Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Pirol*

multiplayer activity

Recommended Posts

Hi,

now that the servers of RoF are quite empty (for casual players like me), i was full of hope that as soon as the new (old) planes are available in BoS Flying Circus, the people would move to there with new enthusiasm. I know there is the Sunday evening event (and Friday evening as well), and thats great. But the J5 Flugpark server is open all the other time too, but i have never seen anyone there, the server is always empty, and it seems to be the only one for Flying Circus at the moment. Is there a reason or really so little interest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed yesterday night on the Old Geezer server;

Jjust look at GCF's remembering posts about Friday & Sunday outings.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most likely because there is no map for it yet.  A while after the map comes out, I would guess you'd see an uptick in numbers, because you'll have servers that offer purposeful activities.  In RoF, the most popular servers were driven by scenarios that had reconnaissance missions unlocking additonal planes, or bombing targets, and the activities of the fighters revolved around interdicting those activities, just like in the real war.    So I think it's just a matter of letting it play out a little longer before its popularity as a multiplayer game can be judged, and a lot will depend on the map and mission designers to create attractive places for people to play.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The transition from ROF to FC is not being smooth. There was no consensus among ROF players about migrating to FC and supporting the new module, the price is salty for students or those with tight budgets, and in the beginning, when there were a few players playing FC pretty much every day (Berloga), servers would disappear overnight. People went away and only resurfaced at the events on Sunday and Friday, which started with Hotlead.

 

The ideal would have been to create a server from the very first day (some agreement with a mission builder to create a server not linked to the studio and with online donations), with simple furball missions and listed in the site barans.ru. That little group from the beginning could be flying every day in the late afternoon, just as the NFF still has people flying every day.

 

But it has improved gradually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As mentioned, the map isnt out yet, and there are no decent, immersive missions to bring in the more serious pilots. Its just furball servers at the moment. The planeset is also very limited in FC vol 1, so I dont think it will even pick up very much until we have a lot more planes. Maybe after FC vol 2 we will start to see more of a migration over to FC from RoF..

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

As mentioned, the map isnt out yet, and there are no decent, immersive missions to bring in the more serious pilots. Its just furball servers at the moment. The planeset is also very limited in FC vol 1, so I dont think it will even pick up very much until we have a lot more planes. Maybe after FC vol 2 we will start to see more of a migration over to FC from RoF..

 

This.

 

We've been around since the beginning of BOS, but quite simply, the FC product is nowhere near the point where we're interested enough to pull our hair out with the same old %@$#@% mission editor to try to port / build meaningful Wargrounds-like missions for FC.  Whether it ever gets there or not remains an open question.... We'll see...

 

 

Regards,

4 ~S!~

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

There’s currently a bit of a gap in multiplayer dynamic between Entente and Central teams, which is quite different from both pre-1.034 and 1.034 RoF (United Edition), namely because of the Camel and Dr.I crowd favourites. In both these editions of RoF, these two would be more or less equals, in FC they are not.

 

Obviously we want the sim to be as historically accurate as possible, so I’m not judging whether what we have now is more accurate or not, only that purely from a gameplay perspective, Entente has the best all-round dogfighter with no real threat in fast food scenarios — the only missions currently available. Central has the D.VIIF, and as much as I’ve come to appreciate her in the Dr.I’s “absence”, climbing to 2000-3000m and waiting for prey is not exactly how most people want to spend a quick game.

 

While not exactly my favourite thing in RoF, the absence of the streak mechanic also means that some people stay less invested in between fights and missions. In many ways, it feels like everyone is playing by their own rules against “human AI”, rather than a true multiplayer game. That’s not always a bad thing, however creating a sense of community in those circumstances is a dire affair. There’s always been a degree of cynicism and toxicity both in-game and on the forums, but in the old days this was overwhelmingly drowned out by the sheer enthusiasm and hunger for more. In that respect, we need a bit more dev attention — and not some 11th hour action like we had in RoF with 1.034, which did more bad than good. All this in spite of being just a tiny part of a far larger customer base.

 

Speaking of which, Flying Circus at $60 is a steal if you’re already into flightsims and have even a fleeting interest in WWI. We are very far removed from individual flightsim module pricing for DCS, FSX or X-Plane. Not to mention that creating this game from the ground up would be financially impossible today. Just look at the competition on the WWI multiplayer flightsim market. *crickets*

 

Beyond an audio/visual/64-bit/netcode/VR remaster, FC is an actual improvement over RoF in terms of flight physics and damage model (no more Hollywood wing shedding, and far more pilot kills and flamers). I honestly can’t go back to RoF, though I do admit that some of these improvements could have probably been made to the base game. Still, RoF is the past and FC is the present and near-future.

 

For the farther future, flightsims are going to have to reinvent themselves one way or another to become mainstream and popular again. No, StarCitizen isn’t it. VR and haptic controls, maybe — we’ll see in another 5 to 10 years.

 

In the meantime, grab your goggles and your 16 year old MSFFB2 and just join the J5 Flugpark server, even when it’s empty. People are sure to join. There’s more of us than we think and, as far as I’m concerned, we don’t yet suffer from “Star Wars fatigue”.

Edited by J5_Hellbender
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Flashy said:

As mentioned, the map isnt out yet, and there are no decent, immersive missions to bring in the more serious pilots. Its just furball servers at the moment. The planeset is also very limited in FC vol 1, so I dont think it will even pick up very much until we have a lot more planes. Maybe after FC vol 2 we will start to see more of a migration over to FC from RoF..

 

Exactly. Furballing's fine for those who like doing that, but i doubt it'll make for a highly engaged user base.

 

IMO it's not only a good looking Map we need, but great mission sets that raise the bar from RoF. Next-level artillery spotting and photographic recon would go a long way towards that.

 

Running the same planeset will get repetitive for sure. But i do think the initial volume, plus a great map and mission capability, has the potential to draw a solid base of regular users and create enough excitement about the Sim to encourage the server owners and mission developers to put in the resources. Then, yeah, we'll need a lot more planes.

 

Meantime, RoF still gives me a tense, heart-pounding immersion i don't find in FC.

 

Edited by US103_Baer
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

 

 

 

While not exactly my favourite thing in RoF, the absence of the streak mechanic also means that some people stay less invested in between fights and missions. In many ways, it feels like everyone is playing by their own rules against “human AI”, rather than a true multiplayer game. That’s not always a bad thing, however creating a sense of community in those circumstances is a dire affair. There’s always been a degree of cynicism and toxicity both in-game and on the forums, but in the old days this was overwhelmingly drowned out by the sheer enthusiasm and hunger for more. In that respect, we need a bit more dev attention — and not some 11th hour action like we had in RoF with 1.034, which did more bad than good. All this in spite of being just a tiny part of a far larger customer base.

 

 

 

What are you talking about 'absence of streak mechanic'?  In Il-2, streaks are tallied up by the Vaal script running on the server, same as with RoF.  Those are the only stats that count.  The in-game score page with 'streak' in RoF was not used by any serious players, at least not in the time that I played:  It was always about the stats page on the server, which was a lot more comprehensive and accurate.  If the servers running FC are not running a website where people can check their stats, you need to talk to them and get them to do that.  Nothing here needs to change in Il-2.

Edited by SeaSerpent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope someone comes up with a WW1 version of something like TAW (24/7 dynamic campaign).  Such campaigns make for a more immersive multiplayer experience (in my opinion) as what is done in one map rotation affects what happens in the next, and seems to make ground attack and staying alive/preserving aircraft more important.  Also hoping that syndicate starts hosting multiplayer missions again as I always enjoyed their missions.

 

In the mean time I would definitely second the recommendation of flying on the J5 server even when no one is around as there are AI at the rear spawns which are good for quick repetitive gunnery practice.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2019 at 3:18 PM, SeaSerpent said:

 

What are you talking about 'absence of streak mechanic'?  In Il-2, streaks are tallied up by the Vaal script running on the server, same as with RoF.  Those are the only stats that count.  The in-game score page with 'streak' in RoF was not used by any serious players, at least not in the time that I played:  It was always about the stats page on the server, which was a lot more comprehensive and accurate.  If the servers running FC are not running a website where people can check their stats, you need to talk to them and get them to do that.  Nothing here needs to change in Il-2.

 

In ROF streak  is saved in  between multiplayer missions and displayed in the game scores. I do like it, you can base imagined pilot life or career with help of that information plus know that you  killed some ACE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, 307_Tomcat said:

 

In ROF streak  is saved in  between multiplayer missions and displayed in the game scores. I do like it, you can base imagined pilot life or career with help of that information plus know that you  killed some ACE.

 

Well, for offline play, I guess that's all you've got.  This thread is about multiplayer activity.  For multiplayer stats, the in-game "streak" from RoF would need a total rework, because, as I suspect everyone here knows, wasn't accurate. 

Edited by SeaSerpent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2019 at 5:28 AM, US103_Baer said:

IMO it's not only a good looking Map we need, but great mission sets that raise the bar from RoF. Next-level artillery spotting and photographic recon would go a long way towards that.

 

Hi,   

 

Interactive artillery spotting and photo recon are in the single player 2 seater career of RoF.  AnKor made a script that turned the single player photo recon into a client side operation that has given us this wonderful experience in RoF multiplayer. A similar script could be used for the artillery correction mission.

 

The developers are aware of this and show no interest in making this part of the standard game.  

 

At present, the photo recon mission will have to go back to a system similar to the Vintage missions created a long time ago in a sim not so far away.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

Well, for offline play, I guess that's all you've got.  This thread is about multiplayer activity.  For multiplayer stats, the in-game "streak" from RoF would need a total rework, because, as I suspect everyone here knows, wasn't accurate. 

Yes it is for multiplayer all what I was talking about in my previous post is about multiplayer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 307_Tomcat said:

Yes it is for multiplayer all what I was talking about in my previous post is about multiplayer.

 

The only stats that matter in multiplayer are the ones handled by the server operators.  It was true in RoF, and it is true in IL-2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

The only stats that matter are the ones the person playing cares about.

 

Then I guess it sucks for Flying Circus players who prefer to look at innacurate in-game stats, a la Rise of Flight, because if you want to see what your multiplayer stats really are, you're going to have to visit the host's website and look at their stat page.  That's how it is.

Edited by SeaSerpent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Game stats in RoF could have been a lot better, in fact they're fairly poor imo.

Absolutely the server stats seem to be more comprehensive and you're right that they're better than in-game ones.

 

However not all server operators provide on-line stats, so MP kill-streaks and shooting % is all some of us have to go on !

I'm aware of the in-game kill streak shortcomings and potential inaccuracies, but that's just how it is.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Agree, we need the map first, because WW1 does require the immersion to be there, aerodromes ecc. ecc..

 

About Camel vs Dr.1, i think since the RoF time, that we would need the DVIIau.

 

Personally i love both WW1 and WW2, but i will wait for the map.

Edited by 150GCT_Veltro
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 150GCT_Veltro said:

About Camel vs Dr.1, i think since the RoF time, that we would need the DVIIau.

 

Personally i love both WW1 and WW2, but i will wait for the map.

 

The D.IIIau on the D.VII would give us a slightly worse D.VIIF, but I still agree we need it badly as it was the main production engine and the later F could be removed from most maps. The same engine on the Albatros and Pfalz would make these planes competitive against Camels above 1000m. Some might say even a bit too competitive against Entente planes that require more discipline, such as the SPAD and SE5a.

 

Still, having some new gameplay elements compared to RoF (not counting parachutes and improved DM) would certainly attract attention. No idea how much actual development time would be needed to port those engines over from the Halberstadt CL.II 200hp.

 

As for me, I'm also waiting for the map and for the end of summer when I'll have more time to fly online.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2019 at 4:55 PM, SeaSerpent said:

 

The only stats that matter in multiplayer are the ones handled by the server operators. 

 

Do they explain the circumstances under which each player flies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

The same engine on the Albatros and Pfalz would make these planes competitive against Camels above 1000m. Some might say even a bit too competitive against Entente planes that require more discipline, such as the SPAD and SE5a.
 

Quoting this for emphasis as I think something like this is REQUIRED if the devs really want to make FC highly attractive and popular with current AND past AND potential customers!  It WOULD go a long way to making FC MORE than RoF rebranded, fixing much that was problematic in RoF and FC. 

 

Nerfing the Camel is out of the question.  Giving the Camel a more accurate speed is unlikely as it is undesirable by the biased  jockeys.... giving the Camel some historically justified competition IS needed, and this might just be the fix....and it SHOULD BE CORRECTED NOW IN BETA before general release if the devs want a truly profitable and potentially long lasting revenue stream from FC.  Otherwise we will ALL suffer as it will be left to the few mission builders who know or care enough to take the scalpel to the flight pipeline.....when it was all unnecessary and a much better product was possible once and for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that giving the Camel a more accurate speed would be questioned. Most Camel jockeys are gone (I'm not one of them), the Dr1 is still nerfed, etc. Or they could use the current Camel for the 160hp engine and work on a more toned down Camel for the 130hp engine, which is what we've been asking since 2014. They just have to make it reasonable.

 

The Albatros Dva was indeed a surprise, or perhaps we did not see it coming, because the Pfalz was apparently rolled back (they said that they are only working with the pre 2014 patch, except for the Dr1). Or they can wait on Chill's data, but the thing is that at the moment I think they will only work with pre-nerfed and post-nerfed flight models (FMs that are done already). Since the nerfed Camel was so bad (way better to fly a nerfed Pup against the Dr1), I think we got stuck with the pre-nerfed Camel.

 

I agree that they should take the opportunity to tweak things and make engine variants, but I don't think we are going to get it, at least not now. It would require Flying Circus to get to a new level. At the moment I think they are just porting the FMs and the map.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to comment and then realised I have nothing to say that I haven't said before.

 

FC has been an exercise in utter disappointment, so far, for me.

 

I don't feel ripped off, just like I have made a fool of myself for hoping it would be a modern RoF.

 

At my age, I ought to have known better.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The only way to nip the eternal FM debates in the bud, would be for the devs to give us all (or at least 2-3 of the) the engine variants for each plane type if they exist.

In SP one could fly whatever one wants vs whatever one wants, as it should be.

In MP the mission builders have the choice of supplying period historic options.. as it should be.

If instead of 'nerfing' the Camel way back, they'd supplied the lower powered one in addition to the existing one.. as long as they were both (relatively) historical and the mission builders used them in the right periods I'm not sure anyone would have had cause to complain.

 

An idea I had was giving each plane a +/- 2% random variation in plane performance and durability (at the point of plane selection in-game).

In real life no two planes were the same, and in particular near the end of the war weren't the Germans having to build with whatever they could cobble together ?

I think a small random factor like this would be good for the game (incl. ww2), make it feel a bit less 'robotic'.

 

S!

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, SP1969 said:

I was going to comment and then realised I have nothing to say that I haven't said before.

 

FC has been an exercise in utter disappointment, so far, for me.

 

I don't feel ripped off, just like I have made a fool of myself for hoping it would be a modern RoF.

 

At my age, I ought to have known better.

 

 

 

I know how you feel SP, 95% of my time is still in RoF and a bit of ww2.

The organised meets don't suit me for times, and out-with that there's currently not a server with anything for me as a lone player.

 

But remember we're in EA.

It's all about the map map map.

I'll judge things when we've had that out for a few weeks.

 

Salute !

Edited by Zooropa_Fly
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

An idea I had was giving each plane a +/- 2% random variation in plane performance and durability (at the point of plane selection in-game).

In real life no two planes were the same, and in particular near the end of the war weren't the Germans having to build with whatever they could cobble together ?

I think a small random factor like this would be good for the game (incl. ww2), make it feel a bit less 'robotic'.

 

This is something I have always wanted in RoF and now lL-2. Reliability and wear and tear could have massive impacts on aircraft availability and performance, especially for rotary engines in WW1 which lost performance pretty dramatically as engine hours went up. Plus, some of these planes were just downright unreliable. The Dh2 for example would often lose a few aircraft from every flight due to reliability issues and the Russian tanks and planes at the beginning of WW2 were especially fraught with reliability and build quality issues that just arent modeled at all in the game - All planes and tanks are perfectly reliable, 100% factory-fresh examples with 0 miles on the clock. Its pretty silly..

 

We should definitely have performance variations between the same aircraft, preferably based on previous usage/hours on the engine in SP campaigns, or random if thats too difficult. Common mechanical failures should also be modeled for both tanks and aircraft because these things have a real affect on their combat usefulness - some planes are tanks were awesome when they worked, but broke down often, so they werent actually of much use in the grand scheme of things. At the moment there is no risk to taking a particular vehicle because you know it will be 100% reliable as long as you dont misuse it. This doesnt in any way represent the reality of war where equipment was operated under extreme conditions for long periods of time, sometimes without a good supply of spare parts due to logistic difficulties or shortages, and this resulted in vehicles breaking down, or not being available at certain times etc. I realise not everyone will want this all the time, so it should be a realism option like the upcoming pilot physiology model that can be turned off if desired.

 

 

Edited by Flashy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Maybe, Zooropa, maybe.

 

Every other BoX module has an SP campaign. FC doesn't.

 

I know Pat will do his magical thing, and that will make a difference when we have a map.

 

But I didn't pay Pat $69.

 

And the lack of ability to 'rig' is really annoying me. 

 

WW1 aeroplanes need curves to replicate the rigging.

 

I know we all have a 'wishlist' - be it a specific aeroplane, or a map of a specific area, and that it isn't fair or realistic to hope everything one wishes for will magically arrive, but I did hope that FC would at LEAST equal RoF in playability and realism.

 

It doesn't come close. Not even close.

 

It looks prettier. That's it. It is a WW1 paint job on a WW2 sim. 

Edited by SP1969
Apparently, I'm too depressed to be able to spell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Don't forget about this statement in the last DD, feature that probably will cover all the serie not only WW2. If confirmed also for FC, Camel pilots are warned as for Dr.1. This could be THE new feature we were waiting for in RoF.

 

Quote
  • An advanced model of pilot physiology that includes complex fatigue modeling that takes into account G-overload fatigue, overload frequency, alternation of positive and negative overloads, wounds, having a G-suit, lack of oxygen and oxygen supply system. The model will also simulate a loss of consciousness and ability to control an aircraft after experiencing too sharp or too severe overloads. The algorithms it is using are based on the research of various institutes. The introduction of this model is likely to change the flow of air combat, especially in multiplayer. However, those who find it too difficult and unfamiliar will be able to switch it off as realism option (it will also be a server setting).

 

Edited by 150GCT_Veltro
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Multiplayer activity across both the WW1 And WW2 sides is but a mere shadow of what multiplayer was a decade+ ago.  Times have changed.  Our little niche of combat flight simulation has grown ever smaller since the glory days of the original IL2 and Hyperlobby.  Most players are flying the single player experience, and in reality probably always were, but the numbers of us that want to fly online against other like minded people, regardless of the timeframe of aircraft we like to fly has dwindled to relative insignificance.   New players are not flocking to this genre.  It's too expensive on the buy in, considering all the peripherals needed, and far to demanding of time for the younger crowd to bother with.

 

We are dinosaurs gents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

FC and tank crew should be a valuable learning experience for the developers.

Edited by Feathered_IV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 150GCT_Veltro said:

Don't forget about this statement in the last DD, feature that probably will cover all the serie not only WW2. If confirmed also for FC, Camel pilots are warned as for Dr.1. This could be THE new feature we were waiting for in RoF.

 

There is a real life pilot here with 63 years old saying that he can pull 5 Gs multiple times without a sweat in a modern aircraft. Why we, in kites, portraying 20 years old boys should worry? Unless they have some in-store for us from left field.

 

1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Multiplayer activity across both the WW1 And WW2 sides is but a mere shadow of what multiplayer was a decade+ ago.  Times have changed.  Our little niche of combat flight simulation has grown ever smaller since the glory days of the original IL2 and Hyperlobby.  Most players are flying the single player experience, and in reality probably always were, but the numbers of us that want to fly online against other like minded people, regardless of the timeframe of aircraft we like to fly has dwindled to relative insignificance.   New players are not flocking to this genre.  It's too expensive on the buy in, considering all the peripherals needed, and far to demanding of time for the younger crowd to bother with.

 

We are dinosaurs gents.

 

I'm of the opinion that this is not a generation thing. Not long ago CloD gathered 120 players in one server (I did not play it, but I often checked the servers online), and we know that CloD wasn't a smooth project and had many pitfalls and people spitting wasps left and right. People are there, but the years did not improved game-play, and in some cases hindered it even further with code limitation (just now we are being told that visibility limitation will be fixed), bad decisions (unlocks made Il-2 turn on its axes), lack of a true mission builder for the game to grow, which also created attrition in between the community, since we have to rely on a few mission builders (they have almost a developer status, which places a lot of pression on them 'for free', it is bad for us regulars, for everyone), etc.

 

I think the market will be always there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/29/2019 at 1:43 PM, Pirol* said:

. But the J5 Flugpark server is open all the other time too, but i have never seen anyone there, the server is always empty

 

How do you think a server makes the transition from being empty to being occupied, if only by one player?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The pivot will be Black September (FC edition). If J5 manages to launch it, if it brings enough vets (even out of curiosity), if there will be follow-up missions, if, if. 

The cockonuts WW1 server were excellent for day-too-day activity until they were shut down. The engine is open source, though, sop they can be brought back with relatively small effort.

 

 

2 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

There is a real life pilot here with 63 years old saying that he can pull 5 Gs multiple times without a sweat in a modern aircraft. Why we, in kites, portraying 20 years old boys should worry? Unless they have some in-store for us from left field.

 


Cold and (lack of) oxygen tolerance was much more of the issue than G-tolerance in WW1; I've never run into pilot memoirs giving much emphasis on that particular hardship.

Edited by J2_Trupobaw
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Cold and (lack of) oxygen tolerance was much more of the issue than G-tolerance in WW1; I've never run into pilot memoirs giving much emphasis on that particular hardship.

 

Me neither, they seemed to do stunts with no effect at all, although lack of oxygen will have little or no impact on multiplayer, since we seldom go above 12-13.000feet. On this regard I think it would be a bit of a waste of resources. Perhaps in some SP missions it could be useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would guess the low speeds of ww1 machines would keep the G loadings down ?

Share this post


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

I would guess the low speeds of ww1 machines would keep the G loadings down ?

 

At least on the blackout feature, I very seldom get the blackout effect due to G-forces, especially because we tend to dethatch our wings when we push the envelope. Most of the stunts are made in lower Gs I suppose, especially with Dr1s and Camels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

There is a real life pilot here with 63 years old saying that he can pull 5 Gs multiple times without a sweat in a modern aircraft. Why we, in kites, portraying 20 years old boys should worry? Unless they have some in-store for us from left field.

 

We'll see how it will be implemented, but as stated in DD, also the wounds will be considered in the fatigue, and we know how easy is to be wounded in RoF. Pilots were very young as for their experience, without considering the fear (if not terror) to be in a deadly WW1 combat, not exactly an aerobatic exercise.

 

It's an heavy task this fatigue feature, but it's really interesting and promising, first of all for the multy.

 

 

Edited by 150GCT_Veltro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I don’t want to spread too much positivity in this perfectly legitimate bitch thread (I agree on almost all points above, for the record), but if we discount the Fokker D.VIIF, the Bristol F.III and the Halberstadt 200hp, we have a pretty accurate planeset for April 1918, weeks before the introduction of the “real” Fokker D.VII and the more widespread conversion of the existing Mercedes D.III(a) blocks to 200hp overcompression. Perhaps this is a better focus than Black September?

 

No matter what happens, the Camel’s top speed is going to remain a hot potato. There’s likely not a single other machine in combat flightsim history where a 5km/h reduction in speed would have such a tremendous impact on the entire game and how it is perceived by the people who play it. It’s not surprising that the devs, who are in their own words not WWI specialists, struggle to see the bigger picture. Optimistically I think we’re 2km/h off (188km/h AMSL) — which is an almost ludicrous change — but I accept that it could be as high as 8km/h (182km/h AMSL). Just, please, no more 165km/h Camel. That’s as bad as the Dr.I we have now.

 

And yes, the Fokker Dr.I’s performance is an aberration, but even that should be fixed before release.

Edited by J5_Hellbender
  • Upvote 2

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  

×
×
  • Create New...