4.006 DM Discussion

[US213_Talbot]

Yes.

[BMA_Hellbender]

The reason you're only seeing D.VIIFs when flying Entente is that the other scouts are still desperately trying to climb to "survive Camel for 20 seconds"-altitude.

 

Sure they could fly a Halberstadt and not bother with climbing at all, but it's not my fault that Idflieg keeps denying my requests to mount a portable flak cannon in the back. I'm sure this would win over the hearts of a few F'ers.

[emely]

10 minutes ago, catchov said:

I should just fly the D7?

 

 

Yes, do it, but know that when you get to HELL, no one will fill your boiler with water))) However, those who use dr1 will be put directly into the fire with their bare ass, they will not even be given an empty boiler))

Edited May 24, 2020 by emely

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 minute ago, emely said:

However, those who use dr1 will be put directly into the fire with their bare ass, they will not even be given a rusty boiler))

 

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

4 minutes ago, emely said:

Yes, do it, but know that when you get to HELL, no one will fill your boiler with water))) However, those who use dr1 will be put directly into the fire with their bare ass, they will not even be given an empty boiler))

 

 

 

[Zooropa_Fly]

12 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

The reason you're only seeing D.VIIFs.. 

 

Dammit I'm confused, I thought people weren't seeing D.VIIFs ! 

[emely]

Judging by the pictures above, J5_Hellbender and J28w-Broccoli had a sudden attack of diarrhea in the absence of reserves of toilet paper))))

[US213_Talbot]

4 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

 

Dammit I'm confused, I thought people weren't seeing D.VIIFs ! 

 

[ST_Catchov]

25 minutes ago, emely said:

  28 minutes ago, catchov said:

I should just fly the D7?

 

24 minutes ago, emely said:

Yes, do it, but know that when you get to HELL, no one will fill your boiler with water))) However, those who use dr1 will be put directly into the fire with their bare ass, they will not even be given an empty boiler))

 

Lol just kidding emely. Why would I fly the best plane in the game? Too lame that's why. I am a man after all, not an old boiler or a screaming girl. I put it to all those D7 pilots out there, watch out when you see a Camel fuselage (sans wings) hurtling past you. Be very afraid.

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

1 hour ago, US93_Talbot said:

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.)

I'll have to find the info on that, But the D7 was not part of the treaty like you think. If I can find the video about that I'll link it here. 

Also when did the loser of a war make demands and carried out by the winner?

Edited May 24, 2020 by NO.20_W_M_Thomson

[US213_Talbot]

13 minutes ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

I'll have to find the info on that, But the D7 was not part of the treaty like you think. If I can find the video about that I'll link it here. 

Also when did the loser of a war make demands and carried out by the winner?

 

It wasn't the actual Versailles treaty. It was the one prior to that treaty which outlined the manner in which Germany would cease fighting.

 

"Hey give us all your shit in case you decide to back out of the deal"

Edited May 24, 2020 by US93_Talbot

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

2 minutes ago, US93_Talbot said:

Hey give us all your shit in case you decide to back out of the deal

That doesn't prove the D7 was the best fighter, and I'm not saying it isn't or wasn't a great fighter, of course it was. I'm sure if the Germans had won the war they'd be asking for some of the allied planes, but they didn't win so we'll never know what they'd ask for. 

[Tycoon]

I know what people are saying with the d7 being a noob aircraft, but calling all d7 and dr1 pilots lame is just dumb, plenty of them are very good in any aircraft.

 

And I guess by plenty I mean all 30 people that fly central powers.

[No.23_Triggers]

7 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

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 thought that it was accumulative structural damage as well - which is why I put in the clip of me ripping my wings at 8.7G in a brand-new Spad right after! I also actually failed to notice until watching the video again that the first undamaged wing-rip was actually caused by 9.1 G, not 7.8. D'oh. 

I actually did some TacView testing before this update, during 4.005, to try and determine how many hits you could take with that DM before you were seriously at risk. It seemed to be the case that it was more a case of what airspeeds you pulled out of a dive at, more so than what Gs you did - I recorded a fair few severe G-overloads, up to 9G as seen in the video as well, when pulling out at around 260 km/h, but once you crossed the threshold of 270 km/h your wings would tear off. 

In regards to the 'single-hit-wing-off' clip, I was perfectly comfortable in that manoeuvre and expected the wings to stay on - I've thrown the SPAD around like that a lot. I wouldn't even dare to try that stuff after taking a few hits to the wings - but I would have thought that a single bullet, unless it hit a spar, wouldn't cause me any trouble. 

Maybe it is a net code thing, like you suggested. I can't see more than 2 bullets hitting with that firing window, though...which I would think would be similarly superficial. But, hey...what do I know? I wasn't there

But, this has been getting too opinion and perception based already. What I need to do now is do some more tests, see what the numbers look like. 
 

7 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

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

Wind: 2 m/s at 0 degrees. 
Turbulence: 0.
Pressure: 760. 

Edited May 24, 2020 by US93_Larner

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

19 minutes ago, Tycoon said:

I know what people are saying with the d7 being a noob aircraft, but calling all d7 and dr1 pilots lame is just dumb, plenty of them are very good in any aircraft.

 

And I guess by plenty I mean all 30 people that fly central powers.

Who calls it a noob plane, Hell I think the Bristol is the noob plane, easy to fly turns on a dime, shoots from every were and a bitch to shoot down, It has early enemy warning built in. Drop bombs on things you don't like, What's to not like about the beast. 

[BMA_Hellbender]

30 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

I thought that it was accumulative structural damage as well - which is why I put in the clip of me ripping my wings at 8.7G in a brand-new Spad right after! I also actually failed to notice until watching the video again that the first undamaged wing-rip was actually caused by 9.1 G, not 7.8. D'oh. 

I actually did some TacView testing before this update, during 4.005, to try and determine how many hits you could take with that DM before you were seriously at risk. It seemed to be the case that it was more a case of what airspeeds you pulled out of a dive at, more so than what Gs you did - I recorded a fair few severe G-overloads, up to 9G as seen in the video as well, when pulling out at around 260 km/h, but once you crossed the threshold of 270 km/h your wings would tear off.

 

I brought down the mighty Pfalz!

 

 

It's not speed or accumulative damage (she can happily pull 10g at 270km/h twice in a row), it's differential loads. In the above gif the Pfalz breaks up at 255km/h, full positive elevator, full right aileron, full right rudder.

 

This does seem to explain why most wingsheds are reported to happen when initiating a spiral dive or split s.

 

Case in point, the SPAD at 250km/h, same inputs:

 

[No.23_Triggers]

42 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

This does seem to explain why most wingsheds are reported to happen when initiating a spiral dive or split s.

Ok, interesting! That would be in line with when I tested a spiral-dive in the SPAD. She held beautifully at 4.8 G, but tightening up to 7 G immediately popped the wings. I'd like to play around with that a little more...

There are still some things I'm curious about, in that case though...namely:

- how come there are so many pilot accounts of pilots escaping after taking damage in a 'steep spiral-dive' or a 'vrille'? 
- how come some aircraft are still having their wings shot off in level flight in only a handful of bullets? 
- how come some FC aircraft are still so badly affected, while others now aren't? Were differences in structural strength that pronounced? 

So far, the  testing I've done would imply (not saying this is the case) that there's some kind of inconsistency in the G-forces vs Damage in FC - either to how low the G-tolerance of certain WW1 biplanes were after taking damage, or to how many Gs are being applied in certain manoeuvres.....When comparing to historical reports!

So, then, is that Survivor Bias? Unrealistic expectations? Something else? 

To me, at the moment, it appears that it's a little bit of a cocktail of everything. Over-pronounced G-forces, Survivor Bias (albeit to a smaller degree than I think some have suggested) and possibly some, er, optimistic expectations.  

Edited May 24, 2020 by US93_Larner

[unreasonable]

49 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

- how come there are so many pilot accounts of pilots escaping after taking damage in a 'steep spiral-dive' or a 'vrille'? 
- how come some aircraft are still having their wings shot off in level flight in only a handful of bullets? 
- how come some FC aircraft are still so badly affected, while others now aren't? Were differences in structural strength that pronounced? 

So far, the  testing I've done would imply (not saying this is the case) that there's some kind of inconsistency in the G-forces vs Damage in FC - either to how low the G-tolerance of certain WW1 biplanes were after taking damage, or to how many Gs are being applied in certain manoeuvres.....When comparing to historical reports!

So, then, is that Survivor Bias? Unrealistic expectations? Something else? 

To me, at the moment, it appears that it's a little bit of a cocktail of everything. Over-pronounced G-forces, Survivor Bias (albeit to a smaller degree than I think some have suggested) and possibly some, er, optimistic expectations.  

 

Fair questions:

 

- I think you answered the first point yourself. We do not have any accounts from those who did not escape, so what does "so many" mean?

 

- On the second - AnP's explanation will always mean that spars can break after very few hits even in level flight. If the DM is not working as intended, which is always a possibility, you should be able to show that a reasonably large sample of tests in 1G flight  has a very different distribution to the one he posted.  100 trial sets would be enough to get a convincing approximation of the distribution, we obviously do not have our own Russian Bots to do thousands.  One set offline, one online.

 

- The answer to the third question, taken across the full range of WW1 aircraft, is clearly yes. Look at the rate of collapse for BE types. While it is possible that this is just a variation due to chance, it is very unlikely. So I see no reason in principle why there should not also be considerable variation in the FC plane-set.

 

There could be variation in damage resistance due to how the undamaged wings get their strength. A system that depends on the integrity of a complex box structure would, I think, be more vulnerable to damage than one that relies on having a main spar with a great deal of strength. It all depends on how much redundancy was built into the system - but engineers could comment on that more, I could be wrong.   

 

On the forth point "So far...etc"  While the degree of damage resistance may be an open question, I see no evidence that throws doubt on the game's G calculations.   I do not recall seeing any historical reports that mention how many Gs are being applied, only generic descriptions.   Since I have yet to see any demonstration that the game's G-meter is incorrect in systematic testing, I think it is much more likely that you are simply not flying in the same way as the pilots in the accounts.

[No.23_Triggers]

Responses in blue - 

 

59 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

Fair questions:

 

- I think you answered the first point yourself. We do not have any accounts from those who did not escape, so what does "so many" mean?

You're right - we don't have any accounts from those who didn't escape. What we DO have, however, are accounts of the pilots who SAW the eventual fates of their wingmen. I think those accounts should be considered just the same as the 'firsthand' ones. In answer - "So Many" was poorly worded - "Several" is a better word. 

 

- On the second - AnP's explanation will always mean that spars can break after very few hits even in level flight. If the DM is not working as intended, which is always a possibility, you should be able to show that a reasonably large sample of tests in 1G flight  has a very different distribution to the one he posted.  100 trial sets would be enough to get a convincing approximation of the distribution, we obviously do not have our own Russian Bots to do thousands.  One set offline, one online.

I agree, and I've been thinking the same thing. The tests I've done so far have -Apparently- been misaligned with Petrovich's data. But you raise a good point that there -Are- outliers, and with a relatively small data pool for some aircraft from my tests, my current results could be a 'red herring'. Perhaps seeing the same wing-shedding effect happen a few times in a row is skewing my idea of the DM. I would want to gather a larger data pool for each plane.....if I have the time!

 

- The answer to the third question, taken across the full range of WW1 aircraft, is clearly yes. Look at the rate of collapse for BE types. While it is possible that this is just a variation due to chance, it is very unlikely. So I see no reason in principle why there should not also be considerable variation in the FC plane-set.

Appreciated. In that case, I'd be interested to try and find some historical reports specifically mentioning the aircraft we are seeing collapsing at higher rates, to get a better general idea of how accurately they are being represented in FC. If it turns out that the same types were prone to falling apart - well, then, there it is! 

 

There could be variation in damage resistance due to how the undamaged wings get their strength. A system that depends on the integrity of a complex box structure would, I think, be more vulnerable to damage than one that relies on having a main spar with a great deal of strength. It all depends on how much redundancy was built into the system - but engineers could comment on that more, I could be wrong.   

Interestingly - one of the guys in our unit has been giving this a lot of thought in regard to FC. Like yourself, we're holding out for the word of someone who is more well-versed in that kind of thing.

 

On the forth point "So far...etc"  While the degree of damage resistance may be an open question, I see no evidence that throws doubt on the game's G calculations.   I do not recall seeing any historical reports that mention how many Gs are being applied, only generic descriptions.   Since I have yet to see any demonstration that the game's G-meter is incorrect in systematic testing, I think it is much more likely that you are simply not flying in the same way as the pilots in the accounts.

I'm still neutral on this point, myself - I'm equally ready to believe that the Gs are 'skewed' as I am to believe that we're simply just over-stressing the aircraft in an ahistorical way. I think Chill31 is probably the best person to deliver some insight on that matter. 

 

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

- how come there are so many pilot accounts of pilots escaping after taking damage in a 'steep spiral-dive' or a 'vrille'? 

 

Just because you are doing spiral dive doesn‘t mean that you are pulling g‘s like mad. If you want to escape in a dive, a straight flight path, then and now, it exposes you to carefully aimed long range shots. Going in a dive while rolling prevents that. But you don‘t pull g‘s like that. Just a bit back stick to offset you from the bullet trajectory.

 

A „vrille“ on the other hand is a simple spin.

 

Both maneuvers work well with all FC aircraft that we have.

 

Nobody in in real aircraft like those pulls >5 g in such aircraft. Oh, btw, you can easily rip off the wings of the DCS F-14. I guess we really have gotten used to a flying style that had not much to do with the structural strenght of old biplanes.

[No.23_Triggers]

Just now, ZachariasX said:

 

Just because you are doing spiral dive doesn‘t mean that you are pulling g‘s like mad. If you want to escape in a dive, a straight flight path, then and now, it exposes you to carefully aimed long range shots. Going in a dive while rolling prevents that. But you don‘t pull g‘s like that. Just a bit back stick to offset you from the bullet trajectory.

 

I would argue that a Spiral Dive is different to rolling while diving - the Spiral Dive is offsetting you both vertically and horizontally - simply rolling in a dive doesn't really do much for getting you out of the guns. I was under the impression that a "Vrille" was the same thing as that. 

But, yes, you're right. Doing a spiral dive =/= pulling crazy Gs. When I tried one out in the SPAD, it was doing about 4.5 G. Tightening it up pushed that dramatically upwards to the point of wing failure, and I'd guess loosening it up would have the opposite effect. 

 

[ZachariasX]

Just now, US93_Larner said:

simply rolling in a dive doesn't really do much for getting you out of the guns.

In practise this would be very challenging to do. As you are quickly accellerating toward Vne, the plane will soon get a strong nose up trim due to airspeed, hence that alone can produce problematic g loads and will make you doing a barrel roll downwards. 

[1PL-Sahaj-1Esk]

3 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Nobody in in real aircraft like those pulls >5 g in such aircraft. Oh, btw, you can easily rip off the wings of the DCS F-14. I guess we really have gotten used to a flying style that had not much to do with the structural strenght of old biplanes.

 

Yes, because it was not possible so why is it possible in the sim? In a flat turn, 100m above the ground level, flying 180 km/h or less and your screen gets too dark (you are fainting)? in WWI aircraft? I don't buy it. Sorry.

Edited May 24, 2020 by 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk

[No.23_Starling]

10 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

The reason you're only seeing D.VIIFs when flying Entente is that the other scouts are still desperately trying to climb to "survive Camel for 20 seconds"-altitude.

 

Sure they could fly a Halberstadt and not bother with climbing at all, but it's not my fault that Idflieg keeps denying my requests to mount a portable flak cannon in the back. I'm sure this would win over the hearts of a few F'ers.

I’ll say it again: limit the Camel and F in FlugPark. Maybe 2-3x camels with 100% locked fuel and 2-3 Fs. 
 

As for fighting the Camel, I suspect Central pilots are used to always having a better flat turn (the Dr1 has lost its ROF flat turn advantage vs Camel). Having flown a lot of Spad, Dxii, and SE5 in the past I’m used to never having a better flat turn. Even the best Camel jockeys can be beaten by the Dva if you fight using a variety of tactics. Trupo is excellent at using the Diii without relying on endless tight flat turns. The Central planeset is not junk - all have a chance vs the Camel if you adjust your tactics. I suspect tactics being employed are not always correct which work vs SEs and Spad: cue frustration and cries for nerfing.
 

With the F in its current state - extremely tough, keeping up in a dive, outclimbing everything, out turning all but the Camel, good speed up high - there aren’t many tactics left to fight her in the Spad or SE, or even Camel if you’re up high.

Edited May 24, 2020 by US93_Rummell

[ST_Nooney]

Studies on G force.

[J99_Sizzlorr]

57 minutes ago, US93_Rummell said:

Even the best Camel jockeys can be beaten by the Dva if you fight using a variety of tactics.

 

[unreasonable]

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

 

Yes, because it was not possible so why is it possible in the sim? In a flat turn, 100m above the ground level, flying 180 km/h or less and your screen gets too dark (you are fainting)? in WWI aircraft? I don't buy it. Sorry.

 

And I do not buy your description. Track please. If you have TacView here is a track of doing exactly that - during which I experienced no greying out whatever, since the Gs were never very high. You can see them on the left.  A 60 degree flat turn generates 2G - just as it should, and in conformity with my observation of the G-meter in the game.

 

Now if you were to dive down, pull up and around, and transition into a flat turn at 180kph from a higher speed, you might of course grey out. But that is the deceleration, not the turn.

 

4 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

I'm still neutral on this point, myself - I'm equally ready to believe that the Gs are 'skewed' as I am to believe that we're simply just over-stressing the aircraft in an ahistorical way. I think Chill31 is probably the best person to deliver some insight on that matter. 

 

No he is not: the developers are.  Basically you are saying that the developers (might) have made a maths error.   All Chill can say is that his Dr.1s input and flight are not linked in exactly the same way as those in the game.  Actually we already suspect that, see the previous discussions about his elevator position in level flight.

 

I fail to understand why you are still casting aspersions on the game's G meter while being apparently unwilling to test it yourself in situations where the correct reading is known with certainty. On the other issues you have been so reasonable.      

 

Tracks.zip

Edited May 24, 2020 by unreasonable

[BMA_Hellbender]

2 hours ago, US93_Rummell said:

I’ll say it again: limit the Camel and F in FlugPark. Maybe 2-3x camels with 100% locked fuel and 2-3 Fs. 
 

As for fighting the Camel, I suspect Central pilots are used to always having a better flat turn (the Dr1 has lost its ROF flat turn advantage vs Camel). Having flown a lot of Spad, Dxii, and SE5 in the past I’m used to never having a better flat turn. Even the best Camel jockeys can be beaten by the Dva if you fight using a variety of tactics. Trupo is excellent at using the Diii without relying on endless tight flat turns. The Central planeset is not junk - all have a chance vs the Camel if you adjust your tactics. I suspect tactics being employed are not always correct which work vs SEs and Spad: cue frustration and cries for nerfing.
 

With the F in its current state - extremely tough, keeping up in a dive, outclimbing everything, out turning all but the Camel, good speed up high - there aren’t many tactics left to fight her in the Spad or SE, or even Camel if you’re up high.

 

If you want a historically accurate representation of the April 1918 Arras sector, the Camel was the British mainstay fighter/bomber. It should be present in large numbers everywhere. You would have had a few Dolphins, S.E.5as (Wolseley Viper squadrons not fully operational before the summer) and Bristols (F.II) on high altitude intercept and recon. And yes, the odd SPAD — the British had at least one operational squadron and the French might have strayed into the sector from time to time.

 

On Central: the Albatros D.Va as mainstay, Pfalz D.IIIa and Dr.Is as secondary, as well as one operational squadron of early Fokker D.VII. The counterpart of the Camel would have been the Halberstadt, as the Schusta/Schlastas put the "Schlacht" in Kaiserschlacht. They were the ones adjusting artillery fire with flares and leading infantry charges with trench attack.

 

The balance in all this, both historically and in mutliplayer, is in numbers. While Entente had achieved total air superiority by then, Central operated local amassed pockets of resistance. In other words, locally you might have had 2 or 3 Central machines for every single Entente. Central would also have predominantly flown defensively over their own lines, with the notable exception of low altitude supply line harassment performed by the Schusta/Schlasta Halberstadts and very high altitude (7000m+) photographic recon, immune to Entente scouts, for which we badly need a Rumpler C.VII Rubild. There's no way you can get a Halberstadt up that high, even if you spawn it in at 7000m, its service ceiling is only around 5000m.

 

The D.VIIF, Bristol F.III and Halberstadt 200hp you can leave out entirely.

 

 

Now here begins the balancing act: how do you get people to fly Central 2:1 or even 3:1, especially when there's no Fokker D.VIIF available?

 

"Willkommen to the Luftstreitkräfte! Albatros or Halberstadt? Oh, you are from the Palatinate? Have a Pfalz, you will feel right at home. Oh, you have been noticed as a potential Experte? Try a triplane. We apologise for the temporary inconvenience with the castor oil, or lack thereof. Dinner will be served at 17:30 sharp in the Offiziersmesse. Also, the chaplain would like to know: do you prefer lilies or chrysanthemums for your funeral service? I am afraid we are flat out of roses, we dropped our last wreath behind enemy lines last week."

Edited May 24, 2020 by J5_Hellbender

[J2_Bidu]

3 hours ago, 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk said:

 

Yes, because it was not possible so why is it possible in the sim? In a flat turn, 100m above the ground level, flying 180 km/h or less and your screen gets too dark (you are fainting)? in WWI aircraft? I don't buy it. Sorry.

 

Sorry if this was posted before: 

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/47270/how-did-ww1-pilots-handle-g-forces

(includes link to «Report on the Strength of the Wings of Captured German Aeroplanes», http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/rm/350.pdf , unfortunately devoted to too early models, although it is from July 1917)

 

I also found this «Analysis of stresses in german airplanes»:

http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1923/naca-report-143.pdf

 

The document below may be interesting for anyone who can understand all this ?

«Distribution of Pressure over Model of the Upper Wing and Aileron of a Fokker D-VII Airplane»

http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1927/naca-report-254.pdf

Edited May 24, 2020 by J2_Bidu
include link to referenced document

[unreasonable]

9 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

I brought down the mighty Pfalz!

 

 

It's not speed or accumulative damage (she can happily pull 10g at 270km/h twice in a row), it's differential loads. In the above gif the Pfalz breaks up at 255km/h, full positive elevator, full right aileron, full right rudder.

 

This does seem to explain why most wingsheds are reported to happen when initiating a spiral dive or split s.

 

Case in point, the SPAD at 250km/h, same inputs:

 

 

Makes perfect sense - as soon as you start turn, the upper wing generates more lift, so it will go over limit first.  Note to self - when pulling out from fast dive, stay level until you have reduced speed.

[No.23_Triggers]

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

I fail to understand why you are still casting aspersions on the game's G meter while being apparently unwilling to test it yourself in situations where the correct reading is known with certainty. On the other issues you have been so reasonable.      

Tracks.zip 916.2 kB · 0 downloads

I wouldn't go as far as to say casting aspersions - simply questioning if that could be one of the causes of wing-shedding being, seemingly, so frequent for lightly damaged aircraft. However - I'll try to refrain from mentioning it again until either we figure something else out or I've done some thorough testing because, honestly, on my end it's currently all just guesswork. 

I'd be willing to bet that I'm fixating on it a little much as well, because I'd be happier if an 'exaggerated' G effect was the case. Funny how that can happen without you really thinking about it...! 

On the contrary to your second statement - I am perfectly willing to test the relation to G forces on damaged and undamaged aircraft. I've actually been looking forwards to playing around with it to see what effects certain manoeuvres have on undamaged planes! I just haven't found the time - yet! 

EDIT: I haven't downloaded your track files yet but I'm keen to take a look. 

Edited May 24, 2020 by US93_Larner

[unreasonable]

TBH it is probably more convincing just to take an easy-to-fly plane yourself and do some flat turns near the water and watch the G-meter.  I used TrackView so that I could see what the angle of bank actually was after the flight, not having an inclinometer in the DVII.  

 

  

 

 

[J2_Bidu]

A list of fatal air accidents in Britain, Jul - Aug 1918

http://www.rcawsey.co.uk/Acc1918b.htm

 

I searched for "wing" and selected cases of planes we have in the game. Note this is most likely with no bullet damage, as everything happened in Britain...

 

16.7.18    Camel B7456, 3 TDS, Lopcombe Corner

Wing folded up and spun into ground, Lopcombe Corner area

2Lt Ray Mallett (21) killed (Canadian)

 

23.7.18    Sopwith Dolphin D3700, 90 Sqn, Brockworth

Wing folded back while pulling out of dive, Brockworth

Lt Malcolm Cotton Brown (19) killed (American)

 

25.7.18    Sopwith Dolphin E4437, 1 Fighting School, Turnberry

Wing folded up while diving at raft target

2Lt John David Dunbar (20) killed (Canadian)

 

27.7.18    Sopwith Dolphin E4447, 91 Sqn, Tangmere

Wing folded back, crashed and caught fire, Tangmere

Lt George Arthur Lipsett (22) killed (Canadian)

 

28.7.18    Camel C1646, 3 TDS, Lopcombe Corner

Wing broke in flight, Stockbridge

2Lt Thomas Gordon Edgcombe Alder (26) killed

 

28.7.18    Sopwith Dolphin E4449, 29 TDS, Beaulieu

Wing folded back during aerobatics, Beaulieu

Capt Tone Hippolyte Bayetto (26) killed

 

11.8.18    S.E.5A D363, 6 TS, AFC, Minchinhampton

Wings collapsed pulling out of dive on target, Minchinhampton

2Lt Oscar Dudley Shepherd (31) killed

 

12.8.18    Camel D6676, 32 TDS, Montrose

Wings collapsed pulling out of dive

2Lt Joseph Cangiamila (22) killed (American)

 

16.8.18    Camel B7240, 4 Fighting School, Freiston

Wings broke off while diving in formation, came down in North Sea

2Lt Chesley McLean (21) killed (Canadian)

 

16.8.18    S.E.5A C1756, 30 TDS, Northolt

Wing folded back in flight, Northolt

2Lt Callum Craig Munro Bell (19) killed

 

24.8.18    S.E.5A E3953, 21 TDS, Driffield

Spun into ground after wing failure, Lissett, Yorks.

Lt John Scrace (26) killed

 

29.8.18    Camel C8291, 63 TS, Joyce Green

Wing broke in flight, Eastbourne

Flt Cadet Philip George Dalton Winchester (24) killed

 

 

P.S.: There's more info, at least this list: http://www.rcawsey.co.uk/Acc1918a.htm and http://www.rcawsey.co.uk/Acc1918c.htm.

Edited May 24, 2020 by J2_Bidu

[No.23_Triggers]

1 minute ago, J2_Bidu said:

Note this is most likely with no bullet damage, as everything happened in Britain...

You never know...maybe that's how the RFC executed guys for cowardice...

[kendo]

7 minutes ago, J2_Bidu said:

A list of fatal air accidents in Britain, Jul - Aug 1918

http://www.rcawsey.co.uk/Acc1918b.htm

 

I searched for "wing" and selected cases of planes we have in the game. Note this is most likely with no bullet damage, as everything happened in Britain...

 

..edited.... ...

P.S.: There's more info, at least this list: http://www.rcawsey.co.uk/Acc1918a.htm and http://www.rcawsey.co.uk/Acc1918c.htm.

 

Wow! All those in just 6 weeks!

[unreasonable]

That is a sad list - with the many formation accidents [in the full lists], you can see why experienced pilots were not terribly thrilled about training jobs.  

 

But I got to this one and had to laugh. Poor Harry.    (Am I evil?)

 

7.9.18	F.E.2b D9101, 1 School of Navigation & Bomb-dropping, Stonehenge
	Run over by machine landing in darkness, Stonehenge
	Pte 2 Harry Richardson (48) killed
	Lt Sidney Claude Young unhurt (pilot)

 

Edited May 24, 2020 by unreasonable

[J5_HellCat_]

This one was more tragic ...Am I evil?

 

   

	B.E.2e, 15 TS, Spittlegate caught in bed with the commanders wife
	2Lt Harry Ball (23) killed Mrs. Diddle unhurt (wife)

Edited May 24, 2020 by J5_HellCat_

[ZachariasX]

5 hours ago, 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk said:

Yes, because it was not possible so why is it possible in the sim? In a flat turn, 100m above the ground level, flying 180 km/h or less and your screen gets too dark (you are fainting)? in WWI aircraft? I don't buy it. Sorry.

What was not possible? I gave example of an account from back then, that aircraft could be desintegrated by just jerking the stick back. Furthermore Chill thinks that it is well possible to destroy his Fokker in this way. Structural limits of these aircraft are almost universally stated at around 6+ g. So yes, you can rip of the wings in these aircraft. Regarding fainting, the mechanisms work as they work, but around 5 g things get dark. It just shows that we are flying those crates at much higher combat speeds than what was the rule for close in maneuvering.

 

You are a very talented pilot, it is only logical that you are used to maxing out the capabilities of the planes as we had them. Now, planes got a bit more tender, like they should be. Just because you like something doesn't make it true. You gotta adjust.

 

Now we have the g meter and it is probably the most important change of all as with that one, we can learn to fly those crates how they shoud be flown.

 

You know, when the g effects were introduced, it was immediately felt as a "nerf" as it clearly set much tighter limits of what you could do until then. Having aircarft that collapse when the real one would collapse is a further limitation, also requiring us to adjust or playstyle.

[BMA_Hellbender]

3 hours ago, unreasonable said:

Makes perfect sense - as soon as you start turn, the upper wing generates more lift, so it will go over limit first.  Note to self - when pulling out from fast dive, stay level until you have reduced speed.

 

It would also appear that the g meter displays the average g between the two wings, rather than the highest g load on one single wing.

 

In other words: you can't rely on the g meter to know when the most loaded wing will fail.

[ZachariasX]

3 hours ago, unreasonable said:

Makes perfect sense - as soon as you start turn, the upper wing generates more lift, so it will go over limit first.

No. Adding other inputs than just elevator adds further, differently directed load vectors to your airframe. It is the sum of your load vectors that make your airframe collapse. This is why flicks are prohibited with most aircraft, as sideways loads are hard to predict, yet they shorten the life your your airframes as well.