Do planes break up enough?

[griphos]

What a fascinating discussion. I don't have much to add, but a lot to learn. However, for what it's worth, I think I died in a Spad XIII the other day from structural failure. I've always found the Spads to be the most difficult planes to fly (I've not flow for the Germans yet). Very unforgiving stall characteristics, and murder in a spin. I DO VERY MUCH like the way these planes have distinct FM and DM. I very much like having to learn the limits of my crate, as ftcg encapsulated above as one of the keys to success. The other day I was trying the Spads again in QC and throwing one about the sky in the way I can, say, a Pup or an SE5, and from what I can tell, she just folded on me. Hadn't taken any hits from EA.

Anyway, I'll be following this conversation closely, and very interested to see the outcome for the sim.

 

[womenfly2]

I voted yes I see some but want more... for the record...as we are working on DM at this moment in time.

WM

..... works for me.

Cheers,
WF2

 

[quoth]

Hi All

Voted for see some but would like more

But on a related subject, it seems to me that when one does shoot a plane down, too many of them seem to go in a shallow dive/glide before crashing/landing. I would have expected more planes to go into a spin etc and falling out of the sky than more than currently seems to be the case.

Just some thoughts

Cheers

Q

 

[Rick Rawlings]

If the team's goal is to simulate the difficulty of surviving long enough to amass 17 hours of flight time then that's fine. If the goal is to as LeBlaque stated to make a sim that is the most realistic in terms of physics then that's fine too. I personally would like to see the sim reflect reality as much as data can support and let the survive ability rely on other factors beside just artificially "hardening" the enemy AI. I've always felt the the AI in a flight sim should have to follow the same rule of physics as I do. A level playing field is what I'm looking for. As for making it difficult to survive/not being able to rack up ten kill sorties, that has to come down to AI coding. I think the closest you get to a real life fight is in the multiplayer online scenario where everyone is playing with the same physics rules. As anyone who has had any success in those will tell you winning the fight comes down to three things.

1. Knowing the capability and limits of your aircraft verses those of the E/A.
2. Being the pilot in the fight that makes the fewest mistakes.
3. Surprise.

The AI in OFF don't do either #1 or #2 very well. First let me say this is not a dig at the developers, it may be extremely difficult/impossible to code, but in 90% of the fights I've been in the AI does not use whatever advantage his aircraft has over mine. For instance I'm flying an SE5 and the AI is flying a DR-1. The DR1's advantage in this instance is/should be manuverability and climb, it's disadvantages are/should be speed and roll rate. However in almost all cases the first maneuver after the merge will be for the DR1 to dive giving up his advantage and playing into mine. Number 2 above should always be squarely in the AI's corner. ACM is a three dimensional chess game where the moves must be thought out several moves into the future ie I'm going to do X to force him to do Y to set for Z. In this area the AI should excel as it's brain is a pretty powerful computer that can evaluate hundreds of scenarios per second. So in theory if you can program the AI to understand the advantage/disadvantages issue and then make it's decisions based on that and the fact that it couldn't make a mistake plus the fact that the AI should be able to fly the plane with perfect precision you should wind up with a scenario where the player could never win. Then you would be in a position to modify the AI to randomly make mistakes or not use it's advantages to the fullest based on whether you were fighting a rookie pilot or and ace. That is where the difficulty of surviving would come into play.

I don't know if any of the above is possible but if it was you could give player and AI the same guns, the same stress tolerance, same damage effects and it would, in my opinion be the closest to reality as your going to get in a computer simulation.

Scott

Man, if you didn't already have a medal, I'd award you one for this post! I think reasonable A.I is stil a ways in the future. This sim is so far the best I've seen. As I mentioned in another thread, your wigmen will help you out, sometimes to the point of crashing into you in their eagerness!

Yes there is a lot of similar strategy on the part of the enemy AI, but as I fly mostly against Germans in Albatrosses, this really is what they are supposed to be doing anyway!

I dunno, maybe you could reintroduce rookie AI into the campaign to mix it up a little more, probably make planes slightly weaker both to gunfire and stress, and maybe throw in a small random element for those "amazing Rene Fonk" shots that the DM may not be able to handle for whatever reason. For a while, at least, realism will always have to be tempered with balance. To my knowledge, no tests were done to determine exactly how much stress you would have to load an N17 or a Fokker DVIII before it would shed wings. Proabably due to lack of volunteers. All we know is someone cracked up and someone saw it and everyone was careful after that, until they weren't, because they forgot while trying to save their life by evading the enemy. And then their wing tore off. Or it didn't.

And don't forget that Boelcke still managed to make a fairly controlled landing despite losing most of his top wing. How do you model that?

Truth be told, if they walked away now, I would still be thrilled with this sim, but since Winder made the mistake of asking, keep the cool posts coming!



RR

 

[griphos]

...and maybe throw in a small random element for those "amazing Rene Fonk" shots that the DM may not be able to handle for whatever reason.

Actually, the other night on a mission when my plane was in a bad way and I was just trying to make it to friendly lines, four DIIs came at me. I turned on one and sent maybe a 20 shot burst into him, maybe less. He flamed and crashed.

Usually, my experience is the hang behind them at all costs and empty at least 1/4 of my magazine before seeing them succumb, but this one experience suggests there is already something like your desire in DM.

Also, I've found that it takes a lot less bullets when I'm a lot closer before I shoot them.

But ditto on the accolades for that excellent post, and on the appraisal of the sim just as it is.

 

[rabu]

Proposal

I think that when a pilot is chosen, most of the reality settings should be locked if the hardest level is chosen. So, if you set the reality to "Real SIM" level (or some other descriptive) it should give you the closest experience to what it was really like and you shouldn't be able to change most of the settings for that pilot while he is enlisted.

Meanwhile, all other lesser reality levels should still have the option of altering all their settings as they wish, all the way down to semi arcade, if they want.. why not fish in that crowd, then get them interested in working up to the top?

We might even have a different set of graphics for those who go for the highest settings, just to make that a goal of a player, and the reward of being able to say that one flew in the BHH RS (Real Sim) mode and survived! :woot:

 

[LeBlaque]

Hi All

Voted for see some but would like more

But on a related subject, it seems to me that when one does shoot a plane down, too many of them seem to go in a shallow dive/glide before crashing/landing. I would have expected more planes to go into a spin etc and falling out of the sky than more than currently seems to be the case.

Just some thoughts

Cheers

Q

When I read this comment, it placed into further context for me why I voted the way I did. I'm not necessarily sure I need to see many more parts flying off (though voted I'd like to see more), engines catch fire, pilots and observers bail out due to fire (though would like to see that, really!), etc., but what I would like to see is some more variety, if possible, of observable "shot down" outcomes, meaning if a pilot is severely hit erratic flying, wing-overs, spins, sudden dives and climbs, etc. etc. Clearly BHAH exceeds RB3D mods by a wide margin, but my aging memory seems to recall a much greater variety of kill outcomes so that I know an aircraft was going to take a dirt nap. As the poster above suggested, it appears a number of my kills take that long, lonely glide to cratering as opposed to something a bit more spectacular. Anyway, that's an edit to my vote of "would like to see more."

 

[rabu]

When I read this comment, it placed into further context for me why I voted the way I did. I'm not necessarily sure I need to see many more parts flying off (though voted I'd like to see more), engines catch fire, pilots and observers bail out due to fire (though would like to see that, really!), etc., but what I would like to see is some more variety, if possible, of observable "shot down" outcomes, meaning if a pilot is severely hit erratic flying, wing-overs, spins, sudden dives and climbs, etc. etc. Clearly BHAH exceeds RB3D mods by a wide margin, but my aging memory seems to recall a much greater variety of kill outcomes so that I know an aircraft was going to take a dirt nap. As the poster above suggested, it appears a number of my kills take that long, lonely glide to cratering as opposed to something a bit more spectacular. Anyway, that's an edit to my vote of "would like to see more."

How about the frequent old RB classic crash where it would spin like a top on its tail?

 

[Geier]

So I voted for I see None since, uh, I've actually never seen any part of my or an enemy's plane come off other than from FlaK-hits. Not saying of course that they don't happen, only that I've never seen them.
And would like to.

 

[rabu]

Are you seeing planes come apart, under fire or from being over-stressed or a combination of both? If yes, does it happen enough? Do you want more, less...or just any at all?

This is from bullets, not archie.

If you're playing with "Invincible" pilot setting I don't think you will get any damage with that setting. Try pilot never dies instead.


I've done some experimenting in QC flying the N11, N16 and N17 and I got all of them to shed a lower wing through a steep dive where I got the speed up to just under 200mph and then started seeing speed warnings and damage notices and with further loops and hard turns, finally a wing would rip off and the QC would end quickly. This has not happened with just a dive though, I had to work at it awhile with some hard maneuvering.

I do think that hard dives should not be tolerated by the planes that couldn't tolerate them, hopefully within the possibilities that the flayers faced back then. In Red Baron loosing a wing in a Nieuport happened with almost any hard dive, in BHH it can happen, but not very often. I think something between the two would be realistic, but Shreadward could probably come up with the statistics on that.

N17 wing lost:

Text warnings:

N16 wing lost:

One other thing I noticed, if I got hit by the enemy in key areas the damage was more likely to occure with only some maneuvering, so I think the damage/structual intregity is working pretty well.

 

[Siggi]

I had the pilot on invincible, not the plane. I was taking damage from bullets ok. But thanks for the heads-up, it could have happened.

 

[Angles1100]

Just a thought but I wonder how many of the people that see lots of aircraft breakups fly German 2 gun aircraft as opposed to people like myself flying a DH2 with a single Lewis gun and never see breakups .

just thinking out loud

cheers

 

[Siggi]

Just a thought but I wonder how many of the people that see lots of aircraft breakups fly German 2 gun aircraft as opposed to people like myself flying a DH2 with a single Lewis gun and never see breakups .

just thinking out loud

cheers

Dunno. I've shot plenty down with the twin-Vickers Camel and still seen none.

 

[rabu]

I had the pilot on invincible, not the plane. I was taking damage from bullets ok. But thanks for the heads-up, it could have happened.

Yes, Siggi, the pilot.... I tried the pilot on invincible during my QC test dives and could never get the plane to break up, thus my comment.. try it?

 

[Siggi]

Yes, Siggi, the pilot.... I tried the pilot on invincible during my QC test dives and could never get the plane to break up, thus my comment.. try it?

Nope, no difference. Invincibility off, pilot death on Hard, dived vertical from 10k at full throttle in the Nupe17, pulled out with max stick at 3k, nada. Went straight into the hardest possible horizontal turn, plenty of creaking but nothing broke. Carried on like that for a bit, got bored and started doing loops and went into the ground. Then I saw both the bottom wings come off (still-frame of them about five feet further forward than they should have been) and I died.

Maybe my stick's not giving me full deflection...? That's a jolly good excuse to go buy another one. But this one is pretty good already, unless the sparse FFB is a stick problem and not the CFS3 FFB outputs...

Or more likely HQ knows how good I am and makes sure I get the best planes. I wonder how long they'll put up with me writing them off.

 

[UK_Widowmaker]

I am just grateful for the smoke and flames we get treated to in P3
(they were a bit short of those effects in P2)

As regards breakages... I am 'reasonably' convinced there are less with the latest patch?...but that of course, might be me

 

[quoth]

Never played RB but did play Rowans Flying Corps a lot and seem to remember that both albs and (especially) Nupes would shed the top wing, with a loud crack, very often if put into anything more than a shallow dive.

Q

 

[Geier]

Yes, from my experience (with the Alb DIII) you can point you nose straight down with no ill effects IF you throttle down to min. That did not work in FC, you had to make circles when you wanted to lose alt fast, but here it seems you've got airbrakes on. I still appreciate what has been achieved with the CFS3 engine though.

(Just had a mother-beautiful furball with 8 Albs against 9 SPAD VIIs. SPADS won, 5-3, but they were the ones bouncing us from high alt and I did give too few good orders to my wingmen. )

 

[rabu]

Nope, no difference. Invincibility off, pilot death on Hard, dived vertical from 10k at full throttle in the Nupe17, pulled out with max stick at 3k, nada. Went straight into the hardest possible horizontal turn, plenty of creaking but nothing broke. Carried on like that for a bit, got bored and started doing loops and went into the ground. Then I saw both the bottom wings come off (still-frame of them about five feet further forward than they should have been) and I died.

Maybe my stick's not giving me full deflection...? That's a jolly good excuse to go buy another one. But this one is pretty good already, unless the sparse FFB is a stick problem and not the CFS3 FFB outputs...

Or more likely HQ knows how good I am and makes sure I get the best planes. I wonder how long they'll put up with me writing them off.

Hmmm... no, I don't think it has anything to do with your stick. But, like I said, even after a hard dive I had to do a lot of loops and such to get it to break up, but I never could get it to break up, doing the same dives and maneuvers, when the pilot was on invincible.