Jump to content
US93_Larner

4.006 DM Discussion

Recommended Posts

On 5/27/2020 at 10:16 AM, Holtzauge said:

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?

 

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?

That weight is about right. I am at 575 or less when I fly my Dr1.  The 80 Rhone currently running on my Dr1 is probably giving me 85 hp because it has aluminum pistons.

 

I don't know the answer on the G limit question. I think 6.5, maybe 7, is the max the wing can take.  My intent was to do G testing out to 4 Gs, but I never pursued it very hard as I never felt more than 2.5 Gs in any of my maneuvers.

 

I flew on the Flugpark tonight and got in a nice scrap with several Camels while flying the Dr1.  I shot two Camels quite a lot. One guy flew well, and managed to disengage with his wings all shot up (graphic depicted his struts shot away with big holes in the wing). The other guy fought on with wing damage depicted at a lower level than the first Camel.  He did a diving turn and the damaged wings came off first. He must have been at quite high Gs though.

 

So far, I'm not seeing anything that doesn't seem realistic other than my turns at 4.5 Gs, but i am still waiting to test the real plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also flew on flugpark tonight, and towards the end, we got into a pretty big scrap with camels and dolphins.  In one engagement, I was in an Alb following a dolphin I had hit pretty hard in the wing area.  He pulled into a diving left turn, I was pulling 4.5 to 5 g's to remain in lag, and he folded.  I'm not seeing anything wrong with the DM either

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, the DM doing what it should at 5g, doesn't preclude it from doing what it shouldn't at lower g.

 

This and other threads have plenty of video examples as well as a ton of pilot accounts and PvP data from over 100 controlled dogfight tests. They show that the Camel, Dolphin, SPAD, SE5a, Albatros and CL2 can all suffer unexpected catastrophic wing damage with just light damage. Its a fact.

 

The resistance to wing breakage seems wholly aligned with Spar Size and doesn't take into account other wing design or construction philosophies. Whether that's true for the DM or not, that's the in-game experience.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, US103_Baer said:

Guys, the DM doing what it should at 5g, doesn't preclude it from doing what it shouldn't at lower g.

 

This and other threads have plenty of video examples as well as a ton of pilot accounts and PvP data from over 100 controlled dogfight tests. They show that the Camel, Dolphin, SPAD, SE5a, Albatros and CL2 can all suffer unexpected catastrophic wing damage with just light damage. Its a fact.

 

The resistance to wing breakage seems wholly aligned with Spar Size and doesn't take into account other wing design or construction philosophies. Whether that's true for the DM or not, that's the in-game experience.

 

I really want to be on board with this whole idea that wings come off when you sneeze at them, especially when it comes to the CL.II, but I'm not seeing it.

 

I have to shoot an AI Dolphin wing's to pieces for it to come off... and that's still while pulling 2g, on the most loaded wing.

 

 

During the fight above the most I ever pull is around 4g while diving under him to get into a shooting position, and my pilot's really not happy about it.

 

What I will say is: I'm flying the vanilla D.VII and you can see that the flight enveloppe of the faster and better turning Sopwith Dolphin has been drastically reduced after taking both wing damage and engine damage. Either there is something wrong with multiplayer netcode, density, wind, or whatnot, or more likely: people are overstressing their planes like mad in the first place and not adjusting their flying style after taking damage. I do understand that most damage goes unnoticed, but most damage does not cause catastrophic failure unless you pull gs like a madman to begin with.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I noticed yesterday just messing about on Flugpark is that the technochat g-limit warning on the SE5 signals itself somewhere in the middle of 4g. This was just experimenting with power on dives to the end of the speedo and pulling out of them with increasing pressure each time. I dunno if that's supposed to be the airframe limit or the point the pilot starts having a bad time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, US103_Baer said:

 

They show that the Camel, Dolphin, SPAD, SE5a, Albatros and CL2 can all suffer unexpected catastrophic wing damage with just light damage. Its a fact.

 

 

Alright I'll say it. I have revised my opinion of the current DM and actually don't mind it. The one problem I have is there are no aural or visual cues as to how bad your damage is. We may 

think it's light damage when it's not and visa versa. This leads to confusion as to whether you disengage or not. I have had instances where I think I've been hit bad yet I can still loop, split-s, snap roll etc with apparent immunity, really push the G's. Other times I think it's just a scratch and bingo! Wings fall off in a gentle manoeuvre.

 

So wing failure seems totally random, even unexpected. But that's because we have no idea of the damage level. We just don't know if it's light or heavy. 

 

Of course I may be talking through my arse but old habits die hard. :biggrin:

 

I still have an issue with the uber super accurate flak though.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

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.  ;) 


Decided to do my due diligence this morning and revise the previous comparison with your MvR results 😉

I also added all the current data I have for 4.006. This includes our testing dogfights and the (limited) combat reports we have from our Thursday Operations. It's important to note that these data pools are quite widely spaced apart in size, but it should give a rough idea! 

Seeing as the concern at the moment is wings, and owing to our earlier records showing pilot kills as simply 'crashed', I decided to lump everything that WASN'T a structural break up or a flamer in together. 
 

BIjTgcZh.png

Edited by US93_Larner
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What will be interesting will be your MP breakdown for July-August, assuming that the developers do not cave in and revert.

 

As already seen in this thread, the new DM is making people reconsider how they fly.  So once they have adjusted, I would expect the ratio of structural kills to drop sharply, although not to pre 4.005 levels.  If some people are going to fly around until they are killed rather than try to save themselves, they are always going to get more deaths from structural failure than real pilots. 

 

Additionally we have the problem of realizing that you have been damaged or are increasing Gs - below the grey out zone but enough to cause break up.  I like the old RB "creaky wings" sound cue someone proposed earlier, or an earlier slow onset of the grey-out mechanism to stand in for seat of the pants feeling of Gs, rather than it being a literal interpretation of pilot physiology.  This sort of thing will help people fly within the limits.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, slug_yuugen said:

One thing I noticed yesterday just messing about on Flugpark is that the technochat g-limit warning on the SE5 signals itself somewhere in the middle of 4g. This was just experimenting with power on dives to the end of the speedo and pulling out of them with increasing pressure each time. I dunno if that's supposed to be the airframe limit or the point the pilot starts having a bad time.

 

Easy enough to check offline in QMB. Do the same thing in a Fokker DVII - or a 109.  If  the technochat comes on at the same G limit, it is for the pilot.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

My summery:

 

After my online flying experience in May, mainly after the patch, maybe the best language speaks the number of players on Flugpark. This is the best opinion on the last DM update CONCERNING WWI I guess.

 

Furthermore I wanted to underline that there are far more people who just do not care about the forums here, they just quit playing the game because it is not fun anymore to rocket-plunge into the ground after 3 hits in your wings - very simple truth.

 

 

7 hours ago, US103_Baer said:

This and other threads have plenty of video examples as well as a ton of pilot accounts and PvP data from over 100 controlled dogfight tests. They show that the Camel, Dolphin, SPAD, SE5a, Albatros and CL2 can all suffer unexpected catastrophic wing damage with just light damage. Its a fact.

 

I am not convinced that the patch goes in the right direction, I am failing to recognize a clear direction. After all my MAY-flying I can conclude the following and agree with Baer here:

 

Nothing changed for Camel, Dolphin, SPAD, SE5a, Albatros and CL2 - it is even worse because we compare ourselves to the opponents. Almost all of the opposition gained with the last patch.

 

Huge gains for Pfalz, DVII and Dr.1 - since the engine damage kills are now gone practically and the frame in those three planes is almost indestructible after the patch - only the pilot remains=meat which is not always easy to achieve, especially when the defender knows how to scissor well, the fight can take endless amount of time until other enemies show up - this creates additional balance issues now since you have only ONE way to detroy the enemy.

 

IMHO G-effects are over pronounced on WWI aircrafts in FC now, defintely. Maybe this is how it is supposed to be in reality (I don't know and only Chill will be able to convince me) however after all it is a game - not everthing can be simulated 1:1 vs real life, we do not sit in those planes, we do not feel the wind blazing at us etc. etc.

 

I appriciate how much time Larner and his group spent doing the tests, I guess this and all the bakcground info would be enough for at least a Bachelor-thesis and I hope this insights will not be wasted.

 

In this sense I am looking forward for a statement by the DEVS maybe? if they care, if not well then let's see what June will bring.

 

Sahaj

 

Edited by 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk
  • Thanks 4
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had a blast on the first mission of the "Spring Offensive" mission pack.   This is not just about MP.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Chill31 said:

That weight is about right. I am at 575 or less when I fly my Dr1.  The 80 Rhone currently running on my Dr1 is probably giving me 85 hp because it has aluminum pistons.

 

I don't know the answer on the G limit question. I think 6.5, maybe 7, is the max the wing can take.  My intent was to do G testing out to 4 Gs, but I never pursued it very hard as I never felt more than 2.5 Gs in any of my maneuvers.

 

I flew on the Flugpark tonight and got in a nice scrap with several Camels while flying the Dr1.  I shot two Camels quite a lot. One guy flew well, and managed to disengage with his wings all shot up (graphic depicted his struts shot away with big holes in the wing). The other guy fought on with wing damage depicted at a lower level than the first Camel.  He did a diving turn and the damaged wings came off first. He must have been at quite high Gs though.

 

So far, I'm not seeing anything that doesn't seem realistic other than my turns at 4.5 Gs, but i am still waiting to test the real plane.

 

OK, good, then I have the data I need. I could run a simulation before you fly based on the info you gave. In that case, what altitude do you want me to run it at? I’m assuming you don’t want to be too low if you are going to push the limits? I can run the simulation at any altitude and turn entry speed (IAS) so if you give me those numbers then I can set it up. If you have imperial gauges in your plane just give me the knots or mph IAS and altitude in feet and I will set that up in the simulator.

 

So far it looks like I’m much more conservative than FC: For example, in FC the best I manage is around 7 s for an instantaneous 360 degree left turn from 160 km/h IAS at 7-800m. At the same altitude I can do continuous turns (left) at 9 s with about 100 Km/h IAS.

 

In my C++ simulation however, I get 9 s and 12 s respectively for the same manouvers assuming a 122 hp Oberursel and when I run the simulation with 85 hp the numbers will of course be even lower than that.

 

In addition, I have nowhere near the energy retention in C++ as in FC: Doing max rate turns is basically like hitting a brick wall in my simulation: The speed drops dramatically fast and I can not hold g’s as long as in a turn in FC.

 

I have tuned the Dr1 C++ model as best as I can given the data I have but there are two things which involve a lot of guesswork and that is the equivalent aspect ratio to use and the Oswald factor e. Alas, I have no data for equivalent aspect ratio for a triplane but for a biplane Hoerner’s book Fluid Dynamic Drag provides some guidance in figure 19 page 7-12 which I have used as a base.

 

BTW: before anyone in the forum blows a gasket for me “trying to nerf” the Dr1 rest assured: I have modeled the Camel in C++ and it’s not only the Dr1 that is different in FC and my simulation. They are both off. Question I’m trying to determine is am I too conservative or is FC too optimistic that’s all.

 

PS: Forgot to add: The simulator uses standard atmosphere model 15 deg C and 1013 mbar so when determining altitude if you could set your altimeter to STD that would be great.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Doing max rate turns is basically like hitting a brick wall in my simulation:

This!

 

Thank you so much for going through the hoops to get the calculations done! :salute:

 

 

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

IMHO G-effects are over pronounced on WWI aircrafts in FC now, defintely

What if it is not the effects that are excessive, but the game being permissive for sustained excessive g's?

 

Edit: bloody merge.

Edited by ZachariasX
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

What if it is not the effects that are excessive, but the game being permissive for sustained excessive g's?


I wondered about that, too. I saw in one of Chill's flight videos he attempts a hard break (right-hand, I think?) turn and his aircraft wingtip-stalls. I haven't noticed the same effect in FC when flying the Dr.I...

...on a semi-related side note, I often wondered what the game would be like if full-deflection (or really aggressive) break turns induced more side-effects. I heard reference once or twice of pilots talking about how well their opponent turned, etc, which might imply that it isn't so easy as in FC to chuck a WW1 ship around the way we do! 

I'd need to find it again but there was a USAS pilot that said something along the lines of "the Spad is a handful for a new pilot, but with some experience you can hang a pretty tight turn" (paraphrasing)

Edited by US93_Larner

Share this post


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

I wondered about that, too. I saw in one of Chill's flight videos he attempts a hard break (right-hand, I think?) turn and his aircraft wingtip-stalls. I haven't noticed the same effect in FC when flying the Dr.I...

It is very easy for instance to fly tight loops in FC (forget about rollecoaster RoF), yet in @Chill31's description, whatever you do, once you're over the top, you're slow enough that it becomes very hard to maintain direction, as the plane starts to fall as much as it flies. Pulling up from 200 km/h or so is slamming the brakes in the real aircraft. If I remember correctly, he would even tilt the loop slightly to ensure control over the top as departure from straight course is already set in a direction as his airspeed is already below useful control authority. This is about the last I think about when looping the in game Dr.I in any way.

 

My big fear is that adjusting these FM mechanics has far reaching effects on all content, requiring us to buy a lot from Jasons store to pay for all those adjustments just to make all existing content right again.

Share this post


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

My big fear is that adjusting these FM mechanics has far reaching effects on all content, requiring us to buy a lot from Jasons store to pay for all those adjustments just to make all existing content right again.


That's the kicker!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@unreasonable good suggestion it's per aircraft. DVIIF doesn't complain until mid 6G. Can still pull 6G in the SE5 but after a few goes of around 6-7G the wings came off.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

@unreasonable good suggestion it's per aircraft. DVIIF doesn't complain until mid 6G. Can still pull 6G in the SE5 but after a few goes of around 6-7G the wings came off.

 

Have you noticed whether the technochat warning changes it's G level if you have taken damage?

 

I never use the thing - hate having text on the screen ruining my illusion/immersion - but if it is actually signalling the allowable G range after damage, rather than just the undamaged limit, then it could be very useful, in effect giving the human pilot information the AI can access automatically.  I would prefer it if it could trigger a nice creak ...  

Edited by unreasonable
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Creaking that changes according to damaged wing tolerance is likely the easiest and cheapest solution. Have the creaking start at 75% of max g and get louder until failure. If your wing gets damaged to the point that more than 1g causes failure, then the creaking is permanent, likely along with shaking.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


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

 

OK, good, then I have the data I need. I could run a simulation before you fly based on the info you gave. In that case, what altitude do you want me to run it at? I’m assuming you don’t want to be too low if you are going to push the limits? I can run the simulation at any altitude and turn entry speed (IAS) so if you give me those numbers then I can set it up. If you have imperial gauges in your plane just give me the knots or mph IAS and altitude in feet and I will set that up in the simulator.
 

I usually start my testing at 3000 msl and 80 to 90 mph.

 

So far it looks like I’m much more conservative than FC: For example, in FC the best I manage is around 7 s for an instantaneous 360 degree left turn from 160 km/h IAS at 7-800m. At the same altitude I can do continuous turns (left) at 9 s with about 100 Km/h IAS.

This video shows a 360 turn at about 2:15.  It is a max turn with no effort to maintain altitude, but I did try to avoid a stall. Looks like about 8 seconds.

Quote

I have tuned the Dr1 C++ model as best as I can given the data I have but there are two things which involve a lot of guesswork and that is the equivalent aspect ratio to use and the Oswald factor e. Alas, I have no data for equivalent aspect ratio for a triplane but for a biplane Hoerner’s book Fluid Dynamic Drag provides some guidance in figure 19 page 7-12 which I have used as a base.

yeah, triplane formulae are rare.  I’m curious what you get if you use a chord of 6ft and span of 24 feet.  

 

BTW: before anyone in the forum blows a gasket for me “trying to nerf” the Dr1 rest assured: I have modeled the Camel in C++ and it’s not only the Dr1 that is different in FC and my simulation. They are both off. Question I’m trying to determine is am I too conservative or is FC too optimistic that’s all.

if the Dr1 is modeled correctly, you can’t nerf it!  If the FC Dr1 flew just like real thing, people would think it was arcade. 

 

PS: Forgot to add: The simulator uses standard atmosphere model 15 deg C and 1013 mbar so when determining altitude if you could set your altimeter to STD that would be great. 
I’ll see what I can do. I can’t control the temperature unfortunately, and temperature plays a large roll in performance.

 

3 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

It is very easy for instance to fly tight loops in FC (forget about rollecoaster RoF), yet in @Chill31's description, whatever you do, once you're over the top, you're slow enough that it becomes very hard to maintain direction, as the plane starts to fall as much as it flies. Pulling up from 200 km/h or so is slamming the brakes in the real aircraft. If I remember correctly, he would even tilt the loop slightly to ensure control over the top as departure from straight course is already set in a direction as his airspeed is already below useful control authority. This is about the last I think about when looping the in game Dr.I in any way.
Over the top in the loop, it requires almost full left rudder. I am working on a video where you can see what happens if you use no rudder. Still editing...I don’t tilt the loop however.  It will go straight over the top with rudder input.  Insufficient rudder will result in a tilted loop though. 

 

My big fear is that adjusting these FM mechanics has far reaching effects on all content, requiring us to buy a lot from Jasons store to pay for all those adjustments just to make all existing content right again.

to be honest, if they started over with the WWI planes, I’d buy them all again if they were willing to include me on flight model development.  I have contacts all over the world now in WWI aviation, and I can probably get whatever data they need.

 

Edited by Chill31
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Chill31 said:

if the Dr1 is modeled correctly, you can’t nerf it!  If the FC Dr1 flew just like real thing, people would think it was arcade. 

 

You've said this before and from my own limited experience flying very different planes, I couldn't agree more. Compared to a flightsim, even a very accurate one, flying the simulated version is so much harder as you lack the plane's feeling, even with VR and force feedback. Also, it appears that sim developers tend to go for "more difficult = more realistic" and "more difference between planes = more sales", and thus you get sort of caricatures of the actual planes, that ground loop and flip over all the time. Not having flown a tail dragger yet, I'm not saying that they didn't, but likely only under particular circumstances. The same may be true about DM, which is why you have one plane failing at 8g and another at 10g, but I am not an engineer so I will keep that opinion to myself.

 

Quote

to be honest, if they started over with the WWI planes, I’d buy them all again if they were willing to include me on flight model development.  I have contacts all over the world now in WWI aviation, and I can probably get whatever data they need.

Edited by SYN_Haashashin
Choose another gif Bender
  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

 

You've said this before and from my own limited experience flying very different planes, I couldn't agree more. Compared to a flightsim, even a very accurate one, flying the simulated version is so much harder as you lack the plane's feeling, even with VR and force feedback. Also, it appears that sim developers tend to go for "more difficult = more realistic" and "more difference between planes = more sales", and thus you get sort of caricatures of the actual planes, that ground loop and flip over all the time. Not having flown a tail dragger yet, I'm not saying that they didn't, but likely only under particular circumstances. The same may be true about DM, which is why you have one plane failing at 8g and another at 10g, but I am not an engineer so I will keep that opinion to myself.

 

 

I don't believe for one second that the developers of this game ever set out to make planes "artificially difficult" to make things more challenging or gamey.  If anything, there is tendency to tone down certain foibles and quirks and make things artificially easier so that any old person with even minimal flight sim hardware can jump in something like a Camel and be getting max performance out of it.   It's the community that seems to always be demanding more and more ease of flying, and "balance", when their favorite airplane from the movies turns out to be not as good as they want it to be.  Things like ground looping, flipping, or whatever are not because the planes are "caricatures", it's likely either because they think it's realistic, or if not, simply because their well-intentioned model of realism is not quite there.  As far as DM goes for wood and canvas aircraft, from everything I've seen, they are very much trying to get it as realistic as possible, and I don't think some sly intention to make things more gamey is playing a role here.

Edited by SeaSerpent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I imagine that when Chill31 flies the DR1 in this game, he feels similar to how I feel when I drive my car in Assetto Corsa.

 

There's just no way to make a game the same as the real thing.  There are so many variables to take into account, so many sensations you need to communicate to the player, so many quirks dependent upon circumstance- that if you tried to do all of them, you'd never actually deliver the game.

Edited by J28w-Broccoli
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chill31 said:

to be honest, if they started over with the WWI planes, I’d buy them all again if they were willing to include me on flight model development.  I have contacts all over the world now in WWI aviation, and I can probably get whatever data they need.

 

image.gif.98abb9086cee1a653aee035f1ef8e713.gif

#metoo

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I imagine that when Chill31 flies the DR1 in this game, he feels similar to how I feel when I drive my car in Assetto Corsa.

 

There's just no way to make a game the same as the real thing.  There are so many variables to take into account, so many sensations you need to communicate to the player, so many quirks dependent upon circumstance- that if you tried to do all of them, you'd never actually deliver the game.


You can get the physics pretty much spot on. Ever tried iRacing? Laser scanned tracks, air pressure and rubber mass physics. It feels like the real thing. We all have driven a car and that comes closest. If you have a good racing wheel with force feedback you can feel the tires if they slide or have good grip.

Same goes for the physics in RoF / FC = they have the data and the digital nature engine is pretty amazing. 
Check out some documentaries on the Camel; it behaves in game just as they describe in the documentary. Down to every detail how to get out of a spin and how it behaves when you use the rudder etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Chill31;

 

That video you posted is just superb and your plane for sure is a sight for sore eyes. I guess many would have painted it red but the dazzle scheme you have chosen looks dandy!

 

About the realism of sims compared to real life: IMHO the sometimes derided “on rails” FM  is more realistic: Granted, my IRL experience is limited to gliders and light planes but I have also studied a number of good videos from the cockpit position both in the Me-109 and a Yak etc. and it’s very clear how solid and precise the response is to stick input with no tendency for the rubber band behaviour we sometimes see in sims. Il-2 has gotten very much better over the years and the change that was made to the Me-109 FM a while back was definitely a step in the right direction I think. In Il-2 the Fw-190 FM looks and feels the most realistic to me. The ground handling is a chapter in itself and I guess we just need to accept that this is difficult to model with today’s state of the art flight sim technology.

 

I made some pen and paper ballpark calculations about the effect of rotary engine gyroscopic effects compared to elevator/rudder authority a while back and I have a hard time accepting that it is so difficult to counter that IRL as it is in many sims so would be interested to hear your opinion on that.

 

Regarding the turn time comparison: I have no way to compare with your measured times unless the altitude is kept constant during the turn: Any digging will skew the results and there will be no way for me to take this into account. This applies for both the instantaneous and constant turn so if you could keep the altitude during the turns relatively constant then we can compare, otherwise it will be difficult to draw any conclusions I think.

 

About the 24 by 6 foot wing: For sure I can simulate that but why? Where did you get those figures? That would result in an aspect ratio of 4 and that is higher than what I’m assuming. Also, that is a lower wing area than I’m calculating with.

 

I can hopefully get some simulations done tomorrow but it won’t be tonight because me and the missus have just polished off an excellent bottle of Cotes Du Rhone and the rest of the evening is off! :drinks:

Edited by Holtzauge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much of visual flying and driving is done with your vestibular system. This becomes particularly apparent when you get your first introduction to instrument flying and you are convinced that you are still in a bank when you're not. To fully get that in-game you need a full motion sim to get your inner ear involved and experience even the tiniest changes in g, though I find that VR gets you pretty darn close already. Makes me sick after a while, though, it feels almost too real and my body expects additional information which it's not getting.

 

Anyway to get slightly back on topic: the multiplayer implication of the DM change is substantial. Telling people they need to learn how to fly again and find a new balance with the existing planeset is fair enough, but I agree that the simulation as it exists now is simply not advanced enough to get us the required sensory data which would normally help you in not pushing yourself and your plane over the limit. Bring on the creaks, whether they are realistic or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, 127Tom said:


You can get the physics pretty much spot on. Ever tried iRacing? Laser scanned tracks, air pressure and rubber mass physics. It feels like the real thing. 

 

iRacing is better than most.  It feels a little like driving a real car- compared to other simulators- but still not like it does when actually out on track.  VR helps a bit too.  But still no substitute.  There is so much that you can't feel, particularly in regard to the balance of the car and G-forces, while sitting in front of a computer.  You get feedback through the wheel of course.  But the best way I can describe what you don't get, is that it's like listening to music with only one earbud in.

 

Most of the track time these days is taken up by my kid, who is doing the real racing, and they're definitely not passing up track days for iRacing.

Edited by J28w-Broccoli

Share this post


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

 

  Things like ground looping, flipping, or whatever are not because the planes are "caricatures", it's likely either because they think it's realistic, or if not, simply because their well-intentioned model of realism is not quite there.  As far as DM goes for wood and canvas aircraft, from everything I've seen, they are very much trying to get it as realistic as possible, and I don't think some sly intention to make things more gamey is playing a role here.

I agree with this, but this is also part of the problem with our devs. It's like they compile their data and research and build everything as accurate as they can and then it's done, no matter what comes out as the final product that has to be it because "we used all available resources and tested it thoroughly" even if the result is wildly off just using basic common sense. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

<snip>  but I am not an engineer so I will keep that opinion to myself.

 

Well I'm an engineer and I think you should go right ahead because nobody listens to to you anyway!

 

On a more serious note: The nice thing  about these forums is that there are a lot of knowledgeable people around: One of the best informed on WW2 aircraft performance I've come across is actually by profession a dairy farmer in Finland!

 

Edited by Holtzauge
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Well I'm an engineer and I think you should go right ahead because nobody listens to to you anyway!

 

You have no idea how happy that statement makes me. I was holding my breath for the inevitable post that would blame the DM change on me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I blame Bender for all this TO INCLUDE THE 10G PFALZ SINCE HE POSTED ABOUT IT FIRST!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, US93_Talbot said:

I blame Bender for all this TO INCLUDE THE 10G PFALZ SINCE HE POSTED ABOUT IT FIRST!


Wait a minute, considering my catastrophic involvement in RoF 1.034 (allegedly), it could be that they're not not listening to me, but rather are listening to me and doing the exact opposite. They slowed down the Pfalz after I said it should be faster, and I remember hyping up FC because of the lack of wingshedd—


I found a source that says the Pfalz spars were made of adamantium and could take 30g!

 

AND WHATEVER YOU DO, DON'T RELEASE THE HANRIOT

  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

I agree with this, but this is also part of the problem with our devs. It's like they compile their data and research and build everything as accurate as they can and then it's done, no matter what comes out as the final product that has to be it because "we used all available resources and tested it thoroughly" even if the result is wildly off just using basic common sense. 

 

I think you're being too broad in your generalization, Dummy, Tycoon

 

I'll grant you that there are times I feel the developers choose extremes, when perhaps a middle ground would be better:  You can either have NerfCamel or UberCamel, you can have the controversial "Realistic Spotting" or the comically unrealistic "Enhanced Spotting."  We have planes subject to strict, by-the-book engine timers, that when slightly exceeded cause catastrophic failure.  So yes, I agree that there is sometimes some rigidity there that tends to favor one pole or another.

 

However, that having been said, since I got into the playing IL-2, I've seen the developers constantly go back and revisit things.  Planes that were released in previous modules are constantly being updated.  Everything has been in a constant state of improvement. The sim that I started playing in 2016 has come so far from then it almost feels like a brand new sim sometimes.  Overall, it seems that very rarely have design decisions been set in stone, no longer subject to further revision.

Edited by SeaSerpent
your to you're :)
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this quite interesting - doubly so because it's written by my historical namesake, Capt. G. DeFreest Larner! 

r1JNoceh.png

For context, Larner flew SPAD VIIs and XIIIs with Escadrille SPA.86, and later XIIIs with the 103rd Aero Squadron. 

Share this post


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

 

I think you're being too broad in your generalization, Dummy, Tycoon

 

I'll grant you that there are times I feel the developers choose extremes, when perhaps a middle ground would be better:  You can either have NerfCamel or UberCamel, you can have the controversial "Realistic Spotting" or the comically unrealistic "Enhanced Spotting."  We have planes subject to strict, by-the-book engine timers, that when slightly exceeded cause catastrophic failure.  So yes, I agree that there is sometimes some rigidity there that tends to favor one pole or another.

 

However, that having been said, since I got into the playing IL-2, I've seen the developers constantly go back and revisit things.  Planes that were released in previous modules are constantly being updated.  Everything has been in a constant state of improvement. The sim that I started playing in 2016 has come so far from then it almost feels like a brand new sim sometimes.  Overall, it seems that very rarely have design decisions been set in stone, no longer subject to further revision.

I was more referring to rof and fc development because yes development of the ww2 stuff has been much better.

 

Look at it this way, FC comes out, people have mixed feelings on it, one thing most agree on is how great the new dm is concerning the wings, by far the most praised aspect. The update comes out which radically changes wing strength, any fool who even did slight testing would see that, and yet the devs didn't seem to realize how radically different the changes were until people started complaining.

 

I can understand changing something in a update and breaking things, that's how software is, but to be sitting on a highly praised aspect for months and not realizing it until you remove it? To me that says their focus is elsewhere completely.

 

This is all just personal opinion, but hey it's worth just as much as a (wanna be) maverick.:P

Edited by Tycoon
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

This is all just personal opinion, but hey it's worth just as much as a (wanna be) maverick.:P

 

I feel the need....

Share this post


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

 

You have no idea how happy that statement makes me. I was holding my breath for the inevitable post that would blame the DM change on me.

 

I feel a need to clarify what I meant by the you in my original post: The "you" was of course me a no one else! Qualifications mean nothing if you go against the grain.

Share this post


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

Qualifications mean nothing if you go against the grain.

 

I'd like to nominate this as statement of the week !

 

Pertinant words indeed..

Share this post


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


Wait a minute, considering my catastrophic involvement in RoF 1.034 (allegedly), it could be that they're not not listening to me, but rather are listening to me and doing the exact opposite. They slowed down the Pfalz after I said it should be faster, and I remember hyping up FC because of the lack of wingshedd—


I found a source that says the Pfalz spars were made of adamantium and could take 30g!

 

AND WHATEVER YOU DO, DON'T RELEASE THE HANRIOT


is that like releasing the Kraken but worse?

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...