4.007 DM

[unreasonable]

With the 4.007 and some DM change now upon us, what is really different from 4.006?

 

Control rod/wire breakage.  In my just finished campaign mission, I took a near miss from Archie and some plinking from AAMGs.  I lost all aileron control and the ability to apply left rudder.  All I could do was keep the Camel just about level while slowly circling - so I chose to reduce power and slowly circle down to make a fairly controlled crash in NML.

 

This certainly adds a new variable to the effects - overall, this should make planes a little more vulnerable to damage, if other things are still the same as 4.006

 

So are they the same? No mention of tweaks to overall strength in the update notes,  and impossible to say from one mission anyway.  Do any of the testers know if the whole wing damage bruhaha has led to tweaks? 

Edited June 10, 2020 by unreasonable

[HagarTheHorrible]

Not a great initial experience.

 

First online encounter, first shots, damaged my control cables, which left me pretty defenceless.  Either it was a lucky, one in a thousand shot, or control cables are quite easy to damage.  Wings of S.E eventually broke ending the rather sorry encounter.

[Zooropa_Fly]

Any chance of this and the 4.007 'borked' thread getting merged.. before they both get out of control !

[HagarTheHorrible]

17 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

Any chance of this and the 4.007 'borked' thread getting merged.. before they both get out of control !

 

That would be to suggest that there is nothing good about 4.007.  The “borked” thread is, at least at the moment, quite specific, with regard to a possible bug with the A.I.

[ST_Catchov]

@HagarTheHorrible The phrase "a bit borked" is unfortunate and perhaps premature. If your complaint is only about the AI lawndarting then maybe that should be present in the title. 

 

As for 4007, tested it out briefly in Zoo Wings and flew against a nice chap from California. I couldn't really tell any difference in the DM except …. maybe … the wire braced kites shed wires, and consequently wings, a little easier. But it's too early to tell and probably due more to my opponents good shooting and my poor flying. But Camel v Dr1 is a lotta fun and pretty intense.

[DakkaDakkaDakka]

Catchov you completely shot away my elevator controls on that beautiful slip to my 6 o'clock position. It was all I could do to put the plane down in a tree in a semi-controlled spiraling crash.

 

I played for a few hours tonight, and it seemed like Entente planes were still pretty prone to shedding wings, especially after they'd been put through some heavy G-forces afterwards. With that said, I haven't been playing a ton lately so I don't have anything to compare it to, other than RoF. Where the wings shed pretty easily. So... seemed all pretty normal to me? ?

[HagarTheHorrible]

8 minutes ago, catchov said:

@HagarTheHorrible The phrase "a bit borked" is unfortunate and perhaps premature. If your complaint is only about the AI lawndarting then maybe that should be present in the title. 

 

As for 4007, tested it out briefly in Zoo Wings and flew against a nice chap from California. I couldn't really tell any difference in the DM except …. maybe … the wire braced kites shed wires, and consequently wings, a little easier. But it's too early to tell and probably due more to my opponents good shooting and my poor flying. But Camel v Dr1 is a lotta fun and pretty intense.

 

You might be right, unfortunately I can’t change the topic heading. maybe a Moderator can adjust it to something like “ Are A.I aircraft lawn darting after 4.007 patch ?”

[emely]

Damage to the control cables is a very rare case, but only on FC today.  In the first flight I was convinced of this.  Those who complained that his wings constantly fall off can be calm, now they will have a control malfunction in half the cases.

These add-ons are reminiscent of advice on the treatment of bison pain: If your tooth is very sore, apply a strong blow to your finger with a hammer.  This is guaranteed to distract you ?

[No.23_Triggers]

First initial experiences trying out 4.007 with a buddy: 

1) Control cables will be disabled pretty frequently. Not every fight, but maybe 1 in 3 fights. The surface will be 'jammed' exactly where it was when you took the hit that knocked it out - I would have expected it more to be a case of the control being 'severed' and just hanging loose, but the 'jam' creates some interesting dynamics.

 

2) I'm pretty sure the D.VII / D.VII F is no longer an unkillable tank. I saw more D.VII wings come off this morning than I did for all of 4.006. It's still tough, though...

 

The SPAD is maybe marginally stronger, but you still need to take any hits with a healthy dose of caution. I didn't notice anything else with any other aircraft.

 

3) You'd better hope to god your elevator doesn't get shot out...

Edited June 10, 2020 by US93_Larner

[J2_Bidu]

42 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

The surface will be 'jammed' exactly where it was when you took the hit that knocked it out - I would have expected it more to be a case of the control being 'severed' and just hanging loose, but the 'jam' creates some interesting dynamics.

 

There is both "rudder rods jammed" and rudder rods broken".

6 hours ago, unreasonable said:

Do any of the testers know if the whole wing damage bruhaha has led to tweaks? 

 

Testers agree on an NDA.

[No.23_Gaylion]

55 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

with a buddy: 

 

Fake news.

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

1 hour ago, US93_Larner said:

First initial experiences trying out 4.007 with a buddy: 

1) Control cables will be disabled pretty frequently. Not every fight, but maybe 1 in 3 fights. The surface will be 'jammed' exactly where it was when you took the hit that knocked it out - I would have expected it more to be a case of the control being 'severed' and just hanging loose, but the 'jam' creates some interesting dynamics.

 

 

Not that interesting.....the plane is essentially uncontrollable.  Good thing the DVII has no exposed aileron cables lol.

[unreasonable]

Something to consider in looking at the historical loss numbers as a reference point:  we have been assuming that the kills described as "crash" or "loss of control" were due to some combination of pilot wounding or engine damage - ie the "meat and metal" to use that horrid phrase.  It may be the case that some of them were due to control rod/wire damage instead.

 

Unlike flamers or wing loss, it will be very difficult to get a feel for how common  this might have been in reality.

 

In principle I am all for it - certainly adds to the variety of ways to die. 

Edited June 10, 2020 by unreasonable

[No.23_Gaylion]

9 minutes ago, J5_Klugermann said:

DVII has no exposed aileron cables lol.

 

Weeeeeell, my old friend. All I can say after initial testing with my friends (larner wasn't there) is:

 

WELCOME TO THE CLUB

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Historical data 

 

I've been sitting on a bunch of USAS research similar to Larner's stuff but have yet to post it. I did a lot of work and didn't want it to disappear in that other thread. Perhaps with this new, new, new, old, new, NEW DM this will be the place to post it.

Edited June 10, 2020 by US93_Talbot

[SeaW0lf]

That's interesting. First came the folding wings, shaking planes, now the plane go limp basically every other engagement? With a little luck, every three? Something tells me you guys are having a lot of fun out there.

[unreasonable]

29 minutes ago, US93_Talbot said:

 

I've been sitting on a bunch of USAS research similar to Larner's stuff but have yet to post it. I did a lot of work and didn't want it to disappear in that other thread. Perhaps with this new, new, new, old, new, NEW DM this will be the place to post it.

 

I suggest starting a different one for historical loss analysis.  Then everyone can look at the historical data from your analysis, add the summary of Larner's data and my MvR work and see what, if anything, we can conclude that applies to the game in general.   

 

Put it in here and it will get lost with all the "not fun" noise.  Not that there is anything wrong with that....

Edited June 10, 2020 by unreasonable

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

 

Holy S&*t....did you see that effin wing come apart?????

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

3 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

I suggest starting a different one for historical loss analysis.  Then everyone can look at the historical data from your analysis, add the summary of Larner's data and my MvR work and see what, if anything, we can conclude that applies to the game in general.   

 

Put it in here and it will get lost with all the "not fun" noise.  Not that there is anything wrong with that....

 

I agree. Control loss is an interesting element to add, but as usual the devil is in the details of how often, how bad the plane performs, etc. The historic data, if we can find any, would help with the details to some extent. I honestly have no idea what the statistical percentage of control loss actually was and would be interested in hearing about the subject.

Edited June 10, 2020 by Krispy_Duck

[ZachariasX]

I like the fact that it is possible to have controls severed.  But they are a small target. And it occurs way often. Same as severe wing damage that I still see as an issue after some more flying.

 

I loath RNG's in damage models. They make you think you do something right, but in the end, you can never know. It's just good for people who like lottery. But it hardly a straightforward way to map an actual cause of events on throwing dice when the whole game is about having a little more influence about your fate than throwing a dice. It is especially problematic when you map historic outcomes to in game sitation that differs drastically. We could in principle skip the entire mission and just get the death verdict upon spawning. "Computer says No".

 

Before, my chances were 50% that the wings would go. Now I have another RNG on top of that again giving me 50% chances that my controls are shot. And my my survival rate is down to 25%. Upside is, I won't rip off my wing if my elevator is gone.

 

Waiting for the next pach then.

[No.23_Gaylion]

14 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

little more influence about your fate than throwing a dice.

 

But that literally as real as it gets. 

 

You might be the guy that stands up and is immediately killed. Or the guy next to him that survives the entire war unscathed.

 

I've read about loss of control surfaces being shot away faaaaaaar more times than wings ripping off.

Edited June 10, 2020 by US93_Talbot

[DakkaDakkaDakka]

3 minutes ago, US93_Talbot said:

I've read about loss of control surfaces being shot away faaaaaaar more times than wings ripping off.

 

But only from the pilots who survived it! ?

[HagarTheHorrible]

17 minutes ago, DakkaDakkaDakka said:

 

But only from the pilots who survived it! ?

 

Archie or Bandit ?

 

I expect the opportunities for disengaging from an enemy fighter, in the game, are far less healthy than in 1918, if less terminal ?.

[No.23_Gaylion]

Sure. An overwhelming majority of the after action reports ive reviewed, some 300 or more, state: "last seen falling out of control" or various versions of that same statement. 

 

These are combats where there were multiple reports filed by several witnesses involved. So it's not just one guy's account. They will be from entire flights and squadrons regarding contact with the enemy during a patrol. 

 

Regarding the wings, if they were coming off guys would report that-and they did mention some. 

 

Peter Hart put it the best in a recent podcast of his, and I'll botch up his quote below:

 

"In a nutshell, when taking oral accounts, if you take one mans story it paints a picture of how only that one man saw the event. One peice of the puzzle. You get 5 or 10 people, more pieces to the puzzle. You get accounts of whole units who served together and you begin to see the larger picture."

 

I've done this by reviewing the historical combat reports of the 13th, 94th, 103rd, and 93rd aero squadrons.

Edited June 10, 2020 by US93_Talbot

[unreasonable]

The main problem with combat reports stating "last seen falling out of control",  if they are with reference to an enemy aircraft, is knowing if the plane was actually OOC or just exiting an unequal fight by spinning.  When talking about friendly aircraft that failed to RTB I would accept the reports as reliable.  Having multiple observers may not help and even make things worse: take USAF bomber gunner claims in WW2 as about the most extreme example.  So there may need to be some allowance for over-claiming.    

 

When the crash is certain, the data is most useful: one reason why MvR's reports are so helpful, given the effort historians have made to check every one in detail. 

 

@US93_Talbot Looking forwards to your detailed findings.

 

 

[No.23_Gaylion]

Yeah thats right. Still waiting on a couple books to come in and ill be able to show stats like Larner's for the USAS and the RAF. These books detail the actual confirmations awarded. Might help show more detail in cause of destruction, etc.

 

We are going to have to look at the AAR data in a somewhat different light and I have an idea for that.

[76SQN-FatherTed]

2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

 

 

I loath RNG's in damage models.

You probably need to step back from gaming for a while then.  The only alternative to having some sort of probability generator to predict outcomes in games/sims is to conjure up an entire universe for them - ie make them a reality, where all possible outcomes exist.

 

To borrow from Talbot, you might go over the top and get killed, whilst the guy next to you doesn't.  The RNG simulates that reality without working out the causality (ie the universe existing up to that point in time).

 

More simply, a bullet hitting a spar could cause a myriad of different damages and in order to accurately model each outcome you'd have to factor in the KE of the bullet, its angle of penetration (and if that caused it to tumble), the internal structure of the spar (density, grain, etc), and so on and so on.  For the purposes of a game it's more sensible to roll a (more or less) loaded die to simulate the fate of a spar.

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, US93_Talbot said:

But that literally as real as it gets. 

No. It is the opposite. Don't confuse ex-post statistics with action and effect.

 

If I hit "airplane" and then a dice is thrown about it's fate, that is way different from requiring me to hit where it matters. That is a whole different game. We don't buy and play this game to make combat statistics on Flugpark look like they were back then. It is not now. And it will never be. We play a different game than the poor lads back then with only one hide to give.

 

Statistics is only good if it gives you better answers. It's not great just because it is the only tool you have. Statistics is no good as an end in itself. If statistics decide what my abilities are by arbitrarily making up the result of my actions, then we do have a vastly different game. You better understand that.

 

Yet again, the "statistical method" as we have it certainly provides a highly debatable bottom line. It fails in its means and it fails in its purpose. But I do acknowledge that is is well meant and that it may be a mean to provide good gameplay in some cases. But that depends on the game. All it does is that it makes people think that it is correct, 'cos it is statistics. Electrolytes!

 

Everything in this game is a compromise. Things are made because they are just about as possible meeting what is needed. It's not because it's THE TRUTH. It is because what is possible at the time being. Don't let yourself be gaslit into accepting a current compromise for THE TRUTH.

 

Everything in this game has just one justification: That is works. When it doesn't, make better. It got a lot better. And it can be even a lot better. There is no "truth" now. Only continued improvement.

 

 

9 minutes ago, =CfC=FatherTed said:

You probably need to step back from gaming for a while then. 

No I don't. When all we have is a hammer, be it. it is not about me not being able to live with a RNG in the game, it is about you thinking that doing things by ability is the same reality as doing it by chance.

 

Edited June 10, 2020 by ZachariasX

[unreasonable]

22 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

No. It is the opposite. Don't confuse ex-post statistics with action and effect.

etc.....

 

Stuff happens.   The only wargame or simulation I can think of that did not use some kind of RNG for outcomes involved hidden blocks, so it was in a way a form of poker.    All the other war simulations I have seen, including those used by the military, have a range of outcomes that is casually determined by the circumstances, but the outcome you get from the distribution is determined by a die roll.     

 

Aiming at a control rod is not even humanly possible in a WW1 biplane fight.  It is just something that happens some of the time - just like being hit, or not, by an Archie shell splinter, or a bullet hitting the pilot sometimes hitting the heart and sometimes hitting the cigar case.  If you want rock/paper/scissors then go and play that.  No flight sim I know of has ever been designed that way. 

 

There were RNGs in all previous DMs.  All that has changed is that you now dislike the range of outcomes. We get it.  So make your case that the current outcomes are either not realistic distributions of actual possibilities, along with suggestions of how to make them more realistic, or that it is no "fun" to have them even if they are.   Either way you may or may not get what you want.  But this continual harping on about statistics vs causality under player control is just getting silly.  

Edited June 10, 2020 by unreasonable

[HagarTheHorrible]

 

You ain't going anywhere me lad !     Now flak off

[76SQN-FatherTed]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

 

 

If I hit "airplane" and then a dice is thrown about it's fate, that is way different from requiring me to hit where it matters.

 

Okay, I think we're talking about different things.  I think that the game is sophisticated enough to calculate (not do a RNG) where your bullet hits the target (obviously if it was my bullet it would miss entirely) - the (weighted) RNG  for the amount of damage then  comes into effect only when that condition is met.

 

An analogy might be that in a tabletop RPG you  roll a die to see if you hit, and then roll a die to see what that does, but in FC the game  calculates if you hit and then rolls a die to see what happens.

 

Usual caveat applies - I'm just making  guesses

[No.23_Gaylion]

If you aim for the pilots head that RNG works in your favor [edited]

 

Just sayin'

Edited June 11, 2020 by SYN_Haashashin
Language, just saying

[emely]

2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

  But this continual harping on about statistics vs causality under player control is just getting silly.  

What limit of randomness do you consider reasonable in the game?  How many percent of random failures should be so that the player feels pleasure from the possibilities of the game, and does not feel constant irritation from the artificial world?  For example, there is still the likelihood of an engine malfunction in flight, without any combat damage.  This is a very real situation, and it is more likely than a bullet getting into the control cable.  Let's make the game so that every second flight you can’t even reach the battlefield, and make an emergency landing?

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

21 minutes ago, emely said:

For example, there is still the likelihood of an engine malfunction in flight, without any combat damage.  This is a very real situation, and it is more likely than a bullet getting into the control cable.

Emily don't put any ideas in the developers heads, 

[J5_Adam]

14 minutes ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

Emily don't put any ideas in the developers heads, 

ya like Jorri did with floatplanes

[Chill31]

I have been seeking information regarding G limits from from knowledgeable WWI historians. While my research is not exhaustive and complete with 100s of cases, I think it does paint a picture of WWI aircraft durability that we haven't really considered here.  Below I will lay out the data I have for ultimate G load (the G load where failure occurs) followed by a discussion of how those loads can be generated through diving and maneuvering.

 

(I have supporting docs for these things)

Fokker Dr.I --------------7.7Gs

Fokker D7 ------------ 10.7Gs

SPAD 13----------------- 6.8Gs

SPAD 7-------------------7.9Gs (6.9 based upon 4870kg/704.5 kg aircraft weight?)

Pfalz D3------------------6.5Gs

Sopwith Triplane-----~6Gs

SE5 ------------------------~6Gs

SE5a -------------------~6.5Gs

 

When you look at this list, it might occur to you to think "but the SPAD was one of the best divers of the war!"  Indeed, it very likely was, but not necessarily due to its ultimate G loading.  Paragraph 3 of "Stresses in an Aeroplane When Diving Steeply" detail the reason for this counter-intuitive result.  Briefly, high and low speed changes the center of pressure over the wing which changes where the majority of the load is placed on the wing.  Some aircraft, such as the Nieuport series and the Albatross series, will suffer a lot of wing twisting and subsequent damage while others such as the SPAD series and Fokker D7 will have minimal twisting due to their heavy bracing.  In the previously linked report, paragraph 4 states that the SE5, diving at terminal velocity (approximately 260 mph) would feel about 6 times the weight on the spars if it use RAF 14 airfoil insteadof RAF15! (note: this 6G force is found at 1G during the dive!) If the spars are already stressed to their maximum, you can see how pulling out of the dive is very likely to over stress the structure and result in failure.

 

Ultimate strength, diving strength, and durability from battle damage are not the same thing!  While the Fokker Dr.I can take a substantial number of Gs, its dive strength may not be as high as the SPAD...Likewise, the Fokker D7 having a high G strength may not have as much battle damage durability as a Pfalz.  (These are only examples of how these different strengths may be represented in aircraft, not how they should be represented).  

 

This is my understanding of how FC relates wing strength and damage durability...They start out with an aircraft, a SPAD 13 for our example here, and say it has an ultimate G limit of 6.8Gs.  There is no factor for bracing, spar height, etc.  The ultimate load is simply 6.8Gs.  If the ultimate load is exceeded, wing damage/failure occurs.  Damage reduces the ultimate load by some percentage depending upon the ammo type and the area of the wing hit.  

 

Takeaways from this:

1. How many Gs you can pull in a plane is not related to how fast it can dive and is not related to how much damage it can take.

2. High speed reduces the number of Gs you can pull when leveling out from a dive.

 

 

Edited June 11, 2020 by Chill31

[DakkaDakkaDakka]

I upvoted your post @chill31 but I'm going to post here to make sure you know how much I appreciate your informed and clearheaded approach to this. Your posts are literally some of the only ones that make any sense to me.

 

Sorry for simpin' but please don't stop.

Edited June 11, 2020 by DakkaDakkaDakka

[unreasonable]

4 hours ago, emely said:

What limit of randomness do you consider reasonable in the game?  How many percent of random failures should be so that the player feels pleasure from the possibilities of the game, and does not feel constant irritation from the artificial world?  For example, there is still the likelihood of an engine malfunction in flight, without any combat damage.  This is a very real situation, and it is more likely than a bullet getting into the control cable.  Let's make the game so that every second flight you can’t even reach the battlefield, and make an emergency landing?

 

Three different issues relating to randomness.

 

1) Difference between undamaged aircraft of the same type.  This was in RoF SP, sometimes with an obvious effect in career.  RoF MP aircraft were all identical I believe. Not now present at all in FC, which is a pity from the SP POV but a minor loss.  So not an issue here.

 

2) Random malfunctions in flight - engine failure etc.  It was more likely (probably) than control rod loss, but then being shot at and hit only took a tiny proportion of actual flight time in WW1. By the sound of it, at least in your flights, it takes up a significant chunk of your flight time, so balancing that out would be tricky.  Anyway, I would not mind if this happened, but it does not now and seems unlikely ever to happen in the BoX universe.  So not an issue here.

 

3) What is a reasonable balance of events like wing failure and control rod loss? Fair question. On the realism side I just do not know: it is very hard to say from examination of either historic accounts or game experience what the actual occurrence is or was.   I hope the developers' calculation of the probabilities is not fundamentally flawed: but I do not know that for certain.

 

On the enjoyment side - I am having a good time playing the scripted Campaigns, so no "fun" issues for me.

3 hours ago, Chill31 said:

This is my understanding of how FC relates wing strength and damage durability...They start out with an aircraft, a SPAD 13 for our example here, and say it has an ultimate G limit of 6.8Gs.  There is no factor for bracing, spar height, etc.  The ultimate load is simply 6.8Gs.  If the ultimate load is exceeded, wing damage/failure occurs.  Damage reduces the ultimate load by some percentage depending upon the ammo type and the area of the wing hit.  

 

That is what I have been saying all along  - only to note that the "some percentage" may be is almost certainly an absolute number relating to the hit energy etc, hence a higher percentage of the base figure for planes that start with a lower total, when subject to the same hit.  Also that the different areas of the wing appear to have different ultimate loads once damaged, and take damage at different rates: it is not just one number for the whole wing.    

 

So if those limits are correct, (which I think is true), and if you believe that some planes are folding too easily, the simple way to change the outcomes is not to mess with the plane's DM at all, but to adjust down the damage per hit calculation for the ammunition.  The stronger planes will also benefit, but it makes little difference to them as their wings hardly ever fail now. The weaker planes will have much the biggest benefit.

 

Unfortunately, this might not be easy to accomplish for FC alone  since AFAIK the mechanics of bullet damage are generic to the whole BoX series. 

 

  

Edited June 11, 2020 by unreasonable

[Garven]

@Chill31 

I found what looks to be the max load factor for the SPAD VII in the book "French Aircraft of the First World War".   Irrelevant for the current aircraft in game but thought it might interest you.  "An STAe memo noted that there had been criticism of Bleriot's method of construction.  To evaluate these complaints, a spad 7 built by Bleriot was given a static test in which it supported 4,870kg with a coefficient of 7.9.  As the required coefficient for fighters was 6.0 this was more than enough to enable the bleriot-built SPAD 7's to enter service."

[Chill31]

14 minutes ago, Danneskjold said:

@Chill31 

I found what looks to be the max load factor for the SPAD VII in the book "French Aircraft of the First World War".   Irrelevant for the current aircraft in game but thought it might interest you.  "An STAe memo noted that there had been criticism of Bleriot's method of construction.  To evaluate these complaints, a spad 7 built by Bleriot was given a static test in which it supported 4,870kg with a coefficient of 7.9.  As the required coefficient for fighters was 6.0 this was more than enough to enable the bleriot-built SPAD 7's to enter service."

Interestingly, I just did 4870*2.2=10714 lbs. Divided by SPAD 7 gross weight of 1550lbs = 6.9 Gs...I wonder how they arrived at 7.9

[J2_Von-Graff]

Gee, I want the historically accurate Nieuport 28's that the upper wing doesn't break on but if you dive em too hard all the fabric shreds off and you have to fly home with it flapping in the wind. Happened on more than one occasion and the pilot survived and landed the plane.  And some crashed too. In general why doesn't this damage ever result in a wonky twisting wing that inspires you to immediately disengage and fly home? Perhaps that is what the "shaking" is meant to represent.  

 

Graff>