DM poll

[emely]

In fact, when shooting strictly from six, everything looks pretty good.  Problems begin when trying to make maneuvers.  But such an angle of hits, this is a special case.  Most often, shooting occurs at larger angles. The wings of CL2 look especially bad in the game (even worse than that of AlbV).  They are rarely attacked from exactly six, but their wings fly off like leaves from trees in late autumn.

It is logical to assume that the less space the spar occupies, the less likely it is to get into this spar when firing at an angle to the wing plane.  Just by sight, for AlbV it will be ~ 3%, and for Dr1 it will be ~ 20%.  I wonder if this is taken into account in the game, or is this parameter the same for all planes?

At least, the area of hit boxes for airplanes with one spar should be half as much, but it will be less accurate.

 

[Tycoon]

2 hours ago, J5_Gamecock said:

 

 True. Still, the SPAD wing was thinner than that of most of its time. Its strength came from being made from many smaller cells of thinner materials.  It was very strong in a dive. 

 

  Charles D'Olive was quoted as saying he knew a pilot that got credit for knocking down two DVII's without firing a shot. They followed him in a dive, and when he pulled up they both lost their wings trying to follow.

 

 

 

  

 

 

I thought the d7 had one of the strongest wings of ww1.

[No.23_Triggers]

9 minutes ago, Tycoon said:

I thought the d7 had one of the strongest wings of ww1.

Not when it's chasing a SPAD at redline speed! Some sources have claimed the SPAD could get above 300 mph without breaking! 

[Tycoon]

2 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

Not when it's chasing a SPAD at redline speed! Some sources have claimed the SPAD could get above 300 mph without breaking! 

No kidding, interesting. 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

@AnPetrovich I'm very surprised about with spars of Sopwith Dolphin , that it dimensions were not changed , because heard from others and flew it and my impression is that this plane wings are significantly weaker that on others , it's true that they are big and easy to aim  but looks hard build. Speaking about wing strength in G load .

Edited May 7, 2020 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[HagarTheHorrible]

3 hours ago, Tycoon said:

I thought the d7 had one of the strongest wings of ww1.

 

It might have been a difference of opinion, between the lift of the wing and the weight of the fuselage/engine/pilot etc and the capacity of the attachment points between the two, saying “Sod this for a game of soldiers” and deciding to part company.

 

There might also be a gap between “wing” and “structure”.  The “wing” of a D. VII might have been stronger than a traditional “thin” wing, but a biplane “beam” structure might have been stronger still.  I expect torsional forces play a not insignificant part in wing durability.

 

Just out of interest I came across this page when trawling the net; 

 

 

 

Case study of D.VII

Edited May 7, 2020 by HagarTheHorrible

[unreasonable]

Hooray for me!  As the person who gave the one of the closest answer s (20-20) .... where is my prize?  But then I actually did a test of the specific scenario that AnP presented, rather than just emote.  It took me all of about twenty minutes.  So much for what the game actually does. 

 

What it should be is a little harder, but then examining MvR's victories he got a few planes where wings collapsed with relatively small reported ammunition expended, so we know it can happen.

 

What I would like to see is AnP's test robot firing from an angle from above - 45 degrees and 90 degrees.  The concern seems to be that hits across the whole wing surface are, on average, having too much effect given that only a fraction of them would hit a spar. 

 

  

Edited May 7, 2020 by unreasonable

[kendo]

9 hours ago, J5_Baeumer said:

Andy, thanks for your work on this.  However, I believe that what your data also shows is that, on average, players believe that the damage should be 4.48 TIMES harder than it is currently.  So your not really in the sweet spot at all.  It doesn't matter what our guesses at the number of bullets it takes to drop the wings in your example vs. what you KNOW the number of bullets is.....it is the ratio of the desired number of bullets to drop the plane/wing (what feels right) divided by our perception of the current number of bullets required to drop the plane/wing that provides you with the insight into how far off the community believes the DM is.

 

So whatever your settings are currently, the community desires a damage model that is 4.48x more difficult than you have currently modeled.

 

Sorry but I disagree. Two things:

1. You have compared the community perception against the community desire. That was indeed out by a factor of 4.48. But you need to compare the actual reality in sim now (black line on the third graph) against community desire. Black line showing the ACTUAL situation in sim shows an average around roughly 25 hits.

So, the difference from situation 'now' to the 'community desire' is actually only out by factor of about 1.4.

And with the changes to wing spar strength to come in the next update that may get us very close. (for example: looks like the Albatros will have almost double the current wing strength)

And this is really the key. What the experiment showed was that the community perception of the current sim DM was WRONG.  Community perception thought on average it took 7.68 hits to break the wing, when actually it is averaging around 25. Somehow people are noticing (and getting annoyed by) the quick breaks and discounting those times it takes more bullets.

 

2. You say that the goal should be to align the DM with the 'community desire'.

 

Why?

 

Why prioritise feeling and 'desire' when attempting to decide what the correct situation should be?

Community has already demonstrated that their 'feeling' of the current situation in the sim is off by more than a factor of 3.  (25/7.6875) And that judgement is from something everyone has been playing and directly experiencing for the last month.

So, how likely is it that community 'feeling' will manage to accurately judge the reality of WW1 aerial combat - where they have no direct experience whatsoever?

The current DM is at least based on real-life physical parameters and modelling. Some corrections to those parameters will be made in the next update. I agree with US93_Larner: we should wait and see the result of those changes, and then decide if more needs to be done.

But, any changes need to be based on evidence and not just feelings. (Same situation really as for getting changes made to the FMs.)

I would love someone to be able to find good statistical data on actual causes of aircraft loss from WW1 - showing specifically proportion of wing loss against pilot kills, engine loss, etc.

 

Then we could run experiments in the game (using their 10,000 at a time tool) and compare directly, and tweak everything to match.

That's what is needed to progress on this I think. But I personally don't want it to be changed to match 'feelings'.

 

 

and PS Emely: still no green elephants ?

 

 

Edited May 7, 2020 by kendo

[BMA_Hellbender]

*fuels up the Bristol*

 

[J2_Bidu]

1 hour ago, kendo said:

What the experiment showed was that the community perception of the current sim DM was WRONG.

 

This is an important issue: the experiment did NOT show such a thing. It showed that given a specific question answers were quite a bit off. I could care less about the number of bullets. I never thought in those specific terms. I just roughly felt that planes should not fall apart that easily. Our overall perception of the sim has no direct relation with our ability to answer that very specific question.

 

Another common misconception is that the opinion of the average is the average of the opinions. It's not.

Edited May 7, 2020 by J2_Bidu

[No.23_Gaylion]

The main issue is not what should happen when sitting on the six and attacking someone who does not react. 30 rounds at a plane is a holding the trigger for TWO solid seconds. How often does one get that opportunity? Sitting and firing away for a solid TWO seconds.

 

Pretty much never. 

 

The problem lies in what happens immediately after you start firing at someone- you score a couple hits in about a second or so and then that person does ANY defensive maneuver and the wings go right off. That is the problem.

  

Edited May 7, 2020 by US93_Talbot
three seconds to two seconds.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

You're saying these guns are firing at 300 rpm?

 

Every time you pull the trigger, say in your head "six round burst" (a mental trick taught to me learning to fire just one machine gun).  It doesn't take long.  Simply put, we have two machine guns on these aircraft, and most of you are firing far more rounds than you think.  Combined with the super-accuracy (and possibly too-high rates of fire?) we have in this game, perception is in a prime situation to deceive us.

Edited May 7, 2020 by J28w-Broccoli

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

2 hours ago, kendo said:

 

 

and PS Emely: still no green elephants ?

 

 

 

I thought I did on the way to work but it was just an obese person in green scrubs and a face mask.

 

[Zooropa_Fly]

It might be worth considering, when trying to compare how 'kills' are achieved in-game vs real life reports..

That in-game we have virtual pilots who are incredibly hard to disable - I sometimes feel I've nobbled the pilot about 10x before he eventually capitulates.

That being the case, I'm firing way more rounds into the air frame than would have happened in real life - where, except for a few notable cases, one or two bullets in the enemy pilot would have ended the fight.

 

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

3 minutes ago, J5_Klugermann said:

 

I thought I did on the way to work but it was just an obese person in green scrubs and a face mask.

 

 

Run of the mill NHS nurse.  Check.

[emely]

17 minutes ago, US93_Talbot said:

 

The problem lies in what happens immediately after you start firing at someone- you score a couple hits in about a second or so and then that person does ANY defensive maneuver and the wings go right off. That is the problem.

  

Yes

This situation, when several different questions came together in one pile, is it by chance or on purpose?

1) Shooting from the six until the spar breaks at 1G

2)Reducing the strength of the wing from one hit when performing maneuvers and increasing the level of G (the parser showed that in some cases three hits are enough)

3)Accumulation of spar damage due to hits over the entire wing area.

 

Point number 3 is the most dubious, in my opinion.

 

 

2 hours ago, kendo said:

 

and PS Emely: still no green elephants ?

 

 

Hope dies last ?

16 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

 

That in-game we have virtual pilots who are incredibly hard to disable - I sometimes feel I've nobbled the pilot about 10x before he eventually capitulates.

That being the case, I'm firing way more rounds into the air frame than would have happened in real life - where, except for a few notable cases, one or two bullets in the enemy pilot would have ended the fight.

 

Here, perhaps, the properties and quality of communication with the server have an effect.  In my experience, playing on a server with a low ping (Berloga) and high (Flugpark) have significant differences.  With low ping, the percentage of successful hits is much higher.

[No.23_Gaylion]

1 hour ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

You're saying these guns are firing at 300 rpm?

 

Every time you pull the trigger, say in your head "six round burst" (a mental trick taught to me learning to fire just one machine gun).  It doesn't take long.  Simply put, we have two machine guns on these aircraft, and most of you are firing far more rounds than you think.  Combined with the super-accuracy (and possibly too-high rates of fire?) we have in this game, perception is in a prime situation to deceive us.

 

**Smart-ass hat on**

 

If only there were a way to check this...... 

 

Like going in a QM and turning the HUD on....

 

And holding the trigger down for two seconds....

 

And noting how many rounds you just fired from the total amount you carried....

 

By looking at the number of rounds subtracted from the whole....

 

The guns have a cyclic rate of 650 rounds per minute. Divide that by sixty seconds, ten rounds a second...

 

But wait! There's more! Interruptor gear changes the rate of fire! And you have TWO guns!

 

So perhaps start back at my first sentence so you don't have to resort to maths.

 

**smart-ass hat off**

 

It's actually two second burst from D7 guns fire around 25-30 rounds, not three second. At work and misremembered.

 

Gfy.

 

"Die, motherfu*ker, die" is the proper phrase you want to recite in your mind.

 

Edited May 7, 2020 by US93_Talbot

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

And you have two guns; and rate of fire can increase (to a point, but not beyond limitation of the gun) and decrease with rpm.  Many of us are firing in a dive.

 

And sorry about the phrasing.  Mine was from back when you guys actually won wars.

Edited May 7, 2020 by J28w-Broccoli

[No.23_Gaylion]

Good one.

 

15 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

And you have two guns; and rate of fire can increase (to a point, but not beyond limitation of the gun) and decrease with rpm.  Many of us are firing in a dive.

 

And sorry about the phrasing.  Mine was from back when you guys actually won wars.

 

Just go make a damn QM and check you whingeing sob!

 

?

 

Anyway, twenty rounds is what his tool says is average round to break the wing. Thats a two second burst, roughly. 

 

So we can go try that if we want.

Edited May 7, 2020 by US93_Talbot

[kendo]

2 hours ago, emely said:

Yes

This situation, when several different questions came together in one pile, is it by chance or on purpose?

1) Shooting from the six until the spar breaks at 1G

2)Reducing the strength of the wing from one hit when performing maneuvers and increasing the level of G (the parser showed that in some cases three hits are enough)

3)Accumulation of spar damage due to hits over the entire wing area.

 

Point number 3 is the most dubious, in my opinion.

 

 

Agree Point 3) is possibly an issue, but my understanding of what is going on seems to be different from yours slightly, and overall I'm not sure whether their simplified approach results in unrealistic outcomes?

 

I may be wrong, but here it is...

 

Petrovich said that they concluded that physically modelling the hits using a detailed 3-d wing structure (spars, ribs, etc in 3-d space) would be too demanding for current PCs.

 

So instead they use a simplified version - with the probablity of hitting a spar varying depending on spar/wing dimensions and angle. So from dead 6, very high likelihood. From directly above, much lower - say for example maybe 1/16th chance of a hit on a wing section from directly above being judged to hit a spar. (the actual probability can be determined very accurately for each aircaft given accurate info on spar dimensions and wing size)

 

So this doesn't mean that every hit on a wing from above is registering as a hit on the spar. On average 15 bullets will miss and 'hit air'. As an abstraction to simplify everything and save CPU cycles it generally, I think, in most game situations, on average will produce a number of spar hits similar to reality. ?

 

But what the video shows is that if you can guarantee a situation where you are hitting with precision a wing section without spar, then this probability approach will give wrong outcome -  as it continues to log a spar hit every 16 (on average) shots. Eventually the spar will fail whereas it should essentially never fail.

 

But, I'm not sure, practically speaking, that this is a problem in game, as in any actual game situation I can conceive of the spread of bullets is such as to mean that hits are all over the wing area - ie there is no way to guarantee with precision that every shot misses the spar - and given that fact the probablity approach will work - ie will produce results close to tracking the bullet through the 3-d structure precisely for every shot.

 

So, I don't think that is the issue for there being too many wing fails. Think any issue is likely to be due to wrong spar dimensions (which is being fixed) and maybe in judgement of damage caused by an individual bullet hit (maybe this needs to be tweaked, but who has cast-iron info on what is true and accurate here?)

 

Edited May 7, 2020 by kendo

[ZachariasX]

I must say, the way the whole DM is set up doesn't really reflect what we are experiencing in the game.

 

----------------------

TL/DR:

• We need a threshould number of hits permitted, before structural damage occurs in 100% of the cases for simple gamaplay reasons.
• We need cues that inform us about the state of the aircraft, in this case trim changes by flexing of compromised wings. The more trim change, the more you let the wing flex be it through added damage or through G load, both an indicatior of progressive damage.

---------------------

 

 

Starting here:

 

There is also a statistics for others G's:

 

I don't know how these cases are made, but in the game, you can take (for convenience sake) a Halberstadt and fly maneuvers as hard as you please, the aircraft will usually stay intact. Its very hard to break up the aircraft. Then just place one (1) shot in a lower wing with the rear gun and that WILL make the wing come off in tight defensive maneuvering. Always.

 

Hence, we do have a situation where a couple of shots shot anywhere in the wing is ALWAYS make or bust on your ability to stay in combat. We do always tax out those crates to the limit in close in dogfights. The durability for 3G is absolutely of academic nature. If you are on a server and you can pull only 3G, then you might as well jump out of your aircraft, with or without chute, as it just saves you time for the same result.

 

In order to have any other form of gameplay other than one pass fights, we need to have a certain threshold, BEFORE sturctural integrity is compromised.

 

Since @AnPetrovich asked for "so what?" after being very candid about the "what?", there can only be one way to both cater "reality" (as that and only that should be the benchmark for our dear planes behaviours) and gameplay:

 

The first thing that would be required is a maybe 10 bullets or so damage threshold, BEFORE any structural damage on the airframe occurs. I mean in 100% of all cases. Meat and metal (engine) could/should be exempt from that, as their damage is of different nature.

 

Second thing is giving the player cues: Now, how could suc a cue be? The answer to that is rigging. How do damaged planes come apart? In case of wired up biplanes, they just don't throw away their wings, as those are a wired up box arrangement. But as soon as a spar gives in during compression, the wing will start to flex more. Depending on where the wing is damaged (or wire missing), it will flex differently. But in all cases, it will cause a trim change as the wing twist is changing under load. This can occur before any shaking of the wing as that one is more air speed dependent.

 

This means, when the wing is progressively compromised, one should notice a roll, maybe slight pitch trimm changes. The more a wing starts to flex (be it in maneuvers or with heavy damage in straight flight), the more these trim changes should occur to the point where the will collapses.

 

Looking at the raw numbers, I don't think that there is much wrong with the system. But the way it acts is not really helping gameplay, plus it is not even that realistic as detailed above. I think adding certain (roll) trim changes for a wired wing aircraft that progressively starts to flex more. It would give direct feedback to the player (something he would have in real life) and make him more cautious.

 

The Fokker wings are different, being cantilever type. There, I would also welcome a certain threshold of hits required for structural weakening to appear. Other than that, I would increase the visual damage drastically. Wings look in general quiet ok when in fact they cannot take combat loads. So visual damage should be increased to alert the pilot a bit more that things are as bad as they look. The dreaded wing shake is something that should only occur if the wing is damaged such that it is not really attached anymore to the rest of the fuselage, meaning it should be a very last state.

 

In general, for real aircraft aircraft as well as good gameplay, it is important that one can listen to the aircraft. The aircraft is talking to the pilot, all the time, in different ways the pilot checking the gauges constantly. in real aircraft, you have sound, vibration, smell, feel of the controls... things like that that inform you about most vital aspects of the aircraft. The less one has of those cues, the harder it is to not overtax the aircraft. The simulator by its very nature only offers a fraction of the feedback you get from real aircraft. One should absolutely find ways to include cues that the aircraft will give you normally. In this context, the wing shake is good as it shows you where Vne is and one should stop doing with the aircraft whatever one is doing. It is as important as the airspeed indicator, as in fact it is an(other) airspeed indicator.

 

 

 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

If we can't have more hitboxes and will stay  in the land of chance and probability , and in that realm any poor or good eye have same chance of hitting non-existing spars only if hits are inside outlined by wings.

IMHO I would  to see this kind of implementation as solution to Andrey question what to do:

 

-because of only three visual damage types , only when the heavy damage model is visible (torn fabric ,no wires ,broken spars) -  wings should be prone to break off  earlier when under G stress compared to medium and small visual damage - this is important because how randome chance can set vital  part of wing to faliure, player can't see it and it is  impossible to judge if next manuver will be fatal or not. I encured many sitiation  when only small burts - first visual damage can lead to catastrophic wing failure in a turn - this is among what  frustrate players online.

-the second and third visual damage model is applied to fast on the wings, btw pre patch was to late 

-reduce or remove chance (probability) of hitting and damage the spars because player can't see it broken and he don't know how to fly the plane, especialy on visual  DM level 1&2 - few visible bullets and you can easly loose the wings

-plane should not shake when first and second visual damage on wings is visible

- wings should not disappear instantly after being detached from the plane

 

Overall conclusion wings are to weak - people in multiplayer loved the DM model of wings before 4.005 patch, present FC wing DM  this is to far from previous.

Edited May 7, 2020 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[emely]

1 hour ago, kendo said:

 

So, I don't think that is the issue for there being too many wing fails. Think any issue is likely to be due to wrong spar dimensions (which is being fixed) and maybe in judgement of damage caused by an individual bullet hit (maybe this needs to be tweaked, but who has cast-iron info on what is true and accurate here?)

The larger the wing, the less likely it is to damage its vital point.  On the other hand, the larger the wing, the greater the likelihood of other players getting into it in the gameplay.  I suspect that the accepted damage conditions in the game are not working correctly.  If the area of the hit boxes were proportional to the area of the side members, it would probably be more correct.

51 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

 

In general, for real aircraft aircraft as well as good gameplay, it is important that one can listen to the aircraft. The aircraft is talking to the pilot, all the time, in different ways the pilot checking the gauges constantly. in real aircraft, you have sound, vibration, smell, feel of the controls... things like that that inform you about most vital aspects of the aircraft. The less one has of those cues, the harder it is to not overtax the aircraft. The simulator by its very nature only offers a fraction of the feedback you get from real aircraft. One should absolutely find ways to include cues that the aircraft will give you normally. In this context, the wing shake is good as it shows you where Vne is and one should stop doing with the aircraft whatever one is doing. It is as important as the airspeed indicator, as in fact it is an(other) airspeed indicator.

 

 

 

Maybe new messages in techno chat can slightly correct the lack of feedback in the game?  After all, it is there that we get the first information about engine damage.

[No.23_Gaylion]

Yes better visual representation showing when "I should head home" would be great. I've had wings shot up showing a few holes and all wires in place fold up quite easily when I was "babying" them.

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

14 minutes ago, US93_Talbot said:

Yes better visual representation showing when "I should head home" would be great. I've had wings shot up showing a few holes and all wires in place fold up quite easily when I was "babying" them.

 

Maybe this can flash across the windscreen.

 

Edited May 7, 2020 by J5_Klugermann

[AnPetrovich]

Quick answers:

 

20 hours ago, US93_Talbot said:

Does that say 110+ rounds in the same spot for the D7 and 90 for the Bristol?!

 

Not exactly in the same spot but at the same part of the wing. Thus, the length of spar also does matter.
110 is an average number as a most likely result. In a specific situation, this number may vary.
See my explanation here.

 

20 hours ago, US93_Talbot said:

How thick is this board?

From 117 mm to 220 mm in the D.VII and from 86 mm to 102 mm in the F.2B.

 

20 hours ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

Do the people whose perception closely matched the actual DM get a prize?

Or was our prize not needing to freak out over the DM the past couple weeks?  ?

I'm glad you're on board again! 

 

20 hours ago, J2_Bidu said:

Maybe it's because for non-FFB joystick users, the joystick responds as if the pilot had infinite strength, and G's had no effect on the effort to use the control column at all.

For this very reason, on the suggestions section, I suggested a visual feedback on this. Some means of limiting the instant amount of force that can be applied could also be devised (i.e. limiting joystick input in certain circumstances).

 

Honestly, I never heard that G-load limits the ability to use a control stick.
However, we simulate limitations due to the force response of the stick and rudder at high airspeed.

 

19 hours ago, emely said:

The probability of hitting a wing from the "dead six" is not so high.  And from the fact that getting into a place where there is no spar is still recorded as if they got into it - maybe this is the problem.

I watched your video. Have you read this and this posts?
Yes, you have, otherwise you would not make this video. So, what another result did you expect? Do you think this 'issue' does really matter in a real dogfight, unlike in this test?
 

19 hours ago, emely said:

And I also want to note this: All the data on the properties of ww1 aircraft that developers have, all this data is highly doubtful.

 

You are welcome with any proven sources you are sure of.

 

19 hours ago, JG1_Butzzell said:

Getting 20 hits on a spar is probably a very rare event yet here we have the wings falling off.

I would say that ~20 hits in average (in this particular case) is a most likely result according to the tests. See a distribution of probability curves.

 

 

17 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

1). D.VII / DR1. -  Is a “box” spar as resistant to battle damage as a solid spar ?

 

2) Is a “box” spar considered solid , if the middle is not?

 

3). If a  “big” cantilever spar carries all the load does it break sooner, if damaged, than a spar that is supported by wires ?

 

4]. Is a traditional biplane wing not just like a D. VII “box” spar, except bigger and with lots more holes ?

 

5). Is a man made “box” spar, built with animal glue and subject to variations in temperature and moisture, as strong on day 30 as on day one (DR1, it appears, didn’t like service conditions). ?

 

6). Does having several bays per wing make any difference, maybe the Spad XIII, Bristol and Dolphin designers went to a lot of trouble for no gain ?

 

7). Do doubled up flying wires make any difference to damage resistance or is all wing durability tied to the spars ?

Are you serious? 
We are not NASA, we do not pretend to simulate a "flight to Mars" or how every bolt or nut works.
This is a real-time game on your PC with many objects at the same time, and it still could not been accelerated any faster than x2 (sometimes) while players complain that x16 is a 'damn' limit... Maybe one day we will simulate an animal glue, dude, but not this time. 
 

17 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

8). If you have shown the number of hits, dead six, needed to brake a wing spar, and  I assume always a wing spar, because from dead six you will always hit a wing spar, how many hits are required that are not dead six, either 45 deg or 90 deg that might not necessarily hit a spar. ? 

I am going to show a chart with 90 deg results a little later.
 

17 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

9). Is a “thick” wing spar two or three times as likely to be hit, from dead six, as a spar that is much thinner ?

If a bullet hits the wing from dead six, then the probability of hitting the spar is pretty the same for a thick or thin wing.

That's all for now, I come back to work...

[ZachariasX]

27 minutes ago, J5_Klugermann said:

Maybe this can flash across the windscreen.

If the visual damage would match the actual damage, then we had that. If you saw your wing spar broken, pointing out of the fabric after receiving a salvo, you'd probably opt for discretion. In our case however, it always looks the same and we have no damage counter. All you know is that after the first "clang!" you can potentionally lose your wings, but there is simply no way of finding out how bad the dmage is until finding out the hard way. So yes, we would need Michael Douglas wielding a club.

[the_dudeWG]

1 hour ago, AnPetrovich said:

I am going to show a chart with 90 deg results a little later.

 

I think this is very relevant. Most dive attacks are >45 degrees, and how I've always understood we needed to attack 2-seaters. Likewise, ground fire to ground-attacking 2-seaters should prove to be less likely to cause wing failure. My worry is that hits >45 degrees do too much damage to wings and is the real culprit in our current DM. I may have missed it, but what were the comparable numbers BEFORE this version ... when everyone seemed fine with the DM?

Edited May 7, 2020 by the_dudeWG

[J5_Adam]

Are you serious? 
We are not NASA, 
 

Buahahaha

[AnPetrovich]

1 hour ago, the_dudeWG said:

I may have missed it, but what were the comparable numbers BEFORE this version ... when everyone seemed fine with the DM?

Unfortunately, it is not possible to run this test with 4.004, since the DM was significantly changed in hundreds of files when transfering to version 4.005. I can not turn things back and moreover run the new tool with old DM. Yep, I'm also sad about this because I'm also interested in this comparison.

[BMA_Hellbender]

22 minutes ago, AnPetrovich said:

Unfortunately, it is not possible to run this test with 4.004, since the DM was significantly changed in hundreds of files when transfering to version 4.005. I can not turn things back and moreover run the new tool with old DM. Yep, I'm also sad about this because I'm also interested in this comparison.

 

I'm not going to give my opinion because I'm biased either way.

 

Whatever conclusion you reach concerning wing strength, please base it on data and not on community pressure.

 

 

I'm thinking especially of the treatment some of the FMs got in RoF 1.034.

 

Yes, the community was to blame, myself included, for pressuring you for years to review some of the FMs (Camel top speed etc.). However, when you did eventually cave in, there was no data to back it up. Nobody wants to have a repeat of that.

 

 

Speaking of data, can I gently remind you that you promised back in June last year (Update 3.101) that you would redo the speed measurements for all the planes by "next update"?

 

69. The error that caused the Flying Circus aircraft propellers to have more power than RoF ones has been found and fixed. The notable difference was found at lower flight speeds, but additional research showed that this error made during porting of RoF planes to Flying Circus more or less affected all flight characteristics of the Flying Circus aircraft. In this update this error is fixed, so flight characteristics of all Flying Circus planes fully correspond to RoF before update 1.034. You can see the updated flight characteristics of Albatros D.Va and S.E.5a in their in-game descriptions, while updated descriptions for other Flying Circus aircraft will follow in the next update when we redo all the required measurements;

 

 

 

Thanks again for all your efforts so far.

Edited May 7, 2020 by J5_Hellbender

[the_dudeWG]

Thanks @AnPetrovich.

As far as the angle of attack and probability of serious structural damage to the wings, I'm under the assumption that the highest factor of damage probability is from zero degree angle, and this is what your data results are based upon. The other extreme is 90 degree and that would, obviously, have a much lower percentage of damage probability. Does the percentage scale lineally from 90 to 0 degrees? It would seem to make sense, if it's at all possible to program that into the game. I'm willing to bet that the damage probability percentage is way too high at 90 degrees, and likely, at every angle above zero as a result. 

[emely]

4 hours ago, AnPetrovich said:

 

I watched your video. Have you read this and this posts?
Yes, you have, otherwise you would not make this video. So, what another result did you expect? Do you think this 'issue' does really matter in a real dogfight, unlike in this test?

I made this video a long time ago, before this topic appeared.  And once again I posted it in order to clarify the issue in a conversation with the user.

Well, since you think that there are no problems, it means that it is.  Who am I to argue with you?  Yes, I was not going to argue.  And since everything is OK, let's talk about something else ?

4 hours ago, AnPetrovich said:

 

You are welcome with any proven sources you are sure of.

If one or two completely accurate values are added to a complex equation, with many averaged parameters, then after this action, the result may go even further away from the correct answer . 

Edited May 7, 2020 by emely

[J5_Adam]

 "The other extreme is 90 degree and that would, obviously, have a much lower percentage of damage probability"

 

This I have a problem understanding. Would the probability be the same unless the width of the spar was smaller than it's height? There's just more possibility of hitting other parts of the wing at anything greater than 0 degrees

Edited May 7, 2020 by Adam

[the_dudeWG]

Right, because the wing's hit box is mostly empty air and canvas at 90 degrees, whereas a hit from absolute 0 degrees would most likely connect with a spar.

[HagarTheHorrible]

37 minutes ago, Adam said:

 "The other extreme is 90 degree and that would, obviously, have a much lower percentage of damage probability"

 

This I have a problem understanding. Would the probability be the same unless the width of the spar was smaller than it's height? There's just more possibility of hitting other parts of the wing at anything greater than 0 degrees

 

Shooting from dead six the target, of your affections,  stays in the same position reletive to you.  At 90 deg the target is moving through your sights at it's greatest rate, for arguments sake 100mph.  If you squeeze the trigger for one second, all things being equal, you will fire 20 bullets (rounds, 600rpm X2). the target aircraft, in that second will travel approx 44 meters across your sight, or one bullet every 2.2m (not even spaces between bullets).  It is entirely possible that a whole aircraft can fly through the gaps without a single hit.

[emely]

20 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

 the target aircraft, in that second will travel approx 44 meters across your sight

It will fly 0 meters if your speeds are the same

[76SQN-FatherTed]

59 minutes ago, Adam said:

 "The other extreme is 90 degree and that would, obviously, have a much lower percentage of damage probability"

 

This I have a problem understanding. Would the probability be the same unless the width of the spar was smaller than it's height? There's just more possibility of hitting other parts of the wing at anything greater than 0 degrees

The hitting of the target should not be down to probability - we should expect the paths of the bullets to be calculated by the game engine.  The probability is about what that bullet does when it hits. For example, your fire your guns, the game-engine plots the path of your bullets , and the path of one of them crosses that of your target's spar,  so then a "die" is rolled to see what the effect of that hit is.  At least I hope that's whats going on.  If not ignore this wittering

[US103_Baer]

 

So the Albatros would have a more bullet damage resilient wing than a SPAD after this? And the D7 would be 380% more damage resistant?

 

[ST_Catchov]

7 hours ago, AnPetrovich said:

 

Maybe one day we will simulate an animal glue

 

 

No, please don't bother An. There is a current topic entitled "Se5a Woes" that deserves more immediate attention. Would you not be averse to checking it out and commenting?

 

8 hours ago, AnPetrovich said:

 

Are you serious? 

 

 

Yes I am.