Jump to content

Flashy

Members
  • Content Count

    206
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

127 Excellent

About Flashy

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    South Africa

Recent Profile Visitors

709 profile views
  1. True, but we also dont have the context or any details for those structural failures, or do we? It could be that the planes tried to dive away from MvR and overstressed the airframe (in which case it might have collapsed even if there was no damage) or the pilot could have been shot, leading to the plane falling out of control and resulting in a similar failure as above.. Does that book give detailed accounts of these engagements? I would be interested to know under what circumstances these failures occurred..
  2. I remember reading an account (*maybe you have come across it @unreasonable?) when I was younger about MvR and his Jasta attacking a B.E.2 and they all poured all of their ammunition into the plane without result and it just kept on flying. They even began to think it was some kind of ghost plane and apparently were quite freaked out by it. Eventually it ran out of fuel and landed itself in a field (a testament to the B.E.2's stability perhaps?) and it was discovered that both the pilot and observer were long dead, riddled with countless bullets, as was the plane, but it hadnt really caused any issue with flyability of the aircraft.. I dont have a source for this account anymore, but if true it lends weight to the argument that these early planes could potentially absorb massive amounts of combat damage and carry on flying quite happily..
  3. I didnt do the whole saving as a group thing (i'm not even sure if surface edit groups can be saved to a group file tbh), I just simply copy-paste (drag the mouse over all the airfield objects, Ctrl-C, go to where you want it and Ctrl-V). You have to make sure you get the main "runway" object when you copy-paste because that is the one that determines the physics of the ground. You can find it by going into the properties of each little flag object and checking its surfline tab (see screen shot in my post in the soggy ground thread). Its not necessarily in the same position as the runway texture because it has a width that is not visible in the editor, so it might be offset to the left of right of the actual runway, but you'll know you've found it by the "Physics: solid" option being checked in the surfline tab. In fact, this is actually the only object you need to make a new runway - all the other stuff is texture overlays that make the airfield blend in better and look more realistic ( vehicle tracks, textures showing where planes have landed before, hangar positions, etc). Make sure when you paste all this stuff you do it on a flat field with enough room on either end to approach the runway. I found a lot of the fields on the kuban map have tree lines on the outskirts that can really mess with your ability to actually make a good landing approach. But yeah, if you paste all the objects into a suitably flat field it should work ...
  4. yeah sure, check out this post in the Soggy Ground thread: Thats about all I have actually done with it. I suppose it is possible to build an aerodrome from scratch, but all I do is copy-paste one airfield from one location to another and then just tweak it slightly so it looks good - far less work than trying to build one from scratch..
  5. Just a quick thoughts that I havent seen anyone else mention (it might have been - apologies if I missed it, and apologies also for my crude drawings, but they'll do to illustrate my points ๐Ÿ˜„ 1. ) Does the DM make any assumptions about the likely spread of the hits on a part of the wing? If we have a spar with 5 hits for example, then this scenario: Is entirely different from a "spar damage and likelihood to fail" point of view than this one: But the first one is far less likely in a fast dogfight where the planes are twisting and turning all the time and pilots are shooting with inaccurate machine guns.. I know you did answer a similar question in your response, but maybe the probability calculation is giving too high a probability to the first case when it should be practically 0% for 5 hits in the same place? 2.) Are all "hits" to the spar treated equally in the DM? I.e does it make any distinction (or assign a probability) between a direct hit (red in the picture below) and a glancing blow (yellow in the pic)?: 3.) does it take into account the construction of the spar at all? So if a spar has holes in it for example does it give a probability that even a "hit" might have actually missed the spar based on the % of the spar area that the holes occupy? i.e. 5 "hits" to this spar, but only 3 of them are actually hits because 2 passed through the holes: thats all for now EDIT: also, what about combinations of the above? Here is an edge case where there are 5 "hits" in the same place, yet spar durability is hardly affected ๐Ÿ˜„: granted, this is incredibly rare, but can this situation theoretically happen in the DM?
  6. Also only discovered it recently - it allows you to edit the surface of the game world such as placing down different texture overlays, modifying the physics of the ground, placing runways etc. If you open it up and start playing with it and drag stuff around you'll see pretty quickly what each little "flag" thing does. Its very useful for creating new airfields, but as others have said it only works in mods on mode (I dont know why the devs made it that way, perhaps there are cheating implications) and until that changes its not especially useful for mission designers
  7. This ^ There needs to be something new to convince the RoF playerbase to move over to FC. Selling a bunch of remastered planes that already exist in RoF for $70-$80 is always going to be a hard sell, especially when RoF content is so much cheaper and the product as a whole is more complete (Career, Artillery spotting, reconnaissance missions, etc). If you're a VR user then its a different story, but for regular players its tough to justify spending that money on stuff you basically already have. For Vol 2 I would like to see earlier planes/bloody april planeset including: -D.H.2 (with revised FM - the current D.H.2 is completely useless, even against the Fokker E.III, let alone the Alb DII) -B.E.2 (this was the mainstay of the RFC and RAF for most of the war. I know its probably not very interesting to fly, but its too important to ignore...even AI only would be a start) -N11 -N17 -Alb DII -Early C-series German 2 seater (Alb CII, Rumpler, LVG, Aviatik, DFW etc) -Fok EIII -Pup -Tripe -Maybe a Caudron so the French get an early 2-seater as well? There are more, but that should be enough for now. Basically we need new planes that fill the gaps in the RoF planeset and help convince existing players to buy into FC.
  8. Hi, I will be flying this years bloody april with the 56 Squadron guys, can you please assign me to their group? thanks!
  9. I will also echo the general sentiment that the Se5a in both FC and RoF is a pretty hopeless plane compared to its direct rivals. Thats not to say an expert pilot couldnt do very well in it, but for less skilled pilots such as myself its basically suicidal, even when I try use the correct tactics. The historical accounts of pilots who flew them, and even what the vintage aviator pilots said when they flew their reproductions (which are so accurate that they can definitely be considered the "real thing") in a mock dog fight was that the albatross dva was hopelessly outclassed by the Se5a in virtually all aspects (including turn fighting it seems), so I think there definitely is a problem somewhere.. But it might not be the se5a thats at fault, but rather the albatrosses and pfalz FM's that could be the issue here. Whenever I fly the dva especially I am amazed that it just seem to be a plane with no flaws: its stable, easy to fly and almost impossible to stall unless you actively try. So maybe these early FM's from around 2008-2009 (dva especially) have some error or didnt take something into account properly that results in planes that fly way better in game than they should? Unfortunately we will never know until we have access to someone who has actually flown these aircraft in RL..
  10. I think the issue is the game engine itself not being able to keep up with all that is happening in the mission. I presume the engine has its own internal "clock speed" that it tries to run at all the time, and this speed is consistent with reality (i.e 1 second in game is 1 second in real life), but when it cant keep up with the demands of the mission it slows itself down to ensure that all the stuff that needs to be processed is actually processed. This gives the impression of the game running at half speed because its no longer in sync with real time (this seems to be shown in the in-game clock reading a different amount of time passed to a real life clock as some have mentioned). Throwing more raw CPU speed at the problem seems to help to an extent, but I doesnt seem to cure the issue (nobody who tried the mission got good playable results regardless of hardware IIRC) because the core problem is the game engine struggling, not necessarily the hardware..
  11. I would be keen the join the EU timezone group. I have always wanted to join a squadron because I dont see the point of just logging on to a random server, taking off and getting shot down pretty much immediately because I'm flying alone like an idiot and get bounced by 3 guys at once. For this reason I basically never get onto to MP anymore except for organised events. Will check out your discord..
  12. "oh for god sakes Jamie, give you brain a chance!" ๐Ÿ˜„ Great movie, despite the standard 60's cheesyness. Its a pity we cant make movies like this anymore because most of the planes are long gone..
  13. not too much to add to what has already been said, but you can actually run the mission editor and the game at the same time, although it will often create weird visual glitches if you go into "first person" mode in the editor (f9) when the game is running. As long as you avoid pressing f9 in the editor though, I find you can run the two side by side without too much trouble, and this makes editing and quickly checking the result faster. Even if the game does glitch out, you can still test certain things because it doesnt affect things like subtitles or mission logic, only the visuals..
  14. literally cannot wait until this becomes flyable! In the meantime, bring on the AI Gooney Bird!
  15. I really enjoyed the seaplanes in RoF, but unfortunately the performance of the channel map on which they were mostly used was quite bad for a lot of people, so most MP events I took part in tended to stay away from it. Would be great to have them redone in FC one day though...
×
×
  • Create New...