Dolphin Wing Shredding

[J2_Trupobaw]

4 hours ago, US93_Rummell said:

 

 

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 ? 

I'm not sure how common these two were (weren't Bentleys used mostly in once-RNAS squadrons and 235hp Spads only by French?), but I'm sure D.IIIau was mainstay of German units by summer 1918. I'm also confident that H-S S.E.5.a with 4-blade climbing prop is the most missing Entente engine variant  . 

As of hipocrisy remark, I apologise. The attitude I was trying to describe boils down to fallancy "Having 20%-40% more effective engine is GOOD. Excess energy shaking my plane apart is BAD. Planes that don't have that excess energy not shaking apart is OUTREAGOUS."

[BMA_Hellbender]

And as always we keep going around in circles.

 

Today the topic is the weak Dolphin wings, and as someone who flies the Dolphin a lot, I can assure you that I've learned to work around the issue. Tomorrow it will be about something else. There's many small inconsistencies that make this game less historical and more quirky, almost all of which can be forgiven and forgotten, including the Pfalz DM, N28 FM, Dr.I RPM and spin recovery RTFM. This hasn't changed since RoF. Unfortunately.

 

What has fundamentally changed the game since RoF, are the parachutes, about which I'm mostly ambivalent; the gun angle and (AI) gunner changes, which are bad for the most part, but have also halted some of the crazier pilot/gunner antics that existed in RoF (*cough*); and the control cable jams and bilateral failures after a single hit, which I think have ruined the game completely, plain and simple, and made parachutes more than just a curiosity. If the devs actually played MP they would know that. And yes it's true that some of the wing failure differences have been made more flagrant, but they already existed back in RoF in a different guise, with tougher wings but control surfaces that could be shot off more easily.

 

This is my biggest concern really: the game dynamic is constantly changing with updates, mostly due to WWII features being added or reviewed, but there's no overarching vision and certainly no single thought is spared to balance WWI MP. Because "balance" is a dirty word, of course, and the more realistic you make a sim the more realistic the outcomes will be. Technically, yes, but then half of what makes WWI wood and canvas wire braced biplanes distinctive from WWII wood and/or metal cantilever monoplanes just isn't modeled in the first place.

 

So this is all we can conclude: things have changed, and things will likely continue to change. Some changes will be good, and some will be bad, and almost all of them, without exception, will be completely unintentional.

 

Edited July 2, 2021 by =IRFC=Hellbender

[No.23_Triggers]

38 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

I'm not sure how common these two were (weren't Bentleys used mostly in once-RNAS squadrons and 235hp Spads only by French?), but I'm sure D.IIIau was mainstay of German units by summer 1918. I'm also confident that H-S S.E.5.a with 4-blade climbing prop is the most missing Entente engine variant  . 

Been a while since I read up on it, but AFAIK the '235hp' Hisso was rated at 220hp (That would be the HS8bc / 8bd / 8be)- which were capable of producing a max of 235hp - and they were the standard for SPADs in 1918, and had a higher compression ratio compared to the circa 1917 200hp HS 8Ba which the XIII has in-game atm. 

 

Edited July 2, 2021 by US93_Larner

[No.23_Starling]

47 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

I'm not sure how common these two were (weren't Bentleys used mostly in once-RNAS squadrons and 235hp Spads only by French?), but I'm sure D.IIIau was mainstay of German units by summer 1918. I'm also confident that H-S S.E.5.a with 4-blade climbing prop is the most missing Entente engine variant  . 

As of hipocrisy remark, I apologise. The attitude I was trying to describe boils down to fallancy "Having 20%-40% more effective engine is GOOD. Excess energy shaking my plane apart is BAD. Planes that don't have that excess energy not shaking apart is OUTREAGOUS."

No need to apologise! I believe the Bentley was fitted to RNAS types but they never had enough to fully replace the Clerget, with the Br2 going to the Snipe. On the SPAD front, we have a 200hp in game right now not the stated 220hp (the performance matches the data of the 200hp version - see Baer’s error log post); IIRC the 220hp was standard by Feb 1918. At the very least we need a 220hp performing engine which actually faced off the Dviifs, so for us Spaddicts that’s just as important as the AU engine is for you and the Pfalz fans. From an engine perspective it is almost like we have a H2 1917 planeset right now, plus the Dviif. Totally with you on that.

 

Either way, speeding up our Merc birds won’t help Dolphins from coming apart in even modest aerobatics after 1% wing damage. @VeltroRoF’s video, apart from being hilarious, does not show wild high G inputs, and is typical of the frustrations driving away players wanting to fly these planes. There’s excess energy and fighting with your stick, and then there’s flying like you’re trying to thread the world’s smallest needle.

 

Likewise, although the thread is about wing damage, the jammed surface occurrences, particularly from spectacular ranges, are out of control (no pun intended) and feel more like a ww2 cannon shell hitting a big metal tail section, rather than rifle calibre rounds shooting through sometimes multiple control wires. 

Edited July 2, 2021 by US93_Rummell

[ST_Catchov]

56 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

This is my biggest concern really: the game dynamic is constantly changing with updates, mostly due to WWII features being added or reviewed, but there's no overarching vision and certainly no single thought is spared to balance WWI MP. Because "balance" is a dirty word, of course, and the more realistic you make a sim the more realistic the outcomes will be. Technically, yes, but then half of what makes WWI wood and canvas wire braced biplanes distinctive from WWII wood and/or metal cantilever monoplanes just isn't modeled in the first place.

 

I feel the pain also.  Aligning FC with the WWII modules was, in retrospect, an unfortunate decision. From a business perspective fine, but the ensuing consequences of WWII updates on WW1 has been less than stellar. Made worse it seems by attempts to fix the anomalies forced upon wood, linen and wire braced biplanes by metal, cantilever, strongly armed monoplanes. FC should have been stand-alone from the start.

 

Then there are the other problems. 

 

It's a good thing the devs are looking into it ....

[Guest deleted@83466]

Don’t blame me, I voted for North Africa in that poll way back when?

[Monostripezebra]

8 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

but then half of what makes WWI wood and canvas wire braced biplanes distinctive from WWII wood and/or metal cantilever monoplanes just isn't modeled in the first place.

 

I don´t have the footage anymore, as I threw away all the failed attempts of trying to bug planes into eachother.. but the amazing thing still is, that Il2 does have structural differences for WW1 and WW2 planes and it becomes pretty apparent when you collide them with one another. If you land a Fokker on a Ju52 or C47 the behaviour in falling appart is pretty different then for instance a stuka.

 

Of course, I also tested the dolphin, which was surprisingly robust (fuselage wise).. but yeah, the wings have given me so much pain in combat, too. Especially with that a bit jumpy stick detection, that I have.

 

 

 

Edited July 3, 2021 by Monostripezebra

[No.23_Starling]

On 7/2/2021 at 11:12 PM, J2_Trupobaw said:

I'm not sure how common these two were (weren't Bentleys used mostly in once-RNAS squadrons and 235hp Spads only by French?), but I'm sure D.IIIau was mainstay of German units by summer 1918. I'm also confident that H-S S.E.5.a with 4-blade climbing prop is the most missing Entente engine variant  .

Since we last posted I received a copy of Hispano Suiza in Aeronautics. As per Baer’s error log, the Spad XIII in FC has the no. 35 200hp engine which was capable of 220hp+ at higher revs (possibly why 1C have called the engine the 220hp version in the specs). This was largely replaced by early 1918 in most Spad XIIIs by the 220hp no. 35 S engine, capable of 235hp+ at high revs. Without this engine we have a 1917 Spad which had largely disappeared by early 1918. 
 

Moreover, the book notes that the late-war engine was fitted with a turbocharger, allowing HP to be maintained up to much higher altitudes than the standard 35 S engine.

 

Just as we really need the AU engine for 1918, we also need as a minimum a 35 S engine SPAD. The turbocharged version could also be present as DVIIfs appeared in numbers (I need to find more info on how many operational types existed), but the actual 220hp engine exclusion is the biggest hole. For Spad/French simmers the 35 S engine is just as important as the merc AU and a glaring ommision.

Basically right now we have lots of 1917 variants of engines plus the DVIIF.

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, US93_Rummell said:

Moreover, the book notes that the late-war engine was fitted with a turbocharger, allowing HP to be maintained up to much higher altitudes than the standard 35 S engine.

As I do not find this arrangement mentioned in any list of HS engines, it is probably fair to say they made like one such SPAD before the war ended. It is also very different from the "a" and "aü" engines, where they just played with different piston and carburetor arrangements, but otherwise it is a "normal" engine.

 

[Garven]

4 hours ago, US93_Rummell said:

Since we last posted I received a copy of Hispano Suiza in Aeronautics. As per Baer’s error log, the Spad XIII in FC has the no. 35 200hp engine which was capable of 220hp+ at higher revs (possibly why 1C have called the engine the 220hp version in the specs). This was largely replaced by early 1918 in most Spad XIIIs by the 220hp no. 35 S engine, capable of 235hp+ at high revs. Without this engine we have a 1917 Spad which had largely disappeared by early 1918. 
 

Moreover, the book notes that the late-war engine was fitted with a turbocharger, allowing HP to be maintained up to much higher altitudes than the standard 35 S engine.

 

Just as we really need the AU engine for 1918, we also need as a minimum a 35 S engine SPAD. The turbocharged version could also be present as DVIIfs appeared in numbers (I need to find more info on how many operational types existed), but the actual 220hp engine exclusion is the biggest hole. For Spad/French simmers the 35 S engine is just as important as the merc AU and a glaring ommision.

Basically right now we have lots of 1917 variants of engines plus the DVIIF.

My book says only one prototype (S.706) is known to have been fitted with the Rateau supercharger behind the cockpit.  Apparently in another source (which refers to it as a turbosupercharger) it weighed 220lbs more than a standard SPAD 13, never was tested above 3000m on Sept 3rd 1918, and performed worse than a standard SPAD XIII (the tests on Sept. 3rd 1918 are considered inconclusive). It should not be present in game.

Edited July 5, 2021 by 94th_Vernon

[No.23_Starling]

1 hour ago, 94th_Vernon said:

My book says only one prototype (S.706) is known to have been fitted with the Rateau supercharger behind the cockpit.  Apparently in another source (which refers to it as a turbosupercharger) it weighed 220lbs more than a standard SPAD 13, never was tested above 3000m on Sept 3rd 1918, and performed worse than a standard SPAD XIII (the tests on Sept. 3rd 1918 are considered inconclusive). It should not be present in game.

That’s helpful, thank you!

 

The 220hp 35 S engine though should be standard for 1918.

1 hour ago, 94th_Vernon said:

My book says only one prototype (S.706) is known to have been fitted with the Rateau supercharger behind the cockpit.  Apparently in another source (which refers to it as a turbosupercharger) it weighed 220lbs more than a standard SPAD 13, never was tested above 3000m on Sept 3rd 1918, and performed worse than a standard SPAD XIII (the tests on Sept. 3rd 1918 are considered inconclusive). It should not be present in game.

Which sources did you read? Would be keen to learn more.

[Garven]

14 minutes ago, US93_Rummell said:

Which sources did you read? Would be keen to learn more.

"French Aircraft of the First World War", and an article from AIR International volume 10 "SPAD Story, A comprehensive account, by J.M. Bruce, of the SPAD 13 and its relatives" 

Edited July 5, 2021 by 94th_Vernon

[No.23_Starling]

4 hours ago, 94th_Vernon said:

"French Aircraft of the First World War", and an article from AIR International volume 10 "SPAD Story, A comprehensive account, by J.M. Bruce, of the SPAD 13 and its relatives" 

Thank you! Do you own a copy of the former? All the copies I can see on eBay are hundreds of dollars. Is there an online version somewhere?

[Garven]

11 minutes ago, US93_Rummell said:

Thank you! Do you own a copy of the former? All the copies I can see on eBay are hundreds of dollars. Is there an online version somewhere?

Yes I do, picked it up off of Abebooks don't remember it being too expensive.  (sorry wrong book) yeah I paid a little over a hundred dollars for it.  Don't think there is an online version.

Edited July 5, 2021 by 94th_Vernon

[US103_Baer]

5 hours ago, 94th_Vernon said:

Yes I do, picked it up off of Abebooks don't remember it being too expensive.  (sorry wrong book) yeah I paid a little over a hundred dollars for it.  Don't think there is an online version.

Have searched also and can't find a cheap one. 

 

12 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

As I do not find this arrangement mentioned in any list of HS engines, it is probably fair to say they made like one such SPAD before the war ended. It is also very different from the "a" and "aü" engines, where they just played with different piston and carburetor arrangements, but otherwise it is a "normal" engine.

 

 

The turbo,  yeah.  Probably right.

The 220hp type 35S had higher compression ratio of 5.3, vs the 200hp comp ratio of 4.7.

That's more power and better retention at altitude, which is backed up in flight performance test data. Is essentially what they did to the 150 to create the 180.

 

Should help against the 1918 German planes.

 

Of course seeing as we have so many 1917 planes it has been suggested to have 1917, early 18 maps.  Wasn't popular for some reason. 

 

Link to Spad Bug Report for Wrong Engine is here

 

 

Edited July 6, 2021 by US28_Baer

[ST_Catchov]

Hey, let's get the fixes by importance first Baer. 

 

1. Se5a energy loss/bleeding revs.

 

2. Crystal wings.

 

3. Excessive damage of control wires.

 

4. Untank the Fokkers.

 

5. Engine variants.

 

[J2_Trupobaw]

1. Bring the wings of FC1 Entente planes, Halberstadt  and D.Va to FC2 level (N.28 and ***** ****** seem fine)
2. Remove pushing rods in planes that used wires for control surfaces (no stuck surfaces)
3. Apply redundant control wires in planes that had them (need to be hit twice to disable surface), and revise chances to hit them in line with FC2
4. Engine variants.

Edited July 6, 2021 by J2_Trupobaw

[=IRFC=kotori87]

I'd love to see a fix for the super-fragile wings, but I'd settle for a technochat message informing you of wing spar or rigging damage. I play with a Jet Seat that rumbles when I take damage, but I've lost multiple streaks to flak or bullets that damaged wing spars without triggering a damage rumble. Ten minutes later my wings fall off for no apparent reason, and I have to check the parser to see why. 0.1% from a 7.7cm flak.

 

If they're gonna be stupid about the wings, they can at least be polite about it and notify us when it happens.

[US103_Baer]

11 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

1. Bring the wings of FC1 Entente planes, Halberstadt  and D.Va to FC2 level (N.28 and ***** ****** seem fine)
2. Remove pushing rods in planes that used wires for control surfaces (no stuck surfaces)
3. Apply redundant control wires in planes that had them (need to be hit twice to disable surface), and revise chances to hit them in line with FC2
4. Engine variants.

Like the ideas re the controls, though i'd want to reduce the likelihood of a control cable hit in the first place, so add RNG chance down by as much as 90%. 

 

Regarding FC2 wings I have zero trust that the DM is any different unless they say it is and explain how. Looking for equivalent to pre-4.005.

 

3 hours ago, kotori87 said:

I'd love to see a fix for the super-fragile wings, but I'd settle for a technochat message informing you of wing spar or rigging damage.

Know where your coming from and it could keep planes with non-critical damage able to fly.  But I worry it could normalise the dodgy dm through the workaround. It doesn't strenghthen the braced wings or promote a viable dm for different wing types.

Edited July 7, 2021 by US28_Baer

[J2_Trupobaw]

11 hours ago, US28_Baer said:

Like the ideas re the controls, though i'd want to reduce the likelihood of a control cable hit in the first place, so add RNG chance down by as much as 90%. 

 

Regarding FC2 wings I have zero trust that the DM is any different unless they say it is and explain how. Looking for equivalent to pre-4.005.

 

You need to fly N.28, Fokker D.VIII and XXXXX XXXXX more :). Remove pushing rods jamming surfaces and they are pretty much done DM wise.

As of explaining how - they are built from ground up with post-4.005 DM in mind rather than being random result of marrying old airframes to new DM. So no, there won't be explanation because they made no change or fix - they were just working with current DM when designing the things and the results are good. The FC1 planes are hybrids and need to be brought in line accordingly.

Edited July 7, 2021 by J2_Trupobaw

[J2_Trupobaw]

I have no idea where you got this from, Al. The plane FM quirks are different through different physics alone (Dolphin, S.e.5a, Albatros, Camel, N.28, XXXXX ) , the durability quirks are completely different as DMs they work under are different.

Plus you have the G-forces affecting the pilot which is real game changer when facing airquakers in Camels. This alone makes RoF and FC completely different sims (before we factor in RoF armoured undestructible tails and self-destructing wings).

[US103_Baer]

3 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

As of explaining how - they are built from ground up with post-4.005 DM in mind rather than being random result of marrying old airframes to new DM. So no, there won't be explanation because they made no change or fix - they were just working with current DM when designing the things and the results are good. The FC1 planes are hybrids and need to be brought in line accordingly.

 

1. How do you know?

2. What are the components that would be different? Using N28 as an example.  

Spar sizes are historic. The DM mechanism hasn't changed.

So what has changed?  Bullet damage modelling with wood? But that would impact all the planes.

Am very curious. 

 

Edited July 7, 2021 by US28_Baer

[ZachariasX]

37 minutes ago, US28_Baer said:

1. How do you know?

2. What are the components that would be different? Using N28 as an example.  

Spar sizes are historic. The DM mechanism hasn't changed.

So what has changed?  Bullet damage modelling with wood? But that would impact all the planes.

Am very curious.

The damage sytem has been completely redone with "the patch". It has nothing to do anymore with what was before. They were quiet clear about that. The entire base of what you liked is no more, it is a different system that obviously ports through ALL aircraft in the sim. And it  gives a lot more functionality.

 

We have now the problem that given DM that cannot simulate the detailed innards of aircraft have to come up with a general system from which specific its to hard stuff have are derived. This strike angle dependent RNG sets the likelyhood  for a "good hit" at a specific damage box of the system.

 

I explained (and even calculated) the way this way of doing things skews the whole affair to favor distant/imprecise shooting rather than precise/close range shooting.  The results are not wrong per se, but the likelyhood of catastrophic failure of the victims aircraft is skewed to spraying. This is why certain wings that miss the part of the rigging wires as "added spar strenght" come apart too easily. I feel this skewing should be compensated by arbitary increased plane strenght. It's technically wrong, but it makes implausible (and that is what we are talking about) events less frequent. Better pepper him a bit more than it come apart just like that. (Some say cal .50 bullets do too little damage...)

 

The main oddity are the control "rod" failures, that clearly reflect a damage system that may have a place in WW2 birds, but in WW1 crates it just doesn't work that way.

 

There are pros and cons to having one system for all aircraft, as different as they might be and as different of the treatment they might get. We see a downside by having certain delicate aircraft. But there is also an upside. We get a lot of aircraft in reasonable time. As opposed to probably not getting anything.

 

Yes, it is idiotic if controls get stuck deflected(!) after getting some shots. But it's still a fun game. Shoots stuff and it falls down. That it does.

[US103_Baer]

 @ZachariasX Yeah, understand and the conclusions seem borne out online.  Standing joke in 3PG is the longer the range, the greater the chance of damage. Madness.

But in earlier post I meant the dm mechanism hasn't changed since 4.005/6.

Trupo was saying they're building FC2 based on this mechanism so therefore the wing strength will be a better fit for this DM. So are they doing as you suggest and bulking up some of the variables to help the braced models perform better, or what? 

Still sceptical that anythings changed but would like to be wrong. 

Edited July 8, 2021 by US28_Baer

[US41_Winslow]

My feeling is that once they get close, the spread of the bullets is much smaller and more likely to damage the spar but once you shoot from over 400 yards or so, the dispersion is great enough that it spreads over more of the airplane and very easily jams the controls, because that is most definitly how these control surfaces and shooting works.  Adjusting spar size alone to determine when the wings should fall off seems to be the best way forward right now, but bracing wires do need to be modeled to get an accurate damage model.  I read about one Austrian scout that fell apart after a Camel fired eight rounds at it, which must have snapped at least one of the bracing wires, with the result that it didn’t hold together when it tried to turn around.

[J2_Trupobaw]

3 hours ago, Miners said:

 I read about one Austrian scout that fell apart after a Camel fired eight rounds at it, which must have snapped at least one of the bracing wires, with the result that it didn’t hold together when it tried to turn around.

Take such pilot testimonies with pitch of salt, you can draw whatever conclusion you want once you gather enough of them.

[US41_Winslow]

6 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Take such pilot testimonies with pitch of salt, you can draw whatever conclusion you want once you gather enough of them.

If you select only only ones that support your views, you will get innaccurate results.  However, looking through many accounts will give you a better understanding as outliers like the one I mentioned above will be relatively rare compared to more normal occurences.

[GeorgeBoles]

Hi All. That this discussion describing such basic flaws has to occur is a great pity. After leaving RedBaron3D (fully modded) as it slowly folded, I really tried to like Rise of Flight: modern, looked gorgeous, TrackIR, force feedback, proven and well-liked flight model engine, proper synchronised machine guns, etc. 

 

But the damage model in RoF was similar to what people are describing here. One or two bullet hits and wings rip off at minimal G turns. Over and over and over again. With bullets fired from a mile away, hitting with cunning accuracy, even after the machine gun spray was increased - yes an AI problem in part, but all part of the experience.
 

Given the time investment involved in setting up these games/sims and learning them, this was not stisfying at all. 
 

I had really hoped that the new version with better computers would provide smaller hit boxes or better calculation of  bullet strikes, and subsequent damage modelling. (Sadly the main RoF discussions seemed to centre on how the damage looked rather than how the planes flew and how they broke after damage.)
 

Do the IL2 WWII games have these DM deficiencies? I could just as easily spend my time in WWII if it has better done DM FM etc. Advice on these latter WWII games or links to quality discussions about DM (or FM) quirks in the WWII games would be appreciated. And advice on which of the WWII IL-2 family of games is best modelled and fun, in case WWI FC is as bad as it sounds - which it is likely to be with my RoF of experience in mind.   

 

Cheers, 

George. 

 

 

Edited August 14, 2021 by GeorgeBoles
Typos, poor grammar, etc. All done I iPhone so big thumbs.

[No.23_Triggers]

16 hours ago, GeorgeBoles said:

I had really hoped that the new version with better computers would provide smaller hit boxes or better calculation of  bullet strikes, and subsequent damage modelling. (Sadly the main RoF discussions seemed to centre on how the damage looked rather than how the planes flew and how they broke after damage.)
 

Do the IL2 WWII games have these DM deficiencies? I could just as easily spend my time in WWII if it has better done DM FM etc. Advice on these latter WWII games or links to quality discussions about DM (or FM) quirks in the WWII games would be appreciated. And advice on which of the WWII IL-2 family of games is best modelled and fun, in case WWI FC is as bad as it sounds - which it is likely to be with my RoF of experience in mind.   

Giving credit where credit is due, the Flying Circus DM to my knowledge is definitely more sophisticated than the old RoF model, but unfortunately it feels a bit like a different means to the same end when it comes to the comparison between RoF / FC - namely, lots of wing-shedding. The control surface cables being cut was a nice idea, but it's generally the opinion that it's been way over-modelled and occurs too frequently. As for surfaces jamming in place? ...Yeah, I think that's not really right for WW1. 

I haven't done much WW2 flying, but from what I've seen the newer damage model is better-suited to that era. I've not noticed many control jams at all and typically you're only losing aircraft parts when you're being hit with big high-explosive cannon shells (which you could reasonably expect). 

Sadly it seems like the devs and the FC community are at odds with each other when it comes to the Flying Circus DM, and it feels a bit like communications have broken down. That being said, the Devs have been investing time and resources into FC (with the announcement of FC2 and future collector planes, as well as very strong hints at FC3 coming later down the line), so here's hoping that the Flying Circus DM will be getting some more attention in the future. My personal opinion is that it's been a step backwards compared to the older DM (funnily enough, the reverse is true regarding how the DM switch affected WW2), which saw the WW1 planes being generally tough and resistant to damage, but eventually falling apart if they'd been riddled. 

[GeorgeBoles]

Thanks for your thoughts, US93 Larner. I do know that these things FM/DM/AI are frequently contentious, and that keeping developers involved is also another part of the equation.
 

Still all of this seems like an opportunity wasted and a great pity.

 

FC1 is on sale at present. I could give it a go and see what it is like. If WWII is on sale I might pay for that too. 

is the game setup esp. controls and views setup similar to RoF? 

 

Cheers

George

 

 

 

[No.23_Starling]

The wing shedding isn’t a problem if you take the Diii, Dvii, or Dr1. The Bristol wings are tough too, but the larger control surfaces seem to mean more control failures.

 

All planes are at mercy of cannon-hit style control failures and jams.

 

I too have hope. My personal feeling is that the weaker planes need to move closer to the diii’s model, and the control failures need dialling back. All the raw material is there for a very fun and balanced DM; it just needs tweaking.

 

A few more flamers and modelled incendiary rounds would be lovely too - the balloon guns at present are no more effective than ball rounds at burning balloons.

[J2_Bidu]

19 hours ago, GeorgeBoles said:

But the damage model in RoF was similar to what people are describing here. One or two bullet hits and wings rip off at minimal G turns.

 

Sorry, they don't. My best streak was in a Dolphin. And I took plenty of hits in it.

Wings rip because people pull hard enough.

 

2 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

The control surface cables being cut was a nice idea, but it's generally the opinion that it's been way over-modelled and occurs too frequently. As for surfaces jamming in place? ...Yeah, I think that's not really right for WW1.

 

This is quite true.

 

2 hours ago, US93_Larner said:

[...] so here's hoping that the Flying Circus DM will be getting some more attention in the future.

 

I believe they have pretty much stated it's not an easy job that they can pull through right away and that they will come to it.

 

34 minutes ago, US93_Rummell said:

All the raw material is there for a very fun and balanced DM; it just needs tweaking.

 

I believe they want a better model overall that supports WW2 and WW1 appropriately, and are not gonna compromise by inserting tweaks here and there. That would probably increase the overall maintenance cost. Having a single structure that coherently supports everything is what allows them to improve the overall product - every new feature works everywhere, because it's all coherent. If you starting throwing particular tweaks here and there you end up in a feature maze that only really works for a while, then breaks apart. That's why it's taking time.

Edited August 14, 2021 by J2_Bidu

[Enceladus828]

22 hours ago, GeorgeBoles said:

But the damage model in RoF was similar to what people are describing here. One or two bullet hits and wings rip off at minimal G turns.

Install the Reduced Lethality mod for Rise of Flight, the wing will take many hits before it falls off.

Edited August 14, 2021 by Enceladus
added Rise of Flight to reduce confusion

[Cynic_Al]

1 hour ago, Enceladus said:

Install the Reduced Lethality mod, the wing will take many hits before it falls off.

 

Great idea!  On a good day, how many mods-on FC servers are there operating?

[Redwo1f]

1 hour ago, Enceladus said:

Install the Reduced Lethality mod

Wha wha what??!? - Where is this? Not coming up in the search of the mods forums.

[Enceladus828]

1 minute ago, Redwo1f said:

Wha wha what??!? - Where is this? Not coming up in the search of the mods forums.

It's for Rise of Flight, not for FC.

Reduce Lethality - Aircraft Wing and Control Surfaces. - General Discussions - Rise of Flight Forum

 

Apologies for any confusion.

[Redwo1f]

Ah nuts! -- thanks for the clarification.

[ST_Catchov]

2 hours ago, J2_Bidu said:

I believe they have pretty much stated it's not an easy job that they can pull through right away and that they will come to it.

 

Here's hoping. Jason is obviously sick and tired of these constant DM gripes and no doubt well aware of the community discontent along with the manpower/hours/cost etc required to implement changes. I'm encouraged that FC is moving forward but discouraged that this issue is probably affecting sales such as GeorgeBoles' hesitancy. It's a conundrum. Anyway, I'm pulling back from this. No point. Life's too short. Que sera sera.

[US103_Baer]

5 hours ago, J2_Bidu said:

Sorry, they don't. My best streak was in a Dolphin. And I took plenty of hits in it.

Wings rip because people pull hard enough

Possibly flying around it, even unconsciously?

It can be done,  just shouldn't have to be to this extent.  The D7s, Dr1 and Pfalz D3a are unbelievably more resistant to wing damage. 

Control jamming is just ridiculous. 

 

@GeorgeBoles

If you're a WW1 aviation-tragic like many of us here,  you'd have to get FC whatever it's issues.  The overall experience is better than RoF and more content is coming. Also If you fly Single player mostly the DM issues won't surface as much. If flying any of the planes listed above you won't have wing issues either. 

 

Re WW2 I reckon its currently a much better representation of what the devs can achieve. Hopefully FC will reach this standard at some point. 

I run BoS and Bobp and that covers 90% of the maps. Both are on crazy sale right now so are a good deal. 

 

Edited August 15, 2021 by US28_Baer

[=IRFC=Gascan]

I have hope for the future. The wing shedding and control damage are not what we want them to be, but I think things will get better. I can certainly still find plenty of fun, although the DM can be a bit frustrating at times. Sunday afternoon and Thursday evening (speaking from US time zones) are peak hours for MP action. If you want to do multiplayer, I highly recommend getting on Discord. Also look into Haluters Skin Downloader. It makes skin management really easy, for WW1 and WW2, historical and fictional.