Siemens Schukert

[BMA_Hellbender]

4 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

 

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

 

Warhammer! Really?

All of that stuff being referenced to happened a long time ago. I can barely remember what I was doing last week.

 

As for Warhammer... Yes, I know—but we were homeless from flightsims in circa 2016 when TW:WH came out and FC wasn't out yet. It filled a gap. I'm trying to convince him to come back, but in a piloting capacity. No joy, so far. The man really loved his SE5a before the glass engine fix, same as you. All of that killing with the Lewis turret may have been caused by pent up frustration at the devs' unwillingness to further revise the SE5.

 

As for the Siemens, I hope it’s in a decent enough place right now. I will fly it a bit this week and report back.

 

 

 

Edited June 4, 2023 by =IRFC=Hellbender

[ST_Catchov]

22 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

I'm trying to convince him to come back, but in a piloting capacity. No joy, so far. The man really loved his SE5a before the glass engine fix, same as you.

 

What an astute person he is, Darling. Disdainful of, and discontented with, rubbish.

 

I look forward to your essay on the Siemens flight characteristics. 

 

 

[Guest deleted@83466]

On 6/3/2023 at 6:07 PM, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

 

 

As for the Siemens, I hope it’s in a decent enough place right now. I will fly it a bit this week and report back.

 

 

 

 

Should people be waiting for your report? Are you some kind of expert on how it should be?

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

Should people be waiting for your report? Are you some kind of expert on how it should be?

 

Let's watch the tone, please. ? I've already had to clean up this thread once and would rather not have to do that again.

[BMA_Hellbender]

5 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

Should people be waiting for your report? Are you some kind of expert on how it should be?

Not an expert, no. I would just like to discuss the Siemens Schuckert FM in the Siemens Schuckert FM discussion thread.

 

What are your thoughts on it?

[Holtzauge]

Another thing with the SS D.IV flight model:

 

It seems to follow the pattern of very optimistic turn times at higher altitudes in IL-2 as I outlined in this post. As you can see in that table, the turn times in-game are consistently lower than the C++ simulation estimates.

 

However, that table is missing the SS D.IV since it was not yet released but if we compare the numbers now this is how it looks:

 

Turn time measure in-game at 5 Km is 17.5 s.

 

Turn time according to my C ++ simulations 20.6 s.

 

Turn time as per German WW1 Techniche Bericht TB 41 “Der wagerechte Kurvenflug des Flugzeuges” by Heinrich Kann is 21-22 s.

 

However, note that Kann assumes 200 hp at SL and then an immediate drop of power according to the drop in density. In my assumption I assume the engine develops 207 hp and keeps that constant up to 1500 m. This explains why my number is lower than Kann’s. If I (like I explain on pages 294-295 in my book) assume the same power model as Kann, I get the same result as him.

 

So, while my numbers tally with Kann’s, the in-game turn rate performance for the SS D.IV seems optimistic to me.

[No.23_Starling]

1 hour ago, Holtzauge said:

Another thing with the SS D.IV flight model:

 

It seems to follow the pattern of very optimistic turn times at higher altitudes in IL-2 as I outlined in this post. As you can see in that table, the turn times in-game are consistently lower than the C++ simulation estimates.

 

However, that table is missing the SS D.IV since it was not yet released but if we compare the numbers now this is how it looks:

 

Turn time measure in-game at 5 Km is 17.5 s.

 

Turn time according to my C ++ simulations 20.6 s.

 

Turn time as per German WW1 Techniche Bericht TB 41 “Der wagerechte Kurvenflug des Flugzeuges” by Heinrich Kann is 21-22 s.

 

However, note that Kann assumes 200 hp at SL and then an immediate drop of power according to the drop in density. In my assumption I assume the engine develops 207 hp and keeps that constant up to 1500 m. This explains why my number is lower than Kann’s. If I (like I explain on pages 294-295 in my book) assume the same power model as Kann, I get the same result as him.

 

So, while my numbers tally with Kann’s, the in-game turn rate performance for the SS D.IV seems optimistic to me.

Any ideas on what’s happening in the FC engine to cause pretty much all the planes to turn better than the models up high? Are the climb times off too?

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 hour ago, US103_Rummell said:

Any ideas on what’s happening in the FC engine to cause pretty much all the planes to turn better than the models up high? Are the climb times off too?

 

I would like to know this, too.

 

It would appear that almost all planes have a sustained turn that is too optimistic with the same delta of ~2 seconds compared to your data. In other words, they are all relatively accurate compared to each other... except for the Nieuport 28, which turns ~2 seconds slower than your data, which only compounds the issue with that FM and is causing it to be ~2-4 seconds slower from where it should be relative to other scouts.

 

My only other doubt is with the Sopwith Snipe, simply because it has rather good wing loading (better than the Sopwith Dolphin), but not so fantastic span loading (worse than the Camel). Its turn isn't awful, though, and it's in line with combat reports that it flew like a truck. It's quite a heavy machine (595kg) compared to the Camel (422kg) and Nieuport 28 (475kg), but still somewhat lighter than the Dolphin (635kg) and very much snappier.

 

Honestly it'd be great if @Holtzauge could do the calculation for the Snipe, but I think it may not be far off from where it needs to be, either in relative or absolute terms.

[Holtzauge]

3 hours ago, US103_Rummell said:

Any ideas on what’s happening in the FC engine to cause pretty much all the planes to turn better than the models up high? Are the climb times off too?

 

Not any firms ideas, but on the basis of what we are seeing my guess is that the FC engine is pretty flexible in terms of tuning while my model is more rigid in the sense that so much is determined by the physical characteristics. Flexibility can of course be a good thing but if one misinterprets the data the result will off course off. But returning to your question about climb: Then yes, the in-game climb data also has a consistent deviation just like the turn data only this time it’s the other way around: I’m more optimistic than the in-game numbers. And this is hard to explain other than with the flexibility in the FC model since from a physics perspective then the deviations (climb and turn) should follow, not diverge.

 

1 hour ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

 

I would like to know this, too.

 

It would appear that almost all planes have a sustained turn that is too optimistic with the same delta of ~2 seconds compared to your data. In other words, they are all relatively accurate compared to each other... except for the Nieuport 28, which turns ~2 seconds slower than your data, which only compounds the issue with that FM and is causing it to be ~2-4 seconds slower from where it should be relative to other scouts.

 

My only other doubt is with the Sopwith Snipe, simply because it has rather good wing loading (better than the Sopwith Dolphin), but not so fantastic span loading (worse than the Camel). Its turn isn't awful, though, and it's in line with combat reports that it flew like a truck. It's quite a heavy machine (595kg) compared to the Camel (422kg) and Nieuport 28 (475kg), but still somewhat lighter than the Dolphin (635kg) and very much snappier.

 

Honestly it'd be great if @Holtzauge could do the calculation for the Snipe, but I think it may not be far off from where it needs to be, either in relative or absolute terms.

 

I have started working on a Sopwith Snipe model and I have also generated some turn results for it but that model is still work in progress so I don’t have anything that is ready to post just yet.

 

Regarding the Nieuport 28, I’m actually revisiting that model right now: Unfortunately, it looks like the T/O weight I am using 698 kg is for the one-gun variant. With an extra 88 lb for Vickers and ammo this adds up to 738 kg which I have seen from another source as well. So I suspect that that 738 kg is the right number to use. However, the RoF manual states 698 kg for the two-gun version and I assume FC does the same? Anyway, if 738 kg is the right number for the two gun version then turn times will take a substantial hit at higher altitudes.

 

So if anyone can bring clarity to this, i.e. what weight is the correct one for which N28 version, then that would be appreciated. But if so then please post that in the Nieuport 28 Manouverability thread so this one does not diverge!

 

 

 

Edited June 5, 2023 by Holtzauge

[JGr2/J5_Wolff]

5 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

data. In other words, they are all relatively accurate compared to each other..

This is actually not quite right. While all aircraft have an overly optimistic turn rate, the newer collector aircraft are much closer to historical accuracy. The SS is ~2 sec too fast but many of the older RoF aircraft are significantly more optimistic with >10 secs faster turn times than should be expected

[BMA_Hellbender]

4 minutes ago, J5_Wolff said:

This is actually not quite right. While all aircraft have an overly optimistic turn rate, the newer collector aircraft are much closer to historical accuracy. The SS is ~2 sec too fast but many of the older RoF aircraft are significantly more optimistic with >10 secs faster turn times than should be expected

Do you think things are more or less accurate if we discount everything that looks even remotely like an Albatros (and the Nieuport 28)? I think @Holtzauge has proven beyond reasonable doubt that thick wings with thin leading edges have way worse CLmax than the RoF/FC engine suggests.

[=IRFC=Tunes]

No, bc you’ve got planes like the Camel and Dr1 turning up to 10 seconds too fast at alt (5K). By comparison, the Siemens is basically correct in absolute terms and way off in relative terms.

[BMA_Hellbender]

@J5_Wolff and @=IRFC=Artun

 

So basically the only two options are:

 

1. Fix all the old FMs to be in line with the two new ones

 

2. Make the two new FMs as « wrong » as the old ones

 

 

Oh boy.

 

See this is why I’ve always been an advocate of continuous iterative FM reworks, in order not to end up in the situation we are now.

 

Edited June 5, 2023 by =IRFC=Hellbender

[BraveSirRobin]

Continually updating the FMs of every aircraft in the game totally sounds financially viable when each aircraft only costs about $15.  I’m sure Han will get right on that.

[JGr2/J5_Wolff]

@=IRFC=Hellbender Yep. That’s the dilemma. 

Edited June 5, 2023 by J5_Wolff

[BraveSirRobin]

It’s not really a dilemma.  It’s not going to happen.  At some point you have to accept that the FMs will have some issues that aren’t going to be fixed.

 

Or spend every waking hour on the forum complaining about it, I suppose.  Definitely time well spent.

Edited June 5, 2023 by BraveSirRobin

[=IRFC=Tunes]

Just now, BraveSirRobin said:

It’s not really a dilemma.  It’s not going to happen.  At some point you have to accept that the FMs will have some issues that aren’t going to be fixed.

 

Or spend every waking hour on the forum complaining about it, I suppose.  Definitely time we’ll spent.

*well spent

[BraveSirRobin]

1 minute ago, =IRFC=Artun said:

*well spent

Already fixed, officer.

[=IRFC=Tunes]

1 minute ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Already fixed, officer.

It’s alright. Don’t let it happen again.

[JGr2/J5_Wolff]

6 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

It’s not really a dilemma.  It’s not going to happen.  At some point you have to accept that the FMs will have some issues that aren’t going to be fixed.

 

Or spend every waking hour on the forum complaining about it, I suppose.  Definitely time we’ll spent.

It is a game that continues to get fixes and various improvements when viable.  The developers have demonstrated willingness to address some problems when possible.  Tuning some of the most egregious issues is not a lost cause and is worth productive discourse. Sharing of historical data and statistical analysis should be encouraged. 

Edited June 5, 2023 by J5_Wolff

[BraveSirRobin]

2 minutes ago, J5_Wolff said:

It is a game that continues to get fixes and various improvements when viable.  The developers have demonstrated willingness to address some problems when possible.  Tuning some of the most egregious issues is not a lost cause and is worth productive discourse. Sharing of historical data and statistical analysis should be encouraged. 

The “productive discourse” about the N28 FM, and many of the other RoF aircraft, has been ongoing for about 10 years.  Same issues.  Year after year after year.  

I’m really looking forward to when the productive part begins.

[BMA_Hellbender]

13 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

It’s not really a dilemma.  It’s not going to happen.  At some point you have to accept that the FMs will have some issues that aren’t going to be fixed.

 

Or spend every waking hour on the forum complaining about it, I suppose.  Definitely time well spent.

It is certainly worth it, continuously improving a software is perhaps the best way to market it to new customers. If you wonder why I like to discuss FMs so vehemently (I disagree that these are complaints), is because I want an experience that is as historically accurate as possible and caters to all sides. Happy players are going to bring in more players. Unhappy players are at worst going to be neutral about the sim (I’d never recommend anyone to get into flightsims just to play FC), or at worst detractors. Build it and they will come.

5 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

The “productive discourse” about the N28 FM, and many of the other RoF aircraft, has been ongoing for about 10 years.  Same issues.  Year after year after year.  

I’m really looking forward to when the productive part begins.

Me too, BSR, me too.

[BraveSirRobin]

3 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

It is certainly worth it, continuously improving a software is…

Dude, you’re paying about $15 per aircraft.  You’re not going to get constant FM updates.  Period.

[=IRFC=Tunes]

WWII customers pay about the same per aircraft. They get FM updates. 

[BraveSirRobin]

Just now, =IRFC=Artun said:

WWII customers pay about the same per aircraft. They get FM updates. 

I’m sure the people complaining about the P-47 would be surprised to hear about this.

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 minute ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Dude, you’re paying about $15 per aircraft.  You’re not going to get constant FM updates.  Period.

We’re getting incremental updates about everything else, why not for the FMs? The devs have said themselves that it’s their goal to always improve the sim.

 

This is some serious anti-consumerism you’re preaching. And in order to call me familiar names such as « dude » I would appreciate it if we could first have a conversation in private rather than you always coming after me on the public forum.

[BraveSirRobin]

4 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

We’re getting incremental updates about everything else, why not for the FMs? The devs have said themselves that it’s their goal to always improve the sim.

 

This is some serious anti-consumerism you’re preaching. And in order to call me familiar names such as « dude » I would appreciate it if we could first have a conversation in private rather than you always coming after me on the public forum.

ok.  Maybe you’ll get those RoF aircraft FM updates some day (even though they said from the start of FC that you wouldn’t).  Keep the faith!

And then maybe they’ll update them again when you’re not happy.

 

And then again…. And again…

Edited June 5, 2023 by BraveSirRobin

[=IRFC=Tunes]

34 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Or spend every waking hour on the forum complaining about it, I suppose.  Definitely time well spent.

Would like to point out the logical inconsistency of being an active participant (seemingly in every waking hour) in a forum thread you think is pointless while also criticizing others for doing the same thing.

[BraveSirRobin]

Just now, =IRFC=Artun said:

Would like to point out the logical inconsistency of being an active participant (seemingly in every waking hour) in a forum thread you think is pointless while also criticizing others for doing the same thing.

Since I retired I really don’t post in here very often.  Today is an exception.

And I’m back on board with the endless FM crusade.  Keep the faith!

[=IRFC=Tunes]

1 minute ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Since I retired I really don’t post in here very often.  Today is an exception.

And I’m back on board with the endless FM crusade.  Keep the faith!

Atta boy

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

@J5_Wolff and @=IRFC=Artun

 

So basically the only two options are:

 

1. Fix all the old FMs to be in line with the two new ones

 

2. Make the two new FMs as « wrong » as the old ones

 

 

Oh boy.

 

See this is why I’ve always been an advocate of continuous iterative FM reworks, in order not to end up in the situation we are now.

 

Well, yes, and on that point, since this has been a hot topic of discussion recently: flight model updates are not in the plans right now, as the team does not have the engineers and the weeks of needed time for said work. So, please, everyone, temper your expectations. ?

[BMA_Hellbender]

38 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Since I retired I really don’t post in here very often.  Today is an exception.

And I’m back on board with the endless FM crusade.  Keep the faith!

I need to point out that you are always the one bringing up strong language such as « crusades », « list of demands » and « ruining the game ». We are discussing FMs on the part of the forum meant for discussing them, always with the intention of getting empirical FM revision. You refusing to be an active part of the community beyond calling people names on the forum is on you.

 

3 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Well, yes, and on that point, since this has been a hot topic of discussion recently: flight model updates are not in the plans right now, as the team does not have the engineers and the weeks of needed time for said work. So, please, everyone, temper your expectations. ?

Thank you, Luke. That is clear language that everyone who buys into FC needs to be aware of. I understand your predicament and I deeply sympathise with the dev team and the state of the market (and world) right now.

 

We will certainly temper our expectations, but also understand that we cannot treat 1CGS like a charity. Besides, the end goal is not to ruin your fantastic sim, only to make it better.

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

And I though the Hanriot was the only plane worthy of obsession... I guess now that the Hanriot is on deck, deep affections have moved on to next muse, exactly as BSR describes is the pattern ... the Nieuport 28...at least until the Hanriot is released and we learn about what FM she is wearing under the surface.  

Thank you Luke.  Its not a recipe for chocolate (Belgian of course), that lends itself to easily changing out the amount (or source) of sugar or some other ingredient.  Its a whole factory that gets retooled.  Its not the plane engines, its the game engine, and if I recall that is being looked at for an upgrade.  When that happens perhaps all the right numbers will get put into the data set and we can start the 'productive discussion' from a new point of reference.  
 

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

Thank you, Luke. That is clear language that everyone who buys into FC needs to be aware of. I understand your predicament and I deeply sympathise with the dev team and the state of the market (and world) right now.

 

We will certainly temper our expectations, but also understand that we cannot treat 1CGS like a charity. Besides, the end goal is not to ruin your fantastic sim, only to make it better.

 

Sure, I understand that. For better or for worse, I just wanted to let everyone know where things stand at the moment. Most of the energy right now is being devoted to the as-yet-announced new project, so there are only so many resources they can spread around to other things. If this changes I will of course let you all know. ?

[No.23_Starling]

Thanks Luke. The hard work of pulling together tons of good primary and secondary sources, plus the simulations of experience professional aerospace engineers like Mr Holtz enrich all our knowledge of ww1 aviation and remain a resource for future work. 
 

Even if I disagree with Sizz on some subjects, I’ve learned a ton from the discussions on this forum with him and others.

[ZachariasX]

10 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

Then yes, the in-game climb data also has a consistent deviation just like the turn data only this time it’s the other way around: I’m more optimistic than the in-game numbers. And this is hard to explain other than with the flexibility in the FC model since from a physics perspective then the deviations (climb and turn) should follow, not diverge.

For me, it looks rather simple: The game still (not as much as in RoF, it got MUCH better) underestimates induced drag (and drag at AoA). To make up for this and still hit your numbers, you have to dial down power to set the plane back in correct values for nominal speed and turn times down low.

 

But as soon ad you go high, drag increases vs power such that this gap becomes evident and hence they overperform in the game despite having a tad less power, which you notice in plain climb when power/weight ratio is your main determinant.

 

It‘s really simple. And the consequences describe lots perceived issues among many planes in this sim.

[US103_Baer]

1.  Per Rummy's earlier post, it's hard to imagine having this conversation without everyone up to speed on the latest data and c/s models that are available via @Holtzaugebook. Actual aerospace engineering and research that specifically addresses the comparative performance of the very same aircraft. 

Have thought about what those changes, if applied, would mean for the game. Its pretty exciting,  even if a tough reset at first.

 

2. High altitude in FC is super relevant and common. I can't comment on the last couple of months as the US evenings have gone total dodo, but in the years prior to that, flights of scouts up at 4-5k jockeying for position and engaging was pretty common. Yes,  even Camels, Se5a, Albs, PD3s as well as the usual Spad/D7f/D12 suspects.

For a long time we trained a lot up at that height to get used to how the aircraft handled. 

Performance up there matters. 

 

3. Notwithstanding Luke's comment on Dev resources and plans, there's a whole other thread specifically to discuss how FM revisions might be made commercially viable for the devs. Because of course nothing will happen unless its worth it for them and they have resources and data. More constructive ideas welcome.

@LukeFF Feel free to share the ideas there with devs and if they have a counter proposal that'd be interesting for sure.

 

 

 

Edited June 6, 2023 by US103_Baer

[Holtzauge]

11 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

For me, it looks rather simple: The game still (not as much as in RoF, it got MUCH better) underestimates induced drag (and drag at AoA). To make up for this and still hit your numbers, you have to dial down power to set the plane back in correct values for nominal speed and turn times down low.

 

But as soon ad you go high, drag increases vs power such that this gap becomes evident and hence they overperform in the game despite having a tad less power, which you notice in plain climb when power/weight ratio is your main determinant.

 

It‘s really simple. And the consequences describe lots perceived issues among many planes in this sim.

 

Yes, this is my belief as well: If one attempts to reverse engineer what is going in the game FM engine based on the climb time and turn rate numbers, it looks like the induced drag is a bit overestimated at low lift coefficients (Cl), while underestimated at higher Cl’s closer to the Clmax like in turns.

 

If it wasn’t for the S.E.5a and Nieuport 28 which are the exceptions to the rule, one would worry that maybe the game FM engine does not allow this. But these exceptions to the rule show that it can actually be done.

 

So in summary and broadly speaking, what needs to be done is to increase the induced drag at high Cl for most of the planes, except the N28 and the S.E.5a that to the contrary instead needs this to be dialed back somewhat. Also, it looks like the induced drag at lower Cl like in climb needs to be dialed back somewhat across the board to increase the climb rates.

 

Another thing that is off but perhaps not as serious can be seen in the climb chart for the SSW D.IV here.

 

As can be seen in that figure, my (and the SSW D.III flight test from Flight M) climb rate estimate falls of towards an asymptotic (the ceiling) while the derivate of the climb rate in-game still points upwards. So while both estimates cross at around 8 km, Il-2 underestimates the climb rate at lower altitudes but then overestimates it at higher altitudes. The same applies for the Fokker D.VIIF which is stated in-game to have a ceiling of 9 km which is way too much.

 

However, how much of the flying in-game is done at altitudes over 6 km? So if the climb curve in Il-2 can’t be made to “bend” like mine or the SSW D.III barograph trace from Flight, then I think the best compromise is to tune to best correlation in the sea level to 6 km band and ignore if this results in an overestimation of the ceiling.

 

 

Edited June 6, 2023 by Holtzauge

[Holtzauge]

38 minutes ago, US103_Baer said:

1.  Per Rummy's earlier post, it's hard to imagine having this conversation without everyone up to speed on the latest data and c/s models that are available via @Holtzaugebook. Actual aerospace engineering and research that specifically addresses the comparative performance of the very same aircraft. 

Have thought about what those changes, if applied, would mean for the game. Its pretty exciting,  even if a tough reset at first.

 

2. High altitude in FC is super relevant and common. I can't comment on the last couple of months as the US evenings have gone total dodo, but in the years prior to that, flights of scouts up at 4-5k jockeying for position and engaging was pretty common. Yes,  even Camels, Se5a, Albs, PD3s as well as the usual Spad/D7f/D12 suspects.

For a long time we trained a lot up at that height to get used to how the aircraft handled. 

Performance up there matters. 

 

3. Notwithstanding Luke's comment on Dev resources and plans, there's a whole other thread specifically to discuss how FM revisions might be made commercially viable for the devs. Because of course nothing will happen unless its worth it for them and they have resources and data. More constructive ideas welcome.

 

 

Of course the optimum solution would be that the climb curve follows both the low and the high altitude climb characteristics up to the ceiling. However, it looks like to me that doing both seems difficult but the up to 6 km should be OK if one accepts that the ceiling values would be a bit over the top. But you mention up to about 5 km in MP is about as high as it gets so maybe tuning up to 6 km and accepting high ceilings would be OK all the same? In addition, it's not like over 6 km would be bad, just that the error would begin to increase over 6 km but the deviations should be quite acceptable even to 7 km and a bit beyond.

 

About how to get this done: I can see this from both perspectives: Those who have bought FC1 and FC 2 and feel entitled to upgrades of the FM. OTOH, some of these FM's very done in a different era in RoF and a lot of new knowledge has emerged since then so I would be OK to pay up for a "realism pack" in FC maybe spiced up with a few new versions like Mercedes D.IIIaü powered crates etc. That could be a win-win scenario for everyone I think.

 

 

Edited June 6, 2023 by Holtzauge

[BMA_Hellbender]

15 hours ago, J5_Baeumer said:

And I though the Hanriot was the only plane worthy of obsession... I guess now that the Hanriot is on deck, deep affections have moved on to next muse, exactly as BSR describes is the pattern ... the Nieuport 28...at least until the Hanriot is released and we learn about what FM she is wearing under the surface.  

Thank you Luke.  Its not a recipe for chocolate (Belgian of course), that lends itself to easily changing out the amount (or source) of sugar or some other ingredient.  Its a whole factory that gets retooled.  Its not the plane engines, its the game engine, and if I recall that is being looked at for an upgrade.  When that happens perhaps all the right numbers will get put into the data set and we can start the 'productive discussion' from a new point of reference.  

 

1 hour ago, US103_Baer said:

3. Notwithstanding Luke's comment on Dev resources and plans, there's a whole other thread specifically to discuss how FM revisions might be made commercially viable for the devs. Because of course nothing will happen unless its worth it for them and they have resources and data. More constructive ideas welcome.

 

I think @US103_Baer's quote is the only and logical conclusion here. It answers the questions which were originally asked in this thread and the Nieuport 28 thread.

 

Again I'd like to remind everyone here that the only reason these threads even exist is because:

 

• The Siemens-Schuckert's FM was updated following combat reports in its Windsock Datafile
   
• The Nieuport 28's FM wasn't updated following combat reports in its Windsock Datafile

 

This is the case because there is only development capacity foreseen for the new collector planes (regardless whether you agree with the SSW D.IV FM update or not) and not for correcting the old RoF FMs.

 

 

Which is fair enough and probably known to all of us here in this thread, at least by now, and not because I am in a chocolate-induced mania due to not having access to the Hanriot HD.1 yet (whose FM is fine in RoF) -- or whatever other vaguely prejudiced joke you want to make. It's okay though, I am indeed partial to both these Belgian products, though I don't see the immediate connection with either the Siemens-Schuckert or Nieuport 28.

 

But again I know you guys, and you know me too, but not everyone who buys into FC Vol. I and II knows that the 10 year old RoF FMs that have been ported over are final.

 

Caveat emptor.

 

 

As for making FM revisions commercially viable, that is indeed the subject of another thread. In my humble opinion as someone who knows very little about aeronautical engineering, but quite a bit more about delivering commercially viable software on a regular basis, investing in continuously improving a product tends to pay for itself, 10 times over.

 

It might already do something about increasing FC Vol. I's Mixed rating on Steam...

 

Edited June 6, 2023 by =IRFC=Hellbender