Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Features you'd like to see in FC?


  • Please log in to reply
79 replies to this topic

#41 Ice_Age

Ice_Age
  • Member
  • Posts: 1408
  • LocationRyabinki

Posted 16 April 2018 - 15:17

Whatever they do or don’t do about flight models, somebody is bound to be dissatisfied, and in the flamewars that will ensue, as with RoF and any other flightsim, it will be very difficult to distinguish between people who know what they are talking about, people who have nothing more than a good historical anecdote, but otherwise have no clue, or flat out fanboys of any given aircraft.
  • 0

#42 highty7

highty7
  • Member
  • Posts: 1

Posted 16 April 2018 - 16:33

Hi everybody

Very excited about Flying Circus. Sure it'll be great.

 

What about the SPAD XII with a 37mm single shot canon and a kind of manual or slow reloading and smoke in the cockpit after each shot ?


  • 1

#43 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2230
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 16 April 2018 - 16:36

Whatever they do or don’t do about flight models, somebody is bound to be dissatisfied, and in the flamewars that will ensue, as with RoF and any other flightsim, it will be very difficult to distinguish between people who know what they are talking about, people who have nothing more than a good historical anecdote, but otherwise have no clue, or flat out fanboys of any given aircraft.

 

 

The bold part is the typical dev's statement to say "we don't know what we are doing". 

 

There are some pretty clear middle grounds if you really know the aircraft you are flying or if you study it. And the talk is always the same -- the "uber Dr.1", the "uber Camel" even after the nerfing. There are people unaware that the Dr.1 was nerfed. There are people unaware that the Camel now climbs like an old dog, or that the original Camel climbed worse than the current Henriot and D8 (13% slower to 3km). And this is how a nerfing process starts. If you fly a Spad or a SE5a or an Albie, I understand your 'neutral' stance, but if people get together to trash your rides, and you know that it usually is followed by a nerfing, then you will stand up from your seat and fight because you are basically fighting to don't be penalized, which is a cheat.

 

It is the same people that try to outturn these aircraft on the servers, that don't know how to work with their own aircraft. This is how sometimes I can shot down multiple Albatroses (D.Va) with a nerfed Camel with full real loads (the Camel really gets slugish). And then these same people come to the forum crying for a further nerfing.

 

So it is not a flame war. The players of aircraft like the Dr.1 and Camel are always under attack and the devs seems to be sympathetic with the attackers (market purposes? Who knows). Then it is an eternal work of feeding some information so that my ride doesn't get further nerfed.

 

So yes, it is frustrating.


  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#44 Hrafn_Kolbrandr

Hrafn_Kolbrandr
  • Posts: 530

Posted 16 April 2018 - 18:32

The old Camel was over modelled for the engine ours has- that is a fact. There was little reason to fly anything else, barring of course, the DR1. I think Ice Age is completely correct, especially in his third example. Some people were very upset when their preferred ride lost its uberplane status.

Unfortunately, the Nerf went a little too far (probably because the state persisted so long that it had reached boiling), and some others which were less deserving of a Nerf, got caught in the crossfire.
  • 0

#45 J2_Trupobaw

J2_Trupobaw
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 3980
  • LocationKraków / Poland

Posted 16 April 2018 - 19:41

How so? The original Dr.1 climbed a tad worse than the D8, same engine.

The level of ignorance and disinformation in this forum and in ROF is appealing. If you don't know what you are talking about or if you don't know the plane that you are talking about, please, don't come with those multiplayer biased opinions.

1. At top speed, you may be right. But anywhere closer to stall speed? It climbs nowhere like SS has right to.
<Mod hat on>
2. Stop telling people what opinions they can or can't come with here. That's my and Panthers prerogative.
3. Drop the confrontational tone and personal attacks from what you have to say. Whatever your insight is, this attitude is not welcome on this forum. I let you slip the standards here, others will follow.
</Mod hat on>
  • 0

Forum moderator.

Adjutant, Jasta 2 ''Boelcke'' http://jasta2.org

"The hardest part of my job is being nice to people who think they know how to do my job."


#46 J2_Trupobaw

J2_Trupobaw
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 3980
  • LocationKraków / Poland

Posted 16 April 2018 - 19:50

Whatever they do or don’t do about flight models, somebody is bound to be dissatisfied, and in the flamewars that will ensue, as with RoF and any other flightsim, it will be very difficult to distinguish between people who know what they are talking about, people who have nothing more than a good historical anecdote, but otherwise have no clue, or flat out fanboys of any given aircraft.

It's a damn mess for WW1. Nowadays, we have international standards for instruments and atmospheric conditions the performance is measured in, and there's still some hit and miss element. Back then, every instrument manufacturer could measure flight performance to different standards.

Only way to get reliable data would be to put modern instruments in otherwise airworthy replicas and test all planes in same weather. Anything else has huge margins of error.
  • 1

Forum moderator.

Adjutant, Jasta 2 ''Boelcke'' http://jasta2.org

"The hardest part of my job is being nice to people who think they know how to do my job."


#47 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2230
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 16 April 2018 - 20:07

Only way to get reliable data would be to put modern instruments in otherwise airworthy replicas and test all planes in same weather. Anything else has huge margins of error.

 

Hence why they should work on a relative performance chart, an idea suggested by PatAWilson years ago. There are some undeniable facts like MvR saying the Tripehound was faster, more maneuverable and climbed better than the D3, because he had a captured Tripe to test and fly. Voss fought the 56sq alone because he left two Pfalzes behind in his Dr.1. He was so far at the horizon when the merge happened that his wingmen weren't sure who was who.

 

That kind of data, together with classic tests, would be enough to build a well woven chart that would be harder to question. 

 

And most of the misunderstandings in this forum regarding rotary engined planes in the past was due to the altitude performance, a thing that even today people have a hard time to understand. People have to come to grips that both the Camel and the Dr.1 at low altitude were a handful. Exactly the altitude people love to hang out in ROF.


  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#48 J2_Trupobaw

J2_Trupobaw
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 3980
  • LocationKraków / Poland

Posted 16 April 2018 - 21:59

MvR was pushing for IdFlieg to not sit on their laurels with success of Albatros D.III, and to keep new types of German scouts coming.

German high command did exactly that in early 1916, sitting on Eindeckers while their aces called to replace it with fast biplanes. Only when hundereds of N17 were unleashed on Verdun they woke up. German pilots were traumatised by the experience, and evetything MvR says about Albattosen need to be seen in this perspective. He wasn't making objective witness statements for posterity, he was lobbying for better planes.
  • 0

Forum moderator.

Adjutant, Jasta 2 ''Boelcke'' http://jasta2.org

"The hardest part of my job is being nice to people who think they know how to do my job."


#49 raaaaid

raaaaid
  • Posts: 2150

Posted 16 April 2018 - 22:23

i hope it runs in low end systems like war thunder


  • 0

all right doctor we got a deal i let you finger me and you extend my life

 

zen proverbs: the masochist boxer always wins,to be a real boy you need to be brave truthfull and unselfish


#50 Ice_Age

Ice_Age
  • Member
  • Posts: 1408
  • LocationRyabinki

Posted 16 April 2018 - 22:26

I wouldn’t count on it.
  • 0

#51 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2230
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 16 April 2018 - 23:19

MvR was pushing for IdFlieg to not sit on their laurels with success of Albatros D.III, and to keep new types of German scouts coming.

German high command did exactly that in early 1916, sitting on Eindeckers while their aces called to replace it with fast biplanes. Only when hundereds of N17 were unleashed on Verdun they woke up. German pilots were traumatised by the experience, and evetything MvR says about Albattosen need to be seen in this perspective. He wasn't making objective witness statements for posterity, he was lobbying for better planes.

 

Good lord... It wasn't just MvR. And the Tripehound wasn't his. It was with the German air force.

 

Everyone in this forum knows the Tripe was vastly superior to the D3. 


  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#52 Hrafn_Kolbrandr

Hrafn_Kolbrandr
  • Posts: 530

Posted 17 April 2018 - 00:35

What was the reason that the allies didn't mass produce this tri-winged superplane?

Asking for real.
  • 0

#53 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2230
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 17 April 2018 - 01:12

What was the reason that the allies didn't mass produce this tri-winged superplane?

Asking for real.

 

It was an aircraft hard to mantain (IIRC) and the Entende side had the manufacture power to produce new and better machines, like the Camel, SE5 and newer Spads. So there was no point in keeping it in service. At the other side, you have to remember that the Germans had to put up with Albies and Pfalzes for a long time because they simply had no other option.


  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#54 J2_Wulfe

J2_Wulfe
  • Member
  • Posts: 255

Posted 17 April 2018 - 01:19

<Mod hat on>
*snip*
</Mod hat on>

He left the mod hat on....oh god...HE LEFT THE MOD HAT ON!


  • 0

Wulfe, Flieger von Jagdstaffel 2 "Boelcke".

cDS2KiC.pngpRpJYMe.png

 


#55 I_Got_Shot

I_Got_Shot
  • Posts: 126

Posted 17 April 2018 - 02:39

What was the reason that the allies didn't mass produce this tri-winged superplane?

 

Thomas Sopwith and the head designer, Herbert Smith, both realised that the Triplane was actually a development dead end. The whole reason the aircraft was built was to provide the pilot of the Pups that it replaced in RNAS service with better visibility - It was vastly superior in climb but reportedly slower in a dive against the current crop of German aircraft it was flying against. In saying that, though superior, they were still shot down in combat. It all depends on the tactical situation that the aircraft was involved in at the time of the engagement.

 

Several reason, but one of the most important reasons it wasn't produced in more numbers was the RFC didn't want and swapped it's ordered aircraft with the Admiralty for the Admiralties ordered Spad VII's. This resulted in a small production run and all it's attendant problems. It was the RNAS on the Western Front who showed how superior it was. But already Sopwith was working on a replacement which was to become Camel. The French Navy air arm were supplied with one squadron of aircraft (17 aircraft in total) but didn't like them and they were handed back to the British (those still flying) at a later date. Fuel and oil tanks were hard to access and maintain and required the removal of the wings, spare parts were hard to get and even minor repairs had to done at better equipped field maintenance units and couldn't be done at a Sqn level. So the Tripes in service life was short and it was replaced by the superior Camel. Those Tripes that did remain went to training units back in the UK and flew until the end of the war.  

 

Shot


  • 0

#56 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2230
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 17 April 2018 - 03:23

He left the mod hat on....oh god...HE LEFT THE MOD HAT ON!

 

I had not seeing that. He double posted and I only read the second post.

 

J2_Trupobaw, I edited my post, but your post is very similar to every post intended to water down arguments in this forum, which I from my turn found to be odd honestly coming from you.


  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#57 Hrafn_Kolbrandr

Hrafn_Kolbrandr
  • Posts: 530

Posted 17 April 2018 - 03:44

Thank you for the Tripelore fellas! :)
  • 1

#58 J2_Trupobaw

J2_Trupobaw
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 3980
  • LocationKraków / Poland

Posted 17 April 2018 - 07:19

I had not seeing that. He double posted and I only read the second post.

J2_Trupobaw, I edited my post, but your post is very similar to every post intended to water down arguments in this forum, which I from my turn found to be odd honestly coming from you.


All I said was, Dr.I airframe behaves nothing like SS would, and engine power fiddling alone won't change that. Shot is still bitter about Camel nerf, and what he brings it it should be read in that context (much like MvR ;) ). My post was aimed to bring is back to topic, before it went into nickpicking and personsl remarks. I'll split off the Tripe foscusion when on PC and we can continue that.

As of SS, differences do include climb performance, (underpowered triplane airframe climbing almost as fast as same power monoplane can't be trusted to model an overpowered biplane with fidelity), but especially stability and rotary effect. SS had bi-rotary engine and Snipe was said to be much more docile than Camel; pre-2014 Camel and Dr.I were crazy rotary rides.
  • 0

Forum moderator.

Adjutant, Jasta 2 ''Boelcke'' http://jasta2.org

"The hardest part of my job is being nice to people who think they know how to do my job."


#59 I_Got_Shot

I_Got_Shot
  • Posts: 126

Posted 17 April 2018 - 08:23

Bitter, never ........... well maybe!

 

I agree the Camel was in fact slightly to quick in game pre nerf - but I can't get my 1035ft per in / 1085ft per min climb (depending on what stats and books you look at) and the Camel certainly lacks the ability to climb with the Albatros that it was clearly superior to. Add to the fact that it was demonstrably faster than a Dr.1 - the only advantage that it actually had over it and clearly the current Camel is a shadow of it's real capability in game. It was fully capable of flying at 10000ft it was above this altitude that the engine started to struggle and this was acknowledged by the powers in charge hence the Spads and SE.5a were given the high level patrols. If you take the time to read the tasking orders issued by the sector commands for the relevant Sqn it is clear that the Camels patrol patch was 6000 to 12000ft when it first entered service. 

 

I know the Albatros pilots (in game) are of the belief that it was a match but it was the arrival of the Camel (and SE.5a / Spads) that made that family of aircraft obsolete even the over-compressed engines couldn't compete against the new Entente aircraft that arrived on the front. The Camel only became obsolete as the next generation German aircraft arrived at the front and this obsolescence wasn't because of the Camels lack of fighting capability it was due to speed at altitude. Hence the arrival of the Fokker D.VII, Pfalz XII and I suppose the limited run Roland VIb are what made it obsolete at altitude - but if those aircrafts pilots were stupid enough to engage the Camel within it's flight envelope and attempted to fight it on it's terms at the lower levels then for the most part they lost. The Camel continued front line service until the end of the war conducting low level strikes and patrols.

 

The Camel was reputed to have shot down 1294 German aircraft on the Western Front. In combat 413 camel pilots were killed and a further 385 lost to non combat related incidents. How accurate those figures are I don't know.

 

It was a bitch to fly and stalled viciously when mishandled. The ongoing myth that it turned faster to the right than the left continues to be perpetuated although this has myth has been well and truly busted. What killed new pilots in the Camel and where the myth appears to have come from is that when turning left and climbing the plane stalled as it lost speed as it fought the torque of the engine and in inexperienced hands this almost always resulted in the pilots death at low level. Rule of thumb don't take off and climb steeply to the left at low speed.

 

We already know that RoF will not provide a real Camel and knowing this we also know that we aren't going to get a real one in Flying Circus. I'd like a faster climb and enough speed to run away from the much slower (or should be) Fokker Dr.1. An engine that doesn't start to die 100 feet above the ground (yes I'm exaggerating but only by a couple of thousand feet) and be able to fight at 10000ft, not be restricted to 6600ft and lower. At the moment the Dr.1 is as fast if not faster and it's engine has no issues at altitude.  Lets not mention that in a dive you can stall the Camel - I'm not even sure that should be possible - but I can do it off the right wing if not gentle/smooth enough when diving aggressively. 

 

Even so with all these faults I still get satisfaction flying it in game and I'm sure I'll continue to have fun with it in Flying Circus.  


  • 0

#60 Hellbender

Hellbender
  • Posts: 3262
  • LocationMadrid, Spain (originally Brussels, Belgium)

Posted 17 April 2018 - 11:44

Whatever they do or don’t do about flight models, somebody is bound to be dissatisfied, and in the flamewars that will ensue, as with RoF and any other flightsim, it will be very difficult to distinguish between people who know what they are talking about, people who have nothing more than a good historical anecdote, but otherwise have no clue, or flat out fanboys of any given aircraft.

 

As a fanboy of the Bristol and Halberstadt, I really implore the devs that we get g-forces on gunners, and that multi-seaters can no longer be flown from a gunner position -- also across all BoX planes.

 

Turrets are incredibly powerful even in unaccelerated flight, and it should become gradually harder to move the guns in tightening turns or steepening climbs/descents, becoming impossible under a load of more than positive 2 g (e.g. 60 degree turn) or negative 1 g (e.g. flying upside down) to move or fire at all. Contrary to what one may think, this will not reduce the effectiveness of the Bristol in historical scenarios, where attacks are performed either from above or below the enemy.

 

bristol-fighter-volume-1-26-p.jpg

 

It will lend two-seaters more credibility in dogfights, especially when we get an influx of new players to try them out.

 

I'm not holding my breath for them to actually fix this, but I do promise that I will keep working tirelessly and at great personal cost to get this issue noticed by the devs.

 

:icon_e_biggrin:


  • 0

#61 J2_Trupobaw

J2_Trupobaw
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 3980
  • LocationKraków / Poland

Posted 17 April 2018 - 11:56

 

I know the Albatros pilots (in game) are of the belief that it was a match but it was the arrival of the Camel (and SE.5a / Spads) that made that family of aircraft obsolete even the over-compressed engines couldn't compete against the new Entente aircraft that arrived on the front. 

 

No contradiction there, RFC had numbers on heir side. One on one, Camel and Albatros were matched by most conteporatyaccounts I saw, and "matched" wasn't good enough for Germans to handle numerical advantage. Their measuring stick was advantage D.III enjoyed during Bloody April, and anything below was not superior enough.

Raw kill numbers are affected by the fact that Camel was most-deployed RFC plane (since it run on widely-available rotary engines). Same way most of BoB kills were done by Hurricanes. Outside RFC, French used much more cautious approach then British (which were only service under orders to go look for the fight then get stuck in for sake of it). So yes, Camels were responsible for biggest volume of downed planes, no surprises there. 


  • 0

Forum moderator.

Adjutant, Jasta 2 ''Boelcke'' http://jasta2.org

"The hardest part of my job is being nice to people who think they know how to do my job."


#62 J2_Bidu

J2_Bidu
  • Posts: 534

Posted 17 April 2018 - 15:07

As a fanboy of the Bristol and Halberstadt, I really implore the devs that we get g-forces on gunners, and that multi-seaters can no longer be flown from a gunner position -- also across all BoX planes.

Turrets are incredibly powerful even in unaccelerated flight, and it should become gradually harder to move the guns in tightening turns or steepening climbs/descents, becoming impossible under a load of more than positive 2 g (e.g. 60 degree turn) or negative 1 g (e.g. flying upside down) to move or fire at all


+1
  • 0

#63 JoeCrow

JoeCrow
  • Posts: 4135

Posted 17 April 2018 - 18:34

I'd like reasonable rigging options so we can custom rig our planes for specific purposes where historically appropriate.
Propellor pitch/type, tailplane incidence, dihedral adjust etc

Perfectly acceptable stuff for a car SIM.

 

+1

Perfect. A personal ground crew would be brilliant.  We would then stand or fall by our own decisions.


  • 0

#64 Ice_Age

Ice_Age
  • Member
  • Posts: 1408
  • LocationRyabinki

Posted 17 April 2018 - 19:20

+1
Perfect. A personal ground crew would be brilliant. We would then stand or fall by our own decisions.

I’m pretty sure Rise of Flight already gives us the ability to succeed or fail based on the merits of our own decisions!
  • 0

#65 IFlyCentral

IFlyCentral
  • Posts: 170
  • LocationTerok Nor

Posted 17 April 2018 - 20:50

I’m pretty sure Rise of Flight already gives us the ability to succeed or fail based on the merits of our own decisions!

Standard feature of almost all flight sims. 


  • 0

-Aviation Cheat Codes-

 
7500 - Fly Formation with F-16
7600 - ATC Mute Button
7700 - Priority Landing Anywhere

 


#66 JoeCrow

JoeCrow
  • Posts: 4135

Posted 17 April 2018 - 22:10

I’m pretty sure Rise of Flight already gives us the ability to succeed or fail based on the merits of our own decisions!

Well, that's always true of course but this time we are talking about aerodynamic decisions versus realtime piloting decisions.

Cheers.


  • 0

#67 J2_Wulfe

J2_Wulfe
  • Member
  • Posts: 255

Posted 17 April 2018 - 23:25

I have to say, it would be pretty interesting if pilots could fiddle around with their planes in order to maximise performance based on their play style...

 

However, I kinda doubt we'd ever get anything like that  :(


  • 0

Wulfe, Flieger von Jagdstaffel 2 "Boelcke".

cDS2KiC.pngpRpJYMe.png

 


#68 J2_Trupobaw

J2_Trupobaw
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 3980
  • LocationKraków / Poland

Posted 17 April 2018 - 23:55

BoX has implemented trims and variable prop pitch already. So being able to trim your plane on the ground, or choose the prop, is a reachable goal.
  • 0

Forum moderator.

Adjutant, Jasta 2 ''Boelcke'' http://jasta2.org

"The hardest part of my job is being nice to people who think they know how to do my job."


#69 Ice_Age

Ice_Age
  • Member
  • Posts: 1408
  • LocationRyabinki

Posted 18 April 2018 - 00:37

No, no, no. We all know that World War 2 Planes in BoX have pilot controllable trim tabs or variable incidence stabilizers (as do a few RoF planes) and controllable constant speed and/or variable pitch props. But you should not equate those things to what is being asked for here. I think DCS has ground adjustable Flettner tabs for Bf-109 ailerons, which is a bit closer to what those guys are talking about, in terms of ground crew pre-configuring things. In a way, I think RoF already goes a bit too far in my opinion by allowing you to bias the controls along the axis, for instance to provide a “trim” of sorts. As far as swapping out propellers in ww1 planes, I’ve never heard of some pilot coming in and saying “put on the climb prop for this sortie, Fritz”, or “give me the cruising prop”, if even these things were on hand for any particular airplane. Sure, there were pilots that tweaked things with their planes and engines, but I think developers have to be careful not to open up a can of worms with stuff like that.
  • 0

#70 US103_Furlow

US103_Furlow
  • Member
  • Posts: 341
  • LocationSomewhere

Posted 18 April 2018 - 03:22

Wasn't there propellers of various pitches supplied to jastas; to be used on the albatross series some for climbing and some for higher straight line speed?  Thought I heard that somewhere.  Either read that at the aerodrome forums or here.


  • 0

 Dear chaps, I'm time warping to 1940, see you over the English channel. Salute!


#71 US103_Baer

US103_Baer
  • Posts: 253

Posted 18 April 2018 - 04:20

Adjustable game sound levels.

I find the default balance annoying.
RoF has a very large wind noise increase when you lean outside the cockpit. In poor visibility planes like a Spad you have to constantly be doing this. After a session of just an hour using headphones, I find my ears ringing from all that white noise.

So you end up turning the overall game volume down, but then normal flight levels of engine, gun etc are way too quiet. Can use speakers too of course, but thats no good for TS.

Actually rather concerned about the effects long-term. Game makers should consider health aspects seriously.
  • 0

"Gathering his pilots around him on arrival he gave a pep talk, saying that they were equipped with the finest machine of all time and had three battle-experienced flight commanders. He expected every one of them to fight like hell and that it must never be said that any of them ever failed to go to the aid of a comrade, regardless of the cost, and that no patrol was ever to be late in taking off."

 

Major Keith 'Grid' Caldwell, 74 Sq


#72 J2_Adam

J2_Adam
  • Posts: 2416
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted 18 April 2018 - 04:23

Wasn't there propellers of various pitches supplied to jastas; to be used on the albatross series some for climbing and some for higher straight line speed?  Thought I heard that somewhere.  Either read that at the aerodrome forums or here.

 

Good read here:

http://www.theaerodr...?t=34001&page=3


  • 1
1mUlMuE.png
Hauptmann 
Jagdstaffel 2 "Boelcke"
 
xfnaaHq.jpg
 

#73 Ice_Age

Ice_Age
  • Member
  • Posts: 1408
  • LocationRyabinki

Posted 18 April 2018 - 05:16

Adjustable game sound levels.
I find the default balance terrible.
RoF has a very large wind noise increase when you lean outside the cockpit. In poor visibility planes like a Spad you have to constantly be doing this. After a session of just an hour using headphones, I find my ears ringing from all that white noise.

Actually rather concerned about the effects long-term. Game makers should consider health aspects seriously.


If you start to get hard of hearing, just turn the volume up a little louder to compensate.
  • 0

#74 JoeCrow

JoeCrow
  • Posts: 4135

Posted 18 April 2018 - 06:11

No, no, no. We all know that World War 2 Planes in BoX have pilot controllable trim tabs or variable incidence stabilizers (as do a few RoF planes) and controllable constant speed and/or variable pitch props. But you should not equate those things to what is being asked for here. I think DCS has ground adjustable Flettner tabs for Bf-109 ailerons, which is a bit closer to what those guys are talking about, in terms of ground crew pre-configuring things. In a way, I think RoF already goes a bit too far in my opinion by allowing you to bias the controls along the axis, for instance to provide a “trim” of sorts. As far as swapping out propellers in ww1 planes, I’ve never heard of some pilot coming in and saying “put on the climb prop for this sortie, Fritz”, or “give me the cruising prop”, if even these things were on hand for any particular airplane. Sure, there were pilots that tweaked things with their planes and engines, but I think developers have to be careful not to open up a can of worms with stuff like that.

I can see your concerns but in WW1 the ground crew were responsible for trimming the aircraft and this includes trimming for level-flight speed 'on the ground'. They were strictly limited in what they could achieve by the thrust-to-weight ratio of the aircraft concerned but they did indeed have a stock of various props. These mostly sacrifice airspeed for acceleration and vice-versa. They operate more efficiently at specific altitudes; less so at others. They were the ancestor of the variable-pitch prop.

 

Some WW1 aircraft already have the added advantage of an in-flight trimwheel to trim on-the-fly but no consideration is given to on-the-ground trimming by the ground crew. Presently, we have a joystick-curve system which artificially uses the joystick and elevator as a substitute for trimming the horizontal stabilizer itself on-the-ground.

Cheers.


  • 0

#75 J2_Bidu

J2_Bidu
  • Posts: 534

Posted 18 April 2018 - 08:27

Who cares about all that rigging stuff?! Just give me a floor Lewis gun that can shoot downwards and I'll have a Ball!
  • 0

#76 Hellbender

Hellbender
  • Posts: 3262
  • LocationMadrid, Spain (originally Brussels, Belgium)

Posted 18 April 2018 - 11:36

Yeah I'm not sold on prop variants either. There's pretty much zero reason you'd ever pick a cruise prop over a climb prop anyway.

 

Okay, maybe I got shot down for the tenth time today, but for a brief moment there, think of the fuel efficiency I reached during the cruise! Just give us all climb props, this isn't an airline.


  • 0

#77 J2_Trupobaw

J2_Trupobaw
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 3980
  • LocationKraków / Poland

Posted 18 April 2018 - 12:38

Fuel efficiency was a signifcant problem for Germans.

IIRC the two Dr.I prottypes were equipped with climbing props and production ones used cruising props.

 

Undocumented use of different props is one of reasons on why the historical partial performance data we have is so inconsistent and insufficient, both for getting exact performance of one type and comparing their relative performance. On top of fuel quality, battle damage, engine wear, unreliable instruments not adhering to the same standards of measurement between countries...


  • 0

Forum moderator.

Adjutant, Jasta 2 ''Boelcke'' http://jasta2.org

"The hardest part of my job is being nice to people who think they know how to do my job."


#78 Kelp44

Kelp44
  • Posts: 104
  • LocationBelgium

Posted 18 April 2018 - 15:49

...., and that multi-seaters can no longer be flown from a gunner position -- also across all BoX planes.

 

....

 

There is little that can be done against.
 
If somebody really wants to all needed is a 2de account – doesn’t even need the planes – and 2 PCs side by side on lan.
And just imagine adding one of those new split screen jobs ... LOL
 
However congrats for the very good ideas in this thread!

  • 0

#79 Hellbender

Hellbender
  • Posts: 3262
  • LocationMadrid, Spain (originally Brussels, Belgium)

Posted 18 April 2018 - 18:48

Haha, with enough dedication anything is possible!

Still, there’s no free accounts for gunners in BoX, so if you want to man two positions, you’ll have to buy two accounts.
  • 0

#80 Kelp44

Kelp44
  • Posts: 104
  • LocationBelgium

Posted 18 April 2018 - 20:38

:icon_lol: Some just stop at nothing :icon_mad:

 

However for BOX I presume a single standard module may do, like BOS with 66% off  in a sale period makes it 17 USD?


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users