New DM

[No.23_Triggers]

13 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

 

I bet they wore the same dresses to the prom too. 

 

?️‍?

[DD_Arthur]

"and for your next trick magic pussy;  paper mache wings begone!"

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

5 hours ago, Tycoon said:

Thanks for doing the lord's work emely.?

 

I thought that was Hotlead's job.

[J2_Trupobaw]

6 hours ago, US213_Talbot said:

In other news, what I HAVE to know what this says lol.

It's a Russian meme.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Ftjournal.ru%2Fflood%2F38303-mem-vzhuh

Whzuh is a sound magic wand does when making something happen automagically. I think he basically says fix won't come like "Abracadabra - and everything's done".

[No.23_Triggers]

I've been thinking a little more about the DM, and trying to really pay attention to the current hit-boxes, and I've been thinking of what suggestions could be made to aid the Devs in their quest to revise FC's DM. The one virtue we have that could, potentially, divide the FC aircraft from the WW1 birds is that our crates are made largely of canvas Linen. To my knowledge, you'd have to shoot a LOT of the canvas Linen out in order to cause the aircraft any real damage. Generally, this means that 'empty' sections should be pretty durable, especially to WW1-era 7mm ammunition. The Devs have said as well that damage to spars has been taken into account. I wonder if this is what's causing wings to fold up so easily. 

If we look at the Albatros D.Va's airframe, we can see the general layout and the 'empty' space. 



 

Now, to the best of my knowledge, these are the current hit "Areas" for the Albatros D.Va's upper wing. All will currently drastically weaken the airframe's ability to take on Gs, and enough damage can even fold a wing in level flight - apart from the RED hitbox, which causes a coolant leak, and the PINK hitbox.

 

There'll be a main spar hit-box in there too, assumedly where the IRL spar is. What might be better suited to FC, might be something along these lines - where damage to critical components (Spars, etc) causes the current severity of damage exhibited in-game, but the less critical areas cause negligible damage - similar to original FC. As 1CGS have currently been working with different materials and the way they are damaged - the hope is that, with a more complex and detailed hit-box structure like this (Don't know how hard this would be to model), damage to canvas parts of wings would be largely ineffective, and wing integrity would only be affected if you score a 'Golden BB' on the main spars. I've not included ribs and the like, to keep this 'mock-up' within the realm of reasonable possibility. Asking for every rib to be modelled as a separate hitbox would likely be a huge task. 
 

 

This would undoubtedly lead to a more complex damage model, at least in terms of hitboxes, as the upper wing would go from having 8 hit-boxes (Ailerons, outer wings, inner wings, centre wing section, radiator) to having about 22 hit-boxes (4-5 separate hit-boxes now filling the space where 1 or 2 would previously be). I'd really like to have a chat with one of the devs about the plausibility of this, and might see if I can get in touch with one via PM - although they tend to avoid conversing with the 'common rabble' as it can land them in hot water if they let too much info go or 'accidentally' promise something - not to mention that they're generally busy people. 

 

I think where the 'wires cross' with a WW1 and WW2 module co-existing is the various complexities and design features of each type of aircraft. The WW1 aircraft had many complex and intricate parts, (Flying wires, landing wires, wooden rudder bars, etc etc etc) with a lot of variance in effective damage depending on where you landed your shots. I think, at the moment, the WW2 crates do actually display a fair degree of complexity in the DM - from the little I've flown I remember things like aileron rods and landing gear being knocked out. I think it would really bring FC alive if the WW1 planes had a similarly detailed DM. 

 

Perhaps I'll try to post something in the 'Suggestions' thread so that it can be disregarded and drowned by the WW2 stuff ?

Edited April 19, 2020 by US93_Larner

[J5_Adam]

Linen. Covered with linen, my friend. Canvas weighs a ton!

[Cynic_Al]

19 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

Now, to the best of my knowledge, these are the current hit "Areas" for the Albatros D.Va's upper wing.

 

Could you explain how you obtained or derived that information?

[No.23_Triggers]

4 minutes ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

Could you explain how you obtained or derived that information?

By using my eyes. Each damageable section has a visual DM, right? 
 

8 minutes ago, Adam said:

Linen. Covered with linen, my friend. Canvas weighs a ton!

Right you are. Force of habit, calling it Canvas...can't remember where I picked it up lol. 

Edited April 19, 2020 by US93_Larner

[J5_Adam]

It's a common phrase regarding these crates going way back. ?

[Cynic_Al]

19 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

By using my eyes. Each damageable section has a visual DM, right? 

 

I can't be certain whether that's always strictly correct; but be that as it may, to locate the exact positions of all hitboxes, I would have considered it essential to set-up an accurate-as-possible test to determine them, probably involving either an AI plane or one flown by an assistant, flying a fixed course.  Are you saying that's what you did?

[No.23_Triggers]

2 minutes ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

I can't be certain whether that's always strictly correct; but be that as it may, to locate the exact positions of all hitboxes, I would have considered it essential to set-up an accurate-as-possible test to determine them, probably involving either an AI plane or one flown by an assistant, flying a fixed course.  Are you saying that's what you did?

 

No. That diagram shows the general layout of hit-boxes as a basic reference. The point is that all the current hit-boxes on the wings are, apparently, causing the same or very similar severe structural damage. 

[Cynic_Al]

1 hour ago, US93_Larner said:

 

No. That diagram shows the general layout of hit-boxes as a basic reference. The point is that all the current hit-boxes on the wings are, apparently, causing the same or very similar severe structural damage. 

 

Before making such a claim, I would still feel compelled to perform testing along the lines I described.

[HagarTheHorrible]

While I think Larner is on the right track it still doesn’t take into account density (grouping) of the shot.  I think that is the one critical element that appears to be absent from any calculations.  I have tried to point this out, with some very simplistic, basic calculations.  I have suggested the number of bullets fired in a 1 second burst and also the distance an aircraft flying at 90mph travels in that time (20 rounds/ 132 feet). I readily concede that 20 rounds spread over 132 feet is a wurst Kase  scenario, but even a relatively perfect shot, from the perfect angle, from anything other than point blank is going to have some rather large widening of the hit group, to the point that it will probably have very limited impact on the strength of a spar.  Emely helpfully posted a picture, and video, of the destructive nature/power of machine gun fire, but in doing so missed the most important aspect.   The picture showed a demonstration of a large tree that had literally been sawn in half/chopped down, by a Maxim, but what is critical/ relevant to us is that to do that it needed to get all of the bullets in the same, very small area of the tree, relative to it’s size.  You could probably have fired 100 times that many bullets into that tree, without seriously damaging it, if the bullets had been spread all over the trunk. Bullet hit density is critical,  even having bullets as close to each other as 2” (50mm) will mean, structurally, they will probably have no cumulative destructive force and a 2” (50mm) group of hits, given the circumstances of aerial combat, is probably more by chance than design.  If 7mm holes were so detrimental to the strength of a spar then you would never find any screw/bolt.fixings, or predrilled holes, in the timber.  However if a designer was stupid enough to have several fixings/holes, close together, then yes the strength would be compromised (unless reinforced), even I learn’t that, when I did my cabinet making course (several thousand years ago) and that was just for furniture.  Interplane struts, in my view aren’t critical components.  They don’t have any significant forces applied to them, they simply keep the wings a set distance apart from each other and tie them together (wood is incredibly strong in compression and tension) and they are far bigger (wider) than they need to be from a strength point of view, most of it is streamlining, not strengthening.  As to ribs and rib strength, if one or two 7mm holes were drilled in them, have a look at a rib and try and work out the size of the rib compared to the size and shape of the cut outs and then wonder what difference a little bit more, by way of a couple of 7mm holes is going to make.  Wing integrity, of the ribs, is far more likely to be compromised if you have a large section of linen come adrift and catch the airflow and that is far more likely to be from an explosion or manufacturing failures than bullet holes.  

[kendo]

 

7 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

I've been thinking a little more about the DM, and trying to really pay attention to the current hit-boxes, and I've been thinking of what suggestions could be made to aid the Devs in their quest to revise FC's DM. The one virtue we have that could, potentially, divide the FC aircraft from the WW1 birds is that our crates are made largely of canvas Linen. To my knowledge, you'd have to shoot a LOT of the canvas Linen out in order to cause the aircraft any real damage. Generally, this means that 'empty' sections should be pretty durable, especially to WW1-era 7mm ammunition. The Devs have said as well that damage to spars has been taken into account. I wonder if this is what's causing wings to fold up so easily. 

 

Looking at a vertical plan view of the aircraft and concluding that most of the time shots will be hitting air (linen/canvas) is misleading. In actuality, most times you will be shooting from dead astern (sometimes head on), and as Petrovich said in one of his posts, in that situation a hit on the spar is almost a 100% certainty - not a Golden BB.

 

I also think that equating hit box demarcation to where the visual model deforms is almost certainly wrong. The visual depiction of damage is simplified and doesn't reflect the actual hits in a one to one manner. They have always said that. I'm sure the hits will be modelled in a more complex way, but again there seems be a certain amount of 'abstraction' still there in the model - ie there is no physical one to one modelling of all the inner components of a wing in 3-d space, but instead probably only main components (spars) with a modelled representation of the expected wing toughness based on the real physical construction of the aircraft. This is my understanding based on reading all the various dev posts on this issue.

 

[DD_Arthur]

32 minutes ago, kendo said:

I also think that equating hit box demarcation to where the visual model deforms is almost certainly wrong. The visual depiction of damage is simplified and doesn't reflect the actual hits in a one to one manner. They have always said that. I'm sure the hits will be modelled in a more complex way, but again there seems be a certain amount of 'abstraction' still there in the model - ie there is no physical one to one modelling of all the inner components of a wing in 3-d space, but instead probably only main components (spars) with a modelled representation of the expected wing toughness based on the real physical construction of the aircraft. This is my understanding based on reading all the various dev posts on this issue.

 

Agree with all the above.  I also think the damage model is a lot more sophisticated than we think.  The devs have talked quite a lot about their new damage calculations and it's noticeable that they haven't used this word 'hitboxes' in any of these discussions as far as I can tell.

 

I was also struck by what Petrov said about hitting wing spars in an astern attack.  I would think it highly unlikely that any critical damage could be done for the very reasons Hagar has pointed out.

I think most of us understand that WW1 planes were not brought down by massive structural failure but by hits to the pilot, the engine and important ancilleries like the cooling, fuel and ignition systems.

 

However, the important thing we've ALL managed to do is actually bring this problem to the devs attention so they have acknowledged it and will work on it.

 

I think we'll all have to have a little patience now.  As Petrov as intimated,  this work will have to take place in his own time as the devs have to a stick to a fairly strict development schedule.  

 

 

 

[No.23_Gaylion]

Another suggested avenue of approach:

 

Contact some of these guys building replicas and get their take. I know of a few on Facebook and one is building an albatros. Maybe we can gather some questions and fire them out?

 

 

[HagarTheHorrible]

15 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Agree with all the above.  I also think the damage model is a lot more sophisticated than we think.  The devs have talked quite a lot about their new damage calculations and it's noticeable that they haven't used this word 'hitboxes' in any of these discussions as far as I can tell.

 

I was also struck by what Petrov said about hitting wing spars in an astern attack.  I would think it highly unlikely that any critical damage could be done for the very reasons Hagar has pointed out.

I think most of us understand that WW1 planes were not brought down by massive structural failure but by hits to the pilot, the engine and important ancilleries like the cooling, fuel and ignition systems.

 

However, the important thing we've ALL managed to do is actually bring this problem to the devs attention so they have acknowledged it and will work on it.

 

I think we'll all have to have a little patience now.  As Petrov as intimated,  this work will have to take place in his own time as the devs have to a stick to a fairly strict development schedule.  

 

 

 

I think, if there is concern, it isn’t totally without foundation.  Whether it is, or isn’t, actually like RoF, it does seem like it’s similar to RoF and given that RoF thought it was perfectly alright then there is a worry that the Developers might just conclude exactly the same in FC.  While I salute the Developers commitment to constantly improving and developing the sim, personally, I know which FC version I would prefer to be playing, as I’m sure does J5Gamecock, after losing his wings to me several times, last night, during Bloody April X ? ( I on the other hand was quite happy ?).

[No.23_Triggers]

6 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

Before making such a claim, I would still feel compelled to perform testing along the lines I described.

Why?

[DD_Arthur]

16 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

I think, if there is concern, it isn’t totally without foundation.  Whether it is, or isn’t, actually like RoF, it does seem like it’s similar to RoF and given that RoF thought it was perfectly alright then there is a worry that the Developers might just conclude exactly the same in FC.  

 

Agree completely.  However, I think Petrov's acknowledgment that further work is required to make this new DM work with FC is very encouraging.

[Cynic_Al]

18 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

Why?

 

Because without accurate data, what follows is based on speculation.

[DD_Arthur]

[J2_Trupobaw]

10 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

By using my eyes. Each damageable section has a visual DM, right? 
 

Right you are. Force of habit, calling it Canvas...can't remember where I picked it up lol. 

Visual DM and actual damage are quite separate. That's why planes sometimes break apart after little visual damage, or keep flying while visually missing critical parts. But I agree you are on the right track :).

Talbot, don't rise to provocations. Everything you say can be used against you or to drag the discussion off topic :).
 

Quote

Because without accurate data, what follows is based on speculation.

All they can do is gather data that may prove useful for developers. If they are barking on wrong tree, devs will just not use it. Can't blame man for trying, right?

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

8 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

 < mod hat on>Talbot, don't rise to provocations. Everything you say can be used against you or to drag the discussion off topic :). <mod hat off>
 

 

 

lol

[US103_Baer]

3 hours ago, kendo said:

 

 

Looking at a vertical plan view of the aircraft and concluding that most of the time shots will be hitting air (linen/canvas) is misleading. In actuality, most times you will be shooting from dead astern (sometimes head on), and as Petrovich said in one of his posts, in that situation a hit on the spar is almost a 100% certainty - not a Golden BB.

 

I also think that equating hit box demarcation to where the visual model deforms is almost certainly wrong. The visual depiction of damage is simplified and doesn't reflect the actual hits in a one to one manner. They have always said that. I'm sure the hits will be modelled in a more complex way, but again there seems be a certain amount of 'abstraction' still there in the model - ie there is no physical one to one modelling of all the inner components of a wing in 3-d space, but instead probably only main components (spars) with a modelled representation of the expected wing toughness based on the real physical construction of the aircraft. This is my understanding based on reading all the various dev posts on this issue.

 

 

I can't agree that most of our attacks are from astern or head-on. Occasionally you get an unaware guy but most are short, high-angle deflection bursts aimed for the front of the fuselage but often hitting some wing as well. So, spar hits shouldn't be common in this scenario.

 

Agree that visual damage can't be an accurate indicator. Devs stated this I believe.

[No.23_Triggers]

1 hour ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

Because without accurate data, what follows is based on speculation.

In case you didn't notice, this whole thread is based on speculation. 

The hit-boxes are divided up as showed. There's no need to figure out the exact dimensions of them to make the point that they all are apparently causing comparably critical damage to the wings when hit. You seem to be missing the point of my post, which was 'The GENERAL hit-box layout and response to damage seems to be along the lines of example A. It would be perhaps more accurate to how a WW1 aircraft responds to damage if it was like example B'. 

[Zooropa_Fly]

We need to get Chill to take some pot shots at somebody's wing.

[No.23_Triggers]

4 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

While I think Larner is on the right track it still doesn’t take into account density (grouping) of the shot.  I think that is the one critical element that appears to be absent from any calculations.  I have tried to point this out, with some very simplistic, basic calculations.  I have suggested the number of bullets fired in a 1 second burst and also the distance an aircraft flying at 90mph travels in that time (20 rounds/ 132 feet). I readily concede that 20 rounds spread over 132 feet is a wurst Kase  scenario, but even a relatively perfect shot, from the perfect angle, from anything other than point blank is going to have some rather large widening of the hit group, to the point that it will probably have very limited impact on the strength of a spar.  Emely helpfully posted a picture, and video, of the destructive nature/power of machine gun fire, but in doing so missed the most important aspect.   The picture showed a demonstration of a large tree that had literally been sawn in half/chopped down, by a Maxim, but what is critical/ relevant to us is that to do that it needed to get all of the bullets in the same, very small area of the tree, relative to it’s size.  You could probably have fired 100 times that many bullets into that tree, without seriously damaging it, if the bullets had been spread all over the trunk. Bullet hit density is critical,  even having bullets as close to each other as 2” (50mm) will mean, structurally, they will probably have no cumulative destructive force and a 2” (50mm) group of hits, given the circumstances of aerial combat, is probably more by chance than design.  If 7mm holes were so detrimental to the strength of a spar then you would never find any screw/bolt.fixings, or predrilled holes, in the timber.  However if a designer was stupid enough to have several fixings/holes, close together, then yes the strength would be compromised (unless reinforced), even I learn’t that, when I did my cabinet making course (several thousand years ago) and that was just for furniture.  Interplane struts, in my view aren’t critical components.  They don’t have any significant forces applied to them, they simply keep the wings a set distance apart from each other and tie them together (wood is incredibly strong in compression and tension) and they are far bigger (wider) than they need to be from a strength point of view, most of it is streamlining, not strengthening.  As to ribs and rib strength, if one or two 7mm holes were drilled in them, have a look at a rib and try and work out the size of the rib compared to the size and shape of the cut outs and then wonder what difference a little bit more, by way of a couple of 7mm holes is going to make.  Wing integrity, of the ribs, is far more likely to be compromised if you have a large section of linen come adrift and catch the airflow and that is far more likely to be from an explosion or manufacturing failures than bullet holes.  

In the DM Tracks thread there's a great example that shows two 'wing kills' - in the first, no more than two bullets strike an individual wing the aircraft (D.VII) collapses in a split-S. In the second, there's a nice tight grouping of 5-10 rounds striking a wingtip (Albatros). What's even more curious is the wing's response - the Vee-strut detaches from the lower wing and the upper wing subsequently folds. In QM testing I've noticed that a good grouping absolutely lays waste to a wing. 

 

1) This may actually be a more valid point than you realise - after all, some of the aircraft firms were 'reappropriated' furniture makers pre-war. Take Kellner (SPAD Manufacturers) for example - they were a piano company before they built warplanes. 

Edited April 19, 2020 by US93_Larner

[emely]

3 hours ago, kendo said:

 

Looking at a vertical plan view of the aircraft and concluding that most of the time shots will be hitting air (linen/canvas) is misleading. In actuality, most times you will be shooting from dead astern (sometimes head on), and as Petrovich said in one of his posts, in that situation a hit on the spar is almost a 100% certainty - not a Golden BB.

This is the most important information, but for some reason no one paid attention to it ? Also, this actually affects the damage to the wing skin.  If there is a small hole in the skin when a bullet hits 90 ° to the wing plane, then when shooting in the flight plane, the bullet path will always coincide with the skin surface in a certain area.  The length of this section will depend on the angle from which the shelling is conducted.  In this case, damage from the impact of the bullet will become like a knife cut.

а

Edited April 19, 2020 by emely

[J2_Trupobaw]

25 minutes ago, J5_Klugermann said:

 

lol

Lol indeed. Perhaps the has left some lice behind. But really, can you blame man for trying to warn a friend? 

 

Quote

In the DM Tracks thread there's a great example that shows two 'wing kills' - in the first, no more than two bullets strike an individual wing the aircraft (D.VII) collapses in a split-S. In the second, there's a nice tight grouping of 5-10 rounds striking a wingtip (Albatros). What's even more curious is the wing's response - the Vee-strut detaches from the lower wing and the upper wing subsequently folds. In QM testing I've noticed that a good grouping absolutely lays waste to a wing. 

The lower wing is basically aerodynamically shaped support for upper one, so upper wing should fold upwards once they disconnect.

Comparing places where hits are grouped and the resulting damage are definetly WTG in my opinion.

Edited April 19, 2020 by J2_Trupobaw

[No.23_Gaylion]

1 hour ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

We need to get Chill to take some pot shots at somebody's wing.

 

Even better: let's shoot up chills wings!

 

?

[HagarTheHorrible]

1 hour ago, emely said:

This is the most important information, but for some reason no one paid attention to it ? Also, this actually affects the damage to the wing skin.  If there is a small hole in the skin when a bullet hits 90 ° to the wing plane, then when shooting in the flight plane, the bullet path will always coincide with the skin surface in a certain area.  The length of this section will depend on the angle from which the shelling is conducted.  In this case, damage from the impact of the bullet will become like a knife cut.

а

 

This is getting a little bit deep, even for me ?, but why not add another layer to it.  If a piece of linen is torn in the direction suggested, even if quite large, it will not be half as much trouble as a rip across the length of the wing, that might be exploited by the full force of the airflow.  Linen, especially linen used for aircraft, was chosen for it's ripstop ability, or to put it another way, it's ability to withstand ripping if it gets a hole in it, it's one of the reasons why linen is highly prized as a textile over and above cotton.  The linen covering is reinforcing, it is very good at holding the skeleton together but is not essential to the structural integrety of the skeleton itself, like a very light weight plastercast, it is good at holding things together that might flap about and be damaged further if already broken.  Aircraft have been known to lose large sections of "canvas", but providing enough remains to provide some lift then an aircraft might, even then,  make a reasonable controlled landing (DR1's/ N.28's).

 

Anyway I think this is well beyond the scope of a damage model in a flight sim.  Spars and wires need to be the main focus and realistically wires are probably the most likely to have completely failure from a bullet strike and also have the most profound influence on structural integrety.  They didn't double up flying wires on some later war Scouts because it seemed like a fun thing to do. Some aircraft, the Spad and SE, to name but two, were renowned for their strength, pilots fast dived in them because they trusted them (or trusted them enough) but not all aircraft were built equal and I'm sure you would have had to have searched long and hard to have  found an Albatros pilot, in 1918, who would as gladly risked a dive in his aircraft, damaged or otherwise.

 

A traditional biplane wing structure would probably (I don't really know) struggle to support it's own weight and tied together with interplane struts, without the aid of wires, , but with good wire bracing they can be made to withstand several times the gravitational load imposed on them when at rest.

 

In hindsight, wings, or even spars (except in the case of cantilever wings, obviously) are probably a bit of a red herring, what we should be considering are wires, wire attachment points and the parts of the structure to which the wire fixings are fitted to, they take the most strain and if damaged are the most likely to cause catastrophic failure.

Edited April 19, 2020 by HagarTheHorrible

[Zooropa_Fly]

30 minutes ago, US213_Talbot said:

 

Even better: let's shoot up chills wings!

 

?

 

Gimme a Pup - then we can watch each round one at a time.

 

[No.23_Triggers]

I went back and found the video I mentioned earlier that shows two good examples of 'single hits' and 'groupings'. 
 

I then decided to try and analyse by watching this video the path that the bullets took through the wings of the D7, to try and learn a little more about the DM. Naturally this is all going to be rough guesswork, but here are the conclusions that I came to: 

Judging purely by sight, it looks to me like the bullets struck along the paths that I will outline below. What this tells me is that once damaged, Spars of an aircraft are very susceptible to failure once put under any kind of G-stress. I think the relevant questions, then, would be: 

- How many bullets will seriously compromise a Spar? 
- Will a 7mm round punch clean through a Spar? 
- Will a 7mm round punch clean through two Spars? 
- Will a bullet punch a hole in a Spar, or sever it entirely? 
-How many Gs can a damaged Spar take on without snapping?
- Can an aircraft continue to pull Gs if one Spar has been severed? If so, how many Gs can it pull before failure occurs? 

Here are the 'bullet paths' as I perceived them, as displayed on a diagram of the D.VII's wing structure. I will stress that these are unlikely to be totally accurate, but they should serve as a good reference point anyway for the discussion: 



`

 

In this case we can see that it was the right pair of wings that suffered failure. Interestingly, at pretty much exactly the same time - that's probably believable enough (not that I've ever blown the wings off of a real aircraft) if the lower wing supports the upper wing structurally. 

Interestingly, if the 'bullet paths' I've perceived are correct, and assuming that a bullet would punch through two Spars, the lower right wing should have been the most structurally compromised. This ties in with the right wings collapsing. In the case of the lower right wing, each spar was perforated twice (assuming again that the angles are correct enough). There's also then the question of the other spars taking damage - would that affect the ability of the right spars to withstand damage? 

THIS is where some meaningful testing could be done to determine what kind of damage will cause an aircraft to lose it's vertical ability...

Edited April 19, 2020 by US93_Larner

[No.23_Starling]

Having Albert Balled it a bit this week with the excellent chaps from J5 and J99 in the SE I’m finding that I’m having to dive out of engagements earlier as soon is I see wires gone on the wings to have a chance of not losing them (or sticking around to see them pop off like in BA last night). The flip side is that I’m not getting sniped as much as I disengage as with the old DM. This basically means:

- Shorter dogfights

- Easier running away

 

I’d rather have longer fights and more deaths disengaging.

[ZachariasX]

16 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

A traditional biplane wing structure would probably (I don't really know) struggle to support it's own weight and tied together with interplane struts, without the aid of wires,

It holds it's own weight, no problem with that.

 

The point of having a biplane is that you can attach diagonal wires that transform a torque load into a push/pull load. It is way more difficult to construct something that can both tolerate a lot of torque while being very light that something that has just pull load and being light. Piano wires are perfect for such. Wood is great for supporting push loads.

 

On a biplane, you have the diagonal wires (they often are redundant!) running from (proximal: where the fuselage is, center; distal: direction to the wingtips) proximal/low to distal/high that translates the torque load of the whole wing pair into a pull and push load. A pull load on that diagonal wire and a push load in the upper wingspars. The lower wing is kept down by the struts and held by the top wing. The wire distal/low to proximal/high have no load at all.

 

If you give negative g's, then the situation reverses and the distal/low to proximal/high wires carry loads and the bottom wing spar is compressed longitudinally.

 

In short: If you shoot the lower wing spar of a biplane, you can shot that one until it completely cracks and detaches, yet the wings will stay on and the aircraft will still have streghts for positive g's. The canvas (yes, linen) and the wires will still hold it into place somewhat. Only negative g's will then make the plane come apart instantly. In order to make a biplane lose its wings in level flight, you must shoot either the correct wire(s) and/or the upper wingspar. Any other damage will NOT make the wings shed in a way we have it.

 

You can shoot a lower wing until the cows come home, the top wing will not come off in level flight. It's not what we have.

 

It is really not easy to use cantilever wing DM for biplanes. They just are a different arrangement statically.

[emely]

29 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

 

This is getting a little bit deep, even for me ?, but why not add another layer to it.  

You might think that I’m putting the load on the wrong scales on which to put it :-))

In fact, I wonder how it really was.  By the way, the graphic display of damage that we have takes into account these features.And yet this property of damage, can explain the shaking of the plane, after several hits.

Almost all of our problems will be solved by remaking the developers of our airplanes into metal ones, like N28 in this video ?

 

Modern wing sheathing materials may have a thermal tensioning system.  According to classical technology, the wing fabric is impregnated with a special varnish, which, after drying, shrinks in size and pulls the skin like a circle on a drum . So what we see as the skin of our wings is not the cowards of the old grandmother, who are simply stretched over the wing frame ?

[ZachariasX]

6 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

THIS is where some meaningful testing could be done to determine what kind of damage will cause an aircraft to lose it's vertical ability...

You forgot to discriminate that you cannot directly compare wired wings with the Fokker wings. Fokker wings receive torque load while having a much thicker spar. Wired wings receive push loads on the spar. And you have usually two spars in a wing that share that load.

 

You are comparing a thicker stick that you're twisting to two sticks that you are compressing longitudinally in their resilience to bullet damage.

[No.23_Triggers]

1 minute ago, ZachariasX said:

You forgot to discriminate that you cannot directly compare wired wings with the Fokker wings. Fokker wings receive torque load while having a much thicker spar. Wired wings receive push loads on the spar. And you have usually two spars in a wing that share that load.

 

You are comparing a thicker stick that you're twisting to two sticks that you are compressing longitudinally in their resilience to bullet damage.

Aha - the plot thickens...

[Cynic_Al]

4 hours ago, US213_Talbot said:

Another suggested avenue of approach:

 

Contact some of these guys building replicas and get their take. I know of a few on Facebook and one is building an albatros. Maybe we can gather some questions and fire them out?

 

 

 

We already know how these planes are constructed, so unless you can find some replica builders who feel disposed to have someone fire live ammunition accurately at their planes in flight (good luck with that), I don't see what would qualify them to provide more accurate data than the speculation we're reading in this forum.

[Cynic_Al]

4 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

In case you didn't notice, this whole thread is based on speculation.

 

I have been painfully-aware of that all along.

 

4 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

The hit-boxes are divided up as showed. There's no need to figure out the exact dimensions of them to make the point that they all are apparently causing comparably critical damage to the wings when hit

 

Yes - comparable to the way things were previously, which no-one is in a position to say was or was not more representative.