New DM

[ZachariasX]

Just now, nickj123 said:

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

I see 90% chance of hitting air.

[J5_Adam]

Holy shit. You Mean to tell me that they look like that inside?

[nickj123]

3 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

I see 90% chance of hitting air.

 

Sure, most shots will pass straight through, but it wouldn't take many hits to cause structural failure. I don't play in MP but I'm not really seeing an issue in SP, I'm having to put a lot of rounds into a wing before it folds. Maybe the damage model is somehow different in MP?

[Knarley-Bob]

When I was a kid, I remember reading about them diving too hard at balloons, and snapping the wings off their planes. I just got done sawing the wings off a couple SPADS, kinda fun. When I got this game, I couldn't believe how tough these plane were. And now, I think they may have gone a tad too far the other way, but, who am I to say, I am just a noobie.

[Tycoon]

20 minutes ago, Knarley-Bob said:

When I was a kid, I remember reading about them diving too hard at balloons, and snapping the wings off their planes. 

Did you read about the time in september 1917 when Mcudden fired 3 individual rounds from his damaged lewis and took both right wings off a dfw. 

[HagarTheHorrible]

1 hour ago, nickj123 said:

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

 

 

Actually suprisingly strong, especially when covered in best quality Irish linen.

 

Just for context;

 

Not a million miles away from the dimensions of a spar, fired at from point blank range (by a disguised M-60).  This is the damage a typical round will do to a piece of wood. A wing might look weak and fragile, but for the job for which they are designed they are incredibly strong with numerous reinforcing features, not least of which, the stressed skin fabric. in the above video, while far from perfect, it gives a good example of how little damage is done, even point blank, with a more powerful weapon with a similar size of round.

 

 

20 minutes ago, Tycoon said:

Did you read about the time in september 1917 when Mcudden fired 3 individual rounds from his damaged lewis and took both right wings off a dfw. 

 

Is that the one where the pilot dived for his lines and probably tore the wings off by going beyond the aircrafts design limits ?  I don't think McCudden would have gone all that way just to shoot at wings,  He would have fired into the engine or crew compartment as a matter of course.

Edited April 10, 2020 by HagarTheHorrible

[J5_Adam]

25 minutes ago, Tycoon said:

Did you read about the time in september 1917 when Mcudden fired 3 individual rounds from his damaged lewis and took both right wings off a dfw. 

no that’s incorrect. He sneezed from what I remember 

[No.23_Starling]

Almost every kill narrated by McCudden, Fonck, Bishop etc were hits to meat or metal with a lot of flamers. Almost all wing sheds I’ve read were planes in death dives coming apart after the pilot slumped. The McCudden 2 seater is the only example I can think of where wings were deliberately targeted and failed.

 

The Dv on the other hand was known for losing wings in dives. From what I saw tonight she’s as robust as an SE here. I think the N28 also had a problem with the top wing coming apart.

[Knarley-Bob]

        Ever heard of Eddie Rickenbacker ?

His fourth kill was an Albatross, one plane in a flight of three....

"As the distance closed to 50 yards I saw my tracer bullets piercing the back of the pilot's seat" He wrote "The Boche had made the mistake of trying to out dive me instead of of outmaneuvering me. He paid for his blunder with his life". The action almost cost Rickenbaker his own life. As he pulled out of his attack, he heard a crash "that sounded like the crack of doom". The top right wing of his Nieuport had collapsed and he watched it's canvas covering blow away. Just a few days earlier the same thing happened to James Norman Hall, who had crashed  and was taken prisoner.

And I end quote: Time Life Books, THE EPIC OF FLIGHT, Knights of the air, Pg 157

 

A sneeze indeed.....?

 

Edited April 10, 2020 by Knarley-Bob

[No.23_Starling]

Yes the N28 was known for the issue. I’ve also read Fighting the Flying Circus.

 

Other than planes known for structural issues like the Dv and N28, wing snips are not recorded with much frequency in kills. Why else would the Jastas be told to aim for meat or metal? Otherwise they’d have been told ‘put 2 rounds into the SE’s wings and get them into a basic vertical manoeuvre’. 

[Knarley-Bob]

Didn't say it was an every day type of deal now did I? But on  a blue moon I can see it......

Like I said, seems the pendulum as swung a bit far, is all.

[No.23_Starling]

6 minutes ago, Knarley-Bob said:

Didn't say it was an every day type of deal now did I? But on  a blue moon I can see it......

Like I said, seems the pendulum as swung a bit far, is all.

100% agree ?

[SeaW0lf]

1 hour ago, Tycoon said:

Did you read about the time in september 1917 when Mcudden fired 3 individual rounds from his damaged lewis and took both right wings off a dfw. 

 

You can't really base the whole DM in one account. Many things could have happened and the bullets probably got into a lucky spot, that's all. If that would happen let's say 0,5% of the time, meaning that every 200 deaths that you have, one is that someone got a couple hits and your plane got dissembled, fine, but not what we are seeing.

 

During the war they aimed for the gunner, pilot and engine in general. If that's not indication enough that to fire at the wings did not give much positive results, you can take the accounts of planes being hit several times, canvas full of holes, and they just kept going with their patrols. When they were hit on the cockpit, sometimes they reported broken struts and such, and then they returned to base, but we don't have a damage model that precise that you can get sprayed in the cockpit and fate determined that you got unscathed, just with light damage to your plane. Here we have few hit boxes and not that level of detail.

 

The diving thing or to pull some turns is particularly disturbing, meaning that if you get hit, you need to exit the dogfight, something that often is not possible. Meaning that a couple hits will kill you soon or later. That's just preposterous. It also means that if a two-seater got a couple hits on you from 1km away, you have to leave you patrol and return to base to don’t risk lose your wings while doing a bounce. That’s crazy as well.

 

The other problem is the shaking thing. The original Flying Circus damage model was spot on. You could get hits, you could keep dogfighting, and you only shook after visible damage to the frame, wings, tail. It provided fuel for long, epic dogfights, just as we all read in books.

 

They could have maintained the damage model that way and just tweak fuel leaks, the dusting carpet hits, some engine failure, that sort of thing.

 

The spraying is back, the shaking is back, and it is just awful. 

[No.23_Starling]

Seawolf - 100% spot on.

[No.23_Gaylion]

18 minutes ago, Knarley-Bob said:

        Ever heard of Eddie Rickenbacker ?

His fourth kill was an Albatross, one plane in a flight of three....

"As the distance closed to 50 yards I saw my tracer bullets piercing the back of the pilot's seat" He wrote "The Boche had made the mistake of trying to out dive me instead of of outmaneuvering me. He paid for his blunder with his life". The action almost cost Rickenbaker his own life. As he pulled out of his attack, he heard a crash "that sounded like the crack of doom". The top right wing of his Nieuport had collapsed and he watched it's canvas covering blow away. Just a few days earlier the same thing happened to James Norman Hall, who had crashed  and was taken prisoner.

And I end quote: Time Life Books, THE EPIC OF FLIGHT, Knights of the air, Pg 157

 

A sneeze indeed.....?

 

 James Hall crashed after an antiaircraft round nailed him directly in the engine AND DIDN'T EXPLODE. 

 

Your confused with Meissner, to which the canvas tearing from the upper wing happened twice.

[Tycoon]

I've played some more and I now agree not only is this as bad as ROF was, it's worse, borderline unplayable. 

[No.23_Starling]

7 minutes ago, Tycoon said:

I've played some more and I now agree not only is this as bad as ROF was, it's worse, borderline unplayable. 

I actually love all the other DM changes. The team have done a brilliant job with subtle things like the FX when metal parts are hit, a much improved wounding model, and it looks like you can get minor fuel leaks rather than big ones. So cool! But as a BnZ fan the wing shedding is such a shame. It seems central and entente jockeys generally both agree on this point. 

[Tycoon]

37 minutes ago, No56_Waggaz said:

I actually love all the other DM changes. The team have done a brilliant job with subtle things like the FX when metal parts are hit, a much improved wounding model, and it looks like you can get minor fuel leaks rather than big ones.  

sounds cool, haven't seen any of that though cause my wings are gone after the first bullet.

[J5_Gamecock]

3 hours ago, nickj123 said:

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

 

Not sure you understand the issue.    Unless it is a very well placed shot, it should take quite a few rounds to a specific point, on the spar or a specific rib, to cause enough damage to cause the entire structure to fail. Most rounds would pass right through the linen.  If they did hit anything,  a  7.9mm or .303 round is approx. 5/16 of an inch in diameter. Damage to the wood would be minimal.

 

 That's not whats happening here.

56 minutes ago, No56_Waggaz said:

I actually love all the other DM changes. The team have done a brilliant job with subtle things like the FX when metal parts are hit, a much improved wounding model, and it looks like you can get minor fuel leaks rather than big ones.

 I've heard that from most guys,the new effects are great.  I was under the impression that fuel leaks already did vary in  size.... no?

Edited April 11, 2020 by J5_Gamecock

[emely]

2 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

 

in the above video, while far from perfect, it gives a good example of how little damage is done, even point blank, with a more powerful weapon with a similar size of round.

Now let these guys put this propeler with holes on their plane and fly on it.  May not even take off their white robes with this action. There is no problem finding a video on the network where fans of rifle shooting pierce through and through 10 or more thick boards of one bullet with a steel shell.  And the holes in these boards are quite even by sight. 

I am not saying that the wings should fall as intensively as in the new DM.  The new DM also does not suit me, as well as many.  But I take this without any particular emotions, because I am sure that the situation will be changed.

But the previous DM was not all good.  On some planes, the wings took damage from bullets, while on other planes this damage remained almost invisible.  Why?  After all, their design is very similar and the manufacturing materials are the same

I think that the mechanical properties of wood in case of damage, directly, without taking into account additional factors introduced into the new DM, have led to the current situation.

p.s.  And all the same, no normal pilot will fly voluntarily on an airplane with such a shot propeller ?

 

[nickj123]

1 hour ago, J5_Gamecock said:

Not sure you understand the issue.    Unless it is a very well placed shot, it should take quite a few rounds to a specific point, on the spar or a specific rib, to cause enough damage to cause the entire structure to fail. Most rounds would pass right through the linen.  If they did hit anything,  a  7.9mm or .303 round is approx. 5/16 of an inch in diameter. Damage to the wood would be minimal.

 

 That's not whats happening here.

 I've heard that from most guys,the new effects are great.  I was under the impression that fuel leaks already did vary in  size.... no?

 

Sure, one or two hits to the spars and ribs aren't typically going to destroy a wing in normal flight, but it would only take a bit of damage to the ribs and spars to fundamentally damage the structural integrity, which would then become apparent when you load the wing in a tight turn.

 

Like I said, the only wing shedding I've seen is after repeated fire to the top section of the wing above the engine. But hey, maybe you should try not to get hit in the first place. ?

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, nickj123 said:

Maybe the damage model is somehow different in MP?

 

There is one damage model for all modes of gameplay.

[No.23_Triggers]

40 minutes ago, nickj123 said:

hey, maybe you should try not to get hit in the first place. ?

He's solved it, boys! 

-----------------------------
 

Some quotes from Charles J. Biddle's book: 

"they began shooting too far away, put a couple of bullets through his wings and warned him. He promptly stood on his nose and dove vertically for six thousand feet with his motor at extreme high speed. I never saw a machine go down so fast and it's a wonder he never pulled his wings off. I think he would have, in anything other than a Spad". 

"A bullet hole through the cloth of a wing does practically no harm at all, and the mechanics just glue a little patch over it when you come home. You can find these patches on the majority of the machines". 

 

Cut to Gamecock losing his wings in a Split-S after taking 2 hits 

Edited April 11, 2020 by US93_Larner

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

53 minutes ago, nickj123 said:

But hey, maybe you should try not to get hit in the first place. ?

 

I hear it's pretty safe when you're invisible.

[No.23_Triggers]

14 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

I hear it's pretty safe when you're invisible.

Don't be so sure....once on a sortie with Talbot I saw him fire into thin air, only to see a Fokker with a dead pilot appear in front of me....

[No.23_Gaylion]

^love KIFA boner right now.

[J5_Gamecock]

“I zoom up violently, the pressure pushes me into my seat, my sight goes for a second, then more shots, they’re both at me, I’m skidding madly, zooming, doing flat turns, quick rolls, anything to stop them getting a bead on me, throwing the poor old Pup around, my gentle sensitive Pup, her startled shudders of protest almost hurt, but there’s no smooth flying in a shambles like this, it’s ham-fisted stuff or you’re out.”  –Arthur Gould Lee

[Avimimus]

One always has to remember that there are aerodynamic forces working on these airframes as well... so they are under stress prior to having bullets go through them and static tests on the ground against a piece of wood are not realistic tests.

 

So, if I shoot out some struts on the lower wing of the Bristol Fighter and all four wings crumple as it loses rigidity - I don't see it as necessarily inaccurate.

 

That said, I just shot down three of them with an S.E.5's Lewis gun... and it seems that, from below at least, the pilot is armoured. I actually shot the entire rear-fuselage off in one of the tests. However, in none of the tests was I able to hit the pilot from below. Can anyone else confirm this? Because my impression is that the aircrew are far too well protected.

Edited April 11, 2020 by Avimimus

[No.23_Triggers]

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

One always has to remember that there are aerodynamic forces working on these airframes as well... so they are under stress prior to having bullets go through them and static tests on the ground against a piece of wood are not realistic tests.

 

So, if I shoot out some struts on the lower wing of the Bristol Fighter and all four wings crumple as it loses rigidity - I don't see it as necessarily inaccurate.

 

That said, I just shot down three of them with an S.E.5's Lewis gun... and it seems that, from below at least, the pilot is armoured. I actually shot the entire rear-fuselage off in one of the tests. However, in none of the tests was I able to hit the pilot from below. Can anyone else confirm this? Because my impression is that the aircrew are far too well protected.

1) I really doubt that anyone here's forgotten that. Unfortunately, unless we want to wreck a historic machine and kill a pilot, static tests on the ground and / or pilot accounts from 100 years ago are all we have to work with.

2) you can kill pilots from below. The aircrew do feel far too difficult to injure and kill, though - especially from dead six. The effect is worsened with body shots now doing less damage - the other day I wounded a pilot 6x before finally killing him with a long burst (pilot was a squad mate, we were doing training in a private server) 

[ZachariasX]

8 hours ago, nickj123 said:

but it wouldn't take many hits to cause structural failure.

If hitting the aircraft gives you only 10% chance of hitting where it matters, that is 10 hits out of 100 you land on that aircraft. How long do you think you have to fire at that crate to land 100 hits? Or do yo honestly that they will fall apart after 5 hits? They were made with the idea in mind that those crates were shot at, hence they often feature redundant contrils and support.

[ZachariasX]

"Behrend hat saures bezogen!"

The look on his face must be his surprise that nothing came off after receiving 21 hits, right? Or maybe he was just happy not being hit himself?

 

[HagarTheHorrible]

5 hours ago, emely said:

Now let these guys put this propeler with holes on their plane and fly on it.  May not even take off their white robes with this action. There is no problem finding a video on the network where fans of rifle shooting pierce through and through 10 or more thick boards of one bullet with a steel shell.  And the holes in these boards are quite even by sight. 

I am not saying that the wings should fall as intensively as in the new DM.  The new DM also does not suit me, as well as many.  But I take this without any particular emotions, because I am sure that the situation will be changed.

But the previous DM was not all good.  On some planes, the wings took damage from bullets, while on other planes this damage remained almost invisible.  Why?  After all, their design is very similar and the manufacturing materials are the same

I think that the mechanical properties of wood in case of damage, directly, without taking into account additional factors introduced into the new DM, have led to the current situation.

p.s.  And all the same, no normal pilot will fly voluntarily on an airplane with such a shot propeller ?

 

 

The fact that it is a propeller is interesting, but not essential, to what I was trying to demonstrate.  It simply shows what a bullet, of similar caliber to a 303 or 7.7,  will typically do to a piece of timber, even at point blank range (make a hole, but not much else).  The fact that the timber was under “some” stress because it was going around was helpful in demonstrating that even with damage the bit of wood retained it’s structural integrity.  Actually the wood itself, whether spars, struts or ribs, are not the weakest link and will suffer only limited damage, as demonstrated, the parts most likely to affect the structural integrity of a wing, if damaged,  are the bracing wires, either internal or external and they make up an extremely small part of the overall volume of the wings and area in between.  Even the wires themselves are made from multiple strands and would need to be totally severed to snap the whole cable and besides the internal bracing is not under such high tension.

 

What I was trying to show earlier, when I talked about rate of fire and distance of travel of an aircraft, was to dispel any idea that just because a machine gun is used that it was producing some sort of death ray stream of bullets.  There are, potentially whole aircraft sized gaps between bullets, machine guns get much of their destructive power from applying a lot of weight to a concentrated point in a concentrated length of time.  In the case of WW1 aerial combat the gaps between bullets, unless shot from point blank, in ideal circumstance, are never going to achieve that concentration of rounds in one area to destroy a wooden structural member.  The ribs make up the majority of the parts, area wise, but provide shape rather structural strength and there are enough of them that even if one is damaged, and a single bullet is unlikely to damage it much, it’s neighbours will continue to provide all that is required.  The wings of biplanes just aren’t that vulnerable to damage inflicted by single 7.7mm, non explosive bullets and the spread of shots are extremely unlikely to damage any one wooden component, or area, enough to cause it’s complete failure, even under stress because it is supported and reinforced by several other elements.

[Feathered_IV]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

"Behrend hat saures bezogen!"

The look on his face must be his surprise that nothing came off after receiving 21 hits, right? Or maybe he was just happy not being hit himself?

 

 

Fotoshoppen 1917

[ZachariasX]

39 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

Fotoshoppen 1917

 

It would be an unusual example for that. They mostly did such in a more coarse way:

 

 

Btw., FC is not finished until we get Central elephants! I trust the devs implement a good DM for those as well. They have a thick skin, some say. I hope they adjust the DM for that.

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

[SeaW0lf]

14 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

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.

 

I could not find a post from the devs on this. Is there a link? Could you give us some context?

 

Because on this side of the forum, people who is mostly acquainted with WWI is considering the new DM at least a bug. Then I'm not sure what are they expecting from us to present. 

 

Or they just asked for proof? Sorry to ask you, but as I said, I did not find any post from them to get my bearings on this.

[HagarTheHorrible]

Given that it seems to have been present in RoF for several years I can’t think that the Developers consider it to be a bug.  What one has to ask is, given the NEW work done on structural integrity why it seems so achingly similar to work from the past decade and why they consider several spaced out, non explosive bullets can have such a profound impact on structural strength of a wing.

[Feathered_IV]

Their focus is elsewhere.  Flying Circus is not a priority.  If anything, I suspect it is a headache.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

16 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

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

No it's not true, they can read our posts that's it - just that,  what this silence meant , we all have individual conjectures. Unfortunately I have bad feeling that this state of the matter will not change any time soon.

 

[SeaW0lf]

1 hour ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

Given that it seems to have been present in RoF for several years I can’t think that the Developers consider it to be a bug.  What one has to ask is, given the NEW work done on structural integrity why it seems so achingly similar to work from the past decade and why they consider several spaced out, non explosive bullets can have such a profound impact on structural strength of a wing.

 

Back then, the talks were that they considered the ROF damage model + improved gunnery the real thing. Since people disagreed, I think the talk was that they created the bullet dispersion to alleviate the problem, since improved gunnery and the ROF damage model was an explosive mix.

 

Then we got to FC and they apparently kept the same concentrated ballistics, which is on par with what Alex Revell told me, that he considered bullet dispersion nonsense (McCudden was a good shot and extremely keen on aligning his sights). But the catch is, the damage model was different. You could get his and don’t shake, you could dogfight and be punished and keep fighting until the damage was visible. Just then the plane started to shake and deviate from the original aerodynamics. Just everything aligned with what I have seen in books all these years. People started [were forced to] to aim for pilot and engine, gunner, just like they did in the war. It changed multiplayer dynamics dramatically. That’s why everyone who questioned the buy, people would chime in and say “but the DM is so superior”. I’m not saying it is 100% perfect, but it is much more believable than the previous setting in ROF. It gave us rapport, that feeling that it was real, those butterflies in the stomach.

 

To me, that’s what a simulator is all about.

 

Hence why I was looking for it in ROF and finding so many similarities with the updated FC damage model. I just organized my last tracks and to me it looks so similar. The wings and fuselage starts to get some hits, the surface wrinkles, the plane starts shaking and all of the sudden the wings pops out like a Lego. If it was that way, no one would ever aim for the pilot, ever.

 

Is that going to be an uphill battle to get rid of the shakes and wings popping off? That’s why I’m looking for clues. What is strange is: why are we even discussing it? This should be a given, right? Improve some details, cool, give some sparse random failures after some critical hits, fine, in general some compromises, but go back to a system 10 years old and unrealistic?

 

Perhaps I’m wrong.

 

10 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

"A bullet hole through the cloth of a wing does practically no harm at all, and the mechanics just glue a little patch over it when you come home. You can find these patches on the majority of the machines". 

 

Good find.

Edited April 11, 2020 by SeaW0lf

[Red_Von_Hammer]

If (thats an IF, for anyone wanting to blast me here) theyre making it all the same anyway (which they said they wouldnt do), I dont see why they dont just port everything over from RoF.