Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 7 votes

D.Va stats... anyone else see a problem


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
534 replies to this topic

#361 unreasonable

unreasonable
  • Posts: 1452
  • LocationBangkok

Posted 21 March 2015 - 04:13

Honestly,
just top complaining. Live with the game like it is. Spend the amount of energy for doing stupid turning videos and arguing on playing the game. It seems that the DVa made ROF unbearable for you.
If it this way, please don't polute the forum with threads like this. IF the game is dying its because of guys like you! You think a newcomer would invest in a game where every 2nd thread is like this?
 
Live with the DVa. Or buy WOFF or Pacman or Pony-Manager III or whatever.
 


Actually it is posts like this polluting the forum that make me want to stop reading. Without threads where people express their views on contentious topics with evidence and well though out argument, what is the point of having a forum at all?

If you do not like the contribution of a particular poster you can always use the ignore button rather than gratuitously blaming him for all the ills of the game. As I am about to do for you.
  • 0

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." H. L. Mencken


#362 Hoogie

Hoogie
  • Posts: 143

Posted 21 March 2015 - 05:25

Actually it is posts like this polluting the forum that make me want to stop reading. Without threads where people express their views on contentious topics with evidence and well though out argument, what is the point of having a forum at all?

If you do not like the contribution of a particular poster you can always use the ignore button rather than gratuitously blaming him for all the ills of the game. As I am about to do for you.

Well said unreasonable and exactly correct. Couldn't have said it better myself.


  • 1

#363 1PL-Lucas-1Esk

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

Posted 24 March 2015 - 01:37

S!
I have been posting rarely on the rig forum recently because I had to take a break from online flying after almost 13 years of doing so.
While I have my personal thoughts about recent changes dedicated to fms, I would like to say something different. I mean it is all about team flying and tactics. During the last two years Entente units reduced their numbers while Central units are better organized and more numerous. This was shown during the Bloody April IV tournament from the 2014 where Entente suffered a huge loss. Well, a real Bloody April. The numbers were low, many experienced pilots were absent and that made the difference.
Put the 2:1 or 3:1 Entente advsntage, start flying as units, keep together and the results will change.
Personally I hate when my pilots check the plane rosters and start to analyze too much :) For me there is a mission to be flown and I have to combine tactics with the front situation and the plane I fly. The key is to cooperate and use flexible tactics.
Central Powers planes were generally easier to fly. Besides that, the di look attractive in game because of tons of fantastic schemes. The Red Baron legend did its job as well. So, for me it is pretty normal that this side will have more pilots every time I enter the server. And that's a side many new pilots will select. Because those planes are stable gun platforms, they are quite easy to fly and they look good :) If there were more good Entente squads online nowadays, even those changes would not be visible that much. That's my opinion.
And if we are talking about fms.
Rof was originally planned to start from the mid 1917 and contain mid and late war planes. That's why there is Alb D.iii oaw, Pfalz D.iiia. After the release the community asked for early planes and they got them. But that caused some gaps in the plane set too.
Going back to the fm changes
- I like the idea to make Alb DVa faster
- Having it, I would also like to have an early D.V version with reduced speed.
- Reducing Camel and Dr.I speeds vy reducing their rpms was not wise and was the quickest way to tune them down
- iam happy with faster Pfalz and on the other side I would also like to have original d.iii with different h-stab and guns hidden in the fuselage which was slower.
- Some say that Halb cl.ii is under performing. Well both Halb and DFW are carrying way too much bombload, especially Halb which should usually take about 25-50 kgs of bombs and grenades, NOT 150 or 200 kgs :)

Ps: We at 1PL used to fly Centrals in the old RB3d days :) We would love to do it here too, but when we enter the Entente side is usually at lower numbers so we have to balance the sudes.

And even flying a CP plane you have to be cautious because a plane is only an addition to the pilot.
  • 3

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


#364 J5_Vorlander

J5_Vorlander
  • Posts: 743

Posted 24 March 2015 - 04:10

Excellent 1PL Lucas.

After the last FM changes J5 has started flying Crumpet planes. Surely we are still learning the new planes but team work is the key to most of the success. I have spend more time in the Spad series and the SE5a after the FM changes.

Even with the faster albie DVa the crumpet beside does have fantastic planes to hunt them down. Camel is slower but looking at 1PL Sahaj's stats using the Camel, she is still deadly.
  • 0

#365 Surfimp

Surfimp
  • Posts: 1036
  • LocationSanta Barbara, CA, USA

Posted 24 March 2015 - 22:36

Energy retention test in maximum performance turn

 

I did some energy (speed + altitude) retention tests in maximum performance turns (elevator full aft). The D.Va comes out on top, followed closely by the Fokker Dr.I (although the Dr.I needs a much more gentle touch to fly). I actually did find a similar plane on the Entente side, but errrm...

 

Well, let's say it started out as a serious attempt at documenting energy retention and then turned into this: 

 

(skip to 6:20 for the Entente part)

 

 

Hilarious Entente ending, nicely done. I too have done the "thankless task" of making some videos to try to document problems in RoF, with the intention of only demonstrating them in an unambiguous way.

 

One thing that occurred to me: I know I've been able to significantly improve how manageable the stall is on a number of planes by adjusting my elevator curves. It's easy to forget about this as most of us (and especially you, good sir!) have been playing RoF so long we've probably forgotten how much time we spent setting them up all those years ago.

 

But anyways, something to consider... it could be that the default elevator curve on the Albie D.Va is quite forgiving (that's how I remember it) and that the other planes, including Entente, can be made more so with some appropriate tweaks.

 

Or, to put it another way: unless we do the above test having all the planes with the same exact elevator curve, then it's possible the results delivered will not be truly comparable.

 

Not trying to be a jerk or nitpick, hopefully just adding another angle to the discussion here.


  • 0

Founding Member, SPADaholics Anonymous


#366 hq_Peter_Zvan

hq_Peter_Zvan
  • Posts: 543

Posted 25 March 2015 - 07:41

I finaly had a look at your video Bender and the tests are complete nonsence and dont really show anything about the true turning performance of the planes except perhaps how idiot proof the planes are.

 

To have a meaningful test you would need to get the best sustained turn that the planes can do and than compare the time / turn and the speed in the turn.

Than you would see that both the D.III and D.Va benefited compared to what they used to be capable off and the D.IIIa lost a great deal, however the sustained turn still is not that great.

 

Also speeds mean a great deal here. By the time you are droping below 110km/h the turn performance really starts to suffer a lot. And that is why in your test the capable planes with a lot of elevator authority acctually seem like they are quite bad - the D.VIIf is the prime example there. Your test shows it in a terrible way when infact its probably now the second best at sustained turns to the left (Dr.I being the best).

Also why only left and not right as well?

It very clear that to the right its much easier to turn in some planes and the Camel would do much much better. And Dr.I especially.

 

BTW: You are really terrible in the Dr.I -> you shouldnt be doing these performance tests on the rotaries untill you learn how to really fly them.

And I acctualy share the oppinon that the D.Va is too maneuverable, just not in what you want to show.


  • 0

#367 closed_accont

closed_accont
  • Member
  • Posts: 382

Posted 25 March 2015 - 10:04

Peter I think you miss the point here, he doesn't want to show us with plane turns better and how to get it.

what that vid really shows is what a plane never shoud be able to do, a real tight turn with a full elevator applied 100% of time and never falls...

 

all planes you saw crashed just behave as expected, but DVa don't, it was able to keep turning without get into an stall.

consider the planes you think he can't show a good turn,

was because it cannot make a turn with full elevator applied simple like that.

his point is DVa have to be considered with some problem on its FM to be able to perform like that
if you disagree he ask to post a video showing it here.


  • 0

#368 hq_Peter_Zvan

hq_Peter_Zvan
  • Posts: 543

Posted 25 March 2015 - 11:03

I get full well what he wants to show - but it has no bearing on the dogfights at all.

So the test is useless for the relative performance comparison.

So D.Va dosent have enough elevator authority - this is acctually a bad thing and not a good thing - you cannot make it turn tighter with high speed to get a better instantanious turn.

If it dosent fall it simply means that the elevator authority is not high enough to exceed the AoA - a thing that is acctually possible and also probable.

The difference to before the patch is that the D.Va has either less drag or better engine / prop performance or both and with that also has better thrust / drag ratio and therefore can hold a better AoA.

There is nothing in dispute here - the Albie D.Va and D.III did get a big boost in speed / climb / sustained turn performance.

Just the test is silly and dosent show the real ramifications in dogfights.

Fact is that the D.Va will still get out sustained turned by the Camel, Pup, N17, Tripe, Dolphin and probabaly the HD.1 as well. As long as they are flown correctly - which is more difficult to do than with the D.Va.

The difference is much smaller now though and the big roll rate advantage that the D.Va always had combined with the increased sustained turn / climb performance make it a much more capable fighter as a whole.

So it acctually is better in a 1 v 1 combat than most of these planes (perhaps all - BnZ with the Dolphin excluded).

I would dare to say that in such a fight the Albie is amongst the top 3 dogfighting planes now - because of the combination of the roll, climb  and turn performance now.

It has no chance against the Dr.I which still dominates this area because of the excelent turn and the excelent roll performance. Its close to the Camel overall. And the D.VIIf although much better turner looses a lot with the roll performance so its close there.

So in end effect D.Va climbed up the food chain for many places and its a question if its justified or not.

I would prefer if it was more like the D.III in the roll performance and a bit faster and at the same would like to get some additional turn performance from  the Se5a and the Spads.

The rest can stay as is (except the silly N28!!!)


  • 0

#369 Hellbender

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

Posted 25 March 2015 - 16:20

Hey Peter,

 

I don't understand why you're calling my tests silly. The experiment is called "Energy retention test in maximum performance turn", not "Relative turn performance comparison in dogfights".

 

A "maximum performance turn" (full aft stick "break turn") is not the same thing as "maximum turn performance" (who can hold the tightest turn without stalling).

 

 

I didn't try to show which plane has the best dogfighting capabilities (Dr.I and Camel, no questions asked), only which plane can be thrown around with full aft stick and not lose energy.

 

I agree that the D.Va simply lacks elevator authority. If it had slightly more elevator authority than it does now, it would actually turn as tight as a Camel.


  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#370 hq_Peter_Zvan

hq_Peter_Zvan
  • Posts: 543

Posted 25 March 2015 - 16:33

What is the point of the test than?

 

You dont test the energy retention at all, but you test only elevator authority. It has nothing to do with energy retention. If you want to measure that, than engine to idle or off level flight at 110km/h, dive until you reach 180 km/h and climb again - see the altitude difference you can achive. The higher you get, the more energy the plane can retain.

You are mixing everything together - here drag, mass, thrust, lift, initial energy and elevatro authority are all playing together.

 

I dont get what you want to show?

How idiot proof the D.Va can be flown?

For someone that has no idea about flight physics your video is saying that the D.Va is by far the best turning plane now.

Which is far from the truth.

And to top it off you do it to the left because you know full well that the Dr.I could do this all day long and much faster (less time per turn).

 

Its not in any way a scientific test with which one could compare anything between the planes - so I dont really see any point of it except in baiting the less knowledgable people into arguing that the D.Va is too OP and MUST be nerfed.

IMO you are by far overdoing it with the D.Va bashing and because of all this noise people started to belive too much and in effect fly less.


  • 0

#371 hq_Peter_Zvan

hq_Peter_Zvan
  • Posts: 543

Posted 25 March 2015 - 16:41

 

I agree that the D.Va simply lacks elevator authority. If it had slightly more elevator authority than it does now, it would actually turn as tight as a Camel.

 

Not at all.

It dosent have the sustained turn capability to turn as a Camel. If you fly the D.Va with max back stick you are not turning in the shortest turn time possible.


  • 0

#372 Hellbender

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

Posted 25 March 2015 - 16:52

All I tried to demonstrate is what happens when you're flying at 30m, full throttle, autolevel, then perform a 90 degree bank break turn to the left and hold that turn by easing off on the bank angle to about 60 degrees.

 

 

It does indeed show that the D.Va can do this very easily and stops losing energy at around 110km/h, and the time it takes to complete a rotation (~10 seconds) is close to the D.VIIF, only the D.VIIF actually keeps losing energy while doing it.

 

I can only conclude that if the D.Va had better elevator authority, it would turn tighter in the same situation, and actually lose more speed and altitude.

 

 

Does that make the D.Va the best turnfighter? Yes and no.

 

  • Yes, it makes it the easiest "idiot proof" turnfighter, with a very tight turnrate, and no risk to enter an accelerated stall.
  • No, someone who knows how to fly the rotaries correctly, can still turn tighter, with a possible risk of entering an accelerated stall.

 

If you think the test is bad or unscientific or whatever, by all means do one yourself and post it here.

 

But please stop with the baseless accusations. Some people have called me a liar outright, that I didn't use full elevator in the D.Va (once again, don't believe me on my word, do the test yourself) and now you're first calling me a terrible Dr.I pilot (I agree) and then you tell me how I know fully well know how to fly the Dr.I and keep turning like this all day. So which is it?


  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#373 hq_Peter_Zvan

hq_Peter_Zvan
  • Posts: 543

Posted 25 March 2015 - 17:25

1: Dr.I to the left is not that simple, to the right its simple - you did left turns and couldnt initiate fast en effectivly which plently of people can and that is why I call you bad in a Dr.I. If you would do a turn to the right, you could do it easily as its very simple to do it to the right. And I didnt say that you know full well how to fly it, but that you know full well that the Dr.I, N17 and Camel would have a much better performance to the right even if flown by an unexperianced pilot (dosent mean you).

2: I am sure that you used full elevator one the D.Va on the turns - you did use very little fuel. That is probaly why some people called you a liar - I deffinitly didnt and have no intention of.

 

It does indeed show that the D.Va can do this very easily without losing energy, and the time it takes to complete a rotation (~10 seconds) is close to the D.VIIF, only the D.VIIF actually loses energy while doing it.

 

I can only conclude that if the D.Va had better elevator authority, it would turn tighter in the same turn, and actually lose energy.

 

Both loose energy - both loose speed at the start of the turn. Just the Alb can sustain it close to its best turnrate speed (around 115...125kmh) and the D.VIIf allready falls below its optimum turning speed during half of that turn - and than drasticly looses turning performance - all due to elevator authority - and in the 1 turn they are about the same than. However the D.VIIf had a much higher turn rate during the first part of the turn because of the elevator authority and had you loosened the stick when you droped to about 120kmh and kept at that speed it would have made 1 turn much faster than the D.Va.

That is why I am saying that it is a silly test.

 

I have no intention of doing test and posting videos of it - why would I? I know what the sim does and where in relation the planes are. I know the D.Va is very capable now and this dosent exactly corespond with the RL accounts. and resulting developement of the D.VII and D.XII...

And most importantly I (we) dont have any RL test data on what the planes acctually should be doing in turn / roll performance. So what should I compare the video to? Some feeling or oppinion that I have? Based on some accounts from both sides, kill statistics from WW.I and some facts like D.VII and on the other hand ammount of aces with the D.Va?

Its all just an interpretation sadly - and the more one is biased to one side, the more he will be inclined to have his planes better performing than the opposition.

Accusations?

I am saying that you are trying to hard to get the D.Va nerfed. I dont accuse you of lying or something - you just use a extreme situation in the game where the D.Va is really good in as a base for a full on nerfing of the D.Va.

And I find this as the wrong way as there is nothing in your tests and comparisons which an engineer could use to modify the FM. There are no comparable RL turn time tests. There is no RL elevator authority data...

Gav was annoying, however he always had some data behind his claims. And now there is none.

I for one would love to see some roll performance data from the D.Va and compare it to ingame. Or at least climb rate data.

Here is a possible way of changing the FM - if it is massivly oveperforming with its climb rate compared to RL? If it is, than the change to reduce the performance and keep the speed would also reduce its turn performance.


  • 1

#374 Hellbender

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

Posted 25 March 2015 - 18:43

1: Dr.I to the left is not that simple, to the right its simple - you did left turns and couldnt initiate fast en effectivly which plently of people can and that is why I call you bad in a Dr.I. If you would do a turn to the right, you could do it easily as its very simple to do it to the right. And I didnt say that you know full well how to fly it, but that you know full well that the Dr.I, N17 and Camel would have a much better performance to the right even if flown by an unexperianced pilot (dosent mean you).

 

Just for my information (I will believe you on your word), do you use full aft stick when you initiate a turn in the Dr.I? That's what I'm doing in the video, and it takes me three tries not to stall immediately.

 

I find it funny that my flying skills are up for debate in a video where I purposefully perform a break turn maneuver which most WWI aircraft were unable to perform due to lack of high AoA lift and thrust.

 

Still, I won't deny that I lack experience in the Dr.I to fly it to its limits, all the more reason to show you how much easier it is to fly the D.Va to its limits, and how much harder it is not to immediately stall out in the Entente planes when applying full aft stick.

 

 

However the D.VIIf had a much higher turn rate during the first part of the turn because of the elevator authority and had you loosened the stick when you droped to about 120kmh and kept at that speed it would have made 1 turn much faster than the D.Va.

That is why I am saying that it is a silly test.

 

Why would I loosen the stick on the D.VIIF, when the test specifically calls to hold full elevator?

 

The test wasn't about which aircraft has the fastest initial turn rate, only about how a plane behaves when you apply full aft stick and hold it in a turn.

 

I know that you're a better pilot than I am, Peter, and more knowledgeable than most, but you do keep missing the point of my test.

 

If you think my test is silly and proves nothing, then please post a better one (seriously).

 

 

Accusations?

I am saying that you are trying to hard to get the D.Va nerfed. I dont accuse you of lying or something - you just use a extreme situation in the game where the D.Va is really good in as a base for a full on nerfing of the D.Va.

 

I'm not calling for nerfs, I'm calling for reason.

 

We know from history that when the Albatros series had reached the D.Va design by late 1917, it offered no benefit at all over the Albatros D.III (on the contrary), and that a certain top German pilot was begging to receive the Fokker D.VII, even without the overcompressed 200hp D.IIIau engine.

 

The only scenario in which I see our current D.Va performing as it does now, is if it indeed has the overcompressed 200hp D.IIIau engine installed. I suppose that would be the easiest fix of all: add the D.IIIau engine effects (altitude throttle on last 20% throttle etc.) to the current FM of the D.Va. Also, it shouldn't be featured anymore in missions before mid-to-late 1918. We'd also need a new Fokker D.VII with the 200hp D.IIIau engine, and on the Entente side, the 235hp SPAD XIII and 150hp Bentley Camel.


  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#375 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 25 March 2015 - 18:43

Gav was annoying, however he always had some data behind his claims. And now there is none.

I for one would love to see some roll performance data from the D.Va and compare it to ingame. Or at least climb rate data.

 

 

:icon_e_biggrin:

 

Well, if you do the torque calculations based on the different wing gap measurement, the D.Va and D.III roll rates shouldn't be more than 1% different.  One of them has to be in more error than the other.

 

There are two primary sources that have a <13 minutes to 3km climb rate for the D.Va.  Both documents are French.  Right now our D.Va reachs 3km in about 12 minutes and change.

 

The first you have seen before, but probably not the second.  In the second I wonder which Albatros D.III they're comparing it to, because the only Albatros D.III document we have from France has a considerably worse climb time.

Attached Files


  • 0

#376 hq_Peter_Zvan

hq_Peter_Zvan
  • Posts: 543

Posted 25 March 2015 - 20:04

No I dont use full back stick - the rotary engine fights it and you cant get it to bank - it just pulls up.

I coordinate it with the rudder and counter airlon to get it to slip sidways into the turn and than pull back on the stick. The same with the N17 as well - since hte Fm changes to it it really needs this way of flying.

However I get it now that this is not relevant for the test you want to do.

I gather that all you want to prove is the capability of the planes for the not really skilled pilots and I agree there - D.Va is the easiest plane to fly and has relativly good performance as well.

 

I dont agree that we have the D.Va with the overcompresed engine though - that one should be performing better with speeds closer to 190...195km/h.

Just consider what the Austrians did with the Oeffag D.III and how more capable that plane was.

 

I think that what the D.Va should be close to is the current D.III with a simmilar roll rate and slightly different performance - and most of all more sturdy construction.

So a MP solution for the moment could be in simply replacing the D.Va with the D.III.

However I dont think that it is needed - I still Will say that its the playing style that is the problem.

And a slightly increased Camel and Dr.I performance wouldnt hurt as well - get them up to 170...175km/h - so between the old and current FM. All this is IMO of course. 

 

And thank you Gav for the data - so this acctually means that the D.Va and D.III are performing close to what they should and that the really questionable thing is the roll performance.

Perhaps now the SE5a could get also an option of the different pitch prop to really use the engine close to its max power. That would be really nice - IMO it is underperforming because of the prop pitch now.


  • 1

#377 J2_Trupobaw

J2_Trupobaw
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 4169
  • LocationKraków / Poland

Posted 25 March 2015 - 20:18

:icon_e_biggrin:

 

Well, if you do the torque calculations based on the different wing gap measurement, the D.Va and D.III roll rates shouldn't be more than 1% different.  One of them has to be in more error than the other.

 

 

Wouldn't more rectangular shape of D.III fuselage cause more drag (in direction opposite to roll) thus slowing the roll speed? An object that rolls with the plane creates high pressure towards the roll direction and low pressure "behind"itself, and the sharper edges at "corners" of rectangular crosshape are just such objects?


  • 0

Forum moderator.

Deputy Staffelführer, Jasta 2 ''Boelcke'' http://jasta2.org

“Now now,” Akua chided. “Personal attacks are the mark of failed argument. If you’ve no counterpoint to offer, such flailing only serves to shed further light on your incompetence.”


#378 Hellbender

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

Posted 25 March 2015 - 21:05

No I dont use full back stick - the rotary engine fights it and you cant get it to bank - it just pulls up.

I coordinate it with the rudder and counter airlon to get it to slip sidways into the turn and than pull back on the stick. The same with the N17 as well - since hte Fm changes to it it really needs this way of flying.

However I get it now that this is not relevant for the test you want to do.

I gather that all you want to prove is the capability of the planes for the not really skilled pilots and I agree there - D.Va is the easiest plane to fly and has relativly good performance as well.

 

Yes, that's the only thing I tried to show, nothing more.

 

 

I dont agree that we have the D.Va with the overcompresed engine though - that one should be performing better with speeds closer to 190...195km/h.

Just consider what the Austrians did with the Oeffag D.III and how more capable that plane was.

 

Yes, I agree that the D.Va is 10km/h too slow but... errrm... mmmmmpff... urrrm...

 

How can I put this without...

 

 

No, I'm not even going to try, anymore. People can believe whatever they want.

 

The... Camel and Dr.I... are also... 10km/h... too slow...

 

 

Look! It was Bender complaining about the Camel all along!

 

Sure, to some extent. Still, I think that the Camel and Dr.I being 10km/h too slow now is much better than 15km/h too fast, as they were before.

 

In terms of relative (not absolute) performance, the 130hp Camel and 200hp D.Va (with D.IIIau engine) are pretty much spot-on (D.Va 15km/h faster than Camel).

 

That said, even if we change nothing at all about the Camel and Dr.I, the D.Va can still use an extra 5km/h and it wouldn't be wrong in my eyes (D.Va 20km/h faster than Camel). It's the turn that needs looking at.

 

 

So a MP solution for the moment could be in simply replacing the D.Va with the D.III.

However I dont think that it is needed - I still Will say that its the playing style that is the problem.

And a slightly increased Camel and Dr.I performance wouldnt hurt as well - get them up to 170...175km/h - so between the old and current FM. All this is IMO of course. 

 

+1000

 

Letting the D.III pose as the standard D.Va would solve almost all problems, in my opinion. The real problem, of course, is that the D.Va is F2P and mission makers include it because of this.

 

But seriously, how many people that play MP are really 100% F2P? And should we reward the fact that they refuse to pay for more planes?

 

 

That said, if the speed on the Camel and Dr.I (and Pup) is increased again, then the speed on the D.Va and D.VII should follow suit. Along with the Sopwith Dolphin, actually. Not often mentioned that one, but it's also about 10km/h too slow in level flight.


  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#379 DMS-Mk1

DMS-Mk1
  • Posts: 54

Posted 25 March 2015 - 22:49

Today there were nice maps with early planes, many players... But balance was awfull. I was always outnumbered by squads and others, always no chances to win. N17, Verdun and Rheims. Suffering. There are 2-3 D.Vs against 1 Antanta fighter, that's why they have good stats.


  • 2

#380 J2_Adam

J2_Adam
  • Posts: 2453
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 26 March 2015 - 03:09

...and for the most part, as it has already been stated a few times, German squads are more aplenty and better organized. RoF MP lacks organized Entente squads.


  • 1

#381 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 26 March 2015 - 03:19

Wouldn't more rectangular shape of D.III fuselage cause more drag (in direction opposite to roll) thus slowing the roll speed? An object that rolls with the plane creates high pressure towards the roll direction and low pressure "behind"itself, and the sharper edges at "corners" of rectangular crosshape are just such objects?

 

That's grasping for straws.  Torque is proportional to the length of the lever arm.  The distance of the fuselage sides from the roll axis is negligible compared to the wings and control surfaces.

 

At first I thought it was the angle from the roll axis to the ailerons that was in the D.Va's favor because the D.Va's wings have a narrower gap.  But when I did the algebra the advantage from the narrow wing gap was, again, negligibly small.

 

Also, take it seriously that there is not a single pilot in the German air service who remarked that the D.Va rolled so much better than the D.III.  They would have noticed such an impressive difference.

 

For the most part WW1 scouts were a real bear to maneuver in the roll axis.  Even "easy" to fly aircraft like the SE5a required a lot of rudder for a simple 45 degree bank in order to overcome adverse yaw.  I think only the N17 and a few other aircraft (like the Gotha) give us an accurate impression of how differently WW1 scouts had to be handled compared to aircraft today.


  • 0

#382 J2_Adam

J2_Adam
  • Posts: 2453
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 26 March 2015 - 03:42

I dont agree that we have the D.Va with the overcompresed engine though - that one should be performing better with speeds closer to 190...195km/h.

Just consider what the Austrians did with the Oeffag D.III and how more capable that plane was.

 

The DVa had a DIIIau in it. The DV did not. The general consensus is 185-188kmh for the DVa from what I remember Gav posting. I've never heard of a DVa doing speeds higher than that.


  • 0

#383 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 26 March 2015 - 04:26

Found one for you ;) .  118mph at 10,000ft is 8mph slower than SE5a. 

 

http://i61.tinypic.com/2lcllrd.jpg


  • 0

#384 closed_accont

closed_accont
  • Member
  • Posts: 382

Posted 26 March 2015 - 04:45

...and for the most part, as it has already been stated a few times, German squads are more aplenty and better organized. RoF MP lacks organized Entente squads.

 

yes that is truth Adam, but MK1 point is about plane out of war period context.
considering Wargrounds we have 3 maps terrible for entente:

-Summer Verdun, where N11, N17, Spad7 and Struters face Albs DIII and DVa when to be real they shoud have Alb DII, Alb DII lt, EIII, Halberstad DII nothing more period!

-Autumn Reins, where Pups, Hanriots, N17, Spads7, Tripes and Struters face again Albs DIII and DVa, well maybe the DIII after recons or with numbers limitation, but never DVa's!!

-Spring Verdun Late, where entente counts with Camels but with limit numbers and N28 (very hard to master on fights) and in other hand, free DVa again, and DR1 to balance Camels.
this one need to turn off camel/DR1 limits or Bristols to clear zone when they came patrol over Verdun.
 
thats why DVa have so high numbers on stats, the entente are slaughtered on those maps by them the very best plane to do team work... multi task fighter and fast enough to make presence on every fire trace what pop up on the maps


  • 0

#385 J2_Adam

J2_Adam
  • Posts: 2453
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 26 March 2015 - 04:50

Gus they took out the DVa on some of the map like the early Verdun map. Others have been changed too. Its all good.


  • 0

#386 FourSpeed

FourSpeed
  • Posts: 1772

Posted 26 March 2015 - 08:09

yes that is truth Adam, but MK1 point is about plane out of war period context.
considering Wargrounds we have 3 maps terrible for entente:

-Summer Verdun, where N11, N17, Spad7 and Struters face Albs DIII and DVa when to be real they shoud have Alb DII, Alb DII lt, EIII, Halberstad DII nothing more period!

-Autumn Reins, where Pups, Hanriots, N17, Spads7, Tripes and Struters face again Albs DIII and DVa, well maybe the DIII after recons or with numbers limitation, but never DVa's!!

-Spring Verdun Late, where entente counts with Camels but with limit numbers and N28 (very hard to master on fights) and in other hand, free DVa again, and DR1 to balance Camels.
this one need to turn off camel/DR1 limits or Bristols to clear zone when they came patrol over Verdun.
 
thats why DVa have so high numbers on stats, the entente are slaughtered on those maps by them the very best plane to do team work... multi task fighter and fast enough to make presence on every fire trace what pop up on the maps

 

Hi Gus.

 

We're aware of some of the concerns, and we're making changes to help (we hope) make things more "playable" again.

 

As Adam points out, we've modified a pair of maps, attempting to resolve a number of issues - Winter Cappy, and Summer Verdun were just tweaked a bit this week.

 

As yet, there has been *no* posted feedback on those missions.

 

Still, we're looking at those things, and we're interested to hear how the community feels about them.  We're also looking to carry some of those types of changes
forward to our other maps, as well.

 

 

Regards,

4 :icon_e_salute:


  • 0

#387 GrahamshereGT

GrahamshereGT
  • Member
  • Posts: 1876
  • LocationDeroche,Britsh Columbia,Canada

Posted 26 March 2015 - 08:42

with the change they did on one of the maps (cant remeber) they took the limit off the camel and dr1 and changed the fule from 40% to 30% , That alone did a world of differnce, we could actually fight the dva on some what even ground, not many flew the dr1 , why would they when you have a plane that flys better than any thing in the game. Dva not only flys better but takes way more hits to bring it down and the fire power holy crap batman . tears all our plane apart in just a few bursts or even just 1 burst takes us down. But they still need to make changes in NW wargrounds, Us GT's always stick to our alied planes, cant imagine if we decided to go german, no one would fly alied for sure. I am probably the worst GT if not the whole game but I'm getting better and with the changes coming hopefully I may not get killed as often, Adam I still think your a good guy and a BC buddy but I,m gunning for you lol. GrahamshereGT


  • 0

#388 GrahamshereGT

GrahamshereGT
  • Member
  • Posts: 1876
  • LocationDeroche,Britsh Columbia,Canada

Posted 26 March 2015 - 08:46

Oh 4speed we posted the same time and I didnt see your post, well I did post a feed back on NW forum thanking you and NW. Hope too see more changes, Not sure if the German side liked the changes, Kind of slowed thier kill streek abit, probably would have halted it all together if I didnt fly the Winter Cappy map lol. GrahamshereGT


  • 0

#389 Hellbender

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

Posted 26 March 2015 - 08:50

I agree with Adam that the problem is compounded due to lack of organized squads on the Entente side, and I also agree with Gus that plane selection isn't always optimal on the most popular servers either.

The best possible "community fix" for the D.Va is to eliminate it from 1917 maps altogether. For the Entente on 1918 maps, I think Dolphins are still the best overall option, considering the two late war rotaries we have (N28 and HD.1) are not really able to effectively turnfight the D.Va.

Limiting the number of Camels on 1917 maps is the other big issue. If anything, the SE5a and Dr.I should be limited (they were so historically), and the Camel should be unlimited along with the Albatros D.III and Pfalz D.IIIa. The Pfalz might actually become popular again because of this, as it's a better BnZ'er than the Albatros.

Is any of this going to bring organised Entente squadrons back in full force? I don't know. It's highly unlikely. They were already underrepresented back when the Super Camel reigned supreme, and I think most of the "damage" post-patch is already done. Such a pity that no new planes were announced for preorder.

That said, as much as I'd love to see a 235hp SPAD, Bentley Camel or Snipe to wipe the floor with the D.Va, they would also unfortunately dethrone the Fokker D.VIIF, and for once in the history of RoF, the so-called best scout of the war really is the best right now. It would be a huge step backwards to give that up, and the only possible counter to that would then be the Siemens D.IV.
  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#390 J2_Adam

J2_Adam
  • Posts: 2453
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 26 March 2015 - 09:40

Found one for you ;) .  118mph at 10,000ft is 8mph slower than SE5a. 

 

http://i61.tinypic.com/2lcllrd.j

 

 

Found one for you ;) .  118mph at 10,000ft is 8mph slower than SE5a. 

 

http://i61.tinypic.com/2lcllrd.jpg

 

Where's that from? DV at 190 kmh with a 160 hp. I don't think so. 


  • 0

#391 blackram

blackram
  • Posts: 123

Posted 26 March 2015 - 11:16

...and for the most part, as it has already been stated a few times, German squads are more aplenty and better organized. RoF MP lacks organized Entente squads.

Oh they were in early days..polish guys, IRFC, ruskies....then the bender/darling two seater killing spree....Peter Zvan, Lucas, Requiem and Vaal in one squad would still own you in team fight every f*in time. But I agree its different now. With good reason. New Albies and sopwiths. Allied aces went on other games etc...

 

 

@Lucas - really dude...team play? Yeah with Team speak where you can say to your teammate the exact position on the map unlike real WW1 pilots...yeah....thats the WW1 style team play haha


  • 0

#392 Hellbender

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

Posted 26 March 2015 - 11:53

then the bender/darling two seater killing spree....

 

I wouldn't say those days are completely over, just temporarily on hold (as far as I'm concerned, not sure what the Captain's plans are).

 

:icon_e_biggrin:

 

The Bristol F.III is still as powerful as the F.II pre-patch (which is plenty powerful), it's just become more difficult to find single targets, accounting for excellent Central teamplay. And yes indeed, the D.Va is the opponent to fear right now in the Bristol, followed closely by the D.VIIF and Dr.I, but that is mostly due to how I was used to fly the Bristol before the patch (basically like a turnfighter). You just have to be more careful and calculated in everything you do. Adding g-forces to the gunner would make things even more interesting, but I'm not holding my breath anymore for that...

 

I still think that two people flying two Camels are more effective than two people flying one Bristol (ditto on the Central side: two D.Va definitely beat one Halberstadt CL.II), but I can only encourage more people to team up in two-seaters. They're fun and a legitimate excuse to use Teamspeak, which even Tvrdi Tutko can't deny.


  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#393 closed_accont

closed_accont
  • Member
  • Posts: 382

Posted 26 March 2015 - 15:06

Thanks 4Speed!

you know we GT love to fly on wargrounds, and of course we understand the great work and time expended you have to admin those servers, all I did spoken is for better gameplay experience for all, never intent to negative criticise your work on it.

as Graham said, we'd realize some changes and until now all been welcome, we really appreciate your efforts to brings us all good time.

thanks again extensive to all NW!


  • 0

#394 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 26 March 2015 - 16:08

 

Found one for you ;) .  118mph at 10,000ft is 8mph slower than SE5a. 

 

 

 

 

 

Where's that from? DV at 190 kmh with a 160 hp. I don't think so. 

 

All Mercedes engines were called "160hp," even the overcompressed D.IIIau.  When allied pilots tested the D.VII post-war they would comment that it has a 160hp engine because that is what was stamped on the engine block!


  • 0

#395 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 26 March 2015 - 16:09

I'm really missing the edit function with these new forums. :icon_e_sad:

 

Here is the table Adam and I are discussing:

 

2lcllrd.jpg


  • 0

#396 Hellbender

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

Posted 26 March 2015 - 16:28



I'm really missing the edit function with these new forums. :icon_e_sad:

 

OFFT: Gav, Edit is next to the [MultiQuote] and [Quote] buttons (sort of hidden until you mouse over it).


  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#397 kimmy_yeager

kimmy_yeager
  • Posts: 650

Posted 26 March 2015 - 18:11

Take ANY airplane and bank it 60deg.  The amount of LIFT is must make to stay at the same alt almost  DOUBLES.   Since lift is directly dependant on the velocity of the air over the wing, to make TWICE as much lift the air velocity increase by a factor of ^2.

 

Without increaseing air velocity, the plane WILL slow and the wing makes less and less life and falls.  Normally what happens is a pilot will reduce the bank angle to keep altitude. 

 

Its not about elevator travel. and not, its not about thrust. 


  • 0

#398 GrahamshereGT

GrahamshereGT
  • Member
  • Posts: 1876
  • LocationDeroche,Britsh Columbia,Canada

Posted 26 March 2015 - 18:15

I have been searching and reading every thing I can about the alb dva and so far all I have found is how the plane was hated by the german pilots, how it would just rip its wings off at a dive of any sorts, The baron hated it, Only reason they used it was because they didn't have enough dr1's and and d7,s . . the only reason you centals like it so much is its easy to fly and you get easy kills using it plain and simple. You can show all your graphs and what not but it in real life it was not any were near as good as it is in the GAME. Dont give that crapp its because the alied suck and were not organised, You fly other planes than the dva and we will who sucks. I've even seen some of you cental fly the alies and you didnt last, you went back to central because you couldn't beat the dva. You dont even last in a dr1 compare to the dva. you get shot down and your running back to the alb. Maby C1 and 777 if they have any say any more can do somthing about the n28 if they are keeping the dva as is, give us the uber plane , make it fair.

At the moment the n28 is a flying stick with big guns.This is not real life guys, you only get 1 life in real life not multiple lives like in this GAME. GrahamshereGT


  • 0

#399 BraveSirRobin

BraveSirRobin
  • Member
  • Posts: 6535
  • LocationHackistan

Posted 26 March 2015 - 18:29

Nice rant, Grahamshere.  Here is how the Camel is matching up against the D.Va in Wargrounds this month:

 

Opponent                  Albatros D.Va - won    Albatros D.Va - lost     WL
Sopwith Camel                                     76                              154     0.5
 
A kill ratio of 2-1 isn't good enough for you?

  • 0

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

Free Plank!

 


#400 Hellbender

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

Posted 26 March 2015 - 18:52

 

Nice rant, Grahamshere.  Here is how the Camel is matching up against the D.Va in Wargrounds this month:

 

Opponent                  Albatros D.Va - won    Albatros D.Va - lost     WL
Sopwith Camel                                     76                              154     0.5
 
A kill ratio of 2-1 isn't good enough for you?

 

 

Take your own advice, do not judge stats over the period of a single month, lest we compare you to a 5-year-old.

 

For February:

 

Opponent                  Albatros D.Va - won    Albatros D.Va - lost     WL

 

Sopwith Camel                                    172                              173     1.0
 
 
For January:
 
Opponent                  Albatros D.Va - won    Albatros D.Va - lost     WL
Sopwith Camel                                    180                              236     0.8
 
 
The only trend I can see is that there are less and less Camel vs. D.Va fights, nothing more. 

  • 0

J5_Hellbender



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users