ST_Nooney Posted April 21, 2020 Posted April 21, 2020 On 4/20/2020 at 4:08 PM, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said: yet another first person accounts - all about spars I got up at 4am and went out alone. I saw two balloons put up so I went after them, but they were so far over that they were on the ground before I arrived. The ‘Archie’ and machine guns were something terrible - I was sure scared. There were literally thousands of ‘Archie’ shells bursting. They all seemed to concentrate on me. As I passed over some Hun infantry I dropped my bombs. That evened things up a bit, making ‘Archie’ madder than ever. The Huns seemed to think that they had me scared out, because as soon as I reached our line they put two kite balloons up. I waited until they were up a few hundred feet then I dashed back. I put a stream of incendiary bullets into one and down it went in flames. I just yelled with delight. The machine guns were so busy that I had to clear away at once. There were bullets all through my machine. I started after the second balloon, which was about 3 miles away. How those Huns struggled to get it down before I got there. My engine was hit so it kept stopping. This delayed me so long that the balloon was only 500 feet up when I got there. They immediately put a barrage up between me and the balloon. I could see their flaming bullets going through my machine. It was not a pleasant job. I could see where bullets had gone through my main spars. I dived through the barrage and fired incendiary bullets into the balloon at close range. The observer jumped out in his parachute. The ‘sausage’ burst into flames so I was once more moved to let out a yell of delight, also hoping that the observer would break his neck landing. Mad - say those Huns must have been wild! They threw more hate at me than ever. I’ll bet the shells they used cost the Kaiser ten times as much as my machine cost the RAF. I crossed No Man’s Land at 1,000 feet and thanks to the Huns’ rotten marksmanship I got through safely. Two Huns before breakfast - isn’t that luck? 32 Lieutenant Edgar Taylor, 79 Squadron Really enjoyed reading all of that, amazing men in a mad time, and some get mad in a sim at kill steals lol 1
unreasonable Posted April 21, 2020 Posted April 21, 2020 1 hour ago, J5_Baeumer said: Has anyone done any analysis and likely necessary interpolation of historical data to propose: % of planes were downed due to critical structural damage not the result of any of the causes listed below but by enemy aircraft ammunition. % of planes downed due to mid air collision. Likely machine crashed with pilot lost. % of planes downed due to loss of control i.e. control surfaces/wires damaged. Potential to land out. Likely machine crashed with pilot lost X% of time. % of planes downed due to fuel tank explosion/fire. Pilot and machine lost. % of planes downed due to pilot shot/wounded/killed. Machine and pilot lost. % of planes downed due to critical engine or related system hit. Likely landed out; possible pilot shot after plane disabled resulting in loss of machine and pilot. % of planes lost due to pilot error. I.e. landing and stalls. Machine loss and high risk of pilot death. I would guess that the above is close to the order of reasons for lost planes from least common to most common. I have done that for MvR's combat reports. There is a thread somewhere...
No.23_Triggers Posted April 21, 2020 Posted April 21, 2020 (edited) Did a quick attempted replication of the situation outlined by Mr. Petrovich. It was quite hard to get it exactly right, as I only had QM to work with, but I set up a "Friendly" Sopwith and jumped in my Dr.I. When firing at the Sopwith from between 70m - 200m (The Sopwith pulled away from the Dr.I pretty quick), aiming at the upper right wingtip, it took, approximately, between 15 and 20 rounds to fold, or completely blow off, the wingtip in level flight. As the Camel was "friendly", it didn't attempt to manoeuvre out of the way. I used TacView to count the exact number of rounds fired and to approximate the amount of hits. However, the results of this test are more anecdotal than anything else - I'd want to do much more extensive testing, and with a better setup, before presenting anything factually. However - anecdotal or no, this doesn't take into account any sort of G-Stress or how the damage will affect a plane's ability to manoeuvre once damaged! In SeaWolf's example in DM Tracks thread, he is hit by (to my eye) 5 rounds in the lower right wing and 2 in the lower left. He was also hit from a nearly top-down angle which, according to Petrovich's explanation as to how Spars are damaged, should greatly reduce the chance of Spars damage. His Left wings snapped off shortly after in a Split-S. Edited April 21, 2020 by US93_Larner 1
nickj123 Posted April 21, 2020 Posted April 21, 2020 1 hour ago, US93_Larner said: Did a quick attempted replication of the situation outlined by Mr. Petrovich. It was quite hard to get it exactly right, as I only had QM to work with, but I set up a "Friendly" Sopwith and jumped in my Dr.I. When firing at the Sopwith from between 70m - 200m (The Sopwith pulled away from the Dr.I pretty quick), aiming at the upper right wingtip, it took, approximately, between 15 and 20 rounds to fold, or completely blow off, the wingtip in level flight. As the Camel was "friendly", it didn't attempt to manoeuvre out of the way. I used TacView to count the exact number of rounds fired and to approximate the amount of hits. However, the results of this test are more anecdotal than anything else - I'd want to do much more extensive testing, and with a better setup, before presenting anything factually. However - anecdotal or no, this doesn't take into account any sort of G-Stress or how the damage will affect a plane's ability to manoeuvre once damaged! In SeaWolf's example in DM Tracks thread, he is hit by (to my eye) 5 rounds in the lower right wing and 2 in the lower left. He was also hit from a nearly top-down angle which, according to Petrovich's explanation as to how Spars are damaged, should greatly reduce the chance of Spars damage. His Left wings snapped off shortly after in a Split-S. Is there anything in the flight logs to get an accurate figure for hits? If everything that hits the wing from a 6 o'clock position is a hit to the spar, then it should be possible to get accurate data - even better if it could be done on the ground with say, an F2B's gunner shooting at a Camel or Albatros?
No.23_Triggers Posted April 21, 2020 Posted April 21, 2020 40 minutes ago, nickj123 said: Is there anything in the flight logs to get an accurate figure for hits? If everything that hits the wing from a 6 o'clock position is a hit to the spar, then it should be possible to get accurate data - even better if it could be done on the ground with say, an F2B's gunner shooting at a Camel or Albatros? That's a neat idea actually. Single gun - count the ammo fired - count the hits by eye. Yeah, that'd be neat. Only problem I can think is you wouldn't be hitting the wing right on the flat unless you could somehow raise the target plane's tail without moving it... ...AFAIK your best bet for accurate hits figure would be a server's stats parser. Tacview sometimes registers and gives a figure for hits in a burst, but not always. I think that the WW1 ranges confuse it a little, because I kept seeing messages that both planes had 'landed' or 'taken off' when they were still flying
HagarTheHorrible Posted April 21, 2020 Author Posted April 21, 2020 Sopwith Camel wing construction Given that Andre gave the example of a Camel being shot at I thought the above site gave some really nice, detailed shots of a Camel wing being built. Just really nice pictures to ogle over ? 1
nickj123 Posted April 21, 2020 Posted April 21, 2020 I've seen Mission Report data in the FlightLogs folder, the character set is a bit screwy and I don't know how accurate it is. For example: ‚m ÿ/ BúçGÏ[vDG3®G ±m M ÿ÷ Halberstadt CL.II 401 Uffz Augustus SchnitzlerÿÿÿÿT!èG!ã}D’®G ±m G ÿ BotPilot_FokkerDr1 401 BotPilot_FokkerDr1ÿ÷ .!èGËã}D–®G ±m ¼ ÿ÷ ÿ T!èG!ã}D’®G$ 00000000-0000-0000-0000-100000000000$ 00000000-0000-0000-0000-100000000000 Halberstadt CL.II 401 ÿÿÿÿ íþ? ´m ÿ÷ e"èGÄÛ}Dq®G ÷t ! BULLET_GER_7-92x57_APÿO ÿG øt explosionÿO ÿG ùt ¼\:ÿO ÿG Ç—íG¡MýBN¯G üt à8ÿO ÿG 2—íGGOýB¯G i} ! BULLET_GER_7-92x57_APÿO ÿï j} explosionÿO ÿï k} ´#:ÿO ÿï x¡íGìÅB»®G Ɔ ! BULLET_GER_7-92x57_APÿO ÿï dž explosionÿO ÿï dž explosionÿO ÿë Ȇ €“‡;ÿO ÿï ×ãíGMìÓB,®G ˆ ¬ :ÿO ÿï ÓäíGÃÓB€®G ˜’ ! BULLET_GER_7-92x57_APÿO ÿ3 ™’ explosionÿO ÿ3 š’ Ü:ÿO ÿ3 jeìGúGC°w®G ’ ! BULLET_GER_7-92x57_APÿO ÿ3 ’ ¸Ð9ÿO ÿ3 5dìG!C¨v®G ž’ explosionÿO ÿ3 ¢’ ! BULLET_GER_7-92x57_APÿO ÿ3 £’ explosionÿO ÿ3 £’ Hô9ÿO ÿ3 ÝaìGQ¸C„t®G ¨’ ! BULLET_GER_7-92x57_APÿO ÿ3 ©’ explosionÿO ÿ3 ©’ h‡9ÿO ÿ3 œ_ìG5,CDr®G ²’ ! BULLET_GER_7-92x57_APÿO ÿ3 ²’ ˜9ÿO ÿ3 k\ìGRC³n®G ³’ explosionÿO ÿ3 ³’ explosionÿO ÿS ¶’ ! BULLET_GER_7-92x57_APÿO ÿ3 ·’ explosionÿO ÿ3 ·’ explosionÿO ÿS ¸’ ¤1:ÿO ÿ3 hZìGHBC8l®G »’ ! BULLET_GER_7-92x57_APÿO ÿ3 »’ ðD9ÿO ÿ3 nYìGÇÉCôj®G ¼’ explosionÿO ÿ3 ¼’ explosionÿO ÿS ¾’ Év;ÿO ÿ3 {XìG¦JCªi®G À’ ! BULLET_GER_7-92x57_APÿO ÿ3 Á’ explosionÿO ÿ3 Á’ explosionÿO ÿS Á’ "<ÿO ÿ3 ŽWìGUÅC\h®G Ä’ °„:ÿO ÿ3 ¥VìG9C g®G Æ’ ! BULLET_GER_7-92x57_APÿO ÿ3 Ç’ explosionÿO ÿ3 Ç’ explosionÿO ÿS Ç’ X9ÿO ÿ3 ÂUìG"¦C´e®G Ë’ ! BULLET_GER_7-92x57_APÿO ÿ3 Ì’ explosionÿO ÿ3 Ì’ explosionÿO ÿS Í’ y;ÿO ÿ3 TìGnCÿb®G Ð’ ! BULLET_GER_7-92x57_APÿO ÿ3 Ð’ $¸:ÿO ÿ3 3SìGuÉC a®G Ñ’ explosionÿO ÿ3 Ó’ p39ÿO ÿ3 cRìG 1
HagarTheHorrible Posted April 21, 2020 Author Posted April 21, 2020 (edited) I posted these in the DM Poll thread, but thought I might post them here aswell, so that you can rip them apart, before they're deleated from the DM poll thread. "61 (Don’t know) Calculation has to be better than simple figure plucked from the air though so I apologise if I show my workings ( maths isn’t my strong point, actually come to think of it I don’t think I’ve got any strong points, so please forgive simplistic nature, rounding up, or down, and any errors). I also only take into account the spar(s) or at least the rear spar (assuming from dead six that bullets must first hit one before the other). If I got all my numbers and rounding figures up, or down, wrong and I look a twit, it wouldn’t be the first time and no doubt not the last, but hopefully you can get some idea of where I pluck the figures from. ? Camel spar is approx 2” sq, wingspan approx 30 feet, 1/3 of one wing approx = 5 feet in length (60”). (Yes I know it’s a bit shorter) Bullets fired. = 600rpm X2 = 1200 divided by 60 sec. =. 20 rounds per second. (3 second burst = 60 bullets) Scatter (dispersion) at 100 yards =. 2’ (24 inches). Leon Bennett / Fall of the Red Baron (possibly taken from British tests at Orfordness) Bullets hitting spar 24” long by 2” sq = 7 approx (from the 60 fired, bit of a worked out guess by me) I think you need to have at least, as a minimum bullet density of 2 bullets within any particular linear inch of spar to damage it structurally, or over the 60 inches (61 bullets). At 7 bullets hitting per 3 second burst that equates to 9 x 3 second bursts (61 / 7. = 9) or a total of 500 bullets fired, more or less, at the 60” length of spar, which would take 25 seconds (500 / 20 = 25) (Obviously bullets don’t spread themselves evenly) If a wider scatter is more reasonable then: 2 bullets hits per linear inch = 61, 25seconds firing, total number of bullets fired 500 1 bullet hit per 1 linear inch. = 60, 25 seconds firing, total number of bullets fired 500 1 bullet hit per 2 linear inches = 30, 12.5 seconds firing, total number of bullets fired 250. 4 x 3 second burst to break wing spar 1 bullet hit per 4 linear inches =. 15, 6 seconds firing, total number of bullets fired 125. 2 x 3 second bursts to break wing spar 1 bullet hit per 8.5 linear inches = 7, 3 second firing, total number of bullets fired 60. 1 x 3 second burst to break wing spar" I wasn't sure about the dimensions of a Camel spar, the closest example I could find was a Triplane spar dimensions, from a German report. More pendantically, considering just one aim point, rather than the bullets being spread over the entire length of the considered part of the spar, then the bullets will, at 100 yards, scatter within a 24" diameter circle. If two bullets per linear inch are needed to structurally weaken the spar ( will one bullet do it or does it need more and how close do they need to be to be cumulative ?) then it would need about 25 bullets, if all bullets hit evenly spaced along that 24 inches of spar. If only 7 bullets, from every 3 second burst, hit the spar then it would need 3.5, three second bursts, to damage any particular 2 foot long part of the spar. 3.5, three second bursts would fire 210 rounds total and take 10.5 seconds to fire. By contrast, if only one bullet is needed every 3 inches, or so, of spar length then one 3 second burst would be enough to cause sufficient damage to cause structural weakening. I don't know if the maths formulas they use take into account likely dispersion, even if dispersion isn't neccessarily modeled when it comes to the number of hits needed to bring about an effect. For example shooting into the head of your observer might take 9 rounds to kill them but this might be to allow for human pilots being more accurate shots than in real life thus potntially skewing outcomes ? It's probably all complete bunkum, but at least it kept my little grey cells active while I was painting barn doors ? Edited April 22, 2020 by HagarTheHorrible
J2_Bidu Posted April 21, 2020 Posted April 21, 2020 About the DM poll, I just wanted to mention that I am not worried about the number of bullets it takes to saw off a wing, but rather the number of bullets it takes to cripple a wing so it will collapse during, say, a loop. 4
J5_Adam Posted April 21, 2020 Posted April 21, 2020 1 minute ago, J2_Bidu said: About the DM poll, I just wanted to mention that I am not worried about the number of bullets it takes to saw off a wing, but rather the number of bullets it takes to cripple a wing so it will collapse during, say, a loop. That's the issue 1
J5_Gamecock Posted April 21, 2020 Posted April 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, J2_Bidu said: About the DM poll, I just wanted to mention that I am not worried about the number of bullets it takes to saw off a wing, but rather the number of bullets it takes to cripple a wing so it will collapse during, say, a loop. We all are.
JGr2/J5_Klugermann Posted April 21, 2020 Posted April 21, 2020 (edited) New FC damage model. https://captiongenerator.com/1785432/New-FC-damage-model Edited April 21, 2020 by J5_Klugermann 10 2
J2_Bidu Posted April 21, 2020 Posted April 21, 2020 6 minutes ago, J5_Klugermann said: https://captiongenerator.com/1785432/New-FC-damage-model Klug, please stop! I can't breathe! 1
J5_Adam Posted April 21, 2020 Posted April 21, 2020 18 minutes ago, J5_Klugermann said: https://captiongenerator.com/1785432/New-FC-damage-model Sorry Klugermann. The “Hitler Tries To Nail Stevie Ray Vaughn’s Tone” one is still the best.
76SQN-FatherTed Posted April 21, 2020 Posted April 21, 2020 17 minutes ago, J2_Bidu said: About the DM poll, I just wanted to mention that I am not worried about the number of bullets it takes to saw off a wing, but rather the number of bullets it takes to cripple a wing so it will collapse during, say, a loop. How it's working at the moment would be fine (I think) if the wing's hitbox would actually be the spar's hitbox. We're reporting only a few rounds hitting the wing and causing it to fail. I think it's reasonable that if a few rounds hit the spar it would fail under stress. But obviously the spar is only a small volumetric part of the wing, so reducing the size of the hitbox of the wing to the size and location of the spar would sort the issue without changing the overall DM
kendo Posted April 21, 2020 Posted April 21, 2020 Surely from direct 6 o'clock, the spar pretty much is the full visible wing section?
J5_Gamecock Posted April 21, 2020 Posted April 21, 2020 6 minutes ago, kendo said: Surely from direct 6 o'clock, the spar pretty much is the full visible wing section? True, the spar would be the thickest part of the wing.
Tycoon Posted April 21, 2020 Posted April 21, 2020 51 minutes ago, J5_Klugermann said: New FC damage model. https://captiongenerator.com/1785432/New-FC-damage-model This was actually pretty good.
HagarTheHorrible Posted April 21, 2020 Author Posted April 21, 2020 The way it works out at the moment is like coming second, out of two, in the shooting contest, but taking all the prizes anyway. You aim for metal and meat, the bullseye, miss, but hit the bigger outer ring (wing) by accident and come away the winner by dint of not being such a good shot.
J5_Gamecock Posted April 21, 2020 Posted April 21, 2020 8 hours ago, emely said: Indeed ? In this case, I will add a little more. You should not consider all these videos as direct evidence of any version. I think this is just a way to plunge a little more into our topic. Fun to watch, but they don't really help. In all the videos they are shooting at a small, (8-10" or 200-250 mm), section from very close range. How long would it take to cut down a tree, (say approx 2.5" or 60mm in diameter), if you spread the shots over a 4.5 foot or more than 1m area? I still think it would take quite a few hits when spread out over the area AnPetrovich describes in his example before the wing is compromised.
No.23_Triggers Posted April 21, 2020 Posted April 21, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, =CfC=FatherTed said: How it's working at the moment would be fine (I think) if the wing's hitbox would actually be the spar's hitbox. We're reporting only a few rounds hitting the wing and causing it to fail. I think it's reasonable that if a few rounds hit the spar it would fail under stress. But obviously the spar is only a small volumetric part of the wing, so reducing the size of the hitbox of the wing to the size and location of the spar would sort the issue without changing the overall DM I was thinking something similar - however, Petrovich has stated that they're trying to avoid an overcomplicated hit-box array to save on CPU intensity. I decided to take a quick look into what an additional Spar hitbox *MIGHT* look like. I'll use the SPAD as an example (the wing diagram, is a SPAD VII, but it's close enough to stand in as a XIII). Here we can see, ROUGHLY, the various hit-boxes that can be seen on a SPAD's upper wing. From what I've determined through studying the visual DM (and I could be wrong, of course), there are three hit-boxes per wing, one for each aileron, and a central wing hit-box and, in the SPAD's case, one for the wing-mounted fuel tank. Fairly straightforward, right? And, bullets can physically pass through these hit-boxes to the best of my knowledge and keep travelling and being rendered as physical objects (I've seen this displayed in-game by shooting through the fuselage / tail and hitting the pilot). When you then add hit-boxes for the spars, MY GUESS IS it would look a little more like this: The original 8 hit-boxes modelled on the SPAD's wings then becomes 12 - with the 4 wing spars being 'internal' hit-boxes that can be hit through the 'skin' hit-boxes. This, in my eyes, is a superior solution to the current %-modifier-based-on-angle method -- PURELY FROM A DM REALISM PERSPECTIVE. That being said, that would account for eight additional hit-boxes (two for each wing). If the Devs thought it necessary to divide the Spars' physical hit-boxes up in the same way they have done with inner and outer wings, that would then be an additional 16 hit-boxes over each wing - bringing the current SPAD's wing hit-box count from 12 (including fuel tanks, ailerons and centre upper wing) to 28 - more than double. I can't say how many hit-boxes it would take to start to over stress the average player's system, but as a little anecdote I'll use the example of a 3rd Pursuit Group patrol. When we are "fully staffed" for the night, we can field up to 12 SPAD XIIIs. That would be 336 individual hit-boxes that the computer would have to render - plus any damage inflicted to them. With the CURRENT system, the PC would be rendering just 144 hit-boxes. Again, I don't know how CPU-intensive rendering a hit-box can be, but that's certainly a big leap in numbers. Then take into account all the other planes in the vicinity that now have spar hit-boxes modelled, and the amount of rendering your PC would have to do is steadily rising. I, personally, would love for Spars to be directly damageable, physical models with their own unique hit-boxes, but I will trust the devs' judgement. I am 100% certain they've thought about this themselves, and they are infinitely more aware of the intricacies of designing a flight sim DM than I am. I would love to hear @AnPetrovich 's thoughts on how plausible a DM of that specific complexity would be though - not to try and 'convince' the devs to do it, but simply from pure curiosity! Edited April 22, 2020 by US93_Larner 1 1
JGr2/J5_Baeumer Posted April 22, 2020 Posted April 22, 2020 Hitboxes: it can and has been done with older games, but with a higher premium on graphics etc, perhaps they are sacrificed as a trade off to other priorities... And I think...Andy had already said as much.
HagarTheHorrible Posted April 22, 2020 Author Posted April 22, 2020 6 hours ago, US93_Larner said: I was thinking something similar - however, Petrovich has stated that they're trying to avoid an overcomplicated hit-box array to save on CPU intensity. I decided to take a quick look into what an additional Spar hitbox *MIGHT* look like. I'll use the SPAD as an example (the wing diagram, is a SPAD VII, but it's close enough to stand in as a XIII). Here we can see, ROUGHLY, the various hit-boxes that can be seen on a SPAD's upper wing. From what I've determined through studying the visual DM (and I could be wrong, of course), there are three hit-boxes per wing, one for each aileron, and a central wing hit-box and, in the SPAD's case, one for the wing-mounted fuel tank. Fairly straightforward, right? And, bullets can physically pass through these hit-boxes to the best of my knowledge and keep travelling and being rendered as physical objects (I've seen this displayed in-game by shooting through the fuselage / tail and hitting the pilot). When you then add hit-boxes for the spars, MY GUESS IS it would look a little more like this: The original 8 hit-boxes modelled on the SPAD's wings then becomes 12 - with the 4 wing spars being 'internal' hit-boxes that can be hit through the 'skin' hit-boxes. This, in my eyes, is a superior solution to the current %-modifier-based-on-angle method -- PURELY FROM A DM REALISM PERSPECTIVE. That being said, that would account for eight additional hit-boxes (two for each wing). If the Devs thought it necessary to divide the Spars' physical hit-boxes up in the same way they have done with inner and outer wings, that would then be an additional 16 hit-boxes over each wing - bringing the current SPAD's wing hit-box count from 12 (including fuel tanks, ailerons and centre upper wing) to 28 - more than double. I can't say how many hit-boxes it would take to start to over stress the average player's system, but as a little anecdote I'll use the example of a 3rd Pursuit Group patrol. When we are "fully staffed" for the night, we can field up to 12 SPAD XIIIs. That would be 336 individual hit-boxes that the computer would have to render - plus any damage inflicted to them. With the CURRENT system, the PC would be rendering just 144 hit-boxes. Again, I don't know how CPU-intensive rendering a hit-box can be, but that's certainly a big leap in numbers. Then take into account all the other planes in the vicinity that now have spar hit-boxes modelled, and the amount of rendering your PC would have to do is steadily rising. I, personally, would love for Spars to be directly damageable, physical models with their own unique hit-boxes, but I will trust the devs' judgement. I am 100% certain they've thought about this themselves, and they are infinitely more aware of the intricacies of designing a flight sim DM than I am. I would love to hear @AnPetrovich 's thoughts on how plausible a DM of that specific complexity would be though - not to try and 'convince' the devs to do it, but simply from pure curiosity! I think, for the Spad, or any two bay biplane ( evidently the Spad isn’t a true two bay, but I think it still counts) the wings would need an extra section (4 per wing as opposed to 3) otherwise they’re trucking all those extra wires and interplane struts for nothing.
US103_Baer Posted April 22, 2020 Posted April 22, 2020 43 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said: I think, for the Spad, or any two bay biplane ( evidently the Spad isn’t a true two bay, but I think it still counts) the wings would need an extra section (4 per wing as opposed to 3) otherwise they’re trucking all those extra wires and interplane struts for nothing. Have been wondering how double-bay wings and their 'extra strength', are modeled in DM. Certainly doesn't feel like there's much benefit in a SPAD, though the CL2, Albatros and SE5a seem to have it worse. For FC, that's the Bristol, SPAD and Dolphin.
nickj123 Posted April 22, 2020 Posted April 22, 2020 8 hours ago, US93_Larner said: From what you've written, I think you're on the right track with the spars. Could they just not do away with hitboxes 1 - 4 and use 9 - 12 instead, as those are the critical structural components, the rest is mainly just air. This shouldn't have a major impact on performance as you'll still have the same number of hitboxes, it's just now they're smaller. 1
No.23_Triggers Posted April 22, 2020 Posted April 22, 2020 3 minutes ago, nickj123 said: From what you've written, I think you're on the right track with the spars. Could they just not do away with hitboxes 1 - 4 and use 9 - 12 instead, as those are the critical structural components, the rest is mainly just air. This shouldn't have a major impact on performance as you'll still have the same number of hitboxes, it's just now they're smaller. I think it'd be better to make 1 - 4 extremely tough, nigh-unbreakable (like pre-patch DM), and 9 - 12 closer to what we have (but not quite as easy to destroy a spar). Given Petrovich's explanation, however, I don't think the Devs are planning on that level of complexity (at least not for now!) 1
nickj123 Posted April 22, 2020 Posted April 22, 2020 1 minute ago, US93_Larner said: I think it'd be better to make 1 - 4 extremely tough, nigh-unbreakable (like pre-patch DM), and 9 - 12 closer to what we have (but not quite as easy to destroy a spar). Given Petrovich's explanation, however, I don't think the Devs are planning on that level of complexity (at least not for now!) Then they should just model the spars as hitboxes for now, not the non structural parts of the wing, as that would alleviate most of the problems straight away.
No.23_Triggers Posted April 22, 2020 Posted April 22, 2020 5 minutes ago, nickj123 said: Then they should just model the spars as hitboxes for now, not the non structural parts of the wing, as that would alleviate most of the problems straight away. AFAIK there would still need to be a hitbox for the visual DM at least 3
AnPetrovich Posted April 22, 2020 Posted April 22, 2020 2 hours ago, US93_Larner said: AFAIK there would still need to be a hitbox for the visual DM at least That's correct! Moreover, not only for the visual DM, but for the skin DM (and aerodynamics destortion) as well. I guess you guys would like to see all of your hits at enemy's wings, even if bullets "hit the air". The SPAD XIII.C1 in FC has 10 hit-boxes for the top wing, including 7 wing's sections, two ailerons, and one top fuel tank. If we want to put additional hit-boxes for the spars, we have to add 14 new hit-boxes: two for each section of the wing. Otherwise, if we add only two hit-boxes (one per spar), we won't be able to detect which exactly section of the spar (wing) should be broken, and also there will be a possibility to wrongly "hit" the spar in the area where the section of the wing has already been lost (this is not a critical issue since the wing is broken and the airplane goes down, but... still weird). By the way, to break a spar, firing, for example, from the 'dead six', you need to get a few hits at the same place of the spar, lengthwise. The minimum number of hits, placed like this, which are needed to break the unloaded spar simply depends on the spar's 'height'. What is the chance, that you put all of your hits at the same place of the spar, lengthwise? It depends on its length, obviously. Therefore, the average number of hits for breaking some section of the spar, also depends on its length. If the section is long, you need to make a good number of shots, untill at least few of them will reach the same spot. But sometimes it might happen occasionally faster. Or, instead, longer. This is how the probablity theory works. Certainly, if the spar is loaded (because of aerodynamic forces) then it needs less number of hits at the same place of the spar for breaking it. The most damaged place of the spar breaks the faster the higher G-load is. 11 1
emely Posted April 22, 2020 Posted April 22, 2020 15 hours ago, J5_Gamecock said: Fun to watch, but they don't really help. In all the videos they are shooting at a small, (8-10" or 200-250 mm), section from very close range. How long would it take to cut down a tree, (say approx 2.5" or 60mm in diameter), if you spread the shots over a 4.5 foot or more than 1m area? I would not want the topic to turn into one-way street, so I posted this video. For example, we know that an intact tree can withstand a load of 100 kg, after which it will be broken. Further, we assume that one bullet reduces its strength by 10%. This means that the tree will break even at a load of 90 kg. Probably all of those present agree on one thing, in our game planes too often break their wings. How to change this? You can reduce the percentage of damage from hitting one bullet in a tree, this is the first method. I do not know the relation of developers to this method, in any case, this parameter is very conditional. However, problems may arise with the excessive strength of aircraft made from ww2 wood Another option is to reduce the chance of getting into the spar. As we see from this video, and there have been reports about this earlier, even if we shoot in an area where there are no power structures, then, according to the theory of probability, out of 100 hits, seventeen will be credited as falling into the spar, and the spar will still be broken (the numbers I cited conditional) https://youtu.be/NOJzQPxvwuM The disadvantage of this correction method is probably the same as in the first case. Third point: the ability of the wing to hold the load after damage. Many have already seen from their own experience that the strength of the wings, after damage, is often sufficient for simple flight in a straight line. However, even the slightest additional load, or increase in speed, can easily break them. This is especially unpleasant when you did not even notice that two or three bullets hit you . This video is an example. The Mauser (white tail) received from Sahaj only three hits from above and after a while broke his wings in another episode. And I (the black tail), missed the attack from six, got a lot of hits before the first maneuver. But my plane did not break until I created a significant load on the wing. (Holy shit, it turns out that Dr1 can also break wings! Only for this, three planes should shoot him for several minutes ? ) As you can see, the number of hits is different, but the result is the same I think that the best way to avoid frequent breakdowns of wings is to increase the strength of all the spars for ww1 aircraft. But then the plane, without damage, will withstand more than it could actually ... 1 1
J2_Trupobaw Posted April 22, 2020 Posted April 22, 2020 (edited) 8 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said: I think, for the Spad, or any two bay biplane ( evidently the Spad isn’t a true two bay, but I think it still counts) the wings would need an extra section (4 per wing as opposed to 3) otherwise they’re trucking all those extra wires and interplane struts for nnothi I wonder how feasible would be splitting each wing section into three hitboxes - leading part+ forward spar, trailing part + rear spar, middle part + both spars, so each spar is in intersection of two hitboxes and a spar is hit when bullet pierces both hitboxes containing it. Edited April 22, 2020 by J2_Trupobaw
JG1_Vonrd Posted April 22, 2020 Posted April 22, 2020 Lots of discussion / speculation on how the spars get damaged and the resultant effect in real life (and there is probably no concrete answer) but I don't think that is really what we are having issues with. The issue is how the new DM affects game play. Personally I have no interest in playing if I have little to no chance to even survive a few hits to the wing let alone prevail in a dogfight. I do applaud and support the efforts the Devs put into rendering an accurate sim but that becomes moot if there is no fun in flying it. 1
HagarTheHorrible Posted April 22, 2020 Author Posted April 22, 2020 14 minutes ago, JG1_VVS_Vonrd said: Lots of discussion / speculation on how the spars get damaged and the resultant effect in real life (and there is probably no concrete answer) but I don't think that is really what we are having issues with. The issue is how the new DM affects game play. Personally I have no interest in playing if I have little to no chance to even survive a few hits to the wing let alone prevail in a dogfight. I do applaud and support the efforts the Devs put into rendering an accurate sim but that becomes moot if there is no fun in flying it. I think we’re all basically agreed on this point.
No.23_Triggers Posted April 22, 2020 Posted April 22, 2020 (edited) 8 hours ago, AnPetrovich said: Certainly, if the spar is loaded (because of aerodynamic forces) then it needs less number of hits at the same place of the spar for breaking it. The most damaged place of the spar breaks the faster the higher G-load is. I think this has been by far the most noticeable feature post-new-DM, and where people have compared to RoF - it seems like with even the most minimal damage (as little as 2 or 3 hits in some cases) the ability to withstand any more than 1.0G is almost zero. I did a little testing using Tacview to calculate Gs and in one example I saw a Fokker D7's wing come off after 3 hits to the spar. The Wing failure occurred at roughly 1.3 Gs! I'm planning on doing some more thorough testing when possible. If you'd like, I could PM you any results once I have a good amount of data, or I could set up another(!!) thread for you to take a look at whenever is most convenient for you ? Thanks again for taking the time to explain the new features! Edited April 22, 2020 by US93_Larner 2
76SQN-FatherTed Posted April 22, 2020 Posted April 22, 2020 3 hours ago, JG1_Vonrd said: Lots of discussion / speculation on how the spars get damaged and the resultant effect in real life (and there is probably no concrete answer) but I don't think that is really what we are having issues with. The issue is how the new DM affects game play. Personally I have no interest in playing if I have little to no chance to even survive a few hits to the wing let alone prevail in a dogfight. I do applaud and support the efforts the Devs put into rendering an accurate sim but that becomes moot if there is no fun in flying it. Not sure I agree with this. In the (unlikely) event that this DM turns out to be an accurate reflection of real life, then I, for one, will be happy to carry on playing, and to adapt to it. Once we start saying that game play is more important than trying to portray how things actually were, then we're moving out of sim territory. 1
J5_Gamecock Posted April 22, 2020 Posted April 22, 2020 (edited) 15 minutes ago, =CfC=FatherTed said: Not sure I agree with this. In the (unlikely) event that this DM turns out to be an accurate reflection of real life, then I, for one, will be happy to carry on playing, and to adapt to it. Once we start saying that game play is more important than trying to portray how things actually were, then we're moving out of sim territory. I dunno... I think there is a fine line that we need to balance. You, (and a few others), might be willing to accept it, but how long will it last if the numbers drop by 60, 70 or 80%? I think those that will stay will only be flying 1 or 2 "safe" aircraft, leaving the others as useless. I think we all want it to be realistic to a point, but then again.... I don't actually wanna die, or get the trots, or freeze my arse off. Edited April 22, 2020 by J5_Gamecock 1
J2_Bidu Posted April 22, 2020 Posted April 22, 2020 1 hour ago, =CfC=FatherTed said: Not sure I agree with this. In the (unlikely) event that this DM turns out to be an accurate reflection of real life, then I, for one, will be happy to carry on playing, and to adapt to it. Once we start saying that game play is more important than trying to portray how things actually were, then we're moving out of sim territory. The thing is, what's happening does not resonate with anything I've read of WW1 air fighting. AND it is not fun to play. I'm thinking there's more than a coincidence in this.
JG1_Butzzell Posted April 22, 2020 Posted April 22, 2020 At this point the devs are aware. Let us see what happens. Time is out most precious commodity and patience is a virtue. We must be patient and have faith that the devs are doing the most with their time. 1 1
No.23_Gaylion Posted April 22, 2020 Posted April 22, 2020 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr113/ch04.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjxk_T4jf3oAhXSTN8KHad1Ce4QFjAXegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw0y3STxvm6rNaRhX34MZ1QW Mechanical properties of wood. Maybe this will help someone? 1 2
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now