Arras map - a lot to like...

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

On 10/2/2019 at 1:16 AM, J5_Matthias said:

 

As "lovely" as I guess this is compared to the original ROF map, it does not hold a candle to the level of detail that Paf put into modeling the original Arras mod map.  And if they couldn't take the time to model everything historically, themselves fine I get it, BUT.... all of that work was freely offered up to Jason for inclusion into this project over a year ago by both forum message and email.  INCLUDING custom models to make specialized landmarks.  We didn't even get a response...

 

 

Did not know about it .... this is sad all this work should be reused in FC

 

 

 

[BMA_Hellbender]

I wonder if it would be feasible to add bump mapping to NML.

 

Yes, I’m sure that a modder with access to the right tools, a pot of coffee and a carton of cigarettes could do it in an afternoon for free, but that’s just not how commercial software development works in the real world. It’s easy to forget that the product being marketed here is the game engine, which is shut off from public access for a reason.

 

A dedicated mod team with proper access as it exists for IL-2 1946 and CloD could have turned RoF into a better version of WOFF in less than a year or two, of that I’m convinced. However, at that point you have to acknowledge as a developer that the Digital Nature engine isn’t really yours anymore, which is the truly valuable part of the product, and the part which was initially developed by neoQB with investor money to be improved over the years to become the new Digital Warfare engine.

 

I still think we’re in a better place now as an “afterthought” to the main WWII venue, but benefiting from all its improvements (64bit, VR, DM, etc.), even though a fully fleshed/modded out RoF is probably what we all wanted, myself included. If you make products according to what people want, the iPhone 11 Pro would have been a 2 pound brick with 7 different connectors and a weeklong battery running on Windows 7, complete with mouse and keyboard. Okay, I kind of want that now.

 

If the team thinks this is how they can still make a WWI flightsim profitable in 2019, then so be it. I hope they’re right, even though the eternal optimist in me has to admit that they are walking the fine line between expectation and disappointment.

[Panzerlang]

3 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

I wonder if it would be feasible to add bump mapping to NML.

 

Yes, I’m sure that a modder with access to the right tools, a pot of coffee and a carton of cigarettes could do it in an afternoon for free, but that’s just not how commercial software development works in the real world. It’s easy to forget that the product being marketed here is the game engine, which is shut off from public access for a reason.

 

A dedicated mod team with proper access as it exists for IL-2 1946 and CloD could have turned RoF into a better version of WOFF in less than a year or two, of that I’m convinced. However, at that point you have to acknowledge as a developer that the Digital Nature engine isn’t really yours anymore, which is the truly valuable part of the product, and the part which was initially developed by neoQB with investor money to be improved over the years to become the new Digital Warfare engine.

 

I still think we’re in a better place now as an “afterthought” to the main WWII venue, but benefiting from all its improvements (64bit, VR, DM, etc.), even though a fully fleshed/modded out RoF is probably what we all wanted, myself included. If you make products according to what people want, the iPhone 11 Pro would have been a 2 pound brick with 7 different connectors and a weeklong battery running on Windows 7, complete with mouse and keyboard. Okay, I kind of want that now.

 

If the team thinks this is how they can still make a WWI flightsim profitable in 2019, then so be it. I hope they’re right, even though the eternal optimist in me has to admit that they are walking the fine line between expectation and disappointment.

Going by the lack of player-return at this point (too soon?) I'm not full of optimism. Especially after shelling out yet another 60 quid for a copy for my brother and finding pretty much the square root of SFA in WW1 servers, never mind any with healthy populations.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

 In nishe products going open never hurts both sides  developers and customers. 

[No.23_Gaylion]

Give it some time man. A few months ago there were dedicated "events" on FC pulling close to 50 folks. At the same time dedicated events on RoF were pulling folks as well. 

[BMA_Hellbender]

Just now, J3Hetzer said:

Going by the lack of player-return at this point (too soon?) I'm not full of optimism. Especially after shelling out yet another 60 quid for a copy for my brother and finding pretty much the square root of SFA in WW1 servers, never mind any with healthy populations.

The multiplayer UI needs work. Right now I can’t tell what an FC server is and what isn’t (not that there’s a real difference at this point). A multiplayer lobby needs to happen. These are all planned features that we need, preferably before FC comes out of early access.

 

For the moment all I can suggest is to have a bit of patience for another server or two to get a mission ready (yes, an official server ready at release would have made sense, but I digress).

[HiIIBiIIy]

22 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

I can suggest is to have a bit of patience

NO, we want it all and we want it NOW!

Just in case you can't tell, this post is sarcasm.?

Edited October 3, 2019 by HiIIBiIIy

[SYN_Haashashin]

18 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

The multiplayer UI needs work. Right now I can’t tell what an FC server is and what isn’t (not that there’s a real difference at this point). 

 

For the moment all I can suggest is to have a bit of patience for another server or two to get a mission...

If you see a SYN server up at the Dogfighting part of MP is WWI for sure.

 

I am working in a MP mission and couple of SP ones.

 

Haash

[JG1_Butzzell]

Regarding servers, long ago I suggested putting a label in front of the server names.    IL2 for WW II, FC and TC.  This would organize the server list and let players know what the server was offering.

[Panzerlang]

One thing the SS servers have right is plenty of AI planes going about their business. It's always a buzz not knowing if the plane you're about to fight is a 'rookie' (AI) or a vet/ace (human).

[JGr2/J5_Hotlead]

I agree with Butzzell and Bender. There needs to be a differentiation between WW1 & WW2 servers. Maybe even a screen before entering the lobby that allows players to select one of two options: “World War I” and “World War II”. 
 

Then if we could have at least 2 dedicated servers: one for realistic Wargrounds/Syndicate-style play and one for air quake, the stage should be set for things to improve. 
 

Personally, I’d love to see a return of the Aces Falling server. I remember that it pretty much was always active with 6-20 pilots aboard in ROF. Here’s why it was my favorite airquake server of all time and why I think it would be beneficial for Flying Circus: 

 

- It had airfields close to each other. Flight time from your field to the closest enemy drome was around 2-5 minutes max. You could be embroiled in combat within a minute of taking off. 

- It has a very good mix of arcade and realism. Full engine management was on. Only cockpit view was allowed. Yet icons were allowed. With Il-2’s new icon-occlusion logic, this would be even better than in ROF. 
 

- Most maps went beyond simple dogfight n die playstyles. They incorporated a unique capture-the-airfield mode. The mission started with 2-4 airbases per side. Each airbase had 4 AA trucks, 3 light trucks, the airfield hangars, and one balloon at 1500 meters. Once all of these were destroyed, the airfield switched sides and all the destroyed items respawned. You could then take off from that captured airfield. The mission ended either when time ran out or when one side captured all the bases. This added a true element of teamwork, gave the bomber guys something to do other than fly around and try to dogfight, and made for some EPIC battles. I still remember the desperation of trying to make a heroic final defense of our last airfield while a few of our bombers quickly tried to recapture one of our bases. 
 

- It had an accurate stats webpage. For those (like me) who like keeping stats, it was a huge plus. For those who didn’t care, there was no need to check them. 
 

- Since the first letter of the server’s name was “A” (Aces Falling), it appeared right at the top of the server list. Very easy for people to find. 
 

- Because of its great mix of realism and arcade, it became a common ground where you could find both realism-oriented squad fliers and airquake pilots sharing the skies together. This helped keep numbers up on the server.

 

- It had good ping, at least for me and from what I’d heard from everybody. 
 

All in all, I think once FC releases, it deserves a reincarnation of Aces Falling. Will it cure every ailment in the sim? No. FC is a new product, and as such is bound to have some teething trouble. What it will do is give FC a solid, reliable server from the get go. As word gets around about it, it should (hopefully) start to generate the following it used to have back in the day. All FC needs to be a multiplayer success (not talking about single player right now) is to have 1-2 constantly populated servers. And this could help it get the job done. ?

[Cynic_Al]

55 minutes ago, JG1_Hotlead_J10 said:

 

Then if we could have at least 2 dedicated servers: one for realistic Wargrounds/Syndicate-style play and one for air quake, the stage should be set for things to improve. 
 

Personally, I’d love to see a return of the Aces Falling server. I remember that it pretty much was always active with 6-20 pilots aboard in ROF. Here’s why it was my favorite airquake server of all time and why I think it would be beneficial for Flying Circus: 

 

 

When it comes to servers there's really only one way to get what you want; so fire-up the editor and I'm sure we'll all look forward to see up with what you come

[Cynic_Al]

6 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

A multiplayer lobby needs to happen.

 

 

Could you define that?

[jollyjack]

On 10/1/2019 at 8:17 PM, J3Hetzer said:

If thousands of people were queuing up to buy FC (with thousands already sold) I'd guess we'd have a no-mans land x100 better, but given the financial reality I reckon the Arras sandpit is pretty damn good. I bought my brother a copy of FC this afternoon on the strength of it and he loves it (the whole enchilada, not just the map, both VR flyers).

 

 I bought it out of support towards the whole thing .... guess many others did, but hey, tell your friends to hop on. But my guess is around 80 bucks is a bit steep for a game like FC as it still is half finished. Il2 1946 looks promising when they come up with some action scenery like here, (see video below); the planes already look a lot nicerr, but i hate the cockpit view (looking through the mailbox) in any FC, and use arcade (F4) view mostly.

 

My grief generally with F4 view is especially when you follow a boogieman, your own plane moves to the side of the screen where you are directing it, in all BoX versions BTW. Is there a way to correct these view settings and behavior, apart from buying VR?

 

FC in Il2 1946:

 

 

18 hours ago, SYN_Haashashin said:

 ... I am working in a MP mission and couple of SP ones. .... Haash

 

Since i got a little into the FMB business thanks JimTM's help and manual i understand that it's takes time.  Especially what puts me off a little with FMB mission making is; there's no quick testing mode built into the FMB like in Cliffs, and it's (not yet?) possible to run the game and FMB at the same time. I connected a second monitor even, but you need windows tricks to use the second one for even holding a PDF while playing the game.

Edited October 4, 2019 by jollyjack
correction

[JG1_Butzzell]

6 hours ago, jollyjack said:

 

 I bought it out of support towards the whole thing .... guess many others did, but hey, tell your friends to hop on. But my guess is around 80 bucks is a bit steep for a game like FC as it still is half finished. Il2 1946 looks promising when they come up with some action scenery like here, (see video below); the planes already look a lot nicerr, but i hate the cockpit view (looking through the mailbox) in any FC, and use arcade (F4) view mostly.

 

My grief generally with F4 view is especially when you follow a boogieman, your own plane moves to the side of the screen where you are directing it, in all BoX versions BTW. Is there a way to correct these view settings and behavior, apart from buying VR?

 

FC in Il2 1946:

 

 

 

Since i got a little into the FMB business thanks JimTM's help and manual i understand that it's takes time.  Especially what puts me off a little with FMB mission making is; there's no quick testing mode built into the FMB like in Cliffs, and it's (not yet?) possible to run the game and FMB at the same time. I connected a second monitor even, but you need windows tricks to use the second one for even holding a PDF while playing the game.

S!

 

Please do not confuse IL2 1946 BAT MOD  "Flying Circus" with IL2 Great Battles Flying Circus.  Even ROF looks way better than that video.

 

Have you ever heard of Track IR?  No need for hat buttons or F4.

[bzc3lk]

On 10/3/2019 at 11:18 PM, J5_Hellbender said:

I wonder if it would be feasible to add bump mapping to NML.

 

 

Certainly helped with Rof, giving that 3d effect to the front and the fields. Wasn't the mod author called AnKor85?

 

 

[JGr2/J34b_Matthias]

Yes Ankor85 did the ROF bump mapping, along with a few other cool gadgets.

Edited October 7, 2019 by J5_Matthias

[Lusekofte]

I love this map. I never really was enthusiastic about FC in the first place. But then I got VR and now I believe I prefer FC. And my impression of Arras is very positive. I hope we will get bigger bombers since targets seem to be very visible from high altitude

Edited October 7, 2019 by LuseKofte

[Oyster_KAI]

Arras map have better buildings, but about craters & shore, low res textures & jags everywhere.
I like ROF map more......
Please tell me this is a "VERY" early access.

 

[J99_Sizzlorr]

51 minutes ago, Oyster_KAI said:

Arras map have better buildings, but about craters & shore, low res textures & jags everywhere.
I like ROF map more......
Please tell me this is a "VERY" early access.

 

 

Well it has to be. There is a lot of stuff misssing on this map. For example there are no railwaystations in cities with railwaytracks going trough them. There are no army encampments behind the lines, no fieldhospitals, fieldkitchens and stuff like that.

[No.23_Gaylion]

Yes.

[J2_Trupobaw]

Either it's very early access map, or these cities hog so many resources we're left with unpopulated coiuntryside.

[No.23_Gaylion]

Already been stated by SYN guys that it is the basic map and that they are currently working on making it more betterer.

[JGr2/J5_Hotlead]

10 hours ago, US103_Talbot said:

Already been stated by SYN guys that it is the basic map and that they are currently working on making it more betterer.

Like others have said, I hope so! It looks fairly decent right now. Arras is lovely, but with no-man's land there is MUCH room for improvement. 

 

16 hours ago, J99Sizzlorr said:

 

There is a lot of stuff missing on this map. For example there are no railway stations in cities with railway tracks going trough them. There are no army encampments behind the lines, no field hospitals, field kitchens and stuff like that.

This is exactly what I'd like to see!

Edited October 9, 2019 by JG1_Hotlead_J10

[Spook109]

This has stoked my interest in RoF again. Can anyone tell me where to find the "PAF" mod? I'd like to check that out.

[JGr2/J34b_Matthias]

^ PMed

[haltux]

On 10/1/2019 at 6:49 PM, Red_Cat said:

as it is, it doesn't really seem to be much of an improvement over RoF - there's not really anything new so far.

 

I hate to say it but I could not agree more.

I have bought FC and I would do it again because I have a VR headset, but without VR, I really can't see the point. RoF had nice missions, better AI, more planes with similar graphic quality and honestly the landscape looked better to me. And that was 10 years ago. That's sad.

 

We are close to the official release so I don't think there is really hope for major improvements.

Edited October 9, 2019 by haltux

[SYN_Vander]

On 10/8/2019 at 5:47 PM, US103_Talbot said:

Already been stated by SYN guys that it is the basic map and that they are currently working on making it more betterer.

 

I only said that a mission maker can destroy objects (vilages, towns) and thus create a more realistic environment.

 

42 minutes ago, haltux said:

 

I hate to say it but I could not agree more.

I have bought FC and I would do it again because I have a VR headset, but without VR, I really can't see the point. RoF had nice missions, better AI, more planes with similar graphic quality and honestly the landscape looked better to me. And that was 10 years ago. That's sad.

 

We are close to the official release so I don't think there is really hope for major improvements.

 

Better AI in RoF???? Please elaborate...

Edited October 9, 2019 by SYN_Vander

[JGr2/J34b_Matthias]

12 minutes ago, SYN_Vander said:

 

I only said that a mission maker can destroy objects (vilages, towns) and thus create a more realistic environment.

 

 

Better AI in RoF???? Please elaborate...

Well based on some of the absolutely dumbfounding ai behavior Ive experienced over the past month not to mention what I watched yesterday putting ai on the arras map I kind of have to agree...

 

-ai two seaters not manning rear gun positions when under fire

-the formation system appears completely broken.  Following the linking system instructions in the editor manual for wingmen to flight leaders results in them ignoring orders.

-ai planes chasing an enemy throttling back to slowly approach when chasing a target instead of actually closing on it at speed in straight and level chase.

-dragging planes in a dogfight dragging so far they lose contact with their pursuer.

-the ai landing system that requires an active airfield now to even work and then the ai gets itself stuck in a loop because of player/ai traffic in the pattern and then it can threaten to jam up the entire server.

 

 

Edited October 9, 2019 by J5_Matthias

[SYN_Vander]

2 minutes ago, J5_Matthias said:

Well based on some of the absolutely dumbfounding ai combat I just watched yesterday putting ai on the arras map I kind of have to agree...

 

-ai two seaters not manning rear gun positions when under fire

-the formation system appears completely broken.  Following the linking system instructions in the editor manual for wingmen to flight leaders results in them ignoring orders.

-ai planes chasing an enemy throttling back to slowly approach when chasing a target

-dragging planes in a dogfight dragging so far they lose contact with their pursuer.

-the ai landing system that requires an active airfield now to even work and then the ai gets itself stuck in a loop because of player/ai traffic in the pattern and then it can threaten to jam up the entire server.

 

Strange, I had some fun encounters with AI yesterday on the MP mission I was testing. I was happy to see they did not immediately go into a rapidly descending circle and were trying to keep their altitude. Perhaps AI has only been optimized for WW2 as of now?

[haltux]

15 minutes ago, SYN_Vander said:

Better AI in RoF???? Please elaborate...

 

I have to admit I did not play to the last version but at least until recently enemy planes tended to dive and escape no matter what. I don't remember having that kind of issue with RoF.

 

This is a topic that has been already discussed on this forum.

[SYN_Vander]

Just now, SYN_Vander said:

-the formation system appears completely broken.  Following the linking system instructions in the editor manual for wingmen to flight leaders results in them ignoring orders.

 

I'm assuming you are not trying this with spawned planes? This has never worked as you no doubt already know...

[SYN_Haashashin]

On 10/8/2019 at 4:47 PM, US103_Talbot said:

Already been stated by SYN guys that it is the basic map and that they are currently working on making it more betterer.

As Vander said, The work I do on the map is simply trying to make it look more like a war was going on..We do not work officially on the map. Sorry for the confusion.

 

Haash

[No.23_Gaylion]

Right on. I didn't mean to imply you guys were changing everything. 

 

Blown up towns definitely help.

[Feathered_IV]

The supposedly blown up towns seems always look a bit weird when the surrounding land remains pristine with no sign of shelling.  

[J99_Sizzlorr]

you can set craters in the ME now...

[SYN_Haashashin]

15 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

The supposedly blown up towns seems always look a bit weird when the surrounding land remains pristine with no sign of shelling.  

That’s why I have a group called ground shelling, it needs testing (performance wise) but it’s there and another for ground craters (bombed cities and surrounding terrain without them would look weird). If you expect a WWI real photography ground scenery, you better move on since that won’t be possible in years, if ever. 

 

I know of your dislike for the map team work and you take any opportunity to make it clear but you should dial it down a bit already. 

 

Cant sent you a PM so have to be told here.

 

Haash

[Feathered_IV]

Thanks Haash.  No worries about making it public.  Your shelling groups sound really interesting too.  I’ll look forward to seeing them if they work out.     

[emely]

On 10/2/2019 at 3:22 AM, SeaW0lf said:

 

The other aspect is that for what people say, the E3 owns the DH2 in ROF

This statement is quite controversial, although it has some basis.  However, DH2 requires more knowledge and training than E3 to confront this pair.  This especially affects the conditions of dog fights.  A large percentage of DH2 pilots have hands growing right out of their ass, which is why they lose.  In 1x1 conditions, the skills of pilots primarily decide.  Well, yes, if E3 has an advantage in height, it can almost always run away, I do not argue with that ?

P.S.  Guys, why are you all afraid to face the truth?  The fc card is simply worse than the rof card.  WORSE!  I would really like her to be at least the same as in the old game.

 

[SeaW0lf]

1 minute ago, emely said:

if E3 has an advantage in height, it can almost always run away, I do not argue with that

 

If the E3 has more speed, perhaps more zoom and torque, you need to really make a mistake to lose to the DH2. Since I never really flew them I can't say which of them turns tighter, but the E3 has twisting wings... So the DH2 should be able to mince it.

 

But these are the talks of the old aces. I'm not sure what Sid had to say about it (an DH2 aficionado if I recall correctly).

 

Anyway, the matchup does not seem right and the DH2 is not even paired with the E3 by the historians, but with the Albatros D2 (the classic duel of Richthofen / Hawker if I'm not mistaken).