Request for Albatros revisions

[Olham 164]

Dear Devs, I know you have already work enough on your hands.

But perhaps, when you go to revise and overhaul some of the aircraft, you can have another go

at the FMs of the Albatros aircraft.

As it is now, the Albatros D.II seems to be the nicest of them all; easy going, light fighter with

sturdy wings - great to fly and fight in. The D.V and D.Va feel much clumsier.

 

I know they were not MUCH of an improvement, according to von Richthofen,

but saying "not much", would suggest that there was a little improvement, still.

Most astonishing I found the opinion of the RNAS boys, that the D.V was superiour to the Tripe,

which may be a bit too much respect?

 

Now, I don't mean to ask for any super-fighter - just if you could check once again for the balance

of their FMs - even if that should mean, that the D.II would become a bit less great.

 

It won't be wasted work and time - I fly these craft mostly all the time, and I'd be very grateful.

 

PS: one point just comes to mind here too: when I push the throttle forward, there is quite some

lag in the reaction of the engine's forward-driving power. Is that for a specific reason?

And if it can't be dropped - could it be reduced quite some?

Thank you for reading.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Olham

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

Have you tried my FM for the DII? I tried to make it a little "clumsier," and in the new FM I am STILL working on, I tried to tone it down even further.

 

I'm in the middle of grading exams right now, but hope to have some time to finish the FM sometime in the near future--2 weeks sound reasonable?

Edited March 21, 2012 by Herr Prop-Wasche

[Olham 164]

Yes, I use your FM packs, HPW. But I'd love to see it improved in the new OFF II.

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

Gotcha. (I understand).

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Ooo yeah, gotcha Herr Prop-Wasche. So, your FM, she's a real goer then, eh? Know what I mean know what I mean, nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more say no more ...

 

 

.

[Olham 164]

What the heck is the matter with you guys ??? ???

[33LIMA 972]

Lou means this, methinks:

 

 

Nod's as good as a wink to a blind horse!

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Olham, I'm afraid we're suffering from a bout of MP'sFC flu.

 

... know what I mean know what I mean ...

 

.

 

Oh, I see LIMA's got a touch of it as well.

 

.

[Hasse Wind 46]

I've been thinking the same thing, Olham (as you know). The Albatros D.III (and the later models) actually feels worse to fly than the D.II. Historically speaking, the D.III should be the best of the Albs compared to the Entente aircraft it faced in early 1917.

[Olham 164]

Seems there are still several of the MP sketches I had never seen yet. Thanks, guys!

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

Say no more!!

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

After your post, yesterday, Olham, I went into the FM for the DII and was able to tweak a few more things and tone it down a little more in terms of climb and turn performance to the point where you should be more able to notice a difference between it and the DIII's and DV's. It's not a lot, but there is more of a difference now, I think. However, it's still better than a Halberstadt!

[Olham 164]

HPW, I won't exchange single FM mods - if you get your FM package ready before the release of OFF II,

I will gladly use it though - thank you.

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

Will do.

 

My FM mod and OFF2 are certainly running neck and neck as far as which will be finished first!

[Olham 164]

Mmuahahahahahahahaaaaa!!!!!!

[JFM 18]

First, I know absolutely el zilcho grande about FMs and how to either create them or tweak them. Just wanted to place my ignorance right out front.

 

However, I will comment that I have found neither documents nor pilot anecdotes that support the significant throttle lag present with the OFF Albs heretofore. On those machines the throttle cable led to a dual-barrel twin-jet carburetor; increase the throttle, the cable linkage opened the butterfly valves, and away she went! In the split-second timing of combat, such a lag as with the OFF machines could be deadly. I wouldn't want to fly a Cessna 152 around the pattern with such throttle lag because sometimes you have to "give it the gun" when something unforeseen happens (like when some damn fool taxis into position as you are on short final and about to flare) and a five-to-seven second delay could have catastrophic consequences. Especially with OFF Nieuports buzzing around, bent on collision!

 

As far as overall performance across the Alb D series, from the records I've gathered it seemed fairly universal. Sure, I'm aware British pilots found it sluggish compared to what they were used to, such as the Pup, but that doesn't mean the D.V was more sluggish than the D.I. When Cecil Lewis wrote that an Albatros he flew (from the descripton likely an Albatros DIII, perhaps 2015/16) "was sluggish, strong, reliable and determined," he didn't say "sluggish as compared to the Albatros D.I." Instead, he said "it had none of the feeling of lightness and grace that our aircraft had." That comment holds true for the entire Albatros D-series.

 

German pilots complained the later Albs were dogs but this wasn't so much a comparison to earlier Albs than a comparison to the improved RFC machines that they were facing. With the successive machines in the series they had expected performance increases that, unfortunately for them, hadn't come. The Albs' horsepower increased from 160 to 170 to 180 to 200, but unfortunately the weight increased as well, off-setting performance gains benefitted by the increased horsepower. Still, later production D.Vs and early production D.Vas weighed in at 915 kg fully loaded; only 17 kg (37 lbs) heavier than the 898 kg D.II and with 20 more horsepower (some sources list the D.II weight at 888 kg, giving a 27 kg [60 lbs] difference] to make up for it. Yet in OFF they're as nimble as a 747 compared to the D.II. With fuel being 6 lbs/gallon, then taking a D.V up with half tanks in OFF ought to feel like flying the D.II, but it does not.

 

For my money, I can live with the dog performance aspect--which is kind of obvious since I'll have to live with whatever is released in OFF2, won't I? My humble request is please reduce/remove the throttle lag. Oh, and please also remove the one-bullet-to-the-aileron-reduces-roll-rate-by-over-fifty-percent-even-though-the-ailerons-are-still-fully-deflected phenomenon that hampers all the planes.

 

Please note these are constructive observations and not meant to be deconstructive criticisms.

 

(Note: Edited for typos.)

Edited March 22, 2012 by JFM

[+Polovski 460]

Well we can argue about FMs all day, but I won't. When we made them we studied and decided and made them as they are. The Albatros had a lot of time spent on it.

The DIII was not revolutionary compared to the DII although it had improvements (smaller lower wing etc for better vision better climb etc). DVx was not an improvement over the DIII apart from perhaps top speed slightly but more weight etc and so on and generally not enthusiastically received. Yes they were reported as very stiff controls hard to manoeuvre compared to nimble Entente a/c.

 

Sure we can make them fantastic, but we tried to get the right feel on all craft and balance them as they were historically with pilot reports and data. DIII is powerful 1000 rounds and twin guns and a reasonable climb rate versus a nimble delicate N17 with 1 gun sometimes 1 drum loaded only etc. The Germans were after fast climbers with lots of bullets by that time and that's what it is for me.

 

Anyway some things will change naturally due to improvements and fixes in the sim, and some won't we cant promise anything but we are looking at all areas where possible. I think we said a while back we will look at if time etc and see if any need revisions but we shall see..

 

JFM

DM we are revising and looking at and if there is a 1 hit aileron issue and if it can be fixed we shall try. Not sure about a throttle lag but we shall see.

[rjw 48]

Well we can argue about FMs all day, but I won't. When we made them we studied and decided and made them as they are. The Albatros had a lot of time spent on it.

The DIII was not revolutionary compared to the DII although it had improvements (smaller lower wing etc for better vision better climb etc). DVx was not an improvement over the DIII apart from perhaps top speed slightly but more weight etc and so on and generally not enthusiastically received. Yes they were reported as very stiff controls hard to manoeuvre compared to nimble Entente a/c.

 

Sure we can make them fantastic, but we tried to get the right feel on all craft and balance them as they were historically with pilot reports and data. DIII is powerful 1000 rounds and twin guns and a reasonable climb rate versus a nimble delicate N17 with 1 gun sometimes 1 drum loaded only etc. The Germans were after fast climbers with lots of bullets by that time and that's what it is for me.

 

Anyway some things will change naturally due to improvements and fixes in the sim, and some won't we cant promise anything but we are looking at all areas where possible. I think we said a while back we will look at if time etc and see if any need revisions but we shall see..

 

JFM

DM we are revising and looking at and if there is a 1 hit aileron issue and if it can be fixed we shall try. Not sure about a throttle lag but we shall see.

 

Polovski;

 

 

I for one appreciate your time spent in responding to these constructive e-mails. There are very few sims out there that provide support of this nature so thank you very much.

 

Best Regards, and thanks again!

[Olham 164]

No fear, rjw, I do also appreciate the time the team invest in the building of the sim, I really do.

But sometimes (and only very rarely) I may take the freedom and ask for something that I think

should be looked at again. Like the throttle lag of Albatros for example.

 

But I only do that, because I want to help to improve OFF - not to criticise.

[rjw 48]

No fear, rjw, I do also appreciate the time the team invest in the building of the sim, I really do.

But sometimes (and only very rarely) I may take the freedom and ask for something that I think

should be looked at again. Like the throttle lag of Albatros for example.

 

But I only do that, because I want to help to improve OFF - not to criticise.

 

Oltham, I understand that and my comments were directed more to Polovsky not to you. Members like you make every effort to aid the improvement of the Development Team and I'm sure they understand and respect that.

I merely wanted to say Thanks to Polovsky for spending the time to consider input like yours in a constructive way. As I said before, very few Sims provide the kind of support that he OFF team has done and I for one really app;reciate it.

I'm wanting to believe that the development of P4 is more than partly due to constructive criticism by experienced memberfs.

 

Best Regards

[Olham 164]

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

Is there a German plane that does NOT have the throttle lag so we can compare it to the DIII's?

 

If not, which is a good Allied plane without throttle lag?

[+Polovski 460]

Olham I appreciate all you do and I am not having a go by the way. I just wanted to point out we did consider aircraft and develop them as best we could to get a balance with how they were seen then and how they performed relative to each other. As a favour to you :) if there is time we will look at it again (or if not for the release maybe we can look at afterwards).

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

Thank you for your comments, JFM.

 

I wonder if the lag is caused by the fact that the engines on the Albs (and many other planes in the sim) have to be set to "turbocharged' in order to get any kind of performance at altitude. I'm guessing that the lag represents the lag between throttle input and turbo boost in a turbocharged (not supercharged) engine. If so, probably not much can be done to fix this in P3. Maybe it can be fixed in P4?

 

Also, good points about the relative performance of Allied vs. German planes in terms of responsiveness and agility. I'm sure that virtually every Allied pilot who had a chance to fly an Alb during and after the war thought they were much more "sluggish" than their Allied counterpart. This does not mean the whole Alb series were dogs in terms of overall agility and turn--just in comparison to the Pup, Tripe, and Nieuport series, especially. I've tried to take this into account in my FM modding--especially with the Albs--and think that I have been at least partially successful.

 

Empty weight is extremely important in CFS3's FM's, and largely determines the turn, climb and dive performance of all of the planes in OFF. Unfortunately, full or loaded weight (which are the numbers that JFM reports) are NOT used by CFS3 in any meaningful way. In HITR, the empty weight for the DII is only 1125 lbs, while the DIII's empty weight is over 350 lbs heavier, despite sharing roughly the same fuselage, and having less wing area (and thus less weight) due to the sesquiplane lower wing than the DII. In my FM, (among other things) I increased the empty weight of the DII to 1404 lbs (an increase of 279 lbs.) while decreasing the empty weight of the DIII to 1459 lbs. (Although I could increase the empty weight of the DII so it weighs more than the DIII, doing so causes an unfortunate decrease in cruise and top speed, so I left it lower). Along with a few other tweaks, this increases the turn radius above that of the DIII's and also decreases the climb performance of the DII below that of the DIII series. The one drawback is that it does lower the ceiling of the DII from 18,500 to approximately 16,500 ft., but I am a little suspicious of the reported ceiling of the DII anyway.

 

There. Now you know all that I know about the FM's of the DII and DIII Albs. Now, if only I would release the damn FM, you could all see for yourself!

Edited March 23, 2012 by Herr Prop-Wasche

[Olham 164]

Great, that is good enough for me, Pol - thank you.