New DM

[J99_Sizzlorr]

I don't know which wood they used for the spars in the old crates but wood does not equal wood. There are diffrences. There is hardwood and softwood. There is also hardwood which is soft and softwood which is hard. 

Maybe it is just diffrent type of wood. But I guess neither hard- nor softwood would stop a 7,62mm bullet.

Edited April 24, 2020 by J99_Sizzlorr

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

Perhaps we can inject the wood with disinfectant or a hot light source.

[No.23_Gaylion]

Something hard that you must rub regularly to keep shiny. You can do many things with wood, like knock it, pound it or sit on it. People often enjoy using their wood, usually for productive activities or fun and entertainment.

[HagarTheHorrible]

23 minutes ago, US213_Talbot said:

Something hard that you must rub regularly to keep shiny. You can do many things with wood, like knock it, pound it or sit on it. People often enjoy using their wood, usually for productive activities or fun and entertainment.

I know what I like to with my wood.  The wife on the other hand might have different ideas.

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

57 minutes ago, US213_Talbot said:

Something hard that you must rub regularly to keep shiny. You can do many things with wood, like knock it, pound it or sit on it. People often enjoy using their wood, usually for productive activities or fun and entertainment.

 

[emely]

8 hours ago, Feathered_IV said:

It's a Be.2

I think yes .  But I don’t know which plane it is.  But the landing indicates that the pilot is a master of his craft ?

[Poochnboo]

This "landing" indicates that the pilot was texting  while he was flying.

[SeaW0lf]

On 4/22/2020 at 8:53 PM, J28w-Broccoli said:

I'm going to laugh my ass off if the fix ends up being greater bullet dispersion.

 

Exactly what I thought yesterday. That would be something.

 

I'm back to ROF* and I think the only thing missing there is the FC ballistics, which would be... improved gunnery? Too early to tell, but I'm losing Dolphin wings in close combats and shaking at the same measure in ROF [the shaking thing drives me nuts], so it seems to be very similar. No reason to play Flying Circus at this point. And ROF does not have invisible D7s or visibility issues (and it has Nieuports!).

 

*won't be playing Flying Circus if things keep the way they are or the way things are going / no point in it.

 

The damage model / ballistics were the only thing going for Flying Circus, really. I like the physiology, but it is not something that would make or break. I’m not even sure why ask for DM numbers. They do have the original Flying Circus damage model to be based upon. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And we voiced or concerns in posts before the update, even at the developer diary, so I'm not even sure why we got what we [you guys] have now.

[ZachariasX]

30 minutes ago, emely said:

I think yes .  But I don’t know which plane it is.  But the landing indicates that the pilot is a master of his craft ?

That works with a Jenny as well:

Spoiler

 

You can also do it more from above:

Spoiler

 

Here, the proof that Biplanes have a differnt DM that WW2 cantilever aircraft:

Spoiler

Somehow they don''t hold up there. Also we see how stronk wood is...

 

[No.23_Triggers]

2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

You can also do it more from above:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

The pilot nonchalantly climbing down like "Ah bugger. Not again"...brilliant hahah! 

Edited April 24, 2020 by US93_Larner

[HagarTheHorrible]

Further thoughts, with regard to my long post yesterday.  How might what I descrided be used to provide a useful approximation of damage effects, to regular biplanes, in FC ?

 

I think (Please don't confuse it with "I know") that the DM would be considerably enhanced (for the wings) if it was adapted to focus on two different effects (?).

 

The FIRST is "STRUCTURAL RIGIDITY".  By structural rigidity, I mean, the ability of the wing (not "wings" as in biplane structure) to resist the loads to which it is subject, namely twisting or bending.  Many elements go into this aspect, from spars to ribs to internal bracing wires etc etc, even the skin.  The STRUCTURAL RIGIDITY can utilise the present hit boxes to provide some localization, but importantly they don't need to be extra detailed with spars and ribs etc to work effeciently, they can use the present calculations, on top of an initial strength score. The STRUCTURAL RIGIDITY  damage model can also use the present wing damage textures, with some exceptions (wires and struts).  The STRUCTURAL RIGIDITY "score" is used to counter DRAG, and only drag, as experienced by the wing.  As a wing is progressively damaged it is less able to resist the force of the air pushing against it, twisting and bending, what might be structurally sound at one speed might be completely unable to  rigidity is a nose to tail

 

There will be several benefits to utilizing structural rigidity in this manner;  

 

1)  We can use the damage texture, more accurately, to gauge what has happened to the wing and which forces will cause it to fail   (structural rigidity/ speed).                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      2) We can better utilize the visual shake effect (rather than it just being annoying).  As the aircraft reaches a speed at which the weakened wing might fail, the aircraft can start to shake, to indicate to us, the pilot, that if we continue at our present speed, or go even faster, the wing might fail. Depending on wing damage and therefore structural strength the visual shake effect can initiate at different aircraft speeds. The visual shaking effect would have a useful benefit.

 

3)  We can better consider wing design as a factor in aircraft durability to differentiate between one aircraft and another.   The main problem with this point is setting an initial wing strength for each aircraft type as the devil is often in the detail and the assessment might need to consider percieved opinion, from the period, rather than a scientific analysis, unless, of course that information exists.

 

4) The Drag "score" of a wing can be considered to determine how much force is being applied to the wing.  Drag reducing elements can play there full part, for example Rafwire (streamlined wire) reduces drag, compared to a round wire, by a factor of 10.  Less load (drag) means higher strength, or more practically, higher speed with less risk of wing collapse. Drag wires can also be considered, in determining wing rigidity, for the purpose that they serve

 

 

 

 

The SECOND is wing "STRENGTH".  By wing strength, I mean, the the ability of the complete, box like, wing structure, including, and most importantly, the wires and struts to resist the forces of gravity.  Importantly, it is NOT anything to do with spars, or ribs etc etc, they were covered by the first effect "structural rigidity".  Wing strength, at it's simplest, can be determined by the wing loading divided by the number of flying wires (for positive G), or landing wires (for negative G) and the number of bays.  The greater the number of wires and bays the more resistent the aircraft is to folding up, or down, when adding load "G" to the wings as the load on any one point is reduced, it is under less stress.

 

I think this can, potentially be implimented without adding significantly to the DM complexity.  It might even be determined by the addition of only one extra "hit box", or possibly two (left and right)  The "hit box" would be defined by the area occupied by the wires and struts (the area within the red lines) 

 

 

The total volume, determined by the red box is considered, also the total volume occupied by the wires (I don't consider the struts, maybe wrongly, because they are usually oversized, compared to the strength required to perform their job and normal ball ammunition would not cause enough damage to affect that, I also think they do a less important job as they transfer load rather than resist load , if that make sense).  A percentage is then worked out, what percentage is fresh air and what is wire bracing. Everytime a bullet passes through that area, determined by the hit box, a die is rolled to to calculate if the bullet hit nothing more than fresh air or if it hit a wire. Another roll of the dice, zero or one, can decide if it is a flying wire or landing wire that is damaged and the strength of the wing is adjusted accordingly etc etc.

 

The advantages of this system, are;

 

1)  Wires can now play their part in determing wing strength, how likely they are to be damaged,  and the resulting potential loss of wing strength.

 

 2)  Possibly it's simplicity, you don't need to calculate exact hit points, just the likely outcome, as hitting a wire is a matter of chance rather than a deliberate act on the part of the attacker.

 

2)  Doubled up flying wires play their part, as wires are now considered singly, if not specifically.

 

3)  The use of extra wing bays can now play a fuller part by sharing the wing loading across several points. They no longer just add eye candy to bigger wings (or should i say bigger targets).  They now perform a function of determining wing STRENGTH, they play their part.

 

Sorry, I should review and or edit what I've just written, but it's very late and I've work in the morning.  Hopefully you've got the gist of what I'm trying to convey, even if there are errors and spelling mistakes galore.

 

HTH

 

 

      

[LukeFF]

Geeze Louise. 

[AndyJWest]

9 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Geeze Louise. 

 

+1

 

Hagar, there really isn't a polite way to put this, so I won't waste time trying: it is quite obvious from what you have written that your understanding of how aircraft structures work is entirely insufficient for you to be able to offer useful suggestions to the developers. 

[J5_Adam]

On 4/24/2020 at 5:22 AM, J99_Sizzlorr said:

I don't know which wood they used for the spars in the old crates but wood does not equal wood. There are diffrences. There is hardwood and softwood. There is also hardwood which is soft and softwood which is hard. 

Maybe it is just diffrent type of wood. But I guess neither hard- nor softwood would stop a 7,62mm bullet.

 

I believe they used baltic birch at least for the german crates. Various type were probably used with fir being a second choice from what I remember reading

Edited April 25, 2020 by Adam

[HagarTheHorrible]

19 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

 

+1

 

Hagar, there really isn't a polite way to put this, so I won't waste time trying: it is quite obvious from what you have written that your understanding of how aircraft structures work is entirely insufficient for you to be able to offer useful suggestions to the developers. 

 

My understanding of cause and effect and how that influences design is perfectly adequate for the job.  Certainly the details might be beyond my grasp, being able to explain it in written form, with the correct terms, might indeed be a challenge for me, but that is not to say I'm wrong, and while I'm sure you would never agree, I think I am more right than I am wrong. If you were to stop, and actually take a good look at how a biplane wing is constructed you might actually realise that, the clues are all there for the seeing. Certainly damage, caused by a bullet, can be complex, with a myriad of interlinked cause and effects as to how it might affect a wing, but the basic principles still stand, the problem for computer program makers is finding a balance between resources and complexity (but you know that fine well), just as the original aircraft designers had to balance out strength, weight and drag, given the aircrafts intended roll, in their calculations.

 

Imagine (I don't think I need to insult you by actually getting you to actually do the experiment) a stiff, but thin, bit of card, A4 sized , size really isn't critical, hold it level, by the short edge.  Now use your free hand to push the card, anywhere from about the middle to the edge furthest away from the hand holding the card.  What happens ? Obviously the card bends up, or down, depending on the direction you push.  You hardly need to be a rocket scientist to understand that.  Now take your free hand and push against one of the long edges.  What happens ?  Obviously the width of the card prevents it from bending backwards.  As you apply more pressure the card will eventually start to buckle and twist and then it will bend back.  Again, I don't need engineering degrees, coming out of my backside, to observe this cause and effect and understand the basic principles at hand, even if I can't do the deep maths that might give me a deeper insight.  What I have just described is essentially the same as a wing (1 of 4) from a biplane.  The structure (skeleton) of a wing is just the same as that bit of card, the clues are there, if you just care to open your eyes and look.  Again, you don't need to be a brain surgeon to see that.  A wing (1 of 4) from a biplane is designed, almost exclusively, to resist the loads imposed on it's edge, in the case of a wing, the force of drag, it is designed to prevent, as far as possible, the twisting and buckling that might further increase drag, possibly to the point of faliure (bending), this is what I would describe, rightly or wrongly, as the stiffness of the structure. A short wing, with a wide cord (all things being equal) will be stronger than a long wing with a narrow cord. You don't need to be Einstein to understand that.  So, if the wing structure doesn't provide resistence to bending in the verticle plain, when pressure is applied, what does ?

 

 

As with this picture of a flapping toy bird, the weakest (hinge) point, the point most likely to give way, is the point connected to the load.  The great thing with this toy is you can see, directly, the effects of increasing the load, the wings increasingly fold up.  If the bird were suspended by it's wing tips, instead of the middle of the wings, the force (load) required to fold the wings up would be much reduced, obviously (But hey, I'm no genius, maybe I'm wrong !).  How do we stop the bird from dipping and the wings folding up ?  Well, call me Mr Intelligent, but I reckon that one's easy.  You fix wires to the bottom of the wingtips, or to any point between the wingtip and the ceiling support wire, the further from the suspension wires the less force required to resist any additional load on the red pull string. The opposite end of the strings are attached to a suitable load or fixing point  In ideal circumstances the force opposing the folding up of the wings will be directly opposite to the force causing the wings to fold up. This is really basic stuff.  Obviously, if you are flying around in an aircraft, it's not ideal attaching the wingtips to the ground, or heavy weights, it rather limits your fun.  So where do you attach the other end of the wires ?  Well, again, that's easy, we don't have many choices, we attach the other end to the body of the bird, as far down as is possible.  What we are looking to do is have as small a compromise, from the ideal (diametrically opposed), as possible, we need the angle between the wing and the wire to be as big, or as close to 180 deg, as we can reasonable manage.  The smaller the angle the less force we can apply, the weaker the resistance to load, before the wings fold up.  That's not all though, we could, if we wanted, improve on that.  If we attach a rigid beam/stick to the belly of the bird and run it parallel to the wings, we could then attach further wires to this beam so that they might provide angular advantage (wires attachment points as close to 180 deg away from the force being opposed as possible) and share the load. We can even get the added advange of a compound pulley if we add a mid wing support (strut) and extra wires out to the wing tips.

 

How'm I doing so far, thick as mince, or a basic principles understanding ?

 

 

 

We, as far as I can see, have two forces that affect the wings of our aircraft, when considering the DM.  The drag imposed on the wings as speed increases, opposed by wing stuctural stiffening,  and the hinging movement, as demonstrated in the picture above {lift/ load) opposed by the wires bracing the wing.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Am I wrong, if so explain ?

 

The DM needs to differentiate between the two.  It needs to decide what damage, how badly and what effect this has on destroying a wings stiffness and thus it's ability to withstand drag or twisting (and therefore more drag) and it needs to calculate the likelyhood that a bullet passing within the space, between the wings, will hit a wire and break it.  The first part, wing stiffness, is far more complex, because there are so many interlinked variables involved, but for the purposes of the sim, we just need a few basic parameters, that provide a reasonable expectation of cause and effect. The wires are comparatively, a doddle.  I think we can reasonable expect a bullet to break a wire, if it hits it.  We know how heavy the aircraft is, the wing loading, the style of bracing structure.  We can have a fairly basic stab at knowing how much load each wire supports and therefore the extra load that the other wires will have to absorb if one wire is broken.  Yes, it can get really complicated, really quickly, if you consider every facet or permutation, but for the purposes of the sim and the benefit of our computers, it can still give reasonably believable results even with just basic parameters.  All that needs to be considered is how likely a wire, and if it is a flying, or landing, wire is hit when a bullet passes within its orbit.  Working out the likelyhood might be the complex, big maths bit, and there might need to be some median figures thrown in, but once a ratio is worked out, just like calculating how likely you are to roll a six on a dice, the calculation is very simple, it is just a case of rolling the dice with however many sides the equation requires and observing the result, a zero or a one

 

At the moment, shooting at the trailing edge of a wing can cause the wires and struts to break, that is clearly nonsense and you don't have to be a genius to work that one out.  Wings should break back if the amount of drag exceeds it's design capacity or it's capacity once damaged and the wings should break up (or down) if the wires are broken.  It's really not that difficult a basic concept to understand, so don't patronise me with your "too stupid to understand" remarks.

 

 

Edited April 26, 2020 by HagarTheHorrible

[J5_HellCat_]

Jeeze Loise  ?

 

[HagarTheHorrible]

15 minutes ago, J5_HellCat_ said:

Jeeze Loise  ?

 

 

Well, bloody well read it then and if it's wrong say why, rather than just coming out with some pat, smart alec, crap phrase.

 

I'm trying to understand, and educate myself, as to why the DM is the way it is.  I don't think the present version is adequate, or believable, a notion in which I am far from alone.  I would like to get to the bottom of why the DM is the way it is and why it appears to perform so poorly and I can't do that by just having a few clever clog know it alls drip feed little golden nuggets whenever they feel so obliged.  Problem solving is best done as part of a team effort, not neccessarily by one benighted individual.  I am surrounded by lots of clever people in my life, one or two of them are even seriously clever,  but they can still occasionally be pillocks, make bad descisions, or choices, even downright stupid ones, in fact, come to think of it, it's usually the cleverest ones who come out with the most stupid things.

Edited April 26, 2020 by HagarTheHorrible

[J5_HellCat_]

Sorry bud....Just joking with you Hagar ?

 

 

 

Edited April 26, 2020 by J5_HellCat_

[AndyJWest]

Hagar, If you have a problem that needs solving, the easiest approach is usually to see if someone else has solved it before. That is how education works.

 

https://archive.org/details/ost-design-structuralanalys00unit/page/n99/mode/2up

 

See in particular chapter III. It involves a fair bit of maths, but you can get a good general grasp of the loads in a conventional wire-braced biplane wing truss without having to do all the calculations. As I said earlier, the upper wing spars (or at least one of them) have to resist the compressive loads on them caused by the 'flying wire'* bracing (which being wire, can only impose a tensile load directly along its length, and accordingly in such a design has to pull inwards as well as downwards). Damage a spar in the upper wing and it may fail in compression. This is simple physics. It isn't open to negotiation. A damage model which assumed that the spars only resisted drag would simply and undeniably be wrong. As the book makes clear, there are other loads on the spars - bending loads, and tensile loads resulting from drag - but as long as there are wires in the structure delivering tensile loads to resist bending forces, physics demands that something resists them, and in the case of a biplane wing, the spars are really all there is to do it.

 

*The'flying wires' are those running diagonally upwards and outwards, to resist the bending loads during normal flight. 'Landing wires' run diagonally down and out, and resist bending in the other direction, whether through aerodynamic loads, or landing shock etc. Under such loads, the spar(s) in the lower wing have to resist the compressive loads imposed by the tension on the landing wires.

[JG1_Vonrd]

I tried a search for the answer but didn't have the patience to wade through the results...I know it was a topic of discussion previously.

 

Did the wound blackout get eliminated or lessened in the latest patch? I haven't experienced it lately. If it did I say Bravo and thank you!

[ST_Nooney]

23 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

 

come to think of it, it's usually the cleverest ones who come out with the most stupid things.

I must be a genius then ?

[No.23_Gaylion]

1 hour ago, JG1_Vonrd said:

I tried a search for the answer but didn't have the patience to wade through the results...I know it was a topic of discussion previously.

 

Did the wound blackout get eliminated or lessened in the latest patch? I haven't experienced it lately. If it did I say Bravo and thank you!

 

Yeah, it's still there though, just not every wound. You can get wounded like 6 times now. 

[JG1_Vonrd]

28 minutes ago, US213_Talbot said:

 

Yeah, it's still there though, just not every wound. You can get wounded like 6 times now. 

Well... at least a bit more reasonable... but with my record of wound badges, I'm still going to be doing the big snooze  ?

[No.23_Gaylion]

I don't know if it's a bug, but when you get wounded and DON'T black out you still hear the ringing in the ears thing.

 

So I don't know if you're supposed to be blacked out or what.

Edited April 27, 2020 by US213_Talbot

[Cynic_Al]

2 minutes ago, US213_Talbot said:

I don't know if it's a bug, but when you get wounded and DON'T black out you still hear the ringing in the ears thing.

 

From a bullet wound, I'd call that getting-off lightly.

[No.23_Gaylion]

Been shot before have we?

[Cynic_Al]

46 minutes ago, US213_Talbot said:

Been shot before have we?

 

Up to now I've managed to dodge it, but if you're keen to speak with absolute authority I can always pick-up the phone.

[No.23_Gaylion]

What a shame.

[No.23_Triggers]

I think the "new" wounding system needs revised as well. I like the idea of head wounds being more severe than body wounds, but I don't like hitting the pilot in the torso / legs / arms and having it do apparently nothing to that pilot's ability to control the plane. 

As far as I can tell from looking at the Parsers, it's roughly just over 50% for a head wound, and body shots vary from about 10% to 20% (I think the devs mentioned that there are now 'superficial' hits. Every now and again you get the dreaded 100% wound where you clean someone's clock in one round (Or two simultaneous rounds from both barrels?)

I've also noticed that blackouts also do sometimes still occur. 

I'd want to see accurate shooting be a little bit more rewarding, personally...say, somewhere in the rough region of: 

Headshot - 80% wound, KO
Body shot - 50% wound 
Extremities - 20% wound 

We know some pilots (MvR being the famous example) did take a knock to the head and survive (I can't remember who off-hand but I remember reading about an observer talking about being KOed by a glancing headshot), and I imagine being hit in the torso or extremities is most likely going to make controlling an aircraft pretty damned difficult. 

This thing with some wounds doing apparently nothing is a bit bogus, imo... 
 

1 hour ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

Up to now I've managed to dodge it, but if you're keen to speak with absolute authority I can always pick-up the phone.

Am I reading this wrong, or is that some kind of threat...?

Edited April 27, 2020 by US93_Larner

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

17 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

I'd want to see accurate shooting be a little bit more rewarding, personally...say, somewhere in the rough region of: 

Headshot - 80% wound, KO
Body shot - 50% wound 
Extremities - 20% wound 

 

 

Accurate shooting?  Do you even *see* these body parts when you're firing on a target?  I hardly ever see the pilot at all, and I shoot close.  Just a dark spot where the cockpit is.  I can't imagine being able to deliberately try for a headshot.

Edited April 27, 2020 by J28w-Broccoli

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

1 hour ago, US213_Talbot said:

What a shame.

LOL what a dick. hahahaha

[No.23_Triggers]

5 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

 

Accurate shooting?  Do you even *see* these body parts when you're firing on a target?  I hardly ever see the pilot at all, and I shoot close.

Not the arms and legs, but the upper back, shoulders and head, sure. I target the pilot's seat specifically, and if I have a good side-profile shot I focus on the silhouette of the pilot's head.  If my aim is good, then I'm going to be hitting the enemy pilot's head or body. 

 

Edited April 27, 2020 by US93_Larner

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

1 minute ago, US93_Larner said:

Not the arms and legs, but the upper back, shoulders and head, sure. I target the pilot's seat specifically, and if I have a good side-profile shot I focus on the silhouette of the pilot's head.  If my aim is good, then I'm going to be hitting the enemy pilot's head or body. 

 

 

You must fire zoomed in further than I do, or use a larger monitor or something.  I rarely even see if a prop stops turning.

[No.23_Triggers]

3 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

 

You must fire zoomed in further than I do, or use a larger monitor or something.  I rarely even see if a prop stops turning.

27-inch, very zoomed in. Sometimes I miss the prop stopping in all the excitement as well! 

EDIT: My whole thing is it's a little frustrating to train your gunnery to specifically hit pilots, only to have the damage you're doing be totally watered down! 

Edited April 27, 2020 by US93_Larner

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Just now, US93_Larner said:

27-inch, very zoomed in. Sometimes I miss the prop stopping in all the excitement as well! 

 

I use a pretty wide-angle view- for defensive purposes.  So that explains it.

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

4 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

 If my aim is good, then I'm going to be hitting the enemy pilot's head

But that does nothing, you need to hit his heart remember.

 

2 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

 

You must fire zoomed in further than I do, or use a larger monitor or something.  I rarely even see if a prop stops turning.

I have the same problem but I use a 21" monitor and if I zoom in my head tracking goes hay wire, no idea why.

[No.23_Gaylion]

4 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

 

I use a pretty wide-angle view- for defensive purposes.  So that explains it.

 

I use a wide 34 incher and occasionally see pilots slumping over or props stopping. I definitely need to zoom to see that stuff.

 

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

On 4/27/2020 at 3:10 PM, US213_Talbot said:

 

I use a wide 34 incher and occasionally see pilots slumping over or props stopping. I definitely need to zoom to see that stuff.

 

I probably should tape one across my lap.

[J2_Bidu]

On 4/27/2020 at 7:54 PM, US93_Larner said:

Not the arms and legs, but the upper back, shoulders and head, sure. I target the pilot's seat specifically, and if I have a good side-profile shot I focus on the silhouette of the pilot's head.  If my aim is good, then I'm going to be hitting the enemy pilot's head or body. 

 

This explains a lot.

When we fight, I just fart in your general direction.

[76SQN-FatherTed]

8 hours ago, J2_Bidu said:

 

When we fight, I just fart in your general direction.

Enjoy while you can - I'm sure a patch will nerf them soon enough