Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
#1389253 - 09/19/03 05:26 PM No Rotary engines for the Germans?  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Now that we've heard from the peanut gallery as to why the allies were allowed to have rotary engines and the germans were not, let's see if we can get past the allied propaganda & get to the TRUTH.

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?

The Scene:

1917

MvR storms into Idflieg and says "These albatros aircraft SUCK! When are you gonna give me a better rotary engine for our planes?"

Idflieg promises MvR that they will produce a 145 hp rotary to replace the 110 hp.

After this takes place, digging through some paperwork, we find old 110 rotary engines laying all over the place, and the Hauptman getting someone to clear up the mess.

Not long after that, the german pilots are no longer stealing rotary engines from allied planes.

Now anyone with a BRAIN can conclude that Idflieg kept their promise.

How? Because "Triplanes" start showing up in large numbers........Whole Squadrons of them!

They engage French SPAD 13's, and the french are decimated.

How did the Dr1 with a weak 110 hp engine catch & overtake a SPAD with a 200 hp engine?

Now where did all these triplanes come from?

Why did artillery spotters say that they were "new aircraft"?

4. If the Siemens-Schukert engine was as bad as some claim, why were aircraft built for it?

Why did some versions of the Fokker Razor, Fokker Dr1, and other aircraft built with THAT ENGINE in mind?

You've heard it said that "rotary engines were phased out".........

This is total BS. Rotaries & radials continued to be used in post-war aircraft.

The last aircraft built for Germany is quite telling:

Fokker Razor
SSW D3
SSW D4
Pfalz D7
Pfalz D8
Pfalz Dr1

Note that ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE ROTARY AIRCRAFT....

According to French battle reports, WHOLE SQUADRONS of these aircraft not only existed, but engaged their aircraft in battle.

So this "only 10 planes" or "just a few examples" isn't gonna fly.

......Pardon the pun.


Now certainly, we can grab a WW1 "historian" who will emphatically state that the germans didn't have large numbers of rotary planes, or open a book that says something similar.

But when you actually do some digging, you come away with a far different outlook.

Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#1389254 - 09/19/03 05:37 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


German Rotaries (cont.)

1. "The germans only had the 110 hp Oberursel"

FALSE.

110 hp Oberursel
145 hp Oberursel
160 hp Siemens-Schukert
145 hp Goebel Go
200 hp Goebel Go

......There's probably more than that.

So this PURE CRAP that the Germans didn't have sufficient rotary engines is garbage.

#1389255 - 09/19/03 10:11 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered



#1389256 - 09/19/03 10:12 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
"...as to why the allies were allowed to have rotary engines and the germans were not..."

Where do you come up with these statements???

Are you interested in information, or just in forwarding your agenda?

#1389257 - 09/19/03 10:16 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Originally posted by FlyXwire:
"...as to why the allies were allowed to have rotary engines and the germans were not..."

Where do you come up with these statements???

Are you interested in information, or just in forwarding your agenda?
FlyX,

ANYONE can yank stuff out of a book. It takes far more to put the pieces on the table & put the puzzel together.

\:D

#1389258 - 09/19/03 11:13 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
No Sir!

It is your contention that this statement has some relationship to the conversations that have transpired here on this forum:
Quote:
Now that we've heard from the peanut gallery as to why the allies were allowed to have rotary engines and the germans were not, let's see if we can get past the allied propaganda & get to the TRUTH.
Who amongst us here has supported this statement???

Where on this forum did this statement originate???

#1389259 - 09/20/03 02:11 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Originally posted by FlyXwire:
No Sir!

Where on this forum did this statement originate???
You mean I imagined the vitriol in the 50 planes thread?

I imagines how everyone jumped on the german rotary bandwagon, and how having german rotary aircraft in KOE is some sort of unwritten sin or something?

The 11th Commandment:

"Thou shalt not allow the Germans in KOE to have rotary aircraft"

.

#1389260 - 09/20/03 03:17 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
VonHelton, you're one of a kind!!! \:\)

I hope someone with as much imagination and color commentary as you will at least hang around long enough to finally enjoy KOE's release.

Are you in it for the long haul VH?

#1389261 - 09/20/03 07:11 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Originally posted by FlyXwire:
VonHelton, you're one of a kind!!! \:\)

I hope someone with as much imagination and color commentary as you will at least hang around long enough to finally enjoy KOE's release.

Are you in it for the long haul VH?
Doubtful. That stupid worm wiped out my AGP slot (and possibly my Geoforce Card as well), and the only thing I know of to do is buy a new motherboard.

.......Unfortunately, that's not possible for now.

#1389262 - 09/20/03 11:55 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 46
SunScream Offline
Junior Member
SunScream  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 46
Northampton UK
Quote:
1. If rotary engines are so bad, why are most of the allied planes using this engine?
The rotary engine is not a bad engine per se, it is a reasonably effective way of powering an aircraft. The allies had a huge requirement for engines and so engine manufacturers built rotaries as they are somewhat simpler and lighter than their in-line bretheren.

Quote:
2. If the germans didn't have any success with rotary engines, why did they continue to build planes with those engines?
The majority of German aircraft manufacturers abandoned the rotary, in the short term at least. Fokker believed that the rotary was a good concept, and bought the Oberursel company for the purpose of attempting to get a good rotary engine out of the poor ones they were producing. If he had been successful then German rotaries would almost certainly matched the later allied ones and it would have been stupid not to design aircraft capable of taking this new improved engine. Unfortunately although Oberursel promised the goods and the aircraft were constructed to take them, the greatly improved engines did not appear. Please see my thread on the Frugalsworld forum about German historian Weyl and Rheinhold Platz's view of German engines.

Quote:
3. If rotary engines were so bad, why were the first radial engines made out of converted rotaries?
The earliest radial engines were stationary rotaries. The big mechanical problem with the rotary is the stresses caused by its rotation. By only having a rotating crankshaft a lot of the issues with the rotary were removed or significantly reduced. Yes, the early radials were converted rotaries, but the type diverged extremely rapidly from anything resembling the rotary in all but shape. With a radial you can fit much more efficient valve gear, use robust components which would be too heavy in a rotary and also fit a proper carburetter.

Quote:
Not long after that, the german pilots are no longer stealing rotary engines from allied planes.
Please state your sources.

Quote:
How? Because "Triplanes" start showing up in large numbers........Whole Squadrons of them!
Fokker bought 700 Thulin built Le Rhone rotary engines and fitted them to the Dr1.

Quote:
How did the Dr1 with a weak 110 hp engine catch & overtake a SPAD with a 200 hp engine?
By bouncing them when they were just cruising along?

Quote:
Now where did all these triplanes come from?
The Fokker factory. Fokker built the Fokker Dr.1 IIRC.

Quote:
Why did artillery spotters say that they were "new aircraft"?
Presumably they had not seen the Dr1 before, or could tell they were new by the "new aeroplane smell."

Quote:
4. If the Siemens-Schukert engine was as bad as some claim, why were aircraft built for it?
In just the same way that the allies built aircraft for a promised new super engine but were disappointed when the engine had problems or even failed to appear ( DH9s with the Siddley Puma engine is a good example, or the BAT Bantam with it's ABC Wasp radial.) This was not an issue confined to WW1 either as witness such aircraft as the Hawker Tornado and the Napier Sabre engine in WW2.

Quote:
Why did some versions of the Fokker Razor, Fokker Dr1, and other aircraft built with THAT ENGINE in mind?
Why, if a better engine was available, were the Razor, Dr1 and the prototype Pfalz Dr2 NOT fitted with the ShIII?

Quote:
You've heard it said that "rotary engines were phased out".........
This is total BS. Rotaries & radials continued to be used in post-war aircraft.
Radials are NOT rotaries. Do not lump them in with the rotary as it gives an entirely false impression.
A little like lumping jet engines in with rocket engines "as the exhaust comes out a tube." Post war the take up on radial engines was phenominal, with just a few rotary designs primarily using up stocks of surplus engines.

Quote:
The last aircraft built for Germany is quite telling:

Fokker Razor
SSW D3
SSW D4
Pfalz D7
Pfalz D8
Pfalz Dr1

Note that ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE ROTARY AIRCRAFT....
I believe you have missed out the LVG Roland D.VIb, Fokker D.VII, Pfalz D.XII, Pfalz D.XIV, Pfalz D.XV (for some of the single seat aircraft alone), which supports the view that the in-line engined aircraft was also being constructed or developed. Some 800+ Fok.D.VII were delivered.

Quote:
According to French battle reports, WHOLE SQUADRONS of these aircraft not only existed, but engaged their aircraft in battle.
SS D.III and SS D.IV yes, the others, PLEASE state your sources.


Quote:
Now certainly, we can grab a WW1 "historian" who will emphatically state that the germans didn't have large numbers of rotary planes, or open a book that says something similar.
True, HORDES of historians and books, some written by Germans between the wars and in colloboration with the people who built the aircraft and engines in question.

Quote:
But when you actually do some digging, you come away with a far different outlook.
Please, please, please, give us your sources - ANYTHING we can look up and verify.

Quote:
1. "The germans only had the 110 hp Oberursel"
FALSE.
110 hp Oberursel
145 hp Oberursel
160 hp Siemens-Schukert
145 hp Goebel Go
200 hp Goebel Go
......There's probably more than that.
The 220hp Siemens-Halske ShIIIa, for one.

Quote:
So this PURE CRAP that the Germans didn't have sufficient rotary engines is garbage.
True, they had sufficient. But the ones they had were prone to failure, obsolescent, or unsuccessful.

Quote:
"Thou shalt not allow the Germans in KOE to have rotary aircraft"
The Fokker Dr.1 and SS D.III/IV should be in the game, even if the game does not portray engine failure or even the power loss at altitude, as these were significant aircraft. The others, possibly not.

Btw, from your "Elusive Pfalz" page you mention the Snipe being "experimental." Although all aircraft can be considered so at some point in their development, it is a strange appellation for an aircaft that had orders for 1700 machines placed in March 1918 and entered service in September.

Don't forget Ockham's Razor.

Sorry to hear about the mobo problem. I take it reflashing the bios hasn't helped?


Alert Status Level: AWOOGA
#1389263 - 09/20/03 12:54 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
VH, maybe all this forum fire and brimstone burned out your AGP.

Speaking of fire and brimstone.......holy SunScream, that's one hell of a retort!

Hey, you've got me so convinced now I'm going out to my local airfield this afternoon for hit of some of that "new aeroplane smell"!!! \:D \:D \:D

#1389264 - 09/20/03 01:27 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 700
TomW Offline
Member
TomW  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 700
Talking about new aeroplane smells.

A few(?) years back a gleaming yellow Tiger Moth with new fabric landed in a field not far from my parents house. The pilot had run out of fuel(!) so he went away in search of some.

When he came back a few hours later he got a bit of a shock. It seems that the smell of the evaporating dope and/or paint had attracted some cows who, being cows, proceeded to eat the fabric straight off the wings!

Yum, yum.

\:\)

#1389265 - 09/20/03 01:47 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
Holy cow!!! ;\)

#1389266 - 09/20/03 02:27 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 46
SunScream Offline
Junior Member
SunScream  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 46
Northampton UK
Quote:
holy SunScream, that's one hell of a retort!
I hope I don't come over too "fire and brimstone" as I am trying to be as objective and dispassionate as possible.
However the "new aircraft" bit did mystify me somewhat - how did they KNOW they were new?
It must either have been the smell or possibly the observers jumped from their Voisins/Dorands into the Dr1's cockpits, copied down the serial numbers from the instruments, jumped back, and after returning to base looked up the numbers in a fortuitously captured copy of the German instruments manufacturing list.

Aircraft serial numbers don't help as they were allocated to the factories from high command based on orders and expected production runs. They were grouped by type (C,CL,D,E, etc.) and ran in sequence from the start of the year: e.g. in 1918 Roland had the numbers 1200-1249 allocated for their 50 D.VIa machines, Pfalz then had the next 150 for their D.IIIa, the 200 after that for the D.XII, and so on.
Some aircraft serials can make it look as if far greater numbers of the plane were produced than was really the case - hence we can get a Roland C.II with the serial 427 when around 250-300 were built.

Quote:
attracted some cows who, being cows, proceeded to eat the fabric straight off the wings!
Bet that made the milk taste funny.
"Odd, normally when I put milk on my cornflakes they go soft, not get harder."


Alert Status Level: AWOOGA
#1389267 - 09/20/03 03:49 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 385
Robey Price Offline
Member
Robey Price  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 385
Shoreview MN
Originally posted by VonHelton:
Now that we've heard from the peanut gallery as to why the allies were allowed to have rotary engines and the germans were not, let's see if we can get past the allied propaganda & get to the TRUTH.

Ummm, as part of the peanut gallery, I think you were not following along with the content.

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

For my part at least I was not addressing the technology of the motor...I was posting on the topic of airframes (specifically Fokker D.I and D.II that just happened to have rotary motors).

From your posting, you left me with the impression you thought the Fokker D.I and D.II were "tits machines" kicking *ss and taking names of the RFC. You suggested that Boelcke himself was impressed with these machines (again saying NOTHING about the motor). There is NO EVIDENCE to support your claim...that's all. \:\)

Evidence suggests that Boelcke was not impressed and complained about the workmanship as well as the flying qualities of these fighters. You may know otherwise...help me to see the light.

Suggesting that any of the peanut gallery is anti-rotary, or anti-german rotary, or anti-whatever is simply an incorrect inference on your part. \:\(


Robey

#1389268 - 09/20/03 08:23 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quickly!!

If you guys hurry, you can notify Mazda that the rotary engine sucks, and save them from producing the new RX sports car!!

.......Scratch that, they already built it.

Bummer! Had you bunch just been a little quicker.......

#1389269 - 09/20/03 08:54 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


"Give us your sources!"

"Are your papers in order?"

MY SOURCES:

MvR
LvR
Berthold
Jacobs
Udet
Neckel
Rummy
Stark

........And a few others.

#1389270 - 09/20/03 10:25 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
Oh VH!!! :rolleyes:

Mazda utilizes Wankel's internal rotary engine technology, which employs a triangular rotor that revolves inside a stationary engine case.

Online Description

The Wankel is nothing like the aero-rotaries of the First World War, but then I'm sure you knew that! ;\)

#1389271 - 09/20/03 10:41 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 46
SunScream Offline
Junior Member
SunScream  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 46
Northampton UK
Quote:
MY SOURCES:

MvR
LvR
Berthold
Jacobs
Udet
Neckel
Rummy
Stark
Now we are starting to get somewhere. Can you give us the author and book or document title and either page numbers or quote detail of the exact phrases/text used (it doesn't matter if it is in German)

Thanks \:\)


Alert Status Level: AWOOGA
#1389272 - 09/20/03 10:49 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


The Flash Utility says that flashing my BIOS is not available on my machine.

#1389273 - 09/21/03 05:00 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 385
Robey Price Offline
Member
Robey Price  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 385
Shoreview MN
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]

#1389274 - 09/21/03 06:36 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 46
SunScream Offline
Junior Member
SunScream  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 46
Northampton UK
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.


Alert Status Level: AWOOGA
#1389275 - 09/21/03 01:25 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 385
Robey Price Offline
Member
Robey Price  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 385
Shoreview MN
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

#1389276 - 09/21/03 05:30 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 46
SunScream Offline
Junior Member
SunScream  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 46
Northampton UK
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.


Alert Status Level: AWOOGA
#1389277 - 09/22/03 12:14 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 385
Robey Price Offline
Member
Robey Price  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 385
Shoreview MN
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

#1389278 - 09/23/03 10:13 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 229
LORD BYRON Offline
Member
LORD BYRON  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 229
Medfield MA USA
[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

#1389279 - 09/24/03 01:37 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Originally posted by SunScream:
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.
Will it fix my AGP Slot so that it works again?

#1389280 - 09/24/03 02:51 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 46
SunScream Offline
Junior Member
SunScream  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 46
Northampton UK
Quote:
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?


Alert Status Level: AWOOGA
#1389281 - 09/24/03 03:40 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Originally posted by SunScream:
Quote:
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.

#1389282 - 09/24/03 09:06 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 46
SunScream Offline
Junior Member
SunScream  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 46
Northampton UK
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?


Alert Status Level: AWOOGA
#1389283 - 09/24/03 10:54 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Originally posted by SunScream:
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.

#1389284 - 09/24/03 04:31 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


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

#1389285 - 09/24/03 11:50 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
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???

#1389286 - 09/25/03 12:07 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Originally posted by FlyXwire:

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
Sure about that?




#1389287 - 09/25/03 12:56 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.

#1389288 - 09/25/03 02:17 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
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............

#1389289 - 09/25/03 05:07 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


LOL!

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


#1389290 - 09/25/03 04:37 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 229
LORD BYRON Offline
Member
LORD BYRON  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 229
Medfield MA USA
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

#1389291 - 09/25/03 10:31 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
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. \:\)

#1389292 - 09/25/03 11:34 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 229
LORD BYRON Offline
Member
LORD BYRON  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 229
Medfield MA USA
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

#1389293 - 09/25/03 11:40 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 229
LORD BYRON Offline
Member
LORD BYRON  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 229
Medfield MA USA
FxW,

Oh yeah, another thing .... agree one hundred percent that I would rather have a fewer number well done aircraft as opposed to 50 poorly rendered ones. I wouldn't even object to the sim being modularized - say, one module covering late 1916 up to late 1917 and a second module covering through to the war's end.

And I'd like to see the different engine and performance configurations present for Camels, F2B's, D.VII's, SE5's, etc. What added immersion! It would be easily possible if a reasonably accurate physics based FM engine can be coded.


LB

#1389294 - 09/26/03 12:40 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
Lord Byron,

Hopefully Santa will deliver on your wish list Q4 2004, besides I recognize the same fundamental features on your KOE wish list as is on mine! \:\)

Allow me to link another thread from our WWW forum discussions to introduce another related concern of mine..........I'll call it the danger of "misson creep":

The blunt or the sharp end?

I hope Aspect concentrates on designing the essential sim features first and foremost, instead of trying to be tackle too much scope and thereby neglecting the basics. As you suggest LB, if you master the basics, then "layers" of immersion can be added with successive module offerings.

This is a tried and true model for success!

#1389295 - 09/26/03 04:57 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 229
LORD BYRON Offline
Member
LORD BYRON  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 229
Medfield MA USA
FxW,

I did read the "blunt/sharp" posts. The various contributors make interesting contributions to the discussion.

To my mind, the question is one of focus. What role is the customer of your flight sim intended to play? IMO, the principal role ought to be that of a single-seat fighter pilot. Nothing else should get in the way of optimizing that role as a gaming experience. There is always a particulr segment of the community who are ever reafy to dabble in the outre and theodd, but 95 percent of us insert the disk in order to chase MvR.

As regards the dynamic environment and its effect upon game play, let's stop and consider a few points.

The level of Western Front aerial activity was by no means constant, either in geographical terms or in timeline terms. There were periodic spasms of intense activity, usually instigated by the Entente and occasionally by Germany, which endured for varying periods of time. At any given point in time, much of the front was quiet, due either to outright lack of hostilities or to the intervention of poor weather.

To offer an option of flying and fighting over, say, the Alsace front, might appeal to perhaps six overwrought fanatics. Only those six fanatics will derive any serious entertainment out of flying three or four uneventful missions for every one enemy contact. This will be a complete non-starter in terms of entertainment and replay values.

The rest of the community will be thinking in terms of the Somme, Verdun, Flanders, Operation Michael, and so on, where the aerial activity was of a high intensity and generally occured under more clement weather conditions. So a pilot career might see a couple of missions per day in high summer, a couple of missions a week in the spring and autumn, and perhaps a single mission per week in winter. This would meld in poor flying weather factors and ack of enemy sightings in one rationale "mechanism".

A focus upon the big campaigns and/or the elite squadrons will always place the player within an entertaining high air traffic environment. And along with such an environment will come a multiplicity of mission types: drive off the artiller observation planes, intercept intruding bomber or fighter formations, protect the photo-recon flight, deflate some balloons, free chase over the front, etc, etc. When designing such an environemnt. it ought to be kept in mind that a primary mission of the fighter was to eliminate or frustrate the "specialist" a/c (recon, observation, bombing, ground attack aircraft). This is by no means to say that opposing fighter formation would not enjoy a good scrap topgether, but a good campaign will pay attention to that specialist a/c issue. It will function as a pivot upon which much of the action can revolve.

As for environmental eye candy, forget frontline troops, who would generally only be visible from a very low altitude. Consider the spectacle of sustained artillery bombardments and barrages (or even the odd mine explosion!), intermittent MG tracer streams arcing across no man's land, flaming onions, the odd signal flre arching up from the trenches, etc. There is some interesting eye candy!

LB

#1389296 - 09/27/03 01:39 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
YES!!!

Afterall, we're talkin' combat flight sims, and competitive action should be the ultimate focus (man against man....or man against AI-crew).

Deriving from your structure of interaction above, by analysing the probable frequency of encounters, and by including the events that commanded forth the high effort struggles for air superiority during the war, a historical format can be arrived at in which players will experience aerial combat through. This brings to mind Rowan Interactive's Flying Corps, which presented the air war through a series of well known campaigns.

The important point of course, is that Knights Over Europe should endeavor to create a virtual Front that forms the focus for the specialist army cooporation flights, and therefore the rationale for their interdiction!

However, it's my hope that KOE maintains a focus on generating aerial encounters, and not attempt to become a Great War strategy/flight sim hybrid. This is what I feel would reflect design "mission creep", and would work to dilute the sims overall focus on the aerial component!

Sounds like we're wanting the same things LB..........again!!! \:\)

#1389297 - 09/27/03 03:49 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered





\:\)

#1389298 - 09/27/03 01:46 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
The SE5a's cockpit was everyone's favorite Full Canvas Jacket pit as I recall.

By the way, been enjoying FCJ very much Kess!!! \:\)

Here's an early view of BOP's SE5a modeling:

[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0XADZAjod*...440544850272151[/img]

From KOE's screenshots to date, it appears the sim's cockpits are also intricately modeled, and could perhaps even be interactive (that would be interesting)............. switch on...................CONTACT...................Clear....................!!! \:\)

#1389299 - 09/27/03 05:22 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Originally posted by LORD BYRON:
FxW,

Oh yeah, another thing .... agree one hundred percent that I would rather have a fewer number well done aircraft as opposed to 50 poorly rendered ones. I wouldn't even object to the sim being modularized - say, one module covering late 1916 up to late 1917 and a second module covering through to the war's end.

And I'd like to see the different engine and performance configurations present for Camels, F2B's, D.VII's, SE5's, etc. What added immersion! It would be easily possible if a reasonably accurate physics based FM engine can be coded.


LB
So we're going backwards instead of forwards, then.

We have all this great technology, but instead of using it to get more, we settle for less.

That sounds defeatest to me.

RB had 50 planes, and it wasn't enough.........FOR A SIM.

......For a GAME, I guess 4 planes is plenty.

I mentioned this before, and I'll say it again........

If I fly against a jasta that is supposed to have Roland D2's, and instead I see albatrossen, it's NOT a sim, it's a GAME.

Hopefully I've said that plain enough that no one can twist my words this time!!


#1389300 - 09/27/03 07:48 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
Let's see, No.56 Squadron R.F.C. reports to the Western Front in April 1917 with S.E.5s, and soldiers on for the rest of the war flying S.E.5a scouts.

Now someone decides to design an in-depth simulation around the experiences of this one squadron, with the greatest attention given to detail and historical accuracy............and this will NOT be a simulation???

WHY NOT!!!

#1389301 - 09/27/03 08:21 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 46
SunScream Offline
Junior Member
SunScream  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 46
Northampton UK
No Aldis on that SE \:\(
I wonder if the Lewis reloading requires swinging the gun back on the Foster mount to remove and fit the drums.


Alert Status Level: AWOOGA
#1389302 - 09/27/03 09:16 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
Good eye-ballin' SunScream! ;\)

The pic is of an early S.E.5a build for BOP (I'm sure the Aldis has made it on Nuum's successive build).

Well let's see............I see a Lewis gun, and I see a Foster mount:

[img]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0WADhAlocR...440588502977173[/img]

Hmmmmmmmm.............I wonder too! \:D

#1389303 - 09/27/03 09:57 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Originally posted by FlyXwire:
Let's see, No.56 Squadron R.F.C. reports to the Western Front in April 1917 with S.E.5s, and soldiers on for the rest of the war flying S.E.5a scouts.

Now someone decides to design an in-depth simulation around the experiences of this one squadron, with the greatest attention given to detail and historical accuracy............and this will NOT be a simulation???

WHY NOT!!!
......Because the Bargain Bin in the stores are full of such games, would be my first clue.

;\) :p

4 planes & a 3 metre patch of grass already exist, and they're not selling.

"Variety is the Spice of Life" is the old saying.




"Specialty Games" like what you describe have no lasting power.

We have the opportunity to get back the stuff in the first Red Baron, Knights of the Sky, etc:

Moving trains & other ground activity, a map that includes London, Paris & Berlin, and a wider variety of aircraft, aces, medals & squadrons.


#1389304 - 09/28/03 12:37 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
VH,

Aspect has already shown us screenshots of nearly a dozen KOE aircraft, so whatever you think about my opinions, you're going to get more than 4 planes in the sim!

Hooray!!! \:\)

#1389305 - 09/29/03 07:51 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 229
LORD BYRON Offline
Member
LORD BYRON  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 229
Medfield MA USA
Quote:
Originally posted by VonHelton:

So we're going backwards instead of forwards, then.

We have all this great technology, but instead of using it to get more, we settle for less.

That sounds defeatest to me.

RB had 50 planes, and it wasn't enough.........FOR A SIM.

......For a GAME, I guess 4 planes is plenty.

I mentioned this before, and I'll say it again........

If I fly against a jasta that is supposed to have Roland D2's, and instead I see albatrossen, it's NOT a sim, it's a GAME.

Hopefully I've said that plain enough that no one can twist my words this time!!

[/QB][/QUOTE]


VH,

My language was not completely explicit, so let me re-state more carefully -

I am not disagreeing with you on the principle of the point. I wopuld like to see all the correct a/c in place as well. What I do NOT want to see, hoever, is all the correct a/c done in half-a@@ed fashion, just so that the developed can make his big marketing claim on the back of the box - "78 authentic historical a/c included, blah, blah, blah". I want them done correctly, not only the 3D modelling, but also the FM's, the DM's, the different variants, and with a variety of correct historical paint schemes.

Rather than trying to cram them all into a single sim within a single marketing cycle, my proposal would be to "modularize" the WW1 air war into separate campaign disks. One disk might cover from late 1916 through late 1917, with a follow-on disk to cover from late 1917 through to war's end. Each disk would contain all the relevant aircraft for its respective period of time over whatever extent of the front was being covered.

Why multi-disks? My opinion is that trying to process the entire war period into a single sim will inevitably face timetables and deadlines too short for any developer to properly do the LARGE variety of a/c necessary for proper coverage. The temptation for the developers to short-cut their work on FM's, DM's, etc, in order to meet a marketing deadline will be far too great. We have all seen the unhappy results of that sort of approach - Because Sierra ran out of time, RB2 was released with an unfinished/cobbled together "authentic" FM. and we all remember what a joke that was (remember the Saturn missile D.III climb rates?). I'd rather allow double the development time, which would become available by this modularized development approach. I would pay 2 x $50 over two years to get the real deal done right.


LB

#1389306 - 09/29/03 07:54 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Originally posted by VonHelton:

RB had 50 planes, and it wasn't enough.........FOR A SIM.

......For a GAME, I guess 4 planes is plenty.

I mentioned this before, and I'll say it again........

If I fly against a jasta that is supposed to have Roland D2's, and instead I see albatrossen, it's NOT a sim, it's a GAME.

Hopefully I've said that plain enough that no one can twist my words this time!!

It must be a sign of the apocalypse because I agree with you completely on this point. I want to see well-done models, but I personally want to see more planes in the game. I think that shooting for 100 (including seaplanes) is a reasonable figure for a WWI sim. Let's face it, there were a lot of planes that saw service in WWI. To be an accurate sim, you're going to have to do a lot of work to portray a lot of aircraft.

Droops

#1389307 - 09/29/03 08:36 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 9,522
Wklink Offline
Permanent Latrine Orderly
Wklink  Offline
Permanent Latrine Orderly
Hotshot

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 9,522
Olympia, Washington
You know, I partially agree with you Von Helton, but I am somewhat of a realist.

I do think that all of the major aircraft, including significant subtypes should be modeled in the game. If this is somewhere between 50-100 aircraft fine. If the developers have time to include lesser known, possibly less sucessful aircraft all well and good but I do think there is only so much time and effort that can be placed in one simulation, especially one that sells for 40-50 dollars.

I myself am willing to pay the 40-50 bucks for the base game and another 40-50 bucks for an 'add on' that adds every aircraft that saw any real service over the Western Front. I do honestly think that modeling (even as AI aircraft) some of the more obscure aircraft is just not feasable in a 40 dollar game.


The artist formerly known as SimHq Tom Cofield
#1389308 - 09/29/03 09:49 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
How many combat flight simulations, or general flight sims for that matter were released in the past year or two that included 50 flyable aircraft, let alone 100!!!

No, let me ask the question another way..........

Would you be willing to pay $200.00 up front for Aspect Simulations (and their producer/distributor) to recover their time and capital investment to design 100 high-fidelity WWI aircraft for KOE?

Now let me ask if you would be willing to wait twice as long (say yet another year), perhaps till Q4 2005 for this sim to finally be ready for release?

Has anyone cared to explore the Aspect Simulation's design team........how many people at present are working on KOE?

Now, if Microsoft, or Infogrames, or Ubi Soft, with vastly greater resources can only distribute sims with what 34(CFS3-including variants), 24(FS2004), 14(Strike Fighters), 31(IL2-including variants), +30(IL2FB-including variants)respectively, during these past few years, is it reasonable to demand 100 aircraft of KOE.........or we'll condemn Aspect's effort (sight unseen) to be worthy of only "a game" status???

It's time for a Reality Check here!!!

#1389309 - 09/30/03 01:23 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,568
Jamm0r Offline
Member
Jamm0r  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,568
USA
Quote:
Originally posted by FlyXwire:
Would you be willing to pay $200.00 up front for Aspect Simulations (and their producer/distributor) to recover their time and capital investment to design 100 high-fidelity WWI aircraft for KOE?
Yes.

#1389310 - 09/30/03 06:46 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
So would I! \:\)

Unfortunately, enthusiast like us are not going to make KOE a success, it'll be the retail shoppers who are willing to lay down maybe $50.00 for the sim at Best Buy, who will reflect the majority of Aspect's potential market.

What does our ever shrinking segment of the overall PC gaming market support nowadays............$200.00 WWI flight sims???

Heck, some people on this forum say they can't even afford to repair their hundred dollar motherboard................

#1389311 - 09/30/03 09:15 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,976
Hentzau Offline
Member
Hentzau  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,976
Tampa, Florida USA
I probably wouldn't pay $200, i'd wait till somebody put it on the "buy, sell, trade" forum for $20. \:D

BvH and Droops in agreement, we're all doomed! \:D

I like the idea of artillery bombardments with flashing skies and rumbling on the horizon as you get closer to the front.

#1389312 - 09/30/03 02:36 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Originally posted by FlyXwire:
How many combat flight simulations, or general flight sims for that matter were released in the past year or two that included 50 flyable aircraft, let alone 100!!!

No, let me ask the question another way..........

Would you be willing to pay $200.00 up front for Aspect Simulations (and their producer/distributor) to recover their time and capital investment to design 100 high-fidelity WWI aircraft for KOE?

Now let me ask if you would be willing to wait twice as long (say yet another year), perhaps till Q4 2005 for this sim to finally be ready for release?

Has anyone cared to explore the Aspect Simulation's design team........how many people at present are working on KOE?

Now, if Microsoft, or Infogrames, or Ubi Soft, with vastly greater resources can only distribute sims with what 34(CFS3-including variants), 24(FS2004), 14(Strike Fighters), 31(IL2-including variants), +30(IL2FB-including variants)respectively, during these past few years, is it reasonable to demand 100 aircraft of KOE.........or we'll condemn Aspect's effort (sight unseen) to be worthy of only "a game" status???

It's time for a Reality Check here!!!
Goodness, such negativity! Calm down for a minute and let's discuss this a bit more rationally.

First, I realize that Mr. Helton is quite enthusiastic. If you're talking about German rotaries or three-winged aircraft, he's obsessive and a bit on the fringe. But a lot of the points that he's making are valid for game play. They shouldn't be dismissed so quickly.

As for 100 aircraft, let me share with you some of my experience. As you may know, I was on the now-defunct 17 Hours project. We discussed this issue obviously. As part of my research to get an answer on how many plane types should be done, I did check to see how many aircraft types (just the major types, not subtypes) saw either front line or training service during the war. The Western Front and North Sea/English Channel alone saw nearly 500 aircraft types, and this doesn't count zeppelins. Add in aircraft from other fronts, and I estimated that you would be looking at somewhere between 600 and 700 aircraft types. This would be all types which saw some type of active duty status, from the beginning to the end of the war.

How do you narrow it down? First, you divide up WWI into fronts, or theaters. The Western Front is an obvious division, but you should have the seaplanes in the Atlantic/North Sea/English Channel as another front. I also saw the Austro-Italian front, the German-Russian front, and a Med. front including the Balkans, Greece and Palestine. By concentrating on the first two fronts that I mentioned, you narrow down your plane needs.

Next, you narrow down by time. The early months of the war don't see a lot of combat, so really there shouldn't be much done at all with 1914 or early 1915. Personally, I would prefer to see a WWI sim start in July of 1915. While most of 1915 would be somewhat quiet, you do have some interesting aircraft and combat situations. However, if you want to eliminate such aircraft as the Bristol Scout or the early B series German aircraft, start in 1916.

Next, narrow down the list by including only those that saw service in significant numbers. How do you define significant? I first used a threshold of at least 5 of one type that saw service, and then 10 of one type. The 5 of one type is better for seaplanes, as they had much smaller batches completed relevant to the land-based aircraft. This narrows down the number of aircraft to around 200 types.

At that point, you then have to make judgement calls. Do you include some of the large R planes, that only had one or two of type made? I said yes you should. Then you have to ask if you can combine some of the types where there was little difference between the two. Finally, are there some aircraft that simply aren't interesting, didn't serve much use or gain much infamy, and can be cut with little lost? Yes, obviously, there are such aircraft. This allows you to get a good list down to about 100 aircraft types, not mentioning subtypes.

So, 100 types isn't really that outrageous when you look at all types seeing service during the war. Its a worthy goal in terms of the variety seen during the war. The question is, how does the company making a sim reach that goal.

There are a number of differnet possible paths. One, the company makes everything in-house. 100 aircraft models sounds like a huge undertaking. However, I will tell you that 17 Hours already had 100 different models done roughly. Obviously a lot of other work would need to be done, but its not impossible. However, a different company might not be so interested in this path.

This leaves us in the realm of addons. Again, there are multiple approaches to the problem. The company making the sim could do addons itself and sell them as they're made. This keeps all creativity and proprietary work within the corporate structure. However, you don't know how quickly, or even if, such addons will come out.

Next path is to ask the sim community to contribute. You could, for example, ask the community to create the 3D models and submit them to the company. The company could make the FMs and then issue the patch. Or, the company could choose a group from the community, give them the tools to make the FM, DM, and 3D models, and then let the community release a patch.

Any of these methods are valid, and each has advantages and disadvantages. However, all of them rely on the main game being flexible enough to accept the addons.

To me, this is the crux of the whole discussion. Will this new sim allow for someone, whether its the company or the community, to add on patches? Will it allow for new planes, new fronts, and other new items to be inserted into the game? This is one of the fatal flaws of Red Baron. The Western Front Patch, and FCJ, work around the lack of expandability in RB in creative ways. However, its not a perfect system and it does have limitations.

In my opinion, this game should allow for expansion. How much? Shoot for the stars. Allow for the possibility of having ALL of the aces included, ALL of the units, ALL of the active duty plane types, for ALL of the war, in ALL fronts. Maybe even allow for fantasy planes, or fantasy fronts. They don't HAVE to be in the first release, just leave enough flexibility in the game for such things to be added later.

I could definately accept a game which starts with 50 aircraft, provided that it allows for a lot of aircraft expansion slots for future additions. I honestly think that a minimum of 1000 aircraft type slots should be available. This may sound like a lot, but if a group wants to be able to make all of the types that I've mentioned then this should accomodate everyone's wishes. The FM and DM are different stories and I don't know how that will be resolved, but I'm sure that something can be figured out.

In other words, its not impossible to accomplish the goal of 100 or more aircraft types for single play or multiplay.

Droops

#1389313 - 09/30/03 02:37 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Originally posted by FlyXwire:
How many combat flight simulations, or general flight sims for that matter were released in the past year or two that included 50 flyable aircraft, let alone 100!!!

No, let me ask the question another way..........

Would you be willing to pay $200.00 up front for Aspect Simulations (and their producer/distributor) to recover their time and capital investment to design 100 high-fidelity WWI aircraft for KOE?

Now let me ask if you would be willing to wait twice as long (say yet another year), perhaps till Q4 2005 for this sim to finally be ready for release?

Has anyone cared to explore the Aspect Simulation's design team........how many people at present are working on KOE?

Now, if Microsoft, or Infogrames, or Ubi Soft, with vastly greater resources can only distribute sims with what 34(CFS3-including variants), 24(FS2004), 14(Strike Fighters), 31(IL2-including variants), +30(IL2FB-including variants)respectively, during these past few years, is it reasonable to demand 100 aircraft of KOE.........or we'll condemn Aspect's effort (sight unseen) to be worthy of only "a game" status???

It's time for a Reality Check here!!!
Goodness, such negativity! Calm down for a minute and let's discuss this a bit more rationally.

First, I realize that Mr. Helton is quite enthusiastic. If you're talking about German rotaries or three-winged aircraft, he's obsessive and a bit on the fringe. But a lot of the points that he's making are valid for game play. They shouldn't be dismissed so quickly.

As for 100 aircraft, let me share with you some of my experience. As you may know, I was on the now-defunct 17 Hours project. We discussed this issue obviously. As part of my research to get an answer on how many plane types should be done, I did check to see how many aircraft types (just the major types, not subtypes) saw either front line or training service during the war. The Western Front and North Sea/English Channel alone saw nearly 500 aircraft types, and this doesn't count zeppelins. Add in aircraft from other fronts, and I estimated that you would be looking at somewhere between 600 and 700 aircraft types. This would be all types which saw some type of active duty status, from the beginning to the end of the war.

How do you narrow it down? First, you divide up WWI into fronts, or theaters. The Western Front is an obvious division, but you should have the seaplanes in the Atlantic/North Sea/English Channel as another front. I also saw the Austro-Italian front, the German-Russian front, and a Med. front including the Balkans, Greece and Palestine. By concentrating on the first two fronts that I mentioned, you narrow down your plane needs.

Next, you narrow down by time. The early months of the war don't see a lot of combat, so really there shouldn't be much done at all with 1914 or early 1915. Personally, I would prefer to see a WWI sim start in July of 1915. While most of 1915 would be somewhat quiet, you do have some interesting aircraft and combat situations. However, if you want to eliminate such aircraft as the Bristol Scout or the early B series German aircraft, start in 1916.

Next, narrow down the list by including only those that saw service in significant numbers. How do you define significant? I first used a threshold of at least 5 of one type that saw service, and then 10 of one type. The 5 of one type is better for seaplanes, as they had much smaller batches completed relevant to the land-based aircraft. This narrows down the number of aircraft to around 200 types.

At that point, you then have to make judgement calls. Do you include some of the large R planes, that only had one or two of type made? I said yes you should. Then you have to ask if you can combine some of the types where there was little difference between the two. Finally, are there some aircraft that simply aren't interesting, didn't serve much use or gain much infamy, and can be cut with little lost? Yes, obviously, there are such aircraft. This allows you to get a good list down to about 100 aircraft types, not mentioning subtypes.

So, 100 types isn't really that outrageous when you look at all types seeing service during the war. Its a worthy goal in terms of the variety seen during the war. The question is, how does the company making a sim reach that goal.

There are a number of differnet possible paths. One, the company makes everything in-house. 100 aircraft models sounds like a huge undertaking. However, I will tell you that 17 Hours already had 100 different models done roughly. Obviously a lot of other work would need to be done, but its not impossible. However, a different company might not be so interested in this path.

This leaves us in the realm of addons. Again, there are multiple approaches to the problem. The company making the sim could do addons itself and sell them as they're made. This keeps all creativity and proprietary work within the corporate structure. However, you don't know how quickly, or even if, such addons will come out.

Next path is to ask the sim community to contribute. You could, for example, ask the community to create the 3D models and submit them to the company. The company could make the FMs and then issue the patch. Or, the company could choose a group from the community, give them the tools to make the FM, DM, and 3D models, and then let the community release a patch.

Any of these methods are valid, and each has advantages and disadvantages. However, all of them rely on the main game being flexible enough to accept the addons.

To me, this is the crux of the whole discussion. Will this new sim allow for someone, whether its the company or the community, to add on patches? Will it allow for new planes, new fronts, and other new items to be inserted into the game? This is one of the fatal flaws of Red Baron. The Western Front Patch, and FCJ, work around the lack of expandability in RB in creative ways. However, its not a perfect system and it does have limitations.

In my opinion, this game should allow for expansion. How much? Shoot for the stars. Allow for the possibility of having ALL of the aces included, ALL of the units, ALL of the active duty plane types, for ALL of the war, in ALL fronts. Maybe even allow for fantasy planes, or fantasy fronts. They don't HAVE to be in the first release, just leave enough flexibility in the game for such things to be added later.

I could definately accept a game which starts with 50 aircraft, provided that it allows for a lot of aircraft expansion slots for future additions. I honestly think that a minimum of 1000 aircraft type slots should be available. This may sound like a lot, but if a group wants to be able to make all of the types that I've mentioned then this should accomodate everyone's wishes. The FM and DM are different stories and I don't know how that will be resolved, but I'm sure that something can be figured out.

In other words, its not impossible to accomplish the goal of 100 or more aircraft types for single play or multiplay.

Droops

#1389314 - 10/01/03 12:25 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
Quote:
VonHelton stated post one of this thread:

Now that we've heard from the peanut gallery.........
Sorry, but the peanut gallery here has repeatedly sited evidence from published works to refute many of VonHelton's assumptions, while request for his substantiating sources have remained unaswered!

Quote:
Then we've had further pronouncements from VonHelton in this thread to this effect:

That sounds defeatest to me.

RB had 50 planes, and it wasn't enough.........FOR A SIM.

......For a GAME, I guess 4 planes is plenty.


Again a statement which has no validity whatsoever! What GAME is he talking about that is only going to have "4 planes"?

Furthermore, VonHelton is entitled to his opinion, but to set forth a pronouncement that he will decide what Knights Over Europe will be based on his criteria only, is a bit out there.

Quote:

Now Droops you state:

Goodness, such negativity! Calm down for a minute and let's discuss this a bit more rationally.
Well Droops, many of us here have been discussing issues here rationally for quite some time now, despite the unsubstantiated claims that continued to be presented!

Additionally, and to the contrary we have been very positive about what Aspect has officially released for us to see and read about KOE.

I have confidence that the design team behind KOE knows what it's doing, and that they probably have a sharp sim under development here, despite your judgement that the sim needs 100 plane types in order to be validated!

Looking forward to reading your posting in more depth here, but we are discussing what we would like to see in the next generation of WWI sims afterall........not what we're personally demanding!

#1389315 - 10/01/03 06:11 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


FlyX, I think you've misread my statements here. First, who says that I haven't had reasonable discussions about flight sims and what's needed in a WWI sim for some time? Maybe I haven't had the discussions where you've been, but I've been around for a long time as well. I'm a bit offended by that tone.

Second, whether I think 100 planes will validate the sim or not isn't the point. I think it would be a good goal to shoot for, for the reasons that I've outlined.

Maybe you should read my post before shooting your mouth off.

Droops

#1389316 - 10/01/03 10:17 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 229
LORD BYRON Offline
Member
LORD BYRON  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 229
Medfield MA USA
FxW,

Atthe risk of placing my head into the jaws of the lion, may I suggest that we all take a five minute time-out to collect ourselves. Droops is an old time RB guy (head absolutely screwed on correctly with proper thread rotation and everything), who has been around for years and years and really is highly committed to WW1 flight sims. I don't think for a moment that he had any intention of dumping on the KOE development project.

LB out, and running for cover ....


Quote:

Now Droops you state:

Goodness, such negativity! Calm down for a minute and let's discuss this a bit more rationally.
Well Droops, many of us here have been discussing issues here rationally for quite some time now, despite the unsubstantiated claims that continued to be presented!

Additionally, and to the contrary we have been very positive about what Aspect has officially released for us to see and read about KOE.

I have confidence that the design team behind KOE knows what it's doing, and that they probably have a sharp sim under development here, despite your judgement that the sim needs 100 plane types in order to be validated!

Looking forward to reading your posting in more depth here, but we are discussing what we would like to see in the next generation of WWI sims afterall........not what we're personally demanding! [/QB][/QUOTE]

#1389317 - 10/01/03 10:25 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
No Droops, you need to read my post more clearly:

Quote:
Well Droops, many of us here have been discussing issues here rationally for quite some time now, despite the unsubstantiated claims that continued to be presented!
Here, is this forum Droops, and many of us have been patiently, and courteously discussing ideas and history here on this forum for many months now!

If you wish to join VonHelton in his claims about rotary aircraft myths, or Allied prejudice, or the fact that he will judge on his criteria what the gaming world will accept as a Game or a Sim based on the number of aircraft a WWI project contains........then you have taken a position!

So please support VonHelton's assertions, but go back to the beginning of this KOE board, and do some catching up reading first on your new task, cause there's plenty of material you're now going to have to defend!!!

#1389318 - 10/01/03 10:31 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
LORD BYRON................he over reacted to a statement that wasn't even directed at him, however, if he is choosing to align himself now with VonHelton claims, so be it!

#1389319 - 10/01/03 11:22 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 229
LORD BYRON Offline
Member
LORD BYRON  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 229
Medfield MA USA
FxW,

LB iscarefully peering over the lip of my foxhole ...... showing flag of truce ..... now walking slowly with both hands in clear view. I don't think Droops is REALLY lined up with VH. Droops and I just have had a REALLY long history with VH over at the Delphi RB2 Forum, replete with all manner of high drama. I am not trying to speak for Droops here; I'm just trying to keep the peace between two good guys.


LB

Quote:
Originally posted by FlyXwire:
LORD BYRON................he over reacted to a statement that wasn't even directed at him, however, if he is choosing to align himself now with VonHelton claims, so be it!

#1389320 - 10/01/03 11:24 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
Quote:

Droops said:
Maybe you should read my post before shooting your mouth off.
Droops, pettiness was never present in these discussions until old animosities from the Red Baron community arrived.

KOE is a new sim altogether, give it the chance it deserves!

#1389321 - 10/02/03 01:59 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
I totally understand LB, and I thank you for your generous words and efforts!

I do not belong to that "old school" from which you speak of, but I have been a miniatures wargamer, designer, and judge for over thirty years, a WW2 reenactor for over ten years, been a PC gamer/simmer for the last decade, and a WWI aircraft skinner for the last three years, and like a lot of the guys that frequent these sim forums around this hobby world of ours, I've aquired a bit of knowledge and experience along the way.

The first thing I assume is that other guys on these forums, just like me, also have excellent ideas and knowledge to add to the conversations that go on here, as well as elsewhere. However, what really motivates me is that respect remains a top priority in all conversations I engage in!!! Sorry if I'm old fashioned, but if someone joins into an ongoing discussion, and stakes his claim to all knowing, and all seeing preeminence (and of course I'm not talking about Droops here, never have been), well that just aint right!

Now on top of that, if an individual is pushing what I consider propaganda, myths, or plain ole disinformation, well call me old fashioned again, but we've got just a bit too much of that going around nowadays anyway, and as a trained historian I'm not going to let it go unchallenged (nor will others thank goodness)!!!

Sure, try to be polite (I demand that)! State those facts and figures (we should expect that)! Ask the guy for his sources, but in the end if there's nothing there to back up the claims, then I want to know what the person's agenda is!

Did the individual come to a forum to help, or to hurt?

Did the individual come to the forum to make suggestions for a sim's development, or to make demands that if he doesn't have it his way, that the sim will never be worthy of being called anything but a "game"?

Finally, does the individual actually know what he's doing himself?

Well all this is neither here nor there, but it only takes one rotten apple to spoil the pie!

I've engaged in conversations at length on one RB forum before, and the lack of civility, respect for documentation, and general mean-spiritedness was awful! I call this kind of in-fighting the "von-Sniping" syndrome.

Well luckily Knights Over Europe is not Red Baron, nor do we have to bring the culture of pettiness and bickering over here to this forum either, because KOE is a new beginning, and offers new possibilites for friendship and entertainment.

Sorry if I sound highbrow at times, or dig in my heels when I feel someone is taking advantage of the community, or attempts to malign a product that's never even been released!

Some people want "Pie in the Sky"!

In the end maybe we'll get our cake, and get a chance to eat it too!

Still, it's all about KOE, and we'll be that much more luckier when it's finally released.

BE THERE!!!

#1389322 - 10/02/03 06:12 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 385
Robey Price Offline
Member
Robey Price  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 385
Shoreview MN
Ummm, if I might butt in...FlyXwire bud sincerely I don't think Droops was aligning himself with VH, nor do I think he was tryin' to be confrontational. He had previously complimented you, me, and LB for our contributions.

Can we all just go "weapons tight" (cease fire) on this?

Not taking side, just agreeing with LB that you just mis-read the intent of Droops' posts.

Robey

#1389323 - 10/02/03 08:21 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Folks, we are truely at a crossroads here, and many of the lurkers probably don't realize it.

Me and Droops hate each other with a passion, and our "intense moments of fellowship" are LEGENDARY........

For both of us to agree that the number of aircaft in a SIM (key word) needs to be around 100 is an unprecedented milestone in the RB Community, and may never happen again, so whip out those cameras & take pictures!

The fact that we agree that seaplanes played a significant role in hostilities is another milestone!

\:D \:D \:D

.

Either we're about to see "Peace on Earth", the return of the Gods (or Messiah, if you prefer), or the Earth is DOOMED!

:p

.

#1389324 - 10/02/03 08:35 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Originally posted by SimHQ Tom Cofield:
You know, I partially agree with you Von Helton, but I am somewhat of a realist.

I do think that all of the major aircraft, including significant subtypes should be modeled in the game. If this is somewhere between 50-100 aircraft fine. If the developers have time to include lesser known, possibly less sucessful aircraft all well and good but I do think there is only so much time and effort that can be placed in one simulation, especially one that sells for 40-50 dollars.

I myself am willing to pay the 40-50 bucks for the base game and another 40-50 bucks for an 'add on' that adds every aircraft that saw any real service over the Western Front. I do honestly think that modeling (even as AI aircraft) some of the more obscure aircraft is just not feasable in a 40 dollar game.
And I agree with you sir!

I have publically stated that I am ready, willing, and able to help Aspect get the planes out, in exchange for 2 finished copies of the game.

.......That's not only a fair offer, I actually come out a loser on the deal!

Of course, I will need access to the tools & supplies to accomplish this.

All Aspect would have to do is upload those tools & a few 3DS files to their website for download by me, and then I FTP the planes to their website for inspection.

I have NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that I can crank out enough aircraft to field many of the planes we'd want to see show up.



.

#1389325 - 10/02/03 09:51 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Originally posted by Droops:
It must be a sign of the apocalypse because I agree with you completely on this point. I want to see well-done models, but I personally want to see more planes in the game. I think that shooting for 100 (including seaplanes) is a reasonable figure for a WWI sim. Let's face it, there were a lot of planes that saw service in WWI. To be an accurate sim, you're going to have to do a lot of work to portray a lot of aircraft.

Droops
A: We cant divulge all the specific airplanes, just yet, but players can expect to fly planes in KOE, which heretofore have only been seen as computer controlled targets in other WWI simulations.

- KOE Interview

\:D \:D \:D

.

#1389326 - 10/02/03 10:19 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
OK forum members............VH is all yours, I'm tired of arguing with the guy!

#1389327 - 10/02/03 03:16 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 229
LORD BYRON Offline
Member
LORD BYRON  Offline
Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 229
Medfield MA USA
FxW,

Believe me when I tell you that you have just joined a very large and distinguished community with that statement.....;-] !


LB

Quote:
Originally posted by FlyXwire:
OK forum members............VH is all yours, I'm tired of arguing with the guy!

#1389328 - 10/02/03 10:32 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Some people never can be satisfied...

I waited for years to get my hands on an WWI sim with a good campaign engine and now I found out that such a game is about to be made.

Too bad half of the posts here are from some whiners who seem to think they are the Projectleader of this game. While I think critism and userinput is important, some of the demands and behaviour here is simply rude and offensive.

100 planes? Tell me one game which offers that from the box! Maybe some unnamed persons here want to program their own sim. That or contiune to play Bug Baron II until you grow rotary engins out of your ears.

#1389329 - 10/02/03 10:37 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote:
Originally posted by Galland22:
100 planes? Tell me one game which offers that from the box! Maybe some unnamed persons here want to program their own sim. That or contiune to play Bug Baron II until you grow rotary engins out of your ears.
If you go into a fancy resteraunt, but all you ask for is green tea, that is all you'll ever get until you ask for something different.

#1389330 - 10/02/03 10:46 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
Quote:
Droops said:

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 Robey. ;\)

#1389331 - 10/03/03 07:02 PM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Obviously there's a lot of misunderstanding going on here.

Let me try to clear some things up.

First, as has been stated, I've been around in WWI sims for a few years. I've also been around on The Aerodrome forum, and subscribe to Over the Front and Cross and Cockade. I have a modest but still good library on WWI aviation and WWI fighting in general. I was also involved in the ill-fated 17 Hours project. While I don't have the experience that some have, I do have a bit more than the average person on the street on this issue.

A few observations.

FlyX, I agree that the RB forums have had a lot of venom in the past. So have most flight sim boards. It seems to go with the territory. Also, as for aligning myself with BvH, I don't think you've read all of my posts closely. I agree with him that 100 planes is a very worthy goal. I do NOT agree that there is an 'Allied conspiracy,' that the German rotaries are kings of the sky, or that the Dr.1 was porked in RB, or any of that.

I apologize for being snippy.

Getting back to the 100 planes, if you look at my post closely, I indicate that 50 is a good start but that some provision should be made to get to 100, and that that should be a GOAL to reach. I've also indicated that the game should be expandable to put in as many plane types as anyone would want or care to make. Do I expect 100 in the first release? No I don't. But as I also said, WWI is unique for all of the plane types that did see service. WWII doesn't come nearly as close, and subsequent wars see a smaller and smaller number of aircraft types involved. So, if you are going to model a WWI sim accuratly, IMO you must be prepared to model (or have room for addons to model) a lot more aircraft.

Finally, I have been monitoring a lot of the WWI sims in development. . . .quietly. Most of the time I don't post. Please do not believe that my silence means ignorance, or a lack of interest. Conversely, don't take my sudden posting to mean that I'm picking fights or trying to muscle my way into something. I'm trying to contribute my insight, thoughts, knowledge and experience (such as it is) to this project. If I didn't think it was a good project I wouldn't waste my time or yours.

Hopefully this clears things up a bit. Thanks for reading.

Droops

#1389332 - 10/04/03 12:25 AM Re: No Rotary engines for the Germans?  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
FlyXwire Offline
Member
FlyXwire  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,080
St.Charles, Missouri U.S.A.
Well then Droops, you now understand that I was not being negative when I posted this reply to VonHelton..........

Quote:
How many combat flight simulations, or general flight sims for that matter were released in the past year or two that included 50 flyable aircraft, let alone 100!!!

No, let me ask the question another way..........

Would you be willing to pay $200.00 up front for Aspect Simulations (and their producer/distributor) to recover their time and capital investment to design 100 high-fidelity WWI aircraft for KOE?

Now let me ask if you would be willing to wait twice as long (say yet another year), perhaps till Q4 2005 for this sim to finally be ready for release?

Has anyone cared to explore the Aspect Simulation's design team........how many people at present are working on KOE?

Now, if Microsoft, or Infogrames, or Ubi Soft, with vastly greater resources can only distribute sims with what 34(CFS3-including variants), 24(FS2004), 14(Strike Fighters), 31(IL2-including variants), +30(IL2FB-including variants)respectively, during these past few years, is it reasonable to demand 100 aircraft of KOE.........or we'll condemn Aspect's effort (sight unseen) to be worthy of only "a game" status???

It's time for a Reality Check here!!!
...........only realistic!

I totally agree with you on the need for KOE to have open access so that the fan community can invest into it's future! IL-2 was built with this concept in mind, Strike Fighters embraced this enlightened approach, the FS & CFS series allowed for aircraft builds and graphic enhancements, but perhaps SDOE: Fighter Squadron, Screamin' Demons Over Europe has taken the concept to it's greatest height yet!

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm............".....Over Europe" where have I heard that recently? ;\)

Seriously, I've spent over four years now as a member of the WWI mod community which has worked together to build FS-WWI, the credible and certainly beautiful Great War add-on to SDOE, and without the open concept that was rolled into this WWII sim, it would never have been possible to do so!

I certainly agree that user aircraft, vehicles, and skins should be importable into KOE, as easily as the limits of online compatibility and quality of build will allow. Heck, as an amateur texturer I can't wait to start skinning for KOE.

So let me just say Droops, that we can all work together for KOE's future, but we must also have faith that the guys behind Aspect Sims did their homework too!

What we really need is another Press Release, or interview that gives us a picture of KOE's build philosophy, included plane-set, and approach to modability!

Tom.............??? ;\)

Anyway, good to see the air is clearing here a bit! \:\)

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Harrier Pilot "Sharkey" Ward was 80
by F4UDash4. 05/19/24 11:01 PM
Autographs
by F4UDash4. 05/18/24 06:34 PM
Boxing fans
by RossUK. 05/18/24 03:11 PM
Bud Anderson was 102
by F4UDash4. 05/18/24 01:14 PM
The guy in War Games passes at 92
by NoFlyBoy. 05/18/24 02:28 AM
V-22 (all variants) wings clipped.
by Blade_RJ. 05/17/24 11:33 PM
Unusual climate conditions during WWI.
by RedToo. 05/17/24 04:52 PM
WW2 allied railroad effort after D-Day
by oldgrognard. 05/16/24 12:06 AM
New Viper Demo team livery
by RossUK. 05/15/24 03:48 PM
Beate Uhse-Rotermund.
by RedToo. 05/14/24 03:47 PM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0