Dolphin Wing Shredding

[No.23_Starling]

9 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

 

I agree and ever since the wings were made weaker my flying in the Dolphin has become more akin to how I assume I would fly it in real life, though I have no experience in wood and canvas planes (working on it...).

 

Then again some planes simply do not follow that logic, most notably the Pfalz and recently also the Bristol, but to a lesser extent This is really the biggest realism killer in FC: little to no consistency in FM and DM between planes that are fundamentally built the same way.

100% with you. In RoF everyone had roughly the same handicap when it came to the robustness of their plane and nobody had chutes. The toughness would vary slightly at each end of the scale but there was none of this 10g Diii nor adamantium Dr1 nonsense.

[Todt_Von_Oben]

15 hours ago, Miners said:

Looking at the sortie log, both the SE and Dolphin were flown by the AI.  Since the AI knows exactly how many g’s they can pull before they go to pieces, they are much less prone to wing shedding than humans.  Against humans, it looks very different  because they do not know how many g’s they can pull and they therefore break up much more often.

 

I think you're right.  It's logical that the AI are less prone to pilot-induced structural failure than a human player might be, because the AI are artificial constructs designed to interact with the FM, whereas human players might have no real flight experience at all and not understand the sensitivity that these planes must be controlled with.

 

Studying that FR, another thing I noticed was human pilots making drastic rudder deflections in directions and at times when none are called for.  Takes me back to my twist-stick days in RB.  That can happen accidentally when trying to make a pitch or roll input to the stick.  Watching the FR, it didn't look like the guys I flew with were even aware it was happening; it happened pretty quickly.  

 

But the point is: sometimes, people flying twist-sticks might make inadvertent, incorrect, and uncoordinated rudder inputs; combine that with a high speed pitching maneuver and it's going to increase the odds of straining the airframe considerably.  That could also be part of the problem some are experiencing but that's no fault of the sim.

 

 

 

   

Edited June 30, 2021 by Todt_Von_Oben

[No.23_Starling]

2 minutes ago, Todt_Von_Oben said:

 

I think you're right.  It's logical that the AI are less prone to pilot-induced structural failure than a human player might be, because the AI are artificial constructs designed to interact with the FM, whereas human players might have no real flight experience at all and not understand the sensitivity that these planes must be controlled with.

 

Studying that FR, another thing I noticed was human pilots making drastic rudder deflections in directions and at times when none are called for.  Takes me back to my twist-stick days in RB.  That can happen accidentally when trying to make a pitch or roll input to the stick.  Watching the FR, it didn't look like the guys I flew with were even aware it was happening; it happened pretty quickly.  

 

But the point is: sometimes, people flying twist-sticks might make inadvertent rudder applications; combine that with a high speed pitching maneuver and it's going to increase the odds of straining the airframe considerably.  That could also be part of the problem some are experiencing but that's no fault of the sim.

 

 

 

   

Except you don’t have to fly the Dvii, diii or Dr1 that sensitively as they are ahistorical tanks. If both sides had the same problems as in RoF it would be another matter. Try flying a camel the way you fly your damaged Dr1 in MP and prepare to die a lot. No ctrl+e to save you either.
 

The control failures help to level the playing field a bit but the perfect chutes take away that handicap for the central pilot over their own lines.

 

 

Trupo, I challenge you to find engineering and contemporary sources to back up the amount of damage the Fokkers and Diii can sustain in FC. For every source quoted from MvR or others of shooting a camel “to pieces” I can think of several from US or French pilots seeming the same results from hosing down a Dvii.

 

At least the Dv was known to have weak wings, so they got that right.

[J2_Trupobaw]

1 hour ago, US93_Rummell said:

Just a shame that the SE5a keeps energy as well as a long COVID sufferer, unlike the diii, Dva and Dviif that can prophang for 10 years and pull 100% elevator deflection without stall (Dva). Energy management is not just a FC sim concern - that’s all sims.

 

What makes ww1 fighting fun (for many of us) was being able to joystick wrestle and stunt at low speed. Babying the Sopwiths now to avoid shreds takes away that fun for many of us and drives away players (and entire squads). 
 

I’d love to see an ‘arcade spar’ mode so those who don’t want to fly their famous dogfighter like an A380 have that option. FC launch DM was buckets and buckets of fun, and I distinctly remember shouting at the screen: “finally! They fixed the stupid paper wings from RoF! This is brilliant!” I didn’t even want to shoot chutes.

S.E.5.a is a Rumpler chaser, made for high speed high altitude horisontal pursuit of German high performance recons we just don't have in this sim.

I'm confident she has very coarse prop, given her (eventually) high horisontal speed, bad acceleration and medicore climb. It's no surprise than at low speeds she just fails to retain energy, you need a climb prop for that.  We need a choice of prop as a mod to fix her as superiority fighter, and the H-S variant (with 4-blade prop) to make her shine in this role.

Airquaking has its charm... but expecting to survive the fight was never part of it. That's why I never bothered with streaks, building one amounted to avoiding having fun. In FC, it's even more either/or situation, have your cake or eat it. The airquake arena we now have really shows that, despite all DM issues I'm still mostly concerned with being rammed by an AI when I go there.

I've always had the kicks from taking flawed planes and making them work. Plenty of that to be had with current Entente stable.

1 hour ago, US93_Rummell said:

Except you don’t have to fly the Dvii, diii or Dr1 that sensitively as they are ahistorical tanks. I

 

No, you cannot fly Fokker or Pfalz un-sensittively because it's to underpowered to produce high Gs. In Entente plane, you must be sensitive or excess energy shakes your plane apart. In Central plane, you scrape and conserve your energy because you never have enough.

[Todt_Von_Oben]

1 hour ago, US93_Rummell said:

Except you don’t have to fly the Dvii, diii or Dr1 that sensitively as they are ahistorical tanks. If both sides had the same problems as in RoF it would be another matter. Try flying a camel the way you fly your damaged Dr1 in MP and prepare to die a lot. No ctrl+e to save you either.
 

The control failures help to level the playing field a bit but the perfect chutes take away that handicap for the central pilot over their own lines.

 

 

 

"Ahistorical tanks"  I don't know about that; and by that I mean I don't know, not that I'm disputing the point.  What I have read, however, leads me to think that design innovations like cantilever wings in the D7F and the boxkite-like bracing of three wings in a triplane might make them stronger than the Entente biplanes with struts and wires?  (I don't know that for sure because I never actually flew any of them, but it looks like that and would make sense to me.)

 

I've always favored the German planes but have flown Entente, too; and lately I did get back into the Camel, Nieuport, and Brisfit.  I was clumsy and had forgotten some things.  Lately, I've spun the Camel in and been shot down; but so far I haven't had any of 'em break up on me until I was dead and the plane was in a diving roll.  YMMV.

 

I agree: the chutes are a big advantage.  There's nothing I can say about that; it's a 1918 map and Jagdfleigers had chutes in '18.  But from the stance of this being a game where an even playing field would be appreciated by all, they do destabilize things.  

 

Then again, I don't recall the playing field ever being what I could call "level" in ROF, any more than it is in FC.  B&Z beats turnfighting more often than not.  The SPAD XIII flies higher and faster than anything else; flown defensively, one becomes all but invincible.  So German dogfighters have always had to deal with that inequity, too.  

 

And there's other things that destabilize the playing field for users: the choice between rudder pedals or a twist stick; TIR versus VR; comm versus no-comm; etc.  

 

The way I look at it, life is often unfair, unpredictable, and filled with hidden dangers.  So is war; or even being in the Military, for that matter.  Not all the equipment one gets issued is of the best quality and I suspect that was even more a problem back when aviation was just getting off the ground.  (ouch.)

 

Fundamentally, I'm here because FC allows me to fly WW1 planes in VR.  There's always room for improvement and I want to believe the Devs are working in that direction.  We've only been doing this a couple years.  Remembering how long it took for ROF to develop, I'm hopeful FC will improve eventually.  Time will tell.

 

Meanwhile, I enjoy flying and there's nothing about the sim as it stands now that spoils it for me to the point that I'd quit.  Actually, I think it's great as-is and anything more will just be icing on the cake.  

 

Of course, more icing would be nice; but (comparing how it was in RB to where the genre is now) I'm just happy to have a VR cake.  We've come a long way and all things considered, FC is outtasight.  

 

Edited June 30, 2021 by Todt_Von_Oben

[BMA_Hellbender]

48 minutes ago, Todt_Von_Oben said:

"Ahistorical tanks"  I don't know about that; and by that I mean I don't know, not that I'm disputing the point.  What I have read, however, leads me to think that design innovations like cantilever wings in the D7F and the boxkite-like bracing of three wings in a triplane might make them stronger than the Entente biplanes with struts and wires?  (I don't know that for sure because I never actually flew any of them, but it looks like that and would make sense to me.)

 

The D.VII(F) in FC is more or less accurate, at least I can't find anything obviously wrong with it. Currently undamaged the wing can withstand around 8.5-9G, and there's an argument to be made that it could take 10G or even more.

 

By comparison, the Pfalz D.IIIa, which has an externally braced wing and has the same basic design as most Entente machines can withstand 10G in FC. Here the argument is that it could only take around 6.5-7G.

 

For both claims, check with @Chill31 who knows more about this stuff than any of us here, including the devs who are basing everything off of wing spar thickness.

 

Quote

The SPAD XIII flies higher and faster than anything else; flown defensively, one becomes all but invincible.  So German dogfighters have always had to deal with that inequity, too.  

 

That is not factually correct. Compared to the SPAD XIII, the Fokker D.VIIF climbs quite a bit better at any altitude, is faster at 3000m and above, and has a service ceiling of 9000m compared to the SPAD's 6800m.

 

Where the SPAD shines is in having good enough climb and speed at lower altitudes, and a higher dive speed, even though it doesn't accelerate quite as fast as the D.VIIF in a dive. Purely defensively you're better off in an S.E.5a at sea level, though it doesn't climb as well as the SPAD, and bleeds energy faster.

 

Now nothing should be better than a D.VIIF (and Pfalz D.XIIf by extension). Compared to everything else on Central the SPAD is indeed plain better, if it weren't for those stupid control cables that can be shot away seemingly at random, and the lack of a parachute and/or adjustable stabilizer that can't be shot away (don't ask me why). It creates a strange and not at all historical dynamic, where nothing is on even footing. The best way I can describe it is that Entente flies WWI planes, and Central flies Baby's First WWII planes, with the D.VIIF a baby on steroids, the Fokker D.VIII / Fokker Dr.I babies with bulletproof vests, the Pfalz D.IIIa a baby with plot armor; and the Albatros D.Va / Halberstadt CL.II malnourished babies.

 

Edited June 30, 2021 by =IRFC=Hellbender

[ST_Catchov]

1 hour ago, US93_Rummell said:

Just a shame that the SE5a keeps energy as well as a long COVID sufferer,

 

I love the Se5a. She's a classic kite. But I refuse to fly her in RoF or FC. She bleeds revs like a haemophiliac on warfarin (since the RoF "glass engine" fix) which is just too frustrating for me. Cecil Lewis talks about the hassle and danger of changing Lewis drums in a scrap for instance but never have I heard him talk or write about such poor energy retention in the Se5a.

 

More broadly, we have just inherited other FM problems from RoF exacerbated by the weird DM spar thing. It's a bit of a drag. But I do have sympathy for AnP and the FM team. It's a tough gig. And who know what goes on behind the scenes? Only BSR I suppose.

 

So while I wait for the forthcoming fixes I continue my musical odyssey to lessen the pain. I've taken up the triangle and ditched the pan flute. It was creeping me out anyway. I'm currently working my way through the entire Tubular Bells album.

 

 

 

[Todt_Von_Oben]

1 hour ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

 

 

That is not factually correct. Compared to the SPAD XIII, the Fokker D.VIIF climbs quite a bit better at any altitude, is faster at 3000m and above, and has a service ceiling of 9000m compared to the SPAD's 6800m.

 

 

 

 

I stand corrected.  

[Irishratticus72]

2 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

 

I love the Se5a. She's a classic kite. But I refuse to fly her in RoF or FC. She bleeds revs like a haemophiliac on warfarin (since the RoF "glass engine" fix) which is just too frustrating for me. Cecil Lewis talks about the hassle and danger of changing Lewis drums in a scrap for instance but never have I heard him talk or write about such poor energy retention in the Se5a.

 

More broadly, we have just inherited other FM problems from RoF exacerbated by the weird DM spar thing. It's a bit of a drag. But I do have sympathy for AnP and the FM team. It's a tough gig. And who know what goes on behind the scenes? Only BSR I suppose.

 

So while I wait for the forthcoming fixes I continue my musical odyssey to lessen the pain. I've taken up the triangle and ditched the pan flute. It was creeping me out anyway. I'm currently working my way through the entire Tubular Bells album.

 

 

 

Hate Keselowski. 

[Cynic_Al]

2 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

Cecil Lewis talks about the hassle and danger of changing Lewis drums in a scrap for instance but never have I heard him talk or write about such poor energy retention in the Se5a.

 

 

Do any of his contemporaries discuss the concept for any plane?

[No.23_Starling]

@J2_Trupobaw FYI I had a chat with the chaps at Tangmere museum today who let me have a play with their replica SE5a (original props and instrumentation). The physical difference between their 2 bladed prop and the HS four blade is considerable. Would be great to see that variant and whether it would have better sustained turn, E retention etc but impacted top speed at alt etc.

 

@hellbender999 could very well be right about the Dviif wing, but I still have not seen convincing technical nor contemporary evidence to suggest something like the SPAD wing was THAT much weaker after the odd hit. Likewise, why does the diiia have such a tanky airframe given its construction and lack of reports to substantiate. 

 

The fact this thread was started by yet another player flying entente shows it’s not a loud minority who are frustrated by the disparity.

 

I do wonder if the 1917 maps will level the playing field and whether you’ll see more frustration coming from both sides.

 

 

[VeltroRoF]

In regards to the original question. I believe that the wing shredding counts for all airplanes with wires between the wing. I fly SE5a most of the time and the only advice that I can give you is that when you 'think' you were hit you land immediately (even if you suspect but didn't hear it, it doesn't matter). Almost all of my deaths are due to wing loss. With the SE5a and SPAD this is just easier because they are fast so you can get out of a fight easier. For that reason I probably would never fly a Dolphin.

[US41_Winslow]

I have not seen a single piece of evidence supporting that the current damage model is correct for wire-braced airplanes.  It seems to me as if all airplanes are treated as if they have cantilever wings, which explains why many of the wire-braced airplanes suffer so much.  To have something that bears any resemblance to reality, all airplanes should be able to be shot up quite a bit before they fall apart.  In Sagittarius Rising, Cecil Lewis describes how his Morane Parasol, which was essentially a pre-war Type L, was attacked by a German airplane and was badly shot up.  He put it into a tight spiral to escape and the German airplane eventually left.  Flying back, the left wing felt floppy and when he landed, he found a close grouping of 50 rounds that had nearly severed the left spar about six feet out from the fuselage.  It seems to me as if the bracing wires carried nearly all the flexing load that would have been applied to the spar if it was a cantilever airplane.  Arthur Gould Lee describes several fights where his Pup was hit by 30 or so rounds and in one of these, his vision went for a second because he pulled to hard.  He also dove his Pup straight down 12000 feet to escape from several Albatros, and it is accounts like these that make me think that many pilots commonly pushed their machines right to the edge of what they could do, especially trying to escape.

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 hour ago, VeltroRoF said:

In regards to the original question. I believe that the wing shredding counts for all airplanes with wires between the wing.

 

The Pfalz D.IIIa and Bristol Fighter are both externally braced and can take far more punishment than the Albatros D.Va, Dolphin, Camel or S.E.5a. It's entirely a function of main spar thickness, or in case of the Pfalz, the fact that its lower wing has two wing spars. The main advantage with this is that it makes the wing virtually immune to flutter effect, which is what caused the Albatros and other sesquiplane designs to fail in dives.

 

Flutter is not modeled in RoF/FC. Instead we have wings that are unnaturally resistant to damage and G stress.

 

?‍♂️

[=IRFC=Gascan]

5 hours ago, VeltroRoF said:

In regards to the original question. I believe that the wing shredding counts for all airplanes with wires between the wing. I fly SE5a most of the time and the only advice that I can give you is that when you 'think' you were hit you land immediately (even if you suspect but didn't hear it, it doesn't matter). Almost all of my deaths are due to wing loss. With the SE5a and SPAD this is just easier because they are fast so you can get out of a fight easier. For that reason I probably would never fly a Dolphin.

According to this poll, most pilots believe that the majority of their deaths are due to loss of controls (23.2%), followed closely by wing shredding (19.3%). Next up is diving too hard (11.6%) and pilot kills (10.3%), then engine system damage (8.3%) and rams (7.1%).

I usually fly the SE5 or the Bristol. After taking a few hits, I start to really baby the SE5, making use of long dives to escape from a fight if possible. With the Bristol I'll keep going until I have no control anymore. If I was lucky enough to get stuck in a stable turn when the controls jammed, it'll take another few minutes to finish off a plane that is essentially out of the fight.

[ST_Catchov]

7 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

 

Do any of his contemporaries discuss the concept for any plane?

 

Didn't some renowned German pilot refer to the Dr1 as climbing like a lift or words to that effect? It may have been MvR? So I think it's quite possible that if the real Se5a Viper had such poor energy retention in the mildest of climbs/turns as in FC/ROF it would have been referred to and corrected. Maybe, as suggested by some here, by a different prop? That might be a good start.

[Cynic_Al]

2 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

Didn't some renowned German pilot refer to the Dr1 as climbing like a lift or words to that effect? 

 

I don't see the connection and await someone citing a contemporary example of the concept.

[No.23_Triggers]

14 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

That's why I never bothered with streaks, building one amounted to avoiding having fun. In FC, it's even more either/or situation, have your cake or eat it. The airquake arena we now have really shows that, despite all DM issues I'm still mostly concerned with being rammed by an AI when I go there.

Have to disagree on that one. Streak-building was exceptional fun (although I'll grant you that once you start getting into the higher numbers it's fun mixed with constantly wracked nerves), but the whole control-cable-or-wings-off-from-5-rounds put that to bed. The new DM also took away (for me, at least) any real need for gunnery chops. In the old DM I had some real nail-biters that would eventually come down to who was the better shot and could nail the pilot or the engine - now it feels like "if you throw enough shit at the wall, some of it will stick". 

if you want to streak-build these days I'd imagine it would be an excessively boring undertaking where you'd have to be the 'perfect pilot' on every sortie. After all, just one long-range hit might cut your elevator or hit your spar™.

 

 

[J2_Bidu]

4 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

to streak-build these days I'd imagine it

 

That is the other option. Your words, not mine.

[No.23_Starling]

10 hours ago, gascan said:

According to this poll, most pilots believe that the majority of their deaths are due to loss of controls (23.2%), followed closely by wing shredding (19.3%). Next up is diving too hard (11.6%) and pilot kills (10.3%), then engine system damage (8.3%) and rams (7.1%).

I usually fly the SE5 or the Bristol. After taking a few hits, I start to really baby the SE5, making use of long dives to escape from a fight if possible. With the Bristol I'll keep going until I have no control anymore. If I was lucky enough to get stuck in a stable turn when the controls jammed, it'll take another few minutes to finish off a plane that is essentially out of the fight.

I wonder how many of those wing shred votes were Fokker or Diiia jocks?

 

Nursing the Se5 after any hits is the way to account for the current situation but it’s not very fun and not something the Pfalz pilot has to ever worry about. As Miners says, it’s also not mentioned in any sources that wire braced planes had to be flown this way whilst the Fokkers could be chucked about like a baseball after dozens of hits. On the contrary, there’s lots of examples of ppl like Albert Ball regularly flying his SE like a madman and returning with dozens of hits.

 

I would also add that’s there plenty of eyewitness accounts of Fokkers and Pfalz’s being ‘shot to pieces’ and coming apart, just as often as the Entente birds, and literally nothing from any entente pilot ever - from what I’ve read - saying that their adversaries rarely lost their wings due to a magic wing construction. From start to finish in the war the advice was meat and metal, not spray from 500m and wait for a control surface to fail. 

[VeltroRoF]

And 1% sneezing

 

https://youtu.be/kHDdvosmDCc

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 hour ago, VeltroRoF said:

And 1% sneezing

 

https://youtu.be/kHDdvosmDCc

Yeah you’re claiming those are allergies, but you should have known that sneezing is the most common symptom of the Delta variant.

[Guest deleted@83466]

Things like unlikely control jams are a newer thing that didn’t plague RoF, but in the admittedly short time frame I played FC, I didn’t notice anything new, or worse, about the wing shredding.  If you wanted to get a good streak back in the old game in an SE5a you’d sure as heck need to RTB at the slightest hint of damage, or else your streak wouldn’t last very long.   That’s nothing new.  The way I typically went about things, I’d often make just one diving pass on an unsuspecting opponent, in which I either got him (and his wings cracked off) or else he was taking long range spray-and-pray shots as I fled.  If he hit me, and that was likely, or if I even suspected he’d hit me, I was done with that sortie.  To wit, in the relatively short time span I played FC, I was put off by the control jams, but the wings of planes like the SE5a (that was a fave of mine in RoF) seemed just as flimsy as ever…take a hit, even think you took a hit, then you don’t maneuver anymore, as a rule, and time for a new plane.

 

You never know when you are going to need to pull some Gs later on, so I would RTB, in any plane, even the 7F, not just the flimsy ones like the SE.  Damage means no more Gs on that plane, period, if you could help it.  Realistic, probably not, but point being is that everybody in RoF was *always* plagued by the weak wings, especially so in planes like the SE.

I’m just saying that I didn’t see anything worse or different than what I’d known before.  If it weren’t for the control jams, and I were trying to get a good streak going, I contend I wouldn’t play anything different than I had in RoF.

 

Edited July 1, 2021 by SeaSerpent

[No.23_Starling]

2 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

You never know when you are going to need to pull some Gs later on, so I would RTB, in any plane, even the 7F, not just the flimsy ones like the SE.  Damage means no more Gs on that plane, period, if you could help it.  Realistic, probably not, but point being is that everybody in RoF was *always* plagued by the weak wings, especially so in planes like the SE.

I’m just saying that I didn’t see anything worse or different than what I’d known before.  If it weren’t for the control jams, and I were trying to get a good streak going, I contend I wouldn’t play anything different than I had in RoF.

 

Agreed that the SE5a isn’t much worse, but as you say, in RoF the Dviif and even the Dr1 was less robust which at the very least felt fairer. The FC disparity in wing strength is a joke with little-to-no evidence to support such disparity, and despite what Trupo says about Central planes, you can most definitely pick up a good dive speed in the Dviif and Diiia, and even sometimes (with enough effort and stupidity) actually rip of the wings. Even they you can just pull your perfect rip cord on your invincible and 100% reliable, totally weightless parachute. 

[Guest deleted@83466]

1 hour ago, US93_Rummell said:

Agreed that the SE5a isn’t much worse, but as you say, in RoF the Dviif and even the Dr1 was less robust which at the very least felt fairer. The FC disparity in wing strength is a joke with little-to-no evidence to support such disparity, and despite what Trupo says about Central planes, you can most definitely pick up a good dive speed in the Dviif and Diiia, and even sometimes (with enough effort and stupidity) actually rip of the wings. Even they you can just pull your perfect rip cord on your invincible and 100% reliable, totally weightless parachute. 

 

To make a slight correction to what you just said, I did not say that 7F or Dr1 was less robust in RoF.  The 7F in FC struck me as being about the same as RoF all around.  And Spad seemed like I’d remembered it, sturdy and tough, though didn’t fly it for more than a few sorties).  I didn’t fly the Dr1 on Flugpark, but I did manage to saw the top wing off of one of them in a single Spad pass (I.e. didn’t get the impression it had an uber dm over and above RoF, at least from an attackers perspective).

 

 

Edited July 1, 2021 by SeaSerpent

[US41_Winslow]

DVIIs really cannot have their wings shot off unlike RoF.  It takes so many rounds that the conditions needed for it to occur hardly ever happen.  The Dr.1 is slightly weaker and can be shot to pieces, though it takes quite a few rounds and rarely occurs.  Both of these airplanes seem to behave relatively realistically when it comes to being shot, but the DVII may be a bit too strong.  I didn’t fly multiplayer much in RoF that much but I feel the Camel was more durable than it is in FC, and I didn’t fly many other airplanes enough to no how strong they are compared to how strong they are now.  However, the thing that really annoys people is when you get your wings shot off after they shoot your wings for literally less than a second, especially after you have shot up one of the attackers well beyond the point where they would have fallen to pieces if their wings had been at all as weak as yours.

[US103_Baer]

12 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

To make a slight correction to what you just said, I did not say that 7F or Dr1 was less robust in RoF.  The 7F in FC struck me as being about the same as RoF all around.  And Spad seemed like I’d remembered it, sturdy and tough, though didn’t fly it for more than a few sorties).  I didn’t fly the Dr1 on Flugpark, but I did manage to saw the top wing off of one of them in a single Spad pass (I.e. didn’t get the impression it had an uber dm over and above RoF, at least from an attackers perspective).

 

 

 

Quite possible to have those experiences, but afraid Rummy's correct on this one.  The disparity occurred in 4.006. 

 

From memory all planes had to be fairly careful in RoF after taking some wing hits, but in FC it's worse for most of the Entente and almost no issue in a D7, Dr1 and Pfalz.

 

Edit:

The rof v fc thing got me interested though.  Going to try do some pvp tests in both soon. 

Edited July 2, 2021 by US28_Baer

[Todt_Von_Oben]

RE: Parachutes, an unfair advantage:

 

Weren't Central planes largely outnumbered by 1918?  

 

In real life, considering the numerical odds, the parachute only evened the playing field a little bit for the Germans.

 

But we can't simulate that imbalance in MP; and actually I usually see more German fliers online.  Then, the 'chutes become an even greater advantage for Central.

 

I've read that the actual deployment failure-rate was pretty significant. 

 

And when I try to visualize what it would be like to make a hop from a plane that's damaged, out of control, and maybe on fire; using a big, heavy-weight canopy that was stuffed into a deployment-bag that's mechanically-fastened to a structural member inside the empennage behind the pilot seat, I can see why. 

 

With what we know about parachutes today, that system would be condemned as a "death rig" at any DZ on the planet.  I wouldn't even think about jumping one.

 

So how about if the Devs put, say, a 25% failure-rate on the 'chutes; you jump not knowing if you're going to get a bag-lock or streamer.  Now it's not so much a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card. 

 

How would that be?

 

ADDIT:  If Chill put one of those chutes in his triplane, I doubt he could get it certified as airworthy for emergency use by the FAA-FAI-USPA.  Just a thought. 

 

GRISLY BUT NEAT AFTERTHOUGHT: a simulated bag-lock malfunction of said airframe-mounted container in FC VR would likely have the pilot snagged outside the empennage; flailing against the tail as the plane augers-in.  Oh, yes please!  And have him scream all the way down, too. "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGHHHH!!" ?

 

 

 

Edited July 2, 2021 by Todt_Von_Oben

[Monostripezebra]

it also can occasianlly be a feature, though.. how else one gets snag-free through the woods?

 

 

Edited July 2, 2021 by Monostripezebra

[J2_Trupobaw]

On 7/1/2021 at 11:45 AM, US93_Rummell said:

I wonder how many of those wing shred votes were Fokker or Diiia jocks?

 

#metoo . In one corner, underpowered plane with thick wing profile. In other, overpowered plane with thin wings. Which one is more likely to not shed wings under misapplied physics ? ?

(RoF still fails in comparison; in RoF you could saw wings off the plane. Most people went for lower wings or joint of top wings by default, put good burst in there, wings collapsed. In FC, damaged wings may come off if pilot abuses the airframe. No automatic blowing wings away like in RoF, you need target pilots help in damaging his plane). 

[J2_Bidu]

14 hours ago, Miners said:

However, the thing that really annoys people is when you get your wings shot off after they shoot your wings for literally less than a second, especially after you have shot up one of the attackers well beyond the point where they would have fallen to pieces if their wings had been at all as weak as yours.

 

Actually, most people who think their wings have been shot OFF are actually ripping them by causing G's when they they have only been shot UP. The issue is rather on their resistence to G's.

[J2_Trupobaw]

50 minutes ago, Todt_Von_Oben said:

RE: Parachutes, an unfair advantage:

 

Weren't Central planes largely outnumbered by 1918?  (Something like 350 triplanes built versus about 5,500 Camels?)

 

Camels service time was much longer. With about 50 Camel squadrons each having at most 30 pilots, there were no more than 1500 Camels at the Front at any moment (probably less; with RFC flight strength at 6-10 pilots and some of the units being USAS, the number is somewhere in 900-1500 bracket). Dr.Is OTOH were deployed in 3 Geschwederen, with about 100 Dr.Is operational at the same day (out of total 1000 of German scouts). 

The Central pilots in 1918, while outnumbered, were also:
1) Flying mostly 1918 planes (Fokker D.VII 200hp/F, Fokker D.VIII, Pfalz D.XII, SS D.III/IV, Roland D.VI). These are available only in limited quantities on Flugpark.
2) when still using older airframes in frontline units, upgrading them to 200hp engines.
3) concentrating their forces to archive local superiority where and when needed. These 100 Dr.Is in service at the same time came in three groups of 20-40-40 . The same applied later to D.VIIFs - if you saw one, you were likely to see 30 more. Most of the Entente machines were maintaining superiority over empty skies, while maybe being harassed by single rear-echelon Jasta. Where Germans did bother to have the good planes, numbers were much more even.

Current Flugpark missions are anything but historical. Most of Central planes are 1917 variants retired in March/May 1918,  with handful of proper 1918 planes. It has planes that had little chance of flying together (Dr.I and D.VIII, 180 hp Pfalz D.IIIa and Viper S.E.5.a). This is fine, it's a game, but it makes historical arguments one-sided. The planes that Central pilots were being outnumbered with are not the ones we are flying.

Edited July 2, 2021 by J2_Trupobaw

[No.23_Starling]

1 hour ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

#metoo . In one corner, underpowered plane with thick wing profile. In other, overpowered plane with thin wings. Which one is more likely to not shed wings under misapplied physics ? ?

(RoF still fails in comparison; in RoF you could saw wings off the plane. Most people went for lower wings or joint of top wings by default, put good burst in there, wings collapsed. In FC, damaged wings may come off if pilot abuses the airframe. No automatic blowing wings away like in RoF, you need target pilots help in damaging his plane). 

Since when was the dviif underpowered? The engine variant argument goes both ways, as the Spad we have now matches the recorded performance of the 200hp HS (1917), not the listed 220hp let alone the HS 235hp late version, then you have the Bentley Camel etc. I’d love these and the upgraded Merc engine. 
 

id also like to read or see evidence - none provided by anyone on any thread I’ve seen so far - that the Se5 and Dolphin was so fragile that a single wing hit always necessitated RTB whereas the Fokkers could be turned to Swiss cheese and dive merrily without worry (including with the definitely not underpowered F BMW engine). Trupo - the Dviif can dive very well indeed and its wing rarely tears away with a cough, so enough with the AU engine excuse on the wing DM. I 100% agree with you (again) that we need engine variants but it has sod all to do with the current DM situation.
 

Y’all can deflect all you want and claim that Albert Ball actually never took a hit in his SE5 and shot up his own plane after landing, but the fact is the disparity between wings strengths, combined with the control surface jams a la ww2 cannon shell hits, his driven away at least 2 entente squads I can think of and half of my own.

 

 

[US103_Baer]

1 hour ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

#metoo . In one corner, underpowered plane with thick wing profile. In other, overpowered plane with thin wings. Which one is more likely to not shed wings under misapplied physics ? ?

 

One corner has ALWAYS been slower & thick, the other ALWAYS fast & thin, but the DM wing shedding has NOT always been skewed as it is now. 

 

Sorry,  but you cannot rewrite history with a convenient analogy removed of context. 

[Todt_Von_Oben]

1 hour ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Current Flugpark missions are anything but historical. Most of Central planes are 1917 variants retired in March/May 1918,  with handful of proper 1918 planes. It has planes that had little chance of flying together (Dr.I and D.VIII, 180 hp Pfalz D.IIIa and Viper S.E.5.a). This is fine, it's a game, but it makes historical arguments one-sided. The planes that Central pilots were being outnumbered with are not the ones we are flying.

 

I hear ya, Trupobaw.  I'm not really a stickler for history; and if you hadn't told me those things, I wouldn't know them.  I'm just grateful to finally be able to dogfight these old crates in VR. 

 

Personally, I'm not having any problems with FC: the FM feels credible; my wings aren't coming off and I'm not seeing targets get clipped with a single shot.  In fact, I'm having to work for it.  The Bots are good shots, exhibit a few basic tactics, and will go aerobatic with you.  I'm happy with all that.  

 

If Flugpark isn't exactly historically correct; that's okay with me.  It's become Mecca.  The burning cities and ordinance going off in the mud really adds to my enjoyment.  Sizzlor's maps must have taken a lot of effort; and for that I am appreciative.

 

Saw your Dolphin flying high cover over my Camel the other day as I dusted a bot; then I dived for that field next to the mud because my tank was holed and I was almost out of fuel.  I touched down a bit further out than you and came to a successful stop; you overflew my final approach, shut down, and drove into a tent.

 

"SAFE!"  LOL!

 

That was my first time back in a Camel and my first time to that airport.  Is that place not operational?  Abandoned?  Anybody ever cut the lawn there?  

 

Prosit! 

 

 

 

Edited July 2, 2021 by Todt_Von_Oben

[Todt_Von_Oben]

15 hours ago, Miners said:

DVIIs really cannot have their wings shot off unlike RoF.  It takes so many rounds that the conditions needed for it to occur hardly ever happen.  

 

I will test-fly that next time I boot up FC.  Film at eleven.  ?

 

But notice this: 

 

For one thing, compare the top wing center-section struts of the D7 to that of, say, the Camel.  The D7 struts start at the landing gear legs and rises to brace the center-section across about 1/3 of the wingspan.  In comparison, the F1 center-section struts sprout from atop the fuselage to support a smaller percentage of a longer span.

 

Then there's variances in the airfoil shape, wing construction, and fuselage framing; steel versus wood, etc.  To me, based on what I've learned from building things including airplanes, it seems like the Fokker should be stronger than the Sopwith; so if it is in the sim, I'm not presently convinced that's inaccurate.

 

I'll go shoot some D7s down later today and let you know how many I can clip.

 

Prosit!

Edited July 2, 2021 by Todt_Von_Oben

[US41_Winslow]

8 minutes ago, Todt_Von_Oben said:

 

Then there's variances in the airfoil shape, wing construction, and fuselage framing; steel versus wood, etc.  To me, based on what I've learned from building things including airplanes, it seems like the Fokker should be stronger than the Sopwith; so if it is in the sim, I'm not presently convinced that's inaccurate.

If both airplanes had no bracing, I would agree with you that what we have now makes sense, but the Camel is braced and the Fokker is not.  The bracing on the Camel largely prevents the spar from flexing which makes it much less prone to snapping than an unbraced spar of the same size.  Overall, this should mean that the Camel and Fokker should not have such a massive disparity in wing strength.

 

15 minutes ago, Todt_Von_Oben said:

I'll go shoot some D7s down later today and let you know how many I can clip.

 

 

So far this year on multiplayer, I have died 16 times, 14 of those caused by either my wings falling off or my controls jamming.  In return I shot down 61 aircraft (excluding AI), 26 of which were DVIIs.  I saw only one of these go to pieces and I think it was due to a lag collision rather than damage.  Compare this to reality where I have never heard that the DVII was significantly stronger than the Camel.  One Camel pilot even went to say it was a strong airplane and you didn’t worry about it breaking up, which couldn’t be further from the current situation.  Adding to the pile of evidence refuting the current DM, one Camel in Italy flown by Lt. Alan Jarred of 66 Squadron was shot 163 times before it crashed due to a shot-up engine.  It is interesting to note that 16 rounds hit the engine and 27 hit the fuel tank and the Camel didn’t light on fire.  Though this may be an exceptional example of the strength of the Camel, it is impossible to achieve anything like this right now in FC.

[J2_Trupobaw]

2 hours ago, US28_Baer said:

 

One corner has ALWAYS been slower & thick, the other ALWAYS fast & thin, but the DM wing shedding has NOT always been skewed as it is now. 

 

Sorry,  but you cannot rewrite history with a convenient analogy removed of context. 

No, hence the flawed physics part. But you can't conveniently ignore the context to cry foul when IRL less adapted planes are punished more by bad design than well adapted.

 

The current DM is bad design in need of correcting. It punishes overpowered planes with thin airfoil the most. It's continously developed software, this happens all the time. So far so good. 

 

But what he have here is not discussion of bad design, but complains that some planes are punished by bad design less than others. There is outright hipocrysy, too - if the "Entente players" were throttling down to fly at the same horsepower as German planes they condemn (80-90% throttle), most of wing shedding problems would go away. The playing field is inherently not level. 

 

There's little wrong with Fokkers and Pfalz DM. That problem lies in design of Entente planes. Fortunately, we all can choose plane and side we are flying.

 

2 hours ago, US93_Rummell said:

Since when was the dviif underpowered?

 

id also like to read or see evidence - none provided by anyone on any thread I’ve seen so far - that the Se5 and Dolphin was so fragile that a single wing hit always necessitated RTB

 

 

Try pulling more than 3G in D.VIIF in combat. The BMW engine is not particulary powerful - it just loses power slower with altitude. Keeping your sea level horsepower up to 3k is an advantage, but if that sea level horsepower is comparable to Mercedes you are still underpowered in absolute numbers; just less so at altitude.

 

The S.E and Dolphin DM is wrong, hands down, but it has nothing to do with other planes. OTOH I keepighting in Dolphin and S.E after taking wing hits. The trick is not in joystick arm wrestling until you take a hit than RTB trying not to sneeze, but in keeping Gs low both before and after you take a hit. Which I imagine historical pilots were doing 

 

Edited July 2, 2021 by J2_Trupobaw

[No.23_Starling]

17 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

No, hence the flawed physics part. But you can't conveniently ignore the context to cry foul when IRL less adapted planes are punished more by bad design than well adapted.

 

The current DM is bad design in need of correcting. It punishes overpowered planes with thin airfoil the most. It's continously developed software, this happens all the time. So far so good. 

 

But what he have here is not discussion of bad design, but complains that some planes are punished by bad design less than others. There is outright hipocrysy, too - if the "Entente players" were throttling down to fly at the same horsepower as German planes they condemn (80-90% throttle), most of wing shedding problems would go away. The playing field is inherently not level. 

 

There's little wrong with Fokkers and Pfalz DM. That problem lies in design of Entente planes. Fortunately, we all can choose plane and side we are flying.

 

Try pulling more than 3G in D.VIIF in combat. The BMW engine is not particulary powerful - it just loses power slower with altitude. Keeping your sea level horsepower up to 3k is an advantage, but if that sea level horsepower is comparable to Mercedes you are still underpowered in absolute numbers; just less so at altitude.

 

The S.E and Dolphin DM is wrong, hands down, but it has nothing to do with other planes. OTOH I keepighting in Dolphin and S.E after taking wing hits. The trick is not in joystick arm wrestling until you take a hit than RTB trying not to sneeze, but in keeping Gs low both before and after you take a hit. Which I imagine historical pilots were doing 

 

Good response - agree on a lot here.

 

It’s funny you mention throttling down; I almost never dive the Spad at full throttle so a lot of the time I am at 80-90%. Try that in the level though in a poorly turning plane and it’s curtains. Sadly, the SE5a we have here regains energy so poorly that throttling down to save your wings means death by prophang after your first attack.

 

I’m not sure hypocrisy is a fair charge though as I’ve agreed with you twice on this thread alone about the lack of engine variants, particularly for the Dva and vanilla Dvii. Again, don’t forget about the Bentley Camel and 235hp Spad ? 

[J2_Bidu]

4 hours ago, US93_Rummell said:

[...] the lack of engine variants, particularly for the Dva and vanilla Dvii. Again, don’t forget about the Bentley Camel and 235hp Spad ?