Jump to content
TX-Zigrat

Damage model still needs serious attention

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, J5_Adam said:

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?


Yeah, it's a bit of a problem - I've seen both be referred to as a 'Vrille', depending on the pilot, and sometimes it's a little bit confusing which one they are referring to...some pilots will say something like a "Wide vrille", or a "Sharp vrille" etc, etc. It seems like they used it as a one-size-fits-all for any kind of corkscrewing motion. 
 

5 hours ago, J2_Bidu said:

 

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.


From looking through the reports, the "Not Specified" are  the most absolutely frustrating of them all - because there are so many types of outcomes that they could be! A couple of the ones in 'Other', IIRC (I looked at this a while ago) had very specific mentions that did sound visually similar to cut controls in-game. Stuff like "Went down in a wobbly zigzag" and things like that. If I was going to really try to build a case for a DM revision (which, TBH I don't see much point in doing atm - the Devs don't seem engaged with the community at the moment) then I'd make a note of recording any specifics like that and trying to find a way of categorising them into neatly presentable data. 
 

1 hour ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

@US93_Larner and @US93_Talbot

 

Here is a screenshot 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.


Interesting, thanks! I'm curious about wing failures only appearing in any kind of significant number once he switched to D.III / D.Vs...I wonder if that's just a coincidence, or if there is some other factor at play? Also seems like B.E's were especially prone to shedding...

Edited by US93_Larner
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:


Yeah, it's a bit of a problem - I've seen both be referred to as a 'Vrille', depending on the pilot, and sometimes it's a little bit confusing which one they are referring to...some pilots will say something like a "Wide vrille", or a "Sharp vrille" etc, etc. It seems like they used it as a one-size-fits-all for any kind of corkscrewing motion. 
 


From looking through the reports, the "Not Specified" are  the most absolutely frustrating of them all - because there are so many types of outcomes that they could be! A couple of the ones in 'Other', IIRC (I looked at this a while ago) had very specific mentions that did sound visually similar to cut controls in-game. Stuff like "Went down in a wobbly zigzag" and things like that. If I was going to really try to build a case for a DM revision (which, TBH I don't see much point in doing atm - the Devs don't seem engaged with the community at the moment) then I'd make a note of recording any specifics like that and trying to find a way of categorising them into neatly presentable data. 
 


Interesting, thanks! I'm curious about wing failures only appearing in any kind of significant number once he switched to D.III / D.Vs...I wonder if that's just a coincidence, or if there is some other factor at play? 

He probably got better at shooting and downing stuff with roundels on it...

Edit: Yes B.Es weren't very resistant to battle damage as far as I know...

Edited by J99_Sizzlorr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if we have pre-heated engines; if we have autopilot; so not everyone is a "realism" fundamentalist; and "realism" is subject to discussion...

 

Then why don't the devs implement some sort of slider controls for:

 

1) Control failure adjustment (1/8, 1/4, 1/2, "normal", 2x)

2) Structural collapse adjustment (1/8, 1/4, 1/2, "normal", 2x)

3) Pilot health hit adjustment (1/8, 1/4, 1/2, "normal", 2x)

 

as a server option?

 

They would just have to factor this in, in the final math. That should prove to be extremely easy.

 

Everyone would be fighting on the Flugpark thread, instead of complaining with the devs. They would save the day. We'd be happily pulling Matthias' and Baeumer's legs.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, US93_Larner said:


Interesting, thanks! I'm curious about wing failures only appearing in any kind of significant number once he switched to D.III / D.Vs...I wonder if that's just a coincidence, or if there is some other factor at play? Also seems like B.E's were especially prone to shedding...

 

If there is another factor it may be that most of his victims in a DII were pushers: Fes or DH2s.  Not that they could not lose wings, but with the engine being a large target it may have been that which got damaged first.  But probably too few victims to try to draw firm conclusions.  But BEs were very prone to wing shedding - as discussed on my earlier MvR thread. Hence the point of excluding them from the sample set to see what happens. 

 

On the US figures: worth bearing in mind how many of these were independently confirmed by a crash. As a rule of thumb you could probably estimate that ~half of those that were not were not kills at all, which would have included a large proportion of these OOC claims.   Comparing total Entente OOC claims during the war versus estimated GAF losses  from air combat would be interesting.

 

The other point at issue is the aircraft type. I think no-one disputes that a Fokker D.VII is less likely to shed wings in a fight than a Camel, for instance.  So while I would take the MvR ratios as a reasonable estimate for the rates of flamers and wing loss on RFC aircraft, I would be hesitant to apply the same estimate to GAF planes, especially late war models. On the other hand, the RFC (RAF) was still flying predominantly Camels, SE5s and RE8s at the end of the war, all well represented in MvR's claims.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:coffee:

 

Gee it'd be nice to get some input from the devs. If they show any interest at all, it probably won't be until after BoN, and something about a desert war, are released and the bugs ironed out. That could be some time. And it's not guaranteed one way or the other while silence is their preferred MO.

 

To be candid, I'm over the DM thing. It's adapt or perish. Like Covid19, the old days are gone and there's no point in getting OCD over it but getting on with it. It's still a lovely sim with a lot going for it. It could be worse  ....like sitting in a tank. It's a shame they don't model carbon monoxide poisoning.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Quote

To be candid, I'm over the DM thing. It's adapt or perish. Like Covid19, the old days are gone and there's no point in getting OCD over it but getting on with it. It's still a lovely sim with a lot going for it. It could be worse  ....like sitting in a tank. It's a shame they don't model carbon monoxide poisoning.

 

You're really going to compare adapting to Flying Circus and it's perceived DM problems as like adapting to the demands of Covid-19?

 

Wow, just wow...just some friendly advice, but maybe it's time to start putting your video gaming into perspective.

 

 

Edited by SeaSerpent
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

You're really going to compare adapting to Flying Circus and it's perceived DM problems as like adapting to the demands of Covid-19?

 

Wow, just wow...just some friendly advice, but maybe it's time to start putting your video gaming into perspective.

 

 

I agree, to even remotely compare covid 19 with the dm changes we are dealing with just shows how completely clueless people are about how bad the state of this sim is now.

Edited by Tycoon
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2020 at 7:23 PM, Tycoon said:

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.

 

On 7/13/2020 at 7:26 PM, BraveSirRobin said:

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

 

Plus the wings don't come off. Maybe a track or the turret but definitely not the wings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, J5_Klugermann said:

 

 

Plus the wings don't come off. Maybe a track or the turret but definitely not the wings.

 

It would be even less fun, if the tracks came off all the time, when you tried to turn,  after taking a few rounds of mg fire, cannon fire or shell splinters to the hull.  There are some advantages, in a tank, though.  At least you can still point the gun and if worst come s to worst send the poor old driver (it’s his bloody vehicle after all) and the hull gunner outside to repair the track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

You're really going to compare adapting to Flying Circus and it's perceived DM problems as like adapting to the demands of Covid-19?

 

Wow, just wow...just some friendly advice, but maybe it's time to start putting your video gaming into perspective.

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Tycoon said:

I agree, to even remotely compare covid 19 with the dm changes we are dealing with just shows how completely clueless people are about how bad the state of this sim is now.

 

It's a metaphor not a comparison. It's not meant to be taken literally, comprende?  If I were to give you guys some friendly advice in kind, it would be not to be so precious. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Lol I'm amazed this post hasn't been shut down, you dared to say the D word like garlic to Dracula when devs see it 🤣

Edited by ST_Nooney
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Guys let's stay on the topic at hand for once, shall we? What conclusions do you draw out of the collected data in terms of the accuracy of the DM?

Edited by J99_Sizzlorr
word order
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've no major issues with the current Dm, yet it still costs me more sleep than Coronavirus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

Guys let's stay on the topic at hand for once, shall we? What conclusions do you draw out of the data collected in terms of the accuracy of the DM?

 

Premature. First thing to worry about is how to make valid comparisons between different data sets that include different things.  For instance, the MvR data, which is culled over a similar period to some of the other German aces claims, against a similar target set, comes up with very different numbers to the "other Huns" as estimated by Larner.  Numbers so different that they are almost a statistical impossibility: but the explanation is that they are not including the same types of observations. In the MvR set we have a very good idea if the target was a flamer or lost wings - in most of the other cases we do not as there is no detailed first hand account of the shootdown or, all too often, if a plane was even shot down at all.

 

Just to recap:  1356782268_AlltheHunsdamageanalysis.thumb.JPG.568f7a6051b0281f5e452f2343a4451b.JPG

 

The problem here is the "Other category". In the MvR case we can be almost 100% sure that this does not include Flamers and Structure kills, because his first hand accounts were so accurate, but in the Other Huns it includes those known to be other than Flamers and Structure losses, usually because we have a survivor account, plus everything else where the cause is not known - which are the majority of cases. It is an invalid comparison.

 

I know some people want to seize on some of Larner and Talbot's work and say "Aha this proves the DM is "wrong"" - but it does nothing of the sort, and certainly will not convince anyone in the development team.  

 

 

Share this post


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

 

Premature. First thing to worry about is how to make valid comparisons between different data sets that include different things.  For instance, the MvR data, which is culled over a similar period to some of the other German aces claims, against a similar target set, comes up with very different numbers to the "other Huns" as estimated by Larner.  Numbers so different that they are almost a statistical impossibility: but the explanation is that they are not including the same types of observations. In the MvR set we have a very good idea if the target was a flamer or lost wings - in most of the other cases we do not as there is no detailed first hand account of the shootdown or, all too often, if a plane was even shot down at all.

 

Just to recap:  1356782268_AlltheHunsdamageanalysis.thumb.JPG.568f7a6051b0281f5e452f2343a4451b.JPG

 

The problem here is the "Other category". In the MvR case we can be almost 100% sure that this does not include Flamers and Structure kills, because his first hand accounts were so accurate, but in the Other Huns it includes those known to be other than Flamers and Structure losses, usually because we have a survivor account, plus everything else where the cause is not known - which are the majority of cases. It is an invalid comparison.

 

I know some people want to seize on some of Larner and Talbot's work and say "Aha this proves the DM is "wrong"" - but it does nothing of the sort, and certainly will not convince anyone in the development team.  

 

 

I’d say your summary suggests more flamers than structural failures for almost every period, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, US93_Rummell said:

I’d say your summary suggests more flamers than structural failures for almost every period, no?

 

No - because I do not consider the Some other Huns categories to be valid, and hence the total is not either.

 

For MvR structural collapse was more common than flamers, even if you leave the BEs out of it. Only in the late period flamers are far more common. This makes sense, as in the late period he was using incendiary/explosive bullets.  You get shot down by whatever fails first - lighting up an punctured fuel tank with incendiaries is a lot easier than shooting off wings.

 

In fact when I first did this MvR analysis what struck me most was the marked increase in the number of flamers - also the use of far less ammunition, which also makes sense.    edit - and that a 1918 game should have incendiaries in it's ammo mix. Which will make dogfights even more lethal.....

Edited by unreasonable
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

[...] a 1918 game should have incendiaries in it's ammo mix. Which will make dogfights even more lethal.....

 

RIGHT! The conclusion is we are flying the wrong period for our taste! Who can survive in this deadly environment?! What we need is an early 1915 game, and two seaters with rifles - this will ensure prolonged dogfighting!

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

 

No - because I do not consider the Some other Huns categories to be valid, and hence the total is not either.

 

For MvR structural collapse was more common than flamers, even if you leave the BEs out of it. Only in the late period flamers are far more common. This makes sense, as in the late period he was using incendiary/explosive bullets.  You get shot down by whatever fails first - lighting up an punctured fuel tank with incendiaries is a lot easier than shooting off wings.

 

In fact when I first did this MvR analysis what struck me most was the marked increase in the number of flamers - also the use of far less ammunition, which also makes sense.    edit - and that a 1918 game should have incendiaries in it's ammo mix. Which will make dogfights even more lethal.....

So collecting further data on MvR and USAS is a waste of time because we can't draw any conclusions regarding the accuracy of our DM out of it?

Edited by J99_Sizzlorr
word order

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

So collecting further data on MvR and USAS is a waste of time because we can't draw any conclusions regarding the accuracy of our DM out of it?

 

I have already got all the data on MvR - long thread about it a while back.  I think the MvR data is a reasonable historic base for what happens to RFC planes when they are shot down - but with the proviso that the introduction of incendiary/explosive ammunition changed the picture a great deal.

 

But you cannot comfortably apply the MvR outcomes to German planes across the board, nor can you apply USAS claims to kills of Entente aircraft, even if they are reliable, unless you assume the damage characteristics of both planes and ammunition used to be substantially identical.   

 

I do not think this is a waste of time - the pursuit of knowledge seldom is. I have learned quite a lot by doing my own analysis and understanding other peoples', and of course reading the source books is interesting in it's own right.  I certainly do not want to discourage you from doing your own research.  The USAS breakdown will be interesting too. But if you are only looking for a quick rebuttal of the DM, then I think you are going to be disappointed.  

Edited by unreasonable
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I do not think this is a waste of time - the pursuit of knowledge seldom is. I have learned quite a lot by doing my own analysis and understanding other peoples', and of course reading the source books is interesting in it's own right.  I certainly do not want to discourage you from doing your own research.  The USAS breakdown will be interesting too. But if you are only looking for a quick rebuttal of the DM, then I think you are going to be disappointed.  

Nah, I am not looking for a quick rebuttal of the DM (I think it is quite realistic in most cases) just wanted to bring historical data into perspective of our heated DM discussion, so people can look for themselves. Still I think there is something off with the DM for some planes or the AI gunnery accuracy. I also haven't flown enough on the new patch to come to my own conclusions of what that might be.

 

The thing that seems to frustrate most of the people is that sometimes some very minor battle damage is responsible for wing failure or loss of controls. Not saying that this couldn't happen but the frequency of it happening seems wrong to me.

Edited by J99_Sizzlorr
word order
  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, catchov said:

 

 

It's a metaphor not a comparison. It's not meant to be taken literally, comprende?  If I were to give you guys some friendly advice in kind, it would be not to be so precious. 

Read what I said a bit more carefully.😁

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did MvR and many other aces say to aim for meat and metal? If guns jammed as much as they are said to do, why aim your few sparse rounds there? Why not aim for the wings if they were the weakest point? Admittedly us desk jockeys put these birds through more aggressive Gs than RL pilots, but then again Chilli shows us that he’s more than happy to pull significant Gs, and probably has the flight skill of a decent WW1 jockey.
 

The data is hard to interpret but I still feel this advice suggests that we should see a higher proportion of flamers or pilot wound victories than wing sheds.

 

The MvR reports (and McCudden’s) often mention LONG bursts causing planes to come to pieces including wings, but absolutely nowhere have I ever read a pilot saying “I fired 2 rounds and his wings came off in a turn”. On the contrary, Fonck talks about killing the pilot in a handful of rounds, but never critical structural failures. 
 

Unreasonable (sorry don’t know your other monikers so this isn’t an insult! :-)), what’s your take on the ‘’meat and metal” advice given by so many aces?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

So the state of the sim is WORSE than Covid!

 

At least the sims' DM has been isolated and identified properly.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

So the state of the sim is WORSE than Covid!

That's not what he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, US93_Rummell said:

Why did MvR and many other aces say to aim for meat and metal? If guns jammed as much as they are said to do, why aim your few sparse rounds there? Why not aim for the wings if they were the weakest point? Admittedly us desk jockeys put these birds through more aggressive Gs than RL pilots, but then again Chilli shows us that he’s more than happy to pull significant Gs, and probably has the flight skill of a decent WW1 jockey.
 

The data is hard to interpret but I still feel this advice suggests that we should see a higher proportion of flamers or pilot wound victories than wing sheds.

 

The MvR reports (and McCudden’s) often mention LONG bursts causing planes to come to pieces including wings, but absolutely nowhere have I ever read a pilot saying “I fired 2 rounds and his wings came off in a turn”. On the contrary, Fonck talks about killing the pilot in a handful of rounds, but never critical structural failures. 
 

Unreasonable (sorry don’t know your other monikers so this isn’t an insult! :-)), what’s your take on the ‘’meat and metal” advice given by so many aces?

 

I fly offline only ( I could not play online with you fellows at 3.00 am my time even if I wanted to, given that my high ping would make it miserable for everyone). In my experience of the two campaigns, I think it is good advice even within the sim.  Although flamers are rarer than they will be if we get incendiaries and pilots may be a bit damage resistant, a burst in the area of the pilot is the quickest and surest way to down an enemy aircraft. Apart from anything else, given the error in the point of aim, firing to hit at the centre of the target area is always going to maximize your total number of hits. It will also maximize the number of fuel tank hits as well as pilot hits. 

 

My impressions are that most of the planes I have shot down while flying those campaigns were not structural kills, although I was not exactly counting. So I am by no means convinced that the wings are the weakest point, although I share the worries that something is not quite right.  After all, while wing hits might "hit a spar" and reduce your G maximum, they have to pass a dice roll to do so. Then you still have to exceed the new G limit.  

 

MvR's reports do not always give the number of rounds used, but Victory #39 8th April 1917 vs BE2G "I was flying and surprised an English artillery flyer. After a very few rounds the plane broke to pieces and fell near Vimy".   That was a BE which were particularly prone to this - (that they are not in the "Other Huns" data is particularly suspect)

 

Victory #77 7 April 1918 vs Camel. "I shot at an enemy plane some 200 metres away. After I had fired 100 shots the enemy plane broke apart."    100 rounds might over 6 seconds of firing (not sure what rof is on our Dr1) but at 200 metres there would probably not have been a huge number of hits, but these would have been using incendiary/explosive bullets. 

 

    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

Guys let's stay on the topic at hand for once, shall we? What conclusions do you draw out of the collected data in terms of the accuracy of the DM?


You’re not going to get any useful conclusions from the data.  This was prior to the period when data collection was considered important.  Not to mention that collecting data was not easy in the middle of the worst war in human history (at that point in time).  Oh, let’s not forget that the next war wiped out lots of the data that was collected.  And the fact that hardly anyone had parachutes makes getting information from surviving pilots problematic.  So at some point you’re just going to have to accept that the dev team has made the correct guesses.  
 

Just kidding!  Most people here will never accept that...

Edited by BraveSirRobin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:


  So at some point you’re just going to have to accept that the dev team has made the correct guesses.  
 

Just kidding!  Most people here will never accept that...

No kidding, common sense is a cruel mistress.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Tycoon said:

No kidding, common sense is a cruel mistress.

 

 

 

Pay attention Catchov, here is someone who knows his Metaphors from his Similes.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While a few folks still defend the new DM, we need to remember that apparently more than half the multiplayer base is gone. According to Flugpark stats, March, the last month before the DM update, had 832 active players. May / June combined had only 411 (Spring Offensive), which makes me think low 300s for each month? I'm not sure if there was any event, but at least from the mission count it seems to be two full months. I might be wrong, or the parser is wrong, but it seems that May / June combined had less than half the player base compared to March.

 

That's obviously not due to covid cases or people going off the internet. Something really off in this new DM is driving people away, including me. Are people willing to sacrifice the game over something most of us are saying is wrong? 

 

Guys, people were suggesting J5 to open a new server because one wasn't enough anymore. How did we come to this? And it is not game the game. We are not asking for anything arcade (just the opposite). Most of us here have thousands of hours flying these planes in ROF and FC. We know a thing or two about these planes and we know right the way when something is off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't help that the mission design is poor on flugpark, built purely for 40+ players and doesn't play well with 10- 15, which is usually the absolute best you get besides Sunday and Thursday, and that's being generous.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tycoon said:

Doesn't help that the mission design is poor on flugpark, built purely for 40+ players and doesn't play well with 10- 15, which is usually the absolute best you get besides Sunday and Thursday, and that's being generous.

 

Well, we were getting 40+ players during week days sometimes, and I'm not talking events. During the Sunday event, people had to wait in line to get into the server sometimes. I agree the mission is too big, but it was coming to a point that we would need another server, perhaps a smaller one for sparring. All of the sudden, everything is gone.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

Well, we were getting 40+ players during week days sometimes, and I'm not talking events. During the Sunday event, people had to wait in line to get into the server sometimes. I agree the mission is too big, but it was coming to a point that we would need another server, perhaps a smaller one for sparring. All of the sudden, everything is gone.

Right, your point still stands. Guess what I was saying was there is a bit of a death spiral effect with the mission design, even if you get 10 players on they get discouraged because you can't find anyone and you lose the few people still playing.

Edited by Tycoon

Share this post


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

even if you get 10 players on they get discouraged because you can't find anyone and you lose the few people still playing.

I usually drop out on Flugpark in such situation. When flying for half an hour not finding anyone. Just the Flak bursts. But when zooming in I just see the clouds, no a/c. Then I go to DED where there is action even with few players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Thursday fly in seem that very few come on from the European guys, Last Thursday I think the highest I saw was 15 players, During the later time for the NA guys it went up to 40 some odd guys, So right now I'd say the Europeans are pissed at the DM more than the NA guys. 

 

Sundays seem to have about 40 odd guys, still way down before the DM update. 

I didn't see Groggy Gecko in there last Thursday, I know he's not happy about the DM and would be disappointing to see him leave, Big part of the Entente and draws guys in.  

 

 

1 hour ago, Tycoon said:

Doesn't help that the mission design is poor on flugpark, built purely for 40+ players and doesn't play well with 10- 15, which is usually the absolute best you get besides Sunday and Thursday, and that's being generous.

The missions made by JG1_Butzell are perfect for the smaller crowd, I have only got to fly it 1 time and haven't got to play it since and that was 2 weeks ago I think.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

May / June combined had only 411 (Spring Offensive), which makes me think low 300s for each month?

 

Incorrect.  the 411 was a 30 day count reflecting June only.  The correct numbers for May are posted in the first post of the thread.  Look there.  Of course you would add May and June  = 1038 player accounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

That's obviously not due to covid cases or people going off the internet. Something really off in this new DM is driving people away, including me. Are people willing to sacrifice the game over something most of us are saying is wrong? 

 

I beg to differ. It is summer and holiday season. And here in Europe many countries are loosen their lockdowns. People go out more, albeit still with masks and distancing rules. I say let's wait and see what the following month will bring. 

 

15 minutes ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

The missions made by JG1_Butzell are perfect for the smaller crowd, I have only got to fly it 1 time and haven't got to play it since and that was 2 weeks ago I think. 

 

I think it is not in the rotation anymore. Maybe he is working on it to add some more features.

 

1 hour ago, Tycoon said:

Doesn't help that the mission design is poor on flugpark, built purely for 40+ players and doesn't play well with 10- 15, which is usually the absolute best you get besides Sunday and Thursday, and that's being generous.

 

Ah, that hurts 😬. I agree missions on Flugpark are designed for more than 10 - 15 players. But I don't see severs with smaller missions beeing full to the brim. Maybe you like to contribute to the Flugpark by designing a smaller yet still captivating mission. 

 

Share this post


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

 

I fly offline only ( I could not play online with you fellows at 3.00 am my time even if I wanted to, given that my high ping would make it miserable for everyone). In my experience of the two campaigns, I think it is good advice even within the sim.  Although flamers are rarer than they will be if we get incendiaries and pilots may be a bit damage resistant, a burst in the area of the pilot is the quickest and surest way to down an enemy aircraft. Apart from anything else, given the error in the point of aim, firing to hit at the centre of the target area is always going to maximize your total number of hits. It will also maximize the number of fuel tank hits as well as pilot hits. 

 

My impressions are that most of the planes I have shot down while flying those campaigns were not structural kills, although I was not exactly counting. So I am by no means convinced that the wings are the weakest point, although I share the worries that something is not quite right.  After all, while wing hits might "hit a spar" and reduce your G maximum, they have to pass a dice roll to do so. Then you still have to exceed the new G limit.  

 

MvR's reports do not always give the number of rounds used, but Victory #39 8th April 1917 vs BE2G "I was flying and surprised an English artillery flyer. After a very few rounds the plane broke to pieces and fell near Vimy".   That was a BE which were particularly prone to this - (that they are not in the "Other Huns" data is particularly suspect)

 

Victory #77 7 April 1918 vs Camel. "I shot at an enemy plane some 200 metres away. After I had fired 100 shots the enemy plane broke apart."    100 rounds might over 6 seconds of firing (not sure what rof is on our Dr1) but at 200 metres there would probably not have been a huge number of hits, but these would have been using incendiary/explosive bullets. 

 

    

Apologies, I didn’t know you mostly play vs AI. The AI flies pretty gently and isn’t very aggressive or a good shot meaning you’ll probably not need to worry about wing hits yourself not flying evasive, and also necessitates aiming for the pilot or engine as they won’t pull hard Gs regardless of wing damage. What’s your time zone? I’d be more than happy to try and find a time at a weekend to spin up a server and fly some MP with you if you’d like to see the difference 🙂 

 

MvR’s kill #77 is an interesting one. 100 round would as you say have been a burst of around 5-6 seconds. At that range, given his experience and skill it’s possible that a high percentage hit the target. If he’d said “I fired a quick burst of 10 rounds and the plane fell apart” that would have been different. The poor BE2 is another matter. 

 

Youre spot on though on the meat and metal for single player right now. If the AI gets updated and set to be more aggressive the wing loss situation could change.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...