Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Why the Albatros and Pfalz speeds can never be fixed.


  • Please log in to reply
235 replies to this topic

#41 Der.Mo

Der.Mo
  • Posts: 1010

Posted 22 January 2013 - 23:07

MvR was probably shot down by Fe2 (in 1917), too.

I think friendly fire is more likely because he recieved a hit on the back of his skull while facing the FE and sitting behind the engine of his Albatros
  • 0

#42 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 23 January 2013 - 00:22

Unless he'd turned his head or was hit by a different FE? Who knows what happened.

Jim Miller's explanation is probably the best researched and likely but no-one can know for sure.
  • 0

#43 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 23 January 2013 - 02:02

I'll ride the off-topic train…

Knowing that MvR expected discipline from his pilots, I expect that he would have fired any pilot he suspected of shooting through his airplane. While ROF noobs shoot freely through their wingmen, such a practice in real life would be frowned upon, no?

Given his "out of range" condition and the slow speeds of WWI aircraft, he wouldn't be padlocked on the enemy or trying to aim and fire. He would still be managing his flight though, and perhaps taking one more look around. More likely than friendly fire, I expect he got shot while his head was turned to the right as he checked on his flight or took a second to check his six.
  • 0

#44 NewGuy_

NewGuy_
  • Posts: 4114

Posted 23 January 2013 - 06:24

While the ROF team has addressed a number of FMs in the past, I would like it very much, in light of IL2 BOS, if the ROF team would hold off on such matters, until they have a better idea of how potential changes in the Digital Nature Engine may impact potential future ROF FM development, or add-on development, in many other ways. Changes in the engine, for use in IL2 BOS, may benefit future ROF add-on development. If it is all possible, the ROF team may wish to even consider updating the ROF engine and releasing a new line of higher fidelity ROF add-ons, at IL2 BOS price points, assuming that IL2 BOS price points will be higher than current ROF price points, rather than fiddling with prior released ROF add-ons. Maybe they can release an add-on that brings the existing Albatros FM up to a new standard, the way A2A simulations does, releasing a base add-on, then charging an about of money for a complimentary add-on (accu-sim or accu-feel…or whatever it is called)that improves the fidelity of the base add-on.

If the ROF team can make a better Albatros DVa, why not release a second generation flight model version in the store or release an add-on that brings the existing DVa up to a new standard of fidelity, and make some sales? Maybe it is because I am going to have to run my own buisness, to make a living, but I must assume that the ROF team made their best efforts to develop each add-on, using the state of the art of development techniques. They did their best. If they can create much higher fidelity flight models, in the future, surely they should be able to tag on a price tag, and make some money off their new efforts.

:geek:
  • 0

Something something SPAD. Something something then dive away. 


#45 JG4_Karaya

JG4_Karaya
  • Posts: 97

Posted 23 January 2013 - 12:46

If the ROF team can make a better Albatros DVa, why not release a second generation flight model version in the store or release an add-on that brings the existing DVa up to a new standard of fidelity, and make some sales? Maybe it is because I am going to have to run my own buisness, to make a living, but I must assume that the ROF team made their best efforts to develop each add-on, using the state of the art of development techniques. They did their best. If they can create much higher fidelity flight models, in the future, surely they should be able to tag on a price tag, and make some money off their new efforts.

:geek:

That doesnt make sense, noone will want to pay for a fix to an aircraft that should have been provided a long long time ago… also providing such a fix as a payware addon is just going to mess up the online community, those who are on the free to play client or ICE edition will have the "sucky" version whereas those who spent money on the addon will get the "proper" one? Sounds like an aweful idea!

Part of a business is to provide support and bugfixing for one's products and this one is among that. Either provide it at no extra cost or just dont - and I fear we are up for the latter.

I have thus far acquired every single item for RoF but seeing that such glaring FM issues are just being ignored (including the billions of threads covering them) I am now very reluctant to spend any more cash on RoF. The only thing that will get me back into a spender's mood is going to be an extensive round of FM overhauls.

And looking at BoS I imagine that if the provided FMs are not within +-1% and/or not fixed when proven to be wrong in a sensible amount of time 777 will have to face the consequences, it will be CoD all over. The IL-2 community is very large (way larger than RoF, especially online wise) and has very high expectations, and one of the highest will be having FMs that closely represent the real aircraft. Keep in mind that WWII aircraft have much more data covering them so there will be no excuses such as "we dont have enough representative flight reports". Having aircraft that are 10% slower than IRL in BoS is going to spell disaster for the project.
  • 0

#46 NewGuy_

NewGuy_
  • Posts: 4114

Posted 23 January 2013 - 18:48

If the ROF team can make a better Albatros DVa, why not release a second generation flight model version in the store or release an add-on that brings the existing DVa up to a new standard of fidelity, and make some sales? Maybe it is because I am going to have to run my own buisness, to make a living, but I must assume that the ROF team made their best efforts to develop each add-on, using the state of the art of development techniques. They did their best. If they can create much higher fidelity flight models, in the future, surely they should be able to tag on a price tag, and make some money off their new efforts.

:geek:

That doesnt make sense, noone will want to pay for a fix to an aircraft that should have been provided a long long time ago… also providing such a fix as a payware addon is just going to mess up the online community, those who are on the free to play client or ICE edition will have the "sucky" version whereas those who spent money on the addon will get the "proper" one? Sounds like an aweful idea!

Part of a business is to provide support and bugfixing for one's products and this one is among that. Either provide it at no extra cost or just dont - and I fear we are up for the latter.

I have thus far acquired every single item for RoF but seeing that such glaring FM issues are just being ignored (including the billions of threads covering them) I am now very reluctant to spend any more cash on RoF. The only thing that will get me back into a spender's mood is going to be an extensive round of FM overhauls.

And looking at BoS I imagine that if the provided FMs are not within +-1% and/or not fixed when proven to be wrong in a sensible amount of time 777 will have to face the consequences, it will be CoD all over. The IL-2 community is very large (way larger than RoF, especially online wise) and has very high expectations, and one of the highest will be having FMs that closely represent the real aircraft. Keep in mind that WWII aircraft have much more data covering them so there will be no excuses such as "we dont have enough representative flight reports". Having aircraft that are 10% slower than IRL in BoS is going to spell disaster for the project.


There are precedents for flight sim companies both releasing add-ons that enhance the Flight models of existing plane add-ons and flight sim companies that release next gen flight models as part of a new product offering, rather than as an free update to a previous release. If ROF'ers were asking for a fix here or there, maybe, but it seems that the community is asking for the team to reevaluate the relative performance of all the machines, to better achieve a more historically plausible plane set. Assuming the team made their best efforts, each and every release, up to the point that they were delivering products that reflected the state of their industry art, within the budget they had, there is not much more one could realistically expect the team to do. It may be that now and in the future the team can achieve superior results, when compared to their efforts a year or more ago. If the team can create an ROF line up that much better reflects the plausible historical relative performance of these machines, given the enormity of the task, they should consider such an overhaul to be at least the equal of delivering a Flaming Cliffs Three to market, I should think. Given that we buy planes as seperate add-ons, the Flaming Cliffs model is imperfect, but A2A releases seperate enhancement add-ons to increase the fidelity of the flying experience of their existing plane add-ons. Even this model may not be a perfect fit, but the team should explore all of their options. Maybe they can raise their price points a bit or do some other things, while they deliver much higher fidelity FMs, or maybe they can jus alter all of the FMs without raising prices, but they should think of everything. Measure twice, then cut once.
  • 0

Something something SPAD. Something something then dive away. 


#47 JG4_Karaya

JG4_Karaya
  • Posts: 97

Posted 23 January 2013 - 20:32

Given that we buy planes as seperate add-ons, the Flaming Cliffs model is imperfect, but A2A releases seperate enhancement add-ons to increase the fidelity of the flying experience of their existing plane add-ons. Even this model may not be a perfect fit, but the team should explore all of their options. Maybe they can raise their price points a bit or do some other things, while they deliver much higher fidelity FMs, or maybe they can jus alter all of the FMs without raising prices, but they should think of everything. Measure twice, then cut once.

Your are forgetting that A2A does not have to bother about an online community, as said introducing "premium" FMs so to say is going to split the community up unnecessarily. FMs are something that need to be standardized among all, else it just turns into a "pay to win" game of the likes of World of Tanks, War Thunder, etc..
  • 0

#48 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 23 January 2013 - 21:28

Interesting, Misha.

Isn't the issue that relative performance is key for a combat simulator and RoF has a large number of plane match-ups for which the relative performance can be criticized - based on pilot memoirs. The developers only have scant absolute performance figures to use. A product range of independent study sims is a different matter.

I speculate that a large part of the issue is reliable input data. Adding more fidelity to the flight model will not compensation for the large assumptions made. But, I do wonder if earlier flight models were revisited that significant improvements could be made. I am thinking of the prop-hanging Pfalz - does it have too much thrust at low forward speeds? Could they make a better propeller performance estimation based on the SE5a propeller data?

I, personally, would pay for a study sim of the SE5a, for example. I would be happy to use it offline only. Jason's visit to Moscow thread did mention a higher fidelity flight model. There is a lot of aerodynamnic data for that plane. I would like to see systems modelling - fuel management etc. But, the modelling would be pure speculation. The rotary over-cooling issue showed that physical modelling is not everything (without adequate real lift data to benchmark against)
  • 0

#49 NewGuy_

NewGuy_
  • Posts: 4114

Posted 24 January 2013 - 00:17

Interesting, Misha.

Isn't the issue that relative performance is key for a combat simulator and RoF has a large number of plane match-ups for which the relative performance can be criticized - based on pilot memoirs. The developers only have scant absolute performance figures to use. A product range of independent study sims is a different matter.

If I were on the ROF team and considering altering the relative performance of ROF machines, I would be interested in the relative performance mix that would lead the greatest number of ROF'ers to believe that this is true, whether or not, in point of fact, the relative performance is true, given that both eye witness accounts and quantitative data may not afford us all of the information that is sufficient to allow us to arrive at an objective truth and even if we could, customers will not necessarily believe in, or accept, the objective truth. If the customers do not know what to believe, what then is the relative performance mix that I can convince the customer may be true? This is no simple issue, as the ROF team serves a Global audience that does not necessarily hold homogenous assumptions about what ought to be seen as true, with regard to relative performance.
;)
  • 0

Something something SPAD. Something something then dive away. 


#50 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 24 January 2013 - 00:27

Objective truth is not possible for WW1 scout performance. The best we can aim for is reasonable belief.
  • 0

#51 JG1_Butzzell

JG1_Butzzell
  • Posts: 1380

Posted 25 January 2013 - 17:52

S!

Can't remember where I saw it. It was on one of the programs about planes on the "Military "chanel. They were discussing the early wings. Thin wing vs thick. Thin wings were "believed" to have less drag. They found that the Germans produced several thick shapes with no increase in drag compared to thin wings. These were the shapes used by Fokker on the Dr.1 and the D VII.

All I am saying is that you might want to look elsewhere for the reason behind slower speeds. You might find something that can be fixed.

Horsepower affects climb not really speed for these planes.

Surface drag was increased on the Alb DVa compared to the Alb D III. The rounded fusalage of the DVa was the problem.

The Pfalz will remain the most beautiful plane in the game … untill the Roland CII is released.

S!
  • 0

sig9.png


#52 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 25 January 2013 - 19:34

Yes, there have been a few threads about thick v thin aerofoils:

WW1 fighters: A comparative study

Airfoil data thread

Panthera has looked into it
  • 0

#53 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 25 January 2013 - 19:37

Piecsot, what do you think of the OP, though? I think he makes a very interesting post and I'd love to hear the opinion of someone who has knowledge of the subject.
  • 0

#54 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 25 January 2013 - 22:25

Now, I am speculating, but am basing this on the information A.P. released in the SE5a FM revision thread and my own experience with aerodynamic modelling.

Spoon wrote
In older flight sims, all aspects of an aircrafts performance were set independently. The developer set the maximum speed, rate of climb, roll rates, times to turn and many other variables to match historical data. If a plane was too slow, it was easy to adjust its maximum speed without affecting other performance indicators. This meant that developers could create aircraft that exactly match the performance from known flight test but left the aircraft feeling 'wooden'. These aircraft weren't being controlled by mathematical models but by spreadsheets.

With ROF, things are very different. In ROF, the developers create an exact aerodynamical model of the aircraft and give it its historical power output. The speed or rate of turn of an aircraft at any point in the sim isn't taken from a spreadsheet like older flight sims but dynamically calculated by applying state of the art mathematical models to the aerodynamical model/power output for the given aircraft under the atmospheric conditions present in the game. The performance of a Camel or Fokker D.VII in ROF isn't based on some dodgy flight test but calculated by advanced mathematics. That these figures come out so close to what is expected is an example of how good today’s aerodynamical modelling is.

I believe that Spoon is correct in his assersion in the first paragraph but wrong in the second. They do have an exact aerodynamic model, but many of the parameters are estimated. I assert that they cannot be calculated accurately.

The RoF flight model does use a lookup table. The important point is that it does not contain performance data, but the aerodynamic, engine, propeller, mass etc data from which the performance is calculated. The ability to fill the hundreads of parameters to sufficient accuracy is the problem.

If I understand him correctly, Spoon is speculating that the devs have a computational method which accounts for the shape off all components of the plane, calculates the lift, drag etc for each of them and adds them up to create a total for the plane. This could be considered a bottom-up approach. I speculate that is not the case and that a top-down approach is used. I believe that A.P. estimates the total lift, drag etc of the complete aeroplane, adding the propeller and engine. He then spend hours fiddling with the parameters to get a reasonable match to the chosen performane figures. Once A.P. has judged that he has expended the budgeted time on this (whether the match is "good" or not) he must move-on and break down the total aeroplane lift, drag etc into each component for the damage model and refines the model futher to include the handling qualities effects such as control surfaces, sideslip, non-linearities etc. I consider the fiddling with the parameters to be a knightmare and I think that this is a major point of Spoons arguement. We are in agreement about this.

I think that the developers have no magic bullet for determining the important aerodynamic data. The following may yield such information:

1. Published flight test reports/performance data
2. scaling from other aircraft
3. Computation
4. Wind tunnel
5. theory


1. Published flight test reports

All RoF planes have some published performance. Most are lacking in vital details and the accuracy is debatable. This has been well discussed elsewhere. Flight tests usuall only give the performance and not the underlying aerodynamic data. The SE5a was unusual in that comprehensive information was available; aerodynamics, engine and propeller.

2. Scaling from Other Aircraft

This, for me, is one of the best methods; it is certainly the quickest (very important), but the accuracy relies on having a baseline aeroplane to scale from which is similar to the plane in question. Also there are hundreads of variables - these are clearly not available for any baseline plane. The idea is to take the data from the baseline plane and modify it based on theory and/or judgement (guesswork). It almost feels like cheating, but is extensively used in conceptual design of new aeroplanes. This should be used to calibrate data derived from other sources. Some quantities such as the maximum lift "CLmax" can only be scaled from existing aircraft flight performance data- this impacts stall speeds and corner speed (max turn rate).

I would expect much sharing of parameters for the Pfalz DIIA, Albatross DIII and DVa.


3. computational methods.

The most complex can model the whole aeroplane, others just the wings & tail (ignoring the wing section) and some the characteristics of the wing section.

I doubt that the devs have the budget or access to aerospace methods needed to model the whole aeroplane geometry. If they did, they would need to create an additional geoemetrical model of many million polygons to accurately represent the shape whilst still ignorring much of the detail, such as struts (perhaps), engine detail, windscreen, control surfaces, bracing wires etc. These methods work well for modern streamlined aeroplanes (WW2 and later). They are not good for bluff objects which cause the air to seperate, such as windscreens, guns etc. Adding a propeller can increase the complexity significantly (even with a simplified representation). Even if they did have the ability to perform computational fluid dynamics analysis the results would not be accurate enough - not without good data to calibrate against. But it might be good for comparison i.e. How much extra drag does going from the Albatross DIII flat sided fuselage to the DV round fuselage cause. (the total drag for each would be wrong). I recall a very good paper where someone had modelled WW2 fighters using VSAERO. This gave some impressive results but did not present performance related data.

Some simpler comutation methods are available online for free to the hobbyist. Panel methods may be used to model the wings (and tail) and could give an idea of the lift induced drag. It could account for wing planform, stagger, gap but would require calibrating against known data. It may struggle with the effect of the fuselage and that may render the results unusable. XFOIL is a good example of a method for calculating the aerodynamics of wing sections. It would be interesting if someone ran some of the sections through XFOIL (not sure if Panthera did it). The understanding of the output requires experience and judgement - it is not enough to run the computer program correctly. Skill is required in the interpretation of the results. I would love to see some keen engineering student have a go at this.

Computations should always be calibrated against a baseline aeroplane


4, Wind Tunnel

The devs will not have the budget to commision wind tunnel tests and universities do not have the money either to provide tests for free. I got really exited that Scott Ebhard performed a wind tunnel test on R/C models of the Fokker EIII and DVII. We should not let any conclusion about the validity of his theoretical paper impact the worth of that test. (http://riseofflight....=381716#p381716" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=351&t=11037&p=381716#p381716 post #72) This could be the best drag data for those aircraft. Can someone persuade the university to repeat this test on other planes? There is contemporary wind tunnel data available for certain British planes and quite allot on British wing sections. Some of the early NPL wind tunnel results are dubious (since the impact of Reynold's number was well understood), but the later NACA results are trustworthy.

5. Theory

Textbook methods based on theory and empirical data are very helpful but cannot yeild the accuracy to which RoF customers demand. They are good for ballpark figures.


Putting it together

The SE5a FM thread showed that A.P. switched from one drag polar to another. He didn't write of calibrating his computational prediction of drag - but simply switched the data. This suggests that his original curve was an estimate (and there is nothing wrong with that). I think that many of us would be shocked about how many important parameters have to be guessed. There is simply nothing else that can be done (within time and budget constraints)

Spoon is correct in that a mathematical aerodynamic model causes tweaks to flight models to be very difficult. This becomes an optimisation problem (a big area of research in engineering). To match performance figures to a few percent may be difficult/impossible within a commerciably acceptable time-frame. It is likely that in some FMs the error in the estimate of one parameter is balancing out the errors in others! A flight model improvement without additional information might be impractical to achieve and rash to promise. Further time spent on optimisation may not yield any improvement. In such cases to demand an increase in accuracy of a few percent is not realistic.

I am optimistic in that future FM reviews will happen, experience and data has been gained. Additional staff have been employed. The new project may give unforeseen benefits.
  • 0

#55 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 25 January 2013 - 23:03

Thanks for your post!

I'm surpised that you say you think he builds his flight models from the top down rather than from the ground up. I wonder which is the truth.

What do you think about the thin high camber wing argument that Spoon makes, in particular?
  • 0

#56 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 25 January 2013 - 23:16

In addition to piecost's expertise, top-down seems more consistent with the insistence on test data, Jorri. Otherwise they could just take down the dimensions of the aircraft, engine power, prop, etc., and voila! You have a flight model.
  • 0

#57 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 25 January 2013 - 23:22

Oh, yeah I see the reason behind it. Just I hadn't thoght of it myself at all yet.
  • 0

#58 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 25 January 2013 - 23:26

Bottom up might be a better approach for a WW1 sim. The test data is incomplete and likely inaccurate for most of the aircraft, which is why it conflicts so sharply with pilot accounts of things that are easy to judge, e.g. relative airspeed. With the top-down approach your FM can only be as good as the data you choose.
  • 0

#59 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 25 January 2013 - 23:41

WEll'we have had a few accounts from the developers that the results of creating the FM's has 'surprised them' and come up with unexpected results, which suggests they created them from the bottom up. So I'm not convinced.
  • 0

#60 piecost

piecost
  • Posts: 1318

Posted 26 January 2013 - 01:10

Spoon wrote

In ROF, the current mathematical models assume they do produce high-lift and high-drag and as a result we have a Pfalz D.IIIa which will out turn a Fokker D.VII but can't come close to its historical maximum speed. The less cambered wing of the Albatros, while not producing the level of distortion of the Pfalz D.IIIa still produces too much lift and too much drag and hence can't reach historical speeds.

That is a reasonable explanation, but I think that total drag of the whole aeroplane will swamp the contribution of the wing section alone. Wing drag is about one third to a quarter of the total (ref: R&M 603 for the SE5a). Consideration of camber and thickness (& any wind tunnel data) would enable a comparison of differences in maximum lift between similar planes (Alb & Pfalz). It could be pushing it too far to compare the Pfalz DIIIa and the Fokker DVII - the are too different. Could the radiator be a stall trigger on the Pfalz ? I wouldn't be surprised.

Notice that A.P. took the flight tested measured CLmax in the SE5a review. A calculated value would not do. Too many assumptions; wing lift distribution, fuselage lift, trim downforce, propeller effects and others)

The drag at very high lift coefficients in tight turns is not well represented by the mathematical drag polar. (drag proportional to lift^2 plus a constant) There is additional drag which cannot be predicted.

If I were doing the models I would certainly try the bottom up approach, but suspect that I would need large fudge factors to force the resulting performance to match. Unfortunately, they would need to be different for every plane.

The reality must be a mixture of both approaches with much level headed judgement thrown in.
  • 0

#61 Damocles

Damocles
  • Posts: 749

Posted 26 January 2013 - 07:00

The reality must be a mixture of both approaches with much level headed judgement thrown in.


It would appear that the "much level headed judgement thrown in " part went AWOL, or at least the judgement based on historic pilot accounts in lue of missing data.

Shame really, otherwise it might have been quite good.
  • 0

#62 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:15

Thanks, Piecost.

Now all I'd like to know is what Petrovich can say about it :D
  • 0

#63 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 27 January 2013 - 13:38

We don't know what the dev's opinion on the current performance of the Alb's and Pfalz D3.

Does AP think the performance is about right and we're miss-interpreting historical sources? Is it just down to lack of money( I doubt this as the SE5a and NP17 were revised when ROF appeared to be in a worse financial position to now), the response to other revisions (I favour this)

As I've said before there's a diminishing list of major moans about ROF, view distance, dispersion, wind bug, trim, all sorted. If I was the developer I'd want to make changes to the Camel and Alb's just to shut us up :D
  • 0

#64 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 27 January 2013 - 14:33

We don't know what the dev's opinion on the current performance of the Alb's and Pfalz D3.

They won't say either way, but I agree that it's likely they don't believe anything is wrong.
  • 0

#65 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 28 January 2013 - 08:44

Another issue that always bugs me is the way the Alb's pitch up in a dive so you can't push the nose down. I've read about this issue with some early British designs but I've never read anything that mentions this issue with the Albatros. Other than the weak lower wing issue the Albatros should be a good diver, at least compared to contemporary British/French designs. The only 1916/1917 plane that dives better should be the Spad7 I'd imagine.
  • 0

#66 Cptn_Goodvibes

Cptn_Goodvibes
  • Posts: 255

Posted 28 January 2013 - 11:51

G'day,

Unfortunately, I really can't see this topic going anywhere. Sure, as an interested party, I find it relevant as this is the personal marker that has stopped my purchases of ROF product for nearly a year now. So as such, am really limited to the casual and hopeful observer role on the forums, rather than a user of the product. Fly other stuff these days, but probably like others who keep it on the hard drive and just update the program, waiting hopefully for new developments in this area. But I digress. Even if not officially acknowledged, it would be abundantly clear that 777 is aware of these concerns. Am sure Jason is a "smart cookie" and has his reasons. His interaction on the forum is one of 777's strong suits which should be acknowledged as should the recognition that this particular issue has been "around the traps" for years now. Personally, I just don't think its a priority now, nor ever will be to them. As others have indicated in prior posts, changing a flight model is a complex thing. Apparently, it takes a significant amount of time and investment. Whilst some indicate that the correct performance figures are hard to come by, others have shown that those used were incorrect. So where does all this fit within the flight modelling formula used in the program? Well punters, only the developer knows the answer to that one.

If I had to predict the why's and wherefore's of this, I wouldn't expect the Albatross and Pfalz speeds to be fixed in the near future, if ever. Am not sure whether a 2013 plan has been published, but have seen nothing mentioned about about flight revisions and I'd be predicting that I'm clear of further purchases for another year. At any rate, I strongly suspect that the absence of faster Albatri is not just due to the aforementioned modelling complexities, but also in regard to the business model used. As I've stated before, the developer is an organisation that operates within limited resource budget and guidelines. They must turn a profit to survive. As such, it must target the high cash flow, high volume things that appeal to the masses. Selling new aircraft, "nickel and dimming" other bits and pieces, proffering new maps, campaigns, etc. is the exact stuff that brings in the dollars and is best for the company survivability. Do I like it? Not on your life! Is a necessary evil and revisiting existing flight models, a maintenance expense that can be avoided, will always rate second place. Essentially, work on existing flight models is not new content to sell and no potential market value from those who have already purchased those aircraft. Repackaging and selling improved flight models of an existing aircraft is fraught with danger, more likely to draw the ire of long standing customers as well as degrade the original product. To myself, I do think it a shame that they didn't get it right in the first place and much of it was probably an inherited problem from 777's predecessor.

That said, I'm not deliberately trying to be critical of ROF. But I am (or was) a consumer and a realist. If something is not mentioned by the developer or ignored, than by that reason alone, I'd fully expect that it wouldn't be happening in the foreseeable future. In the scheme of things, what I hope or wish for, will be extinguished by the demands of the volume market. Fact is, that I'm more of a wargamer than a gamer as such. There is an important distinction in this remark. Normally a wargamer seeks historical accuracy, sometimes in minute detail, but always with a view to the overall contest. Often this means endless hours in mission builders and thinking about campaigns against an opponent. Individual kills, mission scores, egos or meaningless flights not part of the "big picture" just doesn't do it for me. To any casual observer, my tastes are probably, long, boring and trying on ones patience. However, I fully appreciate that this appeals to a limited market and doesn't rate the volume for a software developer. What I see as value for money or opportunity cost gone wanting does not necessarily mean the same to everyone else. Will all this affect whether I take up BOS? Hell yes!

To sum up, I do love the subject mater and know more about WWI than I let on. About twenty five years ago I was playing Knights of the Sky on an XT computer and a CGA monitor. Around forty years ago, as a ten year old I mistakenly picked up the wrong Purnell's book on aircraft and found it wasn't the one with the P-40 in it. It was about biplanes and triplanes and I read it anyway. That much tattered and much revered book still sits in my library.

Please fix the Albatris, the Pfalzs and supply a Fokker D.VII's with a proper performing Mercedes D.IIIau engine in this sim. I know this will probably "fall upon deaf ears", but please do these aircraft some justice.


Regards,
Vibes
  • 0

#67 Nrohtnalu

Nrohtnalu
  • Posts: 267

Posted 28 January 2013 - 12:48

All I can say is that I personally have already stopped any further investement in RoF after I had to experience very strange performance profiles in the 10 plane "starter" pack I initially choosed in the december discount sale. A simulation that uses wrong performance figures makes no sense to me…especially a Simulation that sports such a strong online competition. As a german I was quite interested in the german planes primarily…but it took me just 2 weeks to realize that the "legendary" german planes are depicted in a way compared to the entente ones that flying them online makes no sense at all in any mission that is not a airstart instant dogfight furball…and just migrating over from the DCS side of Sims, that's not the kind of gameplay I exspected from a Simulation. In WW.I 15km/h more or less can really make a hughe difference.
  • 0

#68 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 28 January 2013 - 14:03

I do think the critical review of the accepted data sources ROF has provoked is interesting. Just because a certain performance stat has been published over and over in coffee table books for the last 50 years doesn't make it correct.

On the other hand there are obvious quirks in ROFs flight models that warrant further investigation. It is worth saying that the overall quality of ROfs physics modelling is far superior to other current offerings though.
  • 0

#69 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 28 January 2013 - 14:53

All I can say is that I personally have already stopped any further investement in RoF after I had to experience very strange performanace profiles in the 10 plane "starter" pack I initially choosed in the december discount sale. A simulation that uses wrong performance figures makes no sense to me…especially a Simulation that sports such a strong online competition. As a german I was quite interested in the gamen planes primarily…but it took me just 2 weeks to realize that the "legendary" german planes are depicted in a way compared to the entente ones that flying them online makes no sense att all ian any mission that is not a airstart instant dogfight furball…and just migrating over from the DCS side of Sims, that's not the kind of gameplay I exspected from a Simulation. In WW.I 15km/h more or less can really make a hughe difference.

Thank you for your post. More like you and goodvibes should make yourselves known.
  • 0

#70 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 28 January 2013 - 16:44

With the poor quality of the historical data so evident I still think ANY data from accurate Albatros replicas would be very interesting.

I'm thinking about TVAL specifically.
  • 0

#71 J5_Rumey

J5_Rumey
  • Posts: 1180

Posted 28 January 2013 - 16:51

With the poor quality of the historical data so evident I still think ANY data from accurate Albatros replicas would be very interesting.

I'm thinking about TVAL specifically.

Suggested that a while back but was shot down as was correctly pointed out to me that machines are meticulously maintained and does not carry full weight guns or ammo. Still it does have a working Mercedes dIIIa in it so something could probably be gleaned from that.

Like this article on TVAL, nice account and the bird he describes is nothing like the generic we have ingame: thevintageaviator.co.nz/projects/aircraft/albatros-dva/notes-flying-d-va
  • 0

#72 =AH=_Sid

=AH=_Sid
  • Posts: 1229

Posted 28 January 2013 - 18:40

……… Essentially, work on existing flight models is not new content to sell and no potential market value from those who have already purchased those aircraft ……….
This is the one part of your post I disagree with you on, as you say you no longer buy anything. Being able to retain customers not only attacked new ones has a huge 'potential market value' in itself.

How many like yourself have tried the game and no longer buy anything over these issues?
  • 0

#73 Nrohtnalu

Nrohtnalu
  • Posts: 267

Posted 28 January 2013 - 19:03

……… Essentially, work on existing flight models is not new content to sell and no potential market value from those who have already purchased those aircraft ……….
This is the one part of your post I disagree with you on, as you say you no longer buy anything. Being able to retain customers not only attacked new ones has a huge 'potential market value' in itself.

How many like yourself have tried the game and no longer buy anything over these issues?
We will never know because most of these users never show up here again. But you can have a peek at the Leaderboard and just have a look at those that have a negative trend in points…usualy means they don't play anymore. Im sure I will go silent myself very soon as I stopped playing online already and see not much Simulation potential is this game anymore. Nice physics yes I agree but with flight and performance models that far off I can as well go and play a fantasy space shooter or return to DCS right now. My main dissappointment with RoF is due to my fixation on early to mid war german planes of course, if youre flying primarily Entente the problems are not visible at all.
  • 0

#74 Lieste

Lieste
  • Posts: 226

Posted 28 January 2013 - 20:04

I'm not purchasing at the moment. Too many longstanding bugs, implausible performance relationships and other frustrations… and I've lost (some of my) interest.

Might even sit out BoS, until and unless I get explicit confirmation that these same issues aren't going to kill that for me too… allowing for the 'new clothes' effect ~ that probably means a delayed purchase of at least 6-12 months..
  • 0

#75 LukeFF

LukeFF
  • Tester
  • Posts: 7853
  • LocationRedlands, California

Posted 28 January 2013 - 22:14

Image
  • 0

#76 Pimpin

Pimpin
  • Posts: 1066

Posted 28 January 2013 - 22:48

Getting harder to keep the faith as time goes by. I just feel like a target flying an Alb on the syn server, and that shouldn't be the case at all.
  • 0

#77 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 28 January 2013 - 22:51

Luke, do you hvae faith or do you just not care as some of us do? Because if you have faith please share the source of it :)
  • 0

#78 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 29 January 2013 - 00:03

Yes, it's a pretty simple formula for a lot of us. Fix the old stuff, and we will spend money again.

I would say the real coup came with the F.2b. That's when it became clear how much the FM can be rushed and left unfinished due to a production schedule. Since then my purchases have been conditional on things like FM and gunnery improvements. But I would spend $100 in the store tomorrow if 777 announced plans to fix the Camel/Albatros relative airspeeds.
  • 0

#79 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 29 January 2013 - 01:05

With the poor quality of the historical data so evident I still think ANY data from accurate Albatros replicas would be very interesting.

I'm thinking about TVAL specifically.

Suggested that a while back but was shot down as was correctly pointed out to me that machines are meticulously maintained and does not carry full weight guns or ammo. Still it does have a working Mercedes dIIIa in it so something could probably be gleaned from that.

Like this article on TVAL, nice account and the bird he describes is nothing like the generic we have ingame: thevintageaviator.co.nz/projects/aircraft/albatros-dva/notes-flying-d-va

It was not correctly pointed out :). Your idea is completely valid from an aerodynamic and physics point of view
  • 0

#80 LukeFF

LukeFF
  • Tester
  • Posts: 7853
  • LocationRedlands, California

Posted 29 January 2013 - 01:15

Luke, do you hvae faith or do you just not care as some of us do? Because if you have faith please share the source of it :)

I do have faith and I do care, but the extent to which some people take this issue is just silly sometimes. As for my source, it's 777's track record.
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users