Jump to content

J5_Hellbender

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    410
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

563 Excellent

About J5_Hellbender

  • Rank
    Founder

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

1050 profile views
  1. Looks like lag to me. If I'm not mistaken, the track records what happens on your end, not what the server is actually registering as hits.
  2. I have this issue with my (new’ish) X52 Pro throttle. It was probably the same in Rise of Flight, though I never noticed it there as there is no precise technochat. It’s all cheap plastic crap. It might be better with a Warthog throttle, though the fix for us is easy enough: add small deadzones of ~10% to the top and bottom of the axis in IL-2’s key mapping. I can’t take screenshots as I’m not home at the moment, but it’s not difficult to figure out. The net result will be that you reach 0 and 100% slightly sooner, but at least you actually get there, which is all that matters with these old birds.
  3. User manuals for sims are a bit of a thing of the past. Players figuring out things for themselves and sharing relevant information on forums, YouTube and other social media is what they call "emergent gameplay" nowadays. That said, the game would definitely benefit from a wiki.
  4. The FM of the Fokker Dr.I is not final, there's an overheating bug on the Albatros D.Va which wasn't present in Rise of Flight and there are a few issues with the newly released two-seater gunner turrets movement, hitboxes and animations in multiplayer. The AI is pretty bad, in general. Personally I don't care as my main focus is multiplayer, but that's no excuse for it to be bad. The gunner AI is far more of a concern to me as it can be used in multiplayer and is at times far too accurate. This I do care about as I simply don't want to see AI being anything other than a placeholder for a human gunner. This also affects WWII in a very significant way, as fighters tend to avoid bombers altogether. We've only seen screenshots of the Arras map so far. In my opinion they look quite good. I don't have extremely high expectations of the trenches, but I hope for a visual improvement over Rise of Flight. I hope the ambient flak will be a thing of the past and that flak itself will lose its laser-like accuracy. I expect improvements on all these points, if not at release, then at least down the line. If none of these points are addressed, it will have an impact on the success of a possible Volume 2. There. Is that critical enough for you? What else do you expect us to do but to report bugs, show patience and above all have enthusiasm for the product? I really don't get the "bad devs, no biscuits" mentality. This is not Apple competing with Samsung over what $1000 phone gets shoved down our throats this semester. Nobody is getting rich off this, not even at $80. How I wish it were the case, and I think many here would consider a career in flightsim development. Okay, okay, I'll step away from the pitchfork. Yes, more dev communication with us on this forum would be nice, but I would much prefer for them to spend their time actually developing. As for the Flying Circus forum not having subforums, Hallelujah! The last thing we need is more subforum clutter. File this under Flying Circus > Developer Feedback > Constructive Criticism.
  5. Thanks for taking the time to write about your experiences. I'm not going to lie to you, you're going to find all those things you didn't like about WT, and worse. Toxicity, spawnsniping, arcade-like scenarios where all you must do is kill everyone, while it will look like everyone is out to get you, personally. You're going to be ganged up by squadrons who play as a team, who have far better situational awareness than you (we'll get back to this in a minute) and, to add insult to injury, are flying better planes than yours. Or perhaps worse planes, if that makes it more humilitating to you. That's all here in plentiful quantity. So, if you haven't run away screaming by now, why should you even bother giving it a try? Well, a couple of reasons: At its very core, it's still a sim and most people here treat it as such. I'm very much of the opinion that anyone should use every trick in the book to turn the fight to their advantage, which some will definitely interpret as "gaming the game" (especially two-seaters, those are the worst), but we're still all governed by the same rules. There's no gamey unlocks or stats and ladders that really matter, beyond what matters to you personally. At the end of the day, we're all equals. It's not all kumbaya around the campfire, and it doesn't have to be, but if you're here it means you like flying WWI birds and you're one of us. Situational awareness (SA). That's the name of the game. No matter what happens, no matter how awful you are at lining up a shot, landing a plane or even flying in a straight line, your SA is going to improve. You're probably not going to become an ace overnight (though there are shortcuts), but you are going to learn through trial and error, right to the point where you understand why you lose. Why you got bounced, why you got into a fight you couldn't win, etc. In real life, people died for their mistakes. In here, without fail, you learn. It's no different from any other game or sport. When you understand the different flying styles and experience flying alone vs. flying as part of a team, then you can really decide for yourself whether you'd like to be competitive or not. It's absolutely fine if you're just in it for a bit of fun, and unless you truly go out of your way to hamper your team by being an a-hole, no one is going to think any less of you. Flying angry to be the top dog is a pretty bad long-term strategy, since everyone has bad days where he can't hit the broadside of a barn. If you log off at the end of the night and you feel like you had fun and you learned something, then you won. Finally, and I hope I don't come off as some kind of recruiter for a cult (fair warning: this is a cult), you're kind of a big deal. As in: WWI is a niche, within the niche that is flightsims. The community is small and passionate and sometimes very set in their ways about what is wrong and what is right, and who is the sad little king of his sad little hill. In a closed system, entropy increases. In a closed communiy, toxicity increases. The only way to fight that is to have people such as yourself (re)discovering the genre. Before I end my long rant, I should warn you that multiplayer isn't incredibly active at the moment. Summer has always been a quiet period for this, but if you join an FC server during the evening hours (Flying Circus Flugpark of Jasta 5, GCF's server, OG's server...), even when it's empty, someone is bound to join sooner rather than later. That's good enough for a few quick scraps. In the meantime you can practice on the AI that flies around. There's also regular dogfighting events on Friday and Sunday nights. Again, all of this should get fairly more active starting September, and even more so when we get the actual map and final release of the game. There's also a few resources to help you on the way. @SYN_Requiem's YouTube channel is the single best source on the internet for learning to fly these machines. He's got videos up for all the planes in the game (not counting the two-seaters who were just released), which should help you at least get your bearings in the air. https://www.youtube.com/user/RequiemBoS/videos If you have no idea where to start, I recommend the Fokker D.VII or the S.E.5a Once you're up and running and have given multiplayer a first go, have a look at this Multiplayer Aircraft Guide, which I maintain along with @J2_Trupobaw. It's more of an opinion piece rather than an objective source of information. Treat it as you would any other game guide you can find online. Eventually you will form your own opinions, though we still believe it's better for someone new to have a guide that is often wrong, than to have no guide at all. Thanks for taking the time to read all this and hope to fly with you soon! S!
  6. Welcome! The community here is very critical and quick to point out the rough edges, but that's really thanks to how passionate we are about these old birds. It's absolutely true that they are excellent training machines, and there are plenty of real life pilots here (including ones who fly something bigger than a Cessna) who rave about the feeling of flight. Also, stay awhile and listen come fly with us! Multiplayer can be a daunting experience at first, though incredibly rewarding in the long run, especially if you fly together with other people.
  7. So to sum up the bugs with the Halberstadt turret: - Motion lacks fluidity when playing with someone else - Unable to get it up past a very low angle - No effect even with repeated attempts at point blank range I feel personally attacked.
  8. I don’t want to spread too much positivity in this perfectly legitimate bitch thread (I agree on almost all points above, for the record), but if we discount the Fokker D.VIIF, the Bristol F.III and the Halberstadt 200hp, we have a pretty accurate planeset for April 1918, weeks before the introduction of the “real” Fokker D.VII and the more widespread conversion of the existing Mercedes D.III(a) blocks to 200hp overcompression. Perhaps this is a better focus than Black September? No matter what happens, the Camel’s top speed is going to remain a hot potato. There’s likely not a single other machine in combat flightsim history where a 5km/h reduction in speed would have such a tremendous impact on the entire game and how it is perceived by the people who play it. It’s not surprising that the devs, who are in their own words not WWI specialists, struggle to see the bigger picture. Optimistically I think we’re 2km/h off (188km/h AMSL) — which is an almost ludicrous change — but I accept that it could be as high as 8km/h (182km/h AMSL). Just, please, no more 165km/h Camel. That’s as bad as the Dr.I we have now. And yes, the Fokker Dr.I’s performance is an aberration, but even that should be fixed before release.
  9. The D.IIIau on the D.VII would give us a slightly worse D.VIIF, but I still agree we need it badly as it was the main production engine and the later F could be removed from most maps. The same engine on the Albatros and Pfalz would make these planes competitive against Camels above 1000m. Some might say even a bit too competitive against Entente planes that require more discipline, such as the SPAD and SE5a. Still, having some new gameplay elements compared to RoF (not counting parachutes and improved DM) would certainly attract attention. No idea how much actual development time would be needed to port those engines over from the Halberstadt CL.II 200hp. As for me, I'm also waiting for the map and for the end of summer when I'll have more time to fly online.
  10. It's true that the CL.II is not a machine well-suited for recon. To be fair, since we'll have the Arras map and a planeset centered around the 1918 Spring Offensive, I believe that it was the better choice, considering the only other options were the outdated DFW and the horribly outdated Roland. The creation of Schlastas equipped with CL types along with the arrival of the Fokker D.VII was the last real push for air victory by the Central powers. They'd already lost aerial dominance to the French and British (and soon to the Americans), but they could have still forced victory on the ground by offering pockets of air superiority and close ground support. Of course if we'll see the typical Vintage Mission scenario where a lonely underpowered Halberstadt needs to go hang over a factory at 2000m, 10 miles inside enemy lines to take 10 photographs and hurry back, while a Bristol gets to do the same on the other side, people will understand that it's neither fun nor particularly accurate. Hopefully it will not come to that. And if it does, I suggest willfull disobedience. For German two-seaters to go far behind enemy trenches in 1918 would not have been a common occurence anymore.
  11. It's really up to mission builders to understand that this plane takes 20+ minutes to climb to 3000m and is really not designed as anything but a very light "bomber" or recon escort. Unless you see them flying in large numbers and at relatively low altitude, it's not really historical. The Bristol, by comparison, was used in virtually any role. By the end of the war, Biffs were deployed to escort Camels, who would be carrying the bomb loads instead.
  12. It’ll be done in two weeks, be sure. Seriously, it flies exactly as you would expect a light, underpowered two-seater with big wings and a very gentle stall. Its ground handling is better than it was in RoF, too, where it was the square-wheeled Queen of Wobble. The only remark I could possibly have about its FM, is that it should be possible to pick a finer pitch propeller to make her climb slightly better at the cost of top speed, or a coarser pitch prop to achieve the opposite. It would probably matter very little, either way.
  13. Considering it has the same engine as an Albatros (+ the uprated mid-1918 version), it performs remarkably well with a second person on board. So long as you don't start adding weapon modifications to her, she flies exactly how you would expect an Albatros to, if you took one of its frontal Spandaus and turned it into a rear Parabellum. Trials were held at one point to have her join Albatros squadrons as a Bristol-like heavy fighter, but her performance was found lacking (165km/h, 5min to 1000m). Compared to RoF's DFW C.V (155km/h, 4min to 1000m), she's faster but climbs slower, giving rise to a very peculiar machine. Something quite close to the earlier Roland C.IIa (165km/h, 6min to 1000m), which was also equipped with a Parabellum in a similar arrangement, though initially without a forward firing Spandau. I'm sure that somebody will be able to dig up a picture of a Halberstadt with a bomb rack, but her primary role as close ground support saw her equipped with belts of throwable grenades. Since we don't have ground troops in RoF (and likely not in FC either), it wouldn't make much sense to have them. It's a great machine, though. It's not too difficult and very rewarding to fly. They were extremely effective when deployed in large numbers as part of battle squadrons (Schlachtstaffeln), so I hope we'll see a few more pilot/gunner teams emerge.
  14. I just want to point out that the gun angle on the Halb is lower than on the Bristol in any case, since it doesn't have an actual Scarff ring which allows the guns to be raise and lowered on a rail. From what I can tell, it may be more realistic this way (at least when angling downward), since the Parabellum is a pretty big gun installed in a very small and cramped turret. Obviously I'd prefer it to be the way it was in Rise of Flight, but that's my personal bias. When it comes to the deadly accuracy of AI gunners, I'm just not surprised. It's a pretty big complaint on the WWII side of things also. It would certainly help if AI gunners were simply disabled for human pilots in multiplayer. This means that you either need to man the gun yourself and fly at the same time (bit lame, but still not as bad as sniper AI) or find a buddy and form a pilot/gunner team (highly recommended — no I'm not sharing).
×
×
  • Create New...