Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Why the Albatros and Pfalz speeds can never be fixed.


  • Please log in to reply
235 replies to this topic

#81 Gadfly21

Gadfly21
  • Posts: 1081

Posted 30 January 2013 - 18:05

Potential answer to the title question:

We will try to make the FMs as good as possible, but I'm confident that no matter what we do, disputes over the FM will be your favorite entertainment on the forum.

They figured it guys, we're just here for entertainment, it's not like any one of us really cares :D Ah, well, back to Il-2…
  • 0

#82 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 30 January 2013 - 22:44

Potential answer to the title question:

We will try to make the FMs as good as possible, but I'm confident that no matter what we do, disputes over the FM will be your favorite entertainment on the forum.

They figured it guys, we're just here for entertainment, it's not like any one of us really cares :D Ah, well, back to Il-2…

I don't think so. With one exception (Vian) the gunnery/dispersion discussions have ended. Don't think my silence about it means I think it's perfect, either. But, I think it is very well done, it is believable, and I have the sense that there was a sincere effort to get it right. For me, that is enough to be happy with it and move on.

The same could be true for flight models if we see the effort. Keep in mind that these arguments are not like the lame discussion of Il-2 about whether the P-51 should turn better. Perceptions of maneuverability are always tainted by pilot experience and ability, while any fool can judge which of two aircraft is faster in a chase.
  • 0

#83 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 30 January 2013 - 23:59

it is believable, and I have the sense that there was a sincere effort to get it right. For me, that is enough to be happy with it and move on.

The same could be true for flight models if we see the effort.

I agree.

Unfortunately, taking some of the reactions from the SE5a FM revision, not everyone feels that way,a nd indeed like Jason says, they will never be happy :(
  • 0

#84 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 31 January 2013 - 00:39

Did you see Vian's poll about the SE5a flight model? Last I checked, 100% of the respondents said it did not need further review. (Edit, I see Vian took the time to vote :lol: )

People were disappointed to find out that the SE5a's climbrate was too good, and that is a natural reaction. More than a year later, the SE5a is still one of the most popular and deadly scouts in the game, and the new FM has been widely accepted.

But the 1917 German scouts? It's not just me who sees neglect, and it's been that way for 3.5 years. Or, how about dropping that D.IIIau engine into the D.VII? :? The impression of neglect is not something spun out of whole cloth by conspiracy theorists.
  • 0

#85 Damocles

Damocles
  • Posts: 749

Posted 31 January 2013 - 07:31

Did you see Vian's poll about the SE5a flight model? Last I checked, 100% of the respondents said it did not need further review. (Edit, I see Vian took the time to vote :lol: )

People were disappointed to find out that the SE5a's climbrate was too good, and that is a natural reaction. More than a year later, the SE5a is still one of the most popular and deadly scouts in the game, and the new FM has been widely accepted.

But the 1917 German scouts? It's not just me who sees neglect, and it's been that way for 3.5 years. Or, how about dropping that D.IIIau engine into the D.VII? :? The impression of neglect is not something spun out of whole cloth by conspiracy theorists.


I would have thought that once the SE5a was done it would have been used as a yard stick by which to judge other aircraft performances, particularly those of other in-line engined aircraft. If a reletively light, small and powerful aircraft like the SE5a drops energy in a climb as it does then what does it say about other bigger, heavier aircraft with smaller engines and less precise controls ? If all aircraft dropped energy like the SE5a, climb rate might have more of a tactical distinction in game and add more variety to combat, possibly breaking the dominance of some of the turners.

The SE5a feels right, it's a pity they didn't take the lessons learned from that review and spread the love around.
  • 0

#86 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 31 January 2013 - 16:48

Agreed, the only issue with the SE5a is the FM of the aircraft that surround it. The SE5a FM deserves to be in a study sim.
  • 0

#87 Nrohtnalu

Nrohtnalu
  • Posts: 267

Posted 31 January 2013 - 17:21

Agreed, the only issue with the SE5a is the FM of the aircraft that surround it. The SE5a FM deserves to be in a study sim.
And thats the poinon in here…you simply can't mix realistic performing planes with underpeforming ones and UFOs in a Sim that has a strong online MP side…and a leaderboard. In the end you have only two types of planes flying….Camels and Fokkers.
  • 0

#88 sturmkraehe

sturmkraehe
  • Posts: 967

Posted 01 February 2013 - 22:59

So after a long time absent to RoF the Albies are still flying pricks (=extra slow)? Do I understand that correctly? What about the Fokker VII?

I fear they won't fix the old stuff because they need to throw out new things to make money for which they put all their effort in. One reason why I stopped buying is because the FM was stuck at the state it was. So did it move meanwhile?
  • 0

#89 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 01 February 2013 - 23:05

So after a long time absent to RoF the Albies are still flying pricks (=extra slow)? Do I understand that correctly? What about the Fokker VII?

I fear they won't fix the old stuff because they need to throw out new things to make money for which they put all their effort in. One reason why I stopped buying is because the FM was stuck at the state it was. So did it move meanwhile?

The N17, N11, and SE5a received flight model improvements back in 2011. Since then, no other improvements.
  • 0

#90 sturmkraehe

sturmkraehe
  • Posts: 967

Posted 01 February 2013 - 23:09

Since when did the SE5 need improvement? I flew this kite heavily during my time and it was back then a delight to fly and incredible dangerous (for the opponent) when one knew what to do with it.

Is there a thread describing exactly what modifications were done?
  • 0

#91 Scott_Steiner

Scott_Steiner
  • Posts: 789
  • LocationWisconsin, USA

Posted 02 February 2013 - 00:24

Since when did the SE5 need improvement? I flew this kite heavily during my time and it was back then a delight to fly and incredible dangerous (for the opponent) when one knew what to do with it.

Is there a thread describing exactly what modifications were done?


Sometimes making a plane worse or just different is an improvement. We are talking about improving realism and accuracy btw, not simply "improving" a planes performance.
  • 0

#92 Catfish

Catfish
  • Posts: 1501

Posted 02 February 2013 - 12:01

Well, the first OP post says it all, if this is true -
You cannot fix one thing without influencing the other, so since a complete overhaul of every plane is impossible, there will be no change.

I hope i am wrong.
  • 0

#93 sturmkraehe

sturmkraehe
  • Posts: 967

Posted 02 February 2013 - 12:19

Well, they managed to do this apparently for three allied kites for which there was a burning need. I'd say they should do this for three more axis planes for which there is a burning need :)
  • 0

#94 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 02 February 2013 - 14:10

Well, they managed to do this apparently for three allied kites for which there was a burning need. I'd say they should do this for three more axis planes for which there is a burning need :)

No axis in WW1.
  • 0

#95 sturmkraehe

sturmkraehe
  • Posts: 967

Posted 02 February 2013 - 16:16

You understood what I meant :x - but in case I might be wrong: axis = central powers …
  • 0

#96 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 02 February 2013 - 16:48

You understood what I meant :x - but in case I might be wrong: axis = central powers …

axis =/ central powers. For example, Italy and Japan sided with the Allies in WW1, but with Germany in WW2.
  • 0

#97 vian

vian
  • Posts: 180

Posted 02 February 2013 - 17:22

ROF must fix all planes

_Se5a very slow in climb rate
_N17 very slow roll rate
_Plafz D3 very fast and climb rate too

Please make historical planes
I'm sorry but the FM are false.
Wearpond system too.

Sorry

Good flight all
  • 0

#98 Browning

Browning
  • Posts: 635

Posted 02 February 2013 - 17:48

Se5? Slow climb?
Your nuts.
  • 0

#99 JG4_Karaya

JG4_Karaya
  • Posts: 97

Posted 02 February 2013 - 18:03

ROF must fix all planes

_Se5a very slow in climb rate
_N17 very slow roll rate
_Plafz D3 very fast and climb rate too

Se5a slow in a climb?

Pfalz too fast and and too high climb rate?

What version of RoF are you playing, lol!
  • 0

#100 sturmkraehe

sturmkraehe
  • Posts: 967

Posted 02 February 2013 - 18:20

I also think that the roll rate of the Fokker VII is faaaar to slow - for my taste :) harhar
  • 0

#101 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 02 February 2013 - 18:27

ROF must fix all planes

_Se5a very slow in climb rate
_N17 very slow roll rate
_Plafz D3 very fast and climb rate too

Se5a slow in a climb?

Pfalz too fast and and too high climb rate?

What version of RoF are you playing, lol!
Image
  • 0

#102 Damocles

Damocles
  • Posts: 749

Posted 02 February 2013 - 18:31

ROF must fix all planes

_Se5a very slow in climb rate
_N17 very slow roll rate
_Plafz D3 very fast and climb rate too

Please make historical planes
I'm sorry but the FM are false.
Wearpond system too.

Sorry

Good flight all


THe SE5a is possibly the closest to correct, from what I understand it had the most data available from which to model the aircraft FM. If anything it should be the benchmark from which to set and judge everything else, especially those in-line engined aircraft with missing or incomplete data.
  • 0

#103 Scott_Steiner

Scott_Steiner
  • Posts: 789
  • LocationWisconsin, USA

Posted 02 February 2013 - 20:05

ROF must fix all planes

_Se5a very slow in climb rate
_N17 very slow roll rate
_Plafz D3 very fast and climb rate too

Please make historical planes
I'm sorry but the FM are false.
Wearpond system too.

Sorry

Good flight all

Please continue to discredit yourself even more.
  • 0

#104 BaronCarl

BaronCarl
  • Posts: 61

Posted 03 February 2013 - 01:20

This is getting ridiculous…
I might as well say:
- The Pup turns too badly and has too much gyroscopic forces

BTW, if the OP is right, how come some FM has been improved before?
  • 0

#105 CAFulcrum

CAFulcrum
  • Posts: 926

Posted 03 February 2013 - 09:51

Agreed, the only issue with the SE5a is the FM of the aircraft that surround it. The SE5a FM deserves to be in a study sim.

But that's the problem, the SE5a was a study case because they had a large amount of data to work off of to get the flight model precise.

As Piecost is saying, in the absence of data they have to make guesses for the large number of variables that get plugged into the FM. The guesses can possibly be adjusted to tinker with the FM, but you're talking about hundreds, or possibly thousands of variables all interacting with each other. If they have solid data like they did with the SE5a then they can get an accurate FM out of the engine. The problem with the german scouts is that there isn't enough of that data, so any FM revision would not be a refinement but instead another series of guesses of those variables in an attempt to adjust the final behavior of the plane. It would take much longer to do, on something that isn't going to give them any return, and on top of that the result would likely be another skewed FM with new issues (like, for example, a power boost to the DVa giving it the ability out turn a camel in a sustained fight). What happens when the entente pilots start to complain when the German scouts are given an edge, or display those new 'unhistorical' behaviors? Since both sides realize they can sway 777 to make an FM change, you get even more massive fights than the current complaints and there's nothing in the FM that concretely supports one side or the other. Does 777 then spend more money to swing the planes the other way? Does it take the risk of not doing so, and losing funding from one side or the other?

There's also the problem of ROF not really being a war simulator. I don't think many of the things that affected combat ability of planes are modeled, like engine wear, poor fuel, mechanical defects, the mix of engines mentioned already, etc. It makes battlefield reports, which are already often misleading and highly biased by the pilot's perspective (rather than the machine's), a difficult source to rely on.

I don't mean to say this isn't a problem, of course. I'd like to see some work done to the FMs on a number of aircraft, but I don't see how 777 can really do much about the issue without either a lot of cash (at the sacrifice of new content) or a new source of solid test data to fill in the gaps. In the meantime I don't know how starving 777 of funds is going to encourage them to fix the issue; if anything it may just lead to more rushed FMs.
  • 0

#106 Damocles

Damocles
  • Posts: 749

Posted 03 February 2013 - 10:13

Agreed, the only issue with the SE5a is the FM of the aircraft that surround it. The SE5a FM deserves to be in a study sim.

But that's the problem, the SE5a was a study case because they had a large amount of data to work off of to get the flight model precise.

As Piecost is saying, in the absence of data they have to make guesses for the large number of variables that get plugged into the FM. The guesses can possibly be adjusted to tinker with the FM, but you're talking about hundreds, or possibly thousands of variables all interacting with each other. If they have solid data like they did with the SE5a then they can get an accurate FM out of the engine. The problem with the german scouts is that there isn't enough of that data, so any FM revision would not be a refinement but instead another series of guesses of those variables in an attempt to adjust the final behavior of the plane. It would take much longer to do, on something that isn't going to give them any return, and on top of that the result would likely be another skewed FM with new issues (like, for example, a power boost to the DVa giving it the ability out turn a camel in a sustained fight).

There's also the problem of ROF not really being a war simulator. I don't think many of the things that affected combat ability of planes are modeled, like engine wear, poor fuel, mechanical defects, the mix of engines mentioned already, etc.

I don't mean to say this isn't a problem, of course. I'd like to see some work done to the FMs on a number of aircraft, but I don't see how 777 can really do much about the issue without either a lot of cash (at the sacrifice of new content) or a new source of solid test data to fill in the gaps. In the meantime I don't know how starving 777 of funds is going to encourage them to fix the issue; if anything it may just lead to more rushed FMs.

Given the data and any lessons learn't while reviewing the SE5a I don't see why they can't be applied to reverse engineer the behaviour of other similar aircraft with a judicial use of common sense and general knowledge. It may be imperfect but it can it really be any less perfect than what we have now ? If data is missing then, as imperfect as it might be, you have to go back to original sources, accounts and dare I say it, impressions, to fill in the gaps using known benchmarks by which to judge the results. As implausable as it might seem, it appears as if all aircraft are produced with little or even no reference to their contempories, they simply pick the data, right or wrong or even simply guessed, and then let the cards fall as they may.
  • 0

#107 sturmkraehe

sturmkraehe
  • Posts: 967

Posted 03 February 2013 - 11:08

Oh come on, you can plainly see that something is completely wrong when you compare the Sopwith Pup (early 1916) with the Alb V (1917).

The Pup has according to the fact sheet an engine power of 80 h.p. and an take-off weight of 556 kg (empty 356 kg) but is a good deal faster than the Alb 5 whose weight - empty and take off - are not even the double of the Pup but has 2.25 times the horse power of the Pup (180).

Apart from the fact that I really doubt that the Germans came up with a new fighter that was outclassed by a plane produced one year earlier … with all the arms race going on …
  • 0

#108 Tom-Cundall

Tom-Cundall
  • Posts: 5549

Posted 03 February 2013 - 12:31

We know that the Albatros D.III outclassed the Pup at all altitudes up to about 17-18k feet.

Re: what about the pup?

Re: what about the pup?
  • 0

#109 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 03 February 2013 - 14:04

Sturmkrahe,

For an aircraft in level flight, thrust and weight vectors are not opposite, but at right angles to each other. Weight only opposes thrust in the form of induced drag, i.e. the drag produced from lift (loosely speaking). Comparing Hp and weight to compare airspeeds is not sound.

Anyway, fulcrum is speculating far beyond what he actually knows about what goes into the flight models. See piecost's earlier post in this thread for a better account.

P.S. The N17 fm was revised without the wealth of data comparable to the SE5a.
  • 0

#110 sturmkraehe

sturmkraehe
  • Posts: 967

Posted 03 February 2013 - 15:30

I know very well. But it is indicative.

I would not mind the Pup to outturn an Alb knowing its smaller wing loading but why on Earth should a fighter more recent by ONE WHOLE year be slower than the Puppy despite the much more powerfull engine (more power = better capacity to overcome drag = higher max speed)?
  • 0

#111 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 03 February 2013 - 15:58

For a 100 hp engine at 1150 rpm, the projected max speed of the pup would be around 110 mph based on this prop: http://woodenpropell...opwith_Pup.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://woodenpropell...opwith_Pup.html

That doesnt mean it would actually hit that speed! It could be slower if it has too much drag. Or it could be faster if the engine can turn more than 1150 in level flight. It just gives a ball park.

If anyone has the prop data for an 80 lehrone, that would give us some more insight into the pups top speed.
  • 0

#112 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 03 February 2013 - 17:06

How do you come up with that kind of projection? It might be helpful for some of us to see what goes into it.

Also, with such a coarse prop, what would be its projected climb, for example, to 3km?
  • 0

#113 navair2

navair2
  • Posts: 1467
  • LocationIllinois, USA

Posted 03 February 2013 - 17:15

That gives me an idea…I'm hacking the props on the Mercedes D.III-equipped aircraft in ROF so we can run down the Entente planes that deserve it. :P

Hmmm…wait a minute, maybe I could go back in time and introduce the variable pitch prop to the Germans… :lol: *Sigh* nvm. ;)

Please 777, give some love to the Albatros and Pfalz fighters in the next FM revision, if possible! If not, I suppose I can live with it. :cry:

:mrgreen:
  • 0

Case: Corsair 650D Motherboard: AsRock Z77 Extreme4 PSU: Antec TruePower New 750 Blue CPU: Intel i5-2500K ( Socket 1155 )

CPU Cooler: ZalMan CNPS9500A LED GPU: EVGA GTX 580 MEM: 8 GB G.Skill PC12800 DDR3 1600
Soundcard: Creative SB X-Fi Titanium Monitor: Samsung 2343 BWX 23"@ 2048 x 1152 OS: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit


#114 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 03 February 2013 - 18:42

How do you come up with that kind of projection? It might be helpful for some of us to see what goes into it.

Also, with such a coarse prop, what would be its projected climb, for example, to 3km?

The climb as well as the actually top speed of the airplane are dependent upon excess power transferred by the propeller. That would be brake horsepower times propeller efficiencey would yield actual horsepower transfer. The attached calculator doesnt provide anything useful for predicting climb rate or actual top speed. It only shows the theoretical max speed which is a best case scenario.

In the case of my prop calculator (attached) it is based only on the physics of propeller blade angle and the incoming relative wind. When the relative wind and the blade angle are the same, you have reached the theoretical max speed, which should be the most optimistic speed. Any speed faster than the speed where blade angle = incoming relative wind angle (called "reqd blade angle" in the attached sheet), the prop is acting at an airbrake and actually causing drag instead of thrust.

If anyone knows how to edit the aircraft files, I would be very interested to be able to edit them for offline use. As I have now purchased a Fokker Dr1, I would like to make my ROF Dr1 fly like the real thing.

Attached Files


  • 0

#115 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 03 February 2013 - 18:46

How do you come up with that kind of projection? It might be helpful for some of us to see what goes into it.

Also, with such a coarse prop, what would be its projected climb, for example, to 3km?

The climb as well as the actually top speed of the airplane are dependent upon excess power transferred by the propeller. That would be brake horsepower times propeller efficiencey would yield actual horsepower transfer. The attached calculator doesnt provide anything useful for predicting climb rate or actual top speed. It only shows the theoretical max speed which is a best case scenario.

In the case of my prop calculator (attached) it is based only on the physics of propeller blade angle and the incoming relative wind. When the relative wind and the blade angle are the same, you have reached the theoretical max speed, which should be the most optimistic speed. Any speed faster than the speed where blade angle = incoming relative wind angle (called "reqd blade angle" in the attached sheet), the prop is acting at an airbrake and actually causing drag instead of thrust.

If anyone knows how to edit the aircraft files, I would be very interested to be able to edit them for offline use. As I have now purchased a Fokker Dr1, I would like to make my ROF Dr1 fly like the real thing.

Holy smokes! I want pics! :D

Ok, that is an interesting process (you haven't yet attached the calculator). The explanation about brake hp * prop efficiency makes sense, but do I understand it right that this sort of calculation does not require an input for drag?

P.S. if editing the aircraft files were possible, I would have done it years ago for offline, mods-on use. I have explored Rise of Flight pretty thoroughly with the gtp extractor, and my guess is that the parameters for flight models are encoded in the exe file.
  • 0

#116 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 03 February 2013 - 18:58

Yes, this calculation is independent of drag. For example, if your plane was so clean that it was "drag free" and you put a prop on it with a finite pitch, the plane can go no faster than the allowed speed by the pitch of the prop. It CAN go slower if there is so much drag that the engine cannot achieve the max speed allowed by the prop.

as for the Dr1, I wont start flying it until this summer, but I intend to outfit it with required instrumentation to determine the true performance of the aircraft. Ie Cd0, CLmax, etc. These parameters can be deduced through flight test when instrumented and flown correctly. Wind tunnel is not required :) Roll rate will no longer be a mystery! Flat turn, no longer a mystery…it should be a great summer as long as the wind cooperates
  • 0

#117 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 03 February 2013 - 19:03

What kind of engine does it have?

Also, I don't actually see a brake hp input in your calculator. Still looks very interesting. I am going to play with it. :) Thanks!
  • 0

#118 WW1EAF_Paf

WW1EAF_Paf
  • Tester
  • Posts: 1458

Posted 03 February 2013 - 19:07

:shock:
  • 0

#119 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 03 February 2013 - 19:11

It has Lyco O-320 160 Hp. This is bad from the perspective of losing the gyro effects of a rotary, but it is great for being able to precisely determine the power output and propeller efficiency which are critical for determining the true performance of the aircraft. Win some, lose some. I do have all of the engine charts for the O-320 and it should produce very useable data.

**there is no bhp calculator in that excel file. it would be applicable if I had drag data, engine data, and full prop data (prop efficiency), but we dont, so it is only for theoretical max spped allowed by prop.
  • 0

#120 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 03 February 2013 - 19:28

**there is no bhp calculator in that excel file. it would be applicable if I had drag data, engine data, and full prop data (prop efficiency), but we dont, so it is only for theoretical max spped allowed by prop.

Alright, good to know. Now, using the maximum prop pitch known for the Albatros D.Va, 2.05m, and using 1550rpm, your calculator yields 118.6 mph (190.8 kph). With a 2.0m pitch the airspeed drops to 115.5mph (185kph), and a 1.8m pitch yields 104mph (167kph). Very interesting!
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users