DII Autocannon with WW2 HE ammo - a meme

[Red_Von_Hammer]

19 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Upon further review, the current 20 mm ammo round is the incorrect one. It's on the to-fix list, as the correct ammo type is there in the files (apparently it was there in ROF) but it wasn't set up correctly for FC.

Et voila!
 @LukeFF Thanks for the quick response!

This issue is very likely to have affected results for a good while now.
Is the CL.II running the WW2 ammo as well?

 

32 minutes ago, No.23_Triggers said:

I'm not particularly bothered either way to be perfectly honest with you - but, for the sake of argument, there are a couple issues I objectively see that may warrant some kind of server limitation if you were so inclined and/or saw any of the following as a cause for concern, those being: 

1) Historically speaking, there shouldn't be any Alb D.IIs flying around with Beckers strapped to them as it was either an extremely uncommon or completely nonexistent mod on the front. The same could be said for SPAD VIIs with overwing guns, 6-gun dolphins, etc. In regards to flugpark specifically, total historical authenticity hasn't been the MO for quite some time as far as I can see, so take that as you will. 

2) The one glaring issue with the D.II + Becker in my eyes (as I mentioned before) is that it seems to have zero FM 'penalty' despite having a pretty huge and decidedly un-aerodynamic gun strapped pretty carelessly to the top wing. Speaking from a balance perspective (if you really want to open that old can of worms), that leaves a big problem in that the D.II can fly just as well with the "one-hitter-quitter" gun as it can with twin spandaus, meaning that D.II pilots need simply land one shot and it's lights out for whoever they're up against. That's the kind of thing that undoubtedly will lead to growing frustrations / complaints as people feel like they're being beaten by the gun, not the pilot.

I feel it's worth adding that If the FM was impacted more by the addition of the Becker (aka less manoeuvrability, speed, etc), I imagine that would do something to mitigate the sense of feeling "Cheated" by getting 1-shot out the sky by a big ol' HE 20mm round, as it would be 'easier' to beat the less manoeuvrable, better-armed "Cannon Alb" in a dogfight. 

Again, it doesn't overly bother me if Albs are flying around with cannons strapped to them...but it very well may bother others. 

For what it's worth, I can agree with aspects of that.
The in-game Albs have better turn radius than IRL and way too forgiving, without the IRL characteristic of stalling & spinning.
So I agree there, a lot of the times I got popped by Alb D.II with MG151 (which, for all intents and purposes, is what the Becker has been so far) is because Smigol was prop-hanging whereas I either had to keep going, or climb and.. get prop-hanged anyway, all you gotta do with the Alb is keep pulling the stick.

As far as Weight/aerodynamics, the Becker weighs around 30kg, the 100 rounds is another 10'ish kg.
I don't know how much two Spandau's, 1000 rounds of ammo + interruptor gear, trigger linkage and ammo drum weighs, but I believe it's fair to say more than the Becker.
And can we state for certain the single Becker influences aerodynamic drag as much as two Lewis overwing guns on smaller planes with 40hp less?
2 MG's in the fuselage sticks out at least a little bit too.

"Strapping" a gun on sounds a bit extreme, If RoF/FC is anything to go by you can see it's been affixed to the original MG-crossmember via an extension adapter, that crossmember is built to handle the recoil of two guns at the same time.
Without knowing what material the crossmember and extended adapter is made out of, how thick it is, or how many kg/lbs of recoil the Becker is capable of.. sure there's bound to be flex, but how much?

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

Now that I've practiced I'm hoping for the twin Becker version as a collector plane.

[J99_Sizzlorr]

9 hours ago, No.23_Triggers said:

The same could be said for SPAD VIIs with overwing guns, 6-gun dolphins, etc. In regards to flugpark specifically, total historical authenticity hasn't been the MO for quite some time as far as I can see...

The same could also be argued for twin Vickers on the Triplane. But that didn't steer up any drama as the Becker now does. At least you were bothered to a point to post about it here. As you might know Flugpark was until recently the only multiplayer server for FC. Therefore the policy was to keep the weapon mods open for those that want to try them out and it was all fine until the Albatros D.II and later the video came out. Edit: to be fair you could make handungs look op in such a montage. Probably because if you add most of them you sacrifice better plane handeling characteristics. No one argues about the historical accuracy of it but other mods are right in that ball park as well. I also don't argue to keep it I am just a little suprised by the sudden outcry on weapon mods...Edit: also let's wait and see how the ammo fix plays out. If you don't experiment with it you will never know for sure if it is really that op that it is worth locking or limiting it, don't you agree?

Edited November 4, 2023 by LukeFF
let's watch the comments, please

[No.23_TaxDollarsAtWork]

5 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

The same could also be argued for twin Vickers on the Triplane. But that didn't steer up any drama as the Becker now does. At least you were bothered to a point to post about it here. As you might know Flugpark was until recently the only multiplayer server for FC. Therefore the policy was to keep the weapon mods open for those that want to try them out and it was all fine until the Albatros D.II and later the video came out. Probably because if you add most of them you sacrifice better plane handeling characteristics. No one argues about the historical accuracy of it but other mods are right in that ball park as well. I also don't argue to keep it I am just a little suprised by the sudden outcry on weapon mods...

If you want we can take you up on arguments of historical accuracy with the server right now.

Namely that those twin gun tripes saw combat and even scored kills.
Or Dr1s in 1917
Sept:2
Oct:12* Recalled for wing failures end of October
Nov 28TH/Dec: probably 40 if were being generous dished out few at a time to every jasta's most experienced flight leaders, though closer to 35

Yet its incredibly common in 1917 Flugpark missions.... ?

 

[J99_Sizzlorr]

28 minutes ago, No.23_TaxDollarsAtWork said:

If you want we can take you up on arguments of historical accuracy with the server right now.

Namely that those twin gun tripes saw combat and even scored kills.
Or Dr1s in 1917
Sept:2
Oct:12* Recalled for wing failures end of October
Nov 28TH/Dec: probably 40 if were being generous dished out few at a time to every jasta's most experienced flight leaders, though closer to 35

Yet its incredibly common in 1917 Flugpark missions.... ?

 

But very late in their service time to keep it competetive until enough Camels and S.E.5as where available, if you wouldn't mind to stay accurate. They are probably more common than the Albatros D.II with Becker gun

Edit: So this mod has no buisness in early 1917 plane sets which occur now frequently on Flugpark....

Edited November 4, 2023 by J99_Sizzlorr

[No.23_Starling]

41 minutes ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

But very late in their service time to keep it competetive until enough Camels and S.E.5as where available, if you wouldn't mind to stay accurate. They are probably more common than the Albatros D.II with Becker gun

Edit: So this mod has no buisness in early 1917 plane sets which occur now frequently on Flugpark....

The experimental twin gun versions built by Clayton and Shuttleworth did see service with with Naval 1 and 10 sqd, although it was only a handful - see Norman Franks, Triplane Aces.

 

The mod also has a negative impact on performance modelled in game which is the main reason ppl don’t use it. Larb’s point above is that the DII with Bekker suffers no penalties as well as never seeing service.

[J99_Sizzlorr]

I have not flown the D.II much without Becker and never with it so I have no clue on how it handles. But I would guess you would feel the additional drag from that overwing cannon. It also sacrifices it's Spandaus and the 2nd Vickers on the Triplane is only an addition. I know they saw service but just a handful late in it's frontline time. So when arguing about historical accuracy with the Becker you should mention the double Vickers Triplane for early 1917 scenarios as well I guess and strictly limited to Naval units as well. So when it comes to locks or limits on weapon mods it will go both ways.

[Trooper117]

 

I think it's just a case of get up there and get on with it... ?

[No.23_Starling]

2 hours ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

I have not flown the D.II much without Becker and never with it so I have no clue on how it handles. But I would guess you would feel the additional drag from that overwing cannon. It also sacrifices it's Spandaus and the 2nd Vickers on the Triplane is only an addition. I know they saw service but just a handful late in it's frontline time. So when arguing about historical accuracy with the Becker you should mention the double Vickers Triplane for early 1917 scenarios as well I guess and strictly limited to Naval units as well. So when it comes to locks or limits on weapon mods it will go both ways.

Yes, if you’re going for that level. Echo is pushing more in that direction by disabling mods that were insanely rare or didn’t come into use till a certain point (like the Lewis on the Spad VII which was mostly an RFC thing). Including something that’s pure fiction is something else though IMO.

 

As for impact on performance @Holtzauge might be able to shed some light on an overwing Bekker. It’s not just a matter of aerodynamics - there’s also the recoil and forces from a tilted canon, as well as any difficulty in pulling it down from the mount to reload. The Foster Mount was hard enough to use on the SE5a requiring the pilot to disengage and fight the wind to reload (and yes, I think that’s modelled totally wrong in RoF and FC too. Reloading the Lewis should be something only done on the level and take 30-60s+).

[ST_Catchov]

1 hour ago, Trooper117 said:

 

I think it's just a case of get up there and get on with it... ?

 

How did you get that footage of Klugermann?

 

 

6 hours ago, J5_Klugermann said:

Now that I've practiced I'm hoping for the twin Becker version as a collector plane.

 

Won't happen. Not one example made it to the front {*citation required}. But you're right about the Stuka. She actually served in large numbers.

[LukeFF]

7 hours ago, Red_Von_Hammer said:

Et voila!
 @LukeFF Thanks for the quick response!

This issue is very likely to have affected results for a good while now.
Is the CL.II running the WW2 ammo as well?

 

Most likely. When the fix hits the beta I'll remember to ask that, though.

[BMA_Hellbender]

In my view the one major longstanding issue with the Becker cannon (also on multi-seaters) is that it shoots a WW2 Minengeschoss round which explodes on impact (with what? canvas?). Beyond that it should only be marginally useful; even when prophanging you ought to be far better off spraying an enemy with (twin) MG rounds in the hope that one connects with the pilot. At least that's how I understand the new DM and pilot physiology model should work.

 

As for limiting mods, I'm not about to tell anyone how to run their server, but it's hard to compete with the firepower and versatility of a twin Lewis turret. We're not about to revive the old Bristol death platform, but let's just say that what really needs to be fixed, is that gunners shouldn't be able to move their turret around at less than 0G and more than 2G. That counts double for AI gunners.

[Holtzauge]

8 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

In my view the one major longstanding issue with the Becker cannon (also on multi-seaters) is that it shoots a WW2 Minengeschoss round which explodes on impact (with what? canvas?). Beyond that it should only be marginally useful; even when prophanging you ought to be far better off spraying an enemy with (twin) MG rounds in the hope that one connects with the pilot. At least that's how I understand the new DM and pilot physiology model should work.

 

In my new BoB book project I actually have a chapter on ammo which of course includes the 2 cm M-geschoss. And as far as I can tell the ammo for the MG-FFM and MG 151 used the same type of fuses so there was no specific fuse for the M-geschoss. And we know that these fuses were sensitive enough to get triggered by wing skin, but would they have been triggered by a canvas hit only? Very interesting question indeed!

 

But those were rather elaborate WW2 fuses, and what kind of fuse did the Becker ammo have? If someone has info on this, this would be very interesting to see. And not only that, what type of round/rounds did it fire? 

 

 

Edited November 5, 2023 by Holtzauge

[Holtzauge]

14 hours ago, US103_Rummell said:

As for impact on performance @Holtzauge might be able to shed some light on an overwing Bekker.

 

For sure, both the Lewis and Bekker would cut a few mph off the speed. How much would be difficult to tell unless there was a direct speed figure for it or direct delta-Cdo data. Maybe someone knows of some RAE data connected to this?

 

 

Edited November 5, 2023 by Holtzauge

[Trooper117]

3 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

But those were rather elaborate WW2 fuses, and what kind of fuse did the Becker ammo have? If someone has info on this, this would be very interesting to see. And not only that, what type of round/rounds did it fire? 

 

Have a look here...  https://www.kaisersbunker.com/cc/cc22.htm

 

Apparently when first used the Becker only had solid shot, (so not to contravene arms treaties at the time) but later on HE, AP and incendiary types were available...

Edited November 5, 2023 by Trooper117

[No.23_Starling]

Here’s the data from the Flying Guns book.

Ammo data:

 

Gun data:

 

Depending on the Spandau type the single Becker has the same weight or heavier. Each HP shell weighs 130g with boxes of 15 mentioned, so around 4kg for the in-game load excluding the cases, mount etc. Nothing on the fuse.

Elsewhere we read that the Becker had an HE round developed later but nothing on the fuse. The British on the other hand use two kinds of fuses including a thin topped one which would easily be triggered on impact:

 

 

There is also notes of complaints around reloading ammo in a slipstream given the large and tall clip. This is what I suspect made the DII installation pretty impractical:

 

 

Lastly, note that Madon mentions aiming for the body of the Albatross he smoked with his SPAD Canon, and that the French used HE and smooth bore canister shot in the 37mm weapon, basically turning it into a giant shotgun. It’s not clear though which ace used which gun in which airframe. Guynemer certainly used HP as we have photos of him handling the rounds.

See photo:

[Holtzauge]

So the Becker shoots either a pure AP projectile or what looks like an API? At least that is what it seems like to me since both projectiles are made from machined steel. Looking at the top picture in the link @Trooper117 posted, it does not even look like the incendiary projectile has a fuse? In that case the filling is probably phosphorous, and the incendiary effect is triggered when the projectile hits something solid and breaks, thus spontaneously igniting the phosphorous?

 

So probably quite effective if you hit engine, fuel tank or pilot. Otherwise it looks like those projectiles would just punch a nice 2 cm hole in the wing fabric then! 

 

 

[LukeFF]

From what I was told, 20x70RB is what was modeled in ROF and presumably what will be used when it is fixed here for FC.

[No.23_Starling]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

From what I was told, 20x70RB is what was modeled in ROF and presumably what will be used when it is fixed here for FC.

Matches the data from the Flying Guns book. Boom

[BMA_Hellbender]

12 minutes ago, US103_Rummell said:

Matches the data from the Flying Guns book. Boom

More precisely: no boom.

[No.23_Starling]

All, there’s actually two quotes from pilots in the Franks book who flew the twin gun Tripe. Maynard from Naval 1 wasn’t a fan and thought the performance suffered too much, making it useful only for attacking low 2-seaters:

 

The famous ace Collishaw however liked it and thought the 130hp Tripe could handle the extra weight, with the additional firepower being worth a small decrease in performance:

 

He mentions 6 twin gun tripes in service, as opposed to 0 Albatross Canon. Hardly common but then not that many Tripes were built before the Camel replaced them in number.

[LukeFF]

Guys, it's important to remember that the original requirement for weapon mods like the Becker cannon was that there had to be photographic evidence that it existed, not that it saw any significant combat usage. It's up to mission makers and server operators to restrict their usage as they see fit. ?

[No.23_Starling]

9 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Guys, it's important to remember that the original requirement for weapon mods like the Becker cannon was that there had to be photographic evidence that it existed, not that it saw any significant combat usage. It's up to mission makers and server operators to restrict their usage as they see fit. ?

I’ve never seen a photo of the experimental Albatross Canon. Would be interested if anyone has it

[BMA_Hellbender]

@US103_Rummell

@J99_Sizzlorr

@LukeFF

 

I fear that we're talking alongside each other, because from what I gather everyone wants the most historically accurate depiction as possible of armament. In my view this has nothing to do with rarity (Becker cannon, SPAD XII Canon etc.), and everything with combat effectiveness.

 

Case in point: nobody seems to complain about the Le Prieur rockets on the Nieuports, which were also a rarity and were used exclusively for taking down balloons. You can absolutely wreck an enemy plane with them, but it's unlikely that you ever will because they have both a penalty on plane performance and are extremely difficult to aim. Also it's a single shot weapon, making it even less attractive/effective.

 

I think there are some problems across the board on both Entente and Central and a prevailing attitude of "two wrongs make a right"

 

• Ammo types
  Here we only really have two offenders:
  
  1. The Becker cannon and its incorrect 20mm round which shouldn't just explode on impact (confirmed that it will be fixed in an upcoming update).
  
  2. The Vickers "Balloon gun" and its 11.43mm incendiary round which, in spite of the increased weight and smaller capacity, doesn't do a better job at lighting balloons on fire than the standard .303 (7.7mm) round. It should probably also have a higher chance of lighting an airplane on fire and/or seriously injure the pilot with the phosphorus inside, which is why "balloon busters" typically carried papers on board that stated they were only intended to be used against balloons, not against enemy airplanes.
  
  For the record: it could simply be that the standard .303 (7.7mm) round is too effective against balloons.
  
   
• Gun angles
  This is really something new since Flying Circus, since the pilot models were updated compared to RoF and certain gun/cannon depression angles would either clip into the pilot model, or have the pilot clip through the bottom of the plane. While it should only be an esthetic issue, it has some serious gameplay ramifications:
  
  1. The Parabellum/Becker gunners on Central multiseaters have far less upward angle to shoot than they did back in RoF (or compared to what should be possible as visible in the FC hangar screen):
  
  RoF:
  
  
  FC hangar (identical to RoF):
  
  
  FC in-game (smaller upward angle than in RoF):
  
  
  
  
  2. The upward angled overwing Lewis gun either slightly clips into the pilot's head (S.E.5a) or stay far above him but loses a lot of upward angle (N17 GBR):
  
  S.E.5a
  
  
  (correct when compared to reality, since the pilot actually sits further back)
  
  
  N17 GBR (lost a whole lot of angle compared to RoF)
  
  
  
  
  
  For the record: the Becker cannon on the D.II is offset to the left and hence doesn't clip (I'd really like to see a picture of this):
  
  
  
  
   
• Reloading and movement under G
  This is the big one for me and I'll word it as simply and as clearly as possible:
  
  There is no way in hell that a pilot or rear gunner would be able to reload an overwing gun/cannon/turret at anything over or under 1G.
  
  There is no way in hell that a rear gunner would be able to smoothly and accurately aim his gun/cannon/turret at anything over 2G or under 0G.
  
  In my opinion this should have been fixed along with the implementation of G forces on pilot and gunners.

 

[No.23_Starling]

36 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

@US103_Rummell

@J99_Sizzlorr

@LukeFF

 

I fear that we're talking alongside each other, because from what I gather everyone wants the most historically accurate depiction as possible of armament. In my view this has nothing to do with rarity (Becker cannon, SPAD XII Canon etc.), and everything with combat effectiveness.

 

Case in point: nobody seems to complain about the Le Prieur rockets on the Nieuports, which were also a rarity and were used exclusively for taking down balloons. You can absolutely wreck an enemy plane with them, but it's unlikely that you ever will because they have both a penalty on plane performance and are extremely difficult to aim. Also it's a single shot weapon, making it even less attractive/effective.

 

I think there are some problems across the board on both Entente and Central and a prevailing attitude of "two wrongs make a right"

 

• Ammo types
  Here we only really have two offenders:
  
  1. The Becker cannon and its incorrect 20mm round which shouldn't just explode on impact (confirmed that it will be fixed in an upcoming update).
  
  2. The Vickers "Balloon gun" and its 11.43mm incendiary round which, in spite of the increased weight and smaller capacity, doesn't do a better job at lighting balloons on fire than the standard .303 (7.7mm) round. It should probably also have a higher chance of lighting an airplane on fire and/or seriously injure the pilot with the phosphorus inside, which is why "balloon busters" typically carried papers on board that stated they were only intended to be used against balloons, not against enemy airplanes.
  
  For the record: it could simply be that the standard .303 (7.7mm) round is too effective against balloons.
  
   
• Gun angles
  This is really something new since Flying Circus, since the pilot models were updated compared to RoF and certain gun/cannon depression angles would either clip into the pilot model, or have the pilot clip through the bottom of the plane. While it should only be an esthetic issue, it has some serious gameplay ramifications:
  
  1. The Parabellum/Becker gunners on Central multiseaters have far less upward angle to shoot than they did back in RoF (or compared to what should be possible as visible in the FC hangar screen):
  
  RoF:
  
  
  FC hangar (identical to RoF):
  
  
  FC in-game (smaller upward angle than in RoF):
  
  
  
  
  2. The upward angled overwing Lewis gun either slightly clips into the pilot's head (S.E.5a) or stay far above him but loses a lot of upward angle (N17 GBR):
  
  S.E.5a
  
  
  (correct when compared to reality, since the pilot actually sits further back)
  
  
  N17 GBR (lost a whole lot of angle compared to RoF)
  
  
  
  
  
  For the record: the Becker cannon on the D.II is offset to the left and hence doesn't clip (I'd really like to see a picture of this):
  
  
  
  
   
• Reloading and movement under G
  This is the big one for me and I'll word it as simply and as clearly as possible:
  
  There is no way in hell that a pilot or rear gunner would be able to reload an overwing gun/cannon/turret at anything over or under 1G.
  
  There is no way in hell that a rear gunner would be able to smoothly and accurately aim his gun/cannon/turret at anything over 2G or under 0G.
  
  In my opinion this should have been fixed along with the implementation of G forces on pilot and gunners.

 

@LukeFF has logged the issue with the 11mm balloon guns. Hopefully that will get addressed. There isn’t much reason to take them right now as the standard MG kills pilots without trouble with double the ammo. They used to snip off wings in RoF but thankfully that’s been changed.

 

I agree partially on the effectiveness point. The 37mm SAMC had to be manually reloaded, couldn’t fire more than 1-2 rpm, and would have had a marginal impact on performance being slightly heavier than the XIII. Madon wrote that he spent days practicing hitting targets on the ground with his XII, and Guynemer used more than one shell to take down his targets. That’s a long way off an autocanon with dozens of rounds that can be tilted.

[J99_Sizzlorr]

The lower gun angles on the Halberstadt CL.II or all German 2 seaters can be explained by the absence of the scarf mount used on Entente planes. The German copy of it wasn't quite as sophisticated as the original. Gunners frequently compensated that by climbing on things in the cockpit as the F.E.2b gunner does in the picture posted by Luke or by kneeling down as much as possible.

[BMA_Hellbender]

16 minutes ago, J99_Sizzlorr said:

The lower gun angles on the Halberstadt CL.II or all German 2 seaters can be explained by the absence of the scarf mount used on Entente planes. The German copy of it wasn't quite as sophisticated as the original. Gunners frequently compensated that by climbing on things in the cockpit as the F.E.2b gunner does in the picture posted by Luke or by kneeling down as much as possible.

The Central gunners in RoF were always kneeling and floated up and down with the gun to allow for steeper angles. They were also slightly smaller in size, all human models were.

 

So what we have now is both more realistic for an average human being (though I take it people were quite a bit smaller in the early 20th century), but also don’t have working knees anymore.

[LukeFF]

23 hours ago, US103_Rummell said:

I’ve never seen a photo of the experimental Albatross Canon. Would be interested if anyone has it

 

It's from one of the Windsock titles:

 

 

 

4 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

Reloading and movement under G
This is the big one for me and I'll word it as simply and as clearly as possible:

There is no way in hell that a pilot or rear gunner would be able to reload an overwing gun/cannon/turret at anything over or under 1G.

There is no way in hell that a rear gunner would be able to smoothly and accurately aim his gun/cannon/turret at anything over 2G or under 0G.

In my opinion this should have been fixed along with the implementation of G forces on pilot and gunners.

 

I agree, but this is probably one of those things where we are too far down the development road for it to be changed.

[No.23_Starling]

4 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

It's from one of the Windsock titles:

 

 

 

 

I agree, but this is probably one of those things where we are too far down the development road for it to be changed.

Thanks Luke! Burn it with fire…

 

I have some great SPAD XII photos if the devs need them

[Holtzauge]

A bit late to the party, but that Becker bonk video was priceless! Thank you @Smigol and @Red_Von_Hammer for making it! So many good moments to choose from, but if I have to choose one, this is my favourite!

 

 

Edited November 11, 2023 by Holtzauge

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

The Becker comes in due to one photo and yet a whole book doesn't change the FMs.

Edited November 13, 2023 by NO.20_Krispy_Duck

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

4 hours ago, NO.20_Krispy_Duck said:

The Becker comes in due to one photo and yet a whole book doesn't change the FMs.

 

This would not happened in WW2 genre. We lack of punch that WW2 guys have with iconic, popular plans.  Read that devs are looking for data and are about to fix   P40  engine timers - after a few years of complains seen in forums and insignificant popularity of this plane...

However I don't know why they do not addressing wrong direction of  pull/ swing of Mosquito during takeoff. It's opposite what original war manual says. Even Requiem said he would not do a familiarization video before devs fix it.

 

Hard to say what is important/easy to fix by devs. If they work on new iteration of family planes then there is a big chance that they look at previously realised models.

 

They recently updated  years old FM of La5 because they have better tech available and build new collector plane in that family, imagine that to 14 years old FMs of ROF... 

 

Meybe if they gonna build new collector planes for WW1 and it will be a family of plans we have already, but wait is there any? Engines variants - yes but new type , albatross D what?

 

 

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

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

7 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

 

This would not happened in WW2 genre. We lack of punch that WW2 guys have with iconic, popular plans.  Read that devs are looking for data and are about to fix   P40  engine timers - after a few years of complains seen in forums and insignificant popularity of this plane...

However I don't know why they do not addressing wrong direction of  pull/ swing of Mosquito during takeoff. It's opposite what original war manual says. Even Requiem said he would not do a familiarization video before devs fix it.

 

Hard to say what is important/easy to fix by devs. If they work on new iteration of family planes then there is a big chance that they look at previously realised models.

 

They recently updated  years old FM of La5 because they have better tech available and build new collector plane in that family, imagine that to 14 years old FMs of ROF... 

 

Meybe if they gonna build new collector planes for WW1 and it will be a family of plans we have already, but wait is there any? Engines variants - yes but new type , albatross D what?

 

 

 

All very true, and I don't mean to or want to come off as being nasty or bitter about it. That's not the intent and I understand that time and economic limitations play a big role.

 

It's just an unusual moment where you have someone (or a couple people perhaps) who have done research, compilation, and real work to help better understand the flight of these early aircraft. This isn't the usual jawboning or idle chatter, and it's a real opportunity to collaborate and fix core things. But it seems like the the goalposts move with each step forward and new offer to help with good information. Meanwhile other items that are peripheral or experimental, at best, come in. It's frustrating to see is all.

Edited November 13, 2023 by NO.20_Krispy_Duck

[ST_Catchov]

On 11/13/2023 at 2:35 PM, NO.20_Krispy_Duck said:

The Becker comes in due to one photo and yet a whole book doesn't change the FMs.

 

Yeah look, they've got something like 50 odd guys in the dev team now. Why can't some of these odd guys work on the FM's?

[Red_Von_Hammer]

Agreed.

As I see it, it comes down to doing the ethical and right thing.
I'm simple, see WW1 sim buy WW1 sim, and if someone put a gun to my head, I can't say I'm mad to have a online WW1 vs no online WW1.
But I'd be lying if I said I was impressed with the process, and how it's (not) been handled.
It's a long and sordid history, FC got built on the premature grave of RoF which put RB3D out to pasture.
Yeah, RB3D was and is old, but without it they'd have few customers to begin with.
More than one of them won't touch FC on the pure basis of the FM's, FC/RoF FM's literally achieved PTSD levels of trust issues, not joking.
Of course I understand if devs read all this and say "Sod those guys, we don't deserve this bbq, no FM for them lolol".
But well, they DO deserve the bbq, with advertising "next level" stuff, quick reference:

they knowingly seized an established WW1 online niche that their predecessors created, with it came not just paying customers, but also their hopes and expectations.
Of course if RoF received the refinements it was due, it'd be a different story.
But the caveats of pulling that stunt, the core matter of rising to the challenge and meeting those hopes and expectations, was obviously taken far lighter than they had any right to.
IMO they've come well short.
Earning a buck? I'm all for it, but saving a buck isn't necessarily the same as earning a buck.

Even from the perspective of a new player, sure, anyone can take any of these planes up against AI's any day of the week without suffering from the issues at play, which is not to say they wouldn't notice, but they'd be more livable.
When you do online knife fights against competent players is when the flight models of these planes become more of a.. suggestion.
Not only does WW2 receive constant FM improvements vs comparatively nada for WW1 (comparatively is not to say it hasn't happened), but, and 1C is gonna hear this for the rest of their days: At similar price points WW1 sees less effort is put into it via reused FM's.
"Yeah that's what Jason said a millenia ago" and "WW1 isn't as popular, we're doing this at a loss, we'll lose the company for you guys" or some such etc on the same note as "We'd have to do exhaustive data-collection and testing" is about the gist of what we're being told.
(Sry @LukeFF Some of these things are more or less what you said, but I'm not treating your words as your private view on the matter, but we are to understand they are 1C's say on the matter? If that's incorrect you need but say so, and I'll change my tune accordingly).
I mean really, the community has done half the job already (data-collection), and from what I've gathered there are WW1 players among the testers?

From where most of us are sitting (more or less), we want something we can all be reasonably happy with, given the circumstances.
The process would be more something like "Oh, it's 4km faster in-game than IRL now, was 8km slower before" and "aite, lowered it proportionately, how is it now?" culminating in "yeh, all good now, thx!"
Not "Nope, I don't care what it costs, redo it all down to the last 1/100th of a G and FFB rattling at this here angle at this speed".

For most of the troubled planes it's the combination of speed, climb and turn rates to reflect IRL, rather than exactly when & how they start buffetting, shaking, rattling etc at the limit and how the FFB acts etc to be exactly as it was historically,and at which fuel levels & ammo count/configuration, etc.
For all that we'd need a bunch of sensors in all the WW1 planes belonging to Kermit Weeks, Vintage Aviator, etc, as well as their pilot testimony.
Anyone here understand that's obviously not going to happen.
We're talking downright reasonable tweaks to where we can at least all agree "Better than it was", and apparently this seems to be what 1C has issues with understanding on, IMO, a fundamental level.

Apart from Dr.1 it's not like anyone is asking (not that they wouldn't mind) for total re-do in how the planes feel and handle.
And speaking of the Dr.1, again, of course most of us are aware we aren't going to get anything close to a re-do, that's beyond adjusting one or two things, but I just don't get why pre-pre-nerf from RoF is too much to ask for? Dr.1 was whacky, that's just a done deal.
Of course a Dr.1 re-do (not to be mistaken for bringing in the first Dr.1 RoF FM) doesn't come without throwing something extra into the pot.
That's where the multiple suggestions for Collector versions of existing planes comes in, it would take care of the Dr.1, SE5, N28, possibly Albatross D.II and presumably the future D.III, or engine mods as such, planes which, on top of making up the main culprits currently standing out, also happens to make up the bulk of the planes currently being flown online.
It would earn 1C a quick buck in the process, win-win.

Edited November 18, 2023 by Red_Von_Hammer

[No.23_TaxDollarsAtWork]

4 hours ago, Red_Von_Hammer said:

 

That increase in speed will hurt its (much vaunted by central) turn rate and radius.

 

It like most planes from ROF is doing too well in turns especially at high alt.

 

Please take another look at this link comparing FC to Anders data and you'll be finding planes a lot more broken than the Dr1.

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iRflE2AN5lLdSMJlD4x2W2EWPaZ56HzI/htmlview

 

As a new player (Only started WW1 in late March of 23), I'd say yes I disagree with you. These FMs seem to be in need of an overhaul mostly. It's the only way to keep match ups within punching range but fix glaring issues with them since the tech and info is now available to fix them

 

Not sure how RB3D fits in here, I looked it up and this seems like it belongs in a museum. It seems like very entitled and narcissistic to blame the death of another title on the supposedly worse product of another dev.

 

A little bit of critical thinking kind of kills that theory and anyway if you get tired of one sim, move to another?

 

I got bored of F-16s and Su-27s in Falcon and DCS so I came here for Spitfires Mustangs Yaks and SPADs.

 

And when I get bored of this I'll go to another Sim for Corsairs Wildcats Sabres and MiGs.

 

If you want to remain in the Era though there's also WoFF. It's not like you can't vote with your feet and remind them of their competition a bit

 

 

Edited November 18, 2023 by No.23_TaxDollarsAtWork

[Holtzauge]

@Red_Von_Hammer: All that history you wrote about RB3D and the dawn of RoF was a bit before my time so I can’t really comment on it but for me it was an interesting read anyway. I do however agree on the observation that the WW2 contend seems to be handled satisfactorily while the WW1 FC content leaves much to be desired IMHO. In addition, I have to agree that that marketing video you posted does imply that this is a simulator and not a game. And had it been marketed as a game, then for sure, by all means, claims about FM fidelity could have been disregarded since it’s just a game with fancy graphics after all.

 

However, if one is claiming to have built a simulator with a realistic physics engine under the hood, then you need to be ready to accept that people hold you to a higher standard. And I may be wrong, but as I recall it the stated mission goal in Il-2 Sturmovik is to be within 5% of historical performance parameters.  And I think that the data that has been presented here and in other various forum posts suggests we are far from this when it comes to some of the more important planes like the S.E.5a, Albatros and Nieuport 28 etc. So here I have to agree with what @No.23_TaxDollarsAtWork said above about the need for a re-work of certain FM's.

 

But for sure, that marketing video was for RoF not FC. On the other hand, I have not seen any statement that the move from RoF to FC was to be considered as a move from a simulator to a game? Rather to the contrary, Il-2 is a newer generation simulator and it makes perfect sense to expect even more from it than of RoF. Certainly not less, and not even the same, but more. At least that was what I expected when I signed up as founder for both FC volumes 1 & 2. Not just ported FM’s  from RoF.

 

But now we are being told that that has been the plan all along. Well maybe I never read the fine print thoroughly enough to catch up on that. Because I didn’t. And if that’s the case then I guess that’s on me of course. But I can however say one thing with absolute certainty: Had I known that that was the plan all along, then I never would have signed up as founder. Buy it at a later date when on sale? Sure, maybe. But sign up as founder to a sim with ported FM’s? No way.

 

And all this constitutes baggage. Baggage I will take along with me and take a long and hard look at before making any commitment to the new simulation engine we are waiting for an announcement for an announcement about. Does this come with any discernible fine print and should I risk going in as a founder this time? TBH, I’m quite doubtful I will as things stand and when looking in the rear view mirror.

 

However, a clear statement on the part of the developers that Flying Circus Volumes 1 to 4 will get the attention that they deserve, and that their FM’s will be tuned to align with the historical data we now have today, then this would go a long way to making the decision about whether to become a founder again, or to wait for a future sale so much easier. At least for me.

 

Edited November 18, 2023 by Holtzauge

[ZachariasX]

Funny that one one side "a port from RoF" is all we deserve for FC, yet the price is the same as full new content for their other games.

[LukeFF]

@Red_Von_Hammer, I have nothing new to add to what I have said before - bringing the WWI planes over from RoF was never meant to include updating flight models. Jason's statement back then about that is still the stance the team is currently taking. If there were spare engineers to update them, then they probably would be updated, but as I have said before, between the WWII content still being built and the planes for the new, unannounced title, there just isn't the time right now. It's more of a time-consuming process than people realize.

[ST_Catchov]

4 hours ago, LukeFF said:

bringing the WWI planes over from RoF was never meant to include updating flight models. Jason's statement back then about that is still the stance the team is currently taking. If there were spare engineers to update them, then they probably would be updated, but as I have said before, between the WWII content still being built and the planes for the new, unannounced title, there just isn't the time right now. It's more of a time-consuming process than people realize.

 

Wrong answer Luke. Times have changed since Jason left the building. Please try again.