Which path should/will flight model development in Flying Circus take?

[Holtzauge]

I was thrilled to see that the future of Flying Circus (FC) seems secured by the recent announcement of two new releases, namely FC3 and FC4. So good news indeed! 

 

However, that opens up a question regarding flight models (FM’s): The new planes being added, beginning with the Siemens Schukert D.IV, and then all the FC3 & 4 planes: Should they be tuned in to fit the current in-game FM’s or according to new data?

 

The reason I ask is because I see a dilemma here: We have a number of existing planes in-game in FC with FM’s that are as far as I know largely based on those from the Rise of Flight (RoF) simulator. However, I believe that there is new data available indicating that these FM’s could be improved. This does not only pertain to turn performance, but also speed and climb etc. but to limit the scope here I will take just turn performance as an example:

 

In my book I compare the different aircraft’s sustained turn performance at an altitude of 1000 and 5000 m. In summary, there are two main issues how these results relate to the FC FM’s: One is in the order the different aircraft stack, and the other in the absolute values. Now at 1000 m altitude, the absolute values are not that far off for some of the aircraft, but the order in which they stack is quite different. At 5000 m there is also a difference in the order in which they stack, but here there is a more serious issue in that there is also a quite large difference in the absolute values, with FC being far more optimistic than my estimates (See attached table below with "Model" being the results from the book).

 

Now this of course opens up the question of which FM is closer to the truth? The current in-game one or the one in my book? I have explained the science behind my results in the book, and my substantially longer turn times are in fact supported by German WW1 estimates which also place the turn times at significantly higher values at higher altitudes (See attached figure from German WW1 report TB 41, Der wagerechte Kurvenflug des Flugzeuges, by Heinrich Kann).

 

This in turn leads to the question how new aircraft added to the FC family should be tuned? If nothing is done with the current plane sets FM’s and the new ones are added according to the “old” RoF model, then the number aircraft with questionable FM’s will only add up. On the other hand, if the new ones added in FC3 & 4 are added based on the new data available, they will be out of tune with the aircraft we already have in-game.

 

I think the best way out of this dilemma is to simply grab the bull by the horns and tune the current FM’s to the best currently available data and then add the new ones based on this as well. Today we pay for new additions in aircraft and maps etc. and I personally would gladly pay for such an FM “realism” pack. After all, many of the current FM’s date back to the very beginning of RoF, and it’s not strange if they are outdated by now. And as the saying goes, there is no such thing as a free lunch, so here’s hoping for an announcement of a “realism” pack for the current plane set. My wallet is open.

 

Just my $0.02…….

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 12, 2023 by Holtzauge

[ST_Catchov]

You've put a lotta work and thought into this Holtzy. I hope the devs take note. The FM's sure could do with a revamp.

[Dusty926]

This is an immense amount of work on your part, I feel very strongly that some reexaminations of FC flight modelling is in order. It's bound to only improve things, and make for more interesting characteristic differences per plane. I'm hoping that it's something the devs look at with a serious eye.

[ZachariasX]

There‘s only one thing FC planes should reflect, and that is actual performance data. Having another look at all the FMs in FC is definitely in order.

[Holtzauge]

 

 

When I sent a copy of my book to the developers, I also offered to help out with input for any tuning activities. The response I have gotten is that they have now passed the book to the FM engineers, but that they have a strict schedule planned. I get that. It’s new content that generates revenue and moves this simulator forward.

 

This was why I started this thread. We are where we are in terms FM status. And tuning all already released planes is not something you do on a coffee break. So if we want a rework of FM’s for the already released plane set, there has to be something in it for everyone. Both for us as customers, and for the developers who do this for a living.

 

In addition to the above, I have shared my simulation data with people in the beta forum, and I suspect that they will be engaging with the developers through that channel as well.

 

But even if we convince the developers that a rework of the FM’s would move the simulator to a new level of realism, how can/should this be done?

 

No amount of pointing to sunk cost and entitlement on our side is going to change the fact that a FM rework costs development effort, and that this needs to be balanced against other revenue generating activities.

 

So in summary, my take on this is that some sort of “new” release is needed. Given the scale of work associated with reworking all the current FM’s, is it really realistic to ask for a rework without such a solution?

 

How else could it be done?

 

[BMA_Hellbender]

On 4/12/2023 at 11:41 AM, Holtzauge said:

I think the best way out of this dilemma is to simply grab the bull by the horns and tune the current FM’s to the best currently available data and then add the new ones based on this as well. Today we pay for new additions in aircraft and maps etc. and I personally would gladly pay for such an FM “realism” pack. After all, many of the current FM’s date back to the very beginning of RoF, and it’s not strange if they are outdated by now. And as the saying goes, there is no such thing as a free lunch, so here’s hoping for an announcement of a “realism” pack for the current plane set. My wallet is open.

 

 

You're paraphrasing myself and others such as @US103_Rummell when you say that the devs updating the old RoF FMs would be akin to having brand new planes, if not a brand new sim, and would certainly reinvigorate the community.

 

I think that in a way you've "done enough" to prove beyond reasonable doubt that which many of us suspected since the early days of RoF: there are some major flaws in the foundational FM engineering. Up until recently, we could only really speculate as to why this is the case, but now we have your hard data to back up those claims and some conclusive explanations regarding wing design. In case a hint of favoritism would be implied towards either Entente or Central machines, it's clear that your book shows that the current FMs have major flaws across the board, and that most of the planes would not become "better" or "worse", but "different". Okay, the Nieuport 28 would become flyable at last, and the Albatros less of a "newbie machine on rails" and more of a "high altitude boom 'n zoomer". The recent release of the Sopwith Snipe also shows this: it appears to behave a fair bit more like we would expect in terms of having a relatively high cornering speed in order to reach its best rate of turn, and really falls dreadfully short of everything else at high altitude (where it was meant to shine), simply because the high altitude performance of RoF planes was never that accurately modelled to begin with.

 

I don't think that fixing existing FMs should come with a pricetag. After all the devs have claimed time and time again that they are dedicated to improving their sim over time. What we can do, as customers who care deeply about the future of the sim and who have already supported it above and beyond, including financially with the purchase of WWII modules, is to expect that the ball gets rolling in terms of FM fixes. We have waited long enough. They don't have to all happen at once, but the data is there now, the ball is in their camp.

 

 

 

Edited April 13, 2023 by =IRFC=Hellbender

[Zooropa_Fly]

You bloody well better buy the Hanriot when it comes out Bendy !!

[Holtzauge]

@=IRFC=Hellbender: I agree with your sentiment completely: While I was a late joiner to the WW1 community, I have dived into the earlier parts of the RoF forum and I can see there that there were many of you that provided a lot of good input on FM’s way back and I have drawn a lot of good input and data from there.  This includes identifying many things, e.g. like the issues connected to the Albatros, S.E.5a and Nieuport 28 turn capabilities.

 

In addition, while as we know anecdotal evidence can be tricky to interpret, if one sums up many and not just a few there is usually a pattern, and the feedback I have gotten from some people who have been around since the early days of RoF, is that they had been questioning some aspects of the current FM from early on based on this and that upon seeing the results in my book, find that to align in a better way to general anecdotal evidence they have seen in books.

 

So given all this I certainly see where you are coming from: Some of you have been saying this for a long time and in a perfect world I would agree with you: Identified shortcomings in the FM’s should be fixed as part of the deal, it’s just that I think this will be very much an uphill struggle but I certainly support the idea! 

 

[Dusty926]

To me, it's a bit like when every plane in the sim suffered from basically no yaw stability what-so-ever; A core, fundamental improvement in aircraft FMs that was/is greatly appreciated, and genuinely uplifts the existing content. As entitled as this may sound, they should be willing to do such a look over of the FC flight models by principal; Otherwise, how much of a simulation is it that we're being sold?

It's something they have a precedent for doing [again, the huge yaw overhaul] but management has changed since then and I'm anxious that such uplifts of old content are maybe not as in the cards as they used to be. The new direction for IL-2 has sort of a, "No looking back" vibe that, whilst completely unfounded [I have no evidence for said vibe], does make me skeptical that we're going to see any major FM changes to Flying Circus.

I can say with confidence that unless the existing flight models are at least assured that they will see attention, I'm not purchasing Volumes 3 or 4 of Flying Circus. My preference is easily for 1916-early 1917, but I've got Rise of Flight going now and it's frustrating how close the FMs are still. They need to be better.

Edited April 13, 2023 by Dusty926

[Holtzauge]

@Dusty926: As I said to Hellbender: I agree with you completely about the need for reworks and if we were talking about just one or two planes, then fine. But taking the high altitude (5 km) performance as an example, this means that basically all aircraft need to be tuned. And while some now may object that in-game we seldom fly that high, this is a moot point because what we see as the deviating performance at high altitudes is a symptom of the induced drag modeling, and not just connected to high altitude performance: It hits across the board.

 

I don’t know how early on the problem with the Albatros being a better turner in-game than IRL was identified? TBH, I was surprised myself that it was as bad as it is IRL but in doing the background work for the book it became clear to me. And in all fairness to the developers, I think the Albatros and the SPAD were the first planes released in RoF? So those FM’s are really old by now.

 

However, it’s funny to note how the SPAD S.XIII is the plane that seems to be the one closest to the new data even though that FM was done so long ago. But the S.E.5a and Nieuport 28 for sure stick out as the only ones that should get better high altitude turn performance while all other planes should be dialed back.

[BMA_Hellbender]

10 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

You bloody well better buy the Hanriot when it comes out Bendy !!

 

I've reinstalled RoF and have been flying it there just to mentally prepare myself for its release. That's how excited I am.

 

When push comes to shove, I don't expect them to fix everything right away, but there needs to be more than just a promise of "just keep buying stuff and we'll fix things eventually". That worked for the first decade, but it won't work forever. ?

 

 

19 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

@=IRFC=Hellbender: I agree with your sentiment completely: While I was a late joiner to the WW1 community, I have dived into the earlier parts of the RoF forum and I can see there that there were many of you that provided a lot of good input on FM’s way back and I have drawn a lot of good input and data from there.  This includes identifying many things, e.g. like the issues connected to the Albatros, S.E.5a and Nieuport 28 turn capabilities.

 

I've never claimed to be an expert at WWI aviation as you are, but I have been an active member of the RoF community since June 2009, and even back in those days there were mentions on the RoF forum regarding the Albatros airfoils using the same angle of attack calculations as the thick Fokker airfoils, which is just plain wrong. At first glance they are indeed cambered quite thick -- but as your book conclusively points out: their leading edges are too sharp and angled incorrectly to really benefit from this added thickness. In other words: the Albatros and Pfalz should be able to go through an accelerated stall and stall relatively sharply, rather than just floating around as they've always done. The same goes for the mystery surrounding the Nieuport 28 which currently falls out of the sky in a turn (also without stalling sharply): its wing/span loading was never properly taken into account, only the fact that it has "thin SPAD wings". Your numbers show that it has a good rate of turn at a sufficiently high speed, which is now also the case with the Sopwith Snipe.

 

Again I realise that it will take a lot of work on the devs' part to get everything right, but isn't getting things right the reason someone is coding sims in the first place?

 

There's more money to be made in mobile pay2win games, I can assure you that.

[Holtzauge]

@=IRFC=Hellbender: Regarding the stall characteristics, for sure: In general a thicker airfoil is better, but the problem with aerodynamics is that there are so many exceptions to the rule and sometimes thing that don’t pan out like they should according to the textbooks.

 

So in some cases even thin wings with sharp noses can have benign stalls: This is due to the flow separating early at low angle of attack at the leading edge but then reattaches so you don’t get a sharp stall after all. But the Cl at which this occurs is way lower  than on a thick airfoil so you lose out anyway. Thicker more round nosed profiles sometimes stall starting from the trailing edge and lose all lift at once, the NACA 230 series being a good example.

 

IIRC then @Chill31 said something to that effect regarding the Sopwith Camel he flew? Even with the relatively sharp nosed RAF 15 profile it was pretty benign so not at all like in-game?

 

So while I would guess you are right about the Albatros not having good stall characteristics, I can’t say anything with confidence about that. However, what I’m sure about is the sustained turn performance: There is no way a plane with that combination of power-, wing- and span loading will turn that well.

[ST_Catchov]

One word. Se5a Viper. Who cares about the Harriet. Only one I can think of. ?

[Zooropa_Fly]

A non-technical, superficial comparison of the Dva's..

 

I think the RoF version is a more effective and dangerous proposition.

Jack of all trades and all that, yes. But in the hands of an expert, flown to it's strengths and to it's limits - was a very hard proposition.

I think of 'Easy Ace' - master of the high yo yo, which is the way to go in it I think.

It had strict limits in RoF though, with it's wings breaking under stress a bit easily.

So being able to fly on the edge of these limits was important.

 

The wings in FC are now a lot stronger, but the Dva, like most other things in FC, always felt a little more sluggish than RoF.

Been talked about before.. feels like the atmosphere is a bit thicker or something ?

Anyway, I don't feel the Alb in FC can be as dominant as it was in RoF.

Feels a bit short of power.

 

That's just a game to game comparison, the FC one may well be closer to how it was for all I know ! 

 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

1 hour ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

In other words: the Albatros and Pfalz should be able to go through an accelerated stall and stall relatively sharply, rather than just floating around as they've always done.

Yep , you can just pull elevator to it's limit during turns and there is nothing like accelerated stall , the speed and G don't matter, you can't crosse the line as elevator had deadzone to limit dangerous flying regime.

 

 

The current planes flight characteristics , especially ease of sustained turn without stall on most centrals planes (FM imported form ROF) vs new FM of Spowitch Snipe already made this plane unpopular in multiplayer. The gap is huge and make questionable the worth buying it  if one would like to be competitive in multiplayer environment.  The partial answer if devs are willing to change old FMs will be answered in release of Siemens.  Do they tune it to be more in line  with old FMs and sell better or similar to Snipe. I hope they go for historical and scientific data driven FMs.  This however should be answered in all FMs remodeling. They choose to sell new fighters so they should be competitive with rest, why they don't choose to make two seaters, the life would be much easier for them  ?.

Btw I waiting for Snipe FMs comparison being made by our great author.

After years of stagnation thanks to you Sir we have now something to wonder about. Hop the future bring best to WW1 genre,  and we all would know who thank for that.

S!

 

Edited April 13, 2023 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[BMA_Hellbender]

44 minutes ago, ST_Catchov said:

One word. Se5a Viper. Who cares about the Harriet. Only one I can think of. ?

 

The Belgian delegation would like a word with you. There are couples of us. Couples!

 

In all seriousness, the Hanriot being one of the latest RoF FM additions is certainly not the worst offender. Well, its rate of turn is a bit bad compared to the Albatros D.Va, but that says little about the Hanriot itself.

 

A far more relevant plane for everyone here, and one that actually served with the Entente (and not neutral Belgium), remains the Nieuport 28. Still the first plane I ever flew in RoF.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

5 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

 

The Belgian delegation would like a word with you. There are couples of us. Couples!

 

In all seriousness, the Hanriot being one of the latest RoF FM additions is certainly not the worst offender. Well, its rate of turn is a bit bad compared to the Albatros D.Va, but that says little about the Hanriot itself.

 

A far more relevant plane for everyone here, and one that actually served with the Entente (and not neutral Belgium), remains the Nieuport 28. Still the first plane I ever flew in RoF.

If i remember correctly, Hanriot climbed like mad and had lean mixture vs others rotaries. The view was terrible but in VR it might be other wise as I noticed with other plenes.

[ST_Catchov]

54 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

The Belgian delegation would like a word with you.

 

They just did! And I'll shut up now about that. I thought the CIA was bad. I love the Harriet! And I love Belgians.

 

But if we're takin' about the Albatros, as someone was? It's a B&Zee plane. It's a slug. Not a butterfly as it is in FC. Tell 'em Holtzy!

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 hour ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

If i remember correctly, Hanriot climbed like mad and had lean mixture vs others rotaries. The view was terrible but in VR it might be other wise as I noticed with other plenes.

 

Historically the Hanriot was a more refined Nieuport 17, in full biplane configuration rather than sesquiplane, with a more powerful 120/130hp Le Rhône 9Jby engine (by the time it entered service with the Belgians in 1917) and with top wing dihedral compared to the Sopwith Camel's lower wing dihedral.

 

Hanriot

 

 

 

Camel

 

It was, for all intents and purposes, a French Camel -- with a single machinegun and a less powerful engine. The French refused it for service because they realised early on that the future of aerial warfare meant climb, speed and dive. To hell with "dogfighting", "maneuverability" or "ease of handling". It's hard to beat the SPAD XIII in that respect, and in fact the Hanriot HD.1 was already refused for service by the French when pitched against the SPAD VII (180hp). It's very much a late 1916 design, in that respect.

 

When the Belgians accepted it for service and started to replace their Nieuport 23s with it, they found that it had comparable performance to the Nieuport but was easier to handle and was built stronger. They also claimed better visibility, but it's of note that they did offset the single machinegun to the side. They also flew the SPAD VII, but in separate fighter squadrons off of different bases, so the two were never directly compared or interoperated.

 

By late 1917 when the Belgians were taking delivery of their first Camels, it's the Camel that was in fact refused for service. It was declared too unstable, with poor upwards visibility and found unsafe to fly by none but the most experienced pilots. In the end only Jean Olieslagers transitioned to it from the Hanriot. The rest of the Camels were relegated to two-seater escort duty or secondary fighter squadrons who were still flying the Nieuport. In an even crazier turn of events, the Italians replaced their SPAD XIIIs with Hanriot-Macchi HD.1s in 1918, but I think that had a lot to do with the Hanriot being license-built in Italy and their top ace Francesco Baracca getting killed in a SPAD.

 

 

As for how it should perform? Overall "worse" than a Camel by every metric we value here, save perhaps marginally in climb and in toughness in a dive. However, there's no way in hell it would have been outmaneuvered in a dogfight at low to mid altitude by anything the Germans operated close to the Belgian front, all the way until the end of the war. That includes the Albatros D.Va, Pfalz D.IIIa and Fokker D.VII -- even if all three were as fast or faster in top speed at sea level, and most certainly faster at high altitude with added overcompression. Currently in RoF only the D.VII is faster.

 

As far as I know, neither Fokker Dr.Is or late Fokker D.VIIFs ever operated over the Belgian front, they were far more occupied by the British and French(/Americans).

 

Edited April 13, 2023 by =IRFC=Hellbender

[Holtzauge]

Now that you guys have brought up the subject of handling: IRL there is this thing called stick forces you know! 

 

IRL most WW1 planes seem to have had very mediocre roll control and much of the turning was done with rudder. In addition, as far as I know the ailerons on these old kites are in most cases best described as set in concrete at higher speeds.

 

And maybe we just should not go there since I think very few will enjoy that kind of realism because looking at the MP videos posted in this forum, most planes on the servers seem to be flown by gorillas on steroids. 

[=IRFC=Gascan]

Maybe push for engine mods like the DIIIau for some of the planes and the proper performing SPAD engine as part of any flight model upgrade. Sell a new version of a plane with a new engine, upgrade the flight model for all the planes based on that fuselage.

[Holtzauge]

11 minutes ago, =IRFC=Gascan said:

Maybe push for engine mods like the DIIIau for some of the planes and the proper performing SPAD engine as part of any flight model upgrade. Sell a new version of a plane with a new engine, upgrade the flight model for all the planes based on that fuselage.

 

That is a good idea: Especially for the Albatros since if the turn performance is reduced to more historical levels, it will be a very lame duck unless the engine is boosted. And I know that there are people here in the forum that would gladly open up the wallet for up-engined SPAD's and S.E.5a's. 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

1 hour ago, Holtzauge said:

Now that you guys have brought up the subject of handling: IRL there is this thing called stick forces you know! 

 

IRL most WW1 planes seem to have had very mediocre roll control and much of the turning was done with rudder. In addition, as far as I know the ailerons on these old kites are in most cases best described as set in concrete at higher speeds.

 

And maybe we just should not go there since I think very few will enjoy that kind of realism because looking at the MP videos posted in this forum, most planes on the servers seem to be flown by gorillas on steroids. 

For sure you right. In  the game I  fly Camel in multiplayer environment and I only turn this beast using rudder, aileron are not for that. This  game have it done right. Strong legs, not arms are needed ?  Btw in most furballs speeds are not high so all ranger of control surfaces deflection should be available for pilot. The elevator should  not be  limited like in central plenes, just pull to belly don't mind you will not stall even if you do it violently,  that what I see not right. 

?

Edited April 13, 2023 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[Holtzauge]

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

For sure you right. In  the game I  fly Camel in multiplayer environment and I only turn this beast using rudder, aileron are not for that. This  game have it done right. Strong legs, not arms are needed ?  Btw in most furballs speeds are not high so control surfaces should not be stiff or rather say limited like in central plenes.

?

 

For sure: In furballs stick forces would probably also IRL have been quite manageable. I was thinking more about the BnZ type of attacks where people dive fast and maneuver in roll at high speeds: I think that would have been very difficult IRL due to the extreme aileron stick forces. 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

2 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

 

For sure: In furballs stick forces would probably also IRL have been quite manageable. I was thinking more about the BnZ type of attacks where people dive fast and maneuver in roll at high speeds: I think that would have been very difficult IRL due to the extreme aileron stick forces. 

For sure when speed builds  up significantly they should be like that.

[Holtzauge]

Another plane that could benefit from @=IRFC=Gascan's good idea with new engine options for legacy planes financing FM rework is the Fokker D.VII I think:

 

The Fokker D.VII with the vanilla 180 hp Mercedes D.IIIa engine is underpowered, while the BMW powered D.VIIF is a sort of über plane. The Fokker D.VII with a Mercedes D.IIIaü would fit in nicely in between and I assume also give a boost to MP diversity in that an in between performing Fokker D.VII could be added to the server mix?

 

Speaking of the Fokker D.VIIF: In-game this is supposed to have a ceiling of 9000 m and I have a very hard time seeing that as you who have bought my book know: My estimate is the Fokker D.VIIF at a bit over 7 Km in ceiling which is higher than all the rest barring the Siemens Schukert D.IV at a bit over 8 Km. But 9000 m ceiling for the D.VIIF beating the SS D.IV? I don't see that in the cards at all......

 

Again, for sure, maybe in-game you don't fly that high (9000 m) but such a high ceiling means your climb rate does not fall of as rapidly as it should at higher altitudes, and this gives you an advantage in climb rate also at lower altitudes.

 

 

Edited April 13, 2023 by Holtzauge

[Dusty926]

Alongside the AI, the FMs are all in need of do overs. Engine performance, especially at altitude, is probably the most necessary thing. Otherwise the Sopwith Snipe is doomed to remain significantly worse than everything else; Not due to any fault of its own, but to being surrounded by planes based on far older, weaker data.

The developers clearly have the know-how with them to do great new WW1 flight modelling, the Snipe is fantastic. Probably the most authentic flier in the WW1 end of the sim. But whether or not they apply that to the existing aircraft I think depends on the noise us and others make on the forums and in communities.

It may be easy to seem entitled, especially if not worded constructively, but with your book as a fantastic basis I think there's not really many other options. Until we know whether or not the devs are even considering an FM rework for the existing FC aircraft, the best way we can convey is loud, "We want this or we're out."

There's a lot to consider, as you pointed out here:

10 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

No amount of pointing to sunk cost and entitlement on our side is going to change the fact that a FM rework costs development effort, and that this needs to be balanced against other revenue generating activities.

And it's important to be aware that it's much easier to ask than to do.
However, we have the resources now to constructively point at and say, "These can be done better."

Much like the yaw issue, I think this is beyond the wait-a-year-and-see-what-happens category of issues. We've already been waiting years for this stuff, we just never had the resources to really prove what we were saying. Now we do, and that deserves SOME attention.

If not? And it's more of waiting years in silence hoping that someone on the team gave it even a passing thought? I'm not comfortable purchasing the remaining Volumes of FC.

[ZachariasX]

11 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

because what we see as the deviating performance at high altitudes is a symptom of the induced drag modeling, and not just connected to high altitude performance: It hits across the board.

I have been haping about that ever since the RoF days. The planes not losing speed in turns (as they should) made several planes incredible clown cars and I belive it was one of the main reasons ThePatch turned out as it did. Planes not suffering in high lift conditions as they should required a disproprtionate nerf in power to tame them from being sort of Extra300‘s to being plausible biplanes from a century ago. Simulating (induced) drag certainly has gotten better in the latest versions of the GB series, but biplanes seem to be more difficult to simulate for the devs. I still don‘t think we were asking for the wrong thing back then, we just got the wrong medicine.

[ST_Catchov]

5 hours ago, Dusty926 said:

If not? And it's more of waiting years in silence hoping that someone on the team gave it even a passing thought? I'm not comfortable purchasing the remaining Volumes of FC.

 

Generally speaking, I do think the new management team is more open to revising issues. The weak wing DM issue was a problem for years but was corrected within weeks of the new team taking over. @Regingrave has also shown interest in fixing the unrealistic bouncing plane crash explosions. This has been around a long time although I can't remember if early FC had this anomaly or if it was inherited from a WWII update? The devs also fixed a few glaring AI issues in the last update although much more focus is required in this area. A complete overhaul is needed imo. The FM's however is a big one. At least the devs have accepted Holtzauge's book which is a hopeful start. We shall see ....

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

Its a business.  @=IRFC=Gascan probably hit on the sweet spot between that reality and a longer term success that a improved FM could produce for 1C.  If we are honest, when would any FM satisfy this group?  Additionally, has anyone really understood what the plane set would look like if all the planes were modeled to 90% of their historical accuracy?

Building on what Gascan proposed, it seems to me that if 1C has a new engine they are moving towards, that all this may be able to get "corrected" by simply retooling the FM's as they pass through the new improved engine. I'd pay money for a real DVIIau and everything else over again, and so would most players... because if there was a possibility of gaining an edge in doing so, it would be the lowest cost aspect of everyones involvement in this game (VR, graphics, stick, pedals, etc. etc.).  We all know how much everyone is already willing to pay to get an edge.  Or, simply the satisfaction of feeling what it was like to actually fly these kites and go toe to toe with another person in them! 

[Holtzauge]

@ZachariasX: Yes, I agree: The induced drag and Clmax are two things that can lead one astray. I remember the paper “Performance Analysis and Tactics of Fighter Aircraft from WWI” by Scott Eberhardt which while giving an idea about the relative performance, assumes the profile Clmax acting on the total wing area and that aircraft can turn at the resulting max instantaneous turn rate for a complete turn. So very optimistic turn times indeed. But that paper is from 2004, and we have moved on from there. I think this is the situation also with most types of development, FM’s included, we gain new knowledge all the time and sometimes this leads to that things need to be looked over again.

 

@ST_Catchov & @J5_Baeumer:  Yes, that the developers occasionally do update the DM’s and FM’s is good news indeed and we can only hope that good win-win ideas like the one put forward by Gascan bears fruit. But for sure: a 100% of those who fly FC will not be 100% satisfied even with an FM revision so this will not stop FM discussion, which will only stop the day hell freezes over. But I believe the developers earlier on have expressed a wish to get the FM’s to within something like 3-5% of historical data, and if we could get there then that would be great.

 

However, if things are too far out of line and glaring like Catchov puts it (Here’s looking at the Albatros D.Va and Nieuport 28 for example), then that affects not only the pleasure of flying a plane but also changes the way it can be used against other aircraft in-game. And while one can certainly adapt to any given FM, we are then no longer talking about pitting historical aircraft against each other, but competing with FM X against FM Y.

 

 

Edited April 14, 2023 by Holtzauge

[BMA_Hellbender]

11 hours ago, J5_Baeumer said:

 If we are honest, when would any FM satisfy this group?  Additionally, has anyone really understood what the plane set would look like if all the planes were modeled to 90% of their historical accuracy?

 

I think that's a very interesting question, and I'd like to take a stab at it.

 

If things are 90-95%, this is what the current scout planeset would look like in terms of relative performance and changes in my humble opinion:

 

Blue text means engine variant addition, name change or other non-performance related fix.

 

Purple text is speculation on my part.

 

 

 

Central

 

Siemens-Schuckert D.IV: Insanely good climber at low altitude, superb performance at high altitude, good all-round machine in terms of speed and maneuverability, think how the Sopwith Dolphin flies now, but slightly slower and with a stellar climb that even puts the Fokker D.VIIF to shame. A bit scary, but not that fast.
 

Fokker D.VIIF: Slightly better than it is right now in overall relative performance. The Camel will still outturn it at low altitude, but the difference will be smaller. It will also still outturn the Nieuport 28, but only marginally. Still outclimbs everything except the Siemens with full altitude throttle engaged. Unrivalled king at high to very high altitude. Hello 9000m ceiling! A monster.
 

Fokker D.VII 200hp: The Fokker D.VII how it's meant to be. Slightly worse than the F in every respect, but still faster and better climb than a Camel at every altitude. Will still outturn an S.E.5a. Very good high altitude performance. The mid-to-late Central 1918 workhorse.

 

Fokker D.VII 180hp: No huge changes in terms of relative performance from the vanilla D.VII, though marginally faster than the Camel still. Not really an upgrade over the Fokker Dr.I, except in terms of speed.

 

Fokker Dr.I: Overall better than it is right now, which is to say: faster and still marginally the best turnfighter in 1918. Probably the biggest Central win from correcting relative performance.

Fokker E.V/D.VIII: The D.VIII is problematic to me. Its great speed performance of 204km/h was undoubtedly reached with the 145hp Oberursel UR.III, which never saw operational service, and the 110hp Oberursel UR.II would not have made it that much faster than the Fokker Dr.I. Its monoplane configuration would not have made it great in a sustained turn either. It should have good instantaneous turn and a good climb, but no match for a SPAD or Camel. Probably the biggest Central loss from correcting relative performance.

 

Pflaz D.XIIf: More or less how the Pfalz D.XII is right now. Excellent high altitude performance. Dive flutter needs to be looked at.

 

Pfalz D.XII 200hp: Slightly worse than the current Pfalz D.XII. Slightly faster than a Camel at low altitude, and good high altitude performance.
 

Pfalz D.XII 180hp: Not good, really. Not a meaningful upgrade over the Pfalz D.IIIa.

 

Pfalz D.IIIa 200hp: The very best of the "Albatros-like" fighters. Slightly faster than a Camel, but unable to outturn anything on Entente at low altitude. Good high altitude performance and a solid mid-to-high altitude boom 'n zoomer. Actually still a decent turnfighter at higher altitude.

 

Pfalz D.IIIa 180hp: Better than the 180hp Albatros D.Va, but overall not a match for 1918 Entente machines such as the Camel and S.E.5a at low altitude. About as fast a Camel, still. Decent high altitude performance and really high ceiling, but not a match for the S.E.5a Viper.

 

Albatros D.Va 200hp: Much like the Pfalz D.IIIa about as fast a Camel at low altitude, but even worse in a turn than the Pfalz. Also good high altitude performance, including in a turn. Will actually outturn the Nieuport 28 up high. Fragile in a dive. Overall the best version of a bad machine. The mid 1918 Central workhorse.

 

Albatros D.Va 180hp: Not good by 1918 standards, really. Worse than the 180hp Pfalz D.IIIa in every way and fragile in a dive. Unfortunately the early 1918 Central workhorse.

 

 

Conclusion: Without adding engine variants, the net positive for Central is that the Fokker D.VIIF will become even better and the Fokker Dr.I will be restored to its former glory. The Siemens-Schuckert will blow everyone away with how well it climbs and energy fights, but it's avoidable by Entente because it's not exactly fast. Albatros and Pfalz without overcompression are faster and climb better than they do now, but are really not fast enough to deal with 1918 Entente machines, and since they can't really turn anymore they're pretty much useless. Not that they weren't dead against a Camel already. Fokker D.VII also remains a bit of a dud in its non-overcrompressed state. They're just bad in 1918. The Fokker D.VIII is a loss as well. Maybe its instantaneous turn would somehow make it decent in a dogfight? I don't know.

 

With engine variants added... wow. It makes the Albatros and Pfalz actually useful and gives Central its 1918 Fokker D.VII overcompressed workhorse.

 

On a personal note: I would fly Central way more than I do today, considering I kind of despise the Fokker D.VIIF "überplane" and dislike the Fokker Dr.I. I can't wait to fly either the Albatros D.Va 200hp or the Fokker D.VII 200hp. Obviously also excited about the Siemens-Schuckert D.IV.

 

 

Entente

 

SPAD XIII 240hp: I'm still not entirely convinced that this plane operated in any numbers, but signs point to it, considering engine advancements didn't just stop in 1917 for the French. The French "answer" to the Fokker D.VIIF. Still not the best at high altitude, but fast enough down low to never worry about getting caught ever again. The absolute speed and climb king at low altitude.

 

SPAD XIII 220hp: Slightly faster than it is today, otherwise relative performance remains virtually unchanged. It can outturn the Albatros and Pfalz at low altitude, but not the overcompressed ones at high altitude. The French/American 1918 workhorse.

 

SPAD VII 180hp: No huge changes in relative performance, other than it will marginally outturn the 180hp Albatros and Pfalz, especially at low altitude. Not really a match for the overcompressed variants up high. Should be a great match for the Albatros D.III down the road.

 

SPAD VII 150hp: Still useless in late 1917/1918. Considering that it's utter garbage at the moment, it will benefit greatly from having Albatros fighters that don't turn as well anymore. Same scenario as with the Airco DH.2. Should be a great match for the Albatros D.II down the road.

 

S.E.5a Viper: The Entente Spitfire. Great at high altitude, too. Only rivalled by the Fokker D.VII 200hp and outmatched by the Fokker D.VIIF. It will have to be more careful against the improved Fokker Dr.I and really use its speed advantage against the Siemens. The British mid-to-late 1918 workhorse.

 

S.E.5a Hispano-Suiza: Comparable to the Viper, but with worse high altitude performance. Won't reach the ceiling of the 180hp Albatros and Pfalz.

 

Sopwith Dolphin: Almost exactly as it exists today in terms of relative performance, but it would be able to outturn the 180hp Albatros and Pfalz at all altitudes and the 200hp variants down low. Marginally better in a turn than the Fokker D.VIIF at low altitude. Basically a slower but more maneuverable S.E.5a Hispano-Suiza, with slightly better high altitude performance. A jack-of-all-trades.

 

Sopwith Snipe: In absolute terms exactly as it is today, in relative terms the middle ground between a SPAD XIII and a Camel. Great high altitude performance, but not a match for the Fokker D.VIIF or Siemens-Schuckert D.IV. At low altitude it will more or less hold its own against the Fokker D.VIIF in a turn, and remain slightly faster than the Siemens. The best Entente rotary climber, but again not as good a climber as the D.VIIF or Siemens. The jackest-of-all-trades.

 

Sopwith Camel 150hp/160hp: The 150hp Bentley BR.1 and/or 160hp Gnome Monosoupape 9N Camel is a monster. It will outfly God and all of His angels at low altitude and completely outclasses the Fokker Dr.I, though they would not have operated at the same time. The Fokker D.VIIF and Siemens would struggle against it at all but the highest altitudes. Unrivalled at low altitude. Just plain scary.

 

Sopwith Camel 130hp: In terms of absolute performance the turn of the Camel is reduced, same as with most (Central) machines, but in relative terms not that much changes, other than the Fokker Dr.I is now only 10-15km/h slower than the Camel instead of 25km/h slower. Camel pilots in general should be more eager to transition to the S.E.5a, which is definitely the desired effect. Still the king of dogfighters. The British early-to-mid 1918 workhorse.

 

Sopwith Camel 110hp: The 110hp Le Rhône Camel would be a great addition to the 1917 roster. Slower and with a worse climb than the 180hp Albatros, it's basically how things are today in Rise of Flight post-1.034. Still a good dogfighter, though not a match for the Fokker Dr.I. Should be a great match for the Albatros D.III down the road.

 

Sopwith Triplane: Not that big of a change in terms of relative performance. It will outturn the Albatros and Pfalz, at least at lower altitudes. Not a real contender by 1918 standards. It will outclass the Albatros D.III down the road.

 

Nieuport 28: Comparable in many ways to the Sopwith Dolphin, but slightly slower, slightly worse in a turn and better in a climb. An excellent match for the Fokker D.VII 200hp, especially at low altitude. Will outturn the 200hp Albatros D.Va down low, but not at high altitude. Outclassed by the Fokker D.VIIF in every way, even at low altitude, but with a good instantaneous turn and some added instability. Still finally flyable after all these years... The current state of this plane is bordering on criminal neglect.

 

 

Conclusion: There's no big surprises anywhere. Entente is firmly the (upper-)middle class of 1918 Flying Circus, whereas Central is both the upper class and the lower class. The biggest winners are the Nieuport 28, which basically starts existing even if it's not going to break any records; and the S.E.5a Viper, which becomes quite a bit more attractive than it is now. The Snipe also becomes relevant, though it will never be top of its class at anything.

 

Entente doesn't really require engine variants as badly as Central does, but it would sure be nice to have them. The 110hp Camel has me excited for 1917. The 150hp Camel has me worried for late 1918.

 

On a personal note: does it even need to be said? I would fly the Nieuport 28 (and Sopwith Dolphin and Sopwith Snipe) until we get the Hanriot HD.1, and I'd even try my hand at the S.E.5a Viper and SPAD VII 180hp a bit more. Camels still don't interest me in the least.

 

 

EDIT: Some formatting and adjusted comments regarding the Snipe and Dolphin vs. D.VIIF.

Edited April 14, 2023 by =IRFC=Hellbender
Some formatting and adjusted comments regarding the Snipe

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

2 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

Camels still don't interest me in the least.

Great written and excellent summary. 

Btw why don't you like Camelson?

[BMA_Hellbender]

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

Great written and excellent summary. 

Btw why don't you like Camelson?

 

Thank you. I tried to be as unbiased as possible. I'm not happy at all with the performance which @Holtzauge's model predicts about the Fokker D.VIII. I still think we're missing something with its one jumbo sized wing in terms of turn performance. Historically it performed really well in combat, though it may have been about as rare on the front as the Siemens-Schuckert D.IV.

 

As for the Camel: I flew it a lot in RoF. To exhaustion, really. It's a great machine, but it's too extreme for my tastes. Pure angles fighting no longer interests me as much as it once did. It's the same reason why I dislike the Fokker Dr.I. I find the Dolphin a much better middle ground and hoping the Nieuport 28 and Snipe will be brought up to its level through relative performance fixes. The Hanriot I just like because it's Belgian and an underdog, but it's also unironically not a bad little dogfighter, without being as extreme as the Camel.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

You've obviously put an incredible amount of research and effort into this study.  Sure hope the devs take notice, and advantage of all this data.  Nice job!?

[Holtzauge]

2 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

Conclusion: There's no big surprises anywhere. Entente is firmly the (upper-)middle class of 1918 Flying Circus, whereas Central is both the upper class and the lower class. The biggest winners are the Nieuport 28, which basically starts existing even if it's not going to break any records; and the S.E.5a Viper, which becomes quite a bit more attractive than it is now. The Snipe also becomes relevant, though it will never be top of its class at anything.

 

Good summary! But even with the Mercedes D.IIIaü, the central scouts will struggle. I have been getting some very good Mercedes engine data via YavorD and Bletchley in The Aerodrome forum, and I can conclude that the earlier power estimates I had for that engine and posted turn and speed estimates for, was far to optimistic. So yes, the D.IIIaü is a bit better, but don't expect that much!

 

On the other hand I have begun looking at the Pfalz D.XII (with BMW engine) as well and I think it leans towards this plane not only climbing well but becoming quite competitive in turns as well.

 

But the big winners are for sure the S.E.5a and Nieuport 28: They are not only fast and climb well, they will now be able to hold their own in turns as well. In fact, in the book I conclude this: The N28 while not taking first place in any individual sport, is a very capable jack of all trades that few can match. Speaking of this, IIRC then quite a few US pilots were actually reluctant to switch from the N28 to the SPAD: And can anyone help me with references? I need names, units and book/articles to reference. Who/When/where, that type of info and where it's from.

 

BTW Hellbender: I see you mention a ceiling of 9000 m for the Fokker D.VIIF, and as I said in an earlier post in this thread, that number IMO is way north of optimistic! 

[Holtzauge]

10 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

 

I'm not happy at all with the performance which @Holtzauge's model predicts about the Fokker D.VIII. I still think we're missing something with its one jumbo sized wing in terms of turn performance. Historically it performed really well in combat, though it may have been about as rare on the front as the Siemens-Schuckert D.IV.

 

Well, the Fokker D.VIII was the way of the future. For sure. But with the Oberursel II, it was quite underpowered and that it has the highest wing loading of them all does not help. So it has physics working against it I'm afraid. Now with the more powerful engines they had planned for it, things would have been different. But it's the 122 hp Oberursel we have in-game and have to adapt to......

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 hour ago, Holtzauge said:

Good summary! But even with the Mercedes D.IIIaü, the central scouts will struggle. I have been getting some very good Mercedes engine data via YavorD and Bletchley in The Aerodrome forum, and I can conclude that the earlier power estimates I had for that engine and posted turn and speed estimates for, was far to optimistic. So yes, the D.IIIaü is a bit better, but don't expect that much!

 

I take it that means for the Albatros and Pfalz with 200hp?

 

The way I expected it would be is that the Albatros would start having a performance advantage over the 130hp Clerget Camel, 160hp Gnome Nieuport 28 and 200hp Hispano-Suiza S.E.5a somewhere between 3000m and 5000m upwards. By which I mean to say that the Albatros could at least do some basic BnZ against the Camel and have a speed advantage, and also outturn both the Nieuport 28 and S.E.5a at that altitude -- but most notably climb to a higher service ceiling.

 

Albatros D.Va (200hp): 6200m

Sopwith Camel: 5700m

Nieuport 28: 5300m

S.E.5a (200hp H-S): 5200m

 

Since there were no turbocharged Viper S.E.5as available before the summer of 1918, and the S.E.5a was really not deployed in large numbers at all before the Viper became available, the Albatros D.Va 200hp would really have been the only overcompressed/turbocharged scout on the Western Front at least from March/April 1918 until May 1918, when the Fokker D.VII 200hp became available. The Pfalz D.IIIa still in service at that point would also have been retrofitted with overcrompression. At least in RoF/FC even the Halberstadt CL.II is retrofitted in such a way, even if there is little historical proof that this happened.

 

It's a bit less clear against the 220hp Hispano-Suiza SPAD XIII, since that one has more raw horsepower and in fact may have had a higher ceiling than the 200hp D.Va.

 

SPAD XIII: 6600m

 

 

Quote

ut the big winners are for sure the S.E.5a and Nieuport 28: They are not only fast and climb well, they will now be able to hold their own in turns as well. In fact, in the book I conclude this: The N28 while not taking first place in any individual sport, is a very capable jack of all trades that few can match. Speaking of this, IIRC then quite a few US pilots were actually reluctant to switch from the N28 to the SPAD: And can anyone help me with references? I need names, units and book/articles to reference. Who/When/where, that type of info and where it's from.

 

From the Nieuport 28 Windsock Datafile 36:

 

 

Quote

BTW Hellbender: I see you mention a ceiling of 9000 m for the Fokker D.VIIF, and as I said in an earlier post in this thread, that number IMO is way north of optimistic!

 

The Fokker D.VII 200hp would have gone up to almost 7000m.

 

I'm not sure how RoF/FC got to the 9000m figure for the D.VIIF. Maybe that should be its absolute ceiling instead and its service ceiling should be closer to 8000m?

[No.23_Starling]

1 hour ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

 

I take it that means for the Albatros and Pfalz with 200hp?

 

The way I expected it would be is that the Albatros would start having a performance advantage over the 130hp Clerget Camel, 160hp Gnome Nieuport 28 and 200hp Hispano-Suiza S.E.5a somewhere between 3000m and 5000m upwards. By which I mean to say that the Albatros could at least do some basic BnZ against the Camel and have a speed advantage, and also outturn both the Nieuport 28 and S.E.5a at that altitude -- but most notably climb to a higher service ceiling.

 

Albatros D.Va (200hp): 6200m

Sopwith Camel: 5700m

Nieuport 28: 5300m

S.E.5a (200hp H-S): 5200m

 

Since there were no turbocharged Viper S.E.5as available before the summer of 1918, and the S.E.5a was really not deployed in large numbers at all before the Viper became available, the Albatros D.Va 200hp would really have been the only overcompressed/turbocharged scout on the Western Front at least from March/April 1918 until May 1918, when the Fokker D.VII 200hp became available. The Pfalz D.IIIa still in service at that point would also have been retrofitted with overcrompression. At least in RoF/FC even the Halberstadt CL.II is retrofitted in such a way, even if there is little historical proof that this happened.

 

It's a bit less clear against the 220hp Hispano-Suiza SPAD XIII, since that one has more raw horsepower and in fact may have had a higher ceiling than the 200hp D.Va.

 

SPAD XIII: 6600m

 

 

 

From the Nieuport 28 Windsock Datafile 36:

 

 

 

The Fokker D.VII 200hp would have gone up to almost 7000m.

 

I'm not sure how RoF/FC got to the 9000m figure for the D.VIIF. Maybe that should be its absolute ceiling instead and its service ceiling should be closer to 8000m?

One thing, the SE5a HS8Bs and Dolphins got 220hp higher compression upgrades in early 1918. McCudden did his own upgrade early (see Christopher Cole), and there are remarks from Jasta pilots about the higher compression allied types arriving prior to the BMW becoming available in numbers (see Franks & VanWyngarden, Fokker DVII Aces).

 

The forums are full of irks about the Diiiau engine but rarely about that advantage being fleeting before the 220hp Hispano upgrades arrived.

 

I know people in the community desperately want a better Dva and Diiia but the reality is that the Hispano engines were also in an arms race.

 

Lastly, the 220hp HS would have been the best performing SE5a of the war. The Viper solved the issue of geared engines breaking and poor availability of the HS8B, but was a 200hp version of the HS8A engine fitted to the SPAD VII. The various RAE test data I have shows the 8B SE5a having slightly better performance than the Viper, so long as it wasn’t broken.

 

 

[BMA_Hellbender]

24 minutes ago, US103_Rummell said:

One thing, the SE5a HS8Bs and Dolphins got 220hp higher compression upgrades in early 1918. McCudden did his own upgrade early (see Christopher Cole), and there are remarks from Jasta pilots about the higher compression allied types arriving prior to the BMW becoming available in numbers (see Franks & VanWyngarden, Fokker DVII Aces).

 

The forums are full of irks about the Diiiau engine but rarely about that advantage being fleeting before the 220hp Hispano upgrades arrived.

 

I know people in the community desperately want a better Dva and Diiia but the reality is that the Hispano engines were also in an arms race.

 

Lastly, the 220hp HS would have been the best performing SE5a of the war. The Viper solved the issue of geared engines breaking and poor availability of the HS8B, but was a 200hp version of the HS8A engine fitted to the SPAD VII. The various RAE test data I have shows the 8B SE5a having slightly better performance than the Viper, so long as it wasn’t broken.

 

I agree. There was a ton of field modification happening in every single air force. The Camel alone operated with 7 different engines.

 

Gnome Monosoupape 9B 100 hp (early British when the Clerget 9B was still unreliable)

Le Rhône 9J 110/120hp (early British when the Clerget 9B was still unreliable)

Le Rhône 9Jby 120/130hp (with the Belgians)

Clerget 9B 130hp (standard variant)

Clerget 9Bf 140hp (uprated British license-built Clerget)

Bentley BR.1 150hp (with the RNAS)

Gnome Monosoupape 9N 160hp (with the USAS)

 

Penty of Fokker Dr.Is also flew with captured Le Rhônes which may have given them up to 130hp if they also had access to castor oil.

 

Ideally I'd like to have them all as field modifications.

 

 

Why not, really? The more options we have, as long as they are rooted in reality, the better.

 

It's not like we're asking for an R.E.8 with a 220hp Hispano-Suiza or something ludicrous like th--

 

Spoiler

 

In fairness, a lot of waffles were involved in the making of that decision.

 

Edited April 14, 2023 by =IRFC=Hellbender