New DM

[DD_Arthur]

1 hour ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

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.

 

Husar;  can you bring this up in the beta-testers forum?

[No.23_Gaylion]

 

 

 

 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

1 minute ago, DD_Arthur said:

 

Husar;  can you bring this up in the beta-testers forum?

Did that already.

[No.23_Gaylion]

 

 

 

 

[DD_Arthur]

22 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Did that already.

?

[Avimimus]

8 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

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) 

 

You have more faith in people's understandings of physics than I do! But then I've seen people with advanced degrees tell me that even 100+ story buildings would have to tip over to fall down (rather than collapsing vertically)!

 

Anyway, maybe increasing the penetrability of the pilot's body so that a round stands a greater chance of going through the body and hitting the head might help?

 

I can see trying to make pilots a bit resistant to fragments from a 20mm round hitting nearby them... and that making WWI pilots suddenly very durable. Perhaps the addition of a couple of 'vital organ' hitboxes to the pilot would make both situations more realistic (and aircrew damage a bit less predictable)?

[SeaW0lf]

2 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

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.

 

Just to make sure that what I was saying is that the original ballistics of Flying Circus was to me spot on. Repeating, spot on. That Alex Revell never agreed with games using bullet dispersion. This, together with the original Flying Circus damage model, was to me pretty realistic and forced us all to play realistically, aiming generally for pilot, gunner, engine, something that we never did in ROF because it was ten times easier to aim for the wings.

 

I'm trying to make this as clear as possible to have no surprises later on.

[Talisman]

It is all a conspiracy to distract from this, LOL:    ?

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

[J2_Trupobaw]

2 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

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.

 

They did answer my post on Beta forums. No promises, but recognized it needs looking into.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Guys if you want help ,Petrovich said

By the way, any youtube videos where we can see firing ~7.92 mm to something similar to WW1 airplane's wings are very welcome as a prove

•  

[ZachariasX]

Here, MvR supposedly shot one down. Wings didn't collapse. Tommy alive and well. &Loerzer, &Fatty &Willhelm. Good footage rather than proof for whatever.

Spoiler

 

 

Edited April 11, 2020 by ZachariasX

[Fritz_Fagioli]

17 hours 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.....?

 

I have that book too.  Bought it last year at a used book sale.  It's fantastic!

[HagarTheHorrible]

Good morning.

When I flew over to give this talk, I wasn't worried about my plane falling out of the sky, not even after several high-profile plane crashes in recent months and years. But accidents do play on the minds of anyone who is scared of flying.

Mostly this worry is needless. Flying is shown by statistics to be the safest mode of transport. But what if it wasn't? What if every 100th plane crashed? Or every 10th? Or how about every 5th?

What if the survival rate of boarding an airplane was set by a flip of a coin? Would you still board your flight? And what if a 50% rate of survival was considered lucky?

Crew of the Memphis Belle, one of the first bombers to complete 25 combat missions with her crew intact

This is what you faced if you were a crew member of a World War II bomber. You flew long missions that penetrated deep into enemy territory. In anxious anticipation all eyes searched the skies for your opponents armed with machine guns and rockets.

Deadly accurate flak tore through the bombers. More often than not friendly bombs dropped from above, or airplanes collided. And when things went wrong on your plane, the options were limited. You couldn't leave your formation and there was little first aid available. It was so limited that injured crew members were often thrown off the plane in the hope the enemy would find them, patch them up and send them to a POW camp.

A B-24 Liberator flies through heavy flak fire

An airmen's tour of duty was set to 25 missions and later increased to 30. It is estimated that the average airmen had only a one-in-four chance of completing his tour of duty.

The successes were purchased at a terrible cost. Of every 100 airmen, 45 were killed, 6 were seriously wounded, 8 became Prisoners of War and only 41 escaped unharmed – at least physically. Of those who were flying at the beginning of the war, only 10 percent survived. It is a loss rate comparable only to the worst slaughter of the First World War trenches.

A B-24 Liberator shot down by a Messerschmitt Me 262

Nevertheless the Allied command insisted that bombing was critical to the success of the war, so all this destruction lead to a most pressing question: How do you cut the number of casualties?

The bomber command came up with a solution: Bombers should be more heavily armed, to reduce the damage brought by flak and enemy fighter planes. But of course you can't arm the whole airplane like a tank or it won't take off. So the challenge was where to put the additional armor.

As the planes returned from their missions, they counted up all the bullet holes on various parts. The planes showed similar concentrations of damage in three areas:

The fuselage,

the outer wings

and the tail.

The obvious answer was to add armor to all of these heavily damaged areas.

Obvious but wrong.

Before the planes were modified, Abraham Wald, a Hungarian-Jewish statistician reviewed the data. Wald, who fled Nazi-occupied Austria and worked with other academics to help the war effort, pointed out a critical flaw in the analysis: The command had only looked at airplanes which had returned.

Wald explained that if a plane made it back safely with, say, bullet holes in the fuselage, it meant those bullet holes weren't very dangerous. Armor was needed on the sections that, on average, had few bullet holes such as the cockpit or the engines. Planes with bullet holes in those parts never made it back. That's why you never saw bullet holes on sensitive parts of the planes that did return.

This finding helped to turn the tide of the war.

[Beazil]

Bravo Hagar.  This is the point I see so many miss in these discussions on what plane was more resiliant vs what weapon...

Just because you landed your p47 looking more like Swiss Cheese than a fighter on return is not indicative of what a typical warplane might survive.  These are by definition, the exceptions and not the rule.  S! and thanks for making that point.

[HagarTheHorrible]

I want a U2.  Even U2 would want a U2.

.......actually I want what the U2 has.  It seems to be built from sterner stuff than WW1 aircraft, the wings are much more resilient, struts don't vanish, wires don't vanish. The visual damage model is in a different league to those in FC, the damage model of the wings far more robust, even when it takes enormous punishment to one specific area of wing and then the aircraft starts manouvering without becoming a lawn dart.  RoF models might have been remade for FC, but it seems obvious to me, having looked at the Po-2, that it certainly wasn't to the standard that aircraft in BoX are made.

 

Why, it has to be asked is the damage model so different from the FC aircraft ? 

 

If you doubt what I say, simply go attack a U2 in the QMB and marval at how lovely it is by comparison.

Edited April 11, 2020 by HagarTheHorrible

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

I am seriously thinking, now,  that the damage model parameters were just ported to FC from RoF, which is why they seem so familiar.

 

I am seriously thinking that you should stop seriously thinking that is the case, because it just simply isn't true.

[HagarTheHorrible]

Ok. I take it back.  Sorry !   I have yet to see anything, to do with the structural model, that convinces me otherwise though, but it’s early days and I’d be thrilled to be proven wrong.

Edited April 11, 2020 by HagarTheHorrible

[BraveSirRobin]

When BoX was first released I was on comms with Jason one night and I asked him why they couldn’t just make the RoF aircraft available in BoX.  Not for anything realistic, of course, but just for fun.  He said the main reason was the damage model.  It’s completely different in BoX.  So any claims that the RoF DM was just ported over are nonsense. 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

2 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

When BoX was first released I was on comms with Jason one night and I asked him why they couldn’t just make the RoF aircraft available in BoX.  Not for anything realistic, of course, but just for fun.  He said the main reason was the damage model.  It’s completely different in BoX.  So any claims that the RoF DM was just ported over are nonsense. 

 

But when Petrovich sad what he and 3th party did during porting ROF  planes  to FC he did not mention new DM model if I remember correctly.

[Beazil]

16 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

.... any claims that the RoF DM was just ported over are nonsense. 

But for some reason some are still clinging to this.  *shrugs*

 

 

Let it go.  It just isn't true, unless you think that last patch was just .JPGs of 1C staff counting your money....

Trust they know what they are doing.  It's insulting at worst and ignorant at best to suggest otherwise.  Unless you are gifted with the ability to read and interpret the games coding based on what you see happening on your display (pretty impressive feat), and can tell where and how your rounds impacted (bs!), it's conjecture.  You have no way of knowing you hit that enemy plane in the spars 18 times, nor do you know the impact in its flight characteristics.  Testing is different.  It's methodical and repeatable with consistant results.  Spraying at planes in game online or off is not testing.  We don't have those tools in any way other than perhaps with tanks on the ground, but I suggest testing even under those conditions  is flawed.  

Edited April 11, 2020 by JG51_Beazil

[BraveSirRobin]

11 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

 

But when Petrovich sad what he and 3th party did during porting ROF  planes  to FC he did not mention new DM model if I remember correctly.

Ok, I guess Jason just made it up.  ?. You’re aware that Petrovich doesn’t publicly announce every single microscopic detail of what they’re doing, right?

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

7 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Ok, I guess Jason just made it up.  ?. You’re aware that Petrovich doesn’t publicly announce every single microscopic detail of what they’re doing, right?

You can guess what you want...

Pertovich listed all changes they made (even small) becouse someone accuse team to "just port" .   

 

BTW Doing diffrent DM model for FC is "microscopic detail" to you ? ?

Edited April 11, 2020 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[RNAS10_Oliver]

Yeh I do not go along with the "its the same damage model ported" statements. Rather something similar to @Knarley-Bob in saying "the pendulum has swung a bit far" with the new DM in relation to the FC aircraft. Also by the way here's an engagement I had with @J5_Gamecock tonight;

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 11, 2020 by Oliver88

[BraveSirRobin]

7 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

You can guess what you want...

 

I’m not guessing. 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

2 minutes ago, Oliver88 said:

Yeh I do not go along with the "its the same damage model ported" statements. Rather something similar to @Knarley-Bob in saying "the pendulum has swung a bit far" with the new DM in relation to the FC aircraft. Also by the way here's an engagement I had with Gamecock tonight;

 

 

 

 

 

 

Devs worked with new damge calculation made by ammunition.   

1 minute ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

I’m not guessing. 

X

[J5_Gamecock]

18 minutes ago, Oliver88 said:

Yeh I do not go along with the "its the same damage model ported" statements. Rather something similar to @Knarley-Bob in saying "the pendulum has swung a bit far" with the new DM in relation to the FC aircraft. Also by the way here's an engagement I had with @J5_Gamecock tonight;

 

 

 

 

 

Yep. Didn't take much did it? 

 

 Just a quick look at parser showed that before update I took an avg. of 22.18% cumulative damage before structure failed for one reason or another. Since new DM, that avg. is down to 2.78%.

 

 Maybe it's just me.

 

 *Edit FTR, I don't think the ROF model was this bad.  JMO

Edited April 11, 2020 by J5_Gamecock

[BraveSirRobin]

It seems pretty obvious that this is a bug.

[Beazil]

The planes don't have hitpoints.  Posting joules of damage or even that you hit someone does not equate testing.  We don't know where, at what point, and what components were hit in any example you refer to.  It's definately better than nothing, but it's not data that can be used to assert anything other than the number of times your opponent was "hit".  2.8 % damage to a critical control surface might be enough.  It's not enough information.

[RNAS10_Oliver]

8 minutes ago, JG51_Beazil said:

The planes don't have hitpoints.  Posting joules of damage or even that you hit someone does not equate testing.  We don't know where, at what point, and what components were hit in any example you refer to.  It's definately better than nothing, but it's not data that can be used to assert anything other than the number of times your opponent was "hit".  2.8 % damage to a critical control surface might be enough.  It's not enough information.

 

I was posting the sortie logs rather to indicate that Gamecock had not received any other damage that might have contributed to the damage that I made during this short burst to cause such structural failure. Because that's what people would then ask: was he already damaged and did my short burst just seal his fate etc. Was going to add this video, log and the track recording to the post that @J5_Gamecock made in Flight and damage models physics but the track is too large to attach.

Edited April 12, 2020 by Oliver88

[J5_Gamecock]

4 minutes ago, JG51_Beazil said:

The planes don't have hitpoints.  Posting joules of damage or even that you hit someone does not equate testing.  We don't know where, at what point, and what components were hit in any example you refer to.  It's definately better than nothing, but it's not data that can be used to assert anything other than the number of times your opponent was "hit".  2.8 % damage to a critical control surface might be enough.  It's not enough information.

 No, it's not hard data that can be used, it wasn't meant to be.  It does however indicate a trend that perhaps it should be looked at more closely.

[Beazil]

Just now, Oliver88 said:

 

I was posting the sortie logs rather to indicate that Gamecock had not received any other damage that might have contributed to the damage that I made during this short burst to cause such structural failure. Because that's what people would then ask: was he already damaged and did my burst just seal his fate etc.

And I applaud your effort to provide some tagible information!  I forgot these were even available until you posted it.  Thanks!  Maybe that information (what part of the plane was hit where, and by what round at what velocity, and by what force) IS available somehow?  If it is, I'm not aware of it.

 

You posted the information you have available to you.  That's something.  I think sometimes we jump to conclusions with too little information, that's all.  

[DD_Arthur]

2 minutes ago, JG51_Beazil said:

You posted the information you have available to you.  That's something.  I think sometimes we jump to conclusions with too little information, that's all.  

 

For the purposes of this thread you are quite right.  I think people need to set thougts of RoF aside frankly.  Since 2013 the continuous development of the BoX game engine has brought it a long way on from the Digital Nature engine of 2009.

 

58 minutes ago, Oliver88 said:

 Rather something similar to @Knarley-Bob in saying "the pendulum has swung a bit far" with the new DM in relation to the FC aircraft. 

  

Yeah, I agree with this.  At the moment that pendulem is giving the DVa a particularly hard time.    

[Hellequin13]

7 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Petrovich said

By the way, any youtube videos where we can see firing ~7.92 mm to something similar to WW1 airplane's wings are very welcome as a prove

 

 

No such video exists (at least none that I could find yet). One could be made but the expense and time to do so would be a bit much.

 

So lets flip the script: in light of pilot accounts of the relative robustness of their air frames, all the records of kites returning to base riddled with holes yet largely unhindered by the damage, as well as the innumerable pictures of wrecks, all of which seem to still have their wings at hand (negating the survivor bias), what evidence does An. Petrovich have to present to demonstrate that the wings are so easily compromised?

 

Here you can see the cross section of the Albatros D.Va wings. Note the construction of the spar; it is not a solid block of wood but a composite of several pieces. A round passing through the spar, even if it damaged three of the four pieces, would likely not result in a structural failure. The damage would be localized to the individual pieces. The adjacent pieces would support the damaged section, preventing the damage from spreading. It would take multiple rounds in a rather tight grouping to weaken the structure enough to diminish the load bearing capability of the spar.

 

 

The point of biplanes having the lower wing was not for lift, but for structural integrity. The main vector of force applied to the wings (by lift) is in an upward direction, against the downward vector (of gravity) at the fuselage, which creates torque on the spars at the root of the wing. The lower wing generates considerably less lift than the upper wing (due to interference of the air flow over the upper wing) so there is less torque applied to the  lower spar. Tie the upper wing to the lower with struts and in some cases bracing wire, and you strengthen the upper wing against the torque forces.

 

To compromise this structure you would need to sever the ties between the two wings, or weaken the spar of the lower wing. Damage to the upper spars, even near the root would not result in catastrophic failure, unless the spar was near complete destruction, or under considerable load (high G maneuvers) as the lower wing would minimize flex at the point of damage.

The individuals designing these birds were not country bumpkins out in their barns, cobbling sticks together, but educated engineers creating light, strong frameworks. Just go peruse the archives of crashed wrecks, and witness how many of them still retain much of their original structure. If a ~100 mile an hour collision with a planet doesn't cause the whole thing to crumple, do you really think a couple of 8mm holes is going to result in complete structural failure?

 

I am not sure what data we need to present to get the damage model dialed in. I am not even sure what went wrong with the latest update, whether it be in the amount of damage given by the rounds or the amount of damage taken by the spars hit boxes (or if they even updated the hit boxes to the spars, rather than the wing sections). What ever the case, something has clearly gone wrong as the historical record does not jibe with the current simulation. Hopefully we can find a solution, as the current state of the sim is rather disappointing.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

10 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Guys if you want help ,Petrovich said

By the way, any youtube videos where we can see firing ~7.92 mm to something similar to WW1 airplane's wings are very welcome as a prove

•  

 

This request comes off a bit...I don't know.  Almost like he knows no such video exists.  Feels like a bit of a middle finger.

[SeaW0lf]

So here’s two incidents on today’s mission at J5 Flugpark (dusk). And I got two kills in this mission due to Albatroses losing their wings. And all this that I mention in this post just happened in one mission, in the span of 80 minutes.

 

The first one, I got a few hits from a Dr.I, nothing serious. You can see the few hits on the wings. Look at how the Camel is already shaking pretty bad. If I did a shallow dive or something more radical, my wings would just pop off. And the shaking makes a dogfight much more challenging, since the wobbling makes maneuvers get off rail.

 

Here’s the parser.

 

And here’s the video.

 

 

The second one, I just got three hits on my right wing (two holes on the bottom). And the plane is already shaking. I even wrote on chat that I had a dilemma: should I return to base because of those three hits? I ended up getting into a scrap with a few Albatroses, got a couple more hits and my wings folded when I dove to the deck, since I was having a hard time to track them simultaneously (visibility issues on my part).

 

Here’s the parser.

 

And here’s the video.

-------

 

And here’s a video (below) that I made in the same mission, similar altitude to compare the Camel with no damage, and how it waves with turbulence. At the midpoint I leave the auto level to show how it behaves with the stick. It is not a dry, short shake as we can see in the two previous videos, especially the first one, when the video starts with the SE5a at the distance shaking pretty bad on the screen.

 

 

Edited April 12, 2020 by SeaW0lf

[J5_Rumey]

4 hours ago, Hellequin13 said:

So lets flip the script: in light of pilot accounts of the relative robustness of their air frames, all the records of kites returning to base riddled with holes yet largely unhindered by the damage, as well as the innumerable pictures of wrecks, all of which seem to still have their wings at hand (negating the survivor bias), what evidence does An. Petrovich have to present to demonstrate that the wings are so easily compromised?

 

This is rather the way to look at things if you ask me. 

[J2_Oelmann]

6 hours ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

 

This request comes off a bit...I don't know.  Almost like he knows no such video exists.  Feels like a bit of a middle finger.

Take a rifle to the range shoot at some wooden Boards. Measure how much weight is needed to break them with a few holes and without. 

Someone will have rifle 303 british or 7mm Mauser or whatever close to that should be widespread.

Edited April 12, 2020 by J2_Oelmann

[HagarTheHorrible]

If I might venture a theory..............

 

The damage model calculates the damage to different elements in isolation  and doesn’t consider the mutually supporting nature of biplane construction.  To put it another way, the game calculates damage to a particular component part of the structure but does not take into account that that component part is not without “friends” additional structural support by way of struts or bracing, internal or external.  When one side of a reinforced box takes damage, the damage model doesn't consider that there are other parts supporting that side of the box, but when that side loses it’s structural integrity,, because it’s damage calculation is purely on that one part and not that one part +++ reinforcing cross bracing, and “disappears” suddenly the other sides of the box take notice and act accordingly.  Does that make sense ?

 

I’m still waiting for an answer as to why the damage model for the U2 wings is different to that of FC aircraft.  If anything it should be weaker as it doesn’t have the additional (battle damage redundancy) bracing that some (many)  WW1 aircraft have.

Edited April 12, 2020 by HagarTheHorrible

[Dakpilot]

7 pages of discussion 

 

1 single post in bug reports FM and Damage model section.. 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

 

[HagarTheHorrible]

1 minute ago, Dakpilot said:

7 pages of discussion 

 

1 single post in bug reports FM and Damage model section.. 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

 

 

That is to assume it is a bug.  Players who have spent time in RoF might suspect it is part of the design, right or wrong.