Jump to content
US93_Larner

4.006 DM Discussion

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

I always find it hard to hold the turn coordinated at 82.26 bank angle and I sometimes end up in a 82.78 degrees or 11 g turn but then I need more practice I suppose......

 

Just try not to hit 90! 😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, slug_yuugen said:

 

Just try not to hit 90! 😄

 

I know, for some reason I keep blacking out at 89.9 degrees but maybe I'm not straining enough.

Share this post


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

Right but my point is more to illustrate high load factors in a much easier to calculate manner than the paper above that isn't related to anything other than bank angle. Load factor in a level turn is just 1/cos(bank angle). Whether any individual aircraft is capable of sustaining for any length of time a 10g level turn in terms of it's flight envelope is a different question. Basically as a comparison to high load factors from quick control adjustments at high speed they're not crazy by any means.

 

Yes I think we have that covered - hence my earlier requests for anyone claiming the games G meter is "wrong" to do some flat turn tests.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Load_factor_in_a_turn.gif

Edited by unreasonable
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:


On top of that 5G already causes COVID-19, I don’t even want to think what 10G could do.

 

I actually work with 5G nowadays so I'm not planning to visit Glastonbury in the near future. I can tell you it was a challenge to get that particular feature into the system since it initially affected download speeds but with a bit of tweaking we got it right in the end.

Edited by Holtzauge

Share this post


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

Check out this report R&M 491 on the SE5: According to the analysis, it can take 5.5g only and then the wing fails. This was why I commented earlier on the actual g-measurements in R&M 496 being as high as 4 g's in mock combat. Going THAT close to structural failure makes my hair stand on end. Now if you pull 4g in mock combat, how big is the risk you would pull that little bit extra when the tracers wizz by your head? In addition, tried the SE5  yesterday in FC and while I did just a few tries the wings came off at 5-7g's so the devs again seem to have done a marvelous job in modeling. In addition, while I did not try enough to positively confirm, it looked like the damage was accumulating every time you got the exceeded limits warning. So looks like doing a few high g turns in sequence could add up to a wing fail even at lower g's next time in-game.

About 6 G maximum is also in line with the testing i reported earlier for the Dr1.  

 

The thing that raises my eyebrows is the ease with which I attain those Gs in the Dr1 when I do the exact same maneuvers in the real plane, yet the G force feels like much less. 

 

Alas, it is raining here for the 3rd consecutive day, so probably no testing today.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Chill31 said:

About 6 G maximum is also in line with the testing i reported earlier for the Dr1.  

 

The thing that raises my eyebrows is the ease with which I attain those Gs in the Dr1 when I do the exact same maneuvers in the real plane, yet the G force feels like much less. 

 

Alas, it is raining here for the 3rd consecutive day, so probably no testing today.

 

Too bad! Was looking forward to seeing those results. I have developed a C++ simulator and actually modeled the Dr1 so seeing some IRL data would be nice. According to my C++ simulation, if you start off at say 160 Km/h TAS in a Dr1 at 750 m altitude and do an instantaneous max rate turn it takes about 9 s to do a 360 degree turn. Then, after the first 360, the speed has dropped to the speed for best turn rate which I estimated at about 80 Km/h at which time the turn rate is steady at around 29 deg/s or about 12.4 s to do a 360 turn.

 

Interestingly, in my C++ simulation the g-load is 3.8 g at Clmax about 1 s into the simulation and then rapidly falls to 1.5 g riding the edge of stall so nowhere near 6 g's.

 

The weight I used in the simulation is 575 Kg which maybe is a bit different from your T/O weight? In addition I'm assuming that the Oberursel delivers 122 hp SL and I don't know what power output you have in your Dr1?

 

Anyway, super interested in your test results since I hope to be able to use them for tweaking the C++ model! :good:

 

About the Dr1 6 g limit: Is that the max allowable limit meaning the design is stressed for 1.5 x 6 =9 g or is the max allowable 6/1.5=4 g?

Share this post


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

About the Dr1 6 g limit: Is that the max allowable limit meaning the design is stressed for 1.5 x 6 =9 g or is the max allowable 6/1.5=4 g?

I don't think that back then assessing structural strenght of the wings was such an exact science regarding the individual case, where manufacturing tolerances greatly affected the indiviual ultimate load tolerance. So I'd say anyone venturing beyond 6 g in any of those crated was gambling with his life. I would also not be surprised if the crates varied drastically in wing strenghts. In case of the Dr.I, a whole production batch came apart by itself. Yes, bad glue, but "good glue" was still junk grase compared to what you have today.

 

Doolittle did his masters thesis on “Wing Loads as Determined by the Accelerometer” as sudden structural collapse was not that uncommon. The way he determined spar damage is to sit in a Fokker Trimotor, dive to Vne and pull what he could until he heard evil sound from the spar, then back for landing and marvel at the damage. (I guess he never told his mom.) This was mid 1920's. Even though the physics of columns and beams was known to the engeneers, there was still lots to discover on the actual situation.

 

2 hours ago, Chill31 said:

The thing that raises my eyebrows is the ease with which I attain those Gs in the Dr1 when I do the exact same maneuvers in the real plane, yet the G force feels like much less. 

This is what gets me as well. I have mentioned it many times here in the past, but it seems to be a feature of the sims engine for planes not bleeding much energy above a certain flight speed.

 

With RoF, that feature is extremely pronounced and it made the "pre-patch" Camel and the Dr.I total clown cars. With the refresh in FC, the sim engine matured considerably and this property is less pronounced, hence even the fast Camel is nowhere near such a clown car as it was in RoF. It makes the Breguet bomber a great turnfighter in RoF. it's silly. This maintaining of energy was mainly the reason why both the Dr.I and the Camel were that much superior over the rest. The nerfing helped reducing the effect of maintaining energy such that those planes could be flown like an Extra300. Airspeed was never much an issue, but it was a reqired collateral of taking away energy from these aircraft to place them nearer their "step" where they suddenly will bleed a lot of energy in maneuvers.

 

I remember you creating an *.air file for Neoqb's free Dr.I they gave away for FSX. That was a true revelation, as in FSX, there is no such energy retention and the plane suddenly flew like you expect it from a real aircraft.

 

Still, in this sim, you clearly notice that every plane has sort of an energy threshold (way above stall speed!) it requires, then it flies well. I say step, because in practise it feels as clear cut like a motor boat that starts gliding. Once you are past that step, it acellerates readily and fast*). Same as these in game aircraft. Once you cross a certain level of energy you're fine. it is not the same as "coffin corner" with real aircraft that under a certain flightspeed can't accellerate anymore, this "step" is when going way faster. With the Camel, if you are >150 km/h, you can maintatin incredibly high g in turns without slowing down much. It is as if induced drag has become inexistent. But you go just a tad slower it takes one turn and you are down at 80 km/h.

 

I see this effect very, very clear in IL2, especially FC, but in no other simulator out there. I think this is a main reason why we coveniently fly these aircraft like jets and wonder why they come apart so readily.

 

*) Slow speed accelleration (along with AoA at given flight speeds, g loads and flap settings) is generally something to be looked at in the sim. Real planes are more willing to move from full stop as they do in this sim. You clearly can see this by excessve revs required to get the aircraft rolling. Although the differences might seem academic, I think they play very much into the handling of the aircraft.

 

1 hour ago, Holtzauge said:

Anyway, super interested in your test results since I hope to be able to use them for tweaking the C++ model!

Love to see those results... :)

Edited by ZachariasX

Share this post


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

I don't think that back then assessing structural strenght of the wings was such an exact science regarding the individual case, where manufacturing tolerances greatly affected the indiviual ultimate load tolerance. So I'd say anyone venturing beyond 6 g in any of those crated was gambling with his life. I would also not be surprised if the crates varied drastically in wing strenghts. In case of the Dr.I, a whole production batch came apart by itself. Yes, bad glue, but "good glue" was still junk grase compared to what you have today.

 

Doolittle did his masters thesis on “Wing Loads as Determined by the Accelerometer” as sudden structural collapse was not that uncommon. The way he determined spar damage is to sit in a Fokker Trimotor, dive to Vne and pull what he could until he heard evil sound from the spar, then back for landing and marvel at the damage. (I guess he never told his mom.) This was mid 1920's. Even though the physics of columns and beams was known to the engeneers, there was still lots to discover on the actual situation.

 

Yep, for sure: In WW1 there was probably a lot of variation between individual aircraft seeing that it was more furniture building if anything and that some hooves made better glue than others. In fact our indigenous Swedish “mini Fw-190” the J22 was in fact built to some extent by furniture companies because SAAB had other fish to fry at the time.

 

Back on subject: According to NACA report 143, ANALYSIS OF STRESSES IN GERMAN AIRPLANES By WILHELM HOFF (looks like a very interesting doc BTW) "Bau- und Liefervorschriften der Inspektion der Fliegertruppen" (BLV) determined load regulations and was issued in 1915, 1916, and 1918. On page 19-20 the subject is wings and as far as I can see skimming through it is that the pullout load requirement was initially 6, the 4.5 for a time to end up at 5 g in 1918. This was the limit load factor as I understand it meaning the design passed if it could handle this and nothing more. Interestingly, these German design rules tab well then with the SE5’s wings breaking at 5.5 g meaning that our in-game crates are actually stronger than these numbers.

 

I can see you all enthusiastically waving your arms suggesting I send this report to the developers asking them to lower the wing strength of the scouts in game so we can see more wings snapping of both in SP and MP.

 

Seriously, what this tells us if anything is that if our in-game scouts can handle 7 and some even 10, we should be very happy. In fact this is probably quite realistic as well: I have done structural design myself and the last thing you want is for your 5 g rated design to go KABOOM at 4.99 g in the end acceptance testing and structural designing every piece to break at 5.00 g is impossible meaning you always include a safety factor on the safety factor so if the limit load is 5g then getting to 7g before the wing actually fails when sandbagging it in the static load acceptance test would probably not have been uncommon.

 

3 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Love to see those results... :)

 

All in good time! But before that it would good to know @Chill31 Dr1 data: What is the weight and what is the power output? Also, is the wing profile the original Göttingen or some more modern design?

 

In addition: About the "not bleeding energy part" I managed 9 s sustained turns in the Dr1 in game while in the C++ simulation I get around 12 s to do a 360 degree left hand turn at around 800 m altitude so it would be really nice @Chill31 if you could give us your Dr1's best sustained turn time for a specific altitude of your own choosing so we could compare?

 

Edited by Holtzauge
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Okay, I've finished sorting the claims from Norman Franks' two 'Under the Guns' books. The results are very interesting, actually, and do help a little in trying to ascertain the 'truth' of how these aircraft behaved when being pelted by bullets. HOWEVER - it NEEDS to be considered that a large portion of the kills come under the 'Not Specified' category. This is relevant because: 

Analysed victories that I have logged as 'Not Specified' have typically been described as having "Fell" or being "Brought Down" - with NO additional information, except that the victims were confirmed killed or missing. Ergo - these could very well be ANY of the other categories (Pilot killed, In Flames, Broke Up in Air, etc etc etc).

That being said, it must be considered that it would be likely (as stated by Franks himself in one victory analysis) that pilots would make the distinction of mentioning if an aircraft fell in flames or broke up in the air - as both would be far better confirmation than simply saying the aircraft "went down". Franks cites the actual reports of the German (and Entente witnessing) pilots multiple times when analysing the claims, and I am sure he would mention the aircraft falling in flames or in pieces if he had proof of this. However - that is NOT to say that those outcomes aren't a possibility. 

Similarly, 'Pilot Incapacitated' refers to the pilot being severely wounded or killed in the air being the DIRECT cause of an UNCONTROLLED crash - resulting in a fatality. There were cases where mortally wounded pilots made forced landings while in control of their aircraft, or out-of-control aircraft with temporarily incapacitated pilots crashed, only for the pilot to survive. This category is, essentially, comparable to my FC data's "Pilot Killed" category. 

I want to really go in-depth with the analyses of these victories, as there are quite a few circumstances that need to be examined in further detail, but that'll be a LONG post when I do that. For starters I'll just post the raw overall numbers:

 

 

xHfiAtj.png
 


It's also worth mentioning that claims that were impossible to validate by Franks & Co., as well as claims disproven by all evidence, have been omitted from this data, for obvious reasons. 
 

 

Edited by US93_Larner
  • Thanks 4
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@US93_Larner Great stuff.  I would do this myself, but with no planes being let into Thailand, I will not get eyes on the book for a while, so I wonder if you could could divide up those totals into three: 

 

1) pre July 6th 1917, excluding any BE types 

2) pre July 6th 1917 BE types

3) Post July 6th 1917

 

The date split will give us some idea of the results before general incendiary use and after, while seeing if the BE types skew the results for structural failure, as they clearly do in MvR's totals.

 

Just a table will be fine. (Actually much better than graphs for a simple data set).  Then we can both compile the aggregate data including MvR's and see how it looks.  Edit - Honestly I would not bother with a long post of details - if people want that they can always buy the book.   

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/27/2020 at 3:28 AM, HagarTheHorrible said:


"THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL February, 1921
PROCEEDINGS, FIFTH MEETING, 57th SESSION, Major F. M. Green delivered the following lecture

DEVELOPMENT OF THE FIGHTING AEROPLANE.

Ability to Withstand Damage.

The structure of the aeroplane itself is a large target in comparison with the pilot and the vital parts of the engine. It will be a big advantage if the aeroplane is so designed that it is likely to lose little of its structural strength when hit by the bullets of the enemy. Wooden spars are generally of such a section that many bullet holes are unlikely to cause sufficient damage to make failure in the air likely. There is always the possibility that a wire or the attachment of a wire will be shot away, and it certainly seems a requirement of the modern aeroplane that the structure of the aeroplane should not depend upon any single wire or attachment. Duplicating a wire by means of another wire alongside is apt to be dangerous as one bullet is likely to destroy both wires. The lecturer knows of one case in which an aeroplane partly collapsed when a bullet hit the point of attachment of two wires which left the plane at different angles. The ideal arrangement, therefore, is to make a structure which is braced by two or more independent systems."

 

.......but, Hey !  Nobody payed any attention when this was posted in 2011, so it's probably pointless repeating it here.

 

 

It was probably ignored then because it is vague and qualitative, while the green highlighted section is open to two very different interpretations:

 

1) A wooden spar with many bullet holes is unlikely to be sufficiently damaged to cause failure in the air, or

2) Many/most/all of the bullet holes that hit a spar are each separately unlikely to cause failure in the air.

 

The most reasonable interpretation is that (2) is true while (1) is false - which is as reflected in the game now.   Each "spar hit" is indeed unlikely to cause failure,  damage is cumulative and/or compound, planes known to be of stronger construction are less likely to get breakages.  

 

Anyway, people complaining about losing a wing after a few hits with the current DM will still be complaining about the same result, even if you tweaked the DM and called the low probability damaging shots "wire attachment point hits" or whatever else you want to call them.   It is the outcomes that matter, not how the DM reaches them.

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

While this data gathering is admirable, how do we know that the rate of RL planes collapsing isn't just due to the probability of actually hitting a spar IRL while aiming for meat and metal?  Trying to determine how strong the wings are supposed to be in game by counting victory circumstances originated by pilots who were aiming at something else-  In the best case seems misguided.  In the worst case would be a methodology that could be used to deliberately skew a result.

 

It seems like, in order to be valuable, we really need to know the actual strength of one of these spars.  It's easy to get lost in just casually saying "Oh it's just 5G's, 6G's, 7G's", and so on, without thinking about what those numbers actually represent.  How heavy is the fuselage of a fully loaded camel with a pilot, two MG's and ammo, when you multiply it by 6?

 

I don't know how we can resolve determining actual strength though.  😪  Somebody mount some long 2x4's and just start hanging weights on them?  Then start drilling holes?  Do we have some hard data on type of wood used and proper dimensions?

Edited by J28w-Broccoli

Share this post


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

I don't know how we can resolve determining actual strength though.  😪  Somebody mount some long 2x4's and just start hanging weights on them?  Then start drilling holes?  Do we have some hard data on type of wood used and proper dimensions?

 

Share this post


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

While this data gathering is admirable, how do we know that the rate of RL planes collapsing isn't just due to the probability of actually hitting a spar IRL while aiming for meat and metal?  [snip]

 

I am sure that it is. Hence the ideal comparison is between RL cases and playing in circumstances where pilots are aiming at pilot/engine, and not deliberately shooting at wings, with human players who emphasize staying alive over making a kill, especially when damaged. 

 

The developers have a pretty good idea of the breaking points of the wings of various planes - as shown in some of the documents posted here. When it comes to the effects of battle damage we are on shakier ground.  Any claims from the post incendiary era, for instance, tell you little about what would have happened to wings if incendiaries were not used, simply because a good proportion of targets are set on fire with few hits.

 

So it is just a matter of coming at the problem from a variety of ways to try to get a reasonable set of game outcomes.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

 

 

While that's very cool, I don't know that it proves anything. 

 

My mates and I used to take turns trying to see who could cut down 2x4's and 4x4's in the fewest shots using our issue .40cal glocks.  You could knock the top off a 2x4 by spacing out 4 shots where you wanted the break point to be, then putting a final shot higher up on the board to actually break it.

Share this post


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

I don't know how we can resolve determining actual strength though.  😪  Somebody mount some long 2x4's and just start hanging weights on them?  Then start drilling holes?  Do we have some hard data on type of wood used and proper dimensions?

 

Yes, but first we need to determine the particular mean shear strength of birch plywood trees planted in the 1904 to 1906 growing seasons, then take into account the Great Drought of 1911...

 

Seriously.  Please tell me that you are just joking, right?  I mean, I like my flight sims to be accurate to real life and all, hence the term "simulation", but I mean....

Share this post


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

 

Yes, but first we need to determine the particular mean shear strength of birch plywood trees planted in the 1904 to 1906 growing seasons, then take into account the Great Drought of 1911...

 

Seriously.  Please tell me that you are just joking, right?  I mean, I like my flight sims to be accurate to real life and all, hence the term "simulation", but I mean....

 

I flat out said that I have no idea how to determine their actual strength.  Did you interpret the question marks to mean that "Yes!  We should go out and do this!", or was it something else?  I'm also not complaining about the current damage model.  Just pointing out that some of the ways people are trying to approach this may be flawed.

 

Scurry off and go play your WW2 game, troll.

Edited by J28w-Broccoli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading this thread and the various Migoto VR meltdowns it's pretty remarkable that the dev team hasn't just decided to shut down and give the finger to all of us.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

 

I flat out said that I have no idea how to determine their actual strength.  I'm also not complaining about the current damage model.

 

Scurry off and go play your WW2 game, troll.

 

troll, huh?  I don't know who the heck you think you are, but don't you think you are going a little bit too far proposing people hang 2 x 4's from something and drill holes in them, and then test the strength with a strain guage?

 

Get a hold of yourself, man.

 

Edited by SeaSerpent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2020 at 9:28 PM, HagarTheHorrible said:


"THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL February, 1921
PROCEEDINGS, FIFTH MEETING, 57th SESSION, Major F. M. Green delivered the following lecture

DEVELOPMENT OF THE FIGHTING AEROPLANE.

...

 

Slight problem. THE AERONAUTICAL JOURNAL for 1921 is available online (see here), and the article by Green isn't in it. From searching, it appears that Green was due to give a lecture on the subject in December of that year, so maybe it is in the journal for 1922 - but that isn't available online as far as I can see.

 

Personally, I'm reluctant to put to much weight on an out of context quotation from a wrongly-identified source. Have you actually read the article yourself Hagar? Is it available online?

Share this post


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

 

troll, huh? 

 

Yeah, pretty much.

 

You don't even play FC.  Why are you here again?  Unless it's to provide your usual service of getting threads locked.  In that case go ahead.

 

I've said from the get-go, I have no issue with the current DM.  I consider it a piloting issue, even if others may disagree.  While the kill data gathering that is going on is interesting- I have my doubts as to how useful it is.

Edited by J28w-Broccoli
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I payed for Flying Circus just like you did.  I have 2000+ hours in Rise of Flight.  I played Red Baron II.  I played Red Baron I back in 1990.  I have thousands of hours of my life invested in World War I sims.  Who the heck do you think you are that you can exclude me from this discussion or any other regarding Flying Circus or World War One flight sims, in general, for that matter?

 

I have no intention of getting this thread locked.  You're the only one that appears to be proposing that.  But I am going to comment when I see people proposing hanging boards from their rafters and drilling holes in them to "help" the developers along in their modelling.  It's absurd.

Edited by SeaSerpent

Share this post


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

I have 2000+ hours in Rise of Flight.  I played Red Baron II.  I played Red Baron I back in 1990.  I have thousands of hours of my life invested in World War I sims.

 

Wow man.

 

I'm so sorry.  Seriously.

Edited by J28w-Broccoli
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I've found a report on F.M. Green's lecture on DEVELOPMENT OF THE FIGHTING AEROPLANE, published in Flight Magazine December 22 1921 (see here) . The report doesn't include anything Green had to say on damage to spars, but I did notice this comment, which seems rather relevant to this thread:

 

Quote

Capt. Green pointed out what he considered to be fallacies in the general opinion of pilots, that a rotary engine enabled a pilot to sit close up to the engine and produced an aeroplane which was extremely easy to manoeuvre fore and aft. Firstly, he pointed out, the increased gyroscopic effect of the rotary is practically equivalent to an increased moment of inertia. Secondly, it is always easily possible to manoeuvre a small aeroplane fast enough in the fore and aft direction to break it, and it is therefore of no advantage to provide quicker control than we have now without increasing the strength of the machine beyond what is practicable.

 

Edited by AndyJWest

Share this post


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

 

Wow man.

 

I'm so sorry.  Seriously.

 

accepted.  I wasn't trying to single you out, and perhaps sarcasm wasn't the best way to go about it.  I just think that there is a whole metric s(*&t ton of data and stuff here in this thread, and I can't help but think people might be getting a little too carried away.  Maybe the developers need to simply "tune" the damage model a bit so that it falls better in line with some anecdotes?  Because I think the calculations to do a comprehensive physical model of all the multitude of factors is just not there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Its pretty clear that the community is split and if people see an issue or not is dependent on their favourite plane and whether they mainly fly against AI  

 

Let me ask a question.

Is a wing's strength post-damage, proportional to its strength pre-damage?

 

Hypothetically, say Plane A (Central) and Plane B (Entente) can both pull in-game 7G loads undamaged repeatedly but no higher.

Then if 5 bullets hit the both their wings in the same places and with the same algo chance of hitting critical load structures, do they then display the same resistance to wing breakage? Would both their wings now fail at the same G load?

 

Then if Plane A and Plane B had variation in pre-damage G capability, say 6G and 8G, would that translate to the same proportion post-damage (say 3G and 4G)

 

We know that different wing structures and concepts aren't modeled in DM with AP memorably saying 'they weren't NASA'.

 

GIven that, i wonder if pre/post damage proportionality would meet players expectations? Or is that what we had pre 4.005!

Edited by US103_Baer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, US103_Baer said:

Its pretty clear that the community is split and if people see an issue or not is dependent on their favourite plane and whether they mainly fly against AI  

 

Let me ask a question....

 

I would say dependent on how they fly, more than either of those factors: although favourite plane and choice of MP/SP may influence that, it does not determine it. 

 

On your question, for a single case, I think only if they roll the RNGs required to trigger the same damage, maybe not even then. 

 

Schematically, I imagine the logic of a hit as being in outline:

 

If wing hit: 

1) Take x HPs towards visible damage and aerodynamic penalty levels. (These are cumulative)

2) Roll for "spar hit" based on plane type and angle of hit (Each hit independent)

3) If "spar hit" roll for "spar damage" in reduced G limit  (This seems to be compound and/or cumulative)

4) If current G > modified allowed G, break wing.

   

So if you did that experiment a large number of times, you might get the same outcomes, at least for (1) and (2) but not for any small sample.  

 

(3) depends whether damage is as a % of the "spar strength" or a fixed number per bullet against a number of "spar" HPs.    The second makes more sense to me: one bullet hit on a thin spar should cause proportionately more damage than one hit on a thick spar, although it is less likely.   So I think in your 6G and 8G example, given the same number of "spar hits", the likely outcome is more likely to be close to 2G and 4G, or even 1G and 4G.   ie not proportional.

 

edit - put another way - the probability of triggering a spar hit would be proportional to the areas of the spar/wing, the "strength" of the spar proportional to the cross section.   

 

Just speculation of course.... ;) 

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


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

 

I would say dependent on how they fly, more than either of those factors: although favourite plane and choice of MP/SP may influence that, it does not determine it. 

 

..................

 

(3) depends whether damage is as a % of the "spar strength" or a fixed number per bullet against a number of "spar" HPs.    The second makes more sense to me: one bullet hit on a thin spar should cause proportionately more damage than one hit on a thick spar, although it is less likely.   So I think in your 6G and 8G example, given the same number of "spar hits", the likely outcome is more likely to be close to 2G and 4G, or even 1G and 4G.   ie not proportional.  

 

Just speculation of course.... ;) 

 

Yeah, but not happening to fly a BnZer any other way than BnZ. Even pre-4.005 if you took minor wing damage you had to modify flying behaviour PvP, just not to the extent of being unable to fight if you want to live, as is the case now.

 

In a nutshell. The new DM has created a vastly uneven plane-set post-damage but not pre-damage, seemingly because - Wing Spar Size.

Given that 1CGS are 'not NASA' and actual structures and build concepts aren't modeled (solid spar, boxed, laminates, braced, unbraced, double-bay, wood types,...) its a compromise. Is it therefore correct to base so much on Spar Size when the result creates this huge uneveness post-damage? 

 

Edited by US103_Baer
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Interestingly, these German design rules tab well then with the SE5’s wings breaking at 5.5 g meaning that our in-game crates are actually stronger than these numbers.

I was looking at the report you linked to in regard to the SE5 and noticed it was from April 1917 which was around the time the type entered service and also noticed that at the end of the report in May 1917 that cutting down the wing tips increase the max G to more than 6.5 up to 200mph.  Were these changes incorporated into the SE5a along with the more powerful engine?

Was doing some quick searching on google and came across this: "The first production batch of SE5s did not make a promising impression on their pilots, who complained of poor lateral control – a shortcoming that was alleviated somewhat, but never entirely, by shortening the wingspan and reducing the rake of the wingtips in later production SE5s and SE5as. Engine reduction and gun synchronisation problems also afflicted early SE5s."  So it does seem the wings of production aircraft were modified at one point.  Source:   https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2017/10/30/royal-aircraft-factory-se55a/

Edited by Danneskjold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, US103_Baer said:

In a nutshell. The new DM has created a vastly uneven plane-set post-damage but not pre-damage, seemingly because - Wing Spar Size.

Given that 1CGS are 'not NASA' and actual structures and build concepts aren't modeled (solid spar, boxed, laminates, braced, unbraced, double-bay, wood types,...) its a compromise. Is it therefore correct to base so much on Spar Size when the result creates this huge uneveness post-damage?

 

In my opinion: yes.

 

You're pitching the best 1917 scouts (Camel, SPAD XIII) against the cream of the crop of 1918 (Fokker D.VIIF). The F incorporates every significant wing design advancement already found in the Fokker Dr.I and vanilla D.VII, and on top of that adds one of the best in-line engines in the game. In fact, the only thing you could do to further improve the Fokker D.VII airframe is to give it a Hispano-Suiza engine, but who would ever even think to come up with such a hybrid monst—

 

Spoiler

66333_1171971023.jpg

 

¡Dios mío!

 

(the Spanish were good friends with the Germans and they did put the Hispano in Hispano-Suiza)

 

 

If it's planeset balance that you're after, the F needs to go until Entente has the Snipe, Bentley Camel and late war SPAD. The S.E.5a with Wolseley Viper is late war already, but not spectacular compared to the Fokker D.VIIF, as by that time the British had bet the bank on huge rotary engines along with the Bristol Fighter and the Rolls-Royce Falcon III.

 

I'm not entirely convinced that the Fokker Dr.I and vanilla D.VII are a match for the Camel. Sure they can stay in the fight even longer now after taking damage, but unless they damage the Camel first, this won't do them much good. I need to start flying the D.VII online again, but if I lose with it, it will likely just prove my own incompetence rather than the plane not being competitive.

 

 

What I do agree with, is that it's never been more important to score (and avoid) those tiny long distance snapshots before the actual dogfight starts.

Edited by J5_Hellbender
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

 

If it's planeset balance that you're after, the F needs to go until Entente has the Snipe, Bentley Camel and late war SPAD. The S.E.5a with Wolseley Viper is late war already, but not spectacular compared to the Fokker D.VIIF, as by that time the British had bet the bank on huge rotary engines along with the Bristol Fighter and the Rolls-Royce Falcon III.

 

I'm not entirely convinced that the Fokker Dr.I and vanilla D.VII are a match for the Camel. Sure they can stay in the fight even longer now after taking damage, but unless they damage the Camel first, this won't do them much good. I need to start flying the D.VII online again, but if I lose with it, it will likely just prove my own incompetence rather than the plane not being competitive.

 

 

What I do agree with, is that it's never been more important to score (and avoid) those tiny long distance snapshots before the actual dogfight starts.

 

I agreed 100% (again!). The F is in a league of its own right now, and I doubt we are going to see any new planes in the set any time soon. If we want anything close to MP balance both the F and (sorry) the Camel need limited numbers (an early Camel with a less power engine variant would really help here).

 

I would implore the J5 server admins to at least consider this and give it a go. Doesn't need to be every map, and if there's 1-2 Fs and Camels available some ppl will still be able to fly them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, US93_Rummell said:

 

I agreed 100% (again!). The F is in a league of its own right now, and I doubt we are going to see any new planes in the set any time soon. If we want anything close to MP balance both the F and (sorry) the Camel need limited numbers (an early Camel with a less power engine variant would really help here).

 

I would implore the J5 server admins to at least consider this and give it a go. Doesn't need to be every map, and if there's 1-2 Fs and Camels available some ppl will still be able to fly them.

 

 

Could also incorporate similar mechanics to the way Combat Box limits access to the 262 (which has the same issue in being dramatically better than other aircraft), has balanced the Tempest and I think 150 octane fuel as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

You're pitching the best 1917 scouts (Camel, SPAD XIII) against the cream of the crop of 1918 (Fokker D.VIIF). The F incorporates every significant wing design advancement already found in the Fokker Dr.I and vanilla D.VII, and on top of that adds one of the best in-line engines in the game. In fact, the only thing you could do to further improve the Fokker D.VII airframe is to give it a Hispano-Suiza engine, but who would ever even think to come up with such a hybrid monst—


That image is unholy and perverse. 

My problem at the moment isn't the D.VII / D.VII F's apparent super-strength. Ok, sure, the wings virtually can't be shot off. Big deal, I aim for pilots anyway. 

where my problem lies is that the SPAD is, just, weak. Yesterday we had a pilot with a complete positional advantage over a D.VII F, only to RTB after taking a couple rounds from a prop-hang because he "didn't feel like it was safe to dive anymore". Pre-DM changes, and even in RoF, he would have pressed that attack, no question. And I don't blame him for flying off after that video of the SPAD falling to pieces almost instantly in a dive after taking five rounds. 

You have to understand how extremely frustrating that is - especially when there are sources floating around boasting how structurally resilient the SPAD was. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, US93_Rummell said:

I agreed 100% (again!). The F is in a league of its own right now, and I doubt we are going to see any new planes in the set any time soon. If we want anything close to MP balance both the F and (sorry) the Camel need limited numbers (an early Camel with a less power engine variant would really help here).

 

I would implore the J5 server admins to at least consider this and give it a go. Doesn't need to be every map, and if there's 1-2 Fs and Camels available some ppl will still be able to fly them.


 

I think the situation calls for pissing off everyone.

 

  • D.VIIF pilots need to be pissed off. It doesn't make sense to have it around in April 1918. Remove F. I see no other way how to make this work. You can limit it to 1 or 2 Fs per map, and then you'll have people whining "Why does he get the acemaker and not me?" I think the current limit is 3 (maybe 4?), but that's clearly enough to form a mini squadron (with a few vanilla D.VIIs thrown in the mix), which is enough to dominate everything Entente dares to fly across the front lines.
     
  • Camel pilots need to be pissed off. The Camel was plentiful in April 1918, and its engine problems were mostly a thing of the past by then. It's also clear that the DM update made it a far more vulnerable machine that needs to be flown with great care, and starts shaking uncontrollably after taking any damage. The solution is simple but counterintuitive: unlimited Camels... but force them to take bombs (which they can drop) and 75-100% fuel. It represents their historical role as long patrol fighter/bombers. They will still do very well against everything (since there is no F). They will have to dogfight very carefully. They will have to travel in numbers to statistically avoid taking damage. I can feel @SeaW0lf pressing pins into my voodoo doll.
     
  • SPAD pilots will also need to be pissed off. Oh yes, you saw this coming from a mile away. Even in its current state where it can't stay in a fight, it's a bloody insanely survivable machine. It was also a rarity in the Arras sector. I'd suggest a limit of around 6-8 SPADs per map. I know that this isn't enough to get all of the 3rd PG in the air at the same time. I'm sorry, I genuinely am, as I love you guys and everything you do. Some of you will have to grab an S.E.5a, the Americans flew those as well.
     
  • Did I say grab an S.E.5a? Well, there needs to be the same limit of around 6-8 planes per map. Wolseley Viper engines were not available in any number before the summer. Grab a Dolphin. The worst you will encounter is a vanilla D.VII.
     
  • Did I say vanilla D.VII? Oh yeah, 6-8 planes per map, there was only one operational squadron in April 1918. Grab an Alby, Pfalz or Dr.I. Better yet: a Halberstadt!
     
  • Speaking of two-seaters: either severely limit or eliminate the Bristol F.III and the Halberstadt CL.II 200hp. If there's no D.VIIF, there's no apex predator to catch the F.III. As for the Halberstadt CL.II 200hp: sorry old buddy, if even the Albatros D.Va doesn't get 200hp, then neither do you. Else it's a total perversion of history.
     
  • Have I forgotten anyone? Oh yes, of course: disable twin Spandaus, twin Parabellums and Becker cannons on the Halberstadt. There, I just punched myself in the face. Maybe also disable the Lewis trophy on the Albatros D.Va. Rest of the weapon mods are fair game, especially those that turn the Dolphin and Bristol F.II into gunships. They need those guns to bring down D.VIIs and Dr.Is in one burst.
     
  • And finally: absolute everyone gets to fly with 75-100% locked fuel — especially the Camel. We all hate you, Bender! You all hated me before, this is nothing new.

 

1 hour ago, US93_Larner said:

You have to understand how extremely frustrating that is - especially when there are sources floating around boasting how structurally resilient the SPAD was. 

 

As we've discussed before over PMs when 4.005 was released, weak wings are... problematic for multiplayer.

 

I don't care to repeat the discussion all over again. Currently there is no balance. If you want balance, well, look at the trainwreck I've composed above. There's absolutely no way this is going to make people happy, so I really do suggest making everyone more unhappy, and praying that FC survives long enough for Vol. 2. In single player this has no effect whatsoever, the AI is behaving just fine.

 

 

I love the devs and their dedication to realism and historical accuracy. But if you're going to market your game as multiplayer — which they are at least on some level —

 

PjRL6kW.jpg*

 

then you need someone in charge of game balance. And if not: then at least allow us to balance the game ourselves with server options (and engine variants).

 

And fix the damn invisible planes.


 

(*) For the trolls who come out of the woodwork and claim that the game is not primarily meant to be a balanced multiplayer experienced: you're right. And if you point out that a thriving multiplayer community hasn't been enough to give us a Volume 2: you're also right. I do maintain that a passionate multiplayer userbase is currently the only thing keeping this game afloat, but we all know you'd prefer the opposite, so you may feel vindicated that FC was a lost cause to begin with and we should have stuck with RoF. A dead game at this point. Please, by all means: go back to RoF. I've uninstalled it for the first time since 2009 (was making room for StarCitizen), so you won't be seeing me there at least.

 

/rant off

Edited by J5_Hellbender
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Danneskjold said:

I was looking at the report you linked to in regard to the SE5 and noticed it was from April 1917 which was around the time the type entered service and also noticed that at the end of the report in May 1917 that cutting down the wing tips increase the max G to more than 6.5 up to 200mph.  Were these changes incorporated into the SE5a along with the more powerful engine?

Was doing some quick searching on google and came across this: "The first production batch of SE5s did not make a promising impression on their pilots, who complained of poor lateral control – a shortcoming that was alleviated somewhat, but never entirely, by shortening the wingspan and reducing the rake of the wingtips in later production SE5s and SE5as. Engine reduction and gun synchronisation problems also afflicted early SE5s."  So it does seem the wings of production aircraft were modified at one point.  Source:   https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2017/10/30/royal-aircraft-factory-se55a/

 

I have no idea if they did beef up the structure after that report came out. Anyway, it looks like the undamaged in-game SE5 handles a lot more than 5.5 g. At least that's my impression from pulling the wings off a few times now with the g-meter we have. However, everyone seems to be focused on battle damage right now though and for some reason are happy with in-game undamaged g-load modeling even though that seems to be optimistic. At least that is my conclusion based on the two NACA reports I posted but I'm certainly willing to be proven wrong if someone can come up with the evidence to support that. To be a bit provocative, looks like some here are on a quest to find evidence that supports their style of flying rather than what is historically accurate if you get my drift.....;)

 

That being said I have no idea if some of the other planes like the SPAD for example are more weak than others or the D7 is stronger than it should after taking damage. OTOH assessing the actual differences between these in terms of what is reasonable can only be done with very detailed modeling of the spars and logging exactly where the hit occurs. There are advantages and drawbacks with single box spars, double solid spars, I-beam spars etc. and how do you model that fairly without a very detailed model? Since that is never going to happen I think the best first order approximation is to differ the designs according to how strong they were undamaged (e.g. breaking g-load 5, 6, 7, 8 g etc.) and then deduct the same amount battle damage points from all planes when hit box is struck. The DM count should be split in two parts: one that every time rolls the dice for a catastrophic failure per hit and one that accumulates damage. Again, IMHO the latter should step very slowly since most part of the hit boxes in the wing are just ribs and fabric meaning we should see very few planes shed wings in-game due to battle damage and not see any marked difference between say the SPAD or D7 in terms of how sensitive they are to being hit in the wings.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

[snip]


The DM count should be split in two parts: one that every time rolls the dice for a catastrophic failure per hit and one that accumulates damage. Again, IMHO the latter should step very slowly since most part of the hit boxes in the wing are just ribs and fabric meaning we should see very few planes shed wings in-game due to battle damage and not see any marked difference between say the SPAD or D7 in terms of how sensitive they are to being hit in the wings.

 

The SE5 increase in strength is discussed in 691 Part II.  The original SE5 design had max n=5.5  Then they found some problems with the outer wing span and changed the design, increasing max n to 6.5   I am confident that production SE5a would have been the latter design.

 

Your first part of your description of what the DM should be is what we have now in mechanism. (See graph based on AnP's figures). What is at issue is the slope and how that may vary according to wing design. Given that this is for hits on one section (outer 1/3 upper) of a Camel wing (thin wing profile), from behind so a large proportion of wing hits should roll for a spar hit, the slope of the line seems fairly reasonable.  After about 22 hits in the same wing section, 50% of the wings would have broken at 1G.   At 5G it is ~16 hits.  

 

If AnP were to provide his original distribution chart for the 90 degree case I could do the same analysis, but just looking at the averages in his plane comparison charts the average (he does not define what he means by this but from the data I think it is the mean shots/cases) goes from ~25 in the behind case to ~210 in the 90 degree case, so the probabilities of a each hit resulting in the final break are correspondingly much lower than in my chart.

 

1068831172_CamelBehindProbFailure.thumb.JPG.883c3841ebdd4ecb2bf5ef59358499bd.JPG 573473628_CamelBehindcumulative.thumb.JPG.15ff8e8ce779f9d966ad348969ef846c.JPG 

   

  

Edited by unreasonable
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

There, I just punched myself in the face. 

 

Again! Jesus bender get a grip. It's not that bad. Everyone's rants opinions are valuable and we'll get there in end. Chill man. Think of Hanriots. Relax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, US93_Rummell said:

I would implore the J5 server admins to at least consider this and give it a go. Doesn't need to be every map, and if there's 1-2 Fs and Camels available some ppl will still be able to fly them.

 

How much flying hours do you have in the Camel to propose that? I guess it is at 0 in May, interesting. Given that limited plane set your idea is to limit them even further, man, no further comment.

 

This is discussion thread will be closed soon I am afraid.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J5_Hellbender said:


 

I think the situation calls for pissing off everyone.

 

  • D.VIIF pilots need to be pissed off. It doesn't make sense to have it around in April 1918. Remove F. I see no other way how to make this work. You can limit it to 1 or 2 Fs per map, and then you'll have people whining "Why does he get the acemaker and not me?" I think the current limit is 3 (maybe 4?), but that's clearly enough to form a mini squadron (with a few vanilla D.VIIs thrown in the mix), which is enough to dominate everything Entente dares to fly across the front lines.
     
  • Camel pilots need to be pissed off. The Camel was plentiful in April 1918, and its engine problems were mostly a thing of the past by then. It's also clear that the DM update made it a far more vulnerable machine that needs to be flown with great care, and starts shaking uncontrollably after taking any damage. The solution is simple but counterintuitive: unlimited Camels... but force them to take bombs (which they can drop) and 75-100% fuel. It represents their historical role as long patrol fighter/bombers. They will still do very well against everything (since there is no F). They will have to dogfight very carefully. They will have to travel in numbers to statistically avoid taking damage. I can feel @SeaW0lf pressing pins into my voodoo doll.
     
  • SPAD pilots will also need to be pissed off. Oh yes, you saw this coming from a mile away. Even in its current state where it can't stay in a fight, it's a bloody insanely survivable machine. It was also a rarity in the Arras sector. I'd suggest a limit of around 6-8 SPADs per map. I know that this isn't enough to get all of the 3rd PG in the air at the same time. I'm sorry, I genuinely am, as I love you guys and everything you do. Some of you will have to grab an S.E.5a, the Americans flew those as well.
     
  • Did I say grab an S.E.5a? Well, there needs to be the same limit of around 6-8 planes per map. Wolseley Viper engines were not available in any number before the summer. Grab a Dolphin. The worst you will encounter is a vanilla D.VII.
     
  • Did I say vanilla D.VII? Oh yeah, 6-8 planes per map, there was only one operational squadron in April 1918. Grab an Alby, Pfalz or Dr.I. Better yet: a Halberstadt!
     
  • Speaking of two-seaters: either severely limit or eliminate the Bristol F.III and the Halberstadt CL.II 200hp. If there's no D.VIIF, there's no apex predator to catch the F.III. As for the Halberstadt CL.II 200hp: sorry old buddy, if even the Albatros D.Va doesn't get 200hp, then neither do you. Else it's a total perversion of history.
     
  • Have I forgotten anyone? Oh yes, of course: disable twin Spandaus, twin Parabellums and Becker cannons on the Halberstadt. There, I just punched myself in the face. Maybe also disable the Lewis trophy on the Albatros D.Va. Rest of the weapon mods are fair game, especially those that turn the Dolphin and Bristol F.II into gunships. They need those guns to bring down D.VIIs and Dr.Is in one burst.
     
  • And finally: absolute everyone gets to fly with 75-100% locked fuel — especially the Camel. We all hate you, Bender! You all hated me before, this is nothing new.

 

 

As we've discussed before over PMs when 4.005 was released, weak wings are... problematic for multiplayer.

 

I don't care to repeat the discussion all over again. Currently there is no balance. If you want balance, well, look at the trainwreck I've composed above. There's absolutely no way this is going to make people happy, so I really do suggest making everyone more unhappy, and praying that FC survives long enough for Vol. 2. In single player this has no effect whatsoever, the AI is behaving just fine.

 

 

I love the devs and their dedication to realism and historical accuracy. But if you're going to market your game as multiplayer — which they are at least on some level —

 

PjRL6kW.jpg*

 

then you need someone in charge of game balance. And if not: then at least allow us to balance the game ourselves with server options (and engine variants).

 

And fix the damn invisible planes.


 

(*) For the trolls who come out of the woodwork and claim that the game is not primarily meant to be a balanced multiplayer experienced: you're right. And if you point out that a thriving multiplayer community hasn't been enough to give us a Volume 2: you're also right. I do maintain that a passionate multiplayer userbase is currently the only thing keeping this game afloat, but we all know you'd prefer the opposite, so you may feel vindicated that FC was a lost cause to begin with and we should have stuck with RoF. A dead game at this point. Please, by all means: go back to RoF. I've uninstalled it for the first time since 2009 (was making room for StarCitizen), so you won't be seeing me there at least.

 

/rant off


I thought everyone WAS happy (relatively) prior to the updated damage modelling, now there’s a thought !!

 

If the features, found in the VII and DR1 were so game changingly revolutionary why do we see externally wire braced, biplanes, even in Germany, being designed and built into the late thirties.  Why do we not see a rash of reports from Allied pilots talking about the invincibility of DR1’s and Fokker VII’s after they were introduced ?

 

Why would anybody, in their right minds, not think that a spurious, non evidence based damage model, for an element that isn’t even physically present in the sim, that overly penalises one side over another would cause disquiet is totally beyond me.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fellows...

 

If the spar is the only criteria for wing resistance...

 

... why did they use wires? And all the other differences between plane wings? Dope, etc.?

 

It's only natural that if we incorporate a single cruteria in the game, it will stand out.

 

What we need is a probabilistic model based on spar hits (since we have no other tool) that is extrapolated appropriately considering other factors.

 

What we can try to do is submit an adjustment proposal to the current DM. I suggest we reduce all the other factors to an adjustment coeficient, specific per plane.

 

Our (tough) work is to find some agreeable basis to this coefficient, and not overload the team with impossible requests.

  • Upvote 1

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...