DM poll

[BMA_Hellbender]

3 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

 

There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the present wing DM, is any more realistic than it was prior to the patch, maybe more complex but that doesn't mean the results are more realistic.  The developers have taken a simple variable, spar size, applyed a value to it and then applyed that to a hit box, more or less in line with the size of a wing section. The "notional" strength of a hit box is then reduced in value, each time a bullet hits it according to a formula, depending on several criteria, such as angle of penetration. There is no way on God's earth to know if an unsupported cantilever spar is any more resistant to battle damage than a supported and braced spar. It is certainly true that a traditional biplane might have MORE critical elements that might lead to failure if damaged, but often as not they are very small and where critical, and considered at risk, or vulnerable, to damage then often they have fail safes , such as doubled up flying wires. Without rigerous scientific testing re-inforced by field trials with phorensic investigation of the results we cannot say what is realistic.  We might be able to test the strength of a design for an undamaged aircraft and then compare it to see if it accords with the records from the time, but all cards are off the table once someone starts putting bullets in things, there are just way too many possibilities and the records from the time are way to vague as to why what happened, happened as it did when things went pear shaped

 

I'm not disagreeing that stronger wings felt more realistic, except in a few situations where I really would have expected wing failure to happen sooner, but for the most part I'm on board with the whole "aim for meat or metal" doctrine and ignore the wings. I'm basing this off nothing but books and reports as I have no deep knowledge of WWI aircraft engineering. I haven't actually played multiplayer since the patch either, so my only basis for comparison is FC pre-patch vs RoF.

 

FC pre-patch was always sold to us as the more refined damage model. Now it turns out that fragile RoF wings were the "more complex" DM all along, notwithstanding some of the corrections that will happen in the next update.

 

For me this can really only mean one of two things:

 

1. The data the devs used is somehow wrong and someone needs to produce more accurate data (get NASA on the phone)
    
2. Wings are far more susceptible to failure than previously thought, especially after taking damage

 

I don't think that option 2 is incredibly far-fetched. Again, the multiplayer gameplay repercussions are huge and involve plenty more than just fragile wings (accuracy, spotting, G forces on gunners, flawless parachutes, invisible planes...), but that consideration really should be secondary to the historical accuracy of the DM.

[No.23_Triggers]

29 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

@US93_Larner But is hitting the wings in a dogfight really easier than hitting the fuselage?  In my experience, it is much easier to make hits with your aim centered on the fuselage because firstly, you are pulling through the target directly in line with their travel, rather than being offset; and secondly, because even if your lead is incorrect, you have a good chance of hitting engine, cockpit, or fuel tank.  If you target the wings, in a twisting, turning dogfight, having your lead be off likely means you likely hit air in front of or behind the wings you're trying to aim at.

You'd have to assume so, seeing as everybody's losing their wings in every fight atm! 

I think it's dependent on the fight. I also think that hitting the wings, more often than not, is a result of your aim being slightly off when trying to aim for the pilot / engine. In a scissors, for example, when you have to snap-shot when he scissors in front of you. Of course, you're aiming for the fuselage and the pilot seat, but naturally in a 'knife fight' like that some of your rounds will go astray and the wings will be taking hits here or there. 

In a turn fight, I think targeting the wings isn't so easy. Hitting them while aiming for other components is pretty common, though. 

And that's exactly where I stand with the new DM...with the old DM, those glancing hits to the wing didn't really matter an awful lot. If you were shot down, it was likely due to being flamed, PK'd, or forced down with a dead engine. Now, however, these glancing wing hits are lethal, and strip you of the ability to manoeuvre without breaking up in the air or dive at any kind of high speed. And it really doesn't take many rounds at all to fold a wing. And that's what I mean by there's no skill left in gunnery...nobody needs to be accurate enough to hit vital components. They only need to be able to shoot at the overall plane, and the inevitable hits on the wings will do the rest. 

In fact, with the new pilot wounding being so underwhelming unless you get a very good burst in, I think it's probably more lucrative to spray n pray. 

Edited May 8, 2020 by US93_Larner

[BMA_Hellbender]

20 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

And that's exactly where I stand with the new DM...with the old DM, those glancing hits to the wing didn't really matter an awful lot. If you were shot down, it was likely due to being flamed, PK'd, or forced down with a dead engine. Now, however, these glancing wing hits are lethal, and strip you of the ability to manoeuvre without breaking up in the air or dive at any kind of high speed. And it really doesn't take many rounds at all to fold a wing. And that's what I mean by there's no skill left in gunnery...nobody needs to be accurate enough to hit vital components. They only need to be able to shoot at the overall plane, and the inevitable hits on the wings will do the rest. 

 

I'm wondering: do those glancing hits matter much below 2G? This really doesn't appear to be the case according to the test data. It would mean that planes that rely on speed/dive or on a rear gunner to defend themselves have an advantage over hard maneuvering planes, especially after taking glancing shots. What remains problematic, in my opinion, is accuracy at long range, which is not so much a matter of spread as it is simply being able to accurately judge distance. VR somehow makes this slightly more challenging (at least to me), compared to being glued to the aiming reticle on a 2D display. Same with spotting.

 

Still, pulling out of a dive with wing damage will be challenging, but here I believe that joystick forces (or lack thereof) can be to blame. In my humble flying experience handling a yoke is something like FFB at 100% x10, to the point that I remember once asking my instructor if it was really meant to be this difficult, and he said I needed to do more pushups.

Edited May 8, 2020 by J5_Hellbender

[No.23_Triggers]

23 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

I'm wondering: do those glancing hits matter much below 2G? This really doesn't appear to be the case according to the test data. It would mean that planes that rely on speed/dive or on a rear gunner to defend themselves have an advantage over hard maneuvering planes, especially after taking glancing shots.

 

I think they do. I've seen Albs lose their wings in flat breaking turns from level flight, I've seen Albs and SPADs lose their wings VERY quickly without pitching at all (which, obviously should be 1G), hell, in QM I shot the wings off a Halberstadt in level flight...and all my rounds hit the fuselage!! (That actually hints at a bug as far as I could see). I'll reiterate as well that a lot of the times I've seen this kind of stuff, the bullets have been hitting the flat of the wing from above, and not the dead-six-super-spar-shot as referenced in the DM poll. Anything other than a Spar hit should really be superficial damage. This leads me to believe that the overall structural damage is too severe in addition to the Spars. Buttzzell raised a great point earlier that we've become fixated with the Spars being the source of dodgy wings ever since Petrovich mentioned that our planes' spars were too thin. Before that, I don't think we were even considering Spar damage. Just overall wing damage. 

 

Re: Pulling out of a dive - I've lost my wings after light damage (no more than 10 rounds) simply by setting the stick to neutral in a fast dive. 

 

EDIT: 

What I really want now is to get my hands on the revised DM to do some testing. On Paper, it looks like SPADs, Albs, Halbs etc are going to continue to have a hard time. Sopwiths are screwed. However, An has mentioned both Spar and overall durability changes if I'm not mistaken. It could be the case that we get a DM that's only marginally better than what we expected (Unless you're an Indestructible-superspar-D.VII pilot!). It might also be the case that, despite the changes only looking small on paper, the actual revised DM turns out really good. 

 

 If An will continue to chip in to the DM dialogue and consider the FC community's input after letting us test the new DM, then I'm not really worried. If he keeps working with us to find a resolution, I'm sure we can find that 'happy fix'. 

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by US93_Larner

[kendo]

Good post.  I am more open to further changes (after the upcoming spar fix) than might seem from some of my posts. And I have taken on board a lot of the comments here about all your experiences, and the degree of 'unknowns' in the whole modelling of a wing's toughness.

 

And it seems like AnPetrovich is very open to making deeper changes too - I noticed the quote below when re-reading his post from a few days ago.

 

I suppose best thing now is to wait and see what difference the new update makes. There may be a chance, as you say, that it pulls things almost to where most want it.

 

On 5/6/2020 at 8:09 PM, AnPetrovich said:

Anyway.
I have finished the investigation of "what situation really is" and "how you perceive this".
Moreover, now we have your expectations of "how it should be".

Seems like we need to change the airframe durability. Or change the DM taking into account some other factors related to the process when bullet damages a spar, to make this damage not very hard. Perhaps...

Edited May 9, 2020 by kendo

[ZachariasX]

10 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

The data the devs used is somehow wrong and someone needs to produce more accurate data (get NASA on the phone)

And what if the DM misinterprets "data"? DM is a model after all. It is just supposed to mimic the real world. What if, in effect, it doesn't?

[BMA_Hellbender]

3 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

And what if the DM misinterprets "data"? DM is a model after all. It is just supposed to mimic the real world. What if, in effect, it doesn't?

 

The DM does misinterpret the data. The FM even misinterprets fundamental aerodynamic forces. Just look at counterintuitive spin recovery in many of these planes. Still, the stalls and spins are in-engine accurate, and I have no reason to believe that the DM wouldn't be in-engine accurate either.

 

It's a physics simulation and that simulation is by definition imperfect. The solution has always been obvious: more complexity and more computing power to simulate more variables. We're clearly not there yet. Other sims are not there yet either. I highly doubt that FS2020 with its infinite budget is more than a few steps closer.

 

 

Currently wings are failing because they can fail after taking a bullet, in much the same way that an engine can fail after taking a bullet or a pilot can pass out after taking a bullet. In essence every hit is critical. In reality things are not so black and white.

 

One way to get around this problem would be to introduce randomisation. You could have a x% chance of any bullet hit doing absolutely nothing. But then you should also have a y% chance that any part of your plane fails for no apparent reason: unfixable gun stoppage, engine failure due to poor maintenance, wing failure in straight and level flight due to improper construction, parachutes not deploying etc. None of this is currently simulated either because an element of true randomness will likely be seen as unfair.

 

We all want historical outcomes, but this really can't be done just by inputting data into a physics simulation, you need to look at all the variables that have led to that outcome. I'm very much convinced that few if any pilots ever stressed their wings to the point of breakage, even when maneuvering defensively under fire, or that most pilots were shooting as accurately as we are on our 2D screens.

 

 

Let @AnPetrovich do his corrections, and if it really turns out to be that bad for multiplayer, maybe we'll need to have a few server-side options available again for gunnery spread and stronger wings to get to more historical outcomes.

 

Edited May 9, 2020 by J5_Hellbender

[Zooropa_Fly]

4 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

And what if the DM misinterprets "data"? DM is a model after all. It is just supposed to mimic the real world. What if, in effect, it doesn't?

 

Yes, it would be madness to blindly follow a computer model.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

2 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

I'm very much convinced that few if any pilots ever stressed their wings to the point of breakage, even when maneuvering defensively under fire, or that most pilots were shooting as accurately as we are on our 2D screens.

 

 

I wonder if that might be due to the psychological effect of *hearing* the load on your wooden airframe?

 

Of course I have never flown one of these planes in real life, so I don't know- Is that a thing?  Would they have been able to hear the stress on the wood?

Edited May 9, 2020 by J28w-Broccoli

[Chill31]

I don't hear anything on wooden planes I fly.  I imagine that anything a pilot hears is probably catastrophic. 

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, Chill31 said:

I don't hear anything on wooden planes I fly.  I imagine that anything a pilot hears is probably catastrophic. 

But I would imagine that on wired wing biplanes, structural damage would lead to a gradual collapse of the structure. as soon as a spar can get compressed, the rigging would change, hence you had some feedback in controls. Same when a wire comes of and the wing has more room to flex.

 

But as for hearing... I agree, in open cockpit it truly had to be a pretty awful sound to make it through that noise and slipstream.

[Voidhunger]

@At least 40 FC-users seem to be interested in this subject (unfortunately not hundreds as I would hope

 

 

Damned, I just found this thread......

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

6 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

Let @AnPetrovich do his corrections, and if it really turns out to be that bad for multiplayer, maybe we'll need to have a few server-side options available again for gunnery spread and stronger wings to get to more historical outcomes.

 

Definitely an incremental approach to this situation is preferable.... and as long as @AnPetrovich is willing to stay engaged with the community, we can extend patience and grace with him as he listens, tinkers and we all learn together as we move foreward.   Any kind of progress in the right direction will be appreciated by all.  A quick, "big" fix that is bad risks derailing much more than the process.  As a community we can stick with the developers if the developers are willing to stick with us....so far so good!  Looking forward to the next patch, but keeping my expectations in check.

[HagarTheHorrible]

I think the wing damage model is perverse.

 

I think this for three reasons.  The first is that a biplane wing strength is not defined by its spar dimensions and to use these dimensions as an indicator of wing strength is therefore perverse (eg, Spad XIII - very thin wings - very strong structure)

 

Secondly, to define a biplanes wing strength by the dimensions of it's spars, but then not have the spars specifically defined within the damage model by the use of specific hit boxes is really really perverse.

 

Thirdly, I think this DM is perverse because, the bar chart suggests that an Albatros DVa, with known wing strength problems, even after remedial work, is rated as just as robust as both the SE5a and the Spad XIII, two aircraft that were known to be structurally sound, if not some of the most robust Scouts of their time.

 

If spars continue to be the defining factor, with regard to wing strength, then the hit boxes need to be redefined to only consider the area occupied by the spars.  Shooting at the rest of the wing should have absolutely no impact on the strength of the wing.  Visually pepper the wings with holes by all means, but a bullet in the trailing edge should have absolutely no impact on wing strength, if spars are the sole calculation used.  This should only be applied, however, after the following factor is taken into account.

 

A better method, in my humble opinion, is to disregard the spars completely, for traditional biplanes, they were part and parcel of a system, a whole package, not the defining feature, unlike unsupported cantilevered wings,   Forget bullets for the moment, we need to go back to the start, to fundamentals.  How strong was a particular aircrafts structure (wings), what features made one structure stronger than another, list the features, assign a value to each feature, each design choice, or compromise,  Work out an overall score.  Compare resultant score to historical account and see if they are roughly in accord, if not redo the math until a believable higherarchy becomes apparent.

 

Then, and only then, start chucking bullets at them.  

 

If it is beyond the reasonable capability of the game to assign individual hit boxes to individual spars then don't use them to score an overall wings strength.  If the complexity of bullet dynamics on a structure is beyond a simple, or even complex, flight sim ( it would probably strain the computational capacity of a super computer) then don't try and apply the simplistic variables to an equally simplistic wing damage model ( compared to real life). The result, more often than not, is likely to be wrong. 

 

In summary,  define as best as one can the overall strength of a particular aircraft, as built,  compare it to known facts and historical account, place it in a pecking order compared to the other aircraft in the sim, and then and only then start firing bullets at them.

 

If the bar chart, of revised spar dimensions, is a precursor of the fix to come then I have very little faith that things will be better, probably worse, with tank like D. VII's and Dr 1's barely noticing a mear scratch, like losing part, or all, of thier top wings.

 

 

Edited May 9, 2020 by HagarTheHorrible

[II./JG1_Kliegmann]

Over in the WWII side, they had issues with some of the wings being too strong.  Everyone came unglued over this, posting videos, telling the devs how bad a job they've been doing, threatening their livelihood, ect.  Within a few days, they posted up that they discovered the problem, then a few days after, they released a patch, that for the most part fixed the issue.  Now except for a couple of die-hards, that thread is kinda dead now.  Switch over the the WWI side, you find a problem with the wings being too weak, so you all come unglued, posting videos, telling the devs how bad a job they've been doing, threatening their livelihood, ect.  Within a few days, they posted up that they discovered the problem.  Now here is where things differ.  The devs posted up not only the problem, but gave detailed charts on how this could be, and will be  fixed.  They didn't get any of that detail over on the WWII side, it was a here we found it, this is what we found, and we're fixing it,.....the end.  The devs have said they're working on the problem, setting up the patch, of which we dont even have quite yet, but you're all debating the patch , posting videos of the currently broken DM (yup, thanks for that, we know its broken, the devs know its broken, and are working on a patch.) to show how bad the new patch is gonna be (WTF???????).  None of us actually knows what the patch is gonna do to the DM.  It is actually plausible that it will work out just fine.  The devs did also say they they might look into the durability of the rest of the airframe as well.  One of the most disheartening things I saw was the poll asking you what you thought the wing DM should be.  Lets remember a couple of things, I'm sure I can count on one hand how many of you has actually flown a WWI aircraft, and NONE of you has actually flown one in combat.  So NO, as much as you would like to think you are, you're NOT an authority on how these aircraft should fly or fight.  Lets also remember, that some of you already screwed up one game.

[No.23_Triggers]

3 hours ago, J5_Baeumer said:

 

Definitely an incremental approach to this situation is preferable.... and as long as @AnPetrovich is willing to stay engaged with the community, we can extend patience and grace with him as he listens, tinkers and we all learn together as we move foreward.   Any kind of progress in the right direction will be appreciated by all.  A quick, "big" fix that is bad risks derailing much more than the process.  As a community we can stick with the developers if the developers are willing to stick with us....so far so good!  Looking forward to the next patch, but keeping my expectations in check.

Exactly my sentiment. An is going to great lengths to walk us through exactly what the Dev team's thoughts and actions are regarding the WW1 Damage Model, in great detail. If we can agree to all be courteous and patient and, most importantly, give the revised DM a chance to be released(!) before we condemn it, then I'm positive we can continue to have this valuable dialogue with An, and can continue to report our thoughts and feelings about how the DM affects our gameplay. 

It's easy when we're as invested as we are in this game to jump to conclusions, and allow ourselves to become over-impassioned by how we think the revised DM will be, but I think the best thing to do now is give the discussion a little room to breathe, sit tight, and see what the revised DM feels like once it's released. Then, once we know what the changes feel like, we can make a more informed opinion and report back to An. 

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

5 hours ago, II./JG1_Kliegmann said:

Lets also remember, that some of you already screwed up one game.

 

Bwahahaha!! ?

[BraveSirRobin]

31 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

 

Bwahahaha!! ?

 

What are you laughing about?  His post is spot-on.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

25 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

What are you laughing about?  His post is spot-on.

 

That's why it was so funny!

Edited May 10, 2020 by J28w-Broccoli

[J5_Adam]

29 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

What are you laughing about?  His post is spot-on.

 

Ahhh BSR, famous diagram artist of the Plank Turn. How ya doin' Krusty?

[BMA_Hellbender]

10 hours ago, II./JG1_Kliegmann said:

Over in the WWII side, they had issues with some of the wings being too strong.  Everyone came unglued over this, posting videos, telling the devs how bad a job they've been doing, threatening their livelihood, ect.  Within a few days, they posted up that they discovered the problem, then a few days after, they released a patch, that for the most part fixed the issue.

 

[...]

 

They didn't get any of that detail over on the WWII side, it was a here we found it, this is what we found, and we're fixing it,.....the end.

 

[...]

 

  Lets also remember, that some of you already screwed up one game.

 

Now we know who's personally to blame. At least we're even now in the game screwing up department.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

11 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

Now we know who's personally to blame. At least we're even now in the game screwing up department.

 

If it makes you feel any better, screwing up the game ultimately lands in the lap of the devs.  None of us can do the flight modeling for this game.  If the devs think their data is right, they should stick with it.

 

Screwing up the community on the other hand is something we can do, and the same people who screwed up the RoF community are still working tirelessly to screw this one up as well.

Edited May 10, 2020 by J28w-Broccoli

[No.23_Gaylion]

F YOU BROCCOLI!

Edited May 10, 2020 by US93_Talbot
Sarcasm

[HagarTheHorrible]

Does damage from the 12 oclock position cause a higher rate of damage than that from the six ?  If I lose my wings quickly, it seems to coincide with being shot from the front, but maybe it's just me imagining things (note to self, "Stop picking mushrooms from the fields, buy them from the shops instead").

[kendo]

Maybe down to this? Point 51in the 4.005 update notes:

 

51. The armor penetration ability and damage of projectile increases if the resulting impact velocity exceeds the muzzle velocity of a projectile in the reference test data;

 

Head on, the closing velocities of the two aircraft may increase KE?

 

Though from a quick calculation, assuming both planes converging at 100mph, it doesn't seem that significant overall compared to muzzle velocity?

Edited May 10, 2020 by kendo

[76SQN-FatherTed]

On 5/9/2020 at 10:34 PM, II./JG1_Kliegmann said:

telling the devs how bad a job they've been doing, threatening their livelihood, ect.

This really happened, ect?

[No.23_Triggers]

Let's try to keep the thread from devolving into a petty squabble, eh? 

On the topic of what kind of damage aircraft could sustain in the Great War, here's another interesting quote from Charles Biddle of the 13th Aero Squadron USAS. It's not specifically Spar related, but interesting nonetheless:



While talking about the same fight, Biddle mentions that after taking these hits he manoeuvres vs his opponents for about a minute, before performing a 'Renversement' (or a Split-S, as we would call it) and going into a dive - before performing a second Renversement to face his lines and diving for home. For reference, he was flying a SPAD VII in this fight. 

I found that particularly interesting as we all seem to agree that a large part of the current DM's shortcomings lies in vertical manoeuvring. 

The full quote is here, in the spoiler: 

Spoiler

 

Edited May 10, 2020 by US93_Larner

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

6 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

"Stop picking mushrooms from the fields, buy them from the shops instead

They sell those in the shops in Scotland. 

[PatrickAWlson]

It mostly would not.  Aileron damage but that's about it.  I seriously doubt any of the wing would come off at all.

 

The wings were a box structure with spars and wires forming the box.  They were not fragile (single spar lower wings on Albatros and Nieuport being exceptons).  You could crack ribs all day long and probably run out of ammo before the wing came off. 

 

Exception here is if the target is maneuvering under load - if the wing is shot up enough and most of the damage is centralized then the extra stress might cause it to pop off.

 

Data does not exist to prove or disprove but I suspect that most cases of wings folding had to do with spars being hit hard combined with the added stress of maneuvering in combat.  Still, while folding up the wings did bring planes down, far more were taken down by killing the engine or the pilot.

 

If a simplification is needed then IMHO limit wing failure to spar damage.  Other wing damage might impact flight or reduce the stress point at which failure will occur, but not by itself cause failure.

 

Last thing - as stated above it is a box structure.  While it may be strong, if it goes then the whole thing goes.  There is no such thing as half the top wing detaching and the rest of the structure remains intact.

Edited May 11, 2020 by PatrickAWlson

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

Perhaps a resource like Under the Guns of the Red Baron would be helpful - take a poll of how many of MvR's victims were brought down intact, broken wings, pilot killed/wounded, engine damaged, etc. MvR certainly was not your "average" western front pilot, but at least there is a possibility of compiling the cause-of-crash for those known cases.

[No.23_Gaylion]

The pizza guy?!

[No.23_Triggers]

Another interesting quote citing aircraft performing g-intensive manoeuvres with battle damage (From John Guttman's "Spad XIII vs Fokker D.VII)": 



 

Edited May 11, 2020 by US93_Larner

[emely]

On 5/10/2020 at 12:59 AM, US93_Larner said:

Exactly my sentiment. An is going to great lengths to walk us through exactly what the Dev team's thoughts and actions are regarding the WW1 Damage Model, in great detail. If we can agree to all be courteous and patient and, most importantly, give the revised DM a chance to be released(!) before we condemn it, then I'm positive we can continue to have this valuable dialogue with An, and can continue to report our thoughts and feelings about how the DM affects our gameplay. 

Larner, if I run out of sugar, that's not a problem.  I will just put a little bit of your messages in tea, instead of sugar ?

[J2_Bidu]

3 hours ago, Krispy_Duck said:

Perhaps a resource like Under the Guns of the Red Baron would be helpful - take a poll of how many of MvR's victims were brought down intact, broken wings, pilot killed/wounded, engine damaged, etc. MvR certainly was not your "average" western front pilot, but at least there is a possibility of compiling the cause-of-crash for those known cases.

 

You mean the author of the famous sentence

 

Quote

"Well it is quite simple. I fly close to my man, aim well and then of course his wings fall down."

 

?

[No.23_Triggers]

32 minutes ago, emely said:

Larner, if I run out of sugar, that's not a problem.  I will just put a little bit of your messages in tea, instead of sugar ?

"No sugar for me, thanks. I'm sweet enough!" ?

[unreasonable]

6 hours ago, Krispy_Duck said:

Perhaps a resource like Under the Guns of the Red Baron would be helpful - take a poll of how many of MvR's victims were brought down intact, broken wings, pilot killed/wounded, engine damaged, etc. MvR certainly was not your "average" western front pilot, but at least there is a possibility of compiling the cause-of-crash for those known cases.

 

 

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

Thanks for reposting @Unreasonable.  69% meat and/or metal pre introduction (hypothesized) of  incendiary ammo.

 

Like we've been saying.   Wings and structural failure are overrepresented in the current DM.

Edited May 12, 2020 by J5_Baeumer

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

That's a well-done representation. My general impression from reading over the years was that the efficient way to do the job was to go for the vitals - pilot, engine, fuel tank, etc. A radiator hit or prolonged fuel leak might cause a slower death. Fonck and Navarre also had a history of aiming for the enemy pilot, and in the case of Fonck, he could be very accurate with his shot placement, even at high speed. It's a tricky business to get the balance of the DM right - we know that structural failures certainly played a role in some kills, but that knocking out a pilot or engine, or causing a fire, were the primary and more efficient means, especially if you could get close and put a well-aimed single burst into place.

Edited May 12, 2020 by Krispy_Duck

[kendo]

Unreasonable, thanks for posting the link to the MvR thread. I tried searching for it a while back but couldn't find it.

 

Interesting to see the changes after July 6th 1917,  attributed to the introduction of incendiary bullets causing many more engine fires.

 

But before that, when the situation presumably is more closely aligned with the current situation in sim (ammo types), we have structural collapse at 24%, the second most common cause after pilot kill. (and I note your conclusion that what may be actually needed in the sim is the inclusion of incendiary or explosive bullets!)

 

Also, I think it is important to remember the ace status of MvR. I suspect he is more likely to have tightly aimed shots against aircraft vitals than your average pilot.

 

So, respectfully, J5_Baeumer, once again we disagree....

 

I have a feeling we are making progress though. For first time we have detailed enough historical statistics to take us beyond 'feeling' and 'belief'. And as we dig deeper, maybe a surprise too - that a big part of the DM seeming off, may actually be due to the historical ammunition not being fully modelled. (and that is something that is fixable! In fact many people on the WW2 side are pushing hard for incendiary ammo for the .50 cal)

 

Will throw this out. It may be wide of the mark, but .......does this all mean that 

 

1. Pre-4.005 DM was incorrect. (Not enough structural collapses)

2. 4.005 DM has gone too far the other way. (Due to be amended soon, so reconsider after the incoming fixes)

3. We need more ammo types modelled to get closer to historical results

4. Maybe pilot wounding needs to go back a little to where it used to be (though many people had been complaining that previous wounds were too much, which I assume is why the devs changed it)

 

 

Edited May 12, 2020 by kendo

[unreasonable]

2 hours ago, kendo said:

Unreasonable, thanks for posting the link to the MvR thread. I tried searching for it a while back but couldn't find it.

 

Interesting to see the changes after July 6th 1917,  attributed to the introduction of incendiary bullets causing many more engine fires.

 

But before that, when the situation presumably is more closely aligned with the current situation in sim (ammo types), we have structural collapse at 24%, the second most common cause after pilot kill. (and I note your conclusion that what may be actually needed in the sim is the inclusion of incendiary or explosive bullets!)

 

 

 

 

No problem  - i find it difficult enough to find my own old threads!  I would just highlight one comment I made later in the thread, since the discussion stimulated some further thinking;

 

"On the wings shedding I entirely agree: most of the victims that suffered this were 2-seaters that had taken a real pounding, especially BE types that were highly stable and not designed for manoeuvring. They may have had a particularly low allowable g load, but I am no expert on that. If you take the BEs out of the equation, wing shedding becomes an uncommon cause of loss: MvR shot down 20 BE types, of which 7 suffered wing/fuselage collapse. There was clearly a type issue."

 

ie if you exclude all BEs as especially prone to wing shedding due to a low allowable g load, the breakdown looks like this.

 

 

So still about 1 in 6 or 7  kills in the "early" era involved structural collapse of some kind, although the samples are now getting rather small. 

 

In the poll I entered 20/20 since that is roughly what I got in my test and it seems plausible given this analysis.  What I would find interesting is a numerical analysis of the MP conditions: clearly people feel that it is raining wings, but I wonder what the data actually says? 

 

 

 

Edited May 12, 2020 by unreasonable