Jump to content
US93_Larner

4.006 DM Discussion

Recommended Posts

Yes we are playing a game , most of us  can alone  win against 8 or more  AI ACE without sweet . But in multiplayer I want fight against those guys skilled or preferably better than me , it's fantasy   but this is a game , so what wrong with that if I  want realistic DM doing that ?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still say a DXII or DVIII would have been better for FC1 than the DIII.

Anyway, the VIIf is the only 'fast' German plane we have, so removing it would be a pity.

The Camel seems a bit fragile now, so perhaps that's balancing the fact it's the uber-fighter of the game.

 

How realistic any of them are I have no idea, but all things considered I'm prepared to say the devs have done a great job overall, including RoF.

And there's never been an update that couldn't be adjusted to from a gameplay perspective.

The G-lock passing out thing for example I'm expecting is over-modelled for ww1 persuits. It's not that hard to avoid though once you get used to the warning signs.

Something like that can never be modelled accurately because it affects us on an individual basis - even if you can actually knock yourself out with G's in a ww1 crate.

There highlights a massive difference between real life and the game - the pilots' physical ability to cope with stresses and strains, not be puking out of the cockpit and weak with fear.

That's all modelled equally for us in-game. (Maybe they could model the pilot puking after too many manouvers next update ?)

 

I still have a hunch that many of the differences in plane behaviour are to do with a 'thicker', and likely more realistic rendering of the atmosphere in the BoX engine.

The DVIIf is a good example - could never shoot from it in RoF, a bit bouncy. Much more stable in FC.

Dr1 doesn't feel quite as 'light'. Alby roll rates don't feel quite as frisky.. that sort of thing.

I think it's probably a more realistic rendition than RoF's, and been a bit of a leveller in relative plane performance.

I often felt some planes' characteristics were a little exaggerated in RoF.

 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

 

There highlights a massive difference between real life and the game - the pilots' physical ability to cope with stresses and strains, not be puking out of the cockpit and weak with fear.

 

Actually, would be nice to have cold modeled in pilot physiology. So that you can fly high, but not stay there the whole afternoon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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.


Different perspectives, I guess. From the "V-life" perspective, I don't see why you'd fly anything other than the F. If you don't really care about V-lives, you can have fun in any of the FC planes with the current DM.
 

2 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

[...] 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.


Respectfully - this is total nonsense. SPADs make fast diving attacks on everything they face. That's where the "B" in BnZ comes in. Also, if a SPAD gets any German scout on it's tail, it dives to create distance, before choosing whether to re-engage, because it can't turn with any of the German scouts. So, yes, you do need to pull out of fast dives, multiple times, in virtually any combat...if you're flying the SPAD like a SPAD. I will clarify that by 'fast dives' I don't mean 350 km/h extreme power-dives. 

After testing the SPAD, it's apparent that unless you pull out of a dive extremely gently, anywhere from 5 wing-hits + is going to break your wings off, simply because of how fast the G forces accumulate when coming out of a high-speed dive - even dives that are comparatively slow for a SPAD. 

In other words - the second the other guy gets a lucky prop hang, or hits you at range as you extend, or even if you just mess up and get caught out, the SPAD suddenly loses a huge portion of its ability to fly in the vertical. A well-flown SPAD only flies in the vertical. 

It's the same thing with the Albatros and the Camel. Once the Alb takes a couple of wing hits and loses its ability to fight in the vertical, it has zero chance against a Camel. 
 

2 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

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?


Removing the F from multiplayer would be totally silly imho, and should be off the table, at least until the Germans have a reasonable alternative - in other words, the D.IIIau D.VII. But I've been saying that engine variants for both sides would go a long way to balance out the plane-set for quite a while now...but that ain't gonna happen in the foreseeable future.

Not to mention that removing the F would cause total outrage. 

The SPAD / Camel advantage is an interesting question. I think the Camel is still going to be the king of dogfights, and will still boss most Central scouts. They are very prone to lose their wings, but a well-flown Camel will be all over just about any Central plane (maybe excluding the Dr.I and a cleverly-flown D.VII F). However, that's just my view. The Camel regulars and Central scout pilots probably have a better idea than me. 

Really honestly, and I know this will obviously be taken as me being biased (I am, after all, a SPAD pilot), I think the SPAD really doesn't have all that much of an advantage over any German plane anymore except for the Albatros and the Halberstadt. I'll try to explain this clearly...

The SPAD's primary advantages, as we know, are its BnZ ability and it's ability to clear the hell out in rapid fashion once the fight goes south. However, as I was just saying, it now only takes a few stray bullets to seriously limit both of those abilities. Now, I can tell you as a SPAD pilot that you will NOT avoid every prop-hang, and you WILL catch stray bullets when extending away. 

VS the Albatros, both aircraft are in an equally sorry state when it comes to wing-shedding. It seems like whoever gets the first half-decent burst into the wings will win. Honestly, that's more likely to be the SPAD in a 'typical' fight between the two (I.E - SPAD on top, Alb flying defensively). So, the SPAD will fare better there. 

VS the Pfalz, Dr.I and D.VII, however, all three of those planes can take a fair beating before they really need to watch how they fly. The SPAD now can't - 10 or so bullets is enough to put its wings at serious risk, as far as I've seen. All the Central pilot needs to do is land that one burst into the SPAD and he's either going to be trying to get out of there, or risk losing his wings with every BnZ attack. At the very least, it certainly feels that way. 

Halberstadts hardly have a hope in hell against anything at the moment. All they can do is hope that their gunner lands a good shot before their wings are blown off by the enemy pilot sneezing at them. 

These are my thoughts, trying to be as objective as possible. 

EDIT: All this being said, we get what we get DM-wise. I'll still fly it. 

Edited by US93_Larner
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, US93_Larner said:


Different perspectives, I guess. From the "V-life" perspective, I don't see why you'd fly anything other than the F. If you don't really care about V-lives, you can have fun in any of the FC planes with the current DM.

 

I care, but I'm not a slave of V-life. My style, if you care to know:

Spoiler

 

So what does «I don't see why you'd fly anything other than the F» mean? does it mean, «I'm gonna fly the best plane, because then my V-life will be long and I'll be happy.»? This also means you are alive BECAUSE you fly the best plane. I suppose then it's the plane that's having fun, and you're the means for his achievement. No fun in that.

 

Pilots didn't get to fly only the planes of their fancy, did not get to decide exactly which fights they would pick, and surely didn't have a menu of missions to select from. They had orders. If my group decides we're taking Albies, I'm taking an Albie. If I have a long life, that's great.But if three guys are attacking the airfield, I'm compelled to get up in the air and defend it.

 

For me it's role play over V-life every time. Sure I like to be up there on the scale, I'm not immune to a mild form of vanity (not that I have reasons for much more than that anyway). The real interesting role of V-life is that once you get a nice streak, there is a certain amount of fear of losing it. And that variable has value in my role playing.

 

 

Now about the DM. The devs have implemented an approximation to reality based on spar size. But are there no other factors that can reasonably be considered? Like wiring, etc.? Any expert on this? Maybe we can have, in the future, another iteration that takes an added factor into consideration.

Edited by J2_Bidu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, US93_Larner said:

Respectfully - this is total nonsense. SPADs make fast diving attacks on everything they face. That's where the "B" in BnZ comes in. Also, if a SPAD gets any German scout on it's tail, it dives to create distance, before choosing whether to re-engage, because it can't turn with any of the German scouts. So, yes, you do need to pull out of fast dives, multiple times, in virtually any combat...if you're flying the SPAD like a SPAD. I will clarify that by 'fast dives' I don't mean 350 km/h extreme power-dives. 

After testing the SPAD, it's apparent that unless you pull out of a dive extremely gently, anywhere from 5 wing-hits + is going to break your wings off, simply because of how fast the G forces accumulate when coming out of a high-speed dive - even dives that are comparatively slow for a SPAD. 

In other words - the second the other guy gets a lucky prop hang, or hits you at range as you extend, or even if you just mess up and get caught out, the SPAD suddenly loses a huge portion of its ability to fly in the vertical. A well-flown SPAD only flies in the vertical. 

 

Equally respectfully for what the 3rd Pursuit Group does: that is your interpretation of the SPAD. It certainly wasn't that of the Belgians, for example.

 

In my opinion it's an engine with a plane attached to it: it should be able to fly fast, dive fast and climb fast. Actual staying power in a fight, especially after taking damage, I find highly questionable. The vertical up and down shenanigans, while certainly impressive, I find even more questionable. Boom 'n Zoom is very much a WWII tactic. Can the SPAD do it? Under the right circumstances and according to historical reports, yes. But under equally right circumstances a vanilla Fokker D.VII can sit on its tail and prophang a SPAD out of the air. As it stands, the 1917 SPAD XIII we currently have in-game is able to comfortably gain a positional advantage over any Central plane except the late 1918 D.VIIF.

 

Even if you fail to kill on your first pass and get damaged in the process, you're likely still able to run back home, an advantage which no Central machine except the F has.

 

 

Quote

Halberstadts hardly have a hope in hell against anything at the moment. All they can do is hope that their gunner lands a good shot before their wings are blown off by the enemy pilot sneezing at them. 

 

As a Halberstadt pilot I expect to be completely outclassed by anything post-1916 in 1 vs 1. I'm sure that a properly flown Nieuport 11 stands a good chance of winning, too.

 

I also expect that if you put 4-6 of them closely together at very low altitude in trench attack, that:

  • Most scouts wisely stay away
     
  • Scouts that do decide to attack without significant numerical advantage die in the gunner crossfire, instantly

If the fear of losing your wings achieves that, then that's a step closer to historical reports. I still don't expect you to actually lose your wings, only that you avoid the situation in which you could, and can't press on attacking with impunity. For the record: this is mostly directed at Camels, I still expect a SPAD to have more than enough speed to fly through the hail of bullets from multiple gunners and kill me anyway.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be real, these nerfings theories won't stick and are really (really) detrimental to the community as a whole. It just drives people away and divide the ones who are stubborn enough to stay. We had too much of that already in the past and the result was disastrous. We have been through the mill. 

 

In my view, some normalcy would be very welcomed from this point forward. Like I said somewhere, the bullet dispersion in ROF masked for years the need for a damage model review. And now we have this. Either we stick to some normalcy or we are really contributing for the demise of the game.

 

We have the original damage model that was pretty close to what most of us would accept. I have lost my wings on the Camel several times in the past and it was OK. I could say that I saw it coming. That's what we need, something believable, not some WTF moments online with dandelion planes. It is always good to remind that the shaking is also insane.

 

I see no point in extending this to years of fixing if we already have something that is good enough and made us have lots of fun in the past two years. Damn, we were using the damage model to pitch the game to other players.

 

This is really exhausting

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S! All,

 

 A very interesting discussion.

 

Some questions.

 

Ever been in an automobile traveling about 80 mph or 120 kph and stick your arm out the window? Now imagine that at 200 kph.

That gives you some idea of what it would be like to change a Lewis drum.

 

There is a carnival ride called "Round up",  "Meteor" and several other names. Basically it is a circular cage that spins. You are pressed against the wall and the floor falls away. The whole thing rotates out of the horizontal up over 45 degrees. The interesting thing abut this is to try and raise your leg or arm during the event. I am not sure what the total "G" load is. My point  is that in 1917, experiencing a "G" load was something very new. Many pilots were probably caught off guard. Likewise they could probably feel the increase in load as they were pushed down into the seat.  While a "G" meter is nice, it is not the same as real life.  Pilots experiencing 4 "G" would probably be very frightened.

 

VNE.  Probably a bit low for most of these draggy planes. Well under 170 mph?  More like 140 mph?

 

I think we have gotten used to doing things that the computer was capable of that were not possible in real life and now that the computer is starting to come closer to real life limits it looks more and more not like what our expectations have become for a WW I aircraft sim in this age of faster computers,  super graphic cards, wall sized monitors and VR.

 

jmho

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

I see no point in extending this to years of fixing if we already have something that is good enough and made us have lots of fun in the past two years. Damn, we were using the damage model to pitch the game to other players.

 

Yes, we were pitching it to other players (at least I was) and with my dying breath I will maintain that stronger wings made the game far more interesting and enjoyable in multiplayer, especially for scout pilots. It's certainly an environment which promoted skill, tactics and long, dancing dogfights.

 

I also believe now that it was not realistic and that constant fear of sudden catastrophic structural failure and not overstressing your machine is more in line with how things really happened.

 

Spoiler

Weeeeeeeee!

 

WeepyClearDromaeosaur-size_restricted.gi

 

Go away, I'm trying to make a point.

 

The devs have made it very clear over the years that they are in not interested in gameplay balance, and that the goal is historical accuracy above all. In fact the one time the devs did make chances specifically for gameplay balance at the end of RoF's lifecycle, we all know how that turned out. I think it's a take it or leave it affair at this point. Unless we get a much, much more refined damage model, this is the most accurate we'll get, not necessarily the most fun for multiplayer.

 

I still think that interesting multiplayer can come out of this, but it will be different. Perhaps closer in some ways to RoF. Perhaps also smaller in scope. I honestly have higher hopes for single player at this point, along with some renewed hope for Vol.2 and a more "balanced" planeset (Albatros D.III vs. Nieuport 17).

Share this post


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

 

Yes, we were pitching it to other players (at least I was) and with my dying breath I will maintain that stronger wings made the game far more interesting and enjoyable in multiplayer, especially for scout pilots. It's certainly an environment which promoted skill, tactics and long, dancing dogfights.

 

I also believe now that it was not realistic and that constant fear of sudden catastrophic structural failure and not overstressing your machine is more in line with how things really happened.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Weeeeeeeee!

 

WeepyClearDromaeosaur-size_restricted.gi

 

Go away, I'm trying to make a point.

 

The devs have made it very clear over the years that they are in not interested in gameplay balance, and that the goal is historical accuracy above all. In fact the one time the devs did make chances specifically for gameplay balance at the end of RoF's lifecycle, we all know how that turned out. I think it's a take it or leave it affair at this point. Unless we get a much, much more refined damage model, this is the most accurate we'll get, not necessarily the most fun for multiplayer.

 

I still think that interesting multiplayer can come out of this, but it will be different. Perhaps closer in some ways to RoF. Perhaps also smaller in scope. I honestly have higher hopes for single player at this point, along with some renewed hope for Vol.2 and a more "balanced" planeset (Albatros D.III vs. Nieuport 17).

 

Just you and a couple other players consider the new DM realistic. I'm not even sure why you said that. You were also mentioning it gave some balance to the game with a fragile Camel. So the balance thing came from you if I'm not wrong, linked to the new DM.

 

So I'm not sure what are you trying to say. Weird response to be honest. Did you quote the right post?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

The vertical up and down shenanigans, while certainly impressive, I find even more questionable. Boom 'n Zoom is very much a WWII tactic. 


In a letter home from from Charles J. Biddle, dated 23 November 1917: 
 

Quote

...an attack does not necessarily mean that you charge into the middle of them and mix it up. On the contrary you can, by diving at high speed from above, get in some shots and then by using your great speed climb up above them again out of reach before they get in a shot. 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. You can thus regain a position perhaps 200 metres above the heads of the Huns, where they cannot effectively shoot at you.

 

If that's not describing BnZ, I don't know what is! Sure, BnZ didn't go by that name in WW1, but it absolutely was a tactic employed frequently by SPAD pilots. 
 

1 hour ago, J5_Hellbender said:

Actual staying power in a fight, especially after taking damage, I find highly questionable.

 

Here's a good quote from "SPAD XIII vs Fokker D.VII" on that topic (In the spoiler as it's a tad long): 
 

Spoiler

Arthur Kimber, who had been attached to SPA85 before joining the 22nd [Aero Squadron USAS], was in the left rear of the formation 'to bring up the tail and cover the others',
and he subsequently described what happened to the rest of'C' Flight during Brooks' epic struggle:

"About four of the red-nosed, blue-bodied machines jumped on me. They had height and were in the sun, and all I could do was wriggle. At that moment I looked below and saw that five or six other Fokkers had come up and were attacking the rest of the patrol. In a dogfight like that, it soon develops into each man for himself, and the devil takes the hindmost. Well, I was the hindmost! But at the same time I didn't like the idea of being easy meat for the devil Huns. We were about 5,200 metres high and about ten kilometres behind the Boche lines. I watched my tail like a cat and saw the enemy come in. One especially attracted my attention, and he was only about 75 metres off. He moved prettily, and I moved like mad to get out of his sights. But he wasn't my only worry, for there were three or four picking on me alone! No sooner would I avoid one than another one would be firing on me!"

Kimber's SPAD S15201 No. 19, which he had christened Nick III, was riddled with 70 bullets while he tried to escape in 'a fast, steep right-hand spiral dive, going down almost vertically, and yet turning enough to keep the other fellow's sights off me. For 1200 metres, those streaks and bullets kept flying past me. Then the Boche seemed to pull out of the following dive, evidently convinced that they had sent a SPAD down out of control!. I let Nick  dive vertically for another 800 metres, just for good luck, and then gently pulled him towards our lines'.


Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to say the SPAD should be an absolute tank, or even that it should be able to soak up hits and stay in a fight. Nor am I saying the D.VII or Pfalz, or whichever plane shouldn't be as tanky (or weak) as they are, if it's historically plausible. I'm just saying that a handful of bullets in the wings (Which I would think would be fairly superficial) shouldn't render the SPAD unable to do any kind of G-intensive vertical manoeuvres. During our testing, even relatively short dives (maybe 500m?) with a gentle pull-out would cause wing shedding after taking about 20-30 hits on the plane (not just the wings!). As it stands, I can't imagine ever being able to even come close to replicating Kimber's escape in FC!

By any means, I think that quote definitely describes a SPAD with quite a bit more resilience than its FC counterpart. And that, again, raises the question of G-forces. If we have generally agreed, or reached the conclusion that, G-forces coupled with wing damage are causing most cases of wing-shedding...

- are the Gs under-represented in FC? Perhaps... 
- are the planes' abilities to withstand Gs under, or mis-represented? (Cue 10 G Pfalz) 
- is the G-tolerance of a damaged WW1 aircraft wing understated? 
- is the severity of bullets into a WW1 wing understated? 

etc, etc. I'm hesitant to jump to any conclusions with questions like that, but something feels a little off to me atm...

(EDIT, disclaimer: I've been focusing on the SPAD in my last couple posts but I'm just as keen to see the Camel, Dolphin, Albatros, Halberstadt, etc. become more resilient to wing damage). 

(EDIT, disclaimer 2: I still think that this update has been all-round a good improvement on 4.005 - but I think if the Devs gave the DM just a little more TLC we could end up with something really great. I won't hold my breath, but I will hope). 
 

Edited by US93_Larner
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He said *perhaps 200* meters.

 

Seriously, just please take a moment and think about that.  How fast do you suppose he is really diving?  How hard do you think he is really pulling out of that dive?  Face facts- you fly your fake SPADs harder than they flew their real ones.

 

A 'Zoom' that leaves you just 200 meters above your target doesn't even rate in this game's multiplayer.  For all intents and purposes, it is a failed 'Zoom'.  Get ready to get nailed by the incoming laser hose.

Edited by J28w-Broccoli
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't help feeling that the latest patch is adding yet another nail in the coffin for Flying Circus, particularly multiplayer, which is all I am interested in.  This wing-off festival is extremely sad :(

The development team seem to be a good bunch though, so perhaps they can breath life into Flying Circus at some point in the future.  In the mean time, I feel like putting FC into quarantine and keeping my distance.  I keep trying to get into WW1 flying but end up giving up and concentrating on WWII.

 

Happy landings (if you can keep your wings on),

 

56RAF_Talisman

Share this post


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

The vertical up and down shenanigans, while certainly impressive, I find even more questionable. Boom 'n Zoom is very much a WWII tactic. Can the SPAD do it? Under the right circumstances and according to historical reports, yes.

 

 

I will be more than happy to provide historical training documents from 1917-1918 outlining the tactic of what we call "boom and zoom" as the manner in which fighting should be employed, old friend. That's where we learned it from.

 

The notion that BnZ was a WW2 thing is absurd.

 

Even Cecil Lewis says they "zoomed right down and then zoomed right back up again, perhaps 200 meters or more above"

Edited by US93_Talbot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a test today on the Sopwith Camel wing failure and have to say in both videos it held up well.

 

In the G force test I dived from 2,000 ft and pulled up as I would normally in a dog fight and the wings remained intact, at the end of the video I pulled sharply on the climb and no surprise  the wings came off under the strain which I would expect no less.

 

The other video shows the amount of damage the struts took before failure, I deliberately aimed for the struts (you will have to forgive my poor marksmanship) and I have to say in the end it seemed the wing skin was the cause of collapse after taking some stick.

 

 

Share this post


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

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to say the SPAD should be an absolute tank, or even that it should be able to soak up hits and stay in a fight. Nor am I saying the D.VII or Pfalz, or whichever plane shouldn't be as tanky (or weak) as they are, if it's historically plausible. I'm just saying that a handful of bullets in the wings (Which I would think would be fairly superficial) shouldn't render the SPAD unable to do any kind of G-intensive vertical manoeuvres. During our testing, even relatively short dives (maybe 500m?) with a gentle pull-out would cause wing shedding after taking about 20-30 hits on the plane (not just the wings!). As it stands, I can't imagine ever being able to even come close to replicating Kimber's escape in FC!

 

Way before the Halberstadt and Bristol, before the Hanriot and even before my short but passionate affair with the Camel (we're talking early 2010) I was madly in love with the Nieuport 28. I also found myself dumbfounded at how easy of a prey this plucky machine was in a dogfight to the then only two Central scouts available in early RoF: the Fokker D.VII and Albatros D.Va (the SPAD XIII was the other Entente option, and a far more popular plane).

 

I did my research, even analysed videos of replicas, and came to the conclusion that the the N28 should at least be more maneuverable than the Fokker D.VII, which in turn should be more maneuverable than the D.Va.

 

0OpcGFo.jpg

 

tGR6ftr.jpg 

 

I've had endless discussions about the N28 on the old RoF forum, some even with the devs on the beta forums back when I was a tester. And while it's true that the tail did take too long to lift off pre-1.034 (the only change of 1.034 I agree to be held personally responsible for, I'm the one who brought on the data for it to be fixed), I now grudgingly agree that I was probably wrong all along about it needing to be more maneuverable. Which is to say: it is maneuverable, just not in the way that I wanted it to be. It has great roll, great instantaneous turn (in fact its wing loading is quite high compared to the Camel) and is the best zoom climber on all of Entente. It sucks as a turnfighter and at gaining separation from any of the Central "turnfighters" who will glue themselves to your six in seconds and then snipe you or prophang at you from 500 meters away. In many ways, it's an amazing little machine, it just doesn't have any of the qualities which immediately translate to success in multiplayer against the yank and back on Central. The SPAD has been claimed to be better than it in every way, even if some American pilots didn't seem to think so.

 

m6O2qWa.jpg

 

And here we run into problems: the true shortcomings of the N28 (fuel lines catching fire, shedding fabric in a dive) are impossible to accurately portray in the sim, and that which made it a worthy opponent for the Fokker D.VII in real life doesn't translate well at all in multiplayer.

 

I sympathise with your love for the SPAD, but it's no more "accurate" or "wrong" than my beloved Nieuport. They are simulated representations of a real machine, and they're mostly in-engine accurate, just don't expect that you'll be able to replicate all the historical reports to the letter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The good thing is that the community and developers know what knob needs to be tuned more:   spar strength.   Its not a lot of variables that are interdependent and have ripple effects on the FM.  Its not like turning a dial up on top speed and needing to turn 8 other smaller dials to keep things in sync.  Its one dial.  The spar strength dial.  Each plane has one.  The developers can turn those dials independent of effects on all the other planes and the FM of the plane being "tuned", and so bring things into some sort of more balanced (not necessarily exactly balanced) relative relationship to enhance game play. 

 

Ironically most of us want to have a historically accurate based sim, oh and, one that is fun to fly.  It wasn't much fun flying (and dying) in a WWI plane suddenly outclassed when the other side brought out their latest and greatest.  We all know air superiority flopped back and forth with each new plane arrival to the Front over amazingly short periods of time.   Its apparent that is what we have here to a degree.  Older planes still in service and outclassed by a few later arrivals.  The difficult thing for the developers @AnPetrovich is to not be blinded by science (and become emotionally connected to their historical numbers) and let perfection be the enemy of the good (for the game, business and community).  Rather, to use the numbers as a guide to bring things into approximations that in relationship to each other allow for enjoyable historical match-ups, not between outlclassed and top of their class planes, but planes with similar yet somewhat peculiar strengths and weaknesses) so that mission builders actually have a palatte of planes (colors) to paint with and create relatively balanced scenarios that make people want to spend time and money supporting further work. 

 

The latest patch is a step back from the brink.   Let's continue to encourage @AnPetrovich to be willing to fine tune the wingspar dial on a few of these planes, a little more with each patch so we walk towards a commercially successful community.   Otherwise, historical data perfection might just be the enemy of what's good for the bottom line.

 

I hope some of you fly more and type less.  I'm still having a lot of fun flying with friends and surviving either with their help or withdrawing once damaged, just like I always have.  I think that is pretty historically accurate, too!  The lone wolfs were pretty much dead by 1918.

Edited by J5_Baeumer
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What really is interesting is that in BoS, proposed changes to the DM to reduce the numbers of lost wings met determined, but ultimately futile, resistance from a number of MP players.  They thought that if they had flown into a good position and hit the fire button at the right time they had "won" and should be rewarded, not with some indeterminate and delayed probability of the target failing to RTB, or having some undeserving 3rd party nip in to get the last shots and claim the kill, but with immediate gratification.

 

He who does not like the current DM, is really not going to like it if the developers get round to adding incendiaries!

 

  

  

 

 

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


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

 

Dude, I don't think you know what you are talking about.

 

I don't fly these planes anywhere near their limit (and seem not to be having the same wing shedding problems others are either), and easily pull back to 300m on a zoom.

 

Anything less than that and you are asking to get (probably quite accurately) prophung.

 

You'll notice he says 'perhaps 200m' is where they "can't effectively shoot you"-  When has this been remotely true in this game?

 

Move on.  Just play the game.  This is ridiculous.  At the very most this thread is an exercise in barking up the wrong tree.

Edited by J28w-Broccoli
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I've been in that position hundreds if not thousands of times. 

 

What are you even arguing here?

 

I thought the argument was BnZ didn't exist in WWI?

 

MAYBE the real pilots flying flying real SPADs doing real BnZ actually ended up above their quarry about 200m OR MORE since that's what the damn history books say?

 

Which mirrors what we see in game?

Edited by US93_Talbot
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

What really is interesting is that in BoS, proposed changes to the DM to reduce the numbers of lost wings met determined, but ultimately futile, resistance from a number of MP players.  They thought that if they had flown into a good position and hit the fire button at the right time they had "won" and should be rewarded, not with some indeterminate and delayed probability of the target failing to RTB, or having some undeserving 3rd party nip in to get the last shots and claim the kill, but with immediate gratification.

 

He who does not like the current DM, is really not going to like it if the developers get round to adding incendiaries!

 

The ideal WWI dogfight would be one where two machines perform aerobatics with each other for 20 minutes, take multiple passes scoring over 100 ineffective hits, empty their pistols and lightly ram each other causing impressive looking but structurally inconsequential damage, then finally wave, head home, have tea or bratwurst, and then do it all over again in the afternoon.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

And here we run into problems: the true shortcomings of the N28 (fuel lines catching fire, shedding fabric in a dive) are impossible to accurately portray in the sim, and that which made it a worthy opponent for the Fokker D.VII in real life doesn't translate well at all in multiplayer.

 

I sympathise with your love for the SPAD, but it's no more "accurate" or "wrong" than my beloved Nieuport. They are simulated representations of a real machine, and they're mostly in-engine accurate, just don't expect that you'll be able to replicate all the historical reports to the letter.


I appreciate all you've said here - but I don't think it's in the same ball park as what we're discussing...! 

I'm not asking for a fully perfect historical SPAD FM / DM with all the bells and whistles, and I'm not saying that the SPAD is suddenly a crap plane. It's not. 

What I'm saying is that currently, an unreasonably low amount of rounds is enough to render the SPAD totally ineffective in performing even basic combat manoeuvres. Take Adam's video, posted here earlier, as an example. He was hit by five rounds and his wing came off almost immediately after he put his nose down. 

 

And it's not just the SPAD, as I've said several times. The Albatros is currently losing its ability to do anything other than flat-turn in just a handful of rounds. The Halberstadt is just straight-up having its wings blown off in level flight. The Sopwiths apparently aren't faring any better. 

Yes, obviously the SPAD is my favourite of the bunch, but I am being strictly objective here. 

If you would, take a look at this video and tell me what you think. (There's a pause with a black screen in the middle of the 'G Force Tests' bit...a hiccup in editing!)
 

 

Edited by US93_Larner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's some odd things going on for sure in that video, but from the footage alone it's hard to tell what is causing the wings to fail. Ideally you should put your flight records through Tacview. I also saw you pull 9g then failing moments later at less g. Maybe there's an uneven load due to uncoordinated flight? Invisible structural damage over time?

 

I'm beginning to wonder if the fragile wings due to bullet damage are a multiplayer issue because of netcode and server settings and not just player behaviour. I'm not seeing any of this when flying against the AI, but I'm also not pushing any plane to its limit.

 

Out of curiosity: what were the wind, turbulence and pressure settings on the server?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah this never happens online...

Bohme and his world renowned laserrrrrrr gunzzzzzz

 

20200523_162934.jpg

 

20200523_160756.jpg

 

Gasp! I clutch my pearls of experience!

 

This is a quote for Guttman's SE5a vs. Albatros DV by the way.

 

(I've experienced being that SE5a thousands of times)

 

Bring Down Your Hun - RFC document 1917.

 

Describes BnZ.

20200523_160910.jpg

Captain John Wentworth, "Lessons learned" nov 1918.

 

 

20200523_165235.jpg

 

20200523_165217.jpg

 

20200523_165552.jpg

 

I mean, literally open ANY after action report submitted by a USAS SPAD pilot and this is what they describe. 

 

Edited by US93_Talbot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I mean come on! This dude LITERALLY says "zooming up to dive again" 

 

147th aero and their fake SPADS!!!!!!11!!!!

 

20200523_170235.jpg

 

20200523_170211.jpg

 

 

My face has melted off. 

 

I am not ashamed for this wall of text. 

 

Need to get back to my real life now that I proved someone wrong on the internet. 

 

 

Edited by US93_Talbot
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, catchov said:

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. 

 

No, the Pfalz did not hit me. It was just the ground fire.

 

21 hours ago, emely said:

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.

 

I looked at my G-clock - I was alone at the server and was not under pressure to finish fast and I did not try too hard, 3-4G was max. Light diving and up.

 

19 hours ago, J5_Baeumer said:

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".  

 

Bäumer,

 

I appriciate your effort to explain the situation and that you are trying to find something postive but the facts are as they are: I flew 4000 feet over the front, the MG GUNS barely scratched me - with no visible damage - after that I am securely BnZ a Pfalz which does NOT hit me with a single bullet. While BnZ I am looking to have my G limit at 3-4 max when suddenly my wings fold. This cannot stay like that - otherwise the servers will be empty in one month. There is no fun in playing something like that.

 

 

Edited by 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to figure out if Tallboy thinks I was arguing that BnZ didn't exist in WW1...

 

To clarify, because apparently it is needed-  I'm talking about the problem of BnZers pulling off their own wings.  In our game, a zoom of 200m is not sufficient to get clear of danger.  According to sources you guys have cited, IRL it was.  But this isn't real life, and things are different for us.  This is in large part due to the various factors that allow our opponents to have very good accuracy at that range.  As a consequence, our zooms (or at least mine) usually end with us significantly higher than 200m from our opponents; because if we don't, we're getting prop-hung. 

 

Due to the circumstances of our *game* we have to fly these planes harder than they (apparently) needed to IRL to stay out of danger.  The dives need to be faster, the resultant G's higher, and the zoom taller.  That's why some people are pulling off wings when the real flyers didn't.  It's probably also why some players haven't experienced anything close to what's being reported- because they aren't flying the planes as close to the limit.

 

I'm not making the argument that BnZ didn't exist, and I'm not sure where you might have gotten the idea that I had.

Edited by J28w-Broccoli
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wings are coming off after minor damage of a few rounds. Nobody is complaining about wings coming off during the booming phase.

 

We in the 3PG VERY RARELY pull our wings off in an initial dive. 

 

Thats not what folks are arguing. 

 

And yes 200m is sufficient if you have enough experience. We do it all the time.

 

You made a mockery of the way we fly and I presented evidence that the game mirrors the reality of the war.

 

It's your fault if you get caught in a prophang. Maybe shoot better on that first attack?

Edited by US93_Talbot
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well shit, one has to wonder when you're taking bullets then.

 

I'd think since you're immune to prophangs, and half your guys won't even fly without two buddies to watch their butt, that needing to maneuver after taking a few bullets would be something that never really comes up for you.

 

So why are ya'll here complaining again?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

During our testing, even relatively short dives (maybe 500m?) with a gentle pull-out would cause wing shedding after taking about 20-30 hits on the plane (not just the wings!). As it stands, I can't imagine ever being able to even come close to replicating Kimber's escape in FC!

 

Two things:

1) I believe the devs said there is no certainty as to the exact effects of a certain amount of bullets in the plane. There is a probabilistic distribution of the end result, but you may get away with more bullets, and you may collapse with less bullets. 

2) Kimber survived to tell the tale. No wonder the tale tells you that he survived. The opposite would be quite extraordinary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, US93_Larner said:


I appreciate all you've said here - but I don't think it's in the same ball park as what we're discussing...! 

I'm not asking for a fully perfect historical SPAD FM / DM with all the bells and whistles, and I'm not saying that the SPAD is suddenly a crap plane. It's not. 

What I'm saying is that currently, an unreasonably low amount of rounds is enough to render the SPAD totally ineffective in performing even basic combat manoeuvres. Take Adam's video, posted here earlier, as an example. He was hit by five rounds and his wing came off almost immediately after he put his nose down. 

 

And it's not just the SPAD, as I've said several times. The Albatros is currently losing its ability to do anything other than flat-turn in just a handful of rounds. The Halberstadt is just straight-up having its wings blown off in level flight. The Sopwiths apparently aren't faring any better. 

Yes, obviously the SPAD is my favourite of the bunch, but I am being strictly objective here. 

If you would, take a look at this video and tell me what you think. (There's a pause with a black screen in the middle of the 'G Force Tests' bit...a hiccup in editing!)
 

 

Speed has lots to do with it like I said in another post, your diving down and gaining speed then pulling up sharply, I seen Tycoon doing that in his video, Now when it comes to the amount of hits the wings get on the spad, camel and so on is a little much,1 hit should not affect the wings that much unless you do a hard snap back and only if it hit wood and not canvas. 

 

Plus something I'd like to point out with the D7, either D7, What I can see happening like what happen last Thursday, All the central or most will just jump in a D7, doesn't matter witch, they both have the same air frame,  I was chasing a D7 that was chasing a SE5, I was hitting him with some good shots, could see the puffs of smoke. Finally he pulled off the SE and went toward his side then he turned and came back at me, Both shooting then we past and he went to his side so I started to head home only to have him attack me again this time he had buddies and altitude be he dove and I had no choice to do a pop up both firing only to have him plow into me. now the amount of times I'm sure I hit him he should have left for good with plenty of damage but I guess there just wasn't enough. So what I'm saying is the D7 pilots won't care how much they get hit they just keep coming knowing you'll fall apart way before they do.

There's one instance in rela life that this didn't and wouldn't have happen, W.G.Barker in his sopwith snipe, yes snipe, pretty much the same air frame as the camel, He after taking down a CL2 attacked a formation of D7's being hit a number of times and still able to fight and take down at least 4 D7's how can that be if it only take just a few hits to take a camel, (Supped up camel) yes but still a camel, And you can't say he would have been light on the controls while fighting a number of enemy planes, not if your fighting for your life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of the dissatisfaction here is coming from Entente preference pilots. I’m not surprised that there are few complaints from those users who frequent the DviiF as its new toughness makes it an even harder opponent than it was before; besides, it was the greatest plane of the war. If Entente pilots are largely unhappy - some might think them sore losers or complaining unjustly - they will vote with their feet, as some did after the major ROF FM changes. I laud the devs for wanting to provide a historically accurate sim, however(!) competitive multiplayer requires balancing. If Central regulars want their opponents to stick around then we should listen seriously to each other’s voices, otherwise the alternative is noobs who get frustrated and don’t stay or AI. I for one like a good challenge vs skilled opponents in planes with superior capabilities and accept regular deaths as part of the package, but there are limits. It’s possible the DM and FMs may not change, so server admins should, as suggested earlier on the thread, consider rationing the Camel and DviiF. Besides, right up to the end of the war old types were flying alongside the latest. Not every Spad on the front was a XIII and not every Dvii had a BMW engine in 1918.

 

I learned the SPAD in RoF because of the changes to the Camel, and now that bird is shedding its wings and being matched in a dive in ways it never did in RoF. Talisman’s frustrations and desertion has been echoed by others. My own interest has waned recently, but I remain optimistic.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

besides, it was the greatest plane of the war

That has been disputed by many allied pilots. I'm one that thinks it was one of the best but not the best. Certainly not like we have in FC.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably all of you will whine until your death .. Maybe you all whined from your very birth, I just met you not so long ago?  ;-)))))

The servers are empty, all veterans are sitting on the forum and flood their pilot uniforms with tears to each other))

D7f is much higher than others?  So what ?  Now it is a plane of lamers.  Do not give out rewards for achievements on this glider.  About Dr1 I don’t even want to remember.  Those who fly on DR1 in the game RoF and FC, I do not consider pilots.(Except Etzel)

 

I wish everyone to go online more often, and write less here and fly and shoot more 😉

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What will happen is there will be very few allied pilots like we had in ROF, You go into a server and there was 10 to 1 in centrals favor, Only reason we have any equal pilots on each side is mostly because of 93rd and 1pl squads, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because why fly anything than The Only Plane Listed In The Versailles Treaty™*

 

 

 

*Because who wants inferior AEGs, Rumplers, Albatroses, triplanes, Pfalzes, etc.? And why would you ask the Germans to turn over SE5s, SPADs, Snipes, etc.)

Edited by US93_Talbot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay to sum up the pros and cons, arguments and counter arguments,  painstakingly collated data, the cut and thrust and general joie de vivre and camaraderie of the community I should just fly the D7?

 

 

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...