Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1181 Excellent


About J5_Hellbender

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Madrid, Spain (originally Brussels, Belgium)

Recent Profile Visitors

1673 profile views
  1. It's my final conclusion that VR is what sells this game, all the other problems with it are inconsequential to the immersion you get with VR. That includes giving up on having a balanced PvP multiplayer experience. I'm waiting for the Oculus Rift S to be back in stock, just so I can get the Samsung Odyssey+ back from my wife, who can't live without her nightly Beat Saber session (there's an inappropriate joke in there somewhere). For the record: Star Wars Squadrons will have both VR and HOTAS support on PC. My body is ready!
  2. I'd like to submit a feature request for the Fokker D.VIIF Spandaus to fire Thoughts & Prayers.
  3. I hate EA just as much as the rest of us (never forget Bullfrog), though I must admit that they've just released a stellar remaster of Command & Conquer and Red Alert, rebuilt almost from the ground up by the actual CnC community. Besides, they've been sitting on that Star Wars license for so long, they must know by now that there's a demand for an X-Wing/TIE Fighter remaster. Obviously you can't just do that because absolutely no one owns a joystick these days, but if you can turn it into something mouse/keyboard and console friendly (*cough* War Thunder *cough*), this may very well be a winner. Heck it wouldn't even surprise me if they actually add HOTAS support for PC. All we need now is a Red Baron or similar remaster in the same vein.
  4. It’s a bird on a wire.
  5. Mercedes D.IIIa-powered planes, UNITE! Somewhere close and not too high. In about 20 to 30 minutes.
  6. If there are truly systemic errors (and I'm not saying that there aren't), then the only solution is to rebuild everything from the ground up. Well, I'm glad that's sorted out. P.S. If the Fokker D.VIIF is removed everywhere in multiplayer I will gladly start flying the Camel again.
  7. Oh boy! The Sopwith Camel in service with the Belgian Military Aviation. Let me post the relevant 15 pages straight from Walter Pieters The Belgian Air Service in the First World War and Above Flanders Fields:
  8. To be honest, in single player Camels are just victims even when you're in an Albatros. Once you know how the AI works you can trick it to win consistently. This is how any computer game works. Now if you told me that Camels are just victims in multiplayer, then you'd have my attention. The prevailing sentiment still appears to be that a Central pilot needs a Fokker D.VIIF if he wants to stand a chance against an Entente player in a Camel. Honourable mention to the Fokker Dr.I, but we all know that it's (too) slow and can be avoided. The vanilla Fokker D.VII has no advantage against the Camel, unless you get lucky hits in the merge. The rest of the planes are very situational, with an honourable mention to the Pfalz D.10g. In other words: the status quo remains unchanged, only the length of dogfights has changed. From what I can tell the Fokker D.VIIF is still limited on the J5 Flugpark — though obviously limited Fs don't mean much if there's not enough players on Entente to begin with. I'm all for complex coded missions where you need a certain amount of Entente pilots in order for the D.VIIF to become available and whatnot, but I don't think you can fix the current situation with more complexity. People want to fly their favourite plane, or they won't fly. Otherwise we could just say: Central is on the defensive, and there are only Albies, Dr.Is and vanilla D.VIIs available, figure it out. But this is not the real war back in 1918, no one is forced to log in to multiplayer and fly a plane which isn't the best one they paid for. So all I can conclude from this situation is: If you're in a Fokker D.VIIF, you win. If you lose, you made a mistake. If you're in a Fokker Dr.I and someone is stupid enough to fight you, there's a significant chance you will win. If you're in a Camel, there's a significant chance you will either quickly lose or quickly win. All the other planes are very situational, with again honourable mentions to the Entente planes that are faster than the Fokker D.VIIF and can avoid it. In other words: nothing has changed, except that the Fokker D.VIIF has gone from being the best to even better and that the Albatros has gone from being the worst to even worse. That's the point of having a system that works on data: it doesn't care about the outcome, it only cares about the data. The last time that the community pressured the developers into making balance changes we ended up with RoF 1.034. And yes, a 167km/h Camel is objectively slower than a 180km/h Albatros, which matches certain historical reports, but there is no data to back up either one. At that point the developer needs to start making conscious multiplayer balance decisions, which need to be tweaked over time, and they also clearly need to inform their customers that they're no longer following sources, but going for gameplay balance. Case in point, the Rise of Flight Sopwith Camel is still being wrongfully advertised to customers as having a top speed of 190km/h: https://riseofflight.com/store/aircraft/sopwith-camel/ So the idea that the devs *will* give in to community pressure is certainly not without precedent, but be careful what you wish for. Be especially careful if the end result is then still not what you expected (Belgian Military Aviation data for the top speed of the Sopwith Camel: 180-185km/h). I don't have a satisfying answer beyond: Killing the pilot before he even knows you're there is obviously the safest way to win Real life pilots don't maneuver quite so hard and are more likely to die faster if you just straight up kill them The current planeset is not what I would call balanced, nor was it back in 1918. Something mid-1917 such as Albatros D.III vs SPAD VII and Sopwith Pup (depending on which data you use for the top speed of the Pup) would probably work better. Way harder to market to people casually interested in WWI than Camel vs. Dr.I, though.
  9. Gliders are heretic insults to physics. The constant beeping of the black magic indicator is proof of that. Yeah yeah, you're descending in a rising mass of air, we get it, but you're not fooling me! I like my aircraft safely powered by liquefied 50 Euro bills. Thank you very much.
  10. Well, I'm taking this about as seriously as I can. I look at this from the point of view of a professional software test coordinator (it's every bit as glamorous as it sounds) and a hobby GA pilot. Do the planes fly like real planes? In my limited experience: yeah, pretty much. Did the developers deliver on the requirements? Also, yes. Nowhere are promises made of a balanced fun community-driven multiplayer experience. The community sort of made that happen, including the complex mission design and the stats keeping. This is what's called emergent gameplay these days. And that's that. Beyond these promises it makes zero business sense to continue to cater to this small community. I'm all for even more community involvement. I'm all for a Team Chill dedicated mod team which reviews all the FMs and DMs, reviews all the data against historical reports and flying replicas, and comes up with adjusted models rebuilt from the ground up which makes everyone here happy. Well, most people here, as there are a few who genuinely want to see it all burn to the ground. It could happen here or even in old abandoned RoF. Whether it will actually happen I sincerely doubt, but you never know.
  11. The new Call of Duty has Dunkirk, about the same level of realism as Battlefield 1 (no wingshedding there). Joan of Arc appears to have had a rather accurate depiction in video games circa 2007. Look at those mighty fine breast- plates. As for parting the Red Sea, well set my bush on fire and worship me a golden calf, there is a Moses simulator! Actually it's a whole holy operating system. Now I feel cheated we never got FokkerOS. According to spar size it would never crash.
  12. There is no profitable market for a WWI flightsim, especially not one which is best experienced on 20 years out of production hardware. The fact that we have this and at that price is nothing short of a miracle. Now if you'll excuse me I'll go cry in a corner until someone releases a WWI subsim. No, 1914: Shells of Fury doesn't count. It gets points for having a wicked cool name, though.
  13. I do share the sentiment that the previous few updates were not good for multiplayer, but to claim that this is the place "where it counts" is plain wrong. The target audience remains customers of the main WWII portion of the game who also take an interest in WWI — and most of them do not fly multiplayer. In fact most players do not fly much at all. They buy a module, spend some time with the planes in the quick mission builder, maybe try a single player campaign, and then move on to something else until another module is released and the cycle repeats. Jason has said so himself. We've always known that Flying Circus' underlying systems would update along with the main game. What we have now is about as in-engine accurate as it can be. Whether this matches historical reports or is fun or conducive to properly balanced multiplayer dogfights is a completely different topic and mostly doesn't matter. Before 4.005 multiplayer FC already wasn't selling enough copies, nothing was magically going to change that. Perhaps maybe if some more planes and maps are released. At least now there are two single player campaigns available which might attract some more players and give us a reasonable chance at FC2. There's no need to point fingers or lay the blame anywhere. Much like it was back in 1918, PvP dogfighting should be a young men's game, and the constant influx of new players to base the game around PvP simply isn't there to make that happen. If the interest were there, then you'd have the current generation of Fortnite, Counter-Strike and Battlefield players in here walking all over us old farts. At the very least the War Thunder crowd. It's not all hopeless, though, there's a new generation of flightsims arriving on consoles with FS20201(?), and even EA is about to announce a new Star Wars game that MIGHT just be about dogfighting (we'll see tomorrow): In the meantime we can keep the interest in WWI dogfighting alive within our small little niche and see where it goes from here.
  14. I agree, though I've stopped playing multiplayer before 4.005 and it's hard to deduce what the effect is of the DM changes and the new 4.007 control cable DM on the planeset from single player alone. Since nothing has changed in terms of handling, it's safe to say that under ideal circumstances the Camel still walks over everything that isn't a Fokker D.VIIF (especially below 1000m), simply because it can avoid getting damaged during the merge and then stay out of harm's way until it turns the enemy to death. The Dr.I it can fly away from. The vanilla D.VII is what interests me most because they have almost the exact same top speed, though the Camel climbs better and obviously turns way better. Still, if the D.VII could get wing hits during a merge... and if the Camel's fuel would be locked to something like 75%... ...and if the D.VII pilot throws his machine around enough... and if the Camel pilot still insists to turn as tight as possible and maybe overstresses... It's a lot of ifs, ands or buts. Hehe, buts. The truth is that you're likely right and that the D.VIIF needs to stay and Entente needs to avoid them. I'd recommend Bristols, lots and lots of Bristols, but since the Fokkers are the least affected by the new DM, they're probably not the best option either. Against Albies it's just murder at this point. Yeah, fun planeset. So how about that Volume 2?
  • Create New...