4.007 DM

[No.23_Triggers]

12 minutes ago, catchov said:

Of course, if you had a crazy CO with a death wish that may be hard to accomplish.

Luckily for me, I am the C.O....of the 93rd, at least! But if the Major shows up and tells the group to go bomb a Hun trench, well...nought for it but to take a healthy swig of brandy and hope for some good luck  

The exceptionally unfortunate thing about Baer is that, for some inexplicable reason, his misfortune just happens to be completely hilarious...

 

[Tycoon]

46 minutes ago, emely said:

 

 

 

 

 

 Is this after the most recent change? This looks worse than usual.

[unreasonable]

10 hours ago, slug_yuugen said:

 

I'd never imply that. They are hardworking and obviously overstretched in what they have to support and consider on each change. Believe it or not I'm a game developer myself (for the past fifteen years working on almost exclusively multiplayer titles) and am quite used to these discussion from the other direction. I understand precisely the issues of dealing with community feedback when commercial and production pressure prevent it being addressed even if you find it compelling.

 

Appealing to the beliefs of the developers inerrancy on the other hand is no justification for the current results being realistic just that they are as they are and there isn't any likelihood of changing them until someone can be wrangled into having time to look at it. See also the invisible planes bug and how bad medium range spotting is both of which are far more impactful and obviously 'wrong'.

 

I don't think that test would prove anything useful and the historical evidence is more compelling that even if the AnP test is correct for the implemented damage model (which I don't doubt) it's not actually well matched to the results you witness. In my case even AI are ripping their wings off quite a bit, the last two AI Halb's I took out both ripped their wings off. The first because I killed the pilot and it went into a lazy loop before falling to bits. The second because it tried to follow me in a slow spiraling dive after the gunner disabled almost all my control surfaces including losing half my horizontal stabilizer and that was basically my only available maneuver.

 

What would be nice for this sort of analysis is some more detailed stats coming out of the game itself so you can actually see how many bullets hit, where and what damage they did. That would be ideal for the community to help out finding bugs and inconsistencies as well as be interesting for nerds like me that wonder exactly what I hit to cause that 1.8% damage instead of 0.1%. Further these could be collected globally by the developers and used to analyse the results in larger population of fights.

 

There is also a requirement to balance realism and fun which Hellbender is doing a great job of satirizing and a model that is more complex is not necessarily more fun or more realistic.

 

I agree that having more stats in the game would give us a much clearer idea of what is happening. I do not know if the current assumptions built into the DM are all correct.  The problem is determining this in a convincing way - I am not convinced that anyone will be "wrangled into having time to look at it" at it by the repetitive thread posts, full of inaccuracies and emotionally charged rhetoric coming from some quarters.  (Not you so much, although "You are just trolling" is a pretty sad ad hominem).

 

The historical evidence is not convincing, for the simple reason that you cannot get historical results without historical behaviour.  It is merely indicative. In the reports in detail that I have seen to date, it indicates that structural failure was fairly frequent. (Control rod type issues are much harder to detect). If you add large numbers of reports in which people are noting the damage to killed Fokker D.VIIs - of course the frequency will be lower, I think everyone accepts by now that they were tougher than older designs. 

 

 If you accept the validity of AnP's data, it is hard to claim that the damage is drastically over-modeled on average as he calculated it.   ~20 hits on one section of a Camel's wing from dead six to cause a break does not seem like an unreasonable average.  Or do you think it should be much higher in reality?

 

Why the mismatch in perceptions discussed in AnP's Poll thread? He put the mismatch down to player behaviour and bias: ie people not noticing the number of times small amounts of damage did not lead to wing failure at low Gs, pulling the stick until the wings fell off then blaming the DM.  Some posters essentially said that AnP's results must be wrong.

 

The test I proposed is designed to examine one possible other reason why AnP's test results, as presented, do not match player observations (pre control-rod-gate). It removes the behaviour factor,  just as AnP's tests did.   If AnP would cough up his data it would not even be necessary.  If it turns out to be the case that my weakest-spar-fails-first-weighted-average explanation is off the mark, because all the spar segments show very similar distributions, then you are left with a very stark choice - it is either player behaviour and/or selection bias, or  AnP has made some error in his tests, in which case it would be better to identify it. 

 

As for the MP fun/realism balancing issues, I leave that to those who can play MP, except to add that I have as much interest in FC succeeding commercially and growing in scope and depth as anyone else here. WW1 was always my preferred flight sim environment, I purchased RoF when it came out and played it to death.  But RoF has exhausted it's potential, so this is all we have.  

 

 

7 hours ago, emely said:

Indeed ?It is a pity that you said too late that you prefer scripting companies and SP mode.  If I knew this, I would not waste so much time talking with you.

 

Thank God for small mercies.

 

 

Edited June 13, 2020 by unreasonable

[emely]

27 minutes ago, Tycoon said:

 Is this after the most recent change? This looks worse than usual.

I can’t say the exact date now, but I guess it was until the very last patch with a damaged control.  Yes, it looks bad.  The player in this situation has no choice, no warning that this video shows.  Of course, those who shoot bots offline will not notice anything, and will count dozens of such videos the same.

[DakkaDakkaDakka]

I remember almost 10 years ago when I saw RoF for the first time and was captivated. I grew up in the 80s and early 90s with PC flight sims but had been out of the hobby for nearly 20 years. I saw RoF and that was it, I built a new PC (my first gaming rig ever) and I dove in.

 

I played a lot of RoF for a few years, beginning in 2011 and going off and on with segues to other things till about 2016-2017. I really loved my time with RoF and for a long while, that experience framed my whole reality around PC gaming (i.e. I really only did RoF and a very few other flight sims, and not much in terms of mainstream gaming at all).

 

Eventually, however, I started trying other, more mainstream games out. Stuff that my two young sons were interested in, things we could play co-op together (they did play as gunners in RoF and that was a lot of fun, too).

 

That exposure to other games - hugely popular games, where a single match would have more players in it than the entire population of IL-2 BoX and FC combined - helped me realize what an incredibly tiny niche these "hyper realistic" flight sims represent. I didn't have much of an appreciation of that when my whole frame of reference was RoF and IL-2 BoX, but with time playing spent playing actually popular games, with much bigger - and generally pretty welcoming and positive - communities, I realized what a crazy and mixed up world this tiny little puddle of hardcore flight simming is.

 

Honestly? If you guys want to be able to go onto a server at any given time of the day or night, and not just Thursdays and Sundays from whatever to whenever, you need to start opening your mind up to things beyond the insane level of rivet counting and endless debate over utterly meaningless minutae that these threads inevitably get filled with. As a game, honestly? Flying Circus and BoX completely suck and fail. All MP content is made entirely by the users (i.e. server operators) and the obsessive compulsive slavish devotion to realism at the expense of literally everything else means you guys have managed to paint yourselves into the tiniest corner of the smallest broom closet in the basement of the gaming world.

 

And now we're having a serious debate about whether one faction (Entente) has to just suck it up that their planes have been nerfed.

 

Guess what? There are a lot of actually-good gaming experiences out there, and the entire world is off doing those things, leaving the few dozen (on a "busy" night) people who are willing to put up with these absurd restrictions and devotions to "maybe" plausibly realistic simulations (and who knows, maybe total bullshit!) to buzz around looking for many vs one ganks of the few newbies who manage to make their way in here.

 

Honestly I know this sounds like a rant, but I'm trying to be real with you: if you want this game to have a chance to grow, you need to start thinking about how it can be improved _as a game_ or it and this entire genre of WWI and eventually WWII flight sims will die with this generation of gamers.

 

I love this sim, I love this community, but it's all gone too far. We're all gonna end up just shooting at bots and complaining how nobody ever wants to play any more, and we're going to think it's because of something dumb about the game somehow not being realistic enough, but the truth will be because it's just not fun enough any more.

[LukeFF]

On 6/11/2020 at 2:59 AM, 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.

 

The number of bullet hits you see in the fuselage has no bearing on exactly how many bullets hit your plane. 

[HagarTheHorrible]

4 hours ago, emely said:

How sad, it turns out that you also study kung fu only from pictures, and you don’t even visit the gym ?

There were no players at Flugpark tonight.  I have not seen this for several months.  Obviously, new conditions made the game so real that players are afraid to fly ;-)))

This balance has become a frequent occurrence by the end of prime time.  Beginners go to bed, and among the veterans there are few fools to fly behind the Entente with the central ones.  They should not be blamed, because they want fun, we all come there just for that.  And for the Entente, pleasure can only be obtained with a large number of players and an equal balance.

After these realistic patches, I often get a not quite equal balance in the game.  At the time of the battle in this video, it was 1x3.  I was looking for these guys for quite a while, and I had no desire and no time yet to get clever, to run away from the three, as apparently all the lovers of realism in the game do.  I knew that I would not win, but I did not expect to lose so quickly.

 

 

This is the same case when the aircraft is in a bend and is experiencing a perfectly acceptable load for it.  But a couple of bullets that hit him cause a breakdown of the wing.

Tomorrow we have a FiF session.  I have no desire to take part in it with the new conditions of the game.  But I will try to come, because I promised to do this to those few of our pilots who have not stopped flying to the FC.

 

 

I don’t understand what I’m seeing here.  

 

I must have been under a misapprehension, I thought that videos showed actual events, rather than ping related perception of events.  It doesn’t seem like the bullets are anywhere near the Dolphin.  It does rather stack the odds, if only a few bullets can destroy your aircraft, but at the same time it’s not always possible, even with skill, to put yourself in a position that avoids them, if what you’re seeing isn’t what is actually happening for all parties involved.

 

How many bullets hit the Dolphin and were they all in one wing ?

 

Are both wings, on one side, combined to consider the DM, or to put it another way, does hitting either wing, on one side, contribute to the reduction in overall strength of that side of the aircraft or is each wing, on either side of the aircraft modelled separately ?

 

Did the video demonstrate the Fokker shooting a long burst from dead six.  I assume it must have done given the amount of perceived hits to the amount of structural damage caused ?

 

Are maybe bullets from the front quarter, super, super, super, super powerful ?

[US103_Baer]

In 1v1 testing, 25-30% of PvP fights resulted in initial control jams/loss that would lead to a shootdown. Often coming from random long range spray-n-prays.

 

Does that strike everyone as a reasonable number?

 

Seems extremely high to me. Just like spar hits...

[ZachariasX]

52 minutes ago, DakkaDakkaDakka said:

you need to start thinking about how it can be improved _as a game_ or it and this entire genre of WWI and eventually WWII flight sims will die with this generation of gamers.

 

In principle, I do agree with your opinion, but I feel there‘s a huge caveat to that.

 

This combat sim (Great Battle series as a whole) differs from other games inasmuch as it is a game made special by getting is fun part out of providing an exact (or as exact as possible) copy of the real environment. It is more than just a shooter, it is a shooter that wants to give you the same challenge as people in the real situation had. This narrows drastically your design options on how to expose the player to the challenge provided.

 

The games that you mentioned, the ones with huge attendance are nothing but a system that that balances player ability vs. challenge and often enough constantly monitor the player, balancing his game on the fly to both make him stay as well as let him know that he could be better if he just bought more content. It doesn‘t matter if the game draws space ships or orcs as long as gfx look fancy.

 

Combat sims (ideally) have a hard wired environment with absolutely frustrating prospects to the player. It must be like that. In the real situation, everybody died at least in the long run minus a tiny handful of exceptions. In terms of game design, it is the antithesis of what you need to do to attract new players and make them stay. The learning curve is so steep and requires so much technical and historic knowledge, that you have a small player base to begin with. Hence, you cannot directly compare a combat sim with with other shooters in terms of potential player demography. It requires ulterior interests. He/she who chooses a combat sim is looking for more than mere instant gratification, hence you can ask for a bit more patience from players.

 

But as you say, there are limits to that. The only way to provide a terribly steep learning curve while still offering fun is when the player understands WHY he faced demise and thus change his play style to succeed. When is not plausible to the player why he failed, the whole concept fails and the player will tun away to greener pastures, where he doesn‘t feel cheated.

 

This is my main critique of the current DM (in FC) as the RNG is separating effect from ability despite the (ideally) same bottom line. For the player, it is irrelevant whether other players have been lucky while pure chance lets him fail. In the real situation, it wasn‘t the throw of a dice, it was the right aim of the other one that made the player fail. And thus can be understood and accepted. But if you are are in an aircraft where it is evident that the dice thrown has a little weight in it, then you’re just cheated. This is why a RNG should maybe be slightly less hard on player odds than „real statistics“ for aircraft on the downside of the odds.  If if it is just odds that are worse, then this will be felt during gameplay and it does make gameplay exponentially less rewarding.

 

About the online experience, I will never understand why there is no DED server running a map like „Aces Falling“ we had back in RoF. Or „Flying Circus“. These were always the most reliably populated servers and they were fun even with few people. I agree that the Flugpark maps, as small as they are, are too big for the few people that often are on that map. I understand that there are some people that just want to fly on that map and maybe even avoid getting in fights in order to complete whatever mission. For someone with half an hour to spare for some fights, it is frustrating as when there‘s 10 people on Flugpark, you may well just fly half an hour until someone bothers to put up a fight.

 

Berloga is always fun and delivers what it intends to provide. Same the DED icons on server. Not providing a small server where people go that actually are looking for a quick fight, is a huge missed opportunity and it drags down the game as a whole. I will never understand why 1CGS does deprive FC of that very online scenario, where the whole thing works best with the players we regularly have, even with the DM the way it is now.

[US103_Baer]

6 hours ago, catchov said:

 

@US103_Baer

And that guy (was it Baer?) with jammed elevator in a vertical dive with no way out and screaming the f(uck) word a lot even after death was very entertaining. Not to him of course, and I see his point about the apparent fragility of control cables. But that's another story ….

 

Yes that was me cursing. Apologies.

 

That random long range bullet jammed the elevator in down position and cost me my biggest ever squadron vlife that was the result of many, many months of hard graft.

 

No way can I accept the DM as it is.

Edited June 13, 2020 by US103_Baer

[slug_yuugen]

@unreasonable There is a mismatch between the contrived test and experience in game. Clearly there is a factor unaccounted for in the test. That might be unruly players, an error in the damage model not captured by the test or simply over-modelling also not captured. We don’t know and can’t really find out. What we do know is that people are having much less fun and as a result have abandoned the game in droves.

 

I agree that a historically accurate recreation of WW1 combat is impossible in single or multiplayer right now. As such what outcome should we want from a WW1 combat game? I’d suggest that since history and a degree of accuracy is important to both the developers and players modelling towards known historical outcomes would give a better experience as the results of combat would match perceptions of what they should be.
 

 @DakkaDakkaDakka is right on the money. Failures can be fun but random failures with no or little feedback just feel like bullshit. Baer’s example of one stray long-range hit disabling his controls feels like bullshit. Having your controls disabled after a ferocious burst into the plane much less so. Losing a wing to damage that there is no indication of feels like bullshit (or the case directly above). Losing a wing to damage you’re clearly aware of much less so. Making a good game is very often about threading that failure, feedback and bullshit line.

 

In comparison to a lot of people here I’m one of the hapless noobs since I only started playing combat flight sims again last October and I was pretty happy to have caught the rising wave of FC. It’s pretty sad to see what should be positive features that add to the game gut the community willing to participate.

 

@HagarTheHorrible I believe the track recording just shows your view of the game so in multiplayer will capture the glorious inconsistencies latency creates.

Edited June 13, 2020 by slug_yuugen

[Zooropa_Fly]

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

Not providing a small server where people go that actually are looking for a quick fight, is a huge missed opportunity and it drags down the game as a whole.

 

You're obviously not looking at the server list very hard

 

[ZachariasX]

26 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

You're obviously not looking at the server list very hard

 

I will now, promise!

 

[Zooropa_Fly]

I run Zoo Wings Euro time, and the ST's run mostly the same maps US time. It's similar to the old NFF experience.

There's Baatan server, Shooting Stars, and the No.20 Squad I think have smaller maps.

 

The reality is, 95% of FC players want the larger, mission orientated experience.. icons-free. And a website of stats.

A while back, when Flugpark was down for a day or two I advertised I'd removed icons from my server.. but nobody looked in.

The same thing has happened in RoF a few times, people calling for an Aces Falling type server.. when there were already servers that would suffice.

 

I think 'Aces Falling' was a moment in time. Simply there were the player numbers back in the day.

There was nothing special I remember about their maps, as such. When the numbers are good empty air is all we need.

 

I think there's a decent selection of MP available for where the game is just now, and I don't think lack of the 'perfect map' has much to do with current MP numbers.

 

S!

 

[ZachariasX]

8 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

I think 'Aces Falling' was a moment in time. Simply there were the player numbers back in the day.

OT from here on:

Spoiler

AF and FC were about the only servers I flew on regularly for years. AF even had stats. While NFF etc always had extremely fluctuationg numbers, you could find someone for fight on both AF and FC on about every hour of the day.

 

The point is, 4 people on an AF server could have a lot of fun. On mission based servers, you then better bring some newspapers to read while flying.

 

Mission based servers take a lot of players for providing casual fun to anyone that is not in an organized group. I consider it a big fallacy that thinking that the ultimate wet dream mission of a hard core simmer is the only thing that works and the only thing that is accepted. Goofy entertainment such as river runs etc can be fun too. You don't have to restrct yourself to the ideals of a chosen few. You have aircraft, guns, whatever. You can make of that what you want. Anything that is fun goes.

 

To me FC and later AF were the only constant source of casual fun in RoF. All the rest.. required overhead as better getting organzied with others. Maybe I just want to play. It is bad enough that the game has a very steep learning curve. Making complex missions that in many cases require A LOT of unspoken knowledge is just another boot kicking out newcomers that just seek to shoot up things. Also, If you are alone and you enter a server where the chosen few are amongst themselves (as they have been for decades) then you have a problem. You are dead upon spawning, you just don't know it and once it happens it is just surreal how out of place the casual gamer is.

 

We have mission based servers to a degree that cannot be populated by the average player numbers.

 

What is so bad about just making a map with only say, 4 airfields in close proximity? Berloga is just that and it ALWAYS has people on there. But name it as such and name it as a FC map. Maybe have two bots fly on each side until you get about 5 players or so. You translate AF mpas in FC, I guaratee you attendance. But name it such that you know what you get from the list.

 

The better is the enemy of the good. It is a bad idea to replicate what works if what works runs under capacity most of the time.

 

[Zooropa_Fly]

Yeah I forgot AF did stats, they're definately an attraction.

 

My maps are probably all 2-4 minutes to get into the action, with 4-6 bots / side.

I'd start taking bots out if the human numbers were sufficient, but as it is..

Bots aren't as troublesome as in RoF mind you. Them colliding with, and friendlies shooting you is rare in FC.

It's not the demolition derby RoF is.

 

One major advantage we now have in FC is that you can pack much more into a map from a performance perspective, and ww2 objects can be pilferred.

Obviously we're limited in ww1 material just now, and after my next (14th) map, I should probably go do something else.

 

If you want something a bit different check out 'The Twilight Zone' !

 

S!

[emely]

4 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

 

I don’t understand what I’m seeing here.  

 

I must have been under a misapprehension, I thought that videos showed actual events, rather than ping related perception of events.  It doesn’t seem like the bullets are anywhere near the Dolphin.  It does rather stack the odds, if only a few bullets can destroy your aircraft, but at the same time it’s not always possible, even with skill, to put yourself in a position that avoids them, if what you’re seeing isn’t what is actually happening for all parties involved.

 

How many bullets hit the Dolphin and were they all in one wing ?

 

Are both wings, on one side, combined to consider the DM, or to put it another way, does hitting either wing, on one side, contribute to the reduction in overall strength of that side of the aircraft or is each wing, on either side of the aircraft modelled separately ?

 

Did the video demonstrate the Fokker shooting a long burst from dead six.  I assume it must have done given the amount of perceived hits to the amount of structural damage caused ?

 

Are maybe bullets from the front quarter, super, super, super, super powerful ?

Out of sync in a multiplayer game is unpleasant, but I'm used to it.  According to the parser, there were three hits, and the fourth (98%), this is the moment of the wing fracture.  Given the sum of the speeds of the two aircraft, I think it is unlikely that all the bullets hit the spar.

As we found out in this thread, the parser is lying to us, the visual DM is also lying.  What is left for us?  Maybe the sounds of hits?  ))) Somewhere there is a correctly working game in which all the stupid diagrams that we have seen in the messages work well .... However, we can neither see this good game on the monitor, nor hear, nor see its statistics.

 

[unreasonable]

3 hours ago, slug_yuugen said:

@unreasonable There is a mismatch between the contrived test and experience in game. Clearly there is a factor unaccounted for in the test. That might be unruly players, an error in the damage model not captured by the test or simply over-modelling also not captured. We don’t know and can’t really find out. What we do know is that people are having much less fun and as a result have abandoned the game in droves.

 

I agree that a historically accurate recreation of WW1 combat is impossible in single or multiplayer right now. As such what outcome should we want from a WW1 combat game? I’d suggest that since history and a degree of accuracy is important to both the developers and players modelling towards known historical outcomes would give a better experience as the results of combat would match perceptions of what they should be.
 

 

I suspect that "droves" is an exaggeration.... if "droves" of people had purchased FC in the first place I have no doubt that we would have heard by now from Jason about his plans for FC2.  As it is, FC was launched along with TC because, reading between the lines, sales of the recent WW2 modules were disappointing. Jason was fairly open about it being a low cost way of grabbing some extra dosh, but I doubt if it has even covered it's own development costs.

 

So I have a feeling that the problem is not to do with WW1 only - but that flight sims as a genre are dying.  It is possible that this is partly self inflicted, with increasing realism driving away more casual gamers, but more because designers have found other ways to design games that create game addiction. Additionally, the generation that thought of the world wars as the high point of adventure and derring-do is dying out. I only have a few years left where I can enjoy games that require such quick reactions and hand eye coordination. At least in WW1 it all happens a little slower! 

 

I have said many times over the last ten years that the developers are missing an opportunity to make zillions and establish a huge player base.  They need a module that is not based on the actual world wars at all, but that uses their maps technology, graphics and "feeling of flight" to draw in the audience for fantasy games.  Two sides, or maybe more factions, based around humans, elves, orcs etc (or as close as you can get without having the Tolkien estate on your back), engaged in an aerial and land struggle for supremacy using WW1/2ish technology  in an imagined world. With magic, princesses wearing chain-mail bikinis and dragons!  No historical research required, can be as  balanced as you like, set where you like.  Since we already have magic in FC (Cloak of Invisibility) adding a few more spells should not be too hard.  

 

Edited June 13, 2020 by unreasonable

[emely]

2 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

 

You're obviously not looking at the server list very hard

 

I have long said that finding the right one in the server list is not so simple with the ww1 card.  If in the names of servers with different topics there would be icons for recognition, or colored markers, or in general the ability to select only the FC server in managing the page .... Now users need to read long names, where mention of ww1, or FC can be  poorly visible.

[Zooropa_Fly]

Well said that Russian !

The 1st MP options page should be : WW1 / WW2 / Tank / Co-Op.

[ST_Catchov]

40 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

'The Twilight Zone' !

 

It's weird you know, but when I fly that map it feels like I've gone back in time, into another dimension ….

 

Have you ever had or considered timed furball/dogfight events on your server to attract human players? I'd be able to slot into a 10am GMT start on Sat/Sun. This is 8pm my time. I can only really fly at night or early evening (twilight zone?) unfortunately. I realize my time zone is, shall we say, inconvenient. Well, it just shits me to be honest. Just a thought anyway ….

 

Now back to normal transmission ….

 

You have just left the twilight zone and entered a DM discussion ….

 

 

 

[DakkaDakkaDakka]

5 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

But as you say, there are limits to that. The only way to provide a terribly steep learning curve while still offering fun is when the player understands WHY he faced demise and thus change his play style to succeed. When is not plausible to the player why he failed, the whole concept fails and the player will tun away to greener pastures, where he doesn‘t feel cheated.

 

Thank you so much. Not only did you identify and understand the kernel of what I was trying to get at with my post, but you stated it in a much more articulate way than I did. I appreciate that a lot.

 

I certainly enjoy, accept and respect the skill based nature of these sims and I know the devs are listening to feedback and trying to balance that against the hard commitment they've made to realism. I understand and appreciate that, but there's always the need to ensure that fun isn't destroyed in the process, or there will be no one left to play the perfectly curated game.

 

I fly planes from both factions in FC and the current DM - as interesting as it is - is resulting in negative play experiences for everyone. Compounded with the wing shedding issue, I believe it's entirely plausible that we're going to see what little interest there is in FC evaporate unless this is redressed. And I think it's both OK and completely appropriate to say that having fun is just as important if not moreso than "realism", especially in circumstances like here where we will never, despite our best intentions, achieve perfection in all matters. (Though hopefully thanks to Chill31 we can get the Dr.1 FM really dialed in).

[J2_Bidu]

13 hours ago, Chill31 said:

You should use 3 or 4 mm cable for your calculations 

 

Calculations revised accordingly:

 

A bullet that is shot from six and passes through the lateral (vertical) zone where you have wires is entering through an area of 2.6m (width) * 1.1 m (height), that's 2,915,000 mm^2.

The diagonal from one corner to the other is SQRT (2.6^2 + 1.1^2) = 2.82m = 2820mm

Considering wire thickness as 4mm and bullet caliber as 8mm.

The (flat, visual) area occupied by one diagonal cable as seen from behind is 2820*4 = 11280 mm^2.

The likelihood of a bullet cutting one of the cables is roughly 2 * 11280 /  2,915,000 = 0.00774. The times 2 factor reflects the bullet caliber being double the width of the wire.

You have 4 crossed cables in that area (actually two of them are double, let's forget that). So the probability of it cutting one of the wires is 0.031 = 0.00774 * 4.

That means the expected number of bullets you need to shoot to cut one of the diagonal wires is about 32, provided it passes between those struts where you have wires (read it as "when I throw a dice six times, I expect the number of resulting 6's to be one.").

[DakkaDakkaDakka]

4 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

I run Zoo Wings Euro time, and the ST's run mostly the same maps US time. It's similar to the old NFF experience.

There's Baatan server, Shooting Stars, and the No.20 Squad I think have smaller maps.

 

I have always been a huge fan of the NFF servers. Fun in the Sun over Verdun is an absolute RoF MP classic and IMHO a masterpiece of pick-up-and-play design. I cut my teeth in my beloved SPAD XIII getting shot down over and over again by FogelGT's pre-nerf Dr.1. Eventually I 'got good' and learned that the SPAD is not a turnfighter... but it took a LOT of dying to do so.

 

Your server is great and provides that same sort of immediate action. There are swarms of bots to use for target practice, and some ground targets to use for strafing / etc. It comes the closest of recapturing what made the NFF servers really work, in my opinion. Thank you! I love it.

 

I also enjoy Wargrounds Flugpark and feel like if we can maybe add some more bots, it would give some "glue" to keep people in the map. Right now, in my timezone, unless it's Thursday or Sunday, I can either choose to fly around aimlessly, or I can choose to fight 1v2 versus Adam and his wingman. Both are pointless exercises, though for different reasons. (I hold hope in my heart that someday I will win one of those 1v2s vs Adam, but years of evidence suggests otherwise)

Edited June 13, 2020 by DakkaDakkaDakka

[J2_Bidu]

13 hours ago, slug_yuugen said:

 
It is but the chances of flinging 26 rounds straight down the pipe are vanishingly rare and if you take depth into account for the same random distribution you need a lot more rounds. Let alone accounting for a distribution of fire that is less random (e.g. most people squeezing off a burst aren’t liberally spraying the entire wing section).

 

The diameter question is also a good example in the 2D case diameters relationship to area is linear but in the 3D case it’s squared in relation to volume.

 

Sorry, I don't see the rationale on what you are saying. Except in extreme cases, switching the angle at witch you're firing into the wing doesn't change much. Granted, at statistically insignificant cases where you're firing exactly 90 degrees from above, and also when you're exactly on dead six, some cables will tend to visually obstruct others, and therefore maybe offer some protection to it also. But for the average case it's pretty much irrelevant.

[No.23_Triggers]

Went back and read the notes I included for analysed claims of Bohme, Muller, Tutschek, Wolff, Immelmann, Goering & Voss. For all their claims I had just five instances of aircraft being reported as having gone down due to cut control cables. Here are the results: 



We can assume that some of the results of 'Crashed' and 'Unspecified' might also have been caused by the cutting of control surfaces - but how many? That's hard to say. 

I also went through the entirety of the historical 93rd Aero Squadron's Engineering Office reports to see what kind of repairs they reported on., from August 11th to  November 10th, 1918. Bear in mind that these are daily squadron reports! 

In the 93rd's mechanic reports I found 24 instances that mention control and flying wires. Of those, five specifically mentioned that control surfaces were being repaired, and only one instance that specifically mentioned a control surface cable being repaired. I think this is an important distinction to make, as it was not uncommon for maintenance to include the replacement of old, worn parts. 

For reference - according to the USAS records, the 93rd logged 1183 sorties flown, with 1228 flying hours, and a total of 84 combats with the enemy during this period.
(Info gathered by US93_Talbot)

This presents an interesting situation - with Baer's initial estimate of 1/3 of all combats resulting in control surface loss, this can be roughly compared to the 93rd's combat record at a first glance - IF we assumed that any mention of controls / flying wires came as a result of combat (even though not all of them did), we would get a figure of 29% of all combats resulting in some kind of damage to control surfaces. That's not too far away from Baer's prediction. 

HOWEVER - if we looked at specific mentions of controls being repaired, and made the same assumption that all cases were due to battle damage, that number drops drastically to only 6% of all combats resulting in damage to control surfaces. It drops even further in cases of control surface wires being mentioned as repaired, going all the way down to a measly 1%.

At this time, I am fairly convinced that the disabling / jamming of control surfaces is just too probable in relation to what the records would suggest. However, if any other sources come out that can refute that, I'm happy to change my tune. 

 

Fortunately, the control surface damage is NOT like the Spars / Wings, in the sense that human error doesn't factor in - a problem that has really stalled our discussions about wing damage! You can pull a damaged wing off if you're over-aggressive, but you can't snap your own control cables through rough handling. 

As an interesting side note, I saw plenty mention of wings being patched, repaired, or even completely replaced in the 93rd reports.


 

Edited June 13, 2020 by US93_Larner

[DakkaDakkaDakka]

15 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

Fortunately, the control surface damage is NOT like the Spars / Wings, in the sense that human error doesn't factor in - a problem that has really stalled our discussions about wing damage! You can pull a damaged wing off if you're over-aggressive, but you can't snap your own control cables through rough handling.

 

Thank you for doing that research! Though it's a comparatively short amount of time, it's a timeframe that overlaps with one of the periods of greatest combat activity, pertaining directly to aircraft immediately relevant to our plane set. I can imagine it took a lot of time and I appreciate you doing it.

 

Accepting that  you have presented compelling historical data to suggest that control cables were not getting cut with the frequency they are in our "realistic" fight game, it should be pointed out some knock-on effects:

• There's no reason to aim for meat and metal, or aim at all other than generally trying to hit your target. Spray and pray is worth it, because you've got decent odds of jamming a surface and disabling if not outright indirectly killing the target (can we please get an F in the chat for Baer's v-life).
• Because spray and pray is now a valid tactic, the skill-based nature of this combat flight sim has been degraded. An absolute newb, or a teammate across the map, or almost anyone can cause your elevator, rudder, aileron or whatever to jam in a completely unnatural position defying the laws of physics, and make you lose control and die.
• Flying Entente has thus gone from bad to worse, as the wing shedding problems are now compounded by the control rod/wire failures.

The net result is that the core rules  of the game are being broken by these patches, and it will drive players away, especially those interested in v-lives and stats (which they are entitled to be, here in this game dedicated to hyper realism). These patches need a new patch to improve and refine what are interesting ideas, but which have been introduced without sufficient refinement, and as such are negatively impacting the play experience for everyone.

Edited June 13, 2020 by DakkaDakkaDakka

[unreasonable]

38 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

HOWEVER - if we looked at specific mentions of controls being repaired, and made the same assumption that all cases were due to battle damage, that number drops drastically to only 6% of all combats resulting in damage to control surfaces. It drops even further in cases of control surface wires being mentioned as repaired, going all the way down to a measly 1%.
 

 

Be careful: you risk making the same fallacious reasoning as the people who thought, in WW2,  that armour should be placed on the areas that suffered battle damage in planes that managed to RTB. In fact, it was need on the other areas.

 

Mentions of repairs to wires, cables etc are low because damage to these would seldom allow a plane to RTB.  

 

[No.23_Triggers]

15 minutes ago, DakkaDakkaDakka said:

 

Thank you for doing that research! Though it's a comparatively short amount of time, it's a timeframe that overlaps with one of the periods of greatest combat activity, pertaining directly to aircraft immediately relevant to our plane set. I can imagine it took a lot of time and I appreciate you doing it.

 

Accepting that  you have presented compelling historical data to suggest that control cables were not getting cut with the frequency they are in our "realistic" fight game, it should be pointed out some knock-on effects:

• There's no reason to aim for meat and metal, or aim at all other than generally trying to hit your target. Spray and pray is worth it, because you've got decent odds of jamming a surface and disabling if not outright indirectly killing the target (can we please get an F in the chat for Baer's v-life).
• Because spray and pray is now a valid tactic, the skill-based nature of this combat flight sim has been degraded. An absolute newb, or a teammate across the map, or almost anyone can cause your elevator, rudder, aileron or whatever to jam in a completely unnatural position defying the laws of physics, and make you lose control and die.
• Flying Entente has thus gone from bad to worse, as the wing shedding problems are now compounded by the control rod/wire failures.

The net result is that the core rules  of the game are being broken by these patches, and it will drive players away, especially those interested in v-lives and stats (which they are entitled to be, here in this game dedicated to hyper realism). These patches need a new patch to improve and refine what are interesting ideas, but which have been introduced without sufficient refinement, and as such are negatively impacting the play experience for everyone.

You're welcome - Talbot was helping gather the data, and he's also compiling similar research for the 103rd and 213th Aero Squadrons - so keep an eye out for that! 

Re: knock-on effects: 

- I wouldn't go as far as to say there's no reason to aim for meat and metal - but, yes, I've had the impression that 4005 through to 4.007 has GREATLY reduced the effectiveness or need to aim for these components and, for all intents and purposes, it's more lucrative to just aim at the whole plane. Especially since engine damage seems to have a reduced effect now, fires go out VERY quickly in lots of cases, and pilot wounding has a lesser effect (especially since KOs largely disappeared). 

- I feel very strongly about your second point...the 'original DM' flying circus felt very much based on skill and piloting ability. A good marksman was really lethal, and inaccurate shooting often lead to that pilot 'losing out' on the kill (at least, VS SPAD / SE). Now, it just feels like whoever has RNG on their side will be the most successful. It's not fun, and it's frustrating for the guys who put the effort in to be good with the old system. 

- Again, I'd agree. Entente has been hit harder by the updates than Central - especially in the Scout category. I think the discussions around this have been clouded by players being more inclined towards one side or the other, and/or neither 'faction' seeing eye-to-eye or having enough gameplay experience in the others' aircrafts. 

Ultimately, the result is as you say - the game is losing its 'fun factor', first and foremost. Of course, when dealing with the fact that the Devs very much view IL2 as strictly a simulator (In Jason's interview with Stormbirds he actually corrected the interviewer referring to IL2 as a 'Game'), this likely will lead to a conflict of interest between the Devs, who are invested in creating a true-to-life simulation, and the players, who, simply, want to have fun. 

The reasonable outcome would seem to be some kind of compromise between the community and the devs. The compromise that I, personally, see is to greatly reduce the chance of spar hits and control surface hits - and possibly toughen up the aircraft in general as well. 

 

[J2_Bidu]

A nice quote I found:

 

«Kenneth Marr, an American, had the commands of both his tail controls cut in a combat, the rudder and the elevator, leaving him nothing but the aileron - the lateral balance control and the motor. He landed with only a skinned nose for casualties and got a decoration for it.

Another chap in an attack on captive balloons, drachens, dove for something like 10,000 feet vertically and with full motor on, thereby gaining considerable speed as you can imagine. He came right on top of the balloon, shot and to keep from hitting it, yanked as roughly as he could, flattening out his dive in the merest fraction of a second. Imagine the strain on the machine!

When he got home, all the wires had several inches sag in them; the metal connections of the cables in the struts and wood of the wings had bit into the wood enough to give the sag.

Machines are built to stand immens pressure on the underside of the wings. In some acrobatic manoeuvres I was trying the other day, I made mistakes and caused the machine to stall and then fall in such a way that the full weight was supported by the upper surface - by the wires which in most machines are supposed merely to support the weight of the wings when the machine is on the ground. Yes, the Spad is a well-built machine, the nearest thing to perfection in point of strength, speed and climbing power I've seen yet.»

 

- Above the French Lines; Letters of Stuart Walcott, American Aviator: July 4, 1917, to December 8, 1917

[slug_yuugen]

56 minutes ago, J2_Bidu said:

 

Sorry, I don't see the rationale on what you are saying. Except in extreme cases, switching the angle at witch you're firing into the wing doesn't change much. Granted, at statistically insignificant cases where you're firing exactly 90 degrees from above, and also when you're exactly on dead six, some cables will tend to visually obstruct others, and therefore maybe offer some protection to it also. But for the average case it's pretty much irrelevant.

 

2D you're poking holes in the paper, 3D you're drawing lines on the paper except those lines also have depth and the wires are at different depths so there is more space to miss into. The 2D case is interesting though because it does show that if you could randomly fire into the wing area then there isn't an unreasonable chance of hitting something important.

 

Also for example from the perspective of hitting spars the dead six is also not the best position a slightly higher or lower position gives more area to hit, for example in this exaggerated view.

Edited June 13, 2020 by slug_yuugen

[J2_Bidu]

5 minutes ago, slug_yuugen said:

 

2D you're poking holes in the paper, 3D you're drawing lines on the paper except those lines also have depth and the wires are at different depths so there is more space to miss into. The 2D case is interesting though because it does show that if you could randomly fire into the wing area then there isn't an unreasonable chance of hitting something important.

 

I understand perfectly well the difference between 2d and 3d, miind you ?.

But I still don't see the argument that "there is more space to miss into". The bullet that enters the hibox traverses the whole hitbox space. It's not a dot. So, the problem is not akin to hitting the wire with an 8mm flak burst randomly placed inside the box, in which case I would acknowledge your objections.

Edited June 13, 2020 by J2_Bidu

[DakkaDakkaDakka]

2 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

The reasonable outcome would seem to be some kind of compromise between the community and the devs. The compromise that I, personally, see is to greatly reduce the chance of spar hits and control surface hits - and possibly toughen up the aircraft in general as well.

 

Absolutely agree. I want all the planes to be as realistic as possible, but regardless of what I want, this game - and let's not kid ourselves, this is not a training simulator product for the military here, and maybe the devs need a dose of reality on that score - this game needs to be fun if people are going to buy and play it.

 

It's well and good for the devs to stick to their guns, but when their decisions begin to have severe negative affects on the very people paying their salaries, well, they will maybe find that "unemployment simulator" is the next project they work on.

 

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, J2_Bidu said:

 

Calculations revised accordingly:

 

A bullet that is shot from six and passes through the lateral (vertical) zone where you have wires is entering through an area of 2.6m (width) * 1.1 m (height), that's 2,915,000 mm^2.

The diagonal from one corner to the other is SQRT (2.6^2 + 1.1^2) = 2.82m = 2820mm

Considering wire thickness as 4mm and bullet caliber as 8mm.

The (flat, visual) area occupied by one diagonal cable as seen from behind is 2820*4 = 11280 mm^2.

The likelihood of a bullet cutting one of the cables is roughly 2 * 11280 /  2,915,000 = 0.00774. The times 2 factor reflects the bullet caliber being double the width of the wire.

You have 4 crossed cables in that area (actually two of them are double, let's forget that). So the probability of it cutting one of the wires is 0.031 = 0.00774 * 4.

That means the expected number of bullets you need to shoot to cut one of the diagonal wires is about 32, provided it passes between those struts where you have wires (read it as "when I throw a dice six times, I expect the number of resulting 6's to be one.").

 

If the probability of hitting one of the four wires is 0.031, you will need only 22 bullets to hit a wire 50% of the time.  0.969^22 =  0.500

 

You will hit a wire after only 5 bullets almost 15% of the time. 0.969^5 = 0.854

 

 

[slug_yuugen]

1 minute ago, unreasonable said:

 

If the probability of hitting one of the four wires is 0.031, you will need only 22 bullets to hit a wire 50% of the time.  0.969^22 =  0.500

 

You will hit a wire after only 5 bullets almost 15% of the time. 0.969^5 = 0.854

 

 

 

Note that this is with a random distribution which is a fair enough assumption for the first shot of a burst but the following rounds will be decidedly not randomly distributed.

[unreasonable]

43 minutes ago, slug_yuugen said:

 

2D you're poking holes in the paper, 3D you're drawing lines on the paper except those lines also have depth and the wires are at different depths so there is more space to miss into. The 2D case is interesting though because it does show that if you could randomly fire into the wing area then there isn't an unreasonable chance of hitting something important.

 

Also for example from the perspective of hitting spars the dead six is also not the best position a slightly higher or lower position gives more area to hit, for example in this exaggerated view.

 

Yes,  you are most likely to hit a spar that has equal depth and span chord at exactly 45 degrees, when firing at an enemy aircraft .  But the percentage of hits to the wing that hit a spar will be highest from 0 degrees in almost all cases.  45 degrees is probably a fairly common angle against a turning enemy, it may make spar hits quite probable - perhaps adding to the "perception mismatch" - although I am convinced that is mostly an averaging issue.

31 minutes ago, slug_yuugen said:

 

Note that this is with a random distribution which is a fair enough assumption for the first shot of a burst but the following rounds will be decidedly not randomly distributed.

 

The spread of a burst of MG bullets from a moving plane, against a moving target of such a small size, at battle range, is to all intents and purposes random. 

 

If you do not believe that you could always model a burst of n rounds as a really big bullet with some p to hit at least one wire. I doubt that you will get very different results. 

Edited June 13, 2020 by unreasonable

[slug_yuugen]

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

The spread of a burst of MG bullets from a moving plane, against a moving target of such a small size, at battle range, is to all intents and purposes random. 

 

If you do not believe that you could always model a burst of n rounds as a really big bullet with some p to hit at least one wire. I doubt that you will get very different results. 

 

I think you grossly underestimate how good peoples gunnery is and typical engagement ranges if you think that's the case. O_o

 

For fun because I'm at a loose end this afternoon I knocked up a monte carlo wing shooting simulator here is my patented "thicc boi" test wing going through its paces:

 

This is if nothing else pretty fun.

 

So that wing is 4.2515 m long, 1m across and 0.3m thick the front spar is through the full length and depth of the wing is and is 0.05m across the rear spar is the same but only 0.03m across. Over 100,000 shots it works out to roughly 30% chance of randomly hitting a spar from any angle although you're veeeery slightly less likely to hit the rear spar. Looking at shots that came within ten degrees of the vertical you get 7% for the front spar and 4% for a rear spar and for those within ten degrees of horizontal 53% chance of hitting the front spar and 46% chance of hitting the rear spar. This is without modelling penetration, essentially assuming the first spar contact stops the bullet.

 

If anyone has any real dimensions to play with I can change them pretty easily and if I feel sporty over the next week I'll model both wings and struts/wires as well.

Edited June 13, 2020 by slug_yuugen

[No.23_Triggers]

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

 

Be careful: you risk making the same fallacious reasoning as the people who thought, in WW2,  that armour should be placed on the areas that suffered battle damage in planes that managed to RTB. In fact, it was need on the other areas.

 

Mentions of repairs to wires, cables etc are low because damage to these would seldom allow a plane to RTB.  

 

Good point. I went back through the reports and looked this time for planes not returned. 

The 93rd had 54 cases of aircraft not returned in the previously mentioned time period. Of those 54 cases, there were 16 cases of aircraft that didn't reappear on the squadron inventory, and 5 cases of pilots' names not reappearing on the Squadron roster. 

Offhand I know the fate of two of these aircraft (and two missing pilots) for certain - Lt. Alfred B. Patterson, KIA, and Lt. Oscar J. Gude, who infamously surrendered himself to the Germans with the aircraft he was flying intact and undamaged. 

I'll further analyse the reports later on - but at a glance there appears to be virtually no mention of repair to control surfaces. The question, then, would be what happened to the other 14 aircraft that went missing? 

By any means, if the 93rd's historical reports are anything to go by, an aircraft losing its control surfaces was NOT common compared to other forms of damage. 

Edited June 13, 2020 by US93_Larner

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

4 hours ago, unreasonable said:

I have said many times over the last ten years that the developers are missing an opportunity to make zillions and establish a huge player base.  They need a module that is not based on the actual world wars at all, but that uses their maps technology, graphics and "feeling of flight" to draw in the audience for fantasy games.  Two sides, or maybe more factions, based around humans, elves, orcs etc (or as close as you can get without having the Tolkien estate on your back), engaged in an aerial and land struggle for supremacy using WW1/2ish technology  in an imagined world. With magic, princesses wearing chain-mail bikinis and dragons!  No historical research required, can be as  balanced as you like, set where you like.  Since we already have magic in FC (Cloak of Invisibility) adding a few more spells should not be too hard.  

 

 

I just saw a turn-based dogfight game on Steam based on the Warhammer universe.  Aeronautica Imperialis or something like that...

Edited June 13, 2020 by US63_SpadLivesMatter

[unreasonable]

49 minutes ago, slug_yuugen said:

 

I think you grossly underestimate how good peoples gunnery is and typical engagement ranges if you think that's the case. O_o

 

No, I really do not.  But let's examine how the non-independence case might work in practice.

 

Suppose we were firing a laser in pulses rather than a HMG with all it's vibration and ammunition variance, from a perfectly stable, non vibrating plane.   Base case group size when both target and firer are stationary relative to one another is ~= one pulse size.   But what happens when the firer and target are moving in different directions.  The group at the target would look like a line, which is obviously more likely to hit one wire than the same number of pulses in one place.  Also more likely to hit one wire than the independent case, since as the length of the line increases, the probability of hitting a wire approaches 1.00 with each additional pulse.

 

The better people's gunnery, and the closer the range, the more like a line their group will look, and the higher their probability of hitting at least one wire.   Even so, practically speaking, given the spacing between the bullets and natural dispersion even in an exceptionally good group, in a real fight the assumption of independence is perfectly valid.  

Edited June 13, 2020 by unreasonable