Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

118 Excellent

About Flashy

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
    South Africa

Recent Profile Visitors

574 profile views
  1. I think we should all just be thankful that ambient flak is no longer a thing! Explosions in NML look fine to me, although I preferred the heavier dust cloud over NML in ROF to FC. The FC cloud seems much lighter and less noticeable..
  2. Yes, absolutely! Something content-wise (not just technology-wise) to differentiate FC from RoF would be good. Even if its AI only 2 seaters (*cough* Be2 *cough*) to help fill the gaps in the planeset. My personal period of interest is early war, but its desperately under-represented in RoF. Partly I think because people prefer the later, faster stuff, but ALSO because there are too many gaps in the planeset (especially 2-seaters) to make good scenarios. That and the Dh2 is pretty much useless against everything..
  3. Flashy

    Soggy ground ?

    haha no worries! I also only discovered this about a month or two ago (been using the editor for 10 years since Rof and never thought to play with the Surface Edit functionality - I'm an idiot! ). But the mods on requirement is a bit annoying. I obviously dont know enough to speculate why the devs made edited terrain a mods on feature - maybe there are cheating implications? But maybe they could look at it again and see if there is a way to have this feature without the mods on requirement. If we could add airfields wherever we like in mods off mode, it would greatly enhance the usefulness of planes like the U2 and WW1 types..
  4. Flashy

    Soggy ground ?

    S! Butzzell, Ah, no sorry perhaps I didnt make myself very clear: What I mean is that you can specify areas of the map that the game treats the same as any other airfield using the surface editor functionality of the ME. You first have to enable the surface edit function of the mission editor: and you will then get something that looks like this where there are existing airfields: These are all the different parts that make up an airfield in the game, and most of them are just texture overlays that help the airfield blend into the surrounding landscape tiles and make the airfield look like its been landed on by planes etc, but the important one is the part that actually defines the area of the runway and which changes the physics of that area to be solid. See below: Here you can see it has a width of 300 (meters probably) and the length is whatever the length of the object is in the editor, and the physics are set to "Solid".If you copy and paste this one object anywhere on the map, you will be able to take off and land from that location (obviously dont place it on a hill etc), but you do need to run the game in mods on mode for this to work. However, I think the easiest way is to go the "secret" airfield in Sochi (block 2535.1 on the Kuban map) and just copy that whole airfield and paste it anywhere you want. That way you get all the textures as well as the solid ground runway object, and its a nice small little field with little unnecessary junk that you'd have to remove. I did it in this video where I just chose a random flat field on the kuban map and pasted it down (had to do a bit of editing of the other texture objects to get it to look decent, but it literally took 5 mins):
  5. Flashy

    Soggy ground ?

    Just a quick one: it is possible to make your own airfields in the ME that are fully functional and place them wherever you want, BUT it does require you to run the game in mods on mode for it to work. A possible quick fix to the issue might be to remove the mods on requirement for modified terrain? But yes, I agree, the "soggy ground" thing is a problem for an increasing number of planes (mentioned above). WW1 planes and similar types should be able to land on some fields, although there is always a risk the ground isnt as flat as it seems: Story time: A couple of years back my cousin was attempting to fly his tiger moth from Perth to Brisbane in Austraila when he suffered an engine failure and had to put the plane down. He chose what appeared to be a perfectly flat and empty field and landed fine, only to discover that there was a large ditch running across the field which he hadnt seen from the air and promptly ran into. Needless to say it caused a lot of damage and required the plane to basically be stripped and rebuilt extensively. So yeah, even flat fields can harbour nasty little secrets! Thats not to say though that the soggy ground logic in il-2 is a good thing - we still need to be able to land in some fields sometimes! P.S: I'm not sure about your poll options. I think the soggy ground is appropriate for most of the planes in Il-2 because heavy ww2 fighters with their small wheels will probably dig into the ground during a off-field landing (which is one of the reasons warbird pilots land wheels up if they have to make a forced landing) but lighter aircraft with big wheels like the ww1 and u2 types probably wont have this issue. I think it needs to either be plane specific as J2_Trupobaw said, or be able to be set in the ME as II./JG1_Vonrd said..
  6. While the above might be a bit harsh, and could drive more people away than it attracts, what about linking the mission win scenario to the two-seater tasks, so that if the two seaters complete their tasks the mission ends with a win for that side? If you design the mission in such a way that the two-seaters can complete their tasks in a relatively short time period if they are unopposed (like an hour or whatever) then the enemy might be incentivised to prevent this in order to prevent the mission ending prematurely. In other words, if the fighters just ignore the two-seaters, the mission wont last long. Therefore, fighters have to prioritise the two-seaters to keep the mission running, and this in turn drives the two-seaters to change tactics (fly higher, fly around known fighter gathering areas, etc). Combine this with AA that spawns on the front if the two-seaters are low, and you could help push players into the type of gameplay you want to encourage.
  7. Seems to work on my test mission, which I originally created to test if the OnAreaAttacked command was working for artillery pieces (it isnt as far as I can tell) and which I just quickly edited to use the M1 gun. See attached file. I think the issue is one which goes back to RoF: Artillery guns dont have their real life range in the game. Their max range is usually much closer than what the actual gun would have been able to fire. I think its just a limitation of the game - maybe the devs didnt see the need to have guns firing at extreme long ranges.. OnAreaAttacked.rar EDIT: the gun is only supposed to attack the area for 1 minute, so thats why it stops after a short time.. And I can confirm that moving the attackarea further away stops the gun from firing (out of range)
  8. I think that FC vol 1 was always going to be a tough sell based on its limited scale compared to RoF and relatively high price, and I'm sure everyone at 1cgs are smart enough to realise that sales of this volume are not representative of the actual demand for a WW1 flight sim. There are plenty of old RoF'ers on these forums who didnt buy FC vol 1 because it just wasnt a big enough step up from RoF in any way other than perhaps VR, and in most ways it was a step down (no career, lack of gameplay features like artillery spotting, recon etc, fewer planes, smaller map size, etc). I am a massive WW1 flight sim fan and even I only bought FC vol1 to support the development of more down the line, and found vol 1's content to be quite underwhelming. IMO, FC needs to differentiate itself more from RoF by offering something that RoF doesnt. Each volume of FC should include something like one new plane that wasnt in RoF, or an improved version of the artillery spotting and recon logic we had in RoF (one that works in multiplayer for example?) or maybe even an AI-only Zeppelin, or more early war planes? - basically anything that was a key component of WW1 aviation that RoF didnt do, or didnt do that well. If they can offer a product that is seen as a clear improvement to Rof and that offers new toys, then more people will take the plunge and buy into that, and we will have increased numbers for MP events..
  9. Yeah this is a bit of a difficult one because there is a fine line between motivating people to play the way you want them to, and penalizing innocent parties (other players) for other peoples' mistakes. What often seems to happen is reckless players take the best planes and fly off and lose them, and once the supply of those planes dries up at a particular airfield, you get complaints from other players who cant fly their favourite plane anymore, who arent willing to take the "secondary" planes because they are "crap", and leave the server in a huff. Another thing to think of is that multiplayer is so competitive and there are so many massively practiced pilots online that very few (if any) engagements are going to end with both pilots getting out alive - there are very few "inconclusive" engagements where both pilots withdraw after the fight. The rate of attrition on multiplayer servers is therefore very high, and its unlikely that players will return their planes even if they wanted to. So this sort of "penalty for not returning" mechanic is probably best used for the more formal organised events where there is a emphasis on realism, and maybe even events which used DiD rules. These events attract a different crowd with a different mentality towards flying, and who would probably more tolerant to stricter rules like this. Otherwise, I think it will just annoy the average player and drive them away from the server..
  10. I cant remember exactly where I saw it, or who said it (think it was one of the devs or maybe even Jason, but not sure so dont quote me on that), but apparently even though the U2 was "outsourced" to Yugra media, it took more of the core teams' time and effort to finish it than they had originally planned/hoped. So that might be the hold up the C-47/Li-2 - the original plan to get Yugra to build it after the U2 was not as straightforward as originally thought, and it will require considerable time and effort from the core team to do it, which they havent been able to afford so far. Having said that, now that the FC aircraft are done (these were also being done by Yugra AFAIK), maybe they have started work on the C-47/Li-2 after all. I hope so because its an aircraft I have really been looking forward to and an allied equivalent to the Ju-52 has been sorely needed for a long time now..
  11. Yeah I saw that but I didnt realise you could actually add new airfields to the map using that functionality! Thanks for the manual though - its a great resource and has clarified things quite a few times!
  12. I literally just set up a forward base operating from a random field on the Kuban map using the surface editor and it works perfectly! I can take off and land no problem and the only "issue" is you need to be using mods on mode to run the mission, but I can live with that if it means being able to use the U-2 as it was supposed to be used! Cant beleive I never tried this before and that nobody mentioned it!
  13. Holy Sh*t! You can actually do this in Mods on mode using the surface edit function! Why am I only finding out about this now! This could fix the U-2 problem!
  14. Wait, hold on! What do you mean? I think he is asking if we can add new airfields to the map? Thats not possible is it? *fumbles for mission editor guides*
  15. Yeah I dont think the 1070 is strong enough for VR so I am still thinking a better GPU is the best bet. here, watch these two vids:
  • Create New...