Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
US103_Baer

Parachutes as a Loadout option

Recommended Posts

Had a few discussions with regular MP pilots and the idea of WW1 parachutes as a loadout option seemed to make sense. It may have come up before but we hadn't noticed.

 

Benefits seem obvious.

- A known weight penalty can be added and pilots can choose whether to take them or not.

- Mission makers/server operators could have greater control whether parachutes are provided and, potentially, for which particular plane types. If a mission/map is set before they were historically available then obviously they wouldn't be a loadout option.

- Jasta and seniority availability. Depending how much control is possible for mission makers, it may be possible to align with historical use by Jasta or pilot seniority.

 

Of course if the Devs could add unreliability that would be great too!

 

Thoughts?

 

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like parachutes as now available here in FC are in fact an historical aberration I do not see the reason why they should not be an available option for both sides, Central and Allies alike?
Edited by West

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, West said:
Like parachutes as now available here in FC are in fact an historical aberration I do not see the reason why they should not be an available option for both sides, Central and Allies alike?

 

I'm inclined to disagree, West, although my disagreement is limited as detailed below.

 

As things stand, the two Luftstreitkräfte aircraft could, plausibly, have had parachutes fitted after a certain point in January/ February of 1918, as we all know.

 

Since both aeroplanes were still in service in considerable numbers during and after this period, it would suggest to me that parachutes are a reasonable thing to include for the German pilots.

 

Thr RFC / RAF did not, as we again know, officially issue parachutes at any point in WW1.

 

As such, the inclusion of a parachute for German aircrews only is not, AFTER JANUARY / FEBRUARY 1918, an historical aberration.

 

I'm not sure they were all white silk, either. I'm sure I recall seeing a photo of a German or Austrian serviceman packing a parachute that was very clearly made from lozenge print.

 

If FC ever gets beyond Vol 1, and earlier aeroplanes, ones that had been withdrawn from front line service by January 1918, include the parachute, then yes, I agree with you, an aberration.

 

But there are several aberrations in game anyway, aren't there?

 

The German gunsight, for a start.

Edited by SP1969

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

They are almost certain to make this a loadout option before the game is released.

 

...for the Germans only, or for all?

 

For all would be historically wrong because, as SP1969 already said, parachutes were only in use on the German side, and only in 1918.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wolfram-Harms said:

 

...for the Germans only, or for all?

 

For all would be historically wrong because, as SP1969 already said, parachutes were only in use on the German side, and only in 1918.

 

Not for all Boche they were and not as fail proof nor extend like they are now.

So it is kind of warped.

Baer already mentioned some of that in another recent thread about this subject.

If wrong for one side as well give it to both )))

Use should not only add weight but limit movement to like those pits were kind of cramped;
Should also take the timeframe into account, just imagine seeing a chute coming out of a parasolplane LOL just to put it a bit extreme.
If some entiteled Boche pilots just preferred never using chutes there must have been grounded reasons.
I understand the devs having worked out the option they wanted to make use of it.
Only limiting changes will extra stretch the workload of the developpement.
So they may consider to drop it all together or just giving it to both sides like it is now )))
 
Edited by West

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, SP1969 said:

The German gunsight, for a start.

 

What, the reflector sight? It existed during the war. 

8 hours ago, West said:

So they may consider to drop it all together or just giving it to both sides like it is now )))

 

Nonsense idea. They didn't go through all that trouble to create the German parachutes just to remove them later. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean the 'Oigee' sight, Luke?

 

The tubular, Aldis-lookalike with 2 x zoom?

 

That one, or the one modelled in game?

 

Not baiting you, just interested to see some evidence.

 

I'd be happy to be conclusively proved wrong. All about the learning.

 

 

Edited by SP1969

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand corrected.

 

Thanks, Stephan!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SP1969 said:

You mean the 'Oigee' sight, Luke?

 

This is what I had in mind, in addition to the other info you've been shown - it's a Fokker Dr.I:

 

Dr1SpandauGunscu2-1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But only partially.

 

It appears, on further reading, that the sight modelled in RoF/ FC was field tested in extremely small quantities from June of 1918 - and was never equipped beyond those tests.

 

Someone already bought me 'Battlefield 1', thanks.

 

Ahhh, that sounded petty, my apologies. 

 

I'd genuinely be interested to seefi the thing wasever equipped outside of a very few test cases though.

 

One thing I have learned  today is that 'Revi' is a contraction, I had always assumed it to be a brand name, so I've learned something today.

 

Edited by SP1969

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SP1969 said:

 

Someone already bought me 'Battlefield 1', thanks.

 

Ahhh, that sounded petty, my apologies. 

 

 

It didn't just sound petty.  It's complete nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parachutes should be a loadout option in WW1 aircraft, with all the added effects that carrying one in the aircraft would have.

 

I'm also not sure why BoX doesn't model parachute failure...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BSR,

 

'Battlefield 1' is a complete nonsense, I agree.

 

A Mk IV tank travelling at 25 mph is nonsense.

 

As is having an Aldis sight fitted to British aeroplanes listed as a 'field mod'.

 

As is treating an experimental gunsight, apparently only fitted to some very few aircraft flying with Jasta 12 for field trials for a few months in 1918, available in game as if it were something that could be drawn from stores and fitted universally at the pilot's whim, whereas the gunsight that was actually fitted to some German aircraft in operational aircraft is not modelled, because the game design can't replicate the 2x zoom of the sight.

 

As is the ( at this point )  unrestricted availability of 100% perfectly functional parachutes for Central aeroplanes. Note the caveat, in my previous post. 

 

By the same logic, since the British did test parachutes during the war, they should be available to the Allied side, even though it would make a mockery of any claimto authenticity that the developers may make for this game.

 

Look at the 'nerfing' of various aircraft in RoF, for the sake of 'even game play'.

 

A mistake which the current development team have publicly promised not to repeat for this one, to their absolute credit. 

 

This is a computer game, BSR.

 

It is marketed as a Great War combat flight simulation, with the emphasis on providing a realistic ( in as far as is possible with a game ) experience. 

 

It usually lives up to that description and provides hours of entertainment for many people, including myself.

 

Many of those people will be generally interested in the aviation of the era, will have read endless literature on the subject, will have probably built models of the aeroplanes of the era and, in some cases, will own and fly replicas of the aeroplane types modelled in game.

 

Not all may be 'experts' to the degree of the late Dan San Abbot, but they will certainly recognise when something is 'wrong'.  

 

In a multiplayer furball over an anachronistic and geographically unrelated ( albeit beautifully modelled ) terrain whilst the game is in development, these things are, perhaps relatively unimportant.

 

If the game is to progress and surpass the immersive and historical levels achieved by its predecessor, then it might be an idea to address these little niggles now, rather than later.

 

 

 

 

Edited by SP1969
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loadout Options can be selectively inhibited/enabled by the mission designer.   What's more, in Il-2, an option need not universally be enabled or disabled, but can be enabled for a subset of aircraft within the mission.  You could have 6 non-replaceable Dr.Is available to be fitted with Oigee sight, and 20 without that loadout option at the same airfield.  Options can be locked on and mandatory, as well.  So if you don't think a particular loadout option is realistic, or if you think a particular piece of equipment should be mandatory, and not optional, blame the mission designers for allowing it, not the developers for including it, as an option. 

 

Edited by SeaSerpent
typo correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not disagreeing with you at all, SeaSerpent.

 

Perhaps if the mission had to include a date?

 

That way anachronistic load outs / equipment simply would not be available perhaps, in the same way that certain aeroplanes are not seen in the PWCG RoF campaigns before their historical service introduction date?

 

In the overall scheme of things, it isn't that important, but such things can, and do niggle.

 

It is also jumping the gun a little, since the game is still at a very early stage of development  - after all, one is still being shot at by 1940s hardware from the ground in some instances.

 

 

 

Edited by SP1969

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SP1969 said:

BSR,

 

'Battlefield 1' is a complete nonsense, I agree.

 

 

No, your equating FC with Battlefield 1 because it includes  a German reflector sight is the part that was nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SP1969 said:

As is having an Aldis sight fitted to British aeroplanes listed as a 'field mod'.

 

Not really, since in reality a fair number of those planes that could have had an Aldis never had one fitted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Luke, that isn't my opinion on the matter, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on our respective interpretations of history.

 

You know my view, I know yours. Certainly worth discussing, certainly not worth arguing about.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of pictures of camels without Aldis

Related image

On an off topic side note I relatively recently noticed Eddie Rickenbacker seems to have an optical sight and iron sight.

Image result for eddie rickenbacker

Edited by =AVG77=Garven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd drop this, but......the Camels in your photograph have Aldis sights mounted on at least the two nearest aeroplanes.

 

Aldis was standard factory fit for many British aircraft, including the SE5a.

 

Not a field mod ( although they were removed in the field ),  a factory fit. 

 

I know this, you know this, why insinuate that it isn't anything other than a fact?

Edited by SP1969

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parachutes are greatly overrated.

 

Unless you're playing a campaign, parachutes are a waste of time and effort.  They don't save your life because, and I don't want to sound as if I'm stating the stupidly obvious, but I am, you don't actually die (well you could knock me down with a feather, surely this can't be true !!!!!!!!!). 

 

What exactly do people think they are gaining by jumping out of an aircraft with a parachute, you've still been shot down, what ever happens to you after that is pure semantics.  The only difference, that I can see, would be in a campaign.

54 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

No, your equating FC with Battlefield 1 because it includes  a German reflector sight is the part that was nonsense.

 

 

I thought he he was quite right.

 

 It's a fantasy mod just like Battlefield 1 is more fantasy fun dressed up as fact.  That's not to say it isn't interesting or that it existed it's just that the chances of an aircraft be fitted with one are a bit like angels coming to save the BEF at Mons !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HagarTheHorrible, did you miss the part when I said that a mission designer can selectively inhibit a 'mod'?

Edited by SeaSerpent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

 

I thought he he was quite right.

 

 It's a fantasy mod just like Battlefield 1 is more fantasy fun dressed up as fact.  That's not to say it isn't interesting or that it existed it's just that the chances of an aircraft be fitted with one are a bit like angels coming to save the BEF at Mons !

 

Sorry, but the idea that a German reflector sight turns FC into Battlefield 1 is one of the most idiotic things ever to be posted on this forum.  And that bar is really quite high.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

 

Sorry, but the idea that a German reflector sight turns FC into Battlefield 1 is one of the most idiotic things ever to be posted on this forum.  And that bar is really quite high.

 

Obviously your threshold for determining if something is idiotic is stupidly low.  

 

Equating the liberties taken with what might be considered likely, with regard to the reflector sight, are not so far removed from the liberties that BF1 takes with technological innovation, so the point stands, regardless of what you may think.  Unless of course you can show evidence to suggest it was widely fitted and worked as well as suggested by RoF/FC.

 

But then it is just a game, so it's not worth losing any sleep over :P:salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

 

Obviously your threshold for determining if something is idiotic is stupidly low.  

 

Equating the liberties taken with what might be considered likely, with regard to the reflector sight, are not so far removed from the liberties that BF1 takes with technological innovation, so the point stands, regardless of what you may think.  Unless of course you can show evidence to suggest it was widely fitted and worked as well as suggested by RoF/FC.

 

But then it is just a game, so it's not worth losing any sleep over :P:salute:

 

Quit creating strawmen:  No one in this discussion said it was "widely fitted".  The Oigee was fitted to a small number of Dr.I and Albatros aircraft, and you can google it just as well as anyone else.  It's an Option.

 

You guys don't even have a map yet, and whatever "missions" are being created for FC at this time are purely exploratory, ostensibly, just there for people to screw around with the early access aircraft.  If eventually somebody creates a historical mission on the actual FC map, with unlimited Reflector Sights, you can take it up with them.

Edited by SeaSerpent
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

 

Equating the liberties taken with what might be considered likely, with regard to the reflector sight, are not so far removed from the liberties that BF1 takes with technological innovation, so the point stands.

 

Not so much, actually.  Battlefield 1 is fantasy from top to bottom.  FC has a gunsight that saw very limited action.  NOT THE SAME!  Not even close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

Parachutes are greatly overrated.

 

Unless you're playing a campaign, parachutes are a waste of time and effort.  They don't save your life because, and I don't want to sound as if I'm stating the stupidly obvious, but I am, you don't actually die (well you could knock me down with a feather, surely this can't be true !!!!!!!!!). 

 

What exactly do people think they are gaining by jumping out of an aircraft with a parachute, you've still been shot down, what ever happens to you after that is pure semantics.  The only difference, that I can see, would be in a campaign.

 

To some, stats and killstreaks matter, and if you jump and survive, you won't lose your vlife or your streak.

 

In regular old dogfight servers it probably doesn't matter too much, although if scoring happens the same way it does in Rise of Flight, then you can effectively deny someone a kill by making sure you jump before you even get hit if you find yourself at a disadvantage, or better yet, use your machine to ram the enemy, then jump. Considering that Central planes are too slow to run and most action should take place over Central lines, as it did historically, it's a viable strategy.

 

I'm sure people will find other creative ways to (ab)use the system.

Edited by Hellbender
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think IL2 has kill streaks as such, unless I missed something..

Except maybe a servers' own stats, but I haven't noticed any 'global' records.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Camels are Coming

 

Chapter 1

 

“I say, Algy,” muttered Biggles as he lounged on his camp bed at Files Ferme aerodrome, “I’m a little bored watching this movie, U571, on my laptop, what do you think to a quick toddle over the lines to see what is happening over Hunland?”

 

“Topping idea, Biggles!” ejaculated The Right Honourable Angela ‘Algy’ Montgomery, tucking her iPhone into the zipped breast pocket of her Nomex flying suit. “I’ll drive us to the flight line in the Tesla, since it is snowing so heavily outside.”  

 

After skillfully chauffeuring her flight commander past the T-34 tanks guarding the perimeter against a repetition of the massed Zulu Impi attack of the day before, Algy pulled up alongside the blast proof doors of the concrete hanger and pressed the button on the door remote.

 

The heavy doors slid back, revealing the LED strip lit interior of the vast concrete hanger, disclosing the sleek, bright red shapes of the two Sopwith Camels that lurked within.  

 

“What ho, Greasy!” Biggles shouted out to the miniskirt clad figure of ‘Greasy’ Staines, his chief mechanic and software technician.

 

Staines looked up from the GAU8 she was installing into a BE2c, brushed her hand through her Mohican, and scowled.

 

“What did you call me, you sexist b**tard?”

 

 

To be continued.....

 

With the sincerest of sincere apologies to Capt. W.E. Johns

Edited by SP1969
  • Haha 3

Share this post


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

 

To some, stats and killstreaks matter, and if you jump and survive, you won't lose your vlife or your streak.

 

In regular old dogfight servers it probably doesn't matter too much, although if scoring happens the same way it does in Rise of Flight, then you can effectively deny someone a kill by making sure you jump before you even get hit if you find yourself at a disadvantage, or better yet, use your machine to ram the enemy, then jump. Considering that Central planes are too slow to run and most action should take place over Central lines, as it did historically, it's a viable strategy.

 

I'm sure people will find other creative ways to (ab)use the system.

 

Exactly.

 

Main thinking for original post was to get the idea of parachutes as a loadout option out into the public sphere and for the Devs to notice. It may well be on the roadmap, i just don't know. So no harm raising the subject.

It seems obvious to give mission makers the ability to restrict them for historic or strategic reasons (and all Loadout options for that matter) while giving pilots the potential choice to take parachutes depending on importance of pilot survival vs performance.

 

Abuse of bailing out to avoid giving a shot-down credit is important but maybe off topic on this post.

 

Btw in researching this I found that von Richthofen was apparently carrying a parachute when shot-down, and it was one of the first items 'looted' from his downed plane. This was new to me.

Edited by US103_Baer
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Btw in researching this I found that von Richthofen was apparently carrying a parachute when shot-down, and it was one of the first items 'looted' from his downed plane. This was new to me."

 

New to me, too. Interesting, thank you for sharing, Baer!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good read but nothing to add as i am cluless about the airwar.

 

But i will argue the toss about the land warfare for both wars.

 

Untill the cows come home.  🤣

 

Keep the info coming please boys.

 

Mike.

Edited by Dogbert1953

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, HiIIBiIIy said:

Why is the parachute not available for the Camel pilots ? 

 

Because they weren't used during the war. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, HiIIBiIIy said:

Why is the parachute not available for the Camel pilots ? 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Flying_Corps#Parachutes

 

[...] It was felt at the time that a parachute might tempt a pilot to abandon his aircraft in an emergency rather than continuing the fight. The parachutes of the time were also heavy and cumbersome, and the added weight was frowned upon by some experienced pilots as it adversely affected aircraft with already marginal performance. It was not until 16 September 1918 that an order was issued for all single-seater aircraft to be fitted with parachutes, and this did not eventuate until after the war.

 

 

This doctrine was more or less shared by the French and Americans. In fact, even German commanders were of this opinion.

 

https://www.historynet.com/heinecke-parachute-a-leap-of-faith-for-wwi-german-airmen.htm

 

Parachutes would not have been commonly in use by German pilots at least until summer 1918, when most had transitioned to the Albatros D.Va and Fokker D.VII.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm of the mind that allowing 'chutes for aircraft should be option-able server side. I also like the idea of it being a mod with a weight penalty.

 

I'm hoping that they will be implemented for observation balloons when we get those...(wink, wink... non, nod). 

 

 

EDIT:

 

Oh... and Zeppelins should certainly have them...  🤣😂😅😜

Edited by II./JG1_Vonrd
  • Like 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
Sign in to follow this  

×