Jump to content
US93_Larner

4.006 DM Discussion

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Hoots said:


is that like releasing the Kraken but worse?

 

Far, far worse.

 

It's tougher than the Pfalz D.IIIa.

It climbs better than the Fokker D.VIIF.

It turns better than the Sopwith Camel.

It can carry an overwing Lewis like the S.E.5a.

It has more wings than the Fokker Dr.I (allegedly).

And it's faster than the SPAD XIII and has the same incendiary ammo (but waffle-scented).

Also, it can land on water or Trappist beer (HD.2).

 

And if you paint it on the tail of your F-16, it makes your plane perform better (and look sexier) than any fifth generation fighter currently out there.

 

fa101_130607_jos_schoofs_04.jpg

Edited by J5_Hellbender
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

 

Far, far worse.

 

Also, it can land on water (HD.2).

 

 

 Everything in RoF - at least everything I tried - could land on water - and taxi on it up to the beach.   (On the lake map).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Chill31:

 

Here are some initial C++ simulation results for a Dr1 at 757 Kg, 79 hp assumed at an altitude of 3000 ft STD at 15 deg C (I don’t know how much the Le Rhone loses with altitude from 85 hp at SL but I’ve assumed 79 hp at 3000 ft STD):

 

Max momentaneous turn at Clmax starting off at 85 mph IAS keeping altitude but letting speed drop: 13.5 s to do a 360 deg turn. Rough estimates based on the max initial turn rate at 85 mph IAS when entering turn for a 360 degree turn keeping speed up by dropping in altitude: circa 7.2 s.

 

Stationary turn time at 55 mph IAS keeping altitude: 18.5 s to do a 360 degree turn.

 

BTW: I found the text below on the Aerodrome forum by someone with the handle baldeagle which includes rolling in and out of the turn in a “Triplane” (I’m assuming a Dr1?) indicating I’m currently a bit pessimistic in my 18.5 estimate which does not include that:

 

“By the way, be careful where you get your numbers from, the last Triplane I flew I timed a 360 degree turn, from level to level again, so including rolling in and rolling out, and it was almost 20 seconds, even with Voss and a rotary engine it isn't going to be much less, certainly not anywhere near 5 seconds. Those figures you get from 1917 are measured by very uncertain means, not to mention the exaggerations made by manufacturers, pilots, and anybody with a point to make. I wouldn't put too much stock in contemporary figures, except in very general terms.”

 

Any thoughts on baldeagle’s comment above?

 

Late edit: Just realized based on @ZachariasX and @unreasonable comments below that it would be good to measure the turn times going both left and right to capture the gyroscopic effects.

Edited by Holtzauge
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps he was performing a conventional level turn while Voss would have been doing something like the "change of direction" as per attached diagram pic.

 

train_tactics.jpg.6f6131b04a3fde05e29acf71d049cf8d.jpg

Share this post


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

 

Far, far worse.

 

It's tougher than the Pfalz D.IIIa.

It climbs better than the Fokker D.VIIF.

It turns better than the Sopwith Camel.

It can carry an overwing Lewis like the S.E.5a.

It has more wings than the Fokker Dr.I (allegedly).

And it's faster than the SPAD XIII and has the same incendiary ammo (but waffle-scented).

Also, it can land on water or Trappist beer (HD.2).

 

And if you paint it on the tail of your F-16, it makes your plane perform better (and look sexier) than any fifth generation fighter currently out there.

 

fa101_130607_jos_schoofs_04.jpg


All seems tickety boo, release the krak.. hanriot I’d say. Did they need the squadron number? Surely Belgium only has one squadron... :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@unreasonable

 

True, IRL combat flying would probably not have included much level turning but more 3D manouvering. I just watched Mikael Carlson's Dr1 flying at Hahnweide and it look like you need to get the nose down when you manouver to keep the speed up.

 

Here is an interesting interview with Mikael Carlson. Note what he says about looping: You are almost out of speed at the top!

 

The level turn comparison I'm hoping to get from Chill is for comparison only to tweak the simulator FM. Once the model is tuned other more interesting flight conditions can be simulated.

Edited by Holtzauge
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yes I know - will be interesting if you can get anything useful to compare with FC FM on the energy loss issue you were discussing earlier. 

 

I know the interaction of DM and FM is important in the context of loading and results on damaged planes,  but if you get into detail of RL/FM energy loss comparison it might be better to start a new thread.  

 

edit: [ very nice article and pictures, BTW, thanks]

Edited by unreasonable
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Hoots said:


All seems tickety boo, release the krak.. hanriot I’d say. Did they need the squadron number? Surely Belgium only has one squadron... :)

 

 

One squadron, one plane, one pilot — all the kills.

 

Balloon kills are still kills!

 

 

But seriously, the Belgian 1st Squadron was reformed as the 9th Squadron in 1918, mostly to regroup the rotary scouts (Nieuport 17/23, Camel and Hanriot) from the in-line scouts (SPAD VII and XIII), who were known as 5th Squadron but were later regrouped at the 10th Squadron. So even though Belgium really only has 11 fighter squadrons, I don't think you really need more than 31 fighter squadrons to protect the Belgian airspace.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Chill31: I think unreasonable's idea above about a separate thread for your test results sound good: IRL flight test data from a Fokker Dr1 deserves a thread of its own. Will also be so much easier for people to find rather than if the info is hidden away in a thread about damage modeling.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Any thoughts on baldeagle’s comment above?

I think @unreasonable has a point here. One thing to consider here is that planes back then were not flown as they are now. In general, you used to steer the aircraft by means of the rudder, the other controls assisting.

 

If you do that instead of bank-turn-bank, you have different turn times, as you are not following the same sequence of control inputs. In addition, there are further causes that wholly disconnect actual (historic) combat turn times from theoretically sustained turn times. This is that those planes were not flown that manner at all. @Chill31 mentioned before that he could change direction to the right extremely quickly by pulling up the nose and kicking full rudder. The nose would come around much faster. Yet at the end of the turn (or rather: change of direction) you stopped your aircraft and you have to go straight from there.

 

Thus any fast directional change is NOT a half circle, but it is a stunt to kick the nose that other way and then the trick is completed.

 

It is evident that sustained turn times take vastly more time than turns that spend altitude, meaning that the quickest way is always a flick in one or the other way by means of using altitude in one or the other way. In Case of the Camel, full right rudder and a pull on the control column will just do that: Instant initiation of the turn AND initiation of the bank while the pull will not only tighten the turn but it depresses the nose and thus energizing the turn. If you take your stopwatch, you can see that you will win seconds over the coordinated "bank-turn-bank" maneuver. But none of this is a sustained turn. Conversely, to the left ypu will make your nose rise, acting directly against a tighter turn. Thus the left turn takes FAR more work and is in therms of coordination a totally different maneuver. That the Camel "turns 270° to the right in the time it requires to turn 90° to the left" has to be read in that context and not that sustained turn times to the right or left differed any any way.

 

Where the issue of the rather modest sustained turn times comes into play is the amount of energy you bleed during any kind of stunt. It is therefore clear that going terribly fast (as we do in FC) is in the real aircraft a truly unsuitable method. You made it clear that the speed at which you can rip the aircraft apart is not far from max. flight speed, hence NOBODY in their right mind would just yank their control column, whatever the circumstances. In addition, initiation a coordinated 7 g half turn takes far, far longer than a flick at 2.5 g. This setting precludes and BFM like type maneuvering. Nonetheless, in the game we do just that, as when you are fast, it is the thing to do.

 

Where I see the disparity between game and the real world is that in the game, you get no penalty with bleeding excessive energy and thus ending very quickly below your opponent during the fight, as him going slow will burn less altitude for attaining the same turns.

 

The energy burn vs airspeed is something that is of great interest to me for two reasons:

 

Firstly, one could compare energy bleed (altitude loss) between sustained 2.5 g turns and, say, 5 g turns. Then we could compare that to what we have in the game. I suspect that in the game, slow flying is somehow/somewhat penalized over fast flying, as it leads to a faster energy loss than the fast turn, while this *probably* should be the opposite.

 

Secondly, this high speed efficiency of the airfoil brings along something else: The controls get extremely effective, meaning that when going (I'm guessing here) about 120 km/h, you can already fully compensate the gyro of engine and propeller. You have total contol of the aircraft, you can make it your F-16. Yet it is clear in the telemetry data generated by Javier Arango with his Camel that even at this flight speed, the gyro plays into the maneuver with the effect described above, yet in the game it only happens when you go very slow, near stall speed. Also, funny enough, in the game the camel mainly excells in its left turn. It is in the left climbing turn where it leaves the competition in a sorry place, not in the quick, altitude consuming (it doesn't in the game) turn to the right.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

I think @unreasonable has a point here. One thing to consider here is that planes back then were not flown as they are now. In general, you used to steer the aircraft by means of the rudder, the other controls assisting.

[snip]
. Yet it is clear in the telemetry data generated by Javier Arango with his Camel that even at this flight speed, the gyro plays into the maneuver with the effect described above, yet in the game it only happens when you go very slow, near stall speed. Also, funny enough, in the game the camel mainly excells in its left turn. It is in the left climbing turn where it leaves the competition in a sorry place, not in the quick, altitude consuming (it doesn't in the game) turn to the right.

 

 

I agree 100% with most of this - getting some rudder pedals for the first time (RB3D) was a revelation: but from my experience I do not agree with the last part (bold).

 

I do not have hundreds of hours in the Camel, although lots in other rotaries - just some QMB larking about and three flights in the scripted campaign (7 aircraft kills  and a FlakWagon - no wing-offs, even for the FlakWagon  ;)  ).   I find that the need to use rudder to counter the gyro effect is there throughout the envelope.    It is clearly more obvious as you slow, eg if you pitch up before adding rudder.   The right turn will consume altitude just fine if you do not watch it and use a little top rudder - actually it will spin you out. Happened to me twice - recovered quickly both times.  (Much better to spin that way than in a LH turn).  

Share this post


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

experience I do not agree with the last part (bold).

You are right and I guess I worded that too strongly. The point I was trying to make is that, as opposed to Javier’s turns, you can make perfectly level right hand turns turn easily with the Camel using your experiance and coordination on the stick. The Camel in consequence dies not differ in agility to right or the left. In Javier’s telemetry however, what to him looked like a level turn was in fact a descending turn.

 

With the Camel, you have to go very slow in your right hand turn for the gyro noticeably tightening your turn as opposed to what you can do to the left. It is as if the threshold of where gyro is as unimportant to the aircraft (as the prop gyro on the Cessna) is at a lower speed.

 

It is gradual, but when you have competing effects, gyro effect vs airspeed and drag vs. airspeed, I think we have a different balance there in the game as we have in the real aircraft. It is a very subtle thing here that I am after, yet it plays into most or ways how we choose to handle our aircraft. It is also that balance that made the Dr.I in old RoF the clown wagon, not the airspeed per se. The nerf was good for putting the Dr.I back to his place with known collateral. I think we turned the wrong screw there back then, as it was the easy one to turn.

 

EDIT: I get the impression that the speed threshold where we don't bleed much energy anymore in game is also the one where gyro becomes easily manageable and unimportant regarding the control of the aircraft.

Edited by ZachariasX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ZachariasX You have mentioned this "speed threshold" before, but I have to say I have never noticed anything other than a gradual progression in handling effects.  

 

As to the energy bleed - I usually turn the rotaries (and in-lines too) by pitching up and applying lots of rudder.  I find that the pitch up can get my speed down very quickly, depending on how sharply I want to turn.  So I am a bit puzzled by this discussion.   

 

If @Chill31 and @Holtzauge can show there is something badly off with the energy bleed or gyro effects, fine, let's have an FM thread to talk about it.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

As to the energy bleed - I usually turn the rotaries (and in-lines too) by pitching up and applying lots of rudder.  I find that the pitch up can get my speed down very quickly, depending on how sharply I want to turn.  So I am a bit puzzled by this discussion.   

None of the effects I mentioned need to be off badly. MP rides the very edge of the envelope of the entire sim, hence it will first show any slight difference in balancing the sim parameters.

 

21 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

I find that the pitch up can get my speed down very quickly,

At 180 km/h, this is not good. Online, the pitch up will have set you up for instant death.

 

Again, please see what I wrote as a mean to break down what we have in the sim into individual factors. What I described is my impression, nothing more. I am sure that none of these factors are represented 100% correct. They cannot be, and that is not the issue per se. What I'm getting at is that several systemic deviations can promote a gameplay that makes us fly different than in the real world in order to be successful.

 

Any further insight in that is most welcome. Most of all, Chills hard data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

We just ran FiF test mission, and I was satisfied with all aspects of flying after the latest patch.

 

Well done to all involved!!

 

👍👍

  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

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.

 

I would say for years. Since they released the Fokker Dr1 and Spad, in a week or so people started to mention that you had to focus on pilot, engine to shot down planes and that the bullet dispersion was gone, differently from ROF, when it is way easier to just spray the wings in general and the guns shoot like shotguns. So the DM was being praised all along till the last day.

 

That’s the weird part about it all. They took away the spine of Flying Circus with a single stroke, overnight with the DM update.

Edited by SeaW0lf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well, not gonna lie, since the spar correction it certainly seems like there might be less wing sheds on our squadron nights.

 

Only encountered one (fd7) that lost its wings last Thursday. It will be interesting to see our internal combat reports contrasted. 

Edited by US93_Talbot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, JG1_Snaggle said:

Hi all,

 

We just ran FiF test mission, and I was satisfied with all aspects of flying after the latest patch.

 

Well done to all involved!!

 

👍👍

Agreed... and we were flying Entente.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well, planes continue to shake and feel very fragile after a few hits. Also, some planes gained Fokker D8 characteristics, right? Brick wings? Sounds just like ROF to me. That is just too adverse to what we had before. 

Edited by SeaW0lf
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S! All

 

So far the FM DM looks OK. It is not the same as before the patch but it is within reasonable expectations.

 

Not sure what they did to the sounds but love it. Explosions really kick.

 

The lighting of buildings looks much better. More color and less glare.

 

Additions to the Syndicate campaigns and building them into the game was a bonus.

 

Very nice that they put this much effort into FC.

 

Many thanks to Devs.

 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Not sure what they did to the sounds but love it. Explosions really kick.


Now that I can definitely agree with. First time I went low over the mud I was like "Woah what's going on?!"

awesome hahah

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is JG1 sponsored by 1C?

 

(just a joke take it easy)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when will the data collected be presented to Andrey? Will he even bother after some of the hysterical dummy spitting? Look what happened to the Se5a. ;) So welcome to the new norm. Sure a few tweaks would be nice if Andrey comes to the party. But above all enjoy the game. It's still good.

 

{cue emely's confused face}

 

And remember, real men fly rotaries. Their huge balls counteract the gyroscopic torque. I fly the Camel.

 

{cue emely's confused face}

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I disagree. 

Imo 4.006 has increased the variation in post-damage weakness across the plane set and the larger data sets presented demonstrate that.

 

To those saying that MP flying behaviour has to change to match the new more-accurate DM, please to accurate with your statements in future. 

The flying behaviour for D7, Dr1, Pfalz and Bristol pilots does NOT have to change, only those flying SPADs, Camels, Dolphins, and Albs have to bug out or stay under 2g after getting a couple of wing hits.

 

I've not noticed D7s and dr1s online have to moderate their maneuvering to protect wings. If anything, the opposite. They are flying tanks now and their pilots seem to know it.

 

Again, this variation seems because of - spar size. 

 

 

Edited by US103_Baer
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

I disagree. 

Imo 4.006 has increased the variation in post-damage weakness across the plane set and the larger data sets presented demonstrate that.

 

To those saying that MP flying behaviour has to change to match the new more-accurate DM, please to accurate with your statements in future. 

The flying behaviour for D7, Dr1, Pfalz and Bristol pilots does NOT have to change, only those flying SPADs, Camels, Dolphins, and Albs have to bug out or stay under 2g after getting a couple of wing hits.

 

I've not noticed D7s and dr1s online have to moderate their maneuvering to protect wings. If anything, the opposite. They are flying tanks now and their pilots seem to know it.

 

Again, this variation seems because of - spar size. 

 

 


D7 & DrI: cantilever wings (+ remove F from multiplayer)

 

Pfalz: why 10g? (before damage)

 

Bristol: not flown yet, but in RoF it was the opposite and would break up from heavy turbulence before damage (+ remove F.III from multiplayer)

 

 

Edit: Found bug with the Bristol: bomb racks stay on by default

Edited by J5_Hellbender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what you need to be successful (in addition to the appendages catchov suggested to counter the torque) is a really huge and well dimensioned spar is it? Ok, ok I can see myself out by myself thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been flying FC again a couple of days now. 
Both a lot in the D7 and Camel.
The Camel has glass wings: a couple of hits in your wings: plane starts to shake and if you pull too much "ka-wosh" and they break off.
The D7 feels like a tank. Can take many bullets. I see why it's the plane to jump in now. 
Way easier to get lots of kills in the D7 and survive than the Camel.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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


D7 & DrI: cantilever wings (+ remove F from multiplayer)

 

Pfalz: why 10g? (before damage)

 

Bristol: not flown yet, but in RoF it was the opposite and would break up from heavy turbulence before damage (+ remove F.III from multiplayer)

 

 

Edit: Found bug with the Bristol: bomb racks stay on by default

Remove the D7F and FIII from MP?  Well I guess then there are claims the camel, Spad, SE-5 and Dolphin's wings are still too weak, better remove that from MP, the Pfalz and D7 are tanks, better remove those from MP as well, oh, and Oh God, the bomb racks on the Bristol's are visually bugged, cant have that either, better remove them both.  Lets see that leaves the Alb and DRI, oops, without a camel, the DRI is WAY too maneuverable, cant have that now can we, better remove that one from MP as well.  Seeing that at least something has to be left, gotta leave the Alb, so allied vs German all albs, good game guys

Edited by II./JG1_Kliegmann
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea to start removing things from the game, locking fuels and nerfing things, asking for bullet dispersion to counter the DM update is not the road to take. Just tackle the problem per se instead of creating more problems on top of problems. 

 

It wasn't broken before... Just saying.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

Remove the D7F and FIII from MP?  Well I guess then there are claims the camel, Spad, SE-5 and Dolphin's wings are still too weak, better remove that from MP, the Pfalz and D7 are tanks, better remove those from MP as well, oh, and Oh God, the bomb racks on the Bristol's are visually bugged, cant have that either, better remove them both.  Lets see that leaves the Alb and DRI, oops, without a camel, the DRI is WAY too maneuverable, cant have that now can we, better remove that one from MP as well.  Seeing that at least something has to be left, gotta leave the Alb, so allied vs German all albs, good game guys

 

The reason for removing the Fokker D.VIIF and Bristol F.III from multiplayer is purely historical: they are not part of the Arras Spring 1918 planeset.

 

9hF3bxt.jpg

 

Both of them went into full service around late summer, although some Bristol F.IIIs may have been available earlier in the year, as well as the S.E.5a (with Wolseley Viper).

 

I have nothing against the D.VIIF, it just needs its historical opponents (apart from the Bristol F.III and S.E.5a): Sopwith Snipe, Bentley Camel and late war SPAD XIII. Those, in turn, need another late war Central scout, such as the Siemens-Schuckert D.IV, and a late war Central recon such as the Rumpler C.VII.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

The idea to start removing things from the game, locking fuels and nerfing things, asking for bullet dispersion to counter the DM update is not the road to take. Just tackle the problem per se instead of creating more problems on top of problems. 

 

It wasn't broken before... Just saying.

 

Removing planes which would not have been each other's historical opponents is common sense. We're not having Pups or Nieuport 11s flying around in Spring 1918 either.

 

Would a Fokker D.VIIF have faced Clerget Camels? Of course, but the Bentley Camel would at least have existed by then. So why then have an F and no Bentley, and on top of that not have a late 1918 map?

 

Locking fuel is a necessary evil which is already commonplace on the WWII side of the game, and which used to happen in RoF on Syndicate Vintage Mission. I don't see it as a nerfing. What else do you see as nerfing?

 

As for "not being broken" before, I agree, but at least according to the devs: it's "more accurate" now. Whether it's more fun or a better multiplayer experience I sincerely doubt, but I don't think that was ever the goal of the update. This wasn't a game balance patch, it was one applied purely for realism. In the same way I suggest to have a more realistic planeset and exclude a number of rare late war planes, and hopefully this will be enough to make multiplayer even more realistic. While I don't think that it will necessarily bring back "pre-patch fun", it would at least create a situation where you're not facing the rarest possible opponents on a daily basis.

 

Not to mention that without the F, Entente really has every advantage, except for parachutes.

 

 

1 minute ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

Overcompressed Merc would solve a lot of problems...

 

It would. The Fokker D.VII 200hp, if it's what I expect it to be (top speed around 200km/h and climb between the D.VII and D.VIIF), would be a perfect 1:1 match for the Camel. Even the Albatros D.Va 200hp (top speed 185km/h according to January 1918 Aldershof) would be less useless. Okay, just kind of useless.

 

I'm not holding my breath for any of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Witnessed the following on Flugpark tonight: 

-Dr.I - Pilot Kill
-Dr.I - Pilot Kill
-D.VII F - Broke Up (flak) 
-D.VII F - Bailed (Plane intact) 
-Alb - Broke up 
-SPAD - Broke up 

And on ST's server had a bunch of broken up SPADs and, weirdly, tons of D7 Flamers 
 

12 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

Locking fuel is a necessary evil which is already commonplace on the WWII side of the game, and which used to happen in RoF on Syndicate Vintage Mission. I don't see it as a nerfing. What else do you see as nerfing?


you must have never flown a Camel with 100% fuel lol! It's not the enemy I'm worried about with a full tank...but yeah, I'm sure there are 'reasonable' fuel loads to lock it at. 

 

Edited by US93_Larner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know the D7F wouldn't be such a pain in the ass if all you scout pilots hung out with us Bristol pilots more, we can tuck you in under our wings and guard you from the big bad wolf. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

You know the D7F wouldn't be such a pain in the ass if all you scout pilots hung out with us Bristol pilots more, we can tuck you in under our wings and guard you from the big bad wolf. 


Sorry, chum...the air's cleaner up at the higher altitudes...and there are still plenty wolves to skin ;)  

Share this post


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

you must have never flown a Camel with 100% fuel lol! It's not the enemy I'm worried about with a full tank...but yeah, I'm sure there are 'reasonable' fuel loads to lock it at. 

 

It may have been long ago now, but I was part of a Camel squadron. 100% fuel (or close to) was standard for SYN Vintage missions, and that was back in the days when the top speed of the Fokker Dr.I was around 180km/h and nobody on Central flew the D.VIIF.

 

I will say that the FC Camel climbs worse and has more of a tendency to overrev than the pre-1.034 RoF Camel, but it also handles easier. It's still, by far, the best low altitude energy fighter on Entente. There's just no point in flying it with the Fokker D.VIIF around. I feel the need... the need for sp-- SPAD.

Share this post


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

I will say that the FC Camel climbs worse and has more of a tendency to overrev than the pre-1.034 RoF Camel, but it also handles easier. It's still, by far, the best low altitude energy fighter on Entente. There's just no point in flying it with the Fokker D.VIIF around. I feel the need... the need for sp-- SPAD.


You're a better camel pilot than me, then. Last time I flew with 100% fuel I couldn't hang a turn to save my life. Literally. 

Interestingly, I've heard the opposite opinion - why take a SPAD against a D7F when you could take a Camel? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, US93_Larner said:

You're a better camel pilot than me, then. Last time I flew with 100% fuel I couldn't hang a turn to save my life. Literally. 

Interestingly, I've heard the opposite opinion - why take a SPAD against a D7F when you could take a Camel? 

 

Don't say that, I just checked: I swore off the Camel around 2011 when the Hanriot and Bristol were released, I'm probably just rubbish in it now. Even then, the only reason I remember it being so good is because we flew it in groups of 3-4, and we didn't turn with it. This is its biggest "secret": it's not made for turning, it's a low level BnZ'ers that just so happens to be able to turn and trick people into killing themselves with it.

 

Against the D.VIIF you're only ever winning because its pilot makes a mistake. You can't outclimb it at any altitude with any Entente machine (I'd wager that a Bentley Camel or late war SPAD could do it at low altitude), and it has a service ceiling of 9000m. The end. For reference: the SPAD has the highest service ceiling on Entente: around 7000m, and the Camel and S.E.5a can go up to around 5000-6000m, but for practical purposes the Camel is useless above 3000m, especially with a historical fuel load.

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...