I'VE DECIDED, I know what's wrong with FC (RoF)

[HagarTheHorrible]

I've had a bit of an epifananity, a revamalation,.

 

Stalls need to be more of an event !!!

 

At the moment aircraft tend to just sort of mush out, the most vicious stall appears to be that of the Camel in a tight turn, with full tanks.  If stalls are, for the majority a non event, a bit of mushiness, no particular loss of height, then pilots will exploit the fact that being on the bottom in a fight is no real disadvantage and spend energy stall fighting, the Pflaz D III was an obvious example, particularly in RoF.

 

If stalls were more of an issue, take off and landing would be more fraught, dropping a wing, amplified by an ill judged burst of throttle sending many a novice into the deck. Being top dog would make more sense if stall fighting resulted in a dropped wing, encouraged by the fact that the aircraft is probably flying at full throttle and pulling angles at the time, and the resultant loss of several hundred feet of altitude.  Stall fighting would become a desperate error or last gamble rather than a bona fide tactic, which is we're it should really belong.  Aircraft like the DR 1 and vanilla Fokker VII would also become more useful because, with their wing profile, they would have an advantage of mushiness rather than buttock clenching stalls.  

 

The advantage of being top dog would undoubtedly force the fight up, were it historically belongs

 

Edited October 17, 2019 by HagarTheHorrible

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I like how one can fully deflect Albatross elevator and fly that all day long

[HagarTheHorrible]

10 minutes ago, 307_Tomcat said:

I like how one can fully deflect Albatross elevator and fly that all day long

 

 

I'd noticed !

 

.........but then it doesn't have a lot else going for it.  If height conveyed a bigger advantage then that might be different.

[Raptorattacker]

1 hour ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

The advantage of being top dog would undoubtedly force the fight up, were it historically belongs

Here! Here! (or Hear! Hear!, I never got me head round that one!!). I'm sure stuff'll get tweaked and twisted 'til it works. After all, you can please some of the.....

Well said my Scottish/Scandinavian friend!! 

[BMA_Hellbender]

Stalls and spins are in-engine accurate. That is to say: they are not scripted, as was the case with many older flightsims, or "Arcade" sims such as WarThunder (if spins exist at all there).

 

If you look at page 151 of the RoF user manual, you'll find spin recovery procedures for almost all the planes (some of the later releases such as the Halberstadt, Hanriot and seaplanes are missing as they weren't released yet when the manual was made).

 

https://rof.s3.amazonaws.com/UM/ROF_Manual_English_133c_rev1.zip

 

You can (and probably should) learn these recovery procedures by heart, including the elusive Dolphin and the yet to be released D.XII deathtrap. They are not realistic. Anything other than neutralising controls, rudder against the spin and stick forward is highly questionable, unless we're talking about a developed flat spin, which is not the case here. Spin avoidance is for the most part still the best approach.

 

 

This really is a limitation of the engine with regards to the aerodynamic complexity of the spin and I'm not sure how things are on the WWII end, but it would surprise me if they were much different. The same is true for all phases of flight that approach the stall. The alternative would be for the physics simulation to check out whenever you approach the stall, as is the case with IL-2 1946, for example. All of the stall and incipient spin effects which you experience there are being generated by a script to simulate a real spin, which tends to be more realistic.

 

It will take years and advancements in computing power for dynamic stalls to reach the fidelity of real life, if we ever get there. I'm very curious to see what FS2020 will pull off in that regard.

 

For now, the question is: do you want a simulated real stall/spin (scripted), or a real simulated spin/stall (dynamic)?

[Elem]

4 hours ago, Raptorattacker said:

Hear! Hear!,

This is correct.

[J2_Trupobaw]

The new pilot physiology killed the stall fighting anyway. Especially on the deck. When every bullet can send you unconcious, resulting in certain crash if low or recoveringeven lower if high, letting people fly on higher than you is suicidal.

[No.23_Starling]

23 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

The new pilot physiology killed the stall fighting anyway. Especially on the deck. When every bullet can send you unconcious, resulting in certain crash if low or recoveringeven lower if high, letting people fly on higher than you is suicidal.

Expect to see everyone piling into the DviiF then

[SeaW0lf]

1 minute ago, No56_Hotwing said:

Expect to see everyone piling into the DviiF then

 

The D7F is not that unreachable foe though. Very hard to fly it properly (you need to specialize in it). The average player will get stuck into a turnfight with the Camel. Although the Camel seems to be the only plane that you cannot turn for a couple minutes without blacking out now, then I tend to think that any reasonable player will stop flying it (streak killer).

 

I might be wrong, but they might have over-modeled the g-forces in the past to give that whoosh, stream wingtip effect that would attract some novices with a sports car feel, but with the new physiological effects, the combination is making the pilot blackout after a while, even when managing the rpm and turns. To me it is a dud at the moment - a flying coffin.

 

Mind you that it is the only plane to me with this behavior. I’m not complaining about the physiological effects, which I don’t dislike. I might be wrong about the Camel, but time will tell, especially because you have to stop everything to test and all, and I have no such luxury at the moment. But after several long fights and blackouts (pulling back the throttle and going easy on turns in general), ask for help, to me it became a dud / bugged.

 

Regarding ways to bring people to altitude, everything that is realistic is welcomed in my opinion. Because tricks to force people to do things will only weight on the novice. Veteran and aces will always adapt with time and be at the top of the food chain. The novice or the casual player will only remain with one more problem to solve, sometimes a problem that is not even realistic and that he cannot even relate.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[Panzerlang]

48 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

The D7F is not that unreachable foe though. Very hard to fly it properly (you need to specialize in it). The average player will get stuck into a turnfight with the Camel. Although the Camel seems to be the only plane that you cannot turn for a couple minutes without blacking out now, then I tend to think that any reasonable player will stop flying it (streak killer).

 

Another MP UFO tamed by the physiology, colour me happy.

[SeaW0lf]

Just now, J3Hetzer said:

Another MP UFO tamed by the physiology, colour me happy.

 

 

"Mind you that it is the only plane to me with this behavior. I’m not complaining about the physiological effects, which I don’t dislike."

 

I think you did not read the whole post. In general this game is the way it is because of bug reports. It came a long way, and your attitude is not really productive or helpful.

[Panzerlang]

39 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

 

"Mind you that it is the only plane to me with this behavior. I’m not complaining about the physiological effects, which I don’t dislike."

 

I think you did not read the whole post. In general this game is the way it is because of bug reports. It came a long way, and your attitude is not really productive or helpful.

I've noticed that the devs might be leaving it a long time before they react to comments or reports of 'untoward' plane behaviours, to avoid acting on knee-jerk reactions from people who don't like having their favourite ride 'nerfed' (or others saying their enemy's has been buffed). I've found I never flew in a way that circumvented Gs, mainly because my muscle-memory habits haven't lead me to being caught out thus far since phsysiology was implemented. The point being I don't find myself being miffed, only 'happy' when others report it's cramped their style (for obvious reasons).

I've dragged more human Camel aces into the trees than I can count at this point, mainly because VR has allowed me to fly well enough to pull that stunt. Maybe now I won't have to resort to that.

[slug_yuugen]

2 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

The new pilot physiology killed the stall fighting anyway. Especially on the deck. When every bullet can send you unconcious, resulting in certain crash if low or recoveringeven lower if high, letting people fly on higher than you is suicidal.

 

One thing I noticed is that you still have control over the aircraft whilst unconscious so can avert total disaster even if you end up wallowing in the sky.

[No.23_Gaylion]

We've found the opposite ^

 

I jerked the stick (ha) all over the place while blacked out and my squad mates only observe lazy level or banking flight.

[slug_yuugen]

Wallowing in the sky is my default mode of flight so perhaps I've just been getting very lucky and fooling myself I had anything to do with it. ?

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

5 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

The new pilot physiology killed the stall fighting anyway. Especially on the deck. When every bullet can send you unconcious, resulting in certain crash if low or recoveringeven lower if high, letting people fly on higher than you is suicidal.

 

 

You're a fool if you think that style of fighting is going anywhere.  As long as there is no incentive to fly high, everything of consequence is going to happen on the deck in this sim, for a variety of reasons.

Edited October 17, 2019 by hrafnkolbrandr

[Chill31]

I think we should do air starts...

[76SQN-FatherTed]

To create combats at "realistic" altitudes:

 

Run the server for just  3 hours each week

Maintain a strict dead-is-dead rule

When you die you're banned for 2 months

 You could also add in having to select a mission before flying (recon, bomb, patrol) with failure to complete = 1 month ban.

 

We're never going to see "realistic" combat in a sim, because the imperative (death or dishonour) that drove those tactics just isn't there.

 

[Guest deleted@83466]

1 hour ago, =CfC=FatherTed said:

To create combats at "realistic" altitudes:

 

Run the server for just  3 hours each week

Maintain a strict dead-is-dead rule

When you die you're banned for 2 months

 You could also add in having to select a mission before flying (recon, bomb, patrol) with failure to complete = 1 month ban.

 

We're never going to see "realistic" combat in a sim, because the imperative (death or dishonour) that drove those tactics just isn't there.

 

 

 

I find it interesting that not one person has mentioned anything about interception of high altitude reconnaissance flights.  This is what drove a lot of the high alititude action in RoF, and it obviously was a prime task in the real war.  This up to Mission Designers to emphasize this task.

 

As far as people's attitudes towards virtual survival goes:  There are those that go for killstreaks, believing the test of skill is not only to shoot down enemy planes or accomplish their bombing run, but also to survive doing so, and then there are those who just want to play arcade-style.  The former tends to lead to more "realistic" pilot behavior, meaning there is an incentive to survive, while the latter tends to promote low-level berserker behavior).  Again, the choices the server operators make in their mission design plays a large role in determining what kind of playstyles predominate.

Edited October 17, 2019 by SeaSerpent

[No.23_Gaylion]

Because the CL2 cant climb great. 

 

Guess you could solve that with air starts...

[US103_Baer]

12 minutes ago, US103_Talbot said:

Because the CL2 cant climb great. 

 

Guess you could solve that with air starts...

Or the DFW. 

This is exactly the problem that was discussed when planeset was announced. The cl2 can't climb and the Bristol can't bomb from alt.

 

But with current recon scripts, massive altitude isn't critical, I think 7000ft optimal. So even recons aren't going to be very high.

 

Overall though I'm with @SeaSerpent on this. Looking after vlife drives more realistic behaviour and tactics. Which quickly becomes 'altitude is life'.

 

[J2_Trupobaw]

12 hours ago, hrafnkolbrandr said:

 

 

You're a fool if you think that style of fighting is going anywhere.  As long as there is no incentive to fly high, everything of consequence is going to happen on the deck in this sim, for a variety of reasons.

I'm not saying it's going anywhere, I said people practicing it are dead in the water (while in RoF they could try to defend themselves). I hope people will not learn and the style of fighting will stay, I like easy kills. 

One big difference between FC and RoF, though, is that there is no flow of Kaltesfleisch F2P pilots. People flying FC generally know what they are doing and came here with a purpose. So there is a possibility they will learn.

[Flashy]

11 hours ago, =CfC=FatherTed said:

To create combats at "realistic" altitudes:

 

Run the server for just  3 hours each week

Maintain a strict dead-is-dead rule

When you die you're banned for 2 months

 You could also add in having to select a mission before flying (recon, bomb, patrol) with failure to complete = 1 month ban.

 

We're never going to see "realistic" combat in a sim, because the imperative (death or dishonour) that drove those tactics just isn't there.

 

 

While the above might be a bit harsh, and could drive more people away than it attracts, what about linking the mission win scenario to the two-seater tasks, so that if the two seaters complete their tasks the mission ends with a win for that side? If you design the mission in such a way that the two-seaters can complete their tasks in a relatively short time period if they are unopposed (like an hour or whatever) then the enemy might be incentivised to prevent this in order to prevent the mission ending prematurely. In other words, if the fighters just ignore the two-seaters, the mission wont last long. Therefore, fighters have to prioritise the two-seaters to keep the mission running, and this in turn drives the two-seaters to change tactics (fly higher, fly around known fighter gathering areas, etc). Combine this with AA that spawns on the front if the two-seaters are low, and you could help push players into the type of gameplay you want to encourage.

[ZachariasX]

11 hours ago, =CfC=FatherTed said:

To create combats at "realistic" altitudes:

 

Run the server for just  3 hours each week

Maintain a strict dead-is-dead rule

When you die you're banned for 2 months

 You could also add in having to select a mission before flying (recon, bomb, patrol) with failure to complete = 1 month ban.

That is a recipe for an empty server.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Is there some way to (drastically) reduce points scored for completing tasks on subsequent V-lifes on a map after the first?

Edited October 18, 2019 by hrafnkolbrandr

[76SQN-FatherTed]

7 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

That is a recipe for an empty server.

Well, that's sort of my point really.  On a casual server you can't expect everyone to use real-life tactics, because they're mostly there to have  fights.  Most of the real  scout patrols were about shows of strength - denying the enemy airspace by occupying it tactically better yourself.  Fights probably happened when one side or the other made a mistake with that.

[=IRFC=Jorri]

I fly on the J5 server and I always climb to at least 2 to 2,5 km, and I see plenty of other planes there. While this certainly isn't a very high altitude, I also don't see it as being a treetop problem. And for me, with the C l.II's, even the treetop action has its place.

 

It'also the perfect balance of fun for me, between spending my time traveling and climbing, and finding action.

 

I'd love some more incentives to make people fly higher, but be careful not to break something that's currently working quite well. 

 

Some thoughts:

 

More high altitude AI flights, perhaps right over the trenches

Some targets with such heavy AAA that you can only bomb them from altitude (do we have bomb sights yet? no? nevermind)

Lowering the cloud deck, beause they work as a ceiling now. Maybe 1,5k? This will make more people climb above the clouds, and once that's the case, it makes more sense to have some alttiude to spare, putting you in a good position to hunt.

 

[J2_Bidu]

19 hours ago, =CfC=FatherTed said:

To create combats at "realistic" altitudes:

 

Run the server for just  3 hours each week

Maintain a strict dead-is-dead rule

When you die you're banned for 2 months

 You could also add in having to select a mission before flying (recon, bomb, patrol) with failure to complete = 1 month ban.

 

We're never going to see "realistic" combat in a sim, because the imperative (death or dishonour) that drove those tactics just isn't there.

 

 

You wouldn't scare Trenchard with this.

[76SQN-FatherTed]

On 10/18/2019 at 6:43 PM, J2_Bidu said:

 

You wouldn't scare Trenchard with this.

But evidently it would scare ZachariasX

[JGr2/J34b_Matthias]

It's interesting to see all these opininons on what we're missing.  Personally I'm stoked about the physeological tolerances being lowered.  MUCH more like real life - you really feel it pulling a 60 degree bank 360 turn and doing more than two in a row can really start to mess with your head.

 

What I most want next:

 

- Icing conditions due to visible moisture and impact on airframes including both the skin and aircraft systems such as the carbeurator.

 

 

[J2_Bidu]

17 hours ago, =CfC=FatherTed said:

But evidently it would scare ZachariasX

 

And me by the way ?

[ZachariasX]

19 hours ago, =CfC=FatherTed said:

But evidently it would scare ZachariasX