WOFF FM Thread

[+Polovski 458]

We are looking at the DV (and other Albatros craft at the moment) to see if there are any errors or improvements we can make - no promises of course but we also do not want to end up with unbalance either, something we did work on since the beginning of P1 even!

[corsaire31 7]

In the end it is up to each of us who bought and fly WOFF to try and decide what mods we want or do not want to use (as long as we don't complaint to the devs of the vanilla game). I still think it is interesting that people are proposing some.

 

When until recently I flew OFF (which is still on the HD) it was with mods including HPW's FM and EW mod, HPW Ultimate Damage Mod and 33 Lima Arc mod, Bletchley's AA and Buddy1998 missions, Andy's sounds and HPW Weather.

 

My Rise of Flight install also uses many mods which make it a much better experience (in my personal view) than the original !

Edited March 5, 2014 by corsaire31

[Bucksnort 1]

In the end it is up to each of us who bought and fly WOFF to try and decide what mods we want or do not want to use (as long as we don't complaint to the devs of the vanilla game). I still think it is interesting that people are proposing some.

 

When until recently I flew OFF (which is still on the HD) it was with mods including HPW's FM and EW mod, HPW Ultimate Damage Mod and 33 Lima Arc mod, Bletchley's AA and Buddy1998 missions, Andy's sounds and HPW Weather.

 

My Rise of Flight install also uses many mods which make it a much better experience (in my personal view) than the original !

 

Well said, Corsaire.

 

The intent of this thread was not to generate proposals for OBD to change their FM's.  Hopefully they are off working on new Add-on modules instead 

 

The intent of this thread was to fiddle around with the FM's and get them the way each of us wants them, share and compare notes and hopefully have fun for those who are interested.

 

As long as the AI is not dropping out of the sky or has become sitting ducks I'm less concerned with subtle changes to their behavior than the "feel" and performance of my aircraft.  And as that is subjective on my part I have no interest in proposing changes that affect other players.  It is entirely voluntary to use these FM's and if you don't like them you can just back them out with one simple click in JSGME.

 

I for one like Gav's FM changes for the Alb D.Va and plan on continuing to use it...but to each his own as it should be   No peer pressure here either way!  And I'm looking forward to trying his other FM changes also.  It's fun to experiment with different ideas which can easily be reversed if you dont like them.

Edited March 6, 2014 by Bucksnort

[Adger 85]

Excellent points by everyone,and at least all discussions have been civil,like you said Bucksnort using JSGME you can choose to add FM,s or not in an easier manner..BUT this is what Winder has posted at Sim hq....il copy and paste rather than link .."Guys,

Just a quick statement from OBD - there are postings and rumours that the AI training is a 'red herring' by us, to persuade users to not modify FM I guess is the thinking.

OBD has always offered honest prompt and timeous response to any issues and discussions all the way back to Phase1 - we are not averse to users modifying their systems and we even have a download section now for mods that we are hosting on a server at our cost.

In P3 the FM was locked as it was still a criteria for MP play that all craft match.

Modifying the FM now in P4 will adversely affect your AI - fact.
It may not be immediately noticeable with subtle changes but the fact remains every craft has an AI training file that is generated each and every time we make FM changes no matter how small a change.

So at the moment if you are modifying FM or using modded FM the warning stands.

We are currently testing some changes to the Albatros series and hope to have these out shortly.
But given the above we dont only have to make the FM change we also have to make sure the AI are competant with the changes - and that takes us longer to test than just an FM change.

HTH

WM "

 

So im with the devs on this one FM modifying "Will adversely affect your AI-fact"...I trust these guys without question and if Winder is saying that,then im gonna wait for the OBD changes....,but each to our own i suppose...Happy hunting Gents 

Edited March 6, 2014 by Adger

[Bucksnort 1]

Now, for horse power, changing it doNow, having argued myself silly at the Rise of Flight forums over the Albatros airspeed, it is great that I can finally tinker with the FM in a WW1 flight sim. However, WOFF is not free of the same problems. Just like Rise of Flight, the Entente rotary scouts are pretty fast. 118.5mph for the Camel, 110mph for the Nieuport 17, 116mph for the Nieuport 24, etc. As Pat Wilson says, FMs will never be perfect, but they shouldn't be obviously wrong. The idea is to make the relative performance of the aircraft credible. So, one of the first things I did was to slow down the rotary scouts (including the Dr1, ahem). For example, all of the more detailed sources have a max airspeed of about 107mph for the Nieuport 24, but there is one figure out there that says 116mph and WOFF went with that one. That ends of skewing the whole balance in 1917 when your Albatros is slower than 116mph.

Gav,

 

I had already started to slow the rotaries down on a one off basis as I could find the data. Right now I've got the DR1 at 103, Nieuport 23 at 105, and just updated the N24 to 107 (which makes sense in relation to the N23).

 

But I would love to see your complete list on your adjusted rotary speeds. It would be very helpful.

 

Thanks!

Edited March 6, 2014 by Bucksnort

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

Are you basing your data on top speed of rotary engines on the listed top speed on the aircraft information page, or on actual game performance? In OFF, I found that the listed top speed was always about 4 mph faster than the top speed as measured in the game (using the F5 key speedometer). Here are my observations on the in-game top speed (sea level) for selected rotary engine planes in OFF:

Camel 113.5 mph
DR1 112.5
N11 96.25
N16 91.5
N17 106.0
N24 110.75
Pup 107.0
Tripe 122.0

With the exception of the Tripe and perhaps the Pup, these measured top speeds, while a little too fast, aren't too far off the mark, IMO. I don't have WOFF, so I have to hope OBD tamed the Tripe somewhat--it also had the fastest measured dive speed in OFF--273 mph!!--so I hope that still isn't the case in WOFF.

Edited March 6, 2014 by Herr Prop-Wasche

[Bucksnort 1]

I haven't put pencil to paper on all the rotaries yet, Herr.  That's why I was curious to see what Gav's numbers were as I figured he had already been through this exercise.  I thought it might be fun to slow them down to some of the published numbers I found to see how it impacted gameplay.

[+gavagai 0]

I've been working a lot this week.  Give me a day to catch up and I'll see what's been posted.

 

First, I'll mention that you can find the top speeds in the xfm files.  In my testing the max airspeed at sea level is exactly what it is says in the xfm file.

Edited March 7, 2014 by gavagai

[+gavagai 0]

Bucksnort,

 

Here are some examples of what I did to the Entente rotary airspeeds at sea level:

 

Camel: 118.5mph -> 112mph

Nieuport 17: 110mph -> 102.5mph

Nieuport 24: 116mph -> 109.4mph

 

That way the Albatros D.III actually has a chance to extend away with its underwhelming 114mph.

[Bucksnort 1]

Thanks for these numbers, Gav.

 

Have you come up with any more for the rotaries?  I've always read that the Camel could catch the Dr1 pretty handily in a sprint so a 9mph difference looks pretty good to try out (I've got the Dr1 at 103).  I've got my Nieuport 11 at 97 mph so that ties in pretty well with your 102.5 on the Nieuport 17.  I'm going to put the N16 at 100 or 101 as I think it had the same engine as the N17 but with the top mount Lewis which would add a little more drag.

 

Cheers!

[+gavagai 0]

This chart is a real mish-mash of sources.  Notice that none of the aircraft with a 110hp Oberursal are reaching 115mph @ sea level like the Dr1 in WOFF.

 

 

------------------

 

Here is one of the paradoxes of WW1 flight models: the Albatros D.II versus the Albatros D.III.  Pilots describe the Albatros D.III as being better in every way, but wingloading is very much in favor of the Albatros D.II.  I'm wondering how much flight sims do a bad job of incorporating interference between the wings of the stout and boxy D.II.  In Rise of Flight the D.II is a slow motion UFO, and in WOFF its handling is much better than the other Albatrosses.

 

This chart compares the lift of biplanes compared to monoplanes as a %, where biplanes lose lift because of interference between the two wings:

 

 

gap:chord ratio

Albatros D.II = 0.87

Albatros D.III = 1.34

 

The D.III's aspect ratio is also superior to the D.II.  Using chill31's spreadsheet (which actually calculates munk's span factor for a very subtle estimation of biplane aspect ratio), the aspect ratios are

 

Albatros D.II = 3.6

Albatros D.III = 5.0

Edited March 9, 2014 by gavagai

[AnKor 1]

Hi! :)

Finally got the time to try your mod, Gav.

 

I'm not an expert in FM, but for me the main change is much different rudder behavior.

However it seems to have some drawbacks. The maximum angle of sideslip I was able to achieve is rater small

when compared to the stock one:

and it seems ok.

However I noticed that with your mod I don't lose any speed at all during sideslipping and the plane keeps accelerating. While stock "handbrake" rudder is not what I need either, the lack of additional drag in your mod seems suspicious.

 

Anyway thanks for your efforts.

Edited March 9, 2014 by AnKor

[+gavagai 0]

No speed loss at all?  Is that an exaggeration or you want to see more speed loss?  I tried it out and there is definitely a loss of airspeed with full rudder.

 

Thank you for the feedback!  What I was going for is to approximate the yawing behavior you get in Rise of Flight, which is very convincing.  I'll see if I can do better.

[AnKor 1]

I'm not exaggerating I really didn't notice any speed difference between flying straight and with full rudder - speed tends to stay above 180 km/h while level and at full throttle. While in Rise of Flight the plane loses about 20 km/h. Though otherwise I agree -- you've made the behavior very similar to ROF.

Curiously, the stock WOFF FM already resulted in some bad habits for me: I've got used to doing full power approach and then performing a crazy crab landing in any spot of my choice, but with your FM I had a hard time slowing down in that tiny airfield surrounded by a forest.

 

I really like what you've done, but with those possible AI problems (which I can understand as a programmer) I hope devs will revise the rudder behavior officially.

[Bucksnort 1]

Personally, the only WWI sim I found whose flight models were probably close to accurate was Richtofen's Skies. It was hard as Hell to fly any of the rotary-powered aircraft without constant input and close attention, with takeoffs and landings being damned near impossible. Which is why I saw many, many people log on, enter the server, and then leave after complaining about not being able to get into the air, likely never to return. Everything else has been far too easy.

 

I agree this is probably very true in many flight sims.  I am a pilot and I'm always looking for the most realistic (which can also read: most difficult) FM possible in a fight sim which may not be reasonable for the general audience.  The first time I flew a tail dragger (even after practicing while taxiiing) I went down the runway like a drunk on my first takeoff.  It was quite humbling and probably not something all players would enjoy.  But at the same time I appreciate the opportunity for more realistic/challenging alternative FM's when they are available.

[+gavagai 0]

I'm not exaggerating I really didn't notice any speed difference between flying straight and with full rudder - speed tends to stay above 180 km/h while level and at full throttle. While in Rise of Flight the plane loses about 20 km/h. Though otherwise I agree -- you've made the behavior very similar to ROF.

Curiously, the stock WOFF FM already resulted in some bad habits for me: I've got used to doing full power approach and then performing a crazy crab landing in any spot of my choice, but with your FM I had a hard time slowing down in that tiny airfield surrounded by a forest.

 

I really like what you've done, but with those possible AI problems (which I can understand as a programmer) I hope devs will revise the rudder behavior officially.

 

I think I figured out what's happening.  You added right rudder, and not left rudder.  The default xfm file has a line for gyroscopic moment in response to yaw.  By default pitch is highly dampened.  Removing the pitch dampening allows the gyroscopic moment to be felt, so when you rudder right you're pitching forward, which increases speed.  Rudder left and you slow down more because you pitch up.

 

What I can do is to also reduce the gyroscopic moment, and maybe give a little more freedom in the yaw axis.  Then there should be more consistent airspeed loss due to yaw.

[Bucksnort 1]

Are you basing your data on top speed of rotary engines on the listed top speed on the aircraft information page, or on actual game performance? In OFF, I found that the listed top speed was always about 4 mph faster than the top speed as measured in the game (using the F5 key speedometer). Here are my observations on the in-game top speed (sea level) for selected rotary engine planes in OFF:

 

Camel 113.5 mph

DR1 112.5

N11 96.25

N16 91.5

N17 106.0

N24 110.75

Pup 107.0

Tripe 122.0

 

With the exception of the Tripe and perhaps the Pup, these measured top speeds, while a little too fast, aren't too far off the mark, IMO. I don't have WOFF, so I have to hope OBD tamed the Tripe somewhat--it also had the fastest measured dive speed in OFF--273 mph!!--so I hope that still isn't the case in WOFF.

 

Herr,

 

Your OFF numbers look pretty good and are close to what I'm adjusting the top speeds to in my installation of WOFF.  Like Gav said, in testing them I found the sea level speed to be almost exactly what is listed as the top speed in the XFM file.  I'm guessing the Tripe is a typo that was carried over from OFF as I found it's top speed listed at 121.5 mph in the XFM file and it tested at 121 mph sea level.  This is way fast, faster than the WOFF Camel speed of 118.5 mph so I'm guessing they meant it to be 112.5 mph as the Sopwith Tripe should be slower than the Camel.

 

Bottomline, after adjusting the Entente rotaries downward the WOFF Albatros speeds fall in nicely between the Entente rotaries and the Spad/SE5 (a bit faster than most of the rotary engine Entente planes but less maneuverable, and slower than the Spad/SE5 but a bit more maneuverable) which is what I have always read.  So I'm getting great dogfights in the Albatros against the Entente rotary planes now in addition to the already great fights with the Spad and SE5. 

[+gavagai 0]

121.5 mph is over the top, but what's the reason for why the Triplane should be slower than the Camel at sea level?  Frontal cross-section area?

Edited March 13, 2014 by gavagai

[+Polovski 458]

Sop Triplane 130Hp was fast,

Lamberton 117@ 5000ft.

The War in the Air  H.A Jones 116 @6500ft

K Munson 116 @ 6500ft

AC in Profile 187kph@2000m  approx 116@6500.

Wiki 117 mph (187 km/h) at 5,000 ft (1,830 m)

Sopwith Triplane Aces of WW1  Norman Franks,  "120mph at 10000ft. "

"...and as Dallas and the RNAS test pilots had discovered, the combination of this motor (130HP Clerget) and the Triplane's unique wing arrangement gave this machine a phenomenal rate of climb, exemplary manoeuvrability and a top speed of 120mph at 10000ft. (!)  

"as Naval Pilots found in 1917, the Triplane was generally 15 mph faster than the German Albatros DIII fighter, and the Sopwith machine could out-climb out-turn it."

 

As always plenty of fudge around and debatable points and contradictory information, but there are a few.

[Olham 164]

After all, the Sopwith Tripe impressed MvR so much, that he wanted one too.

[Bucksnort 1]

Hi Guys,

 

There is no right or wrong answer but here is a document that I used to help me decide on what speed I wanted to set my Sopwith Triplane at for sea level

 

http://combatace.com/gallery/image/27658-sopwith-triplane-130-clerget-rfc-test/

 

This RFC test has the Triplane's top speed at 117 mph at sea level for the 130 hp Clerget.  There are also two RFC documents on the Internet for the 110 hp Clerget tested by the RFC at a top speed of 115 and 116 mph at sea level (two different tests and planes).  That is why Sopwith stopped making Triplanes and moved to the biplane design with the Camel - drag.  Increasing the horsepower on the Triplane from 110 hp to 130 hp only got them 1 or 2 miles per hour better and they understood why. 

 

There is another RFC document available on the Internet that was released after the war that shows concern over the rapid deterioration of the 130 hp Clerget engine in Sopwith Camels.  According to the document after only 15 hours of operating time the Sopwith Camel's top speed at sea level typically deterioted to about 100 mph (this information was only released when the document was declassified).  That is over 1 mph for each hour of operation.  That would mean the Camel and the Triplane were chugging around after just 8 or 10 hours of operation at 10 mph slower than when they were factory fresh and might be why you see comments like this:

 

Edgar McCloughry a Flight Commander and 23 victory ace with 4 Sqn Australian Flying Corps wrote of the Camels lack of speed:

 

    "I at once turned but they did not wait, one of the horrible characteristics of a camel being, as I will describe later, that it is un-able to catch any other machine with the exception of the Fokker triplane on the level."

 

For 40 years I've been reading about the slow but highly maneuverable Sopwith Triplane and Camel, so for me it made sense to reduce their speed :o)

Edited March 13, 2014 by Bucksnort

[Bucksnort 1]

Pol, let me add that I think it is wonderful that we are able to modify the speeds in WOFF.  It is a definite plus!  It allows players to set up circumstances they may have read about.  Since no one knows for sure, if a player wants a fast Triplane they've got it, or if they are like me and want to slow it down, they can.  I'm having some really fun dogfights in the Albatros now being able to Boom and Zoom the Entente rotaries (if I'm smart about it).  It also highlights the altitude advantage...if some Camels come in above me my goose is often cooked as they are all over me.  But if I'm on parity or above them then I can dictate the fight as long as I don't slow down and try to turn with them too much.  I have a very slight speed advantage in the Albatros the way I have things set up, so if I make a mistake the advantage is lost.

 

So the flexibility to customize is great :o) 

[+gavagai 0]

Sop Triplane 130Hp was fast,

Lamberton 117@ 5000ft.

The War in the Air  H.A Jones 116 @6500ft

K Munson 116 @ 6500ft

AC in Profile 187kph@2000m  approx 116@6500.

Wiki 117 mph (187 km/h) at 5,000 ft (1,830 m)

Sopwith Triplane Aces of WW1  Norman Franks,  "120mph at 10000ft. "

"...and as Dallas and the RNAS test pilots had discovered, the combination of this motor (130HP Clerget) and the Triplane's unique wing arrangement gave this machine a phenomenal rate of climb, exemplary manoeuvrability and a top speed of 120mph at 10000ft. (!)  

"as Naval Pilots found in 1917, the Triplane was generally 15 mph faster than the German Albatros DIII fighter, and the Sopwith machine could out-climb out-turn it."

 

As always plenty of fudge around and debatable points and contradictory information, but there are a few.

 

Keep in mind that the Sopwith Triplane test data is from December 1916.  The dense winter air will make the same scout look much more attractive compared to its performance in the summer.  The ceiling alone can vary by 2000ft, and the airspeed by 5-10% depending on the altitude.

 

But I agree that it was faster than the Camel.  I've never heard of Triplanes having the disappointing engine performance that the Camel had.  Trenchard was so mad he wanted to replace all of the Clerget engines on the Camel with 110hp Le Rhones.

[JimAttrill 24]

Maybe that was why the RNAS Camels had 150hp Bentley rotaries....  (Which, being made in England was about half the price). 

Edited March 14, 2014 by JimAttrill

[+Polovski 458]

For sure so many variables and few definitive answers :/.   The weather was bad around 16/17th December in France not sure what it was like in UK or that specific area who knows - we don't even know if it was specifically a fine day in the area of the test or a particularly cold day.  Same applies to any recorded figures out there from that time at least, and most modern 'replicas' are obviously not quite the same.

 

As you say any given aircraft each day would produce a different test result then -  sometimes wildly.

Edited March 14, 2014 by Polovski