Jazzed about Flying Circus - Thoughts on Plane Set

[Gambit21]

Lots of things could be improved too.  The very basic AI, which only does a diving turn to the left is one example.

That singular thing is why I stopped flying RoF.

Good news is that problem won't be imported to the new engine.

[PatrickAWlson]

World of Nose Picking. Good luck finding a developer.

 

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

 

C'mon, who among us has never felt the thrill of jamming that finger in to the second knuckle and pulling out a winner?  Your idea is an untapped gold mine, just waiting for the virtual digger!  Screw PWCG, WoNP development starts tomorrow (can I have the name?)!

 

The second engine on the CL2 was apparently never actually fitted to a CL2.  But that is neither here nor there as the CL2 remains unfit for purpose regardless of engine.  The point being made several times over is that there are better choices if one is looking for a variety of roles.  I personally think that it will sell about as well with the plane set as is or with the alterations I proposed or with the alterations others have proposed.  I doubt that many enthusiasts are really say "No Pfalz? No Dolphin?  I'm not buying it!", just as they are not going to say "No DFW? No RE8?  I'm not buying it!".  Fact is that 1C is the only WWI game in town.  I have seen what the team does and I have faith that over time it will evolve into a proper sim for all.

[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.

 

Battlefield 1.  Die.  Respawn.  Die.  Respawn.  Die.  Respawn.  Won awards.  Sold many, many thousands of units.  You have no idea what you are talking about.

Edited November 23, 2017 by BraveSirRobin

[BraveSirRobin]

I doubt that many enthusiasts are really say "No Pfalz? No Dolphin?  I'm not buying it!", just as they are not going to say "No DFW? No RE8?  I'm not buying it!".  Fact is that 1C is the only WWI game in town.  I have seen what the team does and I have faith that over time it will evolve into a proper sim for all.

 

The problem is not the enthusiasts.  I'll buy whatever they sell.  The problem is the people who have no interest in flying bombers.  They want fighters.  And apparently 1CGS feels that the Dolphin will sell better than the RE8.  Do you have any data that would indicate otherwise?

[Field-Ops]

The problem is not the enthusiasts.  I'll buy whatever they sell.  The problem is the people who have no interest in flying bombers.  They want fighters.  And apparently 1CGS feels that the Dolphin will sell better than the RE8.  Do you have any data that would indicate otherwise?

Sometimes the only way you will get to sell the lesser known or liked items are by including them in the larger packs instead of individually. This guarantees that no plane is left behind. I dont see how you dont see the advantage to this strategy. 

[BraveSirRobin]

Sometimes the only way you will get to sell the lesser known or liked items are by including them in the larger packs instead of individually. This guarantees that no plane is left behind. I dont see how you dont see the advantage to this strategy. 

 

Sure, that's a great way to get people who want popular planes to subsidize crap planes.  That has been the business model for BoS, BoM, and BoK.  And the fact that 1CGS is now selling a module with nothing but super planes indicates that it hasn't worked very well.  They need money.  That is why they're doing this.

Edited November 23, 2017 by BraveSirRobin

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

True, a collector plane Pfalz is going to sell a whole lot better than a collector plane DFW...

Edited November 23, 2017 by hrafnkolbrandr

[III/JG53Frankyboy]

the RE8 and DFW would not only be usefull  to be flown - they would be very important as targets flown by AI.

 

its some time to go - perhaps they reconsider the planeset.....

[Field-Ops]

Sure, that's a great way to get people who want popular planes to subsidize crap planes.  That has been the business model for BoS, BoM, and BoK.  And the fact that 1CGS is now selling a module with nothing but super planes indicates that it hasn't worked very well.  They need money.  That is why they're doing this.

Didnt mean to like that post. 

 

Anyway, you seem to want to eliminate ever having crap types portrayed in a CFS ever again because your solution is to place crap types in premium slots which will definitely not sell as well as ubers that are premium. The fact is there is also a market for crap types, they are just in the minority. Taking 2 planes out of the 10 to be "crap types" is a better business strategy IMO because you secure the minority on top of the majority for a main planeset sale. To assume that people who only want hot rod ubers wont buy a pack because 2 out of 10 planes are "crap" is arrogant. 

Edited November 23, 2017 by Field-Ops

[Royal_Flight]

Missed a lot, need to get caught up. Excuse the wall of text.

 

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”.

And so far your argument seems to be "because that's what I don't want". Mixed in with a small dose of "I still don't get it".

Fortunately we have a forum to discuss our opinions on these sort of matters, which this happens to be.

 

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.

 

I would be inclined to agree... granted, I'm pretty much exclusively on MP and think it's great fun, but it's a different thing altogether. SP can actually be built to ensure all the pieces move as they should, whereas MP has the whole human randomness factor thrown in, coupled with being on the internet and with no risk of physical harm people end up doing crazy things quite often.

Which is mad fun, but hardly more realistic.

 

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

Neither do you. Without access to sales figures, were both inferring from empirical evidence - you're going on planesets for fighter popularity, and I'm going on forum content for non-fighter popularity.

 

Either way it's a moot point as the actual argument revolves around the importance of including non-fighters despite relative popularity, which is why it appears that you still don't get what we're discussing.

 

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.

 

Ad hominem.

 

Or maybe WoNP: War of Nose Picking

 

Ad hominem. Two own goals if you're trying to prove credibility.

 

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.

 

Including support vehicles in the tank mode is just like putting transport and utility aircraft (Ju 52, Li-2, Po-2...) in BoX.

Which is to say, a solid idea to expand the theatre beyond the heaviest tanks slugging it out in an open field.

The devs have already proposed tank hunters and AA, should be a fairly easy mod to do. Scout vehicles and artillery could be worth inclusion too in subsequent releases.

 

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.

 

Your final sentence is spot-on.

Also, the ARMA comparison makes sense in context of how giving people all the assets and setting is basically giving them the tools to create their own stories and adventures. That's why ARMA is much more compelling than, say Battlefield, at least in my opinion. To pull a totally random example out of thin air.

 

Battlefield 1. Die. Respawn. Die. Respawn. Die. Respawn. Won lots of awards. Sold many, many thousands of units. You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Good point. War Thunder probably has more players than BoX too. Maybe we should petition the devs to bring in some sort of tiered unlock system, gut the singleplayer experience until it's just a set of randomly-generated multiplayer practice scenarios and base gaining new skins on the number of kills scored and points earned.

... wait, what do you mean 'that model nearly killed BoX in the first place?'

 

Hmm, maybe looking at arcade games vs simulators doesn't have any value as a comparison.

 

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?

 

At the end of the day I think people will probably buy things anyway. The modular nature of BoX is really good for allowing people to opt-out of things they aren't keen on (for example if you don't want BoK you just miss out on the planes and SP map/missions, but you still benefit from the progressive game and engine updates).

But ultimately, especially with this 'Spirit of '46' idea, people will probably keep buying in to the concept to either get the things they want, or to fund them in the future.

 

I'd love a Mosquito in BoBo, but no sign. Or an FE.2b in FC, not even a mention. But I'll buy them anyway.

Partly to support the devs, partly to 'keep the dream alive' but also because there was loads of forum chat about the Ju 52, and then it was built and released. Same with the clamouring for the Bf 109G6 and La-5FN, same for the draw distance, same for the number of people who wanted an updated RoF in the first place.

 

So I'll make noise on the forum because I know the devs read what we say and are good at responding to reasonable requests and community feedback, and in the meantime I'll buy whatever is released now to support them so they have the space to keep responding to some of what we say here.

 

And who knows, trying something new might be fun. I've already been challenged to learn how to work the P-47 when it comes so I've started doing some background reading.

 

The problem is not the enthusiasts. I'll buy whatever they sell. The problem is the people who have no interest in flying bombers. They want fighters. And apparently 1CGS feels that the Dolphin will sell better than the RE8. Do you have any data that would indicate otherwise?

 

You don't have any data that indicates otherwise either so we're back to where we started.

 

Also, an honest question: you come across as someone with no interest in flying bombers, but state that as an enthusiast, you'd buy whatever they sell.

Would you refuse to buy a release with a bomber in it, in the place of a fourth fighter for each side, or do you see yourself as one of the sole fighter jocks who you say are the problem?

Bearing in mind that all that's being suggested is an extra bomber in place of the fourth fighter on each side, and also that you've clearly bought packs with bombers in them in the past according to your forum tags.

Was thst through gritted teeth or was it not anything worth worrying about at the time?

Genuinely curious to hear your thoughts.

 

Sometimes the only way you will get to sell the lesser known or liked items are by including them in the larger packs instead of individually. This guarantees that no plane is left behind. I dont see how you dont see the advantage to this strategy.

 

This is pretty much it in a nutshell.

 

Sure, that's a great way to get people who want popular planes to subsidize crap planes. That has been the business model for BoS, BoM, and BoK. And the fact that 1CGS is now selling a module with nothing but super planes indicates that it hasn't worked very well. They need money. That is why they're doing this.

"Crap planes" is a subjective opinion. Care to define what you mean by that term?

 

Also, you made a blanket statement about how the marketing strategy hasn't worked very well. I'd ask you if you have any data that indicates otherwise but as you don't it would be a waste of effort.

You know no more then anyone else, unless you have access to sales data and if you did you wouldn't be speculating in the first place.

 

Stating opinion as fact doesn't make it fact.

 

the RE8 and DFW would not only be usefull to be flown - they would be very important as targets flown by AI.

 

its some time to go - perhaps they reconsider the planeset.....

Yeah, as mentioned above I think forum chat does have an impact on decisions going forward. In the initial announcement Jason said that it was only a tentative list and not set in stone. So hopefully there is some room for change.

Also, good points on AI planes... would be an easy way to flesh out the theatre to start with, before making them flyable for a later release.

[ZachariasX]

I also thing that it is a whise choice to include mainly "popular" types in a first attemt to revive an old series. "Crap" planes are better placed in a larger planeset. And for this, you have to fill your hangar with the popular ones first.

 

As for me, ther are no such "crap planes" at all. I like them all, depsite that, at least to todays standards, the are all crap.

[CrazyHorse]

I hope they add a lot more variety to the SP experience. I loved ROF's flight models and graphics but day in-day out missions were  dull and repetitive. I don't play it much anymore because of that. I even bought WOFF on the back of reviews saying the campaign missions were much more varied and had more content... but the load times, mish-mash gui and CF3 flight model eventually put me off.

 

Everything crossed for FC!!! :D

[US103_Baer]

I also thing that it is a whise choice to include mainly "popular" types in a first attemt to revive an old series. "Crap" planes are better placed in a larger planeset. And for this, you have to fill your hangar with the popular ones first.

 

As for me, ther are no such "crap planes" at all. I like them all, depsite that, at least to todays standards, the are all crap.

 

When your Vlife depends on it, the definition of 'crap' may change very quickly.

 

But yeah, we will buy them all anyway.

Edited November 23, 2017 by PaulLMF

[mazex]

Recon and transport mechanisms would be a great thing to build in.

 

Updating the scoring system so that it can take into account things like aircraft destroyed, tanks destroyed, kgs of cargo delivered, etc. I think it's a great idea and it will become useful as further types get added like a future Li-2 and Po-2 which are decidedly not frontline fighter types

 

I completely agree with the above to expand the domain of non fighter jock missions... A scoring system where you get a nice score for images taken over the designated recon target would be great. Add a "camera" view like the bombsight with a simple camera crosshair. Bring it up like the bomber sight and give score for correctly taken recon photos (target in "sight" and correct altitude / angle). And you should only get the full score IF you manage to get home and land safely (thus delivering the photos)

 

Another fun idea on multiplayer servers would be that if someone successfully manages to get home with recon photos they could be available to other pilots in the same team when on the ground in a friendly base. Would be a great way to encourage recon missions as it would be really nice as a bomber pilot to get a good view of the target area. If the game engine could put drawn "boxes" around all targets visible in the "recon screen shot" to emulate that an intelligence officer has looked at the image that would be even better - and should be technically doable rather easy. Just add the normal "target markers" to the screenshot. Bonus for making them look "hand drawn" naturally.

 

Would be really nice to create interesting WW2 missions as well with a camera eqipped Spitfire etc... I would easily pick missions like that for variation of the diet. In WW1 photo recon was a very common mission to my understanding. 

 

Another idea based on missions that where common in late WW1 - how about artillery spotting missions. You need to fly over a specified target area and when there the artillerry starts firing and you can select predefined correction orders

 

EDIT - created a separate thread for this as it is off topic and I really like the idea

Edited November 23, 2017 by mazex

[III/JG53Frankyboy]

fighters/Scouts were developed to stop 8and later to protect...) photorecon- and Artillerie spotting planes - because THEY killed the poor soldier on the ground. Not the famous fighters/Scouts

 

Little fighters , turning around in the sky and Shooting eachother dont Change the outcome of a war......

 

Even the mighty F-14 Tomcat was made to the Bombcat (and it was a hell of a bomber than )

Edited November 23, 2017 by III/JG53Frankyboy

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I wish to fly late Rumpler do the job and show finger to flopping Tommies down below

[BraveSirRobin]

Didnt mean to like that post. 

 

Anyway, you seem to want to eliminate ever having crap types portrayed in a CFS ever again because your solution is to place crap types in premium slots which will definitely not sell as well as ubers that are premium. The fact is there is also a market for crap types, they are just in the minority. Taking 2 planes out of the 10 to be "crap types" is a better business strategy IMO because you secure the minority on top of the majority for a main planeset sale. To assume that people who only want hot rod ubers wont buy a pack because 2 out of 10 planes are "crap" is arrogant.

 

Holy crap. I don’t want to eliminate anything. I’m just pointing out what should painfully obvious to everyone. They need money. That’s why this module has lots of aircraft that the majority of people want. It’s not “arrogant” to say that fewer people will buy it if there are fewer popular planes (aka fighters), it’s Econ 101.

[BraveSirRobin]

Neither do you. Without access to sales figures, were both inferring from empirical evidence - you're going on planesets for fighter popularity, and I'm going on forum content for non-fighter popularity.

I’m going off the decisions made by the people who do have access to the sales data. You’re going off the crying of people who aren’t getting what they want.

[J2_Trupobaw]

Oh, I'm so going to enjoy reading this discussion  !

 

Holy crap. I don’t want to eliminate anything. I’m just pointing out what should painfully obvious to everyone. They need money. That’s why this module has lots of aircraft that the majority of people want. It’s not “arrogant” to say that fewer people will buy it if there are fewer popular planes (aka fighters), it’s Econ 101.

 

Having a look at BoB planeset (cult fighters, more cult fighters, legendary fighters... and that's it) I agree. Moreso with tanks expansion.

Pessimist in me says the devs are filling the cool-down period before PTO with sure-sellers (be them Camel or Me-262) to keep the shop busy and customers interested. Optimist says that they are using the cool-down period as opportunity to push out all the things community asked for that they weren't planing to release yet (Western Front, Second Coming of RoF, tanks tanks tanks). Anyway, it's going to be fast and easy gratification for us, and sure sales for them. 

RoF content is being ported rather than built from scratch, so maybe there's chance of collector R.E.8 being much less expansive to make than collector G-6. 

(Besides, in mid-1918 enviroment R.E.8 is cold meat). Brisfit F.III, not really. 

Edited November 23, 2017 by LsV_Trupobaw

[BMA_Hellbender]

Save us Obiwan Trupobi, you’re our only hope!

 

(nice to see everyone popping up here, and the same old bickering too)

 

Honestly I’d have been satisfied with just the Camel, SE5a, SPAD, D.VII, Dr.I and D.Va.

 

The fact that we’re also getting the Flipper and ex-Pfalzcopter is great.

 

...and the fact the Captain and I will get to fly our Brisfit (or CL.II if the sides are not stacked against Entente once in a while) makes me effin’ ecstatic! Hell, I would even be happy paying extra for those two in Premium Edition form.

[ZachariasX]

...and the fact the Captain and I will get to fly our Brisfit

 

When your Vlife depends on it, the definition of 'crap' may change very quickly.

 

If Hell & Darling are on the loose in the Brisfish, not even the Me-262 would help me. Crap. 

[Field-Ops]

Holy crap. I don’t want to eliminate anything. I’m just pointing out what should painfully obvious to everyone. They need money. That’s why this module has lots of aircraft that the majority of people want. It’s not “arrogant” to say that fewer people will buy it if there are fewer popular planes (aka fighters), it’s Econ 101.

You may not realize it but thats exactly what you want then you want to exclude under performing planes from a main pack. I'm sure youve already read through the topics of disappointment when no bombers were part of this main pack. Therefore my point stands that you must appeal to both crowds. 

[BraveSirRobin]

You may not realize it but thats exactly what you want then you want to exclude under performing planes from a main pack. I'm sure youve already read through the topics of disappointment when no bombers were part of this main pack. Therefore my point stands that you must appeal to both crowds. 

 

Yes, I've read the butthurt by the minority of people who didn't get what they want.  Your point is ridiculous.

[HippyDruid]

I want it all! 

 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Yesterday I was flying at NW and just recalled that current Alb DVa FM need to be looked at before it appear in FC.

[Feathered_IV]

I think Jason said on the livechat that the FM of each aircraft is being ported over from RoF as-is with no revision, so its a warts and all conversion.

[Royal_Flight]

Holy crap. I don’t want to eliminate anything. I’m just pointing out what should painfully obvious to everyone. They need money. That’s why this module has lots of aircraft that the majority of people want. It’s not “arrogant” to say that fewer people will buy it if there are fewer popular planes (aka fighters), it’s Econ 101.

Ah, so now you're the voice of reason.

You don't want to *eliminate* anything, you just want to be free to gloat about how others aren't getting what they would like, to call things you don't like crap and to make a load of posts without knowing what you're talking about.

You sound outraged that anyone might have misinterpreted your clear points and commonsense approach to debate.

What is your ultimate aim?

 

If it's just to stir up controversy for the sake of starting a discussion then that's perfectly valid, but now that the adults are here you can stop.

 

Yes, I've read the butthurt by the minority of people who didn't get what they want. Your point is ridiculous.

And we're back to the insults.

Protip: trying to be condescending makes you look sillier now that we're on the third page of you missing the point.

 

I’m going off the decisions made by the people who do have access to the sales data. You’re going off the crying of people who aren’t getting what they want.

You're guessing because you have no idea.

While it's hardly definitive, there has been a lot of forum chat so far about the composition of planesets and acting like everyone else is wrong because you disagree with them makes you look either arrogant or ignorant. Maybe both.

 

While we disagree, at least Sinned had a coherent point to make about his opposition to the Ju 52 which he was able to articulate on occasion.

So far all your arguments have been is just "bombers are crap butthurt lololololol" which no-one seems to be falling for.

 

I completely agree with the above to expand the domain of non fighter jock missions... A scoring system where you get a nice score for images taken over the designated recon target would be great. Add a "camera" view like the bombsight with a simple camera crosshair. Bring it up like the bomber sight and give score for correctly taken recon photos (target in "sight" and correct altitude / angle). And you should only get the full score IF you manage to get home and land safely (thus delivering the photos)

 

Another fun idea on multiplayer servers would be that if someone successfully manages to get home with recon photos they could be available to other pilots in the same team when on the ground in a friendly base. Would be a great way to encourage recon missions as it would be really nice as a bomber pilot to get a good view of the target area. If the game engine could put drawn "boxes" around all targets visible in the "recon screen shot" to emulate that an intelligence officer has looked at the image that would be even better - and should be technically doable rather easy. Just add the normal "target markers" to the screenshot. Bonus for making them look "hand drawn" naturally.

 

Would be really nice to create interesting WW2 missions as well with a camera eqipped Spitfire etc... I would easily pick missions like that for variation of the diet. In WW1 photo recon was a very common mission to my understanding.

 

Another idea based on missions that where common in late WW1 - how about artillery spotting missions. You need to fly over a specified target area and when there the artillerry starts firing and you can select predefined correction orders

 

EDIT - created a separate thread for this as it is off topic and I really like the idea

I'll follow you into the new thread because all of this sounds fantastic and just what we need for both releases.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I think Jason said on the livechat that the FM of each aircraft is being ported over from RoF as-is with no revision, so its a warts and all conversion.

Yes I did hear this too, but it's not up to the standard of others. This would flow out any ways.

[xvii-Dietrich]

Yesterday I was flying at NW and just recalled that current Alb DVa FM need to be looked at before it appear in FC.

 

 

Why? What is wrong with it? Do have any real-life flight data to demonstrate the problem or against which to compare it?

 

The Devs here take the flight model (FM) of each aircraft seriously and there is a whole sub-forum for reporting issues. If the RoF flight models need attention, then maybe players could report them there...   https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/forum/94-fm-discussion/   I doubt the Devs are reading all the general discussion threads these days. The posting traffic volume here is immense.

[ZachariasX]

I think Jason said on the livechat that the FM of each aircraft is being ported over from RoF as-is with no revision, so its a warts and all conversion.

It is the only thing that really make sense. Else, it would certainly not be viable to bring FC to the BoX universe.

 

There are of course "issues", with all planes. It starts from the sim simulating a monoplane internally (as FSX, DCS, etc...) and this produces skewed results on bi- and triplanes. For one thing, those aircraft have way too much lift. all of them. They also retain energy much too good.

 

Result is, you can prophang like there's no tomorrow, and with some palnes even better than that (check out Zebra productions). To counter this, the engine power has to be capped such that they are not space ships. What happens is that suddelny planes are a tad slow, and worse, as thrust /wight ratio is skewed, they don't maintain higher speeds in shallow dives very well (with known exceptions). There are other issues, like misaligned guns on N.17 and the SE5, that basically shoot downward through the propeller and not ahead, taking into account the nose down attitude of the aircraft in flight.

 

The last infamous patch (that personally I am very grateful for) was a last attempt to get the performance back in a ballpark, where aircraft are more in historical performance ralation to each other. With known downsides. Looking at Chill's Dr.I flight model, the one that he tailored after hos own Dr.I replica shows how differenrt "reality" can be in some situations.

 

Nevertheless, what we have in RoF is still top notch compared to everything else out there, covering the same. So I'm very happy getting just that (for starters). To make everything perfect, we need to buy a lot of those aircraft.

[BMA_Hellbender]

I think Jason said on the livechat that the FM of each aircraft is being ported over from RoF as-is with no revision, so its a warts and all conversion.

 

Interesting.

 

So are we in fact getting two Bristols and two Halberstadts, or just one of each with an engine unlock option?

 

What about the D.VII and D.VIIF, are they supposed to be separate planes, as they were sold and developed separately? Or are we just getting the regular D.VII?

 

 

And I take it that means engine variants for planes that didn't have them in RoF are completely out of the question. 

 

For example the Camel (130hp Clerget 9B, 140hp Clerget 9Bf) and the non-BMW Fokker D.VII (~180hp Mercedes D.IIIa, ~200hp Mercedes D.IIIaü).

 

 

Lastly, while the D.Va is actually not that poorly modeled at all in my opinion (at least performance wise), it uses the performance figures of having an overcompressed engine installed, yet it doesn't quite behave like it (see Halberstadt CL.II 200hp clickety-click at full throttle below 1200m).

 

Mmmm, so many questions!

 

 

Honestly even a 1:1 warts and all port with slow Camels is far from a bad thing, and the D.Va really needs to stay the way it is to lure attract 109 pilots over with Bristol fodder an easily accessible all-round machine.

[III/JG53Frankyboy]

i guess, this is all too early to be known exactly by the Team :D

[J2_Trupobaw]

The least we can expect is what we have in RoF, but within BoS. Which has some future ahead of it, which we can discuss with dev team. It is a huge leap from where RoF was month ago.

I suppose now that we have engine selection option the Cl.II, D.VII and Bristol can just come with all engines implemented? 

 200hp Mercedes D.IIIaü is implemented already for Cl.II, so 'm not out of hope for seing them ported to D.Va, D.IIIa and D.VII .

 

1918 engines for Camel and Spad (!) are something that transition to BoX makes possible. Again, huge leap from RoF.

 

 the D.Va really needs to stay the way it is to lure attract 109 pilots over with Bristol fodder an easily accessible all-round machine.

 

You don't have to learn manual radiator controls in 109, right ?

Edited November 24, 2017 by LsV_Trupobaw

[1./KG4_OldJames]

Is there going to be a sweepstake as to how many bright red Fokker Dr1s are in the sky at any one time?

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Engines as loadouts is reasonable but different propellers would be great. Yes I'm ahead,we shall see how it goes. I'm happy that there is any interest from devs in keeping ww1 genre alive.

[BMA_Hellbender]

You don't have to learn manual radiator controls in 109, right ?

 

No need to open up the radiator in the D.Va, we call the streaming the "treasure trail".

[No601_Swallow]

Is there going to be a sweepstake as to how many bright red Fokker Dr1s are in the sky at any one time?

 

Don't knock it - they always look amazing. And anyway, who doesn't want to be part of a Peanuts cartoon?

[J2_Trupobaw]

Camel surely is in the doghouse atm...

[Blooddawn1942]

 

You don't have to learn manual radiator controls in 109, right ?

At least you have to take care for coolant and oil radiators in the Emil.

[RickVic]

I hope there will be somekind of discount if you allready own ROF with all planes etc