Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Current ROF Airplanes Flight Model Discussion Topic.


  • Please log in to reply
324 replies to this topic

#241 =IRFC=AirBiscuit

=IRFC=AirBiscuit
  • Posts: 2455
  • LocationNaples, FL USA

Posted 17 February 2011 - 18:22

@ Jay, I'm not surprised by your agreement. ;)

Well, sorry Gav, but one look at that horror-show of a tailplane and you can tell that the E.III should be a real handful. Yet it's incredibly docile in ROF (read: stable in pitch and yaw). Maybe if 777 simply addressed that, the relative performance of the E.III and DH2 would align with what history tells us.
  • 0

=IRFC=Air Biscuit

http://quetoo.org


#242 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 17 February 2011 - 18:28

Unless they visit everyone at home to smash their joystick I don't see how that is going to happen.
  • 0

#243 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 17 February 2011 - 18:54

True Jay, I'll agree that the E.III might be on a list of a number of RoF aircraft that seem a bit too stable. But the only pilots for whom it will make a difference are those who are new or who have crappy joysticks.

As for comparing the aircraft to history, I have never flown the DH2 vs EIII matchup in a historical mannever against other humans. Have you? I think the highest I've ever fought these with these aircraft in multiplayer is about 1000m, and then some people were whining that we were too high. Moreover, 1vs1 matchups were still pretty rare, even for 1916. And the DH2 does much better in a group fight than in a duel. I actually feel quite safe in the DH2 against the E.III because I can always roll away or force an overshoot with a well timed scissors.
  • 0

#244 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 17 February 2011 - 18:58

Kwiatek, why didnt you post this table?

Attached File  Lift.jpg   53.79KB   525 downloads

It is much more accurate and from same document ;)
  • 0

#245 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 17 February 2011 - 19:13

So what is the angle of incidence for the DH2's wings?

Regardless, it seems clear that the DH2's wing arrangement produced less lift per m^2, and more drag per m^2.

So, if the wing loading is about equal when you factor in the interference, and if there's more drag per m^2 and the DH2 has larger wings, then the performance we see in RoF is no mystery.
  • 0

#246 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 17 February 2011 - 19:24

So what is the angle of incidence for the DH2's wings?

3deg according to profile publications.
  • 0

#247 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 17 February 2011 - 19:42

So, on the worse end of the range.

I've always wondered why our N17 doesn't seem to accrue any benefit from it's supposedly great gap:chord ratio. How does that ratio work for a biplane with different chord on the top and bottom wings? Is it an average of the two wings?
  • 0

#248 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 17 February 2011 - 19:47

I've always wondered why our N17 doesn't seem to accrue any benefit from it's supposedly great gap:chord ratio. How does that ratio work for a biplane with different chord on the top and bottom wings? Is it an average of the two wings?

Gap in gap/chord ratio is measured only from the lower wing. Lower wing is the one that causes interference. And yes, N17/N11 (and Albatros D.III/D.Va some degree) should benefit in their sesquiplane desing. Also that above table is for non staggered planes. Staggered planes have 5% better lift and efficiency.
  • 0

#249 Kwiatek

Kwiatek
  • Posts: 680

Posted 17 February 2011 - 23:27

True Jay, I'll agree that the E.III might be on a list of a number of RoF aircraft that seem a bit too stable. But the only pilots for whom it will make a difference are those who are new or who have crappy joysticks.

As for comparing the aircraft to history, I have never flown the DH2 vs EIII matchup in a historical mannever against other humans. Have you? I think the highest I've ever fought these with these aircraft in multiplayer is about 1000m, and then some people were whining that we were too high. Moreover, 1vs1 matchups were still pretty rare, even for 1916. And the DH2 does much better in a group fight than in a duel. I actually feel quite safe in the DH2 against the E.III because I can always roll away or force an overshoot with a well timed scissors.


Regarding to these:

" All Eindeckers used a gravity fuel tank which had to be constantly filled by hand-pumping from the main fuel tank, which starting with the Fokker E.II was mounted behind the pilot; this task had to be performed up to eight times an hour. Both the rudder and elevator were aerodynamically balanced, and the type had no fixed tail surfaces. This combination rendered the Eindecker very responsive to pitch and yaw. For an inexperienced pilot, the extreme sensitivity of the elevators made level flight difficult; German ace Leutnant Kurt Wintgens stated "lightning is a straight line compared with the barogram of the first solo". Roll response on the other hand, was poor. This is often blamed on the use of wing-warping rather than ailerons - although monoplanes of the time, even when fitted with ailerons, often had unpredictable or unresponsive roll control due to the flexibility of their wings."

ROF EIII is very stable and easy plane to fly. Quite opposie to RL opinions about its flying chatactersitic. Only thing in EIII ROF FM is poor roll rate but when you use rudder difference between EIII and example N11 is not such big like most think ( beacuse N11 roll rate is also not such good as should?). I could nearly repeat all N11 manouvers. Also today i got some dogfights with N11 human opponent and in dogfight i would win in my EIII. He had to use energy tactic and Boom&Zoom in N11 to match EIII either way i could outurn him.
  • 0

#250 =IRFC=AirBiscuit

=IRFC=AirBiscuit
  • Posts: 2455
  • LocationNaples, FL USA

Posted 18 February 2011 - 00:00

Hm, I dunno if I'd go that far, Kwaitek. The N.11 pretty much has the E.III's number on all accounts. It's the DH2 that seems to get the shaft a little bit.. and not as badly as the N.17 or N.28, but enough that I think it's worth reviewing.
  • 0

=IRFC=Air Biscuit

http://quetoo.org


#251 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 18 February 2011 - 00:30

I'm hoping the N11 will have its roll rate boosted along with the N17 when flight model review happens.

Who were you fighting kwiatek? Like Jay says, the N11 is the better plane, but it's not so superior that it will win the fight through performance alone.
  • 0

#252 Kwiatek

Kwiatek
  • Posts: 680

Posted 18 February 2011 - 01:34

Hmm i dont remember his name but i saw he is good pilot, when he found that i could do better in EIII in clasical dogfight he start to used in next rounds energy fight and B&Z tactic which was effective in N11 against EIII. But still i think that N11 the same like DH2 shoudn't be worse in clasical dogfight then EIII. Also quite poor N11 roll rate dont give it resonable adventage over EIII dont mention enegment between N11 and Albatros DII.

Surly EIII in ROF is very easy to fly, it is very stable in pitch (it has heavy pitch and it is very hard to stall) and yaw and it could be that such flight characteristic give it adventage which it wouldn't had IRL.

If EIII would be much more unstable in pitch, more prone to stall durning hard pitch manouvers and unstable in yaw movement it wouldn't be such easy plane to dogfight like it is now against DH2 or N11. Maby then it would be fly more historical and realisitc way and dogfight with DH2 and N11 would be looks different?
  • 0

#253 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 18 February 2011 - 04:20

Why do you call turning in a flat circle a "classical dogfight?" Is that to give the impression that turning circles at low altitude was how pilots mostly fought in the great war? :)

Anyway, when I look at the list of the RoF aircraft that don't match their historical reputation, the E.III is pretty far down my list of offenders. I don't understand why you're so obsessed with it.
  • 0

#254 Kwiatek

Kwiatek
  • Posts: 680

Posted 18 February 2011 - 10:30

I think you should revision your list Gavagai so :)

Regardings flying characteristic EIII is really far from these what we could read about it. It should be unstable in pitch and yaw.

" Both the rudder and elevator were aerodynamically balanced, and the type had no fixed tail surfaces. This combination rendered the Eindecker very responsive to pitch and yaw. For an inexperienced pilot, the extreme sensitivity of the elevators made level flight difficult"

It should be extereme sensitivity in elevator. In ROF it is solid like a rock. Moreover its elevator response is rather stiff but is is far from sensivity. Also EIII didnt have vertical stabilizator but only movable rudder area which also casue yaw instability. EIII wings looks just thin boards. How you think it would be fly when you get thin wing profile and oversensivity elevator and rudder? Moreover i suppose with such thin wing profile and quite high wing loading for these peroid it should have higher stall speed then its contemporaries.
I dont think that such flying characteristic could give any adventage in dogfight for these plane over DH2 or N11.

Looking for information about German pilots flying EIII during WW1 we could find that they prefered to fight it in vertical - got higher posititon over enemy, dive on it and shot then make Immemlan turn and attack again. It looks that they really didn't like to turn in EIII.

No way ROF EIII is far in flying characteristic to these what we could expect.

What i have to start thinking is that ROF team try to balance some things. It could be just marketing. But balance is enemy of historical accuracy and realism. It remind me IL2 story. 1C clearly balanced there many things. It wouldnt be good if ROF would follow in his footsteps.
  • 0

#255 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 18 February 2011 - 10:51

I don't know about the performance, but I do find it hard to believe that you can just pull the stick as hard as you want in the Fokker E.III without ever a hint of even a remotely approaching stall.

It doesn't have the thick Fokker wing you can find on the later Fokkers. Is there an explanation for this behaviour?
  • 0

#256 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 18 February 2011 - 13:09

Moreover i suppose with such thin wing profile and quite high wing loading for these peroid

Kwiatek, we just went over this and learned, using a chart from one of your own sources, that the E.III's wing generated about the same lift as the DH2's, but with less drag.

I do understand your other points, but I'm not going to continue the discussion if you repeat claims that were refuted less than a day ago. You are hurting yourself. Until we all pull the springs out of our joysticks and pedals to simulate the aerodynamically balanced elevator and rudder (and 777 removes the option for joystick profiles), you will not be able to make a valid comparison of pitch/yaw sensitivity between the game and anecdote.
  • 0

#257 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk

1PL-Sahaj-1Esk
  • Posts: 940

Posted 18 February 2011 - 13:33

I read carefully through your topic and there is definitely a point in what Kwiatek wants to emphasise … well I am not the expert in aircraft characteristics, statistics and numbers but I want to put it very simple based on various battle synopsis' from WWI that i read :

If we assume that D.H.2 was the aircraft which helped to end the fokker scourge and if we read reports of D.H.2 fighting (at least standing their own) vs Albatros DIIs with D.H.2 being the more agile fighter (which obviously companseted for the weaker engine in D.H.2) then something is wrong during gameplay (Human E.III vs Human D.H.2) where teammates need help while taking on the E.III alone in a D.H.2 not mentioning D.H.2 taking on an Albatros DII where in RoF the D.H.2 is absolutely outclassed.

Its only an opinion of a close observer who plays WWI sims since 1991 ;)
  • 0

kpt. pil. / Capt. Sahaj / Operations Officer / 1. Eskadra Mysliwska / 1. Pulk Lotniczy / http://www.1pl.boo.pl

bannerf11esks.png?raw=1

http://warthog-extensions-by-sahaj.com


#258 Huetz

Huetz
  • Posts: 1589

Posted 18 February 2011 - 14:10

The problem here is the lack of information on the subject. As said before, it's basically all about manouverability but never about turn. The D.VII was said to end the allied fighter supremacy, but does that mean it is supposed to outrun,-climb,-turn any of its contemporary opponents? I dont think so.

By the time the DH2 was introduced, the allies finally realized the need for squadron operations and you would seldomly find a Fokker or an Airco alone. The reason why our perception of WW1 air combat is also sometimes blatantly wrong is that the accounts we see in books never tell the full story. I read about a pilot who bravely fought 5 enemy planes in a twoseater for 45 minutes, but the account does not mention him beeing with wingmen. In fact there were at least 2 other friendly aircraft involved but it's been (as often) left out.

The D.II v DH2 matchup is of course a totally different story, but that is a problem on the end of the D.II rather than on the DH2 and afaik it was promised to be reviewed.

I'd be the first one to cheer up if they make the plane more unstable than it currently is of course, however it's getting a bit old to repeat the same points over and over again because people are being ignorant. I have stated it before, it is not about how it is in our heads but how it was IRL.

Boelcke complained about the additional weight of the E.IV compared to the E.III and stated that he was not able to perform any sharp turns anymore, so it couldn't have been all vertical. (Quote to be found i.e. in Aircraft in Action No.158).

On the other hand, the DH2 is a formidable plane for its time and if people would practice a little, they'd see it's potential. There's real DH2 jockeys (WWBrian i.e.) out there that proove that point. What people however need to understand is that if you fly it with the jump in-die-refly mentality, it's not going to work. The one who has the inital advantage will always come out victorious especially in a matchup this close.

What i have to start thinking is that ROF team try to balance some things. It could be just marketing.

I dont know what sim you are talking about, but it can not be RoF, assuming that you mean balance in favor of central. Now you are making a fool of yourself. Once again, your point about the turn performance has been prooven invalid. Take it like a man.
  • 0

#259 =IRFC=AirBiscuit

=IRFC=AirBiscuit
  • Posts: 2455
  • LocationNaples, FL USA

Posted 18 February 2011 - 14:30

Easy there, VH. They actually did make changes during the beta to nerf the DH2 because it was "too good" against the E.III. They absolutely do make changes in order to balance things out.

You don't think that their flight model is so sophisticated and perfect that they simply plugin all of the aircraft's geometry, mass, thrust, etc.. and it outputs an unquestionable, 100% realistic representation of that plane's performance, do you? There is a huge fudge factor (actually probably dozens of them) that the team manipulates to "get it right." I think your attack on Kwaitek was unfounded and uncalled for.
  • 0

=IRFC=Air Biscuit

http://quetoo.org


#260 DidNotFinish

DidNotFinish
  • Posts: 4454

Posted 18 February 2011 - 14:40

Easy there, VH. They actually did make changes during the beta to nerf the DH2 because it was "too good" against the E.III. They absolutely do make changes in order to balance things out.

Oh I'm sorry? I was under the impression that this was a flight simulator. :|
  • 0

#261 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 18 February 2011 - 14:43

Easy there, VH. They actually did make changes during the beta to nerf the DH2 because it was "too good" against the E.III. They absolutely do make changes in order to balance things out.

Changes are made during beta constantly. So saying they made changes during beta is pretty normal. To say they make them because "balance" is totally unfounded.
  • 0

#262 Huetz

Huetz
  • Posts: 1589

Posted 18 February 2011 - 14:44

I am well aware of that Jay, youtube even (still?) brings up what the DH2 was supposed to be like, I was part of that open beta team too at one point ;)

The attack was in no way uncalled for, since he claimed they do it for a marketing purpose. You are totally right, they are getting close the real thing but are also limited in one form or the other. If they get close 3~4% I am happy, if they fall short of that, that's where the problems start. Taking influence on the performance of something and messing it up in the end will work on the marketing end of certain genres(arcade fps i.e.) but certainly not with a simulation community around. That's like knee-capping yourself. Every bit of news about wrong FMs/not corrected FMs is very bad marketing for a sim.

On the other points I made so far about the DH2, feel free to correct me ;) Looks like the nerfing of the DH2 was not that wrong after all if you look at the past few pages ;)
  • 0

#263 =IRFC=AirBiscuit

=IRFC=AirBiscuit
  • Posts: 2455
  • LocationNaples, FL USA

Posted 18 February 2011 - 14:58

Oh, okay, so you're able to justify your personal attacks on the basis of disagreeing with someone?

Interesting.

So what were their motivations for changing the DH2, then, Mig? Were they not because the DH2 was dominating the E.III too much? Please.. :roll:
  • 0

=IRFC=Air Biscuit

http://quetoo.org


#264 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 18 February 2011 - 15:02

Oh, okay, so you're able to justify your personal attacks on the basis of disagreeing with someone?

Interesting.

No, but I dont see much of an personal attack there.


So what were their motivations for changing the DH2, then, Mig? Were they not because the DH2 was dominating the E.III too much? Please.. :roll:

Simple, it was wrong then. Even in this thread Gavagai/J2_vonHuetz have showed that DH-2 didnt have much of and edge over E.III in turn.
  • 0

#265 =IRFC=AirBiscuit

=IRFC=AirBiscuit
  • Posts: 2455
  • LocationNaples, FL USA

Posted 18 February 2011 - 15:07

What a bunch of BS.. I'm out of this thread.
  • 0

=IRFC=Air Biscuit

http://quetoo.org


#266 Huetz

Huetz
  • Posts: 1589

Posted 18 February 2011 - 15:12

Geez, people need to ease up a little. Take a look at the past few pages and you see that his inital point was the turn performance of the E.III comapred to it's contemporaries.

As that point failed, he now starts picking on the easy to fly FM (which is a perfectly valid point, no doubt about that, every source about the E.III says it was twitchy) but right after that continues to unfoundedly start making things up.

It is arguing not for improving the sim but arguing for the sake of arguing, and it's making me sick tbh. This whole topic is intended to make the sim better, not to boost your ego by insisting you are right on an internet forum.

I reserve the right to proove someone is wrong, but I also reserve the right to point out when it's starting to get in the wrong direction. In my own words that is Jay ;)

Simple, it was wrong then.

This.
  • 0

#267 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk

1PL-Sahaj-1Esk
  • Posts: 940

Posted 18 February 2011 - 15:20

Similar story as with D.H.2/E.III/DII close up applies for the current Nieuport 17 - which flown by an human pilot has no standing against an human Albatros D.III or even D.II as it is (Nieuport 17) a way too clumsy and underpowered a little.

I know it is always a compromise between gameplay/balance/historical accuracy and if there is a bundle to purchase where you have two adversary planes it cannot end up with one being more or less obvious superior to the other because no one would buy the bundle at the end, there would be no point in flying with the clearly inferior plane (during actual online gameplay). However in my view it was exactly the case, E.III was inferior to D.H.2 in almost every aspect of aerial combat. Otherwise we have to discredit most of the reports and battle synoposis' from WWI.
  • 0

kpt. pil. / Capt. Sahaj / Operations Officer / 1. Eskadra Mysliwska / 1. Pulk Lotniczy / http://www.1pl.boo.pl

bannerf11esks.png?raw=1

http://warthog-extensions-by-sahaj.com


#268 Huetz

Huetz
  • Posts: 1589

Posted 18 February 2011 - 15:35

Actually, (both planes in capable hands) the N17 has a much better chance against the D.III than the D.II, which is of course by far from any historical accuracy when it comes to certain aspects. That's also why the D.II should be on the top spots on the review-list for FMs.

If you had a chance to fly one of the rarely found early war missions on SYN lately, it was a literal slaughter for central once the D.IIs and the N11s were gone and that shows the strength and the capability of the DH2. It takes practice to fly and sometimes feels like trying to manouver a wet sponge in a bathtub, but if you go easy on the controls, she will have the edge over the E3 ultimately, especially when there's more planes involved.
  • 0

#269 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk

1PL-Sahaj-1Esk
  • Posts: 940

Posted 18 February 2011 - 16:03

Actually, (both planes in capable hands) the N17 has a much better chance against the D.III than the D.II, which is of course by far from any historical accuracy when it comes to certain aspects. That's also why the D.II should be on the top spots on the review-list for FMs.

I presume you are a very expierenced pilot in RoF MP and you have lot of practise which backs up your arguments, at least I hope so however I have to strongly contradict with your statement. Yesterday on our server I had a chance to observe a test duel (Albatros D.III vs Nieport 17) between two superb pilots and the result was crushing for the Nieport 17. The pilot who flew the Albatros D.III (they switched their planes after the first test duel) played with the Nieport 17 like cat with a mouse, absolutely no chance for the Nieuport to gain upperhand at any time, hopelessly outclassed, really.

If you had a chance to fly one of the rarely found early war missions on SYN lately, it was a literal slaughter for central once the D.IIs and the N11s were gone and that shows the strength and the capability of the DH2. It takes practice to fly and sometimes feels like trying to manouver a wet sponge in a bathtub, but if you go easy on the controls, she will have the edge over the E3 ultimately, especially when there's more planes involved.

Apparently, as you are the first advocate of the current D.H.2 model on this forum I would like to see you fighting a good pilot in a E.III :)
  • 0

kpt. pil. / Capt. Sahaj / Operations Officer / 1. Eskadra Mysliwska / 1. Pulk Lotniczy / http://www.1pl.boo.pl

bannerf11esks.png?raw=1

http://warthog-extensions-by-sahaj.com


#270 1PL-Lucas-1Esk

1PL-Lucas-1Esk
  • Posts: 1038
  • LocationPoland/Warsaw

Posted 18 February 2011 - 16:17

Just to add a few Euro Cents to the last post.
While the D.III is superior against the N.17 in RoF, a good teamwork can make a good job and the final result may be completly different from expected. You can compare to the Pup vs d.II or D.III setup. The Sopwith is also better in theory, but Albatros is better armed and with some cooperation it can, again, beat the oponent. I know those are only some theories and speculations, but we have seen enough duels in aviation history when Goliath was beaten by David. Especially when the teamwork was involved.
And Sahaj, von Huetz is far superior pilot from one of those you have mentioned ;) So you may expect the unexpected :) And yes, DH2 is tricky, but once you master it, she can be deadly.
  • 0

1PL-Lucas
CO of 1.Pułk Lotniczy
http://1pl.boo.pl


#271 Huetz

Huetz
  • Posts: 1589

Posted 18 February 2011 - 16:47

Thanks for the compliment Lucas, S!

Indeed, Sahaj, I am an advocate of the current FM of the DH2, if you take all available data and also all available anecdotes (that I know of) into consideration, the DH2 performs as you would excpect it to. In a 1 v 1 the DH2 has only minor advantages over the E.III but as soon as it is 2 v 2 the DH starts to shine. Given that a RL matchup included a fair deal of altitude, ~40% fuel at least and minor wind and turbulence, it does not make me wonder why the German pilots felt so outclassed.

I would in any case love to proove the point in a real duel with a good E.III pilot, best of 3 rounds to get a valid result of course that is.

On the other hand, the N17 and the D.III matchup leaves a lot of room for the pilots. The D.III of course has the advantage in turn,roll,armament and stability and it requires a lot more work for the N17 pilot to win than for the D.III pilot, no matter what their skill level is. An experienced pilot however, that keeps his cool and knows his BnZ tactics is more likely to play cat and mouse with the D.III than the opposite way. It really starts to get problematic when the D.II comes into play, as there is basically nothing you can do wrong in this plane except going suicidal tactic-wise.
  • 0

#272 ImPeRaToR

ImPeRaToR
  • Posts: 7902

Posted 18 February 2011 - 16:56

Jesus when do people stop claiming that something got "nerfed". Jay stop talking bs, the E.III was not even around when the DH2 was in testing.
  • 0

#273 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 18 February 2011 - 17:36

Apparently, as you are the first advocate of the current D.H.2 model on this forum I would like to see you fighting a good pilot in a E.III :)

This is the problem with how people evaluate our aircraft relative to history. They read that X was superior to Y, they set up a duel, find that Y is better for dueling than X, and cry foul.

No.

the E.III was not even around when the DH2 was in testing.

Oh snap! :lol:
  • 0

#274 MiG-77

MiG-77
  • Posts: 2651

Posted 18 February 2011 - 18:43

Jesus when do people stop claiming that something got "nerfed".

Yeah, simple truth is that planes are modelled as accurately as possible. No "nerfing" or "balancing" in there. Developers dont need to think about balance that much(Other than there are enought of modelled planes for both sides). Multiplayer mission makers on otherhand do(->Developers just make plane as it was, players choose what to do with it). Some planes have more references and can be modelled better/accurately, others have contradicting data and what is "right" is hard to say.

Now this is not to say there are no faults in RoF flight models, there are. Some of those errors devs have admitted openly, others only for beta team. FM changes are still coming, but there are lot more important features and fixes to be made before that.
  • 0

#275 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 18 February 2011 - 18:45

the E.III was not even around when the DH2 was in testing.

Oh snap!
  • 0

#276 Kwiatek

Kwiatek
  • Posts: 680

Posted 18 February 2011 - 23:38

Kwiatek, we just went over this and learned, using a chart from one of your own sources, that the E.III's wing generated about the same lift as the DH2's, but with less drag.

I do understand your other points, but I'm not going to continue the discussion if you repeat claims that were refuted less than a day ago. You are hurting yourself. Until we all pull the springs out of our joysticks and pedals to simulate the aerodynamically balanced elevator and rudder (and 777 removes the option for joystick profiles), you will not be able to make a valid comparison of pitch/yaw sensitivity between the game and anecdote.


At least i see that i just kick-started a little these topic. Of course effect will be close to zero but i had thought it would be in these way.


EIII wings area is 75% wings area of DH2. So lift generating for both planes are similar if so with some adventage for DH2 ( it it have about 80% efficently compared to monoplane with the same wing area).

Also looking for different suorces for maximum speed of both planes we could find that some claimed faster speed for DH2, some equal speed for both some little faster speed for EIII. We could take that both planes have equal maximum speed what mean that EIII hadn't so much better aerodynamic efficently then DH2.

Morever DH2 had push engine-prop what mean that it give him more adventage in turning then standart prop. You just ingoring these fact also.

All these mean that i dont see here any adventage for EIII which could allow him to be better in turn then DH2.

Other fact is that IRL EIII wasnt easy plane to fly beacuse of oversensivity elevator and rudder but also wing warping system. EIII had also very thin wing profile. All these mean that these plane shouldn't be easy plane to dogfight and manouvering. Oversensivity pitch and yaw and thin wing profile mean that these plane would more prone to stall and spin.

Im not wonder why Immemlan discovered that it would be much easier to make his famous "Immemlan turn in vertical" then just try to turn horizontal in EIII.

Obviously in ROF EIII is very easy plane to fly. Very stable and safe to fly without too much risk to stall in hard manouvers and turning. It also outurn horizontaly both DH2 and N11. It has much safer and easier flying charactersitic then both these planes.


Moreover N11 which had lower engine power ( 80HP) then EIII (100 HP) was faster plane and better climber. It mean that biplane (N11) had better aerodynamical efficently then Fokker monoplane. Funny isn't? I really wonder how it could be possible that N11 which was faster, was better climber, had lower wing loading then EIII could turn worse? Magic?

I'm inclined to think that kwaitek is spot-on with his assessment of the EIII and DH2 match-up. The DH2 honestly doesn't stand a chance against an EIII until you're at 2km.. then it's a pretty fair and very enjoyable fight. But the E.III does turn better than the DH2, and is extremely easy to fly. Clearly that's not how it should be.

Bottom line: they nerfed the DH2 too much in beta.

@ Jay, I'm not surprised by your agreement. ;)

Well, sorry Gav, but one look at that horror-show of a tailplane and you can tell that the E.III should be a real handful. Yet it's incredibly docile in ROF (read: stable in pitch and yaw). Maybe if 777 simply addressed that, the relative performance of the E.III and DH2 would align with what history tells us.


It is good that that there are still some people here who are not hardminded and could read and think objectively.

But i dont expect also that someone like J2_vonHuetz with such significant avatar would able to get it, even if you would show a tons of facts. Yea proabably if i would be familiar with any side i wouldn't be like if any plane from my side would be more difficult to fly and win.

What a bunch of BS.. I'm out of this thread.

Sad but true JAy. But dont give up so fast :)


At least some other people some time ago though the same :)

" … the de Havilland machine has unquestionably proved itself superior to the Fokker in speed, manoeuverability, climbing and general fighting efficiency." Sir Henry Rawlinson, 23 May 1916"

" The late Frank Tallman in his book Flying the Old Planes (ref. 110) says ". . . the major flight characteristic ever present is the feeling that if you took your hands off the stick or your feet off of the rudders, the Eindecker would turn itself inside out or literally swap ends." He also indicates that the all-moving surfaces continually hunted back and forth with an attendant feedback into the pilot's hands and feet. These characteristics describe an aircraft that by modern standards would be considered unpleasant to fly, would be unlicensable, and certainly would inspire little confidence in the mind of the pilot."
  • 0

#277 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk

1PL-Sahaj-1Esk
  • Posts: 940

Posted 18 February 2011 - 23:46

Yeah, simple truth is that planes are modelled as accurately as possible. No "nerfing" or "balancing" in there. Developers dont need to think about balance that much(Other than there are enought of modelled planes for both sides). Multiplayer mission makers on otherhand do(->Developers just make plane as it was, players choose what to do with it). Some planes have more references and can be modelled better/accurately, others have contradicting data and what is "right" is hard to say.

Now this is not to say there are no faults in RoF flight models, there are. Some of those errors devs have admitted openly, others only for beta team. FM changes are still coming, but there are lot more important features and fixes to be made before that.


This is one wise and honest statement and I will hold on to it :)
  • 0

kpt. pil. / Capt. Sahaj / Operations Officer / 1. Eskadra Mysliwska / 1. Pulk Lotniczy / http://www.1pl.boo.pl

bannerf11esks.png?raw=1

http://warthog-extensions-by-sahaj.com


#278 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15541

Posted 19 February 2011 - 00:39

Rawlinson wasn't a pilot. He was a general in the British Army. :roll:

You're groping for anything that will stick.
  • 0

#279 Huetz

Huetz
  • Posts: 1589

Posted 19 February 2011 - 00:45

Just like a broken record that will repeat the same trash over and over and over and over … :roll:
  • 0

#280 Huetz

Huetz
  • Posts: 1589

Posted 19 February 2011 - 00:58

It is good that that there are still some people here who are not hardminded and could read and think objectively.

But i dont expect also that someone like J2_vonHuetz with such significant avatar would able to get it, even if you would show a tons of facts.


So far you have provided no data that shows the DH2 turns better but the data you provided prooved your point wrong. Yes, the data YOU provided. Do I need to repeat it? :roll: Talking about objective judgement are we? :lol:

You can't just turn things around to fit your agenda.

Also, your allusion of my avatar shows how little you know… once again. :roll: I suggest you re-read the previous pages.

You can feel free and go proove me wrong, I asked you to do so pages earlier and thus far you have failed. As in my previous post… the same old trash over and over again. In any case do us a favor and bring up something useful this time. Thank you.
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users