Jazzed about Flying Circus - Thoughts on Plane Set

[xvii-Dietrich]

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

 

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/32255-discussion-bodenplatte-flying-circus-and-tank-crew-announcem/page-12?do=findComment&comment=533808

[RickVic]

Nice. I always behave. Ive done my part with buying Il2 BoS/M on Steam, ROF on Steam a year ago, BoK/BDP on the Store 

[BMA_Hellbender]

It's a bit early to ask for a discount if we don't even know what the actual price will be.

 

I'd also like to know what qualifies as good behaviour. Personally I'd prefer paying full price and misbehaving just a tiny wee bit.

 

[ZachariasX]

It's a bit early to ask for a discount if we don't even know what the actual price will be.

 

I'd also like to know what qualifies as good behaviour. Personally I'd prefer paying full price and misbehaving just a tiny wee bit.

 

I think it is fair if you get to pay more. After all, you‘ll be mounting your DeathStar together with your Darling, snuffing poor MP players in droves...

[ST_ami7b5]

^^

[Monostripezebra]

I´m happy about any WW1 release, but still, on the risk of beeing taken seriously and then later getting the ususal forum yanking, here is how I would set the planeset:

 

With the background of a more fighter heavy dogfight-late war setting (same idea as current proposal) I would go for:

 

French/american Section:

Spad XIII

N28

Breguet 14

 

British Section:

Se5a

Dolphin

HP400

Bristol FIIb

 

German section:

Fokker DVII with engine variants

Fokker DVIII

Alb DVa

Pfalz DXII

Gotha GV

Halb CLII

[BMA_Hellbender]

I think it is fair if you get to pay more. After all, you‘ll be mounting your DeathStar together with your Darling, snuffing poor MP players in droves...

The intent is to provide players with a sense of pride and accomplishment for unlocking two-seaters.

 

As for cost, we selected initial values based upon data from Rise of Flight and other adjustments made to milestone rewards before launch. Among other things, we're looking at average per-gunner kill rates on a daily basis, and we'll be making constant adjustments to ensure that players have challenges that are compelling, rewarding, and of course attainable via gameplay.

 

We appreciate the candid feedback, and the passion the community has put forth around the current topics here on the forums and across numerous social media outlets.

 

Our team will continue to make changes and monitor community feedback and update everyone as soon and as often as we can.

[TG-55Panthercules]

The intent is to provide players with a sense of pride and accomplishment for unlocking two-seaters.

 

As for cost, we selected initial values based upon data from Rise of Flight and other adjustments made to milestone rewards before launch. Among other things, we're looking at average per-gunner kill rates on a daily basis, and we'll be making constant adjustments to ensure that players have challenges that are compelling, rewarding, and of course attainable via gameplay.

 

We appreciate the candid feedback, and the passion the community has put forth around the current topics here on the forums and across numerous social media outlets.

 

Our team will continue to make changes and monitor community feedback and update everyone as soon and as often as we can.

 

Thanks for the flashback/nightmare, and disturbing glimpse of what our niche would look like in the hands of people like EA - now we're going to have to implement a down-vote mechanism like they have at Reddit.

[SeaW0lf]

Is this serious or is it a (bad) joke? Got a bit lost here. 1C is not handling Flying Circus?

[Field-Ops]

Is this serious or is it a (bad) joke? Got a bit lost here. 1C is not handling Flying Circus?

Its the quote from EA's blunder on Battlefront 2. Jut plugging FC's name into BF2 where appropriate. An excellent joke I believe.

[DD_Arthur]

Is this serious or is it a (bad) joke? Got a bit lost here. 1C is not handling Flying Circus?

 

1CGS will be handling Flying Circus.  Bender is merely offering you the opportunity to take part in a large scale cost/benefit analysis involving an expenditure of .303 ammunition/inverted flight correlation. 

[BMA_Hellbender]

Is this serious or is it a (bad) joke? Got a bit lost here. 1C is not handling Flying Circus?

A truly bad joke would be EA calling it IL-2 (loot)BoX.

 

But seriously, no, we were just discussing pricing and a possible rebate for current owners of RoF. Then it got a bit out of hand.

[SeaW0lf]

A truly bad joke would be EA calling it IL-2 (loot)BoX.

 

But seriously, no, we were just discussing pricing and a possible rebate for current owners of RoF. Then it got a bit out of hand.

 

Phew... That was a near miss. Thanks for the clarification.

[Venturi]

ROF deserves the love.

 

Would recommend you take a look at a few of the FMs while you're at it...

[SeaW0lf]

Its the quote from EA's blunder on Battlefront 2. Jut plugging FC's name into BF2 where appropriate. An excellent joke I believe.

 

Ah, now I got it  Geez... It would be a true nightmare. And now I can see the sarcasm. It just scared the bejesus out of me...

[RickVic]

Fly 4000 Missions to unlock the second mg

[SeaW0lf]

Fly 4000 Missions to unlock the second mg

 

It will be optional for the servers, so we better populate the servers that are in tune with. I just hope people stop with the arcade trend in multiplayer and cater good missions with proper flak (no ambient flak) and no weapon mods. The only ones I think are OK is the extra gun on the Spad V.II to counter the Albatroses and on the Tripe (that makes it too sluggish), which them both might come with FC2.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

It will be optional for the servers, so we better populate the servers that are in tune with. I just hope people stop with the arcade trend in multiplayer and cater good missions with proper flak (no ambient flak) and no weapon mods. The only ones I think are OK is the extra gun on the Spad V.II to counter the Albatroses and on the Tripe (that makes it too sluggish), which them both might come with FC2.

If the AA is anything like BoX, nobody is going to want to fly anywhere near the batteries. Hopefully this will have us flying more at realistic altitudes.

Edited November 28, 2017 by hrafnkolbrandr

[Field-Ops]

Fly 4000 Missions to unlock the second mg

God dont remind me of my mindless WT grind. I left that behind for many other reasons besides this one too

[Zooropa_Fly]

Purely from an in-game perspective, I'd replace Dolphin with  Pup , and DIIIa with DXII. 

 

On dogfight servers it's a rare thing to see a Dolphin, or in fact a DIIIa.

The Allies have all the speed as it stands and I think the Germans need a hit and run machine.

The Pup is required to handle the Dr1 Jocks.

 

The questions remains for me about the DVII - will we have both variants ? If not confirmation of which ?

This plane's always confused me - never seen it referred to as a DVIIf in RL. Best plane of the war they say (DVII).

In-game they might only have different engines, but they couldn't be more different to fly, and be successful in.

Again a DVII is rare in MP.

 

Anyway it's great we're getting something and I'd buy pretty much whatever the initial plane set was.

Although monostripedzebra's (above) might have me thinking twice

 

S!

[unreasonable]

Been away and a bit out of the loop - but my take on this from various comments is that we are to get essentially RoF planes (models and FMs) in a BoX map/weather environment. Is that right? Basically a graphics upgrade. Or have I missed something?  

[TG-55Panthercules]

Purely from an in-game perspective, I'd replace Dolphin with  Pup , and DIIIa with DXII. 

 

The Pup is required to handle the Dr1 Jocks.

 

Although I did see reports that the RFC didn't actually shed the last of its Pups on the Western front until December 1917 (so its inclusion in FC1 wouldn't be completely out of line with the beginning of the time period of FC1), I still think that including a Pup in FC1 would be a mistake.  If the Pup really is necessary to counter the FDr.1, that's just going to some across as a pretty damning admission (IMHO) that there's something terribly wrong with the rest of the Entente planes in the lineup.  I think the Pup should come along later, in a volume with other planes more suited to its operational life span.

[Dakpilot]

@ unreasonable

 

Well the now called Digital Warfare engine is a bit more than just graphics upgrade, when compared to Digital Nature engine, but yes ROF in BOX, Spads over the Kuban? That is a question

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Edited November 29, 2017 by Dakpilot

[TG-55Panthercules]

Been away and a bit out of the loop - but my take on this from various comments is that we are to get essentially RoF planes (models and FMs) in a BoX map/weather environment. Is that right? Basically a graphics upgrade. Or have I missed something?  

 

Nope - that's pretty much it (along with VR support, game engine performance improvements, etc.) - just some speculation/hoping going on as to whether they might have a chance (and take the opportunity) to do a few minor tweaks along the way while getting the old planes to work in the new game engine environment to at least address some of the biggest issues like the Camel FM residual issues from the last gasp FM tweak in RoF a while back.  I'm sure they want to avoid re-opening that wound and they'd rather not talk about it (and certainly haven't promised nor are likely to promise anything about the FMs), but I suspect they'd be better off at least trying to deal with it rather than having to deal with the potential negative s*@tstorm from the camel jocks (and others just interested in the general fidelity of the models) if they bring that one over in its current form.  It's one thing to say in the RoF context that "we tried but this is the last time we're touching RoF in any significant way so we're sorry but you're stuck with it" in a situation where you have visibly abandoned any further serious development of the game (RoF), but it's an entirely different thing to say "we're launching a new series in a new engine we're actively developing and in which we're taking great pains to get the FMs of all the WWII planes as close as possible but we're going to bring across one of the most iconic WWI planes in a state that most folks would say just isn't quite up to snuff" (even though most would also say it was better than it used to be in some respects).

 

I was never one who was vocal in criticising what they did to the Camel in that last FM tweak in RoF or in criticising how it worked before the tweak (although I did hate to see how the Tripe got trashed in the collateral damage), but I did see what damage that whole controversy did to the game/community while it was going on.  I just hate the thought of that sort of negativity rearing its ugly head again in connection with the launch of FC1, an event which should be an opportunity for unalloyed jubilation for the community.  As I'm sure they've realized by now, they'll never be able to satisfy everybody on these FM issues.  However, it seems like they've done a pretty darned good job pleasing the vast majority of the folks about some of the more contentious WWII aircraft FM issues in BoX so I'm hopeful they'll at least take a shot in some fashion at getting out ahead of this issue instead of just letting it fester and break out upon launch.

[unreasonable]

snip..... so I'm hopeful they'll at least take a shot in some fashion at getting out ahead of this issue instead of just letting it fester and break out upon launch.

 

I agree.   I was also wondering whether the changes to the BoX FM which reduced the yaw/roll coupling would be apparent in FC.  Ie what does porting over the FMs actually mean.  

 

I hope the team gives this some careful thought or it could all backfire.  We shall see: hope for the best...

 

@Dakpilot - Fokkers in Belgium?  Surely a much more memorable name than Flying Circus.     

[SeaW0lf]

If the Pup really is necessary to counter the FDr.1, that's just going to some across as a pretty damning admission (IMHO) that there's something terribly wrong with the rest of the Entente planes in the lineup. 

 

Exactly my thought.

 

However, it seems like they've done a pretty darned good job pleasing the vast majority of the folks about some of the more contentious WWII aircraft FM issues in BoX

 

I think it comes to good sense. People in general will accept a margin or a compromise if the revision is well backed. The portion that will never be satisfied is not really interested in flight models. So they are irrelevant in terms of research or flying. The recent BOX patch was so successful because it was on point, so whoever is bitching will be bitching alone or in a small niche. The same happened with the 190 revision so it seems, and this way it goes.

 

The ROF patch was so disastrous because they ventured into the realm of balance. They could have tweaked all the FMs they changed, but with books and research in hand, not with passionate opinions of one aisle of the game. It surprised me that people in general did not know that rotary engines had a very good performance until 8-9 thousand feet, which on the other side gave clear advantage to inline engines in the heights that the war was generally fought (around 15.000 average). Have they done that, and showed some charts and explained how it works, and fixed the rotary planes that had an horizontal altitude performance (Dr.1 for example), and toned down the Camel and such, and had taken some time to work the D.Va, it would happen the same as it happened with the Kuban patch. It could even bring the squadrons back and we would have full servers till this day (for me who likes MP, but the hype it creates generates propaganda). But they were in a hurry and they weren't very keen to do any of this. The result was not that surprising. Nothing is by chance. So I do think that a good well thought revision can bring a lot of hype to the community. It can be done.

 

And the Tripe was indeed a tragedy. It was a very hard plane to master and with a deadly spin. But she made wonders when was well handled. It was such a joy. It was one of the best FMs in my opinion. I hope they restore her if we ever see a FC2 to have some battles with Albatroses.

Edited November 29, 2017 by SeaW0lf

[DakkaDakkaDakka]

I get that some people are really bummed about the RoF patch that changed everything, but I will say this: the days of incessant Camel vs Dr.1 duels are mostly over. These planes are still well-represented, but the diversity of planes in flight in MP on any given night is much greater than it was in the past.

 

Granted, many people feel like the patch ruined RoF and many left and apparently came over here to BoX as consequence. Many of those folks were probably bigger WWII fans in the first place, as I suspect much of RoF's population in the 2010-2012 timeframe had as much to do with it being clearly the best propeller flight sim available at the time, than with any deep and abiding passion for WWI aircraft. (Not that there aren't passionate WWI fans, but combat flight sim fans tend to migrate to the game with the best performance / FMs / graphics and, if they're into MP, the best server populations, as opposed to only playing one specific historical period or another).

 

Anyways, long story short, RoF to me, despite the low MP populations, is actually in a better place as regards the relative performance of the aircraft than it was before the patch. A good Albatros pilot can give a Camel a run for the money, something that almost never happened in the past. SPAD pilots can BnZ Dr.1s without getting chased all over the map by a plane that they vastly outperformed in real life.

 

TLDR: I get that it's different, and I get that there are some niggling details that don't perfectly jibe with reality, but setting those things aside, I do believe the relative performance of the planeset is more on par with historical accounts of these aircraft than before patch.

 

The Tripehound excluded, of course. That was collateral damage and a great shame.

Edited November 29, 2017 by DakkaDakkaDakka

[SeaW0lf]

is actually in a better place as regards the relative performance of the aircraft than it was before the patch. 

 

So are you Ok if BOBO comes with a Bf 109 K-4 that has a worse climb than a Brewster Buffalo? This is exactly what you are defending. No offense, but the ROF patch was so disastrous exactly because they listened to that kind of uneducated opinions regarding WWI aircraft performance. 

[PatrickAWlson]

So are you Ok if BOBO comes with a Bf 109 K-4 that has a worse climb than a Brewster Buffalo? This is exactly what you are defending. No offense, but the ROF patch was so disastrous exactly because they listened to that kind of uneducated opinions regarding WWI aircraft performance. 

I think that is the exact opposite of what he said.  Dakka was saying that whatever the real life performance of the planes vs the sim (and the precise performance of WWI planes is really unknown) the relative performance is much better, which in turn means that historically appropriate tactics can be used an be successful. 

 

Using your example, there is no way that a thinking person would describe relative performance as being correct if a Buffalo could out climb a K4 in a sim.  However, a person could make that statement if the climb of each was 5% off from accepted values.

[SeaW0lf]

I think that is the exact opposite of what he said.  Dakka was saying that whatever the real life performance of the planes vs the sim (and the precise performance of WWI planes is really unknown) the relative performance is much better, which in turn means that historically appropriate tactics can be used an be successful. 

 

Using your example, there is no way that a thinking person would describe relative performance as being correct if a Buffalo could out climb a K4 in a sim.  However, a person could make that statement if the climb of each was 5% off from accepted values.

 

He's saying the relative performance is better, when we all know it went bananas. How can someone explain the chart below? Hence why I said that people need to read, research to then go bash a flight model. But in the case of the Camel it was a blunder. They did not fix it because they weren't involved with ROF anymore.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

Hence why I said that people need to read, research to then go bash a flight model.

 

-snip-

 

By all means, please tell us where you got your theoretical degree in digitally modeling experimental aircraft and where to begin my personal studies and research.

[SeaW0lf]

By all means, please tell us where you got your theoretical degree in digitally modeling experimental aircraft and where to begin my personal studies and research.

 

Are you being serious? I'm giving you data. Look at the chart. Now if you look at the chart and think it is OK, why would I waste my time trying to explain anything?

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Are you being serious? I'm giving you data. Look at the chart. Now if you look at the chart and think it is OK, why would I waste my time trying to explain anything?

 

That's an original time-to-altitude document from the Sopwith Aviation Company?

 

No, you're giving me fan-made charts. I'm wondering where all of your original source documents are and how you performed your "research."

Edited November 29, 2017 by Space_Ghost

[BMA_Hellbender]

Purely from an in-game perspective, I'd replace Dolphin with  Pup , and DIIIa with DXII.

 

Agreed about the D.XII (though that plane really is a fringe case which never actually existed with its BMW engine).

 

I'd steer well clear of the Pup, though. The only reason anyone even flies that anachronistic deathtrap is to outturn the Dr.I, and in doing so you take the Axis' only trump (no relation) away.

 

The Camel can already handle anything except the Dr.I in a turn, and as a hard counter to the Dr.I there's BnZ in the SE5a / SPAD / Dolphin or far more straightforward still: the Bristol Fighter. The Dr.I can't outturn and outdive the Biff at the same time, meaning the gunner basically has free reign in a spiral dive. The Fokker D.VII is a far greater threat in that respect.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Hellbender

[SeaW0lf]

That's an original time-to-altitude document from the Sopwith Aviation Company?

 

No, you're giving me fan-made charts. I'm wondering where all of your original source documents are and how you performed your "research."

 

If you don't know, this aircraft was nerfed. The original ROF Camel, and the devs obviously looked into it, climbed to 3.000m in 11min5sec.

 

If you go to The Aerodrome, where basically all the writers of WWI aviation books hang out, you are going to find out that some numbers are even better than the ones we find at the ROF store.

 

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/showpost.php?p=367880&postcount=1[

 

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

EDIT* - references on the above post:

 

Gwynnes Ltd. Clerget patent aero engines (9B & 9BF): instructions and list of parts. c.1917 (facsimile reprint by Camden Miniature Steam Services, 2001. ISBN 0953652319).

 

Air Board. Data for structure and stability calculation of aircraft. Air Board, August 1917

 

Kacey: http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/ai...2-engines.html

 

Bentley, W.O. W.O.: the autobiography of W.O. Bentley. Hutchinson, 1958

 

TomVrille http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/ai...-rh-ne-9j.html

 

Hartmann, G. Moteurs de legende: le Clerget 130 ch Le Clerget 130 ch

 

Kocent-Zielinski, Edward. Sopwith Camel. Kagero, 2003

 

Bruce, J.M. The Sopwith Camel F.1. Profile Publications, no.31

 

Morse, William. Rotary engines of World War One. Nelson & Saunders, 1987 (ISBN 0947750061)

 

Heron, S.D. History of the aircraft piston engine: a brief outline. Ethyl Corp., 1961

 

Nahum, Andrew. The rotary aero engine. HMSO, 1987 (ISBN 0112904521)

 

Mottram, Graham. W.O. Bentley's aero-engines. W.O. Bentley Memorial Foundation (Publication no.5), 2003 (ISBN 0954090128)

 

Draper, Christopher. The mad major: the autobiography. Air Review, 1962.

 

Fill http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/ai...e-figures.html

 

 

Or you can Google. Suit yourself.

Edited November 29, 2017 by SeaW0lf

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

If you don't know, this aircraft was nerfed. The original ROF Camel, and the devs obviously looked into it, climbed to 3.000m in 11min5sec.

 

If you go to The Aerodrome, where basically all the writers of WWI aviation books hang out, you are going to find out that some numbers are even better than the ones we find at the ROF store.

 

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/showpost.php?p=367880&postcount=1[

 

Or you can Google. Suit yourself.

 

Much more informative and contributory than simply offloading the burden of proof to the people you're debating with.

 

Do we know which engine the Camel in ROF is modeled with?

[DakkaDakkaDakka]

Seawolf, I get it: the Camel doesn't climb to an indicated altitude in a time that matches some chart or another from tests conducted ~100 years ago.

 

Please don't imply that I'm uneducated about the performance of these aircraft, anyone who has participated in the RoF forum for as long as I have has seen the data bandied about, the links to the Aerodrome website, etc.

 

Again, I get it.

 

However, experience also demonstrated that, due to other flaws in the RoF simulation, when the Camel's engine variables were set such that it could match "the data" (such as it is) from history, the result was a plane that flew like an absolute UFO.

 

This is the problem of interdependent effects. We can make the Camel match one stat, but then, due to other issues, it results in the plane being "broken" for all intents and purposes, when considered as a whole.

 

I would argue that - relative to the other aircraft represented in the sim - it is far from broken today. It out-turns the planes it's supposed to be able to out-turn, and it can't catch the planes it's not supposed to be able to catch.

 

Perhaps the Albatros D.Va is slightly too good (after having definitely been not good enough for a long time), and definitely, the Tripehound has been nerfed to the point of desecration.

 

The point is that NONE of it is perfect. None of the planes generate anywhere near the amount of drag a real biplane does... the Dr.1 alone has a glide ratio a modern sailplane might be envious of.

 

So really, at the end of the day, we are in fact talking about a balance patch, based on the RoF engine as it is, warts and all. My personal opinion is that, within that context, the post-patch relative balance of the planes is better than before.

 

It's not a perfect simulation. I can live with that. The FC simulation won't be perfect either. But it will be fun.

Edited November 29, 2017 by DakkaDakkaDakka

[SeaW0lf]

Much more informative and contributory than simply offloading the burden of proof to the people you're debating with.

 

Do we know which engine the Camel in ROF is modeled with?

 

Because you were without context, Everyone knows about it in ROF. After the nerfing (several aircraft, all rotary, just one inline aircraft) the forum and the servers went crazy. Some needed work and were done OK, but the Camel in special came out bugged. The Tripe as well. I mean, it is a complex subject.

 

The engine is the Clerget 9B. According to the post, the standard Clerget 9B Camel climbed to 10.000ft (3.000m) in 10min35sec. Half a minute before the original ROF Camel, which is OK as a margin. The Ruston & Proctor Clerget 9B Camel climbs in 11min45sec. I can't confirm, but they seem to be a less known variant of the Clerget 9B. If we add and divide the two engines performance, will be around the original performance of the ROF Camel until 3.000m. The Hanriot in the chart has the same engine, and she climbs to 3.000m in 9min34s, which although is better, is in the same performance bracket of the original ROF Camel.

Edited November 29, 2017 by SeaW0lf

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

People were pretty pissed when they couldn't fly UFO camels with late 1918 performance on 1917 maps anymore. Must have felt terrible.

Edited November 29, 2017 by hrafnkolbrandr

[Lusekofte]

I see several here are refering to ROF here, there is a reason they called it Flying Circus. They want to distance it from ROF. If anything it is FC.

I think this distance is because if they called it ROF they had to put in all ROF planes. And they will not if people do not buy this. I wish they would be clear on if they have "hope" at least for putting bombers in it. Without promising, just so I had a idea on what ambitions they had.

Because this game is the one game I will invest in VR to fly in, but not only in circles dogfighting