barrel (which give the bullets rotation around the axis) and turned weapons from rifled into smooth-bore.  Also, this affect even manifested itself on infantry rifles, which is why the armies of the world switched to a more expensive and complex bullet design.

 

[ZachariasX]

1 minute ago, SeaW0lf said:

*Mid that planes did shake before, but just with visible damage.

At some speed, those kites will come apart and wing will shake or controls will flutter. But I guess i wasn't clear about my point, I like this as realistic effect but not as mean to weaken anything! The planes must have their structural strenght and must attain their respective dive speeds. There is no question about it. The wing shaking upon damage has nothing to do with that. Yes, if it's loose, then it will shake... but then it must be compromised significantly.

[SeaW0lf]

3 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

At some speed, those kites will come apart and wing will shake or controls will flutter. But I guess i wasn't clear about my point, I like this as realistic effect but not as mean to weaken anything! The planes must have their structural strenght and must attain their respective dive speeds. There is no question about it. The wing shaking upon damage has nothing to do with that. Yes, if it's loose, then it will shake... but then it must be compromised significantly.

 

I think you misunderstood. My post is showing few hits. One of them is showing a three bullet hit. It is insane to think that the plane should shake in these situations. If they want to add a random lucky shot every few months that will make you return to base nursing your plane, fine, but every hit? I've felt it several times just in these few days playing online, so it is safe to assume that your plane 'will start to shake' after a few hits regardless.

 

As I mentioned, I considered going back to base because of those three hits, and I should have. What then now? We need to return to base just because a two-seater got a couple hits on you from a mile away? Dynamics of combat went bananas. People get hit and run away to don’t lose their wings. That’s so absurd that we are laughing about these things online.

 

That’s why we either get together on this or we will never see changes. That if any changes were ever considered and we are just talking to the walls here.

[emely]

18 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

 

A bullet will punch its way through wood rather than part the fibres and cause cracks.  You are more than welcome to test this yourself, it isn't difficult and you don't need anything fancy, like a gun.  Take a sharp nail, try knocking it through a piece of timber, with a hammer, there is a distinct possiblity that it will split the wood. Now try blunting the nail with the hammer first, then hit it through the wood, there is a distinct possibility that it won't split the wood.  That is not emotion or connjecture, that is a fact. 

 

I have no purpose to argue with you and prove something to you.  I just cited the fact that when drilling a tree, the drill removes excess material from the hole.  And when a foreign object is driven into a tree, the material from the hole is not removed and in any case, internal stresses and cracks in the layers are formed.  In certain situations, the resulting defects can be neglected.  But for example, on high-quality furniture, under all fasteners, holes are first drilled.  In the case when a bullet pierces a tree, damage to the structure of the material is maximum, taking into account the speed of the event and the resulting shock wave.  Moreover, the thicker the part, the greater the percentage of damage.

[emely]

1 hour ago, US213_Talbot said:

See this is why we can't simply go out and shoot wood...

There is a way.  It is necessary to make two mock-ups of the spar of the ww1 aircraft from wood.  One of them to shoot 7.7, leave the second whole.  After breaking both, measuring the load until the moment of fracture.  And then it is possible to prove to the developers that the coefficient of strength loss from hitting one bullet is 0, 00001%.  Or not to prove ?

But however, it is interesting, where did the developers themselves get these parameters?

[J5_HellCat_]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

 

But the problem here really isn't at all about "what happens when a bullet hits wood?" The probleme a hand is "If I hit just air, the exact same (terrible?) damage as hitting wood is the result." So far, I have no reason to doubt the dev's damage calculation about hitting wood. But it seems obvious that the hitboxes make the wing something that it is not.

When hitting plain air does as much damage as hitting a wingspar, then we have a problem.