Jump to content
US93_Larner

4.006 DM Discussion

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, J2_Bidu said:

 

 

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 makes you think that it is not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, J2_Bidu said:

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.

 

I believe in WW1 era aircraft the spars are the only load bearing parts of the wing. One of the issues with them is the torsional stiffness and it was an issue that having too little torsional rigidity (or too hefty a rear spar) could result in a run away twist of the wing increasing angle of attack, producing more lift, increasing force, increasing twist and so on until the wing snapped. Particularly as there was no adequate means of transferring load between spars. Adding wires and other connections between the wings forms a torsion box greatly increasing the torsional stiffness of the wings as a unit.

 

So in terms of damage losing ribs and cloth effects the ability of the wing to generate lift and should make overloading the wing harder. Losing wires increases the risk of breaking the spars under loads that generate this torsion significantly (as well as limiting the ability to share load between the wings) and the spars getting hit weakens them against all loads so would have the most pronounced impact on complete wing failure.

Edited by slug_yuugen
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

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 ?


Put simply - because I don't think that an aircraft being shot to pieces was a frequent occurrence in general. No matter how tough the airframe, you can still set it on fire and you can still shot its engine or pilot out. Talbot and I have been looking at USAS reports of the period to analyse. We haven't sorted it into presentable data yet, but one thing is common - there were NO (None! Zero!) reports of D.VIIs breaking apart in the air in the whole operational recorded history of the 93d / 103d aero squadrons. 

EDIT: weirdly, there was one account by a French SPAD pilot that cited three D.VIIs falling to pieces back to back in one engagement. Perhaps that Jasta got a 'bad batch'! 

AFAIK there were no reported cases for SPADs either, but Talby would be able to speak with more authority on that - he's been analysing the reports. 

Edited by US93_Larner
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk said:

 

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.

 

 

Plenty of single player in the Camel and some MP time on Zoop’s dogfight server but the squads I fly with have been SE5 (74/56) and Spad (3PG) in FlugPark and I have limited online evenings. 
 

If I joined a Camel squad I’d expect to fly that type for official squad outings too.

 

FYI my suggestion was to limit the F and Camel for some rounds not all.

 

S!

Share this post


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

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

 

I'm not denying that people were happier. Happiness ≠ Realism

 

Most Camel pilots hated their Camel and couldn't wait to trade it in for an S.E.5a. They shouldn't be too happy with their Camel.

Most Fokker D.VII pilots loved it and couldn't wait to trade in their Albatros for it. It even made its way into the Treaty of Versailles. D.VIIs should not be available in any number before the second half of 1918.

 

 

Quote

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 ?

 

Fokker was Dutch. He fled back to the Netherlands after the Armistice, smuggling many of his D.VII frames with him. The Germans were imposed extreme restrictions on building warplanes after the war. In general, aeronautical engineering simply didn't catch up with Fokker's designs until the late 30s. Mostly, though, it was just cheaper to keep building externally braced machines.

 

As for the invincibility of the Fokker D.VII: Versailles.

 

As for the invincibility of the Fokker Dr.I:

 

 

 

Quote

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.

 

An overwhelming amount of data has been produced in this thread and reviewed by the developers. What we have is probably as realistic as it gets in the current "not NASA" physics model.

 

Whether it's a fun, rewarding multiplayer experience that people want to pay for is a different topic. Well, not an entirely different topic, it's a different approach. I've offered my thoughts on this already.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

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 

   

  

 

Regarding the SE5: Just because a stress analysis shows a problem and suggests a reasonable solution does not mean it was actually incorporated and the same standard of evidence should be used here as applied for the Fw-190 Clmax (The BOS Wurgergate affair): Keep it at the measured value until proof to the contrary is found. No double standards! ;)

 

About the figures you linked to above I see a major problem: The risk of losing a wing at 1g and 5 g are far too close: I think this way of counting could be improved and I see I have failed to properly explain what I meant earlier on:

 

My suggestion is somewhat different: I suggest you adjust the STRENGTH of the airplane depending on the number of hits, not the probability of losing a wing at a certain g-load meaning if you stay below the wings reduced strength you have 0% chance of losing the wing below that g-load.

 

First, my idea for the insta-failure/golden BB fail works like this: As I understand it the wings in-game are divided into circa 10 hit box sections each. Now each of these sections would have two possible scoring systems depending on what type of structural members they include. For example, most of the hit box sections only contains spars, ribs and fabric. However, some sections also incorporate struts and bracing wire. Now the sections that contain struts joints, bracing wire, i.e. single point of failure parts would toss the dice for a complete loss of the wing irrespective if the g-load is 1,2,3,4 or 5 g. If the dice says your number is up then it’s up. However, seeing the target area is so small I suggest something like a 100 hits in that box area for a 50% chance of a loss, i.e. 0.994 chance in your favour of avoiding a KABOOM fail every time that box is hit.

 

Next, the accumulated DM:

 

Boxes without these type of structural members only log the second part which is accumulated damage as listed below. The hit box begins at full undamaged g-load rating say 6 g as an example. Every time a bullet hits (parameter n is stepped by 1) that sections strength goes down like this:

 

Tolerable g-load= 6*(0.965**n)

 

So after 20 hits you have cut your strength in that section in half, meaning you can pull 3 g and get away with it 100% of the time. If you get 5 hits, you can hold anything below 5 g etc. Personally, I would add 5 "free" hits or something similar that are not counted before I start stepping n because dropping directly down to 5.79 g with the first hit seems excessive. Anyway, all this can be tuned of course and it would address the current DM’s 45% chance to break a Camel wing at 1g after only 20 hits which I think is not that good a solution.

 

Nota bene: The numbers I have suggested above are just that: examples and the DM model above is highly tunable, both in terms of how likely things are to occur and is of course potentially differentiable between different aircraft if one would like to do that. In addition, if the current DM keeps track of the hit area depending on the plane of attack all the better since this could then be used to tweak the numbers I suggested above.

Edited by Holtzauge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@unreasonable 

vNkg9Neh.png

jpCXwrkl.png
Jpevtjsh.png

Having run out of coffee, I haven't yet checked if my count is off. But, fascinating stuff! Contrary to MvR figures it seems like the numbers remain largely comparable throughout the years. Especially fascinating seeing as just about all of Immelmann's were in 1915!!!

The real question is, how much would change if we had certain outcomes for the 30-or-so per cent of unknowns? 

Also well worth mentioning that two of the 'Broke Apart' aircraft were actually Morane Monoplanes (a 'Parasol' and a 'Bullet' IIRC)

Edited by US93_Larner
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S!

 

Is Less More?

It is a computer sim. No reality. Are we going the wrong way?

 

It has been pointed out that more hit boxes is worse for the computer. Would less hit boxes be better?

 

Entire left or right wing is one hit box. 

 

25 hits   -   first damage graphic

50 hits   -   Second damage graphic

75 hits   -   Aileron falls off

100 hits   -   Wing pops off

  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It's interesting data Larner but I wonder what it's relevance to working out how things should behave under our conditions is. For example do you want these to be the % that we encounter in multiplayer? Even if that means that our models are designed for an impressionistic experience (its easy to be stupider as well as braver and aggressive in multiplayer) rather than attempt at realistic modelling?

 

Also one way to read that is that 75% of the causes of victories is undetermined as crashed or forced to land doesn't exactly say why. So if we figure crashed or forced to land is due to damage sustained how would the figures alter if those pilots fly like we do in multiplayer where that damage might develop more radically?

15 minutes ago, JG1_Butzzell said:

S!

 

Is Less More?

It is a computer sim. No reality. Are we going the wrong way?

 

It has been pointed out that more hit boxes is worse for the computer. Would less hit boxes be better?

 

Entire left or right wing is one hit box. 

 

25 hits   -   first damage graphic

50 hits   -   Second damage graphic

75 hits   -   Aileron falls off

100 hits   -   Wing pops off

 

I think 99% of the issue would be resolved in changing a few values to stop damaged wings falling off so easily even if the stronger aircraft got equally buffed.

Edited by slug_yuugen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Holtzauge

 

I would not be surprised if the DM does something very similar to what you have proposed, or have you seen some description I have missed?

 

After 20 hits at 1G it is 44%, not 57%, but that aside,  that is 20 hits on the same section - ie upper outer wing hit box, at an angle that maximizes the proportion of "spar" hits.  After 20 hits the next such hit has about a 7% p of breaking the wing.

 

For an angle of 90 degrees it takes about 10 times as many hits to get a break, on average, so 20 hits on a single hit box at random angles would also have dramatically lower numbers.

Spread the 20 at random angles over a few hit boxes and the probability of collapse from 20 hits on the wings has dropped by at least an order of magnitude, maybe two.   

 

The fact that you can get breakage from very low number of hits (maybe 1, certainly 3) indicates that there is a "golden bullet" mechanism. The fact that the probability of failure increases with each hit, shows that there is some compounding and/or cumulative effect of hits.  The precise mechanism by which you do this does not really matter if it is giving you the distribution outcomes you want.  

 

On the issue of the 1G vs 5G results I do not have an opinion.  Mechanism aside, it is all about changing the slopes of the lines.  They could be made further apart by raising the 5G line or lowering the 1G line - or both. I know those who dislike the current DM build would be very unhappy with the former, but I wonder if you think that ~20 hits on one area of a Camels spars should have a very low p of breaking it at 1G?

 

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


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

It's interesting data Larner but I wonder what it's relevance to working out how things should behave under our conditions is. For example do you want these to be the % that we encounter in multiplayer? Even if that means that our models are designed for an impressionistic experience (its easy to be stupider as well as braver and aggressive in multiplayer) rather than attempt at real modelling?

 

Also one way to read that is that 75% of the causes of victories is undetermined as crashed or forced to lands doesn't exactly say why. So if we figure crashed or forced to land is due to damage sustained how would the figures alter if those pilots fly like we do in multiplayer where that damage might develop more radically?


Well, I'm presenting this data simply a historical reference point. Nothing more, nothing less. The oneness is now on us to argue for or against "reality" vs "in-game experience", and to discuss (hopefully reasonably - ha!) if our in-game experience is a consequence of unrealistic flying, unrealistic modelling, or both. 

I wrote some cliff notes while collecting the data as to crashed and forced to land. Admittedly, for von Tutschek's victories I got lazy and tried to save time by listing both outcomes as just "Crashed / FTL", but I made the distinction for the other seven aces. 

The victories were split about half and half for crashes and forced to land. 

I would need to go back and go into more specifics about the cause of crashes and forced to land (I just added small one-line cliff notes), but it seems that the majority of these were either from the pilot / observer being wounded or the engine stopping through damage or loss of fuel. 
 

Edited by US93_Larner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Put me down for one unrealistic flying and one unrealistic modelling with a health dose of change aversion as the change is quite radical to when I started playing back in October let alone for people that fly hundreds of hours a month.

 

Whilst trying to do a bit of research I also recently stumbled on old RoF threads about the DM there and its amusing how it's basically the same argument then as now.

 

Someone also linked this site earlier on a different article but I think this book from 1920 is very relevant to our interests:

Catalog Record: Structural analysis and design of airplanes | HathiTrust Digital Library

 

Most notably on page 54 it suggests static load testing to a load factor of 8.5 for pursuit aircraft.

Edited by slug_yuugen

Share this post


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

 

Restated my tables to include yr data, simplifying the categories, assuming your "Not specified" and my "Other" can all be lumped in with "Meat and Metal": not entirely satisfactory but we can live with that.

 

  1808301533_AlltheHunsdamageanalysis.thumb.JPG.5dd2be774c9041dc825f30e436e5a7c9.JPG

 

People will obviously notice the considerable variation in outcomes.  There are a number of possible reasons for this; different depth of source material, different interpretations by Larner and myself, differences in real conditions at the front over time, and of course pure random chance, since the numbers are not huge to begin with.  No doubt at all that the data as shown have in aggregate a lower rate of structural collapse and a lower "incendiary era" effect than for MvR alone.

 

I look forwards to reading the "Some other Huns" book myself before I make up my mind. 

Edited by unreasonable
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Regarding the SE5: Just because a stress analysis shows a problem and suggests a reasonable solution does not mean it was actually incorporated and the same standard of evidence should be used here as applied for the Fw-190 Clmax (The BOS Wurgergate affair): Keep it at the measured value until proof to the contrary is found. No double standards! ;)

I'm starting to think that changes were incorporated based on reading part two of the report more closely.  Certainly doesn't sound like a mere suggestion.

Quote

From these results it appears that the load on the wing tips is much higher than has previously been assumed. As the wing tip is tapered, the maximum span occurring almost at the trailing edge, the increased load on the tip is particularly heavy on the rear spar. With the new distribution of load the load factor which the lower rear spar* will support is only 4 at 90 miles per hour, and 2.5 at 180 miles per hour. The load factor on the front spar is still sufficient. The wings have, therefore, been altered, the rear spar being shortened while the front spar is left as it was. By this alteration the breaking load is increased to more than 6.5 times load at speeds up to 200 miles per hour. The solid portion of the front spar near the strut has already been extended as a result, of the test to destruction, so that the shear stress there is now reduced to a permissible figure. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Unreasonable

"Some other Huns" and "All the Huns" gave me a laugh hahah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, JG1_Butzzell said:

S!

 

Is Less More?

It is a computer sim. No reality. Are we going the wrong way?

 

It has been pointed out that more hit boxes is worse for the computer. Would less hit boxes be better?

 

Entire left or right wing is one hit box. 

 

25 hits   -   first damage graphic

50 hits   -   Second damage graphic

75 hits   -   Aileron falls off

100 hits   -   Wing pops off

 

If this is what you want for MP, or even an option for SP, lobby away.   Go back to RB2 graphics as well if you want. I know that if that was the only option for SP that would be the end of my involvement in the series.

 

(Sudden loud noises of clamouring for Butzzell's suggestion....)  

8 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

@Unreasonable

"Some other Huns" and "All the Huns" gave me a laugh hahah

 

Trying to keep it light - not always easy with a subject that is both technically and emotionally controversial, like SARS-CoV-2 the FC DM.

Share this post


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

 

What makes you think that it is not?

 

Because

1) I don't remember seeing any other structural factors mentioned

and

2) The observed impact in game play would probably not be so direct.

 

4 hours ago, slug_yuugen said:

Losing wires increases the risk of breaking the spars under loads that generate this torsion significantly (as well as limiting the ability to share load between the wings) and the spars getting hit weakens them against all loads so would have the most pronounced impact on complete wing failure.

 

But this is exactly what I mean. Maybe the spar has been hit, but the wires will withstand higher G's than otherwise. This is just a possible factor. I'm rather ignorant of all the involved effects. I'm just assuming spar is not the ONLY one, based on things I've read here and there.

 

image.png.8157ba97473ef83d70551c9b4922e10d.pngimage.png.d95837934709011b2c88c1e1fbfeb4fb.png 

 

"Air War - Theory and Practice"

 

So D7 has "extremely strong lateral spars" to make up for other things. Maybe the Spad does not require that, and works just as well. See what I mean that valuing the spar role too much may be a problem?

 

Maybe  a probabilistic hitbox model needs to give good extrapolated values for D7 spar hits, and good extrapolated values for Spad wire hits. Whatever. I just mean it's not all the same!

 

Edited by J2_Bidu
completion, spellcheck
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

@Holtzauge

 

I would not be surprised if the DM does something very similar to what you have proposed, or have you seen some description I have missed?

 

After 20 hits at 1G it is 44%, not 57%, but that aside,  that is 20 hits on the same section - ie upper outer wing hit box, at an angle that maximizes the proportion of "spar" hits.  After 20 hits the next such hit has about a 7% p of breaking the wing.

 

For an angle of 90 degrees it takes about 10 times as many hits to get a break, on average, so 20 hits on a single hit box at random angles would also have dramatically lower numbers.

Spread the 20 at random angles over a few hit boxes and the probability of collapse from 20 hits on the wings has dropped by at least an order of magnitude, maybe two.   

 

The fact that you can get breakage from very low number of hits (maybe 1, certainly 3) indicates that there is a "golden bullet" mechanism. The fact that the probability of failure increases with each hit, shows that there is some compounding and/or cumulative effect of hits.  The precise mechanism by which you do this does not really matter if it is giving you the distribution outcomes you want.  

 

On the issue of the 1G vs 5G results I do not have an opinion.  Mechanism aside, it is all about changing the slopes of the lines.  They could be made further apart by raising the 5G line or lowering the 1G line - or both. I know those who dislike the current DM build would be very unhappy with the former, but I wonder if you think that ~20 hits on one area of a Camels spars should have a very low p of breaking it at 1G?

 

 

Well 20 rounds fired at the same time by a steady hand with two planes in low relative velocity to each other hitting the spar in a fist size pattern ought to do the trick for a 1 g wing loss if that is what you are trying to capture. I was more thinking of a few passes adding up to 20 hits in the box meaning the rounds are more evenly distributed as more representative in the majority of the cases. Seeing the spars are typically dimensioned for more than 5 to 6 g's you would need quite a concentration of hits to weaken the spar to the point of a 1 g break occurring and I have a hard time seeing that occurring in 45% of the cases in a 1000 sample which would never occur in the DM model I'm suggesting. Anyway I think we have to end by agreeing to disagree on this one.

Edited by Holtzauge

Share this post


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

Maybe  a probabilistic hitbox model needs to give good extrapolated values for D7 spar hits, and good extrapolated values for Spad wire hits. Whatever. I just mean it's not all the same!


Agree - but right now, to my knowledge, we don't know if @AnPetrovich has factored this in or not! 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So here's something to add fuel to the fire. 

Out of curiosity I compared the 3rd PG's combat reports (pre-4.005) to the analysed historical reports (sans MvR reports)....

In our squadron log, typically, every confirmed pilot kill was logged as "Crashed" as, well, an EA with nobody flying it is going to end up crashing. So, in order to represent that against the historical claims, I lumped in "Pilot Incapacitated" with 'Crashed'. It's a little crude, but it'll have to do (there's no way for me to go back and separate the PKs from the in-control crashes). 

One of the virtues of FC being a game is that we have a far better sense of what actually happened in our combats, so that must be considered versus the 'unspecified / unknown' analysed claims. I've substituted our 'out of control' claims (where EA would appear dead but no visual confirmation could be made) as 'unknowns'. Again, crude, but it'll have to do. 

However - the former value (crashes) can thankfully be ignored if we want to compare historical known 'in flames' and 'broke apart' victories with those reported in-game by our guys. Looking at Pre-4.005 is really interesting when compared to the German Aces' claims: 

kxXrJZDh.png

So, what does this mean? 

In terms of IN-GAME EXPERIENCE, the "first" FC damage model appears, actually, almost bang on the money! But - this is factoring OUT the current points of conversation surrounding the 'violence' of a human multiplayer pilot's manoeuvres. 

NOT included in the historical data I collected were other reports included in the two books (I.E, aircraft mentioned as having been shot down by other pilots, or, of course, the German Aces' deaths!). Perhaps these should have been factored in at first - but I can do so now to see how they alter the figures: 

wZHdoTPh.png

So, again, it seems to fall to the question of "What's more important? The Simulation aspect or the 'Fun' aspect?"

As an amusing side note...out of the nine cases of aircraft being confirmed as having broken up from the historical reports, there were only two from our plane-set...a Fokker Dr.I in November 1918 and a Fokker D.VII in August 1918!! Even weirder - both pilots survived! (one via crash-landing - this was LvR's famous missing top wing, the other parachuting to safety). 

I'd love to put some 4.006 figures in there to compare but, simply put, we just don't have anywhere near enough reported kills to realistically compare just yet. I could add the results from my previous tests...but, again - the data pool would be comparatively small to the other two. 

DISCLAIMER #1: This is NOT me calling for the DM to be reverted to pre-4.005. That's clearly off the table, as the Devs have all but said. 

DISCLAIMER #2: Nor am I now calling for every Dr.I and D.VII to go to pieces, just because I found two examples of that historically happening!


DISCLAIMER #3: I'm willing to bet that MvR's reports, if added to this data, would tip the historical figures further in favour of structural break-ups. 

Edited by US93_Larner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it would - that is why it is very naughty of you to use the label "Historical" for your Other Huns data set, especially when I have already given you the aggregates.  ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J2_Bidu said:

image.png.8157ba97473ef83d70551c9b4922e10d.pngimage.png.d95837934709011b2c88c1e1fbfeb4fb.png 

 

"Air War - Theory and Practice"

 

The Dr.1 Had a single spar in each wing. The struts were not needed. The prototype flew without them. The struts on the D.VII were not needed. They merely transfer some lift force from the outer portion of the lower wing to the upper wing in flight which is carried through the spars of the upper wing.  Please remember, these spars are not a simple box. Each wall has three layers of wood. The leading edge of many Central planes was covered in plywood. In looking so closely at the spars we miss that the wing itself as a structure is stronger than the individual parts.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

So, again, it seems to fall to the question of "What's more important? The Simulation aspect or the 'Fun' aspect?"

 

That's a great comparison and really interesting how well it lines up. I'd suggest you end up in bad places if you label the dichotomy as 'Simulation' versus 'Fun' as fun is quite a slippery word and is often in the eye of the beholder. It's more whether you want a realistic simulation of the aircraft which doesn't necessarily give realistic results with modern sim pilots or a realistic experience of dogfighting in WW1 which might necessitate some fudging of the simulation. For the latter our current proxy info shows that the current damage model is not giving a realistic experience and it's rather hard to tell if its actually a realistic simulation which I think is a bit of an unhappy spot to be in.

2 hours ago, J2_Bidu said:

But this is exactly what I mean. Maybe the spar has been hit, but the wires will withstand higher G's than otherwise. This is just a possible factor. I'm rather ignorant of all the involved effects. I'm just assuming spar is not the ONLY one, based on things I've read here and there.

 

So in my understanding the collapse of the wing will only be caused by the collapse of the spars and other supports are basically a strengthening of the spars so in a modelling sense you could roll them all together with some constant factors to represent the different spar designs, sizes and supports. Whether that's the model in FC, they model the supports separately or whether the supports are purely cosmetic when they get shot away is unknown AFAIK. Certainly I'd say a model that doesn't give more strength to spars with intact support (weighted by design) and less when they are shot away isn't likely to be very accurate.

Edited by slug_yuugen
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

 

That's a great comparison and really interesting how well it lines up. I'd suggest you end up in bad places if you label the dichotomy as 'Simulation' versus 'Fun' as fun is quite a slippery word and is often in the eye of the beholder. It's more whether you want a realistic simulation of the aircraft which doesn't necessarily give realistic results with modern sim pilots or a realistic experience of dogfighting in WW1 which might necessitate some fudging of the simulation. For the latter our current proxy info shows that the current damage model is not giving a realistic experience and it's rather hard to tell if its actually a realistic simulation which I think is a bit of an unhappy spot to be in.


Well put!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

That's a great comparison and really interesting how well it lines up. I'd suggest you end up in bad places if you label the dichotomy as 'Simulation' versus 'Fun' as fun is quite a slippery word and is often in the eye of the beholder. It's more whether you want a realistic simulation of the aircraft which doesn't necessarily give realistic results with modern sim pilots or a realistic experience of dogfighting in WW1 which might necessitate some fudging of the simulation. For the latter our current proxy info shows that the current damage model is not giving a realistic experience and it's rather hard to tell if its actually a realistic simulation which I think is a bit of an unhappy spot to be in.

 

 

 

I think the whole idea of "realistic experience of dogfighting in WW1"  is completely incoherent.  There is just no relationship: it is just a game, that happens to simulate, more or less realistically, a small number of aspects of WW1 aviation.

 

The behaviour of Virpils is not simulated, but real. Put them in an alternate universe where WW1 physical systems are perfectly modeled, even force them to fly in groups, in formation etc - the results would still not be realistic, ie similar to those historically observed. How can they be when the incentives and penalties for behaviour are completely different?

 

It is blazingly obvious that more realism is not necessarily more fun. Having your computer actually burn you to death if your are flamer.... no thanks.  But I have also observed that people often like to claim, or even believe, that the simulation choices that lead to their preferred fun options are the most realistic.  I think this is what is happening here.

 

You could see the disconnect in AnP's poll.  Many people were so desperate to switch to a more forgiving DM, that they put in responses to the question of what the game actually did in his scenario, that even 10 minutes of testing would have  shown were patently absurd.  I have no problem at all with people who ask for a particular kind of result just because they enjoy it more.  If I do not enjoy the results, I have plenty of other things to do.   The issue, however, of what happens to a plane type in RL and its model in the game when hit in a certain way is purely a matter of fact, however difficult to ascertain.  

 

 

 

   

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

 

it is just a game, that happens to simulate, more or less realistically, a small number of aspects of WW1 aviation.

 

More.

 

This is less (the first flight simulator I played! yay!):

 

 

And still... the pilot's arms and legs can be seen. One step ahead of us!!! 

Edited by J2_Bidu
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

I think the whole idea of "realistic experience of dogfighting in WW1"  is completely incoherent.  There is just no relationship: it is just a game, that happens to simulate, more or less realistically, a small number of aspects of WW1 aviation.

 

Exactly which is why I very specifically said dogfighting as a concise shorthand for those small aspects. But what is the end goal of that simulation? What's the point of it in terms of how it as a game makes players feel? If it's that they are getting a reasonable facsimile to WW1 dogfights then that's what I mean by realistic experience. Does the game align with the preconceptions of what a realistic experience should be? There are of course extremes like myself who is pretty casual in terms of historicity to Larner who has expectations formed based on research. So a realistic experience in terms of the way the game makes the player feel is more of a continuum than a goal you can point to clearly. Which is why older flight sims can still meet these expectations despite being deficient in modelling in various ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me it is rather clear that several aspects of the simulator combined show the result of what we perceive as "weak wings". Yet it seems often common practice to just stare at the single metric we disapprove, be it for gameplay, “realism”, or whatever.

 

If there are many factors involved in what we have, just giving concrete wings will clearly affect all other related parameters, parameters that are much less fashionable to rant about, lest to derive them from firsthand accounts. Just changing one metric gave us the tremendous collateral in “the patch” back in RoF, as tuning the entire system was out of question. Thus, I would not be too happy just getting concrete wings, as this would make us clearly NOT fly as people did back then, despite (I assume) many here have no problem of reconciling 7 g turn dogfights with literature as they read it.

 

If we were ever to care just one tiny bit about an approximation of realism, we might want to look beyond the obvious to make the whole system work such that we can reconcile both damage effects as well as our playstyle with firsthand accounts.

 

I really like the shot down statistics. Another important piece of the puzzle.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Put them in an alternate universe where WW1 physical systems are perfectly modeled, even force them to fly in groups, in formation etc - the results would still not be realistic, ie similar to those historically observed. How can they be when the incentives and penalties for behaviour are completely different?


Agree fully, and it's an important piece of context in the discussion.

I've mentioned the old US103 / JG1 fights in RoF where both squadrons put a LOT of emphasis on keeping alive over scoring kills, and how I think it really gave us a much better glimpse into what a WW1 dogfight was like, so I won't bore anyone by repeating the whole thing...but I can say one thing for certain: 

When both sides are fully committed to not dying, and put that at greater importance to scoring kills, the dogfights, and even your mindset, are simply unrecognisable compared to the usual FC multiplayer experience. 
 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

 

Exactly which is why I very specifically said dogfighting as a concise shorthand for those small aspects. But what is the end goal of that simulation? What's the point of it in terms of how it as a game makes players feel? If it's that they are getting a reasonable facsimile to WW1 dogfights then that's what I mean by realistic experience. Does the game align with the preconceptions of what a realistic experience should be? There are of course extremes like myself who is pretty casual in terms of historicity to Larner who has expectations formed based on research. So a realistic experience in terms of the way the game makes the player feel is more of a continuum than a goal you can point to clearly. Which is why older flight sims can still meet these expectations despite being deficient in modelling in various ways.

 

If you were to say rather that the goal is that they feel they are getting a reasonable facsimile to WW1 dogfights.  That is a purely subjective state. Call it immersion, fun or whatever.

 

I agree completely that people look for different subjective states when playing. I do not want too many things which strike me as so obviously wrong that my immersion is ruined: I expect that is true for most. 

 

The problem is that what strikes people as obviously wrong is sometimes actually exactly right.  The disconnect is between the truth and the expectation.  As I said - AnP's poll showed that this was not just a disconnect between what the game should do if it is aiming for realism and what people liked, but between what many players believed about the game and what was actually true about the game.

 

6 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:


Agree fully, and it's an important piece of context in the discussion.

I've mentioned the old US103 / JG1 fights in RoF where both squadrons put a LOT of emphasis on keeping alive over scoring kills, and how I think it really gave us a much better glimpse into what a WW1 dogfight was like, so I won't bore anyone by repeating the whole thing...but I can say one thing for certain: 

When both sides are fully committed to not dying, and put that at greater importance to scoring kills, the dogfights, and even your mindset, are simply unrecognisable compared to the usual FC multiplayer experience. 
 

 

Not ever having had a chance to play MP RoF (or now FC) due to internet limitations, I found my own behaviour was changed a great deal when I started to play RoF career dead is dead, so I can well believe you.  Of course if you do that you rip your own wings off much less often.

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


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

 

If you were to say rather that the goal is that they feel they are getting a reasonable facsimile to WW1 dogfights.  That is a purely subjective state. Call it immersion, fun or whatever.

 

I agree completely that people look for different subjective states when playing. I do not want to many things which strike me as so obviously wrong that my immersion is ruined: I expect that is true for most. 

 

The problem is that what strikes people as obviously wrong is sometimes actually exactly right.  The disconnect is between the truth and the expectation.  As I said - AnP's poll showed that this was not just a disconnect between what the game should do if it is aiming for realism, but between what many players believed about the game and what was actually true about the game.

 

Yeah I should probably have put "realistic experience" in quotes. I was operating on the assumption that any understanding of what the real thing was like to experience is completely unattainable so it's necessarily a subjective quality.

 

The poll thing isn't that surprising, we after all terrible witnesses, particularly trying to generalize on experience. Although if I remember rightly the poll itself wasn't about the thing that I believe most people think is wrong which is the weakness of the wings to load after damage rather than the direct consequence of the damage.

Edited by slug_yuugen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Never mind - it is all getting a bit too abstract for 3 in the morning my time...  goodnight!

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by unreasonable
  • Like 1

Share this post


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


Agree fully, and it's an important piece of context in the discussion.

I've mentioned the old US103 / JG1 fights in RoF where both squadrons put a LOT of emphasis on keeping alive over scoring kills, and how I think it really gave us a much better glimpse into what a WW1 dogfight was like, so I won't bore anyone by repeating the whole thing...but I can say one thing for certain: 

When both sides are fully committed to not dying, and put that at greater importance to scoring kills, the dogfights, and even your mindset, are simply unrecognisable compared to the usual FC multiplayer experience. 
 

 

Take away the comms and it changes further still.  So almost a glimpse.  😉

 

As to the big wings issue, what is the big ask in all this?  Best I can tell you're making the case that when bouncing somebody, or otherwise catching them unawares, as I understand was the case with most kills that aces racked up (and matches with my own flugpark experience)- that around 4-5% of those should result in structural breakup to match historical records (or whatever the final arrived-upon figure ends up being).

 

Am I correct in assuming that is what you are hoping to achieve?  Because unless we assume that these aces were aiming for the enemy wings, don't we already have that- or close to that?

 

A suggestion- when you start compiling the MP statistics to compare, could you perhaps separate them by bounces and furballs?  So we can see if there is a difference in rate of breakup then?

Edited by J28w-Broccoli

Share this post


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

When both sides are fully committed to not dying, and put that at greater importance to scoring kills, the dogfights, and even your mindset, are simply unrecognisable compared to the usual FC multiplayer experience. 

 

However, that was not what they were doing in WW1.

57 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

The problem is that what strikes people as obviously wrong is sometimes actually exactly right.  The disconnect is between the truth and the expectation. 

 

That's not the only problem. There's also a problem of fairness, as many Entente players feel - reasonably, I think - they start their fights handicapped.

Share this post


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

 

Take away the comms and it changes further still.  So almost a glimpse.  😉

 

As to the big wings issue, what is the big ask in all this?  Best I can tell you're making the case that when bouncing somebody, or otherwise catching them unawares, as I understand was the case with most kills that aces racked up (and matches with my own flugpark experience)- that around 4-5% of those should result in structural breakup to match historical records (or whatever the final arrived-upon figure ends up being).

 

Am I correct in assuming that is what you are hoping to achieve?  Because unless we assume that these aces were aiming for the enemy wings, don't we already have that- or close to that?

 

A suggestion- when you start compiling the MP statistics to compare, could you perhaps separate them by bounces and furballs?  So we can see if there is a difference in rate of breakup then?


True - comms went to hell in about 2 seconds flat once we got mixed up in an 8vs8, but yeah would have been way different. Always wanted to give it a try - if we could convince everyone else to do the same! It would have been spooky to think that one of your guys could be 'picked off' without you ever knowing...

Re: the big wings issue - I don't really know where to go from here! I'd think that a good bounce would result in a PK...and a bad bounce would result in the guy running the hell away or turning round to fight you....I would suspect it would be more in a manoeuvring fight that wings would eventually come off after being peppered - unless aiming for wings was viable (I don't think it was from the historical accounts...it seemed more like a waste of both bullets and the element of surprise) 

From my experiences with 4.006, wings are still coming off some aircraft with an (apparently) unlikely frequency and ease in dogfights. Certainly not as bad as 4.005, though. More worrying probably is how often MP pilots think their wings are going to come off...it means pilots are running from fights after what should be totally superficial damage (E.G - my wingman heading home after catching 1 or 2 bullets in the wings yesterday). That goes back to the whole "unrealistic flying" debate. 

EDIT: In that regard, I find it dubious that a real WW1 pilot would be so fazed by one or two holes in the canvas...much less an experienced one! 

It'll be very hard to divide our claims into bounces and furballs for a few reasons...sometimes our guys will simply report a time, place and EA fate (I.E "Shot down XXX in enemy lines at [time]. EA went down in flames) and sometimes a bounce will develop into a fight, which can blur the lines a bit. 

Personally, I only remember one bounce I had (in 4.005) which resulted in the wing coming off before the EA had reacted! Usually it's a PK (or it's botched and becomes a dogfight) 

Edited by US93_Larner
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

From my experiences with 4.006, wings are still coming off some aircraft with an (apparently) unlikely frequency and ease in dogfights. Certainly not as bad as 4.005, though. More worrying probably is how often MP pilots think their wings are going to come off...it means pilots are running from fights after what should be totally superficial damage (E.G - my wingman heading home after catching 1 or 2 bullets in the wings yesterday). That goes back to the whole "unrealistic flying" debate. 

 

Trying out the Dolphin yesterday, after taking some damage, just rolling it to the right with the slightest hint of pull would make it shed its wings.

Didn't feel right. No, sir.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The day the patch came out, I loaded up a QMB and flew 4 sorties each in multiple aircraft against 4 "Ace" level Halbs, mainly to guarantee that I would get shot to pieces.  So I flew the DRI, Alb, Spad, SE-5, D VII, Camel (though cant really count the Camel as I was spinning more than fighting).  Now out of 20 flights, I pulled the wings off the SE-5 ONCE.  In every sortie, I flew until I lost.  Most were pilot kills, I was flamed twice, One Alb and one Spad.  I pulled the elevators off the flaming Spad trying to put out the fire in an 8 G pull up.  So In my tests I think things are pretty good.  Maybe that day the Math Gods were on my side, or perhaps peoples perceptions are skewed, or something else could be factoring in here as well.  Being a long time table-top and war game gamer, I am well versed on something called critical hits.  The system for the WWI stuff is more a matter of math and probabilities which fits into a critical hit system.  For those that dont know, in War gaming or Table-top, a Critical hit is something that does far more damage then one would expect to take normally.  So In Bidu's case, those 1 or 2 rounds could have been a "crit" and her took the equivalent of 10 or 20 hits, or 30-60 hits (depending on the multiplier).  Then an easy 2 G pull is catastrophic.  Should this be backed up with visuals, most definitely, but unless your server has Spectator mode on, you cant see the top of the wing, because the damage visuals on top dont always transfer to the bottom.  In my testing I had top wing damage visuals that I didn't see from the cockpit.  Just food for thought

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, II./JG1_Kliegmann said:

So In Bidu's case, those 1 or 2 rounds could have been a "crit" and her took the equivalent of 10 or 20 hits, or 30-60 hits (depending on the multiplier).  Then an easy 2 G pull is catastrophic.

 

They were the wirst kind, "Drookasi hits" they're called... But I didn't pull 2 G's. As I told you, I essentially rolled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, II./JG1_Kliegmann said:

In my testing I had top wing damage visuals that I didn't see from the cockpit.  Just food for thought

Good point.  You also did your testing in SP.  With no lag or packet-loss, you should see and hear all hits on your plane in real time.  We know that in the MP environment things like that get lost, so maybe when people in MP see they're getting hit 2 or 3 times, the game is actually hitting them 10 or 15 times?

  • Like 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...