Jazzed about Flying Circus - Thoughts on Plane Set

[xvii-Dietrich]

I was fairly late in discovering RoF, so I missed all the uproar over the Sopwith Camel issue. I have always considered the RoF models excellent... especially the damage model. The flight experience certainly seems good. (Non-expert opinion.)

 

What is not clear is whether the RoF flight model is even vaguely similar to the BoX one. It may well be that the underlying aerodynamics modelling is completely different, in which case flight model development will essentially be a "fresh start".

 

 

{...} I wish they would be clear on if they have "hope" at least for putting bombers in it. {...}

 

... and seaplanes!   

 

What else did you expect me to say? :-)

[BMA_Hellbender]

What is not clear is whether the RoF flight model is even vaguely similar to the BoX one. It may well be that the underlying aerodynamics modelling is completely different, in which case flight model development will essentially be a "fresh start".

 

 

RoF's feeling of flight is unparalleled, but that has probably more to do with the type of planes being flown (essentialy powered kites) than flight model refinement.

 

BoX is in every way the successor to RoF, on a now heavily modified engine.

 

 

Anyway, gather round kids, as grandpa Bender pulls his favourite old story out of the bag!

 

The real elephant in the room with the Sopwith Camel, is its performance in a 1 vs 1 against the Fokker Dr.I.

 

 

In RoF earliest days (2009'ish), there was no Camel and Dr.I, and people made do with what was available (SPAD, N28, D.Va, D.VII) and there was somewhat of a semblance of balance. Then when the terrible two entered the scene, everything changed. It was clear from the get-go that no other rides were harder to tame in a classic "angles" dogfight, yet once mastered, offered such a significant edge over the competition. Especially the Camel dominated the slower Axis planes, with the later Fokker D.VIIF and Pfalz D.XII as only exceptions (and only then only reaching their true potential at significant altitude). On the Entente side, the SPAD, SE5a and Dolphin at least had a good chance at pulling off an energy attack on the Dr.I, though it was more a game of slowly withering down the opponent rather than straight-up dogfighting. The Dr.I's uncanny ability to absorb damage (many of its bracing wires are internal and help solidify its structure) and fly with less than the factory default number of wings, certainly helped in that regard.

 

Now the Camel put directly against the Dr.I was an interesting match. The Dr.I would have a slight advantage in turn, while the Camel had a somewhat better rate of climb (funnily enough the opposite may have been true in real life), and also a marginally higher top speed (that much was true, and still is today). It led to the fact that usually the better (prepared) pilot of the two would win in a straight duel. Either the Dr.I could quickly get on the Camel's six, or the Camel could pull off a left hand climbing turn (chandelle) long enough to get above the Dr.I, and then perform slashing attacks from a higher energy state. I have to admit that it led to some of the most exhilirating fights I've had, in any sim, to this day.

 

 

And so, for a long time, though the rest of RoF groaned and festered under the yoke of Camels and Dr.Is which filled the skies, there was once again balance.

 

Not a healthy kind of balance, obviously. It led to the infamous namecalling of Clownwagons (for usually red Dr.Is), and Camel fags. And more important than that: it led to many planes remaining in the hangar. I mean, really, why would you bother flying anything else than either of those two?

 

 

When the long awaited FM fixes did finally hit (some might say a little late), and the Camel and Dr.I were both sentenced to a substantial reduction in speed, paired with an increase in speed granted to the Mercedes D.IIIa powered planes: the Albatros D.Va, Albatros D.III and Pfalz D.IIIa (they completely forgot about the Halberstadt CL.II -- sokay, i stil luv u bae), it ended the reign of terror.

 

However, it also ended the most popular dogfighting matchup, as the Camel's true advantage over the Dr.I - its superior climb rate - was equally slashed. Hence, today, a Camel is no match for a Dr.I in a straight 1 vs 1. It can run away, just about. Poetic justice when we consider the years of effortlessly run down Albatroses. And in a complete, ahum, cultural reappropriation of history, Camel pilots traded down for the Sopwith Pup, which can indeed outturn the Dr.I - although it is fragile, underpowered, and severely outgunned.

 

 

The morale of the story isn't that you should feel sorry for the poor Camel fag pilot, he can still win a fight against anything except a well-flown Dr.I, and he has plenty of fast buddies to help him out when he does run into a thrice-decked clown chariot.

 

But it is true that the archetypal duel of Camel vs. Dr.I (Snoopy vs. the Red Baron) no longer works.

 

And beyond just numbers, charts, and historical data, it's kind of a pity.

[BraveSirRobin]

And in a complete, ahum, cultural reappropriation of history, Camel pilots traded down for the Sopwith Pup, which can indeed outturn the Dr.I - although it is fragile, underpowered, and severely outgunned.

 

 

 

And is now slaughtered by Alby drivers using team tactics.

[Feathered_IV]

The Canel still remains as my favourite aircraft in RoF, despite any concerns over speed and climb. The only thing that really bothers me is the highly unusual spin recovery. Sucking the stick back into your chest to stop a spin is very odd indeed.

[unreasonable]

IMHO the team went about the rebalancing the wrong way.

 

If they have:

 

a) Some reasonable performance data for a few aircraft, and 

 

b) Some broad idea of relative performance in climb, speed and turn, relating to the less well documented aircraft,

 

then the right way to fix FMs is to get the aircraft with the best documentation as close to their historic data as possible first, being clear and explicit about what engine is being modeled.  Then, aim off for the less well documented types to get reasonable relative performance.

 

If you did that, you would not not end up with a nerfed Camel, since it is unquestionably one of the best documented, and the final Camels - and the Tripe - are just wrong.

 

Disclosure - I have never played RoF MP: my interest is simply in getting the experience of flying these crates as close as possible to the real thing. 

 

I probably will not be buying FC unless the team is prepared to bring the same level of fidelity to the data in it as they have done in BoX, where there is no doubt in my mind that the philosophy is to get the facts right and let players work out how to deal with any resulting imbalances by changing their tactics.

Edited November 30, 2017 by unreasonable

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Not a bad idea, but a part me wonders if it would actually be any better at all.

 

Simmers are gonna bitch no matter what you do. Do what you suggest and somebody will just scream on that the "relative" balanced craft are way out of spec, citing some obscure, barely-readable document; all while chanting the refrain of "pilot accounts aren't reliable!"

Edited November 30, 2017 by hrafnkolbrandr

[SeaW0lf]

The morale of the story isn't that you should feel sorry for the poor Camel fag pilot, he can still win a fight against anything except a well-flown Dr.I, and he has plenty of fast buddies to help him out when he does run into a thrice-decked clown chariot.

 

 

The Canel still remains as my favourite aircraft in RoF, despite any concerns over speed and climb. The only thing that really bothers me is the highly unusual spin recovery. Sucking the stick back into your chest to stop a spin is very odd indeed.

 

Not that much. Any good pilot can leave the Camel below. With the obvious / critical loss of power it has a very poor sustained turn and it can only dogfight straight down to keep some energy. If you don't turn with it in the first merge, she's done in general if you know what to do. If you take her to the deck and climb, she's not going to come back and will not be able to dive to gain energy. Then she becomes a pathetic old duck trying to hold the sustained turn and waiting to be put out of her misery. And this with low fuel and half ammo.

 

In full real servers, with 100% fuel, the best way to fly the Camel is to don't fly it. Leave her at the stall. She's a good lady to fight newbie's and get kills in furballs. In a real fight against a good adversary, she obviously shows that her two legs were broken. Of course that some players love the idea to fight a broken plane. Some others not so much. And the result is that the Entente side has a huge void in its lines, because after a while the newbie will notice that something is wrong with her and stop flying it (the veterans are already long gone). It happened in ROF. I'm not a Camel pilot but flew it a lot in 2015 to balance the field and fill the low altitude gap because no one wanted to fly Camels, but she's hopeless.

 

So she nowadays is a good beginner aircraft to get some kills against other newbie's. When people start to understand combat dynamics they realize she has something wrong. 

Edited November 30, 2017 by SeaW0lf

[Volkoff]

Wow! This is the first I am reading about the planned IL2 Sturmovik Flying Circus. What a pleasant surprise. This is absolutely SPADtacular news! I can't wait to find out more about this project, as it develops.    

 

[Zooropa_Fly]

I can't think of a worse noob plane than the Camel. I tried it once, thought "sod this", and never flew it again for about a year (I think that was pre-nerf).

It's now (post-nerf) my favourite fighter.

Sure it feels a little more sluggish than one might expect it to, but to call it 'hopeless' or to suggest it can't climb is ridiculous.

 

I'll give anybody a 500M start as long as they're not in a Dr1, and expect to eventually out-manouver them in a Camel.

Something like an Alby needs to hit hard and fast, and with constant intensity to beat a Camel down.

An Ace DVIIf that fight vertically and knows how to maintain altitude is a great challenge, but if you can dodge the first few attacks without stalling, it's possible to close the energy gap. A seasoned DVIIf pilot will run once the advantage has gone, but whether or not you get a 'kill' credit, if your foe is running away puffing smoke - you've won the fight.

DIIIa's and DVII's are best staying away from Camels altogether.

[Zooropa_Fly]

Re Pups, if it being the only thing in-game that can handle a Dr1 up close and personal is some kind of slur on the historical record, then so be it.

Because in RoF that's how it is.

Yes it's lightweight, armed with a pea-shooter, and vulnerable in multi-plane encounters - but 1 on 1 it's unbeatable if flown to it's limits.

 

Granted it was an earlier plane, but just looking at the proposed plane set the Allies only have one 'turn fighter' - the ever controversial and still maligned Sopwith Camel.

The SE5 and Spad are the not great turning, speed machines of the game, so I'm not sure why they need a Dolphin which pretty much fulfills the same role, but is a poor relative to these two crates.

I can't see many flying Dolphins for long with SE5's and Spads in the hangar, much like RoF now.

But we'll need to wait and see how things pan out in FC1 !

[scram77]

Re Pups, if it being the only thing in-game that can handle a Dr1 up close and personal is some kind of slur on the historical record, then so be it.

Because in RoF that's how it is.

Yes it's lightweight, armed with a pea-shooter, and vulnerable in multi-plane encounters - but 1 on 1 it's unbeatable if flown to it's limits.

 

Granted it was an earlier plane, but just looking at the proposed plane set the Allies only have one 'turn fighter' - the ever controversial and still maligned Sopwith Camel.

The SE5 and Spad are the not great turning, speed machines of the game, so I'm not sure why they need a Dolphin which pretty much fulfills the same role, but is a poor relative to these two crates.

I can't see many flying Dolphins for long with SE5's and Spads in the hangar, much like RoF now.

But we'll need to wait and see how things pan out in FC1 !

I love the Dolphin and will always take it if it's an option on the server.

 

I'm not good with it.....but that's a different story

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Last time I flew RoF MP I was suprused to find out I could do relatively well against Dr.1s (which there were plenty of in that mission) in the N.27, a plane I've never found interesting nor capeable before. It's vertical manouvrebility is great and when using the blip switch properly it can cut the turn into a Fokker for some time. However my plane of choice to combat Dr1s would be the SE5.

Edited November 30, 2017 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[xvii-Dietrich]

I went looking to see if I could find any indication as to what will happen with the FC1 flight models. Here is the comment from Jason Williams in the Q&A session:

 

https://youtu.be/fEPu1c-tHLY?t=1h46m11s

 

Hopefully that will save others time trying to find it for themselves.

[ZachariasX]

Last time I flew RoF MP I was suprused to find out I could do relatively well against Dr.1s (which there were plenty of in that mission) in the N.27, a plane I've never found interesting nor capeable before. It's vertical manouvrebility is great and when using the blip switch properly it can cut the turn into a Fokker for some time. However my plane of choice to combat Dr1s would be the SE5.

Of you can attack the Dr.I from above and maintaining good speed, the Dr.I is toast. Unlike any other plane, the furry one can pull these fast black out turns that no other plane can follow. You yust have to hit the Dr.I then, else, if flown by a competent pilot, you‘re in for an interesting moment.

 

Before „the patch“ it was just insane how you could fly it, same as the Dr.I. I understand Hb having had a hell of a time back then. So did I. but frankly, it was just stupid and had not much to do with how these AC were flown back then. The superiority of those terrible two was such that it would have been the most stupid thing back then producing ANY aircraft except these two. High altitude performance of other types was meaningless as you would just ignore them until they came down just to be seal clubbed.

 

The Pup was the sadistic little fella. If one had time to torture your adversary to death instead of just the usual seal clubbing, you took that one. It would kill anything in turn fights, even the Dr.I if that one didn‘t make use of his obscene climb rate.

 

And lastly, if one was fed up with that, you took Douhets finest, the HP or the Gotha, and, especially before the ballistics patch, zapped anything that moved over distances like 700 m. Like ants under the sunlit magifier. If that didn‘t make them rage quit, you‘d go on bomb them on their airfield.

 

It was fun. But at least in the last patch we got a meaningful balance back, where planes are basically worth in terms of use what they were back then. It will be a good start having that.

 

But when people still want FM corrections „for more realism“, I strongly doubt that these would be very happy if the planes flew exactly like they did, deeming them ‚broken‘. Fact is planes fly way too good with excessive lift and excessive lateral control. Like full aileron deflection in the Camel at high speeds, that is just ridiculous. It is even a bad thing to do for your Cessna, but in case of the Camel the wings would hardly stay on.

[unreasonable]

Of you can attack the Dr.I from above and maintaining good speed, the Dr.I is toast. Unlike any other plane, the furry one can pull these fast black out turns that no other plane can follow. You yust have to hit the Dr.I then, else, if flown by a competent pilot, you‘re in for an interesting moment.

 

Before „the patch“ it was just insane how you could fly it, same as the Dr.I. I understand Hb having had a hell of a time back then. So did I. but frankly, it was just stupid and had not much to do with how these AC were flown back then. The superiority of those terrible two was such that it would have been the most stupid thing back then producing ANY aircraft except these two. High altitude performance of other types was meaningless as you would just ignore them until they came down just to be seal clubbed.

 

The Pup was the sadistic little fella. If one had time to torture your adversary to death instead of just the usual seal clubbing, you took that one. It would kill anything in turn fights, even the Dr.I if that one didn‘t make use of his obscene climb rate.

 

And lastly, if one was fed up with that, you took Douhets finest, the HP or the Gotha, and, especially before the ballistics patch, zapped anything that moved over distances like 700 m. Like ants under the sunlit magifier. If that didn‘t make them rage quit, you‘d go on bomb them on their airfield.

 

It was fun. But at least in the last patch we got a meaningful balance back, where planes are basically worth in terms of use what they were back then. It will be a good start having that.

 

But when people still want FM corrections „for more realism“, I strongly doubt that these would be very happy if the planes flew exactly like they did, deeming them ‚broken‘. Fact is planes fly way too good with excessive lift and excessive lateral control. Like full aileron deflection in the Camel at high speeds, that is just ridiculous. It is even a bad thing to do for your Cessna, but in case of the Camel the wings would hardly stay on.

 

Just two remarks - on the first (bold) point, that is said purely from a gamer POV, someone is purely interested in duels. Actually the main point of scouts was to interfere with the performance of 2 Seaters. For that, the most important attributes are speed - to make the interceptions, since WW1 scouts were generally barely if at all faster than two-seaters, and altitude performance, to catch the high flying photo recce planes.  Air superiority in terms of scout vs scout duels is meaningless unless it leads to a reduction in the ability of the enemy to bomb, photo and artillery spot.  

 

As for the second: speak for yourself.  I agree the current RoF FMs are flawed in terms of control effectiveness at low speeds: it is not so much the prop hanging that bothers me but the ability to pirouette while doing it.  I am not so sure, however, about the lift point, and I challenge you to prove it.  For instance, if a plane is flying straight and level we know exactly how much lift it is producing if we know it's weight. So if RoF planes are flying at the correct SL top speeds, they must be producing the correct lift, except for corrections for nose up/down attitude.  My own guess is that the thrust/drag calculations are more likely to be off, but that is just supposition.

 

I would love for someone with first hand knowledge of how these things fly to go through the FMs and check for reasonableness. 

 

Really what all the MP types complaining about balance want is a version of War Thunder.  

Edited December 1, 2017 by unreasonable

[ZachariasX]

Just two remarks - on the first (bold) point, that is said purely from a gamer POV, someone is purely interested in duels. Actually the main point of scouts was to interfere with the performance of 2 Seaters. For that, the most important attributes are speed - to make the interceptions, since WW1 scouts were generally barely if at all faster than two-seaters, and altitude performance, to catch the high flying photo recce planes.  Air superiority in terms of scout vs scout duels is meaningless unless it leads to a reduction in the ability of the enemy to bomb, photo and artillery spot.  

 

As for the second: speak for yourself.  I agree the current RoF FMs are flawed in terms of control effectiveness at low speeds: it is not so much the prop hanging that bothers me but the ability to pirouette while doing it.  I am not so sure, however, about the lift point, and I challenge you to prove it.  For instance, if a plane is flying straight and level we know exactly how much lift it is producing if we know it's weight. So if RoF planes are flying at the correct SL top speeds, they must be producing the correct lift, except for corrections for nose up/down attitude.  My own guess is that the thrust/drag calculations are more likely to be off, but that is just supposition.

 

I would love for someone with first hand knowledge of how these things fly to go through the FMs and check for reasonableness. 

 

Really what all the MP types complaining about balance want is a version of War Thunder.  

Yes, I was very much talking about myself and how always could have fun throughout the iterations of RoF. Alterations led to different styles in playing.

 

Eventually we have something that I personally deem a good compromise, especially regarding the fact that the devs have no access to such planes to cross check. Even Airbus requires the real airplane to fine tune their simulations.

 

Regarding lift, it is true that in level flight a plane produces as much lift as it weights, BUT at which AoA? If your plane has excessive lift, it will not climb at cruise speed, but it will have a different trim, more „stick forward“.

 

That this is an issue can be clearly seen by comparing for instance the Dr.I elevator attitude at cruise speed and compare that to a real in flight Dr.I. In game, we have an excessive diwnward position.

 

There are other factors contributing to a skewed trim. One is that the sim (and ALL other flight sims) compute a monoplane internally, meaning the total airfoil is too efficient. In case of Triplanes, the center wing gives less additional lift than the lower and especially the top wing. This also effects stalling behaviour and rate of energy loss in slow turns.

 

If you have offset lift values, it becomes very hard getting power and drag such that you get reasonable performance parameters back. As in air combat, we usually operate the crates at the edge of their flight enveloppe, artifacts can become very apparent.

 

But let‘s support the devs such that they are able to make good thing better.

[unreasonable]

I will support the devs if they do make a good thing better, or at least show some willingness to do so. The fact is that RoF for several years has been abandoned and unfinished.  So what I will not support is paying for all the same flaws - minus the SP Career part that I actually value - to get a graphics upgrade. 

 

It is true that the trim sometimes looks odd - but then again the SE5's actually flew nose down in RL but not in game, so it is not obvious to me that the error, if there is one, is always in the direction of "more lift".  I know the sims model only one airfoil - I have kept up with Chill's very interesting discussion - but in terms of total lift this should not matter since every single variable in a calculation like this will have a fudge factor. So the wing will calculate lift according to Lift = (area * wing lift coefficient * fudge).  The first two are the "actual" data, the fudge then incorporates all the other stuff needed to get the desired results.  You can add more variables if you know them - but the fudge always remains.

 

So there is no reason why calculating as a monoplane should automatically lead to a higher than RL lift by ignoring the inefficiency of biplanes/triplanes, if the fudge takes this into account. Provided that the plane flies straight and level at the correct speed the lift=weight.  The quantity that lift could be off due to trim issues or incorrect AoA is also rather small: it is just geometry at least over small AoA changes as in level flight. 

 

During high AoA manoeuvres it is possible that the model underestimates the degradation in lift - either across the board or due to multiple wings - but just as likely that the drag impact is underestimated.  How to tell? 

 

Anyway this is all supposition, but the problem is that if you, as a Veteran and highly regarded pundit, repeat that "RoF lift is wrong" often enough it will become a factoid plaguing the forum. What is a fact, however, is that the RoF Camel's climb is far too low.    

Edited December 1, 2017 by unreasonable

[ZachariasX]

I didn‘t think of that... when I‘m saying RoF FM is wrong, it probably comes across wrong, not as I mean it. Rather than being a musing about the iherent difficulties realizing a „perfect FM“, it might be taken as a reason for having an agenda or another ulterior motive to misrepresent a plane. This is the last that I would want.

 

But simulating biplanes is not trivial, as you cannot directly project them on a monoplane. Lift production andistribution amongst the wing varies across the speed range.

 

I don‘t envy someone tasked with having to model such a flight model.

 

So, for the the record: As a start, RoF is correct enough for me and I love it!

[unreasonable]

I love RoF too - and I loved the Career, once I have learned how to mod out some of the worst excesses of the base game, which IMHO are not the FMs at all but things like the AAA, the bullet proof canvas DM and rear gunners firing through the floor of their plane. Things that the team would not dream of trying to get away with in the BoX series, God knows what they were thinking.   

 

Once modded, if you fly Hun (or SPADS) and treat it as a hunting game in MvR mode rather than a dogfight generator - dead is dead - you can have a deeply immersive experience of gradually increasing terror of many many hours......  Makes for fun movies as well. 

 

But then I am not really a Voss type dogfighter, more of a MvR or Fonck, only without the shooting accuracy - or the eyesight - or the flying skill... thank Heaven for sims!

Edited December 1, 2017 by unreasonable

[J2_Trupobaw]

I will support the devs if they do make a good thing better, or at least show some willingness to do so. The fact is that RoF for several years has been abandoned and unfinished.  So what I will not support is paying for all the same flaws - minus the SP Career part that I actually value - to get a graphics upgrade. 

 

There's more coming than "graphics upgrade", if you took time to read the thread... ok, whom am I kidding :D.

 

Dx11 and 64bit engine, better performance and visuals, better terrain rendering range, more objects.

Skins that don't disappear for a sec when you look at plane (side effect of 64 bit thing).

Better AI.

Engine variants as field mods. Devs can add new engines as mods to existing WW1 plane later without releasing new plane.

Reuniting the RoF diehards and BoS emigrees.

Return of updates, bug fixes, FMs revisions, access to devs. New career engine in the works.

Leaving behind RoF MP bugs already fixed in BoX.

 Opportunity to bicker about WW1s FMs at new forum 

 

We already benefit fromt the last one!

Edited December 1, 2017 by LsV_Trupobaw

[unreasonable]

There's more coming than "graphics upgrade", if you took time to read the thread... ok, whom am I kidding :D.

 

Dx11 and 64bit engine, better performance and visuals, better terrain rendering range, more objects.

Skins that don't disappear for a sec when you look at plane (side effect of 64 bit thing).

Better AI.

Engine variants as field mods. Devs can add new engines as mods to existing WW1 plane later without releasing new plane.

Reuniting the RoF diehards and BoS emigrees.

Return of updates, bug fixes, FMs revisions, access to devs. New career engine in the works.

Leaving behind RoF MP bugs already fixed in BoX.

 Opportunity to bicker about WW1s FMs at new forum 

 

We already benefit fromt the last one!

 

Hope you are right - except that I am not sure about the bold point, having just visited the RoF forum for the first time for months only to find the usual suspects continuing their bizarre decade long quarrels.      

[xvii-Dietrich]

Opportunity to bicker about WW1s FMs at new forum 

 

 

Leave this one out, thanks.

 

The squabbles on the RoF forums were caustic, petty and never-ending. So many threads we derailed with personal insults and pointless whining.

 

A fresh start and positive outlook is needed.

 

 

 

 

Flying Circus is going to be a great revival (esp. with VR). I am really hoping that the Devs start mentioning things about it in the upcoming Dev.Diaries. It will be very interesting to follow the progress and get a better idea about where things are going.

[HippyDruid]

I know, I know! It's air quake! But I really do hope we get the lake map again.

[ZachariasX]

I know, I know! It's air quake! But I really do hope we get the lake map again.

The MTO?

[unreasonable]

I know, I know! It's air quake! But I really do hope we get the lake map again.

 

I like the lake map too - it is the only one where you can land on, taxi on and take off from the water surface, for some aircraft at least, and with a steady hand. In an N28 at least.  

 

Sometimes "errors" in game technology improve the experience rather than detract from it.     

[J2_Trupobaw]

Hope you are right - except that I am not sure about the bold point, having just visited the RoF forum for the first time for months only to find the usual suspects continuing their bizarre decade long quarrels.      

 

They won't be usual suspects as much once discussion moves to this forum. BoX forum has pretty clear rules on what makes constructive FM input, after all. Plus community is bigger, there is lots of history and aviation buffs (many of them we remember from RoF forums of old) to dictate tone of discussion. Finally, this forum is just better administrated. 

[dburne]

I never thought I would be playing ROF again , has been some time ago. However I am very excited about trying out the new iteration in VR.

[RNAS10_Oliver]

registered on here not long ago, never bothered with the series so far as I've no interest in flying for germans or russians, announcement for flying circus and bodenplatte prob going to see that change

 

great to see an route forward into the future for RoF, as to the planeset question would have preferred the DH4 in there

[PatrickAWlson]

It's interesting, to me at least, that they have included the Pflaz DIIIa. For reasons best known to the developers the DIIIa,in RoF, was a star turn and yet it never surplanted the DVa in reality because, unless you felt particularly attached to your wings, it didn't really improve on the performance of the DVa (limited by the same engine), one of the reasons presumably why DVa's were still front line aircraft at the end of the war rather than having been replaced by the DIIIa. If the Germans could produce an aircraft, like RoF's DIIIa with the reliability, dive ability and ease of operation of an inline engine with almost the same turn performance of one of the best Allied rotaries I can't but think the DVa would have vanished rather quicker from the scene. The Dr1 would have never got past the drawing board design stage, there would have been no need.

 

I do think it's a lovely looking aircraft but I just can't see what it would add to gameplay, that the DVa doesn't, if it's FM is anything like it's reported historical performance.

 

It's a bit different and it was produced in numbers.  Probably the last is the strongest reason for inclusion.  Tougher, better dive, probably better turn rate than the DVa.  Also slower and worse climb.  If they use the figures generally seen on the internet (war weary captured sample) then it will be a complete dog.  If they cobble together a more complete story ... it will still be a dog compared to 1918 competition .

 

I have been advocating removing the Pfalz and Dolphin in favor of the RE8 and DFW, but that's not going anywhere.

[Blooddawn1942]

I'm wondering, if FC gets its own Dev Diarys,or if they are showing the progress in the Dev Diarys we have for now.

[Missionbug]

 

 

I have been advocating removing the Pfalz and Dolphin in favor of the RE8 and DFW, but that's not going anywhere.

 

 

Makes a lot of sense as it balances the overall plane set at release, besides I like both.

 

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.

[Feathered_IV]

With the barebones airquake planeset for both Bodenplatte and Flying Circus, plus the MP novelty tank sim; I don't think there's much in it for me with regards to new stuff in 2018. 

[J2_Trupobaw]

It's a bit different and it was produced in numbers.  Probably the last is the strongest reason for inclusion.  Tougher, better dive, probably better turn rate than the DVa.  Also slower and worse climb.  If they use the figures generally seen on the internet (war weary captured sample) then it will be a complete dog.  If they cobble together a more complete story ... it will still be a dog compared to 1918 competition .

 

I have been advocating removing the Pfalz and Dolphin in favor of the RE8 and DFW, but that's not going anywhere.

It was produced in numbers and they could just be produced much faster than Albatrosen given same resources; it was F-16 to D.Va's F-15. It was still adequate for Jagdfliegers basic job, overpowering enemy two-seaters. It made excellent top cover and was used in this role in JG1; Jasta 10 was completely equipped with them and acted as cover for other three Jastas equipped with mix of D.Vas and Dr.Is. And, thanks to being built like a tank, it was a baloon buster.

 

In RoF, if you switch off the engine you can dive it straight down, no sideslips, and it won't pop an aileron. Then you have a stable gun platform that can take lots gunner fire to the nose and keep flying. No popping wings, no german glass engine syndrome. Not much of dogfighter, but great multi-seat killer.

 

Edited December 6, 2017 by LsV_Trupobaw

[unreasonable]

With the barebones airquake planeset for both Bodenplatte and Flying Circus, plus the MP novelty tank sim; I don't think there's much in it for me with regards to new stuff in 2018. 

 

I know what you mean: but the main new thing to play SP in 2018 will be the BoS series career. If it works out well,  look on the initial BoP and FC items as stepping stones towards more complete offerings for the SP experience later on.  

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

With the barebones airquake planeset for both Bodenplatte and Flying Circus, plus the MP novelty tank sim; I don't think there's much in it for me with regards to new stuff in 2018. 

 

Cmon Feathered, you know it's gonna come.

[Feathered_IV]

It's no biggie, I'll see how it pans out this year.  I need to decide whether its a hobby I still want to keep up with. 

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

It's no biggie, I'll see how it pans out this year.  I need to decide whether its a hobby I still want to keep up with. 

 

I getcha there. I have very little time for the hobby anymore, I just buy to support. 

[dburne]

It's no biggie, I'll see how it pans out this year.  I need to decide whether its a hobby I still want to keep up with. 

 

Well if nothing else, Bodenplatte will at least have the new career mode for it. 

 

I have absolutely 0 desire for the upcoming tanks release, but will purchase it to at least support continued growth with hopes of Pacific afterwards.

Edited December 6, 2017 by dburne

[unreasonable]

Well if nothing else, Bodenplatte will at least have the new career mode for it. 

 

I have absolutely 0 desire for the upcoming tanks release, but will purchase it to at least support continued growth with hopes of Pacific afterwards.

 

Trouble is, if the tanks release does not soon include some more infantry elements, all it will be is a MP "Girls und Panzer" simulator.

 

[J2_Trupobaw]

Ils und Panzers. Und Kannonenstukas. Tank expansion will be gift to all wannabe Rudels who want to strafe and bomb something that curses you back on chat  .

Edited December 6, 2017 by LsV_Trupobaw