New DM

[J5_Gamecock]

Anyone else bothered by the fact that we had ~800 different flyers on the Flugpark this month, yet only about 40 people responded to the DM poll?

[emely]

12 minutes ago, J5_Gamecock said:

Anyone else bothered by the fact that we had ~800 different flyers on the Flugpark this month, yet only about 40 people responded to the DM poll?

I could not fulfill the test conditions, as a friendly camel quickly flew away from my Dr1 in an offline departure.  And I decided not to arrange a test on the server with my fellow soldiers, because my message in the subject will be one, and the monstrous nonsense that the rest of the forum users wrote will still outweigh my opinion.

[76SQN-FatherTed]

Well I didn't respond because I had no opinion to give.  I have no idea how many hits it should take to break a wing-portion off, and I didn't perform the experiment.

 

I can see why he asked the first question (he wants to make a game which most of us think is "right"), but I can't see how we can answer it with anything other than wild guesses.  The thread involving discussions about bullet construction, wing construction, effect of bracing wires, how bullets interact with wood (and different types of wood, and different guns, and different bullets) and so on, would suggest that none of us know the answer to the first question, and how would we?  Maybe that's the point.

 

Anyway, that's why I didn't do the poll

[SeaW0lf]

3 minutes ago, =CfC=FatherTed said:

Well I didn't respond because I had no opinion to give.  I have no idea how many hits it should take to break a wing-portion off, and I didn't perform the experiment.

 

I can see why he asked the first question (he wants to make a game which most of us think is "right"), but I can't see how we can answer it with anything other than wild guesses.  The thread involving discussions about bullet construction, wing construction, effect of bracing wires, how bullets interact with wood (and different types of wood, and different guns, and different bullets) and so on, would suggest that none of us know the answer to the first question, and how would we?  Maybe that's the point.

 

Anyway, that's why I didn't do the poll

 

 

This. Plus, they already have an excellent base to build on, the original damage model that most everyone was praising. A simple vote might bite you back in the arse and you will be held responsible for it. Or the poll will match the current DM for some sort of irony and there will be no fix at all. Or the numbers could led to a DM even worse than the one we got now.

 

I saw no reason to vote. In fact, I stood clear of that thread once I saw its content.

[emely]

In order for this survey to be at least a little honest, each author of the message had to attach his own test track.  I think that none of those who wrote the test did, and the numbers that they wrote there are the result of their desires and fantasies.  I suppose that what I say will not add to my popularity, but I consider all the authors of that topic to be liars.

The paradox is that all this invented shit is accepted as objective information .. Well, life is life, there are worse things in it.

[76SQN-FatherTed]

1 minute ago, emely said:

In order for this survey to be at least a little honest, each author of the message had to attach his own test track.  I think that none of those who wrote the test did, and the numbers that they wrote there are the result of their desires and fantasies.  I suppose that what I say will not add to my popularity, but I consider all the authors of that topic to be liars.

The paradox is that all this invented shit is accepted as objective information .. Well, life is life, there are worse things in it.

To be fair, chap, you can't know that nobody did the test, so saying they're all liars is a bit strong.

[DD_Arthur]

38 minutes ago, J5_Gamecock said:

Anyone else bothered by the fact that we had ~800 different flyers on the Flugpark this month, yet only about 40 people responded to the DM poll?

 

I think thats because most people don't visit this part of the forum.

 

  Why would they?  The response to this thread alone gives a clue.....

[emely]

6 minutes ago, =CfC=FatherTed said:

To be fair, chap, you can't know that nobody did the test, so saying they're all liars is a bit strong.

I know that in a quick departure this test cannot be passed, even if a camel is given 100 percent gasoline and 4 bombs.  Maybe this test was not for the strength of the wings, but for a lie? ? Well, if someone made it, he definitely made a record - if I see her, I will apologize a lot.

[76SQN-FatherTed]

4 minutes ago, emely said:

 Maybe this test was not for the strength of the wings, but for a lie? ? 

Maybe this is true - but I just worry that calling lots of people liars in public is not good when you can't be 100% sure you're right.

 

Anyway, they promised the results of the poll, so should be interesting to see

[emely]

3 minutes ago, =CfC=FatherTed said:

Maybe this is true - but I just worry that calling lots of people liars in public is not good when you can't be 100% sure you're right.

 

Anyway, they promised the results of the poll, so should be interesting to see

Maybe you are right .  It was necessary to write correctly, in European.  Like that: I suspect that some of the authors of the messages were not entirely accurate in their observations)))

[No.23_Triggers]

40 minutes ago, emely said:

In order for this survey to be at least a little honest, each author of the message had to attach his own test track.  I think that none of those who wrote the test did, and the numbers that they wrote there are the result of their desires and fantasies.  I suppose that what I say will not add to my popularity, but I consider all the authors of that topic to be liars.

The paradox is that all this invented shit is accepted as objective information .. Well, life is life, there are worse things in it.

I did, or at least tried. Like you say, the Camel runs away very quickly! But, using TacView to count bullets fired and watching the track I think I got a fairly accurate test!

Edited April 30, 2020 by US93_Larner

[76SQN-FatherTed]

9 minutes ago, emely said:

Maybe you are right .  It was necessary to write correctly, in European.  Like that: I suspect that some of the authors of the messages were not entirely accurate in their observations)))

Okay?  I do know that you are writing in a language which is not your own and I respect that.  I was trying to stop an unnecessary flame war happening because of language differences on the forum.

[emely]

7 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

I did, or at least tried. Like you say, the Camel runs away very quickly! But, using TacView to count bullets fired and watching the track I think I got a fairly accurate test!
 

Oh my God !  I completely forgot that you also participated in the survey))) I do not know what kind of magic program for determining hits you have, but I did not dare to voice the results that I received in this test, because of their inaccuracy. I had an idea to conduct this test with my friends on the server, and using the statistics site I’ll understand the result approximately.  The statistics, of course, are still rubbish, it may not record every third hit, and ignore some at all (my big ping affects here), but that’s all I have

The intrigue is that the one who gave the test knows EXACTLY the correct answer to the question

21 minutes ago, =CfC=FatherTed said:

Okay?  I do know that you are writing in a language which is not your own and I respect that.  I was trying to stop an unnecessary flame war happening because of language differences on the forum.

Thank you for your kindness!  But I would not like to constantly hide behind the language barrier.  In the end, sometimes it’s worth the risk of getting in the face, and answer the same, otherwise what kind of pilots are we? ?

In fact, I respect you all very much, even that gloomy dude from Brazil ?

[J5_Gamecock]

 I just based my response on what I know about wood from 40+ years in construction, and some background in firearms.... Call it a "Semi-Educated guess". (yes I know, there are differences. Static loads vs. live loads etc. The basics are there however.)  I don't think any of us know the exact answer, and that wasn't the question.

 

 The question was "what are your expectations".  I don't think that any change will be based solely on what we posted in the poll. I certainly don't feel that my answer is somehow going to make me responsible for any adverse outcome.  Right or wrong, people that gave an answer at least showed that they were involved. It seems to me that some who complain the loudest, have no opinion on what they feel it should be.... then why do they complain??

 

  I'm more concerned that this will be the result... "well, only 40 or so people are worried about it, so must not be that big of a deal".........

Edited May 1, 2020 by J5_Gamecock

[emely]

Gamecock you're completely right, I misunderstood the task.  I thought that it was necessary to conduct a real test, objectively assess the number of hits, and indicate the desired quantity in brackets.

I apologize to the whole society

However, what is the point of such a survey?  Show depth of user misconceptions?

[kendo]

I think it's an honest attempt to investigate the reality of the situation - both on opinion on the forum, and accuracy of the modelling, and see if the two can be brought more into alignment

 

No-one, not devs or anyone here, really knows what the true rate of wing-loss should be.

 

And before the usual suspects disagree - You Don't! There is a lot of wish fulfilment here. People, I have noticed, have distinct preferences as to how they want the game to be - how they want to be able to enjoy the game and fly it. And this new DM, for many, damages that enjoyment. I think that is the main thing going on here. Discussions as to realism are secondary, just as the recent reaction to someone suggesting comms should not be used shows people really value their entertainment first and foremost.

 

So, given no-one really knows, it seems a good way to tease out preconceptions and examine positions. They may make changes to tweak the indeterminacies in their own modelling closer to the existing beliefs of elements of the community. So long as that works within what could be called the 'unknown' margins (indeterminacies), I have no issues with it.

 

But a question, if people here are confronted with evidence that their preconceptions may be wide of the mark, how many are willing to re-examine them?

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by kendo

[Stumble]

They asked for what we think we have at the moment... and what we want. I'm pretty sure its just a simple way for them to get some insight into "how many times easier does the FC community think this DM is, compared to how it should be". This will give them a simple percentage for how much to crank up the strength of material, or something like that.

 

But then again, I'm not a developer so I wouldn't know how it goes.

[emely]

So it looks like this: Take a certain number N, as the number of hits for maximum damage to the wing, and in parentheses write the number X% which displays the desired change?  N (+ X%) Moreover, both of these numbers are a figment of the player’s imagination (?)

But even in this case, I don’t see the point, since the wing can sometimes withstand 20 hits and not break, and another time, after 3 hits, it falls off in a light turn.

[No.23_Gaylion]

3 minutes ago, emely said:

But even in this case, I don’t see the point, since the wing can sometimes withstand 20 hits and not break, and another time, after 3 hits, it falls off in a light turn.

 

This is what worries me a bit. If they increase the wing strength/hits and combine that with the current wounding model and engine damage model I think we will have super hard to shoot down planes. 

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

After everything this title has gone through in the last few months, it's a miracle anyone still cares.

[Zooropa_Fly]

No one will care about it when we get a Zepplin.

[J2_Bidu]

I flew again in Flugpark yesterday afternoon. I was heavily shot in my DR1, and it held.

 

 

Later on I inflicted heavy damage on a Spad, but it held. We weren't pulling high G's either, but still I did expect him to break apart.

 

Edited May 1, 2020 by J2_Bidu

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

Part of the frustration is the seeming randomness of the failures. I took damage in an SE5a last night and was able to dive away at 140+ mph safely but without any real G-load. It was a straight, strong dive. I tore the wings off a Camel a few nights ago while turning at under 100 mph after taking only light damage. I shot down an Alb. DVa with something like 3% damage - he was in a low-speed turn and lost both the top and lower wings on one side of the aircraft. You'd think it was a G-related thing, and it might be. But then I with still modest damage, I shot an AI 2-seater and it lost all of its wings simultaneously and turned into a dart while just going along in level flight. I wish there was something I could point to and say "this is the variable I have isolated" but my experiences run all over the map. G-loading is a common thread for part of this, but it's not always the sole factor. So it's frustrating on my end.

[No.23_Gaylion]

49 minutes ago, J2_Bidu said:

 

 

Gasped and clutched my pearls at the sight of those wings!

 

I have the same sentiments and experiences as krispy_duck.

Edited May 1, 2020 by US213_Talbot

[No.23_Triggers]

So, last night marked the first time I've specifically aimed for wings when bouncing an EA since RoF. I got the Halby's wings off in one pass. 

I'm very interested to see what the revised DM is going to look like, though! 

[Chill31]

Whoever put more than 15 shots through the wing to rip it off from dead 6...wth??  50??? 

 

The spars on wwi wings are about 3 inches deep and 2 inches thick...if 2 rounds hit your spar...bad bad day. Fokker dr1,d7,do exceptions to that. 

[No.23_Triggers]

42 minutes ago, Chill31 said:

Whoever put more than 15 shots through the wing to rip it off from dead 6...wth??  50??? 

I think it was a strange loaded question with strange loaded answers ?

 

At least, in my case, I found it extremely hard to remove the mental image of Albatroses crumbling in a split-S after two hits to the wings (not spars) when coming up with an answer. That probably muddled my answer up. 

Edited May 1, 2020 by US93_Larner

[Chill31]

Yeah. It would be tough to hit the spar! I bet it would take 50 shots to get 5 hits, even from 6 o'clock. Perhaps that is what people were thinking.

 

If you fired 15 rounds and hit 15 rounds in the outer third of the wing from dead 6, that wing will not survive combat maneuvers. May even rip off right in the moment depending on the spacing.

 

An alby taking 2 hits total and having the wings come off would be extremely rare though.

[emely]

37 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

 

At least, in my case, I found it extremely hard to remove the mental image of Albatroses crumbling in a split-S after two hits to the wings (not spars) when coming up with an answer. That probably muddled my answer up. 

When Alb and Halb lose their wings as they are now, it knocks me out of the right image.  I have just been pilots in flight goggles and a leather helmet, but after I see this, I begin to understand that I'm just sitting in front of the monitor in my underwear and slippers :-))

[No.23_Gaylion]

24 minutes ago, emely said:

 I'm just sitting in front of the monitor in my underwear and slippers :-))

 

Underwear? Here?! Noob.

[emely]

4 minutes ago, US213_Talbot said:

 

Underwear? Here?! Noob.

Probably experienced pilots use real big diapers for adults? ? Surely this helps them out in a situation where they suddenly see the enemy in their six))

In fact, I wrote about home clothes, but moronic google decided to call her underwear

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

1 hour ago, Chill31 said:

 

 

If you fired 15 rounds and hit 15 rounds in the outer third of the wing from dead 6, that wing will not survive combat maneuvers. May even rip off right in the moment depending on the spacing.

 

 

 

Thank you.  I think the "dead six" part is the thing most people are missing on the poll, and why your number is much closer to the lower numbers that some have offered on it.

[J5_Gamecock]

4 hours ago, Chill31 said:

Yeah. It would be tough to hit the spar! I bet it would take 50 shots to get 5 hits, even from 6 o'clock. Perhaps that is what people were thinking.

 

 Bingo.

[DD_Arthur]

6 hours ago, US213_Talbot said:

Gasped and clutched my pearls

 

Someone gave you a pearl necklace?

[76SQN-FatherTed]

6 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Someone gave you a pearl necklace?

Jealous?

[DD_Arthur]

41 minutes ago, =CfC=FatherTed said:

Jealous?

It came from you Father??

[J2_Bidu]

 

6 hours ago, Chill31 said:

Whoever put more than 15 shots through the wing to rip it off from dead 6...wth??  50??? 

 

The spars on wwi wings are about 3 inches deep and 2 inches thick...if 2 rounds hit your spar...bad bad day. Fokker dr1,d7,do exceptions to that. 

 

Found this interesting quote:

«The remainder of the German scouts put a few rounds into the SE - five into the right spar, four into the wings, and two into the fuselage just behind ball's head - but ball, using the superior speed of the SE5, shook them off» - "High in the Empty Blue", page 29.

[emely]

2 hours ago, J5_Gamecock said:

 

 Bingo.

I’m wondering when everyone who writes messages here will come to understand that making so many hits in the spar strictly from six is not a real task in reality?

[Chill31]

40 minutes ago, J2_Bidu said:

 

 

Found this interesting quote:

«The remainder of the German scouts put a few rounds into the SE - five into the right spar, four into the wings, and two into the fuselage just behind ball's head - but ball, using the superior speed of the SE5, shook them off» - "High in the Empty Blue", page 29.

This is interesting! In an SE5, there should be 4 right spars though. And 5 rounds space across the full span of the right wing is probably not overly dangerous. 5 in the outer third of one wing...I just know I don't have the balls to fly an airplane that way while yanking and banking in combat.

[J5_Gamecock]

2 hours ago, emely said:

I’m wondering when everyone who writes messages here will come to understand that making so many hits in the spar strictly from six is not a real task in reality?

 

 I agree. The answers might be way off, I'm in no position to make any real argument for or against anyone's "guess".  I was just hoping for a bit more input from people.