DM poll

[kendo]

Ok. Thanks. That's interesting.

 

The switch from pilot kills to fire as main cause around July 1917 is really startling.

[J2_Bidu]

17 hours ago, J5_Baeumer said:

69% meat and/or metal pre introduction (hypothesized) of  incendiary ammo.

 

I thought use of incendiary ammo except against balloons was against the Geneva convention. Guess it was burn, baby, burn, after all.

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

Is there another explanation - e.g., MvR was affected by his injuries and became more reliant on peppering the fuel area and engine rather than the more precise pilot kill? Or do we have proof of widespread use of incendiary ammo?

 

The idea here is not to draw away from the original topic of the DM, but rather to focus on the "vitals" aspect of the kills rather than collapsing wing structures. And interestingly, the death of MvR again ties back to bullet wounds in the pilot rather than a collapsing aircraft structure.

Edited May 12, 2020 by Krispy_Duck

[No.23_Triggers]

9 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!)

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)

 

 

1) Yes, it's the second most common cause - but it's still only 24% . If you look at it another way - say, structural failure vs "meat and metal", that gives us 76% for hitting 'critical' components. Rounding to the nearest 5, just to make it a tiny bit neater, that would make 25% and 75% - in other words, 1 in every 4 aircraft would be likely to break up, from a purely mathematical standpoint and not factoring in the scoring pilot's marksmanship prowess. What would be interesting, then, would be to compare the figures for how many aircraft MvR shot at and missed the critical components vs how many went down in pieces. Although, I imagine that would be far harder to ascertain accurately. 

2) This has to be considered as well, and is a good point. I was wondering how easy or difficult it would be to ascertain the victories of a more 'average' pilot. I have considered giving this ago, and I think I'd go with Arthur Gould Lee as the 'test subject'. He seems to have a generally honest recounting of his exploits in the air. Coincidentally, IIRC, he also makes mention of an encounter with MvR's all-red Fokker Triplane (which he let get to within shooting range, thinking it was a Tripehound!!). That might be a rather interesting source on MvR's gunnery. 

3) I compared my pre-DM kills starting from May 6 to my post-DM kills by analysing the parsers. Unfortunately it's very hard to spot an aircraft down in flames via parser, but you can get a good idea of what happened once you start noticing the 'patterns' in the numbers. That being said...

1. I'd say so. I very, very rarely used to see aircraft breaking up. Almost never. 
2. Yes - way too far. Nearly all of my kills since the update have been wing-rips. 
3. I'm not so sure about that - if the new spars land us in the middle of the old and the new DMs, then 
4. I definitely think it needs to go back. During BA I was flying a Bristol VS. 3 Albatros. I must have heard the wound SFX at least 10 times. Eventually I crashed after wings came off at low level...and I survived. 

 



 

[Monksilver]

1 hour ago, J2_Bidu said:

 

I thought use of incendiary ammo except against balloons was against the Geneva convention. Guess it was burn, baby, burn, after all.

 

If I remember correctly  one of the WW1 Biggles books said incendiary bullets in the Royal Flying Corp was known as Buckingham and to have it loaded without written permission of a commanding officer for use against observation balloons was a court martial offence and could result in execution. As it is nearly 40 years since I read that I might be wrong but I am pretty sure that is what W E Johns wrote.

[No.23_Triggers]

56 minutes ago, Monksilver said:

 

If I remember correctly  one of the WW1 Biggles books said incendiary bullets in the Royal Flying Corp was known as Buckingham and to have it loaded without written permission of a commanding officer for use against observation balloons was a court martial offence and could result in execution. As it is nearly 40 years since I read that I might be wrong but I am pretty sure that is what W E Johns wrote.

Yep - Buckingham. I think it could be a court martial offence, but I don't know if it ever resulted in execution. They certainly didn't execute Albert Ball when he used it against aircraft - although he did get a chewing out from his C.O. I think Mannock used to use it as well. I found a few quotes about Buckingham the other day, but I can't remember where for the life of me... edit: Actually IIRC it might have been that one of Mannock's wingmen used it...and Mannock strongly urged them not to...

...Arthur Brooks (USAS) also used incendiary ammunition in his 'big fight' vs 8 Fokkers...bringing two down in flames within two bursts IIRC 

Edited May 12, 2020 by US93_Larner

[unreasonable]

The issue of incendiary ammunition was discussed at length in the Aerodrome thread I linked in the MvR thread:   http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49899

 

In short, it is well documented that by 1918 both sides were using incendiaries in the mix for use against aircraft as a routine matter.    We should not, however, get too hung up about whether the ammunition in FC is called "incendiary" or not, but on whether it produces flamers in plausible ratio for a 1918 battle.  Compared to RoF, my own SP messing about  with FC (not systematic tests) produced a good proportion of flamers pre-patch,  so  I thought that it did.   

 

I suspect that the main reason for this is that the fuselage is no longer a bullet stopper, as it was in RoF.  Setting a fuel tank ablaze with non-incendiary ball ammunition is actually rather difficult, so as "ball" our current load may even be too effective, we are in effect using incendiaries.  You are just not seeing it post patch if the wings are coming off first, just as you will not see so many structural collapses if the target is set on fire quickly.

 

TBH I do not feel highly motivated to do any more detailed and time consuming DM tests.  Now that the team have made it a development priority, engaged with the community and started to use a more detailed, bottom up approach I hope they will eventually settle on something that is historically plausible, given the extremely limited data we have for comparison, while being acceptable for SP and MP alike.  

 

 

 

  

[No.23_Triggers]

8 hours ago, unreasonable said:

I suspect that the main reason for this is that the fuselage is no longer a bullet stopper, as it was in RoF.  Setting a fuel tank ablaze with non-incendiary ball ammunition is actually rather difficult, so as "ball" our current load may even be too effective, we are in effect using incendiaries.  You are just not seeing it post patch if the wings are coming off first, just as you will not see so many structural collapses if the target is set on fire quickly.

Yeah, I think this is the case. Pre-new-DM fuel tanks went up extremely quickly - sometimes in a single bullet! (I've survived two flamers in my current V-Life due to this ?). Post-new-DM, I've only seen, maybe, two fuel tank fires. The rest (also rare) have been engine fires. It definitely feels like someone swapped out my incendiaries for ball ammo. 

I got a great clip of how lethal the "Incendiary Effect" could be a while back, before we had the Arras map: 
 

Spoiler

 

As a side-note, I was really unimpressed with the new fire effects at first, but after doing some 1v1 training duels with a pal of mines I've done almost a complete 180. The thin, wispy, not-too-visible smoke that an engine fire caused felt totally underwhelming at first, although I did like how the fire started off small and got more severe. The other day, after setting an S.E. on fire in a head on, I noticed that the smoke actually gets progressively thicker as the aircraft burns, until it's nearly as severe as the big thick smoke trail a fuel tank fire would cause - as we saw plenty times pre-DM. 

The effect is subtle, but looks awesome! Personally, I'd like the fire to 'get more severe' a little quicker, but still a really cool little detail. 

Edited May 13, 2020 by US93_Larner

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

13 hours ago, unreasonable said:

The issue of incendiary ammunition was discussed at length in the Aerodrome thread I linked in the MvR thread:   http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49899

 

In short, it is well documented that by 1918 both sides were using incendiaries in the mix for use against aircraft as a routine matter.    We should not, however, get too hung up about whether the ammunition in FC is called "incendiary" or not, but on whether it produces flamers in plausible ratio for a 1918 battle.  Compared to RoF, my own SP messing about  with FC (not systematic tests) produced a good proportion of flamers pre-patch,  so  I thought that it did.   

 

I suspect that the main reason for this is that the fuselage is no longer a bullet stopper, as it was in RoF.  Setting a fuel tank ablaze with non-incendiary ball ammunition is actually rather difficult, so as "ball" our current load may even be too effective, we are in effect using incendiaries.  You are just not seeing it post patch if the wings are coming off first, just as you will not see so many structural collapses if the target is set on fire quickly.

 

TBH I do not feel highly motivated to do any more detailed and time consuming DM tests.  Now that the team have made it a development priority, engaged with the community and started to use a more detailed, bottom up approach I hope they will eventually settle on something that is historically plausible, given the extremely limited data we have for comparison, while being acceptable for SP and MP alike.  

 

 

 

  

 

I think that's right - the concern is really what the final product of the damage is rather than whether an aircraft is technically using "incendiary" or not. The type of ammo nominally loaded might be more an issue to explore in an earlier war setting.

[Talisman]

5 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

Yeah, I think this is the case. Pre-new-DM fuel tanks went up extremely quickly - sometimes in a single bullet! (I've survived two flamers in my current V-Life due to this ?). Post-new-DM, I've only seen, maybe, two fuel tank fires. The rest (also rare) have been engine fires. It definitely feels like someone swapped out my incendiaries for ball ammo. 

I got a great clip of how lethal the "Incendiary Effect" could be a while back, before we had the Arras map: 
 

  Hide contents

 

As a side-note, I was really unimpressed with the new fire effects at first, but after doing some 1v1 training duels with a pal of mines I've done almost a complete 180. The thin, wispy, not-too-visible smoke that an engine fire caused felt totally underwhelming at first, although I did like how the fire started off small and got more severe. The other day, after setting an S.E. on fire in a head on, I noticed that the smoke actually gets progressively thicker as the aircraft burns, until it's nearly as severe as the big thick smoke trail a fuel tank fire would cause - as we saw plenty times pre-DM. 

The effect is subtle, but looks awesome! Personally, I'd like the fire to 'get more severe' a little quicker, but still a really cool little detail. 

 

More severe fire and quicker.  Then the German parachutes would get burnt quick and fail.  Yes! Evil LOL  

 

P.S.  Parachute damage poll anyone?

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

Edited May 13, 2020 by 56RAF_Talisman

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

When devs will model incendiary ammo I think we will have our fuel tank fires back again.

[HagarTheHorrible]

Isn’t tracer just as good at setting fire to petrol vapour ?

[unreasonable]

I think not, although it is a matter of degree.  Tracers will ignite petrol vapour sometimes but much less frequently.    The amount of pyrotechnic material is much less to begin with, just a plug in the base rather than filling the whole shell.  In tracers it may be chemically formulated to reduce the temperature of the flare. What you want in a tracer is light not heat, the reverse in an incendiary.     

 

Note in the Aerodrome quote from the Aussie Official History, that standard load outs were typically something like  3 ball, 1 tracer, 1 AP, 1 incendiary (Buckingham).  I am sure that of the air forces thought that tracers were just as good as incendiaries they would not have been so keen to use them, although I suppose this could just have been a placebo.  

    

Nice details in this site.

https://sites.google.com/site/britmilammo/-303-inch/-303-inch-incendiary  

[Monksilver]

 

19 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

Yep - Buckingham. I think it could be a court martial offence, but I don't know if it ever resulted in execution. They certainly didn't execute Albert Ball when he used it against aircraft - although he did get a chewing out from his C.O. I think Mannock used to use it as well. I found a few quotes about Buckingham the other day, but I can't remember where for the life of me... edit: Actually IIRC it might have been that one of Mannock's wingmen used it...and Mannock strongly urged them not to...

...Arthur Brooks (USAS) also used incendiary ammunition in his 'big fight' vs 8 Fokkers...bringing two down in flames within two bursts IIRC 

If you pardon the pun, you are more on the ball than I am. It might be Ball and the others had it (i,.e. only Buckingham) to go balloon hunting and then got into a scrap. But I reckon you are right about not being at risk of being executed by your own side (they were losing enough pilots as it was), perhaps what was being said in the book was intended as some exaggeration by Biggles to Algie to make a point or a reference to how the lack of the written permission could prove a costly problem if captured as the Germans would treat it as a crime.

[No.23_Triggers]

Another really interesting quote - this time from "Spad XII / XIII Aces of World War 1" - that seems to be a lot more in-line with the current DM experience...! 





This quote suggests 3 for 3 Fokker D.VIIs falling in pieces within a single engagement. Interesting, eh? 

Edited May 13, 2020 by US93_Larner

[kendo]

Yes, interesting...and just as the devs are about to make the DVII indestructible in next update ....  ?

[76SQN-FatherTed]

4 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

Another really interesting quote - this time from "Spad XII / XIII Aces of World War 1" - that seems to be a lot more in-line with the current DM experience...! 
This quote suggests 3 for 3 Fokker D.VIIs falling in pieces within a single engagement. Interesting, eh? 

i have to say I struggled to get a sense of the combat from this description.  Obviously I don't want to disparage the words of a veteran, but this interview took place 63 years after hostilities ceased, and some of the narrative seems a little disconnected for the  purposes of collecting data.

 

Reading it did though throw up an idea inspired by your BAX vid.  So, I had initially thought to write up a BAXAAR of that sortie (but in the end CBA) and  I think it would be instructive for us as a community to try  that in general.  If people could write  up combat reports which were subsequently compared to the vids I think it would point up the discrepancy between the track (ie what actually happened in the game-verse) and what the pilot remembers happening. 

[No.23_Triggers]

30 minutes ago, =CfC=FatherTed said:

 If people could write  up combat reports which were subsequently compared to the vids I think it would point up the discrepancy between the track (ie what actually happened in the game-verse) and what the pilot remembers happening. 

 

You're in luck. The 3rd PG writes AARs as part of our 'Game within the game' that we run on Thursdays. Another feature of our game is confirmation rules - so we put additional emphasis on mentioning how the aircraft went down (so that other pilots can corroborate - Flamers are easier to confirm than 'out of control', etc etc.). It might take me a while, but I bet I could compile the reported shootdowns and how they went down. 

Edited May 13, 2020 by US93_Larner

[No.23_Gaylion]

Just post the 3PG history book man. You already compiled all that.

[No.23_Triggers]

This is what our pilots cited both pre-DM and post-DM in combat reports. Of course, there are more claims pre-DM, but should provide some insight nonetheless

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by US93_Larner

[76SQN-FatherTed]

Interesting stuff - seems to imply that with the new DM the wings fall off before you have a chance to kill the pilot.  However, what I was really after was seeking a comparison between what a pilot thought he had experienced in a sortie, and what the "truth" of it was (i.e  the track).

 

The point being that we all place great store in first-person accounts of combats, but how "true" are they? So, as an exercise ( a tangential exercise, I admit), I thought it would be interesting to have people describe their sorties, and then compare that account to what the track and parser shows.

 

We have a unique (well, not unique - most games could do this) chance to look at how the subjective experience of the pilot in "combat" compares to what actually happened.  I think that if we did this (as you guys seemingly have been doing) it would give us an insight into the usefulness of those accounts in determining AC effectiveness

[No.23_Triggers]

2 hours ago, =CfC=FatherTed said:

Interesting stuff - seems to imply that with the new DM the wings fall off before you have a chance to kill the pilot.  However, what I was really after was seeking a comparison between what a pilot thought he had experienced in a sortie, and what the "truth" of it was (i.e  the track).

At least in regard to FC I would say that anything mentioned in specific detail is probably correct. For example, my last multiplayer kill was on Thursday. I can tell you from memory with certainty how it went:

I spotted one of my wingmen in a right-hand turn about 200m higher than a Fokker D7. The D7 brought his nose up into a prop-hang. I spotted this from about 100m higher, first banked left to line up my shot and then went into a slow right bank to keep my guns on the EA (Who was at about a 80 degree angle, with his nose starting to drop forwards slightly). I could see the pilot clearly in my Aldis (he had a red scarf on) and I saw my tracers going perfectly straight into his cockpit while firing a 1-second burst from 200m range to about 30m range, and clearly saw the pilot's head jerk back in his seat as he was killed. I zoomed underneath him at extreme close range, dipping my right wings further to avoid him as he flopped over onto his right side. 

We did have a case the other day though where one pilot mentioned firing a burst into a D7 before disengaging and letting the D7 go as the fight was getting to ground level. He failed to notice his last attack had actually set the D7 on fire. 

A while ago I compiled about a years' worth of our RoF reports. I'll see if I can fish it out. 

Edited May 15, 2020 by US93_Larner

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

6 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

 The D7 brought his nose up into a prop-hang. 

 

Retard.

[No.23_Triggers]

4 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

 

Retard.

Nah - just a noobie that didn't spot the other Spad. He'll learn...

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

2 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

Nah - just a noobie that didn't spot the other Spad. He'll learn...

 

Not spotting the other spad has nothing to do with it.  One can handle it just fine when they start doing that.

 

Luckily there is some people out there to help burn through the spawn-limited aircraft.  ?

Edited May 15, 2020 by J28w-Broccoli

[US103_Hunter]

The secret is that there is always another SPAD lining you up.

[No.23_Triggers]

9 hours ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

Not spotting the other spad has nothing to do with it.  One can handle it just fine when they start doing that.

Obviously you've never been in a SPAD while getting prop-hung by US93_Biddle's D.VII F ?

Edited May 15, 2020 by US93_Larner

[No.23_Gaylion]

I think he means the other way around.

 

 

[No.23_Starling]

This might seem a naive question, but does anyone know why the DM was changed? Was it due to overall DM changes in BoX’s engine?
 

It seems like an odd move when the majority of early adopters really liked it! Were there complaints about it?

[No.23_Triggers]

Just now, Waggaz said:

Was it due to overall DM changes in BoX’s engine?

Yeah - they were tweaking stuff with WW2 in mind, with FC being 'Collateral'. We won't know if the new DM (as intended for WW2) 'works' for FC until we get spars of the right thickness. Even then, I'm hoping Petrovic is going to give the DM a more FC-centric examination. It certainly sounds like that's what he's doing at the moment 

[kendo]

Quote from Han's new DD update:

 

Quote

We also have good news about the changes in 4.006. First, the airframe damage model for the WWI planes will be tuned according to your feedback.

 

 

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

Glad to hear this is on the way.

[JG1_Butzzell]

On 5/14/2020 at 10:25 AM, US93_Larner said:

 

 

The poll had asked for "our expectations" on spar failure. I think these graphs are much more revealing. The results in the upper graph show what I would expect for WW I fights when attacking from behind.  I hope the new DM will have similar results.

 

Much thanks to Larner for making this info available.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

TBH graph 1 looks a bit ridiculous to me.  Pilot snipes appear to be slightly over-represented.  My guess is that this was due to the overblown black-out wounding effect.

Edited May 15, 2020 by J28w-Broccoli

[J5_Adam]

38 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

TBH graph 1 looks a bit ridiculous to me.  Pilot snipes appear to be slightly over-represented.  My guess is that this was due to the overblown black-out wounding effect.

 

This is because Larner is a very, very good shot. He's worked hard to get to that point and takes pride in his skill. He also zooms right in which I find very difficult to do. These pilot kills, BTW, aren't AI for the most part if at all. 

[No.23_Triggers]

9 minutes ago, Adam said:

 

This is because Larner is a very, very good shot. He's worked hard to get to that point and takes pride in his skill. He also zooms right in which I find very difficult to do. These pilot kills, BTW, aren't AI for the most part if at all. 

Oh, cheers, I forgot to mention that actually - one of our 'rules' for the AAR stuff is that AI kills don't count, and our guys typically don't report them unless by accident. And, if they do, the claims process weeds out the AI kills and rejects them. So, as Adam says, all the figures are strictly PvP. 

 

 

50 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

My guess is that this was due to the overblown black-out wounding effect.

The pendulum's swung too far the other way with wounds now IMO. Before, most wounds would KO you.  I actually liked this  - after all, my guess would be that your average Joe probably would be incapacitated by taking even one rifle-caliber round to the back. 

However, wounds feel totally underwhelming now. I can plug a guy in his seat with a good burst, and know that I've hit the pilot, yet he'll stay in the fight. However - a headshot will stop you dead in your tracks and (unless you were the unlucky recipient of the dreaded 100% wound) you'll most likely be looking to RTB as quickly as possible. 

I think this might be, in part, due to them adding hit-boxes for extremities, as well as the torso (I'm sure they said that they did - I might be mistaken) and, putting it bluntly, these wounds are pretty negligible. I'd want to see shots to the arms / legs doing a bit more damage, torso shots doing severe damage, and headshots doing extreme damage and KO'ing (or outright killing) pilots. 

Edited May 15, 2020 by US93_Larner

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

3 hours ago, Adam said:

 

This is because Larner is a very, very good shot. He's worked hard to get to that point and takes pride in his skill. He also zooms right in which I find very difficult to do. These pilot kills, BTW, aren't AI for the most part if at all. 

 

Then his data is worthless if we're looking to simulate WW1 results.  That kind of marksmanship, on the larger scale, just wasn't the norm.

 

That explanation also makes the results of the second graph make less sense.  Unless he started aiming for wings or something.

 

@US93_Larner There should be basically 3 types of hitbox for a pilot; A lolipop head and spine "box", "rest of torso", and extremities.

Edited May 15, 2020 by J28w-Broccoli

[emely]

Guys, very few of you will hit the target the size of a person the first time, from a distance of 300 meters, from a rifle with an ordinary sight.  And even at 250 meters, half, if not more, will make a mistake.  And this is not in flight, but in a prone position, and with a reliable emphasis on the rifle barrel.  Therefore, I think there is no need to tell fairy tales, who is a good shooter, who is bad)) A good shooter in our game is one who has a good ping to the server ?

[No.23_Triggers]

36 minutes ago, emely said:

Guys, very few of you will hit the target the size of a person the first time, from a distance of 300 meters, from a rifle with an ordinary sight.  And even at 250 meters, half, if not more, will make a mistake.  And this is not in flight, but in a prone position, and with a reliable emphasis on the rifle barrel.

This is true!  

...but I shoot at 100 meters or less, and my "Rifle" fires 600 rounds a minute  

Edited May 16, 2020 by US93_Larner

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

4 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

my "Rifle" fires 600 rounds a minute  

I don't know a thing about guns but is this true?