WWI: Straight question for the staff.

[Yeager]

Hmmmph...gyroscopic effects are part of combat, and frankly the Camel with its even greater instability in yaw can do even more exotic things.

From my experience the F1 had no where near the gyroscopic anti gravity nonsense that the DR1 displayed regularly.  We must be playing two different games.  I loved the F1.  Loved the D7.  Enjoyed the F2b. Developed a dislike for the DR1 very early on.  Came to despise the thing.  It killed the WW1 arena for me, and it really is a shame.  It can still be saved though.  Check that gyroscopic stuff on the DR1.  Make sure it is being properly impacted  by gravity on all three axis.  Also double check to make sure the sides of the fuselage are imparting drag when the thing fly's sideways.  If checks out ok (which I seriously doubt), then perk the thing or delete it, and give us a plane in its place that fly's like a powered kite and not an imperial Tie Fighter.

[BnZs]

The Dr1 wing design was so strong that it didn't need struts and wire bracing. The struts that were added to the original design were not necessary and were added simply to reassure the pilots who were uncomfortable seeing the wings flex. The top wing failures that occurred were reportedly manufacturing defects not design defects.  

Aside from manufacturing defects, the top wing could also generate much more lift than the other two, leading to it disconnecting under high-lift scenarios, for obvious reasons.

Have we seen any evidence that the Dr1 couldn't handle more G loading than the Camel or DVII ?

Evidence of such is notoriously hard to come by with WWI planes. We are left with combat reports, which stress the Dr1s strengths as being climbing and turning ability, and its weaknesses being slow speed and tendency to loose the top wing. The topic of what to do in the face of lack of much verifiable data for the grist has been discussed before, and I believe if there is a certain amount of guessing involved, it makes sense to fudge things in the direction of good gameplay, rather than the opposite, IOW, in the direction of rough equity in plane strength.

[hitech]

We are not happy with the DR1 modeling also, we have a suspect where the problem is, but gyro is not the issue.

Ive been toying with a second goal (I.E. not just dog fighting) to implement in the WW1 arena that would provide a reason for fighting.

HiTech

[BnZs]

We are not happy with the DR1 modeling also, we have a suspect where the problem is, but gyro is not the issue.

HiTech

 

[Reaper90]

We are not happy with the DR1 modeling also, we have a suspect where the problem is, but gyro is not the issue.

Ive been toying with a second goal (I.E. not just dog fighting) to implement in the WW1 arena that would provide a reason for fighting.

HiTech

[CptTrips]

We are not happy with the DR1 modeling also, we have a suspect where the problem is, but gyro is not the issue.

Ive been toying with a second goal (I.E. not just dog fighting) to implement in the WW1 arena that would provide a reason for fighting.

HiTech

Best news I've had in a year.

Its not a "when" issue.  Its simply wanting to know that the problems are recognized and there is an intention of moving towards a more ideal state than what is currently available.

We all want the WWI arena to be the success that it could be (even if we all have our particular ideas on how to get there). 

,
Wab

[Yeager]

We are not happy with the DR1 modeling also, we have a suspect where the problem is, but gyro is not the issue.

Ive been toying with a second goal (I.E. not just dog fighting) to implement in the WW1 arena that would provide a reason for fighting.

HiTech

You just made a LOT of people very VERY happy.  Me included  

Thanks, man  

[Sid]

Ive been toying with a second goal (I.E. not just dog fighting) to implement in the WW1 arena that would provide a reason for fighting.

HiTech

That's great news hitech   

[CptTrips]

Ive been toying with a second goal (I.E. not just dog fighting) to implement in the WW1 arena that would provide a reason for fighting.

Can you share just a broad outline of the direction you might be thinking here?


IMHO, this is by far the biggest problem with the WWI arena.  What technical modelling issue might be affecting the DR.I are dwarfed by game-play consideration, IMHO.  

There were hundreds in the arena early on. Then they started fading away.  Most of my squadies were like "yeah these little planes are fun to fly and an interesting change of pace, but surely this isn't all they are planning to do with the arena.  We'll be back when they get a full arena up and running."

Goal-Oriented-Combat  is what made the WWII MA in AH a success.  Without the goal structure, its just going in circles.

,
Wab

[MajQBall]

That's great news Hitech look forward to any changes.    

[Citabria]

the dogfighters need the toolshedders?

[CptTrips]

the dogfighters need the toolshedders?

Yep.  And visa versa. 

Like any ecosystem, an arena needs a healthy amount of biodiversity.  It needs tards, aces, furballers, toolshedders, bomber and gv dweebs, and everything in between.

When a monoculture is established, that eventually leads to stagnation, toxicity, and eventual depopulation.

(Oh Lord.  Someone stop me before I try and work in Global Warming.  )

Wab

[BnZs]

(Oh Lord.  Someone stop me before I try and work in Global Warming.  )

Wab

The reason we don't have any winter maps maybe?

[Zoney]

We are not happy with the DR1 modeling also, we have a suspect where the problem is, but gyro is not the issue.

Ive been toying with a second goal (I.E. not just dog fighting) to implement in the WW1 arena that would provide a reason for fighting.

HiTech

Thank you kindly sir for your attention.  I love this game and I am honored to be a guest in your house.

[Wmaker]

We are not happy with the DR1 modeling also, we have a suspect where the problem is, but gyro is not the issue.

Ive been toying with a second goal (I.E. not just dog fighting) to implement in the WW1 arena that would provide a reason for fighting.

Great news!

I have no idea where you guys think the problem might be, I just found the following interesting:


As said, not saying that there's anything wrong with the lift chracteristics per se. Just thought it was interesting. IIRC one reason why F2B's lower wing is attached below the fuselage was to elimate airflow around one wing interferring with the other.