Jump to content

Nieuport 28 initial impressions (+ bug reports submitted, see root post)


Recommended Posts

The French made an improvised camouflage for the Nieuport 28 to compensate for the loss of power. It's invisible after you shoot it! happens just like the D.VII bug, but this time it is invisible up to 200 meters!

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, J15_Gontermann said:

The French made an improvised camouflage for the Nieuport 28 to compensate for the loss of power. It's invisible after you shoot it! happens just like the D.VII bug, but this time it is invisible up to 200 meters!


In this case the fix will be to turn it completely invisible online.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 hours ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

no FM improvements over RoF for existing planes, I’m keeping that in the back of my head for upcoming FC2 releases.

 

Welcome aboard; I've been doing something like that since FC2 was announced.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is the ammo capacity so low? Was that a historical design feature because of CoG issues? It seems strange for a late war aircraft. Or did the French just not like giving the Yanks enough ammo out of some gallic spite thing? Or were the Yanks just that good that they didn't need much lol?

 

These updates could be useful.

 

17. Flying Circus aircraft visibility at large distances has been corrected to correspond to other aircraft in the game (it was 3 times lower);

 

21. Modeling of the putting out the fuel tank fire by sideslipping the aircraft at high speed has been improved;

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

In last months I have seen plenty of knights of Luftstreitkrafte succeed in Entente planes, and even more self-declared Entente pilots complaining about the same planes not meeting their high expectations. I'm growing convinced that not having outlandish expectations about your crates is key to successfully flying them as they are. Bonus points for having healthy Teutonic contempt for the deathctrap you are currently flying, it does wonders for understanding and respecting its limitations, and makes every success doubly satisfying. 


Self-declared Entente pilots™ complaining about their planes not adding up to the 'high expectations' of what all the historical accounts indicate is no different from Central Pilots™ lamenting not having the D.IIIaü, or complaining that the Dr.I's top speed is too low, or being sick of having paper-thin wings on Albs / Halbs. Nor is it outlandish at all. If FC had a D.Va that flew like an E.III, would you not complain that it was wrong? Because I would...(extreme example, but it illustrates the point).

I'll point out that several of the "Entente" guys who want to see the S.E. perform better in a turn, the N28 to adhere to physics, etc, have also lobbied for any historical inaccuracies with the Central planes. Some that the Central boys would be happy about (fixing the Dr.I's top speed, implementing D.IIIaüs for planes that had them) and some they might not enjoy so much (overly-good Albatros / Pfalz handling characteristics and manoeuvrability)

But, just to clarify, the "White Knight of the Luftstreitkrafte" phrase was more of a reference to you going with the phrase "Entente-Minded Pilots", indirectly referring to Bender, when you're one of the most overtly 'Central-Minded' players in FC.

...not that it's a bad thing to be '[insert faction here]-minded' and want the game to do justice to the aircraft of "your side". I am too. So long as you don't only want your side to benefit.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great fun! Not too diff from ROF version. But as history proved... Still sucks. 

 

Albatros D V. Totally out does this thing. 

As true too history... I chased one at high speed to the deck. Wings flew off in high speed dive. 

I like it. For what it was. Fun too fly. Can't beat an Albatros D V.

I wished we could have seperate triggers for guns. 

 

Plus a 303/11mm Balloon gun load out. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, ST_Catchov said:

These updates could be useful.

 

17. Flying Circus aircraft visibility at large distances has been corrected to correspond to other aircraft in the game (it was 3 times lower);

 

21. Modeling of the putting out the fuel tank fire by sideslipping the aircraft at high speed has been improved;

 

These worry me enormously,  but am away from home so can't test. 

17. We're already operating with a 'lite' version of the hated Alt Visibilty as standard! We've posted about it before and shown just how far away aircraft dots are visible in FC (will try dig it up for ref). Why would they make them even larger? It's already war thunder-esque. Makes no sense. 

 

21. By improved,  I hope they mean much, much more difficult. As it is the planes virtually put out their own fires.  In MP pilots will carry on fighting while on fire! Worst case is a short dive then fly home.  None of these dreaded 'flamerino', jump or bullet decisions. Maybe its a 'heal' process like some FPS games have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not going to put out 25 gallons of gas. Burning between your legs. In WW1.

 

Chuck Norris, could not do that! 

 

Reason why MP players do that. Is because it is a video game.

 

They don't burn too death.

 

They go too work at the T-Mobile store next day.

 

Multiplayer, ruins this thing. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, CrazyhorseB34 said:

You are not going to put out 25 gallons of gas. Burning between your legs. In 

 

Multiplayer, ruins this thing. 

EXactly,  you're not going to put it out.  And in previous iterations of this Sim it was extremely difficult to do so.  Now it's simple. It works in SP too, so no, MP doesn't ruin it,  the DM is at fault. 

 

Re the N28 from people who WERE there.

 

Screenshot_20210422-103237_Chrome.jpg

Edited by US28_Baer
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, US93_Larner said:


Self-declared Entente pilots™ complaining about their planes not adding up to the 'high expectations' of what all the historical accounts indicate is no different from Central Pilots™ lamenting not having the D.IIIaü, or complaining that the Dr.I's top speed is too low, or being sick of having paper-thin wings on Albs / Halbs. Nor is it outlandish at all. If FC had a D.Va that flew like an E.III, would you not complain that it was wrong? Because I would...(extreme example, but it illustrates the point).

I'll point out that several of the "Entente" guys who want to see the S.E. perform better in a turn, the N28 to adhere to physics, etc, have also lobbied for any historical inaccuracies with the Central planes. Some that the Central boys would be happy about (fixing the Dr.I's top speed, implementing D.IIIaüs for planes that had them) and some they might not enjoy so much (overly-good Albatros / Pfalz handling characteristics and manoeuvrability)

But, just to clarify, the "White Knight of the Luftstreitkrafte" phrase was more of a reference to you going with the phrase "Entente-Minded Pilots", indirectly referring to Bender, when you're one of the most overtly 'Central-Minded' players in FC.

...not that it's a bad thing to be '[insert faction here]-minded' and want the game to do justice to the aircraft of "your side". I am too. So long as you don't only want your side to benefit.

 

How do I give this guy a thousand upvotes up?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is odd that the specs page for the FC N.28 still shows 20m^2 as the wing area. (Or not odd at all, depending on your quality expectations for this product....)

 

Taking the wingspan as 8160mm, which is correct according to the French plan, we can use Gimp to measure the actual wing area of the 3D model in the game from screenshots.

 

When I do this I get 16.17m^2 including the ailerons but excluding the area of the fuselage between the lower wings, which I think is the correct WW1 convention.

Adding in that fuselage area gives only 16.6

 

So the 3D model corresponds to the French plan measurements. Where the 20m^2 comes from is anyone's guess.

Edited by unreasonable
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, US93_Rummell said:

 

Are you not bothered about the AU engine for the Dva etc? After all, the Dva was considered a bit of a dud by both sides later in the war. A lot of strong demand for that one from the community though, mostly to make the Dva more competitive in MP.

In my eyes I dont need a competitive set of planes. I need a historical set of planes. If a characteristic doesnt make sense physically. That would be something that needs to change. I leave the competitive part to War Thunder and CS.

Edited by J2_Oelmann
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

A more in-depth review of my first impressions of the N28: 


PROS: 
- Generally tame handling qualities except for some minor ill-effects of the rotary engine 
- War Crime Guns 
- Good visibility from the pilot's seat
- Quite tough, from what I can tell 
-  Exceptional roll rate

CONS:

- Poor energy retention and unremarkable BnZ ability
- Unremarkable sustained turn and tendency to bleed off energy very quickly in prolonged flat turns
- Very low ammo count! Especially with War Crime Guns! 
- Difficult to handle in stalling manoeuvres
- Totally outmatched by German scouts when it comes to PvP

...overall, I think it's a pretty cool plane to have in-game, but I expect it'll do rather poorly on the PvP servers. In a turning fight it'll be quickly overtaken by any of the German scouts, and its poor energy retention makes BnZ difficult to do effectively. Essentially, it feels like a bargain bin SPAD XIII (albeit while being able to soak up more punishment). 

The best way to use the N28 will be as an ambush predator, picking off unaware targets with a well-executed bounce. Actually, I'll rephrase - the only way I can see the N28 being successful is through scoring kills on unaware targets. It's just not quite good enough at any one thing to really hold its own in a proper scrap. 

The gun configuration can make aiming a little odd, but fortunately the N28 is a reasonably stable gun platform so I imagine gunnery in the N28 isn't too difficult with a little bit of practice. This is also made easier with the Aldis / Le Chretien, but hard deflection shooting can be a little tricky with the big rotary cowling in the way. 

 

Overall, I wouldn't rate it as a particularly exceptional scout, and it certainly pales in comparison to the "Big Boys" of the Entente line-up, AKA Camel, S.E., SPAD....

Here's some Quick Missions footage to round off the "Review": 
 

 

With those guns, I think, in the right hands, this is going to be one bad bird.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed today that killing a Nieuport in Quick Battles don't register in the game.  You get no awards for the kills.  I hope that this lack of kill record doesn't also include online games.  I reported this today in Bugs.

 

The screengrab here is after I shot two nieuports down in Quick battles.  

no kill.jpg

Edited by Maqui
added that I already submitted the bug
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

So the 3D model corresponds to the French plan measurements. Where the 20m^2 comes from is anyone's guess.

The 3D model is about the only thing referencing it as a N28.

 

Had they just taken the Breguet FM and ported that from RoF, it would have been more convincing.

 

I should try the GAZ-MM now. Just to have something that comes out of the FM department that‘s plausible in this patch. I‘m still shocked they released the Spit XIV like that. We have gotten two planes that don‘t have much to do their depiction as 3D models.

 

On the plus side, I find the „DVD“ a huge step forward, also the N28ˋs robustness to gunfire is a step in the right direction. On the whole, the game is making great progress.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

Why is the ammo capacity so low? Was that a historical design feature because of CoG issues? It seems strange for a late war aircraft. Or did the French just not like giving the Yanks enough ammo out of some gallic spite thing? Or were the Yanks just that good that they didn't need much lol?

 

5 hours ago, unreasonable said:

It is odd that the specs page for the FC N.28 still shows 20m^2 as the wing area. (Or not odd at all, depending on your quality expectations for this product....)

 

Taking the wingspan as 8160mm, which is correct according to the French plan, we can use Gimp to measure the actual wing area of the 3D model in the game from screenshots.

 

When I do this I get 16.17m^2 including the ailerons but excluding the area of the fuselage between the lower wings, which I think is the correct WW1 convention.

Adding in that fuselage area gives only 16.6

 

So the 3D model corresponds to the French plan measurements. Where the 20m^2 comes from is anyone's guess.

 

 

They did the math!

 

Sir, I think you've just solved the mystery. They used a different set of data to build the actual 3D model.

 

 

So we have 16m^2 from the 3D model and actual building plans — but unsure which building plans, because there were several prototypes.

 

But we have 20m^2 from the listed in-game specs (directly taken from Frank Tallman's) and from the design history: the 15m^2 base Nieuport 24 was used to build Nieuport 28 prototypes and wing surface was increased twice, once to 18m^2 and finally to 20m^2.

 

dj8V3Gg.jpg

 

zGMgKu2.jpg

 

ggpLHc6.jpg

 

 

So here is the wing loading / power loading assuming that:

 

  • It has Eiffel 14 SPAD airfoils rather than RAF 14 Camel airfoils
     
  • It weighs 700kg rather than 560kg (which makes sense, it's closer to the Sopwith Camel than to the Nieuport 24 in wing surface and is armed with twin Vickers)

 

54wzSnh.jpg

 

 

 

In conclusion it should have slightly better wing loading than the Sopwith Dolphin / Nieuport 24, but will still arguably turn worse because it uses the SPAD airfoil.

 

So it's either the 3D model that is wrong and it needs more wing surface, or it weighs about 100kg too much, since it has 16m^2 wings that weigh the same as 20m^2 wings. Which also explains why they're trying to lighten it up by removing ammo.

 

Q.E.D.

Edited by =IRFC=Hbender
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

 

 

 

They did the math!

 

Sir, I think you've just solved the mystery. They used a different set of data to build the actual 3D model.

 

 

So we have 16m^2 from the 3D model and actual building plans — but unsure which building plans, because there were several prototypes.

 

But we have 20m^2 from the listed in-game specs (directly taken from Frank Tallman's) and from the design history: the 15m^2 base Nieuport 24 was used to build Nieuport 28 prototypes and wing surface was increased twice, once to 18m^2 and finally to 20m^2.

 

dj8V3Gg.jpg

 

zGMgKu2.jpg

 

ggpLHc6.jpg

 

 

So here is the wing loading / power loading assuming that:

 

  • It has Eiffel 14 SPAD airfoils rather than RAF 14 Camel airfoils
     
  • It weighs 700kg rather than 560kg (which makes sense, it's closer to the Sopwith Camel than to the Nieuport 24 in wing surface and is armed with twin Vickers)

 

54wzSnh.jpg

 

 

 

In conclusion it should have slightly better wing loading than the Sopwith Dolphin / Nieuport 24, but will still arguably turn worse because it uses the SPAD airfoil.

 

So it's either the 3D model that is wrong and it needs more wing surface, or it weighs about 100kg too much, since it has 16m^2 wings that weigh the same as 20m^2 wings. Which also explains why they're trying to lighten it up by removing ammo.

 

Q.E.D.

 

Is there no surviving Nieuport 28 in the world to take measurements from? Or original plans? If so, then it's easy to submit a bug report (wing dimensions incorrect) instead of having endless discussions...

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

But we have 20m^2 from the listed in-game specs (directly taken from Frank Tallman's) and from the design history: the 15m^2 base Nieuport 24 was used to build Nieuport 28 prototypes and wing surface was increased twice, once to 18m^2 and finally to 20m^2.

 

Looking at pictures (also in Tallman's book), it is obvious how much larger the top wing is than the lower wing, much unlike in our game. The top wing being more forward and, being enlarged certainly will act against the CoG set as it currently is.

 

I really think @unreasonable found a central issue with our dear N28.

 

3 minutes ago, SYN_Vander said:

Is there no surviving Nieuport 28 in the world to take measurements from? Or original plans? If so, then it's easy to submit a bug report (wing dimensions incorrect) instead of having endless discussions...

There is one close enough to me. It is all original. It just features a propeller that is not suposed to be on, a fate many museum exhibits share. I will check.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

 

There is one close enough to me. It is all original. It just features a propeller that is not suposed to be on, a fate many museum exhibits share. I will check.

 

That would be great!

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


Self-declared Entente pilots™ complaining about their planes not adding up to the 'high expectations' of what all the historical accounts indicate is no different from Central Pilots™ lamenting not having the D.IIIaü, or complaining that the Dr.I's top speed is too low, or being sick of having paper-thin wings on Albs / Halbs. Nor is it outlandish at all. If FC had a D.Va that flew like an E.III, would you not complain that it was wrong? Because I would...(extreme example, but it illustrates the point).

I'll point out that several of the "Entente" guys who want to see the S.E. perform better in a turn, the N28 to adhere to physics, etc, have also lobbied for any historical inaccuracies with the Central planes. Some that the Central boys would be happy about (fixing the Dr.I's top speed, implementing D.IIIaüs for planes that had them) and some they might not enjoy so much (overly-good Albatros / Pfalz handling characteristics and manoeuvrability)

But, just to clarify, the "White Knight of the Luftstreitkrafte" phrase was more of a reference to you going with the phrase "Entente-Minded Pilots", indirectly referring to Bender, when you're one of the most overtly 'Central-Minded' players in FC.

...not that it's a bad thing to be '[insert faction here]-minded' and want the game to do justice to the aircraft of "your side". I am too. So long as you don't only want your side to benefit.

 


There's a difference between asking for more engine variants that should be there and complaining about the existing planes not performing miracles like I'd want them to. The Dr.I top speed is brought that often, but not in the "the game is broken, I refuse to play it, look like servers empty because I quit" doom and gloom. Neither I see Albatros or Pfalz pilots complaining about having to fly the worst machines in the game. I want the 200hp planes because they are missing from my flying experience. For the same reason, I want the H-S engined S.E.5.a (one with four blade prop that could turnfight, not Rumpler chaser we have in game) - it's important part of experience, it's missing.  I also want Hanriot and Strutter because they are my all time favourite planes.

Central-minded, to me and people I observe, means taking your crappy plane and soldiering on. I don't know if it comes from historical inspiration, or is it mindset people who  chose Albatros over Camel came into sim with, or delight of Albie driver flying anything better than his machine, or not-grudging acceptance of the fact that anything that's not D.VIIF is crap anyway, so if I take it I forfeit the right to complain. It's attitude of accepting the negatives as part of life and concentrating on positives. Carl Degelow said it best:
 

Quote

So, in my case, I took the second-rate Pfalz and, having learned its limitations, made the best of a bad job."



Entente-minded, from my observation, means expecting miracles out of your plane, ignoring it's strengths and concentrating on aspects it "should" have but lacks, loudly declaring how the planes you have are not good enough for you anymore and begrudging Albie driver in actually bad plane that can't disengage at will like you do because, if you kill him over his own lines, he can parachute. Or, if you are in post-2014 RoF, begrudging the same Albie driver because his plane is not the crap you want it to be. On the other hand, it's attitude of still believing your bad plane is more capable than it is (see Benders description of SE which got us here).  It's attitude of taking the positives for granted (with unhealthy dose of wishful thinking and suppressing the reality) and concentrating on negatives.

Jasta 2 had been torchbearers of the Entente for winter quarter of 2021. Our parser allegiance is officially mixed. Until I went for Hohenzollern Order last week, I was firmly a mixed pilot with Dolphin as my favourite plane (I had to give up Dolphin completely to get German decorations, since I was to succesful in it). What still makes us Central squadron is bringing Central-minded attitude, as described above, into Entente planes. We make the best of the bad job, rather than cataloguing reasons why the planes are not good enough for us. The most frustrating part of flying Entente planes, for Central minded pilot, is not the planes and their deficiencies. It's the realisation we are filling up for guys who bailed when job became bad.

P.S. I consider 3PG a mostly Central minded squadron :P that uses Jagdflieger roots to bring the best out of most difficult plane in game (except maybe N.28).

Edited by J2_Trupobaw
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just made a quick comparison, taking pictures available on the web and just gauging the relative chord of the wings:

 

n28_6210.thumb.jpg.575722df400db1c8f6a811860fcc6588.jpg

 

In RoF, I get top to bottom wing chord ~1.25 : 1

 

WsmEakTO_hgH7fU4mGTPMXiXjGYrdiYamsk4gvaR4uKxphHc3FaTH2NGxxLRpsmpGI24kpf_HFtrjihYyUFjr9W1V3t_ULaJdAsHaIegqM7qlE9iLbU.jpg.2adf6e2db7df34bd5b46569185c0ad6c.jpg

 

Here I get about ~1.35 : 1

 

hw_nieuport_n-28_c1_01.jpg.781719b6bf3496121c57558e843b46f2.jpg

 

Same as I do on this 1918 example, also ~1.35 : 1.

 

This is no claim for accurancy but still an indication that @unreasonable has found something I think is important in fixing the crate. I can get more exact readings from the museum exhibit (and get better screenshots of the came N.28), but I don't think it would change the fact that from RoF, the N.28 inherited too small of a wing.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

There's a difference between asking for more engine variants that should be there and complaining about the existing planes not performing miracles like I'd want them to. 

 

[...]


Entente-minded, from my observation, means expecting miracles out of your plane, ignoring it's strengths and concentrating on aspects it "should" have but lacks, loudly declaring how the planes you have are not good enough for you anymore and begrudging Albie driver in actually bad plane that can't disengage at will like you do because, if you kill him over his own lines, he can parachute. Or, if you are in post-2014 RoF, begrudging the same Albie driver because his plane is not the crap you want it to be. On the other hand, it's attitude of still believing your bad plane is more capable than it is (see Benders description of SE which got us here).  It's attitude of taking the positives for granted (with unhealthy dose of exaggerating them) and concentrating on negatives.

 

Trupo, don't derail the discussion and don't make this into an "Us vs. Them" thing. It's bad enough as it is. I don't believe in miracles, I believe in physics. There are some things you cannot just handwave away, and I would say that a plane apparently lacking part of its wing is one of them. All that you are doing is feeding the trolls who would rather see Flying Circus (and all of IL-2 GB) fail so they can pick apart the carcass and become sad little king of their sad little hill.

 

To me there is NO GREATER AND MORE URGENT PRIORITY (beyond fixing the DM) than having the 200hp Mercedes D.IIIaü. You know this.
 

  • Could the Pfalz pull 10g? *handwave* Yeah, thick main spar, sure, whatever.
     
  • Could the Albatros outturn the S.E.5a and Dolphin? *handwave* There are conflicting reports, but sure, yeah, whatever.
     
  • Do all the Central planes in 1918 have parachutes that work flawlessly like in WW2? *handwave* Okay, yeah, why not.

 

What I want to see, personally, is Central players who have a real choice between the Fokker D.VII 200hp, Albatros D.Va 200hp and even the ludicrous Pfalztank 200hp — and are not forced to fly Fokker D.VIIF because everything else kind of sucks. That includes the Fokker Dr.I — also a tank nowadays — which we all know is too slow. Heck we have someone in the community who has built his own and will soon fly it with the exact same engine.

 

And — miraculously — I want the same for Entente, that there's a real choice to be made, and not just having everyone specialise in the SPAD XIII with balloon guns, because it's the only safe and effective option against the Central tanky planes and the confettiness of Entente planes. Having been on both ends of the SPAD XIII, I find it equally boring. I'm sure you remember, because you were there when I was flying Halberstadts with J5.

 

So accuracy and variety, please, though I concede that it is currently impossible to simulate what was truly bad about the Nieuport 28: its unreliability. But even if we get it exactly the way we want it to be, trust me, it's going to be worse than the SPAD. Everything is worse than the SPAD. It pains me to say this as a Belgian: the French weren't idiots when they went full SPAD. That still won't stop me from flying a "crappy" Dolphin, or a truly crappy Hanriot if we ever get one, and maybe even a Nieuport 28 in the meantime if they get around to fixing it.

 

Edited by =IRFC=Hbender
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

I just made a quick comparison, taking pictures available on the web and just gauging the relative chord of the wings:

 

n28_6210.thumb.jpg.575722df400db1c8f6a811860fcc6588.jpg

 

In RoF, I get top to bottom wing chord ~1.25 : 1

 

WsmEakTO_hgH7fU4mGTPMXiXjGYrdiYamsk4gvaR4uKxphHc3FaTH2NGxxLRpsmpGI24kpf_HFtrjihYyUFjr9W1V3t_ULaJdAsHaIegqM7qlE9iLbU.jpg.2adf6e2db7df34bd5b46569185c0ad6c.jpg

 

Here I get about ~1.35 : 1

 

hw_nieuport_n-28_c1_01.jpg.781719b6bf3496121c57558e843b46f2.jpg

 

Same as I do on this 1918 example, also ~1.35 : 1.

 

This is no claim for accurancy but still an indication that @unreasonable has found something I think is important in fixing the crate. I can get more exact readings from the museum exhibit (and get better screenshots of the came N.28), but I don't think it would change the fact that from RoF, the N.28 inherited too small of a wing.

 

 

 

I have photographs of the same machine from my visit in 2016! No plan form though....

 

image.thumb.png.181b065493dfd8b10c043aff39dbb9fd.png

 

image.png.c473f38c0023a0065c90282aac4588df.png

 

 

image.thumb.png.dc295a6e6b07b6d6a0593d7180db91c7.png

Edited by SYN_Vander
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SYN_Vander said:

 

Is there no surviving Nieuport 28 in the world to take measurements from? Or original plans? If so, then it's easy to submit a bug report (wing dimensions incorrect) instead of having endless discussions...

 

Hbender loves writing dissertations 😉 😃

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J2_Trupobaw said:


There's a difference between asking for more engine variants that should be there and......*pop* urrrrhhhh


The only reason you think that people are asking for Entente planes to 'work miracles' is because you have your Richthofen-Red tinted glasses on. What people are actually asking for is their planes to match what historical accounts or available data suggest they could do.  Those glasses are also the reason that you insist the Alb and Pfalz are bad planes. The Pfalz is seriously underrated, and before the DM (which has really shafted planes on both sides), the Albatros was a genuinely competitive scout. Even now it does well for itself in the right hands. 
 

 

1 hour ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Entente-minded, from my observation, means expecting miracles out of your plane, ignoring it's strengths and concentrating on aspects it "should" have but lacks, loudly declaring how the planes you have are not good enough for you anymore and begrudging Albie driver in actually bad plane that can't disengage at will like you do because, if you kill him over his own lines, he can parachute. 


Wow! How arrogant. Honestly, this just reads like you've got a huge chip on your shoulder.  And if you honestly think that Entente pilots are really flying around ignoring their plane's in-game strengths because they're "expecting miracles", then how come you're bailing out all the time? A badly-flown Entente plane is easy pickings for any German scout. 


Anyway, whatever. Back to the N28 discussion. 

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its in the nature of our game that often 100% objektive facts can not get obtained. Its all over 100 years over and many things are a better deliverate guess. Its not like DCS, where someone can get a true plan, schematics and standartized test results of an airframe.

 

I am fine with whatever the devs throw at me.

Edited by J2_Oelmann
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

Sir, I think you've just solved the mystery. They used a different set of data to build the actual 3D model.

 

So we have 16m^2 from the 3D model and actual building plans — but unsure which building plans, because there were several prototypes.

 

But we have 20m^2 from the listed in-game specs (directly taken from Frank Tallman's) and from the design history: the 15m^2 base Nieuport 24 was used to build Nieuport 28 prototypes and wing surface was increased twice, once to 18m^2 and finally to 20m^2.

*snip*

 


If that's the case, it really might be worth getting a well-presented 'case file' over to the devs, be it through a bug report (if those actually work lol) or through some other avenue. Although we give the FC devs a hard time on occasion, I'm sure that they'd welcome a 'fix' with some solid evidence to back it up. 

EDIT: I'd imagine it might take a little while for the devs to circle back around to a N28 rework though, seeing as it's only just arrived. In the meantime, the N28 will be a fun little plane to fly (and die) in. Despite being a lemon, I was having quite a bit of fun in it in QM and sparring with the 3PG boys! 

Edited by US93_Larner
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

 

Trupo, don't derail the discussion and don't make this into an "Us vs. Them" thing. It's bad enough as it is. I don't believe in miracles, I believe in physics. There are some things you cannot just handwave away, and I would say that a plane apparently lacking part of its wing is one of them. All that you are doing is feeding the trolls who would rather see Flying Circus (and all of IL-2 GB) fail so they can pick apart the carcass and become sad little king of their sad little hill.

 

 


I'm not derailing the discussion. The discussion is already derailed - from assessing the plane we have in game and figuring out ways to use it, towards complaining about what the plane is not and wish fulfilment stories about what it should be instead. It's idle talk we keep derailing into for 12 years, with no results for N.28 other than tail rising better. You've made a thread about historical N.28 performance, and this is where most of posts here belong. There's whole developer assistance forum dedicated to submitting well-researched material like wing surface/weight discrepancies. There's also declaration that planes are being brought from RoF as they are.

Instead, these posts dilute the thread about the plane we have in game.

As of us vs them mentality - I've spent my last three months in cockpit of Dolphin and Spad, while reading the "Entente" pilots posting all over the place how they are to good to fly current planes. I've been flying alongside people complaining about planes they fly until I started to tell them to switch to Central if they hate it so much - and provide me with some targets.  Not to mention hypocrites believing that them disliking plane they chose entitles them to be dicks to people flying planes they won't switch to. I'm not making it into "us vs them" thing; I describe us vs them thing I already see. The entitled vs ones playing the game. I have every right to speak as Entente pilot atm, and the biggest problem I see is attitude of holier-than-thou Entente pilots who act like they own the planes I'm flying. 

I've tried to bring into attention to fact that you guys apparently let your prejudices stop you from using the plane successfully, or enjoying the game. There's bunch of people out there who won't accept that Entente planes are crap (which they are), won't switch to Central planes (which are even more crap), and will keep themselves in unhappy state blocking them from enjoying the game. The way out of this hole is simple - accept the crap for what it is and make use of it. Treat every sortie like your last, every plane you fly as deathtrap to overcome. Go out there and down some people, ffs.
 

Quote

There are some things you cannot just handwave away, and I would say that a plane apparently lacking part of its wing is one of them.

The war on Nieuport 28 is already thrice older than the WW1 took, and there's zero progress made. It is kept going by handwaving the realities (in current form - plane is initially brought from RoF as is) and it keeps people from finding the ways to fly what they have. The planes will keep changing (hopefully) and we will keep adapting. No reason to sit and wait for the ideal patch that will fix everything (to be undone by next major patch). 
 

Quote

see Flying Circus (and all of IL-2 GB) fail so they can pick apart the carcass and become sad little king of their sad little hill

It's called "playing the game in its current form and enjoying it".  Belittle the current state of the game all you want, call it carcass, call people who dared to stay kings of sad little hills - it's not me who's losing the flying experience.
 

Quote

To me there is NO GREATER AND MORE URGENT PRIORITY (beyond fixing the DM) than having the 200hp Mercedes D.IIIaü. You know this.


Getting people up there shooting each other down is far more important. Separating discussion of "historical" planes (which in WW1 can mean anything) and planes as implemented seems a n urgent to-do thing.
 

28 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:


Wow! How arrogant. Honestly, this just reads like you've got a huge chip on your shoulder.  And if you honestly think that Entente pilots are really flying around ignoring their plane's in-game strengths because they're "expecting miracles", then how come you're bailing out all the time? A badly-flown Entente plane is easy pickings for any German scout. 


It comes from guy flying Entente planes and embracing it, to guys complaining about Entente planes not matching their Biggles-tinted expectations (the historical data on WW1 is horrible mismatch that can be used to justify anything). My current opinion on Albatros and Pfalz is as a Dolphin pilot.

Edited by J2_Trupobaw
Link to post
Share on other sites

Trupo, these points belong in a different thread rather than the one which is actively trying to improve the game through objective discourse.


Scientific experimentation must contain some sort of hypothesis. One such hypothesis is that a flight model in which the Halberstadt CL2 with the lower horsepower engine and equal fuel loads is able to out turn the N 28 in a flat turn is incorrect.  I believe that this is a reasonable one, and one which deserves some level of discourse and experimentation to figure out why it is the case.

 

Edited by =IRFC=Artun
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

and will keep themselves in unhappy state blocking them from enjoying the game. 


To be fair, the DM has done a lot more for turning players away than the FMs ever have (at least, in FC). Remember how much fun everyone was having pre-4.005, while flying the same FMs we have now? 

But yeah, anyway, N28 discussion. 

------------

Here are some more 1st Pursuit Group USAS quotes on the N28, courtesy of US213_Talbot: 

xrJXSgH.png

oyuGNgg.png

Edited by US93_Larner
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SYN_Vander said:

I have photographs of the same machine from my visit in 2016! No plan form though....

It  is in a different museum now, along with the yellow Arbalette in the background. It's about time they properly clean it... It's still terribly dusty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, =IRFC=Artun said:

Trupo, these points belong in a different thread rather than the one which is actively trying to improve the game through objective discourse.

 

 


This thread is about plane we just got implemented in game. It immediately got derailed into comparisons with speculated historical plane we have not, and will have not, for some months at least. I have tried to put attention to this (and the useless negativity surrounding Entente planes derailing us at every such discussion) and massive backlash followed.
 

23 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:


To be fair, the DM has done a lot more for turning players away than the FMs ever have (at least, in FC). Remember how much fun everyone was having pre-4.005, while flying the same FMs we have now? 
 


I do. I miss the people who quit much more than I miss old DM (which is still a lot). I used to miss German planes, while I was learning to overcome the same DM issues that made these people quit. 

If I come out as arrogant, it is because I consider myself a successful Entente pilot now, while people who bailed on my ride lecture me how it is worse than it really is.
 

Quote

Here are some more 1st Pursuit Group USAS quotes on the N28, courtesy of US213_Talbot: 


Operative words: "Believe they each brought down enemy plane". "Maneuvrability" - is not the same as sustained turn, it's planes responsiveness (which, in historical Pfalz) was sluggish, and wich is very good in our N.28.


Back to N.28 as it is, I think it may be the Wildcat vs Zero situation against 1917 German planes. Or X-wing vs Tie Fighter :) . N.28 bleeds speed and is sluggish at low speeds, but has the acceleration, roll and extreme durability. (Did anyone suffer a control surface failure in N.28 yet?) If (a big if) it can be relied on to take lot of damage and keep fighting, it can be excellent team plane - never go for guy attacking you, drag him, absorb damage if needed, let your mates pick him off your tail while they absorb the damage they take, switch. Since biggest complaint about Entente planes is that they can't take damage like they used to, this could make a welcome addition to the mix.

Edited by J2_Trupobaw
Link to post
Share on other sites

If we believe that the plane that just got implemented is broken, then we have every right to have civil discourse and experimentation to determine why this is the case. If you do not wish to contribute to this discussion or experimentation, which you clearly do not, then that is your choice, sir.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We just got a new plane, we tried to discuss pros, contras and possible uses, it got derailed into idle guessing why it was "broken". There should be separate thread for that (I believe Bender made one before plane got even released).

Edited by J2_Trupobaw
Link to post
Share on other sites

The French plans have a top/bottom chord ratio of 1.3/ 1 . This is (almost) the same as in the game's 3D model, where the ratio is 1.292,  (chords of 1.291m and 0.999m respectively), so given the possibility of my measurement error essentially the same.


It is not easy to find pictures where the chord ratio can be measured, due to foreshortening, but from the N28 in the museum (in the US presumably) I cannot see any difference to the 3D model orientated to the same angle with the camera pulled well back.

 

As far as I can see the 3D model is correct according to the plan and the real aircraft, in which case wing area of 20m^2 is incorrect.

 

481909490_FCN28capture.JPG.89ea76c4fce2d48056c61758e1c31614.JPG

Nieuport-28-03.jpg.5fb357712fb819b2047c68c0023b5c2a.jpg

 

 

N28 blueprint.jpeg

Edited by unreasonable
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

This thread is about plane we just got implemented in game. It immediately got derailed into comparisons with speculated historical plane we have not, and will have not, for some months at least. I have tried to put attention to this (and the useless negativity surrounding Entente planes derailing us at every such discussion) and massive backlash followed.

 

Okay man, if it's purely feelings that you want: I feel that the divide between people who consider themselves Entente and Central has never been bigger, and that we may as well be playing different game at this point. It's a feeling I never got during Rise of Flight, maybe simply because the Camel and Dr.I were always dominant and close to equals. @US93_Larner is right to say that this game has lost a lot of its pure fun factor with the new DM.

 

But it's a sim, not a game, so let's not go there. When it comes to any plane I want as much historical accuracy as possible, for now we've determined without even opening a single book that the 3D model has a different wing surface than the listed specs. Unless we are to stop considering how planes fly at all, and just be happy with the fact that Entente has a "crap plane", because it feeds into a narrative you read in a book somewhere.

 

There are other discussions to be had with porting certain FC2 planes straight over from RoF. I wonder if you will feel the same about those.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Back to N.28 as it is, I think it may be the Wildcat vs Zero situation against 1917 German planes. Or X-wing vs Tie Fighter :) . N.28 bleeds speed and is sluggish at low speeds, but has the speed, roll and extreme durability. (Did anyone suffer a control surface failure in N.28 yet?) If (a big if) it can be relied on to take lot of damage and keep fighting, it can be excellent team plane - never go for guy attacking you, drag him, absorb damage if needed, let your mates pick him off your tail while they absorb the damage they take, switch. Since biggest complaint about Entente planes is that they can't take damage like they used to, this could make a welcome addition to the mix.


Re: other points - might be an idea to set up a group PM between involved parties to continue that particular line of discourse. That way we can go at each other as much as we want and not have the N28 thread get locked. 

Re: N28, 

We managed to jam a surface (Rudder, I think?) last night but it took a lot of doing, and we only managed it once or twice. I can't remember if we tested it at range (it feels to me like the further out you shoot, the higher the chance of a surface being knocked out), but we were pouring rounds straight into the fuselage of the N28 specifically trying to jam controls. 

Overall, the N28 is very, very durable and seems to be far less prone to surface loss than other aircraft - to the point where we were actually starting to wonder if it's being used as a "Test-bed" for a DM revision. Overall, from what limited time it's been in, it's certainly 'felt' more like historical accounts in terms of DM - AKA, wings being lost only happens after a particularly severe beating, and control cables being severed is the exception to the rule. 

As a 3PG pilot, I shudder at the thought of the 'drag and absorb' damage tactic. There's a certain contingent within 3PG who are all adept at outright killing pilots given a good firing window (and there's a certain pilot in US213 that will kill you outright with almost any close-range sight picture....). It certainly could work, but that particular tactic is extremely punishable by anyone who's worked on their marksmanship...! 

The N28 is definitely going to have to be used in groups like you say, though - I can imagine it faring better in scenarios involving enough planes that the turn and zoom rates start to become less prevalent and it's more a case of "shoot what's in front of you, dodge what's behind you". If you get somebody seriously latched onto your tail, you'll be very hard-pressed to get away. 

Personally, I think the speed just isn't good enough to be a major factor vs the German scouts. We ran a test yesterday where I faced off against Biddle's Albatros, reenacting a 'live flugpark' scenario (AKA - try to kill the EA, try to run if it goes south). Fair enough, Biddle's a Class-A pilot, but the N28 attempting to escape is a bit hit-or-miss (literally - you can crawl away from an Alb but if he's halfway decent at shooting out to 500m then you're in big trouble) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

I just made a quick comparison, taking pictures available on the web and just gauging the relative chord of the wings:

 

n28_6210.thumb.jpg.575722df400db1c8f6a811860fcc6588.jpg

 

In RoF, I get top to bottom wing chord ~1.25 : 1

 

WsmEakTO_hgH7fU4mGTPMXiXjGYrdiYamsk4gvaR4uKxphHc3FaTH2NGxxLRpsmpGI24kpf_HFtrjihYyUFjr9W1V3t_ULaJdAsHaIegqM7qlE9iLbU.jpg.2adf6e2db7df34bd5b46569185c0ad6c.jpg

 

Here I get about ~1.35 : 1

 

hw_nieuport_n-28_c1_01.jpg.781719b6bf3496121c57558e843b46f2.jpg

 

Same as I do on this 1918 example, also ~1.35 : 1.

 

This is no claim for accurancy but still an indication that @unreasonable has found something I think is important in fixing the crate. I can get more exact readings from the museum exhibit (and get better screenshots of the came N.28), but I don't think it would change the fact that from RoF, the N.28 inherited too small of a wing.

 

 

 

I get a ratio of 1.32 for the bottom picture measuring pixels with Gimp, but given that the angle of view is more perpendicular to the top wing, I expect the true plan ratio is also 1.3/1

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • =IRFC=Hellbender changed the title to Nieuport 28 initial impressions (+ bug reports submitted, see root post)
  • SYN_Haashashin locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...