Author Topic: More Camel torque please  (Read 5727 times)

Offline SCTusk

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 283
      • Skeleton Crew Squadron
More Camel torque please
« on: May 08, 2010, 01:06:47 AM »
No criticism intended here, just a hope for improvement; had a look at the aircraft stats for the WW1 tour just ended:


WW1 Tour 2 Statistics for all planes/vehicles/boats
Plane Name    Kills    Deaths    Kill/Death Ratio
D.VII         10397            11066            0.94
Dr.I         16877            12533            1.35
F.1          4943             7181            0.69
F.2B          2297             3734            0.61
Totals      34514            34514            1.00

The Kill/Death ratio tells the story... as it stands the DR1 is almost twice as effective as the Camel. I don't think this can possibly be accurate, and when you consider the Camels' Vickers have twice the firing rate of the DR1s' Spandaus (yep, it's modelled as per the real deal - I bet that answers a few questions lol) well, that just screams 'problem with flight model'. Here's a few extracts from Wikipedia (possibly not the most accurate reference but it'll do for now).

On the Camel:

"In the hands of an experienced pilot, its manoeuvrability was unmatched by any contemporary type. Its controls were light and sensitive. The Camel turned rather slowly to the left, which resulted in a nose up attitude due to the torque of the rotary engine. But the engine torque also resulted in the ability to turn to the right in half the time of other fighters,[3]  although that resulted in more of a tendency towards a nose down attitude from the turn. Because of the faster turning capability to the right, to change heading 90° to the left, many pilots preferred to do it by turning 270° to the right.
Approximately 5,490 units were ultimately produced. The Camel was credited with shooting down 1,294 enemy aircraft, more than any other Allied fighter in the First World War."

And the DR1:

"Compared to the Albatros and Pfalz fighters, the Dr.I offered exceptional maneuverability. Though the ailerons were not very effective, the rudder and elevator controls were light and powerful. Rapid turns, especially to the right, were facilitated by the triplane's marked directional instability. The triplane had to be given up because although it was very maneuverable, it was no longer fast enough. Postwar research revealed that poor workmanship was not the only cause of the triplane's structural failures. In 1929, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) investigations found that the upper wing carried a higher lift coefficient than the lower wing — at high speeds it could be 2.55 times as much. The triplane's chronic structural problems destroyed any prospect of large-scale orders. Production eventually ended in May 1918, by which time only 320 had been manufactured. The Dr.I was withdrawn from frontline service as the Fokker D.VII entered widespread service in June and July.
Frontline inventory peaked in late April 1918, with 171 aircraft in service on the Western Front."
 
So, my 2 cents worth; if the DR1 was half the fighting machine we see in the WW1 arena they would have made them by the thousand. What we have at the moment is a slick little grass height uber flat turner which can balloon up and get a firing solution on anything that comes in high. And there's no significant speed difference either, not enough to extend safely. As a Camel driver I have two options, kill quickly on or after the merge (and the HO is apparently unchivalrous, while hard flat-turning and then shooting you in the back is ok) or chuck a few evasives until help arrives or the battle damage brings you down.

I'm not asking for much, just a bit more of that legendary torque induced right turn capability to force the Tripe pilots to fly instead of drive (that's DRIVE with an R) when I do the honorable thing and allow them to sail past on the merge unscathed.

(hunkered down and standing by for incoming fire... as usual)
"We don't have a plan, so nothing can go wrong." (Spike Milligan)

Read my WW1 online novel 'Blood and Old Bones' at http://www.ww1sims.com/
A tribute to WW1 airmen and the squadron spirit, inspired by virtual air combat.

SCTusk    ++ SKELETON CREW ++  founde

Offline AWwrgwy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5478
Re: More Camel torque please
« Reply #1 on: May 08, 2010, 01:13:59 AM »
The Dr 1 has the same type of torquey rotary engine as the Camel, so that's not the issue.

Mechanical failures, IE:
Quote
The triplane's chronic structural problems...
, are not modeled in AH2, so that's not an issue either.

What it comes down to in game, I believe, is visibility.  You can see out better in the Dr 1 than in the Camel, especially forward/up.

You can't shoot what you can't see to maneuver behind.


wrongway
71 (Eagle) Squadron
"THAT"S PAINT!!"

"If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."
- General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay

Offline zmeg

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 936
Re: More Camel torque please
« Reply #2 on: May 08, 2010, 01:27:05 AM »
See Rule #4
« Last Edit: May 10, 2010, 11:38:29 AM by Skuzzy »

Offline SCTusk

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 283
      • Skeleton Crew Squadron
Re: More Camel torque please
« Reply #3 on: May 08, 2010, 01:37:36 AM »
Thanks for chipping in wrongway but I think you'll find the standard DR1 powerplant was 110hp while the standard Camel rotary was 130hp. The reputation as the quickest right turner is, I believe, accurate. Also, you pointed out:

Quote
What it comes down to in game, I believe, is visibility.  You can see out better in the Dr 1 than in the Camel, especially forward/up.

You can't shoot what you can't see to maneuver behind.

I genuinely don't have that much of a problem with visibility in the Camel, and neither apparently did the pilots in WW1 ("The Camel was credited with shooting down 1,294 enemy aircraft, more than any other Allied fighter in the First World War." - Wikipedia)
"We don't have a plan, so nothing can go wrong." (Spike Milligan)

Read my WW1 online novel 'Blood and Old Bones' at http://www.ww1sims.com/
A tribute to WW1 airmen and the squadron spirit, inspired by virtual air combat.

SCTusk    ++ SKELETON CREW ++  founde

Offline EskimoJoe

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4831
Re: More Camel torque please
« Reply #4 on: May 08, 2010, 03:04:45 AM »
Wrongway.

"THAT'S PAINT!"

Out.
Put a +1 on your geekness atribute  :aok

Offline Kweassa

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6425
Re: More Camel torque please
« Reply #5 on: May 08, 2010, 03:46:10 AM »
Quote
The Kill/Death ratio tells the story... as it stands the DR1 is almost twice as effective as the Camel. I don't think this can possibly be accurate, and when you consider the Camels' Vickers have twice the firing rate of the DR1s' Spandaus (yep, it's modelled as per the real deal - I bet that answers a few questions lol) well, that just screams 'problem with flight model'.

You are making a very flawed assumption.

In some mid-war scenarios the Hurri2C retains a much higher K/D against more advanced and versatile planes like the Fw190A-5 or the Bf109F-4. Does this mean the Hurri2C is overmodelled as well?

The Aces High in-game K/D has absolutely nothing to do with the FM.




Offline zmeg

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 936
Re: More Camel torque please
« Reply #6 on: May 08, 2010, 03:59:39 AM »
Does this mean the Hurri2C is overmodelled as well?

Sounds like you think so.





Offline SCTusk

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 283
      • Skeleton Crew Squadron
Re: More Camel torque please
« Reply #7 on: May 08, 2010, 04:54:05 AM »
In answer to your post Kweassa, I haven't flown AH WW2 for about a year, so I don't want to project any of my assumptions into those arenas. Perhaps the Hurricane 2C is flown by only a few top guns, maybe the K/D ratio it enjoys mirrors that achieved in WW2, or perhaps it's over modelled. It's even possible that modelled correctly it still over performs due to the differences between the game and the real world, and the way the game is played as opposed to the way pilots might behave in real situations, in which instance there might be a case for modifying it. I don't know what the problem is there. You would have to address that issue seperately.

In the WW1 arena the majority of players seem to be flying the DR1, which rules out the 'top gun' aspect, I think we're seeing a reasonably accurate 'average' result there. Interestingly the Camel drivers (the ones who stick at it - a very small minority) tend to be persistent and committed, which would suggest at least competent. So unless the Tripe was twice as effective in WW1 as the Camel, it's a fair bet that one if not both of these aircraft has been modelled incorrectly. And when I give the Camel a crack with the whip, she drops her port wing a few inches and carries on ponderously through the turn with complete disregard for gyroscopic effects (i.e. precession). I'm not sure if those are even modelled in AH, if not I presume some simple workaround could be attempted, it's the outcome we're after not necessarily the pure science.

If something isn't done, we're virtually flying in the face of history in there. The sky is full of DR1's (wrong) and the Camels have a terrible combat record (wrong). Add that to the constant rushing around in circles cutting the grass and we're not far off becoming the arcade game laughing stock that other sim afficionados seem to think we are :( That would be a shame because it has so much potential.

   
"We don't have a plan, so nothing can go wrong." (Spike Milligan)

Read my WW1 online novel 'Blood and Old Bones' at http://www.ww1sims.com/
A tribute to WW1 airmen and the squadron spirit, inspired by virtual air combat.

SCTusk    ++ SKELETON CREW ++  founde

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Re: More Camel torque please
« Reply #8 on: May 08, 2010, 06:36:06 AM »
No offence SCTusk, but it's somewhat hard to take you seriously when you obviously quote the best possible things you can find on the Camel and worst possible things you can find on the Dr.I. All selective quoting like that proves is your obvious bias. Also a flight model/aircraft model can't really be based on subjective quotes like that. Hard data is needed. And lastly the effects of the gyroscopic forces acting on the Camel are also acting on the Dr.I. The engine weights are similar and when it comes to the virtues and vices of the effects that rotary engines causes to the flight characteristics, Camel doesn't really have anything special that other rotary engined fighters don't have and vice versa.

The gyroscopic effects are very much modelled in AH. There's quite the difference between Camel/Dr.I and D.VII/F2B. Actually, I haven't flown a sim where they are as beliveable modelled as they are in Aces High. If you can't notice those effects then the fault really isn't in the sim...

The WWI arena hardly is an exact representation of WWI aerial warfare. The low altitude furballing setup and excessively long shooting distances greatly favor more maneuverable fighters.

Having said all that...

Yes I do think there might be one thing that causes some of the discrepencies. Dr.I speed is commonly listed as 115mph at sea level but it most probably is overly optimistic for the production plane with 110hp Oberusel. If Dr.I would be 5-10mph slower I think that could change things quite a bit.

Here's some speed data for the Fokker Dr.I collected and calculated by KACEY from aerodrome.com forums:

Very interesting thread on the speed of Dr.I here: http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/aircraft/34238-fokker-dr-i-maximum-speed-6.html
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline SCTusk

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 283
      • Skeleton Crew Squadron
Re: More Camel torque please
« Reply #9 on: May 08, 2010, 07:40:07 AM »
Quote
hard to take you seriously when you obviously quote the best possible things you can find on the Camel and worst possible things you can find on the Dr.I.
Quote
All selective quoting like that proves is your obvious bias

Wmaker, please provide alternative quotes with references in which DR1 shot down 1,294 Allied aircraft, was manufactured in large numbers, was generally considered to be the quickest turning aircraft, and where the Camel was so poorly designed as to limit its' production to just 320.

Yes I am biased, based on the information. If I'm misinformed then post your evidence.
 
"We don't have a plan, so nothing can go wrong." (Spike Milligan)

Read my WW1 online novel 'Blood and Old Bones' at http://www.ww1sims.com/
A tribute to WW1 airmen and the squadron spirit, inspired by virtual air combat.

SCTusk    ++ SKELETON CREW ++  founde

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Re: More Camel torque please
« Reply #10 on: May 08, 2010, 08:04:27 AM »
Wmaker, please provide alternative quotes with references in which DR1 shot down 1,294 Allied aircraft, was manufactured in large numbers, was generally considered to be the quickest turning aircraft, and where the Camel was so poorly designed as to limit its' production to just 320.

Yes I am biased, based on the information. If I'm misinformed then post your evidence.
 

<sigh> Ok, my point whizzed about 3 feet above your head.

Plane's service record in the real war is irrelevant when it comes to Aces High's WWI arena. When Mosquito won't stand up to it's loss per sortie record of the WWII in the LWMa arenas, are you gonna claim there's something wrong in the modelling then aswell?

You think something is wrong with the modelling and you post vague subjective quotes that really don't bring any backing to your claims. With one table I brought more factual data on this thread than you have yet posted to support your claim.
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline SCTusk

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 283
      • Skeleton Crew Squadron
Re: More Camel torque please
« Reply #11 on: May 08, 2010, 08:23:56 AM »
Quote
<sigh> Ok, my point whizzed about 3 feet above your head.

Wmaker, I find your presumption of my inferior intellect very informative.

Quote
you post vague subjective quotes that really don't bring any backing to your claims

Numbers manufactured, numbers of nme a/c shot down, numbers in service.... subjective?

Quote
With one table I brought more factual data on this thread than you have yet posted to support your claim.

That was a table? Sorry I thought you'd posted a screenshot of some of your kills. I was going to ask if the green one was me.

Surely we'd all like to see the WW1 arena improve, and most people I've asked seem to want more historical accuracy. I'm not entirely sure why you're on my six here.

What is it they say these days?.... chill bro  :cool:
"We don't have a plan, so nothing can go wrong." (Spike Milligan)

Read my WW1 online novel 'Blood and Old Bones' at http://www.ww1sims.com/
A tribute to WW1 airmen and the squadron spirit, inspired by virtual air combat.

SCTusk    ++ SKELETON CREW ++  founde

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23888
      • Last.FM Profile
Re: More Camel torque please
« Reply #12 on: May 08, 2010, 08:34:09 AM »
Numbers manufactured, numbers of nme a/c shot down, numbers in service.... subjective?

Depending how you use them: Yes.

Numbers of aircraft built or number of kills are no "hard data" in regards to FM. The combat environment in AH is totally different from a real world one, both for WWI and WWII.
Just because a plane XY got Z kills in real live doesn't prove that it's over- or undermodeled. WMakers Mossy argument is quite a good one - in "real life" it was far more "successful" in terms of K/D as in AH.

You can't simply say: It's got soandso many kills in RL, so torque in Ah is wrong.
Steam: DrKalv
E:D Snailman

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Re: More Camel torque please
« Reply #13 on: May 08, 2010, 08:47:44 AM »
Wmaker, I find your presumption of my inferior intellect very informative.

That wasn't my intent at all!

Sorry! My apologies.

That remark just stemmed a bit from frustration. I didn't mean to imply anything to do with intellect...I just think that you aren't looking to this issue from the same angle as I am and therefore didn't understand my point. That is what I meant.

Numbers manufactured, numbers of nme a/c shot down, numbers in service.... subjective?

Well, those numbers are irrelevant when it comes to actual, raw, physical performance of an aircraft, yes.

That was a table? Sorry I thought you'd posted a screenshot of some of your kills. I was going to ask if the green one was me.

I assume you having some kind of joke on me which I don't quite get but...can you see the Dr.I speed chart I posted?


Surely we'd all like to see the WW1 arena improve, and most people I've asked seem to want more historical accuracy. I'm not entirely sure why you're on my six here.

Totally agreed. The ease of long range shooting is something I'd like to see getting a looksee. I did a bit of testing and noticed that the dispersion of the WWI mgs at any given range is about the same as the dispersion of the 109 7.9mm cowl mgs.

Camel right now in the game has its gyroscopic effects modelled and as far as I can tell, turns clearly better to the right than it does to the left. I don't really see any problem there.
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline SCTusk

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 283
      • Skeleton Crew Squadron
Re: More Camel torque please
« Reply #14 on: May 08, 2010, 09:36:24 AM »
Well whatever the reason the problem is too many players flying the DR1 simply because you typically can't survive in a Camel once the DR1's start their flat turns. They just creep around behind and game over. Breaking out of the turn generally kills you even quicker, I realise that the obvious tactic is not to get sucked into it in the first place but the Camel should be up for it, and then some, at least in a right hand turn.

I guess we could search for performance data for both a/c with reference to turn rates, whether such data exists (or even ever did exist) I don't know. It certainly would make interesting reading. In the absence of data I can only go with a lifetime of anecdotal evidence which suggests that the Camel was unbeatable in the right turn, due largely to the "placement of the engine, pilot, guns and fuel tank within the front seven feet of the aircraft, coupled with the strong gyroscopic effect of the rotary engine." (Wikipedia)

Whatever the reason, the fact remains that the WW1 arena is dominated by the Dr1. I guess the introduction of more a/c could make this a moot point, but I have no idea when or even if that will happen.
"We don't have a plan, so nothing can go wrong." (Spike Milligan)

Read my WW1 online novel 'Blood and Old Bones' at http://www.ww1sims.com/
A tribute to WW1 airmen and the squadron spirit, inspired by virtual air combat.

SCTusk    ++ SKELETON CREW ++  founde