Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 12/8/2020 at 2:10 PM, J2_Oelmann said:

If its Ugra Media I want a map as nice as the new DCS-Syria.

 

If its Yugramedia, I’m afraid it will be same as the small Arras map, full of 2D 2009retro and as highlight of the tour, the black ink spots. I do not know about the Syria map, while I did read a lott of complains about the DCS Normandy map in the past, so I suspect it will be not an award winning benchmark in terrain modeling. 

 

But on the other hand great news 1C is now swapping more RoF planes to FC, despite its not a real big step from RoF, its still very nice we can now fly nearly all those old RoF planes in VR. 

Edited by Dutch2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2020 at 9:50 PM, US103_Baer said:

The game doesn't NEED a Hanriot. No-one will fly it more than once and it will do nothing for sales attractiveness. You've only included above as a last resort because of the arbitrary 1918 time period.

 

**sputter**  What do you mean! I'll fly it! A lot... and I prefer it to aircraft like the Spad S.XIII and Fokker D.7!

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, NO.20_Krispy_Duck said:

My darkhorse "unlikely" pick for 1917-18 would be a Nieuport 24 or 27 in terms of stuff we haven't tried before. 

 

I wouldn't mind seeing either of them myself, they're great looking aircraft. Love how you can clearly see elements of both the 17 and 28 in them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dutch2 said:

But on the other hand great news 1C is now swapping more RoF planes to FC, despite its not a real big step from RoF, its still very nice we can now fly nearly all those old RoF planes in VR. 

I'm not going to be holding this notion forever, it's just that for now, I feel that the devs were better off giving the RoF source code to some other team just like what happened with IL-2 1946 when 1C Maddox moved on from it; just like the devs have also moved on from RoF.

 

RoF was a beauty game and it's a shame that it had to be abruptly discontinued.

 

Overall , I'm not trying to be sour puss or anything like that, it's just that I feel the devs could have found some way to get a bit more life into the ol' girl and add some things like VR and Updated Graphics before properly concluding it instead of making an entirely new WW1 game just 2 years later that had only marginal improvements.

 

But perhaps 5 years from now I may say to myself that it's time to start something new for WW1.

 

Salute.

Edited by Enceladus
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dutch2 said:

 

If its Yugramedia, I’m afraid it will be same as the small Arras map, full of 2D 2009retro and as highlight of the tour, the black ink spots. I do not know about the Syria map, while I did read a lott of complains about the DCS Normandy map in the past, so I suspect it will be not an award winning benchmark in terrain modeling. 

 

But on the other hand great news 1C is now swapping more RoF planes to FC, despite its not a real big step from RoF, its still very nice we can now fly nearly all those old RoF planes in VR. 

 

Scale and scope of the project have much more to do with map quality than anything else. Ugra Media did have some misses on their DCS: Normandy map which they then spent quite a bit of time improving. Their DCS: Syria map is new and is regarded as having the highest visual quality of virtually any DCS World map.

 

We don't know what they have planned for Vol 2 but I would guess that familiarity with the map tools learned in Vol 1 plus some hinted at improvements to the terrain system for the Normandy map brings us the potential for much more.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

Scale and scope of the project have much more to do with map quality than anything else. Ugra Media did have some misses on their DCS: Normandy map which they then spent quite a bit of time improving. Their DCS: Syria map is new and is regarded as having the highest visual quality of virtually any DCS World map.

 

We don't know what they have planned for Vol 2 but I would guess that familiarity with the map tools learned in Vol 1 plus some hinted at improvements to the terrain system for the Normandy map brings us the potential for much more.

 

The big thing is to make the front active and alive with battle. The main flaw with RoF was that the front actually was pretty static and sterile. FC is a bit better with ambient explosions and some ground gun fire. You see this in the J5 server. The best representation of the front I have yet seen is in WOFF, where the front is dynamic and is very much "alive" with combat below you. I'd like to see FC continue in that direction, whatever the map location.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the problem with dynamic action all around might be performance.

As a mission builder, there's only so much action you can arrange before frame rates and stuttering creep in.

Maybe this is a trade-off we have to accept, as we have the best FM's around.

It's all about the flying !

 

S!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, NO.20_Krispy_Duck said:

 

The big thing is to make the front active and alive with battle. The main flaw with RoF was that the front actually was pretty static and sterile. FC is a bit better with ambient explosions and some ground gun fire. You see this in the J5 server. The best representation of the front I have yet seen is in WOFF, where the front is dynamic and is very much "alive" with combat below you. I'd like to see FC continue in that direction, whatever the map location.

 

For sure. Anything that can be done to make that frontline be more alive would be great but I'm sure it is a challenge in terms of having that but not destroying performance either because of the engine or because of people's PC's. I'm sure there is a more active looking happy medium.

 

I do like what the J5 folks have done - it definitely helps! I haven't seen WOFF's frontline or what that would look like in our context.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there needs to be more ambience at the front: no man's land is meant to be a desolate bombed out wasteland.

 

What we could use is a simple bump map layer to give the craters some depth. Right now NML is a textured pancake.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

I do like what the J5 folks have done - it definitely helps! I haven't seen WOFF's frontline or what that would look like in our context.


The best short summary I could provide was sometimes you catch yourself just starting at the WoFF frontline and going "Woahhhh" ... flying too low to the trenches can be fatal owing to the hail of ground fire it can provoke, and the artillery barrages make you feel sorry for soldiers that don't even exist! 

Edited by US93_Larner
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2020 at 9:08 AM, J2_Bidu said:

The Gotha lands fine, the controls just work differently than you're thinking (whichever way you're thinking).


“Lands fine”? Geeeeez...I don’t know if I ever succeeded in getting that big monster off the ground, let alone land it!
 

Now you’ve got me thinking, so I’m gonna go fire up ROF this afternoon. It’s been a long time since I’ve done that. Almost feel guilty really.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NO.20_Krispy_Duck said:

 

 The best representation of the front I have yet seen is in WOFF, where the front is dynamic and is very much "alive" with combat below you.

 

When it comes to WWI aviation I have three avenues... I have RoF, and have played it to death and own everything they have produced.

I have FC and will continue to buy whatever  else comes out.

I also have all OFF and WoFF versions and will buy the new one due next year.

 

But if I was pushed into a corner and told I could only ever play one of them, as a mainly SP I would have to choose WoFF... there is nothing else like it out there and I doubt there will be again.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, US93_Larner said:


The best short summary I could provide was sometimes you catch yourself just starting at the WoFF frontline and going "Woahhhh" ... flying too low to the trenches can be fatal owing to the hail of ground fire it can provoke, and the artillery barrages make you feel sorry for soldiers that don't even exist! 

 

That's well described. They nailed the atmosphere and setting. It's a shame it's shackled to that CFS3 engine is all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CFS3...what memories - and a whopping disappointment after modding out and playing countless hours in CFS2.

 

Ah yes, but I’m here to say man oh man, to experience this stuff in VR - wow. VR is a big pull for me now, most likely even more so with the G2 on its way in January (for me, anyways...I held off until the reviews started coming in) as we are always looking towards the latest and greatest tech-wise. Never played WoFF but just like RoF I can see a definitely see nostalgia in stuff despite high tech. It holds its own.

 

I don’t know the magic the dev teams put into VR here, but it is above all the rest in terms of immersion factor. Can’t quite put my finger on it. It just works. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Enceladus said:

I'm not going to be holding this notion forever, it's just that for now, I feel that the devs were better off giving the RoF source code to some other team just like what happened with IL-2 1946 when 1C Maddox moved on from it; just like the devs have also moved on from RoF.

 

RoF was a beauty game and it's a shame that it had to be abruptly discontinued.

 

Overall , I'm not trying to be sour puss or anything like that, it's just that I feel the devs could have found some way to get a bit more life into the ol' girl and add some things like VR and Updated Graphics before properly concluding it instead of making an entirely new WW1 game just 2 years later that had only marginal improvements.

 

But perhaps 5 years from now I may say to myself that it's time to start something new for WW1.

 

Salute.

 

Think the problem is that once you do have the RoF source code, you also have the BoX code. 

But lets us wait, we all and 1C, have noticed  FS2020 and what can be possible in flysims. 

49 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

 

When it comes to WWI aviation I have three avenues... I have RoF, and have played it to death and own everything they have produced.

I have FC and will continue to buy whatever  else comes out.

I also have all OFF and WoFF versions and will buy the new one due next year.

 

But if I was pushed into a corner and told I could only ever play one of them, as a mainly SP I would have to choose WoFF... there is nothing else like it out there and I doubt there will be again.

 

This game is so intense, this game does have everything a WW1 cfs should have in combination with an sophisticated AI behavior. The only problem for me is no VR. 

 

Edited by Dutch2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dutch2 said:

This game is so intense, this game does have everything a WW1 cfs should have in combination with an sophisticated AI behavior. The only problem for me is no VR. 

Ditto once you go VR there is no turning back...

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

 

 

But if I was pushed into a corner and told I could only ever play one of them, as a mainly SP I would have to choose WoFF... there is nothing else like it out there and I doubt there will be again.

I have to say that if I was told I could only play SP I basically wouldn't choose a combat flightsim.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, J5_Hellbender said:

I don't think there needs to be more ambience at the front: no man's land is meant to be a desolate bombed out wasteland.

 

What we could use is a simple bump map layer to give the craters some depth. Right now NML is a textured pancake.

 

Guess time to get the new WoFF release and I’m sure you will change your opinion about that. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, BornToBattle said:


“Lands fine”? Geeeeez...I don’t know if I ever succeeded in getting that big monster off the ground, let alone land it!
 

Now you’ve got me thinking, so I’m gonna go fire up ROF this afternoon. It’s been a long time since I’ve done that. Almost feel guilty really.

 

I was actually joking but if you map engines separateky you have a new nice way of correcting direction. Land against the wind. And find a decent landing spot that is actually long enough, runway may not be the best spot... ;)

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 I would really like to see the take on the N28 in FC - in RoF it was hopelessly broken but I have a feeling it could become my favourite ride if fixed during the transition.

 

As for early war, I am not sure if that would make so much sense, we are missing early war two-seaters without them the missions make no sense anyway. First we need at least two early war two-seaters like B.E.2.c and Aviatik C.I or Albatros C.I/C.III only after that early war scenarios will make sense.

 

Apart of that I agree on the engine variants for the German planes, that would be awesome for the gameplay.

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 1PL-Sahaj-1Esk said:

 I would really like to see the take on the N28 in FC - in RoF it was hopelessly broken but I have a feeling it could become my favourite ride if fixed during the transition.


Agreed. I felt like all the Nieuports were a bit stunted in RoF.  N17 got the worst of it...

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

Well, that was nice to watch.

Best part is the end though for me, what a happy man he was.

Thanks for sharing.

CCC

They are actually building a series of this aircraft. Every part is not manufactured once, but as a batch.

 

Their website is in German however. None other than the venerable Mikael Carlson was there to give finishing touches to the replica.

img_0553-scaled-2500x1875-c-default.webp

 

He came to Switzerland to make a "first flight" in a Grandjean III, also a perfect replica:

 

csm_Rudaz_2013_Yverdon_2_a9e14ddef9.jpg

 

It flies better than the Blériot, less tiring to fly and glides better engine off. It features an Oerlikon two cylinder boxer engine.

 

I am thrilled that there are some aficionados today that go through all the hoos in keeping aviation history alive.

 

 

 

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

The Gotha flies just fine... as long as you're aware that it has a severe problem with Adverse Yaw. In short, large deflections of the ailerons change the lift vector of each wing, leading to a sharp yaw in the opposite direction of the intended roll. Then the plane's dihedral kicks in, causing an undesired roll opposite what you're trying to do. This frequently confuses pilots unfamiliar with the plane's unique handling. I was quite good with the plane back when I flew RoF. All you have to do is use ailerons when you want to turn, and rudder when you want to roll.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Addressing the elephant in the room: 

I'm really hoping the expansion of Flying Circus (plus, hopefully, a spike in WW1 players) will bring about another look at the WW1 damage model. Without trying to reopen the huge can of worms that the "Historical" side of that whole argument is (although that's an important factor to consider), I think it's a bit of a red flag that there are aircraft types that some pilots will actively avoid because they "break up too easily", and I think that it could hurt FC2 a little bit if some of the new planes develop similar reputations. I don't want to see planes become invincible in regards to wing damage, but I do think they should be a fair bit more durable in general.

The tougher German scouts (Pfalz, D7, Dr.I) seem like a good medium between the old DM and the new - they can take a real kicking, but they will still lose their wings after being riddled. You could still have tougher and weaker types, but IMO they should all be closer grouped to that 'baseline'. 

Then there's the loss of controls - I think the idea is great, but the current implementation feels more like you're having cannon rounds chucked at you rather than rifle-caliber ball ammo - it feels like your surfaces can be shot out, just, far too easily. Especially considering that the later planes were built with that kind of thing taken into consideration.  I think it would really add to the gameplay if the chance of losing a control surface was greatly reduced to what it currently is. 

I guess a good, quick summary would be that I think we should see the current DM's effects after a plane has been riddled, rather than peppered. 

The last thing would be the whole aircraft shaking after taking any amount of damage to the tailplane. That's just......yeah. 

Edited by US93_Larner
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...