I am seeing the FM issue invading other topics, so rather than derail those I thought we could use this to discuss the Flight Models of various aircraft depicted in ROF.

What planes are considered weakest and in need of revision? Do you have any supporting documentation to go along with it?

The Fokker Dr.I FM is porked...

OMG, wait for it..

You are altogether too REASONABLE to have the handle Troll, Troll.

The case for hard data: human perception is off. No two people see things the same way.

Why pilot perception is not good:
- Pilot quality is not taken into account, as it is unknowable, and yet vital for getting the best fron an airplane.
- There are variables in real life scenarios that alter the outcome but are not taken into account by the participants.
- Example: That plane is faster than this one - well maybe that plane was already in a shallow dive and had built up a head of steam.
- In the heat of combat, flawed perception is the norm and not the exception.


The case for pilot accounts: WWI data is notoriously bad. The hard data simply does not exist. Therefore pilot perception is key.

Why hard data is not good:
- Variations in rigging could affect performance.
- Airframe aging could affect performance.
- Engine quality could affect performance.
- Pilot ability could affect performance.
- Sometimes tests were performed on specially rigged factory planes.
- Sometimes tests were performed on war weary captures with unfamiliar pilots and incorrect parts (fuel, propeller, just to name a few).
- German HP results were at fixed RPMs - Allied results were recorded at optimal RPMs.

Argue away, but anybody that believes that they have the answer is wrong from the start. As soon as you start quoting performance figures I tune out. That was maybe one plane, one time. It is a data point only, not TRUTH.

So, where do we go? The TRUTH is not known and will be - probably because a single TRUTH never existed. However, if we combine pilot accounts with as many data points as possible we can get something that is sort of reasonable. With that in mind, lets ask for that which is unreasonable to be fixed, but limit things to that.

The answer is obvious: improved modeling. Forget putting in "it could go X kts at Y altitude!"
We should put in the plane's schematics and engine design and the sim should put out a plane that flies exactly like the real one did!! It's just number crunching, put enough numbers in and you'll get the proper outcome!!!

The drag of every guide wire, the weight of different paint schemes, the airfoil of the prop, the power generated in each piston...all of this can lead to the performance being dynamically ascertained with the proper design input into the sim!!!! Add in accurate modeling of temperature, humidity, and oxygen variations with altitude, how the engine oil and fuel reacts to those changes, historical notes on how well each squadron kept its planes maintained along with the general level of quality expected from the factories, and it will all just write itself!!!!!!!!!!!

You won't have to wonder "should the Camel out-dive the Alb at 1000m?" because you'll know from the sim the answer to that! What's so hard about this idea??!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!




The Jedi Master

I wish that was how it could be done. Perhaps in the not so distant future. This is what Xplane claims to do and RoF to some degree. I dont know how far along flight modeling has come, but I would think air and physics are known quantities that could be modeled in a flight sim. Then plug in the appropriate airfoil shapes, masses, and engine performances like you point out.

With enough processing power I don't see why it cant be done.

You seem to be saying "develop perfect knowledge on aircraft from 100 years ago and simulate it in every detail ... what's so hard about that?"

Am I missing the sarcastic smileys or do you really think that what you propose is even remotely possible?

Why is this not possible?
Perfect knowlege of course not.

But, a SPAD is a physical thing, a few of which are still around -- measure the thing. Maybe I am being naive here, but a physical object built to a design specification can be built -- no?

"FM issue invading other topics??" WTF!!!!! Now people can't even talk about the game without being an "invader"

Some reasons why it is not possible:

Replicas are not exact copies. Even if you made one exactly as they did in WWI, you would then have to convince the owner to turn it over for tests. Then you would have to perform those tests, exhaustively, fort each aircraft. Have to do much more than measure the thing. Have to do wind tunnel tests on all aspects + more.

Real samples, the few that still exist, are nearly 100 years old and not flyable, certainly not as they were flown in combat. Some of the types in RoF don't exist anywhere. There are no more.

There are no brand new engines being made. Can't so bench mark tests on a near 100 year old copy. Maybe some exact replicas are being made, but again, their owners are not offering them up to be tested.

That's a short list. Going to watch football so got to go.

Data and flight test reports from replicas are interesting but once again only alongside historical data and reports for comparison.

An example. Apparently most replica Camels have the large fuel tank behind the pilot omitted and use a tiny one situated in the ammo bay space in front of the pilot. That must really change the handling from the historical condition but its hardly ever mentioned in flight tests of modern replicas.

All good points. Yes, test data and pilot memoirs are inconclusive.

That is why I think the approach the Devs have taken, of building a computer model based on the aerodynamic properties and engine of the airplanes is pretty much the only logical approach. It may not be perfect, but as long as the devs apply the same standards to each plane, it should more or less respect their relative performance.

I just hope the Devs are not going to go the way of IL-2 and arbitrarily boost the performance of German planes just to please the Luftwhiners.

The only 100% correct FM is the one that happened 98 to 94 years ago for these planes.

My $.02 is that if existing data was the sole source for either German WWI or WWII planes, they would be badly hosed.

The Pfalz at 102 MPH is a good example. That was a captured plane at altitude. Model that against a factory fresh SE5a and you have a difference of 30-35 MPH. A Pfalz could not even come close to catching a two seater. In reality it just wasn't that bad. Maybe 120 MPH for a factory fresh plane, plus or minus some MPH. Still significantly slower than a SPAD or SE5a, but not quite the pig that most published accounts would have you believe.

The DRI is similarly quoted at 103 MPH. Again, a captured model at altitude. Real life performance would have been 115 give or take, compared to the Camel's 118. Still slow, but not THAT slow. Gives an idea of why the DRI was considered such an improvement by the better pilots. You give up a few MPH but get a lot of climb and maneuverability.

The German planes of late 1917 were mediocre, not awful. The Alb DVa probably is under modeled. The Pfalz probably is over modeled right now. A tweak to both would do. The DRI seems OK.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but the issue (at least for me) is not whether the FM's are too inaccurate but whether AI controlled planes use a different FM from what human players get. I have been suspecting this for a while because over the course of flying many missions in career mode I've noticed AI controlled planes pulling maneuvers that I myself have never been able to do in the same plane without tearing off my wings or spinning the plane.

I didn't think I needed the smileys, I thought the absurd number of !!!! used were sufficient...





The Jedi Master

One of the other drawbacks of this aircraft was it was too stable as a gun platform at higher speeds. In fact that's what most pilots that flew it had to say about it and why they didn't like it - Because of the construction it was less responsive and felt "heavy" in the air. That's great if you like travelling or sight-seeing, but these pilots were trying to fight! Also, what gave the Allies a bad impression in post-war testing was the aircraft's fuselage tended to warp and twist over time. This equates to bad performance in flight testing... I'm not quite sure which aircraft was tested after the war either - The Pfalz D.IIIa variant was equipped with a more powerful engine, addressing some of the complaints many Jasta pilots had about the first Pfalz D.III's being underpowered feeling. The aircraft did slip a lot at slower speeds when turning and tended to spin at those low speeds as well, which is something I take advantage of a lot when I get into a turning fight online with it. I've taken on Dr.1's and Camel's with the Pfalz D.III and came out a winner because I spin the aircraft, recover and get on their tails quickly. However, I lose a lot of energy doing this, and many times get picked off by another aircraft watching from afar that swoops in and have to force land somewhere. The Pfalz D.III was a very sturdy and strong aircraft, it can take a beating and almost dive with a Spad in combat. Which is why I fly it the most on-line!

To add to the problem is the fact that even if you get the flight model perfect it will not be the same on all computers. If you have a fast pc and get frame rates in the 80's or higher your actions will be much smoother and quite different from someone that gets frame rates in the low teens or twenty's. There are so many ways your perception and pc build and software can differ from others that is is mind boggling. Also think of all the different hardware such as joysticks and how each one reacts differenly, yes the list goes on and the variables add up.

So I think we should think of ROF as our own little world and the way it plays and feels to use, on our equipment, is the way it is going to be, thus real to use at that point in time.