Damage model still needs serious attention

[unreasonable]

11 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

 

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.

 

 

If the dimensions of the spars and wings are correct, and the geometry of the angle correctly calculated, then the results will not be skewed, on average.  You might get a "spar" hit while actually firing at an are a with no spar - but also get no "spar" hit when firing at an area with a spar.  I find it highly implausible that people are such good shots that they can pick out the spar on a target and concentrate their fire there.  A much better model is that players' hits are randomly distributed over a hit box. 

 

So you can only see skewed result in artificial settings such as firing your own gun at a wing, which you can do just as well in a WW2 setting.

 

Having a RNG here is not the problem, if indeed there is one.  

 

[unreasonable]

Just for fun I decided to calculate the probability of hitting a Camel's wing spar from different angles using the dimensions from the diagram above.  Slightly simplified assumptions - rectangular section wing, same height as the front spar, disregarding the overlap between the two spars which would come into play at very low angles.  Used sin(chord)+cos(height) for each element, wing and each of the two spars, then compared visible area at each angle. 

 

I suspect typical gunnery hits are usually at angles of 45 degrees or less and here the p is still fairly significant. ie it may be much easier to get "spar" hits than people might think given how small the spars seem to be.

 

 

 

 

  

[ACG_Smokejumper]

3 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

If the dimensions of the spars and wings are correct, and the geometry of the angle correctly calculated, then the results will not be skewed, on average.  You might get a "spar" hit while actually firing at an are a with no spar - but also get no "spar" hit when firing at an area with a spar.  I find it highly implausible that people are such good shots that they can pick out the spar on a target and concentrate their fire there.  A much better model is that players' hits are randomly distributed over a hit box. 

 

 

 

 

 

Uhhh no, a better model is individual components which are modeled for added fidelity.

 

Missing components cause no end to arguments. There are also other sims such as Cliffs of Dover where you get all sorts of damage types. It's noticeably better to have a high fidelity damage model.

 

While you may find it implausible that someone can concentrate fire on a specific area doesn't mean people don't.  Oil radiators in Spits are hard to hit. Guys used to duck under if they had a good bounce to try and hit it. Your chances of getting lucky go up if you shoot at a vulnerable spot.

 

BoX DM keeps getting better though which is nice.

Edited July 21, 2020 by ACG_Smokejumper

[unreasonable]

7 minutes ago, ACG_Smokejumper said:

 

 

Uhhh no, a better model is individual components which are modeled for added fidelity.

 

 

You misunderstood - perhaps my wrong choice of words. I was not talking about the DM, but Z's interpretation of it.  What I meant was, that a better model  approximation of what actually happens when people in the game fire at wing hit boxes, is that the hits are randomly distributed within the hit box, not concentrated in any specific place.  Generally players cannot aim at wing spars effectively, unlike radiators for instance, since you cannot see where they are, although you can increase your chances of hitting one by reducing the angle at which you fire.  But that is decided by the p required by the RNG, and does not need a separate hit box.   

 

Modeling more components - in this case spars - with their own hit boxes for added fidelity might make a more satisfying model in some respects, but it also requires more processing, so it might not be better overall, especially since the overall results in game play would be identical, except in the bizarre cases like aiming rear guns at your own wings. The trade off is up to the developers to decide. 

 

I agree the DM is still a WIP, but it always going to use a RNG at some point.

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

Generally players cannot aim at wing spars effectively,

I should think they can. In the Camel as well as in the D.VII, aiming for the wing section right above and in front of the pilot will work just fine. It would give purpose to coming in VERY close. It is where chances for a PK, engine kill, and wing gone come together, whereas hitting most other places will be (in comparison) of no consequence at all.

 

Beyond that small region, the wooden crate poses almost no target.

[unreasonable]

Aiming at a wing section is not the same as aiming at a spar. Adding an explicit spar hit box would change nothing: neither your aiming point nor the results.  

 

 

Edited July 21, 2020 by unreasonable

[ZachariasX]

43 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Aiming at a wing section is not the same as aiming at a spar.

You know where the spar is in that wing section. You can aim for that spot as it is even visible throught the canvas. But when it comes to take aim, pilot or engine make a better target. (I can‘t think of a pilot ever recounting taking aim at the wing spar.) I still maintain that if we had wing DM boxes of equal strength as assumed now, we‘d have less wing shedding than we have currently.

 

None of this are things I‘d lose any sleep over anyway. Any tech update for the whole series impacts what we have, thus things are bound to change again.

 

If I‘m wrong, all the better. It means what we have now is indeed „as it should be“. 

[=IRFC=Gecko]

Myth busting!

 

Ok the CAMEL does not turn faster to the right than the left. Sorry but Wiki, if that is your source, it is just flat wrong. The Camel will complete a level 360 degree left and right turn in 16s. 

So please stop perpetuating a myth. Also if you watch Javier Arango in the WWI Aviation Symposium (1/4): Dr. John Morrow and Javier Arango, it is clearly explained. Javier also explains how the myth came to be and the different use of language and our current day perception of it. 

 

You'll also note that in his turn the Camels wings didn't fall off like they do with this current damage model. The fact that you can rip the wings of a Camel without taking any damage in under a 4g turn demonstrates how BROKEN this DM currently is. Remembering that the Camels were purpose built to be thrown around the sky and take the stresses involved (within reason).

 

I also noted, having done not much more than look at the wing framing plans of a bunch of aircraft, that the current wing failures on some aircraft are flaky at best. Wing construction methods for all British planes have the same basic pattern and construction so how a Brisfit can fly with massive amounts of damage like some of the Central planes yet the Dophin, Se.5a and Camel fall to pieces when sneezed on needs some explaining. 

 

Also I found that the Pfalz D.IIIa wing is basically a rip off of the N.17 wings in frame arrangement cross section (you can pretty much overlay them) only slight difference is in the wing profile leading edge. Does that mean that if it ever happens we'll get an unbreakable Nieuport?

 

Clerget 13B. Please note that the Bf upgrade for this engine was developed in late 1916 and available in the field as kit to improve engine reliability almost as soon as the Camels hit sqns. 

As the current FC1 is late war Apr/May 1918 on no Camels would have been flying with a flunky unreliable 13B engine so we can kick that excuse into touch as well. 

Yes the Camel was faster that the Albatros not by much but it was still faster.  The Pfalz D.IIIa, Albs and Fokker Dr.1 were all slower to varying degrees.

 

We need to create new categories for the aircraft and they should be the:

Unbreakables - Fokkers, Pflaz and Brisfit. 

Okables - Spad 

Sneezeables - Dolphin, Se.5a, Albatros D.Va, Halberstadt CL II and Camel. 

 

Isn't it sad that the damage model has rendered 50% of the aircraft we paid for barely useable but I guess people will continue to bury heads in the sand, make excuses and justifications. 

Oh and lets not forget the pilots passing out which is totally unrealistic when in a constant turn and bleeding speed in a level turn.  But hey isn't it a great addition!

In 6 flights, one wing shed (had taken a battering so I can live with that), 4 controls cut and one engine lunch itself in. Other times 0.07 damage climbing turn (not tight didn't exceed 3g) wings shed. 0.000000000 damage turn wings break off didn't exceed 4g seriously the math application has to be broken. 

 

Shot

 

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

2 hours ago, Groggy-Gecko said:

Isn't it sad that the damage model has rendered 50% of the aircraft we paid for barely useable but I guess people will continue to bury heads in the sand, make excuses and justifications. 

Only a hand full of people are burying their heads, and they either don't fly FC or don't fly MP. I would say 90% of us are with you. Wing shedding and controls knocked out with one burst is just idiotic at best. 

One of my squad mates did some research on the Bristol looking for controls being shot out, Has yet to find anything. Funny these guys saying to us prove that the plane didn't collapse like we have in FC, Well I say prove they did, bet you can't. 

[BraveSirRobin]

3 hours ago, Groggy-Gecko said:

 

You'll also note that in his turn the Camels wings didn't fall off like they do with this current damage model. The fact that you can rip the wings of a Camel without taking any damage in under a 4g turn demonstrates how BROKEN this DM currently is. Remembering that the Camels were purpose built to be thrown around the sky and take the stresses involved (within reason).

 

 

 

I just tried to do this and actually managed a 6g turn (30% fuel) without losing wings or blacking out.  You're doing something very wrong, mate.

[Tycoon]

1 minute ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

I just tried to do this and actually managed a 6g turn (30% fuel) without losing wings or blacking out.  You're doing something very wrong, mate.

Maybe he was going too fast, but yeah without damage they don't come off at 4g. Now through a bullet or two in the mix and at 4g your plane will fall apart like your dreams for the future.

[BraveSirRobin]

6 minutes ago, Tycoon said:

Maybe he was going too fast, but yeah without damage they don't come off at 4g. Now through a bullet or two in the mix and at 4g your plane will fall apart like your dreams for the future.

 

If you dive and pull hard they'll come off, same as in RoF.  Maybe he should test out these bs claims before he posts them.

 

I'd guess the diving issue is due to gravity, but I've been informed in another thread on this forum that gravity isn't modeled correctly either.  Maybe Shot should go argue with that dude.

Edited July 22, 2020 by BraveSirRobin

[ZachariasX]

5 hours ago, Groggy-Gecko said:

The fact that you can rip the wings of a Camel without taking any damage in under a 4g turn demonstrates how BROKEN this DM currently is.

Track please.

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

Perhaps selecting a 1PL skin might be a game changer. I never hear them complaining about wings coming off.

[J2_Bidu]

30 minutes ago, J5_Klugermann said:

Perhaps selecting a 1PL skin might be a game changer. I never hear them complaining about wings coming off.

 

Now you've hit the spar!

[unreasonable]

48 minutes ago, Groggy-Gecko said:

As for the G metre even real pilots have proven that concept misplaced in regards to WW1 aircraft. 

 

Shot. 

 

Kudos for admitting you might have been wrong about something, and of course your views about the effect on MP are shared by many, but I am a bit puzzled by the last remark.  Chill put a G meter in his Dr1 because he did not think the game's meter could have been working correctly - but he changed his mind after flying with it. WW1 aircraft were designed explicitly with structural G limits (unfortunately we appear not to know all of them), and contemporary records show both calculations and recordings of Gs undertaken in flight.

 

So what is misplaced about this concept?

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

I'm turning the lights back on for a sec.

When hitting high G's how does the stick feel. (probably a question for Chill) Does it get harder (god how do I put this without getting Kluggerman all excited) to pull? Think part of the problem is when in a dog fight we're yanking back with a sharp snap, What would be good is if they have it so you can do this in game for no more than a second giving us some warning, only because we have no warning and no real way of feeling what we're doing unless someone builds a FF stick that can replicate real life G's. 

[ST_Catchov]

I want a graph. Maybe a pie chart? No, a bar graph would do. Number of disconnects/modem off over shot down incidents. @unreasonable we need your help! Get the info from the Parson and plug it into the disconnect rate app. We'll get to the bottom of these outrageous accusations! We work on facts here!

[BraveSirRobin]

3 minutes ago, ST_Catchov said:

I want a graph. Maybe a pie chart? No, a bar graph would do. Number of disconnects/modem off over shot down incidents. @unreasonable we need your help! Get the info from the Parson and plug it into the disconnect rate app. We'll get to the bottom of these outrageous accusations! We work on facts here!

Time well spent.  Maybe you should spend a few more hours trying to get your Camel to fall apart in a 4g turn.

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

My world is toppling.....all that time we flew together and you never told me you had a modem-mod. I just thought it was because my SA sucked.

[BraveSirRobin]

Your SA does suck.  And a “modem-mod” isn’t actually a thing.  He’s talking about a lag switch.  The only problem with that accusation is that I didn’t lag.  So he’s just making up BS because he’s butthurt that he was caught lying.

[ST_Catchov]

You know, I love the word schadenfreude. Those crafty Germans. I wish we had an equivalent in the English language. 

[BraveSirRobin]

Yes, schadenfreude is a very appropriate word for the FC1 community.  

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

2 hours ago, US93_Talbot said:

1PL-GroggyGecko!

 

1PL-SoggyKielbasa

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, ST_Catchov said:

I want a graph. Maybe a pie chart? No, a bar graph would do. Number of disconnects/modem off over shot down incidents. @unreasonable we need your help! Get the info from the Parson and plug it into the disconnect rate app. We'll get to the bottom of these outrageous accusations! We work on facts here!

 

Do we work on facts here, I wonder?  Here, as in the universities, many people seem to hold the concept of objective fact to be problematic, at least when said facts run counter to their preferred outcomes.    I am exhausted from proving the factual inaccuracy of the endlessly spammed threads in the BoX forums, that repeat the same tired nonsense that .50 cal hits to wings never create lift/drag penalties.  Prove your point in one thread and they just pop up in another. Why, it is almost as though they believe that endlessly repeating falsehoods is an effective way of getting what they want!  So much for the Enlightenment.  

 

 

 

 

Edited July 23, 2020 by unreasonable

[Tycoon]

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

 

 

"Apologise" is not a mistake. AFAIK there is no forum rule that says the English language forum has to use American English exclusively..

Ah, but it's the unspoken rule, America always comes first in everything.?

[ACG_Smokejumper]

On 7/21/2020 at 5:37 PM, Groggy-Gecko said:

Myth busting!

 

Ok the CAMEL does not turn faster to the right than the left. Sorry but Wiki, if that is your source, it is just flat wrong. The Camel will complete a level 360 degree left and right turn in 16s. 

So please stop perpetuating a myth. Also if you watch Javier Arango in the WWI Aviation Symposium (1/4): Dr. John Morrow and Javier Arango, it is clearly explained. Javier also explains how the myth came to be and the different use of language and our current day perception of it. 

 

 

 

 

 

Isn't it just roll rate? Rolling with the torque. In Cliffs of Dover it's why you climb away from Spits in a left orbit. The torque gives a slight advantage and slight is enough.

 

I'm no Sopwith expert so I could be wrong which is why I ask.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Arango died flying one of his rotaries...

 

Guess he forgot to disconnect.

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, ACG_Smokejumper said:

Isn't it just roll rate? Rolling with the torque.

No.

 

It is just a matter of control. The way you fly most of those WW1 aircraft, you have to prepare for some different subtleties when initiating a right or a left turn. The torque (any gyro) has no influence whatsoever regarding flight *performance*.

[ACG_Smokejumper]

Physics is telling me otherwise. You have a rotating mass in these old engines.

That mass will have influence on roll rate same as rolling against. Even if it's minor and exaggerated in history books it's still a spinning mass. I have no idea how the Sopwith reacted in real life but I do understand basic physics.

 

Top video is a Sopwith dancing due to torque and mass. Second video shows a WWI rotary engine sans aircraft.

 

 

 

 

Sopwith pilot!!

 

Not watched it yet but now I have to. Googling for our discussion had me find it. Awesome!

 

 

 

This too!!!!

 

 

Edited July 23, 2020 by ACG_Smokejumper

[=IRFC=Gecko]

Smoke, 

 

If you haven't yet watched the Javier Arango discussion then do so as he clearly describes the Camels behaviour especially in regards to roll and turn. 

 

Shot.

[ACG_Smokejumper]

1 hour ago, Groggy-Gecko said:

Smoke, 

 

If you haven't yet watched the Javier Arango discussion then do so as he clearly describes the Camels behaviour especially in regards to roll and turn. 

 

Shot.

 

 

I'd love to, what should I watch? Any links for me?

 

Thanks!

EDIT//

 

Found this. Centrifugal force from the engine affected the Camel in flight along with adverse yaw from the ailerons. Neat but dry watch. Had to skip a bunch of it. However, 56:00 min in shows that I was correct and that the engine absolutely affects rate of roll. She rolls left better. The dancing Sopwith showed me that anyway. Every time the  juice her up the left wing dropped.

 

Left roll 45degees a second, right 35 degrees a second. Prop turns to the right and so it helps it roll left better. I'm correct, the engine torque affects roll rate.

 

 

4 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

No.

 

It is just a matter of control. The way you fly most of those WW1 aircraft, you have to prepare for some different subtleties when initiating a right or a left turn. The torque (any gyro) has no influence whatsoever regarding flight *performance*.

 

Javier says otherwise.

Edited July 24, 2020 by ACG_Smokejumper

[unreasonable]

He also says that the turn time left and right is identical.  The wiki myth is that left turns take three times as long - obviously not consistent with the cause being a roll rate difference,  given that the roll to the left is actually quicker. 

 

If the turn times are identical each way then something else is also happening. Given that the coarse control of entry to the turn is done with rudder and elevator, with very different positions required for each control surface left vs right to maintain a steady turn, there is a lot involved besides roll rate, especially that induced by the aileron.

[ZachariasX]

7 hours ago, ACG_Smokejumper said:

Javier says otherwise.

No. See unreasonables post above. I said „flight performance“.

 

Also note that Javier has a 160 hp Camel.

 

9 hours ago, ACG_Smokejumper said:

You have a rotating mass in these old engines.

40% of your gyro in the Camel is the prop alone. All aircraft have such momentum. How much it affects your maneuvering is dependent on how you fly and control your aircraft. There are several (design) factors that play into this and you will not necessarily reproduce that in this sim, as we do have a different flying styles. The real Camel would fly funny even if you gave it a Lycoming engine.

Edited July 24, 2020 by ZachariasX

[No.23_Starling]

On 7/23/2020 at 2:19 AM, BraveSirRobin said:

Yes, schadenfreude is a very appropriate word for the FC1 community.  

The vast majority of ppl I know in this community are kind, welcoming, supportive, and fun. Although many of us might want tweaks and additions it’s because we love what we have and want more. This kind of language and profane acronyms are not representative of most in the community.

 

A lot of us would be glad if derision for player opinions, whether arguably correct or not, and personal arguments could be taken elsewhere to PM as they are unhelpful to the discussion and drive away new players. The thread has already been derailed by personal attacks around MP behaviour unrelated to the discussion.

[BraveSirRobin]

30 minutes ago, US93_Rummell said:

The vast majority of ppl I know in this community are kind, welcoming, supportive, and fun. Although many of us might want tweaks and additions it’s because we love what we have and want more. This kind of language and profane acronyms are not representative of most in the community.

 

A lot of us would be glad if derision for player opinions, whether arguably correct or not, and personal arguments could be taken elsewhere to PM as they are unhelpful to the discussion and drive away new players. The thread has already been derailed by personal attacks around MP behaviour unrelated to the discussion.

lol

 

You must be new around here.

[RedKestrel]

On 7/23/2020 at 2:24 AM, Tycoon said:

Ah, but it's the unspoken rule, America always comes first in everything.?

That explains why Lady Liberty always looks so disappointed.

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

Watching guys drop out last night because of the damaged DM was heart breaking. 

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

19 hours ago, US63_SpadLivesMatter said:

Arango died flying one of his rotaries...

 

Guess he forgot to disconnect.

 

That's harsh. It was allegedly a disconnection of a control cable turn buckle in an inaccessible area of the Nie 28 replica that led to the fatal crash. Javier was student and advocate of promoting and studying these old designs. I could see joking if he walked away, but it's a little harsh to joke about a fatal crash.

Edited July 24, 2020 by Krispy_Duck

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

People die and there's nothing that can be done about it.

 

Try to have a little fun.