Flying circus damage model suggestion

[=J18=Manfred_Schultz]

Well, I think by this moment every single FC player has experimented the current damage model in the game, and I think it could be a little better. Back in the day, in rise of flight, the damage model was too OP, cause if you managed to hit a little the wings of any plane they just riped off immediatly, and now you have to be very lucky to ripp the wings of a plane off. 
Obviously I'm not saying that we should get back to the Rise of Flight damage model, that would make things too easy, I'm just saying that there should be a mid point between the RoF damage model and the current FC damage model, since I know the wings of the WWI planes were resistant, but not that resistant like in the current FC damage model.
And please don't take this as a complain to the great work of the dev's, the damage model and everything in FC is great, but as I said, it's just that it could be better (the damage model.)
S! and have a good day y'all! 🫡

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

7 minutes ago, =J18=Manfred_Schultz said:

Well, I think by this moment every single FC player has experimented the current damage model in the game, and I think it could be a little better. Back in the day, in rise of flight, the damage model was too OP, cause if you managed to hit a little the wings of any plane they just riped off immediatly, and now you have to be very lucky to ripp the wings of a plane off. 
Obviously I'm not saying that we should get back to the Rise of Flight damage model, that would make things too easy, I'm just saying that there should be a mid point between the RoF damage model and the current FC damage model, since I know the wings of the WWI planes were resistant, but not that resistant like in the current FC damage model.
And please don't take this as a complain to the great work of the dev's, the damage model and everything in FC is great, but as I said, it's just that it could be better (the damage model.)
S! and have a good day y'all! 🫡

DM Is good now so better not to touch it. Wings do ripp off if you pull too much G when they are damaged, maybe this is just AI which do not fly aggressively enough when damaged or not.

 

 

Edited November 4, 2024 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[Zooropa_Fly]

There was little more satisfying than seeing SE5 wings buckle like they used to.

Muhahaha !

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

2 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

There was little more satisfying than seeing SE5 wings buckle like they used to.

Muhahaha !

Hoping the Se5 gets some love from the devs with this much anticipated next update.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

4 hours ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Hoping the Se5 gets some love from the devs with this much anticipated next update.

Hmm I heard nothing about that, I miss something?

[ST_Catchov]

8 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

There was little more satisfying than seeing SE5 wings buckle like they used to.

Muhahaha !

 

Yeah I miss the Camel wings coming off too. Good times. And then they go and ruin it all. All us fokkers have to work too hard now. Not fair.

[US103_Baer]

Maybe the OP can go back and read ALL the forum posts on FC DM since about 2020 and then see if he feels the same. That'll take to around 2030 and some of the community DM ptsd might have subsided by then.

 

Alternatively...we're in a decent place DM-wise now as regards wing strength post damage. Great work was done gathering and presenting data by a community group, which the Devs, to their credit, took onboard and responded to. 

I feel it's pretty ok now and there are MUCH higher FM priorities, of which the Devs are aware, and apparently (in FC4), starting to slowly address. 

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

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

Hmm I heard nothing about that, I miss something?

Can't recall the source,  but heard various FM's were being reviewed,  and possibly revised as part of FC4.  Very vague.  Iirc, the N28 was one specificaly mentioned. Other's just speculation. 

[Flashy]

5 hours ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Can't recall the source,  but heard various FM's were being reviewed,  and possibly revised as part of FC4.  Very vague.  Iirc, the N28 was one specificaly mentioned. Other's just speculation. 

Do you remember where they said this? That would be amazing news if true! I had a vague hope that FC4 was taking longer because they *might* actually be reviewing the DH2 FM, but that might be too much to hope for.. but if they fix the N28, that would be a step in the right direction for sure!

 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

9 minutes ago, Flashy said:

Do you remember where they said this? That would be amazing news if true! I had a vague hope that FC4 was taking longer because they *might* actually be reviewing the DH2 FM, but that might be too much to hope for.. but if they fix the N28, that would be a step in the right direction for sure!

 

I think it's the map update which take more time, but map might give more time for FMs, if the "free" resources were not moved  to ww2/Korea planes.

[LukeFF]

Right now it's the Pup, DH2, and Nieuport 28 which are receiving updated flight models at last check. Once the map is finalized we should be on track to release Vol. 4 this month, hopefully by the end of next week.

[BladeMeister]

Lukeff, are all of those FM updates in the FC IV release or only some of them, or none of them?

 

S!Blade<><

[LukeFF]

All of them.

[ST_Catchov]

4 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Right now it's the Pup, DH2, and Nieuport 28 which are receiving updated flight models at last check.

 

Right on bro. As this is 1C's WW1 swansong let's go big man, real big. I mean HUGE! Go out with a bang! Like really impress the WW1 junkies bigtime. Something to remember. Something that will go down in the annals of flight sim history as legend. Know what I'm talkin' about? Yeah? Right baby, It's the Se5a man, that's what I'm talkin' about, dig.

 

Fix her. Fix her dismal performance. Give her the proper 200 horses she supposed to have, not like 150 or something with the crap power to weight ratio of the early Se5. Fix the prop pitch. Let her turn proper and zoom and stuff without the abysmal power fade. She's not a slug. She's a lady. She deserves better. She deserves 1C's attention. Then they can do that Korea thing with a clear conscience with a beaming Han and a happy Albert, not to mention Viktor.

 

Straighten up and fly right girl.

 

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

5 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

Right on bro. As this is 1C's WW1 swansong let's go big man, real big. I mean HUGE! Go out with a bang! Like really impress the WW1 junkies bigtime. Something to remember. Something that will go down in the annals of flight sim history as legend. Know what I'm talkin' about? Yeah? Right baby, It's the Se5a man, that's what I'm talkin' about, dig.

 

Fix her. Fix her dismal performance. Give her the proper 200 horses she supposed to have, not like 150 or something with the crap power to weight ratio of the early Se5. Fix the prop pitch. Let her turn proper and zoom and stuff without the abysmal power fade. She's not a slug. She's a lady. She deserves better. She deserves 1C's attention. Then they can do that Korea thing with a clear conscience with a beaming Han and a happy Albert, not to mention Viktor.

 

Straighten up and fly right girl.

💯

You are correct imo.  Last chance to get it right.  Would love to the Se5 get some attention.   She should turn better, and not bleed speed so bad while turning (or at least recover the speed loss quicker).

[Trooper117]

12 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

Straighten up and fly right girl.

 

Oh, I say!...

[LukeFF]

Guys, regarding flight model changes, don't expect any more to come with this next update, other than the ones I mentioned above. Our engineers are aware people want changes made to other planes, but there just isn't the time available right now. Some of the planes require more in-depth fixes than others, for one thing.

[ST_Catchov]

Hey bro, I wasn't expecting the three FM updates we're gonna get so that came as a pleasant surprise to me and everyone else I reckon. So there's hope for the old girl yet. And Paree (Paris), holy f#$% what a mind blower! Out of the blue, just like that. No warning. Bang. SURPRISE! 

 

Will she have DM but?

[Flashy]

On 11/5/2024 at 7:42 PM, LukeFF said:

Right now it's the Pup, DH2, and Nieuport 28 which are receiving updated flight models at last check. Once the map is finalized we should be on track to release Vol. 4 this month, hopefully by the end of next week.

Holy Crap, this is the best news I have heard in ages! I have been waiting nearly 15 years for a DH2 FM review, and its finally getting done, AND the N28 AND Pup as well! These are literally my 3 favorite planes in RoF! Maybe these planes will actually be viable choices now! Looking forward to next week for sure..

Edited November 7, 2024 by Flashy

[Zooropa_Fly]

I wouldn't get too excited about the Pup, I expect she'll not be half the fun she was in RoF..

[Flashy]

1 hour ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

I wouldn't get too excited about the Pup, I expect she'll not be half the fun she was in RoF..

TBH, I dont know what the issue with the Pup FM actually was? The DH2 and N28 are obvious -we have all been complaining about them since they came out in.. 2010.. was it?
But the Pup was never as bad as those two as far as I remember?

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

29 minutes ago, Flashy said:

But the Pup was never as bad as those two as far as I remember?

This plane was to good in turning fight, best of all turnes like a Camel or a Dr 1 ,I believe energy retention was on part with an UFO . It was one of early biplanes with weak engine , not that good ailerons but in game can beat all later biplanes.

Edited November 7, 2024 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[Zooropa_Fly]

I think opinion is that she was over-performing in RoF, so I suspect it's glorious turning turn rate might be clipped.

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

This plane was to good in turning fight, best of all turnes like a Camel or a Dr 1 ,I believe energy retention was on part with an UFO . It was one of early biplanes with weak engine , not that good ailerons but in game can beat all later biplanes.

 

I'm not sure its energy retention was that spectacular.

 

But it certainly had a weak engine in RoF that could be taken out very easily - slowly and infuriatingly losing power.

It was also structurally vulnerable, not fast, single shooter that took  an age to gradually bludgeon opponents - so many downsides to it.

 

In a 1v1 it was unbeatable (in RoF), but very easily shot down against more than one opponent.

 

Be interesting to see what they do to her..

[Flashy]

ah okay, well that doesnt sound right either, so glad they are looking at it.. From what I have read, Pilots of the time talked about the Pup being a joy to fly, light and responsive on the controls, maneuverable, but only able to out-turn the Albatross DIII above 18 000ft.. the first three are subjective for sure.. the last point is much more objective.. although we all know the Albatrosses in this game are too easy to fly and turn too well, so I am not really expecting that to be true in game.. I think the N11 and N17 are pretty good FM's, so I would be expecting something similar to that I guess..

 

[Flashy]

1 hour ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

I think opinion is that she was over-performing in RoF, so I suspect it's glorious turning turn rate might be clipped.

 

I'm not sure its energy retention was that spectacular.

 

But it certainly had a weak engine in RoF that could be taken out very easily - slowly and infuriatingly losing power.

It was also structurally vulnerable, not fast, single shooter that took  an age to gradually bludgeon opponents - so many downsides to it.

 

In a 1v1 it was unbeatable (in RoF), but very easily shot down against more than one opponent.

 

Be interesting to see what they do to her..

The structural and engine damage issues sound like a symptom of the damage model, and not the flight model. I think the FC damage models are better now than they were in RoF, so maybe those issues will be gone? The turn rate does sound like it was too good - WW1 Pup pilots wouldnt try out-turn an albatross below 18 000 ft, and they had no hope of catching one in a dive as well, so the real aircraft was certainly not the last word in turn-fighters.. that seems to be more the case with the triplane.. pup pilots seemed very envious of the R.N.A.S and their triplanes..

 

[Zooropa_Fly]

50 minutes ago, Flashy said:

The turn rate does sound like it was too good

 

Probably, but it was great fun :)))

[PatrickAWlson]

The phrase was "aim for meat or metal" for a reason.  These planes were not fragile.  Putting bullets through the wings was mostly just putting holes in canvas.  Hits on ribs were not going to bring a plane down.  Hits on spars were much more damaging but 1. the spars are a pretty narrow target and 2. one bullet through a spar would (probably) not collapse a wing.   

 

Most wing failures were due to G load, not just being shot away.  When wings folded in RL under fire it was often with a desperate or dead pilot at the stick.  

[ST_Catchov]

10 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

But it certainly had a weak engine in RoF that could be taken out very easily - slowly and infuriatingly losing power.

 

Sounds like the Se5a.😄

 

10 hours ago, Flashy said:

From what I have read, Pilots of the time talked about the Pup being a joy to fly, light and responsive on the controls, maneuverable, but only able to out-turn the Albatross DIII above 18 000ft.

 

9 hours ago, Flashy said:

WW1 Pup pilots wouldnt try out-turn an albatross below 18 000 ft,

 

I'm pretty sure the Pup could out-turn the Alb at any height. It's just that anywhere below 18000, the Alb could just zoom up anytime to get the height advantage and the Pup was dead meat baby. Underpowered weasel engine see. Height wins. Just ask Hawker. But the Alby turns way too well in FC so we shall see.

[Flashy]

Back on Topic (thanks Pat!) - the damage model for WW1 planes seems pretty good now.. I dont think they should change it. Wings can take quite a few bullets without falling apart (agree with Pat here - this is probably correct) and yet they are then weakened, so any high-G maneuvers seems to cause them to fail sooner.. pretty much spot on IMO

Edited November 8, 2024 by Flashy

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

14 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

The phrase was "aim for meat or metal" for a reason.  These planes were not fragile.  Putting bullets through the wings was mostly just putting holes in canvas.  Hits on ribs were not going to bring a plane down.  Hits on spars were much more damaging but 1. the spars are a pretty narrow target and 2. one bullet through a spar would (probably) not collapse a wing.   

 

Most wing failures were due to G load, not just being shot away.  When wings folded in RL under fire it was often with a desperate or dead pilot at the stick.  

Plus pilots were afraid of fire when petrol tank was hit, they usually turn the motor off . In game is not that big issue since we don't use incendiary ammunition. Our rounds do generate sparks but I believe they are just visuals when hitting the metal parts of the aeroplane.

31 minutes ago, Flashy said:

Back on Topic (thanks Pat!) - the damage model for WW1 planes seems pretty good now.. I dont think they should change it. Wings can take quite a few bullets without falling apart (agree with Pat here - this is probably correct) and yet they are then weakened, so any high-G maneuvers seems to cause them to fail sooner.. pretty much spot on IMO

Just fires are not that common as it was back then in late war and it seems that only engine can catch fire, not the petrol thank ( one exception is the Camel). 

[Flashy]

 

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

Plus pilots were afraid of fire when petrol tank was hit, they usually turn the motor off . In game is not that big issue since we don't use incendiary ammunition. Our rounds do generate sparks but I believe they are just visuals when hitting the metal parts of the aeroplane.

Just fires are not that common as it was back then in late war and it seems that only engine can catch fire, not the petrol thank ( one exception is the Camel). 

I was gonna mention this as well, but I didnt think it was really on topic. But yes, fires would often start from a fuel leak coming into contact with something hot or causing a spark etc. We dont have this in game as far as I can tell.. a plane can have a fuel leak for days, and no fire ever develops.. its only if you hit a magic spot on the engine that it catches fire.. For WW1 planes especially.. fuel leaking into the cockpit or onto the engine would be a very dangerous situation, and there should be a (fairly high) chance of fuel leaks developing into fires..

[No.23_Starling]

17 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

The phrase was "aim for meat or metal" for a reason.  These planes were not fragile.  Putting bullets through the wings was mostly just putting holes in canvas.  Hits on ribs were not going to bring a plane down.  Hits on spars were much more damaging but 1. the spars are a pretty narrow target and 2. one bullet through a spar would (probably) not collapse a wing.   

 

Most wing failures were due to G load, not just being shot away.  When wings folded in RL under fire it was often with a desperate or dead pilot at the stick.  

Spot on. This is precisely the conclusion Mr Hotlead comes to in his excellent study (posted elsewhere in the forum). Removal of flight surfaces from gunfire wasn’t unknown but seemingly rare compared to OOC higher G breakup. James McCudden only mentions one instance in Flying Fury I can recall of completely shooting off the wing of a recon plane after a sustained and accurate burst. Bill Cambray MC of No20 wrote of the FE2: “The FE2d, despite its ungainly appearance, was wonderfully strong, and I did not see one break up in the air even during strenuous manoeuvring”. Despite this Captain Balfour of No43 did admit that: “On one occasion the wings were shot off a machine (FE2) in my flight, and one of my best young pilots and his observer were pitched out into space as the machine disintegrated” (both taken from Norman Franks).

 

An obvious option would be to add an “arcade structural failure” realism mode or something similar for single player mode. Wings Over Flanders Field has a pretty realistic compromise where enough sustained gunfire can shoot off a surface but it’s far more likely you’ll flame the AI or wound the pilot - meat or metal. S.

2 hours ago, Flashy said:

 

I was gonna mention this as well, but I didnt think it was really on topic. But yes, fires would often start from a fuel leak coming into contact with something hot or causing a spark etc. We dont have this in game as far as I can tell.. a plane can have a fuel leak for days, and no fire ever develops.. its only if you hit a magic spot on the engine that it catches fire.. For WW1 planes especially.. fuel leaking into the cockpit or onto the engine would be a very dangerous situation, and there should be a (fairly high) chance of fuel leaks developing into fires..

Would agree this - alongside engine reliability - is a larger discrepancy in terms of in-game modelling and historical evidence.

[Flashy]

38 minutes ago, US103_Rummell said:

 (both taken from Norman Franks).

 

Which Norman Franks book was this please?

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

49 minutes ago, Flashy said:

Which Norman Franks book was this please?

IMHO in all 3 books from beginning (Somme success), middle( Bloody April)and end (Access falling) by Peter Hart are full of first person combat accounts. Great read.

Edited November 8, 2024 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[No.23_Starling]

1 hour ago, Flashy said:

Which Norman Franks book was this please?

Dogfight, Aerial Tactics of the Aces of the First World War, 2015, p.39-41

On 11/5/2024 at 7:48 PM, LukeFF said:

All of them.

Brilliant news, thank you.

 

If the N28 matches the data of Mr @Holtzauge it should at least keep up in turns at lower alts with its main opponents even if it still won’t have the edge on the Albatros modelling suggests it should.

 

Luke - if the Albatros DIII is getting revisions then would the DII and DVa be close enough to justify an FM update too?

[No.23_Starling]

3 hours ago, Flashy said:

Which Norman Franks book was this please?

BTW the Franks book also covers that two seater that lost its starboard wings. Even in that instance McCudden had chased it down in a dive from 18k feet, suggesting the forces at higher speeds and Gs would have been a factor (see Pat’s comment above).

[LukeFF]

5 hours ago, US103_Rummell said:

Luke - if the Albatros DIII is getting revisions then would the DII and DVa be close enough to justify an FM update too?

 

It all comes down to avialable time in the future, so I cannot say one way or another if it will happen.

[KodiakJac]

On 11/5/2024 at 11:42 AM, LukeFF said:

Right now it's the Pup, DH2, and Nieuport 28 which are receiving updated flight models at last check. Once the map is finalized we should be on track to release Vol. 4 this month, hopefully by the end of next week.

 

Really looking forward to Flying Circus Vol. 4