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

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

I don't know what to say about the N.28 in terms of "easy" fixes. It just feels so sluggish to me and you have to force the stick to make it do very much. I love the way the engine is set up with its multi-setting, but it's such a doggy plane in combat.

 

The SE5a is a sore point because it could be helped using the checklist upgrades system we have. It would be nice to be able to select the Hispano Suiza engine and have the plane reflect that properly as an option, and perhaps a change of prop to something more in the "all around" line. A bonus would be a "tuned" engine for improved compression as some of the more expert pilots and crews did, but that would be optional if you could use the engine mod and prop mod to make the SE5a more viable.

 

The Spad VII 180hp is kind of the litmus test, at least for me. It is underarmed, but should be sturdy and quite a powerful performer. The ROF version was very lively and an excellent aircraft to fly. If it's a doggy plane too, we may be in for a rough go.

Edited April 28, 2021 by NO.20_Krispy_Duck

[Cynic_Al]

5 hours ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

Two bug reports are up:
 

 

 

 

Those are disputed parameter values.  A bug is a programming error giving rise to a malfunction.

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 hour ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Bringing N.28 energy retention to the UFO standards of Albatros is shooting yourself in the other foot. It's textbook example of making a plane worse for game balance. We saw such quick fixes in 2014 and I'd rather not see them again.  Both planes need more redesign than dev team is willing to dish out, and that's it. ATM they are relics of the earliest stage of development. 

So what you’re basically saying is to bring the Albatros D.Va (and D.III and to a lesser degree D.II), Pfalz D.IIIa, Halberstadt and other Albatros-like planes (Roland C.IIa etc) in line with the N28 down from “UFO”? Because that immediately settles the D.VII, S.E.5a and even the Airco DH.2’s relative turn performance questions.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Cynic_Al said:

Those are disputed parameter values.  A bug is a programming error giving rise to a malfunction.

Fine, it’s a technical issue, still goes in the same forum section.

[J2_Trupobaw]

9 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

So what you’re basically saying is to bring the Albatros D.Va (and D.III and to a lesser degree D.II), Pfalz D.IIIa, Halberstadt and other Albatros-like planes (Roland C.IIa etc) in line with the N28 down from “UFO”? 

More like in line with Dolphin and S.E.5a. Neither N.28 nor D.Va should be used as standard of anything, except maybe weirdness.

[No.23_Gaylion]

1 hour ago, J2_Von-Graff said:

It would be interesting to see the dynamic of 3 or 4 N-28s working together as this is how they were flown...

 

The other day I witnessed a lone DR1 smite three N28's that attacked it from above. The last one tried to dive away and it was chased down by the DR1 and crashing very hard into the mud. The whole thing from start to end was maybe a minute. 

 

So that was cool.

[J2_Trupobaw]

1 hour ago, CfC=76SQN-FatherTed said:

Yeah I 've talked about this is in the past when we compare RoF/FC planes to what was written about them.  The other factor we forget about is fear.  In game,  the benefit of being able to extend is probably less important to most than it would have been IRL.  Thus, the SE is often lazily referred to as the "Ace maker" or "Spitfire of WW1", so people expect the game-version to be uber, whereas probably it was mostly liked by its pilots because they could use it to run away.

Fear and literal acclimatisation. The new pilots had not only to build their SA, but adapt to low oxygen conditions (they eventually did, same as people living in highlands, but few hours a day it took them longer). For the first two weeks they were expected to not try to kill anyone, but to concentrate on surviving, so plane that enabled rookies to survive was sure to eventually produce aces.

[J2_Von-Graff]

Interesting. Were they AI N-28's or peopled?

 

G>

[J2_Trupobaw]

34 minutes ago, US213_Talbot said:

 

The other day I witnessed a lone DR1 smite three N28's that attacked it from above. The last one tried to dive away and it was chased down by the DR1 and crashing very hard into the mud. The whole thing from start to end was maybe a minute. 

 

So that was cool.

That's not what happened when we run into two JG1 D.VIIs in four N.28s... not at all :D.

[Cynic_Al]

1 hour ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

Fine, it’s a technical issue, still goes in the same forum section.

 

The question is where does it go from there?  What priority will it be assigned: "Urgent", "If we get time" or "He'll be lucky"?

[Blitzen]

Anybody else giving the Nieuport a flip.Has a nasty habit of shedding wings in high ( for WW1,) G turned and dives. The real plane did something similar - it shed fabric from the wings & yes tit he Casio all wing as well . No wonder the Americans were happy to trade them in on the flying brick the Spad13.It only shed wings due to strut connection fatigue...mostly. Still the “28”. Is a very pretty little kit e!

[BlitzPig_EL]

The 28 as modeled is utterly outclassed in the sim.  It was no world beater in real life, but it certainly wasn't the complete dog it is in the sim.  Something is very off in it's turn rate, for reasons that it's wing area and power output can't explain.

[BMA_Hellbender]

2 hours ago, NO.20_Krispy_Duck said:

The Spad VII 180hp is kind of the litmus test, at least for me. It is underarmed, but should be sturdy and quite a powerful performer. The ROF version was very lively and an excellent aircraft to fly. If it's a doggy plane too, we may be in for a rough go.

 

The Sopwith Triplane for me. Pre-1.034 or post...

 

The D.VIII I fear for because of the Dr.I. It will either be crap, or it won't make sense, unless they do something about the Dr.I as well.

 

2 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

More like in line with Dolphin and S.E.5a. Neither N.28 nor D.Va should be used as standard of anything, except maybe weirdness.

 

Sure, but I hope you can see the hypocrisy in what you're saying. It's not okay to somewhat bring an old FM in line with other old FMs following measurable data and simple observations, but it is okay to stick a 200hp engines in there and — oh we'll just see what happens. For the record: I'm not talking about the Fokker D.VII, that one needs the 200hp. Yesterday if possible. But after 7 pages of having to hear about "trenchmowers" and "Entente/Central-mindedness", I'm seriously beginning to question the intent of a 200hp Alby and especially a 200hp Pfalz.

 

Well, it's all academic in any case, the decisions are not for us to make. And in all likelihood you will get your 200hp everything. Which, I maintain is a good thing, in spite of everything. That said, they can't rerelease that same old broken thing from 10 years ago and expect that we say nothing.

[No.23_Triggers]

6 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

IMO, the Abatros/Pfalz are way to forgiving on controls and energy retention, other planes are mostly fine. Especially Pfalz. They are also way to slow for 180hp engine. Especially Albatros. Handling is not much of a problem for me because Entente planes can still secure energy and altitude, the docile handling just lets you avoid the attacks for longer and maybe let you punish enemy if he makes an error and gives you an opening. 

If you made a thread that gave decent evidence on the Alb / Pfalz being way too slow for their engines, I'd happily back you up in lobbying for a fix.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the "Handling is not much of a problem for me because Entente can do X" argument though. That's getting into the realm of ahistorical 'game balance'. I would rather see the planes fly as they flew, with their strengths and weaknesses properly represented. At the moment, I don't think that they are - with the main offenders IMO being Alb / Pfalz(?) / S.E.5a / N28 / Dolphin (with other planes also suffering from misrepresentations). 
 

...although, it's all a bit moot as (like you say) the devs apparently aren't even slightly interested in revisiting old FMs past 'quick fixes', as you put it (which I think is a great point - half-assed attempts to revise FMs is only going to hurt FC imo, and definitely NOT what I'd want to see happen personally. If the Devs did plan FM reworks, I'd hope they'd fully commit). Still, we can dream...

Honestly I'd just settle for a reasonable DM revision at this point. As I said before, even with the "alternate history" FMs, FC was bags of fun with the old DM. 

(On the subject of the DM and the Alb, actually, here's an account from one of John Guttman's books detailing an incident where an Albatros D.III with a broken spar continued to evade an attacking SPAD VII without falling to pieces...imagine you tried that in FC!)
 

Spoiler

Apparently, the first encounter between the Albatros D III and SPAD VII (offering a vivid display of their differences) occurred on 23 January when Ltn Roland Nauck of Jasta 6 reported that as he was diving after a SPAD the lower right wing of his Albatros shed fabric and then the spar itself broke. Although wounded when the SPAD turned the tables on him, Nauck managed to force land in German lines to report what occurred.

 

1 hour ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

The question is where does it go from there?  What priority will it be assigned: "Urgent", "If we get time" or "He'll be lucky"?

My guess would be:    "       ".

[J2_Trupobaw]

1 hour ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

 

The D.VIII I fear for because of the Dr.I. It will either be crap, or it won't make sense, unless they do something about the Dr.I as well.

 

 

Sure, but I hope you can see the hypocrisy in what you're saying. It's not okay to somewhat bring an old FM in line with other old FMs following measurable data and simple observations, but it is okay to stick a 200hp engines in there and — oh we'll just see what happens. For the record: I'm not talking about the Fokker D.VII, that one needs the 200hp. Yesterday if possible. But after 7 pages of having to hear about "trenchmowers" and "Entente/Central-mindedness", I'm seriously beginning to question the intent of a 200hp Alby and especially a 200hp Pfalz.

 

D.VIII was not harmed by changes to Dr.I before, so I'm not worried there. 

 

No hipocrisy - new variants are just more likely to happen than noteworthy revisions, so that's where I'm focusing. I don't expect 200hp versions of 1917 planes to stand up to Dolphin anyway. The intent is to enjoy the game. (Accepting limitations of game, planes and devs is part of patch to that goal; people who actively sabotage their own experience, look for reasons to not enjoy it, try to blame their problems on people/planes they chose to play against or cultivate us vs them mentality are drag to games social aspect).

1 hour ago, US93_Larner said:

If you made a thread that gave decent evidence on the Alb / Pfalz being way too slow for their engines, I'd happily back you up in lobbying for a fix.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the "Handling is not much of a problem for me because Entente can do X" argument though. That's getting into the realm of ahistorical 'game balance'. 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

The evidence is buried on RoF forum; it was old, lost cause already when I joined there in 2012. Part of the problem is, much of the German documentation was destroyed - twice - and the easily available data comes from Entente examination of captured planes, not exactly up to factory inspecs. 

 

As of 'game balance' - what I care about is my experience, in and against Albatros. Between having current to slow Albatros with wrong energy retention, having RoF Albatros which is fast enough but feeds the extra hp into unchanged energy retention, and having crap Albatros that has right energy retention but is to slow, I believe two wrongs make right. Having proper Albatros, with RoF speed and proper energy retention, would be great - but that would require a fix that gets everything right ;). 

Edited April 28, 2021 by J2_Trupobaw

[BMA_Hellbender]

9 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

D.VIII was not harmed by changes to Dr.I before, so I'm not worried there.

 

No, the only thing that was harmed was apparently an understanding of what max RPM on the ground is for the Oberursel Ur.II. Or maybe it's two different Oberursels Ur.IIs, like the Clerget in the Camel and the Clerget in the Hanriot HD.2? Anyway, we'll see.

 

19 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

D.VIII was not harmed by changes to Dr.I before, so I'm not worried there. 

 

No hipocrisy - new variants are just more likely to happen than not noteworthy revisions, so that's where I'm focusing. I don't expect 200hp versions of 1917 planes to stand up to Dolphin. The intent is to enjoy the game. (Accepting limitations is part of patch to that goal).

 

Yeah, I think the Dolphin is going to have a bad time against the 200hp Alby and Pfalz in their current state. Not so much the sustained turn but the overall handling and especially the tankiness of the Pfalz. But the Dolphin, too, was not a noteworthy plane, so I suppose it doesn't matter. Eventually everyone ends up in a SPAD anyway.

[No.23_Triggers]

15 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

As of 'game balance' - what I care about is my experience, in and against Albatros. Between having current to slow Albatros with wrong energy retention, having RoF Albatros which is fast enough but feeds the extra hp into unchanged energy retention, and having crap Albatros that has right energy retention but is to slow, I believe two wrongs make right. Having proper Albatros, with RoF speed and proper energy retention, would be great - but that would require a fix that gets everything right ;). 

Might be worth digging up. Imagine the "Ententes" and "Centrals" managed to band together to propose, discuss and agree on what aspects of FMs we think need changed! We'd be able to achieve.......exactly what we've achieved so far (zilch). But at least we'd be on the same page 

Personally I'm of the standpoint that two wrongs make two wrongs. Especially since FC markets itself as a sim, and Jason has made a point of correcting those who call it a 'game' (that was a stand-out for me in the old FC1 Stormbirds interview). Here's hoping that by some miracle the FC planes get revisited properly one day. 
 

[J2_Trupobaw]

 

1 hour ago, US93_Larner said:

Personally I'm of the standpoint that two wrongs make two wrongs. Especially since FC markets itself as a sim, and Jason has made a point of correcting those who call it a 'game' (that was a stand-out for me in the old FC1 Stormbirds interview). Here's hoping that by some miracle the FC planes get revisited properly one day. 
 

Well, it is the sim, it's just the plains being simulated are plane wrong  . There wasn't enough information to recreate the WW1 birds to the faithfulness standard of BoX back in 2009, especially on German side (two lost wars are not good for maintaining achives). The information is so scarce we have calls to treat pilots tall tales as source material!

When we are lucky, there's surviving documentation of Entente test flights, or non-contradictory pilots accounts (good luck!), or something like Chills replica which we accept as close enough. Or VA planes, if they shared information about them. When we are not lucky, it's extrapolation, guesswork, second hand accounts from test of mangled trophy plane run on wrong kind of petrol by pilot with no experience in the type,  and, yes, game balance. The goddamn D.XII was given a BMW engine because, when simulated with actual 200hp powerplant, it was slower than D.IIIa - how can we keep pretence the fidelity is archievable after that? 

Physics are sound. Planes are make believe.
(FC mantra)

One relief the end of RoF development brought was that this kind of idle speculation died. People accepted that the 2014 current planes are staying as they are, or didn't and quit. Now we are few months into FC2, and the enthusiasm on getting new planes at all (ported from RoF as they were, as promised) already made way for the same dead horse whipping discussions that were done to death in RoF. Eight years, different forum, this must be one of  records in threadomancy!
 

Quote

Might be worth digging up.

Seek gavagai for answers if they exist. He was a great realism master once, but after the 2014 fix he all but disappeared from our sight. If he didn't become one with the Force Feedback, he may be on planet Dagobah .
 

[BraveSirRobin]

All we need is gavagai and it will be just like the old days in here.

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 minute ago, BraveSirRobin said:

All we need is gavagai and it will be just like the old days in here.

Haha, did you have a trigger set for whenever someone mentions @gavagai? He’s still around, just wisely giving all this a wide berth.

[BraveSirRobin]

7 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

Haha, did you have a trigger set for whenever someone mentions @gavagai? He’s still around, just wisely giving all this a wide berth.

Even better.  I made my post before I read Trup’s.

[No.23_Starling]

30 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

One relief the end of RoF development brought was that this kind of idle speculation died. People accepted that the 2014 current planes are staying as they are, or didn't and quit. Now we are few months into FC2, and the enthusiasm on getting new planes at all (ported from RoF as they were, as promised) already made way for the same dead horse whipping discussions that were done to death in RoF. Eight years, different forum

It is not the same though is it because the AU engine is being added. You speak like you know the development team and what they can/can’t do - are you a tester?

 

If there’s 0% of FM revisions and you know that for a fact then I’ll stop posting. If there’s chance of engine variants - which you say there is and it would seem to be so as the AU is coming - then I’ll happily start collecting data around variants such as a HS SE5a and late war SPAD. 
 

Are we missing any other critical engine variants for any other planes? Bentley Camel maybe?

 

Also, I’m assuming the AU will perform worse at lower altitude than the Merc standard engine due to the higher compression tuned for better higher alt performance? Anyone have data on this?

[BraveSirRobin]

1 minute ago, US93_Rummell said:

It is not the same though is it because the AU engine is being added. You speak like you know the development team and what they can/can’t do - are you a tester?

 

He knows because that is what they announced at the start of this.  RoF FMs ported with no revisions.  

[Todt_Von_Oben]

Yeah.  Blame the plane.  LOL!  

[No.23_Starling]

5 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

He knows because that is what they announced at the start of this.  RoF FMs ported with no revisions.  

If you change the engine it alters the flight characteristics.... The AU is not a port.

[BraveSirRobin]

1 minute ago, US93_Rummell said:

If you change the engine it alters the flight characteristics.... The AU is not a port.

We don’t have the AU yet.  Right now we’re just reliving the old constant complaining about stuff that will never change.  Introducing the AU will just give people something new to complain about.  Until it’s revised.  Then they’ll complain about that.

[No.23_Starling]

1 minute ago, BraveSirRobin said:

We don’t have the AU yet.  Right now we’re just reliving the old constant complaining about stuff that will never change.  Introducing the AU will just give people something new to complain about.  Until it’s revised.  Then they’ll complain about that.

BSR you just made me spit out my brandy with laughter. I tip my hat to you, sir Sir.

[BraveSirRobin]

I’m not done.  Hopefully Jason will open up the forums for pre-complaining about the AU soon.  If we’re lucky there will be an entire section of the forum set aside for pre-complaining.

[Enceladus828]

1 hour ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

One relief the end of RoF development brought was that this kind of idle speculation died. People accepted that the 2014 current planes are staying as they are, or didn't and quit. Now we are few months into FC2, and the enthusiasm on getting new planes at all (ported from RoF as they were, as promised) already made way for the same dead horse whipping discussions that were done to death in RoF. Eight years, different forum, this must be one of  records in threadomancy!

Tbh guys, if the developers really, really wanted to return to WW1 back in 2017, they should have just hired another team to continue supporting RoF.

 

That would have been a much better decision than creating FC and making people who bought RoF from 2015 onwards (and heavily invested their $ into it) realize that they essentially wasted their money by supporting RoF.

 

No offence.

[BraveSirRobin]

45 minutes ago, Enceladus said:

Tbh guys, if the developers really, really wanted to return to WW1 back in 2017, they should have just hired another team to continue supporting RoF.

 

That would have been a much better decision than creating FC and making people who bought RoF from 2015 onwards (and heavily invested their $ into it) realize that they essentially wasted their money by supporting RoF.

 

No offence.

That might be better for you, but it obviously was not better for them.  
 

No offense.

[Guest deleted@83466]

47 minutes ago, Enceladus said:

Tbh guys, if the developers really, really wanted to return to WW1 back in 2017, they should have just hired another team to continue supporting RoF.

 

That would have been a much better decision than creating FC and making people who bought RoF from 2015 onwards (and heavily invested their $ into it) realize that they essentially wasted their money by supporting RoF.

 

No offence.

 

 

I recall I spent around $250 on Rise of Flight around that time frame you speak of, and was provided with thousands of hours of entertainment over the course of several years.  I wish other games (and even other hobbies) could give me as much bang for the buck as RoF did.  So speak for yourself.

[BMA_Hellbender]

Well gents, unless gavagai does show up in person, I think this thread has reached its long-awaited climax and stopped being about the N28, oh, about 2 pages ago. We’ll just have to wait and see now.

 

Whatever happens, or doesn’t, I hope comes with the intention of making the game — sim, I meant to write sim — and all of the planes flight characteristics better through conscious actions. Not my words, but those of AnP (from that other legendary thread where the Pfalz got swiftly hit with the review stick).

 

Anyway, genuinely thanks to all for sharing your thoughts. This thread has been nothing short of revelatory. And not just about the Noop. ?

[J2_Bidu]

8 hours ago, Enceladus said:

Tbh guys, if the developers really, really wanted to return to WW1 back in 2017, they should have just hired another team to continue supporting RoF.

 

That would have been a much better decision than creating FC

 

Just like WOFF and the great engine they have! Bright future ahead!

[Trooper117]

Didn't waste my money on RoF, or WoFF for that matter... I've bought everything they put out and have played both flight sim 'games' to death.

(They are games by the way)... Anyway, money well spent is all I can say, and countless hours of enjoyment.