4.006 DM (wingshedding and shaking) in Multiplayer Discussion

[No.23_Starling]

51 minutes ago, J2_Drookasi said:

@US93_Larner Can you please explain to us how, despite the flawed damage model and the way it affects the SPAD, you, flying always the SPAD, have such a long virtual life with (I shall guess) close to 100 kills?

 

I shall dare to give the answer myself because I believe that I do the same as you do. You are flying as if you have one life to spare.

 

I enter this discussion with a big respect and gratitude to everyone making constructive and, if possibly, documented criticism to any flaws of the game. This is something that I cannot do due to lack of knowledge on how a plane behaves with so much damage or with so many Gs or of first hand accounts of WWI pilots etc. The voice of people who can support their arguments might make a better game that I and the rest of us can enjoy.

 

What I know is that if I break a tool while using it, the next time I shall apply less stress on it, so that I shall not break it.

 

I quote here a former J2 pilot:  ''Any amount of damage is too much. If you are hit, return to base at the first chance and re-plane.'' Rings a bell Larner?

 

I am living to this axiom. I always urge J2 pilots to live by this axiom. Yes, it is frustrating to fly for 40 mins, to spot a contact, to miss your chance for a critical hit, to be hit by a single bullet and then to run away because you are afraid of your plane's integrity. And this certainly does not satisfies the pilots who are just looking for a brawl to enter and their flying ability ends in cutting sharp angles.  And I am not saying that the damage model we have is right, but I do not either know if it is wrong.

 

If I understand what I have read, a real pilot would get a 'feeling' either on the stick or on the vibration of his crate indicating that some damage is taken and alerting him that a specific threshold should not be crossed. Then, a real pilot should have an 'escape window' or be obliged to play by the enemy's rules. We do not get that alert stage, at least not always. So, one should adhere to the 'any damage is too much damage' or suffer the consequences unexpected as they might be.

 

Are we, in the game, flying as a real WW1 pilot would? Are we conscious that we are 'flying' a wood and cables held-together contraption? Maybe we were used in doing things a WW1 pilot would not dare to do, preferring to take his chances against the enemy machine guns instead of breaking his machine in the air? I don't know, I can only wonder.

 

If I can express just a small like-minded portion of this community and if I can offer some advise to the people reading this topic and thinking 'the game is broken, I am not playing it', I say:

 

think before you engage - balance your advantages and disadvantages against the enemy machine - disengage if you are not sure of your victory - behave as if you have one life to spare

 

Maybe this flying pattern is how the few 'ace' WW1 pilots  that we remember and quote today were distinguished from the thousand nameless pilots that fell before having the chance to learn.

 

Taking a deep breath...and clicking 'Submit Reply'

I took a single wing hit in a diving attack which wasn’t obvious at the time and had to gently dodge the Dr1 to avoid a ram. It wasn’t clear he was going to prop hang at the start of the attack. You have to keep up speed in a dive to zoom out of the boom and remain safe from the Dr1. There was very little one could do in the situation. 
 

Boom and zoom is very dangerous now to Spad pilots as you don’t always know if you’ve taken damage and it is the primary tactic for this plane. I’m not as skilled as Larner but I don’t take lots of stupid risks and HAVE been rtb after taking visible damage in previous combats rather than pressing attacks.

 

If i had been in a Diii or Dvii  i would have bailed out (or the wings would have stayed on under the DM).

 

If anyone here knows another Spad tactic other than BnZ I’ll go and learn it.

[J2_Drookasi]

2 minutes ago, US93_Rummell said:

If anyone here knows another Spad tactic other than BnZ I’ll go and learn it

 

Whenever I fly for Entente, I am flying the SPAD. My SPAD tactics are summarized in the phrase 'One pass, haul ass!' If I do damage my target in my first pass then I shall THINK if I will stay around to BnZ him until he's dead. If I do not damage him in the first pass, then I am out of there with all the speed I can get, get beyond visual range, climb high again and repeat. Surprise is the major element here. If the target is not surprised and reacts in time, then it is time for me to 'haul ass'.

 

Still, this is just how I do it. I suppose the more 'aggressive' SPAD pilots might have their hair raised in hearing those suggestions.

[J2_Bidu]

10 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

(Dr.I Pilot's skin disabled so that he can retain his anonymity if he wishes)

 

Thank you. I appreciate it. But you nearly skinned me on the video, wouldn't have made too much difference to show the remains.

 

My dive on the DR1 was holding the blip switch, of course. And as you can imagine by the hard maneuvering, the speed on the start of the dive was low. The resulting speed was not excessive, I believe, but the damage incurred was extensive.

[No.23_Starling]

51 minutes ago, J2_Drookasi said:

 

Whenever I fly for Entente, I am flying the SPAD. My SPAD tactics are summarized in the phrase 'One pass, haul ass!' If I do damage my target in my first pass then I shall THINK if I will stay around to BnZ him until he's dead. If I do not damage him in the first pass, then I am out of there with all the speed I can get, get beyond visual range, climb high again and repeat. Surprise is the major element here. If the target is not surprised and reacts in time, then it is time for me to 'haul ass'.

 

Still, this is just how I do it. I suppose the more 'aggressive' SPAD pilots might have their hair raised in hearing those suggestions.

And what if you’d taken a hit you didn’t know about and your wing came off in your first dive? Literally nothing you could do ?‍♂️

 

If I only attacked on pure surprise bounces Id have very few combats and need to put in more hours than my wife would let me . I can see why you stick to the DviiF and use her (very well) as a BnZer. If you’d taken a single hit in your DviiF your wings would stay on in the dive. Plus you could always bail out. From the times you’ve attacked me recently none were pure surprises, but you stayed with me just fine in a dive when I tried to use the one option available (another change from RoF).

 

The Spad wings (to me) now feel as weak as the Dvs once damaged but in the Dv you can turn fight if you need to. It comes back to Larner’s point that the SPAD has suffered most in the DM changes due to the tactics employed by majority of pilots, and a reduction in fun. Perhaps it’s more historical but it’s definitely not as enjoyable as pre patch.

BtW I think you’re a fantastic pilot and all of this here is meant with friendly respect. S! Likewise, salute to you too Bidu, old friend. 

 

I will try your tactic and be even more careful and see how I get on. I can’t see the Spad DM getting changed so I’ll work with what I have.

Edited June 3, 2020 by US93_Rummell

[BMA_Hellbender]

2 hours ago, J2_Drookasi said:

I quote here a former J2 pilot:  ''Any amount of damage is too much. If you are hit, return to base at the first chance and re-plane.'' Rings a bell Larner?

 

I am living to this axiom. I always urge J2 pilots to live by this axiom. Yes, it is frustrating to fly for 40 mins, to spot a contact, to miss your chance for a critical hit, to be hit by a single bullet and then to run away because you are afraid of your plane's integrity. And this certainly does not satisfies the pilots who are just looking for a brawl to enter and their flying ability ends in cutting sharp angles.  And I am not saying that the damage model we have is right, but I do not either know if it is wrong.

 

These are words to live by. Literally.

 

I do have two remarks when it comes to multiplayer balance (which this thread is all about):

 

1. This doesn't seem to apply to the Fokker Dr.I, Fokker D.VII(F), Pfalz D.IIIa and (possibly?) Bristol Fighter
    
2. The Bristol Fighter, in particular, is a "single bullet wonder", especially against the dreadfully weak Albatros D.Va

[unreasonable]

39 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

These are words to live by. Literally.

 

I do have two remarks when it comes to multiplayer balance (which this thread is all about):

 

1. This doesn't seem to apply to the Fokker Dr.I, Fokker D.VII(F), Pfalz D.IIIa and (possibly?) Bristol Fighter
    
2. The Bristol Fighter, in particular, is a "single bullet wonder", especially against the dreadfully weak Albatros D.Va

 

I think it is a scale, which reflects the way the cumulative probabilities work out.  The Fokker DVII has an average hits to break (one "spar" section, behind case, 1G) in AnP's tests of about 112, vs the Camel's 26

 

If I assume that the shape of the distribution is the same in each case, modeled to get as close as possible to AnP's Camel distribution and then using the mean to move that of the DVII, I get a graphs like this. 

 

  

 

You could do something like this for all of the planes at the 1G line, since we have the mean, assuming that the distribution is a gamma with the same shape, which it might not be exactly but it illustrates the point.... which is that the observed results in terms of how soon your planes break will be far more skewed that you might think just looking at the averages.

   

[No.23_Triggers]

5 hours ago, J2_Drookasi said:

@US93_Larner Can you please explain to us how, despite the flawed damage model and the way it affects the SPAD, you, flying always the SPAD, have such a long virtual life with (I shall guess) close to 100 kills?

 

I shall dare to give the answer myself because I believe that I do the same as you do. You are flying as if you have one life to spare.

I appreciate the point - but my v-life is older than 4.005 & 4.006 . I certainly didn't manage to get this far without ever being shot, and  I am certain the Bosches would have gotten me long before now if we had this DM from the start!

I am flying as if I only have the one life to spare - very true - but, I just don't think it's possible, even for the best of us, to avoid taking any hits on the aircraft. It would seem to me now, that the SPAD suffers disproportionately for this - as the Albatros did in 4.005 and, from what I've initially seen, continues to do so in 4.006. I don't think that the SPAD should be an indestructible super-tank, but I'd wager that a machine built for war could handle being hit by a single bullet. 
 

 

5 hours ago, J2_Drookasi said:

I quote here a former J2 pilot:  ''Any amount of damage is too much. If you are hit, return to base at the first chance and re-plane.'' Rings a bell Larner?

 

I am living to this axiom. I always urge J2 pilots to live by this axiom. Yes, it is frustrating to fly for 40 mins, to spot a contact, to miss your chance for a critical hit, to be hit by a single bullet and then to run away because you are afraid of your plane's integrity. And this certainly does not satisfies the pilots who are just looking for a brawl to enter and their flying ability ends in cutting sharp angles.  And I am not saying that the damage model we have is right, but I do not either know if it is wrong.

You sly dog! I preach similar tactics to this day, in the 93rd, as I did when I was in the 103rd! I am even more adamant about returning with wing damage specifically, given the new DM. 


(You will forgive me censoring all our other super-secret orders ) 

However - such a tactic would have to have two factors in place in order to be followed: 

1) The pilot must know that his aircraft has been damaged! 

2) The pilot must survive the damage in the first place in order to then escape! 

Unfortunately in Mr. Rummell's case, neither of those two criteria were met. At first, he didn't even know that the killing round had even hit him - we discovered this later through the track / parser. I can't say that I know exactly how aircraft would have reacted to battle damage - but from everything I've read, researched, etc, the current DM just seems too harsh towards certain aircraft, and some pilot accounts claim much harsher manoeuvres than a simple dive (of, what? 500m at the very most?), with much more damage. One example comes to mind of a SPAD XIII pilot escaping in "A steep spiral dive" before, once his tail was cleared, diving all the way home - only to find 70(!) bullet holes in his aircraft! 

I think my chief worry at the moment is that the in-game experience and the historical accounts are so drastically misaligned. I'm well and ready to believe that the virtual pilot will fly more aggressively in some cases to his historical counterpart, but the "punishment" for doing so just seems a little extreme as it currently is.

Charles J. Biddle said something to the effect of (paraphrasing) "A bullet through the wing is harmless. The mechanic just sews a little square patch over it. All our squadron's aircraft can be seen with these patches". You can see just how many patches these planes would accumulate on Smith IV - a surviving SPAD XIII of the 22nd aero squadron that, thankfully, was spared from the 'burn pit'.

And, bear in mind, this is after the original top wing was replaced due to damage at some point in 1918!! 



I daresay 'Smith IV' might not be such an appealing museum piece to look at if the current DM reflected the real SPAD XIII  Then again, I can't say for sure unless I discover the secret to time travel! 

Either way - I have a lot of respect for you as a FC / RoF pilot and appreciate you 'chipping in' here 

 

4 hours ago, J2_Bidu said:

 

Thank you. I appreciate it. But you nearly skinned me on the video, wouldn't have made too much difference to show the remains.

 

My dive on the DR1 was holding the blip switch, of course. And as you can imagine by the hard maneuvering, the speed on the start of the dive was low. The resulting speed was not excessive, I believe, but the damage incurred was extensive.

Thanks for adding your thoughts! Again, just to be fully clear - I'm not trying to discredit you in any way here...you're really getting quite handy in that Triplane 

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

 

What I find interesting is that our other SPAD took a hit to the lower left wing and continued to fight without any adverse effects.

 

Edited June 3, 2020 by US93_Larner

[ST_Catchov]

19 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

What I find interesting is that our other SPAD took a hit to the lower left wing and continued to fight without any adverse effects. 

 

And there's the rub what. The extent of the damage, unbeknownst to the pilot, appears randomly generated with little clue as to how bad (or not so bad) the damage is. We need cues to determine this otherwise everyone (d7,dr1 excluded) with a single bullet hit in the wing will rtb (if possible) and game over. No more victory rolls over your home airfield. Sorry.

 

Having said that, it seems ludicrous that one bullet hit (or a few) in the wing would cause wings to collapse so regularly. Unless you were very unlucky (which happened) or performing F16 manoeuvres (which didn't). Or are the visual and sound cues and perceived bullet hits just wrong? Is the computing making suckers of us all? How accurate are the parser stats? I don't know. I'm not a tech head. I don't know if it's right or wrong. But it is teaching some chaps (like Drookasi) to be more prudent. And ruining game-play for others.

 

I don't know how hard or simple it would be for Andrey to reprogram the DM so that the wing-shedders be strengthened a bit and the wing-keepers be weakened a bit? Just for game-play see. That might be a good start. Not very technical I know but that's what happens when you've got a few whiskeys under your belt.

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

1 hour ago, catchov said:

 

And there's the rub what. The extent of the damage, unbeknownst to the pilot, appears randomly generated with little clue as to how bad (or not so bad) the damage is. We need cues to determine this otherwise everyone (d7,dr1 excluded) with a single bullet hit in the wing will rtb (if possible) and game over. No more victory rolls over your home airfield. Sorry.

 

Having said that, it seems ludicrous that one bullet hit (or a few) in the wing would cause wings to collapse so regularly. Unless you were very unlucky (which happened) or performing F16 manoeuvres (which didn't). Or are the visual and sound cues and perceived bullet hits just wrong? Is the computing making suckers of us all? How accurate are the parser stats? I don't know. I'm not a tech head. I don't know if it's right or wrong. But it is teaching some chaps (like Drookasi) to be more prudent. And ruining game-play for others.

 

I don't know how hard or simple it would be for Andrey to reprogram the DM so that the wing-shedders be strengthened a bit and the wing-keepers be weakened a bit? Just for game-play see. That might be a good start. Not very technical I know but that's what happens when you've got a few whiskeys under your belt.

 

Exactly - as I see it, you have a couple problems happening at once: you have few natural indicators (bullet strike sound variations, stress sounds, visual damage variations) coupled with the fact you're often fighting against an airplane (usually a D.VII or F) that handles damage much better, especially after the update. And then you have the puzzling issue of folding after very few hits (at least that we can see in the log). My inclination is you have to approach the problems as related because the wing folding issue after damage strikes me as several smaller issues balled up together.

Edited June 3, 2020 by Krispy_Duck

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

1 hour ago, catchov said:

Or are the visual and sound cues and perceived bullet hits just wrong? Is the computing making suckers of us all? How accurate are the parser stats?

 

I know for a fact that not every hit results in an audible cue, especially if it is part of a burst.

 

And I'll reiterate, the parser does not report every round.  This idea that you can count hits with the parser report is wrong.

Edited June 3, 2020 by J28w-Broccoli

[emely]

On 6/1/2020 at 4:58 PM, catchov said:

I'd suggest another thread on the DM is pointless with the same old arguments recycled. 

And I would suggest that maybe any topic on this forum on the topic of DM is meaningless

On 6/1/2020 at 4:58 PM, catchov said:

 

DM won't be rolled back. And to have two DM's, (as someone suggested) one for SP and one for MP is ridiculous. 

This is SP.  Damage to the wing from a collision with the wreckage of another aircraft.  Overloads in flight 3,5G did not cause destruction.

 

Already I see how amateurs to talk about realism write explanations of why this is real and that the 2 bullets that hit the wing take it off just as real.

I will NOT post a video here, where from the hit of one or three bullets the wing falls off at 2G.  These videos have already posted enough.

 

On 6/1/2020 at 2:22 PM, J5_Hellbender said:

MP numbers are (possibly?) down since the new DM was released (assuming it's not Corona killing our older players...)

 

My opinion is that on weekdays the number of players has become less.  I do not know why .  In my case, I can tell you this: I would completely stop playing this game if it were not for the desire to chat with old friends in TS.

 

[1PL-Sahaj-1Esk]

21 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

EDIT: Parser results are in. Here's what they say: 

-- KIA SPAD was damaged 0.9% by AA fire prior to engagement - whatever that translates to, there was no visual damage on the aircraft. The SPAD was then damaged 0.2% by the Dr.I. One second later the damage rockets up to 100%. There is no recorded damage from the other SPAD (a friendly fire message popped up in-game). That puts the total parser-recorded damage at 1.1% when the wings came off. This isn't a good indication of structural damage, but I think it is a good indication of how little the SPAD was hit by gunfire / AA. 

 

This exactly reflects my situation from before for which I also posted the parser hits. Shots from 90° angle seem to cause MORE damage than near-6-o'clock-shots where according to @AnPetrovich's excel it was supposed to be the opposite.

 

I have the feeling that something is bugged and that this additional G-parameter is causing the mess and the calculation which are being made under G-stress are off for certain planes. Those are only my private opinions based on my experience flying MP.

 

The wings of a Dr.1, Pfalz and D7 are like shields now, they stop all bullets, make the engine hard to hit, engine damage kills, fuel leak kills are rarely possible now anyway but with those shields even more so. Pilot kils are not always quick to achieve and you can end up spending the whole bullet magazine and riddling those planes with bullets and they still can return and land where one bullet can end your flight on the other hand.

 

We experience the results already. (Just want to keep it polite)

 

 

Edited June 3, 2020 by 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

I'd venture that if you're being hit at a 90-degree angle, you're probably pulling a lot more G's than if you're being hit from dead six.  Unless you're in the habit of being bounced.

 

 

[Guest deleted@83466]

3 hours ago, emely said:

 

  In my case, I can tell you this: I would completely stop playing this game if it were not for the desire to chat with old friends in TS.

 

 

Obviously, you don't have to play the game, or even own the game, to chat with your old friends in TS.

6 hours ago, Krispy_Duck said:

 

Exactly - as I see it, you have a couple problems happening at once: you have few natural indicators (bullet strike sound variations, stress sounds, visual damage variations)

 

It's been suggested several times that a worthy addition to the game would be more audio feedback in the forum of creaking wood sounds, like the old Red Baron II/III.   I would love to see the developers consider enhancing that aspect of the game.

[emely]

43 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

I'd venture that if you're being hit at a 90-degree angle, you're probably pulling a lot more G's than if you're being hit from dead six.  Unless you're in the habit of being bounced.

 

Great version, for sure you spent a lot of time developing it.  However, the wings do not fall away immediately after the strike, and a fatal strike at an angle of 90 ° is often from above, or from below, when the plane flies exactly about 1G.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Well then I suggest you file a bug report.

 

Also, very nice loop in the dolphin with the damage to that wing.  I would not expect to be doing loops if I had a wing that looked like that!

Edited June 3, 2020 by J28w-Broccoli

[ST_Catchov]

4 hours ago, emely said:

  On 6/1/2020 at 11:58 PM, catchov said:

 

DM won't be rolled back. And to have two DM's, (as someone suggested) one for SP and one for MP is ridiculous. 

 

4 hours ago, emely said:

This is SP.  Damage to the wing from a collision with the wreckage of another aircraft.  Overloads in flight 3,5G did not cause destruction

 

…. Welcome back emely.

 

Your example of the damaged Dolphin in SP is … well …. interesting. Over the top yes but we (you) could do with that in MP.  Which poses the question, (if your example in SP is common) why is there such a disparity between the effects of DM in SP and MP? 

 

What vid editor are you using?  Your grass is really good.

[Tycoon]

2 hours ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

I'd venture that if you're being hit at a 90-degree angle, you're probably pulling a lot more G's than if you're being hit from dead six.  Unless you're in the habit of being bounced.

 

 

In a tight dogfight you are always getting 90 degree angles for shots.

[emely]

1 hour ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

Well then I suggest you file a bug report.

Great joke bro, you made my day ;-))) Thanks for the advice, but someone else writes the way about bugs, but I’d better write about it to Santa Claus)))

  Although ... Maybe you misunderstood me.  The situation is often this: the plane receives one or two hits at 90 ° or close to this value.  AFTER this, he performs the maneuver and breaks the wings at a valid G value for him.  Moreover, a greater number of strokes exactly from position six does not cause such a weakening of the wings.

1 hour ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

 

Also, very nice loop in the dolphin with the damage to that wing.  I would not expect to be doing loops if I had a wing that looked like that!

I myself was very surprised when the wing did not fall off and started recording the track.  When it did not fall off during the landing, I was even more surprised and decided to continue the flight. 

I do not know the reason for this situation.  But such an idea occurred to me - the wing spar remained intact, because the strike was not a bullet, but a fragment of another plane.  The rest of the visual DM is just a decoration.

19 minutes ago, catchov said:

 

 

…. Welcome back emely.

 

Hi, nice to see you)

23 minutes ago, catchov said:

Which poses the question, (if your example in SP is common) why is there such a disparity between the effects of DM in SP and MP? 

Maybe this is a rare case.  I published my assumption about this above.

26 minutes ago, catchov said:

 

What vid editor are you using? 

It’s just capturing video when watching a track using ShadowPlay

32 minutes ago, catchov said:

  Your grass is really good.

Never paid attention.  But with good grass, you can fly without wings ?

Edited June 4, 2020 by emely

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

1 hour ago, Tycoon said:

In a tight dogfight you are always getting 90 degree angles for shots.

 

I just can't imagine how we keep pulling our wings off then...

 

But in seriousness, if this 90 degree damage thing is a bug it should be reported.

Edited June 4, 2020 by J28w-Broccoli

[Cynic_Al]

6 hours ago, emely said:

My opinion is that on weekdays the number of players has become less.  I do not know why

 

I suspect that's due to the nature of the available range of multiplayer environments.  I doubt the cause is the perceived issues discussed in this thread. 

[Tycoon]

57 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

 

I just can't imagine how we keep pulling our wings off then...

 

 

Just saying something like this shows you don't  have an even basic understanding of how dogfighting works in this sim, either that or you only fly against ai which can't do anything let alone turn.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 4, 2020 by Tycoon

[No.23_Triggers]

Did some SPAD testing tonight...SPAD surprised me with its sturdiness in some cases. I think I'll need a bit more time / firsthand experience to really make up my mind. 

It seems at first impression like speed (not related to Gs) has a lot to do with your wings coming off or not. In a fast dive with a couple wires missing I lost my wings at just over 4G while trying to recover - but I kept them at around 3G just before. Before that I was turning loops and flat turns at up to 6G with an outboard strut shot through...at much lower speeds. 

Edited June 4, 2020 by US93_Larner

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

1 hour ago, Tycoon said:

Just saying something like this shows you don't  have an even basic understanding of how dogfighting works in this sim, either that or you only fly against ai which can't do anything let alone turn.

 

 

 

Please.  Anybody who has flown against the biggest whiners in these threads (either here, or in RoF- remember this pitifully small community have been fighting eachother for years) can easily see how their usual fighting styles might overstress a damaged airframe.

 

Now whether that damage is being calculated correctly or not is up for debate; and as I said if there is a bug regarding angle of impact and inflicted damage, it needs to be reported.

[Tycoon]

4 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

 

 

Please.  Anybody who has flown against the biggest whiners in these threads (either here, or in RoF- remember this pitifully small community have been fighting eachother for years) can easily see how their usual fighting styles might overstress a damaged airframe.

 

 

Care to give some examples, or (god forbid) some videos?

9 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

 

 

Please.  Anybody who has flown against the biggest whiners in these threads

So you've flown against yourself?

[US213_Talbot]

15 minutes ago, Tycoon said:

So you've flown against yourself?

 

Nah he said himself he doesn't play FC. Plus he only takes on the AI.

[No.23_Triggers]

3 minutes ago, US93_Talbot said:

Nah he said himself he doesn't play FC. Plus he only takes on the AI.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Is it hard to understand how people who like to pull angles also pull G's?

 

Talbot I've only met once though, in RoF.  He flew his SPAD much more aggressively than I would have.  At least until he ran away.  And here he is whining.

[Tycoon]

4 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

Is it hard to understand how people who like to pull angles also pull G's?

 

Talbot I've only met once though, in RoF.  He flew his SPAD much more aggressively than I would have.  At least until he ran away.  And here he is whining.

I sat here reading this post over and over for a minute until I realized it didn't say anything.

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

2 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

I suspect that's due to the nature of the available range of multiplayer environments.  I doubt the cause is the perceived issues discussed in this thread. 

Any suggestions on how to turn things around?

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Best of luck in your efforts to get a second revision to the DM, @Tycoon.

 

If it's truly borked, I hope they fix it.

[Tycoon]

13 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

 

 

Talbot I've only met once though, in RoF.  He flew his SPAD much more aggressively than I would have.  At least until he ran away.  And here he is whining.

Boy they weren't kidding when they said your past can come back to haunt you, one unconfirmed incident of Talbot being a coward and "more aggressive"  than broccoli would have been and he has completely discredited himself, his squad, and the movement to fix the dm, nice going Talbot. 

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

1 hour ago, Tycoon said:

Boy they weren't kidding when they said your past can come back to haunt you, one unconfirmed incident of Talbot being a coward and "more aggressive"  than broccoli would have been and he has completely discredited himself, his squad, and the movement to fix the dm, nice going Talbot. 

 

Actually he did what he should have done in the situation.  No discredit to him at all.  He's a good pilot from what I saw.  Just not one I've gotten to meet much.

 

And it's true, I don't have time for Flugpark anymore.  What little time I have to fly was done on a private server, and that was just testing the new DM.

 

So like I said, if the new DM is messed up, and you guys put together enough evidence to prove it to the devs, I hope they fix it. 

 

***If anything it would seem that rather than having a bug regarding angle of impact; it's possible to have a bug that is registering any hit to a wing as a hit to the spar- which would explain why bursts at high angles (which would be expected to catch more wing) seem to be more deadly than they should be.

Edited June 4, 2020 by J28w-Broccoli

[Tycoon]

4 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

 

Actually he did what he should have done in the situation.  No discredit to him at all.  He's a good pilot from what I saw.  Just not one I've gotten to meet much.

 

And it's true, I don't have time for Flugpark anymore.  What little time I have to fly was done on a private server, and that was just testing the new DM.

 

So like I said, if the new DM is messed up, and you guys put together enough evidence to prove it to the devs, I hope they fix it.

Was just a joke.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

On 6/4/2020 at 5:38 AM, Tycoon said:

Was just a joke.

 

Yes I realized that.  I didn't want any bystanders in this thread to misinterpret it as a dig against him.

 

[edited]

 

Edit: I also have a lot of respect for emely as a pilot, and what he is able to do with some of these planes; but I can also see how the current DM may not be ready to deal with the things a pilot like him might ask his aircraft to do.

Edited June 10, 2020 by SYN_Haashashin

[Cynic_Al]

3 hours ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

Any suggestions on how to turn things around?

 

Indeed I do,  but they would be a matter for an entirely separate futile thread, which I have no intention of starting.  Instead I'll just implement them myself, eventually.

[slug_yuugen]

9 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

It's been suggested several times that a worthy addition to the game would be more audio feedback in the forum of creaking wood sounds, like the old Red Baron II/III.   I would love to see the developers consider enhancing that aspect of the game.

 

And appropriate visual feedback as well. It's clear from Larner's video that a few bullet holes in fabric is not accurate to the underlying damage model's view of things, in particular with the top wing failing first when the only visible damage was to the lower wing. When on the opposite end of the spectrum emely's Dolphin has an obviously broken spar, struts dislodged and is riddled with bullet holes.

[slug_yuugen]

5 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

It seems at first impression like speed (not related to Gs) has a lot to do with your wings coming off or not. In a fast dive with a couple wires missing I lost my wings at just over 4G while trying to recover - but I kept them at around 3G just before. Before that I was turning loops and flat turns at up to 6G with an outboard strut shot through...at much lower speeds. 

 

That makes sense I think, the g-force is the load vertically through the aircraft relative to it. But there are other forces involved affecting the wing, most notably drag which is going to be proportional to the velocity squared. Further the lifting force of the wing is also proportional to velocity squared so you need a smaller angle of attack to generate higher loads the faster you are going and consequently less control input.

 

There's also a difference between struts and wires in that the struts are designed to deal with compressive loads (e.g. wings on one side pushing together) whereas the wires are to deal with tension loads (e.g. the wings on one side pulling apart). So losing wires should be more consequential in terms of dealing with lift loads than losing a strut. How that's modeled is anyones guess.

[emely]

6 hours ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

 

Edit: I also have a lot of respect for emely as a pilot, and what he is able to do with some of these planes; but I can also see how the current DM may not be ready to deal with the things a pilot like him might ask his aircraft to do.

So what am I doing wrong?  ) Until the bullet hit the plane, I always have everything OK. Without taking into account damage, the DM suits all players. Have you seen at least one complaint about this?

Why doesn’t anyone here say that the degree of damage to the wing spar due to the hit of one bullet in it, is this value taken out of the hat?

Even if you calculate this value, as for a building beam weakened by a through hole, it will be very inaccurate.  In this case, you need to know not only the size of the hole, but also the exact place WHERE this hole is located.

What is the point of talking about this if a primitive hit counting system very often counts only three bullets, as if they had hit exactly on the wing spar, and at the same time at the same point? And this happens despite the fact that the hits were scattered throughout the wing area !

I noticed that those who are satisfied with DM do not fly in MP mode at all, or do not use Entente fighters. It is ridiculous to read the reviews of these pilots Jg1, they flew on Bristol and based on this they write that the DM is good!

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/61702-4006-dm-discussion/?do=findComment&comment=950360

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/61702-4006-dm-discussion/?do=findComment&comment=950394

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/61702-4006-dm-discussion/?do=findComment&comment=950399

Could they not have been able to read a little more than their own message ??  I think the d7f pilots are also happy with the DM)))

 

 

 

 

Edited June 4, 2020 by emely

[US103_Baer]

7 hours ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

Edit: I also have a lot of respect for emely as a pilot, and what he is able to do with some of these planes; but I can also see how the current DM may not be ready to deal with the things a pilot like him might ask his aircraft to do.

 

If he was piloting a D7 or Dr1, the aircraft would be fine to do the things he asks of it, even after being shot up.