Any update on the tracks that have been submitted regarding the weak wing structure issue?

[US41_Low]

It has been another month and since there's no tags on threads to let us know that something is being reviewed, I'm just asking for a generic update. Any progress? Find anything? Were the adjustments made to the D7/D7F, CL2, and DH.4 related to the tracks submitted?

 

Thanks.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Curious as well..

[US41_Low]

Every single encounter multiple people  lose their wings after a couple bullets.

 

 

[US41_Low]

Working as intended 

 

https://clips.twitch.tv/SmellyGoldenDuckM4xHeh-IsRAYLqVrq6vCJ40

 

 

Edited November 19, 2021 by US93_Low

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Hoping the devs have not forgotten this...Really needs fixing...

[Holtzauge]

Found the below quote by Cecil Lewis over at The Aerodrome Forum. Thought it was interesting in the context.

 

"A great deal of an aeroplane could be holed without affecting its ability to fly. Wings and fuselage could be—and often were—pierced in 50 places, missing the occupants by inches (blissfully unaware of how close it had come until they returned to base). Then the sailmaker would carefully cover each hole with a square inch of Irish linen frayed at the edges and with a brushful of dope make our aircraft 'serviceable' again within an hour."

 

Lewis, Cecil. Farewell to Wings. London: Temple Press Books, 1964.

 

 

Edited February 4, 2022 by Holtzauge

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Any update on the weak wing fix?   Been a very long time since this was reported.

[ST_Catchov]

 

[ST_Catchov]

 

 

On 8/14/2022 at 11:59 PM, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Any update on the weak wing fix?   Been a very long time since this was reported.

 

This is a complaints section Mitch. Just because customers submit tracks, as requested by the devs, does not mean the devs are liable to act on, nor acknowledge, nor respond to said tracks. That would constitute a viable complaint. If a complaint is not acknowledged, there is no complaint and thus no problem. And everything's fine.

[Zooropa_Fly]

1 hour ago, ST_Catchov said:

 

 

 

This is a complaints section Mitch. Just because customers submit tracks, as requested by the devs, does not mean the devs are liable to act on, nor acknowledge, nor respond to said tracks. That would constitute a viable complaint. If a complaint is not acknowledged, there is no complaint and thus no problem. And everything's fine.

 

 

You're starting to sound like Arty.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

 

On 2/4/2022 at 9:47 AM, Holtzauge said:

Found the below quote by Cecil Lewis over at The Aerodrome Forum. Thought it was interesting in the context.

 

"A great deal of an aeroplane could be holed without affecting its ability to fly. Wings and fuselage could be—and often were—pierced in 50 places, missing the occupants by inches (blissfully unaware of how close it had come until they returned to base). Then the sailmaker would carefully cover each hole with a square inch of Irish linen frayed at the edges and with a brushful of dope make our aircraft 'serviceable' again within an hour."

 

Lewis, Cecil. Farewell to Wings. London: Temple Press Books, 1964.

 

 

Yes and devs say that realism is important.

One bullet into wing and plane start to shake, 5 and wing is about to brake  if you pull Gs

and look at that

 

If they care about realism they should 

 

eliminate shaking of the wings , reduce damage to wings

I can undestad that torn canvas should lover lift, they could do it on  skin  level 3  damage and similar to ww2 behavior - dropping wing , not this ridiculous shake

 

Edited September 29, 2022 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[SYN_Vander]

19 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

 

Yes and devs say that realism is important.

One bullet into wing and plane start to shake, 5 and wing is about to brake  if you pull Gs

and look at that

 

If they care about realism they should 

 

eliminate shaking of the wings , reduce damage to wings

I can undestad that torn canvas should lover lift, they could do it on  skin  level 3  damage and similar to ww2 behavior - doping wings , not this ridiculous shake

 

 

Thanks for this very illustrative example of what is wrong. I have created a bug report in the beta test part of the forum.

Edited September 29, 2022 by SYN_Vander

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

32 minutes ago, SYN_Vander said:

 

Thanks for this very illustrative example of what is wrong. I have created a bug report in the beta test part of the forum.

Thanks , and that's why guys like we should be testers, because majority of testers ( I don't blame them) do not focus at ww1 side of the game becouse they do not play FC at all. They will  test  if told so by devs but they lak of the big picture .  As we see changes to ww2 do afect ww1 and they slip into public builds becouse of that.

 

Understand the community needs is yet another dimension. From years following the forum posts  , I can see that they care about realism and they could have less futures if they can't be implemented to satisfied degree.

Edited September 29, 2022 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[SYN_Vander]

So the devs are aware of the issues. The overall damage model will not be changed, but it may be possible to adjust the durability values of some planes where there are glaring errors. Is it possible to have a "short list" of aircraft, together with proof like the above video, that show this incorrect behavior? Or the other way around: I think the PfalzDIII and Fokker DrI are the opposite.

[US103_Baer]

 

Guys. A 'most-urgent' todo shortlist will end in tears and recriminations. All planes not yet fixed must get sorted. 

I believe the CL2 has already had attention, maybe the D7. So it can be done.

 

Of course the indestructible Pfalz DIIIa is the opposite and the Alb and PD12 wings explode off. But these are laughable extremes and any fix must include all plane types.

 

 Seriously,  as Catchov said, do the devs NOT know after all this time and all the examples and tracks posted in direct response to the request from Jason?

 

@SYN_Vander if devs really want a list. It MIGHT be possible to get together a list of planes that we feel are OK and don't need work. Maybe can do it at flugpark Discord if you think it'd help?

Edited September 30, 2022 by US103_Baer
Hid referenced post for rules violations

[SYN_Vander]

Perhaps I should rephrase. As I mentioned earlier (in another thread?) it's about priority and available resources of the devs. And yes, they are aware of issues.

As a community we can help by providing a list of FC aircraft with clear DM issues and proof. It will even help more if we can make a ranking based on the severity of the issues. A list of FC aircraft that are within expected limits is also a good start.

 

Of course, I fully understand that this could end in endless discussions, so any list should be based on facts/numbers as much as is possible, ie: count the number of average hits before a wing starts fluttering, before it can't take more than 3G, before it breaks up by itself etc. 

It will take some time to do this, but I feel that the devs are not going to do all this work at the moment because of other priorities. This is simply the current state of affairs. Complaining and whining (justified or not) will not help.

 

 

Edited September 30, 2022 by SYN_Vander

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

List is easy. If they can start fixing those AC would be great. 

Albatros DVa

Camel 

Dolphin

Se5a

Spad XIII 

Pfalz D.XII

 

Edited September 30, 2022 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[Regingrave-]

That's not a valid list for fixing, it's a list for spending time, checking and guessing that you think is wrong comparing to all other FC planes.

What we need is a list of planes, that require more/fewer hits from the same weapon and same angle to lose wings, in comparison with other FC planes, with exact numbers of hits. Acoording to our internal tests all FC planes more or less fall in line in terms of number of hits required to start losing integrity.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

@Regingrave

Thanks for feedback. 

Understood, hope we can do it as community. 

 Are you saying that Pfalz D.IIIa wings  more less fall same as Albatros Dva ? If so those internal test can't be  reliable or you omitted outlayers. You did fix Halberstadt CL.II , why , what did you find ?

 

 

btw about FC

The fuel tank fires do not accrue. You can shot day long at fuel tank even when it's almost empty, it ain't gonna ignatie and do not explode.  Only engine can burn but that proces lead to nothing besides pilot death (fire do not propagate even if fuel tanks is close to engine and leaking) wached at 8x accelatated time on runway  with delete plane  after death set to off.

Edited September 30, 2022 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[Regingrave-]

23 минуты назад, 1PL-Husar-1Esk сказал:

The fuel tank fires do not accrue. You can shot day long at fuel tank even when it's almost empty, it ain't gonna ignatie and do not explode.  Only engine can burn but that proces lead to nothing besides pilot death (fire do not propagate even if fuel tanks is close to engine and leaking) wached at 8x accelatated time on runway  with delete plane  after death set to off.

We'll check that up, but I'm not sure that instant annihilation from the explosion of near-empty fuel tanks is a preferable and realistic alternative to that for FC planes.

 

23 минуты назад, 1PL-Husar-1Esk сказал:

You did fix Halberstadt CL.II , why , what did you find ?

As I recall Halberstadt was the exact ugly duck that falls out of the line, more of that we now want to find.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

1 hour ago, Regingrave said:

As I recall Halberstadt was the exact ugly duck that falls out of the line, more of that we now want to find.

You might trust our experience , we all  as community agree on that ,we are  backed by hundreds air hours and save us time, those planes as listed do have too weak wings. 

Edited September 30, 2022 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Camel wings fall off with very little damage.

Pfalz D12 also.

[No.23_Triggers]

2 hours ago, Regingrave said:

What we need is a list of planes, that require more/fewer hits from the same weapon and same angle to lose wings, in comparison with other FC planes, with exact numbers of hits. Acoording to our internal tests all FC planes more or less fall in line in terms of number of hits required to start losing integrity.

A couple things: 

1) At the moment (well, for going on 2 years now?), I think a lot of the community feels that FC feels gamey and unrealistic - as it currently stands, the wings in FC are reliably weak enough that you can put one burst into a plane and let him "fly himself to death". In other words, any amount of wing damage is more likely than not to neuter the particular aircraft's ability to fight effectively, and it becomes a case of either going through gentle manoeuvres and getting killed because you can't evade, or attempting to evade and inevitably losing your wings. In contrast, at FC's release (Before the 4.005 / 4.006 updates) wings only tended to fall off after significant damage. Fatal airframe damage from gunfire was less common, and you had to rely on either turning the enemy aircraft into a flying Sieve or you had to hit its critical components (IE pilot, engine, fuel, etc). This was a drastic (and in the eyes of much of the community, negative) shift in the "Meta" of dogfighting in FC, and felt like a step away from a 'realistic' experience (there are several instances in WW1 pilot memoirs of pilots talking about how hits to the non-critical parts of the airframe were 'harmless', and would simply pass through the empty fabric covering of the aircraft). More distressingly, it caused a very notable decrease in the active FC community. 

2) In regard to Husar's list, from my own typical multiplayer experiences I'd strongly agree that the listed aircraft feel disproportionately weak. The Dolphin and Pfalz XII are especially egregious in how often and how quickly they lose their wings in a fight (Almost instantly in a lot of cases), but the others also feel very flimsy. 

3) Regarding the CL.II, whatever changes were implemented really did the world of good to this aircraft. From my own experience (and that of my squadron mates, who have made a habit of testing DM changes in a Multiplayer context upon their release), the CL.II lost that "Wow. Really?"  feel when it came to wing-shedding. Beforehand, it felt like all you had to do to factory-disassemble it was hit it once in the wings and wait for the DM do the rest.

4) The loudest and most frequent counter-argument I've seen to the flimsy DM in Flying Circus is that "Well, pilots just fly too aggressively". I find this difficult to believe for a number of reasons, including: A) I don't think pilots would have been overly mindful of their flying 'safety' when there's an enemy pilot behind them and actively trying to kill them. B) There are many instances in memoirs, photographs, etc, that show badly-riddled aircraft that were captured intact or returned home C) There are also cases in historical media that reference pilots flying so aggressively (inside and outside of combat) that they succumbed to structural failures without any damage. 

EDIT: I would also add that I don't think it can reasonably be called "Guessing" what planes are underperforming DM-wise, considering how long the current DM has been implemented.

EDIT 2: Again, in total agreement with Husar that there need to be some dedicated Flying Circus-centric testers. Many community members have both thousands of hours between RoF and FC in WW1-era gameplay as well as having studied the history of the real 1914-1918 air war. No disrespect to the WW2-centric testers, but I do believe that some of the "Old Hands" from RoF/FC are going to be far more qualified to understand and test how future updates will affect FC! 

Just some thoughts...! 

Edited September 30, 2022 by Shuck

[Regingrave-]

1 час назад, Shuck сказал:

4) The loudest and most frequent counter-argument I've seen to the flimsy DM in Flying Circus is that "Well, pilots just fly too aggressively".

Frankly, it's not the best argument there, though it may be the loudest.

The best argument is that: the bullets indeed may shread the fabric with no damage, but on other hand, you can't expect much more durability from the load-bearing wooden beams shredded with bullets, especially under the stress, which in flight is constant. Damaged wooden elements do not bend like the metal ones, they're breaking.

 

Although there can be exceptions among FC planes, that are especially prone to breaks, these are to be inspected more closely, of course.

 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

@Regingrave

I wonder if this crazy shot up wing shaking as on my Camel Video could be like additional micro load and unload on G loaded wing  which  make wing collapse quicker. I don't know if this affects calculation but might be the case?

 

BTW 

I think it woud be great if only on  skin damge level 3 which simulates torn fabric the  asymmetric lift simualtion should  kick in and  like it  is done  in ww2  (dropping the wing) , not that artiffical shaking which starts  so soon - one bulet to the wing.

Edited September 30, 2022 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

I like how the spar broke despite nothing hilling it.  I guess that's what happens to pilots neck when taxiing into a tent.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

 

3 hours ago, J5_Klugermann said:

I like how the spar broke despite nothing hilling it.  I guess that's what happens to pilots neck when taxiing into a tent.

Spars do not have own hitboxes, so there is probability that some bullets will damage them. Anyway skin 3 damage level show them broken. I assume it mean they are for calcualting  damege algorithm and wing will not stand sever load.

 

As on my video it is a bug if after 5 shot to the wing , skin damage level 3 is activated. 

Edited September 30, 2022 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[No.23_Triggers]

59 minutes ago, Regingrave said:

Frankly, it's not the best argument there, though it may be the loudest.

The best argument is that: the bullets indeed may shread the fabric with no damage, but on other hand, you can't expect much more durability from the load-bearing wooden beams shredded with bullets, especially under the stress, which in flight is constant. Damaged wooden elements do not bend like the metal ones, they're breaking.

 

Although there can be exceptions among FC planes, that are especially prone to breaks, these are to be inspected more closely, of course.

 

...which leads me to wonder how aircraft such as the Pfalz D.IIIa, with extremely similar wing configuration to the Alb D.Va, is so disproportionately tough compared to the latter. I'm also curious as to how the CL.II has been "Fixed" and now seems tough and robust compared to its previous form. 

And, as others are saying, I'm dubious about the existence of "harmless" hits. There have been far too many occasions where myself or a wingman have taken >10 hits to the wings in general and found ourselves suddenly wing-less during what would otherwise be a "normal" manoeuvre. 

My concern at the moment is that the rate of "Wing-offs" seems grossly disproportionate to what contemporary sources suggest. I went through and analysed the reports of both James McCudden's memoir (unique in that it was written during the war rather than years after) and the history books of Norman Franks reporting on the victories of eight different German Aces. The results that I found were: 

McCudden's memoirs: Of all the claims and references to aircraft being shot down that I found (some 74 mentions, both of victories he scored and that he witnessed), I found 12 references to wings shearing off the destroyed aircraft. 

Norman Franks - German Aces: Out of 224 mentioned victories, only 5 could be certainly attributed to wing failure. However, 62 did not specify the exact cause of the aircraft's loss - although I'd be surprised in all honesty if they were all wing failures. 

IIRC another community member went through the victory listings of Manfred von Richthofen - I'm sure the results of that still exist somewhere on the forum 

Edited September 30, 2022 by Shuck

[Regingrave-]

1 час назад, Shuck сказал:

And, as others are saying, I'm dubious about the existence of "harmless" hits. There have been far too many occasions where myself or a wingman have taken >10 hits to the wings in general and found ourselves suddenly wing-less during what would otherwise be a "normal" manoeuvre.

It's more than possible that out of ten hits there was one that caused critical damage to load-bearing element of the wing, making it shear off under additional stress during the maneuvre.

 

1 час назад, Shuck сказал:

...which leads me to wonder how aircraft such as the Pfalz D.IIIa, with extremely similar wing configuration to the Alb D.Va, is so disproportionately tough compared to the latter. I'm also curious as to how the CL.II has been "Fixed" and now seems tough and robust compared to its previous form. 

Will check this planes then.

 

1 час назад, Shuck сказал:

My concern at the moment is that the rate of "Wing-offs" seems grossly disproportionate to what contemporary sources suggest.

This can proof nothing but the obvious fact that some lucky aces score more planes by pilot or engine hits, rather than hits at load-bearing beams. Which is no wonder, considering they most likely weren't targeting the beams in the wings instead of the pilot or engine. ?

This method sure can be applied, for example, by comparing the number of pilot kills to number of kills by wing detachment in MP, but this is beyound the discussion on the DM, as DM is created to simulate results of bullets hitting wood and fabric, and not to reproduce the memoirs of some famous pilots.

[No.23_Triggers]

1 hour ago, Regingrave said:

This can proof nothing but the obvious fact that some lucky aces score more planes by pilot or engine hits, rather than hits at load-bearing beams. Which is no wonder, considering they most likely weren't targeting the beams in the wings instead of the pilot or engine. ?

This method sure can be applied, for example, by comparing the number of pilot kills to number of kills by wing detachment in MP, but this is beyound the discussion on the DM, as DM is created to simulate results of bullets hitting wood and fabric, and not to reproduce the memoirs of some famous pilots.

A fair enough point - which is why we were also looking into the claims of the U.S. Air Service in after-action-reports. Fortunately there still exists a massive archive of USAS combat reports that detail victories claimed by 'average' pilots. There's a lot to get through there, but we noted down 190 separate reports of aircraft destroyed. Within those 190, 3 were reported as having been seen to break up in the air. The vast majority of the claims were listed under either "Out of Control" or "No Result" (meaning the opposing aircraft parted ways after combat). 

I think the most puzzling thing to me regarding the DM is how drastically different some of the aircraft behave relatively. From what I've seen in MP, planes such as the Pfalz III and Bristol will consistently take far more wing damage than planes such as the Pfalz XII and Dolphin - which, in turn, consistently fall apart extremely quickly after taking any kind of wing damage at all. 

I'd be curious to see what kind of changes (if any) would be evident in the MP 'feel' if spars were given their own individual hitboxes - although I understand that implementing such a feature isn't really viable

P.S - we appreciate you taking the time to answer some questions and shed a little light on the current DM situation ?

[Regingrave-]

6 минут назад, Shuck сказал:

I think the most puzzling thing to me regarding the DM is how drastically different some of the aircraft behave relatively. From what I've seen in MP, planes such as the Pfalz III and Bristol will consistently take far more wing damage than planes such as the Pfalz XII and Dolphin - which, in turn, consistently fall apart extremely quickly after taking any kind of wing damage at all. 

That's some clue already, I'll check this on the next week. Thank you. ?

[ST_Catchov]

2 hours ago, Regingrave said:

That's some clue already, I'll check this on the next week. Thank you. ?

 

Don't forget to include the Camel Reg. If Husar's vid's don't persuade you it is worthy of a review, I don't know what will.

 

And then we can move along to the Se5a. ?

 

6 hours ago, J5_Klugermann said:

I like how the spar broke despite nothing hilling it.  I guess that's what happens to pilots neck when taxiing into a tent.

 

That is simply a result of aggressive taxiing and tent abuse.

[No.23_Triggers]

Just now, ST_Catchov said:

 

Don't forget to include the Camel Reg. If Husar's vid's don't persuade you it is worthy of a review, I don't know what will.

 

And then we can move along to the Se5a. ?

 

...and seeing as nobody else is going to fight the S.VII / XIII corner....

[US103_Baer]

14 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

List is easy. If they can start fixing those AC would be great. 

Albatros DVa

Camel 

Dolphin

Se5a

Spad XIII 

Pfalz D.XII

 

 

+ the SPAD 7

 

[US41_Winslow]

9 hours ago, Regingrave said:

The best argument is that: the bullets indeed may shread the fabric with no damage, but on other hand, you can't expect much more durability from the load-bearing wooden beams shredded with bullets, especially under the stress, which in flight is constant. Damaged wooden elements do not bend like the metal ones, they're breaking.

 

Although there can be exceptions among FC planes, that are especially prone to breaks, these are to be inspected more closely, of course.

From what I understand, the damage model treats all airplanes as if they were cantilever, and calculates the load on the spars accordingly.  On braced airplanes, the wires should carry large amounts of the flexing load that would normally be placed on the spar in a cantilever design, and, as a result, the spars have almost no flexing load placed on them and therefore don't need to be nearly as thick.  So, if the damage model is based only on the spars of an airplane, rather than also considering the bracing that supports the spars, then it fails to correctly model the wing strength for braced airplanes (weaker than they should be).  This is exactly what we are seeing: only the braced airplanes have been having issues with wing strength.  None of the cantilever airplanes, such as the the Dr.1 and DVII, have very many issues with wing strength, while most of the braced airplanes do have them.

[76SQN-FatherTed]

8 hours ago, G_Miner said:

From what I understand, the damage model treats all airplanes as if they were cantilever, and calculates the load on the spars accordingly.  On braced airplanes, the wires should carry large amounts of the flexing load that would normally be placed on the spar in a cantilever design, and, as a result, the spars have almost no flexing load placed on them and therefore don't need to be nearly as thick.  So, if the damage model is based only on the spars of an airplane, rather than also considering the bracing that supports the spars, then it fails to correctly model the wing strength for braced airplanes (weaker than they should be).  This is exactly what we are seeing: only the braced airplanes have been having issues with wing strength.  None of the cantilever airplanes, such as the the Dr.1 and DVII, have very many issues with wing strength, while most of the braced airplanes do have them.

This is my impression also.  Would also fit the issue that 4.005/4.006 was supposed to fix (iirc), i.e that wood was too strong compared to metal.  Making the wood more susceptible to bullet damage would mean that planes with less substantial spars (which rely more on bracing wires for structural integrity) become much more vulnerable after that update - which is what we saw.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

@Regingrave

DVD FC , planes  which do have enabled DVD like Fokker D.VIII and Sopwith Triplane , the DVD works only in single player but not in the multiplayer.

 

multiplayer 

 

single player

 

Edited October 1, 2022 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[=IRFC=Eccho]

On 9/30/2022 at 8:53 AM, Regingrave said:

That's not a valid list for fixing, it's a list for spending time, checking and guessing that you think is wrong comparing to all other FC planes.

What we need is a list of planes, that require more/fewer hits from the same weapon and same angle to lose wings, in comparison with other FC planes, with exact numbers of hits. Acoording to our internal tests all FC planes more or less fall in line in terms of number of hits required to start losing integrity.

While this isnt an in depth answer, I would consider looking closely at the following aircraft. 
Sopwith Dolphin, Sopwith Camel, Se5a, Airco DH.4, SPAD 13, SPAD 7, Albatros DVa (lesser extent actually had structure issues bottom wing), Pfalz D.12. 
All of these aircraft, after very few or even single hits to fabric lose integrity and will break at lower G (while in reality fabric/non-spar hits should be insignificant). This also applies for spar hits, and while spar hits should be and are more compromising than a fabric hit, light damage lowers the g limit significantly. We also guess that some aircraft have issues with the spar hitbox being too large. Wing durability changes along with the new DVD which will hopefully be coming for all fc aircraft in multiplayer, should make a great and realistic system. 

This is just a brief summary, myself and a few other guys are working on gathering information for a more proper report. Thank you.

[J99_Sizzlorr]

14 hours ago, =IRFC=Echo- said:

While this isnt an in depth answer, I would consider looking closely at the following aircraft. 
Sopwith Dolphin, Sopwith Camel, Se5a, Airco DH.4, SPAD 13, SPAD 7, Albatros DVa (lesser extent actually had structure issues bottom wing), Pfalz D.12. [...]

No, the structural issues with the lower wing on the Albatros D.V was fixed by adding an extra support brace to the lower wing which prevented the lower wing from twisting around on the only fixpoint in a prolonged dive and reduced vibrations and therfore the danger of breaking up. Our Albatros D.Va model has that extra suppoort brace visible in it's 3D model so it shouldn't be plagued by stuctural issues with the lower wing.

 

Infact only the Albatros D.V suffert from this issue but only around 100 were build. Due to the reeinforcing of the lower wing the weight of the Albatros D.V increased and therfore performance decreased. So they put the Merceds D.III aü into it to counter the weight increase and designated it Albatros D.Va. Sadly our Albatros D.Va in Flying Circus only has the engine of an Albatros D.V but the increased weight of an Albatros D.Va and it is still 10km/h too slow with it's current engine.

Edited October 2, 2022 by J99_Sizzlorr

[Regingrave-]

01.10.2022 в 16:28, 1PL-Husar-1Esk сказал:

DVD FC , planes  which do have enabled DVD like Fokker D.VIII and Sopwith Triplane , the DVD works only in single player but not in the multiplayer.

At first that gave me a bit of jumpscare. ?

But it's fine, decals for small caliber hits are disabled in Multiplayer for the sake of network optimization, although cannon hits (like Bekker AC) should be working fine. 

That could not be the best thing for the FC gameplay, but lack of decals is better than plenty of lags: imagine something like Hurricane with 12x0.3 spraying everything around with bullets — that would create a headache for everyone on the server trying to receive positions for dozens of hit decals.

Anticipating the obvious question of whether this optimization can be disabled exclusively for the FC planes — unfortunately no, checking on whether this decal can be drawn or not depending on the plane will hinder network performance as bad as drawing it anyways.