Jazzed about Flying Circus - Thoughts on Plane Set

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

8 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Same engine but different product entirely.  I doubt that they are going to mix MiGs and Fokkers, but hey, not my call

 

They don't have a WWI map or WWI objects or anything else WWI.  They need to make a little bit of the world for the planes to fly in.  Sparky points out that they could just inject the planes into BoX - I doubt that they would do that but who am I to say.

 

They aren't different products - Flying Circus is part of the IL-2: Great Battles series and will almost certainly execute from the same launcher.

 

I think that's exactly what they're going to do... And yes, it will be possible to mix MiGs and Fokkers.

Edited June 26, 2018 by Space_Ghost

[TP_Sparky]

I would think it a good marketing move to gin up interest.  You could fly instant battles with WWI a/c vs. WWII maybe, maybe not, but soon we'll be able to pit Me-262A vs. Po-2.  There's not a world of difference in combat capability of a Po-2 and a SPAD XIII or a Fokker D VII.  The point is not that we can fly 109's vs. SPAD XIIIs.  It's that maybe in early access we can fly a SPAD XIII vs. a Fokker D VII on the Kuban/Moscow/Stalingrad maps.

[SeaW0lf]

Jason's words on ROF forum today regarding FC early access and release.

 

Guys,

 

Relax. Final release is in 2019. Early access is right around the corner.

 

Jason

Edited June 27, 2018 by SeaW0lf

[TP_Sparky]

49 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

Jason's words on ROF forum today regarding FC early access and release.

 

Guys,

 

Relax. Final release is in 2019. Early access is right around the corner.

 

Jason

 

Thanks, SeaW0lf.  Perfect.  Jason, take my money for preorder!

Edited June 27, 2018 by TP_Sparky

[ShamrockOneFive]

8 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Same engine but different product entirely.  I doubt that they are going to mix MiGs and Fokkers, but hey, not my call

 

They don't have a WWI map or WWI objects or anything else WWI.  They need to make a little bit of the world for the planes to fly in.  Sparky points out that they could just inject the planes into BoX - I doubt that they would do that but who am I to say.

 

Hi Pat,

 

My understanding and the words from the announcement are that they are going to be the same product. It's not just a port to the same engine, its a port into the same Great Battles Series. So you can mix MiGs and Fokkers if you really want to is my guess but I can see servers and people being clearly deliniated. I think the beauty here is that I can sign into the Great Battles game and if I feel like WWI tonight, I can do that, and if I feel like WWII air battles I can do that or I decide I want to be on the ground, I can do that too. All in one game and all feeding off of one another.

[TP_Sparky]

57 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

...if I feel like WWII air battles I can do that or I decide I want to be on the ground, I can do that too. 

 

Often in WWII air battles someone ELSE decides I want to be on the ground and they shoot up my perfectly good airplane.  On one Tangmere Pilots mission one guy was shot down, bailed out, has a successful parachute descent and was run over by an advancing Soviet tank!  What are the odds?

 

BTW, love your Stormbirds.blog.  It's the first thing I check each morning.  Each day I hope it has Flying Circus news.  I need to Patrion support you or something.

[DD_Arthur]

Jason's full quote from this forum yesterday;

 

Everyone relax please.

 

Flying Circus EA is coming right around the corner. The SPAD and Dr.1 are first up, but since we've had to update them and use a new team to do it, this training/learning process takes time and we weren't going to show much or promise much until we were confident our partners could do the job. Luckily the plan is working and over the next 10 months or so the remaining aircraft in Volume 1 and the map will be made to specs and released in a regular clip.

 

As with Tank Crew just wait for a big DD to explain everything.

 

Jason

[BMA_Hellbender]

SPAD XIII vs. Fokker Dr.1 is going to be an interesting matchup.

 

I don't know if this release schedule is intentional or only happens because of technical considerations, but we are going to start off by having the fastest Entente plane pitched against the most maneuverable one on the Central side (but also one of the slowest in later patches). To give you an idea: the SPAD has a top speed indicated at sea level of around 220km/h, while the Dr.I's top speed is only around 165km/h. Obviously that is offset by its terrific turn rate.

 

In relative terms with IL-2, there's no real basis for comparison. Fw-190 A-8 (which we don't have yet) vs. Polikarpov I-16 comes close.

 

In any case, for those of us who are new to WWI, it will serve as a proper introduction that even dogfighting in WWI was all about energy conservation.

[ZachariasX]

3 hours ago, Hellbender said:

SPAD XIII vs. Fokker Dr.1 is going to be an interesting matchup.

 

Will be interesting how many Yaks will try to turnfight the Dr.I and then scream bloody murder.

[Feathered_IV]

6 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

 

Will be interesting how many Yaks will try to turnfight the Dr.I and then scream bloody murder.

 

Yaks?

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 Me 262 vs. 50 Camels

 

I don't know... On the one hand: 900km/h and cannons, but fragile engines. On the other hand: Camels, Camels everywhere!

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, Feathered_IV said:

 

Yaks?

Yaks.
 

Spoiler

P.S.: Why shouldn't you be able to use ALL aircraft of the Great Battles series with each other? Remember this one?

You could pair any aircraft as well.

 

[jeanba]

Yak Yak Yak :

[bzc3lk]

1 hour ago, Hellbender said:

1 Me 262 vs. 50 Camels

 

I don't know... On the one hand: 900km/h and cannons, but fragile engines. On the other hand: Camels, Camels everywhere! 

 

 

[TP_Sparky]

8 hours ago, Feathered_IV said:

 

Yaks?

 

He clearly doesn't get the reference to German fighter drivers whining about how the Yaks out-turn them.

[Gambit21]

Can’t wait for the “Allied planes have extra strong canvas!!” threads.

[TP_Sparky]

I can already hear the "SPAD 90 degree deflection miracle sniper shooting" comments.  It's worst on the Facebook page.  And when you tell 109 and 190 pilots, "Don't turn-fight with a Yak" they never reply directly.  

Edited June 28, 2018 by TP_Sparky

[SeaW0lf]

16 hours ago, Hellbender said:

In any case, for those of us who are new to WWI, it will serve as a proper introduction that even dogfighting in WWI was all about energy conservation.

 

You can't use this matchup for many purposes. The way bullet dispersion and the glass engines and tanks are, you just have to pull the trigger in the Spad from 500 yards in and spray the Dr.I and it will puncture the tank, oil the engine and make it smoke in one front pass or side pass. Then you just have to wait for the main server to award the kill. 

 

In general this matchup will teach Dr.I pilots (the agile plane) to bob and weave out of the way and the Spad pilots (the faster plane) to fire and spray. It is not really realistic. Dr.I pilots will develop defensive maneuvers, many times positioning themselves for a clear shot, but taking into consideration that their frame (airplane) is made of glass, so they need to get out of the way anytime the Spad turns back at you in a radius that can go above 400 yards, which is insane. The other aspect is that Spads and S.E.5as can fly forever with all kinds of crap spilling from their engines, smoking like a volcano. Someone mentioned that he flew 40+ minutes and landed with an S.E.5a spilling oil. German planes seize the engine pretty quick in general.

 

Udet in a Fokker D.VII took 5 front passes to survive and kill his enemy that was flying a Spad. James McCudden and his squadron (flying S.E.5as) also took a long time to shot down a single Dr.I (Voss). Six S.E.5as in ROF would take care of the job in the first pass / even with newbie's flying the S.E.5as.

 

So I think it is better to wait for a better matchup to introduce WWII players to WWI.

 

Edited June 28, 2018 by SeaW0lf

[TP_Sparky]

36 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

You can't use this matchup for many purposes. ...

So I think it is better to wait for a better matchup to introduce WWII players to WWI.

 

These are just Early Access a/c to let folks fly an energy fighter and an-ultra-nimble fighter.  Who really cares if they match up in combat? 

 

Also, they were in-service at the same time.  The SPAD XIII entered line squadrons several months before the Dr.1 and the Dr.1 was only pulled from front line service when D VII's arrived in numbers for combat service beginning in June and July, 1918.  So SPAD XIII and Dr.1 tangled throughout the triplane's operational service.

 

That said, I was the guy that thought it mismatched to pair the Tiger and KV-1 in Tank Crew as the first Early Access pair since the KV-1 (and existing T-34) can't penetrate the Tiger frontal armor.  I thought the Tiger and SU-152 a better match.  

 

Still, it's just Early Access.  There will be plenty of good combat opponents as other a/c roll out for takeoff.

 

 

[unreasonable]

@SeaW0lf I think Hellbender is talking about how the match up will work in FC: your comments are either about RoF or assume that FC will just copy RoF in every respect, which I sincerely hope is very wrong.  

[Feathered_IV]

I wonder if the new Dr1 will routinely loose one side of its top wing and remain fully aerobatic like those in RoF.

[Gambit21]

I'm useless in the RoF Dr1.

 

I'm a Se5a or Fokker DVIII kind of guy.

Or Neuport, or Alby.

 

No Camel or Dr1 though.

[pilotpierre]

1 hour ago, Feathered_IV said:

I wonder if the new Dr1 will routinely loose one side of its top wing and remain fully aerobatic like those in RoF.

 

If it gets too loose it will lose it altogether.

[TP_Sparky]

I had an S.E.5a replica of my very own to fly around 1990 and I turned it down.  I've kicked myself ever since.

 

I was flying for a commuter, getting divorced and took my two little kids to the Air Museum at Drake Field, Fayetteville, Arkansas. A friend of my father and helpers were finishing up the S.E.5a.  It looked fullsize to me but may have been 7/8 or some such.  It looked realistic, unlike some toy-like reproductions I've seen on the internet.  

 

The gentleman (whose name I cannot recall, Carl?) grew up with my dad who began flying at 16.  He knew I started in hand-propped ragwing taildraggers and flew military and airlines, fast-movers to four-engine transports and he said, "It's about finished.  Would you like to be its pilot?"

 

With all the craziness in my life, having to deadhead from Fayetteville to Memphis to New Orleans to begin my airline schedule I had very little time off and I wondered how the S.E.5a wings were designed.  All my life I flew aircraft designed to stall at the wing root first so as to retain aileron effectiveness deep into the stall and it produces disturbed airflow over the elevator that causes "stick shake" to show you you're on the edge of the stall.  I wondered if the S.E.5a wing stalled along the entire length at once or even first at the tip so that you'd drop a wing unexpectedly.  

 

All that flashed through my mind and I politely declined.  I should have asked about the wing.  But with the divorce and needless custody dispute clouding my world it was one thing too many.

[SeaW0lf]

4 hours ago, unreasonable said:

@SeaW0lf I think Hellbender is talking about how the match up will work in FC: your comments are either about RoF or assume that FC will just copy RoF in every respect, which I sincerely hope is very wrong.  

 

The problem is, I not that jazzed that Il-2 will improve things. For example, gunners in BOX seem to have the same MO of the gunners in ROF. People can fly and gun in BOX as well as in ROF. They have Bf 110 aces in BOX shooting down several enemies in one mission, when the plane was a flying coffin as a fighter. The Yak can run at 100% throttle forever, while the 109s seize their engines in no time, and the list seems to be endless.

 

Then I tend to think that Spad players will spray and pray and Dr.I pilots will bob and weave like crazy to get in one piece from the first pass. And I'm a Dr.I pilot and have faced Spads and S.E.5as ad aeternum and I know how things go. I have seen Spads and S.E.5as cross the mud spilling all kinds of crap and flying fast and landing without handing the enemy a kill. 

 

From the top of my hat, the N17 versus the Albatros D3 or even the DVa is a much better matchup to portray energy, maneuverability. Or even the D.VII versus the S.E.5a or Spad. At least they are close enough in speed that you don't need to get your plane out of the way of a pass because it is made of glass. Then the dynamics of energy versus maneuverability starts to trickle in. I had some epic missions flying a standard D.VII against Spads and S.E.5a.

 

And I'm not even considering that the Dr.I is a nerfed plane that lost speed and climb. So I consider the matchup Dr.I versus Spads an aberration in the 777 universe.

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 hour ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

The problem is, I not that jazzed that Il-2 will improve things. For example, gunners in BOX seem to have the same MO of the gunners in ROF. People can fly and gun in BOX as well as in ROF.

 

[...]

 

And I'm not even considering that the Dr.I is a nerfed plane that lost speed and climb. So I consider the matchup Dr.I versus Spads an aberration in the 777 universe.

 

Gunners need to be addressed in time for FC, both in terms of flying/gunning and g forces affecting the gunner (ideally g forces should also be more pronounced to pilots in all planes). I can't agree more with that -- and that's coming from someone who flies two-seaters almost exclusively. Even if they are implemented correctly, they will dramatically alter the dynamics of dogfighting.

 

 

(credits to my squadron mate Artun for locating that quote)

 

If nothing changes from RoF, at least you'll all have a few months to enjoy Flying Circus free of two-seaters. As for the "hard data", if they follow IL-2's release methodology, then we'll get the official performance figures for the Fokker Dr.I posted on the forum ahead of time. As many of us already know, many of the RoF planes currently don't match the figures in the store.

[SeaW0lf]

1 hour ago, Hellbender said:

 

Gunners need to be addressed in time for FC, both in terms of flying/gunning and g forces affecting the gunner (ideally g forces should also be more pronounced to pilots in all planes). I can't agree more with that -- and that's coming from someone who flies two-seaters almost exclusively. Even if they are implemented correctly, they will dramatically alter the dynamics of dogfighting.

 

(credits to my squadron mate Artun for locating that quote)

 

I just hope so, but in general they are stubborn with these things, like ambient flak. 

 

Regarding the Bristols, I'm not saying they were harmless, but they sure did not have all the perks people have in ROF, which makes them death stars as you put it if properly manned. Would be nice to interact with two-seaters more realistically speaking even to experience how it was. But aside the Bristol (or a few others / I never really researched about two-seaters), the general consensus of scout pilots is that two-seater crews were poor bastards. Again, not saying Bristols were ordinary two-seaters.

 

And in ROF the danger is not the maneuverability / speed of the Bristol, but the turrets plus weapon mods and lack of any dynamics. On top of that, the capability of flying and gunning. Any two-seater in ROF that has the option of a double turret (or even a single one) is a potential death star. Damn, we have dogfighting Pages and Gothas in furball servers. So the Bristol quote is not really relevant at the stage we are in.

 

If they really port it to FC as it should, with turrets as it should and such, then we overtime will notice that some of the two-seaters will be clearly more dangerous than the others because of their maneuverability.

 

Quote

then we'll get the official performance figures for the Fokker Dr.I posted on the forum ahead of time.

 

They already posted the specifications of the airplanes in this forum?

[LukeFF]

8 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

They already posted the specifications of the airplanes in this forum?

 

No, they haven't. Slow down, stop typing so much, and re-read what he wrote. 

 

12 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

The Yak can run at 100% throttle forever, while the 109s seize their engines in no time

 

Hardly the case. How much time do you spend in flying Yaks?

 

12 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

list seems to be endless

 

Yes, it is to you and to others who only seem to ever want to point out all of the things they dislike about ROF / BOS and none of all the good things which have been and are being done. 

Edited June 29, 2018 by LukeFF

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

Hardly the case. How much time do you spend in flying Yaks?

 

Yeah, it'll run out of fuel eventually.  The only challenge is keeping it cool (quite easy to do, actually).

[TP_Sparky]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

 

No, they haven't. Slow down, stop typing so much, and re-read what he wrote. 

 

 

Hardly the case. How much time do you spend in flying Yaks?

 

 

Yes, it is to you and to others who only seem to ever want to point out all of the things they dislike about ROF / BOS and none of all the good things which have been and are being done. 

 

Your well-written, concise reply applies to much of the posting here.  Folks, read carefully before you reply.  The point may be addressed within the message.  Don't miss the qualifiers and the modifiers.

 

Second, the Yaks and 109s and every other a/c run like zero-time engines.  Run within limits they'll perform perfectly.  Exceed a Yak/109 engine limitations and it'll fail.  I just hope the 262 engines are as fragile as real-life.

[Garven]

I'm pretty sure the Yak was set up so that the engine was restricted to max continuous power when at 100 percent throttle.   The reason you can't fly around all day at 100 percent in a 109 or 190 is because you can push their engines beyond that max continuous point.  The G-2 gives you 30min. at 100 percent throttle because it is restricted from emergency power.   It is simply the difference in the way the aircraft were set up.   Complaining the yak can fly around all day at 100 percent is like complaining that 109's don't have to manually regulate manifold pressure like you have to do in a P-40. 

Edited June 29, 2018 by US103_Furlow

[TP_Sparky]

Yes, you have to look at each a/c and some have power governors that limit the power setting so that you cannot push the power above a pre-selected setting, as in real life.  I guarantee, not all Soviet (and German fighters) are so protected, but some are.  As US102 said, you can firewall the one model of 109 and it won't let the power go above a certain manifold pressure (although there's still a time limit).  

[SeaW0lf]

10 minutes ago, US103_Furlow said:

I'm pretty sure the Yak was set up so that the engine was restricted to max continuous power when at 100 percent throttle.   The reason you can't fly around all day at 100 percent in a 109 or 190 is because you can push their engines beyond that max continuous point.  The G-2 gives you 30min. at 100 percent throttle because it is restricted from emergency power.   It is simply the difference in the way the aircraft were set up.   Complaining the yak can fly around all day at 100 percent is like complaining that 109's don't have to manually regulate manifold pressure like you have to do in a P-40. 

 

When I was flying Yaks at full power I read a few threads with veterans commenting about it and some people questioning how durable they were. You loose speed if you open the radiator, but it is not like you have to sweat too much to keep it under control.

[Garven]

Just now, SeaW0lf said:

 

When I was flying Yaks at full power I read a few threads with veterans commenting about it and some people questioning how durable they were. You loose speed if you open the radiator, but it is not like you have to sweat too much to keep it under control.

Post data that the yak is wrong.  If operating manuals don't have a limit then giving it one would be artificial.  Sure they likely didn't fly around at 100 percent all the time for reasons ranging from increasing endurance and reducing parts wear even further, but that doesn't mean that the engine wasn't restricted so that it could run at 100 percent all the time.  As far as flying circus goes it looks to me that it isn't a simple copy paste port based on how long it is taking.  

[SeaW0lf]

Just now, US103_Furlow said:

Post data that the yak is wrong.  If operating manuals don't have a limit then giving it one would be artificial.  Sure they likely didn't fly around at 100 percent all the time for reasons ranging from increasing endurance and reducing parts wear even further, but that doesn't mean that the engine wasn't restricted so that it could run at 100 percent all the time.  As far as flying circus goes it looks to me that it isn't a simple copy paste port based on how long it is taking.  

 

You should search the forum for it and read what seasoned veterans have to say. By the way I flew Yaks 1 and 1b for a few months. I won't comment any further because we know the trend / people bomb the thread and it gets locked.

 

Hellbender, I'm starting to look for Bristol quotes in my books. I might shed my opinions later on, but from what I'm reading it would be awesome to have some resemblance with reality.

[Garven]

Actually the burden of proof is on you.  Post hard data so that the devs can correct it in the appropriate forum.  Look what happened to RoF when they relied on anecdotes to nerf the camel and DR1.

Edited June 29, 2018 by US103_Furlow

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

1 minute ago, US103_Furlow said:

Actually the burden of proof is on you.  Post hard data so that the devs can correct it in the appropriate forum.  look what happened to RoF when they relied on anecdotes to nerf the camel and DR1.

 

Not really a good comparison, considering the wide range of performance values often given for the same aircraft and engines.  Our Camel performance (for that engine) actually matches one documented source.  Not going to argue it, because its been done to death though, so please don't bother here.

 

WW2 engine performance is much more cut and dry due to the relative wealth of information available.  Any difficulties in nailing down WW2 performance are greatly magnified for WW1 machines.  Some degree of "eyeballing" and "relative performance" is probably inevitable.

[Garven]

If I recall they used one of the worst case documented performance for that engine which simply isn't fair.

Edited June 29, 2018 by US103_Furlow

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Yeah, I believe it was one of the earliest tests on that platform.

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, hrafnkolbrandr said:

Yeah, it'll run out of fuel eventually.  The only challenge is keeping it cool (quite easy to do, actually).

 

I suggest you fly the Yak-7 and see just how easy it is to overspeed the engine.