Jump to content
Hellbender

Camel 195km/h at sea level + Pfalz slowed down to 171km/h [Done in 3.008]

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, II./JG1_HotleadColdfeet said:

Just a layman’s perspective here, but I also wonder if a lot of the handling differences are the result of porting ROF planes over to the much more sophisticated and advanced Digital Warfare engine. There are more inputs to factor in on this engine than there were on ROF’s old Digital Nature engine. Obviously, these planes are a work in progress and will be tweaked as time passes, but I believe in the end we’ll get a flying experience with Flying Circus that is even more real and breathtaking than ROF. And that’s saying something! :)

 

Who have told that the IL-2 WW1 aircraft are ported from ROF ?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, fjacobsen said:

 

Who have told that the IL-2 WW1 aircraft are ported from ROF ?

Petrovich.  It is true.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, they ported. But...

We have improved not only 3D models (airplane, cockpit, pilot), but also slightly improved some things in FM, DM, visual and sound effects... For example every FC airplane got the newest gear model from Great Battles (including new amortization model, new wheel model, controllable tail skid on the Camel as well), got many new SFX (engine fire, oil leak, fuel tanks fire and fuel leaks for separate (!) tanks, new wingtips trails), got the new ballistics of bullets, got some improvement in the simulation of the cockpit instruments and controls, got more detailed collision detection with underlying surface, got better gaming helpers, technochat, optimized FM for AI, many small bugs from RoF were also fixed.
So, this is not just a "porting" from RoF. This is somthing "a little" more.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Andrey would damage to control cables be simulated  similar to ww2 airplanes?

Edited by 307_Tomcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Petrovich - sounds like you're doing a fine job! 

 

Just one quick question - a bit off topic, I'm afraid - in regards to the damage models, how likely are planes going to be to catch fire in FC1? 

The reason I ask is, in RoF it's very rare to see a plane catch fire (at least from my experience), but much of the subject matter seems to indicate that planes caught fire a lot of the time. 

 

Just curious! 

Edited by Larner
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Larner said:

how likely are planes going to be to catch fire in FC1? 

Every Camel I shot so far in exploded in a fireball. But just the Camel. It's an impressive ka-boom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Larner said:

Petrovich - sounds like you're doing a fine job! 

 

Just one quick question - a bit off topic, I'm afraid - in regards to the damage models, how likely are planes going to be to catch fire in FC1? 

The reason I ask is, in RoF it's very rare to see a plane catch fire (at least from my experience), but much of the subject matter seems to indicate that planes caught fire a lot of the time. 

 

Just curious! 

 

From my limited experience flying FC multiplayer two nights ago: many fires, very little wingshedding, you really have to aim for the pilot or the fuel tanks.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just spent some fight on Berloga in the Camel (100% fuel) vs the Pfalz. WOW! That is awesome! And the Pfalz by no means a victim. THIS:IS:GONNA:BE:GEAT!! 😄 Back for more!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, US103_Baer said:

 

What do you get at 2000m? I can't get above 193kph.

Edit: believe the store indicates 195 at 2000m, so I guess thats aligned,  but need to rationalise that against multiple data sources stating 217.

Perhaps a separate conversation :)

 

I could also get to 193km/h at 2000m. And what about the 217 multiple sources? You saying that no one is reaching 219km/h at sea level? I made a video of the Spad getting to 219km/h at 8m of altitude. Way more than half the wingspan. In fact, the old runs at 5 and 6m are also beyond half the wingspan. If you like to see the video I can upload it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 307_Tomcat said:

Andrey would damage to control cables be simulated  similar to ww2 airplanes?

 

Not yet, but maybe we will do it in the future, who knows...
Actually, the goal was to transfer the physics of the airplanes from RoF to FC "as is" w/o any improvement (and we never promised more detalied simulation in FC vol.1). Therefore, I prefer not to promise anything else, I hope you understand why. :)

 

4 hours ago, Larner said:

how likely are planes going to be to catch fire in FC1?

The reason I ask is, in RoF it's very rare to see a plane catch fire (at least from my experience), but much of the subject matter seems to indicate that planes caught fire a lot of the time. 

 

Basically the probability of a fire quite similar to RoF, but we have already added the fuel tanks fire. As you remember, in RoF it was possible only after the fuel tank exploded.

 

4 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Every Camel I shot so far in exploded in a fireball. But just the Camel. It's an impressive ka-boom.

 

The Camel has a fuel tank behind a cockpit. Very easy to hit it.

And some good news:
Yep, you guys were absolutely right that the Pfalz has wrong maximum speed. I checked it and I also got 177 km/h instead of 171 km/h. But the good news is that I already found the bug and fixed it. It was located inside the optimization area of aerodynamics, this feature is new for GB and is absent in RoF. Now it's fine, and we will give you this fix with the next update (or maybe a patch) as soon as possible.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 6
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, AnPetrovich said:

And some good news:
Yep, you guys were absolutely right that the Pfalz has wrong maximum speed. I checked it and I also got 177 km/h instead of 171 km/h. But the good news is that I already found the bug and fixed it. It was located inside the optimization area of aerodynamics, this feature is new for GB and is absent in RoF. Now it's fine, and we will give you this fix with the next update (or maybe a patch) as soon as possible.

 

So you're saying that the actual data of the Pfalz is correct and that instead of making new in-game measurements to correct the data, you're going to slow the Pfalz down, making it even slower in comparison to the Camel?

 

And I'm the one who brought it to your attention?

 

giphy.gif

 

Out of curiosity, where did you get the 171km/h figure from? In literature I see her top speed often listed at 181km/h.

 

And do you have any plans of adding the Mercedes D.IIIaü (200hp overcompressed) engine as a modification to the Pfalz D.IIIa, Albatros D.Va and/or Fokker D.VII? It is already present on the Halberstadt CL.II 200hp in RoF. This was a standard engine field modification on all planes in service by summer 1918.

 

 

Editing topic title and providing more direct links in the OP of this historic thread, which is getting more historic every day.

Edited by Hellbender
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Hellbender said:

Out of curiosity, where did you get the 171km/h figure from? In literature I see her top speed often listed at 181km/h.

169 km/h for the D.III

181 km/h for the D.IIIa

 

are the often tossed around figures. Here example from Wiki. Would be nice if our Pfalz remains a D.IIIa.

 

Anyone has good souces on that matter?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the Camel being so fast I'm really curious how fast the Albatros will be (that were known to have easily outrun Camels). Will they not outrun Camels, or made a little faster, but then they would outrun the SE5a and the Spad. I'm just wondering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Reflected said:

With the Camel being so fast I'm really curious how fast the Albatros will be (that were known to have easily outrun Camels). Will they not outrun Camels, or made a little faster, but then they would outrun the SE5a and the Spad. I'm just wondering.

 

Source please: I know nothing of the kind and am anxious to learn.   I would expect Albatros to out dive Camels: (at least until they lose their lower wing) they are some 50% heavier.  But where does the "easily outrun" come from?

 

edit - please do not think I am getting at you. It is just that as we are in the early stage of FC this seems like a good time to subject everything we thought we knew to critical scrutiny as we re-enter the weird world of world war one warplanes. I very much include myself as someone who could benefit from this.

 

 

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

 I would expect Albatros to out dive Camels: (at least until they lose their lower wing) they are some 50% heavier.  But where does the "easily outrun" come from?

This is also what I would expect, lacking better sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Hellbender said:

And I'm the one who brought it to your attention?

 

giphy.gif

 

:biggrin:

Yes, and thank you for this!
I'm sure that any correction of flight characteristics should be based on conscious actions, but not on bugs, shouldn’t it?
 

6 hours ago, Hellbender said:

Out of curiosity, where did you get the 171km/h figure from? In literature I see her top speed often listed at 181km/h.

 

I can't say right now from what source we got it. It was almost ten years ago, I just don't remember this, and besides, almost all the airplanes in RoF were adjusted not by me but by other engineers while I was working on FM technologies. These guys left the team a few years ago. Right now I don't have dedicated time in my schedule to make FM adjustments in FC, and the task did not include this purpose (as I already said). But personally I would like to refresh my memory of this subject and I will try to pay attention on the flight performances of FC airplanes. However I can do this only outside of my working hours. That's why I would like to make no promises here.

 

6 hours ago, Hellbender said:

And do you have any plans of adding the Mercedes D.IIIaü (200hp overcompressed) engine as a modification to the Pfalz D.IIIa, Albatros D.Va and/or Fokker D.VII? It is already present on the Halberstadt CL.II 200hp in RoF. This was a standard engine field modification on all planes in service by summer 1918.

 

I can only say that Flying Circus Vol.1 will not include it.

Btw,
I would like to give you some information for thoughts.
I took data from this source:

Spoiler

1448814499_SopwithCamel.thumb.png.b5e306fa4bcc2a41781e32f6780bad16.png


and I made a simple chart (you can do it yourself if you are really interested in the answers):

 

588908012_Camelmaximumspeeds.thumb.jpg.783946e8e31de313283306c0b978d3de.jpg

 

You can also see here the Camel "before" and "after" the update 1.034 in RoF.
The Camel in FC is the same as the Camel "before".

So, what do you believe in?

 

6 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Anyone has good souces on that matter?

 

That's a good question! :good:

 

2 hours ago, Reflected said:

With the Camel being so fast I'm really curious how fast the Albatros will be (that were known to have easily outrun Camels). Will they not outrun Camels, or made a little faster, but then they would outrun the SE5a and the Spad. I'm just wondering.

 

Any kind of performances trials or data are welcome! :salute:

  • Thanks 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, AnPetrovich said:

I can't say right now from what source we got it. It was almost ten years ago, I just don't remember this, and besides, almost all the airplanes in RoF were adjusted not by me but by other engineers while I was working on FM technologies. These guys left the team a few years ago. Right now I don't have dedicated time in my schedule to make FM adjustments in FC, and the task did not include this purpose (as I already said). But personally I would like to refresh my memory of this subject and I will try to pay attention on the flight performances of FC airplanes. However I can do this only outside of my working hours. That's why I would like to make no promises here.

 

First of all, thanks for taking the time to come here and discuss this with us. It's been many years since we saw a dev take direct interest in sorting things out on the WWI side of things. I realise that this part of the flightsim community is very small compared to WWII and yet very demanding. In the end what most people here want is a realistic experience that we can enjoy for many years to come, and they want their questions/comments/frustrations to be heard. So again, really, thank you!

 

The fact that you have to do this outside of your working hours... Well, I will not comment further on that, that's none of my business.

 

What I will ask of you, is not to listen to armchair theorists (such as myself), but to let yourself be helped by people such as @Chill31 who have actual knowledge (and hopefully time to do so). I'm also not saying that this one person has all the knowledge, but since WWI aviation often lacks concrete data, some people are more qualified than others to make educated guesses. Whatever you do, please don't just change things around again without any primary sources, like what happened back in December 2014. I know that there was a lot of pressure from the community back then to review many of the FMs, but that should never have led to changing everything without sources.

 

Anyway, that's all in the past now. Thanks again for your efforts so far on Flying Circus. I hope we can keep the conversation going.

 

icon_e_salute.gif

Edited by Hellbender
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you A LOT again for those clarifications @AnPetrovich! It is very enlightning to see the data that was entertaining us for years. ;) 

 

As I mentioned a couple of times before, I don't think the higher speed has the same side effects in FC as in RoF where it gave both the Dr.I and the Camel an edge on other planes that was not the case in the real world. I could only spend a couple of flights in MP in the Camel vs a Pfalz and I must say it is nothing like it was back in RoF. Flown right, the Pfalz is a rather worthy opponent! The progress of the Digital Warfare Engine is IMHO significant as well as apparent.

 

But I might suggest that until we do have better data on the Pfalz D.IIIa, we should probably leave it at speeds that are more close to what is gospel out there. I hope that we will come up with more solid info that would make it worth the while to tune the FM of the Pfalz, should that be needed. If you made it solwer, then it would coume out as the "D.III" variant. That would be nice, as it would be something for future 1917 plane sets. Then the lower speed would make sense.

 

And my compliments to the wing flutter of the biplanes in dives!! It makes it just such a cool experience taking them to the edge against human players. It's incredible. Great job!!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you @AnPetrovich for some fascinating insights into how the flight models work and the effort you guys are putting into the Rise of Flight aircraft coming over into Flying Circus. Love the attention to all the details!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@AnPetrovich do you have an estimate of when the Fokker Dr.1 will be reviewed? I'm assuming, since no FM adjustments will be made at this point, that the Dr.1 will be brought back to what she was before the 1.034 patch of 2014, right?

 

I also imagine that, with the current state of the Camel, to take the Pfalz back to 171km/h would be a bit of a stretch. I can't comment on its FM, since I never really flew her, but it seems unlikely that she would be so slow in comparison.

 

And thank you for answering our questions. I do appreciate it.

Edited by SeaW0lf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if it has been posted, but there is a NACA report testing:

 

- Roland D.IIa

- Pfalz D.IIIa

- Junkers C.I

- Halberstadt CL.IV

- Fokker D.VII

- SE

- Fokker Dr.I

 

Tests being done in 1918 and the report compiled in 1923

 

The Pfalz comes out with 149 km/h (corrected speed at 3000 m, reaching 2 m/s climb at that altitude (the Dr.I reaching 4(!) m/s climb and 155 km/h)

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hellbender said:

 

First of all, thanks for taking the time to come here and discuss this with us. It's been many years since we saw a dev take direct interest in sorting things out on the WWI side of things. I realise that this part of the flightsim community is very small compared to WWII and yet very demanding. In the end what most people here want is a realistic experience that we can enjoy for many years to come, and they want their questions/comments/frustrations to be heard. So again, really, thank you!

 

The fact that you have to do this outside of your working hours... Well, I will not comment further on that, that's none of my business.

 

...

 

Thanks again for your efforts so far on Flying Circus. I hope we can keep the conversation going.

 

icon_e_salute.gif

I’d like to echo what Hellbender has said here. It’s refreshing and very exciting to be seeing developer interaction again with the WW1 community. Thank you so much for taking the time (outside of your work hours, even!) to discuss with us and show us the data. Things like this are what make me most excited about this new simulator. So, once again, thank-you @AnPetrovich!

 

As as soon as I have the cash, I’m preordering Flying Circus, guaranteed. 😄 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've nothing to add from a technical stand point but like many feel I should chip in so say thank you @AnPetrovich for simply taking the time to engage with the community here, and similarly to echo the sentiment not to make changes simply to gratify or pacify those who whine; rather to  only make changes when you are presented with data or at least well reasoned arguments from the small number of people qualified to offer some sort of subjective opinion on the accuracy of the FM.

 

I readily admit the new camel in FC doesn't behave as I expected it too and feels "too easy" to fly but I'm happy to have others argue the case it is my expectations that were wrong not the FM

 

HH

Edited by HappyHaddock
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2018 at 12:51 AM, ZachariasX said:

169 km/h for the D.III

181 km/h for the D.IIIa

 

are the often tossed around figures. Here example from Wiki. Would be nice if our Pfalz remains a D.IIIa.

 

Anyone has good souces on that matter?

 

This is likely the case.  I suspect some test data lists tests for the Mercedes D.III (160psi) as D.IIIa (170psi) because you can’t really tell the difference between the two externally.

 

Gav made a few posts on this subject with sources.

 

https://riseofflight.com/forum/topic/35592-you-asked-proof-albatros-dva/

 

I wish I could find the post by (I think it was Panther) which had a source that went into detail about the different Mercedes engines and their improvements, but I haven’t been able to find it.

 

The Albatross and Pfalz (pre 1.034 patch) fit well against allied 1916-1917 aircraft, but it seems unlikely that the only improvement over the 1916 Albatross DII to the 1918 Albatross DIIIa is a net gain of 6kph at sea level, or the difference of only 5kph between the 100kg+ heavier Halberstadt CLIIa and the Albatross DIIIa as It was in RoF.  

 

It it is good to see that these aircraft are being looked at and improved.  I hope the Mercedes aircraft get some attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is very interesting about measured Camel flight characteristic.

I need to test FC Camel adverse yaw with only aileron turn for sure 😉 heh  

 

BTW amazing lecture, how i missed it - don't ask me ;)

 

Thanks to HagarTheHorrible

 

 

Edited by 307_Tomcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Devs should perhaps ask Gene de Marco (pilot) from THE VINTAGE AVIATOR for reference data. TVA own a Sopwith Camel with rotary engine.
I guess Gene should know the Camel top speed.

195 km/h seems absolutely overdone to me - German WIKI says:  185 km/h for the Camel  and 181 km/h for the Pfalz D.IIIa

 

Another "wing nut" is Kermit Weeks from FANTASY OF FLIGHT, Florida.
In this video about their Albatros replica, you can see Gene de Marco early on. The aircraft is getting presented by Kermit Weeks.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,

 

We're not revisiting all WWI FMs. There is no time and is not needed. Petrovich is talking about a specific issue we didn't like the outcome of long ago. Any work on WWI FMs would be outside is current tasks which primarily involve new technologies and content for WWII. As he explained the FC WWI birds are not just a straight port, but a slight upgrade from ROF, but a wholesale re-vamp of all or most WWI FMs is not happening. Please moderate your expectations and Petrovich made no promises.

 

Jason

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2018 at 9:31 PM, AnPetrovich said:

 

So, this is not just a "porting" from RoF. This is somthing "a little" more.

 

It is rare to find so many bad news stories in one place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jason_Williams said:

Guys,

 

We're not revisiting all WWI FMs. There is no time and is not needed. Petrovich is talking about a specific issue we didn't like the outcome of long ago. Any work on WWI FMs would be outside is current tasks which primarily involve new technologies and content for WWII. As he explained the FC WWI birds are not just a straight port, but a slight upgrade from ROF, but a wholesale re-vamp of all or most WWI FMs is not happening. Please moderate your expectations and Petrovich made no promises.

 

Jason

 

Thanks for clarifying this Jason, but please understand that you’ve reopened a discussion which was closed ages ago. Whether we agreed with it or not, Rise of Flight 1.034 made it so that the Dr.I and Camel are slower than their contemporaries.

 

You did tell us that the FMs were going to be ported over, and with the release of the SPAD and Dr.I, that seemed to be a promise kept. This has all changed now with the Camel. The Great Camel War is officially over, which started back in 2014 and ended in November 2018 (fate has a dark sense of humour). I’d have spared myself the headache and just re-released the RoF numbers and this thread would not even exist.

 

1. A fast Camel invalidates the Rise of Flight Camel and the last four years in which we came to terms with it. I’m ecstatic to see a return to factual data, however now more than ever it seems that Rise of Flight is broken and a write-off.

 

2. A fast Camel and a slow Dr.I just don’t make sense, not from a historical point of view, and not from a gameplay balance point of view.

 

3. But mostly I fear that people will raise their eyebrows and not return to Flying Circus, not for single player, but especially not for multiplayer. And that would be a shame, since people need to experience getting blasted by Captain Darling’s Bristol guns first before they quit.

 

We’re not the enemies of your game, on the contrary, and as a day 1 Rise of Flight customer from back in 2009, I perhaps sympathise more than most with the actual business side of things, the difficulties and progress this game engine has gone through over the years and the fact that you now also have much bigger jet-powered fish to fry in order to remain profitable. Contrary to popular belief, this community is not impossible to please. Just release a planeset with slightly corrected numbers that make sense, and we’ll keep ourselves busy for years to come.

 

I apologise if I sound harsh or entitled, but I think you deserve honest criticism. You have no idea how much I want Flying Circus to succeed and get to purchase Volume 2, 3 and 4, plus some extra collector planes.

 

Edited by Hellbender
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Hellbender said:

...

 

3. But mostly I fear that people will raise their eyebrows and not return to Flying Circus, not for single player, but especially not for multiplayer. And that would be a shame, since people need to experience getting blasted by Captain Darling’s Bristol guns first before they quit.

 

 

Sorry, Hellbender, but the last update for RoF wrecked much of the game for me as an SP type. The reality in SP - as in the actual war - was that Camels vs Dr.1s in a dogfight was something of a rarity.  Flying a deliberately nerfed Camel was no fun at all, and do not even get me started on the Tripe: I was in the middle of playing an SP Career in it when it was ruined. 

 

On the other hand I agree with your implication that given the teams thinking - that they made a mistake with the Camel nerfing, especially the crude manner in which it was done - they should also roll back RoF.  

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree with you, Hellbender - if FC remains a half-product with old FMs and little work on their updating (however understandable that is from the company's level of time, manpower and priorities) that would be both a little sad for the buyers but also carry the seeds of FC's failure. With WW1 being something of a minority market, a perception that FC is RoF with little new about it may well result in very disappointing sales numbers and hence no basis on which to continue its development.

 

I would also love multiple future volumes and would certainly buy them, but either this is a product with a road-map or it is not. Honest forum criticism now, or honest wallet-based criticism in the future - one will have a far more serious impact than the other.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

if FC remains a half-product with old FMs

FC has nothing like "the old FM" with the drastically improved digital warfare engine. Even when the palnes share same parameters, they do not fly in the same way. And this is why fast Dr.I and fast Camels hardly make any other plane in the sim pointless.

 

Please stop the gospel of "FC being just the same as RoF". It is not.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ZachariasX said:

FC has nothing like "the old FM" with the drastically improved digital warfare engine. Even when the palnes share same parameters, they do not fly in the same way. And this is why fast Dr.I and fast Camels hardly make any other plane in the sim pointless.

 

Please stop the gospel of "FC being just the same as RoF". It is not. 

 

Please take the time to READ statement before responding. If FC is perceived to be not much different to RoF - and as most customer do not visit these fora and hence will decide based on few snap-shots or comments - that might well be the impression and probably bad news for the future of the product. You and I will buy stuff, many people may well not. That is the point.

 

Quoting - deliberately out of context - Jason's comment above we have: "We're not revisiting all WWI FMs. There is no time and is not needed.... FC WWI birds are ...a slight upgrade from ROF, but a wholesale re-vamp of all or most WWI FMs is not happening."

 

If that - taken further out of context - becomes the general impression then sales in what is already a limited market could be harmed. Hence my observation that - given it is a limited market area - FC probably needs more hype and teasers than the GB series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do not need whole wholesale re-vamp of all or most WWI FMs, they are good enough. Just some adjustments which Mr. Petrovich is doing along porting is enough for great ww1 experience. Plus new engine , 64bit, dx11 ,VR , better ME and all what bring along development of WW2.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

Please take the time to READ statement before responding. If FC is perceived to be not much different to RoF - and as most customer do not visit these fora and hence will decide based on few snap-shots or comments - that might well be the impression and probably bad news for the future of the product. You and I will buy stuff, many people may well not. That is the point.

 

Quoting - deliberately out of context - Jason's comment above we have: "We're not revisiting all WWI FMs. There is no time and is not needed.... FC WWI birds are ...a slight upgrade from ROF, but a wholesale re-vamp of all or most WWI FMs is not happening."

 

If that - taken further out of context - becomes the general impression then sales in what is already a limited market could be harmed. Hence my observation that - given it is a limited market area - FC probably needs more hype and teasers than the GB series.

If I misread your statement, sorry for that.

 

I just hope that it will be made clear (if it is not yet) that we are getting a new toy here, not the old one in different colors. Saying „we are just porting content“ doesn‘t help here as well on the customer side, as it masks how much better even the same will be.

 

I wonder how FC will prosper alongside the WW2 planes. But you know... Go on Berloga, see all those guys speeding shooting, disengaging then prepare for a new attack. Then go and take one of the biplanes and it always stikes me how much more intense those close in fights are.

 

I think it could draw people to FC that otherwise wouldn‘t have bought it. Well, I hope.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

I just hope that it will be made clear (if it is not yet) that we are getting a new toy here, not the old one in different colors. Saying „we are just porting content“ doesn‘t help here as well on the customer side, as it masks how much better even the same will be. 

 

 

I think we agree totally - I hope the team can spare some time for sexy publicity as I really want FC to succeed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

Even when the palnes share same parameters, they do not fly in the same way. And this is why fast Dr.I and fast Camels hardly make any other plane in the sim pointless.

This makes it pointless to fly online, leaving other aircraft models simple souvenirs. I was told that FM will not change. Less than five minutes, as it has already changed. I thought I was buying RoF on a new platform, but this is not RoF anymore. What did I buy ??!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, emely said:

I was told that FM will not change.

One should differentiate between the FM of the individual aircraft, meaning the parameters covering eac aircraft and what  the sim engine makes of that. It is very apparent that the current digital warfare engine does not make the same of those parameters as the digital nature engine does. Hence cards are indeed reshuffled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I'm reading Pertrovich's post is that the team recently decided to use pre 1.34 RoF flight models and that starts with this latest set, (the Camel and the Pfalz)  He, Petrovich would like to go back and do the same for the Dr. 1 but (as Jason says) that's not a promise.  I hope they do exactly that as pre 1.034 RoF flight models were by far the better set generally thinking.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SYN_Mike77 said:

I hope they do exactly that as pre 1.034 RoF flight models were by far the better set generally thinking.  

 

Pre-1.034 was Camel vs. Dr1 and screw everything else.  Not sure how that was better.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×