The Albatros Problem... (and solution)

[=IRFC=Tunes]

17 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hellbent said:

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.

Bender, the static RPM difference between the Fokker DR1 and DVIII is simply due to the fact that they nerfed the DR1 in RoF 1.034. It is an arbitrary adjustment used to make it slower. The static RPM of the DVIII in game is identical to the static RPM of the DR1 pre-1.034. 

In real life, they used an identical engine - the whole point of the DVIII was to make an aircraft that more effectively used the large surplus of URIIs that were being bolted to the DR1 1-2 months earlier. 

The same can be said for the Sopwith Triplane - its lower static RPM is an arbitrary adjustment by the devs used to balance it vs the in-game Albatros DVa. In real life, it had the same engine (could be argued 9B vs. 9Bf), but more importantly the same prop and similar top speed to the Camel. 

[BMA_Hellbender]

5 minutes ago, =IRFC=Tunes said:

Bender, the DR1/DVIII static RPMs have nothing to do with real life. They nerfed the DR1 in 1.034 by removing 100 RPM. The DVIII simply has the RPM of the pre-1.034 DR1. 

The same is true for the Camel/Sopwith Triplane. They would have had similar top speeds/static RPMs/props IRL, but the devs took static RPM away in the tripe to balance it against the Albatros DVa.

IRL, they took the Oberursel URIIs that would have been bolted on to a Fokker Triplane 1-2 months earlier and simply placed them onto EV/DVIIIs. That is the whole point of the DVIII. An airframe that would take better advantage of an existing engine. 

Ah, no, that’s where you’re wrong about the Triplane.

 

Even before RoF 1.034 it had the same static RPM as the Strutter, not as the Camel. It’s an earlier version/configuration/production of the Clerget 9B. They then made the Triplane even worse with RoF 1.034 to “balance out” against the nerfed Camel. That was thankfully undone in Flying Circus. Still, if you’d allow the Triplane to run at 1400 RPM as the Camel does, it would likely be faster than the Camel.

 

It’s easy enough to test this: fly the Camel ASL with the max RPM of the Triplane (~1250 RPM) and there the Camel is in fact slower than the Triplane at the same RPM.

 

So if the issue is indeed nerfed static RPMs, the solution is even more simple: remove the RPM limits on both the Sopwith Triplane and Fokker Dr.I. I suspect it will not be as easy as that.

 

Moreover I think the Dr.I should perform better with its current max RPM, and the E.V/D.VIII even better with its higher max RPM.

[Holtzauge]

36 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hellbent said:

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.

 

The 204 km/h top speed figure on page 112 in Thetford & Grey’s book is not for the Le Rhone/Oberursel UR.II powered variant, and in fact the authors even mention the more powerful 11 cylinder Oberursel (the UR.III) and the Goebel Goe.III on the previous page. So how do we know that the performance figures on page 112 in that book are really for the more powerful (140-160 hp nominal) engines? Because the listed climb time of 10.75 min to 4000 m is not possible with the Oberursel UR.II engine variant (nominal 122 hp), which instead needs in the order of 16 min to reach this altitude.

In addition, extrapolating what an Oberursel UR.III powered Fokker D.VIII would do assuming 183 km/h for the Oberursel UR.II variant, we get around 200 km/h. So no, there is AFAIK no data suggesting that the Le Rhone/Oberursel UR.II powered variant we have in game would get us anywhere near 204 km/h, which leaves the 190-195 km/h estimates. Where would we find data supporting these numbers?

When it comes to engines, that the Mercedes D.III engines were upgraded to various over-compressed variants (D.IIIaü etc.) is well known and documented and there is solid data on this in terms of how the modifications were made and what power they produced as a function of altitude.

I know of the Oberursel UR.III and Goebels Goe.III engine variants, but what is there to suggest that a more powerful Oberursel UR.II (than the 122 hp variant) made it into the Fokker D.VIII? AFAIK the UR.II was just an interim solution, and the intention was to use the UR.III or Goe.III eventually so where is the data for a souped up UR.II?
 

[BMA_Hellbender]

5 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

The 204 km/h top speed figure on page 112 in Thetford & Grey’s book is not for the Le Rhone/Oberursel UR.II powered variant, and in fact the authors even mention the more powerful 11 cylinder Oberursel (the UR.III) and the Goebel Goe.III on the previous page. So how do we know that the performance figures on page 112 in that book are really for the more powerful (140-160 hp nominal) engines? Because the listed climb time of 10.75 min to 4000 m is not possible with the Oberursel UR.II engine variant (nominal 122 hp), which instead needs in the order of 16 min to reach this altitude.

In addition, extrapolating what an Oberursel UR.III powered Fokker D.VIII would do assuming 183 km/h for the Oberursel UR.II variant, we get around 200 km/h. So no, there is AFAIK no data suggesting that the Le Rhone/Oberursel UR.II powered variant we have in game would get us anywhere near 204 km/h, which leaves the 190-195 km/h estimates. Where would we find data supporting these numbers?

Now that is an explanation that I accept. And it then also begs the question why we don’t have the Oberursel UR.III on the Fokker E.V/D.VIII in the sim.

 

Certainly the explanation could be: well, it never actually operated at the front. Okay, that I’m also willing to entertain… but neither did the Pfalz D.XII(f) with a BMW IIIa engine. Heck, even the Siemens-Schuckert D.IV didn’t really operate in any numbers.

 

See, this is the real issue with this sim: a lack of consistency between planes and engine configurations that actually operated and ones that didn’t.

 

Who gets to decide that? The “meta”?

 

Please, let the players decide! Give the E.V/D.VIII a collector plane with its Oberursel UR.III (which does have 11 cylinders and will need some 3D modelling) and you get another plane which isn’t just used by no one at all, like the Nieuport 28 used to be.

 

Again that is all assuming that the only thing wrong with the Dr.I is its max RPM. If it retains its ~1200 RPM and suddenly flies faster and climbs better then I will genuinely question how it is almost identical to the Fokker E.V/D.VIII ~1350 RPM. If that is the case then they both need to be reviewed.

[Holtzauge]

2 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hellbent said:

Now that is an explanation that I accept. And it then also begs the question why we don’t have the Oberursel UR.III on the Fokker E.V/D.VIII in the sim.

 

Certainly the explanation could be: well, it never actually operated at the front. Okay, that I’m also willing to entertain… but neither did the Pfalz D.XII(f) with a BMW IIIa engine. Heck, even the Siemens-Schuckert D.IV didn’t really operate in any numbers.

 

See, this is the real issue with this sim: a lack of consistency between planes and engine configurations that actually operated and ones that didn’t.

 

Who gets to decide that? The “meta”?

 

Please, let the players decide! Give the E.V/D.VIII a collector plane with its Oberursel UR.III (which does have 11 cylinders and will need some 3D modelling) and you get another plane which isn’t just used by no one at all, like the Nieuport 28 used to be.

 

Again that is all assuming that the only thing wrong with the Dr.I is its max RPM. If it retains its ~1200 RPM and suddenly flies faster and climbs better then I will genuinely question how it is almost identical to the Fokker E.V/D.VIII ~1350 RPM. If that is the case then they both need to be reviewed.

 

IIRC then one or both of the UR.III and Goe.III were tested at the so-called fighter trials towards the end of the war with good results, and Fokker's parasol creation was very popular with the pilots as I recall it. However, given that even the UR.II variants were a rarity, I'm doubtful that any variants with the more powerful engines ever entered service.

 

But for sure, I would like to see a D.VIII with such an engine option personally (as long as it actually entered service that is!) even if the numbers were small. But as to where in the prio order it would fit I leave up to you MP guys, since while IMHO balancing in terms of tweaking aircraft's performance is a dirty word, doing so to judiciously to create a plane set that is historically accurate but still leaves something to be had for each side seems like a good idea to me. But again, which aircraft this should be and in which order they should be added in-game is like you say probably best decided by the players. 

 

Then about the rpm issue: That sounds more like something that should be fixed in the game engine as long as the planes conform to the performance numbers that is.

[=IRFC=Tunes]

We’ve reached consensus! A miracle! Time to wrap up this thread.

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 minute ago, =IRFC=Tunes said:

We’ve reached consensus! A miracle! Time to wrap up this thread.

We certainly have!

 

The issue with this consensus is that it uncovers a larger issue: for the sake of consistency the best thing to do after fixing the Albs and Pfalz D.IIIa is… nothing.

 

The alternative is to fix everything, and I really wonder if the devs have time to commit to all of that:

 

- Fix the low static RPM on the Dr.I + FM review

- Fix the low static RPM on the Triplane + FM review

- Build and release a Fokker E.V/D.III collector plane with an Oberursel UR.III

 

If they don’t do these three things, preferably at the same time, you have either performance inconsistencies or operational inconsistencies. The situation today is far from perfect, but there is at least some method to the madness.

 

Anyway thanks all for participating in this discussion.

[=IRFC=Tunes]

32 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hellbent said:

for the sake of consistency the best thing to do after fixing the Albs and Pfalz D.IIIa is… nothing.

 

I think most of the community would disagree here. It would leave a DR1 that is inferior to even the Pup. 

And, as far as inconsistency, it would also yield an Albatros and Pfalz that are nearly 20 kph faster than the Fokker. 

Priority ranking is, as has been mentioned ad nauseum mentioned before:

Alb/Pfalz > Dr1 >> Everything Else.

DVIII and Sopwith Triplane fall into the third bucket.
 

  

2 hours 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. 

I suggest we leave this conversation behind, as the bickering on the threads leads to a false illusion that a consensus can't be reached on these topics. We're being the loudest voices. To flat out say that nothing should be done is arguably even more damaging to the work being done behind the scenes to push for change that would benefit the balance, and therefore the longevity, of the game.  

Edited November 25, 2024 by =IRFC=Tunes

[BMA_Hellbender]

2 minutes ago, =IRFC=Tunes said:

I think most of the community would disagree here. It would leave a DR1 that is inferior to even the Pup. 

And, as far as inconsistency, it would also yield an Albatros and Pfalz that are nearly 20 kph faster than the Fokker. 

Priority ranking is, as has been mentioned ad nauseum mentioned before:

Alb/Pfalz > Dr1 >> Everything Else.

DVIII and Sopwith Triplane fall into the third bucket.

I concede that that is your opinion, which is what I’ve asked for. To me the Dr.I falls into that “everything else” category as well, including the wrong max RPM on the Triplane. Right now the Dr.I is flyable and competitive and has some major advantages over the Pup and Camel, including durability and a parachute.

 

Now I’m just repeating myself, though, and I realise I’m being an obnoxious Belgian bureaucrat—from Brussels, no less. That is what we do (except for making chocolate and being Europe’s favourite battlefield): we seek compromise and consensus until absolutely everyone is equally unhappy. Then we turn it into a European directive.

 

And then you wonder why the British left the EU and Apple no longer wants to sell their phones here. 😄

[=IRFC=Tunes]

7 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hellbent said:

I concede that that is your opinion, which is what I’ve asked for. To me the Dr.I falls into that “everything else” category as well, including the wrong max RPM on the Triplane. Right now the Dr.I is flyable and competitive and has some major advantages over the Pup and Camel, including durability and a parachute.

 

Now I’m just repeating myself, though, and I realise I’m being an obnoxious Belgian bureaucrat—from Brussels, no less. That is what we do (except for making chocolate and being Europe’s favourite battlefield): we seek compromise and consensus until absolutely everyone is equally unhappy. Then we turn it into a European directive.

 

And then you wonder why the British left the EU and Apple no longer wants to sell their phones here. 😄

I'm sorry, but what you say is incorrect. The DR1 has lower G-tolerance to the Camel before the wings start shedding. I'd be happy to pull numbers from my analysis after the DM fix. It is also far harder to land a pilot-kill on the DR1 due to less fuselage protecting the pilot's head. 

The DR1 has no advantage to the Pup besides snap roll and firepower. It is slower, climbs worse, and turns worse. 

We have to be in consensus on the facts as they stand before conjecting on what needs to be done. Let's continue this conversation offline, eh?

Edited November 25, 2024 by =IRFC=Tunes

[Zooropa_Fly]

I'm glad you three have finally decided how the game experience should be for everyone who owns FC.

[Holtzauge]

I think @Hellbender nailed it with the EU directive suggestion: If Brussels just mandates that all FM's SHALL comply to historical data then we will be fine. Problem will still remain with the British scouts though, seeing they are now outside the EU's jurisdiction......

[ACG_Bussard]

1 hour ago, Holtzauge said:

Problem will still remain with the British scouts though, seeing they are now outside the EU's jurisdiction......

I don´t think so, tbh. The BEF flies over France and Belgium and therefore over EU territory. This undoubtedly means that the rules of European jurisdiction must apply in order to avoid any distortion of competition with EU member states. The EU Commission under German leadership will certainly establish a committee to assess the British flight models and then makes a recommendation regarding their access over the EU territory.

[Aapje]

12 hours ago, Hellbender said:

Now I’m just repeating myself, though, and I realise I’m being an obnoxious Belgian bureaucrat—from Brussels, no less. That is what we do (except for making chocolate and being Europe’s favourite battlefield): we seek compromise and consensus until absolutely everyone is equally unhappy. Then we turn it into a European directive.

 

One of the big problems of the EU is that EU bureaucrats/politicians believe this falsehood.

 

Anyway, this game does not pretend to be a democracy, unlike the EU. The stated goal is to make the planes accurate, even if it results in planes that are not so competitive or flyable.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

3 hours ago, Aapje said:

The stated goal is to make the planes accurate, even if it results in planes that are not so competitive or flyable.

That has been my concern as well.  Historically correct is interesting,  and don't dislike the intent, but I'm concerned that balance could be taking a back seat for historical accuracy.  During the war numbers of aircraft and pilots to fly them was a big factor in the outcomes.   This can be replicated in missions by limiting the number of combatants on either side. But for multiplayer,  this would be a challenge.  If one side has a technological advantage,  who's going to want to fly the inferior aircraft?  Some of the changes proposed would likely not cause a huge swing in either direction (imo).  Other changes proposed imo have the potential to create an unbalanced scenario,  that would not be good for the game.   Whatever the devs decide, I sincerely hope they keep balance and fun for all as a part of thier decision process.

[Trooper117]

I want historical accuracy if possible, not 'balance' or to make it fair... 😌

[Aapje]

@RNAS10_Mitchell

 

There are lots of ways to balance things out, for example by banning certain planes from the server/scenario, changing the point scoring/victory conditions to favor the weaker side/aircraft, limit the imbalance by not allowing people to join a certain side if there are already too many, etc.

 

And note that it doesn't actually work exactly how you think it does, because people often choose a side/plane for the cool factor, rather than performance. In War Thunder they apparently have boosted planes from certain nations a ton because weak pilots keep picking those planes, while the strong players keep picking the weaker planes.

[Ghost666]

1 hour ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

That has been my concern as well.  Historically correct is interesting,  and don't dislike the intent, but I'm concerned that balance could be taking a back seat for historical accuracy.  During the war numbers of aircraft and pilots to fly them was a big factor in the outcomes.   This can be replicated in missions by limiting the number of combatants on either side. But for multiplayer,  this would be a challenge.  If one side has a technological advantage,  who's going to want to fly the inferior aircraft?  Some of the changes proposed would likely not cause a huge swing in either direction (imo).  Other changes proposed imo have the potential to create an unbalanced scenario,  that would not be good for the game.   Whatever the devs decide, I sincerely hope they keep balance and fun for all as a part of thier decision process.

I want historical accuracy. If you want game balance in MP, change the plane set in MP. If you are willing to change the historical accuracy of the planes to achieve balance. Then I would surmise that you should be ok with changing the historical time frame of when planes flew. Just my 2 cents. 

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

All good and valid points.  Keep in mind "Historical Accuracy" is virtually impossible to get 100% right across the board. The data available is scattered,  in some cases incorrect,  and in some cases flawed.  So the task is not an easy one.  Several people here have invested many, many hours in efforts to weed out the good info, from the bad.  I recognize and appreciate the effort they have made in this regard. The developers also have done some homework in that regard.   But it seems in the end, a certain amount of the data is incomplete,  or perhaps based on limited input.  Historical accuracy being the objective,  seems like a impossible task to be 100% accurate at this point in history.   So we have what we have.  Close to, approximating what is the true picture.   I'd also suggest that manufacturing in the early 1900 was not flawless.  I'd further imagine that each aircraft produced,  did not perform exactly the same as the one produced earlier.   Manufacturing differences in summary.   So testing was done on prototypes,  and survivors.    

 

Historical accuracy will in my opinion be difficult if not impossible to achieve 100%.  So, which analysis will be used?  Will it be actually accurate?  Or more importantly,  will it be acceptable?  Or close enough?  I guess it depends which way the wind blows in the end.   

To be honest,  I'm pretty happy with MOST of the FM'S.   Sure a couple could use a review/revisit.  But I hope they don't mess with too much.  

[Holtzauge]

2 hours ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

All good and valid points.  Keep in mind "Historical Accuracy" is virtually impossible to get 100% right across the board. The data available is scattered,  in some cases incorrect,  and in some cases flawed.  So the task is not an easy one.  Several people here have invested many, many hours in efforts to weed out the good info, from the bad.  I recognize and appreciate the effort they have made in this regard. The developers also have done some homework in that regard.   But it seems in the end, a certain amount of the data is incomplete,  or perhaps based on limited input.  Historical accuracy being the objective,  seems like a impossible task to be 100% accurate at this point in history.   So we have what we have.  Close to, approximating what is the true picture.   I'd also suggest that manufacturing in the early 1900 was not flawless.  I'd further imagine that each aircraft produced,  did not perform exactly the same as the one produced earlier.   Manufacturing differences in summary.   So testing was done on prototypes,  and survivors.    

 

Historical accuracy will in my opinion be difficult if not impossible to achieve 100%.  So, which analysis will be used?  Will it be actually accurate?  Or more importantly,  will it be acceptable?  Or close enough?  I guess it depends which way the wind blows in the end.   

To be honest,  I'm pretty happy with MOST of the FM'S.   Sure a couple could use a review/revisit.  But I hope they don't mess with too much.  

 

Well the same thing could be said for the AI you know. Granted, I’m pretty clueless about AI development, but why would I let that that stop me from expressing strong opinions about it.......

 

All good and valid points. Keep in mind "Historical Accuracy" is virtually impossible to get 100% right across the board. The data available is scattered, in some cases incorrect, and in some cases flawed.  So the task is not an easy one.  Several people here have invested many, many hours in efforts to weed out the good info, from the bad.  I recognize and appreciate the effort they have made in this regard. The developers also have done some homework in that regard.   But it seems in the end, a certain amount of the data is incomplete,  or perhaps based on limited input.  Historical accuracy being the objective,  seems like a impossible task to be 100% accurate at this point in history.   So we have what we have.  Close to, approximating what is the true picture.   I'd also suggest that manufacturing knowledge about how pilots flew in the early 1900 is was not flawless.  I'd further imagine that each individual pilot aircraft produced,  did not perform exactly the same as others the one produced earlier.  Pilot training  Manufacturing differences in summary.   So testing was done on our knowledge of pilot behaviour is not complete but only based on a few samples prototypes,  and combat survivors. 

  

Historical accuracy will in my opinion be difficult if not impossible to achieve 100%.  So, which analysis will be used?  Will it be actually accurate?  Or more importantly, will it be acceptable?  Or close enough?  I guess it depends which way the wind blows in the end.   

To be honest, I'm pretty happy with MOST of the AI behaviour  FM'S.   Sure a couple could use a review/revisit.  But I hope they don't mess with too much.  

[BMA_Hellbender]

3 hours ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

All good and valid points.  Keep in mind "Historical Accuracy" is virtually impossible to get 100% right across the board. The data available is scattered,  in some cases incorrect,  and in some cases flawed.  So the task is not an easy one.  Several people here have invested many, many hours in efforts to weed out the good info, from the bad.  I recognize and appreciate the effort they have made in this regard. The developers also have done some homework in that regard.   But it seems in the end, a certain amount of the data is incomplete,  or perhaps based on limited input.  Historical accuracy being the objective,  seems like a impossible task to be 100% accurate at this point in history.   So we have what we have.  Close to, approximating what is the true picture.   I'd also suggest that manufacturing in the early 1900 was not flawless.  I'd further imagine that each aircraft produced,  did not perform exactly the same as the one produced earlier.   Manufacturing differences in summary.   So testing was done on prototypes,  and survivors.    

 

Historical accuracy will in my opinion be difficult if not impossible to achieve 100%.  So, which analysis will be used?  Will it be actually accurate?  Or more importantly,  will it be acceptable?  Or close enough?  I guess it depends which way the wind blows in the end.   

To be honest,  I'm pretty happy with MOST of the FM'S.   Sure a couple could use a review/revisit.  But I hope they don't mess with too much.  

After a discussion with @=IRFC=Tunes I need to comment and walk back a few things which I’ve said before, but also issue a warning.

 

First let’s get this out of the way: a faster and better climbing Fokker Dr.I than we have now absolutely existed and is historically accurate—if not the actual Fokker Dr.I, then at least the Fokker F.I prototype which Voss piloted on his fateful flight. Simply put: it was equipped with a captured ~120hp Le Rhône 9Jb engine operated with captured castor oil.

 

The Oberursel UR.II found on the production Fokker Dr.I was a copy of the earlier ~110hp Le Rhône 9Ja also found on the Nieuport 17… but the Germans in their manufacturing prowess were able to get 120hp out of this block. The issue here is that they didn’t have a lot of castor oil at their disposal, if any, and their ersatz Voltol had a way of reducing engine lifespan dramatically if the engine was allowed to run at peak power. That said: it could do it, just like the Siemens we have now can complete a flight without its engine seizing.

 

Then there’s the reality of WWI aerial combat in 1917-1918. Most of it was not fighter combat, but two-seater interception. The Germans in particular had set up the system of the Flying Circus (“Look, mom, he said the name of the movie during the movie!”) where they would travel Jastas up and down the line and form pockets of local air dominance, since after Bloody April 1917, they had already lost overall air dominance to the Entente. Mostly to the French and their bloody SPADs. Anyway, the Germans would patrol their own lines in stacked formations and wait for “a customer to enter the store”, be it two-seater (usually) or fighter.

 

Meanwhile the British still hadn’t figured out a way to produce a decent enough machine in any numbers to fit the role of the SPAD on their side, since, well, the French had control over Hispano-Suiza—the engine manufacturer that won the air war for the Entente—and the British were getting the leftovers for their R.A.F. S.E.5a. Enter the Sopwith Camel, the Super Pup. Again a plane that had a rough start with engine difficulties and was notoriously hard to master on top, but eventually came into its own throughout 1918 when the British began to license-build and perfect their own Clerget 9B engines. The Camel was operated in perhaps the least effective way possible: on extremely long patrols across the lines (hence the large fuel tank), typically in relatively small formations of 2-4 planes, and sometimes strapped with bombs for good measure. Might as well bomb a trench or two if you don’t run into any aerial resistance. Thank you, Marshal Trenchard, for this genius plan. In time it’s been rivalled only by Brexit.
 

Anyway, so much for the armchair historian. I recommend everyone to read as much as possible on the topic. I have a soft spot for Schlachtflieger! by Rick Duiven and Dan-San Abbott. The Halberstadt CL.II NCO crews are the true unsung heroes of this conflict. And boy did they ever manage to put that Camel doctrine to the test when their CL.IIs were getting deployed in Schlastas of 12 to 24 machines. It was perhaps the last time that the Entente top brass feared they might lose the ground war altogether, to an airplane no less.

 

OKAY, here I come back to what @=IRFC=Tunes and many among the MP community want who may have skipped reading the paragraphs above. Action!

 

Camel vs. Dr.I is perhaps the most iconic matchup of all. It’s up there with Spitfire vs. 109 and Zeke vs. Wildcat. Of the three, it’s by far the least accurate one, or at least the one that simply didn’t take place much. Still, it represents an entire conflict and it is, without a doubt, the best hook to get those precious souls to join MP servers. Setting up the Dr.I as an historically probable (but not proven) underdog from the start due to its operational difficulties is, I concede, not off to a great start and a recipe for frustration. Even when a faster Albatros will soon be available.

Finally, beyond being an armchair historian, I do consider myself to be something of a real historian when it comes to the MP scene of this sim and its predecessor. Be careful what you wish for. I’m going to repeat that warning for good measure: be careful what you wish for trying to create a Camel vs. Dr.I-centric meta. And I’m even discounting the fact that we’ve never seen fast Dr.Is with parachutes before, backed up by faster Albies with parachutes. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

 

I have now said my piece and as soon as I’m back home I will finally spend some time with the N28. I think I’ve earned it.

 

Edited November 26, 2024 by Hellbender

[BMA_Hellbender]

P.S. I made the above post as Hellbender, not =IRFC=Hellbent, as it is my own opinion and it does not represent the opinion of my squadron, nor anyone else from the community for that matter. I need to make that clear to any dev who might read this.

 

Thanks for subscribing to my blog.

 

Edited November 26, 2024 by =IRFC=Hellbent

[ST_Catchov]

 

Ah now I get it. That's why you never see Bent and Bender in the same room at the same time. It's always just one or the other, never both.  I must admit I did note that you are both from Brussels which aroused my suspicion. Case solved. Unless .... one of you is lying? Like, a Belgian would never put Belgium down would he. Or she? One of you is an imposter. Nice try. I'm not fooled.

[Winkelmann]

The silence of one the developers of this wonderful simulation on this discussion is quite deafening.

 

[Zooropa_Fly]

I think they're kinda busy elsewhere.

[LukeFF]

8 hours ago, =J18=Winkelmann said:

The silence of one the developers of this wonderful simulation on this discussion is quite deafening.

 

 

Myself and Regingrave have explained why the Albatros planes have yet to be updated.