4.007 DM

[J2_Bidu]

1 hour 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.

 

But I'm assuming random is the worst possible distribution. Of course one could specifically and consistently be aiming at the wrong thing, maybe mislead by what the most critical part is. For instance, he could be aiming at the man, instead of at the controls, a clear mistake. ?

[slug_yuugen]

You realise no where in that paragraph do you actually make a case that the assumption of independence is valid. There's a reason why the advice to pilots was to get as close as possible, be in the same plane of motion and shoot the bejeezus out of the pilot. The guns in FC are like laser beams as well. If you hop into multiplayer you'll meet some veritable snipers. Even I with my very mediocre performance can usually aim at and hit pretty well in and around the pilot and engine if not snap shooting.

[unreasonable]

8 minutes ago, US63_SpadLivesMatter said:

 

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

 

I am convinced that people would buy something along the lines I proposed - I asked a couple of friends who are gamers. Their reaction to seeing RoF/BoX etc was always that it was hugely impressive, but obviously only worth doing if you were going to invest the effort to learn a lot. It is probably too late now, unfortunately. People's expectations for graphics, including animations, are so high that the full vision is prohibitively expensive. But Camels vs Dragons would be fun even if there were no pouting elven princesses.

Edited June 13, 2020 by unreasonable

[slug_yuugen]

9 minutes ago, J2_Bidu said:

 

But I'm assuming random is the worst possible distribution. Of course one could specifically and consistently be aiming at the wrong thing, maybe mislead by what the most critical part is. For instance, he could be aiming at the man, instead of at the controls, a clear mistake. ?

 

Clearly you haven't had me wobbling erratically behind you.

 

I'm thinking more from the point of view of modelling hit chances for bursts. Which presumably just adds more chunk to the results as for each burst since you wouldn't be rolling the worst case. The chunkiest being if the first round hits all subsequent rounds would hit as well. ?

 

The hitbox fidelity is probably good enough that this isn't an issue though.

Edited June 13, 2020 by slug_yuugen

[unreasonable]

1 minute ago, slug_yuugen said:

You realise no where in that paragraph do you actually make a case that the assumption of independence is valid. There's a reason why the advice to pilots was to get as close as possible, be in the same plane of motion and shoot the bejeezus out of the pilot. The guns in FC are like laser beams as well. If you hop into multiplayer you'll meet some veritable snipers. Even I with my very mediocre performance can usually aim at and hit pretty well in and around the pilot and engine if not snap shooting.

 

A line of bullets, even exactly straight, still has gaps in it.  The bigger the gaps, the closer your result will be to independence. The degree of independence will vary greatly.

 

More importantly, a non-independent group will have a higher probability of hitting one wire. Assuming independence is being charitable. In which case the numbers I gave for hitting a wire after x shots are overestimates.   

 

To put another way, not having wire hit boxes is doing the braced planes a favour, and the more non-independent the bursts fired between the wings, the bigger the favour.

[Troutlaw]

213 Aero stats show:

 

From aug-nov/armistice

1232 - sorties

1505 - flying hours 

38 - combats 

7 SPADs "crashed" on dates combat was reported

 

93 mechanic reports-these reports were compiled daily at 17:00 for the squadron commander and list what the condition of all planes were at that time. Broken down they show:

 

19 list some reference to repairing control surfaces

 

13 of these mechanical reports coincide with combat reported on that day or the day prior.

 

Of these 13:

8 state variation of "repairing tail plane"

1 "changing control wires"

2 state "repairing rudder"

1 states "repairing stabilizer

1 states "changing control wires"

 

Those are the numbers and someone far better at statistics and what not can take it from here.

 

It is near impossible to know what happened to a specific combat loss. Most are listed as falling out of control or seen falling in flames. Those are generally the only two types of loss descriptors from pilots. No mentions of wing loss in 213 aero combat reports.

 

 

T.

Edited June 13, 2020 by Ricky_Recon

[unreasonable]

8 minutes ago, slug_yuugen said:

 

Clearly you haven't had me wobbling erratically behind you.

 

I'm thinking more from the point of view of modelling hit chances for bursts. Which presumably just adds more chunk to the results as for each burst since you wouldn't be rolling the worst case. The chunkiest being if the first round hits all subsequent rounds would hit as well. ?

 

If you are wobbling erratically your shots will be more independent the more erratic you are.  Your last comment is perfectly fine for large targets like the pilot, engine etc or even the whole plane: but in @J2_Bidu's case it does not work because  he is assuming that your burst hits inside the wing gap area.    

Edited June 13, 2020 by unreasonable

[slug_yuugen]

2 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

More importantly, a non-independent group will have a higher probability of hitting one wire.

 

Can you show your working? For me it sounds more plausible that if the second round is following nearly the same trajectory as the first it will be more likely to hit if the first round hit and more likely to miss if the first round missed.

1 minute ago, unreasonable said:

 

If you are wobbling erratically your shots will be more independent the more erratic you are.

 

Yes that was the joke.

[Troutlaw]

Dudes, if you haven't flown consistently int the multiplayer environment throughout all these damage model changes you really shouldn't be commenting on it like you know what you're talking about. These are sweeping changes that are occurring here affecting EVERYONE.

 

And you certainly shouldn't be presuming that people are flying their planes in certain manner if:

A: you aren't flying with or against them consistently

Or

B: AREN'T PLAYING F'N THE GAME ONLINE!

 

It's like, let me go talk to someone playing poker everyday and tell them how to play poker when I have just a general knowledge of playing poker.

 

Its ridiculous that you types continue to post and derail the conversation. Sitting here debating with someone who hasn't the slightest clue. Jog on.

 

T.

 

Edited June 13, 2020 by Ricky_Recon

[DD_Arthur]

17 minutes ago, Ricky_Recon said:

yada, yada, yada

 

Wot a lot of bollox.....

[Garven]

20 minutes ago, Ricky_Recon said:

Dudes, if you haven't flown consistently int the multiplayer environment throughout all these damage model changes you really shouldn't be commenting on it like you know what you're talking about. These are sweeping changes that are occurring here affecting EVERYONE.

 

And you certainly shouldn't be presuming that people are flying their planes in certain manner if:

A: you aren't flying with or against them consistently

Or

B: AREN'T PLAYING F'N THE GAME ONLINE!

 

It's like, let me go talk to someone playing poker everyday and tell them how to play poker when I have just a general knowledge of playing poker.

 

Its ridiculous that you types continue to post and derail the conversation. Sitting here debating with someone who hasn't the slightest clue. Jog on.

 

T.

 

Talbot, sock-puppet forum accounts are against forum rules.

[Troutlaw]

11 minutes ago, Danneskjold said:

Talbot, sock-puppet forum accounts are against forum rules.

 

Yeah other ones banned furlow.

 

This one is linked to one of the other licensed keys that I lawfully purchased.

 

Anything else to add?

 

You got me good man. With me using a former name and signing it T and providing info that Larner said talbots gonna provide. 

 

Outstanding work Columbo.

 

I tried so hard but you get me every time.

 

 

Straight up old school RoF woman drama. Wonderful.

Edited June 13, 2020 by Ricky_Recon

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, slug_yuugen said:

 

Can you show your working? For me it sounds more plausible that if the second round is following nearly the same trajectory as the first it will be more likely to hit if the first round hit and more likely to miss if the first round missed.

 

 

 

In the case that the first round hits, you have to decide first of all whether the target is still there for the second. If Bidu is assuming that any hit - as he defines it - removes the wire, then your assumption would not hold at all. 

 

If the first round misses - what information have you got? One 8mm diameter circle in the overall target area does not contain a wire.  Assuming that the bullets cannot go through on exactly the same path, so that their "holes" overlap, the next bullet now has a probability to hit modified by reducing the target zone by 50mm^2 and the target area (wires) by nothing.  A tiny effect, but it actually increases the probability of a hit, not decreases it. 

 

The only way you can get the effect you propose is if the first bullet misses and the second one has an actually overlapping hole.  The target zone is reduced as above,  but the extent of the overlap determines the reduction in the second bullet's ability to find the wire.   Worrying about overlapping bullet holes while firing from one moving plane to another strikes me as pointless.

 

 Mind you, the whole discussion of wires is moot, if there are none in the game.

Edited June 13, 2020 by unreasonable

[No.23_Triggers]

16 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

In the case that the first round hits, you have to decide first of all whether the target is still there for the second. If Bidu is assuming that any hit - as he defines it - removes the wire, then your assumption would not hold at all. 

 

I can't imagine that anything other than a direct hit in the centre-line of the cable would sever it. Wouldn't an indirect hit just ricochet off?

 

3 hours ago, J2_Bidu said:

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

Amazing! How the hell do you land without a rudder or elevator?! 

That SPAD dive story is also amazing...I wouldn't dream of attempting anything even remotely close to that in FC! I'd be scared to even dive straight down for 3,000m with my engine off! 

Edited June 13, 2020 by US93_Larner

[unreasonable]

6 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

 

I can't imagine that anything other than a direct hit in the centre-line of the cable would sever it. Wouldn't an indirect hit just ricochet off?

 

 

 

No idea - simply using @J2_Bidu's numbers, although they looked surprisingly high to me - as in p of a break. Easy enough to tweak his assumptions.  Perhaps the wires would be like the "spars"  with cumulative damage and reduce load bearing. If you hit a wire and did not break it I would expect that you would still damage it to some degree.   

 

I was more concerned with the probabilities - to not get a break, all the shots have to miss, so you use  (1-p)^n to find the p of not breaking.  Then we got into non-independence.... etc.   You know how it is.  

[Garven]

1 hour ago, Ricky_Recon said:

Outstanding work Columbo.

I'm more of a bumbling Inspector Clouseau

 

[Troutlaw]

You should go do something that provides more meaning in life, something that brings you happiness. 

 

Rather than worrying about what some random dude on the internet does with his time.

 

....hmm.... why am I talking to this mirror.

[unreasonable]

31 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

 

Amazing! How the hell do you land without a rudder or elevator?! 
 

 

 You control the rate of descent and pitch with the motor plus, perhaps, some very careful wing rocking with aileron to lose height.  You want to descend without going nose down and speeding up.  If you were rigged very nose heavy you would have a real problem without elevator, as reducing rpms would make your nose drop below the horizon.  A very gradual turn into the approach and wheel land power on at the minimum power you can manage. 

 

Might try it on my next mission.

[slug_yuugen]

1 hour ago, US93_Larner said:

Amazing! How the hell do you land without a rudder or elevator?! 

That SPAD dive story is also amazing...I wouldn't dream of attempting anything even remotely close to that in FC! I'd be scared to even dive straight down for 3,000m with my engine off! 

I landed off field the other day with only half an elevator. It was super weird balancing throttle and using the bit of elevator left to slowly spiral down. I was super lucky to end up in that state relatively stable to start with. It’s a bit weird in hindsight that the elevator wasn’t lost as well given half the horz stab was gone. Probably to the contrary of it happening in real life it was pretty dull once I worked out what control I had left and meandered back down.

Edited June 13, 2020 by slug_yuugen

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

52 minutes ago, Danneskjold said:

I'm more of a bumbling Inspector Clouseau

 

 

What is your code name ???

[Troutlaw]

24 minutes ago, J5_Klugermann said:

 

What is your code name ???

 

 

[emely]

Those who have absolutely nothing to do can calculate the likelihood of this event.  After that, we will begin to shoot down each other’s bullets, just firing across our lines

 

 

 

[Troutlaw]

103rd Aero stats show:

 

From aug-nov/armistice

1249 - sorties

1479 - flying hours 

96 - combats 

7 SPADs "crashed" on dates combat was reported

 

88 mechanic reports-these reports were compiled daily at 17:00 for the squadron commander and list what the condition of all planes were at that time. Broken down they show:

 

9 list some reference to repairing control surfaces

 

6 of these mechanical reports coincide with combat reported on that day or the day prior.

 

Of these 6:

1 states "changing rudder wires" 

1 states "shot through stabilizer"

2 state "putting on stabilizer"

1 states "waiting for new rudder eye bolts"

1 states "waiting on rudder"

 

Those are the numbers and someone far better at statistics and what not can take it from here.

 

-Talb.

[slug_yuugen]

10 minutes ago, emely said:

Those who have absolutely nothing to do can calculate the likelihood of this event.  After that, we will begin to shoot down each other’s bullets, just firing across our lines

 

 

 

The probability of that happening is 100% as it already did. You’re welcome. ?

[Troutlaw]

Examples of what Larner and I are having to look through.

 

 

Edited June 13, 2020 by Ricky_Recon

[emely]

11 minutes ago, slug_yuugen said:

The probability of that happening is 100% as it already did. You’re welcome. ?

 

A great start to a long speech!  )) To join the club of local experts on all topics, you are a little short of a couple of mathematical formulas and an unshakable confidence that you are the same dude who knows exactly all the correct answers ?

Do not forget to say something about elves and goblins at the end, a real genius should always be a little crazy, otherwise the image of a genius will be incomplete)))

Edited June 13, 2020 by emely

[Troutlaw]

 

A standard example of a USAS report and verbiage used when reporting action:

 

[emely]

Bro, they are not interested in your pieces of paper with numbers .. They have a very accurate calculator, they trust him more.

Let’s leave this nonsense for a while ... I’ll tell you an interesting story - today I broke a wing on a P3 on FiF after receiving damage!  Can you imagine !!?  I thought that this airplane didn’t give a damn about bullets, but it turned out that this was a bit wrong)))

Edited June 13, 2020 by emely

[No.23_Triggers]

33 minutes ago, emely said:

Bro, they are not interested in your pieces of paper with numbers .. They have a very accurate calculator, they trust him more.

Let’s leave this nonsense for a while ... I’ll tell you an interesting story - today I broke a wing on a P3 on FiF after receiving damage!  Can you imagine !!?  I thought that this airplane didn’t give a damn about bullets, but it turned out that this was a bit wrong)))

and I saw a D7 break up!!!!! IMPOSSIBLE!

[J2_Bidu]

4 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

2 hours ago, emely said:

Those who have absolutely nothing to do can calculate the likelihood of this event.  After that, we will begin to shoot down each other’s bullets, just firing across our lines

 

 

 

Amazing! How the hell do you land without a rudder or elevator?! 

 

Probability is... let me do the math... ... ... ... 1.

 

2 hours ago, slug_yuugen said:

The probability of that happening is 100% as it already did. You’re welcome. ?

 

Aaaaah! You beat me to it!

[No.23_Triggers]

Tonight's 3rd Pursuit Group (and Klaiber) flight results: 

First sortie - six S.E.5as...Two elevators shot out, three rudders shot out. One pilot lost due to elevator being shot out in a dive. 

Second sortie - five S.E.5as - Two aircraft lost controls (I think both rudder) 

Third sortie - four S.E.5as. One pilot lost, elevator lost in a dive. 

...that's just a bit ridiculous, really. 

[ST_Catchov]

Not as ridiculous as the SE5a FM. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Ricky_Recon said:

 

A standard example of a USAS report and verbiage used when reporting action:

 

 

Dude, you're as bad as Talbot with your useless bits of worthless virtual paper. No-one reads this crap. Why don't you just go and admire your hair in the mirror while you have a w ……… Wtf! 70 rounds to down a D7! Impossible. Wait! 50 rounds! Even impossibler. Fake news.

 

 

Edited June 13, 2020 by catchov
stupid auto post merging

[Troutlaw]

(From hundreds of reports: Average rounds fired at enemy fokkers seen to crash-127. Applying 10% accuracy as seen generally on the Flugpark averages 20 rounds per plane seen to crash)

 

Staaaaaaayyyyyy tuuuuunnnneeeeddd??????

[J5_Adam]

So the Fokkers should be even tougher? Lol

[DakkaDakkaDakka]

I spent the better part of my day in mostly underpopulated FC WWI servers only to discover that the dogfighting has been in the forum the whole time.

[No.23_Triggers]

4 minutes ago, DakkaDakkaDakka said:

I spent the better part of my day in mostly underpopulated FC WWI servers only to discover that the dogfighting has been in the forum the whole time.

I thought this thread was one of the new campaigns they just added...? 

Edited June 14, 2020 by US93_Larner

[J5_Adam]

9 minutes ago, DakkaDakkaDakka said:

I spent the better part of my day in mostly underpopulated FC WWI servers only to discover that the dogfighting has been in the forum the whole time.

yup. More flying, less typing

[emely]

3 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

and I saw a D7 break up!!!!! IMPOSSIBLE!

In fact, I do not care what my result will be.  Every flight I make an experiment - how can my plane turn, or something else.  Well, I have 15+ years of experience in such stories, but I can’t understand how such an activity can attract one of the new players?  When my friends tell me “Yes man, ww1 is cool and enticing, but just play under THESE conditions without me, good luck!” I just have nothing to answer, they are right.

But I still will not give up this business, even if it is not fair now.  Hope still did not die.  And in this game time - well, let it be a little, just one, but I will fly online in this crappy flight sim

 

[unreasonable]

8 hours ago, emely said:

 

A great start to a long speech!  )) To join the club of local experts on all topics, you are a little short of a couple of mathematical formulas and an unshakable confidence that you are the same dude who knows exactly all the correct answers ?

Do not forget to say something about elves and goblins at the end, a real genius should always be a little crazy, otherwise the image of a genius will be incomplete)))

 

Leave slug_yuggen out of the elves and goblins, that was all on me. Have you not managed to find the "ignore" button yet?  (Genius is relative).

 

8 hours ago, emely said:

Bro, they are not interested in your pieces of paper with numbers ..

  

You are completely wrong about that. I find them very interesting, but I do not see what point they are supposed to be making. Or are they just for information?

 

Fokker #1 70 rounds fired, range unspecified, target OOC 

So either pilot incapacitated or controls lost, probably elevator.  Wings OK. Out of 70 rounds fired, how many actually hit?

 

Fokker #2  50 rounds at 200m,  target went into nose dive and crashed.

Again either pilot killed or elevator controls lost.  Wings OK, out of 50 rounds fired at 200m, how many actually hit?

 

Fokker #3 50 rounds fired, range unspecified, no result. How many rounds hit?

Fokker#3 (?) reported as seen in flames. No details of firer.

 

It is unlikely that all of the rounds would hit even if the targets were flying straight and level - 50% hit rate would be very generous, especially for #2.  ~25% would be more reasonable. 

 

Two went down, without shedding wings, after  a fairly small number of hits (probably ~15-20 and ~ 10-20). One might have not been hit at all by one pass, but was seen inflames later (?).  Does any of this refute the FC DM?

 

 

4 hours ago, DakkaDakkaDakka said:

I spent the better part of my day in mostly underpopulated FC WWI servers only to discover that the dogfighting has been in the forum the whole time.

 

WW1 forums have always had the best dogfighting.  If there is no-one to play with in MP, give "Spring Offensive" a whirl and see if you can stay alive. It has exactly the same DM as in MP.

Edited June 14, 2020 by unreasonable

[HagarTheHorrible]

2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

 

 

 

If there is no-one to play with in MP, give "Spring Offensive" a whirl and see if you can stay alive. It has exactly the same DM as in MP.

 

Which is why I can down five DR1’s in the first mission, without Developing a nervous twitch .  Try that in MP