New DM

[No.23_Triggers]

4 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

How are people finding AI pilot survivability?  From what I can tell they don't seem as vulnerable to accurate fire at close range.

They are - it's just not as noticeable when they don't get KOed....or at least, that's what I found

[Goffik]

7 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

But - perhaps we need a community vote, get the full picture, see if the majority of the FC community thinks the DMs really need changed after this update

 

2 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

EDIT: What do we think of having a poll to gauge how the community feels about new DM? I've seen mixed responses in here. 

 

Given that only a vocal minority ever post on game forums, a poll would not be in any way representative of what the player base as a whole actually feels. This is particularly true given that the same vocal minority rarely know what they're talking about from a "realism" point of view, since none of us were around during WWI or have ever flown one of these planes from this era.

 

What needs to happen is for people to let the dust settle, and then for the devs to take another look at how things are and how it compares to their own research, rather than to the hysterical complaints of a few individuals.

[No.23_Triggers]

10 minutes ago, Goffik said:

What needs to happen is for people to let the dust settle, and then for the devs to take another look at how things are and how it compares to their own research, rather than to the hysterical complaints of a few individuals.

Can agree there. Admittedly I immediately went into 'panic mode' when I tested the new DM and started seeing wings flying off so easily. Although (call me a pessimist), you'd have to think that the devs must have tested this and seen how it worked vs their research already before the patch was released. 

[ZachariasX]

For me it seems like they used the whole wing area as a hitbox that can affect static stability. I can shoot just the trailing end of the wing of a Bristol, where be nothing but two layers of doped canvas. Instead of making just a mags worth of rould holes in that section, after about a full drum, the whole wing will collapse.

 

What we have now has no purpose for simulating structural wing damage in these aircraft. In order to make a wing fold, you must shoot the bracing wires and the spar. Smashing ribs will hardly be a structural concern, unless many are gone and your wing profile is compromised.

 

It may work on stressed skin objects. But on those kites, the DM needs to be reconsidered.

[No.23_Triggers]

2 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

It may work on stressed skin objects. But on those kites, the DM needs to be reconsidered.

I always dreamt of a DM where each strut, spar and control cable had its own hitbox - although I can imagine that would be a phenomenal amount of work...maybe one day, though! Despite my inhibitions, I can at least appreciate how ambitious the new DM has been. 

[SeaW0lf]

3 hours ago, kendo said:

Maybe a little less hysteria would help.

 

Not hysteria. We were replying some people who asked for the folding wings back at the Developer Diary during the last months, we've been talking about the great FC damage model since day one here, especially that the wings did not fold anymore, that they planes did not shake anymore, that we could get some hits at the start of a patrol and still finish the patrol, and this from every squadron veteran, from both sides, people who have been flying in multiplayer for a decade. So when we know that they know what we consider realistic, and a lot of us here are just hopless bookworms, and a bomb like this drop from left field, people tend to speak out. 

 

I see no one going off board here. People are just reacting up to the seriousness of the situation. 

 

3 hours ago, J5_Rumey said:

Anyone have anything good to say? Haven't tried but surely there must be someone liking the something?

 

It is hard to talk about anything if we can't fight in these planes. Perhaps in a few days people will try to argument with the devs, give an overall impression of the patch, but the folding, shaking wings is aparently overshadowing everything right now.

 

2 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

I take it back - it's not the RoF damage model. It's worse.

 

Yeah, in QM I was shooting and folding some D7s in quick succession. I would get some hits on them, they would go for a shallow dive and fold. Reminiscent of ROF with improved gunnery.

[BMA_Hellbender]

I wish I had the focus and will to test this in person (perhaps something that didn't happen thoroughly in beta with the current state of the world), however I will believe the reports of many of my friends here in this thread.

 

Bringing back wingshedding to Flying Circus is a mistake for the multiplayer side of the game, but ultimately it doesn't matter. The exclusive focus on the multiplayer "tip of the iceberg" is what has already cost this game its commercial success in the long run. For now I would wait and see if anything is adjusted or not in an upcoming patch, but more importantly, if more content is announced to attract more interest in general.

[No.23_Gaylion]

25 minutes ago, Goffik said:

This is particularly true given that the same vocal minority rarely know what they're talking about from a "realism" point of view, since none of us were around during WWI or have ever flown one of these planes from this era.

 

If only there were records from the time period that one could look to for a source of inspiration...

 

 

[1PL-Sahaj-1Esk]

New sounds are cool, I did not spot any engine damage variations yet as my flights yesterday were rather short so hard to tell how the rotaries might take more hits however a Camel can take a lot of punishment now and on various occasions it was still flying around.

 

If you do not go vertical you can still fly on when the wings are shot up, as soon as you pitch too hard they will fall apart. At least affected are Fokkers. It is not a drama, it is just how I was used to play in RoF.

 

To be fair, in my opinion some of the planes where too 'panzer' style in the previous version and the only damage possible was cockpit area, now the wings are also a factor.

 

 

 

Edited April 9, 2020 by 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk

[No.23_Gaylion]

Also, there is a difference between lighting up an AI and it "takes lots of rounds" and doesn't really evade versus lighting up another player and that player evades like a human.

 

But go ahead keep downplaying the decade of experience most of us here have with RoF.

 

 

[Zooropa_Fly]

I'll need to do some testing for myself later, but I was of the opinion that wings were artificially too strong originally, just a little bit.

My wish was they take the DM around 20% back to the RoF one, in effect.

Surely it's realistic to expect, that if you've a couple of struts shot off, your wings are in grave peril.

Especially if you're still expecting to be able to continue fighting and pulling on the stick.

Is it not also expected that the stability of the airframe will be affected by mounting damage ?

Not as much as the DXII in RoF of course, which makes me glad I never got one of them gyrating seat thingy's.

 

Let's just hope the next fix isn't bullet dispersion ?

 

[SeaW0lf]

8 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

But - perhaps we need a community vote, get the full picture, see if the majority of the FC community thinks the DMs really need changed after this update - and ask the testers if they can speak to the devs. 

 

That could help, although I'm of the opinion that it can't be a reference for a simulator regarding technical feedback, since we have people with different levels of knowledge and expectations, some even coming from a gaming background with no ties to WWI.

 

People might choose the more graphic / gaming outcome (folding wings). But it would be interesting to see the result nonetheless.

Edited April 9, 2020 by SeaW0lf

[DD_Arthur]

2 hours ago, Goffik said:

 

What needs to happen is for people to let the dust settle, and then for the devs to take another look at how things are and how it compares to their own research, rather than to the hysterical complaints of a few individuals.

 Wise words?.  

[kendo]

Too early and too limited experience for this to mean anything much here, but for what it's worth, in my limited time with quick missions since the new DM came out, I haven't (yet) seen wings come off easily and directly as a result of just a few hits.

 

I've been recording tracks of each multi-plane fight and watching them back in slow-mo to see the action for any planes that are taking hits. Been all kinds of results - pilot kills, engines knocked out, canvas on fuselage and wings getting shredded ,fires. I did see an Albatros outer wing tip buckle slighly after taking a lot of punishment, but he continued to fly to end of the flight.

 

The two de-wingings i have seen so far came when badly shot-up aircraft went into dives - one Spad was on fire and going down vertically when his wings came off. Another Spad was shot to pieces by an Albatros on his tail in a long climb, holes all over the wings and fuselage, one strut shot away - I mean really full of holes - but it kept going until the pilot was killed, then aircraft pitched over and went into a dive, at which point the wing with broken strut collapsed and came off, followed by the other wings.

 

 

 

 

[US103_Baer]

2 hours ago, Goffik said:

 

What needs to happen is for people to let the dust settle, and then for the devs to take another look at how things are and how it compares to their own research, rather than to the hysterical complaints of a few individuals

 

And that would happen proactively by them without Users voicing concern? I don't think so.

There is a huge change in the way wings are breaking apart. Many of us feel this seems excessive. We are voicing our concerns.

 

[No.23_Gaylion]

Again bouncing AIs in QM is not the same as bouncing players online. 

 

Being on the recieving end you can see just how little damage you are receiving and just how much input you putting into the controls.

[ZachariasX]

3 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

I always dreamt of a DM where each strut, spar and control cable had its own hitbox - although I can imagine that would be a phenomenal amount of work...maybe one day, though! Despite my inhibitions, I can at least appreciate how ambitious the new DM has been. 

It shouldn't be that hard, as besides the wing spars, cables and joints, there is literally nothing that needs a hitbox other than for depicting resulting cosmetic alterations. If they divided the wing in two entities, one is the spar, the other basically the rest, then you have all you need for plausible DM regarding rigidity.

 

Lets give the devs some breath. I think what they did overall in this current patch is amazing work. But FC needs another look eventually.

[kendo]

23 minutes ago, US213_Talbot said:

Again bouncing AIs in QM is not the same as bouncing players online. 

 

Being on the recieving end you can see just how little damage you are receiving and just how much input you putting into the controls.

 

What's it matter if 'bounced' or online/offline? A Spad and Albatros should surely have same DM and weapons characteristics either way.

 

And watching recorded tracks back in slow motion, with close-up views of hits and damaged areas surely allows you to see and take in more than during the wildness of an MP furball in real time? No?

 

 

Edited April 9, 2020 by kendo

[emely]

43 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

For me it seems like they used the whole wing area as a hitbox that can affect static stability. I can shoot just the trailing end of the wing of a Bristol, where be nothing but two layers of doped canvas. Instead of making just a mags worth of rould holes in that section, after about a full drum, the whole wing will collapse.

This is the biggest problem of the game and its solution, in the near future, is doubtful.We do not know what the developers are talking about when they talk about a fundamentally different calculation of damage in the new DM. 

I think it will not be a mistake to say that the safety factor of the wings of ww1 aircraft is noticeably less than the safety factor of the wings of ww2 aircraft.  This difference is primarily due to differences in design and not in materials.  (Even modern biplanes are configured like a piano when assembling and installing wings. Any skew or uneven tension on the cables and the plane will not fly normally. This is essentially a house of cards, where sometimes it’s worth removing one element and everything will crash.)

Also, the developers of the game mentioned that there is a record of the material of which the wing is made.  Of course, a tree withstands local damage worse than metal.

As a result of the imposition of the game’s limitations and the absence of hit boxes on each individual structural element, not quite real events may appear in the game.

I understand the chagrin of some pilots who are used to getting bullets into their wings with impunity and only laugh at it.  In the game there are a number of aircraft, which with the old DM could be shot down only by hitting the pilot or engine, and their wings were practically not damaged.

It would be wise to find a balance between the two extremes on the issue of broken wings.  Maybe now they are too fragile, but yesterday they were too strong ?

In this battle, the D7f received many hits on the wings, but nothing broke.  Moreover, he practically ignored attacks from the side thanks to this.  My SE also had a number of holes in the wings, but it crashed not for this reason :-))

 

 

[No.23_Gaylion]

6 minutes ago, kendo said:

What's it matter if 'bounced' or online/offline? A Spad and Albatros should surely have same DM and weapons characteristics either way.

 

And watching recorded tracks back in slow motion, with close-up views of hits and damaged areas surely allows you to see and take in more than during the wildness of an MP furball in real time? No?

 

 

 

 

Unless that AI hits you, you aren't feeling the effects of this change. 

 

And the DM between those two planes should not be the same since they are completely different planes.

 

Getting online with a friend and hes telling you where he shot, how many rounds he shot, and what you and the plane do afterwards is entirely different than reviewing a track file. Instantaneous verbal feedback. 

Edited April 9, 2020 by US213_Talbot

[kendo]

Didn't mean that. I meant each plane would be same online as offline.

[No.23_Gaylion]

Ok, were talking two different things here. I'm not saying SP and MP DM are different at all. I'm saying shooting at an AI and saying things are great is not the way to go about it.

 

Grab a friend, shoot eachother up, do basic maneuvers, try to get away, and you'll see it's not looking good.

Edited April 9, 2020 by US213_Talbot

[ZachariasX]

4 minutes ago, emely said:

 Of course, a tree withstands local damage worse than metal.

Depends. I find it very frustrating shooting a beam of wood apart with a 7.5 mm MG. A hit just gives you a small hole. The beam needs to be bent under load to crack (or take many, many hits). Pushing or pulling (this is what the cable arrangement does to the wings statically) will have less effect. But most importantly, you can riddle such a wing with a thousand holes through most of the area and it loses little of is strenght, as the perforated cloth still can provide strenght.

 

You could just set most part of the wings to invulnerable to SMG fire and you'd be there, regardless of how it supposedly does its DM calculations. If you then just make wing spar damage as it is for the whole wing now, we're getting somewhere.

[kendo]

4 minutes ago, US213_Talbot said:

Ok, were talking two different things here. I'm not saying SP and MP DM are different at all. I'm saying shooting at an AI and saying things are great is not the way to go about it.

 

Planes are planes. Guns are guns. I don't see issue. DM does not differ berween AI and player aircraft (of same type) either.

 

Anyway, I'm out. If issues exist to be fixed I hope evidence is provided and devs tweak things as needed to everyone's satisfaction.

 

Edited April 9, 2020 by kendo

[ZachariasX]

13 minutes ago, emely said:

It would be wise to find a balance between the two extremes on the issue of broken wings.

Yes... in the end I am not alarmed. We do get improvements, some things don't work... then we try better. Let's hope there can be some fixes down the road.

[No.23_Gaylion]

Cool. You're not listening. See ya.

[kendo]

Pot kettle black mate...

[SeaW0lf]

19 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Lets give the devs some breath. I think what they did overall in this current patch is amazing work. But FC needs another look eventually.

 

What is strange is that people have been complimenting the original Flying Circus DM during all these years. I think everyone knew about it, or at least should. It was the most mentioned feature of Flying Circus when people were in doubt about buying Flying Circus or not. People would say: "Totally worthy. Flying Circus DM is light years ahead of ROF". I've seen it countless times. It was perhaps the only real feature that we thought really separated FC from ROF (the AI in some way as well).

 

And the patch goes in for a hard tackle exactly on the thing that we were complimenting all along? It is like... What did just happened?

 

And we are overreacting? I don't see anyone offending anyone here. In fact I think people are being extremely reasonable for a patch that just came out. I personally have no passion about it anymore, I'm just working at home and thinking about more important things, but does it make sense? I don't think so. 

Edited April 9, 2020 by SeaW0lf

[ZachariasX]

My guess is that the devs didn't take a look at things the way we do. I mean, it is some new tech under the hood now with more refined effects, also regarding system damage which is great. It appears that this works rather well. But it obviously hasn't been tuned for other parts of the wooden crates yet. But I would really appreciate an official answer on this matter.

 

 

 

[Voyager]

I posted in the main thread, but what I've been seeing is that the wing failures are coming after struts and guide wires have fallen away, and only in regard to when the aircraft is loading the wings.

 

One of the things that struck me earlier in FC is that it is possible to pull enough G's to black out a pilot. The leave me wondering if this is an interaction between an ability to grossly overload an airframe, and a new ability to clip the support structure. I also suspect that structural flexing is not currently modeled, as it only becomes an issue in the post wood and fabric era when one is in the transonic regions (i.e. highspeed roll-reversal).

 

Core questions I'm interested in here are:

 

1) In FC, is material flex modeled? I.E, does it handle bending, or is the structure considered a ridged body?

2) If a round hits a taut guide wire, should the guide wire snap, or deflect?

3) What should the G limits be on the airframes before and after loss of support struts and bracing wire?

4) What are the maximum G loads the plans should be able to generate at a given speed?

 

I suspect we've been rather abusing these airframes without realizing it, and the new structural model is revealing a good bit of that:

 

[Zooropa_Fly]

"I suspect we've been rather abusing these airframes" - is I think a very pertinent comment.

 

I don't think you can hit a guide wire in-game, but I'm not certain.

The black out effects seem to be over-modelled for ww1 crates, as we've had real pilots on here saying it's just about not possible to pull enough sustained G's to black out in them.

I'd guess the air frame would give in before you did.

 

S!

 

[emely]

48 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Depends. I find it very frustrating shooting a beam of wood apart with a 7.5 mm MG. 

Yes, I agree, there are many options.  Much depends on the properties of the bullet.  If it is in a steel shell, then the first wooden part will receive a small hole.  Then the bullet will unfold a little, and the second will be damaged more.  However, if the bullet is entirely made of lead, then the outlet left by it in the first part will not be even

к

Wood has the ability to crack along the fibers of the material, unlike metal . Try to screw a screw into a thin board without a pre-hole, and it will most likely burst along the fibers.

How many wooden parts will a bullet penetrate at such an angle of impact?  And if the angle is even sharper?

н

Also, do not forget that in ww1 aircraft, the wing usually has two spars and serious damage to any of them is fatal.  Also, when the ribs fastening the spars of the ribs are destroyed (which is very likely when firing sideways in the flight plane), a loss of stiffness and a decrease in the resistance to twisting of the entire structure can occur.  Even one broken longitudinal connection is enough for the wing to lose its profile over a large area.  And it will be very noticeable for the pilot

 

[Voyager]

1 hour ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

"I suspect we've been rather abusing these airframes" - is I think a very pertinent comment.

 

I don't think you can hit a guide wire in-game, but I'm not certain.

The black out effects seem to be over-modelled for ww1 crates, as we've had real pilots on here saying it's just about not possible to pull enough sustained G's to black out in them.

I'd guess the air frame would give in before you did.

 

S!

 

 

I'm only going off of seeing them go away after certain hits.

 

The blackout model should be consistent across all aircraft without G-suits, at something like 4-6G's I believe. The P-47, for example, is pretty much impossible to pull blackout G's in, because it's overall turn rate is so low, while a Tempest or P-51 have enough pitch authority to knock you out at ~250-300mpg IAS easily.

 

We should be able to calculate the G-forces by taking the airspeed and turn rate of the aircraft.

 

Has anyone tried using Tacview on Flying Circus tracks, to see if it can give a good G load analysis? I'll have to give it a go later tonight.

[HagarTheHorrible]

Haven't time to read this now, don't know if it adds to the general knowledge base.

 

Aircraft Survivability,  The early years,   Journal: Spring 2017  

[76SQN-FatherTed]

Anyone had a chance to look at the parser to see how much calculated damage (as opposed to visual representation of it) leads to wing-shedding?  Does it show damage happening as a result of pulling G?

[Zooropa_Fly]

I took down x17 bots in an Alby earlier this evening, and only x1 Camel and x1 Bristol were for structural failure.

Wings obviously, and the Camel took a lot of punishment in particular.

Visually there seems to be more breaks and tears which is good.

 

So I don't think we're anywhere near back to RoF 'folding wings syndrome'.

Unless I'm a lousy shot of course.

[No.23_Triggers]

4 hours ago, =CfC=FatherTed said:

Anyone had a chance to look at the parser to see how much calculated damage (as opposed to visual representation of it) leads to wing-shedding?  Does it show damage happening as a result of pulling G?

Gamecock posted a parser on J5 discord where his wing was blown off by *a single round*. 

Edited April 9, 2020 by US93_Larner

[Voyager]

11 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

Gamecock posted a parser on J5 discord where his wing was blown off by *a single round*. 

 

 

 I haven't dealt with the FC parsing before. Could you walk me through what is what there? Just on a naive reading of it, it looks like he was hit at  20:12:53 and continued flying and fighting for another 20 seconds before the wing came off.

[No.23_Triggers]

8 minutes ago, Voyager said:

 

 

 I haven't dealt with the FC parsing before. Could you walk me through what is what there? Just on a naive reading of it, it looks like he was hit at  20:12:53 and continued flying and fighting for another 20 seconds before the wing came off.

So the 0.4% damage is the single bullet hit.  Game said he continued to manoeuvre, and when he went into the vertical (at low enough alt to not survive a bailout according to him, which = can't build up any real dangerous excess of speed), the next 0.4% and 99.2% damage is his ship disintegrating

[DD_Arthur]

57 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

So I don't think we're anywhere near back to RoF 'folding wings syndrome'.

 

Plenty of really good stuff in this new patch but.....

 

 

something has gone wrong for FC....