RoF vs FC?

[ZachariasX]

16 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

In my squad we are approaching fifty per cent VR ownership now.  Myself and a couple of others are still running the Rift CV 1 whilst everyone else is using the S.  Several are using 1070's, whilst I use a 2070 paired with a now ancient i7 3930 running at 4Ghz.

 

None of us have performance problems.  Several of the scoreboard leaders over on the serious WW2 servers are running in VR too.  Don't let the idea that you will not be competitive in MP get in the way of going VR.   In my opinion Flying Circus offers the best VR experience in flight sims available at the present time.

 

Thanks! Well, it is not that I'd feel I would no be competitive (I have little hope there anyway), but just that it is my fear getting such gear, seeing what it can do and then being unhappy with the performance. I run an i9-7900X paired with a 1080 that does everything I need for on the 1440p screen. Everything maxed out, I get like 60+ down in the weeds on a full server to 130+ up there. Mind you I'm running a 60 Hz monitor.  I'd consider swapping my card once the 3080 is out this summer. But until then, that's gonna be it. From the CPU side, things will only get marginally better if I swap the 7900X with a 10980XE. So I'd just hate spending all that cash ending up with a rig "that's still just not quiet good enough".

 

I like the reviews about the Reverb, but I guess that would be asked to much. As I also would perefer a hassle free setup (if there is such a thing) then the Rift S would be better anyway.

[DD_Arthur]

11 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

 I run an i9-7900X paired with a 1080

 

You'll have no problems running a Rift S.  I'm going to treat myself to one in the post - christmas sales period.

 

I like the idea of a Reverb too but the beauty of the Rift is the ability to run it with OpenComposite rather than all the crud that comes with SteamVR and WMR.  If you haven't got the latest and greatest in hardware this is a factor worth considering.

[SeaW0lf]

12 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

From the CPU side, things will only get marginally better if I swap the 7900X with a 10980XE.

 

Do you need the extra cores? Because the HEDT series have lower latencies for gaming than the mainstream socket (1151), which has the Ring Bus design. The HEDT series was never the best solution for gaming. Pro gamers always binned the mainstream i7s to overclock it.

Edited December 9, 2019 by SeaW0lf

[simfan2015]

@DD_Arthur, 

Indeed, your post also sums up the reason why FC is the way forward !

I never tried RoF, so can't comment on that, but because I love FC so much I personally see no reason at all to check it out nowadays.

Unfortunately FC until now only 4K, no VR for me yet ... but that sure won't be for long.

I too am hoping for FC2... instant buy. 

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

Do you need the extra cores? Because the HEDT series have lower latencies for gaming than the mainstream socket (1151), which has the Ring Bus design. The HEDT series was never the best solution for gaming. Pro gamers always binned the mainstream i7s to overclock it.

I wouldn't need it for gaming at all, but in productivity, it would be a very noticeable step up. I use my rig for more than just this game. Otherwise, I wouldn't have opted for the HEDT platform at all. But for more serious work, socket 2066 is very useful. But now, AMD basically killed off that entire market segment from Intel. I'm just waiting for the prices to crater even more as you'd have to be nuts buying Intel in that market segment.

 

The main upside of socket 2066 systems was that it made nice workstations that ALSO could be used for games. Now it has gone the way of the Dodo.

[emely]

On 12/8/2019 at 3:23 PM, T_oll said:

 

Flight modelling is better. Damage modelling is better. Graphics is better. Sound too. Now we have VR support and let me tell you, FC is absolutely fantastic, in VR! This is what VR was made for. 

You write it as if these are the seven commandments of God ? My opinion does not coincide with yours, at least the first two points do not coincide . As for the graphics, the difference should be larger, given the difference in the years of release of these games.  Well, others wrote above, and with them I agree that something has become even worse.  For example clouds - in the circus they are terrible.  And the forest and fields on the Aras map are of the same color from above, and merge together.

I won’t say anything about the sound.  In both cases, the sound is normal.

Only VR remains.  There is no arguing here - there is no VR in RoF.  A good attraction to say “cool" and fly in a circle over the airfield.  But for the battle it makes no sense and does only harm.  Then why is this needed? Now calculate how much you need to pay to say "cool."  How much is a good graphics card and everything else with this helmet.  The price of the game itself will seem a trifle, but someone writes that this price is high ?

Do you really think that flying in VR will be a mass phenomenon and the basis for the development of the game?

 

 

 

[BMA_Hellbender]

17 minutes ago, emely said:

You write it as if these are the seven commandments of God ? My opinion does not coincide with yours, at least the first two points do not coincide .

 

About FMs and DMs, can you tell me in which way you think they're not better. As in: the same or worse.

 

In terms of FM, I agree that we still have a few problems especially with the Fokker Dr.I, but for the most part they follow the historical data and are identical to pre-1.034 RoF.

 

In terms of DM, there's just no comparison. Not only do wings no longer shed after a single burst, we also have the physiology model. Do you believe that is worse?

 

 

Quote

 Only VR remains.  There is no arguing here - there is no VR in RoF.  A good attraction to say “cool" and fly in a circle over the airfield.  But for the battle it makes no sense and does only harm.  Then why is this needed? Now calculate how much you need to pay to say "cool."  How much is a good graphics card and everything else with this helmet.  The price of the game itself will seem a trifle, but someone writes that this price is high ?

Do you really think that flying in VR will be a mass phenomenon and the basis for the development of the game?

 

Coming from a huge VR skeptic: VR is the future.

 

Instead of playing a game on a 2D screen where I have to trick my brain into thinking that what I'm seeing is real, in VR I need to constantly remind myself that it's not.

 

That said: IL-2 Sturmovik / Flying Circus is the present and VR offers only a glimpse into the future. An expensive glimpse, true, and one that certainly doesn't offer you an advantage over TrackIR in terms of situational awareness in multiplayer (results may vary), though I will say that having depth perception makes my landings smoother and improves my aim. "Spotting dots" at a distance is a big no-no for me.

 

In that respect, I can't wait to see the first VR-only flightsims, though we're probably still 10 years away from those. Everything needs to catch up: the technology needs to become more affordable, needs to run on future midrange hardware and be more comfortable for long play sessions. But even today, it's the cheapest way to experience flight that feels about as close to reality as it can currently get. The only thing missing are actual g-forces, though it's not keeping me from getting butterflies in my stomach.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Camel FM is bening vs ROF if I remember correctly ,you can do horizontal level turns only using ailerons ,  it's 130HP Clegert not the 160hp Gnome although have performance of Bentley ?but still were are  centrifugal forces  and gyroscopic effect plus adverse yaw ?

Edited December 10, 2019 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[BMA_Hellbender]

2 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Camel FM is bening vs ROF if I remember correctly ,you can do horizontal level turns only using ailerons ,  it's 130HP Clegert not the 160hp Gnome although have performance of Bentley ?but still were are  centrifugal forces  and gyroscopic effect plus adverse yaw ?

 

It's pretty hard to read this graph, but the pre-1.034/Flying Circus Camel performs marginally better than the "best" 130hp Clerget Camel (but worse than the 150hp Bentley BR.1 and 160hp Gnome Monosoupape Camel), while the 1.034 Camel performs slightly worse than the "worst" 110hp Le Rhone Camel, equipped with the same engine found on the Nieuport 17 (not to be confused with the 120hp Le Rhone, equipped with the same engine found on the Hanriot HD.1).

 

 

Source:

 

 

For the record: in spite of lobbying for it for years hoping for a marginal 5-10km/h reduction in performance at sea level (we got the 1.034 Camel instead), I no longer think that an FM rework of the current Flying Circus Camel is worth the developer's time, especially with the addition of g-forces. Having the 1.034 Camel ported over as an optional 110hp "early" Camel, now that would be a game changer and open up tons of scenarios for mission builders.

[Cynic_Al]

40 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender-Sch27b said:

 

It's pretty hard to read this graph,

 

I have no trouble reading it, but do have trouble understanding why it has the current RoF 'Camel' doing 173km/h.  It also shows the pre-update version doing 193Km/h, which is total nonsense.

[emely]

8 hours ago, J5_Hellbender-Sch27b said:

 

About FMs and DMs, can you tell me in which way you think they're not better. As in: the same or worse.

After in one of the patches, the delays in the reaction of the rudders to the deviations of the joystick were minimized, FM really began to resemble its original.  In other words, the rubber bands in airplane control were again replaced with the good old steel cables. Until that moment, the very flight in the circus caused me sadness.  But for many, it doesn’t matter, a beautiful shadow on the machine gun box, for them the control characteristics are more important.  There were several inconsistencies in the behavior of the aircraft, especially regarding the reaction to the rudder.  And by a strange coincidence, these discrepancies work to simplify management, making the flight more accessible for the beginner.

The fact that the adjustment of the reaction of the axes for each aircraft separately is missing, I’ll just mention.

 

[SeaW0lf]

Yes, the current ROF Camel has a max speed of 168.5km/h, not 173km/h. Those 5km/h would be very welcomed in a plane that is heavily nerfed. But the pre-update Camel is shown at 191km/h by a graph made back then with Chill's formula.

 

I just don't think the current ROF Camel can be used here in missions. We get by in furball servers with low fuel, but in a mission with 40% plus loads (which is the same as 70% on the D7F), you are going to be eaten by sharks out there. And it climbs like a dog, worse than a Halb D2 or an Albatros D2, on par with an 80hp Pup. This on low flying, around 6000 feet. So on the scale of ROF and FC regarding the other planes, including the Pup itself and the D8 and Hanriot (the N17 seems to be off as well in the broader context), the ROF Camel has a Le Rhône 80hp engine, not an 110hp one.

 

They would have to tweak the 110hp Camel as well is my opinion, but I imagine that it would be no problem, since that patch seemed to be made in a hurry and we still don't know if we have the Pfalzicopter back or if they just typed some numbers on the code (took a week to be nerfed).

 

They also tweaked the FC speeds and they don't gain the usual 2% in relation to ROF. But I'm saying this on the context of ROF and FC, not the real thing.

 

[emely]

8 hours ago, J5_Hellbender-Sch27b said:

 

In terms of DM, there's just no comparison. Not only do wings no longer shed after a single burst, we also have the physiology model. Do you believe that is worse?

You probably forgot that in the first circus sessions, the DM in it, fully corresponded to RoF.  And most importantly, the main and critical difference in games, this was and is a way to simulate shooting. The dispersal of bullets was removed from the circus and a model of shooting from the RoF was installed, which is called “simplified” there. At first, this led to the fact that the aircraft of the bots exploded from several hits. As a result, the aircraft became more robust to eliminate this drawback.  And even too durable ? 

Here is a video from that timehttps://youtu.be/20Bhj0x8y7g

Naturally, it was no good and the DM was redone.  From RoF, there are only two boxing hits left - this is the pilot (4 hits and death) and the engine.  Moreover, the engine even began to be damaged more easily, and its fire occurs more often than in RoF . Also, in the circus did another ballistics of bullets.  Compared to RoF, a bullet in a circus flies in a straight line less time, and begins to lose altitude faster (a steeper trajectory) . This property makes it difficult to shoot accurately over long distances.  This is especially good for pilots of large two-seater aircraft (and they now have very well-aimed arrows)

So the DM that is now is not the result of solving the problem according to the conditions, it is the adjustment of the conditions of the problem to the desired result

Please note that all that I wrote above and beyond is my personal opinion

However, in close combat, at courses intersecting at an acute angle, or in frontal attacks - this type of shooting, combined with the features of DM, gives a significantly larger percentage of hits in the enemy than in RoF.  For me personally, this significantly reduces the number of options in maneuvering, makes the game more primitive, bringing it closer to shooters for schoolchildren.  That's why I think that DM in the circus is so bad that I don’t feel much desire to play there.

I hope that I managed to answer your question in detail

 

 

 

[BMA_Hellbender]

4 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

I have no trouble reading it, but do have trouble understanding why it has the current RoF 'Camel' doing 173km/h.  It also shows the pre-update version doing 193Km/h, which is total nonsense.

 

It would appear that you do have some trouble reading it.

 

Enhance 34 to 36.

 

 

It indeed places the current RoF FM at 173km/h, however the old RoF FM stands at 195km/h.

 

This would suggest that both FMs were ported over to FC and documented in said graph, and matches the current in-game documentation of the Camel:

 

 

 

 

As we all know, this is some 5km/h too fast compared to RoF, a defect which was addressed in Update 3.101:

 

69. The error that caused the Flying Circus aircraft propellers to have more power than RoF ones has been found and fixed. The notable difference was found at lower flight speeds, but additional research showed that this error made during porting of RoF planes to Flying Circus more or less affected all flight characteristics of the Flying Circus aircraft. In this update this error is fixed, so flight characteristics of all Flying Circus planes fully correspond to RoF before update 1.034. You can see the updated flight characteristics of Albatros D.Va and S.E.5a in their in-game descriptions, while updated descriptions for other Flying Circus aircraft will follow in the next update when we redo all the required measurements;

 

Now for my next trick, I will prognosticate your two follow-up questions.

 

1. How does our Flying Circus undocumented 190km/h Camel compare to the Clergets in the above graph?
   
   Close, but no cigar. The most optimistic historical measurements of the Camel places it around 117mph (188km/h), at least according to the manufacturer:
   https://www.baesystems.com/en/heritage/sopwith-camel
   
   More conservative measurements suggest closer to 185km/h, though I do admit to a strong Belgian bias. As I've noted in my post above, I do not believe that an FM review is warranted for such a small discrepancy.
   
    
2. When will the developers update the descriptions of the Flying Circus aircraft?
   
   Finally it appears that we have found common ground.
   
   I also find this unacceptable, considering the module is now officially released. That, along with a number of unadressed bug reports submitted during the early access phase.

 

 

Now if you'll allow me this (perhaps rhetorical) question to you: is the game worth enjoying even if the documentation is incomplete?

[BMA_Hellbender]

 

54 minutes ago, emely said:

You probably forgot that in the first circus sessions, the DM in it, fully corresponded to RoF.  And most importantly, the main and critical difference in games, this was and is a way to simulate shooting. The dispersal of bullets was removed from the circus and a model of shooting from the RoF was installed, which is called “simplified” there. At first, this led to the fact that the aircraft of the bots exploded from several hits. As a result, the aircraft became more robust to eliminate this drawback.  And even too durable ? 

Here is a video from that timehttps://youtu.be/20Bhj0x8y7gNaturally, it was no good and the DM was redone.  From RoF, there are only two boxing hits left - this is the pilot (4 hits and death) and the engine.

 

"Improved gunnery" as it is called in Rise of Flight, is exactly that: an improved (as in: more realistic) model of gunnery with less dispersion.

 

The developers specifically chose to give RoF server operators the option to leave it disabled, since RoF's lacking DM means it is far too effective at long range in causing catastrophic structural failure. However, such dispersion is not accurate (pun intended).

 

In Flying Circus, as you have noted, improved gunnery is now the standard and only option, as is the improved DM of the aircraft.

 

 

Quote

Moreover, the engine even began to be damaged more easily, and its fire occurs more often than in RoF . Also, in the circus did another ballistics of bullets.  Compared to RoF, a bullet in a circus flies in a straight line less time, and begins to lose altitude faster (a steeper trajectory) . This property makes it difficult to shoot accurately over long distances.  This is especially good for pilots of large two-seater aircraft (and they now have very well-aimed arrows)

So the DM that is now is not the result of solving the problem according to the conditions, it is the adjustment of the conditions of the problem to the desired result

Please note that all that I wrote above and beyond is my personal opinion

 

Fires in combat were dangerously common, which is why some carried a handgun to end their own lives or simply chose to jump to their deaths in order to be spared from immolation.

 

Pilots getting hit from long distance shooting by two-seaters is also well-documented (see: Manfred von Richthofen). In most cases, this would not leave a pilot able to even provide an after action report.

 

These are not my personal opinions, but historical fact.

 

 

 

Quote

However, in close combat, at courses intersecting at an acute angle, or in frontal attacks - this type of shooting, combined with the features of DM, gives a significantly larger percentage of hits in the enemy than in RoF.  For me personally, this significantly reduces the number of options in maneuvering, makes the game more primitive, bringing it closer to shooters for schoolchildren.  That's why I think that DM in the circus is so bad that I don’t feel much desire to play there.

I hope that I managed to answer your question in detail

 

I'm not sure where you went to school, but aerial gunnery was not part of the curriculum in my days.

 

All of which you've written above appear to be feelings rather than objective arguments, and an unwillingness to accept a more historically accurate model.

 

 

If I've sounded harsh so far, allow me to be a bit more diplomatic now. It sounds to me like you simply thought Rise of Flight was/is more fun than Flying Circus.

 

I'm dating myself here, but I fondly look back on my QuakeWorld days (which coincided with my Hellbender days — not the best game, to be honest). In fact, I've not liked a single first person shooter since Quake III Arena, though I did play Counter-Strike for a little while (who didn't?) but never really got into it. No matter how "realistic" shooters have gotten (ArmA etc.), they sure as hell haven't gotten more fun over the years. At least in my opinion.

 

Could it just be that? Because that's fine, you're allowed to not like something even if it has gotten more realistic.

 

 

So maybe the question we should ask ourselves is: what do we want? Do we want to have fun and experience epic dogfights? There's definitely an argument to be made in favour of Rise of Flight. Or do we want a more historical, less forgiving and sometimes downright frustrating experience? I think it's hard to top Flying Circus, especially when you get knocked unconscious from a mile away. That doesn't make it any less accurate.

 

My only wish is that both opinions can coexist (and even overlap) without the need to ruin each other's fun for the sake of "Which one is better?".

 

So if RoF really is what you want, it's still there. I'm not judging you. Please don't judge those who have decided to move on.

Edited December 11, 2019 by J5_Hellbender-Sch27b

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

7 hours ago, J5_Hellbender-Sch27b said:

 

It's pretty hard to read this graph, but the pre-1.034/Flying Circus Camel performs marginally better than the "best" 130hp Clerget Camel (but worse than the 150hp Bentley BR.1 and 160hp Gnome Monosoupape Camel), while the 1.034 Camel performs slightly worse than the "worst" 110hp Le Rhone Camel, equipped with the same engine found on the Nieuport 17 (not to be confused with the 120hp Le Rhone, equipped with the same engine found on the Hanriot HD.1).

 

 

Source:

 

 

For the record: in spite of lobbying for it for years hoping for a marginal 5-10km/h reduction in performance at sea level (we got the 1.034 Camel instead), I no longer think that an FM rework of the current Flying Circus Camel is worth the developer's time, especially with the addition of g-forces. Having the 1.034 Camel ported over as an optional 110hp "early" Camel, now that would be a game changer and open up tons of scenarios for mission builders.

 

Do not want to brought  up speeds difference, which we all know, I was referring to centrifugal forces  , gyroscopic effect and adverse yaw , which you don't answer. I think that pre December patch ROF Camel had  and even weaker after patch has but not the  FC one.

 

 

 

Edited December 11, 2019 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[SeaW0lf]

25 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Do not want to brought  up speeds difference, which we all know, I was referring to centrifugal forces  , gyroscopic effect and adverse yaw , which you don't answer. I think that pre December patch ROF Camel had  and even weaker after patch has but not the  FC one.

 

That might be subjective. After the December 2014 patch, I found the Camel to be docile in comparison with the original one, which I had lots of trouble to getting used to. She is very easy to fly both in ROF and in FC. On the other hand, Hells Angel, which flew the old Camel a lot, mentioned in one of his posts that he was spinning a lot after the nerfing.

 

I don't recall the original Camel (it was never my ride), but I flew the nerfed Camel a lot in ROF and I don't feel much difference from the FC Camel other than the speed and the FFB input (much better in FC). Much easier to fly than the Dr1 and she does not require much rudder input as you mentioned to counter centrifugal forces.

 

But I'm not approaching it as a real life test pilot, I'm just gaming the game. The flight models / engine management are outdated by this time and age anyways.

[emely]

42 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender-Sch27b said:

 

All of which you've written above appear to be feelings rather than objective arguments, and an unwillingness to accept a more historically accurate model.

You have a lot of words in the text about the fact that something is more realistic, accurate and historical.  All this is nothing more than your words.  The question of historicity in a computer game has too many sides to discuss.  At least, you should not consider him as the basis for dialogue, and make the opponent accuse that he does not want to accept progress.

It’s even funny, because I didn’t write anything about historical authenticity, and you were so excited ?

Well, if you want this ... I reminded you above that the existing DM emerged as a response to new factors.  The fact that DM can change from patch to patch makes references to its historicity doubtful.  If you are comfortable believing that this DM is extremely accurate and historical, then be careful - if changes occur in it, your heart may be broken :-))

The question of shooting in the RoF, it is old.  And the increased spread of bullets there, this is again a rather late modification of the game.  And as in the case of a change in DM in the circus, the increased dispersion when shooting in RoF is just a reaction to the conditions of the game.  And these two different reactions have one goal - to bring the game situation in line with the ideas of most players about "historicity"

Speaking of bullet throwing in RoF ... Bullets rarely scatter evenly over the entire area, as a rule these are quite compact groups of hits.  It looks so that despite the fact that the plane flies in calm conditions, the machine gun is in turbulence!  It’s a pretty graceful move to give players the freedom to choose the weather, but to leave the atmosphere alive in the shooting issue.

In the circus it was realized in other ways, and in general, I like them less.

 

 

 

 

 

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 minute ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

 

Do not want to brought  up speeds difference, which we all know, I was referring to centrifugal forces  , gyroscopic effect and adverse yaw , which you don't answer. I think that pre December patch ROF Camel had  and even weaker after patch has but not the  FC one.

 

 

 

 

Absolutely agreed that the effect is less. I've rewatched the video, as it is one of my favourite on flying the Camel.

 

Ignoring the fact that this particular Camel has the 160hp Gnome Monosoupape and not the 130hp Clerget, it's hard to say just how much gyroscopic effect is realistic.

 

For the most part we want a pronounced effect, because harder to fly typically means "more realistic" in the mind of a flightsimmer. I don't believe this to be necessarily true. We only need to look at the ground loop effect, and the tendency for planes to flip over on landing outside of airfields, which is completely exaggerated in IL-2/FC.

 

Though considering the accident rate of the Camel, it certainly suggests that it was an unforgiving machine to fly. Likewise I've read that the Clerget Camel needed very specific mixture changes for individual throttle settings, or else the engine would seize entirely, which might explain many of the accidents which happened during training.

 

The Belgians had this happen as well (who generally disliked the type and preferred the Hanriot HD.1):

 

 

 

Circling back to RoF vs. FC, the question is the same: which one do you prefer?

 

I'm going to be honest with you, having flown the Camel extensively in my first few years of RoF (I made the solemn promise never to "Camel fag" again after the release of the Hanriot), yes, I prefer the RoF Camel to the FC Camel for its idiosyncracies. In much the same way that I prefer the RoF Halberstadt to the FC Halberstadt for its ability to blast everything out of the sky that comes within a two-mile radius, provided it has Captain Darling in the back. That doesn't mean that I don't appreciate the more "toned down" FC version, and consider it the more accurate depiction, even if human gunners are currently broken.

[SeaW0lf]

To bring real life data to compare physics is a bit too much I think. The flight models are simplified and outdated. Then it induces newbie’s to go out there on the servers trying things people do in real life.

 

It does not work that way.

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 minute ago, emely said:

You have a lot of words in the text about the fact that something is more realistic, accurate and historical.  All this is nothing more than your words.  The question of historicity in a computer game has too many sides to discuss.  At least, you should not consider him as the basis for dialogue, and make the opponent accuse that he does not want to accept progress.

It’s even funny, because I didn’t write anything about historical authenticity, and you were so excited ?

Well, if you want this ... I reminded you above that the existing DM emerged as a response to new factors.  The fact that DM can change from patch to patch makes references to its historicity doubtful.  If you are comfortable believing that this DM is extremely accurate and historical, then be careful - if changes occur in it, your heart may be broken :-))

The question of shooting in the RoF, it is old.  And the increased spread of bullets there, this is again a rather late modification of the game.  And as in the case of a change in DM in the circus, the increased dispersion when shooting in RoF is just a reaction to the conditions of the game.  And these two different reactions have one goal - to bring the game situation in line with the ideas of most players about "historicity"

Speaking of bullet throwing in RoF ... Bullets rarely scatter evenly over the entire area, as a rule these are quite compact groups of hits.  It looks so that despite the fact that the plane flies in calm conditions, the machine gun is in turbulence!  It’s a pretty graceful move to give players the freedom to choose the weather, but to leave the atmosphere alive in the shooting issue.

In the circus it was realized in other ways, and in general, I like them less.

 

I think we are at the core of the issue.

 

You think that I'm "excited", maybe even happy to prove you wrong. You are the brave RoF Remainers and we are the filthy FC Exiteers and one of us is right and the others are wrong and we must bring you down.

 

For some reason there is this flamewar between RoF and FC, not just on the forums, and some feel the need to ruin the opposing party's fun in order to validate their own preferred game. But as I've said many times before: we may not like each other personally (and that's fine), but the very fact that you're into WWI flightsims makes me respect you — more than the average flightsimmer and certainly more than the average population. Your opinion matters to me, it really does.

 

I mean, come on, we're like stamp collectors debating which series is the best, and we'd rather set each other's collections on fire than accept our differences. Meanwhile, the rest of the world has agreed that stamps are not worth anyone's time.

 

 

I've made statements about historical accuracy and I stand by them. Is Flying Circus perfect? Haha, no. No. I mean, wow, no, not by a long shot. Even the devs admit there is no one left on the team with knowledge of WWI.

 

Still FC is, in my opinion, more accurate than RoF. And how we've come to that point, I honestly do not care. Fixing the DM may very well be a happy little accident, and if it goes back to the old wing shedding I will absolutely not be happy. As for my own personal bias: Captain Darling and my reputation as the dynamic two-seater duo is over. Finished. That type of "gaming the game" simply doesn't work anymore in FC. So after taking abuse for years and lobbying with the devs to fix wing shedding, plus having g-forces implemented, we finally have it, and I'm now supposed to say that I want to go back to how it was before.

 

I just can't, I'm sorry. I really do respect your opinion if you disagree.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

12 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

To bring real life data to compare physics is a bit too much I think. The flight models are simplified and outdated. Then it induces newbie’s to go out there on the servers trying things people do in real life.

 

It does not work that way.

I don't know as this is simulator not just a game. I would love to see how new tech developed for il2 can change current Dr.1 FM with data provided from Dr.1 with real rotary engine. Temperatures of stacionnary run rotary engine are also interesting where you hear that they need to be flying fast but in game you can stay on the ground for hours without overheating the engine. 

1 minute ago, J5_Hellbender-Sch27b said:

 

I think we are at the core of the issue.

 

You think that I'm "excited", maybe even happy to prove you wrong. You are the brave RoF Remainers and we are the filthy FC Exiteers and one of us is right and the others are wrong and we must bring you down.

 

For some reason there is this flamewar between RoF and FC, not just on the forums, and some feel the need to ruin the opposing party's fun in order to validate their own preferred game. But as I've said many times before: we may not like each other personally (and that's fine), but the very fact that you're into WWI flightsims makes me respect you — more than the average flightsimmer and certainly more than the average population. Your opinion matters to me, it really does.

 

I mean, come on, we're like stamp collectors debating which series is the best, and we'd rather set each other's collections on fire than accept our differences. Meanwhile, the rest of the world has agreed that stamps are not worth anyone's time.

 

 

I've made statements about historical accuracy and I stand by them. Is Flying Circus perfect? Haha, no. No. I mean, wow, no, not by a long shot. Even the devs admit there is no one left on the team with knowledge of WWI.

 

Still FC is, in my opinion, more accurate than RoF. And how we've come to that point, I honestly do not care. Fixing the DM may very well be a happy little accident, and if it goes back to the old wing shedding I will absolutely not be happy. As for my own personal bias: Captain Darling and my reputation as the dynamic two-seater duo is over. Finished. That type of "gaming the game" simply doesn't work anymore in FC. So after taking abuse for years and lobbying with the devs to fix wing shedding, plus having g-forces implemented, we finally have it, and I'm now supposed to say that I want to go back to how it was before.

 

I just can't, I'm sorry. I really do respect your opinion if you disagree.

True, wow  you can black out Cpt.Darling in yours back seat  ?

[BMA_Hellbender]

8 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

True, wow  you can black out Cpt.Darling in yours back seat  ?

 

Not only can a gunner black out, but generally speaking gunnery from the rear seat is far more difficult, in part because there is less dispersion and less chance of scoring random hits that will result in wings shedding. There's also visibility issues compared to AI gunners, gun angles issues (with the Halberstadt), the gun moves slower as you zoom in and animations in multiplayer are broken. Plus, the old bug that simply kills a gunner due to lag or has him damage his own plane is still there.

 

It really is absurd, because even though the present situation in FC is far from perfect (you can still fly upside down without the gunner falling out), it addresses 90% of the "You're gaming the game!" complaints we've had to endure for years. Simply put: in FC flying a scout is far more effective than gunning from a two-seater.

[SeaW0lf]

15 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

I don't know as this is simulator not just a game. I would love to see how new tech developed for il2 can change current Dr.1 FM with data provided from Dr.1 with real rotary engine. Temperatures of stacionnary run rotary engine are also interesting where you hear that they need to be flying fast but in game you can stay on the ground for hours without overheating the engine. 

True, wow  you can black out Cpt.Darling in yours back seat  ?

 

Even if they bring a new engine to Il-2 in mid 2020s, end of the decade, it is likely that they will port the same flight model from ROF, if they port it at all. Then we will have to review it as it is, not as we wish it could be, or that it should resemble the real thing in some way, because it does not anyways.

 

The best way to understand these planes is to take them for a ride and get to know them 'in game'.

[emely]

39 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender-Sch27b said:

 

Still FC is, in my opinion, more accurate than RoF. And how we've come to that point, I honestly do not care. 

It sounds like a religious dogma .. Listen, are you by any chance a descendant of those guys who in the past burned at the stake those who believed a little differently than they did?  ;-))

As an atheist, I prefer not to talk about faith in something incomprehensible, but about earthly things.  For example, how bullets fly, and how this affects the mechanics of fighter combat.

[BMA_Hellbender]

3 minutes ago, emely said:

It sounds like a religious dogma .. Listen, are you by any chance a descendant of those guys who in the past burned at the stake those who believed a little differently than they did?  ;-))

As an atheist, I prefer not to talk about faith in something incomprehensible, but about earthly things.  For example, how bullets fly, and how this affects the mechanics of fighter combat.

 

I'm a descendant of this dude:

 

 

[SYN_Haashashin]

Everyone,

 

Keep it civil...

 

Haash

[No.23_Gaylion]

Is RoF better than FC?

 

 

[T_oll]

21 hours ago, emely said:

You write it as if these are the seven commandments of God

 

I don’t believe in god.

Everything I write is my opinion, unless stated otherwise.

 

21 hours ago, emely said:

My opinion does not coincide with yours

So? You are of course entitled to your own opinion. It should be perfectly obvious that peoples opinions are their own and just as valid as anybody elses. It’s the basis of communication on an open forum.

Opinions diverge on everything. It’s a natural order.

 

21 hours ago, emely said:

But for the battle it makes no sense and does only harm

VR makes a lot of sense to me, and only harm my virtual enemies...

[fubar_2_niner]

21 hours ago, emely said:

You write it as if these are the seven commandments of God ?

 

Last count I could have sworn there were ten ???

[emely]

49 minutes ago, fubar_2_niner said:

 

Last count I could have sworn there were ten ???

Well, well, you noticed that! ? Of course, there are seven deadly sins, and there are ten commandments.

 

1 hour ago, T_oll said:

 

I don’t believe in god.

Many say so and even do it.  Except in cases of emergency)

1 hour ago, T_oll said:

VR makes a lot of sense to me, and only harm my virtual enemies...

The fact that VR users miss contacts is normal for this game even without VR.  But controlling your six is an important parameter.  Are you hiring someone to cover you from behind in battle? ?

[T_oll]

19 minutes ago, emely said:

Are you hiring someone to cover you from behind in battle?

Why, do you need a job..?

 

I like VR. I think it’s the best thing that has happened to flightsims. VR is a situational awareness and immersion multiplier, for me.

I’m ok with other people feeling differently about it.

I have no need to agree with everybody and I don’t need people to agree with me.

[fubar_2_niner]

And THE LORD looked down on those that use VR and those that do not, and HE chuckled, doth not we have choices he mused? That is another thread!

 

[Enceladus828]

On 12/8/2019 at 9:48 AM, DD_Arthur said:

 

RoF is a great game but further development ended several years ago and 777Studios or 1CGS won't be handing over the code of their bespoke game engine to that army of  (non-existent) "talented modders" that some believe are out there.

Yeah, well, that happened with IL-2 1946 were 1C Maddox gave Team Daidalos the game code in 2009 while 1C worked on IL-2 Cliffs of Dover (original). 2 games made by the same developers with 2 teams working on 2 games with 2 different game engines. Since then, TD has done a great job at adding tens of new planes, several new maps like New Britain, new and improved Moscow and Murmansk maps, and have fixed/added/improved many things that make the current game version much better than when 1C pulled out.

And guys, just because the devs have no intention of returning to Rise of flight, doesn’t mean that no one else can. It’s happened in the past with IL-2 1946, CloD, and CFS3 (not so much the last one, but whatever).

 

People here often say “after 6 years it was time to move on from RoF; You can’t support it forever”, “RoF is an old game.”

Well, IL-2 GBs has been supported for 5 years since it was released and by the time BON is released, the game will have been supported longer than RoF was supported for. Does that mean that after BON is released the devs should move on from IL-2 GBs and create a new game. I DON’T. Rise of Flight is an old game, but IL-2 1946 is an old-er game, much older game than RoF to be exact that is still being supported.

 

Salute.

[T_oll]

True.

But what’s the point on continue supporting an old code base for an old api, when the devs have moved on to make something new? New hardware opens new possibilities and there comes a time when it’s easier for software developers to start from the beginning and make something new, instead of continuing on old code.

I spent many happy years with IL-2 and RoF, but shortly after IL-2 BoS and now FC is out, I haven’t looked back. I’d rather see modern software products emerge and support that, than continue using old software. I’m having more fun with FC than I did with RoF, because of VR. As a real life pilot I find VR to be a total game changer that allows me to come as close as I’ll probably ever get to experience real WWI aerial warfare.

IL-2 GB and FC supports VR. IL-2 1946 and RoF does not. That’s the main reason for me, to move on. There are other reasons too. But that doesn’t mean the older products are bad. They’re not. But I find the new products to be better.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

36 minutes ago, T_oll said:

True.

But what’s the point on continue supporting an old code base for an old api, when the devs have moved on to make something new? New hardware opens new possibilities and there comes a time when it’s easier for software developers to start from the beginning and make something new, instead of continuing on old code.

I spent many happy years with IL-2 and RoF, but shortly after IL-2 BoS and now FC is out, I haven’t looked back. I’d rather see modern software products emerge and support that, than continue using old software. I’m having more fun with FC than I did with RoF, because of VR. As a real life pilot I find VR to be a total game changer that allows me to come as close as I’ll probably ever get to experience real WWI aerial warfare.

IL-2 GB and FC supports VR. IL-2 1946 and RoF does not. That’s the main reason for me, to move on. There are other reasons too. But that doesn’t mean the older products are bad. They’re not. But I find the new products to be better.

 

 Il-2 GB is not new engine developed from scratch , it's evolutionary step from ROF all knowledge how to add support for  x64, VR is already there. Same with other tweaks like AI, DM for FC, performance optimization etc. IMHO I would not to try add all or adapt all "enhancement" of il2GB because some things like clouds , sky dome , color palette , sun reflection are better still in ROF. It's is huge work even when you know how and what to do. I think current developer will never be able to do it. Resources and revenue.

Edited December 12, 2019 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[T_oll]

11 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Il-2 GB is not new engine developed from scratch , it's evolutionary step from ROF

I’m not sure I understood the point of your post. Sounds like we’re saying the same thing?
Anyway, the lineage from RoF to IL-2 GB is evident. 
Still, the developers chose to abandon the old engine in favour of a new one.

Considering they need to make money from selling their products, it makes perfect sense to continue in a new product lineup. It also makes sense to use whatever they can of the old code.

 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

1 minute ago, T_oll said:

I’m not sure I understood the point of your post. Sounds like we’re saying the same thing?
Anyway, the lineage from RoF to IL-2 GB is evident. 
Still, the developers chose to abandon the old engine in favour of a new one.

Considering they need to make money from selling their products, it makes perfect sense to continue in a new product lineup. It also makes sense to use whatever they can of the old code.

 

I think they do not abandoned the engine but the content . For example They find better and new ways to made FMs  they started made new planes  in it basket compatible with upgraded engine and abandon the  old as not compatible  (now they can bring them to new engine without remake FMs) , I wish that they could do the  same with ROF maps. Fast delivery no need to do from scratch small in a hurry map ,more time for aeroplanes

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

Interesting discussion.with lots of great information in the videos and graphs.

Edited December 12, 2019 by J5_Baeumer

[emely]

There is a difficulty in finding among the servers online the one on which there are FC aircraft.  It would be nice if the FC servers on the list had their differences.  Perhaps some sort of symbol, or the color of the letters.  Ideally, if it were a separate list.

RoF is a separate project, it has its own surroundings.  Letters from Mary to the wounded pilot, awards for success in battle and more.  The circus is only part of a large project, there is no place for this atmosphere.  Even when loading mission files, the WW2 airplane is on the splash screen, and not what I would like to see.  I consider such moments to be quite important, and I hope that they will be changed in the circus on the model of RoF.

Nevertheless, buying a bouquet of roses, you expect from it the smell of roses.  And if this bouquet smells of fish - this is not exactly what I would like

 

 

On 12/11/2019 at 11:41 PM, T_oll said:

 

I have no need to agree with everybody and I don’t need people to agree with me.

Wonderful !  You said that FM in a circus is better, I said that it is the same, only slightly damaged in the copy / paste process.  And everyone is happy ?