Jump to content

Krispy_Duck

Members
  • Content Count

    82
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

58 Excellent

About Krispy_Duck

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. One of the issues from back in the CFS2/CFS3 days was you'd have plane packs where some were really good and then others were not well done. If people are paying to download user-made planes as an endorsed DLC, you need the quality on a par or better than the official stuff. The builders would need to provide all original "source materials" and all research on which they based the plane for official developer review. I think to do this, you'd have to organize your community modders into a single entity rather than developers working directly with disparate individuals. It's easier to coordinate between two development teams (often both being paid entities/companies) rather than developers and then a nebulous group of individual modders.
  2. Some of these "close-up" videos are great online. You don't have a true "throttle" you usually have these "manettes" that give you a fuel/air balance. I guess it's kind of like the forerunner to the throttle and mixture levers of later years, though not quite the same thing. A later, true throttle/mixture set up gives you more control over thrust, whereas the WW1 manettes have their limitations. The number of RPMs, sound, feel are help get the pilot to "tune" for whatever he's looking for. The blip helps bring rather immediate power on/off, which is good when you need a burst of speed or air over the control surfaces. The trade off, as you say, is the you get unburnt fuel flowing still during the blip - careful using it! This is apart from the notorious Gnome Monosoupape (single-valve type) style designs where you had pre-set settings for the mags and then the air manette. The advantage there was the Gnome Monosoupape was easy to fix and service.
  3. I know, right? I laughed when I read it. Good bit of humor for a Wednesday.
  4. It's good they discussed FC and the WW1 project at least. On a dollar-for-dollar basis, a dollar invested in WW2 content will yield more sales at the end of the tunnel, quality of content being equal. This has been the reality for many years. It's a limitation we've all dealt with, some of us for a long time. I wonder if a means of testing the water would be DLC add-ons for FC1 before going to a full FC2 - say another two-seater and another single-seater on each side for the 1918 period. It sounds as if there is a desire to continue in WW1, though the team's resources are limited and WW2 brings stronger returns. A reasonably priced DLC pack of two planes per side, along with some patch fixes to stuff like the SE5a energy retention, would go a long way if FC2 is still not in the cards. One thing they mentioned that is important is getting connected with community resources. For example, I'd love to see some community-made, historic skins and maybe the improved legibility gauges make it into the core game. I'm sure there are even more resources out there to be leveraged. Some of the older games like Red Baron 3d had a huge second life because community resources made such a difference.
  5. The ability to fly a WW1 scout "hands-off" is the exception rather than the rule, and it's a pretty rare exception. It's even rarer that you could fly "feet off". Some of the aircraft have a horizontal stabilizer wheel, which allows some hands-off type control. You'll want to keep the rudder controlled to prevent the plane from trying to side slip. Some of the scouts, especially the rotary-powered "turn and burn" planes are exceptionally unstable. Some so much so that even a pilot familiar with other period types can be in for a rude awakening. The Dr.1 and Camel are examples of that. You can use this to advantage in a close-in fight, but you have to develop a feel for what you're doing. All part of the experience. The SE5a, Bristol, Albatros, and Pfalz are good options when starting out.
  6. If you have FC, I'd get the early war stuff for ROF for variety sake. Overall, ROF is the stronger offering at this point, but it's good to have both.
  7. The best thing you can do for yourself, in the SE5a or the Spad, up-front and before the fight starts, is limit yourself to one or two passes at the enemy, and engage only with an energy advantage. The Spad retains its energy OK, and the SE5a has been discussed elsewhere as having issues with RPM and energy bleeding. There is some historical basis for this - we know that the tactics of pilots like Fonck were slash attacks making use of marksmanship. In test flying a captured Spad VII (often described as a handier plane than the XIII), the German test pilot remarked about how "the first attack" from the Spad could be quite dangerous - another indication that the French were using slash attacks that exploited the Spad's stability and the V-8 engine layout. Though we also know the Spad VII and SE5a could dogfight effectively as well. The XIII seems to have been less of a dogfighter and more of a true energy fighter. This still does not address the damage concerns to the Spad XIII in FC, but that sort of another subject. And you want a headstart to dive away to friendly lines. The D.VIIs can keep up in the dive well enough to continue firing, at least for a short time. There is no "instant out" in FC. Try to single out enemy fighters and take an energy advantage into the fight. If the enemy starts drawing flak and is firing away but missing, all the better because this may draw a friendly plane to relieve you. With all that being said, the regulars on this board already probably know all of this. The casual people and newbies who become frustrated don't always visit this forum, and sadly they sometimes just give up on the game after getting frustrated trying to dogfight in a Spad or SE5a. You've been here long enough that you probably know all of this, but maybe someone will find this new information.
  8. It's generally a solid game, even if it is a limited in terms of the planes and settings offered. There are some issues to revisit (SE5a energy retention, damage of controls on some aircraft compared to others, etc.) but you sort of adapt to the issues. And when I say "limited", I mean that we have a limited selection of planes and one map. I think an expansion of what is offered in the game would do a lot to move it forward. It's enjoyable, though you're left wanting to try a wider variety - earlier planes, different map areas, etc.
  9. Special Lewis Gun canister equipped with "the brown note" ammo.
  10. Are the control cables and true control rods modeled differently in terms of hit box size and durability? A control wire might well be less durable, but should be much harder to hit. Whereas the control rod might be easier to hit but harder to knock out. There were a fair number of complaints about the Spad XIII indeed, but they focused on (1) the plane didn't turn like the earlier Nieuports the pilots had gotten used to, (2) the controls tended to be heavy at low speed and the plane did not respond as well as the Spad VII, and (3) the geared Hispano Suiza system kept breaking down and when it did, an engine rebuild could take days. The direct drive Spad VII 180 continued to serve as a workhorse well after the Spad XIII was introduced. The Hanriot was built with a design view closer to the Nieuports and the skilled Nieuport pilot could port many of his approaches to combat over to the Hanriot. Initially, the SE5 met with the same criticism - it was robust, but it was markedly different from the Nieuport 17 and later series the British had grown used to. But then we run into the issue that we don't have a substitute aircraft as you would have if the Nieuport 17 or the Spad VII 180 were available as "reserves". Hopefully we'll get more planes in the future.
  11. I agree. Control loss is an interesting element to add, but as usual the devil is in the details of how often, how bad the plane performs, etc. The historic data, if we can find any, would help with the details to some extent. I honestly have no idea what the statistical percentage of control loss actually was and would be interested in hearing about the subject.
  12. If we can get to the point that people are buying the game and satisfied with it, to the extent that we have a broad group of airplanes and then airships too, then we'll be doing well indeed. If you want to add relevant historic information here about the airships, I think that is a good thing. Just saying you may need to be patient to get to the point of airships.
  13. I have fond memories of the "Attack a Zeppelin" missions from Red Baron 1 days. But to be honest, I agree that the time is better spent refreshing the airplane offerings.
  14. All that make sense when you also consider the generally negative reactions to the Alb. D.Va on the German side - that it was heavier and less maneuverable than the D.III; that it was really no improvement in the lineage of Alb fighters; and ultimately that the D.VII was superior to the D.Va. I could see turning with an Alb. D.Va, especially if you can bring the lift of the SE5a wings to bear, and bring into play the stabilizer wheel. I concur that it's a BnZ situation with the D.VII.
  15. I was under the impression it was a random failure element and not linked specifically to historical reliability stats. I could be mistaken. I do know the random failures feature adds a little something extra to career mode certainly.
×
×
  • Create New...