Flying Circus Future

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

The German army got within 18 miles of Paris in 1914 during the battle of the Marne, and within 40 miles in 1918 during the battle of belleau wood iirc.  So, having Paris and surrounding areas would be cool imo.  Not to mention the flyboys weekend passes to the city..😉

 

Would also love to see the channel map, and some float planes.  But this is good news. 

Edited August 10, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

The German army got within 18 miles of Paris in 1914 during the battle of the Marne, and within 40 miles in 1918 during the battle of belleau wood iirc.  So, having Paris and surrounding areas would be cool imo.  Not to mention the flyboys weekend passes to the city..😉

 

Would also love to see the channel map, and some float planes.  But this is good news. 

 

Yes and we already do have some airfields in the vicinity of Paris on the map.

[ST_Catchov]

11 hours ago, JG4_Moltke1871 said:

…… just the thoughts of a long range bombing fetishist…💥 😅😅

 

Nein! 'Strutter' zischen fliegerbombe Paree ist verboten!

 

Translation of Wing communique to 43 Squadron RFC, 1917 after several unfortunate incidents.

[JG4_Moltke1871]

1 hour ago, ST_Catchov said:

Nein! 'Strutter' zischen fliegerbombe Paree ist verboten!

For me as a native German this sentence is challenging..🤪

 

I assume it hasn't been decoded yet😂😂😂

[ST_Catchov]

36 minutes ago, JG4_Moltke1871 said:

For me as a native German this sentence is challenging..🤪

 

My apologies. 43 Strutter squadron Adjutant Jones' German is not his strong point. But he gave it a go. He is more adept at acquiring furniture from abandoned French Chateaux to decorate the mess. 🙃

[riseofmike2001]

Hey all, do you reckon we have to pay for the DH2 and Fokker Eindecker when they are done? I hope they are added into Volume III for free where they belong. I miss those planes from the Rise of Flight days. 

Edited August 11, 2024 by riseofmike2001

[LukeFF]

6 minutes ago, riseofmike2001 said:

Hey all, do you reckon we have to pay for the DH2 and Fokker Eindecker when they are done? I hope they are added into Volume III for free where they belong. I miss those planes from the Rise of Flight days. 

 

They will only be a part of Volume 4, so yes you will have to pay for them. 

[riseofmike2001]

Appreciate the reply, I'm really enjoying the game. Will the pilot animations from ROF be included in future? Really helped with the immersion and cinematic experience.

Take care

[Russkly]

On 8/10/2024 at 1:21 PM, LukeFF said:

 

Because we think it will enhance the map? 🙂

 

OK, well, thanks for the reply @LukeFF, and I am of course delighted to see any development work on FC.

 

Given the dev team's limited time and resources, as has oft been stated, I wonder if there are other enhancements that might be higher priority for Ugra and the user base?

[LukeFF]

13 hours ago, riseofmike2001 said:

Appreciate the reply, I'm really enjoying the game. Will the pilot animations from ROF be included in future? Really helped with the immersion and cinematic experience.

Take care

 

Yes, they should be in there. 

 

7 hours ago, Russkly said:

Given the dev team's limited time and resources, as has oft been stated, I wonder if there are other enhancements that might be higher priority for Ugra and the user base?

 

Well, given it all works out, there should be at least one other nice new thing coming with Volume 4, but we'll save that for an official announcement. 

[Trooper117]

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

but we'll save that for an official now announcement. 

 

I knew they would sort that N-28 out...  

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

1 hour ago, Trooper117 said:

 

I knew they would sort that N-28 out...  

Actually,  don't see how they could continue to ignore it.  It's awful. 

Edited August 11, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[JG4_Moltke1871]

9 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Well, given it all works out, there should be at least one other nice new thing coming with Volume 4, but we'll save that for an official announcement. 

 So it sounds it will be not offered as a additional plane package, it sounds like it will offered as a full volume 🤔

 

The speculation now it’s open what this new thing is 🤩

 

Maybe a Albatros DII late? Or improved flight models?

 

Six planes would be not much for a full volume…🤔

 

Doctor, please set me into coma until the announcement is out 😅😅

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Bentley Camel...🤞  😉

Edited August 12, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[ST_Catchov]

I'm rather keen on flying backwards around the Eiffel tower. A challenge yes. And a very French thing to do. But sadly, I think c’est absurde Il est impossible de comprendre ce qui se passe! 

 

That is to say it's unlikely we'll get the 14-bis.

 

 

So I'll settle for flying the FM-revised DH2 through the Arc De Triomphe. Maybe a barrel-roll. That is, if we get Paris of course.

[LukeFF]

7 hours ago, JG4_Moltke1871 said:

Six planes would be not much for a full volume…🤔

 

It's seven planes:

 

Central Powers:

 

Albatros D.III

Fokker E.III

Roland C.IIa

 

Entente:

 

Airco D.H.2

Sopwith Pup

Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter

Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter Bomber

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

@LukeFF does devs use Mr. Holtzauge data to do FMs fixes which be released with FC4 ?

[LukeFF]

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

@LukeFF does devs use Mr. Holtzauge data to do FMs fixes which be released with FC4 ?

 

That's not for me to comment on. 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

59 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

That's not for me to comment on. 

I'm not asking about commenting just simple answer yes/no. I don't know why you can't speak freely on that subject. Only if the answer is no and they don't want to disappoint some folks.

[JG4_Moltke1871]

7 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

It's seven planes:

 

Central Powers:

 

Albatros D.III

Fokker E.III

Roland C.IIa

 

Entente:

 

Airco D.H.2

Sopwith Pup

Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter

Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter Bomber

Yes, I forgot there are two Strutters 😉

 

However, we will see what will be in the full offer until:

[LukeFF]

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

I'm not asking about commenting just simple answer yes/no. I don't know why you can't speak freely on that subject. Only if the answer is no and they don't want to disappoint some folks.

 

Sorry, the answer is the same. Our engineers also read the forums here, so if they want to comment on this they are free to do so. 

[ST_Catchov]

15 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Sorry, the answer is the same. Our engineers also read the forums here, so if they want to comment on this they are free to do so. 

 

The engineers rarely post here .... tech issues or bug reports usually. Why don't you ask them, they can tell you, and you can tell us. That's what a community manager does.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

4 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

 

The engineers rarely post here .... tech issues or bug reports usually. Why don't you ask them, they can tell you, and you can tell us. That's what a community manager does.

Seems a reasonable request..

Edited August 13, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[Russkly]

52 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Seems a reasonable request..

 

Just a guess, but I imagine @LukeFF is being a little coy, because there has already been a back & forth on this forum about Holtzauge's work and the devs' reaction to its potential inclusion in their work.

 

And that aside, I have the strong impression that the devs really, really don't want to commit to doing further FM work for FC. They might look at stuff, if they get time (unlikely I would posit), but they really don't want to make commitments they can't deliver on.

 

Fair enough I suppose. Better to under-promise and over-deliver than vice versa.

 

But all this leaves @LukeFF with little to share with us. Frustrating for him probably, as well as for us.

Edited August 13, 2024 by Russkly

[JG4_Moltke1871]

A hidden surprise is announced plus a chance of Paris…

 

Just be patient friends and let’s see what it is finally.

 

No one gets all he wants..

 

[JG4_Moltke1871]

Btw, I also hope for a flight model correction, especially for Pfalz D.IIIa and Albatros D.Va.

 

This sentence in the stores offer should be doubtless correct:

 

Detailed physics model and performance of aircraft 

 

I think the decision what we get is already made…

 

so let’s see

Edited August 13, 2024 by JG4_Moltke1871

[LukeFF]

7 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

The engineers rarely post here .... tech issues or bug reports usually. Why don't you ask them, they can tell you, and you can tell us. That's what a community manager does.

 

Gavrick just replied in the Ta 152 FM topic seven hours ago, and before that on Friday, without any prompting I'm aware of from other team members. If and when the time is right more info will be shared about FM revisions. 

[Trooper117]

C'mon, show a little humanity, or even some witty little joke before yet another harmless post of mine gets yanked off the thread yet again!

[ST_Catchov]

6 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Gavrick just replied in the Ta 152 FM topic seven hours ago, and before that on Friday, without any prompting I'm aware of from other team members. If and when the time is right more info will be shared about FM revisions. 

 

Yes, and you often go to the Devs for answers when questioned by community members.

 

For the record, I don't have a problem with the FM's for FC planes. A couple may be a little dodgy but on the whole, they're pretty good. I suspect the Devs may take some cues from Holtzauge's data but ultimately use their own methods to determine and implement a fair facsimile of how these kites flew. That is their preferred MO and I'm fine with that. And it's their baby anyway so they can do what they want.

 

And so, I don't really care what FM data sources they use. FC4 is still a buy for me. Whatever the answer to the Holtzauge question is, which I suspect is no, it doesn't put me off. It's a good product regardless. 

 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Well I will buy it for sure regardless of they MO. We all have patience, we survived years with broken DM ( remember weak wings and control surfaces jamming ). That was the past and  I believe now with new company structures ww1 genre got more attention and is more transparent. We all want WW1 genre to grow and give benefits to all sides, our feedback and data serve that purpose. 

Edited August 14, 2024 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[BMA_Hellbender]

On 8/13/2024 at 4:14 PM, JG4_Moltke1871 said:

Btw, I also hope for a flight model correction, especially for Pfalz D.IIIa and Albatros D.Va.

 

This sentence in the stores offer should be doubtless correct:

 

Detailed physics model and performance of aircraft 

 

I think the decision what we get is already made…

 

so let’s see

 

The Pfalz D.IIIa had an FM revision when it was ported over from RoF. I'd say that in its current state and with its current engine, it's likely one of the least offenders. Sure it can take ~10G pulling out of a dive, which seems a bit much, but it was admittedly a great diver. I won't comment further on it.

 

 

The Albatros D.Va is the real problem child. It should be faster at sea level (~185km/h or so) and climb better, but it was also equipped with a different engine than the one it sports in the sim. Then there's the hotly debated matter of its turnrate. It has a poorly designed airfoil and pretty high wing loading because it's so damn heavy, but its span loading is decent enough when we consider it has long narrow wings. It shouldn't turn that much worse than, say, a Nieuport 28, a plane with far lower wing loading but a shorter/wider span (likely related to the N28's FM rather than anything else) and definitely worse than a Sopwith Dolphin with both lower wing loading and better span loading. See images below, and of course I recommend reading @Holtzauge's book.
 

 

 

 

 

 

Finally the D.Va is a sesquiplane, which makes matters more complicated still, since it suffers less interference drag than a regular biplane. However at these very low speeds at which turnfights happen, I do wonder how bad this interference drag really is. It's not like the Fokker Dr.I really suffers from having too many wings, though arguably the Fokker D.VI (Dr.I/D.VII hybrid) biplane may have been the better turnfighter.

 

I'd just recommend the devs at a minimum give us the Albatros D.Va 200hp with the Mercedes D.IIIaü already found on the Halberstadt CL.II 200hp. Whether it needs a full fledged FM review after that I leave up to experts to debate and decide.

Edited August 14, 2024 by =IRFC=Hellbender

[Zooropa_Fly]

I'm not questioning any of your post HB, but whatever interpretation of the Alby DVa FM that was in RoF - the best pilots there deployed Hi yo-yo tactics.

Remember Easy Ace ? (twitch twitch).

 

S!

[JG4_Moltke1871]

On 8/15/2024 at 3:26 AM, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

 

The Pfalz D.IIIa had an FM revision when it was ported over from RoF. I'd say that in its current state and with its current engine, it's likely one of the least offenders. Sure it can take ~10G pulling out of a dive, which seems a bit much, but it was admittedly a great diver. I won't comment further on it.

 

 

The Albatros D.Va is the real problem child. It should be faster at sea level (~185km/h or so) and climb better, but it was also equipped with a different engine than the one it sports in the sim. Then there's the hotly debated matter of its turnrate. It has a poorly designed airfoil and pretty high wing loading because it's so damn heavy, but its span loading is decent enough when we consider it has long narrow wings. It shouldn't turn that much worse than, say, a Nieuport 28, a plane with far lower wing loading but a shorter/wider span (likely related to the N28's FM rather than anything else) and definitely worse than a Sopwith Dolphin with both lower wing loading and better span loading. See images below, and of course I recommend reading @Holtzauge's book.
 

 

 

 

 

 

Finally the D.Va is a sesquiplane, which makes matters more complicated still, since it suffers less interference drag than a regular biplane. However at these very low speeds at which turnfights happen, I do wonder how bad this interference drag really is. It's not like the Fokker Dr.I really suffers from having too many wings, though arguably the Fokker D.VI (Dr.I/D.VII hybrid) biplane may have been the better turnfighter.

 

I'd just recommend the devs at a minimum give us the Albatros D.Va 200hp with the Mercedes D.IIIaü already found on the Halberstadt CL.II 200hp. Whether it needs a full fledged FM review after that I leave up to experts to debate and decide.

 

The reason why I am so much curious about the D.IIIa‘s and D.Va‘s corrected flight model is because I followed Holtzauge‘s thread about that. I am far away to be an expert about that but I take that topic seriously and from my perspective as an customer I simply want to have the most realistic result.

“Gameplay“ shouldn’t have any influence. 
However, sorry if I forgot other planes, especially the N28 what I really like to fly in single player. Online I seldom fly fighters but so far I know I would have some massive disadvantages with that plane against real players, offline it’s useable.

Anyway it should be as close as possible to it‘s behaviour in reality and I read in a lot of threads it should be more manoeuvrable 🤷🏼‍♂️

So I will wait for what happens in the future and I hope all that real experts here are happy with that, only then I can be sure it’s a good result. 
To check it myself I simply not have the knowing 😅

 

So let’s go developers, make us happy 😃😃😃

[No.23_Starling]

On 8/14/2024 at 8:26 PM, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

 

The Pfalz D.IIIa had an FM revision when it was ported over from RoF. I'd say that in its current state and with its current engine, it's likely one of the least offenders. Sure it can take ~10G pulling out of a dive, which seems a bit much, but it was admittedly a great diver. I won't comment further on it.

 

 

The Albatros D.Va is the real problem child. It should be faster at sea level (~185km/h or so) and climb better, but it was also equipped with a different engine than the one it sports in the sim. Then there's the hotly debated matter of its turnrate. It has a poorly designed airfoil and pretty high wing loading because it's so damn heavy, but its span loading is decent enough when we consider it has long narrow wings. It shouldn't turn that much worse than, say, a Nieuport 28, a plane with far lower wing loading but a shorter/wider span (likely related to the N28's FM rather than anything else) and definitely worse than a Sopwith Dolphin with both lower wing loading and better span loading. See images below, and of course I recommend reading @Holtzauge's book.
 

 

 

 

 

 

Finally the D.Va is a sesquiplane, which makes matters more complicated still, since it suffers less interference drag than a regular biplane. However at these very low speeds at which turnfights happen, I do wonder how bad this interference drag really is. It's not like the Fokker Dr.I really suffers from having too many wings, though arguably the Fokker D.VI (Dr.I/D.VII hybrid) biplane may have been the better turnfighter.

 

I'd just recommend the devs at a minimum give us the Albatros D.Va 200hp with the Mercedes D.IIIaü already found on the Halberstadt CL.II 200hp. Whether it needs a full fledged FM review after that I leave up to experts to debate and decide.

Hey man, if you look back at the data and testing from Wolfe, Artun, with Holtz’s support the biggest outliers we found were:

 

Dva and Diiia: too slow and climbing too poorly. Diiia was a long way out. Both turning far too well.

 

N28: turning too poorly.

 

Dr1: too slow, matching previous posts source data shared in the community.

 

We didn’t test all the planes as Anders hadn’t modelled the complete FC roster.

 

In terms of the overcompressed Mercedes engine, I posted a variety of sources of contemporary test data and commentary from Bletchley. The engine only gives a small boost to power below 2km, and the benefit only kicks in above that altitude. I’m not saying that won’t make a difference but the bigger issue IMO is the overall speed and climb.

[BMA_Hellbender]

Agreed with all of the above.

 

Regarding the Fokker Dr.I: it has the same engine as the Fokker D.VIII, the "110hp" Oberursel UR.II, but with lower static RPM in the sim (~1200 RPM on the Dr.I compared to ~1350 RPM on the D.VIII). While it's certainly odd, it's not the only rotary that has this quirk in the sim: the Sopwith Triplane and Sopwith Camel have a similar delta in static RPM with their supposedly identical 130hp Clerget 9B (~1250 RPM on the Triplane compared to ~1400 RPM on the Camel).

 

1 hour ago, US103_Rummell said:

In terms of the overcompressed Mercedes engine, I posted a variety of sources of contemporary test data and commentary from Bletchley. The engine only gives a small boost to power below 2km, and the benefit only kicks in above that altitude. I’m not saying that won’t make a difference but the bigger issue IMO is the overall speed and climb.

 

About this point specifically, we know that this isn't how the "200hp" Mercedes D.IIIaü is currently modeled in RoF/FC on the Halberstadt CL.II 200hp (or the "232hp" BMW IIIa for that matter on the Fokker D.VIIF). As in: you can go full throttle at sea level and it will give you extra power regardless (which translates to higher top speed and better rate of the climb), at the cost of engine knocking and damage over time.

 

Whether this is accurate or not I leave up for debate, but however the devs choose to handle it, having higher speed and better climb on the D.Va is a necessity.

Edited August 16, 2024 by =IRFC=Hellbender

[No.23_Starling]

1 hour ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

Agreed with all of the above.

 

Regarding the Fokker Dr.I: it has the same engine as the Fokker D.VIII, the "110hp" Oberursel UR.II, but with lower static RPM in the sim (~1200 RPM on the Dr.I compared to ~1350 RPM on the D.VIII). While it's certainly odd, it's not the only rotary that has this quirk in the sim: the Sopwith Triplane and Sopwith Camel have a similar delta in static RPM with their supposedly identical 130hp Clerget 9B (~1250 RPM on the Triplane compared to ~1400 RPM on the Camel).

 

 

About this point specifically, we know that this isn't how the "200hp" Mercedes D.IIIaü is currently modeled in RoF/FC on the Halberstadt CL.II 200hp (or the "232hp" BMW IIIa for that matter on the Fokker D.VIIF). As in: you can go full throttle at sea level and it will give you extra power regardless (which translates to higher top speed and better rate of the climb), at the cost of engine knocking and damage over time.

 

Whether this is accurate or not I leave up for debate, but however the devs choose to handle it, having higher speed and better climb on the D.Va is a necessity.

The British tests on the Merc DIIIau engine showed that the carb was designed to deliberately over lean and cut the engine if the Hohen throttle was selected too low. If you jump on to my thread on the subject I’ve posted photos of the carb plus the test descriptions.

 

Fitting the standard carb caused knocking and eventual engine overheating and destruction when used in the Hohen position at SL.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

In post war Polish pilot had accident , he blow up the  engine  , because he went full throttle after take off. For sure it was not save to use over compression on low altitude.

[No.23_Starling]

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

In post war Polish pilot had accident , he blow up the  engine  , because he went full throttle after take off. For sure it was not save to use over compression on low altitude.

Could you share the source in translation? Would love to see it

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

49 minutes ago, US103_Rummell said:

Could you share the source in translation? Would love to see it

Sure, I have found it in a book. When I be back I will find it again, but I believe I posted it few years ago.

Just now, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Sure, I have found it in a book. When I be back I will find it again, but I believe I posted it few years ago.

BTW Greg aviation also recently mention the problem with full throttle and knocking 

.

 

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Well, lots of wise words, research, documents,  etc..  We can hope the devs will take note and take a good look at it all with open minds.

 

At the very least, I hope they can make adjustments to the Se5, Dolphin, Spad 7, and N28.   They should be premiere scouts in thier respective periods, and they are not.   They each have serious FM deficiencies of one form or another (excessive speed loss in a turn, fluttering wings in a dive, slow climb, overall poor performance in some cases, etc..)   Concerns regarding these aircraft have been raised many times.  Hopefully they can take another look.

And please wash those dirty windscreens...

Edited August 17, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell