Il 2 flying circus vol. 2

[ZachariasX]

6 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

Since the devs don't have access to it -- to collect data in this way for some key aircraft to make it even and precise --, they should go the relative performance route, not just nerf a couple planes to satisfy the famine crowd and mess up the whole chart.

Having reliable real world input, I think it should be rather straight forward fo the devs to improve what they have so far as FM. At some point even Airbus has to resort to flight testing.

 

If they can get some hard numbers on a couple of these planes, it would make the guesswork mch easier for the remaining planes as well as letting them perform in relative accordance. Thus, there shouldn‘t be a need for a hammer to come down on some planes performances.

[unreasonable]

51 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Having reliable real world input, I think it should be rather straight forward fo the devs to improve what they have so far as FM. At some point even Airbus has to resort to flight testing.

 

If they can get some hard numbers on a couple of these planes, it would make the guesswork mch easier for the remaining planes as well as letting them perform in relative accordance. Thus, there shouldn‘t be a need for a hammer to come down on some planes performances.

 

I agree , but it will not happen like that once the RoF MP crowd get into their spam attack, when they can take a moment out from their usual activity of accusing one another of cheating. For instance, in a typical RoF forum thread you will get the following assertions made as though they are gospel:

 

1) Because we do not know know everything, we know nothing, therefore we can put in whatever values we want, to get a balanced plane set.

 

2) Because a sample of RL data has a high standard deviation  (never mind the standard error of the mean, the more appropriate measure, that apparently these statistical experts have never heard of) we can choose any values we like.

 

3) Because pilots said "Plane A cannot catch Plane B", plane A cannot be faster than Plane B. 

 

4) Plane A must be faster than Plane B because plane A typically performed diving attacks on plane B. 

 

And so on ad nauseam.  

 

The fact is the most vocal RoF MP crowd are simply not interested in history or facts. They just want a balanced game, like chess.

 

 

Edited July 29, 2018 by unreasonable

[ZachariasX]

4 hours ago, unreasonable said:

The fact is the most vocal RoF MP crowd are simply not interested in history or facts. They just want a balanced game, like chess.

It is my impression that you take it a bit far here. What is clear is that MP highlights different features of an aircraft and sometimes very subtle changes can have significant influence.

 

In SP, it really boils down to differences in top speed, as AI is not very ingenious in doing air combat.

 

For instance it is my current *impression* that the current Dr.I got those subtleties mended (what I referred to as feeding kois in a pond during combat). Now it is possible to bleed speed such in tight maneuvering, even such that the Dr.I starts to drop. You need to fly it more like an aircraft now. Also now you require a good speed to take it in the vertical in controllable manner. It is a joy to fly now. Before, it felt to me like a cheat.

 

That you can dive and catch a Ju52 or Henschel in the SPAD shows how quick this aircraft can readily be. Try that in the Dr.I. Even if the Dr.I is given a top airspeed of 175+ km/h, it cannot offset the controllable dive speed of the SPAD.

 

Whatever the cause of this regarding FM, I feel the result is a great improvement, much better than just reducing power and lessening speed and absolute climb (sort of done with „the patch“). I am certain that like that, you can have the Dr.I flying more like stated airspeeds in different sources without making a D.VII pointless next to it.

 

You can place the Dr.I anywhere between 165 km/h (1200 rpm) and 193 km/h (1400 rpm), knowing that near 200 km/h you will have control restrictions due to heavy forward push.

 

The SPAD on the other hand should be able to fly nicely at that speed (same as a D.VII) and even go faster with the 240 hp engine. Previously, SPAD et. al. have IMHO been *slow* planes.

 

With a Hisso 8 engine and 0.75 reduction gear and a prop pitch of 2.15 m you have for 200 hp (2200 rpm) 212 km/h top speed. For the 220 hp engine, this is about 240 km/h, indicating to me that besides being able to torque, the old clown car Dr.I was never really that fast, but the SPAD and SE5a etc. are too slow in RoF.

 

It doesn‘t matter whether you can go 165 km/h or 180 km/h, you aircraft will still be a very bad proposition to intercept for instance a DH4. With that little speed differential, you have few positions for an intercept plus you spend too much time in the gunners arc. If you have a Dr.I that actually can go 180 km/h, you have a great plane for close combat. No wonder some folks who liked that kind of combat loved the plane. Still, it will be up to the competition to decide the terms of the engagement. You have to be a great and fearless pilot to ignore those odds.

 

The problem of good old RoF is that 195 km/h is very fast as topseed. By 1918 standards, fast is >220 km/h. And that is simply out of the question for the Dr.I, whatever you do to it.

 

FC really has the potential to do a lot of things right. But it for sure will need time for that.

 

[BMA_Hellbender]

10 hours ago, I-Fly-Central said:

The Germans have a big speed deficit in terms of what is being offered. That is all I was saying.

 

Again I say; the LFG Roland D.VI would offset some of the deficiencies in speed for the Germans. 

 

I see what you’re getting at now, though I don’t believe the Germans ever did manage to offset that historical speed disadvantage at sea level, certainly not in a production scout. Suppose even if a Roland could reach 205km/h at sea level by late 2018, it wouldn’t have mattered much against the far more powerful Hispano-Suiza (and other similarly powered Entente engines), who were dominant even by late 1917.

 

Speed and horsepower at sea level isn’t the be-all end-all, though. It’s very much like comparing American muscle cars against a German turbocharged Porsche. Performance at altitude drops off steeply for the SPAD, and the D.VIIF and D.XII are still leaders of the pack above 10,000ft — historical altitudes at which they would have operated. If anything, there was an Entente speed deficit at altitude, which I believe not even a SPAD XIII 240hp would have bridged. The Central flyers back then knew this very well. The planeset we have in Volume 1 very much reflects the historical context of Fokkers diving on SPADs, SEs, Dolphins and Bristols crossing over. The Germans would have been untouchable climbing away over their lines, while the French and British could dive away to theirs — reasons enough for the D.VII to be mentioned specifically in Versailles. I maintain that it and the Pfalz are the only scouts which can fight on even footing against a Bristol, provided they have sufficient altitude.

 

As much as we like to pretend it doesn’t, there is also a multiplayer reality to consider. Most fights don’t happen at historically accurate altitudes — and when they do, they are usually over within seconds as one party loses the advantage and disengages. It’s accurate, but that doesn’t make it an experience which draws crowds. I also think it’s wrong to try and encourage fights that obviously didn’t happen. We already have plenty of people using Höhengas at low altitudes to squeeze extra power out of their engine. Instead, it could be worthwhile to cater to the dogfighting spirit by offering planes that can indeed dogfight at lower altitudes (Snipe, D.IV), even if they were deployed only in small number and may never have actually encountered each other. I’ve always refered to this as Rise of Flight 1919, in the spirit of IL-2 Sturmovik 1946.

 

9 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

Since the devs don't have access to it -- to collect data in this way for some key aircraft to make it even and precise --, they should go the relative performance route, not just nerf a couple planes to satisfy the famine crowd and mess up the whole chart.

 

I’m a supporter for the relative performance approach. I understand why the devs didn’t go that route and stuck to their guns with the numbers unless they receive more accurate data, exactly to avoid these kinds of discussions. What we have now is sort of a compromise, which I believe no one is really happy with, but works better than how things were before.

 

It has certainly led to some unfortunate consequences with the Triplane, though I think that has more to do with exposing flaws of the Albatros fighters and their ability to outturn Nieuports and by extension the Triplane.

 

The Halberstadt CL.II was also denied some extra love when the RPM on Mercedes DIIIa engines was increased. An unfortunate oversight.

 

It’s not all bad, though. The Pup with its 80hp Le Rhone now performs closer to an 80hp Le Rhone Nieuport 11, even though all historical sources claim it was much faster.

 

I still suggest we wait and see before passing judgment. It’s the apparent mistreatment of British scouts which led a few of us to specialise in two-seaters, which we found out are in any case far superior fighters, regardless of top speed. But that’s a whole other can of worms.

[unreasonable]

47 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

It is my impression that you take it a bit far here.

 

Perhaps: got out of bed on the wrong side this morning.

 

All I want is for FC to be held to the same standards as BoX. This will be difficult in some cases, we all know that documentation is less available. But where it does exist, it should not be disregarded. This applies to the FM and the DM/ammo load out we have been discussing separately.

 

TBH I was always less concerned by FM issues than by the DM in RoF, as well as the behaviour of the AI gunners and AAA, all of which could be modded to a degree to make SP career more convincing.  While I suspect that the Albatross series was nowhere near as good as some of the Central fliers think, especially those with stereotyped views that there are "turn and burn" planes and "boom and zoom" planes,  the only thing I did get very annoyed with was wrecking the Sopwith Triplane.

 

 If it is clear what engine and prop types are being modeled on any given FC aircraft then you and other engineering types can make fairly good estimates and I will be perfectly happy. I agree with you that the FC Dr.1 (and SPAD for that matter) handle better in FC than RoF already, so that is pleasing. BoX already has more believable AAA and that can and should  be adjusted further to reflect the inaccuracies of the early fuzes. The AI is already heaps better.  I really hope the de-winging issue will be addressed.

 

So we will see.

[SeaW0lf]

Yup guys, let's hope for the best.

[MarcoRossolini]

I'm honestly hoping that we will see some new aircraft rather than bringing in some of the old size. I bought FC because I want to see the return of WW1, but I'm worried that I won't be getting my money's worth. I have a sneaking suspicion mp will never be active in my timezone and that with the old flight models I might as well boot up RoF for the bigger map and more varied enemies. 

 

New aircraft, even in a later edition (that I'll happily pay for) is something that would be appreciated. 

[Trooper117]

1 hour ago, MarcoRossolini said:

with the old flight models I might as well boot up RoF for the bigger map and more varied enemies. 

 

New aircraft, even in a later edition (that I'll happily pay for) is something that would be appreciated. 

 

Yes, I'm constantly going back to the old WWI games for Career and game play...  Hopefully as the game progresses I'll eventually delete RoF completely...

Still, for that to happen, FC needs to be a success... not sure how it is selling at the moment. It would be interesting to find out.

[Enceladus828]

I think FC2 should contain a considerable amount of aircraft that weren't in RoF because there would be more people who would want to buy it.

[B12]

I wonder why Luke FF laughed at him? how rude :(

[ZachariasX]

10 hours ago, B12 said:

I wonder why Luke FF laughed at him? how rude

He wasn‘t that rude. The idea is, as business proposition, simply preposterous. A sim with twice the content is far more than twice as good. Not using the RoF models, where DOCUMENTATION is at hand would be suicide. I hope you are aware how long we can have feuds here about the performance of the best documented aircraft. Think of how that would go with the Siemens-Schuckert. We better have a solid game underneath before venturing toward those discussions.

 

Also, it had been stated officially that FC will first include the RoF planes. Only once they are added, you can think about providing further content. You buying content will make the decision to add more a much easier one.

 

And no, there are not more people willing to buy a Salmson more readily than a HP.

Edited July 1, 2019 by ZachariasX

[SP1969]

On 7/29/2018 at 1:36 PM, J5_Hellbender said:

 

I still suggest we wait and see before passing judgment. It’s the apparent mistreatment of British scouts which led a few of us to specialise in two-seaters, which we found out are in any case far superior fighters, regardless of top speed. But that’s a whole other can of worms.

 

This.

 

The F2B is going to be deadly.

 

Two Brisfits working as a pair will be unassailable in the current low level furballs, which is all we have. 

 

Game over.

 

Again, the map might slightly adjust this.

 

No sane pilot in 1918 would even attempt dogfighting at 500 to 1500 feet over the lines, due to the sheer volume of ground based fire.

 

Mannock, Richthofen, McElroy, Luke, all brought down by ground fire.

 

Read any of the contemporary accounts of the 'trench strafing' duties carried out by Camels in the Hundred Days and it quickly becomes obvious that the missions were highly dangerous, that the pilots hated them, and that the machines were regularly riddled by ground fire.  

 

 

Edited July 1, 2019 by SP1969

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

11 hours ago, Novice-Flyer said:

I think FC2 should contain a considerable amount of aircraft that weren't in RoF because there would be more people who would want to buy it.

 

For sure we all want new aeroplans, some will not buy FC just because they have all them in ROF with all SP and mp stuff. If those new would be only FC then just alone can lead to buy.

[SP1969]

The question of balance over reality is a difficult one, I'd say.

 

The sheer speed of development in aeroplane development over the four years or so of the Great War meant that there was rarely, if ever, a 'balance', except maybe in the very early stages of the war.

 

Eindecker < DH2/ Nieuport Bebe< Halberstadt DII /Albatros DII < Spad VII/ Pup/ N17<Abatross DIII/ Pfalz DIII<Sopwith Triplane / 180HP SVII / SE5a / Camel = DR1, late DIII, DVa < DVII< DVIIF 

 

For six months at a time, each side would have a considerable advantage over the other - some types lingered, some came and went very quickly, or in such tiny numbers as to have had no effect - and the list above isn't by any means comprehensive. This does not make for 'even' game play, with the exception od a brief period in Autumn 1917.

 

What did change was the tactics and the numbers of aircraft in the  sky - which isn't replicated in a furball.

 

By late 1917, the era of the 'lone ace' was over.

 

Too many aeroplanes, too many chances of simply being overwhelmed by encountering an enemy flight or Jasta, or Squadron, or Circus, or at the very end -  Wing - look what happened to Voss, as an example.

 

Most people want to have a quick dogfight and that is it and I'm not knocking that.

 

But it will never hold my interest if there isn't more.

 

 

 

[PatrickAWlson]

Allies are easy:

Sopwith Pup

Sopwith Triplane

SPAD VII (early and late engine options)

RE8

Breguet 14 (or Sopwith Strutter, but I think I prefer the Breguet here)

 

German:

Albatros D.II Late

Albatros D.III

Pfalz D.XII

DFW C.V

LVG C.V or LVG C.VI - new plane but needed as there was never a later war recon plane in RoF.

 

If we had these planes we could push the campaign timeline all the way back to early 1917.

[J2_Trupobaw]

As long as we stick to British campaign :).

[SP1969]

I think it would be fair to say that without Pat's contribution, RoF wouldn't have been nearly as successful as it was.

 

90% of my flying time in that game was spent flying solo careers in various aeroplanes using PWCG.

 

I usually played DID, so the temporal duration of the campaign tended to be.....brief.

 

Lots of groundfire, please, Pat.

Edited July 2, 2019 by SP1969

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

It's customary for serious mission or multiplayer campaign designers to make it a 50/50 (or worse) proposition to fly over the trenches at less than 1500 metres....which I often refer to as "the fence".

 

Jasta 5 campaigns such as Bloody April and Black September as a rule include "the fence".

Edited July 2, 2019 by J5_Baeumer
added multiplayer