Sorry, I meant to include this in my previous response.

Originally posted by VonHelton:
You mean I imagined the vitriol in the 50 planes thread?

Yeah if by vitriol you mean, "virulence of feeling or of speech." There was a distinct lack of vitriol by the folks replying to you. I honestly think some of us (heck all of us) are trying to stay on topic and exchange information with you. I would submit that you have dismissed those of us (that challenge your statements) with very little in the way of documented support.

The discussion sometimes got side tracked with your ability to build "two complete models in six days" and such, but you have not made a compelling case for including the early Fokker biplanes.

Not a single person is suggesting that any of the german rotary powered planes would be unwelcome additions. As additions they would truly round out the game, no arguments. But blasting the developer for not including models you determined were essential? Come on...

I know you are suspicious of factual data used in these threads, do you know the number 1 cause of German Air Service casualties from 1914-1918? [see page 8 of Franks, et al "Casualties of the German Air Service"]

Of the 16,054 casualties, 3,496 were killed in training accidents "at home" while another 3,353 were killed in non-combat accidents on all fronts. Aerial combat accounted for 5,850 casualties. Being generous with the ratio, lets say that for every two combat deaths one GAS pilot dies in an accident at the front (Boelcke) and another dies back in the Fatherland. Hey a kill's a kill.

Glancing at Trevor Henshaw's "The Sky Their Battlefield," I see he has two appendices with detailed summaries of RFC (RAF/RNAS) and USAS losses by month (broken down by aircraft too).

Couple things stand out, total casualties (Tot CAS) for 1914: 28 with 11 of those East of Lines, EoL)...

1915: Tot KIA 53 Tot CAS 192 (EoL 108)
1916: Tot KIA 293 Tot CAS 703 (EoL 352)
1917: Tot KIA 1195 Tot CAS 2545 (EoL 1381)
1918: Tot KIA 1530 Tot CAS 3526 (EoL 2061)
Totals KIA 3077 CAS 6994 (EoL 3913)

Statistically speaking the German Air Service wasn't actually kickin' butt (large numbers) until 1917. I'm happy to let you fill in the stats for the French Air Service.

Please take a moment to pause before you paint anyone that disputes your position, as a sqweeker, propagandist, or member of the peanut gallery. I've got absolutely no position on the merits of any airplane being modeled...I'm interested in the history not unsupported conjecture. I'd submit that several of us would sincerely like to learn the specific source of your claims. I am ALWAYS ready and willing to learn.

Robey [edit multiple typos]

I actually had a copy of The Sky Their Battlefield in my hands at the beginning of the week but didn't buy it. There was too much other stuff to buy, so much in fact that in the end I didn't buy anything.

Does the book quote possible causes of the casualty?
In Bloody April fighter attacks would have been causing significant kills to British aircraft and there would have been a kill peak at that point. Combat losses would drop back to a lower level for the rest of 1917, particularly after the camel and SE make an appearance.
In 1918 the biggest casualty generator for the British was bombing/straffing/low level reconnaisance to stop the German spring offensive.
All right down on the deck where the pilots had little chance to avoid being hit and impartial, unlike air-to-air where experience keeps you alive.

Von Helton, have you contacted the mobo manufacturer? They could probably send you a replacement BIOS EEPROM and fitting tool for little money. Far cheaper than buying a new board.

Originally posted by SunScream:
Does the book quote possible causes of the casualty?

Oh yes...the two charts (appendices) are very small print; they break down shootdowns by Grnd Fire, AA (air-to-air), Comb (combination of both), Eng/Etc, Other/not known...

In Bloody April fighter attacks would have been causing significant kills to British aircraft and there would have been a kill peak at that point.

Hmmmm....

Mar 1917: GF-4, AA-11, Comb-115, E/E-0, Unkn-2
Apr 1917: GF-8, AA-26, Comb-235, E/E-3, Unkn-4
May 1917: GF-10, AA-33, Comb-153, E/E-1, Unkn-4
Jun 1917: GF-11, AA-29, Comb-114, E/E-5, Unkn-2
Jul 1917: GF-14, AA-30, Comb-140, E/E-1, Unkn-2

Aug and Sep 1917 are both slightly higher than Jul 1917.

Combat losses would drop back to a lower level for the rest of 1917, particularly after the camel and SE make an appearance.

Sopwith Strutter losses for Apr 1917 to Aug 1917 run fairly constant in the mid teens.

Nieuport 17 losses decrease starting with Apr 1917 there were 30, then 20, 19, 14, finally in Aug 1917 just 9.

F2b and DH-4 losses remain in the 20's starting in Jul 1917.

The RE8 actually gets worse starting in Jun 1917-35, 50, 39, 32, 33, thru Dec 1917 with 17 losses.

Robey

Thanks for the data, Robey.
I really wish I had bought that book!

The trends are fairly visible.
RE8 loss increase was likely due to some BE squadrons being upgraded (if that is the right word) to REs after April 1917.
The Nieuport 17 figures are interesting to compare with the two-seaters. Do all fighters follow the same pattern?
It's difficult to determine without taking other aircraft numbers into account.

Originally posted by SunScream:
The trends are fairly visible.
RE8 loss increase was likely due to some BE squadrons being upgraded (if that is the right word) to REs after April 1917.

Right you are, BE2's last combat loss was in Jul 1917.

The Nieuport 17 figures are interesting to compare with the two-seaters. Do all fighters follow the same pattern?

The Pup and SPAD 7 were very similar; 104 Pup, 103 SPAD and 114 N.17 losses in roughly the same service period.

I'm looking at the trend in two-seater losses, using Jul 1917 as the starting point, thru the end of the war. I don't have a clue about relative/absolute numbers of airframes , I am omitting the FE2b numbers because except for 10 losses in Oct 1917 usually only 4 to 6 planes are lost with a total of 90 in last 17 months of the war (90 / 17 = 5.2)

But here are the monthly losses (again starting with July 1917 to Nov 1918) for the RE8, Bristol F2b, DH4, and AW FK8.

RE8: 35-50-39-32-33-17-6-15-53-46-26-13-26-59-58-61-13

F2b: 11-21-21-27-13-8-10-5-36-18-31-20-18-21-56-19-9

DH4: 21-23-12-15-4-7-10-13-39-14-31-39-21-44-56-15-4

FK8: 3-3-3-2-9-6-5-4-33-32-15-7-7-23-20-28-4

If you add the DH9 starting with Apr 1918 (first loss) you get...

DH9: 8-29-39-63-72-80-51-19

Late summer 1918 would not have been healthy for a DH9 pilot or observer.

Cheers,

Robey

[QUOTE]Originally posted by VonHelton:

1. If rotary engines are so bad, why are most of the allied planes using this engine?

2. If the germans didn't have any success with rotary engines, why did they continue to build planes with those engines?

3. If rotary engines were so bad, why were the first radial engines made out of converted rotaries?

Been doing some digging on this subject of rotary engine use in the GAF. I have no interest in getting into any kind of debate, but here is what I learned -

The best rotary engine designs originated in France. Germany had committed solely to development of in-line aero engines and had no experience in rotary engine design or development before the war. To give an idea of German favoritism toward in-line engines, of the 40,000 plus aero engines built in Germany during WW1, well over 80 percent were in-lines.

This lack of pre-war attention paid to rotary engine development in Germany serves to explain Oberursel's decision to copy the French LeRhone design. As it turned out, Oberursel-built rotaries turned out to be rather less durable than their French counterparts. This was due partly to the German use of different component materials in the manufacture of their engines themselves, and partly to the specialized lubrication requirements particular to the rotary engine.

Rotary engines utilized a total loss lubrication system, in which the lubricant was introduced to the cylinders along with the fuel-air mixture. It went in through the intake, coated the moving surfaces, and then went out through the exhaust. Lubricant was consumed in the same manner as fuel. Castor oil was the optimum lubricant during this period for use in rotary engines, due to certain favorable properties of behavior.

The problem facing the Germans was a shortage of castor oil due to the naval blockade. Ersatz and substitute lubricants did not do a good job. Lack of suitable lubricants was the main reason why the entire park of rotary-engined German aircraft was grounded in March 1918.

The Allies relied heavily upon rotary-engined aircraft, at least in the first three years of the war, for a very simple reason. They had no in-line aero engine designs available which were suitable for use in a fighter aircraft. They were all far too heavy for the power which they produced. The Allies therefore adopted French rotary engines, which offered sufficient power in a very much lighter package. In fact, I can think of no Allied fighter aircraft powered by an in-line engine before 1917. A freely available supply of castor oil for lubrication made this option possible.

It is instructive to note that the Allies were not necessarily in love with rotary engines either. When the Hispano-Suiza in-line engine was offered to them out of neutral Spain, Great Britain and France moved heaven and earth to obtain the licensing and build plants to mass produce this engine for the SE5 and SPAD series fighters. The Hisso in-line, being an aluminum block engine, was able to offer much higher power output than rotaries with similarly light weight package.

To answer question 2, it is necessary to note that the Germans did not build very many rotary engine aircraft, compared to the vast numbers of in-line powered aircraft serving in the GAF. Very few rotary engine aircraft were built or served in 1918. Their numbers were restricted by a shortage of suitable lubricants. By 1918, probably 9 of 10 German fighters at the front were in-lines.

Question 3 really is not germaine. It might have just been a cheap and easy conversion to evaluate the radial design concept.


LB

Will it fix my AGP Slot so that it works again?

Which OS and AntiVirus do you use?
Do you know which Worm/virus it was?
What have you done to the computer so far to correct this?

XP
Norton
No, not really.
I'm running on a RCI vid card at the moment.

Ok, lets ignore getting a new BIOS rom for the minute.

What mobo is it?
What AGP video card are you using?
Have you checked your AGP vid card in another computer and another card in yours?
Can you get into the BIOS from the BIOS setup screen?


In System Information:
Have you checked Hardware Resources and Components for problem devices?
Do you have a Creative sound card, and is it sharing an IRQ with anything?

Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd.
7VTXE+

I tried an old Voodoo in my AGP slot, but it may be a different architecture(sp).

My BIOS is 100% accessable.......I'm running my box with a PCI vid card, remember?

It's a new computer, and worked great with no conflicts or problems before this.

I only had problems when that stupid virus/worm started violently rebooting my machine.

When the AGP card is in the slot, the machine will boot up.......You just can't see anything.

.....Not even the DOS writing at the very beginning.

Running strictly off a PCI vid card, I can see everything just fine.

Excellent posts by SunScream, RobeyPrice and Lord Byron. Great information, well researched and well considered, and excellent approaches to the issues at hand.

For the record, I would love to see some of the early Fokker rotaries from late 1916 in a game, as well as the SS DIII and DIV, in addition to the 'standard' rotaries in most games. Anything else is asking a bit much, IMO.

Droops

Sorry I wasn't more of a participant in these discussions, but over the past three years we've talked about many of these very same issues on the Wings With Wires forum, and in the direct context on how these actualities could be incorporated into the next generation of WWI flight sims.

Here's a few forum discussions on rotary powerplants:
Rotary Realities

Here's some discussion on engine management wants:
Engine Management

Rotary overdive?:
Combat Considerations

Now some friendly advice to those who consider themselves the gatekeepers of the WWI flight sim world..............forget Red Baron guys, let it go!!! Making the next benchmark WWI flight sim requires a fresh design approach, and a thorough assessment of WWI's combat aviation history, not the continuation of irrelevant arguments that have raged on the RB boards for years!

It's kinda a strange notion, but mindful research and documentation apparently is considered a novelty to some WWI aviation hobbyist. Still, if opinions cannot be reinforced with substantive evidence they'll remain assumptions at best!

I think many flight sim enthusiasts are embracing the fallacy that Knights Over Europe will be the second coming of Red Baron, but afterall Red Baron is not the standard of WWI aviation combat............ history is!

So if you want to talk history, and are prepared to substantiate your claims, or have ideas on game mechanics, or desired sim features......great!!!

If you want to protect the status quo as you see or enjoy it, then what's up with that, and what's in it for the rest of us???

Sure about that?

[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0TwAAAzsYi...440197010944933[/img]

Allow me to show you a little texturing I've recently completed VH on a B.E.2c cockpit:

[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0VADZAvgZa...440201957204251[/img]

What can be determined from this in-game screenshot?

Well first, it's a 3D modeled cockpit like those that KOE is developing.

Second, the pilot's input controls move like those in FS-2004.

Third, the gunner's actions (standing at the photo top) and his articulated MG and mount are controlled by the sim's AI, but players can assume these crews position themselves if they like, just like in IL-2 FB.

Fourth, the game has directional light rendering.

So what sim is this screenshot from.............it's from the community created mod to SDOE, called FS-WWI.

Let me remind you that Red Baron has none of these cockpit/crew/rendering features, but then many consider RB to be today's standard of excellence when it comes to WWI flight sims............

The real point to make here is that KOE will have to incorporate many of the above features that FS-WWI has always had, but RB never did, just to be considered an "entry level" sim in today's world of combat flight offerings!

Time marches on............

LOL!

.......You've never built a house, I see.

FxW,

Interesting discussions @ Promised Land. I recognized a few folks from the old Delphi RB Forum.

Some thoughts -

KOE will hopefully not go off the deep end in the matter of Complex Engine Management. IL2/FB has done so with decidely mixed results in terms of game play satisfaction. While marking a firm distinction between rotary engine and in-line engine (and perhaps high-alt in-line engine) operation appears desirable, I certainly do not want to be worrying about manually pumping 30 reps every ten minutes in order to maintain proper fuel (oil?) tank pressure whie flying about in my D.Va.

As regards RB2, the fondness which so many of us harbor for this sim is connected not with its FM's or graphics, but with its dynamic campaign and squadron management environment - in a phrase, its psychological immersion. I have yet to find another sim to equal RB2 in this respect. Eye candy and even perfectly accurate FM's (as if anyone would recognize them!) all take second place to this factor IMHO.


LB

LB,

I agree with you on all accounts, except for one...............the need for eye candy!

Without high-fidelity graphics, immersion will always be lacking.

I know of quite a few dedicated RB players who never fly the game from within the cockpit view. Why is this??? Obviously because situational awareness is so markedly improved by doing so! I wonder though how anyone can experience a sim's "immersion" by flying outside the cockpit?

Now I'm not going to say to anyone here what their "point of view" should be on flying views, but the bigger question is why do people feel compelled to fly from the external view in the first place...............perhaps because they feel lost in a sim's artificial airspace, or because it's flight modeling transmit no sense of spatial orientation, or maybe because the cockpits themselves blow any chance of visual immersion?

I'm glad you brought up this issue LB, because being able to experience immersion to me involves convincing my senses that I'm engaged in the moment, hopefully to a point where I might enjoy that illusive "temporary suspension of disbelief". How is this feeling of immersion transmitted.........I think it's through our senses........it's not something we convince ourselves of through contemplation, it's something we react to, dare I say "feel"!

So what I see, hear, and feel to me makes all the difference in the world........in a simulated virtual world of artificial realism.

What I want to "see" in KOE (to start with ):

I want skies that allow proper sighting ranges!

I want realistic clouds that allow for hunting!

I want a sun that truly blinds when looked into!

I want to hear the wind tone change as I pan!

I want to see caster oil exhausting from cowls!

Yes, I want realistic cockpits, and visuals that transmit a sense of "quality and immersion"!!!

and....and.....

This is why I don't care if 50 planes are modeled in KOE, I want a dozen masterpieces that will draw me into a virtual world that looks as real to the eye as is possible with today's PC technology!

This is just my point of view, but to me "seeing is believing"!

BTW, the discussions above were linked from the Wings With Wires website forum.

FxW,

Don't get me wrong. Good graphics quality is a big plus for me as well. But too many sim developers (take a bow Microsoft) apparently believe that glossy eye candy makes up for comical FM's, stupid AI, and a general neglect of period flavor (immersion). For me, if the choice is to commit CPU cycles to great graphics or good FM, AI, and superior immersion, I would be willing to sacrifice on the graphics side.

RB2/3D, when it came out, was criticized on the grounds that its graphics quality was behind the curve. The "historical" FM (an early, incomplete, and abortive attempt at a physics based FM, as I recall) was laughable and spawned a succession of improvement hacks. The AI wasn't too bad for 1997 era PC's. The success of RB2/3D IMHO was founded essentially upon its dynamic campaign.

Apart from all the physical manifestations of immersion (sight, sound, clouds, sun, etc) the true immersion for me came from that nagging feeling whenever I took off that I never really knew what would be confronting me. RB's dynamic campaign had that delicious ability to reproduce the capricious and unfair nature of life. Some of the greatest flight sim moments for me have been when, all of a sudden, I would see an entire bloody squadron of Nieuports or SE5's boring in toward my little two man flight. Utter terror! Although there certainly were many repetitive missions, there were no canned missions. Immersion and offline replay values were therefore very high.

And after tiring of playing for those 100+ kill careers (not so easy), I changed my approach and started on squadron management careers, trying to keep my AI squadmates alive and prospering. It was almost another game within the game. It certainly profoundly altered my decision processes as a virtual combat flight leader.

This is what I meant by immersion. If we can get the above, coupled with great graphics, truly effective clouds and sun and improved AI, I'd be delighted. It would mean a higher order of overall immersion.

I'm also hopeful that KOE will offer not only more intelligent AI combat tactics, but also more sophisticated pre-combat tactics: such as the ability to sneak up on unaware rookies or in blind arcs; or extra-aware two-seaters running for home at the sight of yout flight; or enemy bombers prematurely dropping their loads in an attempt to evade interception; or AI fighter flights stalking you and seeking position to make an attack out of the sun.

This is starting to sound too much like a wish list, so I'll sign off for now.


LB