How to get more simmers into WWI

[Rattlesnake]

WWI is the best era  to model for a combat flight sim for the following reasons:

1. The slow top speed and close in nature of the combat negates the “legally blind pilots” problem which plagues all later date simning even in this say and age, unless one resorts to icons, which make the game look like shit. 

And Because you are looking at your opponents plane at close range often near the ground beautiful graphics actually matter.

2. While the planes are slow the actual combat is viscerally much faster and more thrilling because they are so much closer together and more maneuverable, as opposed to going 400mph and taking a mile to get turned around.

 

So how can we let people know this effectively to grow the WWI sim numbers?

 

[SYN_Vander]

Well, you just summed it up nicely... ?

[CanadaOne]

Yeah, well put.

 

I like the slow speed, open cockpit, beautiful graphics part. The terrain looks a bit muted through the cockpit glass, but with open cockpits it's much more enjoyable.

 

[Panzerlang]

WW1 is especially suited to VR imho.

[BlitzPig_EL]

I'm one of the guilty.  I have FC, as do a few of the other BlitzPigs, but, we rarely use the WW1 kites.

The two reasons for this from the guys are that they have been in WW2 birds for so long now that flying the WW1 kites is just that, like flying a kite, only more difficult.  Perhaps once the game is fully released this may change.  The other reason is that other than dogfighting, there is really nothing to do.  We love the attack role, and so without the two seaters, and proper ground objects to attack, it's just furball time.

 

WW1 is very distant to most people, whilst WW2 is still very much alive in the collective memory.  It's not like you go to airshows and see WW1 birds all over the place.  The Great War needs better advertising.

 

[Rattlesnake]

36 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

The terrain looks a bit muted through the cockpit glass, but with open cockpits it's much more enjoyable.

 

Over the top “Look at how clever we are at rendering  what is supposed to be as transparent as possible” effects contribute to the legally blind pilots problem and are a hanging offense, but I digress.

[the_dudeWG]

It would take a well polished single player mode to ease newbies into a WWI sim. Let's face it, everyone in mp has thousands of hours of flight time and combat. I'd bet the average FC pilot has more time in the air than Richthofen. How much fun would the average gamer experience in a server with no icons or friendly settings, getting torn up by dudes with over 5k hours of experience, a 30" 2k monitor, and a fully equipped sim pit? 

[Panzerlang]

33 minutes ago, the_dudeWG said:

It would take a well polished single player mode to ease newbies into a WWI sim. Let's face it, everyone in mp has thousands of hours of flight time and combat. I'd bet the average FC pilot has more time in the air than Richthofen. How much fun would the average gamer experience in a server with no icons or friendly settings, getting torn up by dudes with over 5k hours of experience, a 30" 2k monitor, and a fully equipped sim pit? 

Especially if he was a lover of the knightly-painted German planes and then came up against the Camels. Lol. ?

[CanadaOne]

59 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

Over the top “Look at how clever we are at rendering  what is supposed to be as transparent as possible” effects contribute to the legally blind pilots problem and are a hanging offense, but I digress.

 

 

I find the graphics in this sim to be pretty sweet, and they are getting better over time, so I'm inclined to be patient/forgiving with anything I find less then perfect in that department.

[JGr2/J5_Hotlead]

Great post! Here's my thoughts:

• Like @the_dudeWG mentioned, a well polished single-player mode would go a long way. I've heard Over Flanders Fields (rightfully) toted as THE WW1 aviation single player experience for so long now. I think the time is ripe for Flying Circus to give them a decent run for their money. The campaign in ROF was good, but if Flying Circus could take it to a new level of immersion that would be magnificent. 
• I agree with all the reasons @Rattlesnake mentioned. If we can showcase those aspects attractively, it would go a long way to convincing players that the WW1 sim arena is just as legit as the WW2 arena. Personally, I've got plans for promo videos for both the Arras Map and Flying Circus itself once all the content has released. I have the songs picked for each one and am super-pumped to begin work on them as soon as I can!
• Another great way to make people want to join this community is to make a point about being friendly and helpful to newcomers. Write guides! Make how-to videos! Help them find groups of like-minded fliers to connect with! All we have to do is keep them here just long enough for the siren call of WW1 aviation to take hold, and then they'll be here for keeps mwhahaha! ?
• Another way that will definitely attract people to WW1 is servers that supply more than airquake. Like @BlitzPig_EL mentioned, simply furballing can get old after a bit. Once the Arras Map drops, server operators could provide full-real servers with stats and historical objectives. (A HUGE plus would be more accurate artillery-spotting and recon missions for multiplayer, but that's on the devs' plate...not ours.) Also, if we could see a return of an Aces Falling type server like we had in ROF, that would be wonderful. Aces Falling was a personal favorite of mine back when because it combined the small maps of the furball servers with the missions and teamwork play of the more serious servers. Aces Falling had good plane sets, a working stats page, great ping for North American and Western European users, and restricted pilots to cockpit views while still providing icons - a nice compromise IMHO.
• If the devs could make a feature that separates the WW1 servers from the WW2 servers, that would be very nice, and help them stand out from the morass of WW2 servers. But again it's up to the devs...nothing the community can do about that. 

Anyway, those are a few of my thoughts. Overall, I feel hopeful about the future! We just need to show the devs support now while this project is in its embryonic stages.

[Thad]

Salutations,

 

I have had Rise Of Flight for some time but simply was not able to get into it. I'm afraid WWI craft have little appeal to me. I don't really know why. I have purchased everything included in IL2 except Flying Circus. None the less, I intend to purchase FC once it has been brought further along in development as a way of showing support for the developers. 

 

I have also put off going into VR because of its' current hardware requirements graphic quality and cost but I do think the WWI craft would be wonderful with VR.

 

Finally, I will be taking the plunge into FC eventually. Right now, I be keeping up with its' development. 

Edited March 26, 2019 by Thad

[J5_Gamecock]

45 minutes ago, Thad said:

Salutations,

 

I have had Rise Of Flight for some time but simply was not able to get into it. I'm afraid WWI craft have little appeal to me. I don't really know why. I have purchased everything included in IL2 except Flying Circus. None the less, I intend to purchase FC once it has been brought further along in development as a way of showing support for the developers. 

 

I have also put off going into VR because of its' current hardware requirements graphic quality and cost but I do think the WWI craft would be wonderful with VR.

 

Finally, I will be taking the plunge into FC eventually. Right now, I be keeping up with its' development. 

S! Thad, 

 

  I'm sitting in the same spot on the other side of the fence. Since I was a kid I've always had a fondness for WWI aircraft, and the WWII warbirds just don't hold the same appeal for me. I don't know why either.  I purchased BOM and BOS ,( after much delay), thinking they might grow on me. They just didn't.

 

  I really don't know how you could attract folks to get into one over the other. I know some who like to fly anything from WWI kites to jets. For the rest of us it's like cats or dogs... you like one or the other or you don't care for either.

 

  GC

Edited March 26, 2019 by J5_Gamecock

[Rattlesnake]

I’ve never seen an ACM era of which I’m un-fond, its the way that 

WWI largely avoids major technical problems with simulation that attracts me to it.

The developers that finally solve the age old problems with flight sims in an intelligent and aesthetic manner (legally blind pilots, the hair-tearing difficulty of precise control with small plastic joysticks, the lack of body feel and natural orientation ) will be legendary.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Rattlesnake

[Guest deleted@83466]

9 hours ago, Rattlesnake said:

WWI is the best era  to model for a combat flight sim for the following reasons:

1. The slow top speed and close in nature of the combat negates the “legally blind pilots” problem which plagues all later date simning even in this say and age, unless one resorts to icons, which make the game look like shit. 

And Because you are looking at your opponents plane at close range often near the ground beautiful graphics actually matter.

2. While the planes are slow the actual combat is viscerally much faster and more thrilling because they are so much closer together and more maneuverable, as opposed to going 400mph and taking a mile to get turned around.

 

So how can we let people know this effectively to grow the WWI sim numbers?

 

 

I think it would be awesome if more people were interested in WW1 sims.

 

If you and others insist on being salesmen and promoters for the genre, however, I don't think those are the "selling points" to put forth.  Those things you listed are a bit too subjective.  I agree to a point that because things happen much slower in WW1 air combat that spotting might be a bit easier (simply because you have a lot more time to spot things), but in practice, a pilot who is having difficulties spotting is going to have a pretty bad time spotting things in a WWI combat sim as well.  That's my experience going from RoF to Il-2, and doing them simultaneously for a short while.  On the second point, saying that WW1 is somehow more visceral and thrilling than other eras is just your opinion, one that is shared by many (mainly people who are already die-hard WWI combat flight simmers), and not shared by just as many others.  The people that agree with the opinion are probably already invested in FC.

 

I do agree with your last post.  WWI air combat is simple and to the point.  Somebody can jump into it and concentrate on the fighting, without having to know much about the airplane other than it's flying characteristics and limits.  I won't call WWI air combat simulation a beginners sport, because you have so many experienced pilots in the genre that make the difficulty relative, but it is a good starting point for beginners to online flight sim.

 

Edited March 27, 2019 by SeaSerpent

[yaan98]

It takes time to develop a community of simmers and in this very niche market of WW1 birds, it's even a longer wait. Also, being mod friendly is another longevity point. FE2 and WOFF are good examples. I've made many mods for OFF, WOFF 1,2,3 and UE and that created much excitement among the community every now and then. FE2 has very strong mod support along with very friendly environment, creates a nice place to hang out and always try new ideas with the many different mods people bring.

[Rattlesnake]

44 minutes ago, yaan98 said:

It takes time to develop a community of simmers and in this very niche market of WW1 birds, it's even a longer wait. Also, being mod friendly is another longevity point. FE2 and WOFF are good examples. I've made many mods for OFF, WOFF 1,2,3 and UE and that created much excitement among the community every now and then. FE2 has very strong mod support along with very friendly environment, creates a nice place to hang out and always try new ideas with the many different mods people bring.

On a normal sized screen a WWII plane can easily be a clump of pixels the size of a flea but within firing range. It can also go from invisible speck distance to firing range in seconds. They are especially borderline invisible against ground.

 

The subset of people who have trouble spotting includes everyone who *doesn’t* own monitors larger than the windshields of their cars and/or VR headsets. It’s a problem which should be creatively addressed (plane specks could surely be made more eye catching without just hanging icons on them) but the demand is too low because players have the bizarre idea that a plane a couple miles away is hard to see and identify from another plane in visual conditions. It is not, in fact it appears pants-shittingly large if you feel like you are close to an intersecting heading. But I digress.

 

The dogfighting “speed” thing is not subjective either. Planes turning faster at a closer range are zooming through the visual  field more quickly. It’s like the difference between a knife fight and a fight with zweihanders.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Rattlesnake

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Biggest advantage of WW1 RoF now is it's  community , individual and squadrons which organize events and made great missions. If we would have that great ppl move to FC then we shall not be forgotten.

Personally I bought il2-GB just  because I was promised that my money will eventually help bring new content to ROF. I was disappointed for years, feel little cheated ,move along read some books about ww2 aircombat and stared liking ww2.   Finally they  stand up to the world and promise and start doing ww1. Now my trust is with it. Personally I think that  ww1 is much more fun and  competitive

Edited March 27, 2019 by 307_Tomcat

[PatCartier]

More pleasure to skin this birds than WW2 ones, spectacular livreries.

[Xyperion]

Hey guys as a new pilot and a forum lurker for a couple of weeks now, I'd like to share my experience and issues with these beautiful birds(WW1).

 

I've always been a fan of WW1, but I found out about RoF ~2 months ago. I watched some videos and got hooked. I played a bit with a keyboard, but after a while I changed to a stick + throttle + rudder pedals. Track IR followed a bit after that as well. I got so hooked that whenever I had some free time I played RoF(~200 hours already).  From the beginning I wanted to play as immersed as I could, no icons, no help whatsoever. I jumped into the career mode after a couple of days "training" and watching learning videos. I played DiD with my pilots... Every time a pilot dies I just create a new starting at the time the old one died. Currently I'm in April 1917 with 10-11 dead pilots behind me. I'm now able to shoot down enemy AI planes, but sometime it takes me 10-15 minutes to do so. For example when im in a D3 vs  nieuport 17 I have hard time lining a proper shot.

 

Anyway, last week I thought that i was ready for MP and i could stand on my own, but oh boy was I wrong... I got destroyed by these guys. I died so many times without being able to hit a single shot that I was ashamed of my noobiness and left. Maybe one of the reasons is, because I havent reached these late war planes in SP and I dont have that much experience with them.

 

After some forum lurking I found out about FC and  immediatelly bought it to support the devs including bom bok and bos even tho I have only 3-4 hours with the ww2 birds. I dont think that I will play much of FC until SP career is available. Im afraid to play MP now ?

[Aap]

13 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

WW1 is very distant to most people, whilst WW2 is still very much alive in the collective memory.

 

I think that is the main reason. WWII was just so major and total war that it has completely overshadowed the second biggest war ever, about two decades earlier. The same can be seen in everything else; first person shooters, strategy games, movies, books etc. 

[Feathered_IV]

Its a video game.  Make it immersive, engaging and reward the player.  You will get customers.

Make ten planes and one map, with no structure and a reliance on rinse/repeat action that lacks any context - You will not persuade a customer to buy.  Much less stick around.

[Picchio]

The points brought up initally are, in essence, the reason why I like WWI air combat a lot more.

@Feathered_IV, as always, nails it too.

I've been admiring the updates on the Arras map and these "remastered" aircraft (both in-game and nosing around through their texture files... oh God, they're actually produced so much better than all we've got in BoX so far) and I find myself appreciating them merely as (beautiful, yes) digital models/art assets.

My only hope is that PWCG gets ported to FC - but the author say no way, without two-seaters.

As a small DLC made for the online community, I can understand it, but I could only justify the cost if every asset had an extraordinary quality and polish. Still, without any possibility for a SP career, no buy for me.

[Panzerlang]

I'm going to avoid the mistake I made with RoF, which was to play it far too much long before it had sufficient planes (2-seaters mainly) or a decent career mode. By the time it was up to OFF standard I'd burned out on it.

Meanwhile the career mode for the WW2 eastern front is pretty good. But as soon as FC has a decent mix of planes, the proper map and realistic online missions I'll get back into it, probably as a 2-seater pilot with my brother in the back (if he can quit grumbling about the price, lol).

[Picchio]

15 minutes ago, Uffz-Prien said:

I'm going to avoid the mistake I made with RoF, which was to play it far too much long before it had sufficient planes (2-seaters mainly) or a decent career mode. By the time it was up to OFF standard I'd burned out on it.

Meanwhile the career mode for the WW2 eastern front is pretty good. But as soon as FC has a decent mix of planes, the proper map and realistic online missions I'll get back into it, probably as a 2-seater pilot with my brother in the back (if he can quit grumbling about the price, lol).

 

AFAIK, no two seaters until Volume 2, which won't happen if FC isn't worth its production costs - or if BoBP/TC don't sell enough to feed FC, whatever the plan is.

[Rattlesnake]

I’m an odd duck in that fighter chess is pretty much my entire reason for playing. My other hobby is fencing, so go figure. 

 

So the primary thing that can burn me out is staleness of tactics. If there’s eleventy seven fighters but people only play like 4 because they’re the only ones worth a damn, bad game meta IMO. If the online arenas are reduced to gang hording and/or nothing but “pray he doesn’t see, one pass haul ass”, again no good. And if it is easy for players to bypass human opposition entire and play mud mover well that kills the point of having an online game entire:

Basically as much as possible the meta needs to favor understanding the physics and geometry of maneuver, as opposed to putting a premium on having lots of friends on teamspeak and having been born with no boredom gene. I think balance is a part of that. I like to give my fellow humans the benefit of the doubt and assume they’ll be sports IF actually fighting their plane against the enemy’s isn’t an exercise in frustration.

Edited March 27, 2019 by Rattlesnake

[Panzerlang]

There's the Halb and Bristol coming with Vol 1 I believe.

 

[Picchio]

5 minutes ago, Uffz-Prien said:

There's the Halb and Bristol coming with Vol 1 I believe.

 

 

You're right.

PAT WILSON? COME HERE!

[Panzerlang]

1 minute ago, Rattlesnake said:

I’m an odd duck in that fighter chess is pretty much my entire reason for playing. My other hobby is fencing, so go figure. 

 

So the primary thing that can burn me out is staleness of tactics. If there’s eleventy seven fighters but people only play like 4 because they’re the only ones worth a damn, bad game meta IMO. If the online arenas are reduced to gang hording and/or nothing but “pray he doesn’t see, one pass haul ass”, again no good. And if it is easy for players to bypass human opposition entire and play mud mover well that kills the point of having an online game entire:

Basically as much as possible the meta needs to favor understanding the physics and geometry of maneuver, as opposed to putting a premium on having lots of friends on teamspeak and having been born with no boredom gene. I think balance is a part of that. I like to give my fellow humans the benefit of the doubt and assume they’ll be sorts IF actually fighting their plane against the enemy’s isn’t an exercise in frustration.

But that's exactly to be expected if the game is plane v plane furballing. Why would anyone take any plane but the best available? Most of the bouts are every allied pilot in a Camel and most of them know how to get the best out of them. What should the Central pilots fly, when even the best plane available to them is one that has only the slightest edge at an altitude the Camel pilots stay away from?

This is why so few owners of any of the modules use dogfight servers, it's the most boring and pointless exercise to be had in any flight combat sim. Given pilots who, in the majority, can fly the pants off the best plane available to their side it almost always comes down to The Best Plane. No thanks.

[Rattlesnake]

4 minutes ago, Uffz-Prien said:

But that's exactly to be expected if the game is plane v plane furballing. Why would anyone take any plane but the best available? Most of the bouts are every allied pilot in a Camel and most of them know how to get the best out of them. What should the Central pilots fly, when even the best plane available to them is one that has only the slightest edge at an altitude the Camel pilots stay away from?

This is why so few owners of any of the modules use dogfight servers, it's the most boring and pointless exercise to be had in any flight combat sim. Given pilots who, in the majority, can fly the pants off the best plane available to their side it almost always comes down to The Best Plane. No thanks.

Whether or not there is a “best plane” versus “a myriad of planes which have different strengths and weaknesses” is entirely down to the many thousands of modeling decisions on the part of devs combined with plane set decisions on the part of mods who run arenas.

 

For instance in the old ROF the developer decision to make effective fire at 4-8 times the ranges normally used by WWI fighters a fairly easy thing to do fucked over the energy fighters quite badly, since vertical resets, rope a dopes, and extending after a turn or two were all too likely to just get a pilot or fuel tank sniped at 300 or more meters. Naturally then many Spads or Se5s then resorted to rather boring tactics due to lack of other options. The problem could have been taken care of by something as simple as putting  hard cut-off of about 100 meters on gun effectiveness. Literally the DR1 everyone complained about would have been a slowish nothing burger had something simply been done about the sniping.

 

 

[Panzerlang]

1 minute ago, Rattlesnake said:

Whether or not there is a “best plane” versus “a myriad of planes which have different strengths and weaknesses” is entirely down to the many thousands of modeling decisions on the part of devs combined with plane set decisions on the part of mods who run arenas.

 

For instance in the old ROF the developer decision to make effective fire at 4-8 times the ranges normally used by WWI fighters a fairly easy thing to do fucked over the energy fighters quite badly, since vertical resets, rope a dopes, and extending after a turn or two were all too likely to just get a pilot or fuel tank sniped at 300 or more meters. Naturally then many Spads or Se5s then resorted to rather boring tactics due to lack of other options. The problem could have been taken care of by something as simple as putting  hard cut-off of about 100 meters on gun effectiveness. Literally the DR1 everyone complained about would have been a slowish nothing burger had something simply been done about the sniping.

 

 

I had no idea that had been done in RoF, though it doesn't surprise me, given how many other things in it were suspect. I guess they went for the bigger demographic's money. But as always it could have been so easily fixed with an option button, so both types of player (arcade and sim) could have had full enjoyment.

But regardless of that, a lot of onliners want realism in more than just plane (and weapon) performance. Realistic missions make flying an inferior plane bearable to a degree, so long as enough humans are on each side such that realistic tactics come into play.

[Rattlesnake]

You can fire up ROF right now, pick any reasonably stable plane (The free Albatross works just fine) and if you have a decent joystick  you shall be able to put holes in tanks and pilots with fair ease out to 400 on fully realistic settings. TBH it looks like it’s going to be that way in FC as well. If such had been easy or common during the war I rather doubt they would have tried to design anything except the best level turner possible, as opposed to the quest to go 10-20mph faster. 

[Panzerlang]

6 minutes ago, Rattlesnake said:

You can fire up ROF right now, pick any reasonably stable plane (The free Albatross works just fine) and if you have a decent joystick  you shall be able to put holes in tanks and pilots with fair ease out to 400 on fully realistic settings. TBH it looks like it’s going to be that way in FC as well. If such had been easy or common during the war I rather doubt they would have tried to design anything except the best level turner possible, as opposed to the quest to go 10-20mph faster. 

You have made me wonder about it being in FC too. Online a couple of weeks ago, three of us in Pfalzes had a rather good chap in a Camel think he was going to take chunks out of us in turn until we all went down. The only reason that didn't happen was because I was able to tear him up from a surprisingly long range. My thoughts were "So the MGs on these things weren't quite the scatter-guns we've been lead to believe". Obviously I must have had similar thoughts with RoF some years ago.

However, I've also noticed that being within 50ft of a target very often gives a pilot kill or flamer very quickly. Just doubling that range means it's much more likely a wing will have to be shot off to put it down.

So I guess the question is, just how accurate were the MGs on these things at range? Given the platform being very stable in still air to bouncing around like a cart on potholes in turbulence, is 300m under ideal conditions not realistic (for hitting with concentrated bursts)?

[HiIIBiIIy]

[edited]

 

17. Spreading false or harmful information about the product is prohibited and will be deleted by forum administration. Claiming ignorance of the subject to justify harmful or obviously untrue info will not be tolerated.

Edited March 28, 2019 by SYN_Haashashin

[unreasonable]

33 minutes ago, HiIIBiIIy said:

 

It's not a question of accuracy, it more of bullet drop not being modeled in ROF and FC. 

 

Yes it is, as is obvious if you look at the tracers fired from a plane on the runway using the Aldis sight.   The trouble is that a bullet fired at a muzzle velocity of ~750 m/s does not drop very far over the first 500 m. If you are looking for the reasons why many pilots fired and missed at close range, ballistics are not the answer: I think it is much more likely to be down to psychological factors that cannot be replicated in a game without making the player very frustrated.

 

On the OP's question: it depends who you want to get to play. Much of what works for people who want to play "virtual swordfighting" in MP dogfight servers may not work for people who want to feel that they are in the shoes (or flying-boots) of a WW1 pilot doing a tour at the front.  My feeling about the series (RoF/BoX/FC) is that it tries to do both and ends up satisfying neither and would be much better off just abandoning the MP component altogether. 

[Guest deleted@83466]

3 hours ago, Rattlesnake said:

I’m an odd duck in that fighter chess is pretty much my entire reason for playing. My other hobby is fencing, so go figure. 

 

So the primary thing that can burn me out is staleness of tactics. If there’s eleventy seven fighters but people only play like 4 because they’re the only ones worth a damn, bad game meta IMO. If the online arenas are reduced to gang hording and/or nothing but “pray he doesn’t see, one pass haul ass”, again no good. And if it is easy for players to bypass human opposition entire and play mud mover well that kills the point of having an online game entire:

Basically as much as possible the meta needs to favor understanding the physics and geometry of maneuver, as opposed to putting a premium on having lots of friends on teamspeak and having been born with no boredom gene. I think balance is a part of that. I like to give my fellow humans the benefit of the doubt and assume they’ll be sports IF actually fighting their plane against the enemy’s isn’t an exercise in frustration.

 

I'm confused by this post because some of it seems to contradict itself.  You say you like "Fighter Chess", but history bears out the fact that the best fighter chess of all results in a one pass/one kill situation.  It favors those who are patient and not looking for instant gratification. The question is, what kind of player do you envision embracing Flying Circus?  Do you want the Airquake types, who turn and burn all day, die, lather/rinse/repeat or do you want the tactical types who are going for something more enduring?   You don't like people bypassing opposition to move mud, in furtherence of mission, but you don't like the tendency of people to take the best, most capable fighter available...do you expect them to take a crappy plane, and then be cannon fodder, because scenarios are not set up in such a way that they can avoid getting into a "dogfight"?  Good servers give players options to be able to fly a variety of planes in a variety of roles and do so with some chance of success.  So which do you want?  A furball/fast food server, where people just go in and throw their joystick around, or do you favor a mission-oriented one?

 

The issue of WWI players forming into squads and hunting packs and using Teamspeak/Discord to simulate comms that weren't available in WWI is an old argument, that has become moot.  The people opposed to it lost that argument.  That ship has sailed and people are going to be doing it.  Having a lively stable of squads where people get together with friends and mentors and fly together is a situation that you either make a friend of, or else, it is an enemy to be feared.   Many a noob, who found a game like this too hard and too frustrating, linked up with a squad and came to enjoy (and learn) a game that they were on the verge of quitting.  People being able to get on their teamspeak and fly with their friends is a good thing for the playership of a game like this, not a negative.

Edited March 27, 2019 by SeaSerpent

[SeaW0lf]

I think it is too early to make all those assumptions. We need a map and some missions. And to cut off multiplayer? At this time and age, I don't think it would be a good idea. The multiplayer is a very vocal community and it brings a lot of visibility to the game and the genre. Both single player and multiplayer are important and have their place.

 

I also disagree that players don't have incentive to start playing multiplayer. I was also fodder in furballers, but you can have a break in full real missions, when you can fly with others and have a feel that you are adding up. I had some amazing moments in full real missions when I still flew with my Logitech 3D Pro (first months). I got hooked since day one. With time people will settle with their style. I personally like both furball servers and full real servers. And the notion that there was no turnfighting in the war / or that it was frowned upon is a mistake - this idea that lingers since ROF. Stark mentions dogfight training in his book when the weather was rainy - they would practice above the airfield. And I'm reading High in the Empty Blue (a pearl of a book, highly recommended, especially for who flies SE5s) and there are several accounts of them practicing dogfight in rainy days.

 

They had their share of dogfighting and they were boastful about it. Cecil Lewis accounts that he got a beating when mockfighting with Guynemer I think? And many times they were caught in dogfights and had to fight.

 

While on the subject, a quote from High in the Empty Blue:

 

The quality of the fight [Werner Voss' death] remained in Bowman's memory throughout his long life. Twenty-five years later, during another war, his remembrance of Voss' courage moved him to criticize the account of the fight given in the official history. "I see that Voss is referred to as being 'dazzlingly elusive.' It sickens me to see what was an epic fight garnished with such journalistic garbage. The use of the word 'elusive' gives the impression that Voss was trying to escape from danger (see Oxford Concise); nothing is further from the truth."

Edited March 27, 2019 by SeaW0lf

[Guest deleted@83466]

14 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 And the notion that there was no turnfighting in the war / or that it was frowned upon is a mistake - this idea that lingers since ROF. Stark mentions dogfight training in his book when the weather was rainy - they would practice above the airfield. And I'm reading High in the Empty Blue (a pearl of a book, highly recommended, especially for who flies SE5s) and there are several accounts of them practicing dogfight in rainy days.

 

 

 

Nice Strawman.  Or else you misinterpreted my post.  I don't recall anyone saying that in this thread. 

 

I'll give you a my "notion" however.  I'm in favor of the idea that securing the upper hand and doing everything you can to win the battle before it even begins is good Chess.  If some guy is flying around and looking for a Duel, and isn't comfortable with the possibility of being bounced out of the sun and killed before they ever see what hits them (and doesn't give them the chance to use all of their fancy BFM), then they should go to a furball or dueling server. 

Edited March 27, 2019 by SeaSerpent

[HiIIBiIIy]

2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

   The trouble is that a bullet fired at a muzzle velocity of ~750 m/s does not drop very far over the first 500 m.

I disagree!

[unreasonable]

Thank you for making my point. -100 inches at 500 yards on that table - about 2.5 m similar to my recollection for the GPMG, the MG with which I am most familiar.  All of 10 inches at 250 yards!    The bullets in FC drop that about that much: they do not go out of the barrel and continue in a straight line, as is patently obvious to anyone who takes an FC Camel and looks through an Aldis while firing on the runway. 

 

It was harder to see in RoF because of the shotgun dispersion.

 

Edit: one thing that will not help get new users to a game is people spreading misinformation about it in the forum.

Edited March 27, 2019 by unreasonable

[CanadaOne]

2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

My feeling about the series (RoF/BoX/FC) is that it tries to do both and ends up satisfying neither and would be much better off just abandoning the MP component altogether. 

 

Are there numbers that show the SP vs. MP ratio?

 

(Just curious. Don't want to start an argument.)