Jump to content

Flashy

Members
  • Content Count

    176
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

110 Excellent

About Flashy

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    South Africa

Recent Profile Visitors

498 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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)
  3. 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..
  4. 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..
  5. 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..
  6. 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!
  7. 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!
  8. 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!
  9. 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*
  10. 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:
  11. While its hard to say because VR is a bit of a special case, I dont think so. Most games dont actually use much CPU anyway, and even something like Il-2 doesnt appear to be very demanding on the CPU (a game like beamng.drive is another matter!). Even my 10 year old CPU still plays Il-2 fine, but it is pretty easy to tank my framerate by adding increased graphic loads like better mirrors, shadows and filtering. Thats not to say those increased graphic settings dont ALSO add CPU load (they still have to be processed) but generally its the graphics card that is struggling in that case. Although, CPU will limit the maximum FPS you can get and this is where it could affect VR performance because you basically need at least 120fps constantly to have a smooth experience on VR (60fps on each screen). This is one of the reasons a VR PC has to be so strong overall -its that high max framerate it has to maintain. RAM speed is not that important (a few % points increase in fps typically), its more to do with how much RAM you have (running out of RAM while playing will cause big stutters or hangs as the game has to transfer data off the much slower ssd or hdd). But, if you're asking which one would make the biggest difference to fps, I would still go with a better graphics card as the best bet. But then you have to consider the possibility that the CPU *might* bottleneck that card at VR speeds.. can you describe the situations that cause the lower FPS? Is it when there are more particle effects (fire,smoke,fog) or more buildings and trees on the screen (low flying)?
  12. This was something I was also pretty angry about to be honest when I first saw the map. There was so much work and detail put into that mod by people who were obviously passionate about getting it right, and making sure it was as historical as possible, and it wasn't even used. All the hard work had already been done for them and they just had to port it over to the new map and yet it was just thrown in the trash - not even worth a response. It's difficult in the extreme to understand that decision and the only reason I can possibly think of why this was done is because the budget for the map was pretty low (again due to niche nature of FC product) so there just wasnt enough money to pay someone to convert that mod to Il-2 standards.. Btw, do you have a working link to that mod still Matthias? All the old RoF forum links seem to be broken.. Could you please PM if you do? I have always loved the early war stuff more than than the late war, and I would have been thrilled to see an early war pack with a "reworked" Dh2 (the current one is useless vs any other aircraft in the game for some reason), E.III's, N11's, etc as well as some early two seaters like Be2's, Aviatiks, Albatross B series and DFW B series etc. But yeah, this seems like a futile hope because its such a small market.. yeah this is a personal bug-bear of mine and has a pretty negative impact on the usefulness of a plane like the U-2. Restricting the U-2 to prepared airfields is a bit like restricting an off-road vehicle to tarred roads - it will still work, but it kinda defeats the point! I have been asking for a way around this for a while now, and if we get more of these types of aircraft (WW1planes, Storch, Tiger moth etc) the issue will only become more annoying. As I understand it, the devs need to create a third type of terrain (prepared airfield terrain and unprepared ground being the existing types) that we can somehow place on the map to allow planes to land off-field, and I think they are reluctant to do it because it doesnt affect many planes at the moment and is therefore low priority (if it even IS a priority!)
  13. VR is a bit different because it requires the game to render twice as many frames - one for each VR screen, so I think it puts extra strain on both the CPU and GPU. Having said that, I still would think its unlikely that your CPU will be the bottleneck in this case, even with the increased VR workload, so going with a better GPU would give you more FPS.
  14. Although the Arras map does fall a bit short of what I had hoped for, especially in no-mans land and the use of similar flat trench textures to RoF, it does still largely meet my expectations. I think we all kinda knew it was going to be similar to what we had seen of the planes for FC - an incremental evolution of RoF rather than a revolution. I agree with Cat in that a really good map would have helped to sell the FC product and separate it from the old RoF, and while I have very little to complain about regarding the rest of the map, I think better trenches and more detailed craters/destroyed villages/hell-on-earth atmosphere in no-mans land would have helped differentiate FC from RoF and sway more of the RoF diehards over to FC - that and a new plane or two of course! Having said that, there are still some positives: the barbed wire and fortifications are a nice addition, and the increased number and detail of the dead trees is good too. We must also remember that FC is a niche product with limited appeal, so it probably doesnt make sense to spend more resources and money on building something fancy that only a small part of your overall customer base will even notice, let alone appreciate. Also, there is the performance impact to consider as well - the more junk you throw into no-mans land and the more detailed you make it the more customers you have jumping on the forums saying: "wth! I am only getting 25fps over nomans land! you ruined my game, and now my wife left me and my car broke down and my life is ruined! I want a refund! waah!" So yeah, I was hoping for a bigger step up over RoF (and would've taken the performance hit for it - others might not be so willing) but I'm not unhappy with what we ended up with. It will serve its purpose and its fine.
  15. Actually I have just done a quick test and AI vehicles dont seem to be repaired by the repair vehicle. I presume because they cant shut off their engines, or maybe they are just excluded because we have a repair MCU already... ah yes! that is a good point! Nice one! EDIT: so if that works then technically you can set up a a proper "repair area" that doesnt even have to be a vehicle - just as long as you have that fake vehicle nearby. You could have LE hangars with those little soldiers walking around and require the player to taxi into a hangar maybe to get repaired? That could be cool ... These double sided hangars for example: Now all we need are updated versions of your airfield objects! https://riseofflight.com/forum/topic/32116-airfield-objects-first-3d-models/
×
×
  • Create New...