Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

A request for the Fokker DVII with DIIIaü engine...


  • Please log in to reply
494 replies to this topic

#81 J2_Adam

J2_Adam
  • Posts: 2453
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 06 October 2012 - 20:05

The Johannisthal DIII was a very iconic Albatros. I believe this was the prevalent German fighter in Bloody April. To describe it very simply, it has the fuselage and empennage of a RoF DII and wings of a RoF (OAW) DIII.
  • 0

#82 Fabioccio

Fabioccio
  • Posts: 228

Posted 06 October 2012 - 20:09

They could put them all 3 in pre-order and see in fact how many ppl are interested in them. Once developed and ready they should put them in 2 plane bundle like SPAD7 , Brisfit or Halb CL2 for future customers.
BTW really a must have!!!
S!
  • 0

#83 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 06 October 2012 - 22:36

I also think we need the D.VII with the D.IIIaü and I also think (and I'm sure many will agree with me) that we should get the Pfalz D.XII with the D.IIIaü as a replacement for the BMW version as there is no proof that there were any BMW D.XII's at the front apart from the word of Anthony Fokker who was a notorious bullshit artist.
8-)
On a different though somewhat related note, could someone explain to me why we need the D.III Johannisthal? This isn't a negative question, I simply don't know anything about it. :oops:

I'd keep the BMW D12, there's at least decent anecdotal evidence it exsted and I dont see the point in removing content from the game.
  • 0

#84 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 07 October 2012 - 00:58

The fact that Pfalz and BMW were both from Bavaria makes it a pretty sure bet that at least a few D.XIIs had the BMW engine.

Anyway, that is a distraction.

D.IIIau for the D.VII!
:S!:
  • 0

#85 rolikiraly

rolikiraly
  • Posts: 457

Posted 07 October 2012 - 06:59

It's really obvious that it's a must have, the only worrying question is how to implement it. But i'm sure that 777 will find a perfect solution
  • 0

#86 Pigmachine

Pigmachine
  • Posts: 559

Posted 07 October 2012 - 07:14

I'd sign that petition too.. even if my WWI war (so far) spans between 1916 to late 1917, since I consider that the most fun part.

The DVII ain't a real threat when practicing against the DVII AI .. and is really hard to get something fun out of when using it against the AI even, it doesn't really have an edge on anything.. it just.. is there to fill up the plane-set. (imo) (I'm not a good and versatile pilot.. yet)
  • 0

#87 NickM

NickM
  • Posts: 1625

Posted 07 October 2012 - 08:03

D.IIIau for the D.VII!

Indeedy.
  • 0

#88 FlyingShark

FlyingShark
  • Posts: 1941

Posted 08 October 2012 - 19:57

D.IIIau for the D.VII!

Indeedy.
Yeah.

:S!:
  • 0

You can vote my post up by clicking the green arrow on the right.


#89 aircastellon

aircastellon
  • Posts: 436

Posted 08 October 2012 - 20:17

+ 1
  • 0

#90 NewGuy_

NewGuy_
  • Posts: 4114

Posted 08 October 2012 - 20:29

It's really obvious that it's a must have, the only worrying question is how to implement it. But i'm sure that 777 will find a perfect solution


+1 :S!: MJ
  • 0

Something something SPAD. Something something then dive away. 


#91 Wisdom_Hunting

Wisdom_Hunting
  • Posts: 563

Posted 08 October 2012 - 22:20

Yes, would very much welcome this. The current D7 (non F version) we have in the game really leaves me wondering how its real life counterpart came by its fearsome reputation. It feels sluggish and underpowered to me.

Let’s hope it can be done soon.

Indeed. VII is like a brick….heavy and slow
  • 0

#92 =Fifi=

=Fifi=
  • Posts: 10329

Posted 08 October 2012 - 22:43

Didn't post in this thread, but i fully support this DIIIaü engine for the Fokker! :D
  • 0

#93 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 09 October 2012 - 01:57

Back in 2009 it should have been a clue that something was fundamentally wrong when the standard D.VII was meat on the table for the SE5a, Spad, and Camel. This is the chance to remedy that oversight. WW1 history cannot be rewritten with math and computer code.
  • 0

#94 89

89
  • Posts: 593

Posted 09 October 2012 - 02:33

I would add my vote as well!

BUT, as we have only one An.Petrovich, I'd choose FM update for Albies/Pfalz3 and/or Camel/Dr.1 as bigger priority.
  • 0

#95 FlyingShark

FlyingShark
  • Posts: 1941

Posted 09 October 2012 - 13:30

I would add my vote as well!

BUT, as we have only one An.Petrovich, I'd choose FM update for Albies/Pfalz3 and/or Camel/Dr.1 as bigger priority.
True but on the other hand, selling us a DVII aü version could finance the updating of a FM or two.

:S!:
  • 0

You can vote my post up by clicking the green arrow on the right.


#96 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 09 October 2012 - 14:41

I would add my vote as well!

BUT, as we have only one An.Petrovich, I'd choose FM update for Albies/Pfalz3 and/or Camel/Dr.1 as bigger priority.
True but on the other hand, selling us a DVII aü version could finance the updating of a FM or two.

:S!:

I proposed the above idea more than a year ago. Sell an Albatros D.V and fix the D.Va's airspeed. Sell a Br1 Camel and fix the Clerget Camel's airspeed and RPM.

It seemed very logical to me: make the die-hards happy and make some cash. Sometimes we really do end up happy with changes. Just look at the improved weapon modeling.
  • 0

#97 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 09 October 2012 - 17:18

It'd probably be better to sell an early Albatros DIII. Im sure a BR1 Camel would see like hot cakes.

These issues cast a bit of a cloud over ROF, improving them (I know things can never be perfect, some people will never be happy) would give malcontents a few less reasons to bash the product.
  • 0

#98 TXTwilight

TXTwilight
  • Posts: 35

Posted 09 October 2012 - 21:05

I support this Idea. The DVII and the Alb Dva really need a better engine.
  • 0

#99 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 09 October 2012 - 21:17

The D.Va should be faster with the same engine it has now.

It'd probably be better to sell an early Albatros DIII. Im sure a BR1 Camel would sell like hot cakes.

Which begs the question as to why they haven't done it. All I can guess is that someone at 777 thinks the channel map and float planes are more important. :(
  • 0

#100 LukeFF

LukeFF
  • Tester
  • Posts: 7853
  • LocationRedlands, California

Posted 10 October 2012 - 01:46

All I can guess is that someone at 777 thinks the channel map and float planes are more important. :(

Yes, it's that nagging little thing called "generating revenue."
  • 0

#101 thenorm

thenorm
  • Posts: 1460

Posted 10 October 2012 - 02:19

And that, apparently, the channel map and float planes were a popular idea among the Russian community, and we should not forget that they have things they want, too.
  • 0

#102 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 10 October 2012 - 03:00

Is someone claiming that the Russian language and English language communities want different things? I would be very surprised if someone could demonstrate a different proportion of 'wants' between the two linguistic groups. There are plenty of English speakers who want float planes and probably a good number of Russian speakers who would like to see more work on flight models.

Anyway…

D.IIIau for the D.VII!
  • 0

#103 LukeFF

LukeFF
  • Tester
  • Posts: 7853
  • LocationRedlands, California

Posted 10 October 2012 - 03:42

Is someone claiming that the Russian language and English language communities want different things? I would be very surprised if someone could demonstrate a different proportion of 'wants' between the two linguistic groups.

Re: Blog Post for April 26 is up! (Weapon Mods Announced)

It's interesting, the Russian half of our customer base have been screaming for Weapon Mods for a year since we released the Field Mods and they like big guns, but we Westerners seem to forget about that side of the world. They too are consumers and flight-sim fans that may also want something. These are the kinds of things we worry about, not just what guys on the english forum want. We take all of our markets into account.

Surprise, surprise, grasshopper. ;)
  • 0

#104 thenorm

thenorm
  • Posts: 1460

Posted 10 October 2012 - 03:48

Thank you for backing me up on that, Luke. I was thinking of that quote, probably would not have been able to find it though.
  • 0

#105 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 10 October 2012 - 04:36

I don't see how that answers the question. How does it show that English speakers and Russian speakers want different things? Things like Le Prieur rockets were on the English language wish-list back in 2009.
  • 0

#106 catchov

catchov
  • Posts: 3986

Posted 10 October 2012 - 05:31

Well I'm not averse to introducing the D.IIIau for the D.VII if it's historically apt and doesn't involve MJ getting into rambling rant mode.

What's the difference between its performance and that of the DVIIf in RoF?

But I have to say the Channel map is more important to me. Just a pity it won't include London.
  • 0

#107 Huetz

Huetz
  • Posts: 1589

Posted 10 October 2012 - 06:26

What's the difference between its performance and that of the DVIIf in RoF?

There actually shouldn't be that much of a difference performance-wise. Higher top speed (especially at altitude) and improved climbrate are the keywords but overall the D.VII should be worse in any of those categories than the F model.
  • 0

#108 LukeFF

LukeFF
  • Tester
  • Posts: 7853
  • LocationRedlands, California

Posted 10 October 2012 - 06:30

I don't see how that answers the question. How does it show that English speakers and Russian speakers want different things?

If you can't see it, then I can't help you.
  • 0

#109 thenorm

thenorm
  • Posts: 1460

Posted 10 October 2012 - 11:16

I don't see how that answers the question. How does it show that English speakers and Russian speakers want different things? Things like Le Prieur rockets were on the English language wish-list back in 2009.
Think of all the OTHER weapon mods that came along, like the 20mm becker, that people on our side were lamenting. Those are the sorts of thing that they wanted that we had low on the priority list. All in all they turned out well, I say. In any case, when the weapons mods came out, there were so many people saying "oh we should have gotten this or that instead!" and "this isn't what we wanted!"
  • 0

#110 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 10 October 2012 - 11:42

Whatever, anyway,

Fokker D.VII D.IIIaü please!
  • 0

#111 2Lt_Joch

2Lt_Joch
  • Posts: 184
  • Locationcanada

Posted 10 October 2012 - 13:21

It would be nice to get the D.VII with the D.IIIau engine, but looking at my documentaion, there does not seem to be a big improvement in performance over the D.IIIa engine.

From the results of the tests of the Pfalz D.XII at the 2nd fighter competition:

Image

The improvement in climb rate seems to be less than 10% between 1-4 km and only 2-4% between 2-4 km. Top speed only appears to increase by about 6%. The performance improvement is most noticeable over 4 km, no doubt because of the high altitude carburator and higher compression ratio. However, the BMW engine blows both of them away over 2 km.
  • 0

#112 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 10 October 2012 - 13:29

I disagree. The difference between the D.IIIa and the D.IIIaü engine in that document, is bigger than the difference between the D.IIIaü and the BMW.
  • 0

#113 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 10 October 2012 - 13:41

They don't give an altitude for the airspeeds, but remembering our old D.XII, neoqb assumed it was a sea level airspeed. Do you realize the implications? I think the same thing happened to our Pfalz D.IIIa. :?
  • 0

#114 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 10 October 2012 - 13:43

Not sure about that, Gavagai. Our Pfalz is a lot faster at sea level than the speed given here.
  • 0

#115 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 10 October 2012 - 13:51

At sea level? If you use the afterburner and ping the engine, yeah, but I'm referring to the old Mercedes powered Pfalz D.XII.
  • 0

#116 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 10 October 2012 - 13:56

Do we have any data on how fast it was?

Also, its still unclear how the mixture on our DIII works. Is it automatic? Is it optimised gor sea level? Is it optimised for a certain altitude like it should be, and what altitude is that?

Ive seen people saying things about it but Ive never seen anything substantiated. As it is, our D.Iii might actually be performing too good at certain altitudes?
  • 0

#117 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 10 October 2012 - 14:01

Do we have any data on how fast it was?

What, the old D.XII? It was 170kmh at sea level in RoF.
  • 0

#118 realCallahan

realCallahan
  • Posts: 2070

Posted 10 October 2012 - 14:03

8 days and so much posts!
I think this is clear!
  • 0

#119 BraveSirRobin

BraveSirRobin
  • Member
  • Posts: 6525
  • LocationHackistan

Posted 10 October 2012 - 14:09

8 days and so much posts!
I think this is clear!

If I started a "request for a Super SPAD" thread I'd get more responses than this just from Newguy.
  • 0

The toughest part of my job is dealing with incompetent clowns who think they're good at their job.

Free Plank!

 


#120 thenorm

thenorm
  • Posts: 1460

Posted 10 October 2012 - 15:22

You should test that, kinda interested to see what would happen, Sir Robin.
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users