Dolphin Wing Shredding

[No.23_Starling]

On 8/14/2021 at 8:57 PM, J2_Bidu said:

 

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.

Dude, they already tweaked it when they amended the wings based upon the spar size. Surely that means it can be tweaked, non?

[J2_Bidu]

48 minutes ago, US93_Rummell said:

Dude, they already tweaked it when they amended the wings based upon the spar size. Surely that means it can be tweaked, non?

 

I didn't say it can't be tweaked (although I don't know the exact case you're pointing). But it's not the way to go. It's not a sustainable way of building good software. A good model pulls things together, guarantees several levels of consistency. A tweaked model is spaghetti, all sorts of imbalances may occur when you change something. Things you test here don't prove nothing there. Special cases are everywhere. It's a mess, and probably not compatible with the idea of an ever evolving simulator where you buy the new stuff but all the old stuff moves forward for free.

[US41_Winslow]

The wingshedding seems to be due to the DM not taking into account bracing on braced airplanes.  That is why nearly all the braced airplanes have very weak wings once they are shot and the cantilever airplanes behave relatively believably.  So, I think the best way forward would be to tweak the spar sizes of braced airplanes until the DM can be made to account for bracing wires.  The control surface damage seems to have been carried over from WWII without much thought to how realistic is was for WWI airplanes. 

[US103_Baer]

4 hours ago, J2_Bidu said:

 

I didn't say it can't be tweaked (although I don't know the exact case you're pointing). But it's not the way to go. It's not a sustainable way of building good software. A good model pulls things together, guarantees several levels of consistency. A tweaked model is spaghetti, all sorts of imbalances may occur when you change something. Things you test here don't prove nothing there. Special cases are everywhere. It's a mess, and probably not compatible with the idea of an ever evolving simulator where you buy the new stuff but all the old stuff moves forward for free.

Yes and no.  It depends on how they tweak.

If they tweak the spar sizes so that we end up with a result that actually works rather than the disaster we have,  then the method of damage modelling remains intact. Don't forget we had incorrect spar sizes from the launch of game until 4.006 (That's from Petrovich himself, and is what Rummy refers to). No-one knew or questioned.  It worked fine... until the spar size based dm was introduced. 

 

Which begs the questions,  does spar size only affect dm or are there even 2 wing spar models? After all, no-one felt any change to general robustness and pre-damage wing strength when the 4.006 spar size tweak came out. 

 

So an adjustment to wing spar sizes could be a fast, effective, and perhaps temporary DM 'tweak' until they figure out a way to better model braced biplane wing damage, (to Miners point). 

 

Edited August 16, 2021 by US28_Baer

[J99_Sizzlorr]

Well I remember Petrovich asking in a thread how many bullets a spar should eat from dead 6 o'clock until it breaks. Most people gave some really low numbers and I have the feeling that is what we got now. So what I am saying is basically the community digged its own grave...

 

 

I see Baer was voting for 30 well there you go....

Edited August 16, 2021 by J99_Sizzlorr

[GeorgeBoles]

On 8/15/2021 at 10:46 AM, US28_Baer said:

@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. 

 

Thanks, Baer.

 

I am a tragic - WWI and WWII, but somewhat the former because it is more "esoteric" than WWII. I learned SO much history and aircraft information from the earliest RB3D forums: was it on Delphi Forums, which also closed. The people there were CRAZY knowledgeable. That all of that information was lost when the forum closed was a great pity. I did think, but never got around to it, to try and archive all of that forum. However I sometimes have the feeling that much of this knowledge from the RB era has come across to the Sturmovik developers, which is good. And I can read a lot on this forum, and I think simHQ still is going too.

 

I am gladdened that the WWII sims seem to do their jobs more satisfyingly.

 

(I should get'em all all of the on-sale titles to fulfill my completest fetish.)

 

Why is Single Player DM less of a problem than on MP, I don't understand that?

Is it possible to run Flying Circus as Single Player with an older version before they fiddled with the DM most recently, versions earlier than .4? (It appears that with the on-line hook-up thing with RoF that that might be really difficult: I imagine it might be possible with two completely separate installs?)

 

Is the setup of joysticks, view controls, Track IR, engine controls similar between the WWI and WWII games, and similar to RoF (or for that matter the earlier IL-2, Pacific War, etc. series? If they are, then setting everything up would not be so much of a hassle. I have (somewhere) a pretty good set of profiles, including control surface graphs - can't remember the correct names - for RoF and OK ones for ancient IL-2 series.

 

Thanks again.

Cheers (S!),

George.

Edited August 16, 2021 by GeorgeBoles
Baer, not Bear, hence edit.

[US103_Baer]

3 hours ago, GeorgeBoles said:

Why is Single Player DM less of a problem than on MP, I don't understand that?

Is it possible to run Flying Circus as Single Player with an older version before they fiddled with the DM most recently, versions earlier than .4? (It appears that with the on-line hook-up thing with RoF that that might be really difficult: I imagine it might be possible with two completely separate installs?)

Hi GB. No it always requires the latest version. In SP the AI fly well within aircraft limits so they hardly load the wings and thus rarely lose them while turning, even after taking some damage. The Player aircraft of course is under your control and is susceptible to all the DM's whims, but you're up against those gentle AI so you can fly within limits more.

In MP, players take the planes to the edge (and over it) of performance which of course will stress the wings and all components. So everyone's on the limit of what their plane will take, bringing the DM and all it's biases into play much earlier. Going to the edge isn't as unrealistic as it may appear with many actual pilot accounts mentioning screaming dives, hard break turns and all sorts of maneuvers way beyond published limits. If your life was on the line you would try anything you could, right. Pilot physiology is modeled so grey/black outs create maneuver-limiting factors too.

 

3 hours ago, GeorgeBoles said:

Is the setup of joysticks, view controls, Track IR, engine controls similar between the WWI and WWII games, and similar to RoF (or for that matter the earlier IL-2, Pacific War, etc. series? If they are, then setting everything up would not be so much of a hassle. I have (somewhere) a pretty good set of profiles, including control surface graphs - can't remember the correct names - for RoF and OK ones for ancient IL-2 series.

 

 

 

All the basic Keybinds for FC, RoF and BoX series (WW2) are the same, you won't have any trouble getting going. There might be a couple that have changed from RoF but in general i found it to be a continuation. FC & BoX doesn't have individual control curves though. There's just a single adjustable S curve (called sensitivity) for each axis and no curve offset either. That's a pain for the untrim-able  tail heavy WW1 planes like the Dr1 and many others, but everyone's got used to it and i don't think its a deal-breaker. External programs are available if you really needed something anyway.

 

Hope this helps

 

 

6 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

Well I remember Petrovich asking in a thread how many bullets a spar should eat from dead 6 o'clock until it breaks. Most people gave some really low numbers and I have the feeling that is what we got now. So what I am saying is basically the community digged its own grave...

 

 

I see Baer was voting for 30 well there you go....

 

Yeah, 30 actual, guaranteed hits into a spar in a small area causing critical damage, with 20% accuracy that would be 150 shots fired in total. It might be accurate, it might not, but looking back at his post it's clear that the implications for minor spar damage aren't laid out. It was a Camel so are these 30 shots in the spar also accounting for the bracing somehow? Was the importance of relative spar size mentioned? What about the delta between what we thought was appropriate vs what we felt was in the game?

Edited August 16, 2021 by US28_Baer

[J2_Bidu]

8 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

Well I remember Petrovich asking in a thread how many bullets a spar should eat from dead 6 o'clock until it breaks. Most people gave some really low numbers and I have the feeling that is what we got now. So what I am saying is basically the community digged its own grave...

 

 

I see Baer was voting for 30 well there you go....

 

The wing doesn't break because of the bullets alone...

 

P.S.: I said 20, believing the current value was 15. Baer said 30 believing 8 was in place, by the way...

[US41_Winslow]

3 hours ago, J2_Bidu said:

The wing doesn't break because of the bullets alone...

Have you tried flying the Camel and keeping a streak going?  Currently, the best way I’ve found to do it is to just completely avoid getting shot at all.  If you try to limit the g’s you pull, you become much easier for the Fokkers to shoot you, which gives you two choices: limit your g’s and get your wings shot off with more rounds or try to not let them shoot you and if they do, have your wings fall off due to you pulling more than four or so g’s for half a second.  And yes, your wings can be shot off in most braced airplanes without pulling any g’s in a very short time.  The Camel, for example requires 26 rounds to snap its wings at one g on average.  Assuming 30 percent accuracy, that means it will take roughly 80 rounds fired to break its wing, which takes four seconds.  Compare this to the DVII, which is by far the most common airplane I encounter, which takes 116 rounds on average to break its wing in one g flight.  Assuming 30 percent accuracy, the attacker will have to fire about 350 rounds, meaning they have to shoot at it for over 13 seconds before the wing breaks off.  I’m sorry if this post comes off as aggressive but I’m really sick of sitting on a Fokker’s tail and firing until its wings are completely shot through just to have it come back and have my wings fall off after it shoots me for less than a second.  Then, when you complain about it and ask for something to be done so the simulator somewhat matches reality, to have people say “everything is fine, don’t maneuver as hard” can be very frustrating, especially when I can think of more than several instances of pilots pushing an airplane damaged far beyond what most braced airplanes in FC take right now well past what it was designed to do and not having it instantly flop to pieces.

[Feathered_IV]

19 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

Well I remember Petrovich asking in a thread how many bullets a spar should eat from dead 6 o'clock until it breaks. Most people gave some really low numbers and I have the feeling that is what we got now. So what I am saying is basically the community digged its own grave...

 

 

I see Baer was voting for 30 well there you go....

 

That user quiz seemed to assume that every hit on a wing spar was drilling it right through the middle and there was no accounting for the much greater likelihood of hits being either higher or lower than the middle even grazing the spar and creating proportionately less damage.  Nor the dispersion of rounds and the fact that the hits would be sprinkled all over the place.  They must have ignored the user feedback anyway, as I can put just a dozen rounds into a wing any old where and it falls right off.

[ZachariasX]

20 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

Well I remember Petrovich asking in a thread how many bullets a spar should eat from dead 6 o'clock until it breaks. Most people gave some really low numbers and I have the feeling that is what we got now. So what I am saying is basically the community digged its own grave...

As long as we have a DM that maps probabilities on a large area and doesn‘t factor in shooting distances, it is much rather the DM that digs its own grave. 

 

Edit: I might add that doing so would probably give more work than being of use in WW2 birds. Also, it would further reduce .50 BMG effects…

 

The issue is really that at present, we can‘t shoot at vitals of the aircraft, as there would be too many DM boxes. Unless the spars of some WW1 birds get arbitarily beefed up for nothing but the sake of playability, there cannot be much change to what we have.

Edited August 17, 2021 by ZachariasX

[Todt_Von_Oben]

2 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Unless the spars of some WW1 birds get arbitarily beefed up for nothing but the sake of playability, there cannot be much change to what we have.

 

 

[ZachariasX]

23 minutes ago, Todt_Von_Oben said:

 

 

I'm not surprised.

[J2_Bidu]

11 hours ago, Miners said:

Have you tried flying the Camel and keeping a streak going?

 

I have. It's hard. All your complaints are fair, I'm not discussing that. But we can't compare the amount of bullets it takes for a wing to rip with the amount it takes if you add normal pulling to that. We were talking about #bullets. We can't compare different things.

 

If I'm hit in the Dolphin and pull I'm probably dead. If not, I'm probably alive. But the Dolphin is not a Camel... Nevertheless, the main distress for me when flying the Camel against a DR1 is not reducing G's not to rip, it's reducing G's not to faint.

[US103_Baer]

18 hours ago, J2_Bidu said:

 

The wing doesn't break because of the bullets alone...

 

P.S.: I said 20, believing the current value was 15. Baer said 30 believing 8 was in place, by the way...

 

Good point of course, and in a braced biplane the wing doesn't stay on because of the spar alone. 

 

So I felt over 3x more bullets were needed to destroy a Camel wing than we were experiencing at that time, which was just after after 4.005 I believe.

Well 4.006 arrived and one plane did get that level of increased robustness. It wasn't the Camel. 

 

Edited August 17, 2021 by US28_Baer

[GeorgeBoles]

22 hours ago, US28_Baer said:

(How do you reply without quoting???!!)

Thanks for the perspectives, Baer. 
Cheers, George. 

[US41_Winslow]

7 hours ago, J2_Bidu said:

 

I have. It's hard. All your complaints are fair, I'm not discussing that. But we can't compare the amount of bullets it takes for a wing to rip with the amount it takes if you add normal pulling to that. We were talking about #bullets. We can't compare different things.

I do agree with you that once you are damaged, if you are careless about how you fly, you have a much higher chance of ripping your wings off.  However, comparing the number of bullets needed to shoot the wings off at one g between different airplanes does give us an idea of how huge the disparity is that, in reality, was not present.

[Magics]

19 hours ago, Miners said:

Have you tried flying the Camel and keeping a streak going?  Currently, the best way I’ve found to do it is to just completely avoid getting shot at all.  If you try to limit the g’s you pull, you become much easier for the Fokkers to shoot you, which gives you two choices: limit your g’s and get your wings shot off with more rounds or try to not let them shoot you and if they do, have your wings fall off due to you pulling more than four or so g’s for half a second.  And yes, your wings can be shot off in most braced airplanes without pulling any g’s in a very short time.  The Camel, for example requires 26 rounds to snap its wings at one g on average.  Assuming 30 percent accuracy, that means it will take roughly 80 rounds fired to break its wing, which takes four seconds.  Compare this to the DVII, which is by far the most common airplane I encounter, which takes 116 rounds on average to break its wing in one g flight.  Assuming 30 percent accuracy, the attacker will have to fire about 350 rounds, meaning they have to shoot at it for over 13 seconds before the wing breaks off.  I’m sorry if this post comes off as aggressive but I’m really sick of sitting on a Fokker’s tail and firing until its wings are completely shot through just to have it come back and have my wings fall off after it shoots me for less than a second.  Then, when you complain about it and ask for something to be done so the simulator somewhat matches reality, to have people say “everything is fine, don’t maneuver as hard” can be very frustrating, especially when I can think of more than several instances of pilots pushing an airplane damaged far beyond what most braced airplanes in FC take right now well past what it was designed to do and not having it instantly flop to pieces.

The goal with the Camel is to never get hit, it is an extremely maneuverable aircraft that gives you the tools to do that. The Camel requires finesse to maneuver it hard, and you should always be maneuvering it hard. Learning how not to break it or sleep is the key.

I like to compare FC's airplane mechanics to car mechanics. Some cars are slow and stable, some are fast and unstable, some are fast and stable, albiet rare, some are even slow and unstable. In relation, stability can be interpreted as a difficulty level.  


A stable FWD car with is going to be easier to control on a circuit, but you won't be able to do the fancy things an unstable RWD car could do. In FC's case, the Camel is a fast RWD car with rock hard tires and wants to take your life before the enemy can try to.. it's lovely.

In terms of fragility, I feel that the Camel's damage model is fair but for two exceptions. There are times where the Camel can be shot 2-3 times on the wing and even the lightest turns can make it fall apart. The control lock needs to go away for it and all the other airplanes imo. With those out of the way, the Camel is extremely capable even when it is shot up, it's all about the angles it likes to fly at and being smooth and firm with the controls. This takes time to learn.

Now comparing its fragility to other central planes (excluding the DR1), the agility of the Camel gives so much control to play with allowing pin-point accuracy. All Entente pilots know how overly beefed some of the Central wings are, but Central planes are slow and that gives camel pilots all the time they need to hit components and meat bags. You should only aim for components and meat bags because it's the fastest way to down a plane.

Use the agility of the Camel to make up for the durability that the Huns have over it.

 

Oh, and one last thing. Fly at or below 60L of fuel. 

Edited August 17, 2021 by Magics

[JG1_Butzzell]

S! All

 

Any news on Fixing the DM for FC planes.  Looks like it is still broken.

[[F.Circus]Gorn_Captain]

It's unlikely to be fixed any time soon unfortunately. Jason recently mentioned the team is several members down, and they're swamped with the upcoming Normandy and FC2 additions, so damage model changes are on the backburner. I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see any changes until after FC2 and Normandy are finished.

[US41_Winslow]

8 hours ago, Magics said:

The goal with the Camel is to never get hit, it is an extremely maneuverable aircraft that gives you the tools to do that. The Camel requires finesse to maneuver it hard, and you should always be maneuvering it hard. Learning how not to break it or sleep is the key.

I’ve found that the most effective tactic for surviving is to dive and zoom, which, if done right, will make it very challenging for them to shoot you.  However, once you lose your altitude advantage, the best thing to do is to put it into a tight climbing turn, like you said.  I’ve found you really get into trouble when you get outnumbered by Fokkers, because you can’t disengage, so your only hope is to evade them till they give up and clear off.  A well-flown DVII is probably the worst airplane a Camel can come across, but fortunately I can count the number on one hand that I’ve come across a DVII using proper tactics against a Camel, though Fokkers can provide a fair challenge in a dogfight, partially due to the fact that they don’t break up when shot.

 

8 hours ago, Magics said:

In terms of fragility, I feel that the Camel's damage model is fair but for two exceptions.

From what I’ve seen, most airplanes should be about as durable as the Dr.I, which makes sense, given that its wing strength should be correctly modeled.

 

12 hours ago, GeorgeBoles said:

 

On 8/16/2021 at 7:49 AM, US28_Baer said:

(How do you reply without quoting???!!)

Thanks for the perspectives, Baer. 
Cheers, George. 

 

I think there should be a button at the bottom of the page that says “Reply to this topic.”

[HagarTheHorrible]

Wing spar dimensions = damage resistance/durability.

 

Wing size, divided into logical hit zones/boxes, left/right, inner/outer = spar target size.

 

To check, just jump in the Brisfits turret and blast away at the rear edge of the wing.  The wing will fail, even if looked at without enough sympathy (11 shots, if I recall correctly, for the guy ropes to vanish, meaning toast).

 

If flying wires are part of the damage model, which i highly doubt, then they suffer from the same limitations as the control wire fiasco.

[ZachariasX]

3 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

Wing spar dimensions = damage resistance/durability.

What if I told you that the Sopwith Camel has 5 wings, containing a total of 10 main spars of about equal gauge, of which 4 spars contribute next to nothing to absorb positive g load while the 2 shortest spars carry most of the positive g load?

[HagarTheHorrible]

14 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

What if I told you that the Sopwith Camel has 5 wings, containing a total of 10 main spars of about equal gauge, of which 4 spars contribute next to nothing to absorb positive g load while the 2 shortest spars carry most of the positive g load?

If I recall correctly, you made a very good post about this at the time of the change from the old DM to the new.  A post, that I think, was quite correct, and yet here we are, two years later (?), with the same unappealing DM, that obsesses over a single ingredient and it’s provenance, without considering any of the other factors that go into baking a really good cake.

[JG1_Butzzell]

With the DM  broken for almost 2 years, FC is becoming more of a curiosity. Come fly a WW I plane in VR.   As a flight sim great. As a combat sim, not so great. Not good. Actually  just not.

[Guest deleted@83466]

Dear Abby:  I sometimes have Biplane-Curious thoughts.  Is that normal?

[No.23_Gaylion]

42 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

Dear Abby:  I sometimes have Biplane-Curious thoughts.  Is that normal?

Step father help me, I'm stuck in this fokker!

[JG1_Vonrd]

4 hours ago, JG1_Butzzell said:

With the DM  broken for almost 2 years, FC is becoming more of a curiosity. Come fly a WW I plane in VR.   As a flight sim great. As a combat sim, not so great. Not good. Actually  just not.

I posted this in a DM thread in General Discussions and I think I'll repeat it here:

 

The issue is that the WW2 birds are much more durable than the WW1 crates. It seems to me (and I'm fully aware that I'm lacking in any true expertise on the matter of programming this game engine) that the only solution is to downplay the DM in WW2 in order to make the WW1 DM palatable. I really doubt that the majority of WW2 players would even notice that controls freezing and wings shedding is not happening very often any more. I certainly wouldn't miss them at all. The WW2 guys (myself included) are more concerned about the correct lethality of the ammo... 50 cals relatively ineffective. This has no relation to WW1.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

In link below you can find all information about Dolphins crashes and failures,  but you never find someone mention weak wings. I can't remember any British plane with wings strength problems contrary to German types. 

 

https://www.kingstonaviation.org/sopwith-day-by-day/1918.html

[BlitzPig_EL]

Usually I don't weigh in on these subjects, because my days of being a keyboard warrior are long past, but, I feel a comment is in order.

 

The BlitzPigs have been flying FC more of late, and I have several DF missions that I have generated with SYN_Vander's excellent mission making application.

I usually add my own touches to these missions to expand them for our own fun.  So yesterday I was play testing my latest one, which I do by flying for both sides to see how thing play out with the AI flights, cloud cover, ground targets, etc...  I was in A D.VII F at 2000 meters when I got jumped by a pair of SPAD XIIIs that I had placed to spawn near the British airfield to cover it.  They spawn at 2500 meters.  Both AIs were set to "High".  Of course the lead opened up at absurd distance and damaged my engine's oil system, and crumpled the center section of the top wing, which also showed a bent wing strut to the right of the cockpit.

 

Being SPADs, I knew that there was no way to out run them, so, I accepted the fight.  Too easy.  Even with a damaged engine and upper wing I could easily out maneuver them.  Both of the Frenchmen fell in the same manner.  I easily got on their six and put a short burst in the upper wing to the right of the cockpit and watched with amazement, and some bemusement, as the wing failed and came off.  This on an aeroplane that had a reputation for being strong, and fast.  I never once had a fear that my damaged wing was putting me in any peril.

 

I was able, because I kept altitude, to fly back across the front, and glide to a safe landing on a cobblestone road after my engine seized.   Easy peasy.

 

I watched from external views the progress of the AI scouts (all set to high) in their combats with each other.  In every case the Central Powers scouts, with the exception of the Fokker D.VIIIs, decimated the Entente Camels, Se 5As, and Neiuport 28s.  The Germans lost 2 D.Va, and 3 of 4 D.VIIIs.  The D.VIIFs and Pfalz D.IIIs went unscathed.

 

I could see why some would not want to fly for the Entente with this kind of madness in play.  I keep trying with the Entente birds, but I'm about to the point where I will just give up and default to the Bristol when I fly Entente.  It's the only plane they have that's worth a damn.  The "god mode" D.VIIF is the only scout worth flying if survival is something you strive to achieve.

[Todt_Von_Oben]

Come on.  This is nothing but a bunch of kids having fun by acting up online.  Grow up.  The Dolphin flies fine.

[No.23_Starling]

7 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Usually I don't weigh in on these subjects, because my days of being a keyboard warrior are long past, but, I feel a comment is in order.

 

The BlitzPigs have been flying FC more of late, and I have several DF missions that I have generated with SYN_Vander's excellent mission making application.

I usually add my own touches to these missions to expand them for our own fun.  So yesterday I was play testing my latest one, which I do by flying for both sides to see how thing play out with the AI flights, cloud cover, ground targets, etc...  I was in A D.VII F at 2000 meters when I got jumped by a pair of SPAD XIIIs that I had placed to spawn near the British airfield to cover it.  They spawn at 2500 meters.  Both AIs were set to "High".  Of course the lead opened up at absurd distance and damaged my engine's oil system, and crumpled the center section of the top wing, which also showed a bent wing strut to the right of the cockpit.

 

Being SPADs, I knew that there was no way to out run them, so, I accepted the fight.  Too easy.  Even with a damaged engine and upper wing I could easily out maneuver them.  Both of the Frenchmen fell in the same manner.  I easily got on their six and put a short burst in the upper wing to the right of the cockpit and watched with amazement, and some bemusement, as the wing failed and came off.  This on an aeroplane that had a reputation for being strong, and fast.  I never once had a fear that my damaged wing was putting me in any peril.

 

I was able, because I kept altitude, to fly back across the front, and glide to a safe landing on a cobblestone road after my engine seized.   Easy peasy.

 

I watched from external views the progress of the AI scouts (all set to high) in their combats with each other.  In every case the Central Powers scouts, with the exception of the Fokker D.VIIIs, decimated the Entente Camels, Se 5As, and Neiuport 28s.  The Germans lost 2 D.Va, and 3 of 4 D.VIIIs.  The D.VIIFs and Pfalz D.IIIs went unscathed.

 

I could see why some would not want to fly for the Entente with this kind of madness in play.  I keep trying with the Entente birds, but I'm about to the point where I will just give up and default to the Bristol when I fly Entente.  It's the only plane they have that's worth a damn.  The "god mode" D.VIIF is the only scout worth flying if survival is something you strive to achieve.

It also has an ahistorically perfect parachute which adds no weight penalty and works 100% of the time (no 30% failure rate like the Heineke chute).

 

Any Entente player with a streak of 30+ pvp kills sans disconnects is doing something right.

[J2_Bidu]

7 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

The "god mode" D.VIIF is the only scout worth flying if survival is something you strive to achieve.

 

Man, I've been trying to convince the USxx3's of exactly this, but my voice is usually muffled by the impact of their balloon guns ammo on my indestructible wings.

Just now, US93_Rummell said:

Any Entente player with a streak of 30+ pvp kills sans disconnects is doing something right.

 

Hi, Rummell! Curious, I was just thinking about you!

3 minutes ago, US93_Rummell said:

It also has an ahistorically perfect parachute which adds no weight penalty and works 100% of the time (no 30% failure rate like the Heineke chute).

 

I'm all for chute random failures, but I can't read this and forget that engines and guns failed too. And balloon guns could rip part of your propellor, etc. You CAN have your cake and eat it too (just convince the devs...), but it's not fair to eat only some types of cakes, and keep only other types...

 

[No.23_Starling]

54 minutes ago, J2_Bidu said:

 

Man, I've been trying to convince the USxx3's of exactly this, but my voice is usually muffled by the impact of their balloon guns ammo on my indestructible wings.

 

Hi, Rummell! Curious, I was just thinking about you!

 

I'm all for chute random failures, but I can't read this and forget that engines and guns failed too. And balloon guns could rip part of your propellor, etc. You CAN have your cake and eat it too (just convince the devs...), but it's not fair to eat only some types of cakes, and keep only other types...

 

Dude, totally agree with you about random engine and gun jams. It’s a massive part of ww1 aviation. It’s also why we (USAS) need the Spad vii 180hp - the Spad xiii and its geared HS engine was notorious for being constantly broken with many pilots being forced to take the older vii. If we had more gun jams which cant be cleared mid flight you bet your boots we’d have far fewer long range hosers and snipers.

We also need balloon guns which actually set things on fire (as they were designed) rather than act as a bigger ball round. TBH, I only take them because the DVII and DIIIs are tanks and feel like a douche we I snip the gossamer wings off a DVa. When we get 1917 scenarios without DVIIs I’ll switch back to 303s, or indeed if the relative hit points of all types are brought back to a sensible mid point without such absurd extremities.

 

Best not to get started on control surface jams after one rifle round hit…

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, US93_Rummell said:

Dude, totally agree with you about random engine and gun jams. It’s a massive part of ww1 aviation. It’s also why we (USAS) need the Spad vii 180hp - the Spad xiii and its geared HS engine was notorious for being constantly broken with many pilots being forced to take the older vii. If we had more gun jams which cant be cleared mid flight you bet your boots we’d have far fewer long range hosers and snipers.

 

There never, ever have been gun jams in the game, both here and in ROF. What we have are misfires, which are distinctly different from gun jams.

[J99_Sizzlorr]

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

There never, ever have been gun jams in the game, both here and in ROF. What we have are misfires, which are distinctly different from gun jams.

I beg to differ, you can actually damage the gun of your opponent and render it useless in FC. But it is a seldom occurance...

Edited August 30, 2021 by J99_Sizzlorr

[PaulTheSalty]

16 minutes ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

I beg to differ, you can actually damage the gun of your opponent and render it useless in FC. But it is a seldom occurance...

A round going through a gun isn’t the same as it seizing due to thermal or ammunition issues.

[J99_Sizzlorr]

4 minutes ago, PaulTheSalty said:

A round going through a gun isn’t the same as it seizing due to thermal or ammunition issues.

But a jammed gun is a jammed gun.

[PaulTheSalty]

3 minutes ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

But a jammed gun is a jammed gun

But a destroyed gun isn’t a jammed gun.

 

When you strafe a MG nest or field gun you aren’t jamming it, you’re destroying it.

[J99_Sizzlorr]

12 minutes ago, PaulTheSalty said:

But a destroyed gun isn’t a jammed gun.

 

When you strafe a MG nest or field gun you aren’t jamming it, you’re destroying it.

But the result is the same you can not use your gun anymore...no matter the cause. I am also talking about guns on airplanes not field guns or MG nests.

Edited August 30, 2021 by J99_Sizzlorr