Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, J3Hetzer said:

 A sound-cue would do the job quite nicely, something like RB2-3D had (a creaking sound iirc).

 

A great idea.

 

Actually: WHAT IF we had a sound clue when a spar has incurred critical damage? Would it be too unrealistic? I like that creaking sound idea, maybe it could be explored for this too.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, J2_Bidu said:

Actually: WHAT IF we had a sound clue when a spar has incurred critical damage? Would it be too unrealistic? I like that creaking sound idea, maybe it could be explored for this too.


WoFF had some pretty decent sound cues. Creaking when pulling hard Gs, and a 'whistling' sound when your fuel tank had been shot through. The latter seemed a little bit...weird...but you sure as hell knew your situation! 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/25/2020 at 11:29 AM, kendo said:

1. Does it suggest that? Sahaj-1Esk (and I don't mean to be disrespectful here) talks about 'feels' and 'seems'. And you (Emely) jump in behind and take that as established fact. Maybe it is the truth, but surely it needs a little more testing to be sure? And the second AnP table published above does show (based on thousands of tests again) a much greater number of hits needed when firing from 90 degrees. I would suggest that degree of evidence outweighs (at the moment anyway) your assertion.And as I said above you can't use the numbers in that graph (at zero G) as a guide to number of expected hits to break a wing when pulling 4G+.

 

Yes, I have something like 400 online flying hours since January, how many do you have? I know, I would need an engineer (IT-engineer) who would be listening to my (our) reports and tranlate that into numbers, similar to F1 racing where the cars are fine tuned based upon the feedback of the drivers but it is out of scope, out of money, out of time, out if ineterest, out of manpower to do it properly.

 

 

Edited by 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...I disagree...my answer in that post still stands, and if you are going to get all MP snobby elitest.....can i remind you that the network issues f**k everything up there anyway.

 

So, maybe you should play more single player to get accurate results....  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@kendo do you log some hours in multiplayer environment or  you just practicing theoretical retoric? Anyways what is important to us , lab test or field test , for sure not in mind test 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I play single player like 99% of the other people who bought this sim.

Edited by kendo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kendo said:

I play single player like 99% of the other people who bought this sim.


A SP dogfight isn't even remotely close to an MP dogfight. This is both true of your opponent (obviously a player manoeuvres much better than an AI) and yourself (as you have to match your opponent's manoeuvres). 

You can't use SP to determine the effects in MP. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I play single player like 99% of the other people who bought this sim.

Show me the data. 

Btw this and other /most topics were put by multiplayer guys. You don't know what you are talking about . This game was made without any significant single player content . Who bought it for 80 dollars to enjoy only quick missions ??? The sp content were made after release , but all this is not important as multiplayer guys are making this game and forum alive .

Edited by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:


A SP dogfight isn't even remotely close to an MP dogfight. This is both true of your opponent (obviously a player manoeuvres much better than an AI) and yourself (as you have to match your opponent's manoeuvres). 

You can't use SP to determine the effects in MP. 

 

I'm not doing that. Nowhere have i done that. I was responding, in kind, to a rather tart post from 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk.

 

What does how many hours I play (or don't play) in MP have to do with the opinion (respectfully) expressed in the post he referred to, which was about AnP's data by the way. We can all look at evidence and give our honest opinions. I listen here to the MP flyers opinions and hear loud and clear that there are big differences beween the two. I still have my preference, which isn't going to change.

 

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

Show me the data. 

Btw this and other /most topics were put by multiplayer guys. You don't know what you are talking about . This game was made without any significant single player content .

 

This has been done to death in mnay other threads .Do a search.

Edited by kendo

Share this post


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

 

This has been done to death in mnay other threads .Do a search.

Hahaha now I'm sure you don't know what you are talking about, this is about FC , talk of multiplayer ppl mostly for game  made for Tmultiplayer,  not like other series of Il2GB like BOS, BOM etc which were  rich with sp content from beginning.

 

Btw

I'm sure that majority of all threads on FC part forum of il2GB forum  were made by multiplayer guys.

How I can take serious guy who never flown multiplayer game and talk about multiplayer DM on multiplayer thread ?

Edited by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, this was what I was afraid of Kendo. I do not recognize your nick and many others who participate in that discussion (and the other DM topic) from online flying. SP vs MP is like a different language, we do not understand each other. Non compatible platform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Hahaha now I sure you don't know what you are talking about, this is about FC , talk of multiplayer ppl mostly for 

game  made for multiplayer,  not like other series of Il2GB like BOS, BOM etc which were  rich with sp content from beginning.

 

 

Crap.  Everyone who has this game has a right to an opinion. It does not belong to a tiny group of MP regulars alone. Furthermore,  it has been stated by the developers, over and over again, that MP cannot make valid tests of the DM.

 

Most of the complaints from the MP side come into two categories:

 

1) The new DM is not as much fun. I understand this POV, but its is purely subjective - others think it is just fine.

2) The new DM is not realistic.

 

Here they have no grounds at all as far as the absolute undamaged G limits go, since there are contemporary tests and estimates.

On the effect of damage there may be a greater case. Yet when it is demonstrated that a significant proportion of aircraft lost wings in combat, the best they can come up with is an argument along the lines that "I have clear evidence that Janet is a girl, so it is implausible that John is a boy".  And you expect to be taken seriously?

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

 

 

Crap.  Everyone who has this game has a right to an opinion. It does not belong to a tiny group of MP regulars alone. Furthermore,  it has been stated by the developers, over and over again, that MP cannot make valid tests of the DM.

 

Most of the complaints from the MP side come into two categories:

 

1) The new DM is not as much fun. I understand this POV, but its is purely subjective - others think it is just fine.

2) The new DM is not realistic.

 

Here they have no grounds at all as far as the absolute undamaged G limits go, since there are contemporary tests and estimates.

On the effect of damage there may be a greater case. Yet when it is demonstrated that a significant proportion of aircraft lost wings in combat, the best they can come up with is an argument along the lines that "I have clear evidence that Janet is a girl, so it is implausible that John is a boy".  And you expect to be taken seriously?

 

 

 

Not . Sure everyone has right to opinion,  I have mine about guy who never played multiplayer and says to other multiplayer guys that everything is ok and they have just fillings. Anyways those issue are for multiplayer guys and this topic was started by devs because multiplayer guys were complaining. Where were you as I remember you dislike week wings as I can recollect.

 

Edited by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, kendo said:

What does how many hours I play (or don't play) in MP have to do with the opinion (respectfully) expressed in the post he referred to, which was about AnP's data by the way. We can all look at evidence and give our honest opinions. I listen here to the MP flyers opinions and hear loud and clear that there are big differences beween the two. I still have my preference, which isn't going to change.


Must have breezed past that when trying to catch up - apologies, I might have read your post out of context! 

Also, for what it's worth, if you prefer SP then good for you! I certainly won't look down on you for not seeing any interest in MP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, US93_Larner said:


Must have breezed past that when trying to catch up - apologies, I might have read your post out of context! 

Also, for what it's worth, if you prefer SP then good for you! I certainly won't look down on you for not seeing any interest in MP. 

 

No problem Larner. This is all getting out of hand.

 

Everyone: We are all actually on the same side here. Let's knock this on the head now.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kendo said:

 

No problem Larner. This is all getting out of hand.

 

Everyone: We are all actually on the same side here. Let's knock this on the head now.

You are right , I'm sorry if I was too offensive. We have similar goal after all.

Peace.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comment/Cheers from the sideline - SP guy here (1130 hours according to Steam and 100s of WWI aviation reading hours to my credit) following this discussion with great interest.  Amazing intellect, sources and experience (plus one IRL DRI pilot) contributing to these 2 threads to help the Devs continue to tune the DM where needed.  You are doing great - Stay on target guys!

 

SP Off topic comment in spoiler:

Spoiler

 

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

like BOS, BOM etc which were  rich with sp content from beginning.

 

I want to see FC expand for all of us (we need more a/c) so I want to point out I don't think this is really correct.  IIRC - BoS released without a career, with only one scripted campaign, and with unlocks.  Jason recruited Patrick Wilson later to bridge the gap well before the in-game career was added, and slowly expanded to include more SP content along the way, which is now happening with FC.  For anyone willing, PWCG currently gives a deep WWI career experience. 

 

More sales will help all of us, so please don't discourage any SP from giving FC a try, there is SP content available.  You MP guys are great virtual pilots (most of you are probably better than Richtofen if you put him online today) with a deep subject matter knowledge.  You are also the voice of community, so please use that voice wisely to expand the player base and our hobby overall.  Thank you!  :salute:

 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

multiplayer guys are making this game and forum alive .

 

They make it something alright.  😉

Edited by J28w-Broccoli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

 [snip] Where were you as I remember you dislike week wings as I can recollect.

 

 

I dislike that aiming at wings could be a more effective tactic than aiming at the engine/pilot area.  I do not believe this to be the case at present, but I am prepared to change my mind if someone can come up with a reasonable analysis.

 

In my fairly limited testing - and according to @US93_Larner's comparative tests - the AI do not lose wings in great numbers, perhaps even too few. I assume that is because they fly to much lower G-loads than human pilots, especially those who have been used to fighting to the death in one-on-one MP duels. That strongly suggests that the best way to down an enemy, at least in SP, is still to go for the cockpit/engine area: if you get wing damage that is a side effect. That is as it should be.  

 

In RoF with no mods, this was not the case - the wings were so weak, and the pilot and engine so hard to damage through the "armour plated" fuselage,  that wing hits really were optimal in SP.  I did not like that - so I used mods that strengthened the wings. The result was that everything about the plane was unrealistically strong, but at least aiming for "meat and metal" was then the best approach.

 

In MP - if players refuse to change their approach to high G flying with damaged aircraft, it is entirely possible that the best tactic would be to aim at the wings - but this is a result of unrealistic flying, not IMHO of an unrealistic DM.

 

As I have said before, while I think the undamaged G limits are very well supported, I am more open minded about the effect of wing damage - if only because there is so little real documentation.  But I have yet to see any well argued or documented case that the current implementation is actually wrong.  

 

edit - Since I am repeating myself (getting old :( ) I will take a break from this discussion unless some new evidence emerges.  Except just to repeat - if MPlayers do not like the current DM they are really not going to like it if and when the developers start to model the use of incendiaries! 

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

As I have said before, while I think the undamaged G limits are very well supported, I am more open minded about the effect of wing damage - if only because there is so little real documentation.  But I have yet to see any well argued or documented case that the current implementation is actually wrong.  

 

I in my own personally biased way think that this could well be the crux bullet hits causing too much damage. Particularly as info on the effects of bullet hits to things like spar strength is hard to determine.

 

For example if the spars got weaker and more vulnerable to repeatedly over-stressing as well as bringing the stress limit down that might be nicer than the current feeling that the spar is always put on the edge of total failure.

Edited by slug_yuugen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree the DM is a step up from ROF, which is good. It's also a step up from the last version of FC. This revision is still new, so I'd like to keep an open mind about it. It's not going to be "perfect", but the game is playable enough to putting in more flight time and seeing how it goes.

 

Eventually what we need to do is consolidate all the various hard data points - studies of kill ratios in books and online, etc. into an uncluttered research repository here in case the developers are interested. If we get any fresh data from Shuttleworth, Memorial Flight, Vintage Aviator, then that can go into the bin as well. I think part of the issue is that we get data, then the data becomes buried in very long, rambling threads that go in many directions. Some place where we can say "this a the data file" without debate or arguments - somewhere that you can get hard data relevant to game development quickly without having to wade through 9 or 10 pages of discussion.

  • Upvote 2

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...