4.006 DM Discussion

[unreasonable]

2 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

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.

 

Not necessarily. Firstly, turning certainly does increase the lift on the upper wing. From FAA Airplane Flying Handbook: page 3-9

 

 

It is no accident that both Hellbender's examples failed first on the outer upper wing area, where the maximum lift force would be suddenly exerted.  

 

 

49 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

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.

 

True:  g-load is a ratio of two forces, lift and weight, so it has to refer to the whole plane. It is not a force. Lift is the force that breaks the wings, and this is never completely uniformly distributed. In this particular case it gets sufficiently concentrated to break a wing.   

[Cynic_Al]

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

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)

 

That wouldn't make everyone laugh. This would:

 

1.5.18Camel B7334, 42 TS, Wye

Aeroplane inverted and pilot fell out, South Willesborough

2Lt Duncan McCarter (23) killed

 

 

[ZachariasX]

28 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Not necessarily. Firstly, turning certainly does increase the lift on the upper wing. From FAA Airplane Flying Handbook: page 3-9

Trust me, at that speed that little yaw movement is doing nothing of significance. The sideways load is however.

28 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

It is no accident that both Hellbender's examples failed first on the outer upper wing area, where the maximum lift force would be suddenly exerted.  

In this game, where I doubt such subtleties are modelled, it may have an influence. But the effect is very small. If you go at 60 m/s, then you add 1 m/s yaw induced tip speed, you were really on the very edge. Also, you would subtract 1 m/s speed on the other wing, making it a zero sum game.

 

Again, what I said is what happens in real aircraft, game being game.

Edited May 24, 2020 by ZachariasX

[unreasonable]

I recall one old Ronald's Cold War sayings - "Trust - but verify".    

 

Not sure why sideways load should instantly break wings off - these planes always slip and skid easily enough.

 

Anyway, we are in complete agreement that the new changes more closely reflect the reality of what could be done with these machines without breaking them,  and that multiple harsh control inputs at high speed are a really bad idea, so I am content to leave this alone. 

 

[On reflection, I suspect that Hellbender has stalled the inside (RH) wings.]

Edited May 25, 2020 by unreasonable

[emely]

8 hours ago, unreasonable said:

Anyway, we are in complete agreement that the new changes more closely reflect the reality 

I completely disagree with this statement.

In the new update, I did not notice any improvements in the affairs of falling wings.  Oh yes, I believe what the developers wrote in the diaries, it's just that my eyes see a something else ;-)))

I’ve gotten used to it for a long time.  to the fact that the position of the planes is most often not accurate, and the bullets fly by, but they still hit me.  I understand this, these are the conventions of the game, these are the properties of online, nothing can be done about it.  What I can’t understand is that - why make a boring low-level online shooter out of a decent flight simulator?  Don't you all understand that most of the bullet holes in the wing fabric were seen by the pilots only after landing, and the presence of them did not affect their flight during the battle?  )))

 

I heard that they hit me, and flew carefully.  At 1:22, there was even a slight darkening, but nothing broke.  I thought everything was OK, but still tried to control it very smoothly, without making sudden movements ..... And so it happened almost every flight ;-))))

 

However, the parser counted significantly more than I thought.  But in this case it cannot be said how many bullets hit the fuselage

 

Edited May 25, 2020 by emely

[Tycoon]

17 minutes ago, emely said:

 What I can’t understand is that - why make a boring low-level online shooter out of a decent flight simulator? 

 

 

This is one of the main game changers with wings coming of so easily so to speak, I don't even try to fight in allied planes at altitude anymore just go straight for the deck and fight them there.

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

43 minutes ago, Tycoon said:

This is one of the main game changers with wings coming of so easily so to speak, I don't even try to fight in allied planes at altitude anymore just go straight for the deck and fight them there.

D7's wing still wont come off no matter how high you are.

[JG1_Butzzell]

S! All

 

Looking at the limits of the sim are one thing, real life is another.

 

A pilot in 1917 or 1918 experiencing 4  Gs would probably be quite surprised.

 

VNE for most of these planes was probably less than 150 mph.

 

The problem is not the planes but the way people fly them.

 

Maybe we need to learn to fly a little better?

 

jmho

 

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, emely said:

I completely disagree with this statement.

 

 

The "we" was addressed only to @ZachariasX with whom I was debating the reasons for Hellbender's events earlier. He and I both agree on this.  It is clear others do not.

 

There is some ambiguity in the objections IMHO.  Is it that the numbers given by AnP for hits needed to damage wings are wrong, in the sense that if they were being implemented in the game in the proportions intended, that would be unrealistic?  Or is it rather that the numbers being experienced in the game do not correspond with the numbers given?   They are offline, I think.

 

Your video would have been more convincing with the G-meter visible.  The other thing that would help would be if the stats collector you use in MP was a bit more transparent and informative about what is happening. 

 

As I have said before, I really think that having a separate online DM  might be the best solution.  

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

13 minutes ago, JG1_Butzzell said:

Maybe we need to learn to fly a little better?

You mean less aggressive? That's a bit hard when you have very little to go by, yes we have the G-meter but whos looking at that while in a live or die dog fight. 

[Guest deleted@83466]

One of the things I like about DCS is that the pilot huffs and puffs when pulling hi Gs.  Now, that is meant to simulate certain gut-straining manuevers that more modern pilots learned in time, but it helps the virtual pilot recognize when he is straining.  So that is a good thing.

 

Im sorry I can't comment on FC specific experience, which I really don't have, but I do the IL-2 environment, so all I can say is that Butzell has a point.  There is a muscle-memory learning curve that I think he is getting at.  In RoF, I probably broke my wings off a thousand times before a hell dive/ ultrasteep bouce and pull-out became somewhat intuituive to me.  In other words, I got good at it, but it took time.

[unreasonable]

29 minutes ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

You mean less aggressive? That's a bit hard when you have very little to go by, yes we have the G-meter but whos looking at that while in a live or die dog fight. 

 

The g-meter is good for post mortems   and in training flights but not much good in a fight. I do not like having any sort of HUD.  My solution to that would be to change the blackout/redout mechanism.  I think at the moment the onset is meant to model the actual pilot experience of vision.  IMHO it could be used to do that, and also signal the pilots sensation of Gs. 

 

If the picture started to go slightly grey (sepia, or just a bit more washed out) at 3Gs, which Chill says is where you really start to notice it, (not sure what it is now but I think much more than that), you would have a signal that you were entering the zone at which there might be some danger.

 

In most of the WW2 aircraft, unless heavily damaged, the pilot fully blacks out before wings break - not so here.  Some more visual or sound cues would be very useful.

Edited May 25, 2020 by unreasonable

[emely]

1 hour ago, JG1_Butzzell said:

 

Maybe we need to learn to fly a little better?

I suppose, d7f pilots do not have such a task, they fly so well thanks to strong spars.

Why are you taking the conversation aside?  If it weren’t for a few random hits that the game considers according to some incomprehensible system as having got into the spar, then nothing would have broken.  All the loads on the plane met the standards that are in the game.  As far as I could see the congestion indicator, it did not show above 3G.

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

As I have said before, I really think that having a separate online DM  might be the best solution.  

As the game is supposed to be fun, one could just make a toggle for „enhanced structural strenght“ like the improved gunnery.

 

One has to relearn controls. What‘s for sure, like we have it now the „angry Camel“ is a thing of the past. It is now mainly good for tight circles on the deck while up there it is a rather defensive aircraft. 

 

1 hour ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

You mean less aggressive? That's a bit hard when you have very little to go by, yes we have the G-meter but whos looking at that while in a live or die dog fight. 

Once you learned to fly without wings coming off, you don‘t need to look at the g meter anymore. Until then, it is your best friend and you will look at it.

Edited May 25, 2020 by ZachariasX

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

Some more visual or sound cues would be very useful

I agree with that 100%, I use the black out as a warning that I'm pushing the pilot but the stress on the plane is what I worry about. Now I do have msfb stick and it gives a little more warning the plane is under stress but not any were near what it should be. Would be nice if we had a better force feed back stick , one with larger motors perhaps.

10 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Once you learned to fly without wings coming off, you don‘t need to look at the g meter anymore. Until then, it is your best friend and you will look at it.

Unfortunately when your in a fight your busy looking at your opponent and not looking at the G-meter which will be moving up and down constantly, then you need to worry if your hit, some plane only need a couple of hits and then your up shits creek with out a paddle especially if you have no clue if your hit. Again the msfb will tell you your damaged but only if your in level flight. A better ffb would help with that too.   

[ZachariasX]

7 minutes ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

A better ffb would help with that too.   

I agree . I was always asking for the sim giving us cues about the state of the aircraft. E.g. wing weakening would affect rigging due to higher wing flex. This way, you could get direct response (by change of trim) from the airframe when putting load on it. But we have the g meter now. Already something and thefinitely the best for post mortems.

 

But I certainly have to learn the Camel again. Just upping speed and chasing down your opponent makes your wings go in the first turn. So I‘ll be taking her offline to get a feel again for how much pull is permissive to keep her well below 5 g while going fast.

[Guest deleted@83466]

I remember in Red Baron II (never played RB online) you would hear the wood creaking as you put strain upon the airframe.  I've always been a fan of audio cues filling in for G forces that the virtual pilot sitting at the desktop can't feel in the seat of their pants.  I don't care if a real pilot would actually hear those sounds over the engine, and through his helmet, we are trying to simulate for the 1G desktop guy, in the best way possible, a sensation of physical forces.

Edited May 25, 2020 by SeaSerpent

[emely]

2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

 

Once you learned to fly without wings coming off, you don‘t need to look at the g meter anymore. Until then, it is your best friend and you will look at it.

After even one blow, your wings can break at any G value, and you will never know what your margin of safety is. This pointer loses all meaning after hitting one bullet anywhere in the wing.

All these tips to learn to fly smoothly under the influence of this DM are either a complete misunderstanding of the situation, or an evil joke, or idiocy.

Edited May 25, 2020 by emely

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, emely said:

After even one blow, your wings can break at any G value,

This is why i was asking for cues such as trim change due to wing bending.

[BMA_Hellbender]

I'm getting the feeling that everyone flying Entente is comparing the performance of their machine to the superlative Fokker D.VIIF, even after taking damage. What exactly are you trying to achieve? Do you hear many Albatros pilots complaining about their lack of options against the Camel?

 

Please put everything into perspective and into its historical context. Most Entente planes still have the necessary tools to force an F into making a mistake or make a hasty escape if they mess up. Forget about the Dolphin™.

Edited May 25, 2020 by J5_Hellbender

[emely]

11 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

. Forget about the Dolphin™.

What else do we need to forget?  We must forget about the beautiful maneuvers, about the flight to hold energy, about the confrontation of the players in the battle?  Remains only to remember about shooting from maximum distances!  Maybe immediately forget about this Flying Circus?

[No.23_Triggers]

36 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

Do you hear many Albatros pilots complaining about their lack of options against the Camel?

Er, yes...? Maybe it's the voices in my head again....
 

36 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

I'm getting the feeling that everyone flying Entente is comparing the performance of their machine to the superlative Fokker D.VIIF, even after taking damage. 

I'm getting the feeling that there's a HUGE absence in arguments being made with any kind of context, from both sides. "The S.E. can do this, or that" by guys who have barely, or never, flown her. "Yeah, well, the Pfalz can do THIS, or THAT" - again, by guys that don't know what the inside of a Pfalz looks like. 

Yes, some aircraft are objectively better in certain aspects - but I'm willing to bet that there is a lot of talking from people who just don't know the aircraft they are talking about well enough to 'get' what the pilots more experienced in those types are saying / complaining about, etc. 
 

[BMA_Hellbender]

11 minutes ago, emely said:

What else do we need to forget?  We must forget about the beautiful maneuvers, about the flight to hold energy, about the confrontation of the players in the battle?  Remains only to remember about shooting from maximum distances!  Maybe immediately forget about this Flying Circus?

 

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You choose the Dolphin, my personal (second) favourite Entente scout and a true jack-of-all-trades. You're definitely not chanceless.

 

 

Feel free to forget about Flying Circus, just remember that you are:

• Slower in climb than the Fokker D.VIIF
• Slower in level flight than the Fokker D.VIIF, especially above 1000m
• Limited in service ceiling compared to the D.VIIF (6000m vs. 9000m)
• Not in any way built as strongly as an internally braced cantilever design such as the Fokker Dr.I and D.VII(F)

 

Your options are:

• Turning (better off in a Camel)
• Diving (better of in a SPAD or S.E.5a)
• Guns... lots and lots of guns (better off in a Bristol)
• Friends... lots and lots of friends

 

 

[US213_Talbot]

• Slower in climb than the Fokker D.VIIF
• Slower in level flight than the Fokker D.VIIF, especially above 1000m
• Limited in service ceiling compared to the D.VIIF (6000m vs. 9000m)
• Not in any way built as strongly as an internally braced cantilever design such as the Fokker Dr.I and D.VII(F)

Thats for....like....every entente plane.

• Turning (better off in a Camel)
• Diving (better of in a SPAD or S.E.5a)
• Guns... lots and lots of guns (better off in a Bristol)
• Friends... lots and lots of friends

Then people call you a camelfag.

Then people call you a coward who runs or uses tactics that aren't WWI.

Then people complain about your AI gunner.

Then people complain you never fly alone.

[1PL-Sahaj-1Esk]

22 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

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.

 

There was a video that Chill posted and I interpret his words diffently. He was saying that he was performing part of the acrobatics and he did not experience black outs during those tight turns, in this sense.

 

 

[BMA_Hellbender]

41 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

Er, yes...? Maybe it's the voices in my head again....

 

The Albatros D.V(a) is awful and loses wings. It was awful and lost wings in real life. What complaints could you have about it?

 

The only thing I can remotely complain about is that it doesn't have the 200hp engine, but even then those likely weren't available before May/June 1918 as field conversion kits.

 

 

41 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

I'm getting the feeling that there's a HUGE absence in arguments being made with any kind of context, from both sides. "The S.E. can do this, or that" by guys who have barely, or never, flown her. "Yeah, well, the Pfalz can do THIS, or THAT" - again, by guys that don't know what the inside of a Pfalz looks like. 

Yes, some aircraft are objectively better in certain aspects - but I'm willing to bet that there is a lot of talking from people who just don't know the aircraft they are talking about well enough to 'get' what the pilots more experienced in those types are saying / complaining about, etc.

 

All machines have objective qualities and shortcomings. Not all of this translates to success in combat, and I think that the 3rd Pursuit Group is a testament to that. As a fighting machine I cannot stand the SPAD. It lacks everything that I find a good fighting machine needs, and I completely agree with the assessment of the Italians who replaced their SPAD XIIIs with Hanriots. That said, objectively, I love the SPAD. It's faster than anything on Central. It can climb. It can dive. If it were 1917-1918 and I found myself forced to pick an Entente scout in real life, my first and only choice would go to the SPAD. You would never find me in vertical shenanigans pushing my airframe to the very limit, but you would likely find me lounging in a chair in the officer's bar at the end of each day, rather than six feet under within the first week.

 

That said: in my mind the SPAD is worse than Fokker D.VIIF (and even the Camel or Hanriot) overall as a fighting machine.

 

In much the same way you could say that the Pfalz is amazing because it can pull 10g while nothing else comes close, but I don't see how that immediately makes it a good fighter.

 

 

34 minutes ago, US93_Talbot said:

• Slower in climb than the Fokker D.VIIF
• Slower in level flight than the Fokker D.VIIF, especially above 1000m
• Limited in service ceiling compared to the D.VIIF (6000m vs. 9000m)
• Not in any way built as strongly as an internally braced cantilever design such as the Fokker Dr.I and D.VII(F)

Thats for....like....every entente plane.

 

So what are you trying to say then? You're losing from the F because your machine is objectively worse than it and you're overstressing in the process, especially after taking damage.

 

 

34 minutes ago, US93_Talbot said:

Then people call you a camelfag.

 

The greatest badge of honor, more impressive than the Blue Max and Medal of Honor combined.

 

 

 

Quote

Then people call you a coward who runs or uses tactics that aren't WWI

 

Diving away from danger was pretty much the number 1 WWI survival tactic, second only to surviving on a diet of trench rats after crashing into no man's land.

 

 

Quote

Then people complain about your AI gunner.

 

They used to complain about my human gunner, too.

 

 

Quote

Then people complain you never fly alone

 

Sadly you're right. The most basic amount of human interaction necessary in order to team up with someone is likely the largest hurdle for many here to overcome.

 

 

I'd say that the solution to all these problems is to disable chat and not hear any of these complaints, but then again I really do use (team) chat to attempt at coordinating efforts. The trick here is never to directly ask for an escort, but to claim there are badly damaged and outnumbered enemy machines in need of a last bullet in the sector you're about to attack.

Edited May 25, 2020 by J5_Hellbender

[US213_Talbot]

Who said I was losing to the F old friend? 

 

?

 

I jest.

Edited May 25, 2020 by US93_Talbot

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

We have different bullet strike sounds when a bullet hits a metal part on your plane.  We should have a more robust wood strike sound for when the DM has decided that a wing hit has damaged the spar.

Edited May 25, 2020 by J28w-Broccoli

[emely]

34 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

• Friends... lots and lots of friends

 

 

Almost all my friends went to DCS and call me to their place.  If there were ww1 aircraft there, I would go there right now.

I try to convey my thoughts to you in different words, but I can’t do it.  Maybe google translator lets me down.  I am well aware of the shortcomings and advantages of Dolphin, I am quite happy with his balance.  However, the situation that has developed in the circus now, a combination of super-precise shooting and insanely weak wings, makes this game boring and not interesting for me.

[BMA_Hellbender]

2 minutes ago, US93_Talbot said:

Who said I was losing to the F old friend? 

 

?

 

Git gud, you noob!

 

I need to review the Fokker D.VII (non-F) in multiplayer. I think it may have an edge now in terms of high speed maneuverability at mid altitude compared to everything else (well, except for the F), even the Camel. The Pfalz already had that before the patch, but you can't really claim that it can keep up with a Camel.

 

If it's Albies, Halbies or Triplies that you struggle against, may I recommend the tactic of flying away and coming back with more of everything?

 

 

3 minutes ago, emely said:

Almost all my friends went to DCS and call me to their place.  If there were ww1 aircraft there, I would go there right now.

I try to convey my thoughts to you in different words, but I can’t do it.  Maybe google translator lets me down.  I am well aware of the shortcomings and advantages of Dolphin, I am quite happy with his balance.  However, the situation that has developed in the circus now, a combination of super-precise shooting and insanely weak wings, makes this game boring and not interesting for me.

 

I sympathise, many of my old friends also abandoned WWI. Most still fly IL-2, they just really don't fancy WWI anymore. Or maybe it's just me they don't want to fly with? ?

 

Anyway, in the meantime I made new friends! I'm not suggesting we become friends, I'm at least twice as annoying on Discord as I am on the forum, but I'm sure you will find people to your liking. You don't even really need to use voice chat to team up with someone.

 

As for the weak wings: I don't like them. I think it's bad for multiplayer in general. I think there need to be more audio feedback that informs you when you're close to failure, even if such feedback would likely not happen in real life. For the most part I find that force feedback helps, but not everyone has that.

 

That said, I agree with the devs if they say that after rechecking all the sources, that this is the way it's supposed to be. That is, unless there is really something DEEPLY wrong with the G meter and how this engine calculates acceleration. In my very humble experience as a general aviation pilot in my flying Suzuki Swift, pulling 3-4g is very scary. 5g+ in something made of wood and fabric is insane.

[No.23_Triggers]

48 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

The Albatros D.V(a) is awful and loses wings. It was awful and lost wings in real life. What complaints could you have about it?

This doesn't change the fact that I have heard Central pilots complain that they are Camel fodder - even if that is a historically plausible outcome of those two aircraft. It's the same thing as a Dolphin pilot complaining that a D7F pilot beat them, no? It's more out of frustration than anything else. 

 

48 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

All machines have objective qualities and shortcomings. Not all of this translates to success in combat....(etc)

I think you might have missed my point...I'll try and re-contextualise it: 

Who would be better at telling you what it's like to fly an Albatros in FC? An Albatros pilot, or a Camel pilot who has never flown an Albatros? 

I'm NOT saying that if you haven't flown a certain aircraft type in FC, you aren't entitled to an opinion on it. What I AM saying is that Central and Entente pilots have a tendency to view the others' complaints to do with their aircraft as 'moaning', without having any context on what it's like to fly that aircraft. It's a problem I've seen since I first started flying RoF, and I bet it's been around long before then. 

 

Edited May 25, 2020 by US93_Larner

[Zooropa_Fly]

12 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

I'm at least twice as annoying on Discord as I am on the forum

 

 

[BMA_Hellbender]

8 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

I'm NOT saying that if you haven't flown a certain aircraft type in FC, you aren't entitled to an opinion on it. What I AM saying is that Central and Entente pilots have a tendency to view the others' complaints to do with their aircraft as 'moaning', without having any context on what it's like to fly that aircraft. 

 

That's the whole problem, isn't it? People want an enjoyable experience regardless of what plane they fly and feel that this should flow naturally out of having the most accurate flight model and damage model possible. But then there's no way that they are actually flying these planes as they would in real life, because this isn't real life.

 

So the only "solution" is to have multiplayer settings to force more enjoyable fights with more realistic outcomes: gunnery spread, stronger wings, slow Camels, etc.

 

As far as I can tell this isn't something the development team is after, especially not after RoF 1.034.

[No.23_Triggers]

41 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

But then there's no way that they are actually flying these planes as they would in real life, because this isn't real life.

I totally appreciate - and agree with - this statement, but I also find it hard to believe that a guy with someone on their six, actively trying to kill them, wouldn't put the aircraft under some stress...even if they've taken damage. So far, from my own testing and perceptions, I'm of the opinion that the 'weaker' aircraft in FC are just too weak. Especially when considering that there were multiple accounts of pilots pulling the wings off of undamaged aircraft due to inexperience, I just can't imagine some of the manoeuvres that have caused wing failure being purely due to unrealistic flying of the aircraft. 

IMHO, the aircraft that I've seen in multiple fights and thought "I can believe that" is the Pfalz - it doesn't immediately lose its ability to be thrown around with the first signs of battle damage, but if it takes a real beating then it's going to come apart without too much effort.

In all honesty - I've more recently been thinking that this is largely a consequence of how the wing damage is calculated - I.E, a % modifier on chance to hit a spar based on the angle of shot. I think that, especially in the case of WW1 aircraft, the spars need to have a physical hit-box. After all, we all know that most hits on a wing would pass through the canvas and most likely miss any vitals of the wing structure. I also wonder if any extra considerations for the D.VII cantilever box spars, and other aircraft with two sets of spars, were made? 

But - I appreciate that there are circumstances that are deterring  the devs from more accurately modelling the wings, and if this is what we get then this is what we get. 

41 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

So the only "solution" is to have multiplayer settings to force more enjoyable fights with more realistic outcomes: gunnery spread, stronger wings, slow Camels, etc.

 

As far as I can tell this isn't something the development team is after, especially not after RoF 1.034.

This would only solidify my opinion that WW1 wing damage needs to be modelled in greater detail...

But - I appreciate that there are circumstances that are deterring  the devs from more accurately modelling the wings, and if this is what we get then this is what we get. 
 

Edited May 25, 2020 by US93_Larner

[SeaW0lf]

1 hour ago, J5_Hellbender said:

As far as I can tell this isn't something the development team is after, especially not after RoF 1.034.

 

The update 1034 was a disaster to some planes because it was based upon a few quotes and a few players (multiplayer whining). The result was obvious. Some people may not have much knowledge, but they are certainly not stupid.

 

And I find it odd that something so simple here in FC got so complicated and why is so difficult to understand that something that wasn't broken got 'fixed'. The more some people try to make it 'make sense', the more it will look odd.

 

Are people asking for bullet dispersion (gunnery spread) as well? That's what I said about ROF. Bullet dispersion was a makeup that prevented us to ask for a ROF damage model review. The same is happening here now? Why? We had a believable DM before.

 

Any talks to make the planes stop shaking with a few hits?

Edited May 25, 2020 by SeaW0lf

[No.23_Triggers]

22 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

Any talks to make the planes stop shaking with a few hits?

Nope - but it is bloody annoying. Any rounds in the tailplane renders you a spray-n-pray only pilot. I think people are more concerned over the wings falling off, though...

Edited May 25, 2020 by US93_Larner

[SeaW0lf]

1 minute ago, US93_Larner said:

Nope - but it is bloody annoying. Any rounds in the tailplane renders you a spray-n-pray only pilot. I think people are more concerned over the wings falling off, though...

 

For some reason they might feel safe with the ROF damage model / bullet dispersion. That's my feeling, and that's why some people got onboard and are trying to sell this to us as if it was realistic.

[ZachariasX]

45 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

The update 1034 was a disaster to some planes because it was based upon a few quotes and a few players (multiplayer whining). The result was obvious.

OMG! There are loud people here shouting about their pet metrics and and will not keep stomping until they have things as they think fit?

 

23 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

Nope - but it is bloody annoying. Any rounds in the tailplane renders you a spray-n-pray only pilot.

How many accounts do you have where aircraft took a full volley of bullets and the pilot decided to stay in combat?

Edited May 25, 2020 by ZachariasX

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, US93_Larner said:

[snip]
In all honesty - I've more recently been thinking that this is largely a consequence of how the wing damage is calculated - I.E, a % modifier on chance to hit a spar based on the angle of shot. I think that, especially in the case of WW1 aircraft, the spars need to have a physical hit-box. After all, we all know that most hits on a wing would pass through the canvas and most likely miss any vitals of the wing structure. I also wonder if any extra considerations for the D.VII cantilever box spars, and other aircraft with two sets of spars, were made? 

But - I appreciate that there are circumstances that are deterring  the devs from more accurately modelling the wings, and if this is what we get then this is what we get. 

This would only solidify my opinion that WW1 wing damage needs to be modelled in greater detail...

But - I appreciate that there are circumstances that are deterring  the devs from more accurately modelling the wings, and if this is what we get then this is what we get. 
 

 

In the long run, it should make no difference to the DM whether there is a spar hit box or a % chance to hit a spar based on spar/wing area ratios for a given angle, assuming the ratios are correct.  The number of "spar" hits should be identical.  It is just easier to run a real time DM with fewer hit boxes and more probability tables, according to AnP.

 

The damage model is already pretty sophisticated, as you can see by looking at AnP's Camel Behind graph.   So I am not sure what more "accuracy" you want. It seems that you just want different results.

 

Taking the data points from the Camel's behind and reworking them, you can express them like this.  You can see that each hit has a higher probability of breaking the wing than the one before, but it is not just a matter of running out of Hit-points. So for instance if you are at 1G and have taken 20 hits in a wing section, the probability of the next hit breaking that section is ~ 7% 

 

The lines get wonky at the end because I am estimating small numbers off a graph, and did not bother to smooth them.  

 

PS - when you get to 4G and 5G lines there appears to be something additional going on, as the distribution is not regular, so I left them out.

Edited May 25, 2020 by unreasonable

[ZachariasX]

2 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

The lines get wonky at the end because I am estimating small numbers off a graph, and did not bother to smooth them.  

Interesting graph. It fells like being hit by just one bullet and the wings come off, yet the graph shows that there must be many for this to happen.