4.007 DM

[unreasonable]

21 minutes ago, J2_Von-Graff said:

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>

 

That is considered as a manufacturing failure - due to overly wide stitching of the fabric - nothing to do with battle damage.  These types of damage are not in the game in any form.

 

If they were we might also have defective German incendiary/explosive ammunition that, when fired, rolls an RNG to see if it explodes on your engine cowling, as happened to MvR. (Why do you think the D.VIIs had those rails? )  That would be amusing. 

[ZachariasX]

6 hours ago, =CfC=FatherTed said:

Usual caveat applies - I'm just making  guesses

Yes I‘m absolutely with you there.

 

My point was nothing but that the RNG way of doing things is something FC inhertited from where the whole thing works great. BoX has hands down the best DM of any combat sim. It is great at estimating a very complex effect on a larger, relatively uniform structure. Statistics is great for that and there it gives us good answers.

 

Where I like it less is in occasions, where that system deals with specific, simple events. There, the above applies far less. It cannot work as well then by its very design, and it does so with effect regarding to gameplay and obviously it gets actually very difficult to manage. It needs more than just data, it maybe needs a couple of trys to get it right as. But I am confident that this will be achieved.

 

If an artificial system reaches its limits, even feeding correct data to it gives skewed results. So in that case either change the system (less likely) or fudge your data input such that the result is still plausible. That is what you do by trying to get the bottom line right.

 

I am aware that „data“ is the forists’ scripture, as it is (maybe) the only thing we possibly can agree on in a world that is up for debate as a whole. But sometimes, data is not good enough by its own.

[No.23_Triggers]

4 hours ago, Chill31 said:

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! (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.

That's a really interesting figure - the FC S.E.5a will completely come apart at about 230 - 240 mph whether you're attempting to pull out of the dive or not...! 

[JtD]

4 hours ago, Chill31 said:

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! (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.

 

Interesting report, thanks for linking that.

 

On your above sentence - it would be at the limit if it used a RAF14 airfoil. However, with the airfoil it used, the safety factor is 2 and 3 for front and rear spar. It should also be mentioned that once you pull out of the dive (produce lift), the moment in the wings should be reduced and you gain some margin for a pull out g-load (unless the safety factor on the rear spar is smaller than that on the front spar in the diving condition).

[Garven]

3 hours ago, Chill31 said:

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

Don't know.  Could be a typo by the Authors.  Unarmed prototype maybe?

Edited June 11, 2020 by Danneskjold

[J2_Drookasi]

I flew yesterday for about 3 hours and here is 2 observations.

 

Observation 1: Me in SPAD against a DVIIF. After my bounce, not producing any critical damage, I am extending away. The DVIIF is behind me, 6 o'clock, same altitude, more than 400m away, I would say about 600m. The DVIIF is firing from this distance and 3 to 4 bullets hit my fuselage. MY RUDDER JAMS. Flak kills the poor DVIIF over entente territory at 3000m. I land with no rudder.

 

My conclusions (personal opinion): a. I am not sure if 3 bullets hitting my fuselage from 500-600 m should be enough for jamming my rudder, maybe I was just not lucky. The sure thing is that now planes need to avoid taking damage more than before and SPADs and SE5s need to be more careful to avoid being hit even from extreme distances (jink while extend). b. Flak kills at 3000m. I know it had been happening in the past but in 3 hours of gaming I saw it happening twice. Over-accurate flak? I do not know but now a flak burst close to me forces me to start evasion immediately and get out of flak range ASAP. Especially for planes flying in formation, I feel that if they start being shot at by flak, they need to increase their separation to disperse the flak fire.

 

Observation 2: Debris from destroyed in the air planes are now falling all the way down to the ground.  A nice feature adding t the atmosphere.

 

As per conclusion 1, pilots will have to adjust flying style according to the added possible damage.

[ST_Catchov]

54 minutes ago, Danneskjold said:

  3 hours ago, Chill31 said:

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

 

54 minutes ago, Danneskjold said:

Don't know.  Could be a typo by the Authors.  Unarmed prototype maybe?

 

Or it could be a premeditated fudge to sell planes to the Govt and their advisors who generally know nothing about anything then as now.   It was a lucrative but very competitive business.

 

Or … they just made a mistake.

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 hour ago, J2_Drookasi said:

I flew yesterday for about 3 hours and here is 2 observations.

 

Observation 1: Me in SPAD against a DVIIF. After my bounce, not producing any critical damage, I am extending away. The DVIIF is behind me, 6 o'clock, same altitude, more than 400m away, I would say about 600m. The DVIIF is firing from this distance and 3 to 4 bullets hit my fuselage. MY RUDDER JAMS. Flak kills the poor DVIIF over entente territory at 3000m. I land with no rudder.

 

My conclusions (personal opinion): a. I am not sure if 3 bullets hitting my fuselage from 500-600 m should be enough for jamming my rudder, maybe I was just not lucky. The sure thing is that now planes need to avoid taking damage more than before and SPADs and SE5s need to be more careful to avoid being hit even from extreme distances (jink while extend). b. Flak kills at 3000m. I know it had been happening in the past but in 3 hours of gaming I saw it happening twice. Over-accurate flak? I do not know but now a flak burst close to me forces me to start evasion immediately and get out of flak range ASAP. Especially for planes flying in formation, I feel that if they start being shot at by flak, they need to increase their separation to disperse the flak fire.

 

Observation 2: Debris from destroyed in the air planes are now falling all the way down to the ground.  A nice feature adding t the atmosphere.

 

As per conclusion 1, pilots will have to adjust flying style according to the added possible damage.

 

Interesting observations, thank you.

 

Since we're back to mixing business with pleasure, at least the outcome of the fight appears to have the desired historical accuracy.

 

Most aircraft kills in WWI were scored by ground fire, though typically small arms fire (see MvR), the fact that hits happens too frequently in-game likely has to do with one AAA battery representing several (Ace accuracy) for game performance. Bullets causing system failures and wounding pilots at long distance also has a precedent (also see MvR), though it likely happens too frequently in multiplayer due to gunnery accuracy. This is mostly a product of visibility, lack of turbulence, 2D screens and highly experienced players who don't actually die but gain experience when they do. I found that flying with VR makes my accuracy far worse, which is more than likely due to lack of experience with 3D screens. If I would survive long enough, I'd likely become as accurate as I am on a 2D screen. Compare this to real pilots who went into combat with mere hours under their belt, and the success some achieved in very little time is nothing short of miraculous. I'm sure that at least to them shooting may have come easily, which is again a case of survivorship bias.

 

Finally: SPAD XIII vs. Fokker D.VIIF. I'd be curious to know the outcome had the fight been SPAD XIII vs. Albatros D.II, two machines which are about as far removed in time and overall design, yet operated simultaneously during a significant period of time (May to Summer 1917).

[Cynic_Al]

2 hours ago, J2_Drookasi said:

The DVIIF is firing from this distance and 3 to 4 bullets hit my fuselage.

 

How do you know?

[J2_Drookasi]

33 minutes ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

How do you know?

I know because I hear the impact noise and I can see the marks of the bullets on the fabric of my fuselage. I also have (in retrospect) the parser and I see 3 instances when I have taken damage.

Edited June 11, 2020 by J2_Drookasi

[Cynic_Al]

8 minutes ago, J2_Drookasi said:

I know because I hear the impact noise and I can see the marks of the bullets on the fabric of my fuselage. I also have (in retrospect) the parser and I see 3 instances when I have taken damage.

 

The belief that the number of hits received can be inferred accurately from visual or audio effects, has been the basis of most of the assertions in this and associated threads..  I do not share that belief.

[slug_yuugen]

And the parser definitely isn't accurate either. For example yesterday I took some long range shots over the course of a couple of seconds resulting in visual damage to both lower wings but the parser records that as a single piece of damage.

Edited June 11, 2020 by slug_yuugen

[J2_Drookasi]

23 minutes ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

The belief that the number of hits received can be inferred accurately from visual or audio effects, has been the basis of most of the assertions in this and associated threads..  I do not share that belief.

I suppose you have good reason to not share this belief. On my part I have not yet identified a reason for not trusting what I hear and what I see in the game (as far as I can accept digits and pixels for 'reality'). But at the end, the combined  assertion of audio and visual effects and the parser registry, is as close as I can get to reviewing what has happened up there!

[Garven]

6 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

Finally: SPAD XIII vs. Fokker D.VIIF. I'd be curious to know the outcome had the fight been SPAD XIII vs. Albatros D.II, two machines which are about as far removed in time and overall design, yet operated simultaneously during a significant period of time (May to Summer 1917).

It would be an extremely rare encounter only one XIII was being operated by the RFC starting in June.  Not sure when the French started issuing them.  Think Guynemer got his in September.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Danneskjold

[J2_Von-Graff]

Hmmm,

 

Interesting points Drookasi. I had the experience of flying a few sorties before I realized any changes/updates had been made. Jumped a Bristol and in the dive down in my DVII-F noticed wing vibration sooner than I felt was usual. Raked the Bristol in a near vertical dive (the vertical aspect was only at the very end of the ingress) and after passing under him the plane vibration made me feel the wings might fold. This caught my attention....which I appreciate. I eased back on the stick sloooowly and she came out and I continued the attack. Had I not had the presence of mind to do so I likely would have separated the wings. After mauling the 2-Seater badly and then target fixating for the final shots I was jumped by a Camel, which I now understand must have damaged my controls in the first pass. He performed a good bounce I will give him that, and I managed to crash land and survive, but could not control my machine completely after his first pass. Elevator control was greatly reduced and my landing tumble was quite a mess. Now I know why. Control damage seems like a logical addition. Perhaps a "tone down" will be necessary, as in my case it was justified, but in Drookasi's at extreme range, perhaps may be a bit much.

 

Graff>

[kendo]

I suspect one lucky/unlucky bullet is all it takes to damage or break a control rod.

 

 

[HagarTheHorrible]

1 minute ago, kendo said:

I suspect one lucky/unlucky bullet is all it takes to damage or break a control rod.

 

 

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

I took out my Bristol FIII last night and pretty much every time I had my controls shot out, Doesn't take much to take them out either. 

[emely]

13 minutes ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

I took out my Bristol FIII last night and pretty much every time I had my controls shot out, Doesn't take much to take them out either. 

In the next patch, there will be a random shooting of male sexual characteristics.  Stock up courage brothers, and fly into battle ;-)))

The humor is that in this case there will be such forum users who write "Yes, it is possible, this is historical ..")))

[slug_yuugen]

After a bit of unfortunate friendly fire on my part I had an interesting time tonight.

 

Found an AI Halb and toasted each other to the point my SE5 wings were ripped to bits, engine knackered was missing half my horizontal stabilizer and had little rudder or aileron control. A combo of throttle and the remaining bit of elevator meant I could spiral mostly to the right and sort of level off. Thankfully the Halb self destructed its own wings trying to get me and I managed to limp back to my lines before ditching.

 

Does seem like controls get hit a bunch as I saw at least someone who looked like they'd been hit there in every engagement.

[ST_Catchov]

40 minutes ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

I took out my Bristol FIII last night and pretty much every time I had my controls shot out, Doesn't take much to take them out either. 

 

Bloody rear gunners eh! Always larking about and goofing off. Replace him.

11 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

The belief that the number of hits received can be inferred accurately from visual or audio effects, has been the basis of most of the assertions in this and associated threads..  I do not share that belief.

 

Well this is the thing isn't it. It does seem the damage we see or hear does not match the actual damage. That is to say, it's frequently worse. That would explain a few things. But then again, I don't really know …. 

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

24 minutes ago, catchov said:

Bloody rear gunners eh! Always larking about and goofing off. Replace him.

I did with a human gunner, He shot off way too early and used all he had leaving me unsatisfied. Bastard.

[HagarTheHorrible]

7 minutes ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

I did with a human gunner, He shot off way too early and used all he had leaving me unsatisfied. Bastard.

 

A statement ripe with latent potential, but I suppose that's what cums from using immature young men, pumping away from behind.

Edited June 11, 2020 by HagarTheHorrible

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

Oh guess what else he did, shot my ass end clean off, laughing all the way down, hehehehe look at your tail float all the way down, Son of a %^$#@*&^ . 

1 minute ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

 

A statement ripe with latent potential, but I suppose that's what cums from using imature young men, pumping away from behind.

Problem is he's as old as the hills lol.

[HagarTheHorrible]

1 minute ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

Oh guess what else he did, shot my ass end clean off, laughing all the way down, hehehehe look at your tail float all the way down, Son of a %^$#@*&^ . 

Problem is he's as old as the hills lol.

 

It's all reletive.  At least according to my local priest.

[76SQN-FatherTed]

15 minutes ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

I did with a human gunner, He shot off way too early and used all he had leaving me unsatisfied. Bastard.

You probably need a better escort

[SeaW0lf]

On 6/11/2020 at 12:57 AM, J2_Von-Graff said:

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>

 

 

That's hardly the case. The shaking happens pretty soon, sometimes with just a few hits, and due to the result of hits in any part of the plane. I'm not sure what were they trying to achieve in ROF, or perhaps it was just a DM limitation, but it has no relation to reality as far as I understand. As it was posted many times before, it is common to find accounts of pilots and mechanics regarding the amount of punishment these planes were put through. There were accounts of concern about random hits during the war, but that’s acceptable if the DM was producing seldom random failures. Not what people are experiencing, when you go limp all the time, or your plane starts to shake with a few seconds of a fight or you just lose your wings.

 

Regarding the thread in general, yes, if in the next update they bring a feature that we can fold a plane just looking at them, I'm sure that we'll have a couple blokes coming to defend it.

 

And the reports of planes going limp, folding wings (and shaking) just piles up. Don't people understand that this dystopia is harmful to the game? That many veterans and old supporters simply disappear from it? That the forum becomes a cacophony of theories with no base in reality, like the spar thing that for some reason did not account for bracing wires as people mentioned? Are we going to get a fix for that?

 

And the craziest of all is that two months ago everything was going well at Flying Circus, with everyone excited about the future. And now this? The game steeped in controversy?

 

It is disheartening.

Edited June 12, 2020 by SeaW0lf

[J2_Von-Graff]

Well, I must say I did appreciate the "buffeting" of the airframe. I know of no other way for the sim to let us know we are "pushing it tot he limits" and therefore watch out. If you have force feedback to do this for you great. But the only way I can tell if something is damaged or about to break is the proverbial "shaking". So it seems pretty necessary. I also feel great progress is being made in adding these layers of damage possibility. As with anything new it just needs refining. Hence our discussion. No need to be disheartened.

 

Graff> 

[unreasonable]

14 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

  it was posted many times before, it is common to find accounts of pilots and mechanics regarding the amount of punishment these planes were put through.

 

People who had planes downed by a few shots did not often have the chance to write reports about it.  These only thing these survivors' accounts prove is that it was possible, sometimes, to RTB in WW1 with a heavily damaged plane.   From my own experience, I think it is possible in FC as well.  

 

16 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

That the forum becomes a cacophony of theories with no base in reality, like the spar thing that for some reason did not account for bracing wires as people mentioned? Are we going to get a fix for that?

 

The theory with no base in reality is the theory that the "spars" do not account for bracing wires. They do, because the undamaged limits conform to the historical sources. The total strength of the structure is correct according to the sources. In the game,  damage to bracing wires is abstracted into damage to the "spars" instead of being represented in separate hit boxes.

 

 

If I have one suspicion about the DM it is not FC specific, but across the board.  Weapons work too well - they do not jam, fuzes always work perfectly, and damage per impact is overmodeled.  Why?  Ironically, because many people think this is more "fun". Also because many tend to fixate on their favourite weapon/munition, for whatever reason, and lobby hard to get the game representation as high as possible. See the endless mineshell and 50 cal threads.

 

So to get some kind of weapon balance, the developers are under constant pressure to  inflate damage effects.  We may be seeing a little of that here: possibly damage to structures from rifle caliber bullets is being over modeled.  In which case the "fun" problem in FC is collateral damage from the "fun" solutions in BoX. 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

[SeaW0lf]

2 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

People who had planes downed by a few shots did not often have the chance to write reports about it.

 

That's not true. Not long ago I quoted a mechanic saying that it was common for the planes to return to base all banged up. Just reading Gould Lee you can see the amount of punishment he received in his tours both with the Pup (scout) and the Camel (strafer). So at the same time either he was the most unlucky pilot in the world to have being hit so many times, but on the other hand he was the luckiest guy in the world to have survived to so many hits in his plane? it makes no sense at all unless we deduce it was due to the plane’s resistance, the difficulty for a bullet to hit a bracing wire, the oddity of having a freak hit in a critical part of the plane. 

 

The general idea is that they could take punishment. And now people go limp every other fight? Lose control after some spray and pray from hundreds of yards? And why the shaking? Where does this concept come from? ROF? And why the folding wings, a concept that arguably everyone questioned in ROF? Why are these concepts being unearthed here in Flying Circus, a module that is supposed to take us into the future of flight sims?

 

Why are people going against the current when not long ago we were praising the game because it was forcing us to fight as they did in the war, aiming for engine and pilot? Not it is the opposite? Let’s spray and pray, just like we did in ROF, because soon enough the guy will go limp or will lose its wings?

[US103_Baer]

Nonsense DM has been made more ridiculous.

The overboard wing-shedding of certain planes (mostly Entente) has now been joined by this control wire loss/ jamming which seems to be happening extremely frequently.

Now, a SINGLE 7.92mm round at long-range can probably will kill you - unless you have a parachute (not Entente). 

 

Going to need to test the occurrence more but tonight's fly-in we saw 2 planes go down with it (i heard of several more) , plus mine below from this random freaking bullet at what looked like insane range. Elevator was jammed in full down position. No other damage before this. Magic bullet ffs.

 

EDIT: Here's the moment in stream https://youtu.be/LGiYrhNPNDU?t=8493

 

 

And as a comparison, check out this Dr1's damage report...

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

Edited June 12, 2020 by US103_Baer

[ST_Catchov]

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

So to get some kind of weapon balance, the developers are under constant pressure to  inflate damage effects.  We may be seeing a little of that here: possibly damage to structures from rifle caliber bullets is being over modeled.

 

You may be right. The WWII GB series is the devs priority (crazy I know) and, unfortunately, by default FC gets updates based on WWII whining about WWII ballistics, structural strengths, FM's, DM's, parachutes !? etc. I presume these would be refined to suit WW1 but sometimes I wonder. On reflection, I don't know why the spar thing was even introduced unless it was an attempt to correct WWII influences?

 

I know it's unrealistic, but I wish FC was truly independent and not tied in with WWII. But that was a business decision and these guys know what they're doing, right?

[unreasonable]

FC now uses the same DM as BoX AFAIK.   The "spars" arrived as part of the major overall BoX DM rebuild, which has been widely praised, although the usual suspects are still complaining about their favourite weapon or shell being nerfed.  The problem with the old model was that, because damage was clearly exaggerated, it penalized larger aircraft. (P-47!) Damage is a function of not getting hit at all - small is better - and resisting/absorbing damage - small is worse. 

 

Jason et al have the clearest picture about what is possible commercially and the highest incentives to make it work - pointless trying second guess them. 

 

I still think the most intriguing thing about all this is the mismatch between the MP perception and that of AnP. 

 

AnP perception:  

 

 

emely perception

 

 

Possible explanation:

 

Edited June 12, 2020 by unreasonable

[Zooropa_Fly]

I've spent a fair bit of time lately trying to get 4 Bristols to land satisfactorily - hours of fun for all the family.

My conclusion is they're following a ww2 planes' landing routine..

 

Anyway, my question is :

I'm not expecting any bits of a ww1 crate were used on any ww2 planes - so how can the ww2 DM be influencing the ww1 DM ?

[slug_yuugen]

3 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

I'm not expecting any bits of a ww1 crate were used on any ww2 planes - so how can the ww2 DM be influencing the ww1 DM ?

 

The damage model like the flight model is a generic thing shared by all aircraft. So the specifications change but the way things are worked out does not. Each aircraft responds as it does because it has been setup as a bunch of data that is then used by their systems to work out whats going on.

[BMA_Hellbender]

  

3 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

That's not true. Not long ago I quoted a mechanic saying that it was common for the planes to return to base all banged up. Just reading Gould Lee you can see the amount of punishment he received in his tours both with the Pup (scout) and the Camel (strafer). So at the same time either he was the most unlucky pilot in the world to have being hit so many times, but on the other hand he was the luckiest guy in the world to have survived to so many hits in his plane?

 

In one word: yes.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

 

 

 

Quote

Why are people going against the current when not long ago we were praising the game because it was forcing us to fight as they did in the war, aiming for engine and pilot? Not it is the opposite? Let’s spray and pray, just like we did in ROF, because soon enough the guy will go limp or will lose its wings?

 

I think that the strong wing damage model which allowed for more extreme pointing-of-your-plane's-nose-in-the-expected-flight-path-of-your-opponent-with-complete-disregard-to-endured-gee-forces-on-a-damaged-airframe, or Poyoplanoexpapocomdisendgeefodamair for short (it has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?), was conducive to the existing multiplayer status quo. I don't think that maintaining the multiplayer status quo was on the developers' mind when they implemented the changes. If that was the strong foundation for the success of FC, then Yugra Media would be wrapping up Volume 3 by now. Instead it's the complete opposite:

 

 

AnP did have the presence of mind to show up here and check up on us, only to show conclusively that wings are not folding because of endured damaged, but because of stresses endured after taking damage. This is clear when you fight against AI and you can see that they do not lose their wings unless you significantly damage them. And sure, the tweaks which made the Fokkers' wings even stronger could be seen as adding insult to injury (or a final nail in the coffin), until you realise that they truly were stronger than the externally braced designs. The Fokker Dr.I is still criminally slow, the vanilla D.VII still lacks any sort of advantage against the Camel unless it damages it first and the D.VIIF is an anachronism in April 1918.

 

If you're in a Camel and you struggle against an Albatros D.Va, then it's likely because you got damaged. Which then begs the question: why were you damaged?

• Why were you damaged?
  - Why were you seen?
  - And if you were seen for a good reason, why were you in a position that allowed him to score hits on you?
   
• Why were you damaged?
  - Why not one of your wingmen?
  - And if you have wingmen, why were you not covering each other and attacking with numerical superiority instead of having to overstress your planes to stay in the fight?

 

There is still nothing that conclusively shows that the updated DM is wrong. Now that a plane can be put out of action because of a lucky pilot hit, a lucky cable hit or random hits followed by extreme maneuvering, it actually explains why two-seaters could effectively defend themselves from attacking scouts through rear gunner crossfire (spray and pray). This was impossible pre-4.005. If you're flying a two-seater now and still struggling against scouts (@NO.20_W_M_Thomson) all I can say is: bring more two-seaters! As for scouts: practice social distancing with groups of enemy two-seaters and you'll be fine.

 

 

Now if the question is: is all of this fun in the current multiplayer environment? Probably not, no. The game is also not specifically balanced with our current form of multiplayer in mind.

 

I think that epic dogfights between nearly indestructible planes that go on forever definitely pleases the veteran flyers. It's how I would make my own WWI combat flightsim, purely focused on scouts vs. scout combat. It includes soft-body physics, dogfights with dozens of machines and it requires VR, Force Feedback and a full-motion chair to even launch the game. You also need to record everything constantly and claim your kills manually. It's also dead-is-dead: meaning you have to buy a new copy when you die. I'll give you a call when it's on Steam the Epic Games Store.

 

And if you want a fun popular financially viable day-to-day casual dogfight experience with mouse and keyboard or an Xbox controller (featuring WWI planes), you need something closer to this (but even that failed to meet its Kickstarter goal):

 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, catchov said:

You may be right. The WWII GB series is the devs priority (crazy I know) and, unfortunately, by default FC gets updates based on WWII whining about WWII ballistics, structural strengths, FM's, DM's, parachutes !? etc. I presume these would be refined to suit WW1 but sometimes I wonder. On reflection, I don't know why the spar thing was even introduced unless it was an attempt to correct WWII influences?

 

I know it's unrealistic, but I wish FC was truly independent and not tied in with WWII. But that was a business decision and these guys know what they're doing, right?

 

For what it's worth, the War Thunder developers allegedly didn't add WWI planes because there was a) not enough interest and b) the flight modeling and damage modeling of wood and fabric planes is just too different from rigid WWII planes and it requires a lot of computer horsepower to simulate accurately.

 

Ironically the physically most complex plane in all of RoF is the Fokker Eindecker with its wing warping (it's just an animation in-game). Wing warping is the holy grail of wing design. It's what birds have managed after millions of years of evolution, and hopefully we'll see it return to aviation in the next 100 years or so as nanomaterials get stronger and more flexible.

 

 

48 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

I still think the most intriguing thing about all this is the mismatch between the MP perception and that of AnP. 

 

Possible explanation:

 

 

I was going to say something about flattening the curve.

[Zooropa_Fly]

10 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

I was going to say something about flattening the curve.

 

I wouldn't bother, flattening curves seems to change nothing.

[US103_Baer]

Sorry but this is not about flying behaviour AT ALL.

Its is purely the differences in the planes post-4.006 which forces pilots of wing-shedders to change behaviour, but not the pilots of D7s, Dr1, Pfalzs and Bristols.

 

Therefore it is about the differences in the planes re bullet damage resistance.

Edited June 12, 2020 by US103_Baer

[unreasonable]

42 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

I've spent a fair bit of time lately trying to get 4 Bristols to land satisfactorily - hours of fun for all the family.

My conclusion is they're following a ww2 planes' landing routine..

 

Anyway, my question is :

I'm not expecting any bits of a ww1 crate were used on any ww2 planes - so how can the ww2 DM be influencing the ww1 DM ?

 

Because FC and BoX are the same game, with different planes in them. That is why the AI landing routines share the same problems. 

[No.23_Triggers]

It seems to me that a good (at least, temporary) solution might be, simply, decreasing the probability modifiers of spars and control surfaces being cut.

 

If the wings coming off is largely due to spars being shot through, and aircraft are actually much tougher if their spars haven't been hit, as they really ought to be (Shooting through empty canvas, blah blah blah), then a smaller chance of hitting the spars would ultimately result in a more perceivably 'tough' aircraft. The greater you reduce the chances, the more tough the aircraft would be, at least in theory.

 

Unless, of course, it's more than just the Spars (or wires) that determine an aircraft's structural strength - I.E., hits through the canvas weakening the structure. Honestly, I think this may be the case - it absolutely doesn't feel like any wing hits are superficial at the moment. 

Problem is, it's just impossible to tell when the spar's been hit. 

From initial tests / reports (Especially that of Drookasi's and Baer's) I think the jamming and severing of control cables just seems a little too frequent. Not only from the Historical Accounts™, but just by even considering the logistics (for want of a better word) of how a control wire would be severed. Most bullets that connect with a wire are going to just glance off, unless they hit the wire dead-centre. Even then, I imagine the wire would have to be pretty tense in order for a bullet to snap it.

Not to say that this never happened - it most certainly did, and lots of accounts will talk about the controls being disabled - but as it stands, it just seems to happen too frequently. Me and a wingman did some sparring the other night and had lots of cases of controls being cut or jammed (Unfortunately I didn't record these instances).

 

As for control surfaces jamming in their current position...I just don't see how that could happen with a WW1 biplane, given the ammo being fired at them. I cannot figure out how 7mm rifle ammunition would jam a surface, rather than simply cut it. Perhaps someone else could shed some light on this, because I really don't see it being plausible. 

I think if we saw a significant decrease in the % chances of hitting spars and control wires over all angles (except the dead-six spar shot, of course), we'd end up with something much more similar to what the historical accounts would suggest. 
 

Edited June 12, 2020 by US93_Larner