Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I would like to clarify one thing: my tantrum (and it's quite fair to call that outburst a tantrum, borne out of 10-15+ hours of frustration over this weekend) was not Entente-exclusive. I try to fly and enjoy all the planes in the far-from-overwhelming 10 item palette of choices. The issues I've seen in MP are experienced by all of them, though of course the wingshedding is more pronounced in some than others.

 

Honestly, I enjoyed RoF quite a bit post-nerf. I have always enjoyed taking the "less good" planes and trying to do what I can with them. A Nieup 11 or 17 versus a Dr.1, or an Albatros D.III versus a Camel or Pup, whatever. It's fun to have the challenge.

 

But right now? You can be in the uber plane from whichever side and it won't matter. Spray-and-pray at the tail will see 1-2 bullets magically pierce ALL of the redundant flight control cables of one or more of your primary controls and then you can either wait for your opponent to finish you off - if they're nice - or you're faced with the prospect of wasting 10-15 minutes of your time limping home. That's fun to do - maybe - one time. It doesn't feel epic, it feels cheap and meaningless and boring. I just hit eject because it... doesn't matter?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

Certainly.  I have yet to see the book you used, to start with, so I do not know if you are using the same criteria or whether the detail of the source material is directly comparable.  (It is allegedly on the way from the US,  presumably by relays of trained dolphins, since it is taking a while). 

 

Your analysis had 5 out of 222 for the "Other Huns" down as structural compared to 15 out of 78 for MvR.  While it is possible that the difference was purely down to chance, it is very unlikely.  MvR's claims are very well documented. So until I have seen the "Other Huns" source I cannot agree.

 

Even 21 out of 302 is not my idea of a "rarity" - to me a rarity implies that you are surprised when you find it. I doubt that any WW1 pilot was surprised to see planes shedding wings.

Rarer than is now observed in FC I agree - even in SP. 


Cheers! 

As the books are written by the same authors (minus Nigel McCrery) I would imagine they are very similar in content and thoroughness of analyses. All claims were analysed in as much depth as possible by Franks and Giblin - any outcome that was not definitively referenced (I.E, aircraft merely reported to have been "shot down" or to have "fallen") are included in the data I gathered as 'not specified', and any results that are very likely to have NOT resulted in the loss of an aircraft weren't recorded. Of course, the 'not specified' pool could all be cases of aircraft coming apart. Conversely, none of them could be. I would have to think that a pilot would not hesitate to report an aircraft as having fallen to pieces, as it would surely be more credible than merely reporting it as "shot down". 

On the subject of well-documented claims - Gorrell's history of the AEF contains a mass of original combat reports of pilots  of the U.S. Air Service. Talbot and myself are currently working on analysing these as well, as we think they could be an important resource in determining the 'historical plausibility' of an aircraft going to pieces, most especially in the case of Flying Circus, as the USAS were operating at the right period in time - and, of course, not all reporting pilots are crack-shot Aces like the Baron and the 'Other Huns'! 

I see what you're saying with the term 'rarity'. Actually,  just about an hour ago I found a page in Flying Fury in which McCudden describes shooting the wings off of an Albatros. Just like you say, he made no reference of this being a surprise to him.

 - in that case, would 'comparative rarity' be a better-fitting term? 

Edited by US93_Larner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my perspective, the Damage Model issue boils down to this: the various forms of damage modeled are legitimate, but they occur too frequently, and in some instances, catastrophically after only a few hits.

 

We are at the mercy of RNG and a very skewed probability curve.  If the Devs were to take a long hard look at the probability of the various forms of damage occurring and how many hits it takes to inflict that damage, they could make adjustments to rein in the frequency of this damage occurring.

 

As several users have pointed out, early in the FC DM evolution, inflicting serious or catastrophic damage required a high level of skill and gunnery accuracy.  Now it seems that any random hit on an aircraft can generate catastrophic damage at alarming frequency.

 

FC is a graphically beautiful simulation and it is feature rich.  It has the potential to be a great simulation if properly developed.  Unfortunately, the 4.006 and 4.007 updates have turned FC into a negative play experience for a lot of us.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, US93_Larner said:

I think the same![...]  No problem with controls being cut - it did happen with enough frequency to be noticeable in a lot of the literature - but it wasn't anywhere near as common as it is in FC if the accounts are to be believed! 

 

Well, if every OOC (Out of Control) plane was explained by this kind of thing, maybe. Very doubtful indeed.

1 hour ago, US93_Larner said:


How hasn't it? From your MvR analyses and my analyses of the other Aces, I got a figure of 7% of all shoot-downs definitively being from structural failure - or 21 cases out of 302. That seems to me to be fairly indicative that an aircraft breaking up was a rarity.

 

I suppose the problem is all those indefinite cases.

32 minutes ago, Tycoon said:

You can't take away something that is already non-existent. 

 

Currently, it is a rare skill to be able to find the specific mistake that will allow the AI to kill you. I find it truly challenging. I try to line them up on my six, but it's damn hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, J2_Bidu said:

 

 

 

Currently, it is a rare skill to be able to find the specific mistake that will allow the AI to kill you. I find it truly challenging. I try to line them up on my six, but it's damn hard.

When I was testing the wing damage I literally tried to maneuvered the ace level dr1 onto my tail and couldn't. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, US103_Waddell said:

 

As several users have pointed out, early in the FC DM evolution, inflicting serious or catastrophic damage required a high level of skill and gunnery accuracy.  Now it seems that any random hit on an aircraft can generate catastrophic damage at alarming frequency.

Or maybe this is the answer to the question?  Those who have already bought the game will no longer bring money to its creators again, but how can they attract new customers?  A novice could not oppose the gangs of experienced professionals.  But having received a new DM, he gets a good chance of victory, simply by shooting at them from afar.  The game is becoming more attractive to novice pilots, and this can increase sales.  What is realism ??  As a result, only money is real, the rest is all words.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

27 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:


Cheers! 

As the books are written by the same authors (minus Nigel McCrery) I would imagine they are very similar in content and thoroughness of analyses. 

 

I think we both need both books to be sure about that ... 

 

For now, what worries me, is if you look at it purely statistically, for MvR to pull 15 out of 78 "black balls" out of the hat would be very unlikely if the true population had ~7% of "black balls".  As in less than 1 time in a hundred.  Similarly, for the "Other Huns" to pull out only 5 of 222 is also very unlikely, as in less than one time in a hundred.  So I have some caution in just pooling the two sets.

 

Your "other huns" analysis has far more "other causes".  Hence my interest in seeing if the reports the two sets are based on are similar in detail and quality.

 

The USAS stuff will be interesting, especially when you break out reports of EA vs US aircraft.   I expect that the EA reports for the US period will have rather few structural failure reports - which would be consistent with what we know about Fokker D.VIIs.         

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, J2_Bidu said:

 

Well, if every OOC (Out of Control) plane was explained by this kind of thing, maybe. Very doubtful indeed.

 

It's not and you can't look at it that way. 

 

The authors of these books have done far more research than we could  accomplish. These guys went and looked at both sides and matched up who was killed by whom on what day. 

 

Overclaiming, which is a whole subject on its own, was rampant across both lines. 

 

Many, many, many, many times planes were reported as "out of control" and returned to their lines just fine. Some were awarded, some weren't. Some that were awarded have no connecting loss on that date reported from the other side. Some were confirmed by the pilots taking a trip to the front and questioning infantry, or balloons, or witness crashing by other pilots from other squadrons. But the vast majority of "combat" resulted in both sides not losing any planes. Let's not forget this.

 

It is impossible to determine if plane went down because his rudder was stuck, or lost an aileron, or went unconscious from blood lost, or what have you. 

 

Some guys fire 20 rounds and a plane goes down in flames. Some guys from 800 and report no result. Sometimes three different guys fire 200 rounds each at the same plane and report no result. 

 

BUT, going through these, you can pick out the ones that do provide SOME good info. The ones seen in flames, the ones seen falling like a dead leaf, the ones seen breaking apart in the air. These are the ones we can look at and glean a little evidence from the events as a whole.

 

And then you have to deal with the fact that people are notoriously horrible witnesses. With the way we play (3PG) and our claiming system mirroring that of the USAS in 1918, just trying to remember how many passes you made, or the colors, or who was there, or the amount of planes in the fight, all of which happened merely 20 minutes prior, is a very difficult thing to do. I'm glad that having this experience from the game really helps to visualize what you are reading in the original combat reports. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Tycoon said:

When I was testing the wing damage I literally tried to maneuvered the ace level dr1 onto my tail and couldn't. 

 

They cannot fly in formation either, without bobbing up and down like crazy, unlike the Camels. I think the AI has a problem with both the throttle control and elevator.  The response is too quick for them so they keep over controlling when trying to line up on another close aircraft.

 

What they can do is shoot down planes flying away from them at a reasonable range.  In the new potted campaigns the AI Dr1s are slaughtering SPADS and SE5s and it is nothing to do with the DM, but because the AI is trying to extend away in a straight line.   

13 minutes ago, US93_Talbot said:

 

 

BUT, going through these, you can pick out the ones that do provide SOME good info. The ones seen in flames, the ones seen falling like a dead leaf, the ones seen breaking apart in the air. These are the ones we can look at and glean a little evidence from the events as a whole.

 

And then you have to deal with the fact that people are notoriously horrible witnesses. With the way we play (3PG) and our claiming system mirroring that of the USAS in 1918, just trying to remember how many passes you made, or the colors, or who was there, or the amount of planes in the fight, all of which happened merely 20 minutes prior, is a very difficult thing to do. I'm glad that having this experience from the game really helps to visualize what you are reading in the original combat reports. 

 

Yes... but MvR was an excellent witness and provided explicit reports for every victory, almost all of which have been confirmed, in detail, independently.  There is always room for interpretation: we are trying to find the one cause so that our categories add up to 100%, but this would not change the picture very much. I would have liked him to fill in a spreadsheet...  

 

All his victims were Entente, so of course that only gives a hint of what German losses would look like, but in his time period it probably was not wildly different.  

 

 

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, emely said:

Or maybe this is the answer to the question?  Those who have already bought the game will no longer bring money to its creators again, but how can they attract new customers?  A novice could not oppose the gangs of experienced professionals.  But having received a new DM, he gets a good chance of victory, simply by shooting at them from afar.  The game is becoming more attractive to novice pilots, and this can increase sales.  What is realism ??  As a result, only money is real, the rest is all words.

I can see your point.  From a novice pilot and sales perspective, this works toward 1CGS' benefit.  Perhaps the answer is multiple MP difficulty levels, the current DM as the lesser difficulty level and the early DM as the greater difficulty level.  This would allow 1CGS to cater to both consumer bases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

The USAS stuff will be interesting, especially when you break out reports of EA vs US aircraft.   I expect that the EA reports for the US period will have rather few structural failure reports - which would be consistent with what we know about Fokker D.VIIs.    

 

Here's the problem with that, they call everything a fokker.  There are a few "albatros" references and all the two seaters are "rumplers" or "albatros two seaters".

 

There is not one mention of ANY scout plane, be it Fokker or SPAD or albatros or pfalz breaking apart in the air after combat. None. There are plenty of fires or smoke mentioned though. The only reference to a SPAD wings coming off are from direct hits from AA fire, which I saw twice reported. 

 

The only planes listed as wings folding like one would see in the current version of this game are 2 or 3 rumplers.

 

The there is the "we don't fly like they did in real life." In that report up there I posted as an example its really easy to miss over simple sentences that might show a bit more context

The pilot there mentioned in the beginning EIGHT SPADS fighting THREE fokkers for "twenty minutes". When's the last time you saw a BnZ fight of that magnitude last 20 minutes, or ten, or even five?

 

Chill pulled 4g's easily in his acrobatics tests. One must ask, would he have pulled the stick a bit harder if someone was on his six trying to kill him?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, US103_Waddell said:

I can see your point.  From a novice pilot and sales perspective, this works toward 1CGS' benefit.  Perhaps the answer is multiple MP difficulty levels, the current DM as the lesser difficulty level and the early DM as the greater difficulty level.  This would allow 1CGS to cater to both consumer bases.

 

I mean, it actually doesn't, because no one is going to be out there selling the merits of FC on the basis of this DM. And the devs barely make any effort to promote FC at all; sure it exists on their website, and yeah they mentioned when the map was finished or the full planeset launched, but besides that? All drowned out in favor of the WWII content.

 

So it falls, as always, to the customers to do the selling, and if this forum - and MP chat - is any indication, they are currently doing the opposite. If this was a stock market show, the FC stock would have moved from the "Wait and see" category to "Sell", and is surely nowhere near a "Buy" recommendation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, US93_Talbot said:

 

Many, many, many, many times planes were reported as "out of control" and returned to their lines just fine. Some were awarded, some weren't. Some that were awarded have no connecting loss on that date reported from the other side. Some were confirmed by the pilots taking a trip to the front and questioning infantry, or balloons, or witness crashing by other pilots from other squadrons. But the vast majority of "combat" resulted in both sides not losing any planes. Let's not forget this.

 

 

Probably the best thing to do then, would be to exclude "OOC" claims unsupported by a crash observation altogether.   They are inflating the denominator with incidents, many of which were not losses at all, so you are bound to get an incorrect, too low, percentage for the categories like wing collapses and flamers that were definite kills.

 

MvR made just a couple like that, according to Franks, which I excluded. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Yes... but MvR was an excellent witness and provided explicit reports for every victory, almost all of which have been confirmed, in detail, independently

 

I've not read any books of it so I can't comment on him specifically. Who is corroborating what he saw? Is anyone saying yes that planes wings came off, or are we simply taking him on face value as a witness for himself? I'm not saying he didn't shoot down x plane on x day. Yeah I know that horse is dead and buried. But what of those minute details he reports?

 

Whats good, if you want to call it good, about the USAS reports are that they come from several eyes. Several guys see flames, or out of control, or a crash.

 

Again, we will never know those specifics with what we have now that the pilots themselves are dead and gone.

10 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Probably the best thing to do then, would be to exclude "OOC"

 

Yeah I know. 😉

 

They will be presented in whole and then whittled away like with the data on control surface loss and the mechanic reports. 

 

And then the flip side of OOC, some are very descriptive "ooc in a sharp dive, ooc in a vrille, ooc falling like a dead leaf". So one can't really just toss them out.

 

I'm still waiting on the books that go in depth on USAS and Brit losses.

Edited by US93_Talbot
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should all pool our research together and write a book on combat damage during WW1 dogfights...raise some money for 1C to release FC Vol. 2 ;) 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HELL NO.

 

They already got $210 out of me and all I have to show for is a pair of crap wings and a rudder that should be tried for cowardice.

  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, US63_SpadLivesMatter said:

Devs just give us a checkbox for the original DM under realism options.  Call it 'simplified airframes' and let us be done with this.

 

You're assuming what's current is correct.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, US93_Talbot said:

 

I've not read any books of it so I can't comment on him specifically. Who is corroborating what he saw? Is anyone saying yes that planes wings came off, or are we simply taking him on face value as a witness for himself? I'm not saying he didn't shoot down x plane on x day. Yeah I know that horse is dead and buried. But what of those minute details he reports?

 

 

GAF claims had to be corroborated by another pilot or an officer on the ground, preferably with a wreck as so many of the fights took place on the German side of the lines. So he wrote up his reports so that some one could check - was it on fire, did the wings come off etc. Things that would make it easy for another observer to confirm.  If he put in something that was incorrect he might not get the corroboration, so he had a good incentive to get it right. The actual kills match up almost completely with known RFC losses.  Given all the uncertainties, it is about as well documented as it is possible to be.  

 

I assume that the "Other Huns" made similar reports at the time using the same confirmation process.  The difference in the results, though, is quite remarkable.

  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, US93_Talbot said:

BUT, going through these, you can pick out the ones that do provide SOME good info. The ones seen in flames, the ones seen falling like a dead leaf, the ones seen breaking apart in the air. These are the ones we can look at and glean a little evidence from the events as a whole.

 

Please don't think I don't understand your point. But as you can imagine, people falling out of control(s!) will likely neither fall in flames, fall like a dead leaf or break apart in the air. They may, well, fall out of control. That's the problem. Some of  those OOC's are good candidates for control failures.

Edited by J2_Bidu
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, J2_Bidu said:

 

Please, just remove every Entente plane so I can fly the Albatros.

Or just remove their engines.


Mercedes D.IIIa-powered planes, UNITE!

 

Somewhere close and not too high. In about 20 to 30 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, US103_Waddell said:

I can see your point.  From a novice pilot and sales perspective, this works toward 1CGS' benefit.  Perhaps the answer is multiple MP difficulty levels, the current DM as the lesser difficulty level and the early DM as the greater difficulty level.  This would allow 1CGS to cater to both consumer bases.

 

They also released a new virus. They know we can't just stay at home doing nothing!

 

P.S.: BTW, did they also just release a minor update? I think I saw something downloading. But no version number change that I see.

Edited by J2_Bidu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, J2_Bidu said:

 

Please don't think I don't understand your point. But as you can imagine, people falling out of control(s!) will likely neither fall in flames, fall like a dead leaf or break apart in the air. They may, well, fall out of control. That's the problem. Some of  those OOC's are good candidates for control failures.

 

Yeah, I'm with you for sure. It's impossible to ever know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, J2_Bidu said:

P.S.: BTW, did they also just release a minor update? I think I saw something downloading. But no version number change that I see.


Yeah, just fired it up to look at some skins I'm working on...defo updated 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:


Yeah, just fired it up to look at some skins I'm working on...defo updated 

 

People playing TC are complaining it's not working properly. I also had a couple CTD's. We'll likely have another hotfix soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just had a go and can confirm, that there's now a 50% chance of being taken out by a bird strike.

Every flight.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

I've just had a go and can confirm, that there's now a 50% chance of being taken out by a bird strike.

Every flight.

 

This is an outrage.  These volumes of records clearly indicate that there was only a 48% chance of being taken out by a bird strike every flight.

 

;)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

I've just had a go and can confirm, that there's now a 50% chance of being taken out by a bird strike.

Every flight.

 

3 minutes ago, US63_SpadLivesMatter said:

 

This is an outrage.  These volumes of records clearly indicate that there was only a 48% chance of being taken out by a bird strike every flight.

 

;)


Bullshit. EVERY KNOWN SOURCE proves that the SPAD could easily withstand a bird strike. 

qOmMn7Zh.jpg

This needs fixed now. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, US93_Talbot said:

HELL NO.

 

They already got $210 out of me and all I have to show for is a pair of crap wings and a rudder that should be tried for cowardice.

 

Them sock puppet accounts cost a lot of moolah.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

 


Bullshit. EVERY KNOWN SOURCE proves that the SPAD could easily withstand a bird strike. 

qOmMn7Zh.jpg

This needs fixed now. 

 

What the hell kind of bird is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, US63_SpadLivesMatter said:

 

What the hell kind of bird is that?


It’s a bird on a wire.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, US63_SpadLivesMatter said:

 

What the hell kind of bird is that?

 

Is that a Gamecock ?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:


It’s a bird on a wire.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...