New DM

[Voyager]

1 minute ago, US93_Larner said:

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

 

When you do get the track up, would you be able to export it into Tacview? I'm not entirely sure if you can do that from a recorded track, but it would be good to know the actual G forces being pulled. 

[No.23_Triggers]

Can't from the parser unfortunately 

[HagarTheHorrible]

Took a couple of rounds (1 or 2) from a Halb rear gunner, that lightly wounded me, but magically managed to take out all my flying and landing wires on my Camel.  I did get back to base because i took no evasive manouvers, although the aircraft was shaking a bit, all the way home.  Any hint of combat and i would have been toast as soon as I turned. ?

 

I really hope to God hope we don't have to put up with this for too long, I'll be sooooooooooooo disapointed if we end up with fragile wings, that fold after a few hits and a bit of "G".  I was enjoyng FC so much before the patch, now it'll be "Hose from long range and watch them fold as they turn around to face you".

[US103_Baer]

1 hour ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

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

 

 

something has gone wrong for FC....

 

 

Exactly.

That 2nd video. What, maybe 3 rounds max hit the left wing?

And that's against AI not turning. Players will manoeuvre harder than that.

Edited April 9, 2020 by US103_Baer

[Donik]

So, who are the testers anyway?  Are there dedicated testers specifically for FC? Maybe they just forgot the Flying Circus column of the regression testing spread sheet.   I am genuinely curious here, and I would love for them to chime in and let us know why they thought this was the perfect setup for release, and signed off on it.

 

"Yes, this is beautiful. Wings fluttering all over the landscape.  Ship it!"

[No.23_Gaylion]

[Donik]

Binoculars in the perfect location.

[DD_Arthur]

14 minutes ago, Donik said:

So, who are the testers anyway?  Are there dedicated testers specifically for FC? Maybe they just forgot the Flying Circus column of the regression testing spread sheet.   I am genuinely curious here, and I would love for them to chime in and let us know why they thought this was the perfect setup for release, and signed off on it.

 

"Yes, this is beautiful. Wings fluttering all over the landscape.  Ship it!"

 

Completely wrong attitude to take. 

 

One of the avenues to bringing this to the devs attention will be through the beta-testers forum.  Luckily we have an active member of a FC online squad here who is a member of the beta team and I am sure will be just as anxious as the rest of us to get this sorted out. 

[J5_Gamecock]

My shedding wing after single hit.  Thanks to J5_Deadallus for vid.

Parser shows a single hit to my AC, (about 0:43 into vid)  Wing lets go at 1:01

[Donik]

21 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Completely wrong attitude to take. 

 

One of the avenues to bringing this to the devs attention will be through the beta-testers forum.  Luckily we have an active member of a FC online squad here who is a member of the beta team and I am sure will be just as anxious as the rest of us to get this sorted out. 

 

You can park your horse over that way and get off it ->

 

I have no attitude, other than some genuine curiosity, as I stated.  With a bit of good-natured humor at the end.  Sheesh.

[DD_Arthur]

49 minutes ago, Donik said:

  Sheesh.

 

Possibly.

 

However, at the moment this is a show-stopping bug.  My horse and I hope and suspect that it is small problem with some overall wing-damage calculation that the team can recognize and rectify quickly with a hotfix.

 

We should avoid turning it into a finger - or even hoof - pointing exercise that might divert attention from getting this sorted out.

 

     

[No.23_Triggers]

You know, the more I test the more I'm thinking 'bug' as well. Seems like fuselage hits are weakening wings as well. Will do more testing. 

[J5_Adam]

Today offline I shot some rounds into the side fuselage of a Bristol And the back half of the fuselage broke off LOL

[Donik]

Last night in QMB I purposely put my Camels prop into the tail of a Halb.  It completely disintegrated.  It was quite the experience.

[Tycoon]

2 hours ago, J5_Gamecock said:

My shedding wing after single hit.  Thanks to J5_Deadallus for vid.

Parser shows a single hit to my AC, (about 0:43 into vid)  Wing lets go at 1:01

yep this happened to me in a dolphin.

[No.23_Triggers]

That's absolute nonsense. 

 

[ZachariasX]

So far I very much like the new DM for the WW2 aircraft. But for the wooden crates, it doesn‘t work at all. Regardless of where you get a hit on the wing, each hit weakens your whole structure. This is just not how this would work.

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

Weird, McGoun and I just finished shooting up some ai, filled their wings with all kinds of holes, shot the crap out of the pilot and it would continue on, bit wobbly but took a while to lose it's wings, Then I got into a se5 and 1 hit a steep dive and wham my wings fly off. not fun.  

[HagarTheHorrible]

I, personally, find the whole wing shedding, from battle damage highly unlikely (MG fire).  I can certainly understand aircraft coming apart from going beyond their VNE or structural design limits, but that is probably inherent design flaws, rather than a few MG holes, even in wing spars or a damaged flying wire.  Yes, I agree, it could be possible to shoot a wing to pieces, but i would have thought that it was mere chance (hitting a flying wire fixing point for example) or a really concentrated burst of fire, with no relative movement between shooter and hit point and probably from a range  of no more than 50 yards, or much less (Real pilots didn’t try to get that close for fun, or because they felt macho, they did it because that’s how close you had to be to get a concentration of bullets in target and in the correct bit of the structure to be assured of doing some non superficial damage).  So yes, wing collapse, from a chance hit of something absolutely vital, yes to aircraft wing collapsing after going beyond their structural design limits (but not generally bullet related, and we know that inherent design, or manufacturing, flaws aren’t considered in the game, the Albatros lower wing being prime example number one)  and yes to collapse from collision, explosion or fire related weakening (although when an aircraft is on fire it probably goes beyond it’s design capacity anyway, the pilot is probably injured and has lost interest in what the aircraft is doing)

 

While I agree, that we are probably far more aggressive in how we fly our aircraft compared to real life, it isn’t’ very good for the game if you end up with two polar opposites.  On the one hand, an aircraft that can be treated with little consideration for stresses and strains and probably flown beyond what most real life pilots would have considered wise or sensible and aircraft that have potentially taken only a “couple” of hits, at least notionally, to their wings, and become, as a result, matchwood or helpless zombies unable to do anything but take any further attacks coming their way.

Edited April 10, 2020 by HagarTheHorrible

[emely]

9 hours ago, J5_Gamecock said:

My shedding wing after single hit.  Thanks to J5_Deadallus for vid.

Parser shows a single hit to my AC, (about 0:43 into vid)  Wing lets go at 1:01

Perhaps this is too much even for me.  Even the accident itself looks ugly and the wreckage disappears somewhere.  Is this problem particularly noticeable in DM albatross?

 

[Legioneod]

20 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

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.

Wood splinters when hit most of the time. With enough force even a tiny fracture will break. Also the fabric wouldn't do much to hold the wing together, it's not the same as in a metal skinned airframe. Iirc the fabric will rip and gradually get worse due to wind/airspeed.

Edited April 10, 2020 by Legioneod

[DD_Arthur]

3 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

Wood splinters when hit most of the time. With enough force even a tiny fracture will break. Also the fabric wouldn't do much to hold the wing together, it's not the same as in a metal skinned airframe. Iirc the fabric will rip and gradually get worse due to wind/airspeed.

 

I think discussion of what bullets can do to wood is a bit moot at this time.  This update seems to have given Flying Circus a problem in wing strength/damage modelling that I'm quite sure the devs did not intend.

 

Hopefully this can b brought to their attention in a timely manner and they can issue a hotfix.

[2nd_TAF/602Sqn_Puff]

Could it be possible that they have the value for the bullet velocity set at WW2 standards and not from our older mg’s? This could explain why a few shots take wings off. Just a thought.

Edited April 10, 2020 by 602EAF_Puff

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

This whole thing is glorious.  ?

[Zooropa_Fly]

I'm still not seeing wings flying off with any regularity, I guess I am a lousy shot.

Could this predominantly be an Alby issue ?

I was always under the impression that each plane had it's own DM..

[SeaW0lf]

So after a couple of years of aiming for cockpit and engine [the real deal], we are back at spraying wings? People are shredding like paper and breaking apart like a lego? Yesterday I saw some wings flying around and I got the ROF shakes one time. It just horrified me.

 

I just saw a reply to Bidu's post about the Dolphin saying that they could not reproduce the event and everything was ok from the devs side.

 

Is anyone opening a bug / complaint report for people to post the videos and complaints? Otherwise we will be spraying wings and shaking in 2021 as well. I can't do the bug / complaint report. I'm not really good with that and it has a good chance to be dismissed. 

[Zooropa_Fly]

The Bristol wings that detached in front of me evaporated into thin air the split-second they came off.

That's certainly a bug.

[HagarTheHorrible]

8 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

The Bristol wings that detached in front of me evaporated into thin air the split-second they came off.

That's certainly a bug.

 

IF MP, then no, it isn’t a bug, it’s part of program net efficiency.

[HagarTheHorrible]

2 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

I think discussion of what bullets can do to wood is a bit moot at this time.  This update seems to have given Flying Circus a problem in wing strength/damage modelling that I'm quite sure the devs did not intend.

 

Hopefully this can b brought to their attention in a timely manner and they can issue a hotfix.

 

What, you mean like in RoF ?  It’s not like they haven’t had nearly a decade to think about it and I’d be very surprised that any, or some, of the Beta testers weren’t aware of a correlation between the new DM and RoF.

 

I think it is worth considering the numbers, or at least some of them, when we talk about machine guns damaging wings.  A single bullet is unlikely to completely break a spar and most parts of a wing will mutually support small damaged areas, even the fabric skin, if they haven’t been completely destroyed.  Even flying wires, which are usually doubled up, at least on most Allied aircraft, would retain much of their structural integrity, supported by other components of the wing structure, if they haven’t been completely severed.

 

An aircraft travelling at 90 mph will travel approximately 44 yards (meters), or 132 feet,  in one second, during that second a gun firing 600rpm will fire 10 bullets (X2 = 20) , that equates to approx  0,73 yards (meters) of aircraft travel per bullet.  That is even before you consider things like pilot induced error,  such as slip or pulling some angles, aircraft shake, bullet imperfections, gun shake and calculating distance and aiming accurately errors.  The chances of getting a small group of bullets , even within the space that an aircraft occupies when you pull the trigger, unless dead close or when there is no relative change of position between shooter and target, such as dead astern, are vanishingly small.  The aircraft will have traveled 132 feet in the space of time it takes to take a 1 second shot, 132 feet between the first and last bullet.  Machine guns are very effective at taking apart  targets, much more effective than the same number of single bullets fired by several different shooters.  I think when you consider machine gun effectiveness in WW1 aviation it is better to consider it as more akin to several shooters firing single rounds, the weight of destruction that a machine gun provides just isn’t there because the target impact point has moved several yards between each round hitting, it just doesn’t have the same “weight” of fire of several rounds hitting the same, or close to the same, impact point as a stationary MG firing at a stationary target would have.  Manufacturing or maintenance defects, or pilots taking aircraft beyond their design capacity are far more likely reasons for wing failure than a couple of bullet strikes.

Edited April 10, 2020 by HagarTheHorrible

[DD_Arthur]

12 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

An aircraft travelling at 90 mph will travel approximately 44 yards (meters), or 132 feet,  in one second, during that second a gun firing 600rpm will fire 10 bullets (X2 = 20) , that equates to approx  0,73 yards (meters) of aircraft travel per bullet.  That is even before you consider things like pilot induced error,  such as slip or pulling some angles, aircraft shake, bullet imperfections, gun shake and calculating distance and aiming accurately errors.  The chances of getting a small group of bullets , even within the space that an aircraft occupies when you pull the trigger, unless dead close or when there is no relative change of position between shooter and target, such as dead astern, are vanishingly small.  The aircraft will have traveled 132 feet in the space of time it takes to take a 1 second shot, 132 feet between the first and last bullet.  Machine guns are very effective at taking apart  targets, much more effective than the same number of single bullets fired by several different shooters.  I think when you consider machine gun effectiveness in WW1 aviation it is better to consider it as more akin to several shooters firing single rounds, the weight of destruction that a machine gun provides just isn’t there because the target impact point has moved several yards between each round hitting, it just doesn’t have the same “weight” of fire of several rounds hitting the same, or close to the same, impact point as a stationary MG firing at a stationary target would have.  Manufacturing or maintenance defects, or pilots taking aircraft beyond their design capacity are far more likely reasons for wing failure than a couple of bullet strikes.

 

Er....yeah.

 

I think we might be going down a bit of a rabbit hole with this sort of stuff.  It seems to me a bug in the damage calculations with regard to FC.

Is it an across the board thing or related to specific planes?  The Albi are certainly suffering from it.

 

Will try and test some more today after I've checked off a few items from the huge list of domestic shite my wife has handed me.

 

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

Did some quick missions and while I did nor saw off wings with regularity I certainly weakened them and failure would follow after a turn or shallow dive.  Pilot kills would result in plane disintegrating during death spiral.

[HagarTheHorrible]

58 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Er....yeah.

 

I think we might be going down a bit of a rabbit hole with this sort of stuff.  It seems to me a bug in the damage calculations with regard to FC.

Is it an across the board thing or related to specific planes?  The Albi are certainly suffering from it.

 

Will try and test some more today after I've checked off a few items from the huge list of domestic shite my wife has handed me.

 

 

You’re right, but it has persisted in RoF, or it certainly did when I played it.  I doubt the similarities could have been missed by either the developers, or Beta testers  and that they probably consider it to be correct, or at least nearly correct.  It totally skews the game towards getting a few, possibly lucky shots, in early from long range to then have your opponent at your mercy, if they daren’t risk turning into a lawn dart.

[emely]

1 hour ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

 

An aircraft travelling at 90 mph will travel approximately 44 yards (meters), or 132 feet,  in one second, during that second a gun firing 600rpm will fire 10 bullets (X2 = 20) , that equates to approx  0,73 yards (meters) of aircraft travel per bullet.  

The condition for your task is that the machine gun is stationary, and the plane flies past him.  Do you think such conditions are correct?

[J5_HellCat_]

Found this jewel on the WW2 side ...kinda' ironic for the WW1 side ....

 

Quote

This is the key, well placed hits will take down an aircraft. You have to hit the vitals. Don't expect a wing to fold just because you hit a few rounds into it's spar, it just wasn't common at all irl.

 

[No.23_Gaylion]

They fixed the train though! All I wanted.

 

Progress.

Edited April 10, 2020 by US213_Talbot

[SeaW0lf]

Has anyone tested ROF's improved gunnery? It is pretty similar to what we have now. The breaking point on the top wing of the Albatros Dva is the same, in between the first and second rib after the crescent moon cutout of the pilot. The bottom wing also detaches from the fuselage in both models.
 
They could have borrowed the same parameters, but the pattern is the same. You get some hits on the wings, they go for a shallow dive and the wings fold. Or if you get a good burst, the wings just disintegrate.
 
I'm not saying that it is the ROF damage model, but the planes are shaking as well, just like they do in ROF, something we did not have in FC until the plane showed some clear damage.
 
Only they know what they did, but I have a strange feeling that it is the ROF damage model combined with the ballistics we have here, which appears to be the improved gunnery we had in ROF. Flying Circus ballistics is great, don’t change a thing!
 
Could someone test both games (with improved gunnery), aim at the wings and compare?

Edited April 10, 2020 by SeaW0lf

[J2_Trupobaw]

The dev team is now aware of the problem. They need to look into it closer... (please don't flame the messager)

I think the best thing we can do is to test the planes DM in controlled way, record tracks and gather as much evidence as possible that DM is bugged / unplausibly exagerrated. If someone can produce a track where he fires one  pistol round into cockpit floor and his wings magically fall off, it would be ideal ? . But please see if you can critically weaken your own wings with own pistol (especially when hitting other parts than wings ? ). If you have a friend, or two, fly a formation with two seater, fire very short burtsts into fuselage / undercarriage  / engine from rear gun and see if the wings can still sustain a turn or split-s. Find the least, most absurd damage and / or furtherest place from the wings required to make wings foldable under stress. Record everything, so we can give team hard evidence.

Perhaps if there is interest J5 can make a separate testing evening on Flugpark, so people concerned about their v-lifes can test and have parser result?

Also, any videos / data on 7.92 and .303 rounds piercing "material similar to WW1 wings" you can have may be helpful. 

I am away from flying PC for some time, so I'll be late to join that effort.

Edited April 10, 2020 by J2_Trupobaw

[J5_Adam]

Neither Pistol nor flares does any visible damage sitting on the ground in an Albatros. Just to note.

[emely]

I recently read a sensitive post by Larner on the topic of discussing the new version of DM in the central forum.  There is a high probability that thanks to his message, the developers have already paid attention to the damage brought to the reputation of the Flying Circus by very fragile wings, and in the near future they will correct this misunderstanding.  Also, based on the same message, a high probability of fires will most likely be added to the game to match the damage statistics received by the community.

 I hope the gasoline on all aircraft models burns equally hot, and this will not cause any disputes ?

[nickj123]

Just for context - not sure how strong you guys think a WW1 airframe is.....