Jazzed about Flying Circus - Thoughts on Plane Set

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Don't forget about the Felinxstowe!

 

Flying the Gotha with 4k textures would surely be thrilling though.

The only Gotha skin I'm interested in:

 

https://youtu.be/mcMq8jN7H78

[BraveSirRobin]

Like I said, worth repeating as long as people don't get it.

 

No, it really isn’t.

 

you've just made the case for why the base plane set needs to have variety, i.e. more than just fighters.

I did nothing of the sort.

 

You acknowledge yourself that bombers/recon etc are important. Where does that leave the sim then?

 

It leaves it completely screwed if they spend a lot of money to produce a plane that very few people who prefer fighters end up buying.

 

 

but as the niche pet plane pilots are funding your fighters as well the least we can expect is a bit of reciprocity.

 

No, you’re not. There are far more people who want to buy and fly fighters. So that is where most of the revenue comes from. Fewer people want bombers, but they are more expensive to produce. So you’re not funding anything else. You’re benefitting from the people who buy the fighters. That’s why bombers have been included as part of a package, and not as individual collector aircraft. BoOB appears to be an attempt to generate lots of revenue so that more bomber/strike aircraft can be produced in the future. The only one who doesn’t appear the be understanding that is you.

[BMA_Hellbender]

The Flipper Dolphin is a fine crate and every bit as good as the SE5a, so long as you fly it fast and don't spin it (and don't flip it on landing). It's not much to look at, that much is true, but it's got frickin' wing guns!

 

The Pfalz D.IIIa is perhaps the most fringe case. The Pfalz D.XII or Fokker D.VIII would have been slightly more powerful alternatives for the late war, but neither are popular planes, or operated in significant numbers.

 

 

As much as I'd like to fly my darling Baguette, I do agree with BSR's assessment: let's first see how popular the single most well-known aspect of WWI turns out to be with this audience — dogfighting — then we can start speculating further about collectors edition's Felixstowes and the likes.

[LukeFF]

...and there is also the reality that, even though they may not be everyone's first choice for bombing, photo recon, or artillery spotting, the CL.II and the Bristol F.2B can be outfitted for all of those roles. So really, Jason's selection of planes was genius.  

[bzc3lk]

The Flipper Dolphin is a fine crate and every bit as good as the SE5a, so long as you fly it fast and don't spin it (and don't flip it on landing). It's not much to look at, that much is true, but it's got frickin' wing guns!

 

The Pfalz D.IIIa is perhaps the most fringe case. The Pfalz D.XII or Fokker D.VIII would have been slightly more powerful alternatives for the late war, but neither are popular planes, or operated in significant numbers.

 

 

As much as I'd like to fly my darling Baguette, I do agree with BSR's assessment: let's first see how popular the single most well-known aspect of WWI turns out to be with this audience — dogfighting — then we can start speculating further about collectors edition's Felixstowes and the likes.

 

Don't knock the Pfalz Copter, my preferred ride over the Alby.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

While I'm pleased that Flying Circus is coming (more content is always better for this game), I always struggle to appreciate aircraft from the Great War era. 

 

For the few aircraft I have tried in Rise of Flight, I have a strong urge to grab a toolbox and go back in time to fix their awkward designs, armed with a century of aviation progress. They all seem flawed in frustratingly obvious ways.

 

Perhaps I just haven't found the aircraft that I would enjoy yet. 

[Wulf]

Anyone know if the Siemens Schuckert IV featured in ROF?  Due to technical issues, I only ever played the game for a very short period, right at the beginning, so I have no idea.

 

Anyway, if Flying Circus is essentially going to be a late war game, it would be great if it included the Siemens.

[bzc3lk]

Anyone know if the Siemens Schuckert IV featured in ROF?  Due to technical issues, I only ever played the game for a very short period, right at the beginning, so I have no idea.

 

Anyway, if Flying Circus is essentially going to be a late war game, it would be great if it included the Siemens.

No unfortunately. Would have loved that ride.

 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2017 by bzc3lk

[Ceowulf]

Here's one vote for early way birds.  DH2, Eindecker, BE2, Vickers gunbus, Voisin 3LA, Rumpler Taube, Morane Parasol, etc.

 

And career mode please.  

 

Seriously thrilled with the Flying Circus announcement even if not the point of this thread.

 

Ceowulf<><

[Wulf]

No unfortunately. Would have loved that ride.

 

 

 

Oh yeah ... she's a beast!

[Royal_Flight]

No, it really isn’t.

 

I did nothing of the sort.

 

It leaves it completely screwed if they spend a lot of money to produce a plane that very few people who prefer fighters end up buying.

 

 

No, you’re not. There are far more people who want to buy and fly fighters. So that is where most of the revenue comes from. Fewer people want bombers, but they are more expensive to produce. So you’re not funding anything else. You’re benefitting from the people who buy the fighters. That’s why bombers have been included as part of a package, and not as individual collector aircraft. BoOB appears to be an attempt to generate lots of revenue so that more bomber/strike aircraft can be produced in the future. The only one who doesn’t appear the be understanding that is you.

That's not really a compelling argument.

Reminds me of your namesake... "no I didn't" "I never" "not me"

<exit, pursued by minstrels>

Doesn't convince me that you do understand.

 

Buying BoX releases isn't a zero-sum game. Non-fighter pilots aren't benefiting from fighters any more than fighter pilots are benefiting from people who buy new releases for the maps or the new features or anything. I'm not taking money away from you and people who routinely fly other roles don't exist on sufferance thanks to your benevolence.

 

No-one has ever complained that they won't buy BoK because it has too few fighters. Or, I wouldn't waste my time whingeing about BoS/M because I like the colours of autumn and I'm being made to fund winter maps.

BoBo is a slightly different case but it should have had - and I would have preferred - a Mosquito and Me 410, say. But whatever, I'll buy it regardless and then I'm bankrolling your fighters anyway so now by your logic you're benefiting from me. Which at least entitles you to stop complaining if you're getting what you want.

With luck BoBo will fund some bombers down the line, that's great. Hopefully it won't become a 'buy BoK to fund the Pacific' sort of situation, but I can see how that might happen based on the Ju 52 vs Bf 109G6 dichotomy.

 

This thread, which we're dragging ever more off-topic, is about Flying Circus. And there's no reason for there not to be something else here. Halberstadt vs Bristol Fighter is a good match-up for scout (i.e. fighter) two-seaters, but as a lot of people have identified that the Sopwith Dolphin and Pfalz are the least anticipated and least versatile in the proposed set, and have suggested that maybe they get replaced with (amongst others) the Breguet and DFW as heavier, observation or 'bomber' types then it's worthy of discussion.

You've made your views clear, I'd hope by now mine are clear to you as well.

 

But just in case, TL;DR - I'd like to see more non-fighters as fighter jocks are far better catered to already; a separate 'bomber' set is unlikely to sell well and although I'd buy it, what I'm hearing is that certain people wouldn't deign to return the favour when they're not getting what they want; and sets should be mixed so everyone gets something they want and tgevsim doesn't end up as a big air-quake full of people twatting around at 5k alt in late-war hot-rods chasing each other's contrails.

 

Well I just see what we get, gotten. Seaplanes do not seem to be a priority. I will join in a seaplane squad no matter witch side if we ever get one. I do not even care if there is nothing else than mine clearing to do

 

I would do it all night long

I know next to nothing about seaplane operations but if we get the option I'll totally join you. Hopefully we'll get something, at least a Ju 52 floatplane. And maybe a float mod for the Po-2 if it appears.

[III/JG53Frankyboy]

if VOl.1 'Flying Circus' will be a success......perhaps there will be a Vol.2 'Bloody April' with the earlier planes.

 

but i would not count on totaly new planes in the nearest future........there are a lot planes in RoF that have to be moved to the new engine first IMHO

and hopefully some bred&butter twoseaters fast

even when not flown , they are important as targets in campaigns !

[xvii-Dietrich]

The Siemens-Schuckert IV is a great looking aircraft, but it is not in RoF. I agree that we are unlikely to see any new types in FC1 or FC2, probably not in FC3 either. Not until nearly all the RoF set has been ported over.


 

{...} Halberstadt vs Bristol Fighter is a good match-up for scout (i.e. fighter) two-seaters, but as a lot of people have identified that the Sopwith Dolphin and Pfalz are the least anticipated and least versatile in the proposed set, and have suggested that maybe they get replaced with (amongst others) the Breguet and DFW as heavier, observation or 'bomber' types then it's worthy of discussion.

 
 
Some personal opinions...
 
I've been following this planeset discussion and, as I have some of them in RoF, I thought I'd try some comparisons. I don't have the Breguet (yet!), but I did some tests between the DFW and Halberstadt.
 

DFW CV

• Amazing visibility. It has such a good view from both pilot and observer
• Excellent climb. It can get to high altitude pretty quickly.
• Stable in flight.
• Easy to take off.
• Nightmare to land.

Halberstadt

• Mediocre pilot visibility
• Excellent gunner visibility.
• Excellent gunner horizontal traverse.
• Feels heavier in flight
• Okay to take-off
• Easy to land

Overall, I feel the DFW is better. It is the quintessential bomber/recon/spotter. It was produced in huge numbers and was the work-horse of the Central air-fleet. If it doesn't make it into FC1, it really needs to be in FC2.
 
The Halberstadt can perform the same tasks, but it is more aggressive. The gunner can nearly get a forward-firing shot, so you could go on the offensive with it.
 
In RoF, there are two variants of the Halberstadt, one with an improved engine. If FC1 is late war, it would be imperative to get the better engine.
 
This is all very subjective, I know.  I just wanted to report my impressions after spending a lot of last night trying them.
 
 

 

I know next to nothing about seaplane operations but if we get the option I'll totally join you. Hopefully we'll get something, at least a Ju 52 floatplane. And maybe a float mod for the Po-2 if it appears.

 
Indeed!

[Trooper117]

Don't knock the Pfalz Copter, my preferred ride over the Alby.

 

Oh god, you realise what you have done?

That will now spark just as much angst and depression as the Fw190 bar issue!!!

[BMA_Hellbender]

Don't knock the Pfalz Copter, my preferred ride over the Alby.

 

I'm afraid that its infamous helicoptering capabilities have been severely toned down in the final FM patch.

 

As it stands in RoF, the Pfalz D.IIIa is a slightly slower, better diving, more rugged Albatros D.III, not really on the level of the Albatros D.Va.

 

To be seen what Flying Circus will make of it, especially if an overcompressed engine is made available as field mod.

 

While I'm pleased that Flying Circus is coming (more content is always better for this game), I always struggle to appreciate aircraft from the Great War era. 

 

For the few aircraft I have tried in Rise of Flight, I have a strong urge to grab a toolbox and go back in time to fix their awkward designs, armed with a century of aviation progress. They all seem flawed in frustratingly obvious ways.

 

Perhaps I just haven't found the aircraft that I would enjoy yet. 

 

I would indeed keep at it until you find the ride that's good for you.

 

For the most part, Entente planes (SPAD, SE5a, Camel) are a lot more demanding to fly in a dogfight than Axis planes (Albatros D.Va, Pfalz D.IIIa, Fokker D.VII). There are exceptions on both sides: most notably the Dolphin for the Entente, which handles more like a German in-line such as the Albatros, and the Fokker Dr.I for the Axis, which requires even more finesse to fly than the Camel.

 

 

While it's a good idea to start with something easy and free of vices, such as the Albatros D.Va, I still recommend learning to fly either the Camel or the Dr.I, preferrably both (I still suck at the Dr.I, so not judging anyone). No other planes have ever been as dangerously unstable without extensive fly-by-wire technology to support the pilot, and offer an exhilarating experience. It was the first (and last) moment in history when fighter design thought more of aerobatics than energy fighting. The answer from the competition was: to hell with everything, we'll go with three wings! (technically speaking the design was copied from the Sopwith Triplane, but nevermind about that).

 

Yes, they are essentially kites with spinning engines, and yes, they are a handful to fly -- but in the span of a few hours you will learn more about torque, rudder use, stall entry and recovery, and applied aerodynamics in general than a lifetime spent in modern fighters. At first you will be wrangling the beast just to fly a steady course, and eventually you'll realise that the plane flies itself (as does any plane), and that all it needs is a gentle touch.

 

You'll come out of it as a better pilot, regardless of what your era of choice is.

 

 

And if you're still not satisfied after all that, there's two-seater fighters.

 

I'd go into more detail, but in a way it's WWI's best kept open secret, and nowadays 90% of the reason why I still prefer WWI over WWII.

[Trooper117]

Yes, I love the Camel, come to think of it, I love the SE5a as well

[Feathered_IV]

The Camel is the must have aircraft for me.  I hope the spin recovery gets looked into though.  Pulling the stick right back into your stomach to break out of the spin goes against all the contemporary descriptions of recovery.

[HagarTheHorrible]

One of the issues with RoF was the odd bullet trajectory from some aircraft, notably the SE5a and the Noop's, I wonder if BoX is limited by the same restrictions or if it might be possible to rectify ?

[Oubaas]

A Sopwith Pup and a Halberstadt D.II would improve the list greatly. Add a Sopwith Triplane, some Nieuports, and the earlier Albatros variants and things would be really moving in the right direction. And don't forget the Hanriot HD.2 and some water.

 

I'm hoping that there will be plenty of add-on aircraft that will eventually take us beyond the content of RoF. And I'm really hoping that they will be released as complete aircraft with all the options, not as aircraft and a separate gauge/optional equipment package to fit the aircraft out.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Oubaas

[III/JG53Frankyboy]

just a reminder how far RoF have developed planewise over the years

https://riseofflight.com/store/

[BraveSirRobin]

Which at least entitles you to stop complaining if you're getting what you want.

I’m not the one complaining. And I’ll buy any aircraft they produce without complaining. If they’re making WW1 or WW2 combat aircraft, then it’s something that I want.

[BraveSirRobin]

That's not really a compelling argument.

Actually, the 1CGS business model of getting as much money as possible from the most popular aircraft is pretty compelling. You’re the one coming up short with the compelling reasons why they should take the risk of producing the less popular aircraft. So far your argument seems to be “because that’s what I want”.

[TG-55Panthercules]

Actually, the 1CGS business model of getting as much money as possible from the most popular aircraft is pretty compelling. You’re the one coming up short with the compelling reasons why they should take the risk of producing the less popular aircraft. So far your argument seems to be “because that’s what I want”.

 

Assuming arguendo that there is a compelling argument that FC Volume 1 should contain only the 10 "most popular" aircraft that fit the late war time period target they're aiming for (and I can think of some arguments against that proposition), I'm still not sure exactly how you gauge the level of popularity appropriately.  It seems to me that, properly considered, popularity for each type of plane must be a composite concept that encompasses both (i) the people that want to fly the plane and (ii) the people that want to fly against the plane.  Sales data (and possibly online server data) can certainly provide some good insights into how popular a particular plane type is to fly, but I don't see any good objective measures for how popular a plane type is to fly against, so I suspect the "hard data" tends to looked skewed in favor of the fighter types.

 

Also, I would suspect that MP data might also look skewed in favor of the hot-performing fighter types, because of the number of folks who seem to enjoy just hopping into the best/fastest plane available and air-quaking it up against other fighter jocks.  But that seems to ignore the (what we've been told is a) fact that the vast majority of players are SP players, who for a game like RoF/Flying Circus are probably more interested in the game being able to simulate as many aspects of the whole combat environment as possible, including target and mission types, etc., and not just being able to simulate any one specific type of aircraft in super-high fidelity, in isolation from its combat environment (leave that to the "study sim" type of program).  When you combine that with the fact that there also seems to be a significant number of MP folks who like to fly in or against (or as escort for) some of the supposedly "less popular" bomber/recon types, I think you wind up with some compelling reasons why a package/volume approach like FC should include some of these non-fighter types.

 

Given that the "collector plane" concept seems to be pretty much a pure popularity contest type of play, it seems better suited as a way to maximize revenues from additional fighter types.  In a package/volume environment, it seems to be a fairly safe assumption that for a significant portion of the potential customer base the marginal value of a volume having its 9th and 10th fighter types would have to be less than the marginal value of the volume having a true bomber/recon type for each side in addition to the 8 fighter types already in the package.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

I’m not the one complaining. And I’ll buy any aircraft they produce without complaining. If they’re making WW1 or WW2 combat aircraft, then it’s something that I want.

 

I think it's also important to remember that once FC hits it's pretty likely that we'll see more of the fringe stuff ported over as time goes on if the market supports them and proves it's worth the effort..

 

FC isn't the end-all-be-all for what will come. The late war stuff and an emphasis on fighters is the best place to start from a commercial standpoint.

 

Eventually I think we'll see most, if not all, of the ROF content come over to IL-2: Great Battles.

 

And package names reflecting the time period is a good marketing approach as well... Similar to the package names they used for ROF on the Steam store.

 

IL-2: Flying Circus (late 1917-1918)

IL-2: Bloody April (early 1917-late 1917)

IL-2: Fokker Scourge [or The Scourge] (late 1915-mid 1916)

etc.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Space_Ghost

[BraveSirRobin]

But that seems to ignore the (what we've been told is a) fact that the vast majority of players are SP players, who for a game like RoF/Flying Circus are probably more interested in the game being able to simulate as many aspects of the whole combat environment as possible.

I will never understand why SP players seem to think that what they’re doing simulates more aspects of the combat environment than MP. You can do spotting, recon, bombing missions, and anything else that you could do an SP while you were playing on an MP server, and do it in a more realistic manner, because you are flying with and against other humans.

 

As for popularity, I assume that 1CGS has all the data on that.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

MP doesn't simulate a mission environment any better than SP. The two are different, and that's about it. I wouldn't kid myself thinking my preferred game mode is "more real" when I see planes routinely taking off across taxiways, suicidal pilots who never bother to land, and solo guys chasing marks clear back to the enemy airfield to be shot down by flak.

[TG-55Panthercules]

I will never understand why SP players seem to think that what they’re doing simulates more aspects of the combat environment than MP. You can do spotting, recon, bombing missions, and anything else that you could do an SP while you were playing on an MP server, and do it in a more realistic manner, because you are flying with and against other humans.

 

As for popularity, I assume that 1CGS has all the data on that.

 

I don't see anybody claiming that SP necessarily does that (I certainly wasn't).  Of course you can do all those sorts of things in MP, and some MP players/servers actually do try to focus on that sort of thing - and the result of a session where the MP players are really functioning in this manner may well be a more realistic and enjoyable experience than any SP session could be. 

 

However,  it seems that there is a significant portion of the MP crowd that doesn't want to do that, and instead just wants to air-quake around in low level furballs with little or no relationship to historical reality/authenticity.  On the other hand, while sometimes a SP player might just want to load up a QMB session and practice blowing stuff apart, I don't think a very large number of the SP players sit around hoping that the career mode or PWCG will generate a tree-top level airquake mission for a change 'cause that's really the experience they'd like to see the game re-create.

 

Assuming I'm right that (i) there are way more SP players than MP players, and (ii) a higher percentage of SP players (compared to MP players) are positively motivated to purchase and play by having a mix of planes available that enables a better simulation of the historical target types and mission types, then it seems to be a pretty safe assumption that there may be more "demand"/desire for a more balanced plane mix for FC volume 1 than might seem to be the case if one narrowly focuses on "popularity" concepts such as "how many people bought a particular plane type in the old RoF model".

[Lusekofte]

Kind of worries me this. Flying Circus is actually going to be popular, I know a lot of DCS pilots eager to fly WW 1 planes with VR. And I think for the first time I really want to do that too. It means a new PC and VR goggles and what about the time, how can I find the time to fly all this

[BraveSirRobin]

 (ii) a higher percentage of SP players (compared to MP players) are positively motivated to purchase and play by having a mix of planes available that enables a better simulation of the historical target types and mission types, then it seems to be a pretty safe assumption that there may be more "demand"/desire for a more balanced plane mix for FC volume 1 than might seem to be the case if one narrowly focuses on "popularity" concepts such as "how many people bought a particular plane type in the old RoF model".

 

I wouldn't call that a safe assumption at all.  In fact, I don't think that SP players are "positively motivated to purchase and play by having a mix of planes available that enables a better simulation of the historical target types and mission types."

I think that that assumption is ridiculous.

 

And the fact that FC will be almost all fighters would appear to support my view.  Why do you think that 1CGS would ignore all the SP people who bought aircraft and only look at the people who play MP?

[PatrickAWlson]

I wouldn't call that a safe assumption at all.  In fact, I don't think that SP players are "positively motivated to purchase and play by having a mix of planes available that enables a better simulation of the historical target types and mission types."

I think that that assumption is ridiculous.

 

And the fact that FC will be almost all fighters would appear to support my view.  Why do you think that 1CGS would ignore all the SP people who bought aircraft and only look at the people who play MP?

 

Most SP campaign players play fighter, but they still like a realistic mix of targets in a realistic campaign setting, not just fighter vs. fighter.  If 10 is the limit then my preference would be to eliminate the Pfalz and the Dolphin  and add the RE8 and DFW.  That would still leave six fighters, one rotaries and two inlines per side.  But that's just one more opinion.  

[Feathered_IV]

As a singleplayer I would definitely have to disagree with Robin. The variety of targets and roles is what is essential for successful singleplayer gameplay. Endlessly chasing other fighters around in QMB gets old very quickly indeed.

 

I would also put it to you that the developers can and do misunderstand the needs of successful singleplayer gameplay on occasion. That’s okay though, they cannot be expected to think of everything. Fortunately there are dedicated SP types out there who can use their practical user experience suggest an effective solution.

Edited November 23, 2017 by Feathered_IV

[BraveSirRobin]

I would also put it to you that the developers can and do misunderstand the needs of successful singleplayer gameplay on occasion. 

 

 

But they know what sells, and you don't.

[BraveSirRobin]

Endlessly chasing other fighters around in QMB gets old very quickly indeed.

 

 

You want them to build a drivable truck for the new tank sim.   

[Feathered_IV]

You want them to build a drivable truck for the new tank sim.

More for MP. I could use it to come visit you when you’ve run out of AP rounds and are stuck in a field with a single broken track, contemplating the limits of Tank Crew’s gameplay.

[BraveSirRobin]

More for MP. I could use it to come visit you when you’ve run out of AP rounds and are stuck in a field with a single broken track, contemplating the limits of Tank Crew’s gameplay.

Yeah, that sounds like a goldmine. Hard to believe there isn't a combat supply truck sim on the market already. World of Don't Hit the Taillights Ahead of You.

[BraveSirRobin]

Or maybe WoNP: War of Nose Picking

[Feathered_IV]

A game where you run out of fuel ~ quit and respawn, run out of ammo ~ quit and respawn, loose a track ~ quit and respawn, damage your gun ~ quit and respawn, do anything ~ quit and respawn is not going to sell thousands of copies. It will however get itself crucified in the user reviews. Something will be needed to keep you in the game and some sort of support vehicle seemed like the best idea.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

It is easy to spend hours driving a truck in ARMA 3. After an eternity playing as infantry, the change is incredibly exciting. 

 

When you inevitably get ambushed and enemies surround your truck, things get rather interesting.

 

The addition of the Ju 52 was, in my opinion, a pivotal moment that transformed Il-2 from another combat flight simulator into a living world.

[US103_Baer]

I suggest the Halberstadt CL2 is a lot more popular sales-wise than the DFW because it looks more aggressive, sexier.

But when you actually want to perform the core roles of recon and bombing you need to be able to lift and climb. The CL2 does this very poorly.

There's probably some terrible non-pc analogy to be made here, but I won't

 

So, yes it CAN be outfitted to recon, but getting to 3000m takes forever - it's not fit for purpose.

 

I won't argue with the reality of sales, you can't. We all make purchase decisions based on emotion.

But are people really not going to buy FC1 because it has the DFW instead of Halb CL2?

Edited November 23, 2017 by PaulLMF

[BraveSirRobin]

A game where you run out of fuel ~ quit and respawn, run out of ammo ~ quit and respawn, loose a track ~ quit and respawn, damage your gun ~ quit and respawn, do anything ~ quit and respawn is not going to sell thousands of copies. It will however get itself crucified in the user reviews. Something will be needed to keep you in the game and some sort of support vehicle seemed like the best idea.

World of Nose Picking. Good luck finding a developer.

I suggest the Halberstadt CL2 is a lot more popular sales-wise than the DFW because it looks more aggressive, sexier.

 

I think they went with the CL2 because you get 2 versions.