Jump to content
US93_Larner

4.006 DM Discussion

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, SeaW0lf said:

.

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

 

I know you hate it homie, but it's a really good indicator that you need to fly back home. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

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.

 

Edit - I think AnP used 1 as his origin and then had his bot shoot pairs of bullets, but in a situation where 1 is a possible number of hits, I expect the number would be very small but positive.  When hit from 90 degrees, it would be even more unlikely, depending on the "spar/hit box ratio" (actually just a number in a formula). The number of cases for 3 hits is roughly  1G=5, 2G=10, 3G=60  out of 10,000 cases.

 

Here are the cumulative broken cases after n hits.

 

883699196_CamelWingChart2.thumb.JPG.38aaa9f3ba406b1b762b96f79fa2fad2.JPG

 

PS  Looks like a gamma distribution, which figures, as that is used for things like bus waiting times.....

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


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

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. 
 

 

(font size mine)

 

 

That, yes.

 

With all due respect to the devs, their passion, their hard work, and the peerless product they have released (no WOFF! bad WOFF, get back in the basement!), we're asking too much of them.

 

 

I was asking too much of them regarding the FMs, and we got RoF 1.034. Can we call it Bendergate? It was @gavagai's fault really (he loves it when I @ him), but we all know who the real mastermind was behind the 167km/h Camel. For all intents and purposes, the Camel's top speed is 190km/h (the official factory figure is 188km/h), and we're just flying it wrong. That is to say: actual Camel pilots did not fly at full throttle, especially not in dogfights. This is painfully obvious now with the updated DM.

 

And now you're asking too much of them regarding the DMs, and we do not want a repeat of RoF 1.034. What we really need are soft-body physics, stretching cables, deformed wings etc. Knowing the lengths the devs had to go through to get wingwarping implemented on the Eindecker — and that's just an animation — I say we're about 10 20 years away. Thanks, Obama Corona.

 

 

And for those who think I favour Central over Entente, I will say it again: remove F (and Bristol F.III).


Right, now that I've pissed off everyone, enjoy some glorious soft-body physics:

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, US93_Talbot said:

 

I know you hate it homie, but it's a really good indicator that you need to fly back home. 

 

 Sorry but it makes no sense for a plane to shake with a few bullet holes. 

 

I'm reading Gould Lee and seem that he was hit a lot. In one fight, he was fired upon by 6/7 Albies. Then he dived at full throttle being fired upon. After he landed, he found out that he had being hit 29 times: 17 in the fuselage, the rest in the wings. But guess what? After he loses his opponents with the dive, he was so pissed that he cleared the jam on his gun and he started to climb again to look for someone to shot down. He searched for enemy planes for a while (no mention to plane instability or damage) until the adrenaline wore off, he threw up to the side, felt sick and decided to return to base. But he wasn't finished. Flak hit him hard on the way back and he got hit 6 times by shrapnel (he does not specify how many shrapnel holes).

 

Try to replicate that with the Pup in ROF. And this is just a quote from the beginning of one of his books. I’m sure that there is a quote out there with a plane being folded with one bullet ripping one of the main cables or a strut, but this is exactly what we expected, to take the original damage model as a base and add some random / seldom failures due to lucky shots.

 

As it all indicates, and common sense enters the equation, these planes are not suppose to return to base shaking with a few bullets nor to fold just because it got a few hits. What he went through with his Pup is what more or less we went through with the original damage model.

 

That’s what is so disheartening. For some reason they got it right with the original damage model, and now this. We are back to endless discussions that will help no one to fix nothing.

Edited by SeaW0lf
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

Try to replicate that with the Pup in ROF. And this is just a quote from the beginning of one of his books. I’m sure that there is a quote out there with a plane being folded with one bullet ripping one of the main cables or a strut, but this is exactly what we expected, to take the original damage model as a base and add some random / seldom failures due to lucky shots.

 

I don't doubt that this story happened, but this is a perfect example of survivorship bias (ironically also formally coined through a problem with wingshedding). He lived to tell the tale. Most didn't.

 

ngLGEOj.jpg

 

SeaW0lf, you're an amazing Camel and Dr.I jockey, you have nothing to prove to anybody, but if you're flying your Camel alone, and you spot me and my 3 Halberstadt buddies, and you get caught in the crossfire of 4 (x2) Parabellums, this is what I want you to do:

 

Spoiler

tenor.gif?itemid=14765375

 

 

On the other hand, if you spot me alone, and you dive on me from an angle my gunner can't possibly reach and you damage my wings and I try to counter that with ludicrous maneuvers which no two-seater with a gunner on board could pull off, then I expect this of myself:

 

Spoiler

HappyTepidBluebird-size_restricted.gif

 

 

If shaking wings on the Camel (and shedding wings on the Halberstadt) achieves that, then I think we're not so far off from reality.

 

The situation is still way better than it was in RoF.

Edited by J5_Hellbender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no indication that shredding was a thing. Pilots did not aimed at the wings and I found two accounts just at the start of Gould Lee books of him being hit, which appears to be a common thing among Pup pilots facing Albatroses with twin Spandaus.

 

I know it is hard to prove a point when the thread is being bombarded, so I won't waste much of my time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

tmLdnNXl.png

Oh no...
 

2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

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


None offhand - but I bet you they're out there. Albert Ball immediately springs to mind...

 

 

2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

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.


A blunt, but fair, assessment. I have to admit, though, I really am curious to see if anything would appear different with modelled spars...

...although, looking at our (admittedly very limited so far) test results for wing damage VS G-forces has put me more at ease regarding the Albatros...

iJvEXmsh.png

Again - very limited data pool there...but I don't see anything that has me gasping in horror. I think I've been most surprised by just how quickly and just how easily you can pull those kinds of Gs in a WW1 aircraft! 

I hope to present something similar with a substantially larger data pool, and for all planes, but I haven't found the time for a proper 'test session' just yet. As well as being DM Tester Extraordinaire, I'm the 3rd P.G's in-house skin maker - so, more recently, a lot of my free time has been going into painting up a whole bunch of SPADs ;)

In fact, I think I'd probably be better to 'bow out' for now until I've got some more hard data to present. 

 

1 hour ago, J5_Hellbender said:

And now you're asking too much of them regarding the DMs, and we do not want a repeat of RoF 1.034. What we really need are soft-body physics, stretching cables, deformed wings etc.


Yes! Then I can finally relive that "Spad bending his wings 2 inches back in a power dive" quote that I've bombarded the forums with! 

 

1 hour ago, J5_Hellbender said:

The situation is still way better than it was in RoF.


All due respect - purely from a SPAD pilot playing the game perspective - strongly disagree! At least in RoF the D.VII's wings could be shot off as well as ours 😄

Edited by US93_Larner
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Right, now that I've pissed off everyone, enjoy some glorious soft-body physics:

 

 OK.... who else sat through this entire video.:biggrin:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, J5_Gamecock said:

 

 OK.... who else sat through this entire video.:biggrin:

 

Not me - my idea of glorious soft bodies is quite different.   

  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Gould Lee has being hit several times. Once he got hit by a gunner and the bullet hit the metal of his joystick, throwing it around and making him almost loop. He came back from this sortie with a 6 inch gash through the wing. No mention to “returning to base”. He came back together with the squadron. Plus the previous mention, when he got 29 bullet hits and went on looking for enemy planes after. So yes, they did get 'considerable' damage and continued with their sorties.

 

He was also hit and wounded by a gunner (5 bullet hits in his plane / in a previous mission, 8 bullet holes), then he killed the gunner, dove steeply in the two-seater that was fleeing, and on the way back flak hit him several times. There was also damage to a longeron, but he does not mention if it was from bullets or flak.

 

He was also a Camel strafer, and he also mentions being hit, even in the cockpit, breaking gauges, and in this particular case he continued with his mission, firing at everything he found along the way. He mentions hits from ground fire, machineguns, rifles, flak (he was hit by flak on a few occasions).

 

So far, looks like they were hit often and continued to fight, continued with their sortie with no mention of shaking or the fear of the plane to become a dandelion unless there was real damage. He also went for deep dives after being hit.

 

He also mentions an engine failure from a lucky shot over an airfield. His engine gave out and after the forced landing he found out that it had been hit. Which corroborates the notion that there were seldom failures, lucky shots, but that planes did not disintegrate, nor did they shake or became inoperable with light damage. In his case, even considerable damage in several occasions.

Edited by SeaW0lf

Share this post


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

breaking gauges

 

Hey, am I going nuts or have I never seen broken gauges in this game? Didn't we have them in IL-2 1946?

 

Damn it, to hell with folding wings, if we don't have breaking gauges then I want breaking gauges now!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The quote below is from "Voices in Flight"


FNZiETW.jpg

 

The quote below is from James McCudden after a long, epic fight.

 

war2bZe.jpg

 

The quote below is from James McCudden (this one is funny).


pGHlAEE.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These guys didn't live to file their reports:

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

These guys didn't live to file their reports:

 

Come on dude, the list was in Britain, most likely in training. You don't know the context of most of them and you don't know if it was due to extreme maneuvers or faulty planes. Before the update we could fold our wings with ease if we did the wrong thing. So what's the point?

 

Edited by SeaW0lf
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SeaW0lf said:

Gould Lee has being hit several times. Once he got hit by a gunner and the bullet hit the metal of his joystick, throwing it around and making him almost loop. He came back from this sortie with a 6 inch gash through the wing. No mention to “returning to base”. He came back together with the squadron. Plus the previous mention, when he got 29 bullet hits and went on looking for enemy planes after. So yes, they did get 'considerable' damage and continued with their sorties.

 

He was also hit and wounded by a gunner (5 bullet hits in his plane / in a previous mission, 8 bullet holes), then he killed the gunner, dove steeply in the two-seater that was fleeing, and on the way back flak hit him several times. There was also damage to a longeron, but he does not mention if it was from bullets or flak.

 

He was also a Camel strafer, and he also mentions being hit, even in the cockpit, breaking gauges, and in this particular case he continued with his mission, firing at everything he found along the way. He mentions hits from ground fire, machineguns, rifles, flak (he was hit by flak on a few occasions).

 

So far, looks like they were hit often and continued to fight, continued with their sortie with no mention of shaking or the fear of the plane to become a dandelion unless there was real damage. He also went for deep dives after being hit.

 

He also mentions an engine failure from a lucky shot over an airfield. His engine gave out and after the forced landing he found out that it had been hit. Which corroborates the notion that there were seldom failures, lucky shots, but that planes did not disintegrate, nor did they shake or became inoperable with light damage. In his case, even considerable damage in several occasions.

You can do all this now in FC, just in the form of a D7.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

You can do all this now in FC, just in the form of a D7.

 

Yup, lost for words, but they still shake though 😂😂😂

Share this post


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

As well as being DM Tester Extraordinaire

 

20200525_165649.jpg

 

Fuel to the fire:

 

Returned after lower wing hit in 3 or 4

places...

 

3.PNG

Edited by US93_Talbot

Share this post


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

 

Hey, am I going nuts or have I never seen broken gauges in this game? Didn't we have them in IL-2 1946?

 

Damn it, to hell with folding wings, if we don't have breaking gauges then I want breaking gauges now!

Well, I want a breaking g-meter -  if you pull too many g then you can't see how many g you are pulling

2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

Not me - my idea of glorious soft bodies is quite different.   

Yes - disappointed here also

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if they gave a big, HURRAY, when they found out Gude didn't return or if they were pissed because he stole someone else's SPAD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most likely a hurrah since he got Lufberry killed....

 

 

Roland Richardson, 213th aero:

 

Screenshot_20200525-171939_CamScanner.jpg

Screenshot_20200525-172000_CamScanner.jpg

Share this post


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

 

Come on dude, the list was in Britain, most likely in training. You don't know the context of most of them and you don't know if it was due to extreme maneuvers or faulty planes. Before the update we could fold our wings with ease if we did the wrong thing. So what's the point?

 

 

Yeah, but you do know it most likely took zero bullets for it to happen. Not 3, not 1. Zero.

 

"Wings broke off while diving in formation"

 

Now, you may argue, " why the hell in game it happens a lot to Camels and never to DVIIs?"... of course it's a different problem.

I'm just arguing one can't easily say "This is unhistorical".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well I've spent about 8 hours reviewing every combat report submitted by the 103d and 93d aeros, detailing every combat, so get ready for that info to drop. 

Edited by US93_Talbot
The real 103 and 93.
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Yeah, but you do know it most likely took zero bullets for it to happen. Not 3, not 1. Zero.

 

"Wings broke off while diving in formation"

 

Now, you may argue, " why the hell in game it happens a lot to Camels and never to DVIIs?"... of course it's a different problem.

I'm just arguing one can't easily say "This is unhistorical".

 

Every plane had its manufacturing problems during the war and you don't know how they were made and who did what to them. So to use a report of planes failures is just that, planes failures. Maybe someone did not glue the fabric correctly; maybe the spar had a previous crack and so on so forth. They are just that, accidents that has nothing to do with combat and bullets.

 

That's why it is irrelevant to me. To mention it here is just a distraction in my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we have to be a little bit careful with first-person accounts (I know I've said this before).  Hb mentioned a few posts back "survivor bias".  It's obvious really, but all the accounts posted about shot-up planes making it home only reflect the lucky ones.  If we based our DM on these cases alone, then no-one would get shot down in game, save PKs and engine damage.

 

We have the very small sample of MvR's victims to give us a clue from the other direction, but I'm not convinced that this is altogether representative of the distribution of kills - MvR was known to be a hunter and a crack shot, so maybe he had a higher number of PKs than the average pilot.

 

Then there is the (in)famous stat that the RFC lost more pilots in training than in combat.  So I guess there must be some stats about how all those people died.

Share this post


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

I wonder if they gave a big, HURRAY, when they found out Gude didn't return or if they were pissed because he stole someone else's SPAD.


My guess would be pissed....seeing as he stole the fekkin Commanding Officer's SPAD!!!

 

EDIT: and, to make it worse, it was one of the prettiest SPADs in the USAS...

HmwjXN9l.png

Edited by US93_Larner
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm no Camel expert, but she killed a lot of trainees with lethal spins. I'm sure the Camel alone was responsible for a good part of these kills. Then you have manufacturing problems, human error, which also involves not take the plane to its limit, and so on so forth.

 

And I found I think more than one account saying that they often came back pretty banged up from combat. That's something I sense you can't put aside. And some people you have to give some credit. If Gould Lee said that he was flying with a 6 inches gash in the fabric of the wing we tend to believe, because he was giving the whole tally when he handed the plane to his mechanics, so they took time to account for the damages.

 

And no one is saying that planes did not fold. I have several tracks from before the DM patch with planes folding wings, mine included, including D7s. What I don't think is true is that those planes would fold like dandelions on a regular basis, or that they shook like they shake here in FC, which, yes, this is for some reason unnerving for me.

 

From the samples I got, the impression is that I’ll find more accounts reaffirming that they could take damage and keep on fighting, and some people got the end of the stick and were killed, but I remember from the Gould Lee books, which I confirmed today, that getting hit and to shake it off (no pun intended) was part of the job.

Edited by SeaW0lf
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, =CfC=FatherTed said:

I think we have to be a little bit careful with first-person accounts (I know I've said this before).  Hb mentioned a few posts back "survivor bias".  It's obvious really, but all the accounts posted about shot-up planes making it home only reflect the lucky ones.  If we based our DM on these cases alone, then no-one would get shot down in game, save PKs and engine damage.

 

We have the very small sample of MvR's victims to give us a clue from the other direction, but I'm not convinced that this is altogether representative of the distribution of kills - MvR was known to be a hunter and a crack shot, so maybe he had a higher number of PKs than the average pilot.


Correct about survivor bias...but there are also survivor's accounts of the less fortunate ones. Perhaps those should be collected and analysed also! Two already stick out in my mind...recently I was flicking through one of A.G. Lee's books and he mentions a plane (unknown which side) falling in flames. I also distinctly remember McCudden talking about a wingman's S.E.5a falling to pieces in a dogfight vs. several Albatroses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Why don't you take a break, emely.  Go outside and work in the garden.  Ride a bicycle.  Spend some time with your wife or girfriend.  Watch a movie....

Edited by SeaSerpent
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

These guys didn't live to file their reports:

 

 

 

2 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

Every plane had its manufacturing problems during the war and you don't know how they were made and who did what to them. So to use a report of planes failures is just that, planes failures. Maybe someone did not glue the fabric correctly; maybe the spar had a previous crack and so on so forth. They are just that, accidents that has nothing to do with combat and bullets.

 

That's why it is irrelevant to me. To mention it here is just a distraction in my view.

 

I agree. C'mon It's absurd to suggest the current DM is (kind of) correct based on aircraft failure during training. That is akin to politicians and their rhetorical cherry picking. I understand some aircraft builders cut corners in the manufacturing process, used inferior cheaper material etc to increase profits at the (ultimate) cost of trainees and combat pilots alike. That is why some kites just broke up. If I'm flying in a game such as this, I don't expect to be given a poorly manufactured, defective kite. That's taking reality a bit too far.

 

But perhaps that's what we're flying now (D7 aside). 

 

 

1 hour ago, emely said:

 

Let me be banned here too (on the Russian forum it happened yesterday), but I wanted to spit on your bans!

 

 

Nyet, I don't want you banned emely. You're the only one that upvoted my video. Well actually, I think it was more about suggestions for a decent free editor. WHICH NOBODY ANSWERED!

 

Seriously, I enjoy your passionate contributions. They make me laugh. In a good way. And there is truth in what you say once I decipher google translate. I hope you understand me?

Edited by catchov
who knows? Separate posts were merged?
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of things I have been wondering about:

 

When a hitbox detects a hit, does it calculate the chance to hit a spar, or does it calculate damage based on the probability of a spar hit?

 

I suspect the latter, as we appear to be receiving some degree of structural damage with every hit, with the chance of critical damage going up based on the increased odds of a spar hit. What we should have is a calculation where we receive damage that affects the aerodynamic properties of the wing section (along with progressive visual damage), with a chance of critical (structural) damage based on the probability of a spar hit.

 

 

How much does dispersion play into the calculation?

 

A long range shot should result in a increased probability of a spar hit, but a reduced level of damage due to the greater dispersion of rounds. Conversely a close range shot should have reduced odds of a spar hit, but due to a tighter grouping, an increase in the amount of damage in the event of a positive critical hit.

 

 

We know that angle off the chord is factored in the calculation, but is angle off the span also utilized?

 

While angle off the chord determines the amount of area the spar occupies of the presented hitbox, and therefore the likelihood of hitting said spar, angle off the span would determine the spread of rounds, similar to (and in conjunction with) dispersion. A high angle off the span would have a focused burst, resulting in greater potential damage but reduced odds, whereas a low angle off the span would have an elongated dispersion, reducing the amount of localized, potential damage while increasing the likelihood of a critical hit.

Share this post


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

 

Let's go on a duel, and let's do it on the same planes.  Let's not take shit like d7f and dr1.  anything else.  And then I will show you which of us has a longer member, cowards.  To write this shit on the forum, each of you is brave and smart, but how about risking your own ass?  Both of you - yap!

 

Cowards? Risk? In virtual combat? On a computer screen? In a game?

Share this post


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

 

Let's go on a duel, and let's do it on the same planes.  Let's not take shit like d7f and dr1.  anything else.  And then I will show you which of us has a longer member, cowards.  To write this shit on the forum, each of you is brave and smart, but how about risking your own ass?  Both of you - yap!

 

I don't do duels.  I fight the fight I want to, not what my enemy wishes me to fight with him.  I take the best plane thats available to me, with as many wingmen as i can find, and then we wait until the forum chest-beaters are not paying attention to their six.  And then, when they go down in flames, we laugh at them as they rage quit and whine about it not being a fair fight.  If you want to encounter me, you'll most likely see me in a Dora, BF-109, or P-51 on Combat Box.

 

Maybe a vacation in the Crimea would do you some good?  I hear the climate is great this time of year, and you can be attended by fine young men, in nice white coats, and engage in activities such as twiddling your thumbs and toes, and weaving baskets.  I think all this virtual combat has finally put the zap on you. 

 

7 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

 

Cowards? Risk? In virtual combat? On a computer screen? In a game?

 

Yep, pretty sad to see guys reach that point where their only place to find self worth is in the virtual world of a computer game.  But he will show you "has the longer member", right?  lol

 

Edited by SeaSerpent
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, II/JG17_HerrMurf said:

 

Cowards? Risk? In virtual combat? On a computer screen? In a game?

This one is for all the marbles...

 

Have at you!  *Lunges*

Edited by JG51_Beazil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re-checks own credentials: Whew, none of the accusations are confirmed. Pilot; check, dozens of actual physical fights; check, combat service; check, big unit..........well, three outta four ain't bad.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Hellequin13 said:

A couple of things I have been wondering about:

 

When a hitbox detects a hit, does it calculate the chance to hit a spar, or does it calculate damage based on the probability of a spar hit?

 

I suspect the latter, as we appear to be receiving some degree of structural damage with every hit, with the chance of critical damage going up based on the increased odds of a spar hit. What we should have is a calculation where we receive damage that affects the aerodynamic properties of the wing section (along with progressive visual damage), with a chance of critical (structural) damage based on the probability of a spar hit.

 

How much does dispersion play into the calculation?

 

A long range shot should result in a increased probability of a spar hit, but a reduced level of damage due to the greater dispersion of rounds. Conversely a close range shot should have reduced odds of a spar hit, but due to a tighter grouping, an increase in the amount of damage in the event of a positive critical hit.

 

We know that angle off the chord is factored in the calculation, but is angle off the span also utilized?

 

While angle off the chord determines the amount of area the spar occupies of the presented hitbox, and therefore the likelihood of hitting said spar, angle off the span would determine the spread of rounds, similar to (and in conjunction with) dispersion. A high angle off the span would have a focused burst, resulting in greater potential damage but reduced odds, whereas a low angle off the span would have an elongated dispersion, reducing the amount of localized, potential damage while increasing the likelihood of a critical hit.

 

On the first:  the mechanism by which the DM calculates it's results does not really matter, as long as the results are what the designer wanted.  It could be phoning in to a specially trained Hamster medium, which intones a result after each hit.  ;)   

 

The DM calculates results per hit - so all of the effects of grouping/dispersion are dealt with through the hit recognition, so that the DM does not need to deal with them at all.  We have been told that spars are not a hit box - adding more hit boxes uses far more resources than changing a variable in probability distribution. 

 

The DM is modeling the effects of compound and/or cumulative damage. The probability of hit # 10 causing a breakage is higher than that of bullet #9, and so on.  Meanwhile the visual damage and aerodynamic penalty is, I think, mounting up in a more "Hit Points" sort of way. 

 

7 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

Every plane had its manufacturing problems during the war and you don't know how they were made and who did what to them. So to use a report of planes failures is just that, planes failures. Maybe someone did not glue the fabric correctly; maybe the spar had a previous crack and so on so forth. They are just that, accidents that has nothing to do with combat and bullets.

 

That's why it is irrelevant to me. To mention it here is just a distraction in my view.

 

Not irrelevant at all.  The issues at stake, before we get to player behaviour are:

 

1) What are the maximum permitted G-loads of undamaged aircraft

2) How do these limits change with combat damage

3) Does the DM offline give a reasonable representation of the historic data

4) Does the DM online produce the same results as offline.

 

On (1) I agree that not all real Camels would have identical properties - dive in formation and one collapses, the others not.  But that does not prove that the recorded historical accidents were all or mostly on defective Camels, any more than it proves that they were all due to ham-fisted pilots. 

 

Exceed a G limit and collapse (or have chance of collapse per time unit) is a perfectly reasonable way to model the DM.  The developers have put in limits based on the best available contemporary documentation of structural tests, among other things, so unless someone has better technical data I think that we have to go with that.  

 

On (2), that this is obviously much harder to assess. I assume that you agree that they should change?  Individual cases can only ever demonstrate that something could happen, not how likely it was.  

 

On (3) I think it does it does, given we do not have incendiaries, although the AI are probably better at knowing how much g-load they can incur than they should be. 

 

(4) Just as teh exploits of pilots bringing home bullet riddled crates show survivor bias, I would not be at all surprised if the complaints here of Vpilots losing wings after very few shots, even if factually correct, show loser bias.  Perhaps the efforts of the testers will eventually be able to clarify this offline/online issue quantitatively, in which case it will be possible to have a constructive discussion about how to deal with the situation. 

 

(Something clearly impossible now, given that we are seeing personal abuse and temper tantrums derail the thread)


 

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


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

 

 

It's probably all you do these days you humourless twit.

 

After all this time, still playing the role of apologist?  Sadly, I can't say I'm surprised.  Frankly, a grown man throwing a temper tantrum because he doesn't like the DM, insulting the developers as liars, and then becoming so desperate to insult that he starts talking about the size of other guys' packages isn't all that funny.  Honestly, I actually find a spectacular implosion like that a lot more saddening than it is funny

 

And it certainly isn't the kind of behavior that's going to get your damage model fixed or Flying Circus Vol 2 to be put into development.

Edited by SeaSerpent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

🤪

Lol. Yep, it’s Plankski🤔

Share this post


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

 

After all this time, still playing the role of apologist?  Sadly, I can't say I'm surprised.  Frankly, a grown man throwing a temper tantrum because he doesn't like the DM, insulting the developers as liars, and then becoming so desperate to insult that he starts talking about the size of other guys' packages isn't all that funny.  Honestly, I actually find a spectacular implosion like that a lot more saddening than it is funny

 

And it certainly isn't the kind of behavior that's going to get your damage model fixed or Flying Circus Vol 2 to be put into development.

 

I couldn't care much what anyone thinks of the damage model, it's not a particularly big issue for me. I think this does a great job, as does RoF, of replicating ww1 flying.

Anyone with a sense of humour, and an understanding of the English language, can appreciate some of the priceless translations that come from Emely's posts.

If one doesn't wish opinion, don't run a forum.. or don't read one.

 

What I find sad here - is people who don't play a game, trolling it's forum at every opportunity for the sole reason of : winding up certain individuals ; hoping to get people banned by provoking reactions ; getting personal kicks from it. If that's not the psychology of a 'bully' then I don't know what is ? But if you're happy exuding that, fine.

 

You left ww1 behind some time ago, perhaps it's time to leave the ww1 forums behind too ?

I'm not denying your right, just pontificating that's it's not a particularly profitable use of your time. Unless the superiority complex is integral to your survival ?

 

Chill bro, have a duel with Plank or something.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...