Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Olham

Albatros under the looking glass

Recommended Posts

Dear Dev Team

 

Here are some observations I made - perhaps you could consider them for P4 ?

 

Since short time, I am flying the Albatros D.III early, right after flying the D.II in the Full DiD

Campaign "Krauts vs Crumpets". Hadn't compared the two before really.

Now it seems to me, that the D.III is slightly less manoeuverable than the D.II, which it shouldn't.

Then I tried the D.V yesterday after the D.III, and I got the impression, it was slightly clumsier.

Which it shouldn't be - after all I've read, it wasn't much of an improvement, but still a little.

 

Also, one thing that should be looked at is the roll-rate-drop after just one or two hits in the wing.

It seems to happen EVERY time - you get two holes, and the roll rate goes down the drain.

I mean, if the aileron cable was hit and snapped, the roll would really go to hell. But how small is

the chance to hit that with two or three rounds?

And if only the wing surface is punctured, it wouldn't inflict the roll rate much at all.

Perhaps you could have a new look at that for P4 development?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Olham. You can instantly notice how the Albatros D.III is clumsier and more difficult to handle in combat than its predecessor, the D.II. And yet the changes the Albatros designers made to the model (the most important being the Nieuport-style lower wings) were meant to improve its maneuverability, which is what happened, if the history books are to be believed. There should be a difference between the D.II and D.III, but not the way it is now, when the D.III is actually worse than the D.II.

 

While changing the Alb FM, you might as well fix that wing damage issue. You know, make the best WW1 flight sim even better than it is now?

 

And where's P4, my Visa is getting anxious? :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, one thing that should be looked at is the roll-rate-drop after just one or two hits in the wing.

It seems to happen EVERY time - you get two holes, and the roll rate goes down the drain.

I mean, if the aileron cable was hit and snapped, the roll would really go to hell. But how small is

the chance to hit that with two or three rounds?

And if only the wing surface is punctured, it wouldn't inflict the roll rate much at all.

Perhaps you could have a new look at that for P4 development?

 

 

I have to agree as I have noticed myself that (anecdotally) slight damage does degrade manueverabilty - perhaps a tad more than it should?

 

I guess the moral of the story is; "don't get hit!" :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the moral of the story is; "don't get hit!" :grin:

 

That's what the ghosts of the countless pilots I've lost keep telling me every night. :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I get a better experience if I reduce the chances of hitting the aileron cables when a round goes into the hit box from 100% to 90%. You can do this by editing the .xdp file for each plane.

 

 

 

 

 

OR, you can download my DM! :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I get a better experience if I reduce the chances of hitting the aileron cables when a round goes into the hit box from 100% to 90%. You can do this by editing the .xdp file for each plane.

 

 

 

 

 

OR, you can download my DM! :grin:

 

Is your latest in the D/L section?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for fun, I fired up RB3D (heavily modded) and flew a couple of quick fights with the Alb D.II and D.III. The D.III felt much more maneuverable, just like I remembered, and the D.II was quite heavy, making it better suited for vertical maneuvering than turn fighting. This is how it should be in OFF too, in my humble opinion. (But geez how ugly RB3D is compared to OFF! There's no going back to that anymore, that's for sure.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(But geez how ugly RB3D is compared to OFF! There's no going back to that anymore, that's for sure.)

 

 

Yes, just switch from 2D mode (passable when modded) to 3D mode (Oh My :blush:).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well FM debates can go on for years.. and 5 years later someone has a pop at the D.III ;)

 

D.V was not an improvement from the D.III that it should have been. It was faster, but heavier it was generally thought to be worse.

 

Have you compared altitude performance too Olham D.II and D.III? D.II when I originally made it was more sluggish and worse climb.

 

D.III was not as "nimble" as the N17 design it copied due to much heavier controls.

 

D.II was improved btw, so maybe it's caught up to the D.III - D.III had extensive testing and is one of the core FMs of OFF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dntknw.gif It does make me wonder ( as I am sure many before me has) what the D-3 and D-5 would have looked and performed like if the D-2 design would have been more fully developed instead of copying the N-17 wing.

drinks.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pol, I just had a fight against Nieuport 17 Lewis at 11.000 feet. Not yet the ceiling alt. for the D III,

but whilst the Nupes happily turned and tossed about, and chewed up my tail, I was trying not to

stall an aircraft, that seemed to run on soap instead of fuel.

 

I have read the NASA report about WW1 fighters and want to show the link and an excerpt here:

 

http://www.hq.nasa.g...P-468/ch2-2.htm

 

A comparison of the data given (...) for the Albatros D-III and the Nieuport 17 leads

to some interesting speculation. Although the D-III was heavier and had more wing

area and a more powerful engine than the Nieuport, the values of the wing loading

and the power loading for the two aircraft are not greatly different.

Furthermore, the values of the zero-lift drag coefficient and the maximum liftdrag ratio

are about the same. These two aircraft can therefore be considered to have about

equal aerodynamic efficiency and, accordingly, to exhibit about the same performance

characteristics. In fact, the maximum speeds (...) are about the same although the

altitudes at which the speeds were measured are somewhat different. Since, for small

altitude variations, the decrease in drag that accompanies the reduction in air density

is about offset by the reduction in power with altitude, the speed comparison of the two

aircraft (...) is valid.

Values of the time required to climb to various altitudes are also about the same for the

two aircraft at the lower altitudes (...); however, the climbing capability of the Albatros is

clearly superior to that of the Nieuport above 10 000 feet. This plus the heavier armament

of the Albatros are no doubt responsible for the generally accepted opinion that it was a

more effective fighter than the Nieuport 17.

 

Pol, I am not the type that complains easily, cause he just had an unlucky sortie, so it would

be nice and polite, if you would regard it with a little more seriousness.

The dev team have read and regarded older notes of the users about the SPAD, the Pfalz D III

and most recently, the DH-5.

As far as I could see, all these aircraft FM were slightly modified for the better.

The only craft, that show 'misbehaviour' to me now, are the Albatros D III and D V.

 

You know, I really love OFF. So when I'm writing this, it's only to make a Super Sim even better.

Perhaps the team can have a serious look at those FM again? Thanks for reading.

Edited by Olham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The D.III had extensive testing during original design, and has since had improvements. We can cross quote comments from various sources all day

 

The old DR1 is porked debates rolled on for years in Red Baron days ;)

 

"Albatros Fighter (Farewell to wings, by Cecil Lewis, 1964)

 

cockpit more roomy (than British fighters), made the whole machine seem bigger.

machine was sluggish, strong, reliable and determined. It had none of the feeling of lightness and grace that our own machines had.

Throwing it around in the sky was hard work.

Engine was big and heavy."

 

"Albatros D.III (Sopwith Scout 7309, by Sir Gordon Taylor,

Laterally it was quite light on te controls, but in a steep turn pulling the aircraft around with the elevator it seemed quite heavy. I could see immediately why the German pilots kept out of the close duelling turns."

 

But anyway sure when I have a spare moment or twenty (!) I will look again. It wouldn't be for P3 now though as we have moved on and are well into P4. As I say many of these FMs have been around with minor changes for 5 years or so and have generally been well received - considering the bickering that goes on on some other sims. They are comparable to each other, and each craft fits it's role reasonably well I believe. But yep especially as it's you Olham we'll look again :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand there is limited time, manpower and money, but since it's been brought up, here's my Albatros D wish list for P4:

 

1. Include the Albatros D.I. I know only 50 were produced but they accompanied the dawn of the Jagdstaffeln and are historically significant. If the Flying Glider—er, Razor, a bicycle and a car are in the sim, then certainly the D.I should be, too; its engine actually worked and Richthofen shot down more planes with a D.I than were shot down by every Fokker E.V/D.VIII pilot combined. Don’t care for Richthofen? Okay, Erwin Böhme shot down more planes with a D.I than were shot down by every Fokker E.V/D.VIII pilot combined.

 

2. Wing radiator for the Albatros D.II. Later machines got rid of the fuselage mounted “ear” radiators and employed a Teves and Braun wing radiator; a famous example is Oswald Boelcke’s D.386/16. Thus, both D.II types should be available.

 

3. Less airframe or eradication of visible airframe on control surfaces. Photographs show that very, very little/usually no airframe was visible on the ailerons, elevator or rudder. Might be seen on the rudder; sometimes, maybe, if. Mostly these surfaces were very smooth, certainly the ailerons and elevator, especially compared to the wings. Most color profiles in books are drawn with excessive frames/shadowing on these areas and many people have become used to that, but the overwhelming majority of those depictions are not accurate in that regard.

 

4. All Albatros rudder logos should “fly toward” the spinner. Currently in the sim most if not all are backwards on the port side of the rudder. I’ve mentioned this before but this noteworthy detail warrants another mention.

 

5. No green/mauve wings on Johannisthal-built D.IIIs.

 

6. Make/install throttle onto the control column. Currently the spark retard handle on the port side of the cockpit is being used for the throttle, but the Albs all had them on the control column. I’ve mentioned this before and Polovski has acknowledged same, so this is likely to be addressed.

 

7. Make/install proper radiator handles on the D.Va.

 

8. The NASM D.Va book includes pilot reports that reveal the water in the wing radiator heated/expanded during takeoff/initial climbout, creating a vapor trail that streamed behind the airplane until the excess water was gone. Certainly not a crucial addition to the sim; just a little eye candy.

 

9. Reduce/eliminate the throttle/power lag. Currently there is a ca. five second lag between power application and engine reaction, and the engine is woefully slow to increase power once it finally does start to increase. Thus you can literally slam the throttle forward and yank it back to idle and the engine will not respond—if you do this in a real airplane with a reciprocating engine it is a good way to have mechanics beat the hell out of you once they figure out what damaged their engine. Overall this power lag is annoying but becomes critical in certain combat situations and landing situations.

 

10. Central radiators on the early D.IIIs. Currently the radiators are all offset to starboard but the first 300 or so D.IIIs had them centrally located.

 

11. I agree with the “one hole/no roll” issues. Over the years OFF has addressed and improved this CFS3 annoyance, yet it still lingers too often. Many times I’ll have either no holes or just a single hole in my upper wing but it will reduce my roll rate by at least ca. 33%--even though the ailerons are still fully deflected. If after wing damage the control surfaces still deflect as fully as they did before the wing fabric damage, the airplane is going to roll at the same rate; certainly with only one hole in the fabric. I accept occasional damage to cables, pulleys, etc., but in those cases the aileron deflection should be reduced or eliminated, depending upon the amount of internal wing damage.

 

12. I also agree there is disproportionate performance degradation from the D.I through D.V; this is found in many sims. The D.I, II and III were very similar, aside (mostly) from the D.III’s reduced lower wing cord and raked upper and lower wingtips, and although there wasn’t a significant improvement in performance with the D.III there wasn’t a significant decrease in performance, either. Similarly, the D.V was, according to Idflieg, “a lightened D.III of virtually equal performance.” Early D.Vs had empty weights of 620 kg compared with the D.III’s 675 kg. The D.Va was heavier which negatively affected performance, and although this was partly offset by increase engine horsepower the D.Va was the least “nimble” of the D-types. Of course, the D.III, V, and Va had the lower wing issues that the D.I and D.II did not, but this is a structural difference and not a performance difference.

 

 

The above items are offered as constructive suggestions for consideration regarding P4 and are not meant to denigrate P3 in any regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys. Very likely agree with all of those, which ones however could be looked at or improved have no idea currently, some are sim game engine issues which may not be possible to address, but I believe

12. roughly agrees with what we have in sim. i.e. currently I believe the FMs with respect to each other are good.

 

10. It's in there already called "Albatros D.III early" in Sim.

 

9. no idea.

 

6. Will be fixed at some point but it's in 8 aircraft of course.

 

 

More types available wow, well we have 8 Albatros already, we'd maybe like another 2 DI and OEF but even more may take a little time ;)

It is a "sim" and not real life, but we try. If there is a P5 only time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not an habitual Albatros pilot. Apart from the KvK DiD thing, I have hardly ever flown any of the family. Nor am I awash in their vital statistics, so when I report my observations below, they might well be true to life. I just don't know, and am relying on more knowledgeable people to determine if they're in step with references. So, the only Albatri I have flown enough in OFF to know their behavior are the D.II and D.III early. But I think I've got a good handle on them now, at least as they work in the game if not in real life.

 

Based on this limited experience, IMHO the D.III early in OFF is a SIGNIFICANT retrograde step from the D.II in all performance aspects. The D.III early is slower, doesn't climb as well, has a much lower celing, and can't turn at all. Plus, of course, it has a tendency to shed its wings, which often seems to happen under inappropriate circumstances.

 

The D.III early has nearly no climb ability above 10,000 feet. With great patience, a lot of time free from enemy action, and a light fuel load, you can reach a bit over 13000 feet. It would probably go a bit higher but it would take a LONG time because the rate of climb at this point is just a hair above zero. At this altitude, the D.III early has a top speed of about 65 knots and can barely hold this altitude. It certainly is completely incapable of ACM up there. Yet it's my understanding that it routinely flew much higher than this in real life. The D.II, OTOH, can easily reach 15-16000 feet and fight effectively up there.

 

In highly banked LEFT turns, the D.III early suffers accelerated stalls of the RIGHT wing while at the high speed of 80 knots. These cause it to do a slow right snaproll. IOW, you cannot turn this plane to the left in combat. You can make very gentle left turns, like for waypoint turns, but you can forget all leftwards ACM. This is a crippling problem because the Albatros MUST force the fight leftwards against its predominantly rotarty-engined foes. Right combat turns work, but the enemy is so much better in that direction that it's a bad idea to turn that way. The D.II, OTOH, turns quite well in both directions.

 

The top level speed at low altitude of the D.III early is about 95 knots. The D.II, OTOH, can do a bit over 100.

 

The D.III early loses its lower wings, which the D.II does not. OK, that really happened, but IMHO in the game this happens under the wrong circumstances. It's my understanding that the sequiplane Albatri lost their wings due to high speed. As speed increased above a certain point, the lower wings' leading edges twisted upwards because they only had 1 spar. When the wings twisted a certain amount, RIP (Nupes had the same problem). That's why the D.Va had those little auxiliary struts, to hold the lower leading edges down. However, in the game, the D.III early will not lose its wings at any speed it can reach. In a full-power vertical dive, the D.III early maxes out at 200 knots, at which point its nose can no longer be kept down and it pulls out by itself even with full down elevator. This has no effect at all on the wings. Instead, what makes the wings come off is large elevator input at fairly low speeds. That is, trying to loop or turn tightly at like 70 knots. The aircraft at these times is under VERY little G, as in no trace of redding or blacking out visible at all. IOW, the load must be less than +3 or -1 Gs.

 

In fact, I think the wing-ripping is tied directly to joystick position without any regard for G forces. It's possible to make hard turns and loops at higher speeds, with an equal lack of visual evidence of high G forces, with no problem. But the slower you're going, the more stick input you need to create the same G forces, and apparently this is what makes the wings come off. But it does seem a bit silly that maneuvers at higher speeds, or just going as fast as possible in a straight line, are perfectly safe while maneuvers at lower speeds (but the same or even less Gs) are not.

 

Anyway, I can't see an aircraft with such obvious deficiencies being accepted for service, especially given its marked inferiority to the plane it was intended to replace. Nor can I believe that an aircraft would be accepted for service with load factors of less than 5 Gs (apparently the standard of the day). I admit to knowing very little about the Albatros family, and I know the D.V was something of a dud (as in no real improvement over the D.III, but not a retrograde step), but I've always heard that the D.III was a good airplane and a significant improvement on the D.II. Hell, the Austrians used D.IIIs with bigger engines (and unbreakable wings) right up to the end of the war with great success and performance in some ways better than the Fokker D.VII. I know I'm flying the early model of the D.III, but even it should have been a step up from the D.II, which in OFF it definitely isn't.

 

It's my understanding that OBD isn't going to patch P3 any more, so any fixes will have to await P4. That's cool. I'm just saying that during P4 development, you should take a hard look at how the Albatri perform and break in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rofl.gif I dont Know if going into super detail is a good idea. For example, a version of the Fokker D-7 bulit by Albatross should be included it had less engine covering panels. This was due to fire by the ammo box. I would rather vote for more recon a/c to fatten the scores with be they AI or flyablegrin.gif Hey Bullet head, did you play a game called Jutland whats ur opinion of it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pol, it's understood, that more model variations and detail would take time & resources

and so may have to be postponed until P5. Absolutely understandable.

 

That the D III is not better than the D II is a drawback that should be eliminated.

I'd much rather follow the observations of Manfred von Richthofen there, instead of

Cecil Lewis, who may not have flown the various types intensively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Albatros D.III (Sopwith Scout 7309, by Sir Gordon Taylor,

Laterally it was quite light on te controls, but in a steep turn pulling the aircraft around with the elevator it seemed quite heavy. I could see immediately why the German pilots kept out of the close duelling turns."

 

 

Pol that is one rare and expensive book and I've been itching to get my grubby mits on it for years. As I've always considered you the best looking and most astute of the devs along with being a devoted family man, can I have a lend grin.gif Any copies going cheap anywhere ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

catch, I've been looking for that one to add to my library as well, without having to spend in excess of $100 US dollars. Missed a chance a couple years ago on a nice 1st of it for $45.00. Just a bit too slow that day.

 

BTW, our OFF devs are great, aren't they, (rhetorical question).

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

As Pol rightly pointed it out, I came on here specifically to say that I was wrong about the OFF early Alb D.IIIs not having central radiators. As he indicated, they do. I have been checking/testing these various models but obviously I overlooked the central radiator or thought I was in an early when I was in a late D.III. Either way, I was wrong. I'm all for voicing suggestions but I do not want to state inaccuracies and I apologize for having done so.

 

With respect to Cecil Lewis's observations in his book (which I own and will opine that while okay, it isn't worth a hundred or even fifty bucks--I paid $17.95 for mine and that's barely a fair price for the content within), his comments regard the Albatros in comparison with British planes, not other Albatrosses. Thus, to a man used to flying light and nimble Pups, etc., any Albatros is going to be sluggish by comparison and wouldn't have the "grace" of Pups, Camels, etc. That the Albatros isn't as maneuverable as a Pup isn't the point, though, because an Albatros was built for speed and twin-gun firepower, not maneuverability. It's the marked performance degradation from the Alb D.II to D.III and D.V that is the concern with OFF's machines. In that regard, respectfully, my earlier point 12. does not agree with what is in the sim because in OFF there is a significant decrease in performance from the DII to DIII to DV.

 

9. no idea.

I understand you've much to do and may not get to this. Hopefully it can be examined, as the power lag is even worse than the One-Hole-No-Roll because it's always there.

 

6. Will be fixed at some point but it's in 8 aircraft of course.

If interested in accuracy, which I believe OFF is, then that's all the more reason to get it done.

 

It is a "sim" and not real life, but we try.

Understood. If I could model these planes I'd volunteer my time to help--a sentiment which helps you not at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK so fix the models, add some models, fix the FMs got it ;)

I don't have time to reply to every comment here unfortunately. As I said we'd look when we get a spare amount of time, and it would be P4 not P3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

 

Updating P3 now is not going to happen as we are waaay into P4.

 

I can say that P4 is an overhaul/update of almost every aspect of OFF.....

 

 

WM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..