New DM

[DD_Arthur]

Just now, Zooropa_Fly said:

I'm seeing the big problem mainly with the Albatros.

Could it simply be a faulty single hit box ?

 

The Albatros does seem to be at one end of the scale but I think this effects all planes to one degree or another.  

The new damage model has fundamentally changed things but the more I test the more I agree with the pendulum anaolgy;  for Flying Circus it's just been pushed too far.  

  

[No.23_Gaylion]

Well this thread had a good run.

[SeaW0lf]

55 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

I'm seeing the big problem mainly with the Albatros.

Could it simply be a faulty single hit box ?

 

I can still batter the crap out of Dr1's, Pfalz's, and the DVII frame for long enough.

I've removed a couple of Camel and Bristol wings right enough, but after a few good passes.

 

..and the disappearing wings is one of those dreaded 'immersion killers' for me.

 

 

This is happening to all planes, Camels, Dr1s, D7s, Pfalzes. I've seen them all folding or vigorously shake and fall apart some way or another. The Albatros seems to be more susceptible perhaps because of the strut history, but it is affecting all planes.

[JG1_Butzzell]

Get in a fight and survive. Make it back to base and land. Oh, wait. You took 4 bullet hits. As you touch down, your plane falls apart. Crash, bang, dead.

 

Sorry but the new DM is not working.

 

For FC, the original DM was fine.

[SCG_Neun]

I believe the Russian Forum has a lot of interaction from the Devs, whereas this one doesn't have much at all, but that's probably going to happen based on the language barriers.  But do any of our Russian speaking friends on this forum have any knowledge of any feedback from devs on this particular issue?  I mean a simple we are looking into it would be great.  There is obviously some problem of adjustment based on this kind of input...

Edited April 14, 2020 by SCG_Neun

[Dakpilot]

2 hours ago, J3Hetzer said:

You mean like the invisible planes thread, which was eventually addressed with nothing more than being locked? Yeah, stellar respect and attention to the issue therein.

 

You seem to be uninformed, there has been lots of info from Dev's on how this is being addressed. 

 

See Jason's posts and info from AnPetrovich in  - Technical issues and bug report section (invisible plane bug) 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[J37_Spyboy]

If you use Chrome as a browser it automatically translates Russian to English. The English used may appear flowery because it takes the formal Russian literally but you get the sense of what is said: Jason is very communicative and does his best. Not sure I have seen such a level of communication from a Development Team!

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/13195-ответы-джейсона-на-вопросы-нашего-сообщества/?tab=comments#comment-760113

 

Check out the Rus FC Forum as well btw. Our friend Emely is posting a lot. His English is good so he could perhaps point you in the direction of thew FC DM posts if you cant find them

Edited April 14, 2020 by J5_Spyboy
post script added

[SeaW0lf]

44 minutes ago, SCG_Neun said:

I believe the Russian Forum has a lot of interaction from the Devs, whereas this one doesn't have much at all, but that's probably going to happen based on the language barriers.  But do any of our Russian speaking friends on this forum have any knowledge of any feedback from devs on this particular issue?  I mean a simple we are looking into it would be great.  There is obviously some problem of adjustment based on this kind of input...

 

From what I see, they are not addressing the Flying Circus damage model at the Russian forum. They are communicating through back channels, through the beta tester forum if I'm not mistaken. The feedback so far, someone corrects me if I'm wrong, is that they are not seeing any problem with the new DM and are asking the testers to present clear evidence that something is wrong.

 

Regarding the Russian forum, someone mentioned that the western part of the forum is a picnic compared to the Russian threads.

[J37_Spyboy]

Have a look at this page friends. AN Petrovich wants to be tagged in the separate FC Damage Model page. There seems to be some negativity being expressed to Dev Team by the Russian FC pilots over the effect the revised DM is having on FC planes.

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/12433-летающий-цирк/page/6/

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Seems to me a lot less work actually goes into this title compared to what we're told, and this whole debacle is an unintended consequence of the WW2 damage modeling changes.  I just cannot see how this current DM would be intended behavior.  It's like shredding planes with improved gunnery on in RoF.

Edited April 14, 2020 by J28w-Broccoli

[VeltroRoF]

This is just my observation and for what it is worth, I don't think that the problem lies in the hit boxes. It is more likely related to the way how the damage is calculated in respect to the structural strength of the wings. If that is the case then the problem comes down to the torque at the wing attachments. In case the structure is in-tact the structure itself is too rigid (not flexible) then the least amount of torque at the attachment of the wings would cause an instant break after receiving damage (It snaps like a match-stick). If my reasoning is correct, then a choice was made (developers) to calculate somewhere in the line of: n x bullets = damage; damage x structural strength x arm = torque; if torque > (some small number depending on type of aircraft) then "break wings".

 

As far as I can see there is a development paradigm here. If you don't want to create hit-boxes on each small part of the plane, because that makes things just too difficult, somewhere a choice has to be made on how to simulate this damage. If the formula in this case is in the line of how I depicted above then ikn this case I don't think that the developers made such a bad choice. E.g. A different approach could be to calculate a chance that a bullet hits a wire at random. But the effect of that would be that airplanes would fall out of the sky at random as well. And I really wonder if that is what I want personally. Maybe there is a different solution, e.g. start with a more flexible wing structure so that the torque at the wing structure increases more slowly. But that still would mean that the structure's strength becomes lower for each bullet hit. Anyone else has thoughts on this?

 

Consider the following image:

 

Top: normal situation

Bottom: snapped wires (or in case of game: damaged wires).

The 'circles' in the bottom image are there to show the torque.

Red: tension forces in the lying wires to hold the wings down.

Blue: the other way around for the landing wires.

 

 

 

Edited April 14, 2020 by VeltroRoF
removed duplicate image

[Panzerlang]

7 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

Seems to me a lot less work actually goes into this title compared to what we're told, and this whole debacle is an unintended consequence of the WW2 damage modeling changes.  I just cannot see how this is intended behavior.

If the earlier suspicions regarding an entire wing having only one hitbox prove to be correct I'd say we didn't get $70's worth of detail. They certainly talk about individual spars for the WW2 crates, so the WW1 planes should have the same level of detail at this price-point. But if they do it doesn't explain how a few rounds so weaken the wings.

Yes, I've had a go and the two Se5s lost their wings, the Camel was a bit more robust and didn't lose his until the pilot was killed and the plane fell out of control. I was wounded twice in the same scrap (D7) and my wings were fine in hard manouvering.

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

I'm wondering will they be able to fix the DM or reset it back to what it was. il2 and FC are the same engine, so if they fix FC will it not interfere with il2? Or does each plane have it's own DM? 

[ZachariasX]

33 minutes ago, VeltroRoF said:

This is just my observation and for what it is worth, I don't think that the problem lies in the hit boxes.

Everything is about the hitboxes. You can shoot at locations that contribute ZERO to the structural strenght of the wings yet the wings fold in EXACTLY the same way  as if you shoot at parts that you highlighted as structurally important.

 

 

[HagarTheHorrible]

1 hour ago, J3Hetzer said:

If the earlier suspicions regarding an entire wing having only one hitbox prove to be correct I'd say we didn't get $70's worth of detail. They certainly talk about individual spars for the WW2 crates, so the WW1 planes should have the same level of detail at this price-point. But if they do it doesn't explain how a few rounds so weaken the wings.

Yes, I've had a go and the two Se5s lost their wings, the Camel was a bit more robust and didn't lose his until the pilot was killed and the plane fell out of control. I was wounded twice in the same scrap (D7) and my wings were fine in hard manouvering.

 

I don't think that is true.  If you experiment with the Bristol (the only aircraft that you can shoot your own wing effectively, I think) you will see that the, double bay, lower wing has at least 3 hit areas + the aileron.  I suspect the single bay wing has two areas.  If memory serves, you also have a hit area for the inter plane struts, but the inter plane struts also seem to break, in sympathy with damage to wing hit areas and when one strut breaks so does the other ( same side).  Wires also appear to break in sympathy, with an all, or nothing, approach, interestingly the wires on the U2 don"t seem to disappear in sympathy and I would suggest the wing structure on the U2 is much stronger and resistant to damage than FC aircraft, this despite the fact that it was designed as a training aircraft and seems to be rigged accordingly ( no redundant flying wires and wide wing bays)

1 hour ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

I'm wondering will they be able to fix the DM or reset it back to what it was. il2 and FC are the same engine, so if they fix FC will it not interfere with il2? Or does each plane have it's own DM? 

 

If aircraft were considered one by one then it should be easy to undo changes to revert back to pre patch.   if however they applied a general rule ( which I believe they probably did) and then gave each hit area for each of the aircrafts wings a strength score, depending on dimensions, material and loading etc, then it would be just as easy to go forward.  Just  massively increase the strength score given to each element (hit area) depending on the factors already considered in the update ( one spar, two spars etc etc). They should consider that, unlike a cantilevered wing as found in most WW2  aircraft, that all of these elements, in WW1 aircraft (spars etc) work in tandem with other elements as a unit and get much of their strength therein, even if each element in and of itself is not particularly hefty.

Edited April 14, 2020 by HagarTheHorrible

[ZachariasX]

On the Halberstadt, there is a similar problem as we have with the Bristol. Also there, I can hit meaningless parts of the wing that have great effect on the whole.

 

I can shoot my own wingtip:

It's just air beneath the canvas. Also, should I lose the entire outer section, it would be of no consequence regarding the structural strenght.

 

Some 12 clicks on the mouse later (maybe 30 rounds) later, the outer section comes clean off.

 

..and I can still fly, with wingshake though and singificantly reduced strenght of the wing:

The wing shouldn't lose much in terms of total rigidity. There are no cables out there and no support for the top wing.

 

If however we aim at the top wing, where be more wood...

...and I'm firing just right through about everything that my life depends upon (both spars and withing as well as the braces, it takes about the double amount of rounds, about 24 clicks on the mouse to make the whole thing collapse:

 

Actually, like this I should make a lot more damage much sooner, yet it takes about twice as much to send me downward.

 

If I focus at the lower wing and just aim for where it matters:

it takes as little as the ~12 clicks (as in the first example)

 

to make the WHOLE wing go:

 

Thus there my be different damage sections, but the number of hits per section is still cumulative.

 

What we have is outwardly wrong in principle. We have a couple of sections that are extremely vulnerable to gunfire, (spar, braces, wires, joints) and other sections, about 90% of the whole area, that should receive no more than cosmetic damage from gunfire.

 

Now, just a quick salvo in the lower wing of the Halb and it is doomed.

 

They really, really need to reconsider the hitboxes.

 

 

 

Edited April 15, 2020 by ZachariasX

[emely]

2 hours ago, VeltroRoF said:

Anyone else has thoughts on this ?

I found such a diagram of wing bending moment diagrams.  Just one stand greatly changes the situation compared to a monoplane without struts.  I think that with the ww1 biplane wing scheme, everything will be even more complicated.  What is the conclusion for us: On a ww2 airplane, the farther from the fuselage the spar is damaged, the less important it is for the strength of the wing.  On a ww1 airplane, damage to the side member closer to the end of the wing may be even more important than at its root.  Considering that the hitbox takes the length from the forehead to its rear wing end, and the spar is damaged in any case, this makes the probability of a wing fracture on ww1 airplanes much higher than on the same wood airplanes, but ww2

The game’s defect is contained in primitive hitboxes that perceive all hits along the width of the wing.  If you hit the wing, it means you hit the spar.  This works fine on monoplanes, because only the root wing hitbox is most important to them.  But in our case, it works disgustingly.  Also, no one knows where the developers got data on how one bullet damages the load-bearing beam.  It looks as if they invented this value on their own.

Edited April 14, 2020 by emely

[No.23_Gaylion]

Found video of WWI planes being shot up. Pretty compelling evidence if you ask me.

 

 

[Knarley-Bob]

Can we say "OOOPS"?

[DD_Arthur]

22 minutes ago, Knarley-Bob said:

Can we say "OOOPS"?

 

Hopefully it is an OOOPS moment and can be corrected easily.......hopefully.......

[HagarTheHorrible]

1 hour ago, US213_Talbot said:

Found video of WWI planes being shot up. Pretty compelling evidence if you ask me.

 

 

 

"Wings" if I'm not mistaken

[Knarley-Bob]

52 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Hopefully it is an OOOPS moment and can be corrected easily.......hopefully.......

I don't think wrapping beer cans around the struts will help much, but, one never knows.....

[HagarTheHorrible]

TBH, I think ZachariasX  has said shown everthing we need to see to make a simple assessment of the way the damage model works.  It is probable that it is slightly more sophisicated than I am about to describe, but I'm sure the underlying principles are the same.  The game uses, hitboxes/cells/sections/areas, whatever makes you most comfortable in describing it (Evidence, Zach shooting wing trailing edges that result in damage to an entire wing section, maybe even interplane struts and wires as well) .  Each section/box/cell (you get the idea) has a notional strength given to it depending, probably, on several factors, some which we can have a pretty good guess at, like spars for example, number of, material, dimensions etc etc, maybe others that are hidden to us, or we are unaware of.  Each area does not contain individual components, such as spars, that take damage individually.  We were maybe expecting something magical, more sophisicated,  but probably in actuality, what has happened is someone has actually sat down and given damage values, to different hitboxes, more consideration and definition.  It is, I'm sure, a step up from RoF, but at the same time it isn't a whole lot different, just more refined.

 

It was probably unrealistic to expect more but it would help to explain why aircraft, such as the Albatros, seem to have weaker wings (one lower wing spar = lower DM strength value), before this update I suspect it was just judged as a wing, just like any other in FC now, the single spar is considered. The Halbersdat (?), big bullet magnet wings, single bay etc etc, again I think, you get the picture.  I seem to recall somebody saying that the Dolphin has weak wings (just to add to it's woes) so I have yet to decide as to whether twin bays are stronger than single bays or whether the bigger wings are simply bigger targets and as such more vulnerable.

 

I think we are all trying to over imagine this, it's really not that sophisicated, refined yes, more sophisicated, no.

 

The argument, discussion, we need to have with the developers is really nothing more than challenging the "notional" values that they have attached to each section of wing or even if wings should have different hitboxes, physical (rather than cosmetic) or just be treated as one inividual wing (biplane = 4 of), which I'm sure could be argued over until the cows come home.  I think there is probably one area thougth that we can probably agree on, the values themselves are too weak.

 

I also agree with SeaWolf, I don't like the "wobble" after taking damage in the wings (?).  Yes I can understand it if it is after a certain amount of damage to a control surface but nothing more.

Edited April 14, 2020 by HagarTheHorrible

[J5_Adam]

8 hours ago, J3Hetzer said:

The "little side projects" and quality thereof wouldn't be a legitimate issue if the price of them hadn't been so frikkin' huge. $79 per module, I'm afraid I consider they have zero excuse or justification for this deplorable state of affairs. Compounded by the insult to injury of their deafening silence in my opinion.

 

 

9 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

Yes - it's no secret that the devs are favouring WW2 heavily over their 'little side projects'...I suppose it's to be expected, it's where the business is...but I've always thought the Devs have some degree of responsibility to listen to the community if they're going to provide a product and, more importantly, to work with the community on coming to an understanding with the community (carefully worded - I don't also think the community should be able to strong-arm changes into the game). As it currently stands, the community and the devs seem to be 'at odds' with very sparse communication between them. 

I think the new DM is actually really good.....for the WW2 players. Being one of the 'Black sheep' communities (alongside TC) within the IL2 overall community, we've been suffering from it, though. 

And in the meantime, none of us noticed that IL2 ww2 will be dumped eventually in favour of the space race part of the sim just like when 777 dropped a bomb telling us that there would be no further development on RoF. 
 

Just have look at what’s in the hangar in front if your favourite ww1 aircraft if you ever choose to fly FC again that is. They did the same thing years ago by dropping hints like that. 
 

Now go have a look. 

Edited April 14, 2020 by Adam

[HagarTheHorrible]

10 minutes ago, Adam said:

 

 

And in the meantime, none of us noticed that IL2 ww2 will be dumped eventually in favour of the space race part of the sim just like when 777 dropped a bomb telling us that there would be no further development on RoF. 
 

Just have look at what’s in the hangar in front if your favourite ww1 aircraft if you ever choose to fly FC again that is. They did the same thing years ago by dropping hints like that. 
 

Now go have a look. 

 

Look up Yuri Gagarin, and see if any prominent dates around this time of the year pop up (hint, hint, 12/04/1961)

Edited April 14, 2020 by HagarTheHorrible

[J5_Adam]

4 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

 

Look up Yuri Gagarin, and see if any prominent dates around this time of the year pop up (hint, hint, 12/04/1961)

 

Ya I know

[No.23_Gaylion]

IL-2: INVISIBLE ROCKETS ?

[HagarTheHorrible]

To add to my earlier post, to give some context.

 

A wing hit box/cell/area is given a value and for the purposes of this example (the figures are just random numbers plucked from the air, a bit like falling wings)

 

Wing A :-    Two spars, solid wood -120mm x 80mm (averge size), single bay  average size wing area  =                                    80 points for basic wing, + 20 points extra for second spar, + 10 points for average wing area, +10 points for medium value wing spars.     Total = 120 points

                    Minimum wing strength value =                                                                                                  40 points (1G), 60 points (2G), 80 points (3G)

                    Each bullet hit decreases wing cell value by -10 points (4 hits = -40 points)

 

Above wing  recieves 4 hits to one wing section (-40 points) wing holds because wing is still above minimum strength threshold (40 points), aircraft then dives away and makes 2 "G" turn.  Wing minimum strength value has now gone up to 60 points because of increased "G". Wing still holds because the 40 points (4 hits) have only reduced the overall wing strength to 80 points (120 - 40 = 80), it is still above the new minimum wing strength value.  The aircraft, still being shot at, recieves another hit in the same section of wing, the wing strength now only has a value of 70 points, (dangerously close to failing), the pilot, desperate to avoid more hits and unaware how close he is to structural failure, increases his turn rate, increasing the "G" forces on the damaged wing (3 G), this increases the minimum strength value at which the wing will fail. The minimum value of wing strength, because of increased "G" load, is now 80 points.  The wing however only has 70 points left, after the bullet hits, and so fails.  Loss of one wing robs the other wing of 50 points which also takes it over the 80 point minimum value, at 3G, and that wing fails as well.

 

I don't know if twin bay aircraft just have more hit boxes/cells, even if each cell is maybe smaller,  and the requesit number of shots to any of those cells will lead to the loss of a wing, or if each bay because it is possibly smaller and carries less load has a smaller percentage of it's strength taken away due to "G" forces.

 

I also don't know if cantilever wing spars are calculated with different values to solid wood, wire supported spars, or whether that value is compromised by their generally being only one spar in a wing

 

I don't know if the overall strain, dynamic forces (lift), is on the top wing or if the forces are equally spread over the two wings (one side of aircraft) so that the wing faliure threshold for the top wing is worse than the bottom. Or to put it another way.  If the top wing is damaged, do I need to worry more than if the bottom wing is damaged.

 

I don't know if pairs of flying wires increase the strength value of a wing or if indeed taken into account at all.

Edited April 15, 2020 by HagarTheHorrible

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

4 hours ago, US213_Talbot said:

Found video of WWI planes being shot up. Pretty compelling evidence if you ask me.

 

 

Duct tape will fix that up real good. Better than the wings in FC lol. 

53 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

To add to my earlier post, to give some context.

 

A wing hit box/cell/area is given a value and for the purposes of this example (the figures are just random numbers plucked from the air, a bit like falling wings)

 

Wing A :-    Two spars, solid wood -120mm x 80mm (averge size), single bay  average size wing area  =                                    80 points for basic wing, + 20 points extra for second spar, + 10 points for average wing area, +10 points for medium value wing spars.     Total = 120 points

                    Minimum wing strength =                                                                                                                         40 points

                    Each bullet hit decreases wing cell value by -10 points (4 hits = -40 points)

 

Above wing  recieves 4 hits to one wing section (-40 points) wing holds because wing is still above minimum strength threshold (40 points), aircraft then dives away and makes 2 "G" turn.  Wing minimum strength value has now gone up to 60 points because of increased "G". Wing still holds because the 40 points (4 hits) have only reduced the overall wing strength to 80 points (120 - 40 = 80), it is still above the new minimum wing strength value.  The aircraft, still being shot at, recieves another hit in the same section of wing, the wing strength now only has a value of 70 points, (dangerously close to failing), the pilot, desperate to avoid more hits and unaware how close he is to structural failure, increases his turn rate, increasing the "G" forces on the damaged wing (3 G), this increases the minimum strength value at which the wing will fail. The minimum value of wing strength, because of increased "G" load, is now 80 points.  The wing however only has 70 points left, after the bullet hits, and so fails.  Loss of one wing robs the other wing of 50 points which also takes it over the 80 point minimum value, at 3G, and that wing fails as well.

 

I don't know if twin bay aircraft just have more hit boxes/cells, even if each cell is maybe smaller,  and the requesit number of shots to any of those cells will lead to the loss of a wing, or if each bay because it is possibly smaller and carries less load has a smaller percentage of it's strength taken away due to "G" forces.

 

I also don't know if cantilever wing spars are calculated with different values to solid wood, wire supported spars, or whether that value is compromised by their generally being only one spar in a wing

 

I don't know if the overall strain, dynamic forces (lift), is on the top wing or if the forces are equally spread over the two wings (one side of aircraft) so that the wing faliure threshold for the top wing is worse than the bottom. Or to put it another way.  If the top wing is damaged, do I need to worry more than if the bottom wing is damaged.

 

I don't know if pairs of flying wires increase the strength value of a wing or if indeed taken into account at all.

How do you get all this? You a developer? Seems complicated.

[emely]

Has anyone shot down Dr1 by destroying his wings?  As far as I can see, this aircraft can damage the engine, or kill a pilot, which is not easy if he is actively maneuvering.  In addition, it became difficult to kill a pilot with a new DM.  The rest of this plane suffers a lot of hits, without noticeable problems.  Today I saw his wings just boiling from a lot of hits, but Др1 did not collapse, but continued to fly.  If earlier it was even stronger, then this is the most unfair DM aircraft in the game.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

2 minutes ago, emely said:

Has anyone shot down Dr1 by destroying his wings?  As far as I can see, this aircraft can damage the engine, or kill a pilot, which is not easy if he is actively maneuvering.  In addition, it became difficult to kill a pilot with a new DM.  The rest of this plane suffers a lot of hits, without noticeable problems.  Today I saw his wings just boiling from a lot of hits, but Др1 did not collapse, but continued to fly.  If earlier it was even stronger, then this is the most unfair DM aircraft in the game.

Dr.1 always was the tank, but after the patch I lost two times one part of the wings, but still can fly and land.

[SeaW0lf]

1 hour ago, emely said:

Has anyone shot down Dr1 by destroying his wings?  As far as I can see, this aircraft can damage the engine, or kill a pilot, which is not easy if he is actively maneuvering.  In addition, it became difficult to kill a pilot with a new DM.  The rest of this plane suffers a lot of hits, without noticeable problems.  Today I saw his wings just boiling from a lot of hits, but Др1 did not collapse, but continued to fly.  If earlier it was even stronger, then this is the most unfair DM aircraft in the game.

 

Not true. Yesterday I hit a Dr1 with just one long burst from afar and its wings became a mush like wet cardboard. He could not turn properly, shaking vigorously and was only saved by his peers. One more hit and I felt the plane was going to fall apart.

 

Every plane is being affected some way or another.

[HagarTheHorrible]

7 hours ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

 

How do you get all this? You a developer? Seems complicated.

 

Logic and actually it’s really rather basic.   What has changed, in FC, I think, is that values have been adjusted (refined) for each hit area, or wing, to reflect notional strengths given the design of the wing (one spar - two spars etc).  Before, I think, all wings were created equal, in the eyes of the creator. Sesquiplane aircraft wings probably did well in this regard, the wings strength was the same as a wing with two spars, but their size (particularly narrow cord) meant they were less likely to be damaged, or as often, hence the robust nature of the Albatros, or even the Pflaz D.III, in RoF, by comparison with aircraft that have wings with a wide cord and subsequently a bigger target (hit box) such as the SE5a. It didn’t, doesn’t, allow for the fact that the actual critical areas in a wing area are much the same, regardless of wing cord, 90% of the time you’re still going to be hitting non critical elements, or linen and fresh air.  I think things changed, when RoF came to BoX, because we essentially had wings with the same strength values as WW2 aircraft wings, the game made no distinction, FC aircraft benefitted enormously from the integration into BoX.  Now, after the patch, I think we suffer the reverse, we have much weaker wings, based on notional values attached to differently designed, individual, WW1 aircraft wings, but at the same time we have accurate shooting, or at least accurate enough, to hit a particular section several times, rather than accurate enough to hit a particularly critical element in a wing, several times, resulting in increased wing loss.  

 

However you want to describe it, between pillar and post, or between two stools, FC is caught in the cross fire.  Yes we now have specific values attached to wings, depending on several factors such as design, although I think we still have the problem of bigger wings presenting bigger targets, but we also have, in BoX, a concentration of shot that makes the recalculated wing sections extremely vulnerable to damage, even if bullets notionally pass through nothing more than a fabric covered trailing edge.

 

I think the main work in the patch, other than assigning individual aircraft wing strengths (10% of the work), was really how, more sophisticated projectiles, affected aircraft structures (90% of the work) other than just using the same logic that applied to simpler solid rounds.

 

I think that the U2 has already been given different wing strength values, to those of FC aircraft, which is why I think it appears more robust, if the same values were used on U2 wings as on FC wings, it wouldn’t survive 30 seconds in the WW2 environment, the first shot and it would fall apart.

 

I haven’t yet worked out, or decided on what,  I think, is the relationship between wing strength - wing area - wing loading and damage value.

 

The solution to weak wings, in FC, is I think to increase the robustness values to be in line with that of the U2.  Not impossible to break, still vulnerable according to design, but much, much stronger, because critical elements just aren’t’ that likely to be hit or hit a sufficient number of times in sufficient proximity that wing strength is compromised to any great extent.

Edited April 15, 2020 by HagarTheHorrible

[Zooropa_Fly]

8 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

Not true.

 

I'm not sure we should be judging things like this in black and white.

My experiences are much more like Emely's. In 10 years of playing RoF and FC I don't think I've ever disabled a Dr1 in a short burst from anywhere.

The FC Dr1 seems more like the RoF now in DM terms. I lost half a wing yesterday which didn't happen so easily pre-patch.

But they don't fall to bits, in my game at least.

The more I play and read forums, the more I'm inclined to believe not all of us share exactly the same in-game experiences.

[kendo]

21 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

 

I'm not sure we should be judging things like this in black and white.

My experiences are much more like Emely's. In 10 years of playing RoF and FC I don't think I've ever disabled a Dr1 in a short burst from anywhere.

The FC Dr1 seems more like the RoF now in DM terms. I lost half a wing yesterday which didn't happen so easily pre-patch.

But they don't fall to bits, in my game at least.

The more I play and read forums, the more I'm inclined to believe not all of us share exactly the same in-game experiences.

 

I get the same impression. Seems that i'm playing a different game to what some are describing here.

 

I reread through the book 'Aces falling' by Peter Hart yesterday. It's full of pilot quotes from 1918 many describing actions, and wings coming off are mentioned more often than many people here would seem to expect, sometimes after short bursts. Example:

 

"At 11.10, I saw a Rumpler coming west over Boursies. I got into position at 75 yards, fired a short burst from both guns, when EA at once went into right hand spiral dive and its right-hand wings fell off at about 17,000 feet."

 

One from Von Richtofen: "I attacked an Englishman at an altitude of 2500 metres. Under my machine gun fire, both wings broke away from the aeroplane in the air. The pieces scattered in the vicinity of Combies."

 

Aircraft going down on flames and pilot kills seem more common, but de-wingings do not at all seem rare occurrences. Reading here it seems that some do not view any loss of wing in any circumstances as justifiable or realistic.

 

Maybe the ROF experience has traumatised people too much?

 

[No.23_Triggers]

I'm all for wings coming off....if a main spar is shot through or other crippling damage is caused. I'm not so happy about planes falling to pieces after a few bullets and a split-S...
 

There's a great article here that talks extensively about wing damage and the Albatros: http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31781&garpg=2 . Also suggests that the SPAD XIII dives far, far too slowly, but that's another discussion for another day... 

[J2_Trupobaw]

22 hours ago, US213_Talbot said:

Well this thread had a good run.

The purpose of such threads is always to let players vent off some steam and let us decide where we stand about the changes. Any attempts to make serious research / discussion is drowned in emotional responses, involved digressions and jumps to conclusions by people who won't accept they do not move the discussion forward, and people who just believe their frustration demands attention from the team. Back in RoF, the developers were responding directly to such threads, trying to filter out actual bug input out of noice and trying to explain themselves. It usually ended in them getting involved themselves and thread getting locked. In BoX, they have made bug discussion a separate sub-forum with strict rules, and largely separate themselves from players acting out their frustration. 

I don't know how much liberty the NDA leaves me, but I think I can tell you what is not present on Beta forums. The speculation about wing DM being reduced to single hit box, or about devs ignoring the problem, are not true. These are simple explanations to complex problem that unfortunatly needs complex solution; some realistic effects (at least, realistic in WW2) are exaggerated and produce unplausible results. Instead of playing blame game, we should collect information (that means track recordings) of the game not even trying to be plausible and pass them to devs. 

Personally, I believe that previous wing DM was perfect. It matched the pilot accounts, it matched our expectations, it led to better gameplay. I want a rollback to the previous version. Unfortunately, devs have been burnt many time by trying to adjust RoF to players wants and expectations, and seem to be aiming at realism rather than gameplay. So my wants are my own problem. What I can do is to help them realise parts of the game that make gameplay bad are also unrealistic and there is better alternative. Everything else, to quote the man, is rubbish.

 

Edited April 15, 2020 by J2_Trupobaw

[No.23_Triggers]

Well, you heard him. Start getting tracks, people...
 

Set this thread up EXCLUSIVELY for the posting of tracks and videos - if we separate the two, then as per Trupo's above comment we should be able to keep our personal discussions and research separate from the tracks that the devs will need - that way, we can keep out discussion here and the Devs can check the 'tracks' thread for what they need to find without having to scour through pages of discussions. 

Edited April 15, 2020 by US93_Larner

[DD_Arthur]

12 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

I don't know how much liberty the NDA leaves me, but I think I can tell you what is not present on Beta forums. The speculation about wing DM being reduced to single hit box, or about devs ignoring the problem, are not true. These are simple explanations to complex problem that unfortunatly needs complex solution; some realistic effects (at least, realistic in WW2) are exaggerated and produce unplausible results. Instead of playing blame game, we should collect information (that means track recordings) of the game not even trying to be plausible and pass them to devs. 

Personally, I believe that previous wing DM was perfect. It matched the pilot accounts, it matched our explanations, it led to better gameplay. I want a rollback to the previous version. Unfortunately, devs have been burnt many time by trying to adjust RoF to players wants and expectations, and seem to be aiming at realism rather than gameplay. So my wants are my own problem. What I can do is to help them realise parts of the game that make gameplay bad are also unrealistic and there is better alternative. Everything else, to quote the man, is rubbish.

 

THIS!!!

[SeaW0lf]

1 hour ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

I don't know how much liberty the NDA leaves me, but I think I can tell you what is not present on Beta forums. The speculation about wing DM being reduced to single hit box, or about devs ignoring the problem, are not true. These are simple explanations to complex problem that unfortunatly needs complex solution; some realistic effects (at least, realistic in WW2) are exaggerated and produce unplausible results. Instead of playing blame game, we should collect information (that means track recordings) of the game not even trying to be plausible and pass them to devs. 

Personally, I believe that previous wing DM was perfect. It matched the pilot accounts, it matched our expectations, it led to better gameplay. I want a rollback to the previous version. Unfortunately, devs have been burnt many time by trying to adjust RoF to players wants and expectations, and seem to be aiming at realism rather than gameplay. So my wants are my own problem. What I can do is to help them realise parts of the game that make gameplay bad are also unrealistic and there is better alternative. Everything else, to quote the man, is rubbish.

 

Thanks for the [sad] feedback. Let's see if the community still has something left in us to put some sense into the situation.