New DM

[Dornil]

3 hours ago, kendo said:

One from Von Richtofen

If you look at all of the Richthofen's reports, you will see that only 14 cases out of 80 describe desintegration of aircraft in the air. Moreover, 3 or 4 descriptions out of those 14 look more like fuel tank detonation, rather that wings collapse (those descriptions are rather vague). So, yes, those biplanes did shed wings under fire sometimes, but this did not happen often. At least, much less often than in our game presently.

[No.23_Gaylion]

Yeah, I'm not saying it never happened, just not in the frequency we are seeing here.

 

I think we should also take a look at logging your personal sorties and noting how many fights you get into while in the same machine. The outcomes, hits, etc.

[SeaW0lf]

It baffles me how come we can’t get into a common ground when now we are being forced to return back to base all the time with a couple bullet hits on the wing because the plane is annoyingly shaking and will lose its wings with any shallow dive or more aggressive maneuver.

 

Like Talbot said, we are not saying it never happened, but it should be a sparse incident. And what about the shaking with a few hits? Where did that came from?

[kendo]

Ok.

 

I really hope this issue is resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Too much potential and enjoyment here to be ruined through something like this.

[Zooropa_Fly]

42 minutes ago, Dornil said:

If you look at all of the Richthofen's reports, you will see that only 14 cases out of 80 describe desintegration of aircraft in the air. Moreover, 3 or 4 descriptions out of those 14 look more like fuel tank detonation, rather that wings collapse (those descriptions are rather vague). So, yes, those biplanes did shed wings under fire sometimes, but this did not happen often. At least, much less often than in our game presently.

 

That's close to 1 / 6.

Which is probably near enough my results in-game thus far.

 

So the DM's perfect.. close the thread and jog on !

[Dornil]

Well, my result offline (since online hit detection is far from perfect) is at least 70%, so closing the thread seems a bit premature;)

[SeaW0lf]

10 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

So the DM's perfect.. close the thread and jog on !

 

Are you being serious or just joking around?

[kendo]

29 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

 

That's close to 1 / 6.

Which is probably near enough my results in-game thus far.

 

So the DM's perfect.. close the thread and jog on !

 

19 minutes ago, Dornil said:

Well, my result offline (since online hit detection is far from perfect) is at least 70%, so closing the thread seems a bit premature;)

 

See, that is what's strange to me. Because my experience is closer to Zooropa_Fly.

 

No way is it near 70% for me.

 

I can't see how this could be possible, but is it technically feasible in any way, shape or form, that different people could have got corrupted updates/downloads that have mangled the DM experience?

 

[I think not - clutching at straws here, but how else to explain?]

[No.23_Gaylion]

Gunnery accuracy.

 

Also, there are two different experiences here- what you see visually versus what you feel when hit. 

[Zooropa_Fly]

32 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

Are you being serious or just joking around?

 

I was kidding about the last bit :))

 

A temporary quick fix could be a reduced rate of fire.

I found RoF better fun playing with a reduced rate.

[ZachariasX]

30 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

A temporary quick fix could be a reduced rate of fire.

I found RoF better fun playing with a reduced rate.

Just put in the old DM if they can't stomach doing it right. The old FC one was a revelation compared to what was before. Like this, there might be enough players around that you can hope for a Pup. Then you'll have the fun with the pop-pop. Or would you really want a Spaaaaaaaaaandaaaaaaaauuuu?

[Knarley-Bob]

Don't know if this will make a difference, but I joined this merry band back in November of 2019. Yeah, THAT long ago?

But, on February 11th  I posted a question of...."How many thousands of bullets does it take to shoot a bi-plane down"? I was pounding the snot out of them, and rarely did one go down, and NOT ONCE, did I shoot any wings off.

In the past week or so, it's rare to knock down a bird WITHOUT sawing the wings off. So yes, something has changed, and not for the best.

Edited April 15, 2020 by Knarley-Bob

[HagarTheHorrible]

It’s not difficult to understand why results, online verses offline would be different.  You have, a least, two factors that will come into play, although each, to a certain extent, will work against the other.  The first thing is that human players are far more aggressive, violent in how hey handle an aircraft compared to the A.I, especially when confronted by other humans.  This will obviously result in fewer wings being shed by the A.I for a similar number of hits but also an increased loss of wings for human players. The second factor is that offline, playing against the A.I we are far more relaxed and confident when attacking an enemy, the enemy aircraft is far more predictable, we have probably arranged a deliberate engagement and we know pretty well how he A.I will react.  Because of that we spend more time concentrating on getting a good, telling  shot, so we tend to hit where we want to hit and harder with less consideration for ammo levels than when flying against another human online  The fact that we are probably taking wings off with some regularity offline, is indicative of the requirement to essentially hit the pilot or engine prior to the update.  We actually had to become quite good shots, to get a kill in FC, against other players.  Now we are seeing that sharpshooting skill manifest itself in a larger critical damage area, the wings as well, a bigger positive hit zone around the centre of aim. We are now seeing where we were hitting, with limited results, before the patch, when we didn’t get a critical hit on pilot or engine.

Edited April 15, 2020 by HagarTheHorrible

[BMA_Hellbender]

I think we'll have to come to terms that the wings not receiving critical damage from almost every hit was the anomaly.

 

Almost every hit on the engine is critical and leads to it failing unless you throttle down, almost every hit on the fuel tank leads to it draining completely, almost every hit on the pilot leads to him getting knocked out. Planes are ground looping all the time and flipping over when landing in fields, whereas these should be rare occurences. We're playing with infinite improbability. For single player it doesn't matter all that much. If anything it looks cooler when stuff blows up, rolls over and falls to pieces all the time. For multiplayer, well...

 

I suppose we could get the old Bender/Darling monster out from under the bed, so we can show just how bad it can get, but to what avail? I'm convinced that there is willingness from the devs to improve and make the damage model more detailed, or at the very least more random, but they simply lack resources.

 

For now, I need to see a Volume 2 announcement with a much heavier focus on single player to restore my faith in Flying Circus.

[SeaW0lf]

14 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

I'm convinced that there is willingness from the devs to improve and make the damage model more detailed, or at the very least more random, but they simply lack resources.

 

If they have no resources to fix this, why they broke it in the first place? Because then it sounds really strange.

 

1 - The damage model was complimented by most veterans / the only thing that we really considered to set FC apart from ROF.

2 - They announced the new DM, touted as to be much more advanced and detailed.

2 - The new damage model was released and is looking like the old ROF damage model, 10 years old and heavily criticized over the years.

3 - We ask for a fix.

4 - They say they don't have resources to fix it?

 

What the... ???

 

Why not just add some ramdom / seldom frame failures to the original damage model to cap the whole thing?

Edited April 15, 2020 by SeaW0lf

[DD_Arthur]

Whats happened to Gamecock's bug report?

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

I guess Rise of Flight was more true to life than we thought.  ?

 

Next we bring on the camel nerf!  ?

Edited April 15, 2020 by J28w-Broccoli

[J2_Trupobaw]

22 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

If they have no resources to fix this, why they broke it in the first place? Because then it sounds really strange.

 

1 - The damage model was complimented by most veterans / the only thing that we really considered to set FC apart from ROF.

2 - They announced the new DM, touted as to be much more advanced and detailed.

2 - The new damage model was released and is looking like the old ROF damage model, 10 years old and heavily criticized over the years.

3 - We ask for a fix.

4 - They say they don't have resources to fix it?

 

What the... ???

 

Why not just add some ramdom / seldom frame failures to the original damage model to cap the whole thing?

1. The RoF planes have been shoehorned ported into BoX and old DM by third party. The results for damage modellling were splendid.
2. They announced the new DM for BoX, much more advanced and detailed, that will replace old DM.
3. The new DM model for BoX has been released. WW2 planes made for BoX from ground up work fine. The RoF planes ported into BoX and tuned for old DM, OTOH, work bad under new DM. By coincidence, they behave like RoF DM which makes people jump to conclusions.
4. We ask for FC-specific fixes for new DM. Or rather, for tuning the ported RoF planes again to work better with new DM. They say they need to rethink WW1 DM.
5. They have ended large scale works on new DM, are gearing up for Normandy / collector WW2 planes, and may or may not have resources for FC do-over at this moment.
 

Edited April 15, 2020 by J2_Trupobaw

[1PL-Sahaj-1Esk]

Now, for less than 400 active online accounts for FC? What is your bet, will they take it on?

 

Guys, it is a business at the end, not a private workshop for 300 guys.

 

I wish I will be wrong but it looks like 'that's it'

 

[J5_Gamecock]

41 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

Whats happened to Gamecock's bug report?

It disappeared last night. I know not why.

[DD_Arthur]

Sigh.........

[BMA_Hellbender]

Honestly, if this is the refined/detailed/complex DM, could they just go back to RoF and make the wings unrefined/simple/tough over there, as they were in FC before? And roll back the FMs to pre -1.034 while they're at it.

 

Then they can keep doing whatever they want with Flying Circus and make it as spectacular as possible in VR for single player, and we can just move multiplayer back to RoF. That way we don't even need additional Volumes in a timely manner, and one Volume every 5 years or so is perfectly fine.

[No.23_Starling]

38 minutes ago, 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk said:

Now, for less than 400 active online accounts for FC? What is your bet, will they take it on?

 

Guys, it is a business at the end, not a private workshop for 300 guys.

 

I wish I will be wrong but it looks like 'that's it'

 

Does that mean they’ve only sold 400 copies? 

[emely]

6 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

 

That's close to 1 / 6.

Which is probably near enough my results in-game thus far.

 

6 hours ago, kendo said:

 

 

See, that is what's strange to me. Because my experience is closer to Zooropa_Fly.

 

No way is it near 70% for me.

 

I see that the opinions of three people coincided, and this already means something ? Personally, I think that damage can be reduced in the correction for all aircraft by 50%.  And only for Dr1 they need to be increased, at least 25% ha :-))

[RNAS10_Oliver]

1 hour ago, DD_Arthur said:

Whats happened to Gamecock's bug report?

 

24 minutes ago, J5_Gamecock said:

It disappeared last night. I know not why.

 

17 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

Sigh.........

 

Removed because was not in the template format they gave for bug reports to written in, your post just quoted the template rather than used it. Also removed my addition which I thought was correct (rather than considered discussion) given I quoted your post and they state: 4) If you are not reporting a new error but want to add to somebody's message, please, just quote it and use the same template for your addition. And that what I did (and tbh yours also) was the same as I can see others have done for previous additions without being removed, checked beforehand.

Edited April 15, 2020 by Oliver88

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

14 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

Honestly, if this is the refined/detailed/complex DM, could they just go back to RoF and make the wings unrefined/simple/tough over there, as they were in FC before? And roll back the FMs to pre -1.034 while they're at it.

 

Then they can keep doing whatever they want with Flying Circus and make it as spectacular as possible in VR for single player, and we can just move multiplayer back to RoF. That way we don't even need additional Volumes in a timely manner, and one Volume every 5 years or so is perfectly fine.

 

I don't know if this is tongue-in-cheek or not- but I'd actually be cool with this.

[J5_Gamecock]

3 minutes ago, Oliver88 said:

Removed because was not in the template format they gave for bug reports to written in, your post just quoted the template rather than used it. Also removed my addition which I thought was correct (rather than considered discussion) given I quoted your post and they state: 4) If you are not reporting a new error but want to add to somebody's message, please, just quote it and use the same template for your addition. And that what I did (and tbh yours also) was the same as I can see others have done for previous additions without being removed, checked beforehand.

 I was pretty sure I did follow the template.  And I also felt you did the same. 

[SeaW0lf]

20 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

Honestly, if this is the refined/detailed/complex DM, could they just go back to RoF and make the wings unrefined/simple/tough over there, as they were in FC before? And roll back the FMs to pre -1.034 while they're at it.

 

Then they can keep doing whatever they want with Flying Circus and make it as spectacular as possible in VR for single player, and we can just move multiplayer back to RoF. That way we don't even need additional Volumes in a timely manner, and one Volume every 5 years or so is perfectly fine.

 

Sounds good to me.

[BMA_Hellbender]

2 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

I don't know if this is tongue-in-cheek or not- but I'd actually be cool with this.

 

I'm 100% serious, especially if Volume 1 turns out to be a one-shot, which looks like it might be the case if it's up to 1C and not up to Jason.

 

The resources needed to implement this are close to zero (beyond the fact that they may simply be unwilling to do so), and Rise of Flight is still being sold at close to full price when not on sale, so it's not like they're doing this for free.

 

Reverting the FMs is likely a bridge too far, as they've previously said that they're okay with them, and many people prefer to have slow Camels and Dr.Is anyway. That said, with tough wings it would be a game-changer for multiplayer and we could move the (apparently insignificantly small) multiplayer community back to RoF, where we already have all the content and maps we need. Heck I still play IL-2 1946 and Silent Hunter III simply because they have more content than newer titles, and mod teams have kept them alive over the years.

 

If you want to look at pretty planes explode and shed wings in VR, you can always fire up Flying Circus. Again, I'm not being condescending about FC, as VR is totes amazeballs and is worth the price of admission, but I've never found it all that great for organised multiplayer events where you want a notepad and protractor handy.

[No.23_Gaylion]

[No.23_Triggers]

I just seriously hope at some point they end up rolling back the DM. This new one is just not fun at all. I've stepped away from FC for the time being because of it....but if we're stuck with it I guess I'll just have to suck it up. 

Edited April 15, 2020 by US93_Larner

[Zooropa_Fly]

52 minutes ago, emely said:

 

I see that the opinions of three people coincided, and this already means something ? Personally, I think that damage can be reduced in the correction for all aircraft by 50%.  And only for Dr1 they need to be increased, at least 25% ha :-))

 

Yes, we're all lousy shots

 

 

 

 

58 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

Honestly, if this is the refined/detailed/complex DM, could they just go back to RoF and make the wings unrefined/simple/tough over there, as they were in FC before? And roll back the FMs to pre -1.034 while they're at it.

 

Then they can keep doing whatever they want with Flying Circus and make it as spectacular as possible in VR for single player, and we can just move multiplayer back to RoF. That way we don't even need additional Volumes in a timely manner, and one Volume every 5 years or so is perfectly fine.

 

We probably shouldn't be discussing this, but...

 

My suggestion would be to incorporate the following two mods into the RoF game :

• Rate of Fire Mod - there's x4 which are time period-specific.
• Reduced lethality mod - addresses the wing shredding thing a bit.

These 2 mean you can use improved gunnery (i.e. your bullets aren't spraying everywhere), and still not be sawing wings off as easily as default these days.

Instead of FM rollbacks, give us all options as variants, which can be used on a period specific basis as desired by the single player or map designer.

 

S!

 

 

 

Edited April 15, 2020 by Zooropa_Fly

[emely]

46 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

 

Yes, we're all lousy shots

 

Haha ? I have 18.6% of hits on the target on SeVa this month, and what are your results!?  )))

[Zooropa_Fly]

One crucial omission in FC - DAMN SHOOTING STATS !

 

I have nowhere to check them.

But against the bots in RoF I can hit 50% if I'm trying really hard.

 

[No.23_Triggers]

That's one thing that the new DM has omitted that I really, really, reeeealllllyyy liked in FC...pilots had to get good at marksmanship! It felt so rewarding to train up my gunnery to where I could knock down planes in a burst - now you just get a good burst into the wings and the guy will likely end up pulling them off himself. I'm also not 100% sold on the new pilot wound system - sometimes it feels like the pilot can take Hollywood levels of wounds and keep fighting...in last 3rd PG training session I think I was hit something like 6 times and kept flying 

[emely]

21 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

One crucial omission in FC - DAMN SHOOTING STATS !

 

I have nowhere to check them.

But against the bots in RoF I can hit 50% if I'm trying really hard.

 

Man, shoot the balloons more often, and you’ll correct your statistics!  ;-)))

11 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:

.in last 3rd PG training session I think I was hit something like 6 times and kept flying 

I agree .  But it’s still funny how the machine gunner withstands 9 bullets in the head, and on the tenth his heart breaks))

[Feathered_IV]

3 hours ago, 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk said:

Now, for less than 400 active online accounts for FC? What is your bet, will they take it on?

 

Guys, it is a business at the end, not a private workshop for 300 guys.

 

I wish I will be wrong but it looks like 'that's it'

 

 

2 hours ago, No56_Waggaz said:

Does that mean they’ve only sold 400 copies? 

 

At least 4000 copies.  The remaining 90% are the singleplayers who are making do with QMB.  

[Cynic_Al]

3 hours ago, 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk said:

Now, for less than 400 active online accounts for FC?

 

Perhaps I missed it, but just for clarity could you state the source of that figure?

[emely]

Del

 

Edited April 16, 2020 by emely

[Tycoon]

On 4/10/2020 at 8:05 PM, nickj123 said:

 

 

On 4/10/2020 at 8:05 PM, nickj123 said:

 

 

 

 

Are the beta testers one group of people that test all the content? ww2 and ww1?

 

edit- post is bugged didn't mean to quote.

Edited April 16, 2020 by Tycoon