Damage model still needs serious attention

[Tycoon]

45 minutes ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

If that was reality Werner Voss would have shot down the whole B flight of No 56 Sqn on the 23rd of September 1917

Honestly can't argue with this.?

[ZachariasX]

3 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

If that was reality Werner Voss would have shot down the whole B flight of No 56 Sqn on the 23rd of September 1917

Yes, but only using the rudder to control his aircraft.

[unreasonable]

5 hours ago, US93_Talbot said:

Yeah but he pulled up and leveled off sort of right after, you know? Well, exactly like benders pfalz.

 

Not questioning his skills either. Shit happens man.

 

Regardless, watching that video I agree he doesn't seem too fast.

 

Wish we had a track recording to dissect instead. 

 

In regards to the damage itself, all they have to say is "you're just one of the unlucky ones at the low end of the damage probability spectrum tool thing" and they will be correct.

 

I am not sure that your last comment is not just a little TiC - but you are absolutely right. As long as the DM rolls a dice, single examples are worthless. 

 

Seriously though I would love to see AnP's raw data from his Camel tests. I have a suspicion that he might have considerably under-estimated the number of times this kind of thing will happen after a very few hits at elevated Gs.  

[US103_Baer]

That video says it all.

Add in the control jamming which happens at least 30% of times you're damaged, with as little as 2 bullets, and its obvious the current DM is not working for FC.

 

Meanwhile, some planes are a little harder to put away

 

Spoiler

 

Edited July 11, 2020 by US103_Baer

[Zooropa_Fly]

8 hours ago, US93_Talbot said:

It really depends on how much you ease into it. Maybe he was closer to 150 when he pulled back? Either way he had wing damage and was very close to the zone of wing break.

 

YMMV

 

Also note the techno chat said "g limit reached" (3 g)  and then "don't pull the stick too much" then break

 

This is what makes all the difference - slam the stick back any distance and boom !

Graduate the movement over 1 second and you'll probably be fine.

[J99_Sizzlorr]

10 hours ago, unreasonable said:

In regards to the damage itself, all they have to say is "you're just one of the unlucky ones at the low end of the damage probability spectrum tool thing" and they will be correct.

Even if it is only the case in 1 of 100 flights it is still wrong. The thing that strikes me the most is that there was no indication of the wings coming of. Even in RoF you had clues like missing wires and bullet holes. There was no prior warning. And to be honest the technochat warning couldn't prevent that because no human has lightspeed reactions like this. The warning just came too late here.

 

Edited July 11, 2020 by J99_Sizzlorr

[No.23_Starling]

If you want to keep those wings on try not to use ailerons and elevator at the same time when at any pace. If you see as much as a tickle on your wings either attack with fast slashes or just rtb. Sadly that’s how it is.

[J2_Bidu]

11 hours ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

Flying a real ww1 plane we would be able to feel the G's and the speed we're doing, not sitting on a computer. They just need to dial back the DM some.

 

So we could at least do with more feedback. If the DM is correct (if! if! if!) then I'd rather have some kind of feedback, even if a bit overdone (lots of wind sound, crackings, vibrations, shaking signal on the G indicator, who cares) than  change a correct DM (if! if! if!).

7 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

If that was reality Werner Voss would have shot down the whole B flight of No 56 Sqn on the 23rd of September 1917

 

Wow, that's the alternate universe where I'm really happy.

[No.23_Gaylion]

Posted this in other DM thread thinking I was in here:

 

This clips shows what we've been experiencing all this time. 

 

That the damage model is very unpredictable and the visual damage in no way represents what the actual damage is.

 

Maybe what's needed is better audio cues if they can't match up visual damage?

 

 

 

Edited July 11, 2020 by US93_Talbot

[J99_Sizzlorr]

I still have vivid memories where we praised the FC DM over RoF's. So 777 + 1C is able to do it. They are also able to fine tune things like the spar size independant from the ww2 DM. They just have to admit something is wrong and maybe tune the right variables to get a more realistic result. There are so many DM effects we are not experiencing anymore because the wings come of before that happens. And it is not only the S.E.5a that is affected the same goes for the Halberstadt and the Albatros (which is dead meat anyway in that planeset)

1 hour ago, US93_Rummell said:

If you want to keep those wings on try not to use ailerons and elevator at the same time when at any pace. If you see as much as a tickle on your wings either attack with fast slashes or just rtb. Sadly that’s how it is.

 

The problem is that you don't see as much as a tickle on your wings and they keep folding.

Edited July 11, 2020 by J99_Sizzlorr

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

10 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

If that was reality Werner Voss would have shot down the whole B flight of No 56 Sqn on the 23rd of September 1917

 

Now I understand why I had 150 kills last month.

[Tycoon]

3 hours ago, J2_Bidu said:

 

So we could at least do with more feedback. If the DM is correct (if! if! if!) then I'd rather have some kind of feedback, even if a bit overdone (lots of wind sound, crackings, vibrations, shaking signal on the G indicator, who cares) than  change a correct DM (if! if! if!).

 

 

This, if they are not going to change the dm we need some kind of indication when the wings are completely compromised.

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

Probably better to have indication of incomplete compromise so you don't proceed to complete. Wings crumpling is pretty good indication of complete compromise.

[BMA_Hellbender]

3 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

I still have vivid memories where we praised the FC DM over RoF's.

 

Tough wings is way more fun because it leads to longer dogfights, requires more accurate shooting, which then leads to a more active and skill-based multiplayer scene etc. Whether this is accurate or not is up for debate, although according to the devs who have reviewed all the wing spar size data twice now, this is as accurate as it gets without having a vastly more refined soft-body DM which accounts for fabric shedding, wing deformation and cable stretching.

 

What I think many of us have discovered with the new DM is that accurate* 1918 WWI dogfighting in a public multiplayer setting without restrictions is not fun, especially not when it involves plane from both mid 1917 and late 1918. Names will not be named (again).

 

 

(*) I sincerely doubt the accuracy of the Pfalz D.IIIa's wing strength, which going by @Chill31's research should be 6.5g ultimate load, not 10g. 

Edited July 11, 2020 by J5_Hellbender

[Tycoon]

1 hour ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

Tough wings is way more fun because it leads to longer dogfights, requires more accurate shooting, which then leads to a more active and skill-based multiplayer scene etc. Whether this is accurate or not is up for debate, although according to the devs who have reviewed all the wing spar size data twice now, this is as accurate as it gets without having a vastly more refined soft-body DM which accounts for fabric shedding, wing deformation and cable stretching.

 

What I think many of us have discovered with the new DM is that accurate* 1918 WWI dogfighting in a public multiplayer setting without restrictions is not fun, especially not when it involves plane from both mid 1917 and late 1918. Names will not be named (again).

 

 

(*) I sincerely doubt the accuracy of the Pfalz D.IIIa's wing strength, which going by @Chill31's research should be 6.5g ultimate load, not 10g. 

Look we have different opinions on this, that's fine, none of us were there and the data is limited (almost non existent).

 

But step back and think about it, with the original dm no one complained, most everyone liked it with many saying it was way more accurate. Then the dm change happens, all of a sudden the defenders of the new dm start coming up with 101 reasons why the change is more accurate. None of them said one thing before the update, no one was saying " well look at this data chart" or "look at this historical reference" no one. And why? the only reason was because our devs said it was accurate, not because of historical reasons, physics reasons, or plain common sense reasons, purely because the devs said it was correct. And we all know how wrong they have been before in ROF.

 

Think about it this way, some random guy on the forum shows up before the dm change with the exact claims and charts that our dev had and posts it on the forum saying it's more accurate, no one would have even batted an eye for a second.

Edited July 11, 2020 by Tycoon

[J99_Sizzlorr]

1 hour ago, J5_Hellbender said:

Tough wings is way more fun because it leads to longer dogfights, requires more accurate shooting, which then leads to a more active and skill-based multiplayer scene etc. Whether this is accurate or not is up for debate, although according to the devs who have reviewed all the wing spar size data twice now, this is as accurate as it gets without having a vastly more refined soft-body DM which accounts for fabric shedding, wing deformation and cable stretching.

Even though the wing spar size thickness might be as accurate as it gets it still doesn't yield realistic results. At least for some airplanes. So maybe something else is off. There are however some planes that seem to get quiet good results regarding the DM like the Fokker Dr.I, Fokker D.VII, Spad 13 to some extend and the Bristol Fighters.

Edited July 11, 2020 by J99_Sizzlorr

[WWBiker_]

24 minutes ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

Even though the wing spar size thickness might be as accurate as it gets it still doesn't yield realistic results. At least for some airplanes. So maybe something else is off. There are however some planes that seem to get quiet good results regarding the DM like the Fokker Dr.I, Fokker D.VII, Spad 13 to some extend and the Bristol Fighters.

except for the fact a blind man with a red rider bb gun can take out the bristol controls from 1000 meters its great

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 hour ago, Tycoon said:

Look we have different opinions on this, that's fine, none of us were there and the data is limited (almost non existent).

 

But step back and think about it, with the original dm no one complained, most everyone liked it with many saying it was way more accurate. Then the dm change happens, all of a sudden the defenders of the new dm start coming up with 101 reasons why the change is more accurate. None of them said one thing before the update, no one was saying " well look at this data chart" or "look at this historical reference" no one. And why? the only reason was because our devs said it was accurate, not because of historical reasons, physics reasons, or plain common sense reasons, purely because the devs said it was correct. And we all know how wrong they have been before in ROF.

 

Think about it this way, some random guy on the forum shows up before the dm change with the exact claims and charts that our dev had and posts it on the forum saying it's more accurate, no one would have even batted an eye for a second.

 

All it did was prove that the RoF DM was more accurate than we gave it credit for given the current engine.

 

What you're asking is for the devs to commit time and resources to accurately portray the least popular, least documented and above all most demanding physics simulation in perhaps all of aviation history. They can't do anything better right now, they're not NASA Microsoft with unlimited resources to invest in a flight simulation engine.

 

 

Do I like the new DM when it comes to multiplayer? If you consider that my last visit of the J5 Flugpark was before the initial release of the new DM under 4.005, it should tell you enough (a few other minor things played a part as well such as a global pandemic).

 

We could ask (and have asked) for a downgrade/return to pre-4.005 as an optional setting for multiplayer, among many other requests which would make multiplayer more viable in the long run: gunnery spread to simulate turbulence, engine variants, gunner/recon scoring, accurate g limits on gunners. For now, I'm very happy enjoying what we have in single player with VR, as the AI doesn't struggle with wingshedding at all, and there's simply no need to to maneuver unrealistically against the AI.

 

Our best bet to see improvements down the line is to get more people on board in single player, which in turn will increase our chances of ever seeing Volume 2 materialise.

 

 

TL;DR It's purely a multiplayer problem and this is the percentage of this game's userbase which likely never even sets a foot in multiplayer for more than 5 minutes:

 

 

Edited July 11, 2020 by J5_Hellbender

[No.23_Gaylion]

12 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

It's purely a multiplayer problem

 

Umm no? Have you ever bounced an AI CL2 offline? The wings come off immediately, same with albatros.

 

12 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

Do I like the new DM when it comes to multiplayer? If you consider that my last visit of the J5 Flugpark was before the initial release of the new DM under 4.005

 

 

 

If you've yet to experience the "new" DM, why are you even commenting on it? 

Edited July 11, 2020 by US93_Talbot

[J99_Sizzlorr]

Rewatching the video I noticed that the techno chat warning only came up when the wings already folded. Thanks Capt. Obvious but what good is a warning when it comes that late? Conclusion: No clues or indication for battle damage visible or audible that hampers your abilities to fly your plane like it is supposed to be flown is a bad thing and leads to confusion and frustration.

Edited July 11, 2020 by J99_Sizzlorr

[No.23_Gaylion]

The wind didn't even sound fast.

Edited July 11, 2020 by US93_Talbot

[J99_Sizzlorr]

1 minute ago, US93_Talbot said:

The wind didn't even sound fast.

That is because he wasn't fast in S.E.5a terms....

[BMA_Hellbender]

12 minutes ago, US93_Talbot said:

Umm no? Have you ever bounced an AI CL2 offline? The wings come off immediately, same with albatros.

 

If you've yet to experience the "new" DM, why are you even commenting on it? 

 

I've experienced it in single player. 

 

Or more precisely: I haven't, because they don't shed wings unless they are damaged and subjected to over 3-4g, which is not an amount of g a real life pilot would routinely subject his machine to.

 

 

As for multiplayer wingshedding, I've known that for close to 10 years in RoF, and I'm not interested in playing that again at the moment. If the multiplayer AirQuake status quo pre-4.005 was of any consequence whatsoever to the commercial success of this game, then we would have a completed Volume 2 by now and we'd be looking forward to Volume 3 already. Maybe even genuinely new content. I want more warm bodies flying SYN's campaigns so that I might have the off chance of ever flying my beloved Hanriot in VR. As for my dogfighting fix: very much looking forward to October 2.

[No.23_Gaylion]

Its pretty clear what needs to be done. Across the board wings need to be strengthened with exception to D7, DrI, and Pfalz. Control surface losses from damage needs to be reduced as well. 

[J99_Sizzlorr]

14 minutes ago, US93_Talbot said:

Its pretty clear what needs to be done. Across the board wings need to be strengthened with exception to D7, DrI, and Pfalz. Control surface losses from damage needs to be reduced as well. 

If we trust in Chills numbers I am not so sure about not strengthening the D7 wings. Or can you pull 10Gs with her right now?

[BMA_Hellbender]

12 minutes ago, US93_Talbot said:

Its pretty clear what needs to be done. Across the board wings need to be strengthened with exception to D7, DrI, and Pfalz. Control surface losses from damage needs to be reduced as well. 

 

If they do that, then I sincerely hope that the reasoning behind is that they've reviewed all the data a third time and reached that conclusion for themselves.

 

As it stands, it feels a lot more like it would be giving in to community pressure, which brings us right back to:

 

 

 

 

[Tycoon]

1 hour ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

If they do that, then I sincerely hope that the reasoning behind is that they've reviewed all the data a third time and reached that conclusion for themselves.

 

As it stands, it feels a lot more like it would be giving in to community pressure, which brings us right back to:

 

 

 

 

I don't really get what your point is, 1.034 was disliked because it fixed planes at the expense of others. And at least it was a step in the right direction, the only thing we got for our complaining here was an update for bullets to be magnetically attracted to control wires. 

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

2 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

Rewatching the video I noticed that the techno chat warning only came up when the wings already folded. Thanks Capt. Obvious but what good is a warning when it comes that late? Conclusion: No clues or indication for battle damage visible or audible that hampers your abilities to fly your plane like it is supposed to be flown is a bad thing and leads to confusion and frustration.

No warning because there just wasn't enough damage to cause a warning. 

[BMA_Hellbender]

32 minutes ago, Tycoon said:

I don't really get what your point is, 1.034 was disliked because it fixed planes at the expense of others. And at least it was a step in the right direction, the only thing we got for our complaining here was an update for bullets to be magnetically attracted to control wires. 

 

Oh boy.

 

1.034 brought a few documented fixes, such as the Bristol climb and roll rate reduction and the Nieuport 28's tail lift off speed (thanks to yours truly), but was mostly an unsubstantiated kneejerk reaction from the devs which came after years of complaints from the community regarding the FMs.

 

Reviewing the Camel's top speed from 190km/h to somewhere in the mid 180s instead became nerfing the Camel into the ground to 167km/h and its climb comparable to the Eindecker. The same was done to the Sopwith Triplane only because it has the same Clerget engine. The Hanriot HD.2 seaplane with the exact same Clerget was forgotten and is now faster than both Sopwiths... with frickin' floats. Giving the Albatros and Pfalz scouts their correct overcompressed 200hp Mercedes engine variant instead became weird aerodynamic black magic frickery with the same 180hp engine. The Halberstadt with the same 180hp engine was forgotten. The Pfalz D.XII still has a BMW engine instead of the Mercedes. I won't even mention the Fokker Dr.I, because that one is still in its 1.034 form in FC at 165km/h, and according to Chill (I'm not going to @ him this time, already do this more than enough), this is more in line with an 80hp Dr.I.

 

Speaking of 80hp: the only real speed nerf I agree with in all of RoF 1.034 is the Pup (from 179km/h to 165km/h), because it brings it in line with the Nieuport 11 with the same 80hp Le Rhone engine — but even then only because we theorised that the original RNAS data might have been a misprint.

 

 

So yes, in much the same way that I was once completely on board with gavagai's wishes in seeing the Camel's top speed reviewed from 190km/h and its FM remade from the ground up, I'm also on board with tweaking/redoing the DM — as long as it's based on data. Not anecdotes. Not pilot reports ("tHe CaMeL iS sO sLoW iT cAn'T rUn AwAy FrOm AnY FiGhT!"). Not feelings from the community.

 

DATA.

Edited July 11, 2020 by J5_Hellbender

[No.23_Gaylion]

That's all cool but...

 

NO ONE WANTED THIS DM AND NOT ONE PERSON WAS COMPLAINING ABOUT THE DM BEFORE THE CHANGE.

 

How's that for data? ?

 

Here we are just wanting it to go back to the way it was before. Let's face facts, this was a WWII thing that was applied to WWI and it hasn't worked.

 

I fly the SPAD exactly as I flew before the DM change with exception to AFTER I am damaged. After you get damaged is where the issues lie time and time again, not before. I lost zero wings before the new DM and still do so-except when they get damaged by rounds. 

 

So what if you strengthen the planes a bit? The SP players battling AI will still see the same results-the AI not losing wings because they don't maneuver. The MP community will be happy with not losing wings easily. I fail to see the bad side of this adjustment. 

 

People are abandoning this game in its current format. 

Edited July 11, 2020 by US93_Talbot

[BMA_Hellbender]

27 minutes ago, US93_Talbot said:

So what if you strengthen the planes a bit? The SP players battling AI will still see the same results-the AI not losing wings because they don't maneuver. The MP community will be happy with not losing wings easily. I fail to see the bad side of this adjustment. 

 

Strengthening all the planes seems fair enough, but that would include the already strong D.VII, Dr.I and Pfalz. Obviously at that point their wings would be close to indestructible, but if that means that most of the other planes wings are then near-indestructible as well (as strong as the D.VII, Dr.I and Pfalz are now), I'm sure that the multiplayer community would appreciate it.

 

Bring it on as a multiplayer server side setting, I say! And gunnery spread.

 

 

Quote

People are abandoning this game in its current format. 

 

Multiplayer? Maybe. I mean, yes, I'm one of them.

 

I still believe that multiplayer can be "fixed" through a new planeset (Volume 2), a revised planeset (*cough* remove F *cough*) as well as people relearning how to fly these machines. That might be the hardest challenge of them all: expecting people to change. Well, except if you're flying a Fokker, obviously. Or a Pfalz, but at least for the Pfalz we have some data from Chill that it might actually be wrong.

[BraveSirRobin]

4 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

I still believe that multiplayer can be "fixed" through a new planeset (Volume 2),

lol

 

At this point they’re probably regretting volume 1.

 

The defining moment for this community was when the Camel jockeys abandoned RoF after 1.034.  They didn’t move to different aircraft.  They completely abandoned the game.  It was so embarrassing.  

[No.23_Gaylion]

[Tycoon]

18 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I still believe that multiplayer can be "fixed" through a new planeset (Volume 2), 

I wouldn't buy a volume 2 in the current state.

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

15 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

people relearning how to fly these machines. That might be the hardest challenge of them all:

Kind of hard to do when you don't even know you got a single round pass through your canvas which causes your wings to fly off. Or the fact that from a mile away someone shoots at you and you lose all your controls from another single round. Look this sim was growing in leaps and bounds before the crappy DM updates, Servers were becoming full, every one was excited for Thursday and Sundays fly in's. Some had to wait in line to get on, Now one hit to their fragile little planes and they say screw it I'm off. 

[Cynic_Al]

1 hour ago, US93_Talbot said:

NO ONE WANTED THIS DM AND NOT ONE PERSON WAS COMPLAINING ABOUT THE DM BEFORE THE CHANGE.

 

That wasn't my interpretation.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, US93_Talbot said:

People are abandoning this game in its current format.

 

That's also not my interpretation, however there's no question that it's time to abandon this forum, as simply reading it has become demeaning.

[No.23_Gaylion]

   Oh yeah?

Edited July 11, 2020 by US93_Talbot

[BMA_Hellbender]

26 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

lol

 

At this point they’re probably regretting volume 1.

 

The one mistake was always calling it Volume 1. It implied that a Volume 2 would come no matter what, which meant you could just wait till the next volume.

 

They could've just called it Flying Circus: Aces over Arras or whatever, similar to Tank Crew: Clash at Prokhorovka. With my track record it's probably going to be renamed just that in a few days.

 

 

18 minutes ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

Kind of hard to do when you don't even know you got a single round pass through your canvas which causes your wings to fly off. Or the fact that from a mile away someone shoots at you and you lose all your controls from another single round. Look this sim was growing in leaps and bounds before the crappy DM updates, Servers were becoming full, every one was excited for Thursday and Sundays fly in's. Some had to wait in line to get on, Now one hit to their fragile little planes and they say screw it I'm off. 

 

I don't disagree with the outcome, but why exactly is this considered a DM issue and not a multiplayer gunnery/visibility/maneuvering issue?

[No.23_Gaylion]

15 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

I don't disagree with the outcome, but why exactly is this considered a DM issue and not a multiplayer gunnery/visibility/maneuvering issue?

 

Because you can fly the plane just fine BEFORE you take the damage. After that its just up to your luck I suppose. And you cant rely on any cues to help you other than "I have had rounds hit me, therefore I must run away". That is the only constant theme-any hits whatsoever go home.

 

With regards to gunnery, it means you can just aim for the wings. You really don't need to aim for the engine or pilot. 

 

Edit to add:

Dude, you've been in all these thread discussions. You know the answer to your question.

Edited July 11, 2020 by US93_Talbot

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

4 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

I don't disagree with the outcome, but why exactly is this considered a DM issue and not a multiplayer gunnery/visibility/maneuvering issue?

Because 1 round would not cause your wings to fly off or losing all your controls with a single burst. Do you really think if this would happen in the real war they'd let guys take those things up. Why would they not give pilots parachutes if they know someone from a mile away can take out their plane with a single round, No instead they said fight it out. I'm sure they knew how much damage a plane could take and I doubt it was any were near as bad as this. 

Good lord didn't you not watch fly boys.