Flying Circus is back! Spread the word!

[No.23_Starling]

That is all ?

[76SQN-Minimayhemtemp]

Great news.  Just need my VR headset to be returned from repair and I'll finally get back to flying - it's been months!

[No.23_Starling]

30 minutes ago, 76SQN-Minimayhemtemp said:

Great news.  Just need my VR headset to be returned from repair and I'll finally get back to flying - it's been months!

Hop on comms! Would be great to see you in server 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Do you guys see tail skid making the track on the ground (this supposed to visible after recent patch)?

[J2_Trupobaw]

It was gone?

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

On 11/25/2022 at 7:15 AM, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Do you guys see tail skid making the track on the ground (this supposed to visible after recent patch)?

 

Didn't see it....only wheel tracks.  The only skid marks I saw were....

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Time to turn them inside out??

[J5_Konnecke]

FC did not go anywhere, just all the cry babies left.  Now they are back don't you worry; they will find something else to complain about.

[Trooper117]

I might just come back, if only to prove you wrong you damn filthy Hun bounder!!!

[No.23_Triggers]

3 hours ago, J5_Konnecke said:

FC did not go anywhere, just all the cry babies left.  Now they are back don't you worry; they will find something else to complain about.

Have found* 

...got my sights set on the FMs next...

[BMA_Hellbender]

19 hours ago, US103_Larner said:

Have found* 

...got my sights set on the FMs next...

 

Get the devs the data they need to fix the FMs.

Edited November 30, 2022 by =IRFC=Hellbender

[Wardog5711]

Quote

FC did not go anywhere, just all the cry babies left.  Now they are back don't you worry; they will find something else to complain about.

 

OK, I'm assuming that was an attempt at humor. I will give it a B- for effort.?

But there were a lot a players that spent a great deal of time gathering the hard data needed to fix the wing DM to make the SIM playable again.

And I have no doubt that something else will need to be fixed. Map comes to mind...

Anyhow, calling folks crybabies because they needed the game to be fixed and were vocal about it is dismissive of their efforts.

 

That is all, carry on.

 

 

[Zooropa_Fly]

I think there is some truth in that comment.

[Wardog5711]

Quote

I think there is some truth in that comment.

 

That's true for pretty much any section on this forum and any other forums that I'm on. Just look at the DD threads.?

Happy people just go play and you normally don't hear much from them. 

The key takeaway is to do the 'whining' in a scientific and orderly manner. That we can work with.

 

 

 

[No.23_Starling]

23 hours ago, J5_Konnecke said:

FC did not go anywhere, just all the cry babies left.  Now they are back don't you worry; they will find something else to complain about.

It wasn’t just those of us with hundreds of hours who left; it was driving away a fair numbers of new players too. Speak for yourself, not others. If you want to sling mud then hop on Discord and let’s talk like grown ups. Posting stuff like that here is babyish.

 

Ive not seen a single negative reaction yet to the change compared to the update two years back. That should tell you something about how he overall positive reaction to the change. There’s also been a fair number of new names popping up in servers too, something you couldn’t say a couple of months ago.

 

A big thanks again to all those who put in work to make the best WW1 sim even better.

[US41_Low]

21 hours ago, US103_Larner said:

Have found* 

...got my sights set on the FMs next...

N28 posts in 3..2.. ?

[No.23_Gaylion]

On 11/29/2022 at 9:30 AM, J5_Konnecke said:

FC did not go anywhere, just all the cry babies left.  Now they are back don't you worry; they will find something else to complain about.

Actual ostrich with your head in the sand. Go back and look at the player count drop over the last two years immediately after that. 

 

Let's just take a look at the planes our friend here flew most shall we?

 

http://stats.jasta5.org:8000/en/aircraft_overview/285/J5_Konnecke/NO_FILTER/?tour=48

 

Oh my heavens! How shocking! I never would have guessed that the planes you flew MOST were the ones with solid wings!

 

For wardog:

 

https://media.tenor.com/ESK5pxB1K5gAAAAd/jeremiah-johnson-nod.gif

 

It was never about "crying" and always about making the game enjoyable for EVERYONE like it was before that DM revision came out, and like it now is again.

[JGr2/J5_Hotlead]

After years with many of us collecting data and sticking around even when things looked well nigh unplayable, the DM change (and the pilot fatality on landing fix earlier) is a total breath of fresh air. Additionally, @Wardog5711 has got to be my new favorite person. One of the best community managers I've seen in a long time!

 

Thank you, Wardog, for doing your best to treat us all with respect, for keeping the forums civil, and for communicating the pulse of the community to the devs. And a HUGE thank-you to the devs for listening! The game is instantly better - almost overnight it seems. While I'll continue to advocate for the growth/improvement of the game, I'll always look back on the DM fix with the utmost gratitude.

 

I will be promoting Flying Circus to anyone who will listen. The future of this series is truly looking up! ?

Edited November 30, 2022 by JG1_Hotlead_J10

[Trooper117]

On 11/30/2022 at 3:35 PM, JG1_Hotlead_J10 said:

The future of this series is truly looking up! ?

 

Do you have insider information?... has it been stated that the rest of the FC series will be coming?

[JGr2/J5_Hotlead]

2 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

 

Do you have insider information?... has it been stated that the rest of the FC series will be coming?

 

My "insider information" is this... my gut (i.e. my insides ?) tells me more FC content will be forthcoming. I don't know when, I don't know what, or how much, but I do feel change in the air here. At very least, we'll be getting the Snipe and Siemens. Is hoping for anything more technically speculation? Absolutely. Is it likely? In my opinion... yes. That's all. ?

[ST_Catchov]

The rapidity of the DM fix under the new management team is astonishing and one wonders why the old management took 2 'n' a half years to do nothing about it despite the requested tracks, vids etc being provided? 

 

That alone is a reason to be cheerful about FC's future.

 

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss you say. Not quite.

[US41_Low]

The reasons aren’t a big deal. There’s new management. The DM is fixed. Communication is better. Just looking to the future now and leaving the past in the past.

 

Will happily buy fc2 now (once it’s added to steam ? )

[Chill31]

What was the management change?

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, Chill31 said:

What was the management change?

Jason is no more producer as the whole company is sold to Tencent and AnP is off to ASOBO.

 

But I seriously doubt that anything to do with this change, as this change actually happened some time ago. What matters to us is for the time being the project is in the good hands of Han and going forward.

[BMA_Hellbender]

The stress is on what @Wardog5711wrote: the sim is playable again.
 

Planes that had strong wings before (Pflaz, Bristol) are now even less affected by damage, and planes with weaker wings still need to be careful, but less so. The net result is that the « meta » shifts to aiming for the pilot rather than going for wing hits. Mission accomplished.

 

As for the FMs: yes it would be great if they finally fixed the Nieuport 28, so it can take its rightful place as the French equivalent to the Sopwith Snipe and Siemens Schuckert D.IV. That way it will simply disappear from most multiplayer missions because it’s simply too good and didn’t technically operate that way (unless they model in operational problems, which hasn’t been done for any other plane in RoF/FC).

 

Mostly I’d just like to see an accurate FM on the Albs (and Pfalz D.IIIa) and the proper 200hp engine in the D.Va and (late) Fokker D.VII. And fix that silly dive bug on the Pfalz D.XII. The rest is honestly close enough to be playable.

Edited December 3, 2022 by =IRFC=Hellbender

[DD_Arthur]

14 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Jason is no more producer as the whole company is sold to Tencent and AnP is off to ASOBO.

 

But I seriously doubt that anything to do with this change, as this change actually happened some time ago. What matters to us is for the time being the project is in the good hands of Han and going forward.

1C has certainly off loaded a lot of it’s back catalogue to Tencent but not the 1CGS bit that makes this game.

Definitely a good thing to have Han as series producer though?

[Magics]

Soon.

[Guest deleted@219798]

I always aimed for the pilot from close range because that's the way it was done. The only times I didn't was when a faster plane usually SE-5 or Spad was flying off. As to the Nieuport N28 being such a super plane, do facts bear that out? Maybe it was better than it's depicted in FC. But it if it was really a great plane, not just a good one, surely the French would have used it. It only lasted in US service for a short time. Why was that?

[BMA_Hellbender]

2 hours ago, kestrel444x500 said:

I always aimed for the pilot from close range because that's the way it was done. The only times I didn't was when a faster plane usually SE-5 or Spad was flying off. As to the Nieuport N28 being such a super plane, do facts bear that out? Maybe it was better than it's depicted in FC. But it if it was really a great plane, not just a good one, surely the French would have used it. It only lasted in US service for a short time. Why was that?

 

French fighter doctrine was speed + power as of 1917 onwards, due to the heavy losses the Nieuport types had suffered to the Albatros earlier on. In that respect it was hard to beat the SPAD XIII, which is why the Nieuport 27 only saw limited service and the Hanriot HD.1 and Nieuport 28 were refused outright. The Nieuport 28 was a bit of a Nieuport / SPAD hybrid, with at least better maneuverability than the Fokker D.VII in combat according to American pilot reports. Not quite a French Sopwith Camel, but also not too far off. It also had problematic wing fabric shedding issues in a dive, an issue which was fixed in American service, and its single valve Gnome Monosoupape engine with cylinder ignition selector switch meant that unburnt fuel would often collect inside the cowling and ignite at unfortunate moments, typically during approach to the airfield.

 

All in all the SPAD XIII was a much more reliable machine, in the same way that the British considered the S.E.5a (Viper) a much more reliable machine than the Sopwith Camel. Which isn't to say that the SPAD and S.E.5a were automatically "better": some American pilots were heartbroken when they had to trade in their Nieuports for SPADs, and the Italians actually "downgraded" from the SPAD XIII to the license-built Hanriot-Macchi H.D.1, because they thought it was a better all-round fighter plane. Likewise the Sopwith Camel remained in service even when S.E.5as had become plentiful by the end of the war.

[Guest deleted@219798]

I read a lot of WW1 books in the late 60's and 1970's. In none of them is the Nieuport N28 reckoned to be a wonderful plane. Equating it with the Snipe and Siemens Schuckert seems to be a fair old stretch. maybe the books I read were all wrong.

[Trooper117]

18 minutes ago, kestrel444x500 said:

In none of them is the Nieuport N28 reckoned to be a wonderful plane.

 

When the Spad XIII was replacing the N-28's many of the American pilots wanted to keep their Nieuport's, so they couldn't have been as bad as all that!

[Holtzauge]

7 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

 

French fighter doctrine was speed + power as of 1917 onwards, due to the heavy losses the Nieuport types had suffered to the Albatros earlier on. In that respect it was hard to beat the SPAD XIII, which is why the Nieuport 27 only saw limited service and the Hanriot HD.1 and Nieuport 28 were refused outright. The Nieuport 28 was a bit of a Nieuport / SPAD hybrid, with at least better maneuverability than the Fokker D.VII in combat according to American pilot reports. Not quite a French Sopwith Camel, but also not too far off. It also had problematic wing fabric shedding issues in a dive, an issue which was fixed in American service, and its single valve Gnome Monosoupape engine with cylinder ignition selector switch meant that unburnt fuel would often collect inside the cowling and ignite at unfortunate moments, typically during approach to the airfield.

 

All in all the SPAD XIII was a much more reliable machine, in the same way that the British considered the S.E.5a (Viper) a much more reliable machine than the Sopwith Camel. Which isn't to say that the SPAD and S.E.5a were automatically "better": some American pilots were heartbroken when they had to trade in their Nieuports for SPADs, and the Italians actually "downgraded" from the SPAD XIII to the license-built Hanriot-Macchi H.D.1, because they thought it was a better all-round fighter plane. Likewise the Sopwith Camel remained in service even when S.E.5as had become plentiful by the end of the war.

 

Interesting info about the French doctrine. As far as I have been able to find out the Germans were more concerned with climb rate than speed: At the so-called fighter trials at Adlershof, the Germans were meticulous about measuring exact climb times but content to just to list the scouts in the order of fastest to slowest. I think this also shows in the tubby  Siemens Schukert D.IV and Pfalz D.VIII: Those planes were very optimized for climb but not very fast. In fact this is another point the SPAD S.XIII holds over the Nieuport N28: It climbs better. So from this perspective, the French preference for the S.XIII makes perfect sense I think: It's both faster and climbs better.

[BMA_Hellbender]

3 hours ago, kestrel444x500 said:

I read a lot of WW1 books in the late 60's and 1970's. In none of them is the Nieuport N28 reckoned to be a wonderful plane. Equating it with the Snipe and Siemens Schuckert seems to be a fair old stretch. maybe the books I read were all wrong.

 

Operational issues aside, and they are certainly worth mentioning since the Americans didn't even have machineguns installed for their first patrols, the Nieuport 28 was a "fast moving, fast acting gem" according to Major Hartney, commander of the 27th Aero (and later the 1st Pursuit Group).

 

In relative terms it had a higher top speed than the Sopwith Snipe and Siemens-Schuckert D.IV, and a climb to altitude almost on par with the SPAD XIII, certainly better than the Sopwith Camel. After the war a captured Swiss Nieuport 28 won the First International Aeronautical in 1922.

 

All in all it was a very different design than both the Snipe and Siemens, centered around speed (much like the SPAD) and an uncomplicated single valve engine rather than a 230hp behemoth or an incredibly complex counter-rotating one, but I'd certainly consider it among the "late war rotaries". It was not any more or less significant than the SS D.IV, which was also plagued by operational issues.

[Holtzauge]

What I found doing the C++ simulations, is that the N28 was a very good all-round machine. It scores above average on almost everything: It's relatively fast and it both climbs and turns well. However, this is of course only looking at the performance numbers. If other aspects such as serviceability, reliability and handling and structural strength are considered as well, then this may of course tip the scales in another direction. Another plus for the SPAD is its high speed strength and ruggedness. Given that parachutes were not standard issue at the time, I personally would have gone for the plane that not only held together well but was both fast and climbed well in addition.

 

Edited December 8, 2022 by Holtzauge

[BMA_Hellbender]

5 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

What I found doing the C++ simulations, is that the N28 was a very good all-round machine. It scores above average on almost everything: It's relatively fast and it both climbs and turns well. However, this is of course only looking at the performance numbers. If other aspects such as serviceability, reliability and handling and structural strength are considered as well, then this may of course tip the scales in another direction. Another plus for the SPAD is its high speed strength and ruggedness. Given that parachutes were not standard issue at the time, I personally would have gone for the plane that not only held together well but was both fast and climbed well in addition.

 

(sorry for turning this into another Nieuport 28 thread, but we were challenged)

 

I think that's an accurate assessment. In my opinion the French Air Force (the largest and most advanced in the world at the time) made the right decision to refuse the Nieuport 28, Hanriot HD.1 and possibly other "maneuverable rotary types" for service. There's little more one can ask from a fighter plane than that it's fast, climbs well, dives well and is rugged, something the SPAD and S.E.5a excel at. "Angles fighting" is fun for us flightsimmers, but it's a whole other ballgame in reality. The French learned this lesson early on when the (earlier) Nieuports had to deal with the Albatros D.II and D.III and the SPAD VII proved its worth. If anything the SPADs in RoF/FC are relatively not as maneuverable as they would have been compared to the Albs they were facing, but that's a whole other FM issue. The maneuverability gain from the Nieuport 28 at the cost of everything else is simply not worth it compared to the SPAD XIII.

 

Finally engine reliability had always been an issue for the Hispano-Suiza-powered scouts, but the French seemed to have been very much on top of the issue, improving gearing and compression ratios until the end of the war. What I do find odd is that eventually the Nieuport-Delage 29, the spiritual successor to the Nieuport 28, would become France's mainstay fighter after the war, of course equipped with a 300hp H-S, and not, say the SPAD XX. So it's definitely not as if Gustave Delage (Nieuport's chief designer) had suddenly lost it with the Nieuport 28, it was just too little, too late.

[Jamppa]

From the aerodrome site.

 

Rejected by the French and British air services, the Nieuport 28 was the first biplane scout received in large numbers by squadrons of the United States Air Service.  The 94th and 95th Aero Squadrons at Villeneuve were the first squadrons to receive the Nieuport 28. The planes arrived without guns but in March 1918 both squadrons led unarmed patrols along the lines. A favorite with aces like Harold Hartney, it was fast and maneuverable but had a tendency to shed its upper wing fabric if its pilot pulled out of a steep dive too quickly. The Nieuport 28 was replaced by the SPAD XIII    Also unreliable engine that got fire from time to time.

Edited December 8, 2022 by Jamppa

[Holtzauge]

1 hour ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

 

(sorry for turning this into another Nieuport 28 thread, but we were challenged)

 

I think that's an accurate assessment. In my opinion the French Air Force (the largest and most advanced in the world at the time) made the right decision to refuse the Nieuport 28, Hanriot HD.1 and possibly other "maneuverable rotary types" for service. There's little more one can ask from a fighter plane than that it's fast, climbs well, dives well and is rugged, something the SPAD and S.E.5a excel at. "Angles fighting" is fun for us flightsimmers, but it's a whole other ballgame in reality. The French learned this lesson early on when the (earlier) Nieuports had to deal with the Albatros D.II and D.III and the SPAD VII proved its worth. If anything the SPADs in RoF/FC are relatively not as maneuverable as they would have been compared to the Albs they were facing, but that's a whole other FM issue. The maneuverability gain from the Nieuport 28 at the cost of everything else is simply not worth it compared to the SPAD XIII.

 

Finally engine reliability had always been an issue for the Hispano-Suiza-powered scouts, but the French seemed to have been very much on top of the issue, improving gearing and compression ratios until the end of the war. What I do find odd is that eventually the Nieuport-Delage 29, the spiritual successor to the Nieuport 28, would become France's mainstay fighter after the war, of course equipped with a 300hp H-S, and not, say the SPAD XX. So it's definitely not as if Gustave Delage (Nieuport's chief designer) had suddenly lost it with the Nieuport 28, it was just too little, too late.

 

About the French being in the technical lead at the time was something that I learned during my research for my book. In some sense I think one could expand this to include the British as well really. Two good examples are the copying of the French sesquiplane and the British triplane concepts by the Germans. Of course towards the end of the war the Germans had caught up a lot and with the thick winged Fokker's, over-compressed engines and higher aspect ratio SS D.IV they were on track to overtake the Entente technically which I think it would be fair to say they did initially in WW2.

 

1 hour ago, Jamppa said:

From the aerodrome site.

 

Rejected by the French and British air services, the Nieuport 28 was the first biplane scout received in large numbers by squadrons of the United States Air Service.  The 94th and 95th Aero Squadrons at Villeneuve were the first squadrons to receive the Nieuport 28. The planes arrived without guns but in March 1918 both squadrons led unarmed patrols along the lines. A favorite with aces like Harold Hartney, it was fast and maneuverable but had a tendency to shed its upper wing fabric if its pilot pulled out of a steep dive too quickly. The Nieuport 28 was replaced by the SPAD XIII    Also unreliable engine that got fire from time to time.

 

I think the Nieuport N28 is somewhat unfairly singled out in many writings as associated with the upper wing fabric shedding problem which is in fact due to the so-called leading edge suction phenomena and was actually a strongly contributing factor to the crashes of both Gontermann and Pastor in their early model Fokker Dr.I's. In addition, this could also happen on other airplanes. I have a picture in my soon to be published book WW1 Aircraft Performance of a Fokker D.VII flown by a Ltn. Notelius showing this. 

 

In addition, Lothar von Richthofen also crashed a later model Fokker Dr.1 which also shed the upper wing fabric in mid-air but he was lucky to be flying the later strengthened Dr.I version which was probably why he lived to tell about it.

 

Edited December 8, 2022 by Holtzauge

[No.23_Starling]

21 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

 

About the French being in the technical lead at the time was something that I learned during my research for my book. In some sense I think one could expand this to include the British as well really. Two good examples are the copying of the French sesquiplane and the British triplane concepts by the Germans. Of course towards the end of the war the Germans had caught up a lot and with the thick winged Fokker's, over-compressed engines and higher aspect ratio SS D.IV they were on track to overtake the Entente technically which I think it would be fair to say they did initially in WW2.

 

 

I think the Nieuport N28 is somewhat unfairly singled out in many writings as associated with the upper wing fabric shedding problem which is in fact due to the so-called leading edge suction phenomena and was actually a strongly contributing factor to the crashes of both Gontermann and Pastor in their early model Fokker Dr.I's. In addition, this could also happen on other airplanes. I have a picture in my soon to be published book WW1 Aircraft Performance of a Fokker D.VII flown by a Ltn. Notelius showing this. 

 

In addition, Lothar von Richthofen also crashed a later model Fokker Dr.1 which also shed the upper wing fabric in mid-air but he was lucky to be flying the later strengthened Dr.I version which was probably why he lived to tell about it.

 

Could you share a bit of wisdom here on the later German higher compression engines like the Merc iiiau? I think there’s a perception from some here that it would make a substantial difference to performance on the DVII and DVa, and that the full 200hp would kick in at sea level. Could you give your take on the performance impact for these two types?

 

Also, if we had the 220hp HS engine then it would be good to get your view on the increase in performance for the SPAD etc at both sea level and altitude.

[Holtzauge]

1 hour ago, US103_Rummell said:

Could you share a bit of wisdom here on the later German higher compression engines like the Merc iiiau? I think there’s a perception from some here that it would make a substantial difference to performance on the DVII and DVa, and that the full 200hp would kick in at sea level. Could you give your take on the performance impact for these two types?

 

Also, if we had the 220hp HS engine then it would be good to get your view on the increase in performance for the SPAD etc at both sea level and altitude.

 

I cover that in the book but to give some sort of preview: I'm more optimistic than RoF when it comes to climb times for the Albatros D.Va with the vanilla 180 hp Mercedes D.IIIa variant needing only about 21 m to 4000 m rather than 35 m as in RoF. In addition, I assume a SL top speed closer to 180 Km/h rather than 170 Km/h as in the RoF manual (I'm assuming it's the same here in FC?). So while RoF seems to be more optimistic in turn performance, I'm more optimistic when it comes to climb and speed.

 

With the D.IIIaü engine the D.Va takes a big jump in climb performance to 4000 m, essentially beating all Entente scouts bar the 220 hp SPAD S.XIII which it matches in climb time to this altitude. For the SPAD S.XIII 220 hp I am in agreement with the numbers (speed and climb time) posted by @US103_Baer here. About the turn times for the D.Va these will of course improve as well with the D.IIIaü engine, going from around 20.5 to 24.5 deg /s at 6000 ft. So when looking at the numbers I already posted here comparing the D.Va to the Nieuport 28, this means that the D.Va would now beat the N28 at this altitude in turn performance.

 

PS: In the book I have a chapter where I explain what data I have used for tuning the C++ simulation models. So here I refer to what data I use and the motive for selecting it. As an example, for the SPAD S.XIII, I use the same data as @US103_Baer highlighted in a red background color in his post, i.e. the S.512 equipped with the Ratmanoff 6727 prop.

 

 

Edited December 9, 2022 by Holtzauge

[SYN_Vander]

55 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

 

... So while RoF seems to be more optimistic in turn performance, I'm more optimistic when it comes to climb and speed....

 

 

 

This aligns nicely with how it was described by WW1 pilots: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N3uVPKS38BwZ4hufXgSuekn26NiPytZeMAshIqXAflY/edit?usp=sharing