Jazzed about Flying Circus - Thoughts on Plane Set

[Feathered_IV]

I really don't think so.  It's the 90% of singleplayers who provide the funds so your MP friends can get all the maps for free.

[SeaW0lf]

Just now, Feathered_IV said:

I really don't think so.  It's the 90% of singleplayers who provide the funds so your MP friends can get all the maps for free.

 

Yeah, so now you are going off on the tangent. If there was no multiplayer, you guys would be flying with all the flaws from the start. The forum would be generally uneventful and whoever complained about something would be dismissed with a "stop complaining and enjoy the game / AKA AIs".

 

That would be 'super' I reckon. You are blindsighted.

 

 

[Feathered_IV]

K, I'll leave it to you and your 10%.  Enjoy! 

[SeaW0lf]

1 minute ago, Sambot88 said:

 

Oh I totally get it. Your opinion makes a lot of sense and is one of the main schools of thought that leads to these decisions. I was merely curious where one can find actual data?

 

A possibility is that while most people play single-player most of the time, most people who spend alot of money on ALL the DLCs over the long-haul (the "whales") are likely to be those who mainly play competitively against other people. Only data can tell, but that would be a very logical reason to do what they're doing.

 

Its quite likely that single-player "whales" are very rare. Again, I just want to see some numbers because I'm curious. I want the developers to make the biggest and most financially successful Flying Circus possible.

 

Like I said, there has to be a balance in between single player and multiplayer, but as people say, SP is the bulk of the revenue. Although multiplayer is what sets fire to the forum and makes people go nuts about the product. It is the showcase. I don't think there is a conflict of interest here. Any good entrepreneur would know the value that each group represents and how to best expose it. 

[Vig]

Hijacked.

[ZachariasX]

6 minutes ago, Sambot88 said:

most people who spend alot of money on ALL the DLCs over the long-haul (the "whales") are likely to be those who mainly play competitively against other people.

 

In BoX, there are no "whales", as it is not possible to spend several thousand $ on items that help you win or make you look "prettier". It's not like you can buy "von Braun's sekrit fuel" that enables 1.8 ata on the 109 F4. But you had to buy each tank fill new for $2.

 

I find we get an awful lot for the $ spent, also without discounts. Even offline, it makes sense owning all aircraft. Online however, all you need is your favourite and highest performing ride to score highest. If you fly cometitively, it makes no sense having a ground pounder at all. Or the P-40. I'd say, there is more of an incentive to get all content flying offline.

 

Myself, I am flying mostly online. But this only because I flew offline for 30 years, and as good as the career mode gets, there is still a bit of the "been there, done that"-feeling. And I don't mind getting shot down not only most of the time, but also usually rather quickly. It makes it better to shoot down another one. Especially in the P-40.

 

[ZachariasX]

I do really look forward to FC. It was RoF that got me online. Still such fun. Having the servers show up on a single will surely attract more players. For both "worlds".

1 minute ago, Sambot88 said:

Just curious about data is all.

We all are

 

But is guess this is rather something at the heart of 777's business and I think it is *very* forthcoming of Jason to even mention the ratio online/offline players.

 

[SeaW0lf]

23 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

In BoX, there are no "whales", as it is not possible to spend several thousand $ on items that help you win or make you look "prettier".

 

The devs are sleeping on that. They could sell special aircraft with premium prices. I imagine SP modules only, but it could generate extra revenue.

 

22 minutes ago, LsV_Trupobaw said:

and is now closer to what it historically was. 

 

According to whom? Tripehound inferior in speed and climb to the D3? Camel climbing like a D2? Fokker Dr.1 turned into a Pup with two guns? You need to read some books and do some reasearch.

 

Like someone once said, France now has a ground level at 7.000 feet in ROF. Superman stuff.

Edited March 16, 2018 by SeaW0lf

[TWC_Ace]

I just hope this time they will include teh most produced variant of DVII (regular) engine - Overcompressed DIIIau engine. In old ROF we have DVII with less produced DIIIa engine. And a DVIIF with BMW variant.

Edited March 16, 2018 by blackram

[ZachariasX]

4 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

The devs are sleeping on that. They could sell special aircraft with premium prices. I imagine SP modules only, but it could generate extra revenue.

This would mean things like "pay for your skins" etc. You know how well that would go for them. Especially since you give the 10% onliners (and potential notorious forists) that much weight.

 

I also don't think that conceputally it would be a viable strategy for business. BoX is by no means comparable to your average EA extrotion scheme. In order for that scheme to work, you need something *very accessible". You can make it very, very, easy to shoot some StarWars drones, there is nothing a player hast to learn in order to play the game, it is essentially the same since Doom. So, everybody can do it. Also the easy addicted. All you need to give them is a theme, weher they can identify themself with. Then make it easy for them. You make it hard, as soon as they *think* they get good and have a reward in sight. A reward that you make unattainable. Unless you spend more. Just a bit. But always a bit. BoX on the other hand is difficult from the very beginning and it doesn't get more difficult than that.

 

I'd be shocked if they ever did anything like that. They sell a great simulation and they simply should ask what they need as price. What we have is very fair deal for grown-ups. And planes are, as they were. Selling the mods like "flat windscreen" or "special beltings" would be silly, because these were items that were part of some of those aircraft. It's not extra. Also, in RoF eventually they gave the "vanity irems" away. Not sure how they sold, but I would NEVER have spent even a Cent on such.

 

1 minute ago, blackram said:

I just hope this time they will include teh most produced variant of DVII (regular) engine - Overcompressed DIIIau engine. In old ROF we have DVII with less produced DIIIa engine. And a DVIIF with BMW variant.

We're lucky if we get just *exactly* what we had in RoF. But we get it. If we keep on buying their offerings, there should be no reson however to not include other engine variants, especially if some FM would be reworked.

[SeaW0lf]

7 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

This would mean things like "pay for your skins" etc. You know how well that would go for them. Especially since you give the 10% onliners (and potential notorious forists) that much weight.

 

Skins? What are you talking about? I would pay triple the price or more for a Jacobs Fokker Dr.1 with a Clerget 130HP engine. And I'm sure other people would also buy a McCudden SE5e with a supercharged engine. They would not have much trouble with the FM changes having the standard plane to start.

 

Perhaps people just want cheap stuff (I'm not surprised), but perhaps it could work. Don't people spend a lot of money giving away planes at ROF? I recall people buying batches of planes to give away back then. Don't you think that the WWII crowd has much more people willing to do that?

[sevenless]

Just develop a 1 to 1 replication of the original "Red Baron" PC game which came out 1990 by Dynamix. That excellent gameplay combined with the current BOX engine and you surely will get my money.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Baron_(1990_video_game)

 

I loved the campaign and the occasional meeting of "aces" over the frontlines and the ability to individually paint your plane. Oh the memories...

[J2_Trupobaw]

1 hour ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

 

According to whom? Tripehound inferior in speed and climb to the D3? Camel climbing like a D2? Fokker Dr.1 turned into a Pup with two guns? You need to read some books and do some reasearch.

 

Like someone once said, France now has a ground level at 7.000 feet in ROF. Superman stuff.

 

I was responding to months old post describing woes of the old Pfalzcopter. D.IIIa as we have it now performs pretty much as historically expected. 

The message you misquote was cleared and reported once I saw I 'm not replying to a fresh post, and refered to one specific plane. 

[ZachariasX]

7 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

I would pay triple the price or more for a Jacobs Fokker Dr.1 with a Clerget 130HP engine.

I don't think charging in accordance to the planes power is a good business idea either.

 

So far the devs pretty much set their price range for a plane, and whatever they do, the plane has to be financially viable with the target price in mind. Bu of course, I'd be most happy if more (engine) variants could be included. It would be up to servers ensuring not to have 40 Clerget Dr.I fighting 40 supercharged SE5. Offline, do what you want.

[SeaW0lf]

7 hours ago, LsV_Trupobaw said:

I was responding to months old post describing woes of the old Pfalzcopter. D.IIIa as we have it now performs pretty much as historically expected. 

The message you misquote was cleared and reported once I saw I 'm not replying to a fresh post, and refered to one specific plane. 

 

I can't find your original post (someone deleted) to see the original context so I cannot comment on that. To me it looked like you weresaying in general, but I might be wrong, If so my apologies.

 

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

I don't think charging in accordance to the planes power is a good business idea either.

 

So far the devs pretty much set their price range for a plane, and whatever they do, the plane has to be financially viable with the target price in mind. Bu of course, I'd be most happy if more (engine) variants could be included. It would be up to servers ensuring not to have 40 Clerget Dr.I fighting 40 supercharged SE5. Offline, do what you want.

 

I said "I imagine SP modules only" in my original post that you first replied. But yeah, I see that people would complain about prices.

[LukeFF]

12 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

Perhaps you are stuck in the 90s.

 

No, but it's fairly obvious you don't understand or know what has driven ROF's sales numbers. I'll trust 1CGS on that sort of matter versus some guy on a message board, any day and every day.

[TP_Sparky]

On the original topic, it seems the most common suggestion was a single substitution to the current a/c list, including the Breguet 14 instead of the Sopwith Dolphin.  The logic was allowing observation, photo recon and bombing missions and adds a second French/US /Belgian a/c to the SPAD XIII which was also flown by the Italians.

 

Does someone know how to set up a simple poll to say which a/c to include in Flying Circus originally with two poll choices, Breguet XIV or Sopwith Dolphin?  It seems the majority agrees on the other choices although I know some wish it started in 1916 or 17.  If we gave more than two choices we'd get suggestions from Eindekkers to Corsairs.

I Prefer the Breguet as their are sufficient Brit fighters and the Dolphin only fully equipped four squadrons with a few more in other squadrons.  Three quarters of all Dolphins produced where never used because the engines weren't available and in the 572 or so that received engines the powerplant was unreliable and failure prone.  

 

The French Air Force was of comparable size to the RAF and equipped the US squadrons and should be represented by a fighter and the Breguet for other missions, in my opinion.  

 

Other than that I'd leave the listed a/c as is.  Other periods to follow.  I cannot wait for Flying Circuis and Great War in VR!

[Royal_Flight]

On 16/03/2018 at 8:39 AM, Sambot88 said:

...

Wouldn't it be interesting to know why exactly the focus is on MP, despite the fact that MP players are a minority?

 

My working theory is this: Lots of people buy the game, only play SP a little bit, then never touch it again. A few more do the same but maybe dabble in MP. Some will keep playing for longer and buy the DLC but only play single-player. Others will play until the MP scene is dead, buy every DLC produced, and maybe play SP sometimes depending on who they are.

 

I'd say your working theory is probably accurate. Also MP generates a lot of the forum chat, and a lot of the videos and other content produced by the community seem to be about MP (sorties), or relate to MP (tips, techniques etc). 

So in that way MP is like the public face of BoX, in a sense, so even if it only represents 10% of the users they're amongst the most visible. 

 

Case in point - the rubbish old MMO-lite unlock system caused a lot of upset amongst all players, but when the online crowd found out that they had to do the same amount of grinding to unlock loadouts for MP, that was when it came to a head and ultimately forced a change. 

 

Different people enjoy things in different ways - I prefer flying with a mate online but now the career is out I might try that.

 

I would hope that the DServer issues get sorted out next though.

 

On 12/03/2018 at 12:20 AM, xvii-Dietrich said:

 

- SPAD 13 C.1 --> SPAD 7.C

- Sopwith Dolphin --> Sopwith Pup

- Sopwith Camel

- RAF S.E.5a --> Sopwith 1½ Strutter

- Bristol Fighter --> Breguet 14.B2

- Albatros D.Va --> Albatros D.III

- Fokker Dr.1

- Fokker DVII --> Halberstadt  D.II

- Pfalz D.IIIa

- Halberstadt CL.II

 

...

 

Of course, I realise the above plane set suggestion is "somewhat radical" (I wonder if I should dare post my "totally radical" set?)... it is just a different perspective on how to maximise longevity of FC to ensure the series is a success and we are happily arguing over the content of FCv15 in a decades time.

 

I like the 'somewhat radical' list much more already. All your reasons make a lot of sense.

Go on, post your 'totally radical' set... keen to see what's in it.

(hint - if the FE.2b and the DH.2 are in it's a day-one preorder from me)

[BMA_Hellbender]

On 16/03/2018 at 9:53 AM, SeaW0lf said:

Like someone once said, France now has a ground level at 7.000 feet in ROF. Superman stuff.

 

That someone would be me.

 

While I still stand by the fact that the Sopwith machines and the Fokker Dr.I now behave as if ground level in Northern France and Belgium is at around 1500m, it does need some additional explanation. I will leave the Pup and Triplane out of this discussion as they are not scheduled to join the ranks of IL-2 anytime soon. First of all, I reached the 1500m figure through the official records of the Belgian Military Aviation which pins the top speed of the Camel as 172km/h at 1000m ASL, and by extrapolation some 180km/h at 0m ASL (estimation on my part, not an official figure). In RoF, its current top speed is 167km/h at 0m ASL -- coming from the old figure of 190km/h at 0m ASL, which it could use to effectively run down everything on the German side, up to and including the Fokker D.VIIF. The Fokker Dr.I had a similar change, from 185km/h to 165km/h, while its historical figure lies somewhere in between at 175km/h at 0m ASL. While both lost speed in relative terms to bring them more in line with pilot reports, In relative terms, the Dr.I actually gained speed on the Camel -- and on top of that the Camel also lost its ludicrous rate of climb.

 

And there's the problem.

 

With the old FM, as silly as it was against all other German scouts, the Camel could dogfight the Dr.I effectively with its slightly better rate of climb, and the match was pretty much even. I say even, not historical. Historically the Dr.I would have both outclimbed and outturned the Camel. In fact, all that Camel pilots could do was either outnumber the Dr.Is, or speed away from them. I'll get back to the outnumbering part in a second.

 

While the Camel nowadays behaves much closer to how it should against every other German scout out there (Albatros, Pfalz, Fokker D.VII), it can't effectively outrun the Dr.I (seeing how it's only 2km/h faster), and hence it's usually dead when faced with them 1 on 1, at least if both pilots are of equal skill level. And just like that, one of the most numerous planes on the Western front (5000+ built) is out of the game due to one of the least numerous, the Fokker Dr.I (300+ built). Now numbers isn't really the main problem. Dr.Is were deployed in large numbers, only very sparsely. If we want total historical realism, over 90% of all French and British sorties should be met with no resistance whatsoever and total aerial supremacy, and close to 100% of all German sorties should be flown exclusively as aerial defense over home territory. That doesn't make for a good game, and you can't expect this kind of total imbalance in multiplayer either.

 

So what needs to happen?

 

3km/h

 

I realise that in a game where we will soon have planes that are close to breaking the sound barrier, asking for a 3km/h change seems ludicrous, but it's exactly what the Camel needs to outrun the Dr.I, while remaining slow enough for the Albatros, Pfalz and Fokker D.VII to disengage safely. If that doesn't happen, it would be a shame and a pity for everyone involved, especially for those flying German. It would mean that mission builders need to always greatly limit Fokker Dr.I availability, and somehow incentivize people to pick the Camel over the SE5a, SPAD or the lovingly but appropriately named Death Platform of Absolute Death; a.k.a. Death Blossom; a.k.a. "That's No Moon!"; a.k.a. the Death Star itself -- the Bristol F.2B Fighter.

 

I'm not holding my breath (and I can't say I mind it all that much ), but it would certainly be a welcome change to see the Camel restored somewhat to its former glory.

 

[BMA_Hellbender]

Representing the numbers accurately is indeed impossible.

 

You could enforce a 2:1 (if not 3:1) player number disparity in favour of the British/French. But that's not really correct, because when there were actual encounters, usually the Germans would outnumber the British/French using their Jagdgeschwader/Flying Circus strategy.

 

You could limit the numbers of Dr.Is available to 3 per server vs. unlimited Camels. But that's not really correct either, because Dr.I were deployed in large numbers when they were deployed, and if at all possible, any British/French pilot who knows what the hell he's doing would pick an SE5a, SPAD or Bristol over a Camel, if faced with the possibility of fighting Dr.Is. Forcing people to fly this or that plane against their will is never a good idea.

 

You could simply have no Dr.Is available at all in some of the missions. Historically accurate, but again stupid from a gameplay perspective. It will just get people to either change servers or just give up entirely if they're not allowed to fly their favourite plane.

 

 

The only solution is to make the Camel vs. Dr.I match possible again (through giving the Camel a little extra speed), all the while not entirely upsetting the new balance which was reached with the last FM update.

[US103_Baer]

I actually think we will see the Entente sides in Flying Circus 1 dominate and outnumber Central. Because speed. 

 

Mentioned it before, but look at the planesets. Except for the Camel, Entente dominates with speed, and for Central only the D7f can cope.

 

Yeah, it's the pilot, not the plane and the Central types are iconic and have sexy paint schemes - just feeling that FC1 (with the proposed planesets) will see plenty of Entente support and BoX pilots could initially feel a lot more at home in a Spad or Se5a than an Albatros.

[SeaW0lf]

8 hours ago, Hellbender said:

The Fokker Dr.I had a similar change, from 185km/h to 165km/h, while its historical figure lies somewhere in between at 175km/h at 0m ASL. (...) and on top of that the Camel also lost its ludicrous rate of climb.

 

But both statements are not true. 

 

The Fokker Dr.1 had a max speed of 179km/h (Chill's TAS formula). Now it has a max speed of 165km/h, which puts her in the bracket of 80hp powered planes - while the D8, same 110hp engine, still has a max speed of 183km/h, below the Hanriot, with a 130hp engine at 188km/h. Clearly something is off.

 

And if we take into account that the store numbers are not much off from the actual climb rate that I collected in general, the Camel climbed 15% less than the Hanriot (same engine as the Camel) and the D8 to 3K. Therefore we can conclude that it did not have ludicrous rate of climb, not in the least. And if the Camel already climbed less than the aforementioned planes, nowadays it lost additional 43% in climb to 3K. Even the Halb D2 and the Albie D2 reach 2k / 3K faster than the Camel. In a way the Camel now has a 'ludicrous' climb rate. The store numbers could be too high, but I have checked several rotary planes that weren't nerfed, D7 and such, and the numbers don't vary that much for 2K. Just the Hanriot climb data is 8% higher than what I got in-game. And you have to remember that those rotary engined planes climbed like monkeys.

 

And we don't have to mention the Tripe, which was a joy of a flight model and was truly trashed. But you are right though about the Bristol 

 

The biggest mistake they did was to not create a relative chart for everything - speed, climb, bullet dispersion, acceleration, turn rate and so on so forth. Perhaps they made the FMs as they went and filled the gaps with 'aeronautical math' and the result was some really odd abnormalities, like the swapped performance in between the E3 and the Airco, the old Albies and the wrong altitude performance of the Dr.1 - which nowadays I fear to mention it, because it might happen that they will 'fix' the altitude performance of the Dr.1 on top of the actual nerfed speed, so it would probably never be able to climb above 9.000 feet 

 

And there is the dreaded 'multiplayer data' of people using the aircraft characteristics wrong and then coming to the forum to ask to nerf other planes. What I really pity is the fact that if they had toned down the Camel speed, fixed the Dr.1 altitude performance and did a good job on the Albies (the DVa was faster, while after the fix they have the same speed and climb), and the rest of the fixes were OK to me if I'm not forgetting anything, they would get much closer to a historic balance. Regarding planes catching others, this is so relative in flight and is also related to the bullet dispersion. IIRC, Udet could not get rid of a Camel once at low altitude and he was in a D7. These planes were fast down low too. Werner Voss started to tango alone in his Dr.1 with 56 squadron because he left his squadron behind flying Pfalzes D3, which if I recall correctly they could not even ascertain that it was Voss they saw engaging first the 60 squadron because he was at the horizon. I'm not saying people have to take it as Gospel, but altitude performance can be very tricky.

 

If they do a relative performance chart taking into account some undisputable data, such as MvR saying that the Tripehound was better than the D3 in speed, climb and turn, and he performed mock fights with a captured Tripehound, even showcasing it to Anthony Fokker (which led to the production of the Dr.1), we could start to come out of the woods. 

Edited March 17, 2018 by SeaW0lf

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Theory crafting for its own sake, take with a grain of salt.

 

Singleplayers at 90%, Multiplayers at 10%.  We'll assume all the single players buy one module only (the minimum), and that all the multiplayers buy everything (the maximum).  Best case scenario for the multis, worst for the singles.

 

For every 100 players;

 

90 copies of BoS (basic) are sold to the single players for a total of; $4499.10

 

10 copies of everything (premium) are sold to the multiplayers for a total of; $4249.00

 

Now I would be curious to see how far off this is from the real numbers.  Because this is the extreme; but even if you level those numbers a little bit, there is no denying that multiplayers would account for a very important chunk of your business.

 

I'm also curious to see if that percentage breakdown changes with the introduction of the career mode; because let's face it, single player before Kuban (aside from the scripted campaigns) felt like a complete afterthought.

Edited March 18, 2018 by hrafnkolbrandr

[BMA_Hellbender]

For me the line between single player and multiplayer is blurred. You can go online and have a perfectly fine single player experience alone or with friends, flying around, doing ground attack/recon missions, or even fighting AI planes. The moment you encounter an enemy plane flown by another human being, is when the experience turns multiplayer. It's at that moment that all planes involved should behave exactly as they should relative to each other, and not somehow be limited or improved through AI.

 

In many ways, actual multiplayer is only a small part of flying online -- and flying online is only a small part of what most people do in this sim -- but it is the keystone to the entire experience.

[Vig]

There are factors involved in marketing that apply without regard to singleplayer v. multiplayer.  I am a  collector.  I love to collect things and I have done plenty of it.  But eventually you run out of room for action figures and diecast models and books and firearms and antique cars.  Not so with collections that exist solely as data, like the collector planes.  At this quality level, I do and will buy everything that is offered whether I want to fly it or not, simply for the pleasure of interacting with the 3d model in the various ways provided by the game.  I can't be the only one so afflicted.  I think that the developers know exactly what they are doing in offering "collector's" planes.   

 

 

Edited March 18, 2018 by Vig

[Vig]

I don't understand your comment, Sambot.

[Vig]

Such subtlety.  To my mind, some "multiplayer" afficianados are far more susceptible to exploitation, both from the standpoint of pay-to-win schemes, subscription fees, and expensive in-game cosmetics.  I imagine that the desire of on-line gamers to impress one another with the latest Pink Unicorn, and the amount they will pay to do so, is probably the subject of marketing seminars in the online game biz.  I think that's fascinating, too, but I'm all for it, if it makes the kids happy.  As long as they're not using Mom's credit card without permission. 

[Vig]

Thanks.  You know, the history makes me want to see something tangible so I can visualize what things were like in the past.  I would have been a museum curator if I could have swung it.

[KG_S_Kalle_Kalutz82]

I am not sure whats this multiplayer vs singleplayer over the last 3 pages.

 

I am a man of a squadron, a ground-attack one.

Ground attacking is complete differently than the lone wolfing in some fighter - even 3 fighters would be lone wolfing imo.

Flying the Ju87 or Ju88's out takes some kind of organisation, joint-venture with eskorts and so on.

 

Now, get a squadron of a variety of interesting charakters, from students to lawers, from 20 to 55 and manage them to get as many during the same time

into the air, as possible. Around the flight itself, there will be some other kind of organisation outside of the game, be sure about that.

SAID THAT:

Multiplayer is an excellent experience, its not better, just different as singleplayer. In singleplayer tho, I can fly spontaneous when I want and what I want. Thats also very nice and fun.

 

 

Back on topic:

[Edited] awesome ! I will go full price for Flying Circus.

 

I can remember when I played the first time some flight simulation, called Red Baron on Amiga 500 in the very early of '90s.....10 FPS included.

As I got my own first Komputer in 1997, the year RedBaron3D came out, it did not took long to became a feared pilot over the muddy frontline of France.

That was one of the best time in gaming for me, one of the best experiences. RB3D was for its time with some very nice features pretty much the best out there.

Atmosphere was perfect, the feeling of freedom in the air, can not describe it well enough!

 

I hope Flying Circus will be bringing most of the old feeling and memories back, and off course with new features of our time.

It will be so beautiful guys, lets sacrifice somebody to the gods that it will be for sure

As mentioned before, they should start with 1916 mostly, followed up by '17 and '18 or the other variant with 1916-17 and later on '18.

Flight simulations are a niche, WW1 is a niche topic, so they shall make it clever.

And yes, a career modus please as well.

 

Edited March 21, 2018 by Bearcat

[TP_Sparky]

Seems to me that players who prefer flying as Germans prefer 1916 or 1917.  Well, they have a clear advantage then.  I prefer the current 1918 set where both sides have excellent planes, not Bloody April. 

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

34 minutes ago, slparker17 said:

Seems to me that players who prefer flying as Germans prefer 1916 or 1917.  Well, they have a clear advantage then.  I prefer the current 1918 set where both sides have excellent planes, not Bloody April. 

 

I prefer to fly German, but what I really like is to have a selection of planes that all have clear-cut advantages over each other that they can exploit.  I enjoy the 1918 set, because there are a few aircraft on both sides that have a clear advantage that they can leverage against the other side, with a couple jackofalltrades planes in the set as well.

[TP_Sparky]

13 minutes ago, hrafnkolbrandr said:

 

...I really like is to have a selection of planes that all have clear-cut advantages over each other....  I enjoy the 1918 set, because there are a few aircraft on both sides that have a clear advantage that they can leverage against the other side, with a couple jackofalltrades planes in the set as well.

 

Great point.  I like that as well, like having an energy fighter vs. a turning fighter, Bf-109E v. Spitfire Mk.IIa is a classic match.  The SPAD XIII is a zoom and boom while the Camel is a dogfighter and the DVII is good at pretty much anything and very stable.  The asymmetry makes for fun and challenge.

[Quax]

The RoF2 announcement was the best news ever. What I would like to know (I don´t care too much about the initial plane set) is, will the rudder/roll fix,

that BoX got, be implemented as well ? Although I am pretty sure, this will be done, I would be happy to read a confirmation somewhere before preorder time.

[Blooddawn1942]

I do hope we get a career system right from the start. As a SP guy I see no point in dogfight / furball online gameplay. 

I consider a career as a must for a success of FC. 

I really can't wait to here some news and having a pre-sale! 

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

20 minutes ago, Blooddawn1942 said:

I do hope we get a career system right from the start. As a SP guy I see no point in dogfight / furball online gameplay. 

I consider a career as a must for a success of FC. 

I really can't wait to here some news and having a pre-sale! 

 

I agree that if it has it from the start, it will be a big boost for sales when FC is released.

Edited March 21, 2018 by hrafnkolbrandr

[Sotka94]

From what I've read, the career will sadly not be coming with the first volume, though I hope an enthusiastic response to our new career will help show how much a career mode is appreciated.

 

It brakes my heart that Cliffs of Dover has such an anemic single player -- a RoF/BoX style of career with a named pilot and squadronmates, set in the Battle of Britain would be great, but will likely remain a dream for a long, long time. 

 

But at least a few other dreams of mine -late war western front and more WW1- didn't turn out to be so hopeless after all 

Edited March 22, 2018 by Habsburger

[gavagai]

I wonder how the airspeeds are going to compare to the different iterations of Rise of Flight...

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

6 hours ago, gavagai said:

I wonder how the airspeeds are going to compare to the different iterations of Rise of Flight...

 

People will bitch no matter what; but if they have similar *relative* performance to one another, each aircraft should be quite competitive in its element.  Despite the cries of the naysayers.

 

It is hard enough to get reliable performance numbers for some WW2 aircraft, and even harder with the WW1 birds.  Somebody will always be able to point to something that they believe makes their case, and someone else will always have another piece of evidence which contradicts it.

Edited March 31, 2018 by hrafnkolbrandr

[BraveSirRobin]

44 minutes ago, hrafnkolbrandr said:

 

People will bitch no matter what; but if they have similar *relative* performance to one another, each aircraft should be quite competitive in its element.  Despite the cries of the naysayers.

 

It is hard enough to get reliable performance numbers for some WW2 aircraft, and even harder with the WW1 birds.  Somebody will always be able to point to something that they believe makes their case, and someone else will always have another piece of evidence which contradicts it.

 

And there is a very good chance that gavagai will be both of those guys.

[gavagai]

Relative performance is important, yes, and relative performance was significantly off for the first 5 years of Rise of Flight.  The duration of time it took to change things was not because of conflicting evidence one way or another.  It was more tied to development constraints, so far as I can tell.

 

Anyway, the question is what was learned from the Rise of Flight project, and how it is going to make Flying Circus a better product on the first release.