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

April 23, 2021

1 hour ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

@unreasonable went the extra mile and measured the actual pixels of the 3D model to prove aerodynamically why our N28 misbehaves and came to the conclusion that the surface is actually 16m^2.

Just to be clear, are you asserting that due to the determined wing area of the 3D model being less than the 'official' wing area, that has compromised the turn of the FC N28?

April 23, 2021

3 hours ago, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

Squeaky wheel was always the first to be replaced.

Not you, shopping trolleys. Back to work.

April 23, 2021

1 hour ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Is there any particular reason you doubt that I read those?

Absolutely I wanted data. And you provided it, which makes this post of yours more valuable than 90% of all the other posts by everyone in this thread with the well-meant (and certainly interesting!) but not very valuable anectodes and all the unnecessary jabs from Entente to Central players and vice versa....

I didn't mean to be rude, but I also dislike the idea of dismissing the comments of those pilots outright. They support all the data.

The going idea seems to be that "Entente-minded" players want some kind of amazing machine that can dominate everything like a Camel / SPAD hybrid. We already have that: it's a Sopwith Dolphin and it's not very remarkable. Whereas in reality the Nieuport 28 was a Nieuport. To be correct: it was a Nieuport 27 / SPAD XIII hybrid. It should fly like something in between those two: a particularly fast but less nimble Nieuport, or a slow but more nimble SPAD. When the quotes all say it was maneuverable, we better believe that it was. The reason it wasn't accepted for service by the French is because it wasn't a substantial improvement over the SPAD XIII and the French were done with maneuverable planes in general. The same happened with the Hanriot HD.1. They were right.

Quote

On another note, I just flew the N28 for the first time (was away from my gaming rig for a couple of days...) and I think it flies OK... its sustained turn is indeed a bit low, but on the other hand I tried a 360 degree instantaneous turn which I think I did in around 8 seconds from the moment I started my roll (counted out the seconds rather than measuring with a stopwatch so I may be a bit off). IMO that's pretty decent. At least it didn't feel very sluggish at all until I lost my energy.

It's a pleasant and stable machine to fly, and unless you're facing a human opponent you might get the false idea that she turns well or retains her energy when you use her elevator in any way. She does neither. She's also simply not fast enough to be flown as a purely BnZ plane like the SPAD. The SPAD is a very stable machine, and its stability helps it to be a good gun platform.

If you're flying straight and level full throttle and swiftly pull back all the way on the stick, you should enter a sharp stall as a Nieuport 17 would — but you don't because your elevator lacks authority. The reason why it lacks authority is because the CG is too far forward. This adds a tremendous amount of drag onto the plane because of the amount of downforce required from the tailplane. For a nimble fighter, this absolutely sucks and renders it completely ineffective in a fight.

If they moved the CG back a bit people will be surprised at how nimble and responsive she would be. I'm unsure about the sustained turn performance and she could also enter a stall VERY quickly (a nasty one at that), but she wouldn't fly like a dog — far from it.

Now the REASON why the CG is too far forward is a mystery to me, but it's likely because the engine weighs too much in their calculations.

Edited April 23, 2021 by =IRFC=Hbender

April 23, 2021

I like the flight model.

I wish we had a one gun option. I don't think N28 had an option too fire multible guns seperate.

But, pretty sure N28 was never fitted with 11mm Balloon Guns.

N28 does not show up as a kill in "Quick Mission," AAR.

I like the N28. As long as you don't power dive. You are ok!

The way too manage the ignition setting and the blip switch are pretty good.

The Navy Aviation Museam in Pensocola, Florida has one too.

So I have seen two original N28!

April 24, 2021

2 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

Just to be clear, are you asserting that due to the determined wing area of the 3D model being less than the 'official' wing area, that has compromised the turn of the FC N28?

No, I'm wrong, this is not how these planes work in the sim. But I think I figured it out, at least I think.

I think most of these older planes from the beginning of RoF are all the same FM with slight adjustments. She has the data inputted and the 3D model is just that: a 3D model. It just so happens to look exactly right when you count the pixels.

I have a hypothesis on what's causing our strange N28: her wing loading is indeed (700kg / 20m^2) 35kg/m^2 as noted in the specs. It's not too high, it's too LOW.

Let me explain.

This thing can turn like CRAZY, but you never get to see it because she's too stable. If you make her invincible and go into a full power dive then pull up, you can turn almost as tight as a Pfalz while pulling >10g. She should stall, but she doesn't. Try the same with a Camel, Dolphin or Bristol and you will enter an accelerated stall. Believe me you do not want this plane in the sim: it would be like an old Pfalzcopter that turns tighter than the Camel and climbs better than the SPAD.

The reason why you can't turn with her at normal speeds is because the elevator does virtually nothing and keeps her in check. It mostly just bleeds energy.

So two things need to happen: her wing loading needs to INCREASE (yeah I know, crazy) to (700kg / 16m^2) 43.75kg/m^2 so she can actually stall cleanly. And her CG needs to move aft, so she becomes more unstable.

I may be way off, but this appears like a logical explanation of really strange behaviour and what went wrong when they developed this plane.

I need to look into this further, but bedtime now.

April 24, 2021

I wonder if we can test the actual FM wing area and/or weight by performing power off glide tests of N.28 vs some other plane where we are more confident about the weight and wing area?

The airfoil differences and wing shape will certainly have some effect on achievable Cl in a glide, but not much (?) compared to a potential 20/16 difference in wing area.

We can measure position accurately in FC, (either Tacview or the ME) so with some practice to get the optimum glide, we can resolve the glide slope into lift and drag.

Have to think about this...

April 24, 2021

Sounds reasonable ....

Look, as an Entente-minded player I want some kind of amazing machine that can dominate everything. I'm not finding that in the N28. I can't even out-turn a Dva. I'm sorry, but I can't see the US squads swapping their Spads for it. All I can see are the Central guys licking their lips every time they see a 28 on the horizon.

April 24, 2021

13 hours ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and doubt that you've thoroughly read this and this thread, nor looked at the in-game data or even thoroughly read through @Holtzauge's paper for that matter.

So allow me to reiterate:

SPAD XIII:

820kg
20.2m^2
= 40.59kg/m^2

Nieuport 28

698kg
20m^2
= 34.9kg/m^2

So normally the buck would stop here and we'd say: Nieuport 28 has lower wing loading hence better sustained turn and behaviour in FC is wrong.

But @unreasonable went the extra mile and measured the actual pixels of the 3D model to prove aerodynamically why our N28 misbehaves and came to the conclusion that the surface is actually 16m^2.

So again:

Nieuport 28 (with corrected measurements from 3D model)

698kg
16m^2
= 43.625kg/m^2

Now that's looking way more like the FC N28! So here it is: Nieuport 28 has higher wing loading hence worse sustained turn and FC is right.

But then we take a cursory look at the Albatros D.Va.

Albatros D.Va

915kg
21.2m^2
= 43.16kg/m^2

That is juuuuust about better than the Nieuport 28, but it's also worse than the SPAD. In FC, the Albatros clearly outturns the SPAD, it's almost on the level of the Camel, even.

So now we must look at airfoils.

(not to scale, the Albatros is much bigger than it looks here and the Göttingen 298 is smaller)

Thicker, in general, is more efficient at sustained turning (high CLmax).

Eiffel 14 = SPAD airfoil

RAF 14 (/ 15) = Sopwith Camel / S.E.5a airfoil

Albatros = ...Albatros airfoil

Göttingen 298 = Fokker Dr.I airfoil

...as for the Nieuport 28: it has a Nieuport 28 airfoil.

It's close to a RAF 14, but not quite. In fact it's something in between.

Thank you @94th_Vernon and @SYN_Vander.

If we look behind the scenes for a moment, we can see that the N28's airfoil in the 3D model is indeed almost exactly between the two:

SPAD (very thin airfoil):

Nieuport 28 (in between airfoil):

Camel (thin airfoil):

In the sim, the N28's wing behaves almost exactly like a SPAD (they were the first Entente planes developed by NeoQB back in 2009), especially in a dive, as she can take 8.5g in a pullout (tested this yesterday). The Camel, by comparison, is limited to something like 6.5-7g, same as the S.E.5a or Dolphin. So really the Nieuport's wing is already too tough, but fair enough, Nieuport was primarily building the Nieuport 28 for speed and sought compromises. The article Destined to Fail: The Nieuport 28 Wing (Theodore M. Hamady) goes into detail how the linen would balloon due to the pressure building up around the leading edges.

By way of comparison, here's the Albatros medium thick airfoil:

So finally we come to the end of the story: the Albatros turns so well because it has these medium thick wings in spite of having high wing loading, the SPAD has the best wing loading but very thin wings, and the Nieuport 28 has roughly the same wing loading as the Albatros, but (almost) equally thin wings as the SPAD so it is the worst of the three. Q.E.D.

CORRECT! And I agree that is what's happening right now in RoF / FC more than likely.

However... (sorry, you wanted data, you're going to get data — and I have to tread lightly because I'm entering "Central screeching" territory)

Fokker D.VII

909kg
20.4m^2
= 44.56kg/m^2

Again the worst one of the lot so far. But check out this T H I C C B O I I

In spite of its massively thick wing, the Fokker D.VII has a worse sustained turn than the Albatros D.Va (and Pfalz, which isn't even an efficient sesquiplane).

Mmmmh... Are the Albatros/Pfalz wings optimistic in their sustained turn...

[ Central screeching intensifies ]

...or is there yet something else at play?

And here I have no more answer for you, because I believe that aspect ratio is involved and I trust in @Holtzauge's upcoming simulations.

Otherwise a plane like the Siemens-Schuckert D.IV with a massive wing loading of 48.7kg/m^2 and a demonstrated rate of turn of 10s, rivalling the Sopwith Camel, could never achieve such a feat. And before you ask for its wing thickness (Göttingen 180):

Medium thick, more or less similar to the Albatros.

In conclusion (holy waffles batman, finally)

Either the 3D model (16m^2) or the data (20m^2) on the N28 is wrong. It's one or the other. I tend to think the 3D model is right and it may even ignore the 20m^2 figure outright or the N28 would simply have a better sustained turn, no questions asked. The 20m^2 is the figure from Frank Tallman's Flying the Old Planes, which could be a second series Nieuport 28A with slightly redesigned wings. Or it could just be wrong.

Where the hell does all this weight come from? The Camel weighs 431kg empty, the Nieuport 28 weighs 436kg empty. Makes sense: the Camel has more wing area, the N28 is longer and has a bigger engine. They both weigh 700kg full (give or take 2kg). But the N28 takes less fuel and has only half the ammo.

And sure Americans are supposed to be fat, but come on, there's at least 50-60kg unaccounted for.
Could it be the balloon guns? Or the extra 4m^2 of the Nieuport 28A?

The airfoil remains a mystery. Let's consider the fact that the sim engine thinks it is a true SPAD wing, but it really wasn't. Does it really matter? In the long run, no. This isn't a turnfighter, nor was it built to be one. That doesn't mean it couldn't turn at all.

Finally, all of this has been to see what it's sustained turn could potentially be like. Personally I think it was unremarkable, though almost certainly better than a SPAD XIII — unless the American aviators were lying. Why would they? After all they were very candid about the fact that this plane gave them the runs due to castor oil splatter and killed some of them through fabric shedding and engine fires.

Even with a relatively high wing loading, that still doesn't explain the fact why it is so sluggish and unresponsive to controls, as if its elevator were ineffective. A light and unstable plane with a high wing loading is capable of sharp instantaneous turns which could certainly make them feel more maneuverable than a SPAD. In conclusion: its center of gravity is likely misaligned, and that could be due to any number of reasons.

This is a very informative post, but I’m missing an important factor and that is the difference in aspect ratio of the wings, see Holtzhauge’s paper. Short, stubby wings as on the Fokker dr1 produce large amounts of induced drag, which is bad for sustained turn rate. This is why the Spitfire has these nice elliptical wings, it is designed for minimum induced drag ( stolen from the Heinkel he70 btw).

The Nieuport 28 actually has relatively high aspect ratio wings ( and rounded).

Edited April 24, 2021 by SYN_Vander

April 24, 2021

An additional problem is that we do not know the actual weight when we take off, (The GUI and ME desperately need an all up weight calculator built in), and the weight information on the N.28 specifications tab is.... odd.

For instance, suppose you chose the balloon gun mod: the text says 400 11mm rounds, the GUI box shows 300.

The text box states "total additional weight of weapons modification = 58kg" : but additional to what? I assumed that the empty weight included guns but no ammunition.

This 58 is supposed to be Guns 26kg, ammo 32. But this looks like the total weight for guns and ammunition. The incremental weight gain should be ~ zero.

I hope this is just another text error and the game is not actually adding 58kg when you choose the balloon guns...

April 24, 2021

Here is a simulation of the relative sustained turn capability of the Nieuport 28C1 and Albatros D.Va done in the same way and to the same level of accuracy as the Fokker Dr.1 and Sopwith Camel in this paper.

I have spent years refining the code behind this and I am pretty confident that it’s accurate enough. For anyone interested about the details of the modeling and wanting to form your own opinion you can read more about the model verification in the paper.

The reason I’m not posting the axis numbers (turn rate deg/s y-axis, true air speed x-axis) on the chart is twofold: One reason is I’m working on a book project and I have to save something for that as well. The second is that this could lead to unnecessary discussions about absolute numbers and that is not the important thing I think: In this case the important issue is to determine if the Nieuport 28C1 is underperforming in turns compared to the other planes in the sim as it's now rendered.

Note that I’m assuming a weight of 698 Kg and a 16.1 sqrm wing area for the Nieuport which in the first place I think is historically correct but if not, errs on the conservative side meaning that the Nieuport’s stationary turn rate can only get better if a lower weight or bigger wing area is assumed.

Finally, this is NOT a snipe at the FC FM modeling: I think this is great simulation and I recommend all who are sitting on the fence thinking about whether or not to buy FC1 and FC2 to do so because the only way to keep the WW1 part of this simulator going is to fund it.

However, that being said there is always room for improvements and I think it would be great if the developers found time to fix this!

Edited April 24, 2021 by Holtzauge

April 24, 2021

1 minute ago, unreasonable said:

An additional problem is that we do not know the actual weight when we take off, (The GUI and ME desperately need an all up weight calculator built in), and the weight information on the N.28 specifications tab is.... odd.

For instance, suppose you chose the balloon gun mod: the text says 400 11mm rounds, the GUI box shows 300.

The text box states "total additional weight of weapons modification = 58kg" : but additional to what? I assumed that the empty weight included guns but no ammunition.

This 58 is supposed to be Guns 26kg, ammo 32. But this looks like the total weight for guns and ammunition. The incremental weight gain should be ~ zero.

I hope this is just another text error and the game is not actually adding 58kg when you choose the balloon guns...

That is correct. This is a pretty light machine, so if you go from empty (436kg) and you add

120l fuel = 93kg
25l castor oil = 24kg
Twin Vickers + 500 rounds of ammo = 25kg + 20kg = 45kg (I'm assuming the Vickers themselves are not included in the empty weight)
Pilot and gear = ~80kg

= 678kg

The balloon guns should just add a few kg to the Vickers, but not much (13kg it would appear). There's still room to add an additional 500 rounds of ammo (20kg) to get to gross weight, that is provided there was actual room for additional ammo.

April 24, 2021

2 hours ago, SYN_Vander said:

This is a very informative post, but I’m missing an important factor and that is the difference in aspect ratio of the wings, see Holtzhauge’s paper. Short, stubby wings as on the Fokker dr1 produce large amounts of induced drag, which is bad for sustained turn rate. This is why the Spitfire has these nice elliptical wings, it is designed for minimum induced drag ( stolen from the Heinkel he70 btw).

The Nieuport 28 actually has relatively high aspect ratio wings ( and rounded).

Agreed, the span loading is very important and is the effect you can see in the figure I posted above: At low speeds the 28C1 & D.Va are about equal but then as the speed goes up the D.Va hits the drag wall due to higher span loading and a poor power loading where as the 28C1 can still "pull" itself around in the turn allowing it to reach a higher turn rate at a higher speed. The same effect can be seen for the high wing loading Siemens Schukert D.IV: It has a high turn rate but achieves that at higher speeds, just like the 28C1. However, a D.IV or 28C1 that slows down and tries to turn with a Tripe or Dr.1 is doomed!

April 24, 2021

Thank you Holtzauge!

If that is indeed the case she has more or less the same sustained turn behaviour as the Sopwith Dolphin.

I think in the RoF / FC FM the reason for her lack of maneuverability (too stable) is a CG too far forward combined with incorrect wing surface (20m^2 instead of 16m^2). By comparison: the Breguet 14 is the opposite: CG too far aft which is giving her nose up tendency and unstable behaviour rather than being a docile and stable recon.

Anyway, it's time to start compiling what we have, submit a bug report to the devs and just hope for the best.

April 24, 2021

I suspect many of us have a mentality of "it's a rotary so we must fly slowly in tiny circles, especially when fighting an in-line". Presumably a 200HP Albatros would close that high speed gap a fair bit, but even then the best option, if turning vs an Albatros, could be to keep the speed up. Which I always found to be the case with the RoF N.28

We really need someone who can test fly FC to a high enough standard to compare, which obviously rules me out as I only play SP.

Thanks for volunteering to put in the report to the developers, @=IRFC=Hbender

April 24, 2021

1 minute ago, unreasonable said:

I suspect many of us have a mentality of "it's a rotary so we must fly slowly in tiny circles, especially when fighting an in-line". Presumably a 200HP Albatros would close that high speed gap a fair bit, but even then the best option, if turning vs an Albatros, could be to keep the speed up. Which I always found to be the case with the RoF N.28

We really need someone who can test fly FC to a high enough standard to compare, which obviously rules me out as I only play SP.

Thanks for volunteering to put in the report to the developers, @=IRFC=Hbender

It's mostly an issue of stability. In-lines tend to be more stable than rotaries, and this rotary flies exactly like an in-line. This simply doesn't add up when we read the quotes mentioning maneuverability.

As for the 200hp Albatros: that would be a plain better machine than even a revised Nieuport 28, except in climb.

April 24, 2021

Sometimes the "realism" obsession over nuts and bolts amazes me..

I mean, people can so obsess over an individual machines performance in pure academic circumstances like "sustained turnrates" (which, correct me if I´m wrong, is not one thing, but a parameter band depending of the airframe at parameters speed and bank angle) but in the end you have a gameplay where single ground attackers smooch at 2feet over the mud for flighttime and AAA efficency and also to remain undetected while drunk bantering groups on discord/teamspeak orbit at astronomical game altitudes of 2-3k meters.. which kind of has relatively little "realism" in terms to a WW1 combat situation, exhausted and cold up high.. or shot at by hundreds of men down low.

I mean, historcally the tactical situations and developing effective teamwork and tactics without much communication where about as important or sometimes even more important as aircraft technology, but I guess everyone has her or his way of having fun. And in the end, that is what matters more... having fun in a game, I´d guess. Gotta crash some trains now.

Edited April 24, 2021 by Monostripezebra

April 24, 2021

13 minutes ago, Monostripezebra said:

but in the end you have a gameplay where single ground attackers smooch at 2feet over the mud for flighttime and AAA efficency and also to remain undetected while drunk bantering groups on discord/teamspeak orbit at astronomical game altitudes of 2-3k meters.. which kind of has relatively little "realism" in terms to a WW1 combat situation, exhausted and cold up high.. or shot at by hundreds of men down low.

Yeah, agree with you on the flying low bit. Unfortunately, setting up a map where you'd have "Realistic" amounts of gunfire coming up at you from trenches would be (I imagine) a huge strain on a server and on players' rigs, because you'd have to set up a ridiculous amount of AA MG nests all up and down the entire front to simulate that.

TS / Discord aside, the patrolling at altitude is less far-fetched. By 1918, 2-3k was hardly 'astronomical' - IIRC, the real-life 3rd Pursuit Group would usually rotate their squadrons between low, mid and high patrols, with the high patrols being at around 5K, and flights patrolling between 3k - 5k wasn't uncommon. IIRC, Rumplers could (and if they could help it, would) fly closer to 7,000m from 1917 onwards.

Edited April 24, 2021 by US93_Larner

April 24, 2021

15 minutes ago, Monostripezebra said:

while drunk bantering groups on discord/teamspeak orbit at astronomical game altitudes of 2-3k meters..

Hey I resemble that remark!

Whats funny is there are plenty of stories of dudes still hammered from partying the night before going up in flight.

So quit stepping on my immersion man.

(Psst 2-3km is not astronomical and they regularly flew patrols at this altitude lol)

April 24, 2021

@MonostripezebraThat is all true enough: I also had fun making some videos with RoF planes, but have not yet done anything with FC.

Remember though, that solving engineering or historical puzzles is also fun for some people, and sims often throw up puzzles where you wonder why something works as it does. Was it because that is how it works in reality, a simple data error, an artifact from correct but limited inputs? So as much an intellectual game as a search for realism for it's own sake, at least in my case.

April 24, 2021

2 hours ago, US213_Talbot said:

(Psst 2-3km is not astronomical and they regularly flew patrols at this altitude lol)

maybe I should have added an irony mark? Considering that the patrol altitude was actually higher.. or in some cases it was as high as you could get, leading to electrically heated flight wear and the use of oxigen etc.. as the quest was to escape interference of ones planed things by going upward rather then downward, which, too was done as infantry support by Schlachtfliegers and mud camels, but that was really really dangerous at those speeds.

2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

Remember though, that solving engineering or historical puzzles is also fun for some people, and sims often throw up puzzles where you wonder why something works as it does. Was it because that is how it works in reality, a simple data error, an artifact from correct but limited inputs? So as much an intellectual game as a search for realism for it's own sake, at least in my case.

Hey I am guilty of that too.. but the saltyness which some selectively cry "source" to discredit stuff they don´t like makes me think that ego gets in the way of a really healthy debate, I mean you can tell people where you would find something you don´t currently have at hand and they rather be rude to you then look it up.. but then corrobate errors like

without any source in "academic" papers.

Note: Airframe for type acceptance trials in Adlershof was Versuchsflugzeug V5 send on 07. August 1917 with struts, the wing accidents where in October.. etc.pp. Strutless was the airframe later called V4 build for Austria-Hungarian trials.

Edited April 24, 2021 by Monostripezebra

April 24, 2021

On 4/23/2021 at 6:46 AM, NO.20_W_M_Thomson said:

Not sure if this has been brought up but did you know the N28 is invisible? Not the pilot.

If you mean the 'sometimes invisible at a distance when zoomed-in but not when zoomed-out' issue, I can confirm just having experienced the same. That was in multiplayer against an N28 with the default skin.

April 24, 2021

Just now, Monostripezebra said:

Hey I am guilty of that too.. but the saltyness which some selectively cry "source" to discredit stuff they don´t like makes me think that ego gets in the way of a really healthy debate, I mean you can tell people where you would find something you don´t currently have at hand and they rather be rude to you then look it up.. but then corrobate errors like <snip>

This is a game for people who like to (pretend to) swoop down behind their unsuspecting prey, machine gun them in the back, then dive away while their victims die, in flames, screaming.

Why do you expect them to behave any differently in the forum?

April 24, 2021

FIRST ENCOUNTER

Took a while for the new game to download on a Friday evening but okay.

Flew a QM against the N28 in a D7F; approached head-on at 1500 meters altitude. I was rocking back and forth as we closed; he fired one burst from 210 meters that smoked my motor and killed me outright.

Okay, so far I know they can shoot.

April 24, 2021

1 hour ago, Monostripezebra said:

Hey I am guilty of that too.. but the saltyness which some selectively cry "source" to discredit stuff they don´t like makes me think that ego gets in the way of a really healthy debate, I mean you can tell people where you would find something you don´t currently have at hand and they rather be rude to you then look it up.. but then corrobate errors like

without any source in "academic" papers.

Note: Airframe for type acceptance trials in Adlershof was Versuchsflugzeug V5 send on 07. August 1917 with struts, the wing accidents where in October.. etc.pp. Strutless was the airframe later called V4 build for Austria-Hungarian trials.

April 24, 2021

5 hours ago, Monostripezebra said:

Sometimes the "realism" obsession over nuts and bolts amazes me..

I mean, people can so obsess over an individual machines performance in pure academic circumstances like "sustained turnrates" (which, correct me if I´m wrong, is not one thing, but a parameter band depending of the airframe at parameters speed and bank angle) but in the end you have a gameplay where single ground attackers smooch at 2feet over the mud for flighttime and AAA efficency and also to remain undetected while drunk bantering groups on discord/teamspeak orbit at astronomical game altitudes of 2-3k meters.. which kind of has relatively little "realism" in terms to a WW1 combat situation, exhausted and cold up high.. or shot at by hundreds of men down low.

I mean, historcally the tactical situations and developing effective teamwork and tactics without much communication where about as important or sometimes even more important as aircraft technology, but I guess everyone has her or his way of having fun. And in the end, that is what matters more... having fun in a game, I´d guess. Gotta crash some trains now.

Zebra, don’t question our alcohol-fueled obsession with playing at pretend pilots during one of humanity’s most brutal conflicts. That’s like Star Wars questioning the Jedi mythology in the sequels. Look how well that worked out for them.

Speaking of Star Wars: the performance of the A-Wing is whatever Lucasfilm says it is, no matter how hotly debated. Here at least we have some amount of data that isn’t opinion.

Edited April 24, 2021 by =IRFC=Hbender

April 24, 2021

9 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

Look, as an Entente-minded player I want some kind of amazing machine that can dominate everything.

Recognition is first step to the cure.

April 24, 2021

2 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

If you mean the 'sometimes invisible at a distance when zoomed-in but not when zoomed-out' issue, I can confirm just having experienced the same. That was in multiplayer against an N28 with the default skin.

Probably the same as the Fokker D.VII bug, I'll see if I can reproduce it and post yet another bug report.

April 24, 2021

7 hours ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

Zebra, don’t question our alcohol-fueled obsession with playing at pretend pilots during one of humanity’s most brutal conflicts. That’s like Star Wars questioning the Jedi mythology in the sequels. Look how well that worked out for them.

Speaking of Star Wars: the performance of the A-Wing is whatever Lucasfilm says it is, no matter how hotly debated. Here at least we have some amount of data that isn’t opinion.

I don´t, I am fine with WW1 wannabe jedis with realism alcohol levels playing the game down in the mud.. I´ll happily join em, it is more the people who are less into playing the game and more into playing "forum expert simulator" that puzzle me.. its almost like in each and every flightsim there is a game of how much "a simulator has to be real not balanced" selective reality snipets one can make count in blatant ignorance of other aspects in the most absurd ways to try and peer-pressure software developers into changing something with disregard to the whole products balance and scope, it´s been that way ever since I visited my first Red Barron 3D forum and never seems to die out. Like is there a secret championship? What kind of scoring system do they even use for that?

That beeing said, the A-wing is not nearly maneuverable enough and Lucasfilm was lying about it later in the first place. As all canon and lore was developed after the real first 3 movies, we have to assume that those movies contain the most realist A-wing depiction and by measuring its movement on the screen, I come to the following databased conclusions.... that clearly show that I am right and you are not. Capiché?

Edited April 24, 2021 by Monostripezebra

April 24, 2021

1 hour ago, Monostripezebra said:

I don´t, I am fine with WW1 wannabe jedis with realism alcohol levels playing the game.. I´ll happily join em, it is more the people who are less into playing the game and more into playing "forum expert simulator" that puzzle me.. its almost like in each and every flightsim there is a game of how much "a simulator has to be real not balanced" selective reality snipets one can make count in blatant ignorance of other aspects in the most absurd ways to try and peer-pressure software developers into changing something with disregard to the whole products balance and scope, it´s been that way ever since I visited my first Red Barron 3D forum and never seems to die out.

FM bitching is as old as flightsims and space sims. As long as people complain, it means they care. I'd say that today, the problems with the DM far outweigh any FM issues we might raise. If I have to choose between a better DM for the existing planes or the possibility of ever seeing the Hanriot appear in FC, my choice is easily made. I'll happily keep flying a Dolphin forever. Seeing people I fly with or against quit out of frustration just sucks.

The sim's feeling of flight is great, the plane models are beautiful and detailed, VR is literally the most realistic thing I've ever seen outside of reality (sadly it gives me motion sickness) — the multiplayer component can be great, though it depends on many factors often outside our control. The FMs, for the most part, are good or great. All have their own quirks and features which gives the sim its unique flavour. A small minority of them are broken.

The devs are not our peers, they make the product that is sold to us and they do this to feed their families. For us this is a hobby, for them this is work. The relation between us — the hardcore niche — and them should be one of respect and mutual understanding. Usually you've gotta be a hopeless fanboy, sometimes you've gotta be a Karen and ask to speak with the manager.

In conclusion: the Nieuport 28 can be safely discarded and ignored. In fact I'm counting on it. Still, a gesture of goodwill from the devs would be... very welcome. Especially for those that are still on the fence about making the transition from RoF to FC. Sometimes you've gotta do it for the fans.

Don't put that on the FC2 store page, though.

1 hour ago, Monostripezebra said:

That beeing said, the A-wing is not nearly maneuverable enough and Lucasfilm was lying about it later in the first place. As all canon and lore was developed after the real first 3 movies, we have to assume that those movies contain the most realist A-wing depiction and by measuring its movement on the screen, I come to the following databased conclusions.... that clearly show that I am right and you are not. Capiché?

Ah, a man of culture, I see. You should have led with that.

Edited April 24, 2021 by =IRFC=Hbender

April 25, 2021

The most realistic depiction of anything Star Wars related was in Tie Fighter, period. This said, Lawrence Holland really screwed up the concept A-wing (and Interceptor) by making it both faster and more maneuvrable than X-wing (or baseline Tie). Having slow, maneuvrable superiority fighter plus faster but less maneuvrable interceptor wold lead to much more interesting scenarios than having baseline variant and better at everything variant.

Edited April 25, 2021 by J2_Trupobaw

April 25, 2021

2 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

The most realistic depiction of anything Star Wars related was in Tie Fighter, period. This said, Lawrence Holland really screwed up the concept A-wing (and Interceptor) by making it both faster and more maneuvrable than X-wing (or baseline Tie). Having slow, maneuvrable superiority fighter plus faster but less maneuvrable interceptor wold lead to much more interesting scenarios.

So that's why you hate the N28 so much! It can't be fast and maneuverable at the same time. (but it's very fragile)

April 25, 2021

5 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

The most realistic depiction of anything Star Wars related was in Tie Fighter, period. This said, Lawrence Holland really screwed up the concept A-wing (and Interceptor) by making it both faster and more maneuvrable than X-wing (or baseline Tie). Having slow, maneuvrable superiority fighter plus faster but less maneuvrable interceptor wold lead to much more interesting scenarios than having baseline variant and better at everything variant.

Are you really discussing spacecraft that behave like aircraft despite flying in a vacuum?

April 25, 2021

Quote

Are you really discussing spacecraft that behave like aircraft despite flying in a vacuum?

Yep.

Quote

So that's why you hate the N28 so much! It can't be fast and maneuverable at the same time.

Since when I hate N.28? It's great plane for $#17 and gigs (and insulting people when i get them, according to Larner), it gets my inner Zebra out of me. Nothing beats mowing a trenchline at 220 km/h while seeing obstacles through tiny forward hatch. Ekhm. Not that is a pod racing!

The fact that the pilot list claims I'm in the tank when I take Nieuport (it must be the hatch!. Or durability) is just a bounus.

And no, I just think that A-wing should be an Star Wars option for Spad drivers (run away from what you can't defeat, rahter than run down everything then proceed to kill it with ease. We need to leave something for Tie ~~Dreidecker~~ Defender ? ).

Edited April 25, 2021 by J2_Trupobaw

April 25, 2021

I’m sorry I should have specified: the real Nieuport 28, not the mini-SPADtank.

April 25, 2021

The real Nieuport 28 was an episode (even from USAS perspective), happening away of major operations. It wasn't an innovative design, either. It was a transitional plane. I understand that it's users being Americans is supposed to give it more gravitas than, say, Hanriot or D.H.5 or Halberstadt D.II or Pfalz D.XII or Roland D.VI or T-wing, but when we look at big picture it falls into same "curiosity" strata. I'd like to have it done right because why not, but out of all screwed up planes we're having or soon going to have in game, it's the one that bothers me least. If anything, given the planes lack of impact, I see the joke in the 777 not even bothering to get it right (same as with Pfalz D.XII).

Edited April 25, 2021 by J2_Trupobaw

April 25, 2021

14 hours ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

As for the 200hp Albatros: that would be a plain better machine than even a revised Nieuport 28, except in climb.

That can't be far removed from what we have already in the RoF 'Gavatros'. I'm convinced that engine variants will be the undoing of FC, so don't be too surprised when the recriminations start.

April 25, 2021

1 hour ago, Cynic_Al said:

That can't be far removed from what we have already in the RoF 'Gavatros'. I'm convinced that engine variants will be the undoing of FC, so don't be too surprised when the recriminations start.

It will mean no more BMW IIIa engines ruling at every occasion. The SPAD XIII and S.E.5a will be true speed kings, though with a smaller margin against the vast majority of planes and the Camel will have a tougher time in general, but no longer be outclassed completely by one plane. The marginal Dolphin will be further marginalised (same for a hypothetical Hanriot), which is no big deal. The N28 in its current state would be completely useless. Likely few if anyone will fly the D.VIII either, which is not a major change from RoF.

It’s all academic unless there’s somewhat of a DM review. The “one prophang hit = all control cables gone” tomfooleries have to end or they will be the end.

April 25, 2021

8 hours ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

The FMs, for the most part, are good or great. All have their own quirks and features which gives the sim its unique flavour. A small minority of them are broken.

You mean the small minority they call the Entente?

7 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Lawrence Holland really screwed up the concept A-wing (and Interceptor) by making it both faster and more maneuvrable than X-wing (or baseline Tie).

Tell him he's dreamin'! This man is a fantasist. I can't believe it ....

15 hours ago, J2_Bidu said:

Recognition is first step to the cure.

Yes I've recognised Central crates are superior but it's not helping. Should I just swap sides?

April 25, 2021

1 hour ago, ST_Catchov said:

You mean the small minority they call the Entente?

Yes I've recognised Central crates are superior but it's not helping. Should I just swap sides?

Nah, Entente will always be superior if you wanna fly fast, have tons of excess energy, hit hard and never get hit yourself. The SPAD is tough and has the BRRT-BRRTs and the S.E.5a has the adjustable stabilizer to get you out of trouble. And the Camel is the Camel (just avoid Dr.Is).

If you want a jack-of-all-trades you're shit-out-of-luck. The Dolphin is nice and all but one mistake and you're uncontrollable and/or dewinged. But again I'm looking at those beautiful sleek lines of the Nieuport 28, that top speed just below the Dolphin, that climb just above the Camel... that turn similar to the Albatros D.Va 180hp? ?

For the record: the Hanriot (?) is a Nieuport 17 / Camel hybrid with very gentle stall characteristics, a decent climb and mostly harmless with its tiny single non-muzzle boosted machinegun. It's really nice against a D.VII if you're a good shot, dead against a Dr.I in a dogfight (which it never fought in real life). But it's agile, stupidly cute to look at and not defenseless, as it's easier to outmaneuver than to outrun/outroll bullets.

Edited April 25, 2021 by =IRFC=Hbender

April 25, 2021

26 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

Nah, Entente will always be superior if you wanna fly fast, have tons of excess energy, hit hard and never get hit yourself.

And never, ever under any circumstance, stray from your side of the lines.

29 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

the Hanriot

Build it and they will come. Swarms of them from the east. Licking their lips.

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

Recommended Posts

Cynic_Al

ST_Catchov

BMA_Hellbender

CrazyhorseB34

BMA_Hellbender

unreasonable

ST_Catchov

SYN_Vander

unreasonable

Holtzauge

BMA_Hellbender

Holtzauge

BMA_Hellbender

unreasonable

BMA_Hellbender

Monostripezebra

No.23_Triggers

No.23_Gaylion

unreasonable

Monostripezebra

Cynic_Al

unreasonable

Todt_Von_Oben

Holtzauge

BMA_Hellbender

J2_Bidu

BMA_Hellbender

Monostripezebra

BMA_Hellbender

J2_Trupobaw

BMA_Hellbender

Cynic_Al

J2_Trupobaw

BMA_Hellbender

J2_Trupobaw

Cynic_Al

BMA_Hellbender

ST_Catchov

BMA_Hellbender

ST_Catchov

Browse All

Activity