Any news on FC 4?

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Seems like it should be along soon?

[JG4_Moltke1871]

The last I heard was end of last year…. The information was the new planes are already in preparation…

 

I would really appreciate a roadmap like last year…

 

 

[LukeFF]

Work is being done on the next planes for FC but nothing I can share in terms of details right now. 

[No.23_Starling]

You tease ?

[No.23_Starling]

On 3/4/2024 at 6:27 PM, LukeFF said:

Work is being done on the next planes for FC but nothing I can share in terms of details right now. 

Just one thing to mention - if the DH2 is coming in the FC4 roster, please please please look at the alternative early RoF beta FM. The version we got in RoF was nerfed in terms of turn performance making it useless vs pretty much everything that wasn’t an Eindecker. This was likely done as a balance vs the EIII but made it laughable against everything else in every aspect.

 

The turn rate and performance calculations of Leon Bennett in Gunning for the Red Baron have it turning on a dime but slow as hell, only getting a climb advantage low down vs the more powerful Mercedes engine. Mr @Holtzauge will probably have something to say about our current DII and the relative wing loading etc of the DH2 vs Albis.

 

Plenty of contemporary comments (this taken from Guttman) about the DH2 being nimble but awful in terms of speed and climb:

 

The DH2 turn nerf is worse than the N28. See below from Bennett:

Edited March 6, 2024 by No.23_Starling

[BMA_Hellbender]

23 hours ago, No.23_Starling said:

Just one thing to mention - if the DH2 is coming in the FC4 roster, please please please look at the alternative early RoF beta FM. The version we got in RoF was nerfed in terms of turn performance making it useless vs pretty much everything that wasn’t an Eindecker. This was likely done as a balance vs the EIII but made it laughable against everything else in every aspect.

 

The turn rate and performance calculations of Leon Bennett in Gunning for the Red Baron have it turning on a dime but slow as hell, only getting a climb advantage low down vs the more powerful Mercedes engine. Mr @Holtzauge will probably have something to say about our current DII and the relative wing loading etc of the DH2 vs Albis.

 

Plenty of contemporary comments (this taken from Guttman) about the DH2 being nimble but awful in terms of speed and climb:

 

The DH2 turn nerf is worse than the N28. See below from Bennett:

 

This is why MvR vs. Hawker lasted 20 minutes, not 20 seconds.

[No.23_Starling]

1 hour ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

 

This is why MvR vs. Hawker lasted 20 minutes, not 20 seconds.

Bingo. Bennett in his book takes an engineering approach to the surviving descriptions of the fight concluding that MvR was able to stay above him and dictate the terms of the fight but Hawker was able to make a firing solution very tough. 
 

Evidence suggests that Hawker’s engine had issues with plug fouling previously and this likely caused him to eventually break off when he saw the game was up. It wasn’t till he tried to disengage and fly level that he got his head blown off.

 

@LukeFF NB there was an early FM for the DH2 seen in beta by some of the community here which was far more nimble but got nerfed later. I’d assume it’s archived somewhere on 1C’s servers, as with the Camel and Tripe FMs.

Edited March 7, 2024 by No.23_Starling

[BMA_Hellbender]

3 hours ago, No.23_Starling said:

@LukeFF NB there was an early FM for the DH2 seen in beta by some of the community here which was far more nimble but got nerfed later. I’d assume it’s archived somewhere on 1C’s servers, as with the Camel and Tripe FMs.

 

This was an open beta test (not open to everyone, but not subject to NDA -- I did not participate in it personally, though) and the Airco DH.2 was indeed found to easily outturn the Fokker Eindecker. In fact it outturned Fokker Dr.I in a flat horizontal turn. At least compared to the Eindecker, this would have made perfect sense since the Airco DH.2 along with the Nieuport 11 ended the Fokker Scourge.

 

Anyway, it was then chosen to nerf the DH.2 because it would leave the Eindecker with no opponents (the F.E.2b wasn't released yet, and we still don't have the B.E.2c or Morane-Saulnier Type N). Something was mentioned about a heavier fuel tank or whatever. I'd really like to see the Airco restored to its former glory, as it really was a good early machine that should be able to fight on equal terms with, say, a Halberstadt D.II.

[Zooropa_Fly]

If it was out-turning Dr1's, then surely something was a bit goofy..

[No.23_Starling]

1 hour ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

If it was out-turning Dr1's, then surely something was a bit goofy..

Why? The wing loading on the DH2 at loaded weight is lower - 28kg/msq vs 31kg/msq, and the DH2 only has 10hp less in power than the Fokker using the Le Rhone clone. Remember the DH2 only carried the one gun with the odd extra drum.

 

This is the conclusion everyone seems to leap to because The Red Baron. Again, I’d love to hear @Holtzauge’s take on the DH2 to get a pure engineering perspective and not assumptions. Its problems were an unreliable engine (which likely forced Hawker to break off his fight with said Baron) and poor speed (which then got him killed).

 

Remember many pilots refused to push it in a turn due to rumours around unrecoverable stalls. Hawker tried to put that myth to rest (from Guttman):

 

Edited March 7, 2024 by No.23_Starling

[BMA_Hellbender]

18 minutes ago, No.23_Starling said:

Why? The wing loading on the DH2 at loaded weight is lower - 28kg/msq vs 31kg/msq, and the DH2 only has 10hp less in power than the Fokker using the Le Rhone clone. Remember the DH2 only carried the one gun with the odd extra drum.

 

This is the conclusion everyone seems to leap to because The Red Baron.

 

Again, I’d love to hear @Holtzauge’s take on the DH2 to get a pure engineering perspective and not assumptions.

 

Exactly this, yes.

 

I'm not here to sing the praises of the Airco DH.2 or to pretend that it was any good beyond turning. Its engine was terrible and regularly caught fire, but it could turn. Heck, they called it the spinning incinerator for a reason. In the Fokker Dr.I all you need to do is climb above it or fly away from it and come back with energy. Game over. Turning isn't everything. An F-16's not going to outturn a Fokker Dr.I either. Which one would you rather be in in a dogfight? No, please, don't answer that, some people will still pick the Fokker Dr.I. Just get a helicopter at that point and you can spin around your own axis all you want. 

 

Anyway, RoF/FC has done the DH.2 dirty, much like what they've done to the N28 -- also a good dogfighter with an engine that liked to catch fire. Nerfing those planes' maneuverability because they had unreliable engines is just weird and wrong.

 

Edited March 7, 2024 by =IRFC=Hellbender

[VonS]

Stimulating posts gents; always enjoy reading the various threads that delve into FM discussions.

 

Also keep in mind that it's possible that the DH.2 was a good (tight) turner in slight/moderate dives, but perhaps not a magnificent turner on the level, so to speak (i.e., engine not powerful enough to give tight turns without losing alt.). Anyway, something to consider as you debate further.

 

In terms of the 20 min. dogfight between Hawker and Von Rich. - I think that a major reason for those 20 mins. was Hawker's skillful piloting skills (I have my doubts that a mediocre or novice pilot would have lasted that long in the DH.2 against a well-flown Alby D.II).

 

Good FM debates to you and I hope they result in some high-fidelity flight models in the FC series.

 

The DH.2,

she treats you well.

 

If in a dive,

you may survive.

 

If in a spin,

you just might win.

 

If on the level,

fly like the devil,

 

Especially if

jumped by Halbies

 

- or an Alby.

 

?

Edited March 7, 2024 by VonS
Edited post.

[No.23_Starling]

11 hours ago, VonS said:

Stimulating posts gents; always enjoy reading the various threads that delve into FM discussions.

 

Also keep in mind that it's possible that the DH.2 was a good (tight) turner in slight/moderate dives, but perhaps not a magnificent turner on the level, so to speak (i.e., engine not powerful enough to give tight turns without losing alt.). Anyway, something to consider as you debate further.

 

In terms of the 20 min. dogfight between Hawker and Von Rich. - I think that a major reason for those 20 mins. was Hawker's skillful piloting skills (I have my doubts that a mediocre or novice pilot would have lasted that long in the DH.2 against a well-flown Alby D.II).

 

Good FM debates to you and I hope they result in some high-fidelity flight models in the FC series.

 

The DH.2,

she treats you well.

 

If in a dive,

you may survive.

 

If in a spin,

you just might win.

 

If on the level,

fly like the devil,

 

Especially if

jumped by Halbies

 

- or an Alby.

 

?

It had a 100hp rotary vs the 110hp in the Dr1 and had lower wing loading. You should buy Gunning for the Red Baron if you want to read an excellent account of the fight written by an aerospace engineer. What engineering basis did you come to your conclusions above? Could it be all based on preconceptions made worse by the RoF FMs?

 

If we were musing on the Dr1’s turn there wouldn’t even be a debate and you’d have half the community up in arms. Because The Red Baron.

Edited March 8, 2024 by No.23_Starling

[VonS]

Hello Starling,

 

I mostly agree with you that the DH.2 should be "tweaked up" from its current form - but by how much, that's the mystery.

 

I hope that Holtzauge finds some time/motivation in the future to look into that since he has the knowledge and software to look professionally into the matter. My thoughts on the subject are based on general conjectures in terms of aircraft shape, size, wing and aileron shapes, fuselage shape, etc., and are of course personal opinions.

 

My hunch is that the DH.2 was mostly a stop-gap aircraft that helped to cancel the Fokker Scourge when DH.2s were wielded in decent numbers (also in conjunction with the Nieup. 11, of course).

 

One-on-one, I think that the DH.2 should be at least somewhat better overall than an Eindecker, but not by a great margin; against an early Alby, the DH.2 should indeed be more maneuverable, but a poorer climber/diver than the Alby; one-on-one against a Halberstadt D.II/III flown by a skilled pilot, I don't think the DH.2 stands much of a chance, considering that the Halby is also maneuverable, and possibly sturdier than the DH.2, also a better diver, etc. Climbs are probably similar on the Halbies and the DH.2 - largely lethargic (Halbies didn't have a very good climb rate from what I remember from my various readings; the Halb. D.V was a bit of an improvement but that one was largely relegated to the middle eastern front and didn't show up until approx. early 1917, way past the DH.2's golden period).

 

Other things to consider as the stimulating DH.2 debate continues to percolate.

 

- late Airco DH.2s usually get a 110 hp LeRhone (as opposed to the original 100 hp Gnome rotary on earlier models); haven't bothered checking into weight differences there, etc., but it might be something to look into

 

- in most cases, the gravity fuel tank on later models is located slightly left of center on the top wing (sometimes also left of center on the bottom of the top wing on late models); as far as I know, earlier DH.2s have the tank right above the center section of the top wing; haven't bothered looking at this in RoF (or in WoFF, or in FE2) since I don't fly the DH.2; perhaps fuel tank location/shape/size impacts somewhat on flying characteristics

 

- other possible, historical changes: Lewis gun magazine storage boxes are located on the inside, rather than on the outside, of the fuselage on later model DH.2s (this should help with streamlining, at least a bit)

 

- also worth considering is the type of prop that later model DH.2s get (typically the four-bladed prop after Jan/Feb of 1916; with the two-bladed prop being more prevalent earlier on, in late '15); my assumption is that the "four-blader" squeezes into more of the power available on the 110 hp LeRhone; who knows what the RoF modellers were initially modelling, maybe some late version, long-range edition of the DH.2?? (if that's the case, therein lies the explanation for its poorer performance and lack of maneuverability); my assumption is that Hawker was piloting the 110 hp-powered ver. of the DH.2 with a four-blade prop, against Von Rich., but likely a shorter-range ver. (what was the typical flight duration, max., on the DH.2 anyway, maybe 2 hrs.? -- have read some posts here that the DH.2 in RoF can fly for 4 hrs., interesting)

 

- there's a bit of a dihedral going on, on both wings of the DH.2 (by how much I haven't researched since I'm not a DH.2 specialist, but it might be interesting to check into); as far as I remember from my generic/varied aeronautical readings over the years, dihedral increases drag and decreases roll rate (again, by how much I wouldn't know - perhaps a negligible amount - but may be worth measuring)

 

- pusher prop/engine configs. are anywhere from 2 to 15% less efficient, if we believe the stats., than tractor types (especially if you figure in "dirty air" flowing across/below stacks of wings and through rigging wires; I would in particular like to see numbers on how pusher configuration impacts aileron efficiency, compared to such things as ailerons or even wing warping on tractor types)

 

Anyhoo, I have nothing further to add regarding the topic but I hope that those with an aeronautical background will find opportunity to tinker with the DH.2 (at least for FC; obviously the RoF FMs will no be revisited).

 

Good FM debates, speculations, and conjectures to you gents',

?

 

 

 

 

[Enceladus828]

How about we create a DH.2 FM discussion for this?

[No.23_Starling]

1 hour ago, Enceladus828 said:

How about we create a DH.2 FM discussion for this?

Probably park this one for now till vol 4 is properly announced 

[VonS]

Quick footnote to my previous post - hearkening back to Pat Wilson's good motto that you don't want an FM to be "obviously wrong," and also thinking back to my own (old-school) experience as an FM modder in First Eagles 2, also to some extent in the WoFF series - it may be simpler, if the devs. are interested, to stick with accurate performance brackets, and not to worry too much about all individual numbers dialed in properly.

 

For example, if both the Fokk. Eindecker (E.III variant) and the DH.2 will be brought into some future vol. of the FC series - maybe it's simpler just to de-tune the Eindecker (giving it a wider turning radius, slower wing warping effects, etc.). That would then make the DH.2 historically "competitive" with it. I often fly the Eindecker in RoF, and to me, compared with the Eindeckers on offer in First Eagles 2 and WoFF - it feels too sensitive with wing warping.

 

My little pet-theory is that the E.II was the best of the Eindeckers (bit shorter wing span than the E.III but nearly the same power/speed) - therefore more maneuverable but also quite slippery to fly for the novice. The E.III, all things considered, should be a subtle downgrade from earlier batches of the E.II - "easier" to fly but with sloppier wing warping owing to the longer wing span.

 

Cheers all & good flying.

 

If what I say

is proven true,

 

Gents' flying

AIrcos need

not fear the E.III,

 

But the

moustachio'd fellow

in the E.II.

 

Or, if you

waltz then go after

a mono-Pfalz;

 

Those, they say,

are carved from wood,

 

To fall apart

from a gentle fart;

 

Easily to dent from

a 'lâché un vent.'

 

?

Edited March 16, 2024 by VonS
Edited post.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Iirc, the original programmers are long gone, and at one point recently, the current crew was trying to reverse engineer the code in order to better understand it.  That indicates to me the required knowledge is a commodity they dont currently have, and they would need to spend many hours just to find the appropriate parts to modify, and then hope what they attempt to change, doesn't mess up something else.  With multiple other revisions to the current code from the original code, going back to a previous version,  would require identifying,  and then replicating all the other pertinent changes made along the way since the previous version, and then retro fitting them into the original code. This would take a lot of effort, and most likely would cause multiple issues and bugs while they attempt to get it right.  Could it be done?  Certainly.  But it would take a lot of effort (time = money), and there is no financial incentive to do so.  They have already moved onto another project.   This would be a labor of love, and not profitable imo.  So I'm not expecting them to be interested at this point.

[No.23_Starling]

5 hours ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Iirc, the original programmers are long gone, and at one point recently, the current crew was trying to reverse engineer the code in order to better understand it.  That indicates to me the required knowledge is a commodity they dont currently have, and they would need to spend many hours just to find the appropriate parts to modify, and then hope what they attempt to change, doesn't mess up something else.  With multiple other revisions to the current code from the original code, going back to a previous version,  would require identifying,  and then replicating all the other pertinent changes made along the way since the previous version, and then retro fitting them into the original code. This would take a lot of effort, and most likely would cause multiple issues and bugs while they attempt to get it right.  Could it be done?  Certainly.  But it would take a lot of effort (time = money), and there is no financial incentive to do so.  They have already moved onto another project.   This would be a labor of love, and not profitable imo.  So I'm not expecting them to be interested at this point.

The devs rolled back the FM for the Camel and Tripe that you and your squad fly to the older RoF model. That didn’t seem so hard.
 

The devs also said they were doing so because MP balancing was going to be less important than the engineering and science. In this case rolling back would be warranted.

Edited March 9, 2024 by No.23_Starling

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

6 hours ago, No.23_Starling said:

The devs rolled back the FM for the Camel and Tripe that you and your squad fly to the older RoF model. That didn’t seem so hard.
 

The devs also said they were doing so because MP balancing was going to be less important than the engineering and science. In this case rolling back would be warranted.

Didn't say it wasn't desirable,  or not doable.  Just that I don't think they will.  Hope I'm wrong.  I'd love to see them revisit a handful of planes (N28, Dolphin, etc).  

Edited March 9, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[Gavrick]

On 3/9/2024 at 6:35 AM, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

the original programmers are long gone

I don't want to interfere in your interesting discussion. I will only note that if we are talking about ROF and “original programmers”, then, for example, I myself made FM for several aircraft for the “late” ROF.

 

Spoiler

 

[JD007]

Can't wait for FC 4 and the early war planes! Would hate to see the WW1 content end there, it would be great if we can have the sea planes, channel map and eastern front in further FC sequels! 

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

1 hour ago, Gavrick said:

I don't want to interfere in your interesting discussion. I will only note that if we are talking about ROF and “original programmers”, then, for example, I myself made FM for several aircraft for the “late” ROF.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

That is great news indeed.  As someone who has knowledge of the original code, you would be a very important team member, and perhaps even someone who could provide the needed experience and expertise in additional efforts to modify the FM on a couple of the old planes?  (Se5, N28) And as mentioned above, help ensure the Dh2 receives proper attention. 

 

I'm sure I speak for others, when I say efforts in that direction would be appreciated greatly.  

Edited March 10, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[No.23_Starling]

2 hours ago, Gavrick said:

I don't want to interfere in your interesting discussion. I will only note that if we are talking about ROF and “original programmers”, then, for example, I myself made FM for several aircraft for the “late” ROF.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

If you know where the older DH2 RoF beta FM is archived and able to port that fairly easily it could be quickly tested by the current beta team. Provided the speed and climb are still poor vs the Albatrossen (as they should be) and it offers decent flat turn performance then there’d be an option on the table. You could even port both FMs and call one ‘DH2 modified fuel tank’ etc.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

@Gavrick please put old FM which was in ROF beta . Why not ? You make the difference , give history justice and put a smile on some loyal customers faces. 

[No.23_Starling]

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

@Gavrick please put old FM which was in ROF beta . Why not ? You make the difference , give history justice and put a smile on some loyal customers faces. 

At least into the FC beta for testing. It might be subpar but worth a try