Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

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


Yep! IIRC There was a boosted version as well that had an absolutely obscene fire rate, like 800 or 900 RPM or something crazy

EDIT: Going back to the FC damage model, I think stuff like the MvR victories analysis and other data is a great thing to introduce to the discussion. It's a big step up from assumption and guesswork - which is less probably less important when trying to get rid of the wing-shedding, but more important if we want to eventually reach a historically plausible DM that feels more like WW1. I'm going to look at some of our older records and compare them to that data. That should give us a reasonable idea of the real-life situation vs. the old DM, which I think will be useful, considering that our Dialogue with Petrovich has been based around our expectations, and I think it's fairly safe to assume that we're hoping for an end result that is plausible when compared to the real thing. 

Edited by US93_Larner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:


This is true!  

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

Wow!  If you fly a little closer, you can hit your opponents with the handle of your gun on the head! )))

I have no doubt that you shoot well in this game, I saw your videos.  Very good, almost like this guy 😉

https://youtu.be/vZSYh-qIAOk

One hundred meters, it is certainly more real than 300.  And 50 meters is even better)) However, my opponents rarely let me in at such distances.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

 

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.

 

Pretty sure that is data from all pilots in 3rd PG on Thursday night sessions only, not just Larner. The rest of us sure ain't as good a shot as as he is.

I would say it reflects the DM changes very well.

 

Edited by US103_Baer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DM's to be 'tuned' according to player feedback in the next update.

See latest DD.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The worry now, I think, is that 4.006 is going to be the 'take it or leave it' end result. Hopefully, though, now that we've dealt with the initial 'shock factor' of 4.005, we'll be able to give the devs some more 'controlled' feedback once 4.006 is rolled out. I imagine the Devs will be happier to listen if we can control the initial knee-jerk reaction. 

That being said, I'm actually really excited to get my hand on 4.006! We've seen the charts and the research and made our assumptions....it's going to be good fun to see what the actual finished article feels like! 

Edited by US93_Larner
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

Words

 

You broke the game. I hate you.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, US93_Talbot said:

 

You broke the game. I hate you.

It's only words and words are all I have to take your heart away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is @US93_Larner's MP data and my analysis of MvR's reports put into the same format.  Post patch Larner's numbers look like you are all in BEs.

 

Small samples, to be sure, but they are what we have, unless someone is prepared to fight waves of AI in QMB for hours and note down the cause of each kill. (I'm not).

 

 

317501227_MvRLarner.thumb.JPG.e0f59044e375474df05f22372d20aa6a.JPG

  

 

  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I take it, we're really looking at "Late" for MvR and comparing to the FC multiplayer data? The sample is smaller, but then FC is based in 1918, so everything would be "late" by the MvR standards. Is it even useful to look at any "early" data, or just early data without the BE2 (we don't have the BE2 in FC at least)? If it's just "Late MvR" vs what Larner put up, we should be seeing planes in the "structural collapse" category and the "other" category moving into "flamer" and (to a lesser extent) "engine out".

 

Or should we also be looking to "early" data?

 

Interestingly if you're using "late" versus what Larner has, the number of pilot kills is pretty close.

Edited by Krispy_Duck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Krispy_Duck it depends on whether you think FC should be modelling incendiaries, either as being implicit in the current load out or as a future add on.

 

If you take the FC load to be ball+tracer only, then I would take the MvR early without BEs as the reference point.  Column 4.

Then a reasonable match would be something like 15-20% structural collapse (mainly wings), ~10% flamers, and the rest a combination of PKs and engine damage.  The pre-patch DM then had too few structural collapses, the new version far too many.

 

If you assume that incendiaries are modeled, then late MvR.  Note this still has ~10% structural collapse, but flamers are far more common ~40% 

 

 

 

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

The worry now, I think, is that 4.006 is going to be the 'take it or leave it' end result. Hopefully, though, now that we've dealt with the initial 'shock factor' of 4.005, we'll be able to give the devs some more 'controlled' feedback once 4.006 is rolled out. I imagine the Devs will be happier to listen if we can control the initial knee-jerk reaction. 

 

UGYHV1l.jpg

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thanks for taking the time to compare the data, Unreasonable. 

As a point of interest, I decided to do a couple more charts for the 4.005 DM (we've got some new reports in from last Thursday as well, so we have a bigger data pool now!). (Note - I didn't realise the left side was set up that way - I can provide exact numbers if you want. The charts should be a good 'visual reference' though). 

For reference: 

Out of ControlProbable Pilot Kill, with no crash / mission end witnessed. This is determined by the EA's behaviour (I.E, a 'death spiral'). 

Crashed / F.T.Lcould be a pilot kill, but to the reporting pilot's eye the aircraft was crashed with a living pilot at the controls. 'F.T.L' is shorthand for forced to land. 

Not Specified - Er, well, not specified. Reporting pilot just reported the EA as "Shot Down". 

Some reports, such as 'Probably Forced Down' and 'Collision' have been omitted. 


peTxwMH.png

 

I also created a second chart indicating different types of reported aircraft VS. different types of shootdown. It is worth noting that a large majority of aircraft we face on Thursday are D.VII / D.VII Fs, and this is reflected in the numbers in this chart. 

 

E5SG5n7.png

 

Edited by US93_Larner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update tomorrow 😎

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DD_Arthur said:

Update tomorrow 😎

 Oh boy....

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attention Pilots!

Update 4.006 will probably be released on Tuesday May 19th (tomorrow) if all goes well. If not, we'll try again on Wednesday. So back up anything you want backed up before you attempt the update. This will be a big one, maybe backup your entire IL-2 install folder just in case. Update servers will likely be jammed for a while so please have a bit of patience with us. This update is JAM PACKED with good stuff. We think you'll like it a lot.

Also, I will leave the Yak-9 and Yak-9T Pre-Order discount live for a few more days, but hurry it will end soon! These Yaks are worth every penny. A lot of fun!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be quite an important update for the FC community, might make it or break it.  No pressure.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

Could be quite an important update for the FC community, might make it or break it.  No pressure.

 

I stayed away from 4.005, mostly because of other reasons (see: the world), so I'll be going straight from old FC to fixed new FC. I mostly intend to do Tacview tests first to see if wing durability is slightly less exaggerated. Pulling 9g in a Pfalz always seemed a bit overdone (g tolerance for American WWII fighter planes was in the realm of 10-12g), though I have no evidence that explicitly says it couldn't.

 

As for wing damage. Heh, I don't know. I deeply dislike wingshedding. Somewhere I'm willing to accept that wingshedding is seldom caused by the actual bullet damage, but by overstressing an already damaged wing, and that's why we see "too much" structural failure compared to historical reports. It could fundamentally change the way we maneuver during dogfights. Or maybe it won't, and we'll just see lots and lots of wingshedding. And yes, it might restore, at least to some degree, the supremacy of turret fighters. I'm less giddy about that than you might expect: the state of human gunners is pitiful. Broken animations, reduced firing angles, still no realistic g forces for maneuvers that would force a gunner to sit down or be ejected, still no historical roles such as radio operation or flare use, and still no scoring system (which was present in RoF). So if anything, it will be the rise of the A.I. gunner and pilot/gunner.

Edited by J5_Hellbender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Somewhere I'm willing to accept that wingshedding is seldom caused by the actual bullet damage, but by overstressing an already damaged wing, and that's why we see "too much" structural failure compared to historical reports."

 

This is exactly what I realised recently after doing some testing.

 

Wing shedding is certainly a result of both, damage and then stress on the now weakened wings.

 

I think we were a bit spoiled when it was possible to receive a lot of damage to wings and continue to fight as normal.

 

It might be a bit overdone currently and I hope revised DM will be a happy medium between what it was and what it is now.

 

We certainly need people to come back online. FC is a bit of ghost town currently. Flugpark is only half busy on Sundays. During the week more than 20 players on a server is a lot.

 

Certainly not what I would expect from relatively new game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, 1PL-Banzai-1Esk said:

 

We certainly need people to come back online. FC is a bit of ghost town currently. Flugpark is only half busy on Sundays. During the week more than 20 players on a server is a lot.

 

Certainly not what I would expect from relatively new game.

 

Why not, it isn't much different than RoF.

 

Also lock down restrictions are easing in many places.

Edited by J5_Klugermann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The way it stands right now, with folding wings and shaking planes, ROF is way more appealing and has the same shaking planes and folding wings. The DMs are very similar, the utterly annoying shaking (*when planes are hit - very important to address it) is basically the same, and so at least for me there is no reason to play Il-2, which also comes with visibility issues and invisible planes. And I get to fly the Nieuport 17 and the D8 in ROF as well.

 

Let's see what comes with the DM fix, but otherwise my advice is that you will have much more fun in ROF, and the numbers are not so different. You can find 15+ players on NFF, plenty of good players to train with and the server is not even listed anymore on the barans site.

 

Now if the today fix undoes what they did the last time, then you can weight some things in FC that are better than ROF. Especially the original DM and ballistics, which was light years ahead of the one we have in ROF.

 

And I disagree that we got spoiled. In general planes were just hit in the fabric. Even with small damage to the structure, it wasn’t a deal breaker (pun intended). Either they model severe damage and the particulars of each aircraft, which at this point does not seem feasible, I think it will come back to a similar result we had with the original damage model. Or else we will continue to have shredding wings and shaking planes and this game will continue to lose its players, either to other games or to ROF.

 

And when you get back to ROF you understand how antiquate and old these things were (it is a bit shocking to tell you the truth). So, no, we did not get spoiled. We were happy with a new game that was superior to the old one. How did we get to this point today is just… Unfortunate?

Edited by SeaW0lf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious what a bunch of people who don't seem to play anything else go play when the damage model isn't to their liking.

 

Not you, Seaw0lf, we know where you've been.  :)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

I'm curious what a bunch of people who don't seem to play anything else go play when the damage model isn't to their liking.

 

Not you, Seaw0lf, we know where you've been.  :)

 

I play with myself..........errrrrr !        I mean, I play in the QMB or PWCG.  There are lots of websites that offer all sorts of stimulating, sorry, simulating content.

Edited by HagarTheHorrible
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J5_Klugermann said:

 

Why not, it isn't much different than RoF.

 

Also lock down restrictions are easing in many places.

 

I admit I was late to the party with RoF. Joined in 2012, but even then there would be one big server going with 60 people most nights and a dogfight server (Fast Food and later Flying Circus) that would have a solid fanbase of people playing every night.

 

So , in my opinion FC with current MP numbers is dead on arrival.

 

If not for Jasta 5 and your efforts to maintain MP server there would be no decent MP at all.

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

I'm curious what a bunch of people who don't seem to play anything else go play when the damage model isn't to their liking.

 

 

WOFF.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

I'm curious what a bunch of people who don't seem to play anything else go play when the damage model isn't to their liking.

 

Not you, Seaw0lf, we know where you've been.  :)

 

For flying things falling apart without reason I already have Kerbal Space Program.

 

As for the competitive multiplayer experience and level of maturity of the community, I've been playing Minecraft with my 6 and 8-year-old.

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

 

There are lots of websites that offer all sorts of stimulating, sorry, simulating content.

Lol!  Links pls!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish No. 20 servers would gain a little more traction. Even if you have just 6 or 8 people, you'd have the choice of Flatland Furball dogfight, or the Short Wars missions. The more contained areas in those allow you to play with a 6-8 humans, plus some AI. A full-sized Thursday night J5 map is big for those nights where you might get 6 people. I'll admit I'm in ROF as much as FC now - we had fun with maybe 5 people in a server last night with FE2b pusher crew versus Halbs/Eindeckers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, JG51_Beazil said:

Lol!  Links pls!

 

They’re my fantasy, not yours, you can’t have them, anyway I expect monobrows aren’t for  everyone :acute:

 

image.jpeg.27230a3a23c82fcb6b78c62ada2e32ae.jpeg 

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

OMG. There's something I never needed to see...

 

 Once seen, some things just can't be unseen......:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hell, you think the monobrow's bad, I even came across Percy Fawcett, who hasn't been seen since 1925 (Lost city of Z), while rummaging in her undergrowth.  If there is one Brazilian, who could do with a Brazilian, it is her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

Hell, you think the monobrow's bad, I even came across Percy Fawcett, who hasn't been seen since 1925 (Lost city of Z), while rummaging in her undergrowth.  If there is one Brazilian, who could do with a Brazilian, it is her.

 

She is Cypriot. Also has had one.

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a chat forum I belonged to many years ago that one of the topics was "Caption this picture".  People would post up pics like those and you had to make up a caption for it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys, it was a busy time!
I remember, I promised the test results for 90°, here it is:

(P.S. Actually "fix is coming" is needed to read as "now in 4.006")


1274212296_Airplanesv.2(90deg).JPG.78b0a9d140f783cf1242b9b65c1435c1.JPG

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, AnPetrovich said:

Sorry guys, it was a busy time!
I remember, I promised the test results for 90°, here it is:1274212296_Airplanesv.2(90deg).JPG.78b0a9d140f783cf1242b9b65c1435c1.JPG

 

 

Is that a typo on the avg number of hits? 

 

1500...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...