Damage model still needs serious attention

[J99_Sizzlorr]

18 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

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.

 

 

 

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 this didn't happen before the DM changes. Please for the love of God don't lobby for a gunnery dispersion to compensate a flawed DM. Two wrongs don't make one right. Why on earth should an S.E.5a that has no visible or audible battle damage disintegrating in a most standard manouver should have anything to do with visibility or maneuvering issue? The only thing I can think of is that giving the fact that he got hit by the AI is that they have Laser accuracy and delivering criticals left and right . But this happens against human opponants as well...

Edited July 11, 2020 by J99_Sizzlorr

[Tycoon]

4 minutes ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

. Please for the love of God don't lobby for a gunnery dispersion to compensate a flawed DM. ?

Goes without saying, that being said more dispersion would actually be great by itself.

[Redwo1f]

25 minutes ago, catchov said:

 

 What an inconvenience! I really doubt now there will be a volume 2. Too much trouble.

 

 

Idk, if memory serves - I do believe Jason has said (or hinted at strongly), that it wasn't his call to make -- that it is/was his superiors (1C's) call  (read into that sales (at least I do and think that is probably reasonable)).  I don't think he is opposed to the notion in and of itself to do a volume 2  and I would take his comments at face value (though I did personally get the impression from another interview that they were feeling/felt over-extended with work on 3 titles simultaneously (even though they weren't 100% involved in all facets) and would have to rethink that in the future). 

 

Anyway, for answers and ideas I would be going back and looking at what officially has been said.

Edited July 11, 2020 by Redwo1f

[BMA_Hellbender]

5 minutes ago, US93_Talbot said:

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.

 

5 minutes ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

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.

 

3 minutes ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

Because this didn't happen before the DM changes. Please for the love of God don't lobby for a gunnery dispersion to compensate a flawed DM. Two wrongs don't make one right. Why on earth should an S.E.5a that has no visible or audible battle damage disintegrating in a most standard manouver should have anything to do with visibility or maneuvering issue?

 

Okay, let's go back to the actual video and analyse what is going on in this particular case.

 

Let's forget for a second that he's flying an S.E.5a against a D.VIIF and multiple other assailants and doesn't have a tremendous energy or positional advantage to begin with. Not only that, but he stays in the fight and he's not actively coordinating his attacks with his buddy in a typical on/off fashion extending and bagging etc. Also I'd like to add: if you're flying the S.E.5a and you're not frustrating the hell out of your enemies by just flying away from them, you're just doing it wrong. This is not the old pre-2011 S.E.5a anymore which could generate energy better than the Camel, this thing is made for hit and run.

 

 

None of the above matters, because he's hit by a stray bullet from an AI gunner.

 

Problem 1. AI gunners. Why are AI gunners even still a thing in multiplayer? Why haven't human gunners been fixed? Why are there still no realistic g forces which would force a human gunner to sit down or fall out when not flying coordinated? Why is there no scoring for human gunners?

 

 

But that doesn't matter, even though the AI is supremely skilled at delivering a bullet at the precise location which causes the wing to fail from an unrealistic distance, a human pilot could have done so just as easily.

 

Problem 2. No gunnery spread/turbulence. Even with the slightest bit of turbulence the chance of a stray bullet hitting you in the precise location which causes the wing to fail becomes astronomically small. I went flying on a particularly stable day without any turbulence once, they're rare around here but they do happen once in a while, and it felt unreal. In other words: it felt exactly as it usually feels in the sim.

 

 

But even that doesn't matter, because in the end, in this scenario, the wing did not fail by itself. He made it fail.

 

Problem 3. He's pulling 3g+ in an uncoordinated turn, straining his plane to get his nose into the proper shooting position. There's no way to tell what kind of differential loads and sideloads his damaged wing is going through, but they must have been substantial.

 

 

 

Finally, and I think we at least all agree there:

 

Problem 4. There's insufficient feedback that the wing is about to fail. The AI just knows this and thus avoids wingshedding. I mean, the AI still dies, just not through wingshedding. We need the same. Probably a full-motion 3-axis chair would already get people to fly a bit more coordinated than they usually do, but you can hardly expect everyone to buy a HOTAS, pedals, VR headset and then fork out another 2000 bucks just to be able to fly these powered kites.

 

As a workaround I've already proposed wing creaking which increases in loudness as the ultimate g load is close to being reached, and obviously changes with damage.

 

 

Fix most if not all the above problems first, and then I'll be right there with you demanding that AnPetrovich does a third review of the DM.

[BraveSirRobin]

I got nowhere else to go!

[ST_Catchov]

2 minutes ago, US93_Talbot said:

"Something, something, I got nowhere else to go!" 

 

Raining.

 

Casablanca?

[No.23_Gaylion]

Virginia.

 

Sound needs to be a distinct sound for something of importance being hit by a round. Maybe the "snapping" sound that a bullet makes when it's REALLY close to you. A couple of those in rapid succession would be good enough to establish that "bullets have hit very close to me and probably in vital spots". Pilots report hearing this in combat anyway.

 

1:40 in this video. The crisp snapping sound. The game ARMA does it well also.

 

 

Edited July 11, 2020 by US93_Talbot

[ST_Catchov]

 

Good idea Talbot. But don't call me Virginia. 

[Tycoon]

16 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

 

 

 

 

Problem 4. There's insufficient feedback that the wing is about to fail. The AI just knows this and thus avoids wingshedding.  

My guess is the ai can't pull Gs period, I mean they can't do anything anyways so it's not a stretch to think.

[US103_Baer]

54 minutes ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

Because this didn't happen before the DM changes. Please for the love of God don't lobby for a gunnery dispersion to compensate a flawed DM. Two wrongs don't make one right. Why on earth should an S.E.5a that has no visible or audible battle damage disintegrating in a most standard manouver should have anything to do with visibility or maneuvering issue? The only thing I can think of is that giving the fact that he got hit by the AI is that they have Laser accuracy and delivering criticals left and right . But this happens against human opponants as well...

 

This. Exactly.

 

The root of all this is a DM that causes unexpected and scarcely believable wing-shedding with some planes.

Everything else being discussed is a workaround.

 

The core issue needs to be fixed.

[the_dudeWG]

31 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

The AI just knows this and thus avoids wingshedding. I mean, the AI still dies, just not through wingshedding.

They might be more careful, but it still happens way too much, especially ai Camel pilots. It’s laughable watching them try to dogfight in PWCG. 

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

1 hour ago, J5_Hellbender said:

. Also I'd like to add: if you're flying the S.E.5a and you're not frustrating the hell out of your enemies by just flying away from them, you're just doing it wrong.

So the 56th squad got it all wrong, after being hit a number of times from Werner Voss? They should have just ran home, How many while in that fight lost their wings?

[Garven]

Probably all it would take is more turbulence in missions to reduce the super long range sniping.  

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

Should we consider turning advanced physics off?  It seemed like the game was more flyable for many more players....was there less wing shedding?   There seemed to be less complaining and griping about it.  Now with advanced physics back on, all the complaining starts up again. 

[TX-Zigrat]

I think the simplest solution to this problem is to simply copy the DM for the D7f or the Pfalz and paste it onto all other a/c. I don't know if they are right are wrong, but they are plausible and fun.

I understand this sim has a limited fan base and I think trying to simulate strength of these airplanes after taking damage is a fools errand anyway (too complex) so plausible and fun should be good enough.. here's my very simple for the devs to implement that won't cost a lot of hours or $$: next patch, copy and paste the wing DM for one of those airplanes onto the DM for all others and see how we like it, after 1 month, take a vote from the community to stay or go back.

 

 

 

[J99_Sizzlorr]

4 hours ago, Danneskjold said:

Probably all it would take is more turbulence in missions to reduce the super long range sniping.  

No, we actually have turbulence in half of the missions running on Flugpark. It is not the weathers fault that the DM is borked...

[Guest deleted@83466]

You know, Sizzlor, you are actually one of the few guys who has my respect from Rise of Flight.  I will never forget the time I was on you, and you were in a 90 degree bank left turn, and I was pulling inside of you for the killshot, and then you snap rolled it the other way.  I hadn't even thought of snap rolling the D.Va when in a high G left turn.  So you have my respect.  But don't 'Confused' face me.  The damage model needs some revision.  So let them do it.  Quit bitching.

[J99_Sizzlorr]

48 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

You know, Sizzlor, you are actually one of the few guys who has my respect from Rise of Flight.  I will never forget the time I was on you, and you were in a 90 degree bank left turn, and I was pulling inside of you for the killshot, and then you snap rolled it the other way.  I hadn't even thought of snap rolling the D.Va when in a high G left turn.  So you have my respect.  But don't 'Confused' face me.  The damage model needs some revision.  So let them do it.  Quit bitching.

Sorry but I am confused when you attack Baeumer for just asking a simple question in this thread. He doesn't need to ask the community about its opinion but he is doing it. He put countless of hours into maintaining the Flugpark, its parser and the award system (Bender also did a lot of work there so kudos to him as well). Without the Flugpark FC multiplayer would be dead a while ago. So I don't see the reason for your aggresion towards him. That is why I am confused. I think that instead of respecting me for doing a snap roll with the Albatros in RoF (which was my favourite manouver there) you should have the courtesy of paying him some respect for all the work he is doing for the community. At least we are on the same page when it comes to revision the DM. I don't think we are bitching that much. We just try to show that something is off with the DM.

Edited July 12, 2020 by J99_Sizzlorr

[Ace_Pilto]

Looked like OP unloaded his G very abruptly just before the wing came off. Still, the effect that it had was way too severe, reminded me of flying the P-51 in old Il-2 and having the wing pop off ever time you unloaded the G in it over 400mph.

[No.23_Gaylion]

Na man the advanced physics has nothing to do with wing shedding. 

 

By turning that on you deny players the ability to do manuevers to help them evade see etc. 

 

People complained while it was on. Simple physics was on for a very long time and it wasn't something that just happened to be turned on recently. I had always noticed a difference when flying on the Flugpark. I would try to snap roll and the plane would just flop around completely opposite of what I experienced when practicing offline. I remember thinking time and time again why is this plane doing this? 

 

I remember feeling something was different back when we would swap back and forth between J5 and JG1 servers. I just attributed it to a difference in map design or atmospherics. 

 

If you guys turned that back on I'd quit playing altogether.... wait maybe I shouldn't say that.

 

4 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

Why don't you and just all the rest of you just shut the f up and let these developers do the best job they can.  They heard your complaints.

 

How do you know they hear you when they are silent about it? Seems like it has only gotten worse wince the "new" DM change and each new update to it.

 

I'm going to keep bitching about it when these threads pop up until something is done. Sorry not sorry.

 

And guess what, even with all my bitching I'm still playing the game just as much as I was back when I first got it and haven't ran off like some folks. I adaptedto what has been provided because overall I enjoy the product. 

I did buy 4 copies of it and don't regret that. 

(Insert an Officer and a Gentleman scene here?)

 

And leave Baeumer alone. That was highly unnecessary. He wasn't complaining about anything and was merely offering a suggestion to help out. Or are you one of these weirdos that carries grudges on people from something they did or said like 10 years ago and that's where the aggression is coming from?

Edited July 12, 2020 by US93_Talbot

[BMA_Hellbender]

2 hours ago, US93_Talbot said:

I'm going to keep bitching about it when these threads pop up until something is done. Sorry not sorry.

 

I can't blame you: whether realistic or not, a change of this magnitude this late in the development cycle was never going to go down well.

 

I will defend the reason why they did it and even the extra research AnP did in his own time in order to appease us. In my opinion, what we have now is in-engine accurate. In much the same way that the Camel spin recovery is in-engine accurate and that the Pfalz' wings likely being way too strong is in-engine accurate, if spar size is the defining factor.

 

 

Obviously what most of us (myself included) want to see is a simulation which has historical accuracy (and fun) as its outcome, rather than inputting data and hoping that what comes out the other end is somewhat close to reality. I say this with the most possible respect towards the devs: this simulation is not that. Absolutely EVERYTHING about the WWI planes developed 10 years ago needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. That's just not going to happen.

 

What we have now is still the best WWI flightsim on the market today and I'd rather they just leave it as-is and we learn to adapt and rebuild some of the mission design.

 

I will keep repeating what I've said since the DM was changed: Central no longer needs the F to be competitive, they have the Pfalz, Dr.I and vanilla D.VII as slow flying tanks. And a decent AI gunner on the Halberstadt. RIP Alby.

 

 

P.S. Insulting Baeumer is about as low as you can go in this situation and should tell you everything you need to know about the person doing the insulting.

 

Not to mention that I feel insulted too, now. I expect to be held solely responsible for all the bad that happens in this game.

Edited July 12, 2020 by J5_Hellbender

[Zooropa_Fly]

If I could make a suggestion...

 

Adding say, 3 rate of fire options in the realism settings. The current, presumably realistic rate being the fastest.

The reduced settings would be a % of the original rates, thus retaining any equipment disparities.

 

This would obviously prolongue fights, and not affect historical considerations outwith itself.

It may well prove to be more 'fun' for many, and I could see it being used out-with the context of just a quick fix to a ww1 DM question.

It might be a worthwile addition to the entire game, and a useful tool to be deployed by server operators if they wish.

 

I did enjoy the RoF rof mod - the old 'pop pop pop'.

Not that it has to be like an E3 of course - how about 50 and 75% for the reduced rates ?

 

S!

 

 

[No.23_Gaylion]

Attacking Cl2's then and now:

 

Early January 2020:

 

 

Early July 2020:

 

 

This isn't an egregious example either. I'm trying to find the clip of one CL2 at what had to be 400 or more meters going into pieces like that after MAYBE one second burst. It was so awful that I felt the need to apologize in chat for the guy and curse what the DM has done to the CL2- me of all people apologizing!

 

@J5_Hellbender

 

He compelled me to donate $25USD to the J5 war effort and I've sent it in his honor. Check your paypal.

[No.23_Gaylion]

Here's another one: 

 

Early June2020:

 

 

A wingman in right before put some rounds in. Prior to that there was no damage to that CL2.

Edited July 12, 2020 by US93_Talbot

[J2_Bidu]

13 hours ago, Redwo1f said:

I do believe Jason has said (or hinted at strongly), that it wasn't his call to make -- that it is/was his superiors (1C's) call  (read into that sales (at least I do and think that is probably reasonable)).

 

Well, they should redo the math then: subtract all WW2 content I've bought and add that to the FC subtotal. Because that money would NEVER have reched them but to support WW1. I'm a client BECAUSE of WW1 material.

[No.23_Gaylion]

@J2_Bidu

 

I think you've touched on a fact that people don't seem to think about when they talk about FC and the money it brings to the table.

 

If they did FC2 and completely fleshed out 1918 product, I certainly would gift out a WWII game or two.

Edited July 12, 2020 by US93_Talbot

[Zooropa_Fly]

At this point I'm hopeful of an FC2, pending the world falling under a period af anarchy and destruction that is..

 

I think the devs would have to confess as to FC being a failure if this is all we get.

With an FC2 we'd have 20+ planes and presumably a few more objects, map extension, and offline stuff.

At that point I'd consider it a game I could play for years to come in various forms, and in some fashion a complete game.

 

In my wild imagination, sales might not be as bad as some think, and if it's getting close to a 50/50 decision - they might just go for it.

I'm sure having put as much into it as they have, there will be a genuine desire to at least flesh it out with one more mudule.

 

I noticed the typo but it knd of works S!

[Garven]

7 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

It is not the weathers fault that the DM is borked...

 I never said it was.  Just commenting on the long range sniping and the suggestion to increase dispersion which I agree is not needed.  If you are fine with the current turbulence levels then leave them there. 

 

As far as the separate issue of borked DM goes I don't really have anything to add to what has been already said.

Edited July 12, 2020 by Danneskjold

[RNAS10_Oliver]

15 hours ago, catchov said:

But we did get a video interview which said nothing really meaningful about FC. You could actually feel Jason's and Han's eyes glaze over until the conversation returned to WWII.

 

That really is not the sense that I got listening to the recent WarGameGuru interview.

[Tycoon]

3 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

 

 

Not to mention that I feel insulted too, now. I expect to be held solely responsible for all the bad that happens in this game.

We will burn you alive in a Se5 to appeal to the dm gods to hear our cries.?

[Garven]

10 hours ago, J5_Baeumer said:

There seemed to be less complaining and griping about it.

But then there were people complaining about the FM's.

14 minutes ago, Tycoon said:

We will burn you alive in a Se5 to appeal to the dm gods to hear our cries.?

For what its worth he has a wart and he turned me into a Newt.

Edited July 12, 2020 by Danneskjold

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

2 hours ago, J2_Bidu said:

 

Well, they should redo the math then: subtract all WW2 content I've bought and add that to the FC subtotal. Because that money would NEVER have reched them but to support WW1. I'm a client BECAUSE of WW1 material.

 

I hope you realize that all you do when you buy their WW2 content is encourage the development of more WW2 content...

[J2_Bidu]

Just now, US63_SpadLivesMatter said:

I hope you realize that all you do when you buy their WW2 content is encourage the development of more WW2 content...

 

Decidedly, at least one of us has vain hopes.

[Guest deleted@83466]

In all of the 4 or 5 lengthy threads complaining about the damage model, I don't recall reading the developers ever coming in and saying "We are done.  We are never looking at the DM ever again."  Did they?  If so, where?  If not, I don't understand why there is this 'Woe is me' vibe that permeates the Flying Circus section of the forum.  My experience with IL-2 is that the developers get around to fixing things more often than not.

[Tycoon]

2 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

In all of the 4 or 5 lengthy threads complaining about the damage model, I don't recall reading the developers ever coming in and saying "We are done.  We are never looking at the DM ever again."  Did they?  If so, where?  If not, I don't understand why there is this 'Woe is me' vibe that permeates the Flying Circus section of the forum.  My experience with IL-2 is that the developers get around to fixing things more often than not.

Five words;" we are looking at it" and all this stops.

[BraveSirRobin]

5 minutes ago, Tycoon said:

Five words;" we are looking at it" and all this stops.

All this stops?  Lol

 

They’re not going to send out hourly updates telling you what they’re still looking at.  

[Tycoon]

39 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

All this stops?  Lol

 

They’re not going to send out hourly updates telling you what they’re still looking at.  

If they said it once in the last couple weeks it would have been enough.

[Guest deleted@83466]

Hi, my name is Vasily, and I have been dispatched by 1C to give you bear hug and kiss on both cheek.  And then, ve dance!

[J2_Bidu]

1 hour ago, Tycoon said:

Five words;" we are looking at it" and all this stops.

 

 

I like it the way they went with the invisibility thing. Not much talk from their part, and they may have finally pulled it through.

Edited July 12, 2020 by J2_Bidu

[Redwo1f]

6 hours ago, J2_Bidu said:

 

Well, they should redo the math then: subtract all WW2 content I've bought and add that to the FC subtotal. Because that money would NEVER have reched them but to support WW1. I'm a client BECAUSE of WW1 material.

 

I don't disagree. Don't shoot the messenger. I am just saying that from what I have heard, it's 1C's call - and they are for sure going to be looking at profitability (revenue vs costs) and they are ultimately going to make that decision. I think Jason is stuck between a rock and a hard place, tbh - we will have to see how this sorts outs. The fact there there hasn't been an "official" announcement either way regarding a Vol. 2 or not, then it is reasonably safe to assume, I think, that a final decision on the matter has yet to be made (and therefore could probably go either way still).

...in fact, it could in reality be that this summer sale is/was a make or break point, idk...???

Edited July 12, 2020 by Redwo1f