Heinecke Parachutes and the Flaws that aren't Modeled

[US96_Wright]

It has come to me through multiple sources that the german parachutes for the central side has given them a lot of advantages in regards to V-life it would make sense to adjust the performance of said planes to match the 5 Kg weight penalty involved with said Parachutes. And make it a modification they can put on the plane.

 

(Not entirely accurate in regards to Weight)

https://www.historynet.com/heinecke-parachute-a-leap-of-faith-for-wwi-german-airmen.htm

 

 

https://www.thehistoryreader.com/military-history/parachutes-world-war-1/

 

https://m.facebook.com/thevintageaviator/posts/the-german-heinecke-parachuteexcept-for-balloon-observers-only-german-airmen-had/1953507321387174/

 

There was a failure rate and i believe due to the fact that the Allied Players have to stick with the plane out of fairness I think that a Parachute failure rate ought to be put in place meaning 1 for every 3 won't work etc. And also limited to Early 1918 maps.

Edited May 11, 2021 by US93_Wright

[SharpeXB]

Well if you manage to land your damaged plane then your opponent doesn’t get credit for a kill. So at least there is that incentive not to bail out. Personally I really dig landing damaged planes, especially the WWI crates ?

[ZachariasX]

That is actually a funny illustration as when Udet had to use the chute, it didn't work like that at all. Funny enough, it is Udet depicted in the drawing.

 

After his own account, he got shot up by a Breguet gunner that feigned death after a first attack. The gunner stood up as udet approached from the side and machine gunned his Fokker such that Udet lost control of it. It started to do some circles on its own. He jumped when the plane suddenly initiated a steep dive. When he jumped, he got his harness stuck on the rudder horn and tha plane took him along straight toward the ground. He managed to fee himself rather close to the ground. The artillery guys that witnessed the affair were well entertained and complemented Udet on that. At least, the chute worked.

[US96_Wright]

Well thankfully udet survived would have been a horrible way to go. And yes landing a plane damaged is rewarding but some also take advantage of the chutes too.

Edited May 11, 2021 by US93_Wright

[Monostripezebra]

I think it is a bit odd to be so concerned with other peoples V-lifes but each to their own..

 

But I´d really like to say, that those facebook links and "history.net" stuff is terrible as "source´o thruth" from an academic point of view..  like overall military history is, when equipment is concerned so full amateur historians.. which, don´t get me wrong, can do some good points, but should by no means be taken as the ultimate gospel, like don´t get  me even started on the "dan san abott" worshipping the WW1 crowd does.

 

However, while not primary sources, a lot of reasonable direct post war assesment available as books (without achieve questing) for laymen.. so for instance parts of the german brass wrote "Die gesamten deutschen Luftstreitkräfte" in 1918 as a kind of state-of-the-things for the public assesment.

 

For instance there you can see, the weight is not 30pds but was lower then 5Kg, THAT WAS what made the parachute the airplane-capable device.. I mean plenty of folks had jumped from aircraft before, but as piece of equipment the true backpack-chute was the real technological development. And the woman who made great contribution to that, Käthe Paulus, is today sadly often forgotten.

 

Anyway: so here you go a bit more "sourcey" but in german, but translate services like deeple are plenty.

"Der fertig verpackte Schirm bildet ein Paket, das kaum 5 Kg wiegt und zugleich als Sitz- oder Rückenschirm im Flugzeug verwendet wird"

My translation: "The packet-up chute is a unit, with a weight barely reaching 5 Kg and that simultaniously can be used as seat- or back cushion in the aircraft."

 

Some more interesting details

 

 

 

 

Edited May 11, 2021 by Monostripezebra

[US96_Wright]

5 minutes ago, Monostripezebra said:

I think it is a bit odd to be so concerned with other peoples V-lifes but each to their own..

 

But I´d really like to say, that those facebook links and "history.net" stuff is terrible as "source´o thruth" from an academic point of view..  like overall military history is, when equipment is concerned so full amateur historians.. which, don´t get me wrong, can do some good points, but should by no means be taken as the ultimate gospel, like don´t get  me even started on the "dan san abott" worshipping the WW1 crowd does.

 

However, while not primary sources, a lot of reasonable direct post war assesment available as books (without achieve questing) for laymen.. so for instance parts of the german brass wrote "Die gesamten deutschen Luftstreitkräfte" in 1918 as a kind of state-of-the-things for the public assesment.

 

For instance there you can see, the weight is not 30pds but was lower then 5Kg, THAT WAS what made the parachute the airplane-capable device.. I mean plenty of folks had jumped from aircraft before, but as piece of equipment the true backpack-chute was the real technological development. And the woman who made great contribution to that, Käthe Paulus, is today sadly often forgotten.

 

Anyway: so here you go a bit more "sourcey" but in german, but translate services like deeple are plenty.

"Der fertig verpackte Schirm bildet ein Paket, das kaum 5 Kg wiegt und zugleich als Sitz- oder Rückenschirm im Flugzeug verwendet wird"

My translation: "The packet-up chute is a unit, with a weight barely reaching 5 Kg and that simultaniously can be used as seat- or back cushion in the aircraft."

 

So making it 5kg then I have no problem with that as long as its true. And it seems your source is more accurate. I generally have no issue with the other peoples V-life but when you bail Midway of being shot at it kind takes away the for lack of a better term immersion factor or the realities if the time I guess one could say.

 

To reiterate, I would say for fairness these parachutes should become at the very least a modification as Entante Pilots dont get a choice. I think thats a fair assessment

HEADS UP SALTY HUNS INBOUND!!!

-lol-

Edited May 11, 2021 by US93_Wright

[Monostripezebra]

1 hour ago, US93_Wright said:

 but when you bail Midway of being shot at it kind takes away the for lack of a better term immersion factor or the realities if the time I guess one could say.

 

I think its slightly funny how close your sentiment there is to that of the britsh air board.. who reportedly went as far as to discourage even further aircraft parachute development in fear of people "losing nerve" and jumping prematurely...

 

while the german brass came to the diametrically opposed assesment that it would increase will to fight (albeit an early ejection decision at the right point is a crucial stepping stone to actual survival)

 

 

"the enduring awareness of having a reliable means of rescue for all worst cases with you has increased the will to attack of our airmen significantly."

 

So maybe see it that way: it benefits your V-life because people will go to fight with disadvantageous positions and aircraft against your spad knowing they can bail still.. in essence feeding your kills for your V-life quite historically accurately Isn´t that win-win?  ;=P

 

and yes: make the chutes 5Kg! (not that the usually 17% fuel camels would note the difference)

Edited May 11, 2021 by Monostripezebra

[US96_Wright]

9 minutes ago, Monostripezebra said:

 

I think its slightly funny how close your sentiment there is to that of the britsh air board.. who reportedly went as far as to discourage even further aircraft parachute development in fear of people "losing nerve" and jumping prematurely...

 

while the german brass came to the diametrically opposed assesment that it would increase will to fight (albeit an early ejection decision at the right point is a crucial stepping stone to actual survival)

 

 

"the enduring awareness of having a reliable means of rescue for all worst cases with you has increased the will to attack of our airmen significantly."

 

So maybe see it that way: it benefits your V-life because people will go to fight with disadvantageous positions and aircraft against your spad knowing they can bail still.. in essence feeding your kills for your V-life quite historically accurately Isn´t that win-win?  ;=P

 

and yes: make the chutes 5Kg! (not that the usually 17% fuel camels would note the difference)

Yes but you have to admit there was disadvantages to said chute do you expect me to believe every Central pilot had a chute and every german survived cus of a chute heck they failed a third of the time there has to be some risk on the Central side of things. It basically becomes warthunder because of this crap only it favors one side as they don't have any disadvantages along with bailing out.  We don't get to bail out and we are fine with that but seeing Central pilots bail like a lot more than what would be considered usual is kinda funny and sad.

Edited May 11, 2021 by US93_Wright

[J15_Gontermann]

Parachute failures are more likely due to pilot error than the parachute being simply bad. I don't think parachutes should have a chance to fail unless they want to add a manual ejection method. Really, if it was to be modeled, why not model the aircraft engine and wing wear? Why not manufacturing defects? Why not model heart attacks? As of parachutes being modifications, it isn't a bad idea, but it might be a one that we'll never see due to "Game engine limitations™ "

[US96_Wright]

7 minutes ago, J15_Gontermann said:

Parachute failures are more likely due to pilot error than the parachute being simply bad. I don't think parachutes should have a chance to fail unless they want to add a manual ejection method. Really, if it was to be modeled, why not model the aircraft engine and wing wear? Why not manufacturing defects? Why not model heart attacks? As of parachutes being modifications, it isn't a bad idea, but it might be a one that we'll never see due to "Game engine limitations™ "

Thats a fair statement put parachutes in as a modification. Yes, the failure was due mostly to deployment error but even then. I guess an alternative is parachute gets damaged by bullets even if it hasn't deployed. Granted this is likely not possible due to engine limitations but theres no harm in throwing things up for discussiom and seeing what sticks.

Edited May 11, 2021 by US93_Wright

[Monostripezebra]

1 hour ago, US93_Wright said:

Yes but you have to admit there was disadvantages to said chute do you expect me to believe every Central pilot had a chute and every german survived cus of a chute heck they failed a third of the time there has to be some risk on the Central side of things. It basically becomes warthunder because of this crap only it favors one side as they don't have any disadvantages along with bailing out.  We don't get to bail out and we are fine with that but seeing Central pilots bail like a lot more than what would be considered usual is kinda funny and sad.

 

I don´t get me wrong, but I don´t think I "have" anything..

 

I can only tell you, as someone having used suprisingly similar safety chutes in gliding right down to the packaging method, I see virtually no downside of having one, even it is just a pack-date expired one as a seat cushion. You just take one, period.

 

A sentiment, that echoed by one of the first jumpers Mr. Steinbrecher:

 

"I use it every flight since and don´t want to fly at all without one".. considering that then all nations quickly adopted chutes I would consider that to be highly universal sentiment, once the technicallities of having one practically enough to carry aboard where done and that is how that sentiment would have spread quickly among the german airmen.. Hell, if you read "No Parachute" by Arthur Gould Lee even the british pilots had that sentiment but not the chutes.

[US96_Wright]

Yes I'm not arguing with that but merely that there needs to be some takeaway from the obvious advantage these chutes provide

 

Ergo bullet damage before being deployed etc. Maybe a failure rate but since thats Pilot error that can probably be omitted. But if Entante are jumping to their death as was the case then maybe some germans should get faulty chutes as it were then.   

 

Or at the very least let us be able to prematurely damage the chute before its deployed.

 

While the chute being something the pilot can by choice can select for himself.

Edited May 11, 2021 by US93_Wright

[Monostripezebra]

1 hour ago, US93_Wright said:

"this crap only it favors one side as they don't have any disadvantages along with bailing out. "

(..)

 I guess an alternative is parachute gets damaged by bullets even if it hasn't deployed. Granted this is likely not possible due to engine limitations but theres no harm in throwing things up for discussiom and seeing what sticks.

Yes I'm not arguing with that but merely that there needs to be some takeaway from the obvious advantage these chutes provide

(..)

Ergo bullet damage before being deployed etc. Maybe a failure rate but since thats Pilot error that can probably be omitted. But if Entante are jumping to their death as was the case then maybe some germans should get faulty chutes as it were then.   

 

Don´t take that personal, but I feel like that is a very particularistic view.. I mean online gameplay is really NOTHING like historic WW1 reality, from flying altitude to squadrons without voice coms and where little individual choice in what and when to fly for what mission..  to 17% standard fuel load and complete absence of ground fire danger down low, to bullet sponge pfalzies and wing-alergic dolphins..

 

I mean with the same argument one could go full central arguing "yeah, but the camel/spad/SE5 favours.." or not? But a random chute failure is needed for realism, even though that failing quota is not really historically baseable? I am lost here.

 

The one real historic thing is actually that the allied pilots where denied chutes with a most pathologic unreason by their superiors up to the point of even trying to prevent development of suitable parachute models, so to speak.  So excuse me when I find it quite comedic when exactly that point is used to argue for a change for ones side..

 

Fun fact: more realistic would be you hurt yourself on landing, round cap recue chutes are pretty damage resistant but terribly bad steerable which in high wind situations is a problem.. as well as the relative harsh impacts with rescue chutes. "It saves your life, not your legs" was what instructor used to tell us.. but those WW1 guys where tough.. But that would be a really silly game mechanic and utterly pointless. I mean one can even quit mid air on the chute when tose war-crime spads go chute shooting again... ;=P

 

 

tidbit from above mentioned book.. yes I am lazy using that again, but I am reading it right now.

 

Talks about how he can´t turn around and keeps falling with his back first and harsh impact. Like one would expect from a round cap. 

 

 

Edited May 11, 2021 by Monostripezebra

[US96_Wright]

Doesn't it make sense that a parachute could get damaged while a plane is being shot up, no??!

[=IRFC=Gascan]

I see significant value in allowing the chute to be a mod that the pilot can select, with an appropriate weight penalty (sounds like 5kg, per above). I do not see any value in having a random failure chance. That is asking for frustration with little gain. I can see an argument in favor of the parachute getting damaged in the plane before jumping. It exists inside the plane, therefore a bullet that passes through the plane has a chance of damaging the chute. No idea how likely this is to cause a failure of the chute, or whether it is worth the effort. I'd much rather see the chute as a mod than anything else.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

Why do some things come up over and over again? This exact same thing was already discussed about a week ago in https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/71456-lazy-implementation-of-features/... I'll just copy my own reply from that thread as it was as relevant there as it is here:

 

Quote

 

Well, it's a game. Personally I like it when my chute just works, my DVII ammo doesn't spontaneously ignite and my engine doesn't randomly stop due to a lack of quality oil, even though neither may be completely realistic. If you think otherwise, you're free to throw a dice and only press ctrl-e if the result is a three or higher. 

 

As for the weight, AFAIK it's not optional to take a chute, you take one by default, so it would make sense if the chute weight is already added to the planes' total weight.

 

I would like to add that, if I'm not mistaken, the oft-cited 30% failure rate was based on the first 70 bailouts, which naturally had some teething troubles. Afterwards the chutes were improved, so I would imagine the failure rate dropping accordingly afterwards, although I haven't seen any figures.

 

 

Also, what's with people assigning any value whatsoever to other peoples' "V-life"?

Edited May 11, 2021 by AEthelraedUnraed

[Monostripezebra]

I feel slightly amused. For me that is like a textbook "Flightsim Forumism".. you know pulling "reality hair" by requesting features that are kinda obscure to rediculous with marginal gameplay impact from a very one-sided perspective while blatantly ignoring other things.

 

You want the game to be more fair? Fine, why not like ballance sides on the server? When you join the side with more players  because you fly "only side X" is the online game really fairer if the chute fails?

 

Or one of the biggest real tactical challenges of WW1 aerial combat was unit cohesion: flying formation.. fighting and then regrouping and fighting again without getting lost and mutual support without ever speaking a single word with each other.. So you gang up 3-4 to 1 on a lone 2seater online after calling all your teammates together via TS or discord and patroling a large area separated while keeping each up to date on your brew, your lunch and your enemies.. but the parachute not having random death for OTHER people is the immersion killing element that keeps YOU from feeling truely WW1 heroic and the game ?

 

I mean one could do a lot in game to be fairer, closer to realism or even just having more fun.. but yet that is all beneath you but the other peoples virtual death not occuring is what gets you? I mean how is that not absolutely hillarious?

 

All while ignoring all other affected people, single player players? What about them? Do they need to suffer the death-slotmachines or do we make another tickbox options to make the game even more inaccessible for new players?

 

That beeing said.. where is the USB-to-AC feature that automatically adapts my room temperature corresponding to flight altitude? Realism anyone? Please?

[US96_Wright]

3 hours ago, gascan said:

I see significant value in allowing the chute to be a mod that the pilot can select, with an appropriate weight penalty (sounds like 5kg, per above). I do not see any value in having a random failure chance. That is asking for frustration with little gain. I can see an argument in favor of the parachute getting damaged in the plane before jumping. It exists inside the plane, therefore a bullet that passes through the plane has a chance of damaging the chute. No idea how likely this is to cause a failure of the chute, or whether it is worth the effort. I'd much rather see the chute as a mod than anything else.

Im good with that

1 hour ago, Monostripezebra said:

I feel slightly amused. For me that is like a textbook "Flightsim Forumism".. you know pulling "reality hair" by requesting features that are kinda obscure to rediculous with marginal gameplay impact from a very one-sided perspective while blatantly ignoring other things.

 

You want the game to be more fair? Fine, why not like ballance sides on the server? When you join the side with more players  because you fly "only side X" is the online game really fairer if the chute fails?

 

Or one of the biggest real tactical challenges of WW1 aerial combat was unit cohesion: flying formation.. fighting and then regrouping and fighting again without getting lost and mutual support without ever speaking a single word with each other.. So you gang up 3-4 to 1 on a lone 2seater online after calling all your teammates together via TS or discord and patroling a large area separated while keeping each up to date on your brew, your lunch and your enemies.. but the parachute not having random death for OTHER people is the immersion killing element that keeps YOU from feeling truely WW1 heroic and the game ?

 

I mean one could do a lot in game to be fairer, closer to realism or even just having more fun.. but yet that is all beneath you but the other peoples virtual death not occuring is what gets you? I mean how is that not absolutely hillarious?

 

All while ignoring all other affected people, single player players? What about them? Do they need to suffer the death-slotmachines or do we make another tickbox options to make the game even more inaccessible for new players?

 

That beeing said.. where is the USB-to-AC feature that automatically adapts my room temperature corresponding to flight altitude? Realism anyone? Please?

You know it's kinda rude considering i'm adjusting various things to suit your different arguments but you still insist on various different excuses. I have listened to your inputs and adjusted accordingly. Now as for TS and Discord huns have it too but again what is the harm in suggesting something if its funny to you and amusing find something else with all due respect. 

[US96_Wright]

New pitch:

 

1) Parachute becomes a modification for Central aircraft. The Weight penalty of 5kg would be adjusted accordingly.

 

2) Parachutes could potentially fail only if the chute gets damaged by gunfire/flak before being deployed.

 

 

 

[ZachariasX]

You have a rope that pulls out the canopy. That works rather reliably unless you jump from a tumbling plane where the rope and the chute could tangle up with the aircraft.

 

TBH, I‘d much rather have the WW1 aircraft performing as they actually did before adding „stuff“. RoF was clearly not up to a level we see with the WW2 birds now and that shows in FC after the porting over.

[Monostripezebra]

6 hours ago, US93_Wright said:

Im good with that

You know it's kinda rude considering i'm adjusting various things to suit your different arguments but you still insist on various different excuses. I have listened to your inputs and adjusted accordingly. Now as for TS and Discord huns have it too but again what is the harm in suggesting something if its funny to you and amusing find something else with all due respect. 

 

I am sorry and apologise if I come across as rude.. but you come across as "very special" and I have observed that lately the "US only" players have made a point about parachutes and done such things that some other players consider rude as shooting parachutes, like here were I was killed after bailing out over allied side (so no V-life continuation, not that I care for those at all..) just out of spite, despite the fact that I could have just exited earlier on the chute and thus prevented that.. (name censored, does not matter)

 

I think you are taking the game too seriously an for something it is not.. how about flying both sides and balancing sides etc.. just for fun and to really see what its like.. I am pretty certain you will find that your imagined advantages are a lot less then you think and no side is perfect and subjectivly you will always feel "disadvantaged", especially agains the high number of very experienced players which make life for newer or less experienced players online hard..

 

there are allready in-game mechanics that under certain conditions like  beeing too wounded, too spinny and fast, you can not bail out anymore and I would assume that happens probably more then 30%.. and you can see in the server stats that central players don´t seem to significantly outlive allies...  like at all. So why the obsession for a lottery for OTHER peoples V-lifes of a side you don´t even play? What is YOUR issue? I doubt that it is history or historic accuracy, nor gameplay mechanic improvement.. but have to assume it much rather is your own narrow focus on "V-life" which is not even a game mechanic in the Flightsim product but rather a serversided statstic and the frustration of staying alive and just hope you can at least share your frustration. But that is not how "fun" gameplay develops, a fun game is a fair game where fights are open and not onesided, but for that only player behaviour and balance is much more important than any statistic.. but that requires that people get over their narrow minded side-fixation.  (looking at you too, "only centralists")

 

There can even be fun in watching your opponent attempt to crashland (and if they break the wings and prop you still get a kill for the stats, if that is what floats your boat)

some people even deliberately break their prop after a good fight to give their adversary the deserved kill.. All in all a much better way to not get frustrated by the game is beeing less a dick about it. My take. Do with that what you want.. Maybe just fly both sides and see how sweet those chutes really are and if they do make you the V-life hero you think you have to be?

13 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

. Personally I really dig landing damaged planes, especially the WWI crates ?

 

The way to go..

 

9 hours ago, gascan said:

(...) a bullet that passes through the plane has a chance of damaging the chute. No idea how likely this is to cause a failure of the chute, or whether it is worth the effort. I'd much rather see the chute as a mod than anything else.

 

Considering round caps work with plenty of holes, as demonstrated by its military aplication in paratroopers where some landed with chutes riddled with bullet holes, or even the above mentioned case of Udets jump where he had even torn some lines..  I feel that would be somewhat silly.. if a backpack chute that is worn is destroyed but the person wearing it remains unharmed.. Comon sense wise, you are much more likely to shoot and incapacitate the person wearing it when putting bullets through the chute before it the parachute is really done.

Edited May 12, 2021 by Monostripezebra

[Angry_Kitten]

2 hours ago, Monostripezebra said:

 

I am sorry and apologise if I come across as rude.. but you come across as "very special" and I have observed that lately the "US only" players have made a point about parachutes and done such things that some other players consider rude as shooting parachutes, like here were I was killed after bailing out over allied side (so no V-life continuation, not that I care for those at all..) just out of spite, despite the fact that I could have just exited earlier on the chute and thus prevented that.. (name censored, does not matter)

 

I think you are taking the game too seriously an for something it is not.. how about flying both sides and balancing sides etc.. just for fun and to really see what its like.. I am pretty certain you will find that your imagined advantages are a lot less then you think and no side is perfect and subjectivly you will always feel "disadvantaged", especially agains the high number of very experienced players which make life for newer or less experienced players online hard..

 

there are allready in-game mechanics that under certain conditions like  beeing too wounded, too spinny and fast, you can not bail out anymore and I would assume that happens probably more then 30%.. and you can see in the server stats that central players don´t seem to significantly outlive allies...  like at all. So why the obsession for a lottery for OTHER peoples V-lifes of a side you don´t even play? What is YOUR issue? I doubt that it is history or historic accuracy, nor gameplay mechanic improvement.. but have to assume it much rather is your own narrow focus on "V-life" which is not even a game mechanic in the Flightsim product but rather a serversided statstic and the frustration of staying alive and just hope you can at least share your frustration. But that is not how "fun" gameplay develops, a fun game is a fair game where fights are open and not onesided, but for that only player behaviour and balance is much more important than any statistic.. but that requires that people get over their narrow minded side-fixation.  (looking at you too, "only centralists")

 

There can even be fun in watching your opponent attempt to crashland (and if they break the wings and prop you still get a kill for the stats, if that is what floats your boat)

some people even deliberately break their prop after a good fight to give their adversary the deserved kill.. All in all a much better way to not get frustrated by the game is beeing less a dick about it. My take. Do with that what you want.. Maybe just fly both sides and see how sweet those chutes really are and if they do make you the V-life hero you think you have to be?

 

The way to go..

 

 

Considering round caps work with plenty of holes, as demonstrated by its military aplication in paratroopers where some landed with chutes riddled with bullet holes, or even the above mentioned case of Udets jump where he had even torn some lines..  I feel that would be somewhat silly.. if a backpack chute that is worn is destroyed but the person wearing it remains unharmed.. Comon sense wise, you are much more likely to shoot and incapacitate the person wearing it when putting bullets through the chute before it the parachute is really done.

 

 

The real things to deal with parachutes is why do they EXPLODE when my 20mm german shells hit them... then when the black puff is gone, the fold up and drop just like if i had used my MG on them?

 

 

I am the first to admit but jesus h christ on a stick....   Are you some demented person who needs a nap?

 

You cannot model in ANY sort of modification to the flight model, handlings, etc of ANY plane because the addition to a parachute.    It literally CANNOT be modelled in. 

 

Why what would you want next from the developers?

 

1. Them to model the flight model to make the plane handle differently if say the starboard machine gun jammed, and the port maxim fired 2 rounds more?

 

2. do you want the flight model to change mid flight based upon how the spotter/gunner stands in the plane?

3. or change every three seconds the rear machine moves off of center?

4. have the plane pull to the side OPPOSITE of which the gunner took a flare/lewis drum from?

5. do you want the plane to pull to the side the dead gunner/spotters body fell to?

 

From your nit picking i honestly believe youll want them program a new flight mechanic system based upon

1. if you select to use a cockpit photo,,, that photo HAS soooooo much weight its gotta effect how our plane flies

2. if you have a streamer flying on your wing

3. based upon what bomb fell, ie, if your packing 3 50kg and only drop on,,,,,,,,, etc

 

want a flight system that is based upon what joy stick you use?

 

should planes handle differently based upon the theoretical weight of paint used to make the fancy smancy camo pattern?

[US96_Wright]

You know what fIne I've said my piece. You want to know why we shoot them parachutes because in 1917 they didnt exist and speaking of not really existing did you know D7F was very Limited towards wars less than 500 by wars end. But thats no problem I'll just assume those who show up on the server are qoute the "top german aces of which the fatherland has dedicated significant resources to keep around."

And then you can bring up balloon guns and I can bring up the beckers we can both go back n forth and reach no compromise which then means no discourse which then means since a lot of people who own FC and who primarily fly Hun planes get a bigger say whereas Allied players cant get a word in edgewise. Which therefore cause a very biased gameplay experience. In truth I used to be like you guys before I flew Spads but once you see the stuff we sometimes put up with from you guys you can't really pretend you used to be innocent.

So as for the discussion I'm dropping its getting borderline ridiculous only thing I've really learned is that no compromise is ever going to work for you guys but hey at least i said something despite being told how pointless it is so in case I dont see you

Good afternoon

Good evening 

And

Goodnight 

Edited May 12, 2021 by US93_Wright

[J99_Sizzlorr]

1 hour ago, US93_Wright said:

You know what fIne I've said my piece. You want to know why we shoot them parachutes because in 1917 they didnt exist and speaking of not really existing did you know D7F was very Limited towards wars less than 500 by wars end. But thats no problem I'll just assume those who show up on the server are qoute the "top german aces of which the fatherland has dedicated significant resources to keep around."

And then you can bring up balloon guns and I can bring up the beckers we can both go back n forth and reach no compromise which then means no discourse which then means since a lot of people who own FC and who primarily fly Hun planes get a bigger say whereas Allied players cant get a word in edgewise. Which therefore cause a very biased gameplay experience. In truth I used to be like you guys before I flew Spads but once you see the stuff we sometimes put up with from you guys you can't really pretend you used to be innocent.

So as for the discussion I'm dropping its getting borderline ridiculous only thing I've really learned is that no compromise is ever going to work for you guys but hey at least i said something despite being told how pointless it is so in case I dont see you

Good afternoon

Good evening 

And

Goodnight 

The last Frontbestand from August 1918 lists 828 Fokker D.VII in service. And the number doubled from June's 407. To get down to 500 they had to stop production completly after August. I don't know where you got the number from but that is maybe what the germans told the entente how many they had or how many the Entente got from the germans . Many D.VII were smuggled out of the country by Fokker himself for example and were hidden in barns or fields by german pilots returning home. 

You also can not blame centrals for the fact that they have chutes and you don't. If you had them you would use them as well. And you can not blame the devs for implementing it as good as they could. You could however blame Entente High Comand for making such a desicion. But hey they valued airplanes over human lives, that is how they would treat you back then. Also when somebody uses a chute on Flugpark, it is not 1917 there. You should be able to tell by the amounts of Fokker D.VII you see .

 

PS. I also want my firewall for my Fokker D.VII...

Edited May 12, 2021 by J99_Sizzlorr

[US96_Wright]

In truth I'm not blaming anyone last post aside I was being sarcastic as the others pushed me to that damn point. My intent was really to point out how ridiculous they made the conversation and not to mention the number of excuses they made that were not really related to the topic at hand which is parachutes.

[DD_Arthur]

Are you people really chute killing now?

 

Thats just sad.

[US96_Wright]

2 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

Are you people really chute killing now?

 

Thats just sad.

Well your welcome to start a non-profit for them. 

[DD_Arthur]

23 hours ago, US93_Wright said:

It has come to me through multiple sources that the german parachutes for the central side has given them a lot of advantages in regards to V-life 

 

The basic premise of this thread is your unexplained interest in someone else’ V life.

 

It now seems people are willing to use a game mechanic to make a personal statement to other flyers in multiplayer by chute killing them.

 

You approve of this?

[US96_Wright]

Yes if chutes didnt exist in 1917 or were quite rare till late 1918. Why would i want to see em hence i shoot em lol.

Besides if one kills 5 Entante aircraft and bails and still keeps the streak if they survive that only prolongs the inevitable therefore your advantage is if i chose not to shoot you in the parachute. You still get to keeps your streak that sound fair to you  

Edited May 12, 2021 by US93_Wright

[DD_Arthur]

1 hour ago, US93_Wright said:

that sound fair to you  

 

Sounds like you've lost your sense of perspective and/or marbles.....

 

 

[US96_Wright]

Wouldn't be the first time someones said that but if one doesn't risk being called crazy then the world won't evolve.