Jump to content
US93_Larner

4.006 DM Discussion

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

Yes, but to some degree, you can turn your statement around and say that REDMAN's money is his hard work. So it works both ways, does it not?

 

With the little difference that no one is beeing disrespectfull about REDMAN's money. Sorry but I don't see the analogy here.

 

What I am saying breaks down to: We are all in the same boat, not satisfied with the games damage modell in the current state, we all want a quick resoloution for the problem, best way to have that is to be objective and respectful in the dialog with the devs as the OP pointed out. 

Edited by J99_Sizzlorr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, No.204_REDMAN said:

 

I paid money for this product now i feel like I threw my money out the window, as a paying customer I expect to get my monies worth and if they can't deliver I want a refund.

   

I can send you a napkin so that you can wipe your snot)) You have a user agreement that you signed, in it you can find answers to many questions.  And what about the fact that you have been using the game for quite some time? 🙂

 

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Can we all take a moment to chill out, please? A big argument on the forum is absolutely the LAST thing that will make the devs want to look at any possible FC changes. Reasonably-made points and discussions will be much more appreciated by the devs, IMHO. They've shown with the DM update for us in 4.006 that they are willing to listen and work with us. I don't expect they would be if we devolve into petty squabbles and accusations, though. 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

Here are the results from our entire data pool of aircraft shot down during our testing (96 in total so far). Owing to the D.VII's extreme structural strength in relation to every other aircraft, I decided to include two charts, in order to see how much the D.VII would alter the overall results.

qzyA84eh.png

 

 

6 hours ago, Adam said:

I was flying a SPAD the other night with Talbot. Bidu was a DVIIF that we attacked and hit pretty well with a few passes. He in turn inflicted  minor damage to My aircraft that resulted in my wings shredding in a basic slow wing over and slight spiral dive while having a go back at him. I pulled 4-5 G in that one manoeuvre.  
 

Something is off. 


For reference - I checked Adam's parser after this and he had been hit by 5 rounds. 5 rounds! I'd have to find the quote, but one pilot from the 22nd Aero Squadron reported exiting a fight in a spiral-dive vs (I think it was) Jasta 18 and counting 77 bullet holes in his SPAD 13 afterwards. 


I definitely am starting to think that we're not quite there in terms of the DM. In general, I think the planes should be generally more resilient. 

Edited by US93_Larner
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Can we all take a moment to chill out, please?

Sure, I didn't make the rules anyway...

Edited by J99_Sizzlorr
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed tonight on MP the camels wings broke real easy, more so than last update possibly my imagination or over stressing her without noticing, but 3 deaths out of the 6 were wing breaks through G force, and not particularly high G's, no hits on them.

Anyone else noticed a difference or are we just looking for a fault that isn't there? If the devs turn round and say "we did nothing to the Camel" I'm fine with that and mind put at ease.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I bet MvR never pulled a 6 g turn in his whole life.

 

If these pilots did, you'd bet that blackouts would be mentioned in the accounts, yet they are curiously absent...

 

 

As for parsers-  No parser report I have seen reports every single bullet.  I can have a sortie in which I fire 200 rounds with a reported 25% hit rate, and nowhere near 50 damage reports are ever listed.  I never ran a server, only looked at a stats page afterward- so maybe you guys have info I don't get access to.

Edited by J28w-Broccoli
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

A thing to remember, though, is that there's also a degree of survivorship bias at work with those kinds of counts. You could absolutely get a lot of holes in canvas without it doing anything, but equally a single bullet could snap a tension wire or weaken a spar in the wrong place, and drastically reduce your plane's integrity in certain kinds of maneuvers. 

 

WW1 planes were surprisingly robust in many ways, but they were also fragile in many others. I think we're finding some of those places in large part because online players fly far more aggressively and recklessly than your average pilot in the days before widespread spin recovery training and using machines whose reliability was much more in question than our perfectly uniform digital replicas. It's handy to remember most pilots back then did not keep fighting after sustaining damage: if they got hit, or even if they might have been hit, most pilots who survived any length of time would run home, better safe than sorry.

 

Without our lives on the line, we stick in dogfights way more tenaciously and far more aggressively, and quite frankly we do a lot of stupid shit. I do not find it surprisingly at all that an updated damage model is punishing us for it, and I expect we'll all need to make adjustments in how we fly and be more cautious to match.

Edited by open_sketchbook
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

43 minutes ago, ST_Nooney said:

I noticed tonight on MP the camels wings broke real easy, more so than last update possibly my imagination or over stressing her without noticing, but 3 deaths out of the 6 were wing breaks through G force, and not particularly high G's, no hits on them.

Anyone else noticed a difference or are we just looking for a fault that isn't there? If the devs turn round and say "we did nothing to the Camel" I'm fine with that and mind put at ease.

 

Definitely agree, just a few minutes ago I was flying a Camel on an empty Flugpark map I received some minor flak hits (need still to check the parster stats) - just a metal bullet sound or smiliar but no visible bullet holes. After some further flying I encountered a Pfalz D.III and while I was rather lightly BnZ the Pfalz suddenly my wings just fold after several BnZ turns. This is a game and fun killer!

 

Need still further testing but this update seems to be unreveailing some bad surprises.

 

On the one hand we have nice EXCEL stats and on the other SIM reality and that sim reality seems to be way off.

 

Here the log, can someone explain this? those in red were the only hits I received during that flight.

 

1210670284_4.006Camel.thumb.JPG.19d4d02b3f8d8bd5401da3bc91f68f29.JPG

 

Edited by 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Here the log, can someone explain this? those in red were the only hits I received during that flight.

 You took a total of 1% damage from the AI MG at 19:54. The damage shown at 20:11 was the point where your wings gave way.  

 

I can't say whether or not any of this is realistic, but I can agree that it will definitely effect game play in a negative way.  It also leads me to think that chances of a Vol.2 are very slim. Seeing as how the more "robust" aircraft of 1918 are affected, I can't imagine what it would be like trying to fly a Fokker EIII or a DH2.

 

 I'm kinda bummed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, J5_Gamecock said:

 You took a total of 1% damage from the AI MG at 19:54. The damage shown at 20:11 was the point where your wings gave way.  

 

I can't say whether or not any of this is realistic, but I can agree that it will definitely effect game play in a negative way.  It also leads me to think that chances of a Vol.2 are very slim. Seeing as how the more "robust" aircraft of 1918 are affected, I can't imagine what it would be like trying to fly a Fokker EIII or a DH2.

 

 I'm kinda bummed.

 

Ooof, good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could I ask the Camel flyers to try and limit throttle to around 1250 RPM in everything but straight and level flight and see if that makes a difference?

 

I tested this in single player against AI Halberstadt (and vice versa), and I did find it somewhat easier to shoot the wings off a CL.II if you damage them quite heavily and then get them to make steep turns. With the Camel, even after taking hits to the wings, there was no problem pulling 4-5g as long as I kept the throttle down to 80% or so. This is akin to the G-LOC problem with the Camel that only seems to come on at full throttle. For the record: the AI never once pulled its wings off in the Camel, though it was only barely outturning me in the Halberstadt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

C'mon 1% damage of 100% and you are out? WTF is this about? This cannot stay like this otherwise the game is dead!

 

...and I BnZ rather gently, we were alone on the server, I had time.

 

I think the angle from were the shots come play an additional and important role. The mg-guns got me in an 90° angle. Still that makes no sense altogether.

 

Bender,

 

I will try to perform that while online.

 

Edited by 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk

Share this post


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

...and I BnZ rather gently, we were alone on the server, I had time.

 

I believe you, I think it's somehow related to the engine running at full power. It's something @SeaW0lf and I were also discussing at one point regarding G-LOC happening much sooner in the Camel compared to the Dr.I, even when turning tighter in the Dr.I.

Share this post


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

Could I ask the Camel flyers to try and limit throttle to around 1250 RPM in everything but straight and level flight and see if that makes a difference?

 

 

if you fly the camel regular that is your max revs 1250, if you push your engine to 1400 for to long she will pop, and in a dive you blip the engine to cut her completely or it's flame out, so any knowing Camel jockey will keep the revs at 1200-1250 anyway straight and level.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

 

I believe you, I think it's somehow related to the engine running at full power. It's something @SeaW0lf and I were also discussing at one point regarding G-LOC happening much sooner in the Camel compared to the Dr.I, even when turning tighter in the Dr.I.

What has the engine running at full power have to do with anything? this isn't guess work we have a G meter and the wings are coming off consistently based on it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Here the log, can someone explain this? those in red were the only hits I received during that flight.

Well, wings can be broken completely without a blow, you know.  It would be nice if the overload indicator could be seen on the track, just like the markers.  At the moment, there is only the ability to record data using video capture during wing failure.

Please note that a lot of complaints are specifically about the Camel.  Maybe the problem is in it?  I flew in the new version on Dolphin and P3, no problem, everything is fine.  Not only that, when I shot Camels, they rarely lost their wings.  Although there is too little data - few fights, few pilots on the server.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/21/2020 at 6:16 AM, Chill31 said:

 Lets say you hit 6 Gs several times in a fight...the 4th time, you could be pulling the wings off, despite being under the ultimate load limit.

There is such a voltage that can be safely applied infinitely many times;  this ultimate stress is called the endurance limit.

What value does this parameter have for ww1 aircraft?

It is also known that wood is less sensitive to repeated loads than metals......

I will say carefully so: I am not quite sure of the accuracy of the fracture model in our game, as a result of cyclic loads.

Edited by emely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

From my experiences so far, the Pfalz feels closest to how I'd imagine the DM should generally be for all planes. Of course, the only thing I can go off of is pilot accounts, but the Pfalz feels nice and robust...but if you shoot the hell out of it its structural integrity is seriously at risk. A few glancing blows, or even a substantial burst, however, shouldn't be major cause for concern. 

Other planes (Albatros, SPAD), however, feel as though a handful of bullets will kill you. Definitely better than 4.005, but not enough to erase the constant fear of wings coming off.

 

I can't say I've tried the camel...

EDIT: After doing some more messing around tonight, starting to wonder how pronounced of an effect airspeed has on a wing collapse as well...I was throwing a SPAD around with some fairly crucial damage earlier and the wings were holding...but, on another occasion, the wing came STRAIGHT off after what sounded like only a single bullet hit...

Edited by US93_Larner
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

 

Definitely agree, just a few minutes ago I was flying a Camel on an empty Flugpark map I received some minor flak hits (need still to check the parster stats) - just a metal bullet sound or smiliar but no visible bullet holes. After some further flying I encountered a Pfalz D.III and while I was rather lightly BnZ the Pfalz suddenly my wings just fold after several BnZ turns. 

 

Here the log, can someone explain this? those in red were the only hits I received during that flight.

 

1210670284_4.006Camel.thumb.JPG.19d4d02b3f8d8bd5401da3bc91f68f29.JPG

 

 

These are my observations in the Camel too. Ground fire seems to have a greater negative effect on wing integrity than aircraft hits. I presume the data you've question-marked is the cumulative effect from the original groundfire? Did the P3 hit you at all? Either way it's a bit over the top as I thought the Camel was reasonably robust. 

Share this post


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

What has the engine running at full power have to do with anything? this isn't guess work we have a G meter and the wings are coming off consistently based on it.

 

43 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

EDIT: After doing some more messing around tonight, starting to wonder how pronounced of an effect airspeed has on a wing collapse as well...I was throwing a SPAD around with some fairly crucial damage earlier and the wings were holding...but, on another occasion, the wing came STRAIGHT off after what sounded like only a single bullet hit...

 

It's because you're reaching the g limit (whatever it might be due to wing damage), nothing more, you're simply getting there with less elevator input because you're going faster (above VA). This has nothing to do with the structural airspeed limit (VNE). The g limit is the same, even beyond that point, though quite possibly the g limit itself lowers once your wing suffers structural damage due to overspeed.

 

significance-of-the-v-n-diagram-atcm-51-

 

The Camel which has a notoriously high thrust-to-weight ratio thanks to its light but powerful powerplant is often accused of "generating energy out of nowhere". Just throttle down. It will only marginally affect your turn rate and you'll slightly improve your turn radius, all the while putting less stress on the wings.

 

For the SPAD I can only suggest to be mindful of your airspeed. It doesn't retain energy anywhere near as well as a Camel when maneuvering, so once you begin to turn and you don't rip your wings right off, you simply don't have enough power to hurt yourself.

 

Quote

Of course, the only thing I can go off of is pilot accounts, but the Pfalz feels nice and robust...

 

Weeeeeee!

 

Yeah, 10g is nice, isn't it?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a short version of my SPAD sortie with @US93_Talbot

 

In the second half I pulled 4-5 Gs for a split second. I may have rolled a bit too quickly which made my wings just pop off. @US93_Larner mentioned that my SPAD took 5 hits. Looking at the video, none of the hits with the exception of possibly 1 (the last one) hit my plane. It looks like the rest just dance around the plane. I know that I heard hits so I guess the video shows tracer rounds as the EA sprayed bullets.

 

I don't know if the video is completely uploaded yet. Try in 15 minutes if you cannot view it.

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Here the log, can someone explain this? those in red were the only hits I received during that flight.

 

1210670284_4.006Camel.thumb.JPG.19d4d02b3f8d8bd5401da3bc91f68f29.JPG

 

 

This data, as Gamcock noted, is associated with damage to ones own plane, as in maneuvers that result in catastrophic damage to oneself.   With regards to explanations about the actual % of damage, I'm not sure that we know exactly what this is.  It is commonly explained as a % of damage to the entire plane (like hit points a plane can take), when in fact I believe that it is incorrect. 

 

It is clear that we have damage to the pilot which is up to 100%.  When you get to 100% your dead.  Simple.

The other damage we see is damage leading to "shootdown" of the plane.  This is really the damage that is being logged the rest of the time.  Those little 0.1% etc. I am not sure, but increasingly, I believe those are bullets spraying into critical systems like coolant, oil, fuel, and the engine.  I have definitely seen these lead to cooling, oil, fuel leaks in my plane in sorties.  Then, if someone gets a solid engine hit I see a 87% or whatever the number needed to = 100% and a statement in the log of a "Shotdown".  

 

I am increasingly doubtful that the parser (which is a third party developed tool not made by 1C) is actually logging general structural damage.  I am increasingly doubtful of this for two reasons:

1)  The parser developer states that there is a difference between server logged data and data tracked and displayed in the parser.  

"

Quote

 

FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions

Why statistics on the site does not coincide with the statistics in the game?

     "Algorithms collection statistics IL2 stats differs from statistics in-game. As a consequence of these statistics will not coincide with the game."  

 

 

This is on the FAQ tab on any iL2 parser, unless the parser operator has edited it away.

 

2)  Andy Petrovich explains that the damage to spars is not hitbox determined, although most commentators here seem to insist on debating as if there were hitboxes like in the Red Baron days and on other sims.  Instead, the developer explicitly describes a statistical algorithm that determines physical structural damage BEYOND METAL AND MEAT (engine or pilot).

 

What this would mean is that a plane goes down one of two ways: 

1) METAL OR MEAT (engine or pilot kill) and can be easily accounted for adding up all the little bits of damage shown on the parser logs as % damage hits.  Get to 100% and your either dead or there is a critical hit/damage to the engine.

2) Statistical algorithm (position behind or relative to target, range, number of bullets fired and steadiness of firing platform and a multitude of other variables that we could all argue over).

 

I don't KNOW any of the above, but based on what @AnPetrovich has described, what we see on the parsers and game experience, this is the direction I am heading in trying to reconcile server and the parser and evaluate the in game play/experience. 

 

In light of the above, I am increasingly doubtful if interpretations about the % damage in the sortie logs being displayed as being in any way related to cumulative damage to structural integrity of the plane itself.

 

Edited by J5_Baeumer
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


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

A thing to remember, though, is that there's also a degree of survivorship bias at work with those kinds of counts. You could absolutely get a lot of holes in canvas without it doing anything, but equally a single bullet could snap a tension wire or weaken a spar in the wrong place, and drastically reduce your plane's integrity in certain kinds of maneuvers. 

 

WW1 planes were surprisingly robust in many ways, but they were also fragile in many others. I think we're finding some of those places in large part because online players fly far more aggressively and recklessly than your average pilot in the days before widespread spin recovery training and using machines whose reliability was much more in question than our perfectly uniform digital replicas. It's handy to remember most pilots back then did not keep fighting after sustaining damage: if they got hit, or even if they might have been hit, most pilots who survived any length of time would run home, better safe than sorry.

 

Without our lives on the line, we stick in dogfights way more tenaciously and far more aggressively, and quite frankly we do a lot of stupid shit. I do not find it surprisingly at all that an updated damage model is punishing us for it, and I expect we'll all need to make adjustments in how we fly and be more cautious to match.

 

Survivor bias is a good point. Still there are many accounts from 3rd parties observing destroyed and surviving aircraft.

 

On lives at stake I don't think it's quite so straight forward.

It seems that, when necessary, they really pushed their aircraft to the edge of envelope and beyond in order to save their lives. It's both logical and supported by written accounts.

Additionally, some of us play the Sim with the priority on not dying or being captured. Is it the same? Of course not. But it changes your approach dramatically and this is when getting a few wing hits now turns you into a non-combatant. To continue trying to fight is too high a risk now. 

Edited by US103_Baer
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Initial 4.006 DM Report, Pt. 2: 

So far during testing, we have recorded 97 shoot-downs and the causes of the aircraft's demise in mock-dogfights. We have yet to test the Bristol and the Dolphin in any large capacity, but we feel we have a pretty decent initial 'data pool' for the other types. In total, that would be: 

- D.Va.     x18
- CL.II.     x19
- D.VII      x21
- D.IIIa     x6
- Dr.I        x10 
- SPAD    x15 
- S.E.5a    x8

When looking at the types of shoot-downs for this aircraft in a Player vs Player dogfight, this is what you get: 


0B93ve7h.png
ERPFEd2h.png

 

As I have previously stated, however - this does not give the 'full picture'. Not taken into account in those graphs are number of rounds fired, and approximately how many hit - as well as how many G-forces the aircraft were subjected to when they lost their wings. Hopefully, this will be the next thing that we test (Along with results for F2Bs and Dolphins). 

I've yet to compile all of the results for how many bullets were fired to shoot down certain aircraft, but I have done so for the SPAD and the Halberstadt. Naturally, this will be a much higher number than bullets that hit the aircraft, and not all of those hits will be into the wings. However, we can get a rough estimate at how many rounds hit by looking at the J5_Flugpark parser and noting an average hit percentage. In general, most pilots seem to be scoring between 10 - 20% accuracy...so assuming that 15% of rounds fired were hits seems to be a fairly reasonable assessment to me. 

 

Here are the results we got for rounds needed to break the wing of an aircraft, factoring in both manoeuvring and non-manoeuvring aircraft.
 

7f7pMYql.png 7nOlbKal.png


THAT BEING SAID -- we noticed that the Halberstadt in particular (and the Albatros / SPAD in more isolated cases) was also losing  its wings in level flight -- meaning that the G force argument no longer applies in those specific cases. 4 our of our 9 recorded cases of CL.IIs losing their wings were in level flight, with the following estimates for bullets hit: 

dphz9djl.png

Obviously this is a very small data pool, with a less clinically controlled method of testing than An Petrovich's tests, but if we compare these numbers to the figures given by Petrovich then we can see that, in regard to level flight, the CL.II should be taking around 30 wing spar hits ON AVERAGE before its wings break off in level flight. On the 90 degree flat, it should be taking just over 400 rounds to produce the same effect. Obviously, this is not anywhere near the case here!!!
 

Edited by US93_Larner
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You lazy bugger! Where's the Camel? Pull your finger out man!

 

Jesting of course. Interesting data Larner …. but pie charts and graphs (roll eyes) I retired from the IT world to get away from that  [edited]

 

 

Edited by SYN_Haashashin
Language
  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

…. but pie charts and graphs (roll eyes) I retired from the IT world to get away from that shit. 

 


you don't retire from it....it retires from you. Now get to studying those graphs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A G Lee on flimsy WW1 aircraft:

 

„... You didn’t dive too low or too steeply, and you eased out of the dive smoothly, and not with a sharp jerk as did some Pup pilot at another aerodrome, thereby pulling his wings off. ...“

 

From „Open Cockpit“. I guess it was fairly obvious that pilots exerted certain care with handling their aircraft and this was obvious to a point where it didn‘t warrant much mentioning at all.

 

I‘m not surprised that the SPAD now suffers from shedding wings, as it is the plane above all that we fly like a jet in the game. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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


Now get to studying those graphs. 

 

I will … reluctantly … but only when you do the Camel. :biggrin:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Updated my last post with some extra data. 
 

19 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

From „Open Cockpit“. I guess it was fairly obvious that pilots exerted certain care with handling their aircraft and this was obvious to a point where it didn‘t warrant much mentioning at all.

 

I‘m not surprised that the SPAD now suffers from shedding wings, as it is the plane above all that we fly like a jet in the game. 

 

 

This is reflected in-game. If you yank it out of a power-dive, you lose your wings. If you ease it out, you don't. (Except for the Pfalz, apparently!) 

With 4.005 I was also seeing SPADs losing their wings after diving for a short period with minimal damage, before they tried to pull out. Thankfully, that seems to be largely gone unless you've taken a real beating. 

...you also have to take into consideration that Lee is talking about flying a Pup, and not a SPAD. Charles J. Biddle, who primarily flew SPAD VII and XIIIs for the French and Americans,  was all about speed in a dive:

"If you remember to leave your motor on as you are diving, and in this way to come down as fast as possible, without at the same time going so fast as to interfere with your shooting, the great speed gained in this way will enable you to make a short, steep climb".

He also talked about seeing Fokker D.VIIs diving for 1,000m straight vertically downwards while trying to escape dogfights.

Edited by US93_Larner

Share this post


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

...you also have to take into consideration that Lee is talking about flying a Pup, and not a SPAD.

 

The occurrence in the book describes Pup pilots training for ground attack, hence that poor fella had every option to make a dive and pull out to his discretion. It just underscores how easy it is to break the more flimsy crates.

 

The high diving speeds are not that much of an issue if you limit the stick input (and we are used not to, until now) after a certain speed. In modern aircraft, there is a yellow arc indicating the speed range (until Vne) where you limit all inputs to about 1/3rd, else you risk structural damage. So far, the aircraft have been extremely tough and we got away with abuse. On top of that, it got to be the new normal.

 

I have more a problem with the fact that drag or induced drag seems very low and we can maintain extremely high g turns without bleeding airspeed dramatically. If you enter a sustained turn at high speed, you can maintain that energy fairly well,  the Camel being exeptionally good at that. Only after getting below a certain speed threshold, continuing the turn makes you hitting the brakes. @Chill31‘s flight performances show that as well. It takes little time in a high g turn (3+!) until it slowed him such that he is dropping a wing.

 

As we can (and are extremely trained to do so) maintain speeds that allow breakup of the aircraft, the risk of that just happening is greatly augmented. With the consequence that we are seeing now.

Edited by ZachariasX
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The D in DM stands for Damage. 

AFAIK no-one is complaining about the robustness of wings and airframes before those annoying little projectiles spoil your day.

Edited by US103_Baer
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/23/2020 at 9:28 AM, US103_Baer said:

AFAIK no-one is complaining about the robustness of wings and airframes before those annoying little projectiles spoil your day.

 

According to 4.006:

 

57. The geometry of wing spars of all Flying Circus airplanes has been checked and brought into strict compliance with known sources. In general, now it requires much more bullet hits to break the wings of World War I aircraft;

 

If the geometry of wing spars was checked thoroughly and it didn't reveal problems with say, the Pfalz or the Dolphin (on opposite ends of the wingshedding spectrum), then so be it. They've used their sources and made it into the most realistic simulation they could. As for what happens after you take damage: unless the damage modeling is completely overhauled with soft-body physics and wing deformation, then this is as good an interpretation as any. Damage + stress = failure. There's really nothing more to add when it comes to improving the physics model of this current generation of sim.

 

 

In my opinion, the victim of 4.006 is not realism, but multiplayer. Or rather: the ability for mission builders to create balanced experiences as we know them with the planes available in Vol.1.

 

The Camel and SPAD have both become slightly "worse", in that they should disengage now after taking any amount of wing damage. As a Central two-seater flyer, for me that's a good thing in terms of increasing my odds of survival. However, most Central planes still don't have a real fighting chance. The Albatros D.Va, the mainstay Central machine, is now trash. Well, it was hand-me-down and second rate before, it's just garbage now. The Fokker Dr.I will likely fare better in the prophanging snapshot department, the jury is still out on that one. On the other hand, the Fokker D.VIIF, already the best plane in Vol.1, is now "better" because of its robust construction. I don't doubt that this is an accurate representation of that machine, I do doubt that it was seen in any numbers before late 1918.

Spoiler

XIeTLFh.jpg

 

So the net result is: more frustration for Entente facing off against the D.VIIF, still not enough incentive for Central to fly anything but the D.VIIF, unless it's your point to prove that real men fly crap planes. For single player none of this really matters, and the experience is really getting more fleshed out with the new campaigns. Here's hoping for a Vol.2.

Edited by SYN_Haashashin
Swastikas under spoilers, always

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to point out what the devs said with update 06 56. All Flying Circus airplanes: hitting at the central section of the top wing now also leads to breaking the top wing (its left or right part);
57. The geometry of wing spars of all Flying Circus airplanes has been checked and brought into strict compliance with known sources. In general, now it requires much more bullet hits to break the wings of World War I aircraft;

But clearly this is not what most are finding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The high or low availability of DVIIFs is on mission builders' hands, not developers'. We can find a balance on our own.

 

As for the Camel, many may argue its many current faults. For me, compared to ROF, its recoverability from spins is what I feel has changed the most. Used to be a death trap for me, now it's not anymore. Ah, yes - maybe when flown against me... S! Sahaj!

 

Now the DVa, it is sad.

Share this post


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

The high or low availability of DVIIFs is on mission builders' hands, not developers'. We can find a balance on our own.

 

As for the Camel, many may argue its many current faults. For me, compared to ROF, its recoverability from spins is what I feel has changed the most. Used to be a death trap for me, now it's not anymore. Ah, yes - maybe when flown against me... S! Sahaj!

 

Now the DVa, it is sad.

 

You can't force people at gunpoint to fly a crap plane like the armed forces could in real life, especially not in a competitive environment where being an ace is the only thing that's celebrated. Limiting the D.VIIF even more (when talking about Flugpark) will mean that people who want to fly the F and see that it's not available will just leave.

 

I'm on my knees begging that the devs at least consider the data which @Chill31 has collected (Fokker Dr.I top speed = 175km/h), and utopically even consider adding the 200hp variants of the Albatros D.Va and Fokker D.VII. Honestly, though? I think it's better not to think of FC1 in terms of multiplayer anymore. It's not like a thriving (but small) multiplayer scene brought us any closer to Vol.2, Jason said so himself.

Share this post


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

The Camel and SPAD have both become slightly "worse", 


A SPAD that loses it’s ability to pull out of a fast dive - its predominant Form of attack and defence - after taking minimal damage, is a hell of a lot more than “slightly” worse...! 
 

Honestly, I think FC had problems before with the balance of the Plane set, but aircraft at least had somewhat comparable opponents (not really, but yeah). 
 

 The changes in 4.006 have only made these issues worse. To be honest, I don’t see any incentive to fly anything other than the D.VII F at this point.

Share this post


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

To be honest, I don’t see any incentive to fly anything other than the D.VII F at this point.

 

Really? I must be pushed out of my DR1 to go fly anything else.

 

I think people are overreacting a bit.

 

41 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

I think it's better not to think of FC1 in terms of multiplayer anymore.

 

What do you mean?

Edited by J2_Bidu

Share this post


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


A SPAD that loses it’s ability to pull out of a fast dive - its predominant Form of attack and defence [...]

 

[...] against the D.VIIF.

 

You don't need to pull out of fast dives unless you're being chased by an F. Honourable mention to the Pfalz and vanilla D.VII, but both of those are Camel fodder.

 

The whole question for me is: can multiplayer work now without the F (and Bristol F.III)? Will people even accept removal of the F? And how much of an advantage do the SPAD and Camel (and Bristol F.II) still have over everything else on Central?

 

20 minutes ago, J2_Bidu said:

Really? I must be pushed out of my DR1 to go fly anything else.

 

I think people are overreacting a bit.

 

What do you mean?

 

By "not thinking in terms of multiplayer anymore" I mean to say: don't look to multiplayer to achieve historical outcomes.

 

The AI has been greatly improved in one of the last updates, and after a night of sparring with machines on both sides and seeing exactly 0 wingsheds (unless the plane was already out of control), my conclusion is that it's safer to assume that people just push everything way too hard all the time in multiplayer situations.

 

The only thing we can do to achieve realistic outcomes in multiplayer is put in place artificial limits to FM, DM, gunnery etc. So my advice is simple: pick a plane, pick an enemy Ace AI, shoot him down. If you can do that, you've proven that you're better than what you can realistically expect a WWI pilot to be. The moment you set foot in multiplayer you're in gaming fantasyland. There's nothing wrong with that, but accept that it's all gaming the game.

Edited by J5_Hellbender
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...