The Albatros Problem... (and solution)

[=IRFC=NakedSquirrel]

I want to give my short 2 cents on the Albatros in Flying Circus, because its performance gets brought up frequently by the community.

 

The major issue with the Albatros is that it served from 1916-1918.  The Mercedes engine saw several improvements during that time.  Not all of these changes were externally visible.  A lot of the improvements were in piston design to achieve higher compression.  The D.IIIaü might be the only modification with an obvious, external difference due to the carburetor design.  (I won't get into the nerdy technical details.  There are nerdy nerds more nerdy than I that do it far better)

 

FC is a pretty solid title at the moment.  The Albatros fits perfectly in Late 1916 thru early 1917, but when you want to set up a scenario in 1918, when the Albatros was still very prevalent on the front lines, it feels painfully underpowered.  

 

My easiest solution would be to designate the current Albatros D.III and D.Va we have in game as having the Mercedes D.III engine, and add a engine modification check box to give them the Mercedes D.IIIa with improved compression.  Heck, even the D.II could have a checkbox to receive the improved 180hp engine.

This wouldn't require any editing to the 3d model, but it would require time and effort to edit the FM.  I don't live under a rock.  I understand changing the FM of an aircraft in this game is more than adding a line of code that says: "moar power!" 

 

Alternatively (or additionally) there is the potential to sell planes with the Mercedes D.IIIaü engine.  This is probably easier data wise, since there's solid documentation on the performance difference between the D.IIIa and D.IIIaü, but requires some changes to the 3d model.  The nice thing is it could have the advantage of generating some revenue for the labor if it was released as a paid module.  

 

Anyhow... That's my dumb layman's recommendation.  I'm probably posting to the wind on this one, but I think the addition of an engine modification would be fun for Multiplayer scenarios as well as career mode.  (I can imagine reaching the stage of the campaign when you can finally equip your squadron with the higher compression engine would be satisfying.)  In the end, I don't know the team's development schedule, or if there's even time or resources to spend on FC with all the other projects going on.

 

Still, a squirrel can dream
 

 

[BMA_FlyingShark]

18 minutes ago, =IRFC=NakedSquirrel said:

Alternatively (or additionally) there is the potential to sell planes with the Mercedes D.IIIaü engine.

I don't think I'm the only one here who's been hopin' for this since the early RoF days.

But I'm afraid it's not gonna happen anytime soon, if at all.

Planes always have to be made from scratch when modelling them with a new kind of engine and Luce FF stated several times that there are no plans for now to add anything after the Flying Circus IV.

But we can always hope off course, fingers crossed.

 

Have a nice day.

 

[US103_Baer]

It's not just the speed though is it. We've been thru this. Anders book highlights and quantifies the issues perfectly. 

If you're going to fix them, fix them properly. 

Devs fortunately seem to understand this judging from recent posts. 

[BMA_Hellbender]

Selling a collector Albatros D.Va 200hp (and Fokker D.VII 200hp) after the FM review of the Albatrosses seems like a no-brainer to me.

[No.23_Starling]

11 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbent said:

Selling a collector Albatros D.Va 200hp (and Fokker D.VII 200hp) after the FM review of the Albatrosses seems like a no-brainer to me.

Why not add a 220hp Dolphin and Spad into that pot too? 4x engine variants?

 

The diiiau would take a little extra modelling due to the special carb and usage below 2km but all the documentation they need is available.

[=IRFC=Tunes]

3 hours ago, US103_Rummell said:

Why not add a 220hp Dolphin and Spad into that pot too? 4x engine variants?

 

The diiiau would take a little extra modelling due to the special carb and usage below 2km but all the documentation they need is available.

 

Because those two planes don't suck at the moment (the latter being the second best plane in the game). SPAD and Dolphin are so much further down the priority list; Albatros is currently hopeless in any scenario besides late 1916 and early 1917 - and even in those scenarios, it's good because it turns well; not because it's fast (as per real life). Don't get me wrong, would be cool to see Dolphin/SPAD revisions, but I think both currently fit the meta well.

And, if we're honest, I'd rather take a revision of the current Dolphin (better high altitude turn/speed) over a new engine variant, per say.

[No.23_Starling]

I don’t disagree that the Albs and Pfalz DIII should be the priority #1. Total agreement there.

 

Im not in agreement though that further suggestions can’t be made for reasonable additions as a lower priority. There’s lots of threads on suggestions for new planes etc *cough* les Canons *cough*. I’ll keep additional suggestions to separate threads. As for the SPAD being the second top plane, one could argue that in multiplayer the skill and dedication of its fans fan those flames. Most pilots get bored with it and ditch it for a Camel or Fokker…

[BMA_Hellbender]

21 hours ago, =IRFC=Tunes said:

Because those two planes don't suck at the moment (the latter being the second best plane in the game). SPAD and Dolphin are so much further down the priority list; Albatros is currently hopeless in any scenario besides late 1916 and early 1917 - and even in those scenarios, it's good because it turns well; not because it's fast (as per real life). Don't get me wrong, would be cool to see Dolphin/SPAD revisions, but I think both currently fit the meta well.

And, if we're honest, I'd rather take a revision of the current Dolphin (better high altitude turn/speed) over a new engine variant, per say.

 

17 hours ago, US103_Rummell said:

I don’t disagree that the Albs and Pfalz DIII should be the priority #1. Total agreement there.

 

Im not in agreement though that further suggestions can’t be made for reasonable additions as a lower priority. There’s lots of threads on suggestions for new planes etc *cough* les Canons *cough*. I’ll keep additional suggestions to separate threads. As for the SPAD being the second top plane, one could argue that in multiplayer the skill and dedication of its fans fan those flames. Most pilots get bored with it and ditch it for a Camel or Fokker…

As a Dolphin man myself, I don’t think we can comprehend what adding 20hp to this plane would do to it. First of all I’d fear for its wings even more than I do today, and second I think it would blow its historical role completely out of proportion. It’s fine as-is, really. The reason it kind of sucks now is because it lacks any high altitude two-seaters to intercept (Rubild, please), and because of the Albs and Pfalz turning too well. The latter (without a 200hp aü engine) it will eat for breakfast. In its current state it should do just that: fly faster and both climb and turn slightly better than the Albatros D.Va. Against the Fokker D.VIIF it struggles in all the right ways: everywhere except right on the deck in a turn. That’s its one defensive trick against the F, and where it should be able to punish a Fokker driver who flies too low.
 

As for a 220hp (240hp?) SPAD XIII, well, sure. But that’s like asking for a Bentley Camel. The SPAD is already the best at what it does, more horsepower will simply widen the gap with the competition. Same with the Camel. I’m just not impressed enough at the late war Central offering for it to make sense. The Siemens is a great climber, but otherwise kind of disappointing. The Pfalz D.XII can’t dive (fix it, please). In other words: fly a Fokker D.VIIF or die? No, thanks.

 

@=IRFC=Tunes I’d really like to hear your opinion on the current state of that other Fokker: the Dr.I. I haven’t had much time to spend with it yet and won’t for another week or so, but the Pup is lethal in its turn, and still somewhat faster than the Dr.I. The Dr.I could have its speed restored to pre-RoF 1.034 levels, or close to it.

 

Or maybe not… The Dr.I is a very tough machine, with many maneuvers available to it that a Pup can only dream of. In its current state the Dr.I allows for the Hanriot HD.1 and Nieuport 28 to fight with speed and climb alone, and more importantly: it also gives the Fokker E.V/D.VIII a reason to exist, which I believe is still an underappreciated machine. I just wish the D.VIII were 5-10km/h faster than the Camel, which according to literature it would have been. That’s my next N28 struggle 

Edited November 24, 2024 by =IRFC=Hellbent

[=IRFC=Tunes]

4 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbent said:

@=IRFC=Tunes I’d really like to hear your opinion on the current state of that other Fokker: the Dr.I. I haven’t had much time to spend with it yet and won’t for another week or so, but the Pup is lethal in its turn, and still somewhat faster than the Dr.I. The Dr.I could have its speed restored to pre-RoF 1.034 levels, or close to it.

 

I would say that the DR1 is nearly as critical of an FM revision as the Alb and Pfalz. 

Why do 8 out of 10 people get into WWI aviation? They want that Camel v DR1 grudge match. Unfortunately, with equal skill levels in-game, the Camel will beat the DR1 in a straight fight 10 out of 10 times. The speed, energy retention, climb, and turn rate comparison is unfortunately all too one sided. The Pup has actually given us a plane that is much more even of a match against the Fokker. 

That's great, right? No. The Dr1 should be able to destroy the Pup (ask @Chill31) in a straight fight, particularly with regards to energy management. The Camel should more or less be the DR1s even, or at least far more so than it is now. The Pup, conversely, should be inferior to, but a good match for, the Albatros series.

The unfortunate reality of the DR1 being the way it is now is that it closes off the Spring of 1918 as being a fun and competitive era of dogfighting. At its core, this time period was the Sopwith Camel, SE5a, and Dolphin vs. the Albatros, Pfalz, and Fokker Triplane. Fix those 3 Central planes (ensuring you maintain relative turn performance of the DR1 vs. the Camel), and you've just unlocked a currently unplayable portion of the war (for Central) with great historical significance. 

Edited November 24, 2024 by =IRFC=Tunes

[No.23_Starling]

1 hour ago, =IRFC=Tunes said:

I would say that the DR1 is nearly as critical of an FM revision as the Alb and Pfalz. 

Why do 8 out of 10 people get into WWI aviation? They want that Camel v DR1 grudge match. Unfortunately, with equal skill levels in-game, the Camel will beat the DR1 in a straight fight 10 out of 10 times. The speed, energy retention, climb, and turn rate comparison is unfortunately all too one sided. The Pup has actually given us a plane that is much more even of a match against the Fokker. 

That's great, right? No. The Dr1 should be able to destroy the Pup (ask @Chill31) in a straight fight, particularly with regards to energy management. The Camel should more or less be the DR1s even, or at least far more so than it is now. The Pup, conversely, should be inferior to, but a good match for, the Albatros series.

The unfortunate reality of the DR1 being the way it is now is that it closes off the Spring of 1918 as being a fun and competitive era of dogfighting. At its core, this time period was the Sopwith Camel, SE5a, and Dolphin vs. the Albatros, Pfalz, and Fokker Triplane. Fix those 3 Central planes (ensuring you maintain relative turn performance of the DR1 vs. the Camel), and you've just unlocked a currently unplayable portion of the war (for Central) with great historical significance. 

Bender, old pal. I still agree with everyone on prioritising the Alb and Diiia + vanilla DVII. If you see the post I did with Artun etc from Oct last year on analysing deviations from @Holtzauge’s model the Alb is number 2 followed by the Dr1.

 

Jan 1918 was when the 220hp pistons began to appear - see James McCudden’s own words on upgrading his SE5a. The meta this would help is fighting DVIIFs and DXIIFs etc. The Dolphin too would get slightly more competitive in that respect.

 

Fasters Albs opens up the whole of late 1916 well into mid 1918, and would make the biggest impact by a long shot. BUT if by the 1,000,000 chance the Alb gets love and engine variants could come into play the HS8Bd/e would help late war balancing vs the DVIIFs.

 

This all feels a bit like we all agree but that I’m not allowed to even mention anything but the Albi or Dr1 right now.

[BMA_Hellbender]

2 hours ago, =IRFC=Tunes said:

I would say that the DR1 is nearly as critical of an FM revision as the Alb and Pfalz. 

Why do 8 out of 10 people get into WWI aviation? They want that Camel v DR1 grudge match. Unfortunately, with equal skill levels in-game, the Camel will beat the DR1 in a straight fight 10 out of 10 times. The speed, energy retention, climb, and turn rate comparison is unfortunately all too one sided. The Pup has actually given us a plane that is much more even of a match against the Fokker. 

That's great, right? No. The Dr1 should be able to destroy the Pup (ask @Chill31) in a straight fight, particularly with regards to energy management. The Camel should more or less be the DR1s even, or at least far more so than it is now. The Pup, conversely, should be inferior to, but a good match for, the Albatros series.

The unfortunate reality of the DR1 being the way it is now is that it closes off the Spring of 1918 as being a fun and competitive era of dogfighting. At its core, this time period was the Sopwith Camel, SE5a, and Dolphin vs. the Albatros, Pfalz, and Fokker Triplane. Fix those 3 Central planes (ensuring you maintain relative turn performance of the DR1 vs. the Camel), and you've just unlocked a currently unplayable portion of the war (for Central) with great historical significance. 

 

37 minutes ago, US103_Rummell said:

Bender, old pal. I still agree with everyone on prioritising the Alb and Diiia + vanilla DVII. If you see the post I did with Artun etc from Oct last year on analysing deviations from @Holtzauge’s model the Alb is number 2 followed by the Dr1.

 

Jan 1918 was when the 220hp pistons began to appear - see James McCudden’s own words on upgrading his SE5a. The meta this would help is fighting DVIIFs and DXIIFs etc. The Dolphin too would get slightly more competitive in that respect.

 

Fasters Albs opens up the whole of late 1916 well into mid 1918, and would make the biggest impact by a long shot. BUT if by the 1,000,000 chance the Alb gets love and engine variants could come into play the HS8Bd/e would help late war balancing vs the DVIIFs.

 

This all feels a bit like we all agree but that I’m not allowed to even mention anything but the Albi or Dr1 right now.

I agree with both of you, of course (nothing but brotherly love in this thread). My main concern as always is that some lesser known machines, rotaries especially, don't get completely overlooked.

 

I don't fly the Dr.I myself much, though I have a tremendous amount of respect for both the machine and whoever is able to wrangle it to his will. While it's true that the Camel is the better energy fighter and perhaps even straight up turnfighter, getting the absolute most out of it may require even more skill than the Dr.I, and at that point, where you, @=IRFC=Tunes are without a doubt, even the slightest miscalculation could spell disaster. "Yes, but if you fly her with X amount of fuel and if you pick the wing cutout and if you learn to snap roll and if you throttle down a little bit after taking X amount of wing damage..." True, but now you've lost 99% of people who will ever fly this machine.

 

The Dr.I, by comparison, can take an absolute beating and will almost never enter a spin that is rather complicated to recover from. In "real life" I'd still pick the Camel over the Dr.I as the actual encounter between those two would have been exceedingly rare, if iconic, and the Camel does not need to be pushed to any extremes to take on an Albatros. My only wish is that the Albatros would be faster than it is today, and hopefully even faster than a Camel (at altitude) when equipped with a 200hp engine. But there is the fact that Central machines would mostly be flown over friendly lines and... I know you don't like this argument, but it's still a reality in this sim: they have parachutes.

 

Even if we discount Central parachutes entirely, there's the fact that MvR himself thought of the Dr.I as slow, although perhaps a better climber than it is today. And, more importantly, he was begging for a D.VII ("vanilla") by the end of his life. I would find that hard to match with a much improved Dr.I.

 

As for the SPAD XIII with a better engine, @US103_Rummell let's indeed assume ours produces 200hp now and not 220hp, well... it would be really hard for me or anyone else at that point not to drop the pretense and fly her all the time. It's already by far the most survivable (Entente) machine. Sure she doesn't have a parachute and you can't take her up to 9000m, but making her better at high altitude and untouchable at low altitude would be dethroning the F as the "best machine of the war". No matter how many times we've joked about it, maybe it ought to stay that way. Or maybe not... the French did have the most powerful air force. I'm really torn here.

 

Again dev time is limited, and my own personal wishlist in order of priorities is as follows:

1. Review all the Albs and Pfalz D.IIIa
2. Fix the Pfalz D.XII dive bug
3. Add and sell the 200hp Albatros D.Va and Fokker D.VII as collector planes
4. Review the Fokker Dr.I and Fokker E.V/D.VIII (but keep their static RPM difference)
5. Add the HS8Be SPAD XIII
6. Maybe take a look at the S.E.5a? I've never been truly sold on that idea
7. For the love of Sopwith don't mess with the Dolphin
8. Fix that silly bug with the Hanriot propeller not spinning again (inconsequential but it does bother me)

By the time we get to point 4 I think the devs should pour their energy into building the Rubild or a similar Rumpler first.

[=IRFC=Tunes]

11 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hellbent said:

While it's true that the Camel is the better energy fighter and perhaps even straight up turnfighter, getting the absolute most out of it may require even more skill than the Dr.I, and at that point, where you, @=IRFC=Tunes are without a doubt, even the slightest miscalculation could spell disaster.

I think it boils down to a few key points.

 

1) Camel/Dr1 is the meta. It will always be a key part of the meta. We can discuss DVIII/Hanriot/Dolphin all day, but those planes aren’t why most people try this game out.

 

2) The problem is not that the Camel is faster or turns better. It’s that the relative percentile difference in performance is several hundred percent too high.

 

3) The Camel is far more stable in anything but the most aggressive maneuvers. You won’t ever enter a flat spin if you keep your speed high and just fly it like a SPAD. DR1 may not flat spin, but it is hard to enter a high speed left turn without losing control. It has a lot of nuance to master as well.

 

4) I specifically refer to equal skill level matchup for a reason. If you have a Camel and DR1 pilot of even skill, the Camel will always win. 

[BMA_Hellbender]

58 minutes ago, =IRFC=Tunes said:

I think it boils down to a few key points.

 

1) Camel/Dr1 is the meta. It will always be a key part of the meta. We can discuss DVIII/Hanriot/Dolphin all day, but those planes aren’t why most people try this game out.

 

2) The problem is not that the Camel is faster or turns better. It’s that the relative percentile difference in performance is several hundred percent too high.

 

3) The Camel is far more stable in anything but the most aggressive maneuvers. You won’t ever enter a flat spin if you keep your speed high and just fly it like a SPAD. DR1 may not flat spin, but it is hard to enter a high speed left turn without losing control. It has a lot of nuance to master as well.

 

4) I specifically refer to equal skill level matchup for a reason. If you have a Camel and DR1 pilot of even skill, the Camel will always win. 

In answer to your points:

 

1) Shouldn’t the meta be WWI history? I get it that people are attracted to the romantic notion of Camel vs. Dr.I, Snoopy vs The Red Baron, but isn’t it just that, romance? I’d be all for having an early 110hp Le Rhone Camel (maybe I should add that to my list), but I don’t think the Clerget 9B(f?) Camel which we currently have the performance of should necessarily be the exact equal of the Dr.I.

 

If they’re disappointed with the Dr.I, as MvR himself was, that should make them reach out to a Fokker D.VII 200hp or a reviewed Fokker E.V/D.VIII. I don’t see how that is a bad thing.

 

2) Agreed, our Camel is likely something in between a Clerget and a Bentley. Maybe a 9Bf. Running it constantly at 1400 RPM also seems strangely optimistic to me.

 

3) No, I’m sorry, you’re the expert of experts at flying the Camel and a bit out of touch with how most people will experience this machine who fly it for the first time. I never quite reached your level back in RoF, but I wasn’t too bad myself. Years of not flying it and age have now made me an above average Camel pilot. I struggle. I can’t imagine what an average Camel pilot must feel like. I myself now feel far more comfortable in something less extreme like a Hanriot, Dolphin or Nieuport 28. Or an S.E.5a or SPAD XIII, but those are completely different beasts.

 

4) If we only get one Camel in FC, and not a spectrum that reaches from 110hp Le Rhone to 150hp Bentley, then I’d rather have a Camel that is better than the Dr.I, more or less equal to the D.VII 200hp (at altitude) and worse than the D.VIIF (at altitude).

Edited November 24, 2024 by =IRFC=Hellbent

[=IRFC=Tunes]

10 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbent said:

I’d really like to hear your opinion on the current state of that other Fokker: the Dr.I.

Was just answering this honestly. 

I think it's important to emphasize that our FM revision requests are not related to [feeling] or [opinion]. We are asking for things that bring our game in alignment with the relative and absolute performance of the real aircraft. By starting with the Alb, Pfalz, and DR1, the worst offenders in terms of relative performance to IRL, you're also talking about fixing a major flaw with the current game meta as an added bonus.

@Holtzauge's book is our bible, as @US103_Rummell has stated repeatedly.
 

Edited November 25, 2024 by =IRFC=Tunes

[BMA_Hellbender]

13 hours ago, =IRFC=Tunes said:

Was just answering this honestly. 

I think it's important to emphasize that our FM revision requests are not related to [feeling] or [opinion]. We are asking for things that bring our game in alignment with the relative and absolute performance of the real aircraft. By starting with the Alb, Pfalz, and DR1, the worst offenders in terms of relative performance to IRL, you're also talking about fixing a major flaw with the current game meta as an added bonus.

@Holtzauge's book is our bible, as @US103_Rummell has stated repeatedly.
 

I’m also just replying to the opening post of @=IRFC=NakedSquirrel who clearly says that not all performance improvements would be externally visible and also why you need to be careful with accepting any book as dogma.

 

Look, as @US103_Rummell‘s topic shows, the performance data based on @Holtzauge’s book has the Fokker E.V/D.VIII with an IAS top speed ASL of 183km/h, that is with the same Oberursel UR.II engine as in the Fokker Dr.I with a top speed of 177km/h.

 

What I’ve been saying since the beginning is that they don’t have the same engine. It’s the same engine block but a different engine configuration with different static RPM and the sim already models this.

 

The Dr.I in the sim now has a top speed of 165km/h and low static RPM whereas the E.V/D.VIII has a top speed of 179km/h and high static RPM. Both are indeed slow compared to a 190km/h Camel.

 

You say that the Fokker Dr.I is ~12km/h too slow? Fine, but then the Fokker E.V/D.VIII also, if not even more so. Not because its wing is that more efficient, but because it has an improved Oberursel UR.II, which is externally identical.

 

This would give the Fokker E.V/D.VIII a top speed of ~190-195km/h and… give it a slight speed margin over the Camel! Not only that, it’s also closer to the 204km/h mentioned in Gray, Peter; Owen Thetford (1970). German Aircraft of the First World War (2nd ed.).

 

This is not without precedent either: the Sopwith Triplane in the sim has a lower static RPM than the Camel, with an externally identical Clerget 9B engine. Here also the book expects the Triplane to be almost as fast as the Camel, but in reality it doesn’t since the Clerget in the Triplane didn’t run up to 1400 RPM. Same with the Strutter.

 

To summarise and to conclude: the devs cannot touch the Dr.I’s top speed/climb without proportionally adjusting the E.V/D.VIII’s top speed/climb.

[=IRFC=Tunes]

1 hour ago, =IRFC=Hellbent said:

To summarise and to conclude: the devs cannot touch the Dr.I’s top speed/climb without proportionally adjusting the E.V/D.VIII’s top speed/climb.

Sure they can! Not saying that the DVIII isn’t broken, but trying to rank them on equal priority is a bit far fetched. One flew for two weeks before being recalled, and the other equipped dozens of Jastas for a seven month period. It’s a bit like comparing a SSDIV with an Albatros DV.

 

As @US103_Rummell says, we can talk about whatever FM revision we want as long as we’re reasonable about prioritization. 

Edited November 25, 2024 by =IRFC=Tunes

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Common belief is that Central had better aircraft than Entente.   I'm not qualified to argue that point either way.  It's also commonly believed that Entente had greater numbers of both planes and pilots.  

 

Assuming those statements are true, and assuming the goal of these revisions is to make the aircraft as historically accurate as possible  (Central having better aircraft), it would seem that for MP,  most would chose the Central aircraft.  For campaign and off line play, this is not a problem,  as the ratio of Central/Entente aircraft can be easily regulated. But for multiplayer action, this could be a problem.   Are you guys considering the potential impact of these revisions on MP?

If so, how will it be addressed if one side has consistently superior aircraft?

Edited November 25, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

Even with tweaks Spad, Camel and Bristol are still best 3 in game.

[=IRFC=Tunes]

35 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Common belief is that Central had better aircraft than Entente.   I'm not qualified to argue that point either way.  It's also commonly believed that Entente had greater numbers of both planes and pilots.  

 

Assuming those statements are true, and assuming the goal of these revisions is to make the aircraft as historically accurate as possible  (Central having better aircraft), it would seem that for MP,  most would chose the Central aircraft.  For campaign and off line play, this is not a problem,  as the ratio of Central/Entente aircraft can be easily regulated. But for multiplayer action, this could be a problem.   Are you guys considering the potential impact of these revisions on MP?

If so, how will it be addressed if one side has consistently superior aircraft?

I fail to see how an Albatros DVa, Pfalz DIII, and Fokker DR1 that are still slower than every single temporally equivalent Entente aircraft, just by a smaller amount, would give Central an advantage. 

If anything, it would give mission makers a balancing mechanism. For 1917, you would have "faster, turns well" (the DR1), "faster, turns poorly" (the Alb DV, Pfalz), and "slower, turns poorly" (Alb DIII). Right now, you have to choose between "slow," "slow," and "slow."

[I intentionally avoid the word "fast," because, again, every mid-late 1917 Entente aircraft is faster.]

Edited November 25, 2024 by =IRFC=Tunes

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

*with exception of Fokker DVIIf in late 1918 missions.  What players likely need to get used to on both sides now that we have the "complete" plane set planned for Flying Circus 1-4, is not always having access to their favorite plane in every mission but a mixed bag where narrower plane sets are available with more emphasis on balanced play rather than inlusion of every plane hisorically availabe for a given historical mission date or period.  Along with the notion, that we have or may ever have historically accurate flight models,while hope can still remain for "better" FMs that allow enjoyment and playability of more of our planes in more missions with more planes without the need to limit planesets to those that "work" for creating fun engagements.

 

Kudos to Squirrel for offering a very rational suggestion.  I, and 67% of those flying this game will buy those engines ahead of development to fund bootstrapping  the staff time necessary to develop them and make this series continue to create cashflow into the years ahead for 1C.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

29 minutes ago, J5_Klugermann said:

Even with tweaks Spad, Camel and Bristol are still best 3 in game.

No so sure about that.  Of course number of flights is part of those numbers, but still..

Edited November 25, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[=IRFC=Tunes]

3 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

No so sure about that.  Of course number of flights is part of those numbers, but still..

You can't use a stats page as an objective source of aircraft performance, my guy.
 

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

15 minutes ago, =IRFC=Tunes said:

I fail to see how an Albatros DVa, Pfalz DIII, and Fokker DR1 that are still slower than every single temporally equivalent Entente aircraft, just by a smaller amount, would give Central an advantage. 

If anything, it would give mission makers a balancing mechanism. For 1917, you would have "faster, turns well" (the DR1), "faster, turns poorly" (the Alb DV, Pfalz), and "slower, turns poorly" (Alb DIII). Right now, you have to choose between "slow," "slow," and "slow."

[I intentionally avoid the word "fast," because, again, every mid-late 1917 Entente aircraft is faster.]

Just wondered if you all have considered it and are interested in the level playing field aspect of things being considered.   That's all..

[=IRFC=Tunes]

1 minute ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Just wondered if you all have considered it and are interested in the level playing field aspect of things being considered.   That's all..

Your data, as posted, suggests:

1) The Alb DVa is better than the SPAD XIII

 

2) The SPAD VII 150 is better than the SE5a, the Pfalz DIIIa, the Bristols, teh Fokker DVIII, Snipe, etc.

The stats page is irrelevant. To measure aircraft performance, we measure quantitative data such as turn rates, speed at various altitudes, climb performance, sustained and instantaneous turns.

And considering I used the phrase "it would give mission makers a balancing mechanism," I would indeed argue that balance is a primary consideration here.

Edited November 25, 2024 by =IRFC=Tunes

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

1 minute ago, =IRFC=Tunes said:

You can't use a stats page as an objective source of aircraft performance, my guy.
 

True, but making statements about "better" aircraft in the game without ANY citation is not particularly helpful either.  😉

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

Just now, =IRFC=Tunes said:

Your data, as posted, suggests:

1) The Alb DVa is better than the SPAD XIII

 

2) The SPAD VII 150 is better than the SE5a, the Pfalz DIIIa, the Bristols, teh Fokker DVIII, Snipe, etc.

The stats page is irrelevant.

 

Number 2 and 3 positions are from Manfreddy shooting Ai as opposed to other things when he has idle time.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

My question is/was are we pursuing historical representation without any consideration of fun for all..?  That's it.

[=IRFC=Tunes]

4 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

True, but making statements about "better" aircraft in the game without ANY citation is not particularly helpful either.  😉

I can't tell if you're joking. We spent several months gathering this data.

 

 

2 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

My question is/was are we pursuing historical representation without any consideration of fun for all..?  That's it.

I can assure you that being in an Albatros DVa flying against the current Sopwith Camel, SE5a, SPAD VII 180 is not fun.

Edited November 25, 2024 by =IRFC=Tunes

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

1 minute ago, =IRFC=Tunes said:

I can't tell if you're joking. We spent several months gathering this data.


https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/85872-fc-flight-model-benchmarking/

Probably because I was talking to/about klugermans comments, and not yours..😉

[=IRFC=Tunes]

1 minute ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Probably because I was talking to/about klugermans comments, and not yours..😉

You quoted my comment

[Holtzauge]

2 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbent said:

I’m also just replying to the opening post of @=IRFC=NakedSquirrel who clearly says that not all performance improvements would be externally visible and also why you need to be careful with accepting any book as dogma.

 

Look, as @US103_Rummell‘s topic shows, the performance data based on @Holtzauge’s book has the Fokker E.V/D.VIII with an IAS top speed ASL of 183km/h, that is with the same Oberursel UR.II engine as in the Fokker Dr.I with a top speed of 177km/h.

 

What I’ve been saying since the beginning is that they don’t have the same engine. It’s the same engine block but a different engine configuration with different static RPM and the sim already models this.

 

 

I see you mentioned a top speed figure of 204 km/h for the Fokker D.VIII earlier on and now talk of 190-195 km/h and I would (as I’m sure the developers would too) be very interested in seeing what data you base this on. And on this point I’m totally on the same page as the developers: 

General reasoning and idle speculation about performance will get us nowhere. In addition, just because the D.VIII has a small wing and looks streamlined does not mean it has low drag. I would have thought that we learnt that lesson from the Albatros. And just to take an example: The all covering cowling on the Camel is a huge gain in terms of drag (a bit of an early Townend ring) while the cylinders hanging out in the free stream under the fuselage on the Fokker causes a lot of parasitic drag.

But returning to the question of tuning: In my book I clearly state what tuning data I have used for each aircraft. This includes the Le Rhone "110 hp"/Oberursel Ur.II powered Fokker D.VIII and if you have data suggesting a higher top speed then I would be very interested to see that.

Finally, me thinks you are taking @=IRFC=Tunes statement about bibles a bit too literally. On the other hand I do appreciate the vote of confidence, I won’t deny that. 
 

 

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

3 minutes ago, =IRFC=Tunes said:

You quoted my comment

Actually,  I replied to K, you got involved and question my use of the stats..  but I digress..

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Still confused Tunes?  How can I help eliminate your confusion?

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

As operator of the stats I agree with @=IRFC=Tunes that they are worthless when assessing the technical FM modelling.  They are useful in assessing pilots flying planes more than anything else, especially if just ranking them according to points scored, as @RNAS10_Mitchell mentions.  Clicking on the survivability (% engagements where damage is received resulting in plane surviving) and lethality (% engagements where damage is caused resulting in enemy downed) columns of the parser provides insight into the planes damage models and flight models but still with the wide ranging effects of pilot ability and behavior).  Still, looking at both survivability and lethality, especially for specific pilots across specific planes and different pilot profiles (expert, average, low) can create helpful benchmarks to help define the playability and "fun index" of how the game is behaving in the hands of the community or good, if not historical, plane matchups given current modelling and players.

 

One notable item that cant be overstated is how much our individuaal perceptions about the game (plane modelling in particular)are shaped by two very small groups of players.  Those who are the most talented aces/shots and those with the loudest voices and what they are advocating for.  Personally, I would like to thank everyone who continues to advocate here for a better game regardless of which sides plane is involved, within the constraints we know exist of developer resources and attention.  Keep advocating for the small handful (2 or 3) of plane FM improvements that if made, will profuce the greatest positive impact on the game, and thus maintain financial viability for the game and increase odds of future attention, resources and improvements all of which produce a virtuous cycle benefitting everyone, even those whose favorite plane is still nerfed and those who still dont have a beautiful Caproni or a map to fly over the Alps.

Edited November 25, 2024 by JGr2/J5_Baeumer

[=IRFC=Tunes]

2 minutes ago, JGr2/J5_Baeumer said:

One notable item that cant be overstated is how much our individuaal perceptions about the game (plane modelling in particular)are shaped by two very small groups of players.  Those who are the most talented aces/shots and those with the loudest voices and what they are advocating for.  Personally, I would like to thank everyone who continues to advocate here for a better game regardless of which sides plane is involved, within the constraints we know exist of developer resources and attention.  Keep advocating for the small handful (2 or 3) of plane FM improvements that if made, will profuce the greatest positive impact on the game, and thus maintain financial viability for the game and increase odds of future attention, resources and improvements all of which produce a virtuous cycle benefitting everyone, even those whose favorite plane is still nerfed and those who still dont have a beautiful Caproni or a map to fly over the Alps.

Cheers, Baeumer. Well said. 

Edited November 25, 2024 by =IRFC=Tunes

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

19 minutes ago, JGr2/J5_Baeumer said:

As operator of the stats I agree with @=IRFC=Tunes that they are worthless when assessing the technical FM modelling.  They are useful in assessing pilots flying planes more than anything else, especially if just ranking them according to points scored, as @RNAS10_Mitchell mentions.  Clicking on the survivability (% engagements where damage is received resulting in plane surviving) and lethality (% engagements where damage is caused resulting in enemy downed) columns of the parser provides insight into the planes damage models and flight models but still with the wide ranging effects of pilot ability and behavior).  Still, looking at both survivability and lethality, especially for specific pilots across specific planes and different pilot profiles (expert, average, low) can create helpful benchmarks to help define the playability and "fun index" of how the game is behaving in the hands of the community.

 

One notable item that cant be overstated is how much our individuaal perceptions about the game (plane modelling in particular)are shaped by two very small groups of players.  Those who are the most talented aces/shots and those with the loudest voices and what they are advocating for.  Personally, I would like to thank everyone who continues to advocate here for a better game regardless of which sides plane is involved, within the constraints we know exist of developer resources and attention.  Keep advocating for the small handful (2 or 3) of plane FM improvements that if made, will profuce the greatest positive impact on the game, and thus maintain financial viability for the game and increase odds of future attention, resources and improvements all of which produce a virtuous cycle benefitting everyone, even those whose favorite plane is still nerfed and those who still dont have a beautiful Caproni or a map to fly over the Alps.

100% agree.  What i don't agree with is this. "Even with tweaks Spad, Camel and Bristol are still best 3 in game."    How is this verified?

 

Tunes,  can you substantiate this?   This is what I was attempting to disqualify. (and is suspect the cause of your confusion).✌️

 

Edited November 25, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

Ultimately it is a subjective issue as there are even differences in opinion on methodology.  Im not sure there is much value in trying to address a statement that I may or may not agree with but is a product of personal perception. 

 

What iseems to have a LOT of agreement across the community however os the list of planes that should be prioritized for tweaks. 

 

Far better for us to coalesce around that idea and advocate "across the lines" on that list with the devs.

Again, this thread was begun around what seems a sound and possibly even doable proposal for helping improve things that a lot of people agree the data suggests needs improving to help improve the game across the board in meaningful ways everyone would benefit from includimg the publisher.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

15 minutes ago, JGr2/J5_Baeumer said:

Ultimately it is a subjective issue as there are even differences in opinion on methodology.  Im not sure there is much value in trying to address a statement that I may or may not agree with but is a product of personal perception. 

 

What iseems to have a LOT of agreement across the community however os the list of planes that should be prioritized for tweaks. 

 

Far better for us to coalesce around that idea and advocate "across the lines" on that list with the devs.

Again, this thread was begun around what seems a sound and possibly even doable proposal for helping improve things that a lot of people agree the data suggests needs improving to help improve the game across the board in meaningful ways everyone would benefit from includimg the publisher.

Agreed. And happy to see the devs taking a look a this.   I have concerns regarding the "fun" factor, and hope we don't wind up with something historically accurate, that makes it fun for one side at the expense of fun for the other side..  In a word,  balanced game play.  

Edited November 25, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[=IRFC=Tunes]

28 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

100% agree.  What i don't agree with is this. "Even with tweaks Spad, Camel and Bristol are still best 3 in game."    How is this verified?

 

Tunes,  can you substantiate this?   This is what I was attempting to disqualify. (and is suspect the cause of your confusion).✌️

 

I would have thought that the link to the performance data would have been substantiation enough, but I stand corrected.

Admittedly, the DVIIF belongs on that list, but it is also the only Central machine that can hold its own vs these three airplanes.

1) SPAD XIII. 210 kph at sea level. Fastest machine and best climber below 2 KM. Can out dive any machine (DVIIF is close, but far more unstable in the dive and prone to blowing its engine), rendering it invincible in the right hands.

2) Sopwith Camel. 190 kph at sea level. Can out turn any Central machine. Can out run and out climb any Central airplane besides the DVIIF and DXII (both of which it decimates in a turn fight). 

3) Bristol Fighter. 198 kph at sea level. Can out turn any central machine besides the DR1. Can out run any Central machine besides the DVIIF and DXII (both of which it can out turn). Rear gunner with no high-G limitations. 

Compare these with the Albatros DVa, 165 kph (historically 178), the Fokker DR1, 162 kph (historically 177), and Pfalz DIIIa, 164 kph (historically 185). 

The game is currently not balanced. Bringing things in alignment with historical accuracy would balance it. I don't think I can be any more clear than this. 

[BMA_Hellbender]

53 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

I see you mentioned a top speed figure of 204 km/h for the Fokker D.VIII earlier on and now talk of 190-195 km/h and I would (as I’m sure the developers would too) be very interested in seeing what data you base this on. And on this point I’m totally on the same page as the developers: 

General reasoning and idle speculation about performance will get us nowhere. In addition, just because the D.VIII has a small wing and looks streamlined does not mean it has low drag. I would have thought that we learnt that lesson from the Albatros. And just to take an example: The all covering cowling on the Camel is a huge gain in terms of drag (a bit of an early Townend ring) while the cylinders hanging out in the free stream under the fuselage on the Fokker causes a lot of parasitic drag.

But returning to the question of tuning: In my book I clearly state what tuning data I have used for each aircraft. This includes the Le Rhone "110 hp"/Oberursel Ur.II powered Fokker D.VIII and if you have data suggesting a higher top speed then I would be very interested to see that.

Finally, me thinks you are taking @=IRFC=Tunes statement about bibles a bit too literally. On the other hand I do appreciate the vote of confidence, I won’t deny that. 
 

 

190-195km/h is already closer to 204km/h than 179km/h. The 204km/h number comes from Gray, Peter; Owen Thetford (1970). German Aircraft of the First World War (2nd ed.). 

 

The Sopwith Dolphin is also off by 10km/h compared to its top speed in literature, but that’s a fight for another day.

 

For the record: it has nothing to do with the wing (well, very little). Take a Dr.I in the sim, taxi it off the grounds of an air base until you get on rough terrain. Plant the tail into the ground with full throttle and full elevator and lean the mixture for max static RPM. Now do the same for the E.V/D.VIII. Compare both readings: they don’t have the same static RPM. The airframe has nothing to do with it, they just have a differently configured engine.
 

This is not unique to the Dr.I and E.V/D.VIII. You can repeat the same procedure with the Sopwith Triplane and Sopwith Camel.

 

So your calculations aren’t wrong, they just assume an identically configured Oberursel UR.II and Clerget 9B. Tthe truth is that which @=IRFC=NakedSquirrel points out: externally identical engines still saw performance increases as the war progressed.