A noobs report: WW1 Arena

[pervert]

You're missing the more important point.  There is no data for when these aircraft would break under g load.  You could just guess at values and have as good a chance as being right as what's currently there, because there is no data.

I'll take Hitechs guess over anyone else on the forums! 

[pervert]

A quick film of gameplay in the WW1 in the F1, this is pretty much why we need more variety in the planeset. The roll rate on the F1 is abysmal it will roll in both directions at exactly the same speed??

http://www.4shared.com/file/PnwJCbRp/ww1.html

[Anaxogoras]

I'll take Hitechs guess over anyone else on the forums! 

You don't have a choice.

[Tinribs]

Tinribs you want to change a plane model for gameplay reasons.  You don't see that as a problem?

We have FOUR planes in the arena I dont see just evening out the g load capabilities as any sort of problem, it can only be of benefit to all.
What I want is to see more players in the arena and I believe with all four planes being flown instead of predominately one we would be on the road to achieving that aim. 

[pervert]

You don't have a choice.

You post extracts from books about top speeds leaving out the fact that you don't really have a source for those speeds at the most common altitude we fly in the WW1 arena (the deck), and your sources guess is that the British Camel and DR1 would be roughly equal on the deck (the alt we most commonly fight at) and in the game they are.

Have you tested speed at the altitudes in your book in the game?

[FLS]

We have FOUR planes in the arena I dont see just evening out the g load capabilities as any sort of problem, it can only be of benefit to all.
What I want is to see more players in the arena and I believe with all four planes being flown instead of predominately one we would be on the road to achieving that aim. 

First of all you're just hoping that making them all break at the same load will somehow bring more players into the arena. You haven't given any reason to believe that this would happen.

More important is the issue of how the load limits were set in the first place. I'm sure that HTC set them to be as accurate as they could given the information they have. The notion that given the little information available the limits could be set to anything and should be set to adjust gameplay is silly.

[Yeager]

I'm sure that HTC set them to be as accurate as they could given the information they have.

If this information is incomplete in any way then damaging discrepancies will be built into the flight models.

I would "hope" HTC has a sort of Flight Test Program where they look at the final overall performance of any given ride and can logically feel these discrepancies out and coad in a sort of intuitive feel and balance modifier.

I am sure they do this....right?  where they (HTC) are performing some data gathering tests before release and just say "This cant be right" even though they coaded in the best data they had available.  I hope they do this, lol sometimes I doubt it.  The F1 breaking apart  repeatedly under less stressing than the DR1 sure felt like BS to me.  Maybe the data they used was corrupted somehow.....

[Sid]

I'd be against artificial "detuning" any aircraft purely for the sake of game play, where we have good historical information for climb rate, top speed, etc, AH should reflect it.

Without historical data for how much "G" a factory fresh aircraft could pull, (remember we don't model poor quality control construction methods, engines that regularly failed or quickly lost performance after use, airframes that quickly rotted and lost strength in the wet weather of the Somme, only a factory fresh perfect example of the design every sortie) I would like to see the aircraft "evened out".

It probably isn't representative for WWI to be able to pull G with impunity, so say using the Camel as a bench mark, adjust all the aircraft so they can "pull until just a small circle of day light remains" and level the playing field in this respect.

This is what I wrote in the other thread on this, and as I said I'm against artificial "detuning" any aircraft purely for the sake of game play.

It would certainly help if the HTC crew would comment on why they have set the current "G" limits the way they have.

[FLS]

So you guys want the DR1 and Camel to have equal load limits despite differences in their design, materials, and construction?

Why not just post that you want the DR1 neutered in some way? That seems to be the gist of the complaints.

[Citabria]

I am against detuning or gaming flight models etc for balance. let the cards fall where they fall.

the best option has been to add more aircraft that have ingrained performance that counters the currently dominant aircraft in an arena.

it is possible to add some historical flavor to certain aspects of more arbitrary aspects of flight modeling such as structural failure limits.

take for example the dr1s top wing was found after the war (a long while after possibly) that its angle of attack was significantly higher than the lower wings.

it was one of the causes of the upper wing failing on several occasions if i remember correctly.

theoretically the top wing would be more prone to failing before the lower wings. I am not certain if this is calculated into the structural limits of the flight model but it is an interesting nuance.

but what makes the dr1 such a killer is its visibility both over the nose and forward and above that allows tracking shots and full sight of a maneuvering opponent. going from dr1 to d7 you notice immediately your biggest shooting disadvantage is a large gap in visibility cause by the upper wing right above the gunsight.

same with the camel... your basically flying blind in the f1.

[Tinribs]

First of all you're just hoping that making them all break at the same load will somehow bring more players into the arena. You haven't given any reason to believe that this would happen.

More important is the issue of how the load limits were set in the first place. I'm sure that HTC set them to be as accurate as they could given the information they have. The notion that given the little information available the limits could be set to anything and should be set to adjust gameplay is silly.

I will refer you back to Festers first post on this topic,as an experienced stick but a noob to the ww1 arena he has come to the same conclusion that most of us have allthough his idea to increase the interest in ww1 is a little different.
What better reason could you have ?

It would not even be necessary to have the 4 planes break at the exact same g load just a much narrower gap between the d7 at the lower end and the dr1 at the upper end of the scale.

[Sid]

Three of these aircraft are about to shed a wing, one it's even close. Guess which one?

So you guys want the DR1 and Camel to have equal load limits despite differences in their design, materials, and construction?

Why not just post that you want the DR1 neutered in some way? That seems to be the gist of the complaints.

Or to re-phrase, you want three of the aircraft to have significantly less of a load limit, despite there being no evidence that this was the case.

I'm more than happy to keep the Dr.1 the way it is, if you can point to somewhere that shows it could pull more than 6G.

[dstrip2]

i have a few ww1 era books, ace of aces and echoes of eagles if my memory serves. i cant quote exact pages but i remember what i read pretty well and the overall impression i got from reading those books is that the dr1 COULD hold more g's in a turn and turn tighter than other ww1 airplanes (nieuports and spads were the comparison).

 i would assume that more g could be sustained because the weight of the dr1 is 'held up' so to speak by 3 wings, not just two. no i dont have wing loading data or structural data but 3 stubby wings would be better in a turn than 2 longer ones, just as a 12ft piece of plywood is not going to hold as much weight in the middle as a 4ft piece would (and would bend much more besides)

in short, the dr1's turn and climb ability are inherent of its wing design which handles g better than say an eindecker with only one wing.
now with that should come a lower top speed due to more drag i would think, compounded by a smaller/less powerful engine.

of the planes we currently have in ww1, the dr1 is better in many respects. its pretty beastly to be frank. overmoddled? maybe maybe not. the best 'fix' is to introduce different airplanes that have different flight envelopes that can counter the dr1 because right now the style of fighting in the ww1 arena plays directly to the dr1's strengths.

i fly the f2b and have gotten it to work for me quite well without being one of those rear-gunner tards, 200 or 300 ft separation is about as far as i would dare push it, and i over-rev the engine and stress the airframe to the brink of failure on a regular basis. dr1s are fun for me to fight because i have a more powerful engine and better stall characteristics than they do so i just try to store as much energy as i can in the fight and convert that for a shot when the opportunity is right.

there are ways to combat the dr1 you just have to keep yourself from playing its game. more planes that can exploit different advantages are the answer to the dr1 menace, and making all planes have the same failure point even though they have different structural qualities would be.. bad? lol

 

[FLS]

I don't need to prove that the current model is valid. That would be the opposite of what is required.

Maybe the way to increase the WW1 population would be to post about how much fun you're having instead of complaining about things you can't document. 

[dstrip2]

I don't need to prove that the current model is valid. That would be the opposite of what is required.

Maybe the way to increase the WW1 population would be to post about how much fun you're having instead of complaining about things you can't document. 

well in that case, i will say that ww1 is a great way to gain a different perspective on turn fighting and energy management; and that this perspective helps a great deal in the ww2 MA's