Damage model still needs serious attention

[BraveSirRobin]

3 minutes ago, Tycoon said:

Alright BSR you're just being flat out toxic now.?

Why?  Tank Crew is a lot of fun.  I wish there were more options to play online.  I’d also like to see more tanks.  Especially the Firefly.  And some AAA vehicles.

[Guest deleted@83466]

I only bought Flying Circus to support the development of Tank Crew, so those darned developers *owe* me!

 

?

[Tycoon]

4 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Why?  Tank Crew is a lot of fun.  I wish there were more options to play online.  I’d also like to see more tanks.  Especially the Firefly.  And some AAA vehicles.

Is the player base better than FC?

[BraveSirRobin]

Just now, Tycoon said:

Is the player base better than FC?

Define “better”.

[Tycoon]

2 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Define “better”.

average 5 online, good days 30+

[BraveSirRobin]

1 minute ago, Tycoon said:

average 5 online, good days 30+

I think it’s fewer than FC at the moment. 

[Tycoon]

Surprised to hear it's fun, didn't look like it. Never seemed to me the flight sim terrain blended good enough for ground stuff.

[BraveSirRobin]

You drive around in a tank and blow stuff up.  How could that not be fun?

[Tycoon]

Maybe I'd take a look at it if the numbers weren't even worse than FC, I wouldn't have even bought FC in the first place if I knew how bad the numbers would be, and that was before the dm update.

[BraveSirRobin]

Someone has to be the first person on an empty server.

[Tycoon]

I've suffered to much of that abuse on ROF I can't go back to begging.?

[No.23_Starling]

8 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Comments like that one, and all it implies, make me hope that they abandon WW1 and make Tank Crew the secondary project.

So you don’t want to see FC receive data-informed improvements, suggested respectfully and with a concerted attempt at objectivity? If a user discovered evidence that the T-34 was 5mph too fast in sim wouldn’t that be of interest to the devs and Tank Crew community?
 

If you have contrary sources and data to show that Larner and Talbot genuinely are wasting everyone’s time please share it here and engage in healthy debate. The rest of us will continue to do so in line with the forum rules and in a mutual spirit of cooperation with love for the sim and source material.

[BMA_Hellbender]

4 hours ago, US93_Rummell said:

If you have contrary sources and data to show that Larner and Talbot genuinely are wasting everyone’s time please share it here and engage in healthy debate. The rest of us will continue to do so in line with the forum rules and in a mutual spirit of cooperation with love for the sim and source material.

 

They're only "wasting" their own time, in the same way that Chill is "wasting" his time flying and collecting data about real planes flying today.

 

There are no guarantees that the devs will even look at it, although the data being collected could become invaluable down the line, perhaps for another sim.

 

At this moment I fear most for the future of this type of flightsim altogether (HOTAS + pedals + TrackIR/VR + expensive computer to make it all run). The word coming from FS2020 closed beta testers (NDA is being broken left and right) is not very good. It looks very good, as is clear from the trailers, but it doesn't fly well at all compared to X-Plane. Not to mention that there won't be VR support at launch. I think we can forget about this becoming a modular platform for [insert planeset here].

[unreasonable]

19 hours ago, US93_Rummell said:

If I recall, Talbot and Larner looked at pow accounts AND German victory records/testimonies, producing stats on reason for loss, then compared this to our Flugpark losses and kills pre and post patch with a decent sample of data. The indicators were that pre patch losses more closely matched the limited recorded war records we have. Of course, the way online pilots fly is going to be different that RL, with the exception of excellent pilots like Drookasi who tries to keep his VL as if it were real, however the 3PG generally do try to fly conservatively.

 

There is no harm in collecting and sharing cold objective data and allowing the devs to either take heed or ignore.

 

No, but it has to be interpreted correctly. For instance, now that I have the two other books by Franks et al similar to "Under the Guns of the Red Baron", I have started to go through them to compile my own comparison to MvR's results.

 

The difficulty is that, while for every single one of MvR's victories there is his own personal account, so far after looking at about 50 results in the Kaiser's Aces book, there is just one quoted personal account from the German side, and that was from a letter home, not a combat report.  There are quite a few corroborating accounts from the RFC side, but in the form of survivor accounts, either POW reports or information about flyers who crashed on the British side of the lines. Where the RFC pilot did not survive, all we have, occasionally, is some account from another patrol member.

 

It is fairly obvious that none (almost) of the survivors were either flamers or lost their wings. In the cases of the non-survivors, so far in the "Kaisers Aces" examples, it is very rarely possible to say what happened to the plane - in marked contrast to the MvR case.  Hence I find the argument that the "Other Huns" data shows that, contrary to the MvR data - flamers and wing loss were rare to be invalid (provisionally: although I will be surprised if going through the rest of the books changes that view). It simply is not comparing like with like. 

 

What you can say from survivor records is that a certain percentage of planes shot down managed to do so without killing the crew, and sometimes why. (Usually engine problems, fuel leaks, or wounds). What you cannot do is say what caused the loss of those that did not survive, unless you have a record of someone looking at the target as it was destroyed.

[No.23_Gaylion]

I took Franks' book "Over the Front" which lists the confirmed claims of the USAS aces and im going back through the AARs for that pilot to find out how many rounds were fired at that plane and if they describe the way it fell.

[J99_Sizzlorr]

21 minutes ago, US93_Talbot said:

I took Franks' book "Over the Front" which lists the confirmed claims of the USAS aces and im going back through the AARs for that pilot to find out how many rounds were fired at that plane and if they describe the way it fell.

I'm doing the rounds fired on MvRs claims and crossreference it with I think unreasonables reaserch on how they were brought down. Just waiting for Volume 2 of Inside the victories of Manfred von Richthofen.

[BraveSirRobin]

8 hours ago, US93_Rummell said:

So you don’t want to see FC receive data-informed improvements, suggested respectfully and with a concerted attempt at objectivity? If a user discovered evidence that the T-34 was 5mph too fast in sim wouldn’t that be of interest to the devs and Tank Crew community?
 

If you have contrary sources and data to show that Larner and Talbot genuinely are wasting everyone’s time please share it here and engage in healthy debate. The rest of us will continue to do so in line with the forum rules and in a mutual spirit of cooperation with love for the sim and source material.

The more BS like this that you post the more I want to see FC dumped and those resources be put into Tank Crew.

[Tycoon]

5 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

The word coming from FS2020 closed beta testers (NDA is being broken left and right) is not very good. It looks very good, as is clear from the trailers, but it doesn't fly well at all compared to X-Plane. Not to mention that there won't be VR support at launch. I think we can forget about this becoming a modular platform for [insert planeset here].

If this is true this hurts.

[Guest deleted@83466]

29 minutes ago, Tycoon said:

If this is true this hurts.

 

Don't be hurt.  I hear there are plenty of very good bus driving sims

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

30 minutes ago, Tycoon said:

If this is true this hurts.

It'll take some time, This is Microsoft after all, an endless pile of money and probably some of the best developers out there. What game, sim, program doesn't start off a bit screwed up. Only sim I know that was perfect from the start was FC, They went backwards, 

[Tycoon]

16 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

Don't be hurt.  I hear there are plenty of very good bus driving sims

[No.23_Starling]

4 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

What you can say from survivor records is that a certain percentage of planes shot down managed to do so without killing the crew, and sometimes why. (Usually engine problems, fuel leaks, or wounds). What you cannot do is say what caused the loss of those that did not survive, unless you have a record of someone looking at the target as it was destroyed.

I agree on the survivors shot down and the causes. As for the losses where crew were KIA, having now read MvR, Ball (unpublished with family with excerpts given at lecture), Bishop (not the most reliable), Fonck, Gould Lee, McCudden, Rickenbacker etc etc, where they did see victims go down and crash, few are described as losing wings mid combat in a dive, roll, or loop etc. The wing sheds mentioned by McCudden follow a long deliberate burst into the wings. Many more are recorded as flamers, or likely pilot wounds where they drop like stones and then sometimes losing wings in their aggressive death dives. 

 

Of course, it’s likely that real pilots (especially novices) wouldn’t have thrown their birds about like us in-game, particularly the poor buggers in the Be2s. From Chilli’s recent videos and testing it is likely however that some did pull several Gs in their combats and felt safe enough to do so even after combat damage (amazing footage of his Dr1, if you’ve not seen it). The Voss vs No.56 fight comes to mind with every SE5 getting shot up.

 

Do share your results with 3PG on your MvR tally. Might be worth putting in the date of kill and type, as this is relevant to our planeset. S!

6 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

They're only "wasting" their own time, in the same way that Chill is "wasting" his time flying and collecting data about real planes flying today.

 

There are no guarantees that the devs will even look at it, although the data being collected could become invaluable down the line, perhaps for another sim.

Well said. The devs themselves have used hundreds of historical sources, data, and even surviving examples, which is not a waste of time for their customers. They’d have done this for Tank Crew too. Passion and research make il2 and many in its community fantastic - Pat Wilson’s work comes to mind.

 

 

 

Edited July 14, 2020 by US93_Rummell

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

2 hours ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

It'll take some time, This is Microsoft after all, an endless pile of money and probably some of the best developers out there. What game, sim, program doesn't start off a bit screwed up. Only sim I know that was perfect from the start was FC, They went backwards, 

 

If they're willing to spend it. They really made a solid effort with the original CFS. CFS2 was a little different in presentation, but ultimately not a bad game. CFS3 they got to a certain point and just gave up. IL2-1946 proved the stronger offering in the long run because effort kept going into it and into the various updates to it. Many of the mods for CFS3 proved that if Microsoft had put in the effort, the game would have been much more than it was back in its heyday. Microsoft then went over to FS2004 and FSX but, again, the development just kind of flatlined when Microsoft decided it had taken "enough". Again in those instances, community mods stepped in and revealed there was still more mileage in those games. I guess I've become a little cynical about Microsoft's flight sim developments since that era. It's not that they lack the money or resources as a general thing, it's that they only take the concept so far and then just seem to give up on it before what they're doing really reaches its full potential. If we're lucky, community modders will step in and improve things in the event FS2020 goes so far and Microsoft just gives up.

Edited July 14, 2020 by Krispy_Duck

[MicroShket]

5 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

The more BS like this that you post the more I want to see FC dumped and those resources be put into Tank Crew.

Because of a such bait type trolling no one will hang out and drink beer with you. Except maybe a few TC guys who believe in existence of Santa Claus and in possibility of becoming TC a good tanksim. ?

[Ace_Pilto]

Imagine paying actualy money to wriggle around in the mud in a sardine can.

 

Poor buggers need all the help they can get.

Edited July 14, 2020 by Ace_Pilto

[BraveSirRobin]

37 minutes ago, MicroShket said:

Because of a such bait type trolling no one will hang out and drink beer with you. Except maybe a few TC guys who believe in existence of Santa Claus and in possibility of becoming TC a good tanksim. ?

I wouldn’t drink a beer with most of the people in here even if they offered to pay me to drink with them.

[Ace_Pilto]

I'd let you pay to watch me drink.

[Zooropa_Fly]

30 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

I wouldn’t drink a beer with most of the people in here even if they offered to pay me to drink with them.

 

Then why so eager to chat with them ?

[Guest deleted@83466]

30 minutes ago, Ace_Pilto said:

I'd let you pay to watch me drink.

 

Why pay when we can just read your forum posts for free?

[BraveSirRobin]

2 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

 

Then why so eager to chat with them ?

Probably for the same reason that you’re so eager to chat with me.  I’m pretty sure it isn’t because you want to have a beer with me.

[Ace_Pilto]

21 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

Why pay when we can just read your forum posts for free?

 

Hey, I just discovered that I can fly with no pants. Subscribe to my only fans

[76SQN-FatherTed]

56 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

I wouldn’t drink a beer with most of the people in here even if they offered to pay me to drink with them.

Given the persona you like to project here, I'd guess most wouldn't make that offer

[Tycoon]

56 minutes ago, Ace_Pilto said:

I'd let you pay to watch me drink.

Top ten rappers Eminem was afraid to diss.

[No.23_Triggers]

Looking at AEF reports from 1918, the most common outcomes are 'Out of Control' (as in, the pilot is killed, wounded, or pretending to be either) or 'No Result' (as in shots were exchanged and both planes flew away intact). A while ago I looked at some 190 combat claims of the AEF, of which only 3 cited wings coming off. 

 

To further clarify the term "Out of Control" I tried to sub-divide the different wordings of reports. Here's how that went: 



(Vrille being the AEF term for a spiral, or a spin). 

It would appear that wing-shedding wasn't even close to being half as common as it is in FC if the AEF reports are anything to go by. But, I think other data that people have already posted aligns with that anyway. 

Edited July 16, 2020 by US93_Larner

[J99_Sizzlorr]

1 hour ago, US93_Larner said:

Looking at AEF reports from 1918, the most common outcomes are 'Out of Control' (as in, the pilot is killed, wounded, or pretending to be either) or 'No Result' (as in shots were exchanged and both planes flew away intact). A while ago I looked at some 190 combat claims of the AEF, of which only 3 cited wings coming off. 

 

To further clarify the term "Out of Control" I tried to sub-divide the different wordings of reports. Here's how that went: 



(Vrille being the AEF term for a spiral, or a spin). 

It would appear that wing-shedding wasn't even close to being half as common as it is in FC if the AEF reports are anything to go by. But, I think other data that people have already posted aligns with that anyway. 

Interesting to note would be which aircraft types were shot down in which manner. We don't see wing shedding as often with German planes except the Albatros and Halberstadt.

[J2_Bidu]

4 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

Looking at AEF reports from 1918, the most common outcomes are 'Out of Control' (as in, the pilot is killed, wounded, or pretending to be either) or 'No Result' (as in shots were exchanged and both planes flew away intact). A while ago I looked at some 190 combat claims of the AEF, of which only 3 cited wings coming off. 

 

To further clarify the term "Out of Control" I tried to sub-divide the different wordings of reports. Here's how that went: 



(Vrille being the AEF term for a spiral, or a spin). 

It would appear that wing-shedding wasn't even close to being half as common as it is in FC if the AEF reports are anything to go by. But, I think other data that people have already posted aligns with that anyway. 

 

Quite enlightening. None of the top 5 reflect well a plane missing rudder or aileron control, for instance. So at most the "other" and "not specified" would apply. Exactly 50%. At most.

Edited July 16, 2020 by J2_Bidu

[No.23_Gaylion]

@J99_Sizzlorr

 

Rumpler/AEG were the only mentions of wings coming off.

 

Screenshot of spreadsheet currently working:

Edited July 16, 2020 by US93_Talbot

[J5_Adam]

A spin and a spiral dive are two very different things. A Spiral dive can put very high stresses on a plane due to the rapid speed increase etc where a spin is a condition of one wing being stalled.

 

Did they actually refer them both as a Vrille back then?

[J99_Sizzlorr]

@US93_Larner and @US93_Talbot

 

Here is a screenshot of my spreadsheet of MvRs most interesting claims out of his first 57 claims up until he got wounded in the head:

Wing failures due to MG fire are marked red, in-flight break ups are marked yellow and wing failures due to steep dives are marked orange.

 

It also includes the two kills MvR did whilst flying two seater planes which he never got credited for.

 

For a better view: https://ibb.co/mXFmgdQ

 

Edit: I left out claims where he forced his opponents to land or they crashed more or less eventless into the ground with no information about rounds fired at the target. I only listed those which I think are the most interesting ones regarding our damage model. But I can complete the list if anyone of you desire this. Volume II is ordered but will not arrive here before Wednesday next week.

 

Interesting bit:

- On average, of where we have the estimated rounds fired, he needed 332 shots to down 1 AC. This is interesting because he usually attacked from dead six o'clock and in close range. But he kept attacking even if it was clear that his victim is already out of action maybe that explains why his shot count is so high...

 

- 6 enemy aircrafts out of 59 were brought down due to wings beeing shot off by MG fire. All of them 2 seater planes.

 

- 2 enemy aircrafts out of 59 lost their wings due to uncontrolled dives.

 

- 5 enemy aircrafts out of 59 broke up in-flight.

 

 

 

Source: Inside the Victories of Manfred von Richthofen Vol. I

 

Edit: Look BS Robin I posted ridiculous stats that don’t prove anything and act like I’ve found the holy grail. 

Edited July 17, 2020 by J99_Sizzlorr

[No.23_Gaylion]

13 minutes ago, J5_Adam said:

 

Did they actually refer them both as a Vrille back then?

 

No way to tell really. Reports have vrille, out of control, fell spinning, "fell like a dead leaf", fell off on a wing-which I take as a side slip fall?

 

Honestly no way to know what they mean and can only take it on face value.