Still good damage - despite High-res Skins

[Olham 164]

This screenshot shows, how much damage I still get, even though I use "High-res Skins". Enough for me!

 

 

Edited June 16, 2012 by Olham

[OlPaint01 0]

Olham

 

I see no 'Farken' Damage! Which DM have you got activated?

 

But "Gott im Himmel!" the screen shot is breath-taking.

 

OlPaint

Edited June 16, 2012 by OlPaint01

[Olham 164]

Hmm, you got me wondering there - I had thought I used Herr Prop-Wasche's DM.

But I don't see anything like "DM" in my JSGME Generic Mod Enabler.

Or how is the DM named? HPW? Anyone?

[OlPaint01 0]

Olham, you have a choice...'HPW UltimateDM_1.25' or 'Buddy1998 Modified DM_2.0'. Most folks tell me Buddy's DM eliminates the 'Flying Flamers'.

 

If you are running OFF within OFFbase, you get to choose, after a brand new install of OFFice, which of the two competing DMs to activate. Both DMs are packaged in my Ultimate Bundle Damage Models JSGME Enabled 1.0

http://combatace.com/files/file/13048-ultimate-bundle-damage-models-jsgme-enabled/

 

OlPaint

Edited June 16, 2012 by OlPaint01

[angles1100 0]

As a DH 2 pilot myself i would not like to see my wing shot up like the one in the picture

 

nice picture though .

 

 

 

 

cheers

[Olham 164]

Yeah, I bet he didn't like it either.

For those more fragile early kites, getting hit by a close burst from two MG must have been devastating.

Maybe he could have managed a landing still, had he not turned upwards in such a crazy angle.

That craft is hard to catch up, when it stalls, and he had too little space - he slammed in.

[Hauksbee 103]

That craft is hard to catch up, when it stalls, and he had too little space - he slammed in.

It would be interesting to have a chart that listed every WWI fighter and told us two things: (1) How many enemy aircraft it destroyed, and (2) how many pilots were killed in accidents with it. I suspect the Sopwith Camel would be at the top of the list, but the DH-2 would be right up there. It seems that the planes with the most vicious handling characteristics were all on the Allied side. I recall reading (at this Forum, once upon a day) that the Pfaltz E.III was murderous to fly. So much so, that the pilots regarded the Fokker E.III a great step up. But after those early days, I can't think of any German planes that earned a reputation for killing their pilots.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Hauksbee

[Olham 164]

... after those early days, I can't think of any German planes that earned a reputation for killing their pilots.

Not through it's difficult characteristics, may be. But there were nasty wing failures with the Fokker Dr.1,

which killed for example Gontermann. Who knows, how many non-famous pilots were killed by breaking

lower wings on Albatros D.III and D.V versions? And then the Fokker E.V had wing failures again.

 

When I side-slipped unwillingly with my Fokker E.III at low altitude yesterday, I noticed how I first got

ham-fisted, trying to counter that move - without any chance of success.

Only when I did the most frightening thing I could think of in that situatuion - pushing the nose down

and kick rudder to bring the nose towards the ground - only then I could just catch her up, before she

would crash into some trees. I must have brought some leaves back with my undercarriage.

[angles1100 0]

My beloved DH 2 they didnt call it The spinning incenirator for nothing

 

 

 

cheers

[Olham 164]

She can be a bitch. I have flown two short-lived campaign attempts in the DH-2,

and with WOFF I will definitely try a serious British campaign starting with her again.

[Hauksbee 103]

Not through it's difficult characteristics, may be. But there were nasty wing failures with the Fokker Dr.1, which killed for example Gontermann. Who knows, how many non-famous pilots were killed by breaking lower wings on Albatros D.III and D.V versions? And then the Fokker E.V had wing failures again.

True, but the Dr.I and the E.V were production problems that were soon cured. I did, however, forget about the Albatros lower wing issues.

[Olham 164]

I guess, the most of all "trickyness" of a scout would come from the effects of the turning rotaries.

The inliners didn't seem to have any such nasty characteristics - at least I don't know of any.

On the Sopwith Camel these effects were so strong, that it had a completely different turn to the right,

than it had to the left. IMHO the Camel is the most overrated fighter in WW1. (The aircraft is, not the

pilots who flew it - they must have been great fighters).

Of course it DID bring the British a platform for twin guns, and of course it WAS an excellent turn

fighter - at least in one direction. But it was also tricky to operate, and it killed many less experienced

pilots. I would like to see a chart of production total numbers of all scouts, compared with the victories

they made; and with the losses on the aircraft without enemy action. Finally the list would have to be

validated by the different production numbers, so you could finally have a positive or negative value

for each aircraft. I would like to see, where each craft would stand.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Olham

[Cameljockey 3]

They didn't call the Camel "Widowmaker" for nothing. It earned that rep!

[Hauksbee 103]

They didn't call the Camel "Widowmaker" for nothing. It earned that rep!

I hope I'm recalling correctly here, but nearly half the pilots who died in the Camel, died in training accidents.

[Tamper 9]

I hope I'm recalling correctly here, but nearly half the pilots who died in the Camel, died in training accidents.

 

Without necessarily having statistics at hand, the way I understood it was that Camel pilots would either get a "Victoria Cross, a red cross...or a white cross".

 

It also comes to mind that manueverability right on the very edge of instability is historically what makes some of the best (turn-)fighters of all.

[RamblingSid 3]

At the end of the war 14,166 British pilots were listed as killed.

8000 of them died in training accidents in the UK.

 

The Camel was a dangerous aircraft to fly, no doubt. But this

was compounded by an inadequate and ineffective training

regime. Smith-Barry made very important changes, but all the

same - 8000 men.

 

 

 

[RamblingSid 3]

I guess, the most of all "trickyness" of a scout would come from the effects of the turning rotaries.

The inliners didn't seem to have any such nasty characteristics - at least I don't know of any.

On the Sopwith Camel these effects were so strong, that it had a completely different turn to the right,

than it had to the left. IMHO the Camel is the most overrated fighter in WW1. (The aircraft is, not the

pilots who flew it - they must have been great fighters).

Of course it DID bring the British a platform for twin guns, and of course it WAS an excellent turn

fighter - at least in one direction. But it was also tricky to operate, and it killed many less experienced

pilots. I would like to see a chart of production total numbers of all scouts, compared with the victories

they made; and with the losses on the aircraft without enemy action. Finally the list would have to be

validated by the different production numbers, so you could finally have a positive or negative value

for each aircraft. I would like to see, where each craft would stand.

 

Yes, Olham, it was overrated - slow, lousy above 5000 mts, dodgy kiln-dried spars. But much depended

on the powerplant. RNAS Camels all (I think) had 150hp BR1 engines and they were almost as good as

Snipes. RFC Camels not so lucky - 130hp Clergets, 110hp Le Rhones, how these blokes managed in

late 1918 I don't know. The engine management aspect alone of rotaries is a nightmare.

 

I think you'll find that slightly more Camel pilots were KIA than training - pretty grim.

[Olham 164]

Thanks for the info, Sid, I didn't know that there were 3 differently-strong Camels.