BMA_Hellbender Posted July 18, 2020 Posted July 18, 2020 (edited) 20 hours ago, J2_Bidu said: 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! I've been saying this since the beginning: the problem isn't the DM, it's the planeset and late war gunnery. 3 hours 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. Don't put this on @J99_Sizzlorr and @J5_Matthias. WWI air combat was not designed for small groups of pilots to begin with. The only remark I have about the mission design is the presence of the late war Fokker D.VIIF and Bristol F.III (and Halberstadt CL.II). Oh boy, here we go again. If there are 6x Fokker D.VIIF available on the server, then Entente is in a pretty bad place until they can field at least twice that number of players. "Oh but Bender, I always fly <insert crappy Central plane here>!" Congratulations, me too, but that doesn't matter: if the F is there it means that Entente needs to fly as if they were about to get bounced by one all the time. Now lots of Camels/SPADs/Bristols vs. a few Fs is a pretty decent match-up. It's also one that I'm not interested in. But that's me, personally. You can't blame me for not wanting to fly that particular scenario, in much the same way that I can't blame the WWII pilots for not wanting to fly WWI altogether. On the other hand, if we turn the tables around and say that all of Central is flying crappy planes all the time, then they should outnumber Entente. That is also not always the case. In other words you need to start building some pretty advanced mission logic in order to limit planetypes and/or players on one side dynamically. This is all far too complex and limiting for simple Monday night dogfighting, especially for a game that already has insufficient players. I have to admit: the most fun I've had with Flying Circus was on the water map (I forget what it's called), before the Western Front, two-seaters and Fokker D.VIIF were available. It wasn't historical in the least, but it made for some great instant action dogfighting against a "tropical" backdrop. Edited July 18, 2020 by J5_Hellbender
Tycoon Posted July 18, 2020 Posted July 18, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, J99_Sizzlorr said: 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. Not trying to hurt anyone's feelings, I know the time and effort it takes to get these maps working, I should clarify what I meant to say is the mission design is not bad by itself it's just bad considering the current state of player numbers. Edited July 18, 2020 by Tycoon
unreasonable Posted July 18, 2020 Posted July 18, 2020 53 minutes ago, US93_Rummell said: 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. The AI is better at deflection shooting than humans, the campaign missions are all fairly low level in keeping with the scenarios so that ground fire from MGs becomes a concern, if you do not flt evasively you will be hit by both ground fire and 2 seater rear gunners and perhaps by one of the AI you do not see. They pull hard enough Gs to lose damaged wings occasionally. I have flown plenty of MP in BoS in an old server (Eagles Nest I think it was called) so I know what the difference is, so please no more of this MP is different nonsense. The DM is the same.
No.23_Starling Posted July 18, 2020 Posted July 18, 2020 15 minutes ago, unreasonable said: The AI is better at deflection shooting than humans, the campaign missions are all fairly low level in keeping with the scenarios so that ground fire from MGs becomes a concern, if you do not flt evasively you will be hit by both ground fire and 2 seater rear gunners and perhaps by one of the AI you do not see. They pull hard enough Gs to lose damaged wings occasionally. I have flown plenty of MP in BoS in an old server (Eagles Nest I think it was called) so I know what the difference is, so please no more of this MP is different nonsense. The DM is the same. Of course the DM is the same in both single and multiplayer, but the Gs pulled by your opponents are very different, as are the Gs required to successfully fight with many human pilots. Dodging AI groundfire in single player is a doddle compared to evading the 1PL boys in their Camels. I can count on one fist the number times I’ve been shot down by AI in SP - I wish I could say that about 1PL. The DM is great for a SP experience; fly online more often and you may not agree with BraveSirRobin about it being perfect. Bidu’s suggestion of a realism option with strengthened surfaces seems very reasonable, then your experience won’t be affected or for any of the other SP chaps who don’t want changes. The offer is still there if you fancy joining on a server ?
SeaW0lf Posted July 18, 2020 Posted July 18, 2020 2 hours ago, J5_Baeumer said: 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. The stats shows 441 for the Spring Offensive, which from the missions correspond to month 5 and 6. Why it shows 411, I'm not sure. But the numbers are just a fraction regardless. I check the barans sometimes and I see just that, a fraction. Back in 2018, when there was just a bunch of us flying here, we could blame the dips due to updates, servers going offline without notice, that sort of thing, and it was disheartening because every time the crowd got some traction an update would come and the servers / crowd would go. That happened many times over the last two years. But 2020 was appearing to finally take off. Anyways. 1
J2_Bidu Posted July 18, 2020 Posted July 18, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said: If the F is there it means that Entente needs to fly as if they were about to get bounced by one all the time. It's just like flying against Spads in the old days! Actually, I always fly like that. Either Central watching for Spads, or Entente watching for Fs. I suppose that's why, last week, I was pilot killed by J5_JosefMai diving at my SE5 out of the sun: he wasn't flying an F. He was flying an Albatros, of all bloody planes. Edited July 18, 2020 by J2_Bidu 1
No.23_Starling Posted July 18, 2020 Posted July 18, 2020 1 hour ago, J2_Bidu said: It's just like flying against Spads in the old days! Actually, I always fly like that. Either Central watching for Spads, or Entente watching for Fs. I suppose that's why, last week, I was pilot killed by J5_JosefMai diving at my SE5 out of the sun: he wasn't flying an F. He was flying an Albatros, of all bloody planes. I can hear the Unreal Tournament voice over with “HUMILIATION” ? 2
US63_SpadLivesMatter Posted July 18, 2020 Posted July 18, 2020 Stop with the F-whining. If you take it out, you have the exact same situation, just with the sides reversed.
J2_Bidu Posted July 18, 2020 Posted July 18, 2020 2 minutes ago, US63_SpadLivesMatter said: Stop with the F-whining. If you take it out, you have the exact same situation, just with the sides reversed. Quite. With the added note that a D7F is a tank damage wise.
No.23_Starling Posted July 18, 2020 Posted July 18, 2020 10 minutes ago, J2_Bidu said: Quite. With the added note that a D7F is a tank damage wise. The devs provided the relative wing strength data so this can’t be disputed and is a fair observation (not actually a steel armoured tank, but much stronger than most other types in game)
NO.20_W_M_Thomson Posted July 18, 2020 Posted July 18, 2020 Don't need to take out the D7F's just give us more Bristol FIII's. When it comes to the mission size I don't think there's anything wrong with them, But then again I'm a bomber so bigger the better for me. Only thing I don't like is the recon, takes way to long. I do like the way Butzel has them, get 100% and your done, can be done in 1 pass, Plus you get something for it like the Spad or D7F. Would be nice to have 2 recons like that, so you get the Spad and unlimited FIII's. What happen to the JG1 server anyway, always thought we were to have it in one server one week then the other the next. At least we had a mixed bag of missions.
J99_Sizzlorr Posted July 18, 2020 Posted July 18, 2020 1 hour ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said: Plus you get something for it like the Spad or D7F. Would be nice to have 2 recons like that, so you get the Spad and unlimited FIII's. We actually have this on Flugpark at least for Doullens Cambrai...look at point 5 on the fix list... 1
NO.20_W_M_Thomson Posted July 18, 2020 Posted July 18, 2020 1 hour ago, J99_Sizzlorr said: We actually have this on Flugpark at least for Doullens Cambrai...look at point 5 on the fix list... Yes sir and I appreciate the points BUT I am think more in line with getting team mates involved in the recon, The Spad pilots want their Spads then they should escort the recon birds. vise versa for the central side. 1
J99_Sizzlorr Posted July 18, 2020 Posted July 18, 2020 (edited) 26 minutes ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said: Yes sir and I appreciate the points BUT I am think more in line with getting team mates involved in the recon, The Spad pilots want their Spads then they should escort the recon birds. vise versa for the central side. Actually that is what I am talking about: There will be 3 more Spads at the airfield where the recon was and vise versa there are 2 more Fokker D.VIIfs I also think that there will be more Bristols as well but I am not sure about it. it is been a while since it was implemented... Quote SUNDAY PATCH: DOULLENS CAMBRAI .... Changed: When a side completes 1 recon it gets immidiately rewarded with limited better planes. Planes will get unlimited, when all 3 recon tasks are accomplished. ... It is live since 8th of March... Edited July 18, 2020 by J99_Sizzlorr
No.23_Starling Posted July 18, 2020 Posted July 18, 2020 I’ll happily run escort. I’m sure some of the other squad will do too. Lots of huns over hunland to hunt
No.23_Triggers Posted July 19, 2020 Posted July 19, 2020 (edited) Edit: Noticed some mention of Player vs AI earlier. I think the biggest difference in perception with Player vs AI and Player vs Player doesn't come from attacking targets - instead, it comes from evading them. VS. an AI you often won't need to do much to evade, but against a player you find yourself in situations where you have to evade harshly or die. Its the kind of evasions that you have to perform vs players that most frequently tears wings off, IMO. I think you need to do some MP to better understand the effect of the new DM on the gameplay. ...which puts us at an impasse, as IIRC the Devs have said previously that MP testing is negligible in their eyes due to the various factors in internet connection, speed, net code, etc. Edited July 19, 2020 by US93_Larner 2
Zooropa_Fly Posted July 19, 2020 Posted July 19, 2020 The current evidence appears to indicate, that the bots are now better fliers of their crates than the monkeys !
NO.20_W_M_Thomson Posted July 19, 2020 Posted July 19, 2020 6 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said: The current evidence appears to indicate, that the bots are now better fliers of their crates than the monkeys ! The Band?
US103_Baer Posted July 20, 2020 Posted July 20, 2020 On 7/18/2020 at 3:42 PM, J5_Hellbender said: I've been saying this since the beginning: the problem isn't the DM, it's the planeset and late war gunnery. Really? My experience so different. DM has created a farce online. It is the very core of the problem. All but 3 planes consistently lose wings after receiving minimal damage and control rod failure is both over-modelled and badly executed with control surfaces jammed in a fixed position Planeset's limitations we all knew and talked about before launch. However the current planeset could provide a variety of mid-17 to end-18 experiences, but almost no maps provide that. The Laser guns are deadly, or were deadly until 4.006 DM with its PanzerFokkers. Now balloon guns are popular again with Entente fliers, while Central planes still have their lasers to down paper-mache planes. Based on RoF experience, more dispersion is asking for trouble and would probably only create a long-range shotgun effect. With current DM that would be disastrous. More turbulence effect and planes that don't fall apart when they see a bullet would be better solutions imho. Remember when FC damage modelling was the one thing we could ALL agree on?
BMA_Hellbender Posted July 20, 2020 Posted July 20, 2020 2 hours ago, US103_Baer said: DM has created a farce online. It is the very core of the problem. All but 3 planes consistently lose wings after receiving minimal damage and control rod failure is both over-modelled and badly executed with control surfaces jammed in a fixed position [...] Remember when FC damage modelling was the one thing we could ALL agree on? Agreed that there is one of those 3 planes which is (from data collected by Chill) "too strong" or "incorrectly modeled" (Pfalz D.IIIa), however there are far more pressing FM issues which should be addressed first: Albatros and Pfalz maneuverability, lack of 200hp Mercedes D.IIIaü engine variant, Fokker Dr.I top speed with 110hp engine. The fact that this creates a farce online is sad, but even if everything was 100% historically accurate and modeled to perfection, multiplayer PvP is something which needs to be carefully balanced in order to create a level playing field and a fun, enjoyable experience for all. That is not the goal of this sim. Personally I had the most fun with FC before the two-seaters were released and when we were all flying over the sea and crashlanding in the shallows of the small archipelago. There was nothing at all historical about that. Quote Planeset's limitations we all knew and talked about before launch. However the current planeset could provide a variety of mid-17 to end-18 experiences, but almost no maps provide that. Could you please expand on that? Mission builders could certainly use some input. Quote The Laser guns are deadly, or were deadly until 4.006 DM with its PanzerFokkers. Now balloon guns are popular again with Entente fliers, while Central planes still have their lasers to down paper-mache planes. Based on RoF experience, more dispersion is asking for trouble and would probably only create a long-range shotgun effect. With current DM that would be disastrous. More turbulence effect and planes that don't fall apart when they see a bullet would be better solutions imho. Again, this shows that the problem is primarily one of gunnery, lack of turbulence and (primarily Entente) fliers maneuvering too hard.
J2_Bidu Posted July 20, 2020 Posted July 20, 2020 6 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said: Again, this shows that the problem is primarily one of gunnery, lack of turbulence and (primarily Entente) fliers maneuvering too hard. I'm sure they had additional problems back then
BMA_Hellbender Posted July 20, 2020 Posted July 20, 2020 16 minutes ago, US93_Talbot said: Daaang the new rift looks sweet! It’s strange, but all the current limitations of VR add realism to FC.
Tycoon Posted July 20, 2020 Posted July 20, 2020 (edited) 11 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said: The fact that this creates a farce online is sad, but even if everything was 100% historically accurate and modeled to perfection, multiplayer PvP is something which needs to be carefully balanced in order to create a level playing field and a fun, enjoyable experience for all. That is not the goal of this sim. Hellbender every other post you make suggests that all of us that want the dm fixed are arcade players that don't care about historical accuracy and want a balanced multiplayer, if we really wanted that why would we even be here? There is no time or place in this universe or an alternate universe where a single bullet hit costs you 4 Gs worth of durability. You know very well we all want this to be as accurate possible, so quit repeating this untrue rhetoric. 11 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said: Again, this shows that the problem is primarily one of gunnery, lack of turbulence and (primarily Entente) fliers maneuvering too hard. Although it currently definitely isn't the primary problem I agree gunnery is way to accurate at long distances, and also too effective. Edited July 20, 2020 by Tycoon
BMA_Hellbender Posted July 20, 2020 Posted July 20, 2020 6 minutes ago, Tycoon said: Hellbender every other post you make suggests that all of us that want the dm fixed are arcade players that don't care about historical accuracy and want a balanced multiplayer, if we really wanted that why would we even be here? There is no time or place in this universe or an alternate universe where a single bullet hit costs you 4 Gs worth of durability. You know very well we all want this to be as accurate possible, so quit repeating this passive aggressive rhetoric. I understand that you want the DM fixed, but first you must conclusively prove that it is broken. I apologise if you think I'm being condescending or purposefully contrarian. All I will say is that I've been with this game and development team long enough — on both sides of closed forum sections — that absolutely nothing should be left to gut feelings. The devs need data, and this is particularly complicated data to come by as it relies almost entirely on anecdotes and is rife with survivorship bias. Air forces didn't shoot up their own planes in mid-air for scientific purposes. At least not back then. Failing that, we have AnP's own research, which is currently implemented. 1
Tycoon Posted July 21, 2020 Posted July 21, 2020 You could fill a book how many times AnP was wrong in ROF, why is him saying it's right good enough for you? It's not good enough for me and many here. What if on the ww2 side of things they did an update where 1 50 cal hit took 4 Gs off the wings? Do you think people would say "well AnP has this chart so it has to be true"? If AnP told you the boogeyman existed and he has pictures to prove it would it be good enough for you? No it wouldn't because your common sense would take over, why should this be any different? 1
Zooropa_Fly Posted July 21, 2020 Posted July 21, 2020 When talking about simulating the fm's and dm's of ww1 crates, I think 'wrong' is a hard thing to define.
Tycoon Posted July 21, 2020 Posted July 21, 2020 13 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said: When talking about simulating the fm's and dm's of ww1 crates, I think 'wrong' is a hard thing to define. Agree 100%, but I think our dm problem transcends that. Put it this way, is there anyway that 1 bullet consistently taking away 4 G of strength could be true? I honestly don't see how.
US63_SpadLivesMatter Posted July 21, 2020 Posted July 21, 2020 (edited) I think it's even less likely that people are only putting one bullet into the target often enough to call anything related to it "consistent". @J5_Hellbender I'm going to say something crazy and counter-intuitive here, but bear with me a moment. I think that these aircraft don't actually lend themselves well to rivet-counting; and that attempts to do so will invariably end up spitting out odd results. When it comes to the varying and often conflicting accounts of how these aircraft actually flew, and in some cases still do, and the lack of hard or consistent information on some craft in comparison to others- it is possible that by "eyeballing" the flight and damage models, and tuning them by relative performance in metrics where we don't have hard numbers, you end up with an overall more realistic-feeling simulation of WW1 air combat. At the least, you probably end up with a more fun one. Edited July 21, 2020 by US63_SpadLivesMatter
unreasonable Posted July 21, 2020 Posted July 21, 2020 1 hour ago, Tycoon said: Agree 100%, but I think our dm problem transcends that. Put it this way, is there anyway that 1 bullet consistently taking away 4 G of strength could be true? I honestly don't see how. I wonder if this is not actually testable in the real world - at least for those of our American players heavily armed with rifles and axes, as so many apparently are. If someone can find the actual dimensions and materials of a Camel's wing spar they can make a length of lumber of similar dimensions, then put a rifle bullet through it while subjecting it to a force, say by hanging sandbags off it. Camel front wing spar is about 1 1/2 inches by 3 7/8 with significant scalloping to save weight. I can well believe that some hits could severely compromise it's strength. Also see http://www.johnsshawaviation.co.uk/wordpress/sopwith-camel-f1-2/sopwith-camel-reconstruction/sopwith-camel-construction-lower-wings/
BMA_Hellbender Posted July 21, 2020 Posted July 21, 2020 7 hours ago, Tycoon said: You could fill a book how many times AnP was wrong in ROF, why is him saying it's right good enough for you? It's not good enough for me and many here. What if on the ww2 side of things they did an update where 1 50 cal hit took 4 Gs off the wings? Do you think people would say "well AnP has this chart so it has to be true"? If AnP told you the boogeyman existed and he has pictures to prove it would it be good enough for you? No it wouldn't because your common sense would take over, why should this be any different? 6 hours ago, US63_SpadLivesMatter said: @J5_Hellbender I'm going to say something crazy and counter-intuitive here, but bear with me a moment. I think that these aircraft don't actually lend themselves well to rivet-counting; and that attempts to do so will invariably end up spitting out odd results. When it comes to the varying and often conflicting accounts of how these aircraft actually flew, and in some cases still do, and the lack of hard or consistent information on some craft in comparison to others- it is possible that by "eyeballing" the flight and damage models, and tuning them by relative performance in metrics where we don't have hard numbers, you end up with an overall more realistic-feeling simulation of WW1 air combat. At the least, you probably end up with a more fun one. In other words, what you want is a WWI flightsim which has "common sense outcomes", and believe me I do too. Off the top of my head: a Camel with a noted gyroscopic effect which turns twice as fast to the right as it does to the left a Camel which flies (or at least feels) slower than an Albatros and notably climbed worse than Albatros two-seaters an Albatros which is sluggish to maneuver, spins and stalls vigorously and turns worse than an S.E.5a an Albatros which suffers from lower wing flutter at higher dive speeds a Pfalz whose wings fail at ~6.5g rather than at ~10g a Fokker Dr.I with a 110hp engine rather than our current "80hp" engine a Fokker Dr.I which requires less forward stick to fly level and has far more nuanced ground looping (all two-seaters) realistic g restrictions on gunners and reloads (all planes) less flipping over while landing in rough terrain (all planes) realistic spin recovery (all planes) less wingshedding and strange control surface behaviour I won't mention invisible planes in multiplayer, because even though most casualties in WWI air combat never saw their attacker coming, I'm pretty sure that Predator-style active optical camouflage did not exist back in 1918. Other than that, let's go down the list: Likely the gyroscopic effect is understated in RoF/FC, ideally we would need data from flying replicas/survivors. The Camel being slow and not climbing well can be attributed to production problems with early British license-built Clergets, as well as Jasta tactics in general diving in from way up high over friendly lines, which would have made it very difficult for Camels to retreat. Combine this with the fact that the Camel was not meant to be flown at full throttle and required careful mixture changes for every position of the throttle or the engine would quit, which was the main cause of crashes during training. Again more data is needed from flying replicas/survivors. Ideally a mock dogfight would shed more light on the relative performance of the Albatros and S.E.5a. Funnily enough I remember seeing a documentary about one (can't find a YouTube link), and the S.E. walked all over the Albatros. Wing flutter, fabric shedding, wing deformation and cable stretching and soft-body physics in general are all not supported in the current DM. All of this would also benefit the WWII portion of the sim, although to a lesser extent. In other words: rebuild the DM from the ground up, along with the netcode. See also: "not NASA". According to Chill this data exists from a flying replica/survivor Pfalz, and the devs could implement it if they wanted to. Chill will be able to provide more data to the devs once he has a 110hp engine operational in his Fokker Dr.I. Also data which Chill has collected regarding stick and rudder travel and even has video evidence of, so the devs could implement this if they wanted to. Gunners in general are a bit of an afterthought in this sim and likely require too much effort compared to what is to gain from it. The current Arras map is a bit too soggy in general, maybe a Summer map would alleviate the issue of flipping over. Spin recovery is in-engine accurate. The spins are not scripted, as is the case with older flightsims. So here you get to choose: accurate scripted spins, or inaccurate dynamic spins. Finally we come back to the DM, and I will refer back to point 4: rebuild the DM from the ground up with unlimited budget and computing power. Failing that, implement realism options that warn the pilot that something awful is about to happen (wing creaking etc.), purely for gameplay and quality of life purposes. I'll admit that control surfaces getting stuck in a particular position rather than just hanging loose and aligning with the relative wind is something I'd like to see an explanation of, because I don't understand how this is possible. Me not understanding something doesn't mean it's wrong, though. We'd all need to move back into the trees if that were the case, and I'm not good at climbing trees.
J99_Sizzlorr Posted July 21, 2020 Posted July 21, 2020 (edited) 43 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said: Again more data is needed from flying replicas/survivors. Ideally a mock dogfight would shed more light on the relative performance of the Albatros and S.E.5a. Funnily enough I remember seeing a documentary about one (can't find a YouTube link), and the S.E. walked all over the Albatros. I have also seen this documentary, but the flying was more or less ridiculous and only proved that the S.E.5a with a Hispano Suiza was more manouverable than the Albatros. They also had the Mercedes D.IIIaü engine ( if I remember that correctly ) in that Albatros and said something like the Albatros was almost as fast as the S.E.5a. Both with a 180 hp engine. Here is a link to a german dubbed version: Edited July 21, 2020 by J99_Sizzlorr 1
No.23_Triggers Posted July 21, 2020 Posted July 21, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, J99_Sizzlorr said: I have also seen this documentary, but the flying was more or less ridiculous and only proved that the S.E.5a was more manouverable than the Albatros. According to Aeronautical Engineer & Scientist Leon Bennett's research & theorising, the S.E. was more manoeuvrable than the Albatros (the D.Va, more specifically)! But, yes, I don't think that this particular example helps in the case of the DM (or any modern mock dogfights, for that matter). Simply put, safety measures in place when putting on such displays will undoubtedly keep these historical planes from performing at the apex of their ability. Unless a pair of mad pilots come along and have an actual tail chase in a D.Va and S.E, as if they were really in a fight for their lives, I doubt we'll learn much from modern displays. 7 hours ago, unreasonable said: If someone can find the actual dimensions and materials of a Camel's wing spar they can make a length of lumber of similar dimensions The more I've thought about the DM, the more I've been considering that the wing spar damage might not be the sole issue contributing to the paper mâché wings. I suspect that an extremely significant factor in WW1 aircraft battle damage hasn't been implemented at all - namely, a bullet passing through empty canvas - and that the absence of that as a factor is leading to the perceived 'unrealistic' wing-shedding. The strongest and weakest scouts (D.VII and Camel), according to AnP's data, take something like 1500 and 200 rounds to sever the wing from a 90 degree angle at close range. Imagine just for talking's sake that all those rounds passed through nothing but canvas, and sailed through the spaces between ribs and spars. I'm no aeronautical engineer, but I suspect both types would require thousands of rounds to sever the wing purely by perforating the fabric. Probably more than 1500, and definitely more than 200. I could be totally wrong, and 'empty air' hits might be implemented after all, but so far my experiences of FC have been that all wing hits do some degree of damage to the aircraft, and therefore reduce its G-tolerance. To my thinking it stands to reason that, in the same way there is a modifier for chances of hitting spars, there should also be a modifier for "thin air" hits which would only perforate the canvas and cause mere cosmetic damage, with no adverse effects to airframe durability. Naturally, the effect of such a modifier being implemented would be all-round tougher, more survivable aircraft. ------------------ Going back to the Spars and how they do affect the DM, I've had a bit of a sneaking suspicion. As far as I know, the game will 'predict' a control surface being disabled in a similar way to how it predicts a spar hit. Now, it's been virtually impossible for the player without any dev tools to figure out when a spar has been hit - but this is a totally different story to being able to ascertain when a control surface has been severed as, well, it's plainly obvious when that happens! To my thinking, it seems that severing a control wire with a bullet during a dogfight would be pretty damn lucky, and I'd speculate that for every bullet that connected with a wire cleanly, and cut through it, there are hundreds of other rounds that would not hit the wire cleanly. As for surfaces being jammed in place...well, I don't really even know how that would happen with a WW1 airframe. But, in FC, it seems to be an all-too-common occurrence for a control to be severed, and IMHO it's just simply ridiculous how often a control is shot out. I've flown on occasions where wingmen have gone 2-for-2, 3-for-3 and even 5-for-5 on engagements VS controls being lost. During one sparring session with another of the 3rd PG guys I shot at least one of his controls out something like 17 or 18 times out of 20 fights - and it never took more than one short burst connecting to do the damage. The point of this probably over-long post is, I can't help but wonder if the probability of a Spar being hit is similarly overdone to that of a control wire being severed. Edited July 21, 2020 by US93_Larner 4
J99_Sizzlorr Posted July 21, 2020 Posted July 21, 2020 14 minutes ago, US93_Larner said: According to Aeronautical Engineer & Scientist Leon Bennett's research & theorising, the S.E. was more manoeuvrable than the Albatros (the D.Va, more specifically)! But, yes, I don't think that this particular example helps in the case of the DM (or any modern mock dogfights, for that matter). Simply put, safety measures in place when putting on such displays will undoubtedly keep these historical planes from performing at the apex of their ability. Unless a pair of mad pilots come along and have an actual tail chase in a D.Va and S.E, as if they were really in a fight for their lives, I doubt we'll learn much from modern displays. That's what I am saying. And I think FC has that quiet right. 1
BMA_Hellbender Posted July 21, 2020 Posted July 21, 2020 5 minutes ago, US93_Larner said: I could be totally wrong, and 'empty air' hits might be implemented after all, but so far my experiences of FC have been that all wing hits do some degree of damage to the aircraft, and therefore reduce its G-tolerance. To my thinking it stands to reason that, in the same way there is a modifier for chances of hitting spars, there should also be a modifier for "thin air" hits which would only perforate the canvas and cause mere cosmetic damage, with no adverse effects to airframe durability. Naturally, the effect of such a modifier being implemented would be all-round tougher, more survivable aircraft. This is something we could test ourselves. By way of example: park a Bristol right next to a SPAD and carefully empty a single Lewis machinegun (say 100+ rounds) in one particular spot on the SPAD's wing, away from the main spar. It should, in theory, behave as if only a few bullets had passed through that single spot, and should not lead to additional wing degradation. If it does fail, then the DM works like a Death of a Thousand Cuts / "Dark Souls bossfight" (sorry I have no better way to put it), where you can kill the dragon by hitting him repeatedly in the shins until he dies, whereas in "reality", you would just end up with a very pissed off dragon with a shattered shin, but otherwise quite healthy. Quote To my thinking, it seems that severing a control wire with a bullet during a dogfight would be pretty damn lucky, and I'd speculate that for every bullet that connected with a wire cleanly, and cut through it, there are hundreds of other rounds that would not hit the wire cleanly. As for surfaces being jammed in place...well, I don't really even know how that would happen with a WW1 airframe. Yeah, the jammed in place thing I'd like to have explained as well.
unreasonable Posted July 21, 2020 Posted July 21, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said: In other words, what you want is a WWI flightsim which has "common sense outcomes", and believe me I do too. Off the top of my head: a Camel with a noted gyroscopic effect which turns twice as fast to the right as it does to the left I find it hard to believe you are still pedaling this nonsense, despite us having actual pilots who have tested Camels who say that this is crap. 56:00 if you want the exact spot. The turns are identical as long as you know what you are doing with stick and rudder. The precession is modeled just fine. I agree with some of the rest though. 1 hour ago, US93_Larner said: The strongest and weakest scouts (D.VII and Camel), according to AnP's data, take something like 1500 and 200 rounds to sever the wing from a 90 degree angle at close range. Imagine just for talking's sake that all those rounds passed through nothing but canvas, and sailed through the spaces between ribs and spars. I'm no aeronautical engineer, but I suspect both types would require thousands of rounds to sever the wing purely by perforating the fabric. Probably more than 1500, and definitely more than 200. I could be totally wrong, and 'empty air' hits might be implemented after all, but so far my experiences of FC have been that all wing hits do some degree of damage to the aircraft, and therefore reduce its G-tolerance. To my thinking it stands to reason that, in the same way there is a modifier for chances of hitting spars, there should also be a modifier for "thin air" hits which would only perforate the canvas and cause mere cosmetic damage, with no adverse effects to airframe durability. Naturally, the effect of such a modifier being implemented would be all-round tougher, more survivable aircraft. AnP's numbers relate to the probability of hitting a spar - at 90 degrees this is low: on the Camel wing diagram the chord of the wing is 4 foot six inches, the width of the two spars 1 1/2 inches and 2 1/5 (?) inches. So total of 3 7/10 inches out of 54, which is 6.85% So fired from 90 degrees a single bullet has a 0.0685 probability of hitting a spar. So after 10 random hits on a variety of Camels at this angle you would have hit a spar on half of them. From dead six, however, it is a very high probability, and remains so even out to significant angles. You are right that all hits do some damage because the visible skin damage is determined by all hits to the hit box, and it is the skin damage which determines when you get an aerodynamic penalty (lift/drag) which affects speed. This kicks in at the second level of graphical damage - the first "bullet holes" appear to have no effect. This is established by testing on firing the He111 wing gun at it's own wing BTW. AFAIK, however, this does not affect G tolerance, although I am not sure how we can be sure, since wherever you fire the gun at the wing you can "roll" for a spar hit, and not know it. Some way of knowing if you have had a spar hit (other than your wing falling off) would certainly help. 1 hour ago, J5_Hellbender said: This is something we could test ourselves. By way of example: park a Bristol right next to a SPAD and carefully empty a single Lewis machinegun (say 100+ rounds) in one particular spot on the SPAD's wing, away from the main spar. It should, in theory, behave as if only a few bullets had passed through that single spot, and should not lead to additional wing degradation. There is no spar hit box - AnP described this very clearly. There is a wing hit box, and any hit to the wing hit box rolls a RNG to determine if a "spar" has been hit, taking into account the relative dimensions of the wing hit box, the spars and the angle of incidence. So you cannot fire at a wing and be sure that you do not hit the spar, wherever you aim. Edited July 21, 2020 by unreasonable 2
1PL-Sahaj-1Esk Posted July 21, 2020 Posted July 21, 2020 (edited) Cool lecture, never saw it or heard it! Nice sentence: "it took approx.100 hours to fly the Camel without looking at the controls!" After that it was like getting wings instead of your hands Quite interesting.. Edited July 21, 2020 by 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk 1
unreasonable Posted July 21, 2020 Posted July 21, 2020 Yes it is excellent - cannot remember who found it first but has been in the forums before. In my ideal world, all would-be RoF/FC players should be forced to watch it over and over again, strapped down with their eyes pinned open, like Alex in Clockwork Orange.
ZachariasX Posted July 21, 2020 Posted July 21, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, US93_Larner said: The more I've thought about the DM, the more I've been considering that the wing spar damage might not be the sole issue contributing to the paper mâché wings. Of course not. We have a DM that suits WW2 type aircraft and approximate the kind of damage on those crates. WW1 wings are conceptually different in the way they are built. It is logical that we will have skewed results. The problem with the hitboxes is that they are in most cases gunnery helpers. As long as you can hit given hitbox, there is no need for better aim. From then on, regarless how much better you are shooting, it is the same RNG fate that processes your result. We shoot of wings so easily because things are conceptually easier to break up than if you were required to actually hit a spar or an attacment point. These are far smaller and less visible points on the aircraft structure. It is well possible that AnP‘s damage assumptions on spars are correct, but the problem here is that the spar shooting from dead 6 is NOT reflecting the vast majority of actual combat. Here, the DM encourges shooting far at high lead angles. It is there, where the Camel can just be maced out of combat by spraying and praying. The very way the DM works is that it makes you hit when you are in fact missing. The RNG can‘t mend that because the RNG makes assumptions. It must do so. But if you are in a situation that the RNG doesn‘t assume, it will give you results other than it should. The average of all historic shooting results cannot reflect the exact situation in which you open fire on your mark. Hence, it will give you a skewed result. For FC, we can control situations that the RNG assumes for us. It is not so with WW2 planes and ammo, as there is no way to exactly reproduce the effects of a hit on an airframe. There, the assumptions remain suitable for most situations. Also, it really helps to throttle down in the Camel when doing tight turns. You can still outturn anything. Even betters so in many cases and wings stay on. When going fast, be easy on the stick. I would far more appreciate if at longer distances, I could see aircraft instead of just their trailing flak bursts. In essence, AnP‘s assumptions on spar bullet tolerance are definitely plausible in their own way. It is the context that poses a problem. As the DM is tied to the development of the rest of the series, I have no doubt that it will mature further. Also, there is little doubt that AnP will give us a DM where we could actually shoot spars and wires. Until then, we can just enjoy the fact that of all combat sims (and flight sims!) GB series is the one that out of the box both looks good and runs well on most computers. 3 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said: a Fokker Dr.I with a 110hp engine rather than our current "80hp" engine All that matters is actual rpm and prop dimensions. You compare aircraft after comparing static rpm with given props and not by comparing the names of your engine. Especially if you compare rebuilt engines of today with what they had at hand more than a hundred years ago. If you believe that those engines always produced their nominal power outputs, then I have a bridge to sell you. 3 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said: Likely the gyroscopic effect is understated in RoF/FC, ideally we would need data from flying replicas/survivors. The gyroscopic effect is about the easiest thing to get right nominally and there is absolutely no reason to assume that this one is off. Also one has to keep in mind that 40% of the gyro in the Camel is produced by the propeller. Thus, the Fokker D.VII has almost half of the gyro of the Dr.I. You talk to Mikael Carlson about it and he‘ll tell you that the strongest gyro effect he experienced was in the Vampire. Look at that turbine and you know why. Yet nobody ever made it an issue. Most anectotal stories post 1918 are... well. Stories. What is subject to debate is that how the FM comes up intrinsically with performance values at low speed and high AoA. Any FM will struggle there. Control efficiency in critical situations become quickly part of that problem. @Monostripezebra‘s videos give ample examples. The gyro on the other hand is perfectly fine. This includes ground handling that show problematic aspects in this sim, especially in the Spit, but much more so in „the other sim“ with the same aircraft. Edited July 21, 2020 by ZachariasX 1
Recommended Posts