DM update impressions

[BMA_Hellbender]

While the rest of IL-2 celebrates the release of Normandy, which is best remembered for its apple cider, fish soups and the minor border kerfuffle that was held there a few years following The War to End All Wars, us here in the real world should take a look at how the DM update affects our men and machines.

 

• Definitely no changes to undamaged wings: Dolphin still loses its wings at around 5G while the Pfalz D.IIIa keeps its wings even over 9G. This wasn't mentioned anywhere in the release notes, so I didn't have my hopes up.
   
• Wingshedding after taking damage seems to have slightly worsened across the board. This may be placebo as I had the impression that there was more visible damage after taking very few hits. I also found it somewhat easier to get the Dr.I to shed its wings, but this is all against AI, so who knows. It was still virtually impossible to get the Pfalz to shed, but that's to be expected.
   
• Dying from G forces when ditching or pulling out of hard dives seems to be fixed, although you will still be injured if you do so, and you can still die when flipping over. I think it's a decent enough compromise between how it was in the beginning and in the last few updates.
   
• Way easier to score pilot kills. The age of the snipe has returned, just in time for the Snipe.
   
• I saw a few more engine fires, too. Apparently they should be harder to put out.

[vangel]

My two cents.

• Easier pilot kills for sure. Almost all my kills were pilot kills in the past too, but now it's faster to kill them. 
• Somewhat more fires.
• Dying on landings from harder impacts with perfectly fine aircraft seams gone. Flipping over can still be deadly but it needs to be more vicious. 
• the DM changes with way lower aircraft skin damage could lead to more penetration so internal, important wing spars may be easier damaged leading to easier wing shedding. Just a theory so far.

 

[No.23_Starling]

The pilot kills are much easier which seems much more realistic, but the laser accuracy means that the Camels can sniper you from miles off trying to disengage, even in the DVIIF. Good news from the Camels; bad news for anything trying to dive out. 
 

The RoF dispersion was a bit over the top, but we can shoot accurately at very long distances in FC. I struggle to keep the horizon level on a normal day in a Piper Warrior, so something is a bit off with the current accuracy where I can flame a DVIIF above me from 600+ meters

[BMA_Hellbender]

Sniping will make a comeback, I suppose turbulence will have to follow suit.

 

Overall I think the length of the average dogfight will be shortened by virtue of pilot deaths and engine fires happening more rapidly than wingshedding, especially on Central. The notorious "6 Entente batting down a single Fokker Dr.1 like a mutant cockroach" may be a thing of the past.

[No.23_Starling]

36 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

Sniping will make a comeback, I suppose turbulence will have to follow suit.

 

Overall I think the length of the average dogfight will be shortened by virtue of pilot deaths and engine fires happening more rapidly than wingshedding, especially on Central. The notorious "6 Entente batting down a single Fokker Dr.1 like a mutant cockroach" may be a thing of the past.

We can only hope. The gunnery is an odd one. Have you tried to hit a melon with a .22 from 200m? I struggle with that with a scope and steady firing position. The idea of 600m+ accuracy on a bouncy bouncy plane seems silly.

 

Leon Bennett quotes RFC firing tests showing how hard any accuracy above fairly close range was with the Lewis (see photo). The idea that a Dviif can be pilot sniped with ease from 500m by a diving Camel is odd 

[Chill31]

Watchbhow these guns shake! They are mounted as they were originally. They move a lot!

 

https://youtu.be/BnkrP_ZMD38

[US103_Baer]

This is not the DM I was hoping for.

- pilot kills a doddle from miles away

- wing shedding after damage seems worse than before.  Did the .303 round get higher penetration? 

- Fires slightly more frequent but still easy to put out.

 

The only good news is ditching isn't an insta-death anymore.  

 

The optimistic view is that the wing DM fix for FC is yet to come and that perhaps they needed to get the changes to bullet characteristics done first.  

 

However pilot snipes from long range might need some other solution.  1 to the head and 2 to the body sounds reasonable.  More turbulence?

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, Chill31 said:

Watchbhow these guns shake! They are mounted as they were originally. They move a lot!

Would be interesting getting a group from working guns mounted on a plane. Wouldn‘t that be something for gun-Jesus and his YT channel?

[SeaW0lf]

7 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

The notorious "6 Entente batting down a single Fokker Dr.1 like a mutant cockroach" may be a thing of the past.

 

Just like the Bristol, Fokker D7 and other cockroaches of the game? I never had a gripe with the Dr.1, and I flew mostly with the Camel all these years in FC. Voss was shot about by not '6 entente', but 7. Heh... I would not call him a cockroach. People have to understand that the current DM is all over the place, so can we please stop bashing some planes? I do have a plane in mind that sometimes comes to my mind, but I never mentioned it here because I know how it goes. It is not fair, because one day we wake up with an update out of the blue and... You know.

-------

 

 

 

The Dr.1 must have a curse, although it was always a pleasure to fly with her. Legend.

 

Regarding the update, they should inform some testers (or us) if the bullet characteristics had to be implemented first. There is nothing mentioning WWI DM on the update, but I would not be surprised either way. Is there anyone out there to tell us?

 

And the sniping thing is worrisome (dreadful). It could be worse than wing sheeding.

[No.23_Starling]

4 hours ago, Chill31 said:

Watchbhow these guns shake! They are mounted as they were originally. They move a lot!

 

https://youtu.be/BnkrP_ZMD38

This is fab! Thanks for sharing. It’s interesting seeing the bobbing and yaw as you come in to land at the end there. Do you have any vids of you trying to keep a bead on a target? That should show the effect of both winds and turbulence. On a calm day I’ll need constant rudder and a bit of elevator to keep track of a fixed point in a Piper. It’s not roller coaster bad at all, but certainly not perfectly smooth which is pretty much the FC experience currently (allowing for long range sniping as if the gunnery platform were fixed on the ground).

[No.23_Starling]

Btw I’m not advocating for the RoF shotgun model, more wondering whether we need to play around a bit more with the turbulence settings in maps to make sniping harder than it is at present.

[ST_Catchov]

Friends, let us not jump to hasty conclusions please. Weren't they gonna look at the FC DM after the Normandy release? 

[J99_Sizzlorr]

Guys just do some singleplayer and see for yourself that tourbulence is not the answer for our problems.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Agree turbulence or how poorly they are implemented in the game is not a solution.

[No.23_Starling]

3 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

Guys just do some singleplayer and see for yourself that tourbulence is not the answer for our problems.

Probably not.. having a play with the setting. We really don’t want the RoF gunnery shotgun spread, but the long range Camel sniping will cheese people off. 
 

I thought I’d share Leon Bennett’s commentary to the diagrams above where he talks to the recoil, exponential loss of accuracy as you increase range, and the impact of turbulence on the RFC firing tests:

 

 

[Chill31]

What is wrong with the rof dispersion model?  At the end of the day, the thing that made shooting difficult was dispersion...

 

The airplanes have a lot of vibration from the engine and airstream.  If they enabled a constant headshake, that would be the final piece of the puzzle.  Turbulence matters of course, but it is not the complete solution.  

 

The simplest thing to implement is a higher dispersion gun model.

[SYN_Vander]

1 hour ago, Chill31 said:

What is wrong with the rof dispersion model?  At the end of the day, the thing that made shooting difficult was dispersion...

 

The airplanes have a lot of vibration from the engine and airstream.  If they enabled a constant headshake, that would be the final piece of the puzzle.  Turbulence matters of course, but it is not the complete solution.  

 

The simplest thing to implement is a higher dispersion gun model.

 

I think so too. There was a reason why common advice was to get really close behind the other guy.....

I'll suggest it in the beta forum. I'm afraid most of the testing so far was done for WW2 aircraft and I focus on mission logic, objects and stuff and not DM or FM.

[SeaW0lf]

1 hour ago, Chill31 said:

If they enabled a constant headshake, that would be the final piece of the puzzle. 

 

I think the human eye has a natural stabilization, so I'm not sure if a shaking screen would work. I think you mentioned that it is hard to see because of the trepidation, but an unbalanced feature could mean an empty server, especially because spotting downwards is already a challenge, even in close quarters. ROF is superior on this regard. And the human eye will adapt, so I imagine pilots back then, flying every day, got the hang of it.

 

Alex Revell also said that precision was something that some pilots would seek to perfection, like McCudden. He wrote me that 'bullet dispersion, as per a shot gun', is nonsense. He has a story of the 56th squadron saying that McCudden, while visiting the 56th, took Lt. Irwin’s SE5a for a patrol and could not shot down any two-seaters. He took it to the range to check the sights and it was misaligned. Irwin's went to bed with his ears ringing that day. So his argument is that they primed for precision.

 

So I'm not sure where lays the middle ground in it, but it made sense when we flew in FC for the first time and ballistics were pretty good at a decent range. We could not snipe players and planes far away. I don’t recall anyone complaining about disengagement. You really had to aim for meat and metal, preferably below 100 yards, and we could do just that. Sometimes, when the deflection or the aim was good, we could take planes from a decent distance. It was that good.

 

My fear is that after such a good start, with people in love with the Flying Circus DM, we are going back to what most people questioned, which is the shaking planes of ROF, shotgun dispersion and folding wings. I recall that the best way to shoot down a Camel or a Dolphin in Rise of Flight was to shot at its wings. 

 

To go back to it would be such a pity in my opinion. I’m not sure why and how we got to this point, but the first two years of Flying Circus were epic.

[Chill31]

2 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

I think the human eye has a natural stabilization, so I'm not sure if a shaking screen would work. I think you mentioned that it is hard to see because of the trepidation, but an unbalanced feature could mean an empty server, especially because spotting downwards is already a challenge, even in close quarters. ROF is superior on this regard. And the human eye will adapt, so I imagine pilots back then, flying every day, got the hang of it.

The brain's ability to stabilize the image is a separate problem from the air moving the whole head and complicating aiming.  In FC and ROF, we have the snap views where your eye is locked in on the gunsights with no movement.  This is a HUGE advantage, and it is impossible to achieve in the aircraft.  Practice can minimize it a bit, but you will never achieve the level of precision aiming we have in the sim without a perpetual headshake.  For aiming realism, it would definitely need to be modeled.

 

2 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

Alex Revell also said that precision was something that some pilots would seek to perfection, like McCudden. He wrote me that 'bullet dispersion, as per a shot gun', is nonsense. He has a story of the 56th squadron saying that McCudden, while visiting the 56th, took Lt. Irwin’s SE5a for a patrol and could not shot down any two-seaters. He took it to the range to check the sights and it was misaligned. Irwin's went to bed with his ears ringing that day. So his argument is that they primed for precision.

 

Even with all of that precision, the effective range was 150 yards.  I have a friend who talked with Mal Alexander, a pilot in Collishaw's unit.  In fact, they were flying together, landing at an airport with parallel runways, and my friend asked him about the aircraft slightly ahead of them on approach to the runway next to them a couple hundred yards away "do you think I could get him from here?"  Mal said, "Oh no! You need to get much closer than this."

 

2 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

So I'm not sure where lays the middle ground in it, but it made sense when we flew in FC for the first time and ballistics were pretty good at a decent range. We could not snipe players and planes far away. I don’t recall anyone complaining about disengagement. You really had to aim for meat and metal, preferably below 100 yards, and we could do just that. Sometimes, when the deflection or the aim was good, we could take planes from a decent distance. It was that good.

 

My fear is that after such a good start, with people in love with the Flying Circus DM, we are going back to what most people questioned, which is the shaking planes of ROF, shotgun dispersion and folding wings. I recall that the best way to shoot down a Camel or a Dolphin in Rise of Flight was to shot at its wings. 

 

To go back to it would be such a pity in my opinion. I’m not sure why and how we got to this point, but the first two years of Flying Circus were epic.

 

Ultimately, guys had to get close to the target in WWI because they weren't hitting them from further away.  Why weren't they hitting them? Their bullets didn't go where they wanted, ie they were dispersed around the target.  I think dispersion is the best way to account for the many reasons it was difficult to shoot down another airplane in WWI.

[Chill31]

12 hours ago, US103_Rummell said:

 Do you have any vids of you trying to keep a bead on a target? 

 

 Yep. Start at 3:46

[HagarTheHorrible]

42 minutes ago, Chill31 said:

The brain's ability to stabilize the image is a separate problem from the air moving the whole head and complicating aiming.  In FC and ROF, we have the snap views where your eye is locked in on the gunsights with no movement.  This is a HUGE advantage, and it is impossible to achieve in the aircraft.  Practice can minimize it a bit, but you will never achieve the level of precision aiming we have in the sim without a perpetual headshake.  For aiming realism, it would definitely need to be modeled.

Targets don’t always need to be approached ‘head on’ to quoin a phrase ! 
 

Dispersion was a bit of a damp squid in ROF, for whatever reason.  Subjecting the pilots head, and aim, to unfelt forces was tried in CLoD, was counterintuitive and proved to be less than less than perfect (amongst all it’s other faults).

 

What might be tried is subjecting the bullet stream, rather than the pilots head, to the forces affecting the aircraft.  The effect is the same, but hidden to the user, it also rewards effective, harmonised flying, good control input and considered, smooth, target approach. The stronger the control forces, or the more the aircraft, if flying out of trim, varies the more the bullet stream wonders off target in that direction.  This effect could even be aircraft specific, with quirks, such as poor longitudinal stability being taken into account and creating a further level of sophistication to the flight model and aircraft choice.

[SeaW0lf]

2 hours ago, Chill31 said:

Even with all of that precision, the effective range was 150 yards. 

 

That's a tricky one, because we can find pilots saying differently. Hard to tell, but McCudden himself has a couple quotes about distances, one of them saying: 

 

"Some will query the range at which I destroyed this last machine. Distances in the air are very deceptive, and four hundred yards is not extreme range either, so long as a pilot has his machine-guns aligned correctly and intelligently with his sight. I venture to say that the ranges given by some pilots in describing a fight are pretty nearly double what they say they are. This is especially the case with young pilots. On the other hand, some pilots are always extremely accurate in the ranges they mention." [FLYING FURY: Five Years in the Royal Flying Corps]

 

I've seen other pilots often mention 200-300 yards. And today I shot down a plane around 230 yards and it is not that far. He was big in my sights.

 

-------

 

I flew for a couple hours at Flugpark and I honestly think it is not bad. In fact it reminds me of the original DM. Yes, planes still lose their wings, but it is good to see flames and instant kills if you rake the plane in the right place. That was missing from the last updates. In fact it was taking some time to shoot down enemies in the past. It is good to rake it the right way and see the plane dive vertically or burst in flames, as it is supposed to (meat or metal). If the deflection is right, the plane will take a dive for good.

 

Shaking seems to have softened a bit, but then I took the Dr1 in single player and I could see that it still shakes with a couple shots, but I think it was worse before. Or may be placebo.

 

Regarding sniping, I think I got two AIs with sniping, one at 230 meters and another at 340 meters (icons in meters, right?), the latter probably wounded before, and the shots were going into the target. But it is too soon to tell.

 

And it is good to be able to ditch and don't die. I did just that, flipped wounded and survived. Now we can land at the airquake airfield instead of spending 5 minutes to land in one of the back airfields. Before it was suicidal.

 

Anyways, ballistics seems good to me [for now]. The sniping thing is too soon to tell. But whatever changed, the impression is positive.

 

Edited September 8, 2022 by SeaW0lf

[Chill31]

@SeaW0lfGood!  I haven't had a chance to try it yet, but that sounds good.  

[US103_Baer]

14 hours ago, Chill31 said:

What is wrong with the rof dispersion model?  At the end of the day, the thing that made shooting difficult was dispersion...

 

1. I thought it was like a preset, large dispersion pattern that was the same no matter what the plane was going thru.  Felt very gamey.

 

2. The result was anyone could land hits on you, even at long range by generally shooting in your direction.  With FC we suddenly found out how easy it was to miss the plane you're aiming at and so we practised to become much better at gunnery because of it.  

 

3. If we had rof dispersion in FC, the planes with single hit wing damage vulnerability wouldn't even get close.  A couple of hits from a mediocre sprayer and you're off home. 

With the new pilot DM the same spray could pk you. 

 

So I fear a large dispersion will make gunnery easier, not harder.

 

I like the idea @HagarTheHorriblementioned.  Starting with the aircraft forces that act on the bullet stream.

 

When I look at the Dr1 video the plane seems somewhat bumpier than FC (correct?), and thus harder to line up accurately. If that aircraft bumpiness is modeled more accurately and,  combined with maneuvering forces, it acts on the bullet stream,  the result would have a dispersive effect that isn't a preset, and be trickier to line up.  

Well that's the theory anyway. 

 

[Holtzauge]

My takeaways from this video is that the aircraft are crisp in the handling, there is none of the “rubber-band” suspension that afflicts a lot of state of the art flight simulators. In addition, notice the small corrections Mikael does in roll when lining up the Tummelisa in the sights. Granted, we don’t see a sight picture from the Fokker D.VII but it’s obvious from the over the engine shots and the camera position on the port side fuselage that he is doing minute corrections all the time to keep the sight on target. So even if the camera mount is filtering out vibrations, something is triggering him to do the small adjustments to keep the Tummelisa in sight. If the sight picture is vibrating all over the place why do that?  Just look at the minute adjustments being done all the time: To me it looks like he is adjusting in pitch, roll and yaw. Why? Well the easiest explanation would be he is doing it to keep the appropriate sight picture. Maybe the problem of lining up sights in WW1 was more due to the headbanging going on in the cockpit when listening to all that hard rock? 

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

[Zooropa_Fly]

4 hours ago, US103_Baer said:

So I fear a large dispersion will make gunnery easier, not harder.

 

Not convinced by that Baer - certainly not the case in RoF, by a long shot

 

I've not flown in a while so not checked this update out yet, but the dispersion in RoF is horrible.

It reduces lethality of course which was required - but the wrong fix imo.

Take flying out of the equation and fire parked on the runway - zoom in a bit and bullets are almost flying off in every direction

 

I know turbulance has been poo-pooed above, but I think a combination of that and more wind makes aiming more difficult.

If an easy fix is to implemented I'd rather see a 'reduced rate of fire'.

RoF was much more fun with bullets firing straight(ish) and the reduced rate mod on.

 

S!

[ZachariasX]

22 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

RoF was much more fun with bullets firing straight(ish) and the reduced rate mod on.

That was when the HP400 and the Gotha were death stars and you could clean a map with them, zapping those victims from 700 m.

 

I feel dispersion helped somewhat in terms of gameplay. When "realistic gunnery", as a reduced dispersion was introduced again, that is when you could saw of wings in one burst. The problem I think is inherent to the damage model that almost always gives damage to certain planes that require a RTB with few hits anywhere on the plane. This I feel is nonsense, as most radom hits won't do any  damage to a real aircraft to speak of at all, as they hit mostly air. However, WHEN they hit something vital, it is an RTB, but the effect of the hit should often be visible (and intuitive) to the pilot. The damage model we have that works for WW2 birds i feel is seriously biased towards WW1 kites in an unduly way. Unless the devs find a way to discriminate damage effects on wooden kites by rifle ball ammo from aircraft, where structure and internals are always compromised in some way, then dispersion will not help that much. It will just make life harder for the already delicate ones and life easier for the flying tankies.

 

But seriously, how many minutes of angle does a fixed MG have? the gun itself, naybe 2? I doubt they are very precise firing guns so probably even less?

 

If the guns move by 2.5 mm front vs end, that would be 10(!) MOA added. If we give the whole arrangement 15 MOA, that would be 15'' scatter over 100 yards. In other words, to safely hit the pilot you aim for, you cannot really be farther than 150 yards (unless the target does not move and you can keep on firing).

 

Looking at the arrangement, especially how quirky and improvised the rigging of the Lewis guns is, It would guess the grouping be in excess of 25 MOA. This means, from 150 yards on, you do almost random hits on the target aeroplane rather then shooting at a precise location. While the first round may well hit about where you aim, most of the following volley will probably not.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

47 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

RoF was much more fun with bullets firing straight(ish) and the reduced rate mod on.

Plus reduced lethality mod , making planes wings stronger. 

IMO , not artificial dispersion is good not that constant random turbulence option is good. 

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

On 9/8/2022 at 6:16 AM, ST_Catchov said:

Friends, let us not jump to hasty conclusions please. Weren't they gonna look at the FC DM after the Normandy release? 

Sure hope you're right.

[US103_Baer]

2 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

 

Not convinced by that Baer - certainly not the case in RoF, by a long shot

 

I've not flown in a while so not checked this update out yet, but the dispersion in RoF is horrible.

It reduces lethality of course which was required - but the wrong fix imo.

Take flying out of the equation and fire parked on the runway - zoom in a bit and bullets are almost flying off in every direction

 

I know turbulance has been poo-pooed above, but I think a combination of that and more wind makes aiming more difficult.

If an easy fix is to implemented I'd rather see a 'reduced rate of fire'.

RoF was much more fun with bullets firing straight(ish) and the reduced rate mod on.

 

S!

 

I thought thats what i was saying. I don't like RoF dispersion either
Instead have turbulence and plane micro movement impact the bullet stream.

 

But i stand by 'RoF dispersion makes gunnery easier'. Yes there's less hitting power, but it's enough hitting power for the DM being used, and with the DM in FC I can see it being even easier...against some planes

Edited September 9, 2022 by US103_Baer

[Holtzauge]

In the Swedish army we had the Ksp 58 LMG. Only got to fire it a few times but even without much training, hitting full size targets at 200 m was not difficult as long as your aim was true. Regarding dispersion check out this video with two Ksp 58 firing. Very much doubt a fixed mounting on a WW1 scout would produce more dispersion than the hand held dispersion we see here.

 

Notice about 25 s into the video they are firing at the same target with the tracers almost converging to a point. Also notice the voice saying "tvåhundra!" (means twohundred) about 20 s in to inform the gunners about targets 200 m out and how they quickly shift firing from the near to the far berm and starts tapping the target there.  Don't see much dispersion there and I certainly would not want to be on the receiving end. 

 

 

 

Edited September 9, 2022 by Holtzauge

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

On 9/8/2022 at 6:16 AM, ST_Catchov said:

Friends, let us not jump to hasty conclusions please. Weren't they gonna look at the FC DM after the Normandy release? 

 

That's the conclusion I reached with the update. Fixing the recently-added glass pilot/ditching was the first thing that needed doing. The pilot snipes are a definite concern, but it's hard to gauge how it will shake out when you throw in the uneven damage models on the aircraft. Too easy pilot snipes are a bad thing generally, but maybe they take a little of the nastiness off some aircraft being made of iron (but the pilot being more easily killable). Mitigating factor perhaps, but certainly not what I would call a solution. I would put the priority on straightening out the wing damage models, then remaining flight model issues, then look at pilot snipes and dispersion together as one thing. I'm still of the "wait and see" attitude about all this. I'll wait and see if we head in the right direction with the next round.

Edited September 9, 2022 by NO.20_Krispy_Duck

[76SQN-FatherTed]

What has changed that makes pilot sniping easier?  Maybe it's not that the gunnery has changed, maybe it's that now you can hit more of the pilot because he's not protected by bullet-proof canvas?

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

2 hours ago, 76SQN-FatherTed said:

What has changed that makes pilot sniping easier?  Maybe it's not that the gunnery has changed, maybe it's that now you can hit more of the pilot because he's not protected by bullet-proof canvas?

Could be.

Maybe just wishful thinking, or have gotten better at keeping wing on (doubtful),  but does it seem wing strength might have gotten SLIGHTLY better?

 

At any rate, to soon to tell for me.  Need more flights against human opponents.

Edited September 9, 2022 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[SeaW0lf]

Forget about ditching. I went to land at the air start airfield and was killed in the second 'bump', in a sort of cartwheel I think. And I was slow, because if you don't approach the airfield slow, you will end up in the barracks.

 

So no more landings at the air start airfield as usual. Chances are you will be killed when you least expect.

[BMA_Hellbender]

51 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

Forget about ditching. I went to land at the air start airfield and was killed in the second 'bump', in a sort of cartwheel I think. And I was slow, because if you don't approach the airfield slow, you will end up in the barracks.

 

So no more landings at the air start airfield as usual. Chances are you will be killed when you least expect.

Ditching is definitely still dangerous, though I like the fact that you can get wounded now rather than either surviving without a scratch or outright dying every time you hit a bump. It’s all baby steps towards a better DM experience.

[ST_Catchov]

I'm still not convinced major WWII updates don't affect FC in unwanted ways. 

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

3 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

I'm still not convinced major WWII updates don't affect FC in unwanted ways. 

 

I thought that was exactly how we ended up with the control loss debacle one update.

Edited September 10, 2022 by NO.20_Krispy_Duck

[No.23_Starling]

On 9/8/2022 at 9:32 PM, Chill31 said:

 

 Yep. Start at 3:46

This is fab! How much rudder and control micro adjustment do you need at that distance? What distance would you estimate that to be?

[vangel]

On 9/8/2022 at 5:03 PM, Chill31 said:

If they enabled a constant headshake, that would be the final piece of the puzzle. 

Implementing headshake might be a bigger problem in VR than in 2D pancake. I agree that now it seams too easy to achieve good pilot hits from too far away, but we also need to be careful of bias. Most of the guys complaining about too easy pilot kills are seasoned players with hundreds/thousands of flight hours experience with probably good flight-sticks, who had never compete in a real life life and death dogfight. How could we ever talk about realism and the average pilot in WWI? I think game wise it's to easy now for an ace to kill his opponents and accuracy should be nerfed a little.