Big list of fixes and upgrades (desired based on RoF)

[Avimimus]

First, some things to acknowledge: 

 

- Flying Circus is going to have a long development (hopefully) and improvements will take time. We should be really happy that there is a WWI sim in development and that Rise of Flight content is being brought forward. I don't want to detract from that with this list.

 

- I am assuming that the damage model will be slightly revised (e.g. fabric won't protect pilots from getting hit) and that eventually the flight model engine will receive some tweaks (e.g. hopefully the code modelling the airflow over the fuselage from Il-2 will be integrated into the WWI flight model at some point and make the aircraft a little less twitchy).

 

Now, here are some old Rise of Flight issues which I think could be fixed over the next couple of years in the new engine.

 

1) Gunner Ring controls:

 

Problem: Many gunner rings have an adjustable bar (like the one on the Ju-52). Currently, if you aim downward this lowers that bar bringing the gun closer to the fuselage with the result that the field of fire downward is unrealistically restricted.

 

Two possible solutions:

 

- Add a separate (e.g. keyboard) control for the height of the bar, allowing the player to manually set its height.

Or

- Make it so that aiming downward causes the bar to go up instead of down (i.e. reverse the animations).

In the longer term I would suggest eventually separating fine aiming of the gun (e.g. on the pintel) from turning the gun-ring. This could be done with separate controls to allow locking/unlocking the Scarff ring or simply with animations/delays in order to increase realism. You can read more here: https://riseofflight.com/forum/topic/33486-how-ww1-turrets-really-worked/

 

Adding gee force effects on the standing player and/or inertia effects on the gun would also enhance realism.

 

 

2) AAA (and enemy gunners)

 

Problem: WWI aircraft are slow and thus very vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire. In Rise of Flight (and possibly Il-2 BoX) gunner inaccuracy was largely modelled as a cone of dispersion which would periodically offset the aim. However, the effects of this simple cone decrease at close range, meaning that heavy AA (e.g. 77mm) could reliably take out fighters flying at low altitude.

 

Real life aiming is more complicated:

 

- Large guns turn slowly and generally have gross controls for large rotations, and fine controls for smaller adjustments. These can take the form of different wheel mechanisms or of actually pushing the gun around manually in some cases. As a result, making big adjustments in aim leads to greater inaccuracy, and there is a delay to make fine adjustments in aim after turning the gun. This would solve the low altitude problem.

 

- Judging range is difficult: This lowers accuracy initially, forcing the gunner to gradually improve their aim over time. In addition, there should be some inaccuracy in the setting of fuses (for the larger guns with time delay detonating guns).

 

Note: Some of these features (e.g. unlocking scarff rings in order to rotate them or requiring multiple bursts to get the range right also apply to light anti-aircraft guns and aircraft mounted turrets) So any AI improvements could be applied to both!

 

 

3) Engine variants

 

The new engine supports users selecting different engine variants.

 

This could have a number of benefits:

 

- It would help improve game balance in some cases (e.g. One of the common but less powerful engine variant of the S.E.5 would be a good opponent for some German aircraft which are totally outmatched by the S.E.5a).

 

- It would allow German fighters to catch Allied two-seaters which are currently modified in their fastest engined forms. Noteable the Br.14, Bristol Fighter, DH.4 and Sopwith Strutter all had slower variants when they first appeared!

 

- It would allow modelling slight variations of aircraft from other months of the war (or parts of the front). Thus increasing realism.

 

Note: In many cases the same engines are appearing in multiple aircraft - so the work researching and modelling the engine could be reused for several of the aircraft on the list!

 

A particular priority would seem to be the two-seaters since many of them can't be intercepted currently (it is more fun if you can get intercepted!). For the fighters the Pfalz D.XII, the S.E.5, and perhaps the Sopwith Camel,. Triplane and Nieuport 17 (late) would seem to be good picks (although that is only my opinion)!

 

 

Early / down-engined:
- D.H.2 (100 hp, also with a smaller fuel tank)?
- Sopwith Triplane (110 hp Clerget 9Z)
- Sopwith Camel (110 hp - actually up to 137 hp - Le Rhone)
- S.E.5 (150 hp Hispano-Suiza 8a)
- Albatros D.III (170 hp Mercedes D.III, different tail)

Later / up-engined:
- Nieuport 17 (130 hp Clerget 9b)
- Sopwith Camel (140 hp Clerget 9bf)
- Sopwith Camel (150 hp Bentley)
- Albatros D.Va (200 hp Mercedes D.IIIaü)??
- SPAD X.III (220-300 hp Hispano-Suiza 8e-Hispano-Suiza 8F)


More common engines:
- S.E.5a (200 hp Hispano Suiza - same rating, different engine)
- Pfalz D.XII (180 hp Mercedes D.IIIaü)


Two-Seaters (down engined):
- Br. 14 (250 hp Liberty)
- Bristol Fighter (190 hp Falcon I)
- D.H.4 (250 hp Eagle III) 
- Sopwith Strutter (110 hp Clerget 9Z)
- Sopwith Strutter (110 hp Le Rhone 9J - French version)
- F.E.2b early (120hp Beardmore - Note: The wing had a different incidence)

Two-Seaters (up engined):
- Sopwith Strutter French version (135 hp Clerget 9Ba/9Bb, 145 hp Clerget 9Bc; 135hp Le Rhone 9Jby)
- F.E.2d (250hp Rolls-Royce Eagle)

Related aircraft:
- Nieuport 16 (N.11 with 110 hp Le Rhône 9J and new wings)
- Oeffag Albatros D.III (200-225 hp)
- American D.H.4 (400 hp Liberty L-12)



Trainers:
- Sopwith Strutter FR (80 hp Le Rhone 9c - Note: Non-combat/Trainer)
- DFW C.V (150 hp C.III N.A.G. - Note: Non-combat/Trainer)

Notes: Our DFW C.V currently has a 200 hp engine and our Br.14 has 310 hp engine, our Bristol has 255-285hp). Note that the 250 hp D.H.4 and the 190 hp Bristol Fighter were fairly rare combinations (~50 aircraft). The 400 hp Liberty powered D.H.4 was actually slower as a result of the heavier engine (and differed in other ways - moved to other aircraft below)!

 

 

 

 

4) AI improvements (when losing energy)?

 

A major issue in Rise of Flight was that sometimes AI would run out of energy and would get stuck in a flat turn. A patient pilot would thus be able to shoot the target down with ease. This also appears to sometimes be a problem in BoX.

 

The AI could be improved so that aircraft don't get stuck in a low energy turn, but change direction or fly straight for a short period of time until they have enough speed to start dogfighting again.

 

 

5) Hand dropped bombs and hand fired weapons.

 

This is less of an issue for the first release of Flying Circus (1918)... but hand dropped bombs were very important early in the war (and also used by the Po-2/U-2 in WWII!)

 

It might make sense to build in support for this while animating the new pilot models!

 

That is about it - anything I'm missing?

 

 

P.S.

Let me know if anything is unclear. I made mods for the gunner and flak systems in Rise of Flight and I can dig out my notes if you want more info on how they were done (and what the problems are).

Edited July 8, 2018 by Avimimus

[Dutch2]

AI, think besides the FM the highest complane rate, but also the engine variants would be a cheap and most fast way to expant the amount of planes. 

Now lets hope every Rof plane will be used for FC, if not as flyable then as an AIplane. 

 

I would also like to see the damage impact on planes. As reducing plane performance, and flying straight to the friendly lines.  

 

 

 

Edited July 8, 2018 by Dutch2

[Garven]

I'm pretty certain the 8F engine was only used in the SPAD XVII and that plane's performance If I recall correctly was only slightly better than the 8Be high compression 220hp SPAD XIII.  The engine variants that could be used for the SPAD XIII would be: early 200hp 8Ba along with rounded wing tips for late 1917,  current 220hp 8Ba for early 1918, and then the 8Be high compression 220hp for the rest of 1918.

 

Some possible SPAD VII mods that I can think of could be: radiator shutters, 150hp AB engine, 180hp AB engine, rockets, unboosted vickers with 500rd cloth belt fed by spool (low rate of fire),  Boosted vickers with metallic 350rd belt and ammo box (high rate of fire), bomb racks, and wind screen options.  The over wing lewis shouldn't be a mod if FC stays focused on western front.

Edited July 8, 2018 by US103_Furlow

[J2_Oelmann]

I would love to see the AI trying to escape if overhelmed or damaged or try to stay out fhe fight at all. Maybe propper boom & zoom tactics employed. A Spad that is trying to outturn me is not that hard to shoot down.

The more engine variants and options the better. WOFF had a nice feature of  a certain chance of engine failure dependant on the engine. This doesn't fit for the WW2 engines, but the WW1 engines were much more crude and probably more prone to failures. 

 

So basically, just merge the best of ROF and WOFF while leaving the bad bits from both games ?

[Avimimus]

6 hours ago, US103_Furlow said:

I'm pretty certain the 8F engine was only used in the SPAD XVII and that plane's performance If I recall correctly was only slightly better than the 8Be high compression 220hp SPAD XIII.  The engine variants that could be used for the SPAD XIII would be: early 200hp 8Ba along with rounded wing tips for late 1917,  current 220hp 8Ba for early 1918, and then the 8Be high compression 220hp for the rest of 1918.

 

Some possible SPAD VII mods that I can think of could be: radiator shutters, 150hp AB engine, 180hp AB engine, rockets, unboosted vickers with 500rd cloth belt fed by spool (low rate of fire),  Boosted vickers with metallic 350rd belt and ammo box (high rate of fire), bomb racks, and wind screen options.  The over wing lewis shouldn't be a mod if FC stays focused on western front.

 

The engine variants came from this old thread: https://riseofflight.com/forum/topic/32263-comprehensive-list-engine-variants-existing-aircraft/

 

So if you have any updates or suggestions it is neat to hear them. I like the Vickers variations, bomb rack and wind screen variants. As I understand it engines in those power ranges and rockets should be included (as they were in RoF).

 

 

6 hours ago, Oelmann said:

I would love to see the AI trying to escape if overhelmed or damaged or try to stay out fhe fight at all. Maybe propper boom & zoom tactics employed. A Spad that is trying to outturn me is not that hard to shoot down.

 

This is a major issue with a lot of flight sims - there should be an option that makes AI have a certain random chance of RTBing after each attack or after getting separated from allies or after being damaged.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Avimimus

[Garven]

The SPAD XVII did look a lot like the SPAD XIII (which could have caused confusion) because the only things that were changed was added wire bracing and engine cowling changes.  Only about 20 entered service mostly with GC12 (SPA3, SPA103, SPA26, SPA73).

[J2_Oelmann]

4 hours ago, Avimimus said:

(...)

 

 

This is a major issue with a lot of flight sims - there should be an option that makes AI have a certain random chance of RTBing after each attack or after getting separated from allies or after being damaged.

I think WOFF had this Kind of Feature. Long time since I played that, but if I remember correct according to the individual AI Pilot, the plane Status and amount of enemy planes it could decide to run home. Usually with a dive that you couldnt follow because the AI could somehow "cheat" the structual integrety of their planes.... But it was Stil nice to see it working.

[BMA_West]

The over the top wing shedding from ROF’s last FM/DM/performance update was the last drop for a lot of people still lingering.

It sure deserves addressing or reversing.

Edited July 9, 2018 by West

[J2_Trupobaw]

Overall: AI improvements and AAA behaviour should come with BoX. Engine veriants will be more welcome.

Gunners - Gee forces possibly, but I have on problem with gunners.

Engine variants:
-Merceded D.IIIau should be an option for all German inlines that fought in summer 1918 - it was standard issue for months by then. Current D.Va is fine as it is, though - I would love to see this engine fitted in Fokker D.VII and Pfalz D.IIIa (and Albatros D.III and Pfalz D.XII once we have them) before D.Va.

-Likewise, I'd like 1918 variants of Entente scouts - Spad 13 220hp, Camel 150hp (just use pre-fix Camel for that). 

[MarcoRossolini]

Moving Frontline...? (runs for cover)

[Zooropa_Fly]

The 'cover' has been moved !

[Sgt_Joch]

1 hour ago, LsV_Trupobaw said:

Engine variants:
-Merceded D.IIIau should be an option for all German inlines that fought in summer 1918 - it was standard issue for months by then. Current D.Va is fine as it is, though - I would love to see this engine fitted in Fokker D.VII and Pfalz D.IIIa (and Albatros D.III and Pfalz D.XII once we have them) before D.Va.

 

 

That is more of a what if. There is no hard evidence the D.III au was ever "standard issue". We have a pretty good idea of how many DIIIau were produced and they would have been pretty much used exclusively in the DVII and a few other specialized types.

 

There is certainly no evidence it was ever used in the production D.Va. Production of the Alb was winding down just as production of the D.IIIau was ramping up and all those were reserved for the D.VII. 

[J2_Trupobaw]

Every D.IIIa unit was upgraded to D.IIIau by replacing the cylinder heads, when sent to plane park for routine overhaul. The practice started in spring (April?) 1918. By summer, D.IIIa unit would have to barely see use (and overhaul) to avoid the upgrade. There surely were Albatrosen that didn't receive engine swap (Home defence squadrons and such), but front line Jastas that flied a lot and wore down their engines were unlikely to keep an unupgraded D.IIIa.

Edited July 9, 2018 by LsV_Trupobaw

[SeaW0lf]

34 minutes ago, Sgt_Joch said:

 

That is more of a what if. There is no hard evidence the D.III au was ever "standard issue". We have a pretty good idea of how many DIIIau were produced and they would have been pretty much used exclusively in the DVII and a few other specialized types.

 

There is certainly no evidence it was ever used in the production D.Va. Production of the Alb was winding down just as production of the D.IIIau was ramping up and all those were reserved for the D.VII. 

 

Check posts 22 and 23 from Dave Watts. He explains a bit (a lot) about the D.III, D.IIIa and D.IIIau and how they were overhauled.

 

 

[Sgt_Joch]

27 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

Check posts 22 and 23 from Dave Watts. He explains a bit (a lot) about the D.III, D.IIIa and D.IIIau and how they were overhauled.

 

 

 

Dave says it may have been possible, not that he has any proof, anything is "possible". There are various threads at the aerodrome and other documents which gives a pretty good idea of the production dates of Alb D.V, D.VII. Mercedes D.IIIa and D.IIIau. When you correlate them all, you see the D.IIIau production was pretty much completely absorbed by the D.VII, leaving few available to retrofit into Albs.

 

Some have argued, D.IIIau may have been retrofitted into existing Albs. Yes, that is certainly "possible", but the entire GAF was transitioning to DVII fighters. It would make more sense to retrofit D.IIIau engines into earlier versions of the D.VII rather than putting them in worn out Albs. Again, it has been a few years since I looked into all of this.

[J2_Trupobaw]

Quote

 

There are various threads at the aerodrome and other documents which gives a pretty good idea of the production dates of Alb D.V, D.VII. Mercedes D.IIIa and D.IIIau. When you correlate them all, you see the D.IIIau production was pretty much completely absorbed by the D.VII, leaving few available to retrofit into Albs.

 

 

 

 

Most D.IIIaus were not produced as new D.IIIaus. Every Mercedes engine had to be removed from airfame every few months of use and sent behind the lines to overhaul. Engines salvaged from crashed planes were overhauled as well. From April 1918, overhaul included cylinder heads replacement which turned D.IIIa into D.IIIau. IIRC there were roughly three engines in existence per airframe, going through constant cycle of usage, overhaul/upgrade and waiting as spares,  ready to replace another worn engine. 

Every time an Albatros logged enough hours on D.IIIa engine, the D.IIIa was pulled out and sent to Flugpark, and an overhauled D.IIIau (which started life as D.IIIa itself, was pulled from another airframe for overhaul and came back as D.IIIau) was installed.  Meanwhile, the D.IIIa sent to Flugpark was upgraded to D.IIIau itself, then sent back to replace another worn D.IIIa unit etc. As the cycle continued, number of D.IIIas that have not been turned into D.IIIaus diminished.

Brand new D.IIIas were likely put into new airframes like you say.  

Edited July 10, 2018 by LsV_Trupobaw

[Cynic_Al]

The voting system is fatally flawed; it should allow negative voting also, without which the results have no meaning.

[Feathered_IV]

Although I do not plan on buying FC as I don’t do multiplayer or own VR, I would definitely go for a new WWI title with better AI than RoF and improved graphics compared to Flanders Fields. 

[Cynic_Al]

Bullet Dispersion

 

Seriously this must be fixed in FC. Technically dispersion should modelled, but currently it is ludicrously overdone and needs to be reduced by an order of magnitude at least. It does nothing for the game's credibility to be hit by a plane that was never anywhere near pointing at you.

Believe it or not, very recently some [edited] in the RoF server was actually suggesting it be increased; it was listening to those types that ruined RoF and it mustn't happen again.

 

[Surely you meant AGNAUGLE]

Edited July 12, 2018 by Cynic_Al
Lenguague

[unreasonable]

Bullet dispersion is fixed by making something like the "Improved gunnery" setting from RoF standard for FC. The grouping with this is very tight.

 

AA - Flaming onions please! Apart from agree 100% with the OP's comments.

 

Jason says he wants to have FC evolve into a full replacement for RoF's SP experience. I hope so, but if SP fliers are going to support the title they need to see some attention to the main weaknesses of RoF SP, in which I would include AA behaviour which should be barrage as well as predicted, bullet proof canvas, AI rear gunner antics and AI will to live.  I am cautiously optimistic, as BoX is already doing some of these things somewhat better than RoF.   

 

 

[US103_Baer]

RoF isn't perfect but it is damn good. Sometimes with a project all you have to do is just not mess up.

 

Shooting aircraft down is pretty straightforward with default dispersion so long as you get close and attack from an angle. I don't buy this 'hit by planes not aiming at you' stuff.

 

In comparison 'Improved Gunnery' feels like super easy, 9yr old mode. 

[unreasonable]

2 hours ago, PaulLMF said:

RoF isn't perfect but it is damn good. Sometimes with a project all you have to do is just not mess up.

 

Shooting aircraft down is pretty straightforward with default dispersion so long as you get close and attack from an angle. I don't buy this 'hit by planes not aiming at you' stuff.

 

In comparison 'Improved Gunnery' feels like super easy, 9yr old mode. 

 

RoF in vanilla is horrible messed up, worse in most game respects to RB3D, while having much better graphics and a nice feel to the FMs. I found it unplayable without Mods.    

 

Improved gunnery is a far more realistic portrayal of ballistics.   If it is super easy nine year old mode for you if you get behind an enemy, it is also super easy nine year old mode for him if he gets behind you.  With realistic ballistics and pilot vulnerability the game becomes much more about achieving a winning initial position and making your initial attack count, while avoiding the contrary: just as the real WW1 aces emphasized. Less of the "duel" nonsense. 

 

 

Edited July 12, 2018 by unreasonable

[Cynic_Al]

12 hours ago, PaulLMF said:

RoF isn't perfect but it is damn good. Sometimes with a project all you have to do is just not mess up.

 

Shooting aircraft down is pretty straightforward with default dispersion so long as you get close and attack from an angle. I don't buy this 'hit by planes not aiming at you' stuff.

 

In comparison 'Improved Gunnery' feels like super easy, 9yr old mode. 

 

The default dispersion is not realistic, and it should not be necessary to get unrealistically close to prevent your shots going abnormally wide.

 

[EDIT] It is a gross insult that 'improved' gunnery should be classified as an aid, preventing the server displaying a x1.5.rating.  Having increased dispersion should  be called 'Corrupted Gunnery'.

 

[edited]

 

You better check your atittude towards other member and the dev team or you wont be posting in this forums.

 

 

Edited July 12, 2018 by SYN_Haashashin

[J2_Trupobaw]

The improved gunnery requires matching revision of damage model to work, flaws of current DM are hidden behind dispersion. Otherwise it becomes absurd wing blowing festival. Possibly with turbulence / FM revision to correct planes reliability as gun platofms. Hopefully the FC will bring just that. But gun dispersion + damage model + plane stability should be treated as one  package.

 

[unreasonable]

I agree in principle - but not sure it is stability so much that makes lining up shots too easy, but excessively responsive ailerons. I cannot help thinking that if planes with poorly designed ailerons (Camel, Albatrosses to name but two) wallowed around as much as they should, then shooting would be quite a bit harder and more people would appreciate why the D.VII was so good.

 

Plus if we had proper irreversible jams - not just easy to clear misfires - people would be less likely to go for the sniping shots.  At least as an option for SP. 

[Cynic_Al]

4 hours ago, unreasonable said:

Plus if we had proper irreversible jams - not just easy to clear misfires - people would be less likely to go

 

- anywhere near the game.

[TG-55Panthercules]

4 hours ago, LsV_Trupobaw said:

The improved gunnery requires matching revision of damage model to work, flaws of current DM are hidden behind dispersion. Otherwise it becomes absurd wing blowing festival. Possibly with turbulence / FM revision to correct planes reliability as gun platofms. Hopefully the FC will bring just that. But gun dispersion + damage model + plane stability should be treated as one  package.

 

 

This.

 

In my testing, I found that the combination of "improved gunnery" with the "Reduce Lethality" mod (by gavagai) yielded much more satisfactory and seemingly realistic results than the stock version with or without "improved gunnery" (but in my view stock without IG was better than stock with IG, since the latter does seem to become the kind of wing-shedding festival Trup mentioned).  Unfortunately,  since most MP servers don't allow/use mods most MP folks don't get the benefit of the combined effects.

[LukeFF]

6 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

I won't ask you what research you've done on the relative dexterity of nine-year-olds.

 

That was uncalled for, and you know it.

[Jason_Williams]

Thread closed. Play nice. And stop with the complaining before we even release anything.

 

Jason