Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Citabria on February 14, 2011, 06:18:52 PM
-
having been away from the game when ww1 set was released this may be old news to most but maybe some would be interested in a fresh viewpoint of someone experiencing the arena for the first time.
I must say I am hooked. the flight envelope between stall/spin and structural failure is so tiny it makes this arena challenging to even experienced MA dweebs like myself. I find these planes even more unforgiving than the likes of limited envelope MA WW2 fighters like the 109k4 and 262.
I stepped into the ww1 arena earlier this week for the first time and proceeded to blow up my engine and rip my wings off with remarkable efficiency while trying to become proficient with this planeset.
I have tried all the planes but have found the only aircraft that is not an easy mark to be the dr1. thus grappling with very limited flight envelope I was not yet up to the skill or proficiency of flying the underdogs I have stuck to the Dr1. I have noted a trend of the few who do fly this arena fly the dr1 more than any other plane to a margin of 3 to 1. It makes the variety of an already limited planeset an exercise in sameplane tactics on almost all fights.
The camel does not exist as anything but a target with blinders on flown only by a few masochists and new players who do not know better.
The D7. reported to be able to dive without structural failure in historical accounts sheds its wings just as fast or faster than the dr1. it can roll the best of them but its turn ability and climb are way below the dr1.
F2b is the only plane in the set that seems to hold its own vs the dr1 but will lose after a few turns in a 1v1 with the dr1.
So who flies what? They fly the dr1 a lot. the best of them fly nothing but the dr1. they can wade into a numerically superior cloud of dr1s, F2bs etc and vaporize them with head shots. Masochists fly the d7 and camel. The payback crowd that thumbs their nose at the dr1 and does not liek flying it retaliate from their rear guns a lot. though a few exceptions can make the f2b defeat lesser dr1 pilots.
plane K D K/D
Dr.I 1580 1130 1.40
D.VII 522 612 0.85
F.2B 402 562 0.71
F.1 302 507 0.59
This planeset should be a turn fighters dream because the structural limitations cause both engine and wing failure if diving for more than a second or two thus prohibiting any form of BnZ.
So my question is if one plane is so dominant that the other 3 do not get used why not perk the dr1?
wouldnt have to be much... just a few perks to recognize its limited service (300 total?)
and the fact its late war competition that forced it out of service for being slow... the (SPAD) are not in the set.
The only argument I could put against this would be "We like flying the Dr1" we will not fly the other planes.
but they like the dr1 because its the dweeb ride that slays the rest of the set thus if you want an alternative to the dr1 there is none when you are a new player grappling with the flight model barely able to fight mouth breathers that will rape your face in their Dr1 dweeb rides.
add to that the dr1s high instability will send it into a tailslide if you stall it out quite often. its not a new player friendly ride. but flying anything else may be more forgiving but will put you in the tower even faster.
so take it with a grain of salt. one dweebs opinion.
I am currently hooked on the ww1 arena and will keep flying nothing but the dr1 till an alternative presents itself. This may be in the form of my skill inscreasing to the point that I can actually maneuver dr1 vs dr1 with expert dweebs in this set (I can not and must use my superior gunnery to end them before they smash my face), or new planes added or dr1 being a perk ride forcing all these dweebs to branch out into the lesser planes ending the dr1 monopoly.
but all in all thumbs up even with the limited variety I love it!
GJ HTC glad you guys took the time to add this. even with its warts its a gem.
-
It is GREAT at first! But unless you have fabric covered kites ingrained in your genetic code the novelty wears off after a few months. HTC really, REALLY, needs to develope this thing more. SE5a and Albatross would be an immidiate boost of excitement for more than just myself (hint, HINT) :rock
Looking forward, hopefully :D
-
well it's a one dimensional fight. there is no BNZ viable tactics which is what separates it so dramatically from the ww2 arena and alienates so much of the player base in my opinion. Your wings will literally be ripped off if you try it. Turn and maneuver at stall speed or die for the most part is all thats available. There are a few who have found the small layer of wiggle room to bounce and make much use of very limited traditional sense e fighting. but overall its TnB nirvanna.
it makes you wonder about the furball TnB crowd who so vocally despise the BnZ guys that they do not flock to the ww1 arena.
you can start with an alt advantage of a few hundred feet at most but anything more and if you try to dive on your opponent even with the engine off you will be a wingless lawn dart in seconds.
-
if you see AKRaven in there have him school you while he is in a D7. Does unbelievable ZB and TF with that thing. Even in the willey DR1, unless you get lucky and can buy a clue, he will still school anyone.
Yeah, it can be a TONNE of fun with the right attitude (kill me) ....I might need to pop back in there one of these days.
-
I go in for a few hours before FSO, that way no matter how crappy a hand I get dealt it feels like a good ride.
-
If you fly a loop in the Dr1 or Camel you'll see where the DVII or F2B has an opportunity to exploit the gyroscopic precession of the rotary engines.
-
Annoys me to no end that the Camel introduced here is no more than a target drone
-
So my question is if one plane is so dominant that the other 3 do not get used why not perk the dr1?
I would rather see it reduced to a more reasonable airspeed, and then decide on whether it gets perked.
Data for WW1 aircraft is frequently incomplete, but the 115mph TAS that the AH Dr1 does is dubious, especially if it's supposed to have a 110hp Oberusal.
(http://i1126.photobucket.com/albums/l613/megalopsuche/Dr1profilepublications.png?t=1297614345)
-
I dont think there was an Oberursel ever made that could get 110 hp after the first hour of use either.
It sure would be nice to have a blip switch! :D
-
That's right. The same article explains that the Oberusal was inferior to the Le Rhone.
As for the wings ripping off issue, that's very strange. Is it an artifact of overly sensitive joystick inputs?
-
I been saying the DR.1 is to fast in AH WWI arena. The D.VII air speed particularly in a dive should let you get some separation from the DR.1s and make it more of a competitor. As is is now you fly the DR.1 or one of the three target drones in the game.
-
I still cannot understand the guys who have been playing the WW1 for a long time and their instance on flying the DR1 as their main ride. It must be very discouraging for new guys to the arena to have the 'top sticks' from the WW1 come along and whack them in their uber ride!
-
I've felt that the WW1 arena is driven by score. A lot of these guys who are jockeying for a spot on the home page fly in the hordes as to protect their K/D. While the attitude in the arena is nice (no ego's) a lot of the regular score goers aren't willing to switch sides and even out the fight.
-
Whoops! I wanted to add that the Dr.1 is a tool that makes achieving #1 easier, and why it is so popular.
-
I been saying the DR.1 is to fast in AH WWI arena. The D.VII air speed particularly in a dive should let you get some separation from the DR.1s and make it more of a competitor. As is is now you fly the DR.1 or one of the three target drones in the game.
The Camel is faster than the data from production models, too, but the Dr.1 is a worse offender. At altitude (~10k ft and above) the Camel enjoyed a ~10mph TAS advantage over the Dr1.
-
It would be nice if you could post some unambiguous data to support your claims.
-
Everything B4Buster said
-
if you see me on fester,
PM me and we can do some dr1 vs camel fights. :salute
-
It would be nice if you could post some unambiguous data to support your claims.
It's already been posted before. But here it is again (in addition to the Dr1 data I just posted):
Sid posted these (from Bennett's Three Wings for the Red Baron)
(http://i1126.photobucket.com/albums/l613/megalopsuche/Dr11.jpg)
(http://i1126.photobucket.com/albums/l613/megalopsuche/Dr12.jpg)
(http://i1126.photobucket.com/albums/l613/megalopsuche/Dr13.jpg)
(http://i1126.photobucket.com/albums/l613/megalopsuche/Dr14.jpg)
And here's data for the Sopwith Camel from J.M. Bruce. F.1/3 was a prototype used to test various engines. The speed of a production model like B2312 was significantly slower because the production quality of the license built Clergets was poor. But most sources quote the airspeed from the prototype, and not the production model.
(http://i1126.photobucket.com/albums/l613/megalopsuche/camelperf1.jpg)
-
Thanks for posting. Your source states that the DR1 and F1 speeds were about the same on the deck. Why do you think it should be slower?
-
Annoys me to no end that the Camel introduced here is no more than a target drone
:rofl
I fly the Camel almost exclusively, so I can add my support for the general direction this thread is going. I seem to be one of the few regulars in the WW1 arena who have stuck with the Camel to the point of what passes for expertise, and I'm convinced that in a 'fair' 1v1 fight with two equally skilled opponents the Dr1 will always win over the Camel. Why is it so? It seems to me the easiest answer might be something that's been overlooked, but Hitech would have to speak to that as he knows 'the code'.
The thing I'm thinking about is the prop drag in a power-off dive.... with the prop milling as it does the drag is WAY more than if the prop was stopped, and I believe this may not have been modelled? If so it would explain why the airspeed builds up so rapidly to the point of structural failure. If I'm correct and the drag of the spinning prop could be increased it would 1. slow the Dr1 dive to the point of disadvantage and 2. enable the other aircraft (with less inherent drag) to outperform the Dr1 when they have an alt advantage and allow safer diving attacks, which seems as it should be. Diving one of those ragwings ought to feel almost like parachuting with a few holes in the canopy, but we all end up sitting in a canoe if we hold more than 45 degrees dive for more than a few seconds.
I really think this is worth looking into, I know from flying RC model aircraft that the prop drags more when spinning, and electronic controllers (ESC's) have a braking function to avoid this.
-
I have been flying the F2b at least once a week for a couple of months and I am by no means a good fighter jock but there does seem to be a problem here. I thought with superior speed the F2b should be able to do a shall pass and speed away for another pass on a DR1 that should be a lot slower. That DR1 turns so fast that they usually are on my six and almost GAINING on me well before I can get out of range. I only have a few kills, but they are from the rear gunner or collisions not from tactics. :headscratch:
-
I wish score was removed from the WWI arena, even the WW2 arenas, but WWI would be a start. There are a few guys in there that have attitude and won't switch as stated.
-
Thanks for posting. Your source states that the DR1 and F1 speeds were about the same on the deck. Why do you think it should be slower?
I said that the Dr1 was ~10mph slower above 10k ft, and I think that because it's exactly what Bennett says, and it fits the data I presented. :)
Bennett says it's likely the speeds were similar on the deck. Truthfully, there's no good data for that, but it's no leap of faith to infer that neither of these aircraft were doing 115mph at seal level.
-
SCTusk if you compare glide ratios with the prop stopped vs windmilling you'll see a difference in drag.
-
:rofl
The thing I'm thinking about is the prop drag in a power-off dive.... with the prop milling as it does the drag is WAY more than if the prop was stopped, and I believe this may not have been modelled? If so it would explain why the airspeed builds up so rapidly to the point of structural failure. If I'm correct and the drag of the spinning prop could be increased it would 1. slow the Dr1 dive to the point of disadvantage and 2. enable the other aircraft (with less inherent drag) to outperform the Dr1 when they have an alt advantage and allow safer diving attacks, which seems as it should be. Diving one of those ragwings ought to feel almost like parachuting with a few holes in the canopy, but we all end up sitting in a canoe if we hold more than 45 degrees dive for more than a few seconds.
It's already modeled.
HiTech
-
I said that the Dr1 was ~10mph slower above 10k ft, and I think that because it's exactly what Bennett says, and it fits the data I presented. :)
Bennett says it's likely the speeds were similar on the deck. Truthfully, there's no good data for that, but it's no leap of faith to infer that neither of these aircraft were doing 115mph at seal level.
Maybe I misread your comment that the DR1 was a worse offender. Why do you think neither one would go 115 mph at sea level?
-
Here's a n intereasting discussion regarding the top speed of the Dr.I on another forum: http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/aircraft/34238-fokker-dr-i-maximum-speed.html (http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/aircraft/34238-fokker-dr-i-maximum-speed.html)
A speed chart from that thread by Kacey from aerodrome's forum:
(http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/kcib2u/aeroplane%20stuff/FokkerDrI.jpg)
-
Maybe I misread your comment that the DR1 was a worse offender. Why do you think neither one would go 115 mph at sea level?
I have reasons, but none of them are the kind of hard evidence we're used to seeing (such is WW1 aircraft performance).
I think the F.1/3 Camel did 115mph TAS, maybe even a bit faster. I recall another source quoting 118mph as the sea level airspeed for the F.1/3, but I'm not sure I could find it again. When I compare the performance gap between the F.1/3 and B2312, and if the gap were constant down to sea level, then I might expect the B2312 to be somewhere around 111-112mph.
As for the Dr.1, the best speed we've seen is 116mph at sea level with a 110hp Le Rhone, which J.M. Bruce didn't find credible. And even if it were true, the 110hp Oberusal was an inferior copy of the Le Rhone. In fact, the Le Rhone was such a great little engine that Trenchard ordered his Camel squadrons to replace their 130hp Clerget 9b's with 110hp Le Rhones in the winter of 1917. Many sources copy the 115mph figure for the Dr1, from someone who copied it from someone else, and so on...and from what I can see, the only 115mph data for the Dr1 is with that experimental 145hp Oberusal.
Anyway, those are my reasons.
------------
Nice graph wmaker!
-
I think AH has the Dr.1 modeled as the true plane would have been in its prime. The data from Bennets book was taken from late war after the Dr.1 had passed into obscurity. I believe if you want the ultimate WWI dogfight you should look to the Fokker D.VIIf versus Sopwith Dolphin. The Camel vs Dr.1 battles everyone considers to be prime WWI "typical" was actually from a very small period of the war that spanned maybe six months but in actual flying time was more like forty-five days.
-
When I do get into the WWI arena I fly the Camel almost exclusively and while not great, I've done ok in it at times. I've found that if you turn on the over-rev limiter you can dive at almost any angle you want (within reason) without structural failure.
Of course I hardly get to play in the LWMA's anymore much less WWI.
-
I fly the camel and I tend to do very well in it.
I like not having BNZ noobs in the arena. BNZ and picking are almost one in the same.
-
BNZ and picking are almost one in the same.
:rofl NOOB
-
well like it or not standard E fighting and BnZ is what became the accepted tactics that was employed in most air battles in ww2 and toward the latter half of ww1.
whats more without BnZ e fighting you see a common theme in the ww1 arena concerning fuel loadouts.
they all buzz around at 25% fuel for the massive maneuverability advantage of being 150 lbs+ lighter in a paper airplane. I despise Mustwin 25%fueltards.
they irk me because I have for the past 11 years Ive flown this game always liked to take 100% fuel.
I've slimmed down to 75% and sometimes 50% but from someone who likes to loiter and hunt without having to rtb after a few minutes for fuel it puts you at a more extreme disadvantage in this planeset than it does in the ww2 planeset which is unfortunate. but then when you splatter a 25% fueltards melon its all the more satisfying.
And its fun when they are desperate to rtb on fumes and you will not let them leave. :devil
-
SCTusk if you compare glide ratios with the prop stopped vs windmilling you'll see a difference in drag.
Sounds promising, how do you stop the prop windmilling? :headscratch:
-
The hard way is to zoom climb when it's windmilling. The easy way is to air start on the TA map and leave the engine off.
-
they all buzz around at 25% fuel for the massive maneuverability advantage of being 150 lbs+ lighter in a paper airplane. I despise Mustwin 25%fueltards.
they irk me because I have for the past 11 years Ive flown this game always liked to take 100% fuel.
I've slimmed down to 75% and sometimes 50% but from someone who likes to loiter and hunt without having to rtb after a few minutes for fuel it puts you at a more extreme disadvantage in this planeset than it does in the ww2 planeset which is unfortunate. but then when you splatter a 25% fueltards melon its all the more satisfying.
And its fun when they are desperate to rtb on fumes and you will not let them leave. :devil
Try mid & early war. Most of the chest thumpers in there have no intention of getting back to base. They also dump half the ammo load before rolling even.
-
well like it or not standard E fighting and BnZ is what became the accepted tactics that was employed in most air battles in ww2 and toward the latter half of ww1.
whats more without BnZ e fighting you see a common theme in the ww1 arena concerning fuel loadouts.
they all buzz around at 25% fuel for the massive maneuverability advantage of being 150 lbs+ lighter in a paper airplane. I despise Mustwin 25%fueltards.
they irk me because I have for the past 11 years Ive flown this game always liked to take 100% fuel.
I've slimmed down to 75% and sometimes 50% but from someone who likes to loiter and hunt without having to rtb after a few minutes for fuel it puts you at a more extreme disadvantage in this planeset than it does in the ww2 planeset which is unfortunate. but then when you splatter a 25% fueltards melon its all the more satisfying.
And its fun when they are desperate to rtb on fumes and you will not let them leave. :devil
25% in a d7 will just about get you airborne.
some good fights with you last weekend Fester it wont be long before you become a masochist. :salute
aka Shotdown
-
:rofl NOOB
If you would like to believe so then go ahead :salute
well like it or not standard E fighting and BnZ is what became the accepted tactics that was employed in most air battles in ww2 and toward the latter half of ww1.
whats more without BnZ e fighting you see a common theme in the ww1 arena concerning fuel loadouts.
they all buzz around at 25% fuel for the massive maneuverability advantage of being 150 lbs+ lighter in a paper airplane. I despise Mustwin 25%fueltards.
they irk me because I have for the past 11 years Ive flown this game always liked to take 100% fuel.
I've slimmed down to 75% and sometimes 50% but from someone who likes to loiter and hunt without having to rtb after a few minutes for fuel it puts you at a more extreme disadvantage in this planeset than it does in the ww2 planeset which is unfortunate. but then when you splatter a 25% fueltards melon its all the more satisfying.
And its fun when they are desperate to rtb on fumes and you will not let them leave. :devil
It's good to know I'm not alone. I don't see the point in flying for 10 minutes then running away. The only time I ever up 25% is if I'm in the MA and we're capped and I wanna break it for chits and giggles.
-
The hard way is to zoom climb when it's windmilling. The easy way is to air start on the TA map and leave the engine off.
I'm not able to stop the windmilling with a zoom climb, and I'm not sure what you mean by air starting on the TA map. However I'll take your word for it, but I still think that the real deal ragwings would have had so much drag that you could pretty much near vertical dive for ever (engine off, prop windmilling) without these structural failures, aircraft with known structural issues aside (i.e. the Dr1 :rofl) Anyone have data on Vne and/or terminal velocity of these aircraft?
-
Load the TA map for offline or just go to the Training Arena. Go to the bomber training area, base A22 for example, and you'll find that some runway directions like NE and SW give you an air start.
For the zoom climb method you need a minimum speed which is below stall speed to stop the prop. I forget the exact number but it makes you appreciate the air start.
-
In my limited WWI experience, 1 on 1 the DVII is a much more dangerous plane than the DrI. The DVII can actualy stall fight and perform a rolling scissor not that far off in feeling from an early 109. The DrI and the Camel both suffer horribly in a co-alt merge if the DVII pilot uses his speed to start a vertical rolling type fight. The F2B is also a good contender in vertical rolling fights, far better than either the Camel or DrI.
Lengro and myself, who have dueled each other easily 5,000 times since we first met in AH, did alot of 1 on 1 testing when the WWI planes were released. While it was possible for any plane to win in any combination of the four, the D7 had a major advantage verticaly if the planes are flown by equal pilots.
DVII vs DVII fights were the closest to anything we do 1 on 1 with the much more advance WWII planeset.
-
You just have to be sure that you are using the DR1's gyroscopic precession against the DR1 so that it turns away from you instead of towards you.
-
Try mid & early war. They also dump half the ammo load before rolling even.
who is this "they" that you are referring to?
-
The top dive speed I can get out of our WWI planes without falling apart are as follow. All were tested with a quarter of fuel
1. DR.1 143mph
2. D.VII 181mph
3. F-1 camel 161mph
4.F.2B 165mph.
All of them have a lot of drag and slow back down to about 120 pretty fast then start to fall off from that. The D.VII seemed to do the best in a high alt controlled dive and I could keep in at about 170mph. The wings came off the F.2B and the D.VII the easiest if you pull up to fast. maybe someone who fly these planes more than I do can get better results.
-
... If you can fly 30 to 40mph fast in the D.VII. Then you will get separation the DR.1 can't over come.
The top dive speed I can get out of our WWI planes without falling apart are as follow. All were tested with a quarter of fuel
1. DR.1 143mph
2. D.VII 181mph
3. F-1 camel 161mph
4.F.2B 165mph.
All of them have a lot of drag and slow back down to about 120 pretty fast then start to fall off from that. The D.VII seemed to do the best in a high alt controlled dive and I could keep in at about 170mph. The wings came off the F.2B and the D.VII the easiest if you pull up to fast. maybe someone who fly these planes more than I do can get better results.
:D
-
they all buzz around at 25% fuel for the massive maneuverability advantage of being 150 lbs+ lighter in a paper airplane. I despise Mustwin 25%fueltards.
:aok
I whole heartedly agree!
-
The amount of g the aircraft can pull before structural failure is more relevant than dive speed,there doesnt seem to be any information on ww1 planes regarding this but bearing in mind its unlikely that any manufacturer would have wanted to kill pilots we can assume that they were all fairly robust in this department,early models of some aircraft (dr1 and d7) did have reported problems but these were quickly rectified.Sids testing found the following,
d7} halfway to blackout before structural failure
f1}a small visual circle remains before failure
dr1} well past the blackout point
f2b} not yet tested but I would guess midway between d7 and f1.
If all four aircraft g failures were at the same point it would go a long way to evening out the planeset resulting in a more interesting arena. :cheers:
aka Shotdown
-
If all four aircraft g failures were at the same point it would go a long way to evening out the planeset resulting in a more interesting arena. :cheers:
aka Shotdown
Nice intuitive suggestion Shotdown, I do believe that would approximate a good fix :salute
-
The amount of g the aircraft can pull before structural failure is more relevant than dive speed,there doesnt seem to be any information on ww1 planes regarding this but bearing in mind its unlikely that any manufacturer would have wanted to kill pilots we can assume that they were all fairly robust in this department,early models of some aircraft (dr1 and d7) did have reported problems but these were quickly rectified/
Even the most robust WW1 aircraft could suffer wing failure if they dove fast enough. I know of at least one SE5a pilot who ripped his wings while diving at a two-seater. Aircraft like the sesquiplane Nieuports and the Albatros D.III and D.Va were notorious for lower wing failures, but the Austrians somehow fixed the problem, and their version of the D.III was supposed to have been very good.
As for g loads, a real pilot would have the feedback of his own body before he pulled so hard that he broke his aircraft.
-
Nice intuitive suggestion Shotdown, I do believe that would approximate a good fix :salute
I carnt take any credit for this it was entirely Sids idea. :o
-
Even the most robust WW1 aircraft could suffer wing failure if they dove fast enough. I know of at least one SE5a pilot who ripped his wings while diving at a two-seater. Aircraft like the sesquiplane Nieuports and the Albatros D.III and D.Va were notorious for lower wing failures, but the Austrians somehow fixed the problem, and their version of the D.III was supposed to have been very good.
As for g loads, a real pilot would have the feedback of his own body before he pulled so hard that he broke his aircraft.
If youve gained experience of the planes in the ww1 arena it becomes a rarity to have a structural failure in a dive its far more common when pushing your aircraft to the limit in a turn fight,allthough you carnt feel the g you can see it in the respect of the extent of blackout.The margin for error in this respect on the d7,f1 and f2b is very small the dr1 is far more forgiving. :cheers:
-
If all four aircraft g failures were at the same point it would go a long way to evening out the planeset resulting in a more interesting arena. :cheers:
aka Shotdown
Nice intuitive suggestion Shotdown, I do believe that would approximate a good fix :salute
I carnt take any credit for this it was entirely Sids idea. :o
I can't take any credit either, it was BnZs idea, but I agree with him. :aok
What about robustness in dives or under Gs? I've read nothing to suggest the Dr.1 should be more robust than the Camel in this area. Or even equal to it. If you can point me to some that suggests otherwise, I would be much obliged.
This will probably get me burned at the stake, but may I suggest that if there are some "unknowns" in how the planes should be modeled, maybe it would be good for gameplay to opt for modeling these "unknowns" in a way that leads to a balance of relative plane strengths?
-
Nice intuitive suggestion Shotdown, I do believe that would approximate a good fix :salute
I carnt take any credit for this it was entirely BnZs idea. :aok
-
Why is "evening out" the planeset a good idea? Different aircraft should all break at the same G load? Why not give them all the same speed, climb, and turn rate while you're at it? Or just all fly the same aircraft like the Dr1 and complain how there's no variety. This "evening out" seems like a "pork the overmodeled DR1" whine.
-
who is this "they" that you are referring to?
No names needed. Have not seen you do it if that is what you are concerned about.
-
Why is "evening out" the planeset a good idea? Different aircraft should all break at the same G load? Why not give them all the same speed, climb, and turn rate while you're at it? Or just all fly the same aircraft like the Dr1 and complain how there's no variety. This "evening out" seems like a "pork the overmodeled DR1" whine.
DR1 doesn't break up during loops and looping turns etc because it seemingly has more drag through the maneuvers, now I've had a good bit of practice in it I can't remember the last time I broke a wing in a camel.
-
Why is "evening out" the planeset a good idea? Different aircraft should all break at the same G load? Why not give them all the same speed, climb, and turn rate while you're at it? Or just all fly the same aircraft like the Dr1 and complain how there's no variety. This "evening out" seems like a "pork the overmodeled DR1" whine.
We have 4 planes in ww1 and with the numbers we get flying there very little chance of getting any more,I do not want the various characteristics of the aircraft changed just the one variable that there is very little information available on the G loading,call it a dr1 whine if you want but please explain to me how this would not have a beneficial effect on the arena. :headscratch:
-
Tinribs you want to change a plane model for gameplay reasons. You don't see that as a problem?
-
Tinribs you want to change a plane model for gameplay reasons. You don't see that as a problem?
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.
-
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! :lol
-
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
(http://www.4shared.com/file/PnwJCbRp/ww1.html)
-
I'll take Hitechs guess over anyone else on the forums! :lol
You don't have a choice.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.....
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ? :bhead
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.
-
Three of these aircraft are about to shed a wing, one it's even close. Guess which one?
(http://www.swift72.co.uk/forum_pics/DVII-wingsnap-.jpg)
(http://www.swift72.co.uk/forum_pics/F2b-wingsnap-.jpg)
(http://www.swift72.co.uk/forum_pics/F1-wingsnap-.jpg)
(http://www.swift72.co.uk/forum_pics/Dr1-wingsnap-.jpg)
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.
-
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
:joystick:
-
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. :D
-
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. :D
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 :)
-
Why not just post that you want the DR1 neutered in some way? That seems to be the gist of the complaints.
I'm not complaining, and I have absolutely no bias because I go elsewhere when I want a WW1 aviation fix.
There is no data for when these aircraft would break apart.
Let me rephrase that... There is no data.
Err, let me try again... There is no data.
If you want to speak of accuracy, then by definition it's accuracy with respect to a known or accepted value, which in a flight sim ought to be in the form of test data. Oh wait...
I don't need to prove that the current model is valid. That would be the opposite of what is required.
The model is neither valid or invalid. You cannot apply validity or non-validity when there is no yard-stick against which to measure the model.
Not to pick on you FLS, but your posts have the virtue of being concise. :)
-
There is no data for when these aircraft would break apart.
Let me rephrase that... There is no data.
Err, let me try again... There is no data.
I supect those that aquired that knowledge took it with them to their grave.
:confused:,
Wab
-
I'm not complaining, and I have absolutely no bias because I go elsewhere when I want a WW1 aviation fix.
There is no data for when these aircraft would break apart.
Let me rephrase that... There is no data.
Err, let me try again... There is no data.
If you want to speak of accuracy, then by definition it's accuracy with respect to a known or accepted value, which in a flight sim ought to be in the form of test data. Oh wait...
The model is neither valid or invalid. You cannot apply validity or non-validity when there is no yard-stick against which to measure the model.
Not to pick on you FLS, but your posts have the virtue of being concise. :)
There is the properties of materials and there is engineering. We can make a better guess now about the strength of these aircraft and the forces on them then the designers could at the time. HTC didn't pull their numbers out of their hat and we don't know what data they have that we haven't seen. I'll take their estimate over yours.
-
I don't need to prove that the current model is valid. That would be the opposite of what is required.
I guess your right FLS, I shall continue to search.
Fokker DR.I - Thoughts on Wing Failures (http://www.aviation-history.com/theory/dr1wing.htm)
Just How Strong Was A WWI Aircraft? (http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/aircraft/34302-just-how-strong-wwi-aircraft.html)
A load on loads (http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/aircraft/13979-load-loads.html)
-
Nice link on the wing failure. The author seems to think that a variance in construction quality accounts for the limited number of failures.
-
There is the properties of materials and there is engineering. We can make a better guess now about the strength of these aircraft and the forces on them then the designers could at the time. HTC didn't pull their numbers out of their hat and we don't know what data they have that we haven't seen.
How do you know? That's a sincere question. I've seen the "HTC knows best" argument many times before in the past. The first time I saw it was in flight model discussions about the P-38L way back in Warbirds 1.x, and the skeptics clearly won that one.
The Dr1 and D.VII have very similar construction, but from what I see here, different load limits, so forgive me for finding what's reported here a bit fishy.
I'll take their estimate over yours.
Goodness! That's a strong bit of rhetoric there. Slow down. Have I submitted any kind of estimate? Have I claimed authoritative knowledge?
No.
-
I guess your right FLS, I shall continue to search.
Fokker DR.I - Thoughts on Wing Failures (http://www.aviation-history.com/theory/dr1wing.htm)
Just How Strong Was A WWI Aircraft? (http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/aircraft/34302-just-how-strong-wwi-aircraft.html)
A load on loads (http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/aircraft/13979-load-loads.html)
Great links Sid.
I found this quote interesting:
A surrendered Fokker D.VII (7774/18) was destruction tested in the USA at McCook Field in 1920. The wings held a load factor of 10.7g before the bottom wing (only, not the top) finally failed! Now THAT'S a strong WWI fighter design!
10g. Hmmm.
I have no idea how to gauge the g load the AH DVII is under at failure based on the the blackout percentage. Maybe 4g at half blackout?
Wab
-
Static load tests were not so reliable. That's one of the reasons why these aircraft sometimes suffered collapse in flight. The variety of forces on the wings in flight were not accounted for on the ground.
But that's an interesting figure. :)
-
Static load tests were not so reliable. That's one of the reasons why these aircraft sometimes suffered collapse in flight. The variety of forces on the wings in flight were not accounted for on the ground.
But that's an interesting figure. :)
You're right, but static load testing was used a lot so I suspect the results were at least in the ball park or they wouldn't have found it useful.
So lets take a conservative value of 8g.
That still makes the AH DVII seem awfully fragile in comparison.
I suppose the simplest answer is for HTC to simple explain how they came about the current failure loads. Knowing their source might save us all a bunch of guessing.
:headscratch:,
Wab
-
Why do they need to show you their data?
If you have data that conflicts with their model I'm sure they'd be happy to see it.
-
Why do they need to show you their data?
Why would they be afraid to? You seem awfully defensive.
:rolleyes:
I'm not asking for a dissertation, just a clarification. Its in everyones interest, HTC's most of all, to try and get a good accurate model. This isn't an adversarial relationship. You shouldn't try and make it one.
Regards,
Wab
-
How do you know? That's a sincere question. I've seen the "HTC knows best" argument many times before in the past. The first time I saw it was in flight model discussions about the P-38L way back in Warbirds 1.x, and the skeptics clearly won that one.
The Dr1 and D.VII have very similar construction, but from what I see here, different load limits, so forgive me for finding what's reported here a bit fishy.
Goodness! That's a strong bit of rhetoric there. Slow down. Have I submitted any kind of estimate? Have I claimed authoritative knowledge?
No.
Calm down. In your estimate it's fishy. I'm not claiming HTC is always correct but I stand by my statement that I'll take their estimate over yours. I also believe that if you find conflicting data HTC will consider it.
-
What is my estimate FLS? I wasn't aware that I had one.
-
Why would they be afraid to? You seem awfully defensive.
:rolleyes:
I'm not asking for a dissertation, just a clarification. Its in everyones interest, HTC's most of all, to try and get a good accurate model. This isn't an adversarial relationship. You shouldn't try and make it one.
Regards,
Wab
When did fear enter the discussion? Why should HTC have to publish any and all data that they have every time somebody questions it? Why should research they've paid for be made available free to their competition?
I'm not being defensive when I point out that the burden is on you to show their model is wrong, it isn't on them to prove that it's correct. They have better things to do with their time.
-
What is my estimate FLS? I wasn't aware that I had one.
Well I can't say I'm surprised. I'll suppose you agree with me then since you don't think you've posted an opinion to the contrary. :D
-
No, I've only posted doubt, FLS. :) Last time I checked the standard of evidence for doubt was rather low. :D
-
No, I've only posted doubt, FLS. :) Last time I checked the standard of evidence for doubt was rather low. :D
LoL. How DARE you question ANYTHING! You should grovel and prostrate yourself before HTC as if they were Gods! :rofl
(Wabbit is amused.)
-
Well..whatever they (HTC) did with regards to the initial WW1 implementation, overall I think it was a bit of a squib load in the final analysis. Could have been thought out and done better. For me, having the DR1 in the initial release really sealed the deal. That plane should have been one of the last brought in.
-
I'm glad you're amused Wabbit. But we've been around flight sims long enough to know that many, many changes have occurred in the past, and therefore it's not unreasonable to expect that there will be more changes in the future. Long defunct flight models were defended with gnashing of teeth before they were finally "updated."
If anyone is not convinced that young flight models take time to mature, just read this page and compare it to our own P-38L:
http://www.rdrop.com/users/hoofj/P-38L.htm
The damn thing used to out-turn every Spitfire and rolled better than a 190 (with a tiny moment of inertia). And yes, people defended it vehemently. We were told not to question anything; told it was obnoxious to request supporting data that had been paid for; told that we better have our own contradicting data before we could justifiably stir up trouble...and so on.
-
No, I've only posted doubt, FLS. :) Last time I checked the standard of evidence for doubt was rather low. :D
Ok you doubt the model but you don't think it's wrong. Thanks for clearing that up.
:DLoL. How DARE you question ANYTHING! You should grovel and prostrate yourself before HTC as if they were Gods! :rofl
(Wabbit is amused.)
Wabbit is over-reacting and has entitlement issues.
-
Ok you doubt the model but you don't think it's wrong. Thanks for clearing that up.
Sorry, I must not have made myself clear. There can be no question of wrong or right if there is no accepted value. "Wrong or right" here is a categorical error.
-
Sorry, I must not have made myself clear. There can be no question of wrong or right if there is no accepted value. "Wrong or right" here is a categorical error.
I'm pretty sure that everybody including HTC has unanswered questions but I don't believe that any values were just made up and can therefor be arbitrarily changed.
-
Wabbit is over-reacting and has entitlement issues.
So you want to make this personal now?
I could say that FLS is an ankle-humper who can't stand the idea of having his master questioned.
But I won't stoop to your level.
:cool:,
Wab
-
We were told not to question anything; told it was obnoxious to request supporting data that had been paid for; told that we better have our own contradicting data before we could justifiably stir up trouble...and so on.
Oh Anaxogoras (Damn dude, get an easier to spell handle!), you're just over-reacting again.
And appearently you have entitlement issues.
Work on that. :rofl
Didn't the F41C here used to be about 400lb lighter?
BTW. I don't think HTC is the problem here. They've always seemed to be willing to discuss the modeling in a reasonable manner. The problem usually comes in the form of frothing-at-the-mouth, yapping, fanboi poodles who see any questioning as a threat to their owner. Makes you want to soak a porkchop in antifreeze. :t
:D,
Wab
-
Well Wabbit you certainly proved me wrong. :D
-
yap yap yap yapyap yap
Throws porkchop. Fetch FLS! Fetch!
Good girl.....Good GIRL!
:rofl,
Wab
-
The top dive speed I can get out of our WWI planes without falling apart are as follow. All were tested with a quarter of fuel
1. DR.1 143mph
2. D.VII 181mph
3. F-1 camel 161mph
4.F.2B 165mph.
Not sure I agree with your results R105.
Testing in the Training Arena from the high alt airfields, with a quarter tank of fuel, I measured four speeds in a sustained 1G dive with the "WW1 Engine Governor" switched off.
a) The speed at which something failed structurally
b) The speed at which the engine started to over speed with full power
c) The speed at which the engine started to over speed with idle power
d) The speed at which the engine started to over speed with the engine switched off
The structural speed is Indicated airspeed dependant, where as the engine speed is True airspeed dependant. (You will obviously only reach some of the engine speed limits before the structural limits at high altitude).
1. Dr.1 a) 171mph IAS b) 122mph TAS c) 158mph TAS d) 191mph TAS
2. D.VII a) 180mph IAS b) 152mph TAS c) 216mph TAS d) 216mph TAS
3. F.1 a) 180mph IAS b) 129mph TAS c) 188mph TAS d) 193mph TAS
3. F.2b a) 177mph IAS b) 153mph TAS c) 223mph TAS d) 223mph TAS
I found a bit more light reading here :D
naca-report-469.pdf - Measurement of accelerations on aeroplanes in flight (http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/rm/469.pdf)
naca-report-494.pdf - Stresses in an aeroplane when diving steeply (http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/rm/494.pdf)
naca-report-491.pdf - Stress calculations on the SE5 aeroplane (http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/rm/491.pdf)
naca-report-496.pdf - Possible loading of wings and body of an aeroplane in flight (http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/rm/496.pdf)
-
If you listen carefully when a dr1 is diving you can hear it singing "putting on the ritz" ;)
-
Nice job Sid. :aok
-
Interesting how polarised these essentially data-based discussions get. Personally I recently had an epiphany of sorts and suddenly realised I'm actually a reincarnated RFC pilot who died of injuries while attempting to fly my Camel through the Swiss alps to neutral safety in September 1917. It explains a number of things, namely why my hands always tremble when I see enemy aircraft and also that annoying pain in my rear end, presumably caused by a bullet wound sustained while departing a furball, if memory serves fired by my C.O.
Anyway I can now say with some authority that the Dr1 model in AH sucks, we used to shoot them down by the dozen (although there were only a few dozen to start with so we didn't see much of them). Again if memory serves I probably got at least fifteen of the little blighters, and I was a relatively poor airman and worse shot. Half of those I claimed as kills literally fell apart trying to out-turn my F.1, which incidentally turned like nothing else ever built due to the massive gyroscopic forces of the heavy rotary engine and having all the mass stuck up the front in the first seven feet of the nose. Those Sopwith designers really knew their eggs, not like that pratt Fokker who basically copied the Sopwith Triplane and IMHO did a pretty poor job of it. Seems I'm not the only one who thought so either, as they only had a short production run and even the Red Knight himself died in one, serves him right I reckon.
I must say reading all these well informed posts takes on a new perspective once your previous-life memory kicks in, nice to see such confidence backed up by.... ahhh, see now I'm having trouble with recent memory now, I've forgotten what it's backed up by :headscratch:
Anyhow the main thing is we don't do anything to improve gameplay; whether or not the available data is valid we must at all times ensure that the gameplay favours the more prolific lowbrow with limited skillset and plenty of spare cash, after all they are the bread and butter for games like this. :salute
-
Sid are your posted speeds the speed the plane broke up? I only posted what I could get out of each planes and still fly way.
-
a) The speed at which something failed structurally
b) The speed at which the engine started to over speed with full power
c) The speed at which the engine started to over speed with idle power
d) The speed at which the engine started to over speed with the engine switched off
So it looks like your Dr.I figure is a little low.