Should I sign up now

[D_Ramstein]

I need some advice guys.  I have just returned to flight Sims (been around since Red Baron and EAW) and enjoyed the original IL-2 and then moved over to ROF as I love that period of aviation.
However I just bought BOS and BOM during a Steam Sale and enjoying learning how to taxi, takeoff and land again but I miss my Camel and so am thinking of jumping into FC now instead of continuing with BOS/BOM.
Is there a single player mode for me to familiarize myself with the controls and planes before looking for a virtual squadron to join?  I understand there will be no campaign mode for some time (pity I liked that in ROF).
Any advice or thoughts would be much appreciated.
Salute

 

[OrLoK]

FC is early access and missing a lot of content you may want.

 

if you want to support the devs then grab it!

 

if you just wanna combat then stay with BoS etc for now.

 

PWCG now supports FC so there is a capability for a campaign.

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

Yes, there is a quick mission builder tool that allows you to fly some pre built scenarios or create your your own....practice ground looping the DrI, taxi, bombing, test your controller mapping etc all on the privacy of your own solo mission.

[Enceladus828]

I’d stick with Rise of Flight as you can fly 40 planes and have many opportunities not present in Flying Circus. FC1 costs $70 USD.         ($92 CDN)

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Stick with RoF for now.  I actually regret the hefty sum I dropped on FC.  The only thing that makes it remotely worth it is the VR, which is amazing; but if you don't have that, for the love of god wait until FC goes 50% off at least.

Edited November 2, 2019 by J28w-Broccoli

[Garven]

11 hours ago, Ramseur said:

I need some advice guys.  I have just returned to flight Sims (been around since Red Baron and EAW) and enjoyed the original IL-2 and then moved over to ROF as I love that period of aviation.
However I just bought BOS and BOM during a Steam Sale and enjoying learning how to taxi, takeoff and land again but I miss my Camel and so am thinking of jumping into FC now instead of continuing with BOS/BOM.
Is there a single player mode for me to familiarize myself with the controls and planes before looking for a virtual squadron to join?  I understand there will be no campaign mode for some time (pity I liked that in ROF).
Any advice or thoughts would be much appreciated.
Salute

 

If you want to support the future of WW1 flight sims I would definitely pick up FC.   As far as single player goes Pat Wilson's Campaign Generator will be a good substitute for career mode.  Another thing to checkout is SYN_Vander's easy mission generator.  Lot of the WW1 squads are willing to help newer members out and will help you through the learning process along with watching your six.

[D_Ramstein]

Well gentlemen, thank you for your replies.
Well I most certainly want to support the developers and so will purchase the game despite the hefty price and live in hopes that the devs continue to improve on the simulator.  Should that go nowhere then I can always fall back ROF Campaigns in single player.
 

 

[J2_Jakob]

2 hours ago, Ramseur said:

Well gentlemen, thank you for your replies.
Well I most certainly want to support the developers and so will purchase the game despite the hefty price and live in hopes that the devs continue to improve on the simulator.  Should that go nowhere then I can always fall back ROF Campaigns in single player.
 

 

 

If there's enough people with similar mindset, the future of this WW1 sim is ensured. ?

I haven't done so myself yet (for FC), but if you're into campaign, download here:

http://www.pwcampaignmanager.com/pwcgbos/web/PWCGBoS.php

 

Keep in mind that FC is still WIP, the map was released just recently and has its flaws, as well as PWCG-FC. But it's getting polished continually...

 

[FTC_Snowy]

I know everyone has different budgets and so on but for me the early access price was a real bargain, given the amount of hours I have already enjoyed in it with many, many more to come no doubt. Having this in VR is truly amazing. I recommend it to you Ramseur.

[PatrickAWlson]

VR is a big deal but there is more to the new code than that.  AI has been a focus and it is sooooo much better than RoF ever managed.  FMs. DMs, graphics ... everything is better.  And it is under development, so it has the promise of getting better.

 

Everybody gets to decide what to do with their money, so buying or not buying is a personal choice.  Take this from the "cost of a movie" perspective - my guess is that you will easily get $70 and more out of this.    Finally, "supporting the developers" is not some BS comment to extract money.  OK, it is a comment to extract money but it's not BS  .  Who else is developing WWI flight sims?  1C is doing that and their product is good.  

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

A somewhat fair assessment, however;

 

RoF is still very good as well, and you're likely to get just as much enjoyment out of it (if not more) than with FC; at a much lower cost to boot.

 

FC is not some amazing product that blows its predecessor out of the water or anything; at least not for the current price; and at least not yet.  RoF was and still is a very well crafted product.

Edited November 4, 2019 by J28w-Broccoli

[J2_Trupobaw]

If you still have RoF, you can use it for familiarisation.

The new pilot physiology in BoX was final nail (finail?)to RoF coffin and turned FC into its own product. As they are now, RoF is that older game where you can make UFO maneuvers all day long while sawing away wings of AI that knows only how to turn right. 

Edited November 4, 2019 by J2_Trupobaw

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

Your mileage may vary of course.

 

For what it's worth, the AI (even new and improved) won't give you any challenge in FC either, unless you're a potato.  The physiology in BoX is quite nice, but depending on your style of flight you may only trigger it rarely; unless you're being shot in the head.

 

Is it worth the price difference?  Really depends on how much disposable income you have TBH.  For people who drop $300 on flight sticks (not to mention other peripherals and enhancements) the price of FC is a no-brainer.  For many others, RoF is going to be the better choice.

Edited November 4, 2019 by J28w-Broccoli

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

Just now, J2_Trupobaw said:

 As they are now, RoF is that older game where you can make UFO maneuvers all day long while sawing away wings of AI that knows only how to turn right. 

 

And kill Wild Bill.

 

Edited November 4, 2019 by J5_Klugermann

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

1 hour ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

Your mileage may vary of course.

 

Your mileage WILL vary in both Multiplayer and Solo/Campaign modes:

 

Multiplayer -

Flying Circus = 1408 pilot hours (1,644 planes shot down).

RoF Wargrounds = 85 hours (15 planes shot down) + Vintage missions and FiF estimated generously at 35 pilots for both (x2) event each (x4) week X 2 hours flight time = 645 flight hours in RoF multiplayer.

 

Solo/Campaign modes -

New and improved .... everything, from Virtual Reality flying, to a better Damage Model (DM) and Flight Model (FM) thanks to rolling back old updates in RoF and porting them into a better game engine that, yes, makes it a different and better gaming and fight simming experience (makes Artificial Intelligence (AI) bot planes better as well). 

That's before we get to Pat Wilsons new campaign generator which will keep all the solo flyers happy for years to come as soon as the next update provides all the historical ground troops and artillery etc., which will also benefit multiplayer. 

 

Heres the best data I can come up with for comparing multiplayer activity between RoF and FC at this point (PS the Flugpark maxed out at 50 pilots today; we are bumping it to 60 for next week and by 5 each week thereafter, as needed, until we reach the limit of the server).

 

 

 

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

I'm not sure if the current enthusiam will negate the fact that with the exception if the 7F, the Central planes are really outclassed. 

 

 

I still enjoy the different plane sets and maps that RoF offers.

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

The Huns are used to flying against the odds.  Historically and in WWI Sims. We did it for years in Red Baron 3D, again in RoF against the Camel until it got nerfed, and we are arguably doing it again in Flying Circus against many of the Entente planes including that darn uber Camel (again). 

 

I'm pretty sure we are on the right side of history.....we still have too few  Entente pilots organized together to fly against the several Central players units during campaigns!

[No.23_Gaylion]

You huns want better planes? Why, you brutes will only use them to attack more field hospitals and red cross marked trains! 

 

To the original post. 

 

Short answer: Yes

Long answer: Yeeeeeeeeee-You already know where I'm going with this.

 

:edit:

 

Definitely join a squadron if you are even remotely considering it. You do NOT have to be a pro and we welcome and enjoy teaching new pilots. Most of these squadrons are full of folks with a wealth of knowledge waiting to teach somebody something new. If anything you will quickly learn tips and tricks that might take you years to figure out alone. 

Edited November 4, 2019 by US103_Talbot

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

39 minutes ago, J5_Baeumer said:

The Huns are used to flying against the odds.  Historically and in WWI Sims. We did it for years in Red Baron 3D, again in RoF against the Camel until it got nerfed, and we are arguably doing it again in Flying Circus against many of the Entente planes including that darn uber Camel (again). 

 

I'm pretty sure we are on the right side of history.....we still have too few  Entente pilots organized together to fly against the several Central players units during campaigns!

 

In RoF People wanted to fly a 1918 Camel in 1917 scenarios and planesets.

 

Now we have a 1918 scenario with an appropriate 1918 Camel.

Edited November 4, 2019 by J28w-Broccoli

[PatrickAWlson]

@J28w-Broccoli By 1918 Camel do you mean Bentley 150 HP engine?  If yes I do not think that is what the team modeled.  Not positive but I think they did the standard 130 HP Clerget.  Even in 1918 Bentley powered Camels were not the norm.  They were mostly provided to RNAS or former RNAS units as Sopwith had a close relationship with the Navy (willing to bet that becoming the RAF did not erase inter service politics overnight  )

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

2 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

@J28w-Broccoli By 1918 Camel do you mean Bentley 150 HP engine?  If yes I do not think that is what the team modeled.  Not positive but I think they did the standard 130 HP Clerget.  Even in 1918 Bentley powered Camels were not the norm.  They were mostly provided to RNAS or former RNAS units as Sopwith had a close relationship with the Navy (willing to bet that becoming the RAF did not erase inter service politics overnight  )

 

I'm referring to in-game performance only; regardless of whatever engine is claimed on the spec sheet.

 

I don't envy the devs when it comes to this aircraft because there are so many incomplete and contradictory sources (even for data on the same 9b engine) that there is always somebody who can produce documents claiming they modeled it wrong.

Edited November 4, 2019 by J28w-Broccoli

[Enceladus828]

19 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Who else is developing WWI flight sims?

Uh. These people are as well http://www.overflandersfields.com/

[WWBiker_]

11 minutes ago, Novice-Flyer said:

Uh. These people are as well http://www.overflandersfields.com/

Yes  that looks like a very cool game but no VR support so a step backwards as far as games go IMHO

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

I'm not ready to take the VR plunge quite yet. My vanity gives me nightmares regarding my appearance in goggles...

 

 

I might be willing to reconsider my position if those with VR can tell me if this is an effective scanning technique.

Edited November 5, 2019 by J5_Klugermann

[Zooropa_Fly]

Wait another 5 years (if you've got that long) and you'll get VR contact lenses. 

[J2_Trupobaw]

52 minutes ago, Novice-Flyer said:

Uh. These people are as well http://www.overflandersfields.com/

The flight physics used make 1946 look sophisticated.

 

(Yeah, as far as I am concerned flight sims consists of physics/damage model, historical background, gamey elements and eye candy. Lack of VR and bad graphics is completly forgivable, but flight experience built on 1990s sim is not. )

Edited November 4, 2019 by J2_Trupobaw

[PatrickAWlson]

21 hours ago, DirtyBiker said:

Yes  that looks like a very cool game but no VR support so a step backwards as far as games go IMHO

First, the guys on OFF are great guys (know some of them from my Red Baron days) and did a great job with the campaign.  However, OFF is based off of CFS3.  I actually preferred RB.  Not sure if anything has changed, but if not,  that was over 20 years ago.