My considered, but humble, take on fragile wings in FC

[HagarTheHorrible]

 I, like some others, don't play FC, at the moment or as regularly as might otherwise be the case, the principle issue being the fragility of the wings. This has been a long running open wound, but hope beyond hope, it appears that there have been whispers of an upcoming 'glance' in FC's direction with regard to this issue.  While I have no reason to expect anything beyond a sticking plaster (that's still better than amputation) I thought I might offer, for what ever it's worth, some thoughts that I've been mulling over at the back of my mind for the last couple of years, informed principally by the various, generally excellent, discussions and postings by several forum members.

 

I think the first thing to say, if the Dev's ever read this, or even only get this far is;

 

The A.I vs A.I does not equate to human vs human play, period.  Even if the Developers can run several thousand mock combats between A.I combatants per hour, to test their system, it does NOT translate into the feebrile world of online human vs human play.  The only testing that counts is online.

 

To try and expand on that a little, as simply as I can, however imperfect, I give the following;

 

If 3 is super aggressive, 2 is better than average and 1 is fairly ordinary. 

 

Human players, with a little practice, and without the problems associated with the real life physicality of air combat or possible impending death will normally fly in a super aggressive manner, or, in numerical terms, at level 3.  The A.I on the other hand will rarely, if ever, exceed level 2 at best and might often be found flying at level 1, especially if they have been shot at and taken some damage.  Now the problem is that, for human vs human play, a few bullets in a wing, however seemingly innocuous, can immediately downgrade the aircraft, if not neseccarily the pilot, to level 2, or maybe even level 3. the trouble is that while the A.I might have a very good awareness of the state of their aircraft, and fly accordingly (for all the good it does them), human players do not have that awareness, but if they value their virtual lives they are forced to start flying at a significant disadvantage (level 2) or even at a extreme disadvantage (level 3).  This, unfortunately, has a tendancy to promote shooting, to the detriment of ACM, and what with the wild difference between the combat survivability of aircraft of different construction types (that, as far as I'm aware, isn't reflected in historical record from the period) has a profound effect on gameplay and enjoyment.

 

So, what to do about it ?

 

Well, if I might suggest.  Bearing in mind potential limitations of time, money and possibilites for change.  

 

1/  First off, if wing loading (G force) in the sim is going to be the principle, possibly only, factor in wing loss, then the principle components that resist increased wingloading should be the determining factor.  In the case of biplanes, this is principally the job of the flying wires, NOT the spars. Given that damage to control wires/rods (not an example with a great history in the sim, I grant you) is already modelled then taking that principle and transferring it to the/a space/hitbox between the wings, sub divided by bays, should not (I think) be overly problematic, it just needs,  after variation for aircraft design differences, careful consideration of probabilities of a) hitting a wire, b) front wire or back wire (the front of the wing obviously takes the highest loading)

This would, for obvious reasons, be easy to visually represent, damage wise, with individual damaged wires being 'vanished'.  Ideally there would also be a way of representing partially damaged, as opposed to totally severed wires for a 'progessive' damage model, but I can't think how that might be achieved.  FFB effects could also be incorperated into this damage feedback loop, with a shaking/rolling side to side as increased loading increasingly becomes critical (Maybe this could be the pilot feedback to suggest progressive damage before total disapearance of a wire ?)

 

2/  If the above principle is accepted then the question arises, what to do with the rest of the biplane wing ?

 

Well......... 'G' forces are not the only pressure to be exerted on wings. The other, a constant battle for designers throughout the war, was wing stiffness/rigidity.  Now, a lot of the elements that went into determining the success, or faliure, of a wing design is beyond the capabilities of modeling within the sim (if indeed fully known or understood), but general truths and guiding principles can be devined from historical recored to provide differences between aircraft models (the Albatross lower wing for example, or the adoption of the Spad VII wing by the Pflaz design bureau for the Pflaz XII).  If 'G' forces are the principle limit for flying wires (You can discus between yourselves as to whether landing wires should be considered as part of the damage modelling given that these would mainly be effected by negative 'G') then speed should be the primary limiting factor for wing design/damage accumulation. The visual damage model, for wing skins can remain so as to usefully represent the degridation of wing structure/stiffness (but importantly, not 'G' loading degridation). Shaking, increasing in intensity with speed, severity of damage, of the aircraft nose up and down, both visually and with FFB, could usefully be incorporated to warn a pilot of the limits of his aircraft wing rigidity.  This same principle might be usefully used to differentiate between early and later 'improved' designs of aircraft or even structural problems of later aircraft such as the fabric stripping on the N28.

 

Of course, there would be a potential cross over point between the two types of damage, with a loss of wing rigidity potentially overloading the strength of the wiring structure, they aren't mutually exclusive to each other.

 

 

If none of the above is remotely possible, even for consideration, and only 'tweaks' to the existing model are to be considered, then, at the very least, if the spars are to remain as the principle guide to wing strength/damage resistance then the hit boxes for the spars should correspond to the size of the spars and the spars alone, and if all spars can't be modelled then it should be the front top spar first and foremost as the primary load carrier followed by the front spar in the lower wing, but with a higher damage tolerance given it's lower loading. 

 

Defining all wings damage resistance by spar size, irrespective of whether biplane or cantilever, and then, to add insult to injury, using the planform of the wing to represent the hitbox for the spar has been, with little doubt, a disaster for the enjoyment of this otherwise fun game, at the very least for me and, as far as I'm aware, several others.

 

Hagar

 

 

 

 

Edited April 5, 2022 by HagarTheHorrible

[JGr2/J5_Hotlead]

17 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

Defining all wings damage resistance by spar size, irrespective of whether biplane or cantilever, and then, to add insult to injury, using the planform of the wing to represent the hitbox for the spar has been, with little doubt, a disaster for the enjoyment of this otherwise fun game, at the very least for me and, as far as I'm aware, several others.

 

I agree completely. There seems to be something fundamentally off with the system, as a super high percentage of multiplayer kills are creditable to wing-offs, which is at odds with historical account. 

 

That being said, there have been some positive steps made in the last half year. The Halberstadt CL2's wings were fixed and behave in a believable manner. The D.VII's concrete wings were nerfed slightly to behave in a realistic manner while still remaining durable. It is my hope that the devs have put off dealing with this because they were (A) very busy with other projects demanding their attention and (B) wanted to really take time to dig into the issue and solve it once they did work on it. I'm willing to wait if it gets thoroughly solved, including initial fix, feedback testing by the community, and tweaks based on feedback. 

 

Really kicking myself that I never saw the FC testing community sign up post (a year or two ago) until registration had closed. ?

[kendo]

I hesitate even to reply. and definitely do not want to go down the rabbit hole again on all this.

 

But afaik they have already said the DM will be looked at again. It's apparently scheduled in after the fuel systems update. The problem is that the fuels system update is taking much longer to get to release than planned. Therefore the wait for DM revisions goes on too. 

 

Personally speaking I'd be happy to (as others have suggested) have the fuels systems update 'parked' for now and DM to be looked at first. Whether that's doable for them regarding planning/schedules who knows? 

 

But they also have apparently already tweaked several wing DMs (CL2, others?) to the general satisfaction of people here. So I don't see that there is a need as you suggest to 'reinvent the wheel' regarding wing DMs. They can be made stronger using the system already in place with revised parameters.

 

There's several other issues in your reading of all this that are problematic though, and have been challenged and debunked before. Bringing them up again doesn't really advance anything.

 

The whole AI v human online issue is moot. The real question is if human online players are exceeding what real human pilots would do - ie G's pulled. Without the feedback that real human pilots had it's possible MP pilots are just being unrealistically heavy handed. (yeah, I know...string me up now!) The point is we went over all this without reaching a consensus. Those that want to believe a certain way are convinced. Others not. From a pure gaming/enjoyment point of view maybe there's a case to be made for relaxing things anyway? 

 

Regarding the spar hit-boxes. That's moot too, as they (devs) already said our systems wouldn't be able to handle changing to detailed spar-size hit-boxes rather than wing area/probability based, Also worth pointing out that there is nothing wrong with the probability approach either. It is not the reason for any perceived wing weakness issues. Any problem lies elsewhere (ie in how the materials strength v bullet hit power is modelled )

 

I also have problems with your spar v flying wires relative importance. I'm no expert, but seems to me that if a spar is seriously damaged / broken it doesn't matter whether flying wires are intact or not as they can't maintain tension anyway.

 

So. seems to me that they're more than aware of all this, they have already made some positive changes. Yes, the waiting is interminable, but, I think only thing is to be patient.   

 

  

  

Edited April 6, 2022 by kendo

[US103_Baer]

13 minutes ago, kendo said:

The real question is if human online players are exceeding what real human pilots would do - ie G's pulled. Without the feedback that real human pilots had it's possible MP pilots are just being unrealistically heavy handed. (yeah, I know...string me up now!)

 

Disagree. 

The issue being discussed is DM. So that's wing strength POST-damage.

If the problem was MP pilots pulling too high G loads, the wings would breaking while undamaged. But that's not the problem at all. The issue is that most planes will shed their wings with very little G load after sustaining minimal damage. But a few other planes do not. It ruins the experience and only way around is to rtb is you get a few holes in your wing.  Sound realistic?

 

 

 

[kendo]

I was talking about post-damage. On reflection though... you're right in most cases....it's too much in offline too. Have seen the folding wings flying straight and level after two bullet hits thing.

 

I'll take that out. still don't agree with hagar though regarding online is only viable test ? 

 

 

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

Still not as bad as dying from farting on landing

[No.23_Triggers]

5 hours ago, JG1_Hotlead_J10 said:

Really kicking myself that I never saw the FC testing community sign up post (a year or two ago) until registration had closed. ?

 

You and me both, ha! 

 

4 hours ago, kendo said:

The whole AI v human online issue is moot. The real question is if human online players are exceeding what real human pilots would do - ie G's pulled. Without the feedback that real human pilots had it's possible MP pilots are just being unrealistically heavy handed.

While appreciating that this is crossed-out, I've come across enough reports to the general tone of "how did they not pull their own wings off?" or, indeed in the case of more inexperienced pilots, "...they pulled their own wings off" (not to mention pilots stunting and taking unnecessary risks, etc,) to not really buy into the idea that pilots wouldn't throw their machines around to their absolute limits. I also simply can't believe that pilots would be rationally considering "oh, if I turn with X tightness at X speed my wings might come off if I've received X damage" while having somebody actively trying to murder them.

 

Just my 2 cents on that particular point - more so on the idea in general rather than your comment personally!  

[ST_Catchov]

As we all know, FC is the jewel in the crown of all the GB modules. How could it not be? I suspect the devs know this and only delved into WWII to make enough money to procure sufficient resources and expertise to properly and diligently correct the FM & DM issues plaguing FC. But it takes time, what with the devs having to deal with the WWII kids banging on about unimportant stuff ad nauseum, dummy spitting and other unnecessary distractions. It's an unenviable balancing act. Luckily we here are above such things. So we must be patient. 

[US103_Baer]

10 hours ago, kendo said:

 

I'll take that out. still don't agree with hagar though regarding online is only viable test ? 

 

 

 

I guess we'd like that whatever 'fix' method they use is credible, but ultimately its the result, believability and immersion that count.  Hagar was proposing a method and its fine to disagree.  Good on him for thinking it thru and putting it out there though. 

 

To me, I want to be able to look at my wings,  assess the damage and know with a fair degree of certainty whether I can continue to engage EA and roughly what restrictions, if any, I may have to apply to loading the airframe. 

 

Asking too much? Well I think it's possible right now with the D7 (cantilever), Pfalz DIIIa (braced)  Bristol (braced) and probably the Dr1 (cantilever). So no, not impossible.

Light damage you can continue to fully load these planes. Medium damage you can pull hard in slow turns but wouldn't want to do so with too much speed. Heavy damage, yeah, time to rtb.

 

If i can do that with all planes,  then I'd consider the DM satisfactory. 

[Zooropa_Fly]

Let's face it, by the end of the Summer everyone will be back in RoF.

[Trooper117]

That's why I haven't uninstalled RoF... or WoFF for that matter.

[Cynic_Al]

On 4/5/2022 at 9:55 PM, HagarTheHorrible said:

 I, like some others, don't play FC, at the moment or as regularly as might otherwise be the case, the principle issue being the fragility of the wings.

 

Use skill and judgement to avoid being hit.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

6 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

Let's face it, by the end of the Summer everyone will be back in RoF.

Never hosted a server, so please excuse possible stupid question,  but what happens if they end support for the master server?   

[Cynic_Al]

6 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

Let's face it, by the end of the Summer everyone will be back in RoF.

 

A game totally devoid of paper-winged planes, which could not have been the basis of planes in a later game.

[Zooropa_Fly]

2 hours ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Never hosted a server, so please excuse possible stupid question,  but what happens if they end support for the master server?   

 

 

Then I think the game's up !

One won't even be able to play one's own maps offline, as things stand.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

That's what I was thinking.  It would seem like steam or a similar provider could, ( with some minimal modifications,) might be able to assume the host duties,  but that's really a lot of speculation on my part..

Not sure what legal ramifications might be encountered.  I don't think most organizations  give away anything, even if they are done with it.

Edited April 7, 2022 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

On 4/6/2022 at 11:15 AM, J5_Klugermann said:

Still not as bad as dying from farting on landing

 

It's a tough call - die by broken wings or die 5 minutes later than that when you try to ditch and hit a gopher mound.

10 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

Let's face it, by the end of the Summer everyone will be back in RoF.

 

Several of the guys in my squadron prefer RoF over FC still. And I have to admit the FE2b multicrew option is fun.

Edited April 7, 2022 by NO.20_Krispy_Duck

[Trooper117]

I think I heard a rumour that the wing issue would be fixed in about 14 days time?

[ST_Catchov]

4 hours ago, NO.20_Krispy_Duck said:

It's a tough call - die by broken wings or die 5 minutes later than that when you try to ditch and hit a gopher mound.

 

Unlikely. Gophers are not indigenous to Europe. I think it's fair to say broken wings would be the major cause of death. Mind you, European Badgers could cause problems.

[BMA_West]

@ ST_Catchov
Better go watch our moles do their spring clean up now;

[No.23_Starling]

Watching an SE5 slowly nose over at the pace of a snail being followed by “pilot killed” has pushed me to WoFF. I might be back if this and the rest of the wings get looked at. I’d even put more money on the table for “engine variants” e.g. reworked FMs

[ST_Catchov]

You just had to bring up the Se5a didn't you Rummy. Apart from ruining my morning constitutional (vegemite toast remains uneaten, tea's gone cold), the nightmares have returned. Even during the day ....

 

If the two premium Brit fighters of the last 18 months of the war (ie Se5a, Camel) were as bad in real life as they are in FC, Germany would have won the war. The Spads alone couldn't have done it. Just an observation with a logical conclusion for the devs to mull over.

[Cynic_Al]

On 4/7/2022 at 4:53 PM, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Never hosted a server, so please excuse possible stupid question,  but what happens if they end support for the master server? 

 

Ask that question in the right place and someone can answer it properly.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Already got an answer..  try an keep up...?

[Cynic_Al]

1 hour ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Already got an answer..  try an keep up...?

 

I knew that you'd got an answer; no matter.

[Zooropa_Fly]

10 hours ago, US103_Rummell said:

Watching an SE5 slowly nose over at the pace of a snail being followed by “pilot killed” has pushed me to WoFF.

 

I've not been flying much lately - but I don't think I've survived a forced landing or nose-over since..

In ww2 I used to survive more crashes than I expected to, but did this really need to be changed ?

Was there a queue of people demanding to die more regularly ?

 

Seems a cruel trick considering the 'ground' is still an issue.

 

[ST_Catchov]

19 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

Was there a queue of people demanding to die more regularly ?

 

Yes. There's lots of us out there very good at it. We don't need no stinking landing bug.

[J99_Sizzlorr]

22 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

 

[...]

Was there a queue of people demanding to die more regularly ?

[...]

 

Actually there are some people that think that this is perfect now. Not me though: 

 

[Zooropa_Fly]

Yes thanks Sizz, I had seen that thread.

I was wondering if in fact this isn't a case of a change primarily intended for ww2, that's not worked out well in ww1 contexts ?

[Todt_Von_Oben]

I remember the landing bug from before my old computer went down.  Haven't noticed it since we got the new one up and I thought it was fixed.

 

Zoo, you and Catchy might remember last weekend.  Doubtful, I know, but...  remember when I test-flew your ICY LAKE and THE LILLE DEAL maps and afterwards we talked about the lack of good aerodromes on the Lille map?   I was flying bombers and tried to land everywhere I could see; the marked "aerodrome," open fields, the factory, the train station, roads.  The ground ain't level (not soggy; just mountainous) and I must have crunched it about eight times in 90 minutes.  Smashed the plane; wings torn off; sheared the gear; but never once died.

 

My rig's down now while I work on my sim pod but I was flying SP and MP fairly regularly until a week ago and I haven't seen that "touch-and-die" landing thing since I got back online in January.

 

I thought it was fixed.

[No.23_Starling]

On 4/9/2022 at 12:32 AM, ST_Catchov said:

You just had to bring up the Se5a didn't you Rummy. Apart from ruining my morning constitutional (vegemite toast remains uneaten, tea's gone cold), the nightmares have returned. Even during the day ....

 

If the two premium Brit fighters of the last 18 months of the war (ie Se5a, Camel) were as bad in real life as they are in FC, Germany would have won the war. The Spads alone couldn't have done it. Just an observation with a logical conclusion for the devs to mull over.

Reading back through the RoF posts from when AnP reworked the SE5a FM, I think he did a fantastic job on the climb, speed, and dive, but the energy retention in the zoom is poor in the FC port, as is the sustained turn - wouldn’t expect it to turn like a camel but not drop like a stone.

 

I also suspect the relative performance in the turn is still more an issue with the Dva and Diiia FMs, where the top speed is narted but full deflection turns and DVIIF prop hangs are a doddle. There’s some RoF threads from 2013 and before suggesting that the issue lies with the Dva wing shape creating too much lift and drag, hence being slower than available data but turning a prop hanging very nicely.

 

I wonder if the plan back then was to put similar levels of work into all the major RoF FMs. 

 

I could more easily forgive all of the above were it not for the wings STILL not being addressed after all this time, and new memes like insta deaths landing at low speeds and comically rolling over as if the grass was razor-sharp poisoned stakes. I’m not coming back to the sim in earnest until these issues have been sorted.

[ST_Catchov]

Yep, I haven't flown in some time because of these silly bugs. That they continue with newly released planes is a cause for concern. So, I just put on my Bob Dylan records and sob quietly, tears falling onto my MSFFB2, whilst staring at a blank screen and pondering what might have been. It's pretty sad. But don't think twice, it's all right I tell myself.

 

 

[76SQN-FatherTed]

On 4/7/2022 at 3:10 AM, US103_Baer said:

 

 

To me, I want to be able to look at my wings,  assess the damage and know with a fair degree of certainty whether I can continue to engage EA and roughly what restrictions, if any, I may have to apply to loading the airframe. 

 

Asking too much? Well I think it's possible right now with the D7 (cantilever), Pfalz DIIIa (braced)  Bristol (braced) and probably the Dr1 (cantilever). So no, not impossible.

Light damage you can continue to fully load these planes. Medium damage you can pull hard in slow turns but wouldn't want to do so with too much speed. Heavy damage, yeah, time to rtb.

 

If i can do that with all planes,  then I'd consider the DM satisfactory. 

Is this not part of the roadmap, with the DVD technology coming in?

[BMA_West]

7 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

Yes thanks Sizz, I had seen that thread.

I was wondering if in fact this isn't a case of a change primarily intended for ww2, that's not worked out well in ww1 contexts ?

 

Has to be something like that ... again;
Thou could be solved by putting a toggle on it?

 

Haven't been flying FC since I stuck circling after being shot with Nooney laughing his ... off )))

Edited April 10, 2022 by West

[=IRFC=kotori87]

It is readily apparent to me that the pilot-injury change is bugged. Specifically, I believe it is not looking at the correct variables when determining whether a pilot should take damage during a collision. Either somebody put an (X) when they should have put a (Y), or there's an unplanned (-) in there somewhere, because I've also been surviving crashes that clearly should have killed me. The other day, I was bulls-eyed by flak while flying a Sopwith Dolphin at very low altitude. As expected from a direct flak hit, my wings fell off immediately and my pilot was moderately wounded. I almost immediately hit the ground in no-mans-land well over 100mph, and proceeded to skid and bounce and tumble for a very long time before coming to a halt. My pilot had no additional injury following this 100mph encounter with the ground, only from the initial flak hit. The next flight, I nosed over during an engine-out landing on the airfield and died instantly. Unfortunately I was not recording a track for either one. It seems the only way to capture this stuff is to start a track before takeoff, and keep recording the whole flight in the chance that something worth posting occurs.

 

I know there's a thread to post tracks of wrongful wing failures, is there a thread for tracks of wrongful pilot death?

[Giggles]

the hampering of flying circus 1 is that the planes suck..

 

loved playing rise of flight last few weeks, but htere is a serious flaw in the game. 

 

the engines/flight mechanics.  when the only plane that the AI flight system can actually FLY and not have fall out of the sky in 4 minutes is the dr1.. they have issues

 

the only plane that doesnt fall out of the sky on engine power issues is the dr1 even when under player control.

[=IRFC=Gascan]

Not sure what you mean that the AI can't fly the planes at all. They seem perfectly capable of flying all the planes, including the ones with some of the nastiest tendencies like the Camel, Dr1, and Gotha. Can you elaborate on the issue a bit?