Nieuport 17 and Albatros D.II impressions

[BMA_Hellbender]

Now that I'm home again, here's my first impressions of the N17 and Alb D.II.

 

 

Both:

 

• They both look really great, kudos to Yugra Media!
   
• When using a force feedback stick, the elevators on both these planes fall UPWARDS (stick falls TOWARDS the pilot) with no airflow on the ground. This is different from both the N11 and Alb D.Va (their closest cousins), and most other FC planes, where the elevators fall DOWNWARDS (stick falls AWAY FROM the pilot).
  
  Notable exceptions are the Sopwith Triplane in which the elevators center (stick centers) and the Halberstadt D.II which has a limp stick on the ground, but the ailerons somehow falls to the left or to the right in a weird jittery way.
  
  Anyway, considering how the hangar screen shows the N17 and D.II "correctly" with downward deflected elevators, and how they've been released at the same time, it's probably not intended behaviour that they deflect upward in-game.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Then again, who still uses a 20 year old MSFFB2 stick? It may be time to move on.
  
  Not me, though! From my cold dead hands.

 

 

N17

 

• Seems like a pretty faithful port of the N17 FM from RoF. It's the "new" FM, for the record, not the old broken one from circa 2010. I have no major complaints. The force feedback seems to have a bit of a delayed "kick back" when rapidly changing pitch, which feels odd. This is not present on the N11.
   
• Engine has a strong tendency to undercool, same problem as with the N11. Maybe it's accurate the way it is now, and we should lean more aggressively during descent.
   
• PSA: N17 GBR without Vickers is announced and will be released separately.
   
• These notes regarding estimated speed loss don't seem accurate at all. A single Lewis has more speed loss than twins? In fact I found the speed loss to be almost negligible at sea level: there is mostly a climb and turn rate penalty.
  
  
  
  

 

Alb D.II
 

• It's quite similar to the RoF FM, but with a much more pronounced accelerated stall in a turn or when suddenly pulling back on the stick in level flight. You read that right: an Albatros with actual stall behaviour! I never thought I'd see the day.
   
• No Albatros D.II Late, apparently. This was only a radiator change with no substantial impact on performance.
   
• PSA: Taking the Becker cannon removes the Spandaus, this is the same behaviour as in RoF. I'm pretty sure the Becker also still shoots a WWII era 20mm Minengeschoss shell rather than a WWI era 20mm round, unless this was somehow fixed in the meantime.
   
• Some minor graphical glitch on the machineguns. At least it's different from every other Spandau in the sim.
  
  
   

 

 

That's all for now. I'll probably spend a bit more time with both planes next weekend, if I can pry myself away from Baldur's Gate 3 for an hour or two.

Those shapeshifter bears aren't going to romance themselves, you know.

 

 

Edited September 25, 2023 by =IRFC=Hellbender
N17 GBR is announced

[Holtzauge]

10 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

Alb D.II
 

• It's quite similar to the RoF FM, but with a much more pronounced accelerated stall in a turn or when suddenly pulling back on the stick in level flight. You read that right: an Albatros with actual stall behaviour! I never thought I'd see the day.

 

Well that was good news but what about turn times?

 

The in-game Albatros D.Va is quite optimistic today with a turn time of around 11.3 s at 1 km while I think it should be closer to 15.3 s as outlined in this post.

 

So what is the turn time of the in-game Albatros D.II at 1 km altitude?

[BMA_Hellbender]

2 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

 

Well that was good news but what about turn times?

 

The in-game Albatros D.Va is quite optimistic today with a turn time of around 11.3 s at 1 km while I think it should be closer to 15.3 s as outlined in this post.

 

So what is the turn time of the in-game Albatros D.II at 1 km altitude?

 

At sea level the Albatros D.II outturns the Nieuport 11, but not the Nieuport 17. It's all very close, though, within 1 or 0.5 seconds, all close to 10.5s.

 

Add any amount of climb and the Albatros is chanceless against either one of them, especially against the N17.

 

 

N17

 

 

 

 

Alb D.II

 

 

 

If we look at the data from Gray and Thetford (1962), they have the D.II with a top speed of 175km/h (TAS should translate to 175km/h IAS at sea level) with an even more anemic climb of 5min to 1000m. Still, that extra 10km/h top speed and good dive performance would make it a much better plane than it is now by early 1917 standards.

 

In RoF its saving grace is that it was almost impossible to stall. That advantage is now gone.

 

As for the rate of turn: the Airco DH.2 should be able to outturn it, while the Albatros D.II has the climb advantage (6-7mins to 1000m for the Airco vs. 4-5mins to 1000m for the Albatros). In RoF this was not the case: the DH.2 has an abysmal turn compared to the D.II (12s vs. 10s). The Airco DH.2 is, in turn, chanceless. Pun intended.

 

 

So both from a historical perspective and from a gameplay perspective, both matches (Alb D.II vs. N17 and Alb D.II vs. DH.2) simply don't work. At best the D.II is a decent opponent for the N11.

 

In my opinion it's another argument for a full FM review of the Albatros series (D.II, D.III, D.Va) that would have them all perform better in level speed (175-180km/h depending on the D.III or D.IIIa engine) and become worse turners, an advantage they currently can't press anyway due to their lackluster climb. And of course, the D.IIIaü for the Albatros D.Va, giving it better performance retention at altitude.

 

 

I'll just keep repeating the same thing over and over again for the next 5 years. Then in 4 years and 360 days there will be an update that totally breaks everything and I will be blamed for it, as is tradition.

 

 

Edited September 25, 2023 by =IRFC=Hellbender

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I think Airco Dh.2 should turn on the coin to be competitive. I don't think they make any change to ROF FM while porting it to FC Volume 4. Maybe there is a chance because it's far away, and  beta testers can push that change when providing data at that subject.

I'm positively surprised that Albatross D2 can be pushed to accelerated stall. Do not see a reason  why the Albatross D5 can't  be made to do also.

[Holtzauge]

2 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

 

At sea level the Albatros D.II outturns the Nieuport 11, but not the Nieuport 17. It's all very close, though, within 1 or 0.5 seconds, all close to 10.5s.

 

Add any amount of climb and the Albatros is chanceless against either one of them, especially against the N17.

 

 

N17

 

 

 

 

Alb D.II

 

 

 

If we look at the data from Gray and Thetford (1962), they have the D.II with a top speed of 175km/h (TAS should translate to 175km/h IAS at sea level) with an even more anemic climb of 5min to 1000m. Still, that extra 10km/h top speed and good dive performance would make it a much better plane than it is now by early 1917 standards.

 

In RoF its saving grace is that it was almost impossible to stall. That advantage is now gone.

 

As for the rate of turn: the Airco DH.2 should be able to outturn it, while the Albatros D.II has the climb advantage (6-7mins to 1000m for the Airco vs. 4-5mins to 1000m for the Albatros). In RoF this was not the case: the DH.2 has an abysmal turn compared to the D.II (12s vs. 10s). The Airco DH.2 is, in turn, chanceless. Pun intended.

 

 

So both from a historical perspective and from a gameplay perspective, both matches (Alb D.II vs. N17 and Alb D.II vs. DH.2) simply don't work. At best the D.II is a decent opponent for the N11.

 

In my opinion it's another argument for a full FM review of the Albatros series (D.II, D.III, D.Va) that would have them all perform better in level speed (175-180km/h depending on the D.III or D.IIIa engine) and become worse turners, an advantage they currently can't press anyway due to their lackluster climb. And of course, the D.IIIaü for the Albatros D.Va, giving it better performance retention at altitude.

 

 

I'll just keep repeating the same thing over and over again for the next 5 years. Then in 4 years and 360 days there will be an update that totally breaks everything and I will be blamed for it, as is tradition.

 

 

 

To derive speed and climb data I would have to tune an Albatros D.II C++ simulation model which I’ve not done yet. But even so a turn time of around 10.5 s at 1 km altitude is way too optimistic in my opinion.

 

Because just by looking at the span and power loading then the Albatros D.II should be slightly WORSE, not better than the Albatros D.Va.  So the Albatros D.II should take even longer than 15.3 s, not shorter.

 

I have been concentrating on WW2 stuff lately and hoping that the new planes released in FC Vol III would have updated FM’s, but looking at this result this does not seem to be the case which comes as a bit of a disappointment really.

 

I did send my book over to the developers already in February when it was released, and offered my input to the FM modeling as well. And I did get a PM reply that they would pass it on to the FM engineers and remind them about it again in time for Vol III work which certainly seemed positive at the time. However, I have heard nothing since. And alas, looking at this result it looks like it all has fallen on barren ground……

 

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

I think Airco Dh.2 should turn on the coin to be competitive. I don't think they make any change to ROF FM while porting it to FC Volume 4. Maybe there is a chance because it's far away, and  beta testers can push that change when providing data at that subject.

I'm positively surprised that Albatross D2 can be pushed to accelerated stall. Do not see a reason  why the Albatross D5 can't  be made to do also.

 

Yes, let's hope for a revision of the FM's in FC. My interest in FC Vol III & IV certainly hinges on it.

[No.23_Starling]

2 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

 

At sea level the Albatros D.II outturns the Nieuport 11, but not the Nieuport 17. It's all very close, though, within 1 or 0.5 seconds, all close to 10.5s.

 

Add any amount of climb and the Albatros is chanceless against either one of them, especially against the N17.

 

 

N17

 

 

 

 

Alb D.II

 

 

 

If we look at the data from Gray and Thetford (1962), they have the D.II with a top speed of 175km/h (TAS should translate to 175km/h IAS at sea level) with an even more anemic climb of 5min to 1000m. Still, that extra 10km/h top speed and good dive performance would make it a much better plane than it is now by early 1917 standards.

 

In RoF its saving grace is that it was almost impossible to stall. That advantage is now gone.

 

As for the rate of turn: the Airco DH.2 should be able to outturn it, while the Albatros D.II has the climb advantage (6-7mins to 1000m for the Airco vs. 4-5mins to 1000m for the Albatros). In RoF this was not the case: the DH.2 has an abysmal turn compared to the D.II (12s vs. 10s). The Airco DH.2 is, in turn, chanceless. Pun intended.

 

 

So both from a historical perspective and from a gameplay perspective, both matches (Alb D.II vs. N17 and Alb D.II vs. DH.2) simply don't work. At best the D.II is a decent opponent for the N11.

 

In my opinion it's another argument for a full FM review of the Albatros series (D.II, D.III, D.Va) that would have them all perform better in level speed (175-180km/h depending on the D.III or D.IIIa engine) and become worse turners, an advantage they currently can't press anyway due to their lackluster climb. And of course, the D.IIIaü for the Albatros D.Va, giving it better performance retention at altitude.

 

 

I'll just keep repeating the same thing over and over again for the next 5 years. Then in 4 years and 360 days there will be an update that totally breaks everything and I will be blamed for it, as is tradition.

 

 

Thank you for this. IIRC the RoF DH2 had one of the best turn rates in the beta game till it got nerfed, presumably so it didn’t totally outclass the Eindekker for balancing purposes. There’s probably a thread somewhere from 10 years back. That needs to be undone just like the Camel and Tripe nerf.

 

High/over compression Merc and Hispanos are definitely needed so that we have something closer to the BMW meme machine. It’s weird that the devs gave the ground attack CL2 the over compression option which can’t be used under 2km.

 

I know someone who can help with FM tuning…

Edited September 25, 2023 by US103_Rummell

[LukeFF]

Guys, as our old pal Jason mentioned back when the FC project was originally announced, don't expect any major flight model changes with any of these planes being brought over from RoF. That's still the case today. ? There just isn't the spare time available for such a thing.

[No.23_Starling]

37 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Guys, as our old pal Jason mentioned back when the FC project was originally announced, don't expect any major flight model changes with any of these planes being brought over from RoF. That's still the case today. ? There just isn't the spare time available for such a thing.

What about a paid version 2.0 once the ports are done which updates FMs and adds new engine variants? They could do it so anyone buying FC for the first time would get the latest content and existing owners would pay a discount for an upgrade.

 

Those people paying for all these ports will likely happily fund new work. Most of us in the community bought the collector planes.

[LukeFF]

44 minutes ago, US103_Rummell said:

What about a paid version 2.0 once the ports are done which updates FMs and adds new engine variants? They could do it so anyone buying FC for the first time would get the latest content and existing owners would pay a discount for an upgrade.

 

Those people paying for all these ports will likely happily fund new work. Most of us in the community bought the collector planes.

 

It's probably way too early to talk about something like that, but we'll see. ?

[BMA_Hellbender]

4 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Guys, as our old pal Jason mentioned back when the FC project was originally announced, don't expect any major flight model changes with any of these planes being brought over from RoF. That's still the case today. ? There just isn't the spare time available for such a thing.

 

If you've stuck around here for long enough then knowing how to manage your expectations is part of the deal.

 

Can we at least ask that the devs acknowledge the existence of non-FM related issues: the FFB weirdness going back to the Sopwith Triplane (reported almost 2 years ago) and the visual issues?

 

One step lower than that and you're basically asking us to buy the game, but if at all possible not to play it, or if you do, don't look too closely.

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

 

If you've stuck around here for long enough then knowing how to manage your expectations is part of the deal.

 

Can we at least ask that the devs acknowledge the existence of non-FM related issues: the FFB weirdness going back to the Sopwith Triplane (reported almost 2 years ago) and the visual issues?

 

One step lower than that and you're basically asking us to buy the game, but if at all possible not to play it, or if you do, don't look too closely.

 

I've made a fresh report about the Force Feedback issues, so at the least, they are aware of all the planes with this issue. ?

[Trooper117]

Right, so no hope in getting FM sorted in any of the known RoF aeroplanes, they will just be ported over as is?

Not a good selling point for potential buyers...

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

As all ported ROF planes to FC are based on  FMs before December 2014 patch, at least it would be nice if they do the same with Dr.1,  because now it's only one plane with  FM as  it is in current ROF . This happened because the team chenged decision to port old FMs rather than current after releaseing first two planes (Dr 1  and Spad.13). Spad has the same FM as it was not chenged in December patch but Dr.1 was significantly.

 

 

Edited September 26, 2023 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[No.23_Starling]

5 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

Right, so no hope in getting FM sorted in any of the known RoF aeroplanes, they will just be ported over as is?

Not a good selling point for potential buyers...

I’d be happy if volume 4 was FM revisions of the existing planeset where they are miles out from the surviving data and good models @Holtzauge. Likewise new over compressed / high compression / higher HP engines. The DVII Merc is pretty much useless currently - why put in the work to port it and redo the textures if it’s just a curiosity?

 

Planes like the N28 would basically be new aircraft if they got their actual turn rate. Likewise if the DVa and DIIIa behaved more like ‘energy’ fighters. Perhaps someone should create a poll asking if customers want more ports or paid FM revisions / engine variants?

Edited September 26, 2023 by US103_Rummell

[ZachariasX]

The problem with "The Patch" was that it was a shortcut to alleviate a fundamental flaw in RoF's flight modelling. Currently, the sim engine is drastically better at getting reasonable performance figures from most of the planes. Hence, taking those bent parameters to somewhat induce actual flight performance in another game is a monumental act of a self own.

 

I was really advocating for changes (and I own up for it) that led to "The Patch" because it can't be that for instance the Dr.I remains a fast aircraft up to the stratosphere, making the Fokker D.VII a moot propsition. And I do remember how this was explained away that "rotary engines suffer less at altitude than inline engines" etc. That the result we got was just an engine nerf, not adressing any of the root causes "was not the solution we were looking for", because it solved a gaming issue at the expense of actual performance figures. Getting that served again is not smart.

 

I keep harping about the devs better really get their sh*t together, unless they plan on having their business as selling the same to the same customer over an over. We die out, you know? New customers would hardly accept what others got used to 20 years ago. The majority sees the benchmark, and this is MSFS. While obviously most current clients seem content to buy the same limitations again and again (elctrolytes!), selling the same flaws is really stretching it. Maybe RoF is older than some of the current devs, yet still it is not expensive getting back to old parameters that were not tweaked ones for another game. You just have to be willing to put up with that kind of cr*p. If it is assumed that the games won't sell anyway, why put up with that? Making it deliberately bad is just digging your hole deeper. I don't see FC as a "gift" to us customers. (If so, why charge us at all?) It by all means is and should be a venture for profit. And we should treat it as such.

 

An interface overhaul etc. is definitely und urgently needed, but in the end that is not the game. It's funny, I keep harping, huffing and puffing about getting a suitable sim world to fly in, and most say, "Naahh.. that is too expensive and it doesn't matter anyway." (How do you know how expensive that is?) But when we ask to put some love in the things that supposedly do matter, like the planes, then they say "Naahh... it's good enough the way it is." (I mean, they are just selling FOUR! FULL! games using that content.)

 

Can someone tell me then what is it that actually matters in a CFS to make it a product, besides the correct number of rivets on the cowlings?

[LukeFF]

Guys, come on. ? Just to recap:

• Jason made it clear that when the FC project was announced, there would be no major updates to the flight models. I'm sorry if some here don't like that, but for those who've been following this series, this fact has been well-known for quite some time.
• The reason for no updates to the FMs is not because they don't want to, but rather because there just aren't any spare engineers to work on updating the flight models. They are still busy coding the FMs for all the planes still being added to IL2 GB and they are working on the new project. Those two items are the priority right now for 1CGS.
• Even if there would be time to update all the old flight models you all don't like, it's not some quick and easy fix. Our QA manager has told me himself that such an endeavor would take several dozen weeks, i.e., probably close to a year's time. 

So yes, in a perfect world, the team would have time to go back and revise these FMs, but that time is not now and probably won't be any time soon. 

[ZachariasX]

To be clear, I am not angry about anything. But I cannot hide some disbelief. I know Jason knew exactly what he was doing, and I count on this not having changed regarding his current venturte. The situation here however is not the same as it has been when the venture ran on Jasons wallet (where the mere copying of FMs may have been a way to enable the whole venture back then), at least that is what has officially communicated. So, the team has expanded, and all is fine, moving ahead, but not with a single of those new hires can be spared doing FMs for a new product? It is even slightly amusing that Jasons statement is still valid as he is not part of the series anymore and the company has changed. It makes this company rather unusual.

 

I admit I could not always follow Jasons way of doing things, but in the end, he turned out to be right. So, maybe here with the team as it is I'm also missing something. I like to be wrong.

 

It is for sure not easy to fix certain FM, but when help is offered, it seems rather clear that even making making it cheaper for them by providing info that otherwhise would be pretty darn expensive to come by and that falls on barren ground, then it looks not like a question of capacity, but of will. Or: order of priorities. We know how fast sometimes FMs are changed.

 

So, I'll let myself surprise. I've been proven wrong many times (that was usually a good thing!), so I hope they do again this time. But I see people painting the walls when the roof is leaking. And I know that that the walls need a new paint.

 

But what do I know? Godspeed to the team either way!

[JFM]

I concede off the bat that the following comments are nitpicky and trite, even when considered on their own and not compared to constructive criticism on FMs, etc. 

 

Overall, I'm happy as hell the Alb DII is now available, thank you for it, love that plane! (I wish the Alb D.I were also available--the real beginning of the series.) But--there so many persistent errors in the sim's Alb D.II appearance. To name just a few: The wood grain is awful and looks nothing like birch. The Albatros decal on the rudder, while oriented the proper way, looks like a kindergartener drew it with crayons. It has metal wing root fillets, when most were wood (that's not an error so much as the feature of something non-standard). There are random springs on various rigging that weren't present on real Albs, similar to those we have on the sim's Alb D.Va. Also like the sim's D.Va, the D.II's control surfaces are heavily framed--no! Look at pictures of Albatrosses. You *might* see the indication of frames in a rudder or elevator here and there, but the overwhelming majority of Albs in the literally thousands of photos I possess of them (in which the controls surfaces can be seen) had smooth-appearing ailerons/rudder/elevator (I've not counted, but I'll estimate 99%). This heavily-framed control surface "feature"--especially the rudder--is something many profile artists have gotten wrong for decades, and it has wormed its way into sims and thus many people thinking erroneously that this is how it was. Therefore, I suspect we'll get the same error when they release the Alb D.III. Glad to be wrong about that! (And this book will help with getting things right: Albatros D.III: Johannisthal, OAW, and Oeffag Variants )

So, although disappointed with these kinds of lingering visual mistakes, I *am* happy it's here. Plus, I know skinners can do magic and make things better! Maybe this will prompt me to get back into skinning as well. 

[Trooper117]

10 hours ago, JFM said:

(I wish the Alb D.I were also available--the real beginning of the series.)

 

Yes, I wondered why the official line they put out saying it was the first in the line of their 'legendary' Albatros fighters...

[No.23_Starling]

1 hour ago, Trooper117 said:

 

Yes, I wondered why the official line they put out saying it was the first in the line of their 'legendary' Albatros fighters...

According to Jon Guttman, the DI and DII were developed concurrently with a lot of similarities. Differences weren’t huge eg V struts replaced by N struts to help visibility, wing gap slightly reduced, and radiator relocated between new struts. The Frontbeststand Inventory shows that around 50 DIs were present in October 1916 with numbers quickly falling whilst there were 214 odd DIIs in service in December. I think it’s better to say that the DII was the first in the series to be used in significant numbers.

 

Putting the DI in the game would be fun but the DII is the logical choice to include between the two. It’s just a shame that its FM won’t give it the feel of a BnZ bird. I always thought she should handle more like a SPAD than an all-round super plane given the 160hp, wing loading, and weight of 2x guns plus ammo. To quote Captain Saundby RFC:

 

”The Albatros single seater fighting machine was the first formidable tractor biplane scout produced by the enemy. While we had occasionally met them before, they only became numerous and therefore offensive at the beginning of November. The de Havilland Scout had a hard job when outnumbered by these machines, and only carried on because of its handiness and manoeuvring power for its speed and climb were much inferior to these new Huns.” Quoted by Jon Guttman in DH2 vs Albatros DI/II.

[JFM]

I kinda understand Alb development. ?

 

But the point is second is not the first, as the sim claimed. For example, when Richthofen was shooting down his first planes, he was in a D.I (D-one). THAT’s the model that made the RFC take notice. Aside from Boelcke’s D.II—which was a pre-production machine—the D.IIs didn’t arrive until ca. end of October (exact dates undetermined). But I understand the sim’s use of the D.II, if only because there were more of them manufactured. Plus, I can always fly the Alb D.I in BH&H. 
 

 

[LukeFF]

On 9/25/2023 at 3:22 PM, LukeFF said:

I've made a fresh report about the Force Feedback issues, so at the least, they are aware of all the planes with this issue. ?

 

Little update: our engineering department has been formally asked to look into this issue when they have the time. They of course have a Force Feedback joystick but they haven't touched the system for years, so it's a bit of a mystery why it works properly for some planes and for others it does not.

[ZachariasX]

@LukeFF you're the man!

[BMA_Hellbender]

18 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Little update: our engineering department has been formally asked to look into this issue when they have the time. They of course have a Force Feedback joystick but they haven't touched the system for years, so it's a bit of a mystery why it works properly for some planes and for others it does not.

Thank you so much!

 

FFB is an old technology and the last consumer sticks have been out of production for a while (MSFFB2 and G940).

 

That said: when it works, it works beautifully. The absolute best implementation I have seen of FFB is with the quite recent F-14B Tomcat by Heatblur Studios in DCS. Runner-up are the Flying Circus planes with adjustable stabilizers. All accurately recenter the stick in accordance to trim. The actual forces vary a bit by plane, but overall it adds greatly to the experience and the feeling of flight.

 

Now that the patent has run out, I hope we’ll eventually see an affordable new FFB stick or base from either Virpil or VKB.

 

For now you can still find plenty of MSFFB2s on eBay, though many simmers have also stocked up on replacements. And if you must have something new, you can buy this commercial grade base for a cool $1300 and add a Virpil grip to it:

 

https://www.brunner-innovation.swiss/product/cls-e-joystick/

[BMA_Hellbender]

On 9/26/2023 at 2:24 PM, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

As all ported ROF planes to FC are based on  FMs before December 2014 patch, at least it would be nice if they do the same with Dr.1,  because now it's only one plane with  FM as  it is in current ROF . This happened because the team chenged decision to port old FMs rather than current after releaseing first two planes (Dr 1  and Spad.13). Spad has the same FM as it was not chenged in December patch but Dr.1 was significantly.

 

 

To me the « nerfed » RoF 1.034 Dr.I is fine, but with three big caveats:

 

1. It is now in the same overall performance bracket as the Nieuport 17, with which it shares an engine (110hp Le Rhone 9J / Oberursel UR.II).

 

2. The Fokker D.VIII is now relevant in the planeset and operating with a late war « uprated » Oberursel UR.II that unofficially outputs something along the lines of 120/130hp. It’s much the same situation as with the Sopwith Triplane / Sopwith Camel, where the Triplane unofficially outputs only 110/120hp with its early Clerget 9B.

 

3. The Sopwith Pup must be ported over « nerfed » to have it in the same performance bracket as the N11 (80hp Le Rhone 9C). A slow Dr.I and a fast pre-RoF 1.034 Pup would be a total perversion of history about as bad as the N28’s lack of maneuverability. It would really create an opposite N28 effect where a plane simply can’t be added to any scenario for being too good. I have my hopes up that both the devs and testers are aware of this.

[Trooper117]

Where is the D.II late version?... you know, the one with the Teves Braun improved radiators instead of the early Windhoff version?

We are supposed to be getting an imported version of the D.II from RoF aren't we?

I know I can be a bit dumb sometimes, but have I missed something?

 

[LukeFF]

7 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

Where is the D.II late version?... you know, the one with the Teves Braun improved radiators instead of the early Windhoff version?

We are supposed to be getting an imported version of the D.II from RoF aren't we?

I know I can be a bit dumb sometimes, but have I missed something?

 

I'll ask and see.

[LukeFF]

@Trooper117, per the producer, the Late model is not planned to be added to FC.

[Guest deleted@219798]

The texturing of the DII isn't all that great. The metal panels and spinner which are aluminium look almost chrome plated as they are so shiny. Often these areas where painted anyway. Fuselage wood panelling and radiator not very convincing either. From the many photos I've seen, not a good job on the DII textures at all.

[LukeFF]

On 9/26/2023 at 4:43 PM, JFM said:

I concede off the bat that the following comments are nitpicky and trite, even when considered on their own and not compared to constructive criticism on FMs, etc. 

 

Overall, I'm happy as hell the Alb DII is now available, thank you for it, love that plane! (I wish the Alb D.I were also available--the real beginning of the series.) But--there so many persistent errors in the sim's Alb D.II appearance. To name just a few: The wood grain is awful and looks nothing like birch. The Albatros decal on the rudder, while oriented the proper way, looks like a kindergartener drew it with crayons. It has metal wing root fillets, when most were wood (that's not an error so much as the feature of something non-standard). There are random springs on various rigging that weren't present on real Albs, similar to those we have on the sim's Alb D.Va. Also like the sim's D.Va, the D.II's control surfaces are heavily framed--no! Look at pictures of Albatrosses. You *might* see the indication of frames in a rudder or elevator here and there, but the overwhelming majority of Albs in the literally thousands of photos I possess of them (in which the controls surfaces can be seen) had smooth-appearing ailerons/rudder/elevator (I've not counted, but I'll estimate 99%). This heavily-framed control surface "feature"--especially the rudder--is something many profile artists have gotten wrong for decades, and it has wormed its way into sims and thus many people thinking erroneously that this is how it was. Therefore, I suspect we'll get the same error when they release the Alb D.III. Glad to be wrong about that! (And this book will help with getting things right: Albatros D.III: Johannisthal, OAW, and Oeffag Variants )

So, although disappointed with these kinds of lingering visual mistakes, I *am* happy it's here. Plus, I know skinners can do magic and make things better! Maybe this will prompt me to get back into skinning as well. 

 

I've passed along your comments to the QA team. Not sure if anything can be done before the template is released, but we'll see. ?

[No.23_Triggers]

On 9/24/2023 at 11:36 PM, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

It's quite similar to the RoF FM, but with a much more pronounced accelerated stall in a turn or when suddenly pulling back on the stick in level flight. You read that right: an Albatros with actual stall behaviour! I never thought I'd see the day.
 

Lol my exact reaction. 


The N17 feels pretty handy in a fight, but has a LOT of quirks that the pilot needs to get used to before being able to effectively fight in it. Lots of weird adverse yaw stuff. It's hard to say who comes out on top in rate of turn between Alb and N17 - maybe the alb just edges it, but it's very close. 

Alb handles pretty much how you'd expect for a RoF/FC alb (save for aforementioned stalls with overaggressive flying!). My one huge pet peeve is that taking a massive, heavy 20mm cannon strapped haphazardly to the top wing seems to do absolutely nothing to inhibit the manoeuvrability / performance in a dogfight, which is just a bit silly really 

[Holtzauge]

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 hour ago, No.23_Triggers said:

Lol my exact reaction. 


The N17 feels pretty handy in a fight, but has a LOT of quirks that the pilot needs to get used to before being able to effectively fight in it. Lots of weird adverse yaw stuff. It's hard to say who comes out on top in rate of turn between Alb and N17 - maybe the alb just edges it, but it's very close. 

Alb handles pretty much how you'd expect for a RoF/FC alb (save for aforementioned stalls with overaggressive flying!). My one huge pet peeve is that taking a massive, heavy 20mm cannon strapped haphazardly to the top wing seems to do absolutely nothing to inhibit the manoeuvrability / performance in a dogfight, which is just a bit silly really 

N17 vs. Alb D.II rate of turn is very close. You can’t just yank completely back on the stick with the D.II anymore like you could in RoF, which makes it even closer. At 3000m the D.II has the upper hand, really, though the N17 remains the best climber up there. The match against the N11 is even closer, I’d say the D.II comes out on top, even if the N11 is the fastest of the three.

 

As for the Becker cannon, incorrect WWII ammo notwithstanding, it does remove the twin Vickers when you take it, so I suppose it makes sort of sense. I’ll have to give it a go in a dogfight against AI and see how I fare.

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

After years of defending developers and even maintaining a sense of community when everyone else seemed to throw up their hands and walk away,  I suspect that more and more Central WW1 players are getting fed up with the entire plane development process and developer decisions.  We hear a lot from Entente players who seem to even be involved in testing.   No late model DII but instead an early version. 

 

In the hopes of dispelling any opportunity for suggesting that a pattern of inherent bias exists within the halls and cubby holes of designers, and developers and testers, most of whom seem connected either through history or theough association with Entente factions flying entente planes, and in light of the apparent disregard for actual scientific and anectotal evidence that is supplied to them, it would be helpful to see more transparency in the beta testing and decision making process that currents might appear as consistently benefitting one faction at the expense of the other unnecessarily.

 

If this isnt a historical sim, what is it?

[LukeFF]

Baumer, I honestly cannot recall what could be called problems with the way the Albatros D.II and Nieuport 17 were tested. The usual stuff came in reports (durability, animation issues, etc.) but there weren't any outright complaints about the flight model for either plane being too good or too bad. As has been said before, these planes are being ported over with their flight models from RoF as-is. ?

[No.23_Triggers]

5 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

As for the Becker cannon, incorrect WWII ammo notwithstanding, it does remove the twin Vickers when you take it, so I suppose it makes sort of sense. I’ll have to give it a go in a dogfight against AI and see how I fare.

Yeah, weight wise I think the Becker only adds a little bit on (just a mite heavier than 2x Spandau) - I'm thinking more the aerodynamics of that big ol' gun just sort of being strapped there...! 

[=IRFC=Tunes]

I think that drag across the board is underrepresented. Hence the 10:1, 11:1 glide slopes we see in many of these planes.

[JGr2/J34b_Matthias]

The beauty of a historical "sim" should be the ability to recreate iconic and historic matchups that actually existed against a timeline and a pipeline of planes in such a fashion that it mimics the ebb and flow of the conflict in the air.  There should be times when one side is up and the other is down - and that is how it actually happened in the war as it progressed.

Here's a rough outline of the current "historical reciprocation" 1C has provided as of the current release.
Now this is not painstakingly exact, I've also thrown Central a bone and given them a month or so early access in some cases to certain airframes to see if it help true up the match ups.

For anyone actually willing to look at the matchups and what the people making missions for your game are dealing with, the currest state of affairs speaks for itself.  This is not how you encourage players (especially those want an actual competative GAME they can play on a daily basis) to stick around.

Or is it the dev's vision that in order to give Central players a "reciprocation"  to being otherwise outclassed in most historical matchups at this point for all time periods and sectors except the last 4 on my list, that we provide them maps with majority D7F and SS.IV spawns so they stick around until FC4 to see what happens with the Alb D.III?

Your planeset release order is not mkaing sense.  Your balance against the other planes you have already put out is not making sense.  PLEASE for all of us, reevaluate your plan moving forward.

 

Note:  I just noticed I forgot to add the Sopwith Dolphin on my chart!  Oh no!  The overall impact is.... zero.

Edited October 4, 2023 by J5_Matthias-Sch27b

[JGr2/J34b_Matthias]

On 10/2/2023 at 1:18 PM, LukeFF said:

 As has been said before, these planes are being ported over with their flight models from RoF as-is. ?

 

Then there should have been no change to the stall mechanics for the D.II as were mentioned in the starting post of this thread.  So clearly the model as imported became different through the import process.

Look - I'm not saying that the ROF model was historically accurate, and I'm not saying it needs to be godlike (in fact I'd rather the entire Albatros line get fixed to be a more compromise and historically accurate B&Z option but we've been told that's off the table.  But this is now a discernable and concerning pattern.

We got an Alb D.V instead of an ROF D.Va - with an underpowered engine as a result
We got the ROF engine on the Fokker D.VII which has long been controvetial because once again it's considered an underpowered version.
We got a Pfalz D.III instead of an ROF D.IIIa - with an underpowered engine as a result
Now we got an "early " Alabtross D.II which somehow despite assurances the model was transferred over verbatim, and historical accounts documenting the superiority in terms of climb speed, comes out of the FC pipeline inferior to the N17 it was literally built to defeat?

Can the devs really not see the already huge performance gaps that they're exacerbating with these decisions?

Edited October 4, 2023 by J5_Matthias-Sch27b

[=IRFC=Tunes]

Matthias. Stall behavior is more complex across all aircraft in Flying Circus. This is just the byproduct of the new engine. Camels, Dr1s, N17s, etc. In many instances, it is harder to react to and handle the stalls in FC than it was in RoF. 


Also, I will challenge the assertion that the Alb D.II is significantly worse than the Nieuport 17. It doesn't turn quite as well. Sure. But it weighed twice as much. There's no surprise here.

It's faster than the Nieuport 17 above 2.5 kilometers. Because of the overcooling issues on the Nieuport series, it consequently dives better (without blowing its engine). 

And, perhaps most importantly, the only way the Nieuport can hold its own in a scrap is by taking the single gun. The Albatros' twin spandaus are far superior in a furball. 

Edited October 2, 2023 by =IRFC=Artun