As of the next update.......

[AndyJWest]

The only viable alternative, should FC fail to sell well enough to justify further development isn't 'refreshing RoF', it is abandoning further WWI content entirely. That's how businesses work. To justify investment, you need evidence that the returns will merit it. Not evidence that the market won't support it....

[mpdugas]

24 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

Buy the rights to the RoF code and you can do whatever you want with it.  But saying “I’ll pay for doing the thing that [sic] I know there is no chance that they’ll ever do!” is grandstanding silliness.

 

 

No need to be so negative; I've bought all of RoF's content, and all of GBS content thus far, so I'm not grandstanding.  It's unkind and mean-spirited of you to say so.  If you can't say something nice, then don't say anything at all.

 

It's not unwarranted to be hopeful and cheerful about the prospect of RoF in VR or WWI in VR.   I've enjoyed FC1 immensely.  But I knew FC1 was an investment in a possibility; I'd pay the same again for RoF with VR.

 

26 minutes ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

 

This makes zero sense. By porting ROF aircraft to GB, they're avoiding the costs of developing another upgraded engine for VR, 64bit, DX11, etc. Nobody in their right mind would develop two similar engines in parallel instead of simply updating the old art for the new technology.

 

I'm not saying do more than change RoF to DX11, so that it supports VR; leave its graphics engine as it is; it's quite nice even now and has wonderful atmospherics.  RoF also has plenty of content as is, and I like its graphics engine.  I don't believe that you have to rewrite the whole thing to enable VR.    RoF is already 64 bit.  The only thing that might have to happen is to tweak some of the aircraft models to hide holes, etc.

 

Sure, WWI aircraft in the GBS environment would be nice, but it is not necessary.  That was the whole premise of FC1, which may still generate FC2, etc., hopefully.

 

But if not, then:

 

https://www.gamedev.net/forums/topic/685102-porting-dx9-to-dx10-or-later-how-hard/

48 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Sweet Jesus, if only Jason had thought of that. Or wait... maybe be has?

 

No need to be so sarcastic; why the hate?

 

It's obvious that 1C/777 wanted to open up GBS to WWI, but if sales of FC1 don't support that, then a paid upgrade of RoF to DX11 is the next best thing.  It's cheaper, and they can profit from a renewed interest in RoF.  I see that as way better than just abandoning RoF in its present state.

 

55 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

You can do poor man's VR with Rise of Flight by attaching your head tracker to your headset, then using Steam's VR Desktop and running RoF in borderless window mode.

 

I've long since tossed "head tracking" in the bin; it's an obsolete, contrarian tech.

[BraveSirRobin]

3 minutes ago, mpdugas said:

 

It's not unwarranted to be hopeful and cheerful about the prospect of RoF in VR or WWI in VR.   

 

Unless you’re planning to buy the code, it’s completely unwarranted.  They’re done with RoF.  Period. The End.  Fin.

[Cynic_Al]

20 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

The only viable alternative, should FC fail to sell well enough to justify further development isn't 'refreshing RoF', it is abandoning further WWI content entirely. That's how businesses work. To justify investment, you need evidence that the returns will merit it. Not evidence that the market won't support it....

 

I do not disagree, however having stated that continued development depends upon the current module meeting a sales threshold, would you want to admit that it hadn't?

[Tycoon]

23 hours ago, the_dudeWG said:

Not to mention the 30+ inch 4K monitors and top of the line flight gear you and your buddies on Teamspeak are using to pound on solo fliers that are just looking for a fun WWI VR combat experience. 

Don't the top guys use large low res monitors? I thought I saw it discussed thats the easiest way to spot.

[PatrickAWlson]

2 hours ago, J3Hetzer said:

That was kind of a one-time deal. FC is an attempt to clone that entire gig, one that has clearly failed (for a big variety of reasons). 

Just my opinion.

All they needed to do was implement VR into RoF. We know it can be done, shed-loads of old games have had VR retroactively implemented. They could have done it for a tiny fraction of the price of working on FC, charged an appropriate price and probably made more money from that than they have with FC (my speculative opinion).

What we've ended up with is an assassinated RoF and FC dying on the vine. In my opinion.

 

No, it is not all they needed to do.  All of the things that you get with GB have been stated over and over.  Graphics.  Performance.  AI.  FM.  DM. 

 

Based on what I do know their current path seems to be the right one.  It seems intuitive that it would be much easier to port the planes to the new code base than to port the new code base into the planes.  That is what they are doing and it makes perfect sense to me.  Lets take hundreds of thousands of changed lines of code and  inject them into an old code base.  Oh, and it's not isolated code.  No you have to change the million odd lines that already exist to accommodate the hundreds of thousands that you are injecting ... does that really make sense?

[the_dudeWG]

33 minutes ago, Tycoon said:

Don't the top guys use large low res monitors? I thought I saw it discussed thats the easiest way to spot.

That could be true for spotting, but definitely not for identifying. I seem to remember mostly reading about players adjusting their graphics settings to improve spotting, which never captured my interest as I always wanted the best looking environment. S!

[AndyJWest]

1 hour ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

I do not disagree, however having stated that continued development depends upon the current module meeting a sales threshold, would you want to admit that it hadn't?

 

If I was a publisher, in that position, I might well decide that not saying anything was the best course of action. As of now though, nobody commenting in this thread seems to be in any position to say how well FC has sold, one way or another, despite attempts by some to argue otherwise. Personally, I'm content to wait and see, rather than engaging in whatever guesswork suits a preconcieved agenda, which seems to be the motivation of some here.

54 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

No, it is not all they needed to do.  All of the things that you get with GB have been stated over and over.  Graphics.  Performance.  AI.  FM.  DM. 

 

Based on what I do know their current path seems to be the right one.  It seems intuitive that it would be much easier to port the planes to the new code base than to port the new code base into the planes.  That is what they are doing and it makes perfect sense to me.  Lets take hundreds of thousands of changed lines of code and  inject them into an old code base.  Oh, and it's not isolated code.  No you have to change the million odd lines that already exist to accommodate the hundreds of thousands that you are injecting ... does that really make sense?

 

Though what you say is probably true, I'm not sure that it is really what drives the decision. Regardless of how code is written, it needs to be paid for. And the reality of the computer games industry is that relatively few people are likely to pay out significant sums for a paid upgrade to a game released 10 years earlier. New products sell to new customers, and new customers, rather than a few diehard supporters who already own most of the RoF content, are where the profits lie. 

[Panzerlang]

1 hour ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

No, it is not all they needed to do.  All of the things that you get with GB have been stated over and over.  Graphics.  Performance.  AI.  FM.  DM. 

 

Based on what I do know their current path seems to be the right one.  It seems intuitive that it would be much easier to port the planes to the new code base than to port the new code base into the planes.  That is what they are doing and it makes perfect sense to me.  Lets take hundreds of thousands of changed lines of code and  inject them into an old code base.  Oh, and it's not isolated code.  No you have to change the million odd lines that already exist to accommodate the hundreds of thousands that you are injecting ... does that really make sense?

If their current path is the right one, where are all the players? Are we touting that old SP explanation again?

A bit of transparency from 1C wouldn't go amiss.

Edited November 7, 2019 by J3Hetzer

[OrLoK]

we get the regular dev blog.

 

I don't feel the devs "owe" us any more transparency than they already give.

 

ymmv

[BraveSirRobin]

18 minutes ago, J3Hetzer said:

A bit of transparency from 1C wouldn't go amiss.

 

What are you talking about?  

[No.23_Gaylion]

[PatrickAWlson]

2 hours ago, J3Hetzer said:

If their current path is the right one, where are all the players? Are we touting that old SP explanation again?

A bit of transparency from 1C wouldn't go amiss.

 

How much more transparency do you want?  They stood up a team and ported 10 WWI planes into a new game called Flying Circus.  They said that if it sells they will do more. 

 

They have a new team stood up.  They have been working the game and delivering content.  The game is not complete yet but it's close.  Next drop it will be everything that was promised - which may be distinctly different from everything that you may feel you deserve.

 

1C is getting it done.  Then it will look at sales.  They will compare sales to the cost of a full team and overhead.  If sales justify further development then it will happen.  How much more transparent do you want them to be?

 

You're not entitled.  You're not entitled to further free development of RoF.  You're not entitled to 1C's internal business analysis.  You're not entitled to a company continuing a money losing line of development if that's what FC turns out to be.  You're not entitled to the burning questions that you are demanding answers to, especially when 1C might not know the answer themselves at this point.

[Garven]

8 hours ago, the_dudeWG said:

Compared to what experience? 

Compared to the fact I can spot just as well or better than people I've been on coms with that have 4k screens.  I cut my teeth in flight sims lone wolfing and still have success when flying alone.  

Edited November 7, 2019 by US93_Furlow

[WWBiker_]

this is going in circles Please close this thread

[ST_Catchov]

 

I don't know about circles but It's time I left in an orderly fashion. Although it is taking some time. This is the way out isn't it?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 7, 2019 by catchov

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

IMHO devs do choose that risk to not implement SP career,  because of  resources constraints I presume . We all know that majority of customers are single players .Selling them only  multiplayer content is risky and they should not hope to make huge benefits from only multiplayer guys. Yet they decide to make it and they deliver.  I'm glad that they do it and I do not have to wait one year longer for game or an announcement. Only we multiplayer guys can save this genre from extinction  from sim world. Thanks to Patrick and others believers in Vol2  some single players will contribute to it too.

[Feathered_IV]

Perhaps it would be a good idea to do an interim release of the Re8 and DFW as collector's planes a little later to improve gameplay options.  Being so top heavy in fighters, FC at the moment is a bit like a wolf-simulator without any sheep.

[Panzerlang]

5 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

How much more transparency do you want?  They stood up a team and ported 10 WWI planes into a new game called Flying Circus.  They said that if it sells they will do more. 

 

They have a new team stood up.  They have been working the game and delivering content.  The game is not complete yet but it's close.  Next drop it will be everything that was promised - which may be distinctly different from everything that you may feel you deserve.

 

1C is getting it done.  Then it will look at sales.  They will compare sales to the cost of a full team and overhead.  If sales justify further development then it will happen.  How much more transparent do you want them to be?

 

You're not entitled.  You're not entitled to further free development of RoF.  You're not entitled to 1C's internal business analysis.  You're not entitled to a company continuing a money losing line of development if that's what FC turns out to be.  You're not entitled to the burning questions that you are demanding answers to, especially when 1C might not know the answer themselves at this point.

Erm...the obvious I guess, will there be an FC2. Or standalone planes (collector planes). You know, basic info like that. It has nothing to do with "entitlement", tired trope that that is. Though with literally hundreds of pounds in the series so far I don't think wanting basic info is an unreasonable "entitlement" anyway. Unless there's a new module on the horizon, the "Game Info To Customers Module". Lol.

Maybe in your white-knight world it actually does take a company years to collate the current sales data and compile future development profiles. But I get that you make money from the campaign engine and have a vested interest in talking 1C up. Meanwhile, 50 MP players on a very very good day. *sigh*. It's all been such a stellar success. ?

Let robin know I've put his nasty toxic ass on my ignore list, should save him some typing time and blood-pressure scares. ?

Edited November 7, 2019 by J3Hetzer

[ZachariasX]

14 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

Perhaps it would be a good idea to do an interim release of the Re8 and DFW as collector's planes a little later to improve gameplay options.  Being so top heavy in fighters, FC at the moment is a bit like a wolf-simulator without any sheep.

Time for collector planes. Good money and plenty of mission making options for all.

[Panzerlang]

17 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

Perhaps it would be a good idea to do an interim release of the Re8 and DFW as collector's planes a little later to improve gameplay options.  Being so top heavy in fighters, FC at the moment is a bit like a wolf-simulator without any sheep.

I agree. Currently the 50-player air-quake crew are the favoured few and we can see how that's panned out. A nod to the realism players would be very much appreciated.

[ZachariasX]

2 minutes ago, J3Hetzer said:

Unless there's a new module on the horizon, the "Game Info To Customers Module". Lol.

There is a new module on the horizon. If you and others buy FC1. jason said that.

 

4 minutes ago, J3Hetzer said:

But I get that you make money from the campaign engine and have a vested interest in talking 1C up.

Not sure if I understand what you're saying here. But I guess it is obvious that any decent campaign engine costs a lot to develop. In order to "make money", it should sell enough to pay that entire investment. You say it would naturally do that, in a product you see doomed from tha start?

 

I do have a vested interest in talking 1C up? Why would I have to do that. It is the only company under the sun that sucessfully sells a decent high fidelity WW1 and WW2 air combat simulator. I guess that should speak for itself regarding the competence of the managers. I'm not a claquer here. It's just that with this product, as with ANY other product, if you buy it, then there will be more of it to buy. If you don't, then that's the end of the offering. And the end of vintage air combat simulation. Imagine DCS without the competition by 1C.

 

So it's really simple. 1C made the forst step. It is up to you now following suit, then there will be more. You don't do that, it's up to everybody else to do it. Griping about how doomed everything is will only make this harder. So what's the point in that? I see you didn't buy FC1, yet you gripe about it. Else, that's the end of it. I don't care much about the money spent on both all of RoF and about all of IL2. I want the next release. That's what I want.

 

About you, I have no idea what you really want. I understood though that in your world, things are doomed. In my world, there never has been better air combat simming. The great old games are simply trash compared to what we have now. They sometimes were great games. But as sims, otwardly trash compared to what we have now.

 

[Panzerlang]

29 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

There is a new module on the horizon. If you and others buy FC1. jason said that.

 

Not sure if I understand what you're saying here. But I guess it is obvious that any decent campaign engine costs a lot to develop. In order to "make money", it should sell enough to pay that entire investment. You say it would naturally do that, in a product you see doomed from tha start?

 

I do have a vested interest in talking 1C up? Why would I have to do that. It is the only company under the sun that sucessfully sells a decent high fidelity WW1 and WW2 air combat simulator. I guess that should speak for itself regarding the competence of the managers. I'm not a claquer here. It's just that with this product, as with ANY other product, if you buy it, then there will be more of it to buy. If you don't, then that's the end of the offering. And the end of vintage air combat simulation. Imagine DCS without the competition by 1C.

 

So it's really simple. 1C made the forst step. It is up to you now following suit, then there will be more. You don't do that, it's up to everybody else to do it. Griping about how doomed everything is will only make this harder. So what's the point in that? I see you didn't buy FC1, yet you gripe about it. Else, that's the end of it. I don't care much about the money spent on both all of RoF and about all of IL2. I want the next release. That's what I want.

 

About you, I have no idea what you really want. I understood though that in your world, things are doomed. In my world, there never has been better air combat simming. The great old games are simply trash compared to what we have now. They sometimes were great games. But as sims, otwardly trash compared to what we have now.

 

Zach, I own every IL2 game except TC. This is my server account, which I have to use because 1C refused to update my email on the other one unless I could provide 10-year old purchase receipts. That's how they look after a solid buyer. Bearing in mind I sent them the request from my logged-in account.

Just to be clear here; my subjective opinion re FC is that it's a stonkingly good WW1 simulator. The best, bar none. And that's despite the ever-BS, turbo-charged camel. Lol.

Edited November 7, 2019 by J3Hetzer

[OrLoK]

you seem to want to know if more content is coming.

 

I don't think FC has had a true chance to sell yet as it's not been officially completed and as we know sales are key to this fork of the sim.

 

The devs will let us know as soon as they possibly can.

 

They don't have an ulterior motive and wouldn't deprive us of the info unless they had good reason.

 

Soon after they know for sure, we will know for sure.

 

[Panzerlang]

Just now, OrLoK said:

you seem to want to know if more content is coming.

 

I don't think FC has had a true chance to sell yet as it's not been officially completed and as we know sales are key to this fork of the sim.

 

The devs will let us know as soon as they possibly can.

 

They don't have an ulterior motive and wouldn't deprive us of the info unless they had good reason.

 

Soon after they know for sure, we will know for sure.

 

I hope you're right. If you are maybe we'll see the MP come back from the brink of death.

[Cynic_Al]

1 minute ago, J3Hetzer said:

I hope you're right. If you are maybe we'll see the MP come back from the brink of death.

 

The exact effect the Arras map was going to have.

[Panzerlang]

Just now, Cynic_Al said:

 

The exact effect the Arras map was going to have.

Yeah, you're not wrong.

They should have had more faith in doing what they were suggested to do with RoF, which was start from 1914 and evolve the game in a historically linear fashion. The argument then was that the shiny high-tech stuff was where the sale's money was at and I guess it worked then. Now, apparently not.

Edited November 7, 2019 by J3Hetzer

[Zooropa_Fly]

I'm just tickled to hear Jasta5 server described as airquake.

[OrLoK]

 

5 minutes ago, J3Hetzer said:

I hope you're right. If you are maybe we'll see the MP come back from the brink of death.

I'm sure of it.

 

I've been lucky enough to have been on the periphery of several PC game development teams and know the divide between player expectation and the cold hard (and often oddly illogical) reality of game development.

 

I guarantee the devs are the most passionate of all of us when it comes to FC.

 

if they have any info, they'll be desperate to share it..

[Diggun]

Well I had a blast in MP last night, doing a bit of Bristol bombing (works great when you remember to arm your fuses), and several swirling dogfights. Then took to Beloga with a fellow FLAPper to hone our duelling skills. We found it very very easy to fly into each other....

[Panzerlang]

Just now, Zooropa_Fly said:

I'm just tickled to hear Jasta5 server described as airquake.

Without proper AI it is. Just a tiny number of humans taking off, flying to the ring and brawling. Yes, it has missions other than that...how many fly them? The whole thing is about as far from environmental realism as WT.

[yaan98]

I play RoF in VR with vorpX and PatWilson's generator. Much better for SP than FC.

[the_dudeWG]

9 hours ago, US93_Furlow said:

Compared to the fact I can spot just as well or better than people I've been on coms with that have 4k screens.  I cut my teeth in flight sims lone wolfing and still have success when flying alone.  

That only proves YOU are experienced and good at spotting. It doesn’t prove you wouldn’t be even better with a larger 4K monitor. 

[Zooropa_Fly]

I think you're basically pitting a larger object vs. a smaller, higher resolution one.

Here's a shovvel...

[Garven]

2 hours ago, the_dudeWG said:

That only proves YOU are experienced and good at spotting. It doesn’t prove you wouldn’t be even better with a larger 4K monitor. 

Still the fact is you can't blame your lack of success on people having spent boat loads of money on better equipment. I think one is better off with a 1080p moniter  because I saved 100's of dollars and I don't notice being at a disadvantage; plus I've read in the forums some of the top guys like Riksen and Chimango are running at 1080p resolution.

Edited November 7, 2019 by US93_Furlow

[SeaW0lf]

From what I've seen, people resort to some settings to spot better. Some players fly with so much contrast and gamma that it looks like an acid trip from a movie. I'm not even sure if that helps, because the setting will apply equally to everything, terrain, objects, sky, etc.

 

And people should not be forced to resort to those drastic settings (not good for your eyesight) just to play a game. 

 

I'm sure a 1440p monitor would help, because contacts will be bigger and they won't have so much shimmering due to the aircraft profiles been currently so thin, disregarding that most people play with 34" monitors or less and some, like the 1080p ones, have to be flying with zoom at 60% (through a periscope). I'm sure that people playing with a 60" 4K monitor will have an advantage, but it might not help to spot things below, since even the sun reflection is opaque, not bright as in ROF for example, when those wings lit up by the sun on the deck are a beauty to behold (it might give the brain the rapport that it is something we would see in real life).

 

Then I'm of the opinion that the problem lays on the game engine, art aspect of it, not on our settings or rigs. I just think this is going to affect the numbers online. No only that, we have some visibility bugs out there that turn spotting even harder. I hope that some will be fixed.

 

The irony of it all is that people were complaining about visibility for years, and then comes the patch to solve the issue and it just made it worse. No foul, it happens, but I hope that they are giving priority to the tweaks and bug fixes, because, man, it is a heavy strain to the eyes and I hope I don't have to do that for long.

 

 

Edited November 7, 2019 by SeaW0lf

[AndyJWest]

Transpacrency from Han per the latest game updates notes:

Quote

We hope to make more Flying Circus volumes in the future and we thank those who have jumped into this new product so far!

 

Yes, it is a 'hope', not a commitment, but I think it is all we can reasonably expect at this stage. I can't think of many businesses that tell you what their plans for future products are as soon as they release the previous one. Particularly when they quite possibly haven't even decided for themselves.

[J2_Trupobaw]

6 hours ago, J3Hetzer said:

Without proper AI it is. Just a tiny number of humans taking off, flying to the ring and brawling. Yes, it has missions other than that...how many fly them? The whole thing is about as far from environmental realism as WT.

No, airquake is pilots taking off to fly into ever-present dogfight area in between the fields. J5 is Free Hunt with rich option of objective doing (just ask the 1PLs, they do get together and roll the map while blowing people off the sky).

 

It is becoming obvious to me that you are living in your own world, Hetzer, completely removed from shared experience of MP players, all the while arguing that MP won't be succesfull until your perculiar vision is implemented, and lamenting there is no someone-else willing to implement them for you. All the while MP is at best since mid-2017 and I'm happy to be on weekday server with 25 other people, and guys I have not seen in years coming back every week. Stop and listen for other people for a chance, they are not here as audience)

 

(I think your MP needs are best suited by Cooperative server, and it's a thing I'd love to see you succeed with).

 

The SP career was always last and most complex component. In RoF it came... When exactly? October 2011? Within 2 years of release? Few months before my time, so not sure. BoX got career after 2 full years (3 if we count EA period) along with BoK. FC... is still in EA period.

[Panzerlang]

2 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

No, airquake is pilots taking off to fly into ever-present dogfight area in between the fields. J5 is Free Hunt with rich option of objective doing (just ask the 1PLs, they do get together and roll the map while blowing people off the sky).

 

It is becoming obvious to me that you are living in your own world, Hetzer, completely removed from shared experience of MP players, all the while arguing that MP won't be succesfull until your perculiar vision is implemented, and lamenting there is no someone-else willing to implement them for you. All the while MP is at best since mid-2017 and I'm happy to be on weekday server with 25 other people, and guys I have not seen in years coming back every week. Stop and listen for other people for a chance, they are not here as audience)

 

(I think your MP needs are best suited by Cooperative server, and it's a thing I'd love to see you succeed with).

 

The SP career was always last and most complex component. In RoF it came... When exactly? October 2011? Within 2 years of release? Few months before my time, so not sure. BoX got career after 2 full years (3 if we count EA period) along with BoK. FC... is still in EA period.

You trippin'? Lol. I have my quite normal ideas of what makes for a good MP server. Do I give much of a hoot there aren't enough players to fulfil a whole bunch of different wishes? Nope, very ambivalent here. Me and my brother have our money's worth of fun flying together online, then we play Squad or HLL. If there was a WW1 community here worthy of the description I might care more but there isn't. Yes, kind of sad but really not important in the grand scheme. I punted my idea, very little interest, sad matters etc. Posting points, casual entertainment really. Not trippin', more like stoned with the afore-mentioned ambivalence. Flogging dead horses requires rather too much effort.

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

We have an update, cross your fingers and toes it's a good one.