Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Can we have a discussion (for reals) about the Sopwith Tripe


  • Please log in to reply
380 replies to this topic

#81 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk

1PL-Sahaj-1Esk
  • Posts: 940

Posted 20 December 2014 - 20:08

As far as I noticed you used low fuel loads ? Frog and me tried many duels Tripe vs D.III and vice versa with 60% fuel loads/one gun and I would say the egde is on the Albi's side. Now with the better speed of the D.III you can build altitude advantage easier with the D.III and then … Tripe is easy meat. The two gun variant is no contest versus an Albi now.
  • 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


#82 Dressedwings

Dressedwings
  • Posts: 2094
  • LocationOntario, Canada

Posted 20 December 2014 - 20:11

From what I've found I agree with Sahaj
  • 0

TOeIhAe.png

^CHECK THE LINK^


#83 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 20 December 2014 - 20:11

OK :cry: ….well let's hope they can get the Triplane back up to scratch without giving the Camel back its uberbeast status.
  • 0

#84 Dressedwings

Dressedwings
  • Posts: 2094
  • LocationOntario, Canada

Posted 20 December 2014 - 20:14

I used to get shot down just the same before, I just lasted longer in fights :D

I think the only people really mad about the camel are the ones who used it 100% of the time along with the DR1
  • 0

TOeIhAe.png

^CHECK THE LINK^


#85 B24_LIBERATOR

B24_LIBERATOR
  • Posts: 3878
  • LocationSan Diego

Posted 20 December 2014 - 20:14

OK :cry: ….well let's hope they can get the Triplane back up to scratch without giving the Camel back its uberbeast status.

Are you in agreement Jorri? :D
  • 0

Liberator's Tutorials: http://steamcommunit...s/?id=438268482

 

 


#86 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 20 December 2014 - 20:26

Depends on what you want to agree on? :)

I already thought it was a shame that the Triplane got 'nerfed' in this update. But I'm not convinced it's inferior to the Albatros, if that's what you mean.
  • 0

#87 B24_LIBERATOR

B24_LIBERATOR
  • Posts: 3878
  • LocationSan Diego

Posted 20 December 2014 - 21:03

Just that the speed is off.
  • 0

Liberator's Tutorials: http://steamcommunit...s/?id=438268482

 

 


#88 Tiger27

Tiger27
  • Posts: 256

Posted 20 December 2014 - 22:22

Frankly it was already irrelevant, and that's why no one seriously flies this machine. It never turned in ROF the way I felt it should, so perhaps this has been improved. It should not be a speed demon either however, so a better turn rate may well bring it closer to accuracy. It wasn't a world beater anyway, and that's why it had such a short tenure at the front and was quickly superceded by other better designs.

V-Graff
I've always found it a great little plane, shame if it has lost some speed but really it was being able to out turn most planes it was up against from the same time frame that enabled me to get a lot of kills with it, haven't tried the new FM yet but if it is more manoeuvrable it should still be reasonably deadly in the right hands.
  • 0

#89 B24_LIBERATOR

B24_LIBERATOR
  • Posts: 3878
  • LocationSan Diego

Posted 20 December 2014 - 22:56

I've always found it a great little plane, shame if it has lost some speed but really it was being able to out turn most planes it was up against from the same time frame that enabled me to get a lot of kills with it, haven't tried the new FM yet but if it is more manoeuvrable it should still be reasonably deadly in the right hands.

It loses energy quickly now compared to before, and consequently cannot hold a turn as well. It was powerful before but still had it's drawbacks like a slow roll rate, now it feels like it will just become Albatros fodder.
  • 0

Liberator's Tutorials: http://steamcommunit...s/?id=438268482

 

 


#90 Hellbender

Hellbender
  • Posts: 3321
  • LocationMadrid, Spain (originally Brussels, Belgium)

Posted 20 December 2014 - 23:12

Gents, we have two forces at work here: the spirit of the update and the numbers.

I think we can all agree that the spirit is right: dethroning the Camel and Dr.I as absolute kings of both turnfighting and energy fighting.

I bet that if it hadn't happened, we wouldn't all be here now arguing about it. I speak for myself, at least.


The numbers, however, clearly need more work as we can see from the collateral damage the Tripe has suffered, simply because it shares the same engine as the Camel (even though the D.VIII remains as-is in spite of sharing the same engine as the Dr.I).


What's important here is that 777 has created a precedent, whether intentionally or not: FMs can and should be reviewed in order to make sense comparatively, rather than absolutely, as they did before the update.

To quote Zak here from the main announcement (emphasis mine):

So, with that in mind, this is likely the last attempt to tweak existing FMs in ROF. We’ve given it our best shot and we hope you find them acceptable.

Honestly, it was a good start, but they are not yet acceptable.


The best comparative study I've ever seen on these boards was one done by Panthera two years ago:

WW1 fighters: A comparative study

Top speeds:

SPAD XIII (220 hp HS 8Bb):…………………..225 km/h [235 km/h @ 235 hp]
RAF SE5a (220 hp W.4A Viper):………………..222 km/h
SPAD VII (180 hp HS 8Ab):……………………217 km/h
Sopwith Dolphin (220 hp W.4A Viper):………….210 km/h
Fokker D.VIIF (200 hp BMW IIIa):……………..205 km/h [228 km/h @ 232 hp w. 2/3rds alt throttle]
Nieuport 28 (140 hp Gnome 9N):……………….205 km/h
Fokker D.VIII (110 hp UR IIa):…………………202 km/h
Fokker D.VII (185 hp Merc IIIaü):……………..195 km/h (192 km/h @ SL)
Fokker D.VI (110 hp UR IIa):…………………..192 km/h
Albatros D.Va (185 hp Merc IIIaü):……………190 km/h (187 km/h @ SL)
Albatros D.III (170 hp Merc IIIa):…………….183 km/h
Sopwith Camel (130 hp Clerget 9B):…………..182 km/h
Sopwith Triplane (130 hp Clerget 9B):…………180 km/h
Fokker Dr.1 (110 hp UR IIa):…………………..180 km/h
Albatros D.II (160 hp Merc III):……………….175 km/h
Nieuport 17 (110 hp LRhone 9Ja):……………..175 km/h
Sopwith Pup (80 hp LRhone 9C):………………..170 km/h
Nieuport 11 (80 hp LRhone 9C): ……………….155 km/h

The Camel, Dr.I, D.VIII and Tripe can all easily lose 5 to 10 km/h compared to the numbers above and still make sense comparatively.


I have to be blunt, though, it would also take more time, effort, and beta testing than what happened now (as was pointed out to us by Sahaj).

Here's hoping for 2015!

:S!:
  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#91 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 20 December 2014 - 23:17

The two gun variant is no contest versus an Albi now.

No big loss for an aircraft that shouldn't even be in the game. You might actually have fly an aircraft that is at a performance disadvantage from time to time. Perish the thought, Sahaj! :o
:S!:
  • 0

#92 Dressedwings

Dressedwings
  • Posts: 2094
  • LocationOntario, Canada

Posted 20 December 2014 - 23:19

I didnt think it stood much a chance before the update anyways in that set up though
  • 0

TOeIhAe.png

^CHECK THE LINK^


#93 B24_LIBERATOR

B24_LIBERATOR
  • Posts: 3878
  • LocationSan Diego

Posted 21 December 2014 - 00:08

Gents, we have two forces at work here: the spirit of the update and the numbers.

I think we can all agree that the spirit is right: dethroning the Camel and Dr.I as absolute kings of both turnfighting and energy fighting.

I bet that if it hadn't happened, we wouldn't all be here now arguing about it. I speak for myself, at least.


The numbers, however, clearly need more work as we can see from the collateral damage the Tripe has suffered, simply because it shares the same engine as the Camel (even though the D.VIII remains as-is in spite of sharing the same engine as the Dr.I).


What's important here is that 777 has created a precedent, whether intentionally or not: FMs can and should be reviewed in order to make sense comparatively, rather than absolutely, as they did before the update.

To quote Zak here from the main announcement (emphasis mine):

So, with that in mind, this is likely the last attempt to tweak existing FMs in ROF. We’ve given it our best shot and we hope you find them acceptable.

Honestly, it was a good start, but they are not yet acceptable.


The best comparative study I've ever seen on these boards was one done by Panthera two years ago:

WW1 fighters: A comparative study

Top speeds:

SPAD XIII (220 hp HS 8Bb):…………………..225 km/h [235 km/h @ 235 hp]
RAF SE5a (220 hp W.4A Viper):………………..222 km/h
SPAD VII (180 hp HS 8Ab):……………………217 km/h
Sopwith Dolphin (220 hp W.4A Viper):………….210 km/h
Fokker D.VIIF (200 hp BMW IIIa):……………..205 km/h [228 km/h @ 232 hp w. 2/3rds alt throttle]
Nieuport 28 (140 hp Gnome 9N):……………….205 km/h
Fokker D.VIII (110 hp UR IIa):…………………202 km/h
Fokker D.VII (185 hp Merc IIIaü):……………..195 km/h (192 km/h @ SL)
Fokker D.VI (110 hp UR IIa):…………………..192 km/h
Albatros D.Va (185 hp Merc IIIaü):……………190 km/h (187 km/h @ SL)
Albatros D.III (170 hp Merc IIIa):…………….183 km/h
Sopwith Camel (130 hp Clerget 9B):…………..182 km/h
Sopwith Triplane (130 hp Clerget 9B):…………180 km/h
Fokker Dr.1 (110 hp UR IIa):…………………..180 km/h
Albatros D.II (160 hp Merc III):……………….175 km/h
Nieuport 17 (110 hp LRhone 9Ja):……………..175 km/h
Sopwith Pup (80 hp LRhone 9C):………………..170 km/h
Nieuport 11 (80 hp LRhone 9C): ……………….155 km/h

The Camel, Dr.I, D.VIII and Tripe can all easily lose 5 to 10 km/h compared to the numbers above and still make sense comparatively.


I have to be blunt, though, it would also take more time, effort, and beta testing than what happened now (as was pointed out to us by Sahaj).

Here's hoping for 2015!

:S!:

Let's hope this isn't the end of it because as you said it's a good start!

Maybe they will reconsider how slow the rotaries are actually going now :D
  • 0

Liberator's Tutorials: http://steamcommunit...s/?id=438268482

 

 


#94 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk

1PL-Sahaj-1Esk
  • Posts: 940

Posted 21 December 2014 - 00:24

The problem that we are facing now and it has become more evident than ever is that without additional engine variants we will run into a wall with such tweaks. No one will ever be pleased and it is impossible to find the only right solution.

As an example look at the Albis : an Albatros from July 1917 is not the same Albatros as the one from July 1918 etc. etc. There were different engine variants for all the FMs in question and in changing the speeds one is only biasing from one variant to another. One thing however that is very important is that the changes have to be consistent for all planes. They have to fit into the big picture and this is still ahead IMO.
  • 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


#95 Hellbender

Hellbender
  • Posts: 3321
  • LocationMadrid, Spain (originally Brussels, Belgium)

Posted 21 December 2014 - 00:35

The problem that we are facing now and it has become more evident than ever is that without additional engine variants we will run into a wall with such tweaks. No one will ever be pleased and it is impossible to find the only right solution.

Yes! A thousand times this.

It would give mission builders so many more options, too.
  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#96 dixieflyer

dixieflyer
  • Posts: 580
  • LocationCain-tuh-Kee

Posted 21 December 2014 - 15:30

The two gun variant is no contest versus an Albi now.

No big loss for an aircraft that shouldn't even be in the game. You might actually have fly an aircraft that is at a performance disadvantage from time to time. Perish the thought, Sahaj! :o
:S!:

Exactly. They tried mounting two Vickers on what, one or two airframes, as an experiment, found it wanting, and that was that. Done.

Warren
  • 0

History is the lie we all agree upon.


#97 Pa_Kid

Pa_Kid
  • Posts: 28
  • LocationLake Erie in NW Pennsylvania

Posted 22 December 2014 - 23:11

I would first like to say that I completely agree that the camel and DR1 were over modeled. I also agree that two planes should not rule the entire game.

I am not an expert on WWI aircraft but I found myself asking, surely these planes did not fly like this. If they did, end of story, because why would they build anything else if they had that kind of performance over other aircraft. And in my experience the camel surely could not have been that unforgiving and that much of a bear to fly. If it was there would not have been any veterans left to talk about their flying experiences, they would all have spun into the ground with no chance to respon :xx: . I think it was the most twitchy, unforgiving plane in ROF. The torque on this thing was unbelievable :o

For full disclosure, I love the camel, always have and always will. I fly it 80 to 90% of the time. There have been times I have gone into MP with the intention of flying something different but if there were a lot of DR1's…..time to get out the camel!

I can't speak to the sop. tripe. because I have only flown if a handfull of times. But I think the FM change has grossly under powered the camel. Surely this is not the correct FM for this 130hp plane. As others have said of the tripe. it can barely hold its turn. It also can barely climb. Yes I know it was not a B & Z plane but now it's like its got a 80hp engine in it.

The data listed in the form list the camel at 182km/h that's 113mph. I'm assuming this is at sea level. Pre FM the camel did 110 mph at sea level in level flight. That is within the range. I trust everyone that says the alibi was too slow. It's good that it now is modeled as it should be. It should not have been modeled so slow when in fact it was not that slow as a real plane.

The camel now flies at 104 mph at sea level in level flight. This is now not accurate according to the data that is listed in this form, in the ROF store, and in other sources I have read. So I am hoping that 777 will look into the change they gave to to rotaries. The camel is now very anemic with no power.

Please don't think I'm saying it should go back to the super plane it was before the new FM. I think and hope that it and the other rotaries can be modeled to fly as they should in comparison with the other planes. I don't want to fly a Spitfire against WWI planes. I want to fly the camel with the performance it should have. I want what I think we all want, planes that are as close as we can get to the performance of real WWI planes.

Salute :S!:
  • 0

Bravely going up the down staircase 


#98 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 22 December 2014 - 23:18

The camel now flies at 104 mph at sea level in level flight. This is now not accurate according to the data that is listed in this form, in the ROF store, and in other sources I have read. So I am hoping that 777 will look into the change they gave to to rotaries. The camel is now very anemic with no power.

Please don't think I'm saying it should go back to the super plane it was before the new FM. I think and hope that it and the other rotaries can be modeled to fly as they should in comparison with the other planes. I don't want to fly a Spitfire against WWI planes. I want to fly the camel with the performance it should have. I want what I think we all want, planes that are as close as we can get to the performance of real WWI planes.

Salute :S!:

Good post. If FM reviews were going to happen, I was hoping for a 180km/h Camel and a 187km/h Albatros D.Va. Both ended up slower than I would have wanted, but I also have no special reason to take any data from WW1 as authoritative or accurate. In the end I'm just happy that the overall situation is much improved in multiplayer.

:S!:
  • 0

#99 J2_Adam

J2_Adam
  • Posts: 2453
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 23 December 2014 - 01:16

I thought the tripe was great as it was.
  • 0

#100 dixieflyer

dixieflyer
  • Posts: 580
  • LocationCain-tuh-Kee

Posted 23 December 2014 - 01:28

=NFF=Pa_Kid,
I highly recommend reading RFC/RAF pilot accounts of the period regarding the Camel. It had a nasty reputation during for killing new pilots.

It seems that it's either feast or famine around here. Just wish the a/c could be modeled at their historical airspeed, but it seems that we either get 'em too fast or too slow according to what I'm seeing posted.

Warren
  • 0

History is the lie we all agree upon.


#101 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 23 December 2014 - 01:58

Just wish the a/c could be modeled at their historical airspeed

And how do we know what that is? Because Windsock says so? :?

We shouldn't lose sight of the whole point of these FM tweaks, which was to make the relative performance credible. If they are all a bit too slow, or all a bit too fast, it is not a big deal.

8-)
  • 0

#102 Hellbender

Hellbender
  • Posts: 3321
  • LocationMadrid, Spain (originally Brussels, Belgium)

Posted 23 December 2014 - 02:25

If they are all a bit too slow, or all a bit too fast, it is not a big deal.

8-)

Image

Ladies and gentlemen, gavagai is happy, let's all just stop having FM discussions altogether. Nothing to see here, time to go home.

:S!:

(yes, I was joking)
  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#103 LukeFF

LukeFF
  • Tester
  • Posts: 7853
  • LocationRedlands, California

Posted 23 December 2014 - 03:13

Exactly. They tried mounting two Vickers on what, one or two airframes, as an experiment, found it wanting, and that was that. Done.

Not quite. There were a couple of more airframes built, and at least one was used to score victories.
  • 0

#104 B24_LIBERATOR

B24_LIBERATOR
  • Posts: 3878
  • LocationSan Diego

Posted 23 December 2014 - 03:46

Just wish the a/c could be modeled at their historical airspeed

And how do we know what that is? Because Windsock says so? :?

We shouldn't lose sight of the whole point of these FM tweaks, which was to make the relative performance credible. If they are all a bit too slow, or all a bit too fast, it is not a big deal.

8-)

You went on and on and on and on about how off the apeeds were before Gav, and now you don't seem to give half a %@$# (pardon my censored French). If any airspeed for any plane other than the Albatrosses is wrong, what makes the Alby's right now? Why did we bother changing them if nothing is credible?
  • 1

Liberator's Tutorials: http://steamcommunit...s/?id=438268482

 

 


#105 EmerlistDavjack

EmerlistDavjack
  • Posts: 167

Posted 23 December 2014 - 04:25

I've been away on business, and haven't been able to hop in MP yet, but here's a newbie's perspective. Why is it valid? Because I spent most of my time figuring out what I couldn't run from in whatever plane I was flying. ;)

Albys were too slow, especially the DVa, which made no sense at all. Camel could run down most anything to the point where DVIIs were pointless without the F. Tripe and DR1 did seem a bit fast for Triplanes, but seemed about right, except when they were handily able to pace with a BnZ DVa.

If they had only raised Albatros speeds, I'd probably have been happy. A slight decrease on rotaries (3-4mph) might be the best. Currently, went too far in their decrease of rotaries. Really close, though, and I'm glad to read here that it sounds more "balanced."

Will hop on MP tomorrow!
  • 0

#106 JG1_Lee_J10

JG1_Lee_J10
  • Posts: 160

Posted 23 December 2014 - 04:35

Ideally, all the speeds of all the aircraft would be correctly modeled.

Apparently that's too hard.

Next best is to get the relative speeds correct.

This revision gets close to that goal.

The Tripe suffers, but the overall plane set's relative performances are much better.

In my opinion, while the Tripe may have taken a step back, the overall game has taken a big step forward.
  • 0

#107 EmerlistDavjack

EmerlistDavjack
  • Posts: 167

Posted 23 December 2014 - 08:28

And I'd like to remind everybody that these changes did come about due to feedback from the community.

It sounds like most people are coming to a similar consensus, so we could see it happen!
  • 0

#108 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 23 December 2014 - 08:53

The camel now flies at 104 mph at sea level in level flight. This is now not accurate according to the data that is listed in this form, in the ROF store, and in other sources I have read. So I am hoping that 777 will look into the change they gave to to rotaries. The camel is now very anemic with no power.

Please don't think I'm saying it should go back to the super plane it was before the new FM. I think and hope that it and the other rotaries can be modeled to fly as they should in comparison with the other planes. I don't want to fly a Spitfire against WWI planes. I want to fly the camel with the performance it should have. I want what I think we all want, planes that are as close as we can get to the performance of real WWI planes.

Salute :S!:

Good post. If FM reviews were going to happen, I was hoping for a 180km/h Camel and a 187km/h Albatros D.Va. Both ended up slower than I would have wanted, but I also have no special reason to take any data from WW1 as authoritative or accurate. In the end I'm just happy that the overall situation is much improved in multiplayer.

:S!:

The Camel is now ~173 km/h on the deck… 7 km/h can be tolreated as a deviation I think. The Albys are ~180 km/h. Also 7 km/h slower than what you ask for, gav. So at least the speed difference is rather accurate.

Personally, I think the absolute top speed of the planes back then had a higher variation than those 7 km/h leaving this devialtion marginally significant. But I don't have no numbers to match that up. Just the chart of the individual captured Dr.I. And there we have ~20 km/h as variation in speed.

Z
  • 0

#109 Hellbender

Hellbender
  • Posts: 3321
  • LocationMadrid, Spain (originally Brussels, Belgium)

Posted 23 December 2014 - 13:29

The Camel is now ~173 km/h on the deck… 7 km/h can be tolreated as a deviation I think. The Albys are ~180 km/h. Also 7 km/h slower than what you ask for, gav. So at least the speed difference is rather accurate.

Personally, I think the absolute top speed of the planes back then had a higher variation than those 7 km/h leaving this devialtion marginally significant. But I don't have no numbers to match that up. Just the chart of the individual captured Dr.I. And there we have ~20 km/h as variation in speed.

Z

How are you getting the 173 km/h figure for the Camel?

From what I measured at sea level (Channel map, autolevel just above the "water drops" effect), I'm getting 104 mph (167 km/h) with an empty Camel at 5% fuel. During normal operation, with 100% fuel and full ammo, at the altitude the Camel is usually flown at as a low altitude dogfighter (~500m) it's closer to 100 mph (160 km/h), since it takes forever for those last few mph to add up.

Maybe you're measuring it differently?


The D.Va is indeed 180 km/h under those conditions, which I also find a tad slow.

I'd be perfectly happy with a 175 km/h Camel and a 190 km/h D.Va, for the record (same 15 km/h spread as we have now, just 10 km/h faster with regards to all other planes, especially rotaries). I still think the plane that really needs a speed boost in all this, even now against a slow Camel, is the standard D.VII.
  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#110 J2_VonGraff

J2_VonGraff
  • Posts: 686
  • LocationCenter of the Universe

Posted 23 December 2014 - 13:34

After having the time to wring out a few more of the planes, as well as see what the dynamics are now between the various types, I am more than ever appreciative of 777's new adjustments, and the fact that if not perfect, they have at least brought us much closer to an accurate representation of each of these machines……and how they stacked up against each other. As others have mentioned, two machines do not now unduly rule the roost (much to their former addicts' chagrin and complaint……this was to be expected). But the overall interaction between them, as well as the different variants (not just two anymore) being used now in multiplayer, bears this out. We will always have those that say "you ruined the Camel!" Well yes that's true, in that the Camel was doing what it never should've been able to do, at least not without a warp drive…..yes. And that's good. By the way, just as a foil I took up the old Camel to see how awful it really is. It is still most lethal in capable hands, and just can't chase down or run from every plane that exists with impunity…..wow that's really terrible….oh please. I have not yet tried the Sopwith tripe in question here….so I will have to do so over the Holidays. I also need to do some historical reading (digging out old volumes…lol) to see how it fares against it's contemporaries…(ie..not pfalz DXII's and Fokker DVII-F's which should have it for lunch).

V-Graff
  • 0

'Flight leader, fuel check - I have "E" gallons sir.'

 

j2-graff-signature-e1425051735579.jpg


#111 SYN_Bandy

SYN_Bandy
  • Posts: 2599
  • LocationWishing I was in the La Cloche

Posted 23 December 2014 - 13:42

…Tripe and DR1 did seem a bit fast for Triplanes, but seemed about right, except when they were handily able to pace with a BnZ DVa.
Dr1 airspeed was significantly overdone originally, to the point where an SE5a could not safely extend from it at ground level. Let's not talk about the damage model and those wings…

I say NO! to people crying about their favourite aircraft just because it is more difficult for them to get a kill after revisions. Compromise is when nobody is happy :D

As stated, we have a damn good approximation now. Live and let live, move on, enjoy the game for what it is. Then again, people seem to enjoy complaining and arguing endlessly, and if that is your thing, then by all means.

Personally, I'd rather see the developers put more effort into new aircraft from this point forward…

:S!:
  • 0

#112 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 23 December 2014 - 13:49

Personally, I think the absolute top speed of the planes back then had a higher variation than those 7 km/h leaving this devialtion marginally significant. But I don't have no numbers to match that up. Just the chart of the individual captured Dr.I. And there we have ~20 km/h as variation in speed.

That is what I've said before. We've seen data for the Albatros that is anywhere from 106mph to 120mph. I'm not sure how many here understand the idea of a confidence interval, but for capturing the correct airspeed of the Albatros with 95% certainty it is going to be a very big one!

The decision to make the Camel slower than the Albatros D.Va, whatever the airspeed turns out to be, rests on a mountain of pilot testimony from Sopwith Camel pilots that it was slower. The fact that they tested the Camel's airspeed with a pitot tube and not a triangular circuit makes me very comfortable with this decision.
  • 0

#113 dixieflyer

dixieflyer
  • Posts: 580
  • LocationCain-tuh-Kee

Posted 23 December 2014 - 16:47

Just wish the a/c could be modeled at their historical airspeed

And how do we know what that is? Because Windsock says so? :?

We shouldn't lose sight of the whole point of these FM tweaks, which was to make the relative performance credible. If they are all a bit too slow, or all a bit too fast, it is not a big deal.

8-)

No, not because the Windsock DF's say so, but because we've got that and other credible, historical information for the speeds of these a/c. Yes, I know there is variation in the historical data, and when these a/c were tested there were all kinds of variables such as age/condition of engine, fuel quality, atmosphere/weather variations, etc., BUT it would seem to me that despite all of that, most of the performance figures are going to ball park within a reasonable range. As an example, as Zacharias pointed out, if the speed ranges of the Albatros is 106 to 120 mph, then just average it out at 113 mph and call it good.

Please don't misunderstand where I'm coming from. People have been complaining for a long time about the FM of the Albatros and other a/c. It would seem now that that issue has finally been addressed. I'm happy about that. Really. It also seems that some other FM issues have been addressed. I'm happy about that too. I'm not unhappy, but more puzzled than anything, that some of the other FM tweaks might have resulted in FM performance that is not in keeping with the historical performance of certain a/c. It seems that the Sopwith Triplane is the one everyone is concerned about. Personally, I'm not that concerned* with it since I've never flown it much, but I do know some here love that a/c.
BLUF (bottom line up front), it appears that the vast majority of folks are quite happy with the FM tweaks. I'm nowhere near the virtual pilot that you and most everyone else here is, nor have I spent as much time with the sim as y'all, so the FM tweaks, for me at least, will not be as stark.

Warren
  • 0

History is the lie we all agree upon.


#114 dixieflyer

dixieflyer
  • Posts: 580
  • LocationCain-tuh-Kee

Posted 23 December 2014 - 16:51

Exactly. They tried mounting two Vickers on what, one or two airframes, as an experiment, found it wanting, and that was that. Done.

Not quite. There were a couple of more airframes built, and at least one was used to score victories.

Exactly. It was an experiment that did not work as well as they had hoped, just like the cannon-armed SPAD. There were what, three of those? It didn't work well. (Although there is some primitive "gun camera" footage of Guynemer using it.)

Warren
  • 0

History is the lie we all agree upon.


#115 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 23 December 2014 - 16:55

The new Triplanes that were going to be built by Oakley would have featured two guns.

Edit:

And of course the Sopwith Camels all had two guns…and this plane used the same engine, it's not like it was so much stronger that it could carry a lot of extra weight.

So apperently they were pretty positive about having two guns.

So there's that myth debunked.

So the only reason we didn't see the Triplane equipped with two machineguns by default, is that by the time they had experimented with them and wanted to start producing them, it was replaced by the Sopwith Camel…which did have them by default.
  • 0

#116 EmerlistDavjack

EmerlistDavjack
  • Posts: 167

Posted 23 December 2014 - 17:45

I ran an impromptu unscientific Triplane speed test and found that I got a 2 mph boost from manually adjusting mixture at ground level. Just sayin.




As stated, we have a damn good approximation now.



Personally, I'd rather see the developers put more effort into new aircraft from this point forward…

:S!:

The old gap between Camel and DVa was a ridiculous 20km/h (190km/h vs 170km/h), and 15km/h for the Tripe (185km/h vs 170km/hr).

Now its about ~+13km/hr for DVa vs either. So while the DVa is now faster, it is not the 20km/h dominance machine that the Camel used to be. I'll take that as being much better balanced than before. Esp considering that Camels and Tripes still turn circles around Albys.

I'll throw more money into new planes. I think a Caudron would be excellent and 777 could charge $10+ for it so it's worth their effort.
  • 0

#117 B24_LIBERATOR

B24_LIBERATOR
  • Posts: 3878
  • LocationSan Diego

Posted 23 December 2014 - 18:49

I say NO! to people crying about their favourite aircraft just because it is more difficult for them to get a kill after revisions. Compromise is when nobody is happy :D

As stated, we have a damn good approximation now. Live and let live, move on, enjoy the game for what it is. Then again, people seem to enjoy complaining and arguing endlessly, and if that is your thing, then by all means.:S!:

Dressedwings & myself started this conversation, I really don't fly the Tripe that much anymore, and neither of us ever fly the Camel or Dr.1. How is this exactly complaining about our favorite aircraft?

If the approximation is so good, please show some results? We've already searched through quite a few places and haven't found evidence that the D.III could outperform the Triplane in any way shape or form except roll rate or that it was 15mph faster. I also couldn't find any evidence of the Triplane or Camel going 98mph @ 5000'. The Triplane doesn't seem to be able to hold much energy anymore in a turn. Please provide us with some information, instead of telling us we're whining because "our favorite plane was ruined".

Attached Files


  • 0

Liberator's Tutorials: http://steamcommunit...s/?id=438268482

 

 


#118 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk

1PL-Sahaj-1Esk
  • Posts: 940

Posted 23 December 2014 - 19:43

If they are all a bit too slow, or all a bit too fast, it is not a big deal.

8-)

Image

Ladies and gentlemen, gavagai is happy, let's all just stop having FM discussions altogether. Nothing to see here, time to go home.

:S!:

(yes, I was joking)


Yes, it is just that … the sudden change in the mood and world view. Now, suddenly 7-10 km/h difference is no issue anymore, lol and 'the hell with all docs. That is mostly amusing and funny indeed long live the hardcore-data-recovery-freeeks. This is called hypocrisy, isn't it, hahah.


IMO we lack the context now, the adjustments went in the right direction but futher tweaks are very necessary to complete the BIG PICTURE of all planes there are in the RoF planeset.
  • 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


#119 B24_LIBERATOR

B24_LIBERATOR
  • Posts: 3878
  • LocationSan Diego

Posted 23 December 2014 - 20:20

IMO we lack the context now, the adjustments went in the right direction but futher tweaks are very necessary to complete the BIG PICTURE of all planes there are in the RoF planeset.

Couldn't have said it better :S!:
  • 0

Liberator's Tutorials: http://steamcommunit...s/?id=438268482

 

 


#120 J2_VonGraff

J2_VonGraff
  • Posts: 686
  • LocationCenter of the Universe

Posted 23 December 2014 - 20:31

I mean look at the float on this thing….granted he seemed to be landing into a pretty stiff headwind!

https://www.youtube....h?v=TBYC3aI9_OY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">

V-Graff
  • 0

'Flight leader, fuel check - I have "E" gallons sir.'

 

j2-graff-signature-e1425051735579.jpg



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users