Siemens Schukert

[JGr2-J5_Tabasco]

After the last update the performance of this excellent fighter has nosedived - literally with frequent stalls and has become unmanageable in a dogfight. 

 

I hope you will please reverse whatever changes were made.

[ZachariasX]

 

See here.

[BMA_Hellbender]

9 hours ago, J5_Tabasco said:

After the last update the performance of this excellent fighter has nosedived - literally with frequent stalls and has become unmanageable in a dogfight. 

 

I hope you will please reverse whatever changes were made.

 

The FM was changed because of pilot reports found in the Windsock Datafile, which is certainly a first, and sets a solid precedent for reviewing a number of earlier FMs.

 

Edited May 30, 2023 by =IRFC=Hellbender

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

18 hours ago, J5_Tabasco said:

After the last update the performance of this excellent fighter has nosedived - literally with frequent stalls and has become unmanageable in a dogfight. 

 

I hope you will please reverse whatever changes were made.

What? It's flight model is the same , just the stall do not give you any pre worning. Btw it's very easy to recover from stall , the plane do it by itself, you do not enter the  spin after abrupt - accelerated stall .

[J99_Sizzlorr]

15 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

 

The FM was changed because of pilot reports found in the Windsock Datafile, which is certainly a first, and sets a solid precedent for reviewing a number of earlier FMs.

 

So we are doing FM changes based on pilot quotes now?

[BMA_Hellbender]

3 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

So we are doing FM changes based on pilot quotes now?

Apparently, yes. Again according to the devs this is coming from its Windsock Datafile (I don’t own that one myself), which I would say is a pretty credible and highly curated reference work. If there is a specific mention about a plane’s behaviour that is generally accepted by historians, then the sim should probably reflect it.

 

This is also why I brought up the N28 in the other thread, as its rate of climb and maneuverability is praised, specifically compared to the Fokker D.VII (likely the « vanilla » as we like to call it), whereas in the sim the Nieuport is less maneuverable than the Fokker (or Albatros for that matter).

 

EDIT I found the Datafile and the two relevant quotes from combat reports:

 

 

 

(p. 6 )

Edited May 31, 2023 by =IRFC=Hellbender

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

2 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

Apparently, yes. Again according to the devs this is coming from its Windsock Datafile (I don’t own that one myself), which I would say is a pretty credible and highly curated reference work. If there is a specific mention about a plane’s behaviour that is generally accepted by historians, then the sim should probably reflect it.

 

This is also why I brought up the N28 in the other thread, as its rate of climb and maneuverability is praised, specifically compared to the Fokker D.VII (likely the « vanilla » as we like to call it), whereas in the sim the Nieuport is less maneuverable than the Fokker (or Albatros for that matter).

 

EDIT I found the Datafile and the two relevant quotes from combat reports:

 

 

 

(p. 6 )

In game the Simens do not spin , it's stall .

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

3 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

 

EDIT I found the Datafile and the two relevant quotes from combat reports:

Didn't we learn our lesson after RoF got botched by "someones" research and lobbying that resulted in the final and fatal "FM update"!? 

Two anecdotal reports (which could even have been changed to protect post-war technology secrets or British commercial airplane industry interests) is not sufficient 'data' to make changes.  Its not even 'data'.  It is at best a data point.

If you read the reports you cite (actually, what is the citation exactly, you don't include it), the spinning appears to occur over 5km as well as 'universal praise' for 'outmaneuver ability', among other things. 

Edited May 31, 2023 by J5_Baeumer

[BMA_Hellbender]

2 hours ago, J5_Baeumer said:

Didn't we learn our lesson after RoF got botched by "someones" research and lobbying that resulted in the final and fatal "FM update"!? 

Two anecdotal reports (which could even have been changed to protect post-war technology secrets or British commercial airplane industry interests) is not sufficient 'data' to make changes.  Its not even 'data'.  It is at best a data point.

If you read the reports you cite (actually, what is the citation exactly, you don't include it), the spinning appears to occur over 5km as well as 'universal praise' for 'outmaneuver ability', among other things. 

 

 

There's a lot to take in here, and I know that you mean well with everything you write. Please allow me to comment.

 

In full.
 

 

• RoF 1.034 was a fiasco. Link for the uninitiated: https://riseofflight.com/forum/topic/44725-version-1034/
  
  It was thrown at the testers during the final week of development under the guise of "this is what the community wants". Some very strange last minute changes were introduced, such as the Sopwith Triplane speed reduction, which I don't recall anyone ever asked for, among some other questionable FM changes. In fact I was neither a tester nor an active player anymore at that point. I was, however, informed that it would happen -- as you can see from the fact that I was the first one to reply, for the simple reason that a change there was absolutely 100% mine:
  
  4. Adjusted: Nieuport 28.C1 FM - "Heavy tail on takeoff" issue fix;
  
  Years prior I had given the conclusive proof that the Nieuport's tail didn't lift off fast enough, simply from comparing the in-game Nieuport to video footage of the rebuilt Nieuport 28 at Old Warden. I don't have the actual comparison video anymore, but this was the footage at Old Warden, as flown by Stuart Goldspink:
   
  
  I'll get back to the Nieuport 28 in a moment.
  
  For the other changes I can only say that I was initially pleasantly surprised that they had taken action at all, and then realised how much of a rush job they were and how some things absolutely didn't make sense and some planes were downright forgotten about. Again: years of research and FM discussions vs. one week of rushed changes isn't exactly in proportion.
  
  There is however one more change I was thrilled about even though it is, by all accounts, historically inaccurate: the Sopwith Pup was slowed down to match its 80hp engine, even though it was supposed to be quite fast according to (questionable) historical data. I'm holding my breath to see whether the slow "nerfed" version will make it into FC, or the fast "accurate" version, which eats the Fokker Dr.I for breakfast. In case I would ever be blamed for having an Entente bias, but you of all people know that I don't have that. I don't even fly the Camel or Bristol anymore, out of principle.
  
  But I digress, at worst I was somehow the enabler of others who pressured the devs to make a rush job at the end of the development cycle, and my ego is big enough to accept that. After all, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
  
  
   
• Okay, that was RoF history, now for some real history. Yes, for reasons beyond me I'm partial to the Nieuport 28. Don't ask me why... There's people who like to collect stamps. Probably because it was the first plane I ever flew in RoF. From everything I've ever read about that plane, it was considered to be less than stellar. It caught fire, it shed fabric, it was a handful to fly, it was painful to service. The French refused it for all the right reasons, as they did with the Hanriot HD.1 (no major complaints about that one's FM).
  
  I consider myself among a priviledged few who got to speak with Stuart Goldspink about his experiences flying a number of WWI planes at Old Warden and other airshows. Some replicas, some actual survivors. The Nieuport 28 he flew was in fact a restored original, but that isn't to say that it would be 100% representative of an original, nor that even originals were all exactly the same, either. This was the 1910s, none of these planes or engines would have been through a rigorous standardised manufacturing and quality assurance process that exists today.
  
  Anyway, he described the Nieuport 28 as one would expect: a plane that darts into the air, a handful to fly, an extreme tendency to roll unless applying opposite rudder, totally ineffective ailerons. We never even got to sustained turn. Sustained turn isn't magic, it's a function of wing loading (+ span loading) and engine power. Even the Windsock Datafile is specific about this:
  
  
  
  If it had been released like that, nobody would ever have doubted its FM.
  
  Actually, let's not underestimate the community: we might have complained that it was too good compared to its historical counterpart. After all this is a machine that:
  
  - Shed fabric in a dive
  - Regularly caught fire in flight
  - Had a hell of an engine to maintain
  - Barely even operated at the front
  
  Rest assured that having a Nieuport 28 überplane that didn't technically exist is not my intention. But again: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
  
   
• Enter the Siemens-Schuckert D.IV.
  
  For once I'd like to specify that I'm not involved in this story at all. It's @ZachariasX who asks why its FM was changed in the last update, and the dev reply you can read yourself. It's coming from the Windsock Datafile, specifically from combat reports I quoted above. I quoted them now because I got a hold of the Windsock Datafile today. Again, I was not involved here.
  
  I do feel that it's necessary to hold the devs accountable to the fact that in the past only "hard data" was satisfactory to consider FM changes, but apparently this was not the case for the SSW D.IV. And comparable to the Nieuport 28, the SSW D.IV indeed:
  
  - Regularly had engine seizures in flight
  - Had a hell of an engine to maintain
  - Barely even operated at the front
  
  In its current state it's very much an überplane which didn't technically exist.
  
  So my question is simple: why would the SSW D.IV's FM be changed and not the N.28 using equally valid combat reports? One might even say that the N.28's quote isn't even a combat report, it's stating the obvious about its wing loading. Both in properly maintained (post-war) condition actually went on to become very capable aerobatic / racing machines. The Nieuport 28 in American service and the Siemens-Schuckert D.IV by the *checks notes* Belgians.
  
  See, I'm guilty by association after all. 

 

 

Thank you for subscribing to my blog.

 

 

[ZachariasX]

7 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

I do feel that it's necessary to hold the devs accountable to the fact that in the past only "hard data" was satisfactory to consider FM changes, but apparently this was not the case for the SSW D.IV.

Maybe - when everytime you touch something get hurt - you try to minimize touching anything… I sense some risk abersion in the FM silo. Touch once and leave it for good. But please prove me wrong.

 

And thanks for quoting the source of the Siemens report above. Also @J5_Baeumer for giving important context. I have the impression that they misread that report and probably the language barrier had its contribution as well.

 

They compared two aircraft, one that is super easy to fly (once it is off the ground) with low wingloading, has hardly any wingdrop regardless of how much you are stalling it, and then the other that has a higher wingloading with a suprisingly modern wing profile. ANY normal aircaft would have „sudden wingdrop“ if you hamfist it compared to the Fokker D.VII. Any Cessna does that at that altitude (if you could get up there with your Lycoming). And a the consecutive recovering in the Cessna would be easy as well. But nobody would say the Cessna has gives no warning before the wing drops in general. It just doesn’t act like that. Especially the fact that recovery was that effortless proves that the wing is a sound design. That the Siemens stalls much before the Fokker I find plausible due to the higher wing loading and I would expect the Gö180 profile of the Siemens to stall at a smaller angle than the Fokker‘s. Maybe @Holtzauge would know the difference. I would guess it is considerable in that situation.

 

So, if that is truly the quote on handling at 5 km altitude, then what we got for the Siemens I find highly questionable and a good example of how not to translate pilot accounts into FM mechanics. 

[BMA_Hellbender]

7 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Maybe - when everytime you touch something get hurt - you try to minimize touching anything… I sense some risk abersion in the FM silo. Touch once and leave it for good. But please prove me wrong.

 

And thanks for quoting the source of the Siemens report above. Also @J5_Baeumer for giving important context. I have the impression that they misread that report and probably the language barrier had its contribution as well.

I don’t think the SSW D.IV needed any alterations in the first place, and as @1PL-Husar-1Esk points out: they haven’t changed its spin behaviour, they have added a wingover stall, comparable to the Polikarpov I-16. It actually looks a bit like a smaller biplane I-16.

 

Anyway, quoting combat reports for this FM change when you’ve evangelised « hard data » for over a decade should elicit a customer reaction, but I get the sentiment that it’s easier for some to blame anyone but the devs themselves. To me this is a matter of transparency and respect.

 

Finally, I’m in agreement that doing nothing at this point is definitely better than breaking things further. I’d really rather have a broken Nieuport 28 that no one flies, rather than one that one that needs to be limited or downright removed because it’s too good. It’s sad, because it is contrary to everything I believe in in terms of iterative software development, which does happen to be my area of expertise. This is what no competition in the market looks like.

[=IRFC=Tunes]

On 5/31/2023 at 12:42 PM, J5_Baeumer said:

Didn't we learn our lesson after RoF got botched by "someones" research and lobbying that resulted in the final and fatal "FM update"!? 

Two anecdotal reports (which could even have been changed to protect post-war technology secrets or British commercial airplane industry interests) is not sufficient 'data' to make changes.  Its not even 'data'.  It is at best a data point.

If you read the reports you cite (actually, what is the citation exactly, you don't include it), the spinning appears to occur over 5km as well as 'universal praise' for 'outmaneuver ability', among other things. 

You're seriously going to blame 5 years of FM debating and contention between dozens of people that led to that patch on one person? Wow.

[BMA_Hellbender]

38 minutes ago, =IRFC=Artun said:

You're seriously going to blame 5 years of FM debating and contention between dozens of people that led to that patch on one person? Wow.

 

Gentlemen! Let's keep the war in the virtual skies, not on the forum.

 

No one person can be blamed for unwanted FM changes. Not even The-One-Who-Must-Not-Be-@-ed.

 

 

I have always been an advocate for the devs to consult with far more authoritative sources than anyone on this or other forum. When I visited the Stow Maries Great War Aerodrome with my good friend @=IRFC=CaptDarling (missing, presumed retired), one of the questions we most certainly asked the historians there was: "Were you ever consulted in any capacity by people from the Rise of Flight development team?" and the answer was "Rise of what?"

 

Ditto Old Warden. Ditto Old Rhinebeck. Ditto the Belgian Royal Army Museum, the absolutely most trusted source of WWI aviation in the entire world. Or something.

My point is: these people possess such a wealth of information that they are just dying to impart on anyone interested enough to ask. Beats quoting from Windsock Datafiles, if you ask me.

 

 

And before I shut up (Oh God, is there any more?), allow me to share an anecdote with you that happened during our visit to Stow Maries.

 

I epically misidentified this airplane as an RE8:

 

 

(it is, of course, a BE2c)

 

But the funny part of the story is when I asked them if they were still flying it, and they told me: "No, it's under repair, we bent it."

 

"Bent it?" I ask.

 

"Yes, of course we bent it on our last flight. Happens all the time. These are wire-braced wood and canvas wings, they twist and bend under stress. It completely changes the way the aircraft handles."

 

 

The real problem, gentlemen, is that the planes we all here so much admire, may be the hardest ones to have ever graced God's blue sky to simulate accurately in a sim. Because of bending wings.

 

 

S! Bender

 

Edited June 1, 2023 by =IRFC=Hellbender

[=IRFC=Tunes]

gavagai! I’ll show myself out now.

[No.23_Starling]

On 5/31/2023 at 2:06 PM, J99_Sizzlorr said:

So we are doing FM changes based on pilot quotes now?

You were happy with Herman's secondhand quote on usage of the BMW altitude throttle below 2km; and unlike those shared above, this quote was contradicted by several other primary sources like Lothar von Richthofen who wrote: "In order to not unnecessarily stress the motor, and maintain advantage, the "over gas" throttle position should be used only above 2000 metres." (see Fokker DVII Aces Part 1, Franks and VanWyngarden).

 

The anecdotes here are consistent. If only we had some kind of aerospace engineer who had modeled this plane in a sophisticated c++ environment.. @Holtzauge  From the climbing tests I've done the SSIV still climbs like an absolute rocket, 3-4 times faster than every other scout except the DVIIF.

Edited June 1, 2023 by US103_Rummell

[BraveSirRobin]

4 hours ago, =IRFC=Artun said:

You're seriously going to blame 5 years of FM debating and contention between dozens of people that led to that patch on one person? Wow.

It was mostly gavagai, but Hellbender was absolutely one of the people primarily responsible for 1.034.  It’s pretty funny that he’s now pretending that it was a complete surprise to him..

 

 

[=IRFC=Tunes]

Dude, there was a whole crew (including you and I, BSR). Not about to name names and throw people under (Vickers Gun)bus. 

Also, it isn't their fault that the execution of the FM revision went the way it did. 

Edited June 1, 2023 by =IRFC=Artun

[BraveSirRobin]

Dude, no there wasn’t a “whole crew”.  There was mostly gavagai and Hellbender.  There were others, but they weren’t the ones driving the bus.  It was mostly gavagai. 
 

They came up with a list of changes that were needed.  777 made almost all of those changes.  They only left out the N28.  Everyone thought it was great.  Until they didn’t.  Then the FM bitching returned.  And the people responsible, like Hellbender, tried to pretend that they were just bystanders.  Hell, gavagai disappeared completely.  

 

So there is absolutely no reason to take anything that Hellbender says about the 1.034 FM disaster seriously.

 

 

 

58 minutes ago, =IRFC=Artun said:

Dude, there was a whole crew (including you and I, BSR). Not about to name names and throw people under (Vickers Gun)bus. 

Also, it isn't their fault that the execution of the FM revision went the way it did. 

 

[ST_Catchov]

Oh-uh you just know that when someone gets called "Dude", there's trouble brewing. 

[BraveSirRobin]

Just to be absolutely clear, there is NOTHING that the developer can do to FMs to make people like Hellbender happy.  There is ALWAYS one more change that will make the game perfect.  ALWAYS.  And if that change isn’t made, then they’ll focus on it until the end of time.  If the change is made, then they’ll find a different problem that is ruining the game.  It is as predictable as the sun rising in the east.

[=IRFC=Tunes]

14 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Dude, no there wasn’t a “whole crew”.  There was mostly gavagai and Hellbender.  There were others, but they weren’t the ones driving the bus.  It was mostly gavagai. 
 

They came up with a list of changes that were needed.  777 made almost all of those changes.  They only left out the N28.  Everyone thought it was great.  Until they didn’t.  Then the FM bitching returned.  And the people responsible, like Hellbender, tried to pretend that they were just bystanders.  Hell, gavagai disappeared completely.  

 

So there is absolutely no reason to take anything that Hellbender says about the 1.034 FM disaster seriously.

 

 

 

 

Everything that gavagai or any other community member mentioned during that period had been a running topic of debate for the 4 years before the update. There was consensus.
 

The developers bringing those requests to the community in the manner that they did, a “here you go, and there’s nothing further we can do about anything” has absolutely nothing to do with that. That’s what people were frustrated with.

 

(The same devs who brought back the pre nerf version of most planes back for FC.)

 

4 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Just to be absolutely clear, there is NOTHING that the developer can do to FMs to make people like Hellbender happy.  There is ALWAYS one more change that will make the game perfect.  ALWAYS.  And if that change isn’t made, then they’ll focus on it until the end of time.  If the change is made, then they’ll find a different problem that is ruining the game.  It is as predictable as the sun rising in the east.

I almost thought I was in a rational conversation, but I have been shaken back to reality.

Edited June 2, 2023 by =IRFC=Artun

[BraveSirRobin]

14 minutes ago, =IRFC=Artun said:

Everything that gavagai or any other community member mentioned during that period had been a running topic of debate for the 4 years before the update. 

Yeah?  What’s your point?  The changes that they demanded were what ended up in 1.034.  And the only thing that resulted from 1.034 were more FM demands, even though that update gave them almost everything that they wanted.  And it still wasn’t enough.

[=IRFC=Tunes]

My point is that you can’t change the FMs in a game in a single fell swoop without a commitment to refine your changes. The devs said that they would not change any FMs moving forward. If you asked gavagai or Hellbender or any other community member if they would have preferred the pre or post nerf lineup permanently, they would have chosen pre. No one could have predicted how it ended up happening.
 

(Also, a big complaint which no one asked for was that the Sopwith Triplane got affected by the update. This is a plane which, even pre-nerf, ran with 300 less static revs than the Camel despite having the same engine. There was no need for it. )

 

 

[LukeFF]

Guys, let's turn the heat down a bit, please. ? What happened with ROF is in the past and needs to stay there.

[=IRFC=Tunes]

Swinging back to the original discussion, the reality is that the current situation has nothing to do with what happened 9 years ago.

We now have @Holtzauge's new book which provides an objective, physics based comparison of the flight characteristics of these aircraft. There is a blueprint in place which offers the best evidence since WWI about the true relative performance of these machines. The numbers vindicate certain pilot reports, and they refute others. 

No one is arguing for changing FMs blindly. It is entirely about using the objective data. 

[LukeFF]

Alright guys, one more time: please quit it with the back-and-forth arguing about what went down with the last RoF FM model updates. If you want to argue about them, take it to PMs. 

[J99_Sizzlorr]

8 hours ago, US103_Rummell said:

You were happy with Herman's secondhand quote on usage of the BMW altitude throttle below 2km; and unlike those shared above, this quote was contradicted by several other primary sources like Lothar von Richthofen who wrote: "In order to not unnecessarily stress the motor, and maintain advantage, the "over gas" throttle position should be used only above 2000 metres." (see Fokker DVII Aces Part 1, Franks and VanWyngarden).

 

The anecdotes here are consistent. If only we had some kind of aerospace engineer who had modeled this plane in a sophisticated c++ environment.. @Holtzauge  From the climbing tests I've done the SSIV still climbs like an absolute rocket, 3-4 times faster than every other scout except the DVIIF.

What you didn't get that both Goering and Lothar von Richthofen were talking about seperate engines one about the Mercedes and the other about the BMW. Also I wasn't lobbying for FM changes with that. And you told me quotes aren't good enough. Now FMs are changed based on a quote that the SSW did stall without warning above 5000m but what we got is a abrupt stalling SSW at all altitudes. So apperantly now quotes are good enough to make half assed changes. You seemed to be happy with Goerings quotes about the mixture of BMW and Mercedes engine. Just keep on picking your cherries mate.

I was just suggesting that the Germans did use a different fuel mixture at the beginning of 1918 because they had no other choice, which Holtzkopf didn't account for in his simulation or book. This fuel mixture might have enabled them to open up the altitude throttle below 2000m. There is plenty of evidence to support it. Mostly in books that got cencored by the allies after ww2. Like the Dechamps book. Ever thought about why it is so hard to get German sources about ww1 aviation? You would have known if you didn't try to kill the discussion all the time.

Edited June 2, 2023 by J99_Sizzlorr

[No.23_Starling]

2 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

What you didn't get that both Goering and Lothar von Richthofen were talking about seperate engines one about the Mercedes and the other about the BMW. Also I wasn't lobbying for FM changes with that. And you told me quotes aren't good enough. Now FMs are changed based on a quote that the SSW did stall without warning above 5000m but what we got is a abrupt stalling SSW at all altitudes. So apperantly now quotes are good enough to make half assed changes. You seemed to be happy with Goerings quotes about the mixture of BMW and Mercedes engine. Just keep on picking your cherries mate.

I was just suggesting that the Germans did use a different fuel mixture at the beginning of 1918 because they had no other choice, which Holtzkopf didn't account for in his simulation or book. This fuel mixture might have enabled them to open up the altitude throttle below 2000m. There is plenty of evidence to support it. Mostly in books that got cencored by the allies after ww2. Like the Dechamps book. Ever thought about why it is so hard to get German sources about ww1 aviation? You would have known if you didn't try to kill the discussion all the time.

Sorry, to finish Lothar’s quote: “it is absolutely necessary that each pilot is instructed in the mode of operation of the BMW motor”. If you read that whole source it’s entirely about the BMW. I find this quote from him interesting: “up to 2000 metres, the BMW motor operates insignificantly better than the overcompressed 160hp Mercedes motor.” Herman is definitely talking about the BMW. I can quote that too if you like - you’re incorrect about which engine they discuss.
 

As you can see im using sources to support a position - which I quote - rather than posting assumptions with vague book references. 
 

Using the stall notes about the SSIV alone is compelling but not conclusive; additional engineering input from a pro like Holtz would sway the smart bets. I just find it curious that you fight one position on fuel based on assumptions and no direct primary evidence. 
 

Nothing bur healthy debate here old mate! ?

[J99_Sizzlorr]

Can you link that quote please? That is all I can find about Lothar talking about the BMW

 

"The BMW motor is a great advancement in the design of aircraft motors. Through increased over compression, larger bore of the cylinders, and a first-class carburetor (which was designed particularly for higher altitudes), the Bavarian Motor Factory has succeeded to manufacture a motor which makes our D airplanes superior to all types of enemy aircraft at higher altitudes..Up to 2000 meters, the BMW motor operates insignificantly better than the over-compressed 160 hp Mercedes motor. However, as soon as the "over" gas throttle position is given, the performance of the BMW motor is greatly superior to the over-compressed 160 hp Mercedes...The vibration from the over compression is not more violent than in the Alb D.V airplane with a 160 hp Mercedes. The vibrations could be dampened by using a somewhat stronger motor mount in the Fokker D.VII... As soon as whole Staffeln are equipped with BMW aircraft, I suggest shipping additonal reserve motors in the ratio of two motors for every twenty airplanes.."

 

Also when did he wrote that? And to keep up with your standards please link the original source...

 

Edit: It is also a myth that the Höhengas was only used above 2000m. When you read the BMW engine manual you start to realize that it was ok to open it up even fully under 2000m altitude.

Edited June 2, 2023 by J99_Sizzlorr

[BMA_Hellbender]

2 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

Edit: It is also a myth that the Höhengas was only used above 2000m. When you read the BMW engine manual you start to realize that it was ok to open it up even fully under 2000m altitude.

 

Wasn't the Höhengas simply applied gradually with altitude? That's why it's a throttle, right, not a switch?

 

I think the most pervasive myth is that the overcompressed 200hp (180 PS) Mercedes D.IIIaü performed better at sea level even at full throttle than the 180hp (160 PS) Mercedes D.IIIa.

 

In effect:

• The Fokker D.VIIF which we have now is about as accurate as can be
   
• The Fokker D.VII (180hp) is about as accurate as can be
   
• The Halberstadt CL.II 200hp should perform worse than the Halberstadt CL.II (180hp) at sea level, even at full power, but have a much slower drop off with altitude, especially from around 1000m when full power can safely be applied
   
• A hypothetical overcompressed Fokker D.VII 200hp would perform worse than the vanilla at sea level, even at full power, but also have a much slower drop off at altitude, about equal to the Fokker D.VIIF from around 1000m to 2000m (without Höhengas applied), and then worse than the D.VIIF from 2000m (with Höhengas).

 

Again I'm not saying that you can't apply Höhengas below 2000m in the D.VIIF, just that if you don't, you basically have a Fokker D.VII 200hp.

 

We really need the Fokker D.VII 200hp to combat Camels, SPADs and S.E.5as on equal footing between 1000m and 2000m.

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

Wasn't the Höhengas simply applied gradually with altitude? That's why it's a throttle, right, not a switch?

The thing is that *in principle* in case of the Mercedes engine, it should produce LESS power with Höhengas than without Höhengas at low altitude. Actually it is built to cut the engine under such conditions. D&K are rather clear about this and openly love the arrangement for exactly that. However, they acknowledge the fact that those engines (as any engine from a century ago) will never, ever, EVER! exactly perform to spec values, but daily form and individual build and tolerances will make it vary in output. I'd go as far as taking up to 10+% between similar engines.

 

In reality, the Mercedes actually had a tad more power with Höhengas applied than without. But it doesn't always work, as in principle it is made such, that moving the lever past the Vollgas "V" position, it will starve the engine to make it quit. As said, in reality, sometimes this might be not enough leaning (by uneven distribution in the burn chamber, a commonplace arrangement nowadays) and you can still add more air to the engine and it will run.

 

What we have is Schroedinger's engine, that, no matter how you put it, will have an unknown power output, but when you put it on the dyno to look at it, it will most likely break (and cease to exist) on you as did most engines the Brits tortured off spec did when they wanted to get an idea of what it *could* do.

 

The same applies to the BMW with the difference that the engine is not designed to cut out when using Höhengas before critical altitude. You will give the engine more air, but progressively lean mixture (that is detrimental for efficiency down where it renders this whole discusson here a moot point). In total, you gain more than you lose through efficiency at the price of walking into predetonation territory. I find open cockpit biplanes extremely loud. I mean, loud such that it is impossible to communicate via shouting between front and back seat. Hearing the *click-click-click-click* when the engine starts to burn is not trivial (I'd say impossible).

 

Hence, in principle with the Mercedes, you cannot walk the Höhengas forward gradually to reach critical altitude while walking the detonation threshold, but in reality you can. Internally, the ngine will lean out a bit with added altitude to maintain power output somewhat until it's time for pushing the throttke all the way through to the end, "H" position. On the other hand, in principle *and* in reality, you can do that with the BMW. Provided - in both cases - that you can actually hear the clicking, which I don't think I could even on a Lycoming.

[J99_Sizzlorr]

2 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

 

Wasn't the Höhengas simply applied gradually with altitude? That's why it's a throttle, right, not a switch?

 

It depends on what you want to do. When you want to fly very fuel efficient the manual says open up the Höhengas lever fully at 1000m and then regulate with the normalgas lever. Also when the plane is in a dogfight you are also advised to open the Höhengas lever fully no matter the altitude and regulate only with the normalgas lever to avoid over reving the engine. After the dogfight, if your plane is below 2000m you close the Höhengas lever again.

[=IRFC=Tunes]

11 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Alright guys, one more time: please quit it with the back-and-forth arguing about what went down with the last RoF FM model updates. If you want to argue about them, take it to PMs. 

For posterity: several posts were deleted, and I (probably) do not have split personality disorder.

[No.23_Starling]

All, as requested here’s the full quotes from the text mentioned above. The vibrations noted by Goering sound like knocking, and Lothar’s instruction is very clear. Don’t forget by end of October BMW had shipped only a few hundred of these engines to Fokker, with most Jastas still using Merc diiiau versions; you can understand the careful approach to preserving the better engines.

 

If you take a look at Holtz’s book he has a photo of Mikael Carlsson DVIIau cockpit - you can clearly see the overgas position for the throttle; looks a bit like the spitfire emergency boost notch. This is never used by its owner below recommended altitudes to preserve the engine.

 

As Hellbender says above, the in-game BMW can be abused below 2km or even on the deck, in an ahistorical manner. The debate is pointless unless Sizzlor thinks there should be no knocking for the BMW at all and the altitude throttle should be renamed “throttle”. It’s already a superplane in pretty much every other respect and the easy-mode mount so it probably wouldn’t make that much difference to multiplayer dynamics.

 

[J99_Sizzlorr]

In order to not UNNECESSAILY stress to the motor...

 

That means don't do it when you don't need it and not it is strictly forbidden and doesn't contradict Goerings letter as you stated above. 

 

Edit: Again I would love to see the German original for the exact wording...

 

For the knocking BMW: With the higher octane Fliegerbenzin, a mixture of Leichtbenzin and Benzol used by the Germans in the last year of the war (according to Ludendorff's war memoirs) because they didn't have enough crude oil, the engine shouldn't knock, because of the higher octane and therfore knocking resistance of the fuel. Benzol in the mixture prevents the Fliegerbenzin from pre detonating that easily. 

Edited June 3, 2023 by J99_Sizzlorr

[Holtzauge]

Sorry for the longwinded post and that the attached picture is a bit messy and difficult to read, but unfortunately all this text and all those curves are needed to explain the context. 

 

As far as I know the developers argument for the current Siemens Schukert D.IV climb performance in-game is that they have tuned this to data from Technische Bericht series III Band 5 where there is an article by a Herr Schwager for a climb test with a T/O weight of 695 Kg. This can be seen as the straight black line which ends at a climb time of 15.5 min to 6000 m. However, the in-game SSW D.IV when armed, weights in the order of 735 kg which then explains why the blue solid and dotted black lines (in-game measured climb times) lie to the right of the 695 kg test data.

 

My C++ simulation estimates on the other hand rely on a barograph trace for a Siemens Schukert D.III trial posted in Flight magazine in 1919 for my tuning (dashed black line). I presented this data (via proxy) to the developers together with the red line data for my SSW D.IV model and argued the case that this is what we should have in-game.

 

This fell on barren ground and the answer I got back was that since the SSW D.III is aerodynamically somewhat different, I can’t use that data. I tried to explain my view that the climb rate is primarily governed by the power loading (W/P), and since this is basically identical between the two, tuning to the D.III data is perfectly valid. In addition, one can understand that the only way the 695 kg curve can be to the right of the curves for 735 kg is if a lower power is assumed. I therefore did a simulation assuming not a 207 hp full throttle climb, but instead at the Siemens Halske’s climb rating of 160 hp assuming a 695 kg T/O weight. As can be seen, the simulation curve (purple dashed) is more or less a perfect match to the solid black line (Schwager).

 

Unfortunately, after this initial exchange of ideas, the discussion died and the SSW D.IV was released and is now performing according to the black dotted line. Sure, this is a very good climb rate and beats the other aircraft we have in-game today. But if we want historical accuracy then it should actually be even better, and more in line with the dashed black line climb trial posted in Flight magazine in 1919.

 

Finally, to prove the point about the aerodynamic differences between the SSW D.III and D.IV in this context being minimal, I have now gone to the trouble of modeling also the SSW D.III (green solid line) and as can be seen, the difference between the red and green lines is as expected minimal. In addition, also note the good conformance of the dashed green line for the 695 kg climb case.

 

So in summary, the climb rate is governed primarily by the W/P ratio. In extension, this means that for a full throttle climb then the in-game SSW D.IV at a T/O weight of 735 kg should be tuned to follow the dashed black line.

 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2023 by Holtzauge

[BMA_Hellbender]

10 hours ago, US103_Rummell said:

As Hellbender says above, the in-game BMW can be abused below 2km or even on the deck, in an ahistorical manner. The debate is pointless unless Sizzlor thinks there should be no knocking for the BMW at all and the altitude throttle should be renamed “throttle”. It’s already a superplane in pretty much every other respect and the easy-mode mount so it probably wouldn’t make that much difference to multiplayer dynamics.

 

I feel compelled to weigh in again, as I've been accused in the past of not participating enough when an FM discussion goes the other way, which then also ends up being my fault for pressuring the devs into make unwanted changes. It's a burden which no mere mortal dude should have to bear, a superpower of sorts, with the Nieuport 28 as my kryptonite.

 

Anyway...

 

• The Fokker D.VIIF was indeed a superplane and easy-mode mount. Above 3000m it was untouchable. Good luck finding anyone up there on Flugpark, though. Your average SPAD, Camel or SE5a (or Dolphin?) pilot knows all too well to stay away from that altitude, unless they bring overwhelming numbers. Then even the Nieuport 28 will do. The simple truth is that historically, Central pilots were ordered to fly to such altitudes and stay there as long as possible in order to interdict Entente airspace, and also stay above enemy flak. By the end of the war, Central recons such as the Rumpler C.VII had become so powerful that they could climb above any Entente scout, precluding the need for high altitude escorts.
  
  As for @J99_Sizzlorr and other D.VIIF regulars, they are flying the plane to its strengths at a less than historical altitude. You can't really fault them for it. What else are they supposed to fly, anyway? The Dr.I? The Pfalz D.XII? The Siemens now, I guess. All these planes were rarities at the front. The Fokker D.VII 200hp wasn't, but we don't have it.
  
  It's true that they may be ahistorically pushing the D.VIIF's engine, which would be forbidden by their superiors (or at the very least strongly advised against by their mechanics)... but other planes are kind of doing that too. The 130hp Clerget 9B in the Camel is rated @ 1250 RPM. Anything above that is technically a kind of emergency power. She'll happily go to 1400 RPM and even slightly above that in level flight in FC all day long (in RoF she has been limited to 1200 RPM), and won't seize before 1500 RPM. In reality those engines could spin themselves apart quite suddenly if they hadn't been properly serviced, timed and balanced. It's the chief reason Camel pilots couldn't wait to transition to SE5a, even after the 140hp Clerget 9Bf, 150hp Bentley BR1 and 160hp Gnome Monosoupape 9N became available. If the British could have efficiently and cheaply manufactured the Wolseley Viper V8 and Rolls-Royce Falcon V12, surely they wouldn't have bet the bank on the 230hp Bentley BR2 monster.
   
• The Siemens-Schuckert D.IV (to bring us back on topic) actually does seize when you push her to max RPM at sea level. Not in level flight, but if you keep her low, slow and at full power -- doing sustained turns, for example. I'm very happy about that and I can't wait to fly her a bit more online whenever I get the chance and the sides aren't too stacked against Entente.

 

 

In the end: real men fly crap planes (says 50% of the Bender/Darling monster from their Bristol F.2B Fighter with 285hp Falcon F.III) and I do tend to agree with @J5_Baeumer that we shouldn't try to fix what isn't ostensibly, demonstrably broken.

 

 

 

On 6/2/2023 at 2:11 AM, BraveSirRobin said:

Just to be absolutely clear, there is NOTHING that the developer can do to FMs to make people like Hellbender happy.  There is ALWAYS one more change that will make the game perfect.  ALWAYS.  And if that change isn’t made, then they’ll focus on it until the end of time.  If the change is made, then they’ll find a different problem that is ruining the game.  It is as predictable as the sun rising in the east.

 

Absolutely 100% agreed.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continual_improvement_process

 

https://www.planview.com/resources/guide/lean-principles-101/what-is-continuous-improvement/

 

 

Edited June 3, 2023 by =IRFC=Hellbender

[No.23_Starling]

3 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

 

I feel compelled to weigh in again, as I've been accused in the past of not participating enough when an FM discussion goes the other way, which then also ends up being my fault for pressuring the devs into make unwanted changes. It's a burden which no mere mortal dude should have to bear, a superpower of sorts, with the Nieuport 28 as my kryptonite.

 

Anyway...

 

• The Fokker D.VIIF was indeed a superplane and easy-mode mount. Above 3000m it was untouchable. Good luck finding anyone up there on Flugpark, though. Your average SPAD, Camel or SE5a (or Dolphin?) pilot knows all too well to stay away from that altitude, unless they bring overwhelming numbers. Then even the Nieuport 28 will do. The simple truth is that historically, Central pilots were ordered to fly to such altitudes and stay there as long as possible in order to interdict Entente airspace, and also stay above enemy flak. By the end of the war, Central recons such as the Rumpler C.VII had become so powerful that they could climb above any Entente scout, precluding the need for high altitude escorts.
  
  As for @J99_Sizzlorr and other D.VIIF regulars, they are flying the plane to its strengths at a less than historical altitude. You can't really fault them for it. What else are they supposed to fly, anyway? The Dr.I? The Pfalz D.XII? The Siemens now, I guess. All these planes were rarities at the front. The Fokker D.VII 200hp wasn't, but we don't have it.
  
  It's true that they may be ahistorically pushing the D.VIIF's engine, which would be forbidden by their superiors (or at the very least strongly advised against by their mechanics)... but other planes are kind of doing that too. The 130hp Clerget 9B in the Camel is rated @ 1250 RPM. Anything above that is technically a kind of emergency power. She'll happily go to 1400 RPM and even slightly above that in level flight in FC all day long (in RoF she has been limited to 1200 RPM), and won't seize before 1500 RPM. In reality those engines could spin themselves apart quite suddenly if they hadn't been properly serviced, timed and balanced. It's the chief reason Camel pilots couldn't wait to transition to SE5a, even after the 140hp Clerget 9Bf, 150hp Bentley BR1 and 160hp Gnome Monosoupape 9N became available. If the British could have efficiently and cheaply manufactured the Wolseley Viper V8 and Rolls-Royce Falcon V12, surely they wouldn't have bet the bank on the 230hp Bentley BR2 monster.
   
• The Siemens-Schuckert D.IV (to bring us back on topic) actually does seize when you push her to max RPM at sea level. Not in level flight, but if you keep her low, slow and at full power -- doing sustained turns, for example. I'm very happy about that and I can't wait to fly her a bit more online whenever I get the chance and the sides aren't too stacked against Entente.

 

 

In the end: real men fly crap planes (says 50% of the Bender/Darling monster from their Bristol F.2B Fighter with 285hp Falcon F.III) and I do tend to agree with @J5_Baeumer that we shouldn't try to fix what isn't ostensibly, demonstrably broken.

 

 

 

 

Absolutely 100% agreed.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continual_improvement_process

 

https://www.planview.com/resources/guide/lean-principles-101/what-is-continuous-improvement/

 

 

Whatever happened to the Captain anyways?

 

People can fly what they like in MP. A bigger roster and different eras with FC3 and 4 will be a big help in giving more choices beyond ‘cake or death’ aka DVIIF or anything else. 
 

As for the engine reliability piece, the WoFF developers manage it with a 20+ year old game engine so that could be modelled. At least 777 bothered to model the knocking for overcompressed engines at all. 
 

If the current guardians of RoF2 or RoFHD Edition (let’s be honest, that’s what FC is) want to model stall characteristics on a variety of anecdotal firsthand sources and some basic engineering that’s still better than the N28 which currently mocks both.

 

[BMA_Hellbender]

27 minutes ago, US103_Rummell said:

People can fly what they like in MP. A bigger roster and different eras with FC3 and 4 will be a big help in giving more choices beyond ‘cake or death’ aka DVIIF or anything else. 
 

As for the engine reliability piece, the WoFF developers manage it with a 20+ year old game engine so that could be modelled. At least 777 bothered to model the knocking for overcompressed engines at all. 
 

If the current guardians of RoF2 or RoFHD Edition (let’s be honest, that’s what FC is) want to model stall characteristics on a variety of anecdotal firsthand sources and some basic engineering that’s still better than the N28 which currently mocks both.

 

 

The Day of The Dancing Skies

 

(brought to you in part by ChatGPT-4)

 

As the first light of dawn began to filter across the horizon, the French countryside at Toul bathed in a pool of molten gold. The dew-kissed airfield hummed with an air of anticipation and urgency. It was a splendid morning, the sky painted a brilliant azure, dotted sporadically with tufts of cotton candy clouds, perfect for flying.

Strapped into my trusty steed, a Nieuport 28, I could feel the aircraft's pulsing energy coursing through me. The open cockpit breathed life into me as I started the rotary engine, the low hum growing into a triumphant roar.

 

Lining up into the wind, I glanced to my side, where Marcel, my trusted squadron mate, was all set in his own Nieuport. We exchanged a nod, an unspoken promise to have each other's backs. With a deep breath, I pushed the selector switch forward and, amidst the ear-splitting symphony of cylinders firing, we raced down the airfield. The Nieuports lifted effortlessly, the sudden drop of the ground giving way to the infinite skies. The feeling of weightlessness was intoxicating. The landscape was a vibrant canvas of emerald and gold, gently painted by the rising sun. I looked over at Marcel, who had formed up on my wing.

 

As we approached the fluffy clouds, we weaved around them, playing with the delicate formations as if they were physical entities. The world seemed peaceful up here, far removed from the turmoil that brewed beneath us. Just as we started to enjoy our dance with the clouds, a deadly melody struck our ears—the distinctive sound of an enemy plane. A Fokker D.VII, with its 200 horsepower overcompressed engine, had seen us and was swooping down for a bounce.

 

The world below evaporated as survival instincts kicked in. I felt the rush of adrenaline, a cold chill that held fear at bay. The Fokker pilot, unfortunately for him, miscalculated his attack. Too eager for a kill, he overshot and ended up directly in front of me. With a steady hand, I fired a volley from my twin Vickers machine guns. Round after round punctured the Fokker, who tried desperately to evade my sights. His miscalculation had cost him dearly, as my featherweight Nieuport fighter kept leading the dance of his desperate defensive maneuvering.

 

Just as I prepared to finish him off, both my machine guns choked. A horrible clunking sound confirmed my fear—they were jammed, irreparrably.

 

With a sigh of relief, the Fokker escaped into the horizon, leaving a trail of black smoke. Marcel and I regrouped and turned our birds towards home. The joy of the morning's flight was replaced by a grim reality. I was returning with jammed guns, no trophies to my name.

 

As we neared Toul, I retarded the selector switch, but instead of the usual staccato, my engine coughed and sputtered, flames spewing from the cowling. My heart leapt into my throat as the landing strip rushed towards me faster than I had anticipated. The fire was spreading, licking the edges of the cockpit. I could feel the heat against my skin.

 

Despite the dramatic engine fire, I managed to get the Nieuport down, bouncing hard on molehill before coming to a skidding stop. The mechanics, already on standby, rushed in with a fire hose. The flames were out in seconds, but the smoke and the smell of burnt castor oil lingered. Exhaling a sigh of relief, I unstrapped myself, looked at the burnt engine and chuckled. "She may be burnt, but she's still my chariot," I muttered, patting the charred canvas. "We lived to fly another day."

 

I then turned to Marcel who was grinning at me. "Breakfast?" I asked, gesturing towards the mess hall, to which Marcel replied promptly: "Sir, this is a Wendy's."

 

 

 

Quote

Whatever happened to the Captain anyways?

 

If someone is looking for an actual reason to hate me, then here it is: I introduced him to (Total War) Warhammer.

[ST_Catchov]

5 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

I feel compelled to weigh in again, as I've been accused in the past of not participating enough when an FM discussion goes the other way, which then also ends up being my fault for pressuring the devs into make unwanted changes. It's a burden which no mere mortal dude should have to bear, a superpower of sorts, with the Nieuport 28 as my kryptonite.

 

Dude, sue the accuser(s) for misrepresentation, unjustly altering the course of events and distortion of facts. Throw in defamation.

 

Warhammer! Really?