Have we figured this out?

[+Polovski 414]

I sincerely hope the devs will take a look at revising the .air file drag settings for P4 or in a "realistic FM pack" addition sometime in the future. I would also like the recovery from most spins to be a little more difficult than it is now currently. Those are my only real 'complaints" about the FM. Considering all the real life factors that go into a flight model and the inherent limitations of the CFS3 engine, the OFF devs have done an outstanding job overall, IMO.

 

Thanks guys, just to say Airwrench displays drag by calculating it appropriately from the data you enter just as a display. It will usually override any drag you manually enter in cfg (often resets it to 1.0). It has all the data it needs to produce the performance.

 

We are looking at FMs in P4 as part of the whole process if we can improve then we will for sure.

[Winston DoRight 3]

Be careful what you ask for when you specify that you want the A.I. aircraft to fly at the same speed as you do. Consider this: As you climb out and away on your patrol, you'll have to fly slower (use less power) than before to allow your A.I. wingmen to catch up and maintain formation. We notice this in multiplayer, the flight leader can't fly at 100% power. If he does, often the other players can't keep up with him and begin to fall very far behind. It's unfortunate that the A.I can outperform your aircraft.... but it sure helps them to catch up and form up quickly and to maintain formation.

 

Herr Prop-Wasche I will look for my notes on adding the pylons. I used to add the pylons to the A.I. only CFS3 WW2 planes but it's rather complex so now I just use different tactics to make up for their super-abilities. They are in hardcopy form so I'll probably have to scan them and PM them to you.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Winston DoRight

[Fortiesboy 3]

so maybe Fortiesboy can share his tweak of the RPM so all can fly a bit faster planes giving us more realism.

Please!

 

Polovski S! - Is it OK if I share my tweak here? It only works in QC and not in campaign, so it shouldn't cause any probs?

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

Good to hear from you, Mark.

 

Hmm, are you sure that Airwrench resets the parasitic drag setting if you change it in the .cfg file? Personally, I have nevver seen it do that. Of course, whether it effects the air performance of the airplane in question is another story.

 

I have noticed that changing the parasitic drag setting in .cfg seems to effect the top speed, max climb rate, and dive speed--at least as shown by Airwrench. On the other hand, changing the induced drag setting seems to have little effect on anything that I can see besides a very small change in top speed. Of course, one article on drag effects on WWI aircraft I read stated that induced drag is not much of a factor on planes with such high drag as most WWI crates had.

 

The performance factor I would most like to see altered in OFF currently is the excessively high dive speeds of most of the planes. For example, the Sopwith Tripe has a dive speed of over 270 mph and does not suffer any ill effects from diving at this speed. The Tripes drag setting is around 56, I think. The lowest dive speed of any of the planes is around 155 mph for the EIII, but it has the highest drag setting in the game--a whopping 271*, I believe! Personally, I think the lowest drag setting for ANY of these planes should be in the 85-100 range, with the highest at around 175.

 

Along the same topic, I was recently reading an article that argued that rotaries, with their large engines and cowlings, probably suffered from higher drag than "equivalent" aircraft with inline engines. Not to mention the high drag necessarily created by multiple wings, struts, bracing wires, poor airfoils, fuselage shape and length, and exposed landing gear, among other factors.

 

I guess what I am (humbly) arguing for is that drag should be one of the first factors to consider when revising the FM, rather than just one of many that are used to adjust some of the more troublesome aspects of the flight model of each individual aircraft.

 

* edited to show correct drag setting of 271 for EIII.

Edited November 6, 2010 by Herr Prop-Wasche

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

Attached is a .pdf file containing an article about the calculated drag characteristics of several important WWI aircraft. The name of the article is Performance Analysis and Tactics of Fighter Aircraft from WWI by Scott Eberhardt. Following are a few quotes from the article. Comments?

 

By the end of 1916 engine technology started to take off with the improved in-line, watercooled engines. The big rotaries were a high source of drag and, with bigger engines, airplane speeds increased.

 

Here is the most interesting quote, for obvious reasons:

The second anomaly is the Fokker Dr.1, which has a reputation for superior climb and maneuverability. "[it] climbed like a monkey and maneuvered like the devil:” Manfred von Richthofen. The figures show that while the Dr.1 was superior in turn, it was poor in climb, relative to contemporary fighters. It is possible that Richtofen’s opinion of the Dr.1’s climb was due to its 19 degree climb angle which was 20% greater than the airplane he had flown previously, the Albatros D.III. It is also worth noting that the Dr.1 had a fairly low stall speed. The thick airfoil section used gave it a lower stall and thus a greater climb angle and turn rate.

 

 

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

Oh, I should also point out that the article claims that the Sopwith Pup and the DrI had the best turn rates of any fighters of the war, with a theoretical (based on known information and mathematical calculations) turn rate of around 82 degrees per second.

 

Following these are the Sopwith Triplane (just under 80 degrees/sec), the Snipe (79 degrees/sec), the Camel (76 degrees/sec), the DVII (75 degrees/sec), the Se5a (73.5 degrees/sec) and (surprisingly) the Spad XIII (just under 73 degrees/sec).

 

Notably, the author claims that the DVIII Razor, with the 110 HP Oberursel, had a turn rate of only 69 degrees/sec, lower than the Pfalz DXII! He speculates that the turn performance of the Razor would likely have been much higher had more of them had access to the 145 HP Obersursel III engine.

[Olham 164]

I think, what MvR also could have meant, was the very good climb in combination with only the 110 PS Oberursel rotary.

There were more powerful engines by that time - the Mercedes D.III had already 160 PS.

The good climb of the Dr.1 seems to come from it's good wings/airfoil.

 

By the way: MvR flew an Albatros D.V before the Fokker Triplane - not a D.III.