Jump to content


Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by J5_Hellbender-Sch27b

  1. As far as I can tell nothing has changed since 4.002. Typically hotfixes are announced in the game update discussion thread, which isn’t the case.
  2. I have gone from completely giving up on VR for the time being to loving it in less than 24 hours. I can't even see myself ever going back to TrackIR, now, and I understand all the annoyingly enthusiastic people that have been raving about it for more than a year. Yes, I was getting massive framedrops on my i7 7700K, GTX 1080 with the Samsung Odyssey+. The solution for me was this voodoo black magic thingamabob called asynchronous spacewarp (for SteamVR it's called motion reprojection), which is a beta feature for Windows Mixed Reality devices and needs to be enabled manually. https://steamcommunity.com/games/719950/announcements/detail/1652133167137673234 It's night and day, and my motion sickness is gone, at least for the time being. Hell, this is the "killer VR app" people like me have been waiting for. I can play with my regular non-VR settings and my framerate never drops below 60fps, which means I have enough for ASW which does 45fps for a perceived 90fps. Good luck getting anyone who doesn't know the first thing about VR (me 3 days ago) excited about a framerate smoothing technique. So we're probably still 5 to 10 years out before a decently average gaming computer can hit the VR target fps without needing tricks such as ASW. So if we discount possible motion sickness, for people on the fence I will say this: it's not (just) the immersion, it's the depth perception compared to a flat screen. The step up is not like going from a hat switch to TrackIR, it's like going from a 2D platform style game to a 3D style flightsim. Without VR: With VR: But I can't check six anymore...
  3. May I ask: does that server have any (WWI) AI planes?
  4. Do you have any AI WWI planes flying around? That’s the only thing I can think of could be different with any other pre-Flying Circus release mixed WWII/WWI server compared to ours, if there are no other WWI elements present on the map.
  5. I can't overstate how great VR looks and how immersive it is (Samsung Odyssey+), but yeah, motion sickness and vertigo are killing it for me too, so after two days of use, I'm going back to TrackIR — with a heavy heart. This technology will be ready for mainstream use in about 5 to 10 years, exactly the life which my TrackIR and Force Feedback 2 stick still have in them. This sim, too, is built on old technology, made compatible for VR. I can't wait to see what a true VR flightsim will be like, built from the ground up to be VR-only and to not suffer from the teething problems we have now. And of course to retain the clarity (more or less) of a 2D screen. Also, I can check six again.
  6. Hey, hello, can we keep it serious here for a moment? This thread quite literally serves the future of this multiplayer community. There’s no Entente squadron as gallant and as respected as the 3rd Pursuit Group, and if you have any wits about you at all, you should consider signing up with them, so you may learn the lost art of SPAD combat. Good luck, though, getting that camembert smell out of your uniform.
  7. I did some testing earlier with the default setting, and except for my first few bombs which skipped, all were eaten by the game. You can also clearly see the grey P.u.W bombs turn into black-tipped brown Cooper bombs. For the record, I've asked Matthias, our mission builder, if he can replace the WWII armored car with one or two tanks, and add a AA machinegunner to make the ground attacks a bit more challenging for one or two Halberstadts.
  8. Brief description: P.u.W bombs turn into Cooper bombs when viewed from far away. Detailed: description: The Halberstadt CL.II P.u.W bombs of both 12.5kg and 50kg turn into British 20lbs Cooper bombs at distant LOD. Additional assets (videos, screenshots, logs): It may be hard to see from these images (click to see the uploaded video), but it's a lot more pronounced in-game: And in this video (in which I was testing bombs not detonating) you can see the light gray P.u.W bombs turn into black-tipped brown Cooper bombs when hanging under the wings of the aircraft and especially when they are dropped.
  9. While reviewing a recording for a far more serious issue (bombs not exploding because of some strange Russian WWII-era safety mechanism), I found this bug with the P.u.W bombs turning into Cooper bombs in distant LOD. (if you're having trouble seeing it, click image to see the uploaded video for more detail) As for the bombs not exploding when dropped close to the ground, I thought I had it figure out with the "default" timer exploding 1 or 2 seconds after impact, however that is only the case when the bomb skips at least once (or has a significant flight time to arm). Direct hits, ironically, don't explode. The large 50kg bomb always needs flight time, even though this was historically not the case and they could be dropped from very low. That said, those large bombs had a fuse timer of around 90 (ninety!) seconds to allow them to penetrate through infrastructure. [source: Die deutschen Luftstreitkräfte im Weltkriege, Paul Neumann Georg (1920)] In other words, it's still best to set a 5 seconds timer in all cases, and drop the 50kg bomb from slightly higher up or make sure that they skip.
  10. Thank you for your very complete answer, Chill! This pretty much confirms what I suspected for a long time, meaning that the performance figure of the Sopwith Pup is close to that of the Nieuport 11, which sports the exact same engine, close to the same weight, has a sesquiplane arrangement and has a top speed of around 160km/h. My best guess is that there was a misprint or poorly written note somewhere down the line where a 6 turned into an 8, giving rise to the 180km/h figure of the Pup. Ironically, with the 1.034 FM changes, we now likely have an accurate Pup in RoF (as well as a busted Triplane and Camel — but hey, small victories!). P.S. Please fly safe!
  11. What kind of difference in performance are you expecting between your 80hp Le Rhone and the original 110/120hp Oberursel? A 30hp difference on a rotary seems to be of far less concern than the actual weight difference. For instance, the Pup (80hp Le Rhone) and Camel (130hp Clerget) have close to similar top speed at sea level, while the Pup is obviously a much lighter machine which sports only a single machinegun. In other words: do you think your Dr.I will be representative of a historical one?
  12. Hahaha, I honestly would as a side thing, but without the Hanriot our options are limited. The last thing we need in multiplayer are more Camels, and SPAD drivers are better off with you yanks. For the moment the ball is in 1C/777's camp, and I'm just going to be rolling around in the mud in my little two-seater. 😁
  13. The Schusta/Schlastas would also have flown the Roland C.II (and Albatros C.III) earlier in the war. For anyone interested in Schlastas or looking to start their own, feel free to contact me as I have a lot of info on all of them. As you may have noticed from the name change of myself and @J5_Helmutt-Sch27b (a.k.a. Captain Darling — he doesn't post here a lot), an official J5 announcement will follow soon. A number of Belgian pilots here, including @West, @FlyingShark, @Razneff and myself, along with honorary Belgian @J2_Trupobaw are discussing to begin the full-on Belgian Military Aviation, more or less in the style of the 3rd Pursuit Group, with individual squadron tags and historical names. This would exist separate from our normal personas, to be flown on occasion. For now we've agreed that it makes little sense to create said air force without at least the presence of the Hanriot HD.1, and perhaps also the Belgian sector. I realise that the USAS has to make do without their historical sector, so the map is less of a priority. The Belgians also flew the SPAD VII (BMA5) and the SPAD XIII in very small numbers (BMA10). Also note that BMA1 ceased to exist around 1917 and was reformed as BMA9. There were also observer squadrons flying the R.E.8, Strutter and Breguet 14. Of course anyone is free to do as they like, so if you're interested in starting a Belgian squadron, feel free to contact me. I have all the info you could possibly need.
  14. Bullets simply do not disperse that way when fired from a static mount. Even the "gun overheat" effect is overdone. The real problem with aerial gunnery in those days were catastrophic stoppages and the often lack in quality of the synchroniser gear (one of the reasons the S.E.5a didn't rely solely on it for its armament). To get even close to reality, we would need to simulate all kinds of random failures, including random engine failures, random structural failures and more. Not only is it a coding nightmare, people would cry foul all the time. As for the FM discussion: beyond the measurable numbers of speed, climb and ballparking maneuverability, it's pretty pointless as well. If planes behaved exactly like they did in real life, people would say they feel "Arcade", in much the same way that even the most realistic PC driving simulators don't come close to representing how it is both harder and easier to drive a car in real life. You rely on so much more than just visual cues to do so. Even with force feedback and VR (which I have yet to try), it can only be a limited experience as you simply lack the seat-of-the-pants feeling, or in more scientific terms: your vestibular system doesn't play a part. I'm willing to bet that VR comes very close to visual reality, which is why many get so horribly motion sick with the conflicting sensory information. Then there's the flight times. Pilots would take off and climb until their machines either couldn't climb anymore, or they were beginning to suffer from hypoxia without even realising what was happening to them. And they'd be happy to have done so in 30 minutes, and they'd be even happier never to spot a soul on their patrol. Most average pilots in the air were just not aces looking for a fight, they were looking to complete their mission and survive another day. Which brings us right to my main point: the fear. Now we're going to have experts come on here and say "Yeah well I pull 6g in my Extra 300S every weekend and I betcha I coulda been a real good Camel driver". Sorry, I have no idea where the American accent suddenly came from, that was insensitive of me. My point being: we have more than 100 years of aviation history, theory and technique behind us. Those guys back then didn't. Many of them hadn't even been inside a car, though I will admit that some were indeed used to riding horses, especially in the German and British air forces. Now me, personally, "the expert" (a.k.a. the most average private pilot you've ever met), when I'm sitting in my Piper 28 bugsmasher with my fully enclosed cockpit and my iPad with GPS and three radios to call for help, in the knowledge that this machine is not made of wood, canvas and wires, and can survive a reasonably executed emergency landing almost anywhere — I am scared shitless. And it's a good fear, mind you, it's a fear that keeps me honest and respectful of the machine. And sure I can do some 2g turns (though technically we can't go beyond 45 degree bank angles in these rentals, but whatever, I'm "an expert"), all that I can think of when picturing myself doing this in a dogfight 100 years ago is: "Yeah, no." Not to mention the spotting, or should I say, the absolute impossibility of it. At least to me it is, the one time I took Darling up he was able to spot planes way better than I ever could. There are naturally talented people out there, and I do not represent them. And again, I understand that when it's a matter of life or death, and that it's that or the trenches, and that you've received special instruction (including how not to have your engine suddenly quit in the middle of a fight because of a wrong mixture setting), then sure, maybe you can push it all back and it becomes more like the video game we play today. Sure, at least a few of us could. I can already tell you I'm not one of them. I maintain that if you brought MvR back to life, gave him some basic instruction on how to fly this sim, then let the man loose in AirQuake, he'd be shot down momentarily. Maybe he might get an S! out of it. On the other hand, I'd love to see most of us go up there and have to fight for real, see just how much you like vertical scissors and prophanging and other crazy stuff that is perfectly possible but would almost never have happened in real life, with the constant fear of sudden death on your shoulder. Oh and after lunch, you get to do it again. I'd sooner choose the trenches.
  15. There's a reason why a small number of pilots lived so long and scored so many victories: good eyesight, good marksmanship, excellent discipline (so far so good) and juuust the right amount of PTSD, then known as "aero-neurosis". Enough to be completely numb and unafraid of death, but not so much as to be suicidal and shaking all over the place. If you want to experience a tiny fraction of the real fear an average pilot faced, play dead is dead for the remainder of the month. See how long you last and/or how many fights you willfully get yourself into. There is absolutely nothing wrong with dispersion, for the record.
  16. So from flying the CL.II for some 25+ hours last month on Flugpark, I must say that I feel pretty safe as long as I stay low over the trenches, which is where it belongs. Running home from far behind enemy lines is never really an option as you are too slow to do so and will get caught up. Even if you survive an initial attack, you can still get caught up by the same people taking off again. I can confirm that I've only been knocked out once, though, and that was coming from AAA fire on the ground, whereas my AI gunner gets knocked out regularly by both AAA and enemy machineguns. As you have noted, the AI gunner does have a very limited angle of fire compared to the Bristol (and how it was in RoF), but is extremely accurate when he can actually shoot. This seems to be a factor of relative speed and relative angle compared to the target, as you are forced to offer the gunner that small window and low G-force load or he won't shoot at all. Camels are especially vulnerable to this, as they typically want to hang around, which gives you options to either scissor or raise your tail/wing at them. SEs and SPADs are far more problematic, as they tend to go for high speed passes which gives you only a very small window of opportunity. The SPAD in particular is a notoriously tough plane, and it can pack balloon guns. Bristols and Dolphins are a different story, and I'm yet to lose a single fight to them. This has more to do with how people fly these planes, than with the planes themselves. It was also the case back when I was flying the Bristol with Captain Darling in the back: on paper it's an excellent dogfighting machine (as it was in RoF), but in practice it's too big a target, has too many weak spots, the AI gunner is lacking and human gunners are still bugged. Add visibility problems when flying high, and it's a recipe for disaster, unless you focus on pure BnZ, which an S.E.5a or SPAD is just better at. As for the twin turret guns: personally I don't fly with any mods other than gauges and bombs. Anything other than bombs (that can be dropped) drags the 180hp CL.II's performance down to an unacceptable level. I'm not a fan of the 200hp CL.II, as I don't think it fits the current planeset, same as the Fokker D.VIIF. That's a self-imposed limitation, as the 200hp can get away with twin Parabellums and still perform the same as a 180hp CL.II with a single Parabellum. I'm wondering (out loud) whether the 180hp CL.II flown in sufficiently large numbers could give rise to a true Spring 1918 scenario without any Summer 1918 overcompressed planes available. I know that many Central flyers would prefer not to fly at all than to give up their D.VIIF, but it could just work if most of the action took place directly over NML or over German lines, as it would have happened historically. There's always been this implied obligation to have artillery spotting and recon missions available for two-seaters, but currently they offer no points or other reward to those who accomplish them. This is sadly a game engine limitation and it's already led to some people quitting the Flugpark server in frustration. Focusing entirely on ground/trench attack for the CL.II would solve this, even though there are still other issues with ground attack to address. In conclusion, I will say that the CL.II is a very rewarding option as a team plane for all skill levels and for people flying VR in particular (I will join the ranks soon), as much of the distant spotting is left to the AI gunner. Ground spotting of abandoned machineguns in trenches would be impossible without it, even for non-VR flyers. It's still nowhere near as unfair an opponent as almost any human crewed multi-seater was in RoF, but it does get exponentially better as you get more planes together. And just like that you get a Schlachtgruppe (battle group) going.
  17. I thought those explosions really tied the mud together.
  18. This could work as a multiplayer dead is dead coop campaign (against AI).
  19. I see your perfectly reasonable request for a late(r) 1918 map, and offer the following counterpoint:
  20. I’m just thinking timewise, you know. Announcement now would mean final release mid-2021, maybe juuust in time for Bloody April that year (if BA is even next, that is). Now I’m simply hoping we’ll have the announcement sometime next year, for final release closer to 2022. I just hope we have enough now to keep everyone interested until then, or at least willing to come back.
  21. You and your ungodly French incendiary death machine stay off my lawn during Euro evening hours so I can bomb my little tanks in peace, dang it! But yes, okay, fine! Next week it is. Oh and happy Thanksgiving, ya bloody yanks.
  22. This is why you get married, have kids and then play video games with them: just so you can provide them with factual information vis-à-vis your role in their conception.
  23. It's become very clear that both its speed and rate of turn have become the Camel's enemies in a sustained dogfight. Flown as an energy fighter there is still nothing that tops her down low in a 1 vs 1, but I agree that with the new physiology and damage model, there's potential to make things very, very interesting again. After all, life is all about adapting to change. Some might call this gaming the game. We will see.
  24. If I understand correctly, FC1 was almost fully externally developed by Yugra Media, but you may be right. While I wasn't exactly waiting for FC2 to be announced (though quite sure it was going to be PTO next, that was a bad call with the morse code), it's hard not to speculate when there is simply no news at all about WW1. This community has proven that it can run on breadcrumbs, it's a lot harder to have hope when there is nothing in sight. In that respect we're no different from WW2. Still hoping for at least some of the bugs reported during early access to get fixed in a coming update, not to mention that mentions of the Fokker Dr.I being fixed "soon" happened exactly one year ago. But hey, with Normandy we'll have what, like, 9 Bf 109 engine variants? [cries in Albatros D.Va]
  • Create New...