Dev blog #361: Flying Circus development news

[Holtzauge]

Good news that the “ghost” stabilizer has been found on the DH.2! Now we can only hope that it will soon be found on the Albatros D.Va and Nieuport 28 as well. 

 

Jokes aside and on a more serious note: Thanks for the update which was very welcome news indeed and bodes well for the future of Flying Circus if this is the first taste of things to come. Looking forward to see how the new flight models pan out! 

[Avimimus]

17 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

One aspect that I find frustrating is that early 1916 was rarely about fighter - fighter combat.   It was mostly about hunting two seaters.  I think the German aces were racking up higher scores not because their planes were better (how many Nieuport kills were really scored in an Eindecker?) but because Allied two seaters were significantly less good than the German two seaters of the time.  However, those two seaters are nowhere to be seen  in the game.

 

Still looking forward to the next release regardless.  At least the Germans have Fees to hunt.

 

10 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

Eyeballing the Wiki page, 29 / 80 of Richtofen's claims were for single-seaters which is probably a not unusual percentage for a successful German pilot.Likely a little different for Allied as they were looking further over German lines and probably encountered more fighters than 2-seaters. In any case, Germany did not seem to push the recce role quite as hard / with as many aircraft.

 

Be 2 is a must given it's long and...errr.... sterling service.

 

One factor worth considering is simply the relative numbers of single-seat aircraft. Entente production scaled up much faster for scout aircraft in 1916 and the German pilots had a much more target rich environment (in some sectors of the front there were something like six times the number of Entente single-seaters).

 

That said, we also see a lot of single-seaters being shot down by Airco D.H.2 aces - although that might have been due to the fact that enemy single-seaters were attacking them (i.e. initiating combat rather than disengaging) and about half of the enemy two seaters were too fast to catch.

 

17 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Still looking forward to the next release regardless.  At least the Germans have Fees to hunt.

 

The version of the F.E.2b that they modelled is 5-10 km/h faster than the Fokker E.III - so one needs to have an altitude advantage to successfully 'hunt' (assuming the Fee isn't too heavily loaded). It is also worth noting that the later B.E.2e/f  designs were also too fast for the Fokker E.III to catch.

 

So the variants really matter.

[ST_Catchov]

Here is an excellent post from Avi (with beaut pictures) that lists a small but thoughtful selection of potential 1916 prey should FC develop beyond #4. I am a sucker though for early war crates and anticipate with relish the introduction of the DH2/E3 in particular. I am also intrigued by the Walfisch due to its unique design. Gimme early kites anytime. I buy.

 

 

[Dr1falcon500]

On 4/13/2024 at 11:47 AM, ST_Catchov said:

RFC personnel discussing the latest FC4 development news and whilst the consensus is mostly favourable and positive, there is one chap who remains unconvinced.

 

Apart from couple of laughing chaps most of them look like they couldn't give a monkeys.

[Majpalmer]

Here's one of my early war favorites--the Vickers Gunbus! 

 

I remember flying it in the old Red Baron 3d Mods, I think maybe as part of Pat Wilson's Campaign Generator. 

[PatrickAWlson]

8 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

 

One factor worth considering is simply the relative numbers of single-seat aircraft. Entente production scaled up much faster for scout aircraft in 1916 and the German pilots had a much more target rich environment (in some sectors of the front there were something like six times the number of Entente single-seaters).

 

That said, we also see a lot of single-seaters being shot down by Airco D.H.2 aces - although that might have been due to the fact that enemy single-seaters were attacking them (i.e. initiating combat rather than disengaging) and about half of the enemy two seaters were too fast to catch.

 

 

The version of the F.E.2b that they modelled is 5-10 km/h faster than the Fokker E.III - so one needs to have an altitude advantage to successfully 'hunt' (assuming the Fee isn't too heavily loaded). It is also worth noting that the later B.E.2e/f  designs were also too fast for the Fokker E.III to catch.

 

So the variants really matter.

 

True, but I can catch them often enough in the game, whatever the statistics might say.  Once they attempt any maneuver they bleed speed like the draggy string bags that they are.  Passing Boelcke and Immelmann by July 1916 isn't really that hard, so I'm OK with what we have.  

1 hour ago, Majpalmer said:

Here's one of my early war favorites--the Vickers Gunbus! 

 

I remember flying it in the old Red Baron 3d Mods, I think maybe as part of Pat Wilson's Campaign Generator. 

 

We did model the Vickers Gunbus in the Western Front Patch.

[IckyATLAS]

On 4/13/2024 at 11:23 AM, Avimimus said:

 

Are you talking about the visual quality of no-man's land? OR are you discussing the lack of a destroyed buildings? If it is the latter, then it is up to the mission maker to determine the level of destruction.

Yes the visual quality. Flat, trenches are lines, no earth rubble, craters, and by craters I mean real ones.  When such a large surface and size of the map is of importance it should have been specially cared of. I heard that you could not do trenches but if you can make mountains and valley like in Kuban then you should be able to have the whole map at a given elevation so that you can dig to have trenches and craters.

Buildings and destroyed building ok the mission maker can do it. But we have do not have objects like earth rubble destroyed guns etc. to improve it. This is because we lack static guns and their destroyed counterpart.

 

[Avimimus]

1 hour ago, IckyATLAS said:

Yes the visual quality. Flat, trenches are lines, no earth rubble, craters, and by craters I mean real ones.

 

Ah, that makes sense. Yes, I suppose it would require new tech. Some of the craters are quite large so there might be issues with rendering them as geometry (as it would still be visible at range). I'd personally be pretty happy to have some more infantry/horse objects (e.g. to simulate targets behind the lines) and a few more firing points to attack... but I agree that no man's land is a bit underwhelming. The fall of cosmetic artillery also doesn't make sense (it should be more concentrated near plausible targets).

 

12 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

I am also intrigued by the Walfisch due to its unique design. Gimme early kites anytime. I buy.

 

Yes, I really like the Roland C.II myself.

 

I'd be quite interested in the single-seat version (Roland D.IIa) - It is one of the three remaining mass produced German fighters that aren't modelled (Fokker D.II, Roland D.II, Roland D.VI). Contrary to popular belief it served with several units for about five months on the Western Front in 1917 (prior to being relegated to secondary theatres)... we think about it as primarily serving in the near east/east but it actually had a presence at the front that was greater than aircraft like the Sopwith Triplane or Fokker D.VIII.

 

As for the Roland C.II - I'm glad that we're getting it, but it is a very poor representative of 1916 German two-seaters. In addition to its unique layout, it had a much higher wing-loading - making it very fast but more difficult to fly. It doesn't represent that more common Aviatik C.II, Albatros C.I, LVG C.II, Albatross C.III or Roland C.I types and it is too fast for most Entente fighters to catch. So we could really do with one slower two-seater for Germany:

 

That said, the Roland C.II is a very interesting airplane... and I'm definitely looking forward to it. It'd be nice if they included a field modification to allow us to remove the forward firing gun (as it was a later addition).

[Lusekofte]

To me SCW would have been perfect for this game engine. Smaller calibre would have made bombers playable and dogfights more demanding. And a little more speed than ww1. 

[Enceladus828]

On 4/12/2024 at 12:47 PM, LukeFF said:

The Channel map is not planned, no.

Is Ugra Media taking on other tasks after FC4 and won't have time to add the Channel Map and seaplanes or anymore maps and planes from RoF to FC? FC1 showed that there was an appetite for WW1 content in IL-2 GBs which led to FC2, and has now led to FC3 and FC4. It stands to reason that if FC has been successful enough to get 4 volumes then it's worth adding at least the Channel Map. 

Edited April 15, 2024 by Enceladus828

[LukeFF]

48 minutes ago, Enceladus828 said:

Is Ugra Media taking on other tasks after FC4 and won't have time to add the Channel Map and seaplanes or anymore maps and planes from RoF to FC? FC1 showed that there was an appetite for WW1 content in IL-2 GBs which led to FC2, and has now led to FC3 and FC4. It stands to reason that if FC has been successful enough to get 4 volumes then it's worth adding at least the Channel Map. 

 

I don't know right now what Ugra has planned.

[Majpalmer]

18 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

True, but I can catch them often enough in the game, whatever the statistics might say.  Once they attempt any maneuver they bleed speed like the draggy string bags that they are.  Passing Boelcke and Immelmann by July 1916 isn't really that hard, so I'm OK with what we have.  

 

We did model the Vickers Gunbus in the Western Front Patch.

I thought so. 

[No.23_Starling]

On 4/14/2024 at 10:27 AM, Holtzauge said:

Good news that the “ghost” stabilizer has been found on the DH.2! Now we can only hope that it will soon be found on the Albatros D.Va and Nieuport 28 as well. 

 

Jokes aside and on a more serious note: Thanks for the update which was very welcome news indeed and bodes well for the future of Flying Circus if this is the first taste of things to come. Looking forward to see how the new flight models pan out! 

Fancy modelling it in C++ for testing and comparison?

[No.23_Starling]

On 4/12/2024 at 9:28 PM, JGr2/J34b_Matthias said:

Since we're obviously getting Entente fixes, I'm sure the Spad drag model fix must be right around the corner then after this.  Happy days.

Note:  Unless they're also "fixing" the Eindecker then the DH2 may be completely out of balance for early war - the devs unfortunately have a pattern of consistently balancing and "correcting" using 1917/18 versions of upgraded engines for Entente models against early war German engines in "contemporary" planes...

 

The DH2 was designed to counter the Eindecker and helped end the Fokker Scourge. The EIII / EIV’s main antagonist was the awful BE2c rather than scouts. That’s more the issue - it doesn’t have its main prey. Have you tested the RoF Eindecker and compared with surviving test data?

The old RoF DH2 model was awfully slow and turned like a pig; from what I understand, 777 Studios nerfed it in testing to balance gameplay vs the Eindecker and called it the ‘long range heavy fuel tank version’ or something. It sounds like 1C are using contemporary data to tune a more accurate model closer to the original RoF one.

 

Do you have data or evidence on a SPAD drag issue? If you look at comparisons to contemporary test data and Mr @Holtzauge’s models in his book the in-game XIII is underperforming and likely the 1917 200hp version, not the 220hp higher compression 1918 version. Both sides are missing late version engines.

[LukeFF]

4 minutes ago, US103_Rummell said:

The old RoF DH2 model was awfully slow and turned like a pig; from what I understand, 777 Studios nerfed it in testing to balance gameplay vs the Eindecker and called it the ‘long range heavy fuel tank version’ or something.

 

Eh, let's stay away from comments like that, please. 🙂 What happened in RoF is old history by this point; what's important is its FM is going to be updated before it is released here for FC.

[No.23_Starling]

11 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Eh, let's stay away from comments like that, please. 🙂 What happened in RoF is old history by this point; what's important is its FM is going to be updated before it is released here for FC.

Apologies, to clarify, the speed and climb should be outclassed by the late 1916 German scouts; the issue was the turn performance. The calculations from historian and engineer Leon Bennett, plus multiple contemporary attacks sources note its excellent turn.

 

That counts for nothing though if you can’t run and your opponent stays above you.

[simfan2015]

Fantastic Update. AQMB improvements are truly appreciated.

I never thought the Devs could also implement it for FC as well as TC !!!

[Holtzauge]

1 hour ago, US103_Rummell said:

Fancy modelling it in C++ for testing and comparison?

 

If the developers want to discuss the DH.2’s FM modeling during the development and testing, then I will be happy to help out. Otherwise I can always give them my input when it’s been released. 

 

1 hour ago, US103_Rummell said:

The DH2 was designed to counter the Eindecker and helped end the Fokker Scourge. The EIII / EIV’s main antagonist was the awful BE2c rather than scouts. That’s more the issue - it doesn’t have its main prey. Have you tested the RoF Eindecker and compared with surviving test data?

The old RoF DH2 model was awfully slow and turned like a pig; from what I understand, 777 Studios nerfed it in testing to balance gameplay vs the Eindecker and called it the ‘long range heavy fuel tank version’ or something. It sounds like 1C are using contemporary data to tune a more accurate model closer to the original RoF one.

 

Do you have data or evidence on a SPAD drag issue? If you look at comparisons to contemporary test data and Mr @Holtzauge’s models in his book the in-game XIII is underperforming and likely the 1917 200hp version, not the 220hp higher compression 1918 version. Both sides are missing late version engines.

 

Based on the historical data I’ve seen so far (you may have better and more?) I would expect a SL top speed a bit over 90 mph. Then looking at things like the power, span and wing loading that it will out-turn the Albatros D.II handily at low speeds and lower altitudes.

[No.23_Starling]

1 hour ago, Holtzauge said:

 

If the developers want to discuss the DH.2’s FM modeling during the development and testing, then I will be happy to help out. Otherwise I can always give them my input when it’s been released. 

 

 

Based on the historical data I’ve seen so far (you may have better and more?) I would expect a SL top speed a bit over 90 mph. Then looking at things like the power, span and wing loading that it will out-turn the Albatros D.II handily at low speeds and lower altitudes.

Depends on the fuel tank variant - I have numbers for the 20.8 and 26 gallon versions. Top speed for both given as 93mph (a good 16mph slower than the DI and DII), with a much improved climb on the 20.8 gallon version. This type has climb times on par with the Albis up to 2km but falling off above that alt.

 

Anecdotal evidence notes a much better turn than the DII though altitudes are not given. Nice quote below from Capt Saundby RFC. James McCudden says pretty much the same thing complaining about fighting a plane that was “15mph faster and had almost twice the rate of climb”.

 

[Majpalmer]

Of the many things I'd like to see changed about Career Mode in FC, is to allow the player control over the squadron without having to have reached, or begun the career, as commander. I'd think that change would be relatively easy to make. It allows you to do so much more with scheduling, skin assignments, etc. You can even send yourself on leave. 

 

I know you can begin the Career as commander, and I usually do, for that reason. But it takes away one albeit small aspect of the immersion of A CAREER! 

 

 

[Aapje]

@US103_Rummell

 

Soldiers have a tendency to overestimate their opponents, so I wouldn't necessarily trust that.

[ST_Catchov]

 Blog #361

 

Today we'd like to tell you about the new Great War aircraft that are in development.

While transferring them from our classic project Rise of Flight to IL-2 Great Battles, we are fixing problems we found during this work - sometimes there are some asymmetric aerodynamic elements, a wrong object hierarchy, engine overheating/overcooling, and other similar problems.

For example, while working on the Airco DH.2 recently, we found problems - it had an invisible "ghost" stabilizer in the physical model, inconsistencies in drag values, and it was also missing its top speed - judging by the reference data, it was missing it by about 15 kph. Well, mistakes happen, and they will be corrected: the DH.2 in FC will have recalculated drag values, corrected handling, and an increased top speed. Soon the beta testers will try it out, and some additional changes may be in order after these tests.

Its AI will also be updated as it needs to be taught how to use its blip switch for taxiing (such early flying machines had no throttle and the engine always ran at full power - its pilot had to press and hold a blip switch button that cut the ignition when he wanted to slow down).

Another upcoming aircraft, the Sopwith Pup, also had some problems with its flight characteristics and engine, which are currently being corrected.

 

It's very encouraging that the devs have recognised FM flaws whilst transferring planes from RoF to FC. Whether they are inherited flaws from RoF or problems caused by the transference from RoF to the GB engine (or both) is up for debate (and often has been). But perhaps that's not relevant anymore with the devs current refreshing mindset and honesty about "mistakes happen". Are things changing? 

 

Maybe even a review of the usual suspects from FC1 is on the cards? Only if one has time of course. And, selfishly, during my lifetime.

 

Still, I'm really looking forward to the DH2 now. She's one of my faves.

 

 

 

[No.23_Starling]

9 hours ago, Aapje said:

@US103_Rummell

 

Soldiers have a tendency to overestimate their opponents, so I wouldn't necessarily trust that.

Agreed. I never suggest starting with anecdote hence posting data here taken from Jon Guttman’s work (I’m trying to get access to the primary sources). In this instance both pilots have estimated a performance gap of around 15mph which matches the published data mentioned above, and is in line with Mr @Holtzauge’s initial calculations. Engineer and historian Leon Bennett has produced similar turn and performance calculations to Anders:

 

2 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

 Blog #361

 

Today we'd like to tell you about the new Great War aircraft that are in development.

While transferring them from our classic project Rise of Flight to IL-2 Great Battles, we are fixing problems we found during this work - sometimes there are some asymmetric aerodynamic elements, a wrong object hierarchy, engine overheating/overcooling, and other similar problems.

For example, while working on the Airco DH.2 recently, we found problems - it had an invisible "ghost" stabilizer in the physical model, inconsistencies in drag values, and it was also missing its top speed - judging by the reference data, it was missing it by about 15 kph. Well, mistakes happen, and they will be corrected: the DH.2 in FC will have recalculated drag values, corrected handling, and an increased top speed. Soon the beta testers will try it out, and some additional changes may be in order after these tests.

Its AI will also be updated as it needs to be taught how to use its blip switch for taxiing (such early flying machines had no throttle and the engine always ran at full power - its pilot had to press and hold a blip switch button that cut the ignition when he wanted to slow down).

Another upcoming aircraft, the Sopwith Pup, also had some problems with its flight characteristics and engine, which are currently being corrected.

 

It's very encouraging that the devs have recognised FM flaws whilst transferring planes from RoF to FC. Whether they are inherited flaws from RoF or problems caused by the transference from RoF to the GB engine (or both) is up for debate (and often has been). But perhaps that's not relevant anymore with the devs current refreshing mindset and honesty about "mistakes happen". Are things changing? 

 

Maybe even a review of the usual suspects from FC1 is on the cards? Only if one has time of course. And, selfishly, during my lifetime.

 

Still, I'm really looking forward to the DH2 now. She's one of my faves.

 

 

 

They also have some guiding reference on what/where to look thanks to Anders plus Wolfe and Artun. If you’ve not read this thread and examined the data I think you’d find it enlightening:

 

[Holtzauge]

13 hours ago, US103_Rummell said:

Depends on the fuel tank variant - I have numbers for the 20.8 and 26 gallon versions. Top speed for both given as 93mph (a good 16mph slower than the DI and DII), with a much improved climb on the 20.8 gallon version. This type has climb times on par with the Albis up to 2km but falling off above that alt.

 

 

I had a look at the RoF manual and I have no idea where those numbers for the DH2 in there come from? Sources? Because they (the numbers in the RoF manual, not yours) seem to be way off: Top speed 81 mph SL and climb time 15 min 22 s to 2000 m (6560 ft).

 

Then there is Harker’s data in his WW1 aircraft performance pdf: 93 mph SL, 86 mph 6500 ft, 77 mph 10000 ft, climb: 4 m 30 s to 3000 ft, 12 m 0 s to 6500 ft 340 fpm, 24 m 45 s to 10000 ft 285 fpm climb rate. Ceiling 14000 ft. Weight 1441 lb. But I think he (Harker) got this wrong (the 1441 lb T/O weight) because the British Air Board data states those numbers for a weight of 1697lb total, 943 empty, 238 fuel & oil, 56 military, 360 lb crew.

 

In addition, I happen to have Jane’s WW1 aircraft book and they interestingly enough have an entry for the DH2 and give performance numbers for a light one-crew variant: Weight 1320 lb, empty 896 lb, Climb 8.4 or 8 min 40 s to 6500 ft, Speed 93 mph at SL.

 

And the above are all the DH2 the numbers I have. But if anyone else can chip in with more this would of course be good seeing the data we have so far is inconsistent. 

       

Then about Bennet's turn radius estimates: Those numbers (about 105 ft for the DH2 and 140 ft for the Albatros D.II) seem very optimistic to me. But I think maybe he means them more to be taken in relation to each other rather than as absolute numbers given he says they are based on wing loading. So I'm guessing he used some simplified calculation method based on wing area and profile Clmax. That would explain the very tight turn radiuses he has in the table in his book anyway.

 

In addition @US103_Rummell, did you have T/O weights and climb times for the 20.8 and 26 gallon DH2 versions?

 

 

 

Edited April 18, 2024 by Holtzauge

[No.23_Starling]

1 hour ago, Holtzauge said:

 

I had a look at the RoF manual and I have no idea where those numbers for the DH2 in there come from? Sources? Because they (the numbers in the RoF manual, not yours) seem to be way off: Top speed 81 mph SL and climb time 15 min 22 s to 2000 m (6560 ft).

 

Then there is Harker’s data in his WW1 aircraft performance pdf: 93 mph SL, 86 mph 6500 ft, 77 mph 10000 ft, climb: 4 m 30 s to 3000 ft, 12 m 0 s to 6500 ft 340 fpm, 24 m 45 s to 10000 ft 285 fpm climb rate. Ceiling 14000 ft. Weight 1441 lb. But I think he (Harker) got this wrong (the 1441 lb T/O weight) because the British Air Board data states those numbers for a weight of 1697lb total, 943 empty, 238 fuel & oil, 56 military, 360 lb crew.

 

In addition, I happen to have Jane’s WW1 aircraft book and they interestingly enough have an entry for the DH2 and give performance numbers for a light one-crew variant: Weight 1320 lb, empty 896 lb, Climb 8.4 or 8 min 40 s to 6500 ft, Speed 93 mph at SL.

 

And the above are all the DH2 the numbers I have. But if anyone else can chip in with more this would of course be good seeing the data we have so far is inconsistent. 

       

Then about Bennet's turn radius estimates: Those numbers (about 105 ft for the DH2 and 140 ft for the Albatros D.II) seem very optimistic to me. But I think maybe he means them more to be taken in relation to each other rather than as absolute numbers given he says they are based on wing loading. So I'm guessing he used some simplified calculation method based on wing area and profile Clmax. That would explain the very tight turn radiuses he has in the table in his book anyway.

 

In addition @US103_Rummell, did you have T/O weights and climb times for the 20.8 and 26 gallon DH2 versions?

 

 

 

 

I only have weights for the 26 gallon version - 943lb empty and 1,441lb loaded - which are taken from Guttman and might be erroneous as per your observation above. I would go with the British Air Board data. Is that published in any secondary sources?

 

If you look at the references, the Harker document uses JM Bruce's Profile Publication on the DH2; my copy is in the post. Bruce is not known for his accuracy in all published data as we have seen in his SPAD profile publication.

 

I suspect you are right on Bennett's calculations (he doesnt go into the methodology) and as you says it is there to illustrate a point around relative performance and tactics.

 

[Jaegermeister]

17 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

If the developers want to discuss the DH.2’s FM modeling during the development and testing, then I will be happy to help out. Otherwise I can always give them my input when it’s been released. 

 

@Holtzauge, @US103_Rummell, @ST_Catchov, If you guys put your data together for the DH.2 and post it in a single file, I am sure the Devs will look at it and see if it adds to the data they are currently using. I would recommend doing that while it is still being adjusted instead of waiting until it is released and they have moved on to other aircraft. 

 

 

 

[Avimimus]

 

2 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

And the above are all the DH2 the numbers I have. But if anyone else can chip in with more this would of course be good seeing the data we have so far is inconsistent. 

 

Generally speaking, performance numbers for a lot of WWI aircraft are a bit unreliable (particularly those appearing before 1916)... did the Aviatik C.I go 120 km/h or 142 km/h? They weren't that good at measuring speed and they were usually much more interested in climb rates.

 

That said, the numbers for the Airco D.H.2 are pretty consistently listed as 92 mph or 93 mph (depending on the engine). The similar F.E.8 achieved performance that is pretty consistent with that (maybe 94 mph). I do believe that the addition of the larger fuel tank might have reduced performance though.

 

Note: I checked five additional sources - but they probably aren't independent (i.e. they are likely quoting the same primary documents - or even quoting each other).

 

2 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

Then about Bennet's turn radius estimates: Those numbers (about 105 ft for the DH2 and 140 ft for the Albatros D.II) seem very optimistic to me. But I think maybe he means them more to be taken in relation to each other rather than as absolute numbers given he says they are based on wing loading. So I'm guessing he used some simplified calculation method based on wing area and profile Clmax. That would explain the very tight turn radiuses he has in the table in his book anyway.

 

When discussing WWI aircraft there are a lot of important questions beyond absolute turn radius.

- How steep a bank can be maintained in a turn?

- How much energy/altitude is lost at that bank angle?

- How much rudder is being used? How much drag is added by control surface deflections?

- How much energy is being added by thrust from the propeller?

- How much mass to surface area does the aircraft have?

 

A lot of these considerations are relatively trivial in a modern jet fighter - but in a WWI aircraft they can be much more critical.

 

The Albatros D.II is 37% heavier and has 45% more engine power. It is entering the fight with a lot more momentum and a lot more ability to generate thrust. In terms of its ability to sustain a turn over time the D.II should do much better. Similarly, the D.II should be able to fight slightly more off the horizontal. This is without even considering the relatively high-drag configuration of the Airco D.H.2.

 

My experience of the Airco D.H.2 in Rise of Flight was of a very nimble and extremely sharp turning aircraft with a high roll rate... and it sounds like the Flying Circus version will be better. But you will be on the defensive against an Albatros D.II... there is a reason the D.H.2 was withdrawn from frontline service. One can't just look at a simplified calculation of CL max and assume that an airplane should be able to out-perform aircraft introduced a year later.

 

I'm sure the Airco D.H.2 will be a favourite of mine once again (even if it can't beat a Fokker D.VIII).

 

P.S. Even if we're discussing instantaneous turn rates, instead of sustained ones - there are still considerations regarding how quickly one can enter a turn. That said the Airco's high roll rate and effective rudder (if it is like it was modelled in Rise of Flight) should make it have a pretty good instantaneous turn rate though!

[No.23_Starling]

8 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

 

Generally speaking, performance numbers for a lot of WWI aircraft are a bit unreliable (particularly those appearing before 1916)... did the Aviatik C.I go 120 km/h or 142 km/h? They weren't that good at measuring speed and they were usually much more interested in climb rates.

 

That said, the numbers for the Airco D.H.2 are pretty consistently listed as 92 mph or 93 mph (depending on the engine). The similar F.E.8 achieved performance that is pretty consistent with that (maybe 94 mph). I do believe that the addition of the larger fuel tank might have reduced performance though.

 

Note: I checked five additional sources - but they probably aren't independent (i.e. they are likely quoting the same primary documents - or even quoting each other).

 

 

When discussing WWI aircraft there are a lot of important questions beyond absolute turn radius.

- How steep a bank can be maintained in a turn?

- How much energy/altitude is lost at that bank angle?

- How much rudder is being used? How much drag is added by control surface deflections?

- How much energy is being added by thrust from the propeller?

- How much mass to surface area does the aircraft have?

 

A lot of these considerations are relatively trivial in a modern jet fighter - but in a WWI aircraft they can be much more critical.

 

The Albatros D.II is 37% heavier and has 45% more engine power. It is entering the fight with a lot more momentum and a lot more ability to generate thrust. In terms of its ability to sustain a turn over time the D.II should do much better. Similarly, the D.II should be able to fight slightly more off the horizontal. This is without even considering the relatively high-drag configuration of the Airco D.H.2.

 

My experience of the Airco D.H.2 in Rise of Flight was of a very nimble and extremely sharp turning aircraft with a high roll rate... and it sounds like the Flying Circus version will be better. But you will be on the defensive against an Albatros D.II... there is a reason the D.H.2 was withdrawn from frontline service. One can't just look at a simplified calculation of CL max and assume that an airplane should be able to out-perform aircraft introduced a year later.

 

I'm sure the Airco D.H.2 will be a favourite of mine once again (even if it can't beat a Fokker D.VIII).

 

P.S. Even if we're discussing instantaneous turn rates, instead of sustained ones - there are still considerations regarding how quickly one can enter a turn. That said the Airco's high roll rate and effective rudder (if it is like it was modelled in Rise of Flight) should make it have a pretty good instantaneous turn rate though!

Agreed on the simple Cl Max calculation - this was included in the absence of more complex modelling - and as you say there’s sustained and instantaneous performance. This is a perfect example of why models from @Holtzauge are needed for fine tuning with fixed conditions and scientific methods.

 

If you just look at weight and power why should the DII do better in a horizontal sustained turn over time at lower speeds and altitudes? If the DII had the edge in all performance aspects including slowest/tightest turn radius then the MvR vs Hawker fight would have lasted 2m not 20m.

 

TBH the speed (too low) and the turn (too good) of all the Albi series come into question if you read Anders’ book and look at the test data Artun and Wolfe collected in the link above.

[Majpalmer]

Career Mode critique using latest version (4/18/2024). 

 

Jasta 12, began 1/1/1917. Jasta had 47 victories when I joined. Total 11 pilots including me. Action on 2 and 3 January. Five sorties. Three were escort. Aircraft? Halb D2 and Alb D2. One balloon busting. One Free Hunt. 

 

I flew 3 of the 5 in an Alb. 1 in the Halb. For some reasons my MG would not fire. Wasn't jammed. Just wouldn't shoot. all the key commands were dead. I've had this happen before with a Halb. 

 

During these sorties we, collectively, scored 8 victories. I had 3--2 AC and one balloon. But we lost 3 pilots. One went down during the balloon busting sorties. The other 2 died during an escort sortie. WE NEVER ENGAGED! When we broke off form our charges to RTB, and I began my landing approach, the other 5 planes in my flight were in the air approaching our base. I landed, saw the successfully landed message, and ended the flight. Apparently 2 of the other 5 crashed and died while landing! 

 

Total losses for 2 sorties? 3 of 11 pilots! No replacements yet. 

 

This is one of my major problems with the FC Career at present. Every time I give it a try, the same thing happens. My guys die too fast. In another campaign I have going where I am the commander, we're down to 6 surviving pilots. 

 

For context, here are some numbers for the real Jasta 12. It became operational in mid-October 1916 and fought through the war, about 107 weeks. It scored 155 victories during the war, which is an average of about 1.45 per week. Total losses (KIA, wounded, POW) were 26 over the 107 weeks, or an average loss of about .24 per week. 

 

In the game, when I joined Jasta 12 on 1 January, it had been operational for about 10 weeks. But it had already been credited with 47 victories. If it had scored using the average from the real Jasta 12, it would have had about 14 or 15 victories. In my 2 days with the unit, 3 guys had been lost. The actual Jasta 12 suffered 3 losses about every 3 months, not every 3 days. 

 

I'm not arguing that the game should be made less lethal. It would be boring! But since the Career sim is, when compared to reality, far more lethal, you need more frequent replacements, or your squadron rapidly is reduced to ineffectiveness. In my other Career, where my Jasta is down to 6 surviving pilots, we are still scheduled to fly 2 sorties that day. In reality (or Pat Wilson's Campaign) you could rest the unit until replacements arrive. 

[Holtzauge]

2 hours ago, Jaegermeister said:

 

@Holtzauge, @US103_Rummell, @ST_Catchov, If you guys put your data together for the DH.2 and post it in a single file, I am sure the Devs will look at it and see if it adds to the data they are currently using. I would recommend doing that while it is still being adjusted instead of waiting until it is released and they have moved on to other aircraft. 

 

 

 

 

@Jaegermeister: I agree completely that it would be better to give input before the model is finalized rather than after. And to give you some history, I've actually written a book about WW1 aircraft performance that I have sent to the developers. In addition, I have also offered to help before on a number of occasions (not only in the public forum but I have PM threads with them on that as well) so you should read my earlier post with that in mind. 

 

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

 

 

Generally speaking, performance numbers for a lot of WWI aircraft are a bit unreliable (particularly those appearing before 1916)... did the Aviatik C.I go 120 km/h or 142 km/h? They weren't that good at measuring speed and they were usually much more interested in climb rates.

 

That said, the numbers for the Airco D.H.2 are pretty consistently listed as 92 mph or 93 mph (depending on the engine). The similar F.E.8 achieved performance that is pretty consistent with that (maybe 94 mph). I do believe that the addition of the larger fuel tank might have reduced performance though.

 

Note: I checked five additional sources - but they probably aren't independent (i.e. they are likely quoting the same primary documents - or even quoting each other).

 

 

When discussing WWI aircraft there are a lot of important questions beyond absolute turn radius.

- How steep a bank can be maintained in a turn?

- How much energy/altitude is lost at that bank angle?

- How much rudder is being used? How much drag is added by control surface deflections?

- How much energy is being added by thrust from the propeller?

- How much mass to surface area does the aircraft have?

 

A lot of these considerations are relatively trivial in a modern jet fighter - but in a WWI aircraft they can be much more critical.

 

The Albatros D.II is 37% heavier and has 45% more engine power. It is entering the fight with a lot more momentum and a lot more ability to generate thrust. In terms of its ability to sustain a turn over time the D.II should do much better. Similarly, the D.II should be able to fight slightly more off the horizontal. This is without even considering the relatively high-drag configuration of the Airco D.H.2.

 

My experience of the Airco D.H.2 in Rise of Flight was of a very nimble and extremely sharp turning aircraft with a high roll rate... and it sounds like the Flying Circus version will be better. But you will be on the defensive against an Albatros D.II... there is a reason the D.H.2 was withdrawn from frontline service. One can't just look at a simplified calculation of CL max and assume that an airplane should be able to out-perform aircraft introduced a year later.

 

I'm sure the Airco D.H.2 will be a favourite of mine once again (even if it can't beat a Fokker D.VIII).

 

P.S. Even if we're discussing instantaneous turn rates, instead of sustained ones - there are still considerations regarding how quickly one can enter a turn. That said the Airco's high roll rate and effective rudder (if it is like it was modelled in Rise of Flight) should make it have a pretty good instantaneous turn rate though!

 

Yes, it seems that the Germans in WW1 were never especially interested in speed during the so-called fighter trials and were as you say more focused on climb and I actually write about that in my book. I think this carried over also to their airplanes as a rule being slower than the Entente's during WW1. And if the customer does not care then why should the designers? Regarding the speed of the DH2 there seems to be a bigger consensus about this that its climb and I agree that a speed around 90-93 mph seems reasonable.

 

And yes, the Albatros D.II should have the advantage not only in speed and in climb but in energy retention in turns as well. However, WW1 scouts are nothing like jets and WW2 fighters were there is appreciable instantaneous turn performance: IRL WW1 aircraft basically hit a brick wall and slow down to the sustained turn rate rather quickly (Again, this is covered in detail in my book, and I even have charts were you can see the effect!). And when it comes to sustained turn rate, the DH2 should beat the D.II handily.

 

Regarding the effect of Clmax: At lower altitudes many WW1 aircraft can turn at Clmax, but as the altitude goes up, the power it not enough and the turn will be power limited instead. (All covered in my book in greater detail!)

 

And for sure, there are a lot of things to keep in mind when calculating turn performance but I have verified my method: Here is the relevant info from my book:

 

 

1 hour ago, US103_Rummell said:

Agreed on the simple Cl Max calculation - this was included in the absence of more complex modelling - and as you say there’s sustained and instantaneous performance. This is a perfect example of why models from @Holtzauge are needed for fine tuning with fixed conditions and scientific methods.

 

If you just look at weight and power why should the DII do better in a horizontal sustained turn over time at lower speeds and altitudes? If the DII had the edge in all performance aspects including slowest/tightest turn radius then the MvR vs Hawker fight would have lasted 2m not 20m.

 

TBH the speed (too low) and the turn (too good) of all the Albi series come into question if you read Anders’ book and look at the test data Artun and Wolfe collected in the link above.

 

Yes, I think if both are correctly modeled it should be a bit like Spitfire versus Bf 109, with one being better in speed and climb, while the other in turn. However, I think there will be a crossover a higher altitudes though, and the Albatros should actually out-turn the DH2 at higher altitudes, but that is higher up, say 3000 m or so. Below that the D.II should be out-turned by the DH2.

 

 

 

Edited April 18, 2024 by Holtzauge

[PatrickAWlson]

Does anybody know where the aircraft performance data is displayed?  I am curious as to what data the IL2 team is using as a baseline.

[BMA_Hellbender]

On 4/12/2024 at 10:28 PM, JGr2/J34b_Matthias said:

Since we're obviously getting Entente fixes, I'm sure the Spad drag model fix must be right around the corner then after this.  Happy days.

Note:  Unless they're also "fixing" the Eindecker then the DH2 may be completely out of balance for early war - the devs unfortunately have a pattern of consistently balancing and "correcting" using 1917/18 versions of upgraded engines for Entente models against early war German engines in "contemporary" planes...

 

 

The true "balanced" contemporaries for the Eindecker in early 1915 are the B.E.2c, Vickers Gunbus, Caudron G.3 and the Farman HF.20 (the latter two also flown by the Belgians). There was little in the way of scouts to rival the Eindecker, unless you count the Bristol Scout and Morane-Saulnier Type N -- with their machineguns firing through the propeller arc. Still I'd love to buy/fly them all and let the Eindecker have its time in the sun.

 

For now I'm just thrilled we'll be able to have a proper Airco DH.2 vs Albatros D.II match: maneuverability vs power. Mostly I'm curious to see how the Halberstadt D.II will fare against the DH.2. They should be very close in terms of overall performance, maybe the closest of any two planes in the sim.

[LukeFF]

6 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Does anybody know where the aircraft performance data is displayed?  I am curious as to what data the IL2 team is using as a baseline.

 

Usually, it's on the Specification tab on the in-game map page.

[ST_Catchov]

11 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

B.E.2c, Vickers Gunbus, Caudron G.3 and the Farman HF.20 .... Bristol Scout and Morane-Saulnier Type N

 

I'd take all of those .... and the Morane Parasol. I'm looking forward to the FC5 planeset already. Early crates rule. 

[No.23_Starling]

9 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

 

The true "balanced" contemporaries for the Eindecker in early 1915 are the B.E.2c, Vickers Gunbus, Caudron G.3 and the Farman HF.20 (the latter two also flown by the Belgians). There was little in the way of scouts to rival the Eindecker, unless you count the Bristol Scout and Morane-Saulnier Type N -- with their machineguns firing through the propeller arc. Still I'd love to buy/fly them all and let the Eindecker have its time in the sun.

 

For now I'm just thrilled we'll be able to have a proper Airco DH.2 vs Albatros D.II match: maneuverability vs power. Mostly I'm curious to see how the Halberstadt D.II will fare against the DH.2. They should be very close in terms of overall performance, maybe the closest of any two planes in the sim.

Take a look at Immelmann’s kills. Mostly BE2c, a few Vickers Gunbuses, the odd Morane and Bristol Scout, then finally an FE2B before his demise. When he does start to encounter DH2s the surprise is not welcomed (taken from Guttman): "The two worked splendidly together ... and put 11 shots into my machine. The petrol tank, the struts on the fuselage, the undercarriage and the propeller were hit ... It was not a nice business." 

[ST_Catchov]

The WW1 buffs amongst us know that the DH2 had a reputation as the 'spinning incinerator' due to her inclination to spin easily if handled roughly perhaps leading to an early demise. I can only surmise that this fear was due to spins being avoided at this early stage of the war with suitable instruction in the art of spin recovery largely absent. However, this feature does point to the DH2, when properly flown, being very handy in turns (much like the Camel). Maybe the positioning of the pusher rotary engine had something to do with it(?) although I'm no expert and leave that to chaps like Rummy or Holtzy to postulate. In any case, I believe she was a fine and beaut little fighting scout for her day .... provided she had full revs and no dodgy motor! The curse of WW1 aviators.

[No.23_Starling]

All, I now have my hands on the Peter Cooksley book on the DH2. A couple of interesting insights, providing he is correct.

 

On the engine, the main issue of cylinder ejection seems to have been present only in early types. Cooksely writes: "The reputation for unreliability gained by these motors was not entirely merited since many of those installed in early machines had re-bored cylinders in an effort to increase their power... This danger would probably not have been present on new engines."

 

The mystery surrounding the fuel tanks is also explained with data on weights @Holtzauge. He tells us that: "Fuel tanks were mounted within the nacelle behind the pilot. The fuel tank held approximately 20.2 US gallons and was supplemented by a 5.75 gallon gravity feed tank mounted beneath the upper wing section... The unarmored gravity tanks were later moved above or below the outer wing on [the upper wing centre section]. Additionally, later production machines were given a new main fuel tank with capacity increased to 26 gallons." I think this might be where the confusion is arising - Cooksley is suggesting that all versions carried a total of 26 gallons of fuel, but the latter version could carry 31+ gallons. This could be our "long range" version included in RoF.

 

He also gives data for the 100hp Gnome version and the 110hp le Rhone version. It seems not too many had the latter and the increased weight didn't improve performance. His loaded weight is 1441 lb for the Gnome engine. @Holtzauge does the British Airboard data indicate the engine and fuel tank configuration for their tests?

 

 

With regards to field mods, I have photos of both Aldis Sights and rockets being mounted, as well as various offset positions for the Lewis gun. Neither appear widespread in usage but still interesting additions:

 

 

 

Sorry that this isn't helping on the data reliability front!

 

[BMA_Hellbender]

I'd really love it if there were an actual fire risk for blipping the engine on the continuously fed Gnome Monosoupapes, i.e. Airco DH.2 and Nieuport 28. That was the real risk these planes posed to their pilots. Ah well, we have the maneuverability fix now for the DH.2, hopefully that of the N28 will follow.

 

And indeed, as others have pointed out, I now have (even) high(er) hopes for FM reviews of the Albs, Dr.I and D.VIII taking place, and perhaps an engine variant for the D.VII... Time will tell.

[ST_Catchov]

8 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

And indeed, as others have pointed out, I now have (even) high(er) hopes for FM reviews of the Albs, Dr.I and D.VIII taking place, and perhaps an engine variant for the D.VII... Time will tell.

 

Please, do not exclude the Se5a!

[BladeMeister]

12 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

Ah well, we have the maneuverability fix now for the DH.2, hopefully that of the N28 will follow.

 Time will tell.

Please let it be so. I love the N28 but she handles nothing like what I have read from the Great War pilots that loved her so, after some of the original teething problems were solved.

 

S!Blade<><