Jump to content

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

the idea that they owe you something for the money you spent on Rise of Flight..

 

He possibly meant he ploughed some of his own 'hard earned' into BoX titles.

But whatever, such arguments are morals-based, not legal. I don't think anybody's threatened to sue the devs over anything yet.

Your position is always that of a legal representative defending your client, which is completely unecessary.

We all know we got what we paid for.

 

 

1 hour ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

It doesn’t need a miracle, just a little humility.  They just have to admit, as much to themselves as anybody, that if they make stuff up, however clever and sophisticated they might think it, that they can then pretend it is somehow cast iron, realistic, that’s the way it was.fact.  They aren’t (to quote somebody very clever) N.A.S.A.. Hell, it’s hard enough getting hard facts about the simple things, such as speed and RPM and turn, need I go on ?

 

The whole reason that FC WAS so much fun was because (it would appear accidentally) that it had managed to encapsulate what was special, and probably unique, about WW1 air combat, DOGFIGHTING IS FUN.  The last three updates have (to clever for their own good) damaged that unique-ness, turning it into something more akin to WW2 air combat, but without the advantages.

 

If the Developers want to save this little “niche” then they need to re-discover that truism and build the game accordingly.  Add as many updates as they want, tweak it to death, but they must ALWAYS keep an eye on the main event ‘DOGFIGHTING IS FUN’ and if updates damage that CORE reason for being then they should be adjusted until they do enhance the dogfighting experience or are quietly binned .

 

Humility ? Stuff Up's ?

That's all a bit ott.

 

I'm fairly sure the DM will now be more sophisticated and closer to reality than RoF's, and likely FC's previous incarnations, and that the devs are doing their utmost to improve things with each update.

What's happened to the full real crowd ? Has it all become a bit too close to real ?

I don't expect many real ww1 pilots would gayly have declared 'Dogfighting Is Fun'.

So if it is fun all the time, the devs have probably done a bad job, from a simming perspective.

 

At least wings haven't been mentioned much lately :)

 

 

Edited by Zooropa_Fly
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

The new Call of Duty has Dunkirk, about the same level of realism as Battlefield 1 (no wingshedding there).

 

Joan of Arc appears to have had a rather accurate depiction in video games circa 2007. Look at those mighty fine breast-

plates.

 

 

 

 

As for parting the Red Sea, well set my bush on fire and worship me a golden calf, there is a Moses simulator!

 

Actually it's a whole holy operating system.

 

 

Now I feel cheated we never got FokkerOS. According to spar size it would never crash.

 

 

I'm not sure you're taking this seriously Bender... :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Hoots said:

I'm not sure you're taking this seriously Bender... :)

 

Well, I'm taking this about as seriously as I can.

 

I look at this from the point of view of a professional software test coordinator (it's every bit as glamorous as it sounds) and a hobby GA pilot.

 

 

Do the planes fly like real planes? In my limited experience: yeah, pretty much.

 

Did the developers deliver on the requirements? Also, yes.

 

FwF6DJa.jpg

 

Nowhere are promises made of a balanced fun community-driven multiplayer experience. The community sort of made that happen, including the complex mission design and the stats keeping. This is what's called emergent gameplay these days.

 

And that's that. Beyond these promises it makes zero business sense to continue to cater to this small community.

 

I'm all for even more community involvement. I'm all for a Team Chill dedicated mod team which reviews all the FMs and DMs, reviews all the data against historical reports and flying replicas, and comes up with adjusted models rebuilt from the ground up which makes everyone here happy. Well, most people here, as there are a few who genuinely want to see it all burn to the ground. It could happen here or even in old abandoned RoF. Whether it will actually happen I sincerely doubt, but you never know.

Edited by J5_Hellbender
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DakkaDakkaDakka said:

Drookasi fired one burst, hit my elevator control cable with approximately 1-2 bullets and that was that for my flight.  That came on the heels of multiple similar instances, flying in a Camel, a SE5a, a Dr.1 and an Albatros.

 

It was disappointing to say the least. The dying I don't care about; the feeling like I'm not even an active participant in the proceedings was the part that made it feel so bad.

 

But anyways, enough spewing. I'll go spend my time and etc. elsewhere.

 

If Drookasi hit your elevator cable it's because he was aiming at it :)

 

But seriously, the DM is causing deep issues for FC and no-one is the winner here.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

Well, I'm taking this about as seriously as I can.

 

I look at this from the point of view of a professional software test coordinator (it's every bit as glamorous as it sounds) and a hobby GA pilot.

 

 

Do the planes fly like real planes? In my limited experience: yeah, pretty much.

 

Did the developers deliver on the requirements? Also, yes.

 

FwF6DJa.jpg

 

Nowhere are promises made of a balanced fun community-driven multiplayer experience. The community sort of made that happen, including the complex mission design and the stats keeping. This is what's called emergent gameplay these days.

 

And that's that. Beyond these promises it makes zero business sense to continue to cater to this small community.

 

I'm all for even more community involvement. I'm all for a Team Chill dedicated mod team which reviews all the FMs and DMs, reviews all the data against historical reports and flying replicas, and comes up with adjusted models rebuilt from the ground up which makes everyone here happy. Well, most people here, as there are a few who genuinely want to see it all burn to the ground. It could happen here or even in old abandoned RoF. Whether it will actually happen I sincerely doubt, but you never know.

 

Was only a joke :(

By the way, we're in similar jobs so we are definitely the rock and roll group. Glider not GA for me though so I win on the cool front. Sorry, I don't make the rules :)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hoots said:

Glider not GA for me though so I win on the cool front. Sorry, I don't make the rules :)

 

Gliders are heretic insults to physics. The constant beeping of the black magic indicator is proof of that.

 

Yeah yeah, you're descending in a rising mass of air, we get it, but you're not fooling me! I like my aircraft safely powered by liquefied 50 Euro bills. Thank you very much.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had a nice Bristol sortie, after flying into a tree in my 1st.

 

Got x2 tanks, x4 Heavy weapons, then went back up and got x3 bots.

Came back with a fuselage full of holes and tears, several holes in the wings, and crossed the mud with no rudder.

Got away with a decent landing.

All very satisfying.

 

Of course this was all bot action, so to speak. So more like a condensed SP experience and nothing to shout about.

But it got me thinking that a lot of talk around here these days seems to be about dogfighting.

I've rarely been on Flugpark, but I always think of it as FC's wargrounds - where defending targets / bombing targets / recon's etc. were the main focus.

I know we've limited planes which doesn't help, but is the focus more about dogfighting now ?

Because if it's furballs with the Drookasies of this world no wonder it's more of a die quick experience !

 

2020_6_15__9_57_38.thumb.png.c9f062c8d33fb46f86af0170830fa894.png

2020_6_15__9_58_12.png

 

edit : not sure what's going on with the pics lol

Edited by Zooropa_Fly
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

Nowhere are promises made of a balanced fun community-driven multiplayer experience.

What is bad in MP is bad in SP too. It just doesn't show as much. But currently on a Fokker, Camels are just victims. You mace them at 300 meters with your Spandaus, then just drive in conveniently as they flutter around aimlessly and the only difficulty that remanis is deciding whether you:

 

- spray one more and wings come off or dive out of controle due to control failure before even the wings come off.

- kill the pilot at close range

- make him a flamer

 

That is what SP play look like with bots set to "ace" and the only challenge left in dogfight if you just remotely know what to do in this game. You're seriously saying SP play not being affected?

 

Any dev should be bloody grateful for dedicated online players. They tell him quickly where his product ceases to work. It is then up to the devs to say, "whatever man" or actually look into the problem. But it is still a lesser games as it is now, SP as MP. In MP, it is just impossible to look away.

 

It may be that just fetching some RoF aircraft along with their FM into IL2 as a low hanging fruit when cash was needed was convenient. The loyal customer buys that then, knowing that it will lead to the whole portfolio becomming better products. If we on the other hand are let known that things are as they are and f- you, then why bother in any future installment of FC? You can only screw your customer base once. I doubt that after such, enough "niche players" will remain to make anything a business proposition.

 

It is obvious that as it is right now, things don't work as intended. Bot trials can only tell you so much. But if you can abuse the system such that it is no fun anymore, then you have to address that. If that what we have now were a racing sim, you'd have people threading about how exact you can do lap times, while out there in the game, some would just drive circles on the finishing line to win. You could do that in Gran Tourismo. Works as intended, timing between crossings of the finish line. Hooray, what a game.

 

As it is, the game marginally works for about one-half of the planes, and for the other one, it doesn’t work. No matter how much "data" you're throwing at it in the hope something will stick. The principle that the game would only be tuned according to "realism" is mainly an excuse to not be called out for bias of any kind. And it is a good thing to have your principles calibrated to "what was". But it is a calibration, never "fact". It will never be totally realistic, especially when you have an artificial system giving you results of what you supposedly were doing.

 

The DM in FC needs some serious overhaul and it *will* get one. Untill then, it just has become a lesser game past update v4.005, despite the added features.

Edited by ZachariasX
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did all the top pilots aim for meat and metal? If wings were weakened super fast by rifle calibre bullets why bother aiming for the pilot? Why didn’t MvR tell his pilots to aim for the wings and control surfaces and wait for their opponents to manoeuvre?
 

If you mostly fly the DviiF or Dr1 you don’t have to worry right now apart from all your opponents leaving, but for the rest of us it’s skewed to the extreme. If you are a DviiF Central jockey, when new planes are added, particularly 1917 birds like the Dii and Diii you’ll be in the same boat as the rest of us. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

What is bad in MP is bad in SP too.

 

I am mostly an interested observer of this thread (as a SP without the technical expertise of so many here).  However, for me, this is certainly true based on my anecdotal experiences this weekend with control damage. 

 

While I enjoyed the flight experience, I think the story of my "interesting WWI mission" below highlights why even as a SP PWCG Career guy, I will be sticking to WWII until some of this new WWI DM gets sorted out by the Devs:

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, J2_Bidu said:

 

 

Tonight I flew both the SE5a and the DR1 happily. Sure, My DR1 took a LOT of damage. But this is what my SE5a looked like when Drookasi finally killed me:

 

1395234589_Il-22020-06-1423-51-50.thumb.jpg.29fc462fc4d017b93a710aa5f7fe3149.jpg

 

I still had plenty of fun fighting for both sides.


Boelcke on Boelcke violence. The world is a sad place...

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

But currently on a Fokker, Camels are just victims. You mace them at 300 meters with your Spandaus, then just drive in conveniently as they flutter around aimlessly and the only difficulty that remanis is deciding whether you:

 

- spray one more and wings come off or dive out of controle due to control failure before even the wings come off.

- kill the pilot at close range

- make him a flamer


That is what SP play look like with bots set to "ace" and the only challenge left in dogfight if you just remotely know what to do in this game. You're seriously saying SP play not being affected?

 

To be honest, in single player Camels are just victims even when you're in an Albatros.

 

Once you know how the AI works you can trick it to win consistently. This is how any computer game works.

 

 

Now if you told me that Camels are just victims in multiplayer, then you'd have my attention. The prevailing sentiment still appears to be that a Central pilot needs a Fokker D.VIIF if he wants to stand a chance against an Entente player in a Camel. Honourable mention to the Fokker Dr.I, but we all know that it's (too) slow and can be avoided. The vanilla Fokker D.VII has no advantage against the Camel, unless you get lucky hits in the merge. The rest of the planes are very situational, with an honourable mention to the Pfalz D.10g. In other words: the status quo remains unchanged, only the length of dogfights has changed.

 

 

From what I can tell the Fokker D.VIIF is still limited on the J5 Flugpark — though obviously limited Fs don't mean much if there's not enough players on Entente to begin with.

 

I'm all for complex coded missions where you need a certain amount of Entente pilots in order for the D.VIIF to become available and whatnot, but I don't think you can fix the current situation with more complexity. People want to fly their favourite plane, or they won't fly. Otherwise we could just say: Central is on the defensive, and there are only Albies, Dr.Is and vanilla D.VIIs available, figure it out. But this is not the real war back in 1918, no one is forced to log in to multiplayer and fly a plane which isn't the best one they paid for.

 

So all I can conclude from this situation is:

  • If you're in a Fokker D.VIIF, you win. If you lose, you made a mistake.
  • If you're in a Fokker Dr.I and someone is stupid enough to fight you, there's a significant chance you will win.
  • If you're in a Camel, there's a significant chance you will either quickly lose or quickly win.
  • All the other planes are very situational, with again honourable mentions to the Entente planes that are faster than the Fokker D.VIIF and can avoid it.
     

In other words: nothing has changed, except that the Fokker D.VIIF has gone from being the best to even better and that the Albatros has gone from being the worst to even worse.

 

 

Quote

As it is, the game marginally works for about one-half of the planes, and for the other one, it doesn’t work. No matter how much "data" you're throwing at it in the hope something will stick. The principle that the game would only be tuned according to "realism" is mainly an excuse to not be called out for bias of any kind. And it is a good thing to have your principles calibrated to "what was". But it is a calibration, never "fact". It will never be totally realistic, especially when you have an artificial system giving you results of what you supposedly were doing.

 

That's the point of having a system that works on data: it doesn't care about the outcome, it only cares about the data.

 

 

Quote

The DM in FC needs some serious overhaul and it *will* get one. Untill then, it just has become a lesser game past update v4.005, despite the added features.

 

The last time that the community pressured the developers into making balance changes we ended up with RoF 1.034.

 

And yes, a 167km/h Camel is objectively slower than a 180km/h Albatros, which matches certain historical reports, but there is no data to back up either one. At that point the developer needs to start making conscious multiplayer balance decisions, which need to be tweaked over time, and they also clearly need to inform their customers that they're no longer following sources, but going for gameplay balance. Case in point, the Rise of Flight Sopwith Camel is still being wrongfully advertised to customers as having a top speed of 190km/h: https://riseofflight.com/store/aircraft/sopwith-camel/

 

So the idea that the devs *will* give in to community pressure is certainly not without precedent, but be careful what you wish for. Be especially careful if the end result is then still not what you expected (Belgian Military Aviation data for the top speed of the Sopwith Camel: 180-185km/h).

 

 

1 hour ago, US93_Rummell said:

Why did all the top pilots aim for meat and metal? If wings were weakened super fast by rifle calibre bullets why bother aiming for the pilot? Why didn’t MvR tell his pilots to aim for the wings and control surfaces and wait for their opponents to manoeuvre?

 

I don't have a satisfying answer beyond:

 

  1. Killing the pilot before he even knows you're there is obviously the safest way to win
  2. Real life pilots don't maneuver quite so hard and are more likely to die faster if you just straight up kill them

     
Quote

If you mostly fly the DviiF or Dr1 you don’t have to worry right now apart from all your opponents leaving, but for the rest of us it’s skewed to the extreme. If you are a DviiF Central jockey, when new planes are added, particularly 1917 birds like the Dii and Diii you’ll be in the same boat as the rest of us. 

 

The current planeset is not what I would call balanced, nor was it back in 1918.

 

Something mid-1917 such as Albatros D.III vs SPAD VII and Sopwith Pup (depending on which data you use for the top speed of the Pup) would probably work better.

 

Way harder to market to people casually interested in WWI than Camel vs. Dr.I, though.

Edited by J5_Hellbender
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, US93_Rummell said:

Why did all the top pilots aim for meat and metal? If wings were weakened super fast by rifle calibre bullets why bother aiming for the pilot? Why didn’t MvR tell his pilots to aim for the wings and control surfaces and wait for their opponents to manoeuvre?

 

Conversely, if all the top pilots were aiming for meat and metal, why did they still have some of their kills break up in the air.  Are we to believe they accidentally put 70 rounds into the wing (from a bounce no less, where we're told a lot of their kills happened)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, US63_SpadLivesMatter said:

 

Conversely, if all the top pilots were aiming for meat and metal, why did they still have some of their kills break up in the air.  Are we to believe they accidentally put 70 rounds into the wing (from a bounce no less, where we're told a lot of their kills happened)?


The vast majority of the Aces' kills didn't break up. All the claim analysis so far has already covered that a structural break-up was a rare occurrence. 

This brings us back round to the "Players are flying too aggressively in FC" argument...


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Zooropa_Fly said:

But which Camel and who was flying it ?

 

Oh boy!

 

The Sopwith Camel in service with the Belgian Military Aviation.

 

Let me post the relevant 15 pages straight from Walter Pieters The Belgian Air Service in the First World War and Above Flanders Fields:

 

Spoiler

giphy.gif

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

Now if you told me that Camels are just victims in multiplayer, then you'd have my attention.

It doesn't work in MP, there it is where it fails most.

 

27 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

The last time that the community pressured the developers into making balance changes we ended up with RoF 1.034.

What we have is NOT realistc, FAR from it and it simply diesn't matter if you feed pure, divine, absoulute realstic data into it.

 

If the system makes systemic errors and you try to correct that by giving it "even more realistic data" then you have a serious problem of understanding what's at odds.

 

We absolutely don't need more "realistic data". We have tons of that. What we don't have, is a system that gives us plausible results in gameplay. We have a system that says 2 + 2 = 5. If you limit your thinking to how realistc both of the 2's are anyway, then you will never be part of a solution to make things more realistic.

 

We can do two things now, either change how the system adds numbers, OR, if that is too difficult, you look for what kind of numbers give you 4 as a result. We don't care at all what kind of raw numbers the sim uses, we ONLY care about the result.

 

Hence, yes, "MP moron whine" is maybe what it takes to get the game going. RoF didn't get bad due to "The Patch". RoF contains a systemic FM error that makes may things go wrong such that it is felt in hard dogfights. All you have to do know is balancing out all the downsides you get for a result that should be as close to reality as possible. "The Patch" is only infamous due to the collateral it brought along in order to give ONE single improvement. But that just shows you that in RoF 2 + 2 = 7. Here, it is at least 5. Much better here. But we need to work what we have. And truer data won't make your result any truer.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

We can do two things now, either change how the system adds numbers, OR, if that is too difficult, you look for what kind of numbers give you 4 as a result. We don't care at all what kind of raw numbers the sim uses, we ONLY care about the result.

 

[...]

 

RoF contains a systemic FM error that makes may things go wrong such that it is felt in hard dogfights.

 

If there are truly systemic errors (and I'm not saying that there aren't), then the only solution is to rebuild everything from the ground up.

 

Well, I'm glad that's sorted out.

 

 

P.S.

 

Quote

It doesn't work in MP, there it is where it fails most.

 

If the Fokker D.VIIF is removed everywhere in multiplayer I will gladly start flying the Camel again.

Edited by J5_Hellbender
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:


The vast majority of the Aces' kills didn't break up. All the claim analysis so far has already covered that a structural break-up was a rare occurrence. 

This brings us back round to the "Players are flying too aggressively in FC" argument...


 

 

The vast majority no.  But would you agree that to be realistic some allowance needs to be made for the possibility of relatively few shots causing structural failure?

 

The problem with that though, is that no matter how infrequently it happens, you'll have someone here throwing an ententrum about "RNG" afterwards.

Edited by US63_SpadLivesMatter
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is interesting stuff, and overall it seems with some minor tweaking most of these issues can be resolved/refined. The controls surface damage is an accurate concept, just perhaps over-modeled and happening too frequently at this point. Some dial back would assist in re introducing a "feel" of realism.

 

To name a few others elements of need:

 

-Yes the wing shedding happens too quickly and also needs a minor dial back tweak.

-The Albatros is nerfed and needs some help

-The Camel could use some further gyroscopic effects added, and with the wing breakage reduced would at least help make it a little less -superior to everything out there, in making it the challenge it really was to fly (killed almost as many of its own pilots as enemy ones).

-Give Central the Pfalz DXII to also help counter the Camel superiority.

 

But lastly I mentioned "Feel", as this is an intangible thing that in some ways defies even the best known data-set you are implementing in order to try and achieve accuracy. So in essence feel must counterbalance with the best data you have for the overall simulation outcome.

 

Case in point concept of dealing with the reality of the SIM that goes beyond the actuality of the data involved in actual WWI aerial combat:  >>>>>>>     WE ARE ALL FRIGGIN ACES (10 times) OVER!!!  lol    <<<<<<<<<<<

 

I'm serious. What WWI pilot lived long enough to have 1/10th of the experience that any of us who have been playing this sim any length of time have?? Answer.....very few. They were usually dead by week three unless very talented and or lucky. So the data may be close to correct in that control surfaces are damaged more often than we like. But in real life there weren't squads of nothing but experts with refined shooting and flying skills all out on the hunt for each other. Wasn't so. So in that light, to achieve a more realistic FEEL considering the reality of Sim-play with a bunch of "Experten" out there....perhaps the damage model minor tweak( "dial-back") would adjust the feel to the fact we are all better than we should be.😏

 

Graff

Edited by J2_Von-Graff
grammar correction
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had lots of fun trying to fly home after my bombing mission. No rudder and flying sideways at an angle home was fun. Unfortunately I crashed in my approach because my plane wouldn't stay in the air level. I really enjoy having flight controls damaged.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup,

 

Its a cool aspect.....just might happen a bit too easily. We don't want the "spray and pray" element occurring frequently with control surfaces like it used to for a period with head-shots  back in the good old days of ROF. It was as if we all had watermelon sized noggins for a period there that could be pegged regularly by a bullet spray from a half mile distant. Not so good. 😄

 

Graff 

Edited by J2_Von-Graff
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Do any of the developers actually fly FC competitively in MP?

 

I guess I have in my mind the question, do they consume what they produce competitively in MP and enjoy it, or just produce it?

 

Just a thought to help me understand this genre.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

Edited by 56RAF_Talisman
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, US63_SpadLivesMatter said:

 

The vast majority no.  But would you agree that to be realistic some allowance needs to be made for the possibility of relatively few shots causing structural failure?


Yes. Although rare it did happen, so of course it should be in the game if we're looking for realism. However, at the moment in the case of several aircraft, structural failure with minimal damage is the rule and not the exception - to the point that I've been legitimately surprised to see a Halberstadt make a flat-turn without falling apart after being hit. 

 

48 minutes ago, US63_SpadLivesMatter said:

The problem with that though, is that no matter how infrequently it happens, you'll have someone here throwing an ententrum afterwards.


Good one. This is exactly what I'm saying about players letting an "Us vs Them" mentality overshadow any actual worthwhile opinion they might have. The reality is that you are making assumptions that Entente players are exaggerating or 'whining' with absolutely ZERO context as to how the DM affects the Entente planes (and the Halb / Alb). You don't even have the context of fighting against Entente aircraft in MP as you continue to remain offline.

Instead of actually speaking from any point of personal experience or perception, you'd rather just claim that the Entente pilots are crying about a non-issue while blindly taking the word of anyone here that says anything that aligns with that idea. 

If you took some of the "weak" planes out in MP and then came back in here and gave your opinions based on your flights, that would be much more credible. 


 

35 minutes ago, J2_Von-Graff said:

This is interesting stuff, and overall it seems with some minor tweaking most of these issues can be resolved/refined. The controls surface damage is an accurate concept, just perhaps overmodeled and happening too frequently at this point. Some dial back would assist in re introducing a "feel" of realism.


I think the same! No problem with controls being cut - it did happen with enough frequency to be noticeable in a lot of the literature - but it wasn't anywhere near as common as it is in FC if the accounts are to be believed! 

 

35 minutes ago, J2_Von-Graff said:

-The Camel could use some further gyroscopic effects added, and with the wing breakage reduced would at least help make it a little less -

   superior to everything out there, in making it the challenge it really was to fly (killed almost as many of its own pilots as enemy ones).


Not trying to refute this in any way, but just a consideration to make - how many noobie FC camel pilots do you think the Gyro effect has killed in a low alt dogfight? The difference is that the FC guys can keep respawning and retrying until they're Camel Masters ;) 


However way you look at it, I think the current DM allows the Central faction to Spray n Pray and see good results, whereas the Entente side largely has to rely on firing for the meat-n-metal, which I think is going to affect the MP experience quite significantly and cause a lot of frustration. The Central side also basically now have to rely on their recons / bombers never being seen at all in order to complete their missions, as one burst will just blow their wings off. 

There are a lot of interesting points for the Historical arguments surrounding the DM, but in regards to the Gameplay argument I think it's fairly clear that this is going to has hurt Multiplayer. 

Edited by US93_Larner
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:


The vast majority of the Aces' kills didn't break up. All the claim analysis so far has already covered that a structural break-up was a rare occurrence. 

This brings us back round to the "Players are flying too aggressively in FC" argument...


 

 

No it has not.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, J5_Hellbender said:

 

Oh boy!

 

The Sopwith Camel in service with the Belgian Military Aviation.

 

Let me post the relevant 15 pages straight from Walter Pieters The Belgian Air Service in the First World War and Above Flanders Fields:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

giphy.gif

 

 

It was a rhetorical question !

I think my point was that, rather than which variant of Camel was flown, which specific one was it ? i.e. no two were the same, as I understand per the general manufacturing realities of the time.

As to who flew it - I refer back the the lecture by one of the foremost Camel experts (forget the name) - who stated that the one thing they didn't test was it's top speed. Citing that how fast it 'could' go was very much down to how far the pilot was prepared to push, which I take to mean : that flying as fast as the thing would go is in itself a risky occupation.

 

I'd still like to see something like a +/- 3% random performance effect for planes when selected.

I think there'd be some added realism in it.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, unreasonable said:

No it has not.  


How hasn't it? From your MvR analyses and my analyses of the other Aces, I got a figure of 7% of all shoot-downs definitively being from structural failure - or 21 cases out of 302. That seems to me to be fairly indicative that an aircraft breaking up was a rarity.

Could you elaborate a little on why you don't think the same? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:


Yes. Although rare it did happen, so of course it should be in the game if we're looking for realism. However, at the moment in the case of several aircraft, structural failure with minimal damage is the rule and not the exception - to the point that I've been legitimately surprised to see a Halberstadt make a flat-turn without falling apart after being hit. 

 

 

I agree that seeing Halberstadt's break up in the air is very common in SP. But I suspect that is part of the general problem that many bomber/ground attack types have in BoX WW2 as well - the AI tends to fly them aggressively like a fighter rather than allowing their rear gunners to do the job. This perhaps works well for the Bristols, but is not working for the Halbs.

 

1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

And truer data won't make your result any truer.

 

You do not know that. If there is something wrong, finding out what it is will give better results than making arbitrary changes that may have unforeseen consequences. 

 

A DM that is too forgiving also wrecks SP.  SP is about staying alive in missions: when, where and how many enemies you will meet are uncertain or completely unknown. Any experienced player can thrash scout AI in QMB. It is not so easy to survive in a career.  AI cannot fly as well as an experienced player - indeed mostly they should not. SP is not an MP emulator.

What they do have is decent shooting and superior SA.  Good SP is about pre fight positioning as much as dogfighting. 

 

If you take away too much of the ability for the AI to kill the player who makes a mistake, you end up with no SP challenge at all. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J5_Hellbender said:

If there are truly systemic errors (and I'm not saying that there aren't), then the only solution is to rebuild everything from the ground up.

Not at all. We have what we have. In most cases (WW2), that works well. But in cases where it doesn't, you just gotta stomach giving 2.3 + 1.9 = 4.1 as inputs if that is what gets you closest to 4, despite both not being the "realistic" 2.

 

Not all is bad, and not all is lost. We are VERY close here to a good solution. It's just that the trying part is entirely up to the devs, as to us it is really too much information about how they deal with things in detail.

 

But you gotta try some more. Also, you must realize that the "historic dada", that only is a club to manage us yelping forists and to keep our quarrelings somewhat in line. You really think anyone cares what actual numbers you put in a given simulation, if all that matters to you is the result? The devs are seeing it, I'm sure of that. They have a lot of other work now, but the WILL have further looks on the state of the affair here.

 

 

19 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

You do not know that.

Yes I do know that. I can only think of one perfect computation, and that one has 42 as single output. Also in that case, having the output meant looking for the input.

 

19 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

A DM that is too forgiving also wrecks SP.  

So, tuning the DM for unqualified action on behalf of the AI is to be preferred over qualified player action? Is that a step toward realism? Let me remind you that "the issue" is not something that applies to all planes evenly.

 

So far, It was my understanding that we should have plausible and playable gameplay when things are done right in the game. Flying ans shooting as you are supposed to. But you are saying that damage effect needs to be high to compensate for AI combat abilities and give a hit handicap shooting flimsy Sopwith's... That's just grand if you run into a Halberstadt.

 

What we have has no upside to it. It's neither plausible nor fun. In any scenario.

Edited by ZachariasX
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, US93_Larner said:


How hasn't it? From your MvR analyses and my analyses of the other Aces, I got a figure of 7% of all shoot-downs definitively being from structural failure - or 21 cases out of 302. That seems to me to be fairly indicative that an aircraft breaking up was a rarity.

Could you elaborate a little on why you don't think the same? 

 

Certainly.  I have yet to see the book you used, to start with, so I do not know if you are using the same criteria or whether the detail of the source material is directly comparable.  (It is allegedly on the way from the US,  presumably by relays of trained dolphins, since it is taking a while). 

 

Your analysis had 5 out of 222 for the "Other Huns" down as structural compared to 15 out of 78 for MvR.  While it is possible that the difference was purely down to chance, it is very unlikely.  MvR's claims are very well documented. So until I have seen the "Other Huns" source I cannot agree.

 

Even 21 out of 302 is not my idea of a "rarity" - to me a rarity implies that you are surprised when you find it. I doubt that any WW1 pilot was surprised to see planes shedding wings.

Rarer than is now observed in FC I agree - even in SP. 

 

 

  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If braced wing planes were about as sturdy (there can be variations) as the Bristol and control damage is reduced to at least 10% of what we have now, I think we had a pretty good game. And a much more "realistic" one too.

 

It's not that hard.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

agree that seeing Halberstadt's break up in the air is very common in SP. But I suspect that is part of the general problem that many bomber/ground attack types have in BoX WW2 as well - the AI tends to fly them aggressively like a fighter rather than allowing their rear gunners to do the job. This perhaps works well for the Bristols, but is not working for the Halbs

 

Nah man, have a friend just go fly level and you bounce him. Thing just falls apart without any movement on the halbs part. 

 

Its the same with the albatros. 

 

It's not simple "you guys are flying it too hard."

 

I can provide a video showing this ravaging happening again, and again, and again.

 

Actually I'm gathering video for a bug report for the albatros.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

 

Yes I do know that. I can only think of one perfect computation, and that one has 42 as single output. Also in that case, having the output meant looking for the input.

 

So, tuning the DM for unqualified action on behalf of the AI is to be preferred over qualified player action? Is that a step toward realism? Let me remind you that "the issue" is not something that applies to all planes evenly.

 

So far, It was my understanding that we should have plausible and playable gameplay when things are done right in the game. Flying ans shooting as you are supposed to. But you are saying that damage effect needs to be high to compensate for AI combat abilities and give a hit handicap shooting flimsy Sopwith's... That's just grand if you run into a Halberstadt.

 

What we have has no upside to it. It's neither plausible nor fun. In any scenario.

 

No, you really do not know that. If the FC Pfalz has too high a G limit, and it is replaced by a better sourced one, you get a result that is both more realistic and, as it happens, better balanced. We are not talking about perfect computations, but how to make them better. 

 

"So, tuning the DM for unqualified action on behalf of the AI is to be preferred over qualified player action?" Seriously? I neither said not implied that. What I am doing is calling into question the assumption that what is good for MP is necessarily good for SP. It simply is not true. I might add that FC is not just a MP game and this thread is about the DM which everyone shares, not about just about MP balance.

 

Judging from this forum, the maximum fun balanced MP game would be for all planes to have the same DM, and FM too while we are at it. Tuned arbitrarily to some forum post weighted average of how often people like to get hit before they get shot down. After all, if improved data is irrelevant why bother having any at all? 

 

Whatever you want to argue is good for MP - go for it. But do not try to tell me that what works best for MP works best for SP.  That is BS.

   

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J5_Hellbender said:

If the Fokker D.VIIF is removed everywhere in multiplayer I will gladly start flying the Camel again.

 

Please, just remove every Entente plane so I can fly the Albatros.

Or just remove their engines.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

 

 

If you take away too much of the ability for the AI to kill the player who makes a mistake, you end up with no SP challenge at all. 

You can't take away something that is already non-existent. 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

If the FC Pfalz has too high a G limit, and it is replaced by a better sourced one,

It most certainly has and it would be cool getting it more close to the real thing.

 

But the Pfalz is a different discussion. But it just shows you that it does less damage to the game being too permissive rather than being too strict.

 

11 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

I might add that FC is not just a MP game and this thread is about the DM which everyone shares, not about just about MP balance.

Nobody talks about MP balance here. MP just shows what doesent work more clearly, you can ignore it less.

 

Again: This is NOT a balace issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J2_Von-Graff said:

[...] perhaps the damage model minor tweak( "dial-back") would adjust the feel to the fact we are all better than we should be.😏

 

 

This could be a server "realism" option. In this case we want it a little less real, maybe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...