Jump to content

From Jasons Q&A on Stormbirds blog, parts on FC


Recommended Posts

In case you missed it (I did)

 

 

Quote

Is there a chance that we will see Mercedes D.IIIau engine at least for Fokker D.VII and Pfalz D.XII ?

Yes, it’s in the general plan for later in this FCII dev. cycle, but how it manifests itself is unknown. Han knows more about when it’s possible to build.

Jason Williams

Please forgive me if this is a sore subject but many of us in the WWI community feel that there are serious issues with the DM in FC. Will they be addressed before the release of FC2?

These complaints are not easily solved. I have some ideas on what we might be able to do, but we will have to work them out internally first before I say anything publicly. I don’t want to set false expectations. 

Jason Williams


Any chances of building a Pe-3, Bf-110F, and Tu-2S in future Eastern Front installments?

Another Eastern Front product is possible, but right now just focused on Normandy and FCII. We will have 12 months to go till completion on BON and FCII. 

Jason Williams

 


 

 

 


Full summary

https://stormbirds.blog/2021/04/07/jason-williams-answers-il-2-questions-in-a-mini-qa-more-to-come/?fbclid=IwAR3PKCIdxyMeilsYb9b5RhtJN0HePlYAcUzLUAgrGrVuX9sxp3BSAd4hGvE

Edited by J2_Trupobaw
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

The D.IIIaü is excellent news!
 

Hopefully we’ll get even more engine variants for other planes down the line. This would also mark the first real ‘new plane content’ since the end of the RoF dev cycle.

 

 

As for the DM: right now I go into combat wondering how long it will take before the control cables on my Dolphin/Bristol/Camel break or jam. It’s always a matter of time. At least I don’t worry so much about my wings anymore. 😆

 

If we’re talking about what might fix this, if reverting to how it was before is not an option: add a DM to the machine guns, propeller and undeployed parachute system of every plane. Right now we have a few Central planes that can fly around until they are turned to Swiss cheese. While I can appreciate the fact that they have stronger than average wings and perhaps less exposed control cables, there are plenty of other critical systems that are also likely to be damaged by enemy fire. If there’s a chance that a bullet could cause a machinegun to become permanently jammed, or for the static line of the parachute to rupture or even for a few holes in the propeller causing it to fail completely over time, it will lead to less silliness where you can fly a plane to complete destruction before bailing out in relative safely.

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't like what I heard in coms about current wings and push rods damage model during yesterday operation Michael test. It never ends and I really stop enjoying flying FC , ww2 part is so much enjoyable game.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, J5_Adam said:

I'd love to see a late DVa with the D.IIIaü to have a little better climbing performance at altitude as well.

 

The idea of an early and late D.Va really has no basis in reality.

 

The Albatros D.Va had a 180PS (200hp British post-war rating) Mercedes D.IIIa(ü) from the get-go. It had this engine at Adlershof in January 1918 as an improvement over the Albatros D.V. It's the reason why it was ordered into production in spite of performing marginally worse at sea level than the Fokker D.VII equipped with an older 160PS (160/175hp British post-war rating depending on year of production) Mercedes D.III engine and only marginally better than the Pfalz D.IIIa equipped with the non-overcompressed 170PS (180hp British post-war rating) Mercedes D.IIIa. Politics obviously played a part. Albatros Flugzeugwerke was as Prussian as it got, located right next door from Adlershof airfield at Johannistal, Berlin — whereas Fokker was Dutch and Pfalz was from the Rhineland-Palatinate. Bloody foreigners and their superior engineering!

 

In any case at sea level the Mercedes D.IIIa and D.IIIaü would have had close to identical performance. There's even a good argument to be made that the D.IIIaü performed slightly worse at sea level and it was simply not possible to go "full altitude throttle" and magically squeeze out an extra 10km/h as is now the case with the Halberstadt CL.II 200hp. If anything performance at sea level with the Mercedes D.IIIa should already be around 10-15km/h more on all current machines equipped with one (Albatros D.Va, Pfalz D.IIIa, Fokker D.VII and Halberstadt CL.II 180hp). With the D.IIIaü top speed should be slightly lower than that at sea level (~5km/h less than the D.IIIa), but then drop off far slower at altitude. TAS at 2000-3000m could easily be 185km/h (IAS 165km/h) with the D.IIIaü, but only 165km/h (IAS 145km/h) with the D.IIIa. 165km/h is the official figure from German Aircraft of the First World War (Gray and Thetford, 1962) which has the British performance data and some of the captured German data.

 

This isn't direct criticism towards what the devs have done. Performance data surrounding the Mercedes D.III and D.IIIa (and unofficial D.IIIaü) is muddy as hell, with all sorts of conflated British and German measurements in both horsepower and Pferdestärke. It doesn't help that speed measurements are done at TAS, but that pressure/density-based instruments obviously indicate IAS and there is a significant difference between the two when not flying at standard atmospheric conditions at sea level — except for the German wind vane type airspeed indicator which always indicates TAS.

Edited by =IRFC=Hbender
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be great for historical accuracy sake, but of course the best thing about multiple engine variants is it gives the mission maker/multiplayer hosts something to 'tune' the plane sets with so we don't need to have all these fights about flight models (but we will ;) ). Multiple engine variants for Se5a and Camel would also be great in this regard.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

As for the DM: right now I go into combat wondering how long it will take before the control cables on my Dolphin/Bristol/Camel break or jam. It’s always a matter of time. At least I don’t worry so much about my wings anymore. 😆

 

[...] Right now we have a few Central planes that can fly around until they are turned to Swiss cheese. While I can appreciate the fact that they have stronger than average wings and perhaps less exposed control cables, there are plenty of other critical systems that are also likely to be damaged by enemy fire. 

 


The Central planes are to underpowered to produce wing-breaking G-forces (on top of thick wings). The Entente planes are quite managable once you learn to fear G-forces and fly with rudder first rather than elevator first. Control cables go away in all planes, but Central planes are more stable in general so they are easier to control with surfaces missing.
 

2 hours ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

 

The idea of an early and late D.Va really has no basis in reality.

 

The Albatros D.Va had a 180PS (200hp British post-war rating) Mercedes D.IIIa(ü) from the get-go. It had this engine at Adlershof in January 1918 as an improvement over the Albatros D.V. It's the reason why it was ordered into production in spite of performing marginally worse at sea level than the Fokker D.VII equipped with an older 160PS (160/175hp British post-war rating depending on year of production) Mercedes D.III engine and only marginally better than the Pfalz D.IIIa equipped with the non-overcompressed 170PS (180hp British post-war rating) Mercedes D.IIIa. Politics obviously played a part. Albatros Flugzeugwerke was as Prussian as it got, located right next door from Adlershof airfield at Johannistal, Berlin — whereas Fokker was Dutch and Pfalz was from the Rhineland-Palatinate. Bloody foreigners and their superior engineering!

 

 


There were 3 generations of D.V:
- original D.V - 180hp engine, headrest, weak wings, aileron cables rerouted through upper wing. Slightly better performance than D.III, very prone to lower wing twisting off at high speed. Used in spring/summer 1917.
- original D.Va - reinforced wing spars and ribs, removed headrest, aileron cables rerouted back to lower wing. Inferior performance thanks to weight of lower wing reinforcements. Used in autumn / winter 1917 alongside existing D.Vs
- upgraded D.Va - first Mercedes D.IIIa(ü) s arrived in late 1917. After the engine upgrade, D.Va performance went back to D.V level while keeping stronger wings. Used in 1918. It's also the one that had the parachute.
- leftovers - in summer 1918 there were 100ish D.Vs and 50ish D.IIIs still in service on Western Front - since all engines were routinely upgraded to Mercedes D.IIIa(ü) during overhauls, they had to be reequipped with aüs and chutes by then.

Edited by J2_Trupobaw
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

If we’re talking about what might fix this, if reverting to how it was before is not an option: add a DM to the machine guns, propeller and undeployed parachute system of every plane.

 

 

I've already seen machine guns get shot out. It's happened a couple times to me, and a couple times to others I've flown with. A parachute component might be interesting, and would also have an effect on WW2 content. I've seen a single elevator on the SE5 and Bristol get shot out, leaving you with one jammed and the other still working. I've seen a single aileron get shot out (on a spad I think). Pretty sure a Bristol I was flying had the rudder cable hit, but it kept working until shot a second time a couple minutes later because there are redundant rudder cables. I was kinda busy at the time, so that one might have been a mistake when reading the systems that were getting shot. There's a lot modeled if you pay close attention. It ain't perfect, though. Odds are still too high of losing controls, and they really should flap in place rather than get stuck or jammed most of the time. It would also be nice if instead of a catastrophic jammed control, sometimes it was a small jam that you could break free by slamming your stick against it. The #1 troubleshooting technique I learned in the navy is mechanical agitation: give it a good whack or otherwise force it through.

More engine variants is exciting. The DIIIau seems like the easiest to apply to several aircraft at once, but other planes would certainly benefit from some engine options, too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cynic_Al said:

So in summary, multiplayer will never be more than a complimentary add-on to a single-player game with unconvincing AI planes.  RIP.

 

Why RIP? People who buy the game to play it exclusively in single player are what funds the much smaller multiplayer community.

 

 

1 hour ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

The Central planes are to underpowered to produce wing-breaking G-forces (on top of thick wings). The Entente planes are quite managable once you learn to fear G-forces and fly with rudder first rather than elevator first. Control cables go away in all planes, but Central planes are more stable in general so they are easier to control with surfaces missing.

 

Fearing G-forces up to a certain point: yes, this would have been taught during training. However, not to the extent that we're seeing now where one plane can take 9-10g and most others can only take 5-6g at most. Fearing that bullet damage might reduce the structural integrity of the wings and/or cause control cables to snap: also, but not at the rate that we're seeing now. Fearing gun stoppage and engine fires: constantly.

 

 

42 minutes ago, gascan said:

I've already seen machine guns get shot out. It's happened a couple times to me, and a couple times to others I've flown with.

 

I've never seen an onboard Vickers or Spandau jam to the point that it couldn't be cleared anymore. Are you talking about the gun overheat mechanic?

 

I'll run some tests regardless.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

 

 People who buy the game to play it exclusively in single player are what funds the much smaller multiplayer community.

 

 

 

They wouldn't like my answer to that one.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

 

Fearing G-forces up to a certain point: yes, this would have been taught during training. However, not to the extent that we're seeing now where one plane can take 9-10g and most others can only take 5-6g at most. Fearing that bullet damage might reduce the structural integrity of the wings and/or cause control cables to snap: also, but not at the rate that we're seeing now. Fearing gun stoppage and engine fires: constantly.

 


5-6g in a damaged WW1 plane is a lot. That's the historical limit for undamaged IRL plane. Meanwhile, in simulated Central crates, you have to go out of your way to pull more than 3g on the HUD out of dive (and you will be out of energy soon if you do, so no sane Central pilots goes there). Meanwhile, Sopwith planes take you into 5g unless you try to stop them, and SE just ask you to do these outer wing straining fast rolls. Sticking to 3g limit in observed by Central planes in all crates (basically, going into Pfalz D.XII mode and paying extra attention to HUD and elevator ffb ) does wonders for me.

Edited by J2_Trupobaw
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2021 at 4:45 PM, J2_Trupobaw said:

Undamaged Pfalz.


I'd like to see you pull 10g in any other undamaged plane.

 

It's not like it having damage to the main wing spar suddenly brings it in line with other scouts, either. Which makes no sense, since the main spar should support the weight fully, until it doesn't support anything. Maybe we'll have to wait and see what happens with the Fokker D.VIII, that one has a massively thick wing and main spar.

Edited by =IRFC=Hbender
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no other undamaged plane like the Pfalz. Spad 13, perhaps. 

Fokker D.VIII wing was bulletproof in ROF (probably because that main spar was being additionally held together by plywood covering, there was little a bullet could do) and Becker (probably because there was little need to model friendly fire against new wing type). Could be damaged by Davis gun though. I do wonder how will it behave in IL2 (which has all wooden wings deeply modelled already).

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, J5_Adam said:

I'd love to see a late DVa with the D.IIIaü to have a little better climbing performance at altitude as well.

I wish we also had engine variant for Spad13 :

200, 220 and 235 hp as they behave quite differently

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

I've never seen an onboard Vickers or Spandau jam to the point that it couldn't be cleared anymore. Are you talking about the gun overheat mechanic?


"Gun Damaged" - you can shoot someone's guns out and render them inoperable. Doesn't happen all too frequently, though

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

"Gun Damaged" - you can shoot someone's guns out and render them inoperable. Doesn't happen all too frequently, though

 

Somehow this just makes me sad. The fact that it's actually there. I believe you, yet I've never seen it happen. It's a completely backwards way to approach history.

 

See I bought these eggs, flour, milk, sugar, butter, a dash of baking powder, a teaspoon of vanilla extract, a pinch of salt and I baked these delicious crêpes. I used the best ingredients and they're lovely crêpes. Anyone who says they don't taste good is obviously wrong, because they do. I mean I was going to bake waffles, but using these very same ingredients I ended up with crêpes — so it's my conclusion that waffles, in fact, don't exist. And by extension, Belgium may just be a culinary fantasy invented by unreliable French cook books.

 

P.S. Not relevant to this discussion, and please don't tell my mother, but I tend to prefer crêpes over waffles.

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

The story of Belgium and waffles is a truly fascinating and inspired tale worthy of its rightful place in the great moments of time and human endeavour. Are you telling me it's all fiction !? :cray:

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

There is no other undamaged plane like the Pfalz. Spad 13, perhaps. 
 

Nah, not even close. 

 

We tested all the planes for undamaged G rating. From memory the Spad was low to mid 7, the Camel, Alb, SE and Dolphin were high 5s to low 6s. D7 was high7 to 8. Dr1 even higher.  Got the table somewhere.  Will dig it up. EDIT: My memory was faulty. Table attached below

The Pfalz is an outlier at 10G and only way to pull a wing off is asymmetrically loading one side. 

Spoiler

1577966615_UndamagedWingStrengthratings.JPG.9d680fa8366bd0431ac90723d6906e1d.JPG

 

Now, you add some damage, and wing spar size looks like the primary determining factor.

 

This leads us to the question, does the wing spar size affect undamaged G strength at all? We didn't have G meters before 4.006 which is when wing spars were changed, but you'd think that the huge change to D7 wing spar would've had noticeable impact on undamaged G strength.  It didn't seem to.

Which is very interesting because it made a huge difference to damaged G strength. 

Edited by US28_Baer
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2021 at 9:49 PM, US28_Baer said:

Nah, not even close. 

 

We tested all the planes for undamaged G rating. From memory the Spad was low to mid 7, the Camel, Alb, SE and Dolphin were high 5s to low 6s. D7 was high7 to 8. Dr1 even higher.  Got the table somewhere.  Will dig it up. EDIT: My memory was faulty. Table attached below

The Pfalz is an outlier at 10G and only way to pull a wing off is asymmetrically loading one side. 

  Hide contents

1577966615_UndamagedWingStrengthratings.JPG.9d680fa8366bd0431ac90723d6906e1d.JPG

 

Now, you add some damage, and wing spar size looks like the primary determining factor.

 

This leads us to the question, does the wing spar size affect undamaged G strength at all? We didn't have G meters before 4.006 which is when wing spars were changed, but you'd think that the huge change to D7 wing spar would've had noticeable impact on undamaged G strength.  It didn't seem to.

Which is very interesting because it made a huge difference to damaged G strength. 

Except for the Pfalz, those are plausible maximums.  The Bristol is probably a little on the high side, but I haven't collected any data on it.  Though I will probably get to fly one next year!

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, J2_Oelmann said:

I want propper gun jams. Not just the misfire you get from time to time.

 

What method would you want implemented for propperly un-jamming a gun?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Cynic_Al said:

 

What method would you want implemented for propperly un-jamming a gun?

 

 

 

Animation of hammering the guns, I would pick. Just extra functionality to un-jamm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Cynic_Al said:

propperly un-jamming a gun?

You have to keep a hammer handy and the guns won't unjam until you've given your pc a good whacking.

Edited by Diggun
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Very old fashioned idea, I like it. Let's keybind the wood mallet on the SXIII into my hand so I can beat off the weapon malfunction with it. Would be cool to look with one eye down the shaft of the gun breech and see a stove pipe flopping in the breeze. We could incorporate the current DM and make the girth of the handles more or less stiffy depending on the plane so you could break one off in your hand leaving you finished in front of your man. 

Would make combat very hard on going for a lot longer than the average 2 minutes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, J2_Oelmann said:

Either keep repeating the reload Button a random time until the stoppage clears or/and having the Chance of a stoppage you cant clear at all from the cockpit.

 

I imagined you meant something like that, the problem is that would give rise to another far more serious type of stoppage, namely that of game sales.  I think you can be certain the developers came to the same conclusion.  No doubt some genius will suggest making it a server option, which would lead inevitably to server boycotts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

I imagined you meant something like that, the problem is that would give rise to another far more serious type of stoppage, namely that of game sales.  I think you can be certain the developers came to the same conclusion.  No doubt some genius will suggest making it a server option, which would lead inevitably to server boycotts.

 

Why exactly would gun stoppage lead to fewer sales? It happened for real, constantly. It may have been the major contributing factor to dogfights not always ending with one cheese-grated plane turning circles on the deck, guns still blasting while prophanging at other less fortunate planes attempting to fly more or less straight with control surfaces jammed into position.

 

 

"Yes, Voss did shoot all our elevator control cables away, but little did he know about the S.E.5a's secret weapon!"
- from McCudden's post-war memoir Flawless Victory: How the Adjustable Stabilizer Won Me the American Medal of Honor, S!

 

 

Anyway, you could extrapolate this and ask yourself what exactly does lead to more sales?

 

Is it historical accuracy? With the most love and admiration I can muster for what the devs are trying to do marrying both WW1 and WW2 in the same game sim and end up with a cohesive whole: what we have now isn't even close to historically accurate WW1 air combat.

 

Is it perceived historical accuracy? Sure, all that can be reasoned away through numbers and eventually leads to an enjoyable experience is fair enough. Let's call it the secret sauce that made RoF popular in the first place. Well, that sauce has long since curdled.

 

Is it just pretty planes to look at? Yes, absolutely. More pretty planes to look at, please. Start with the Hanriot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Diggun said:

You have to keep a hammer handy and the guns won't unjam until you've given your pc a good whacking.

My screen is broken, it's your fault !!!!!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that Pfalz D.IIIa pullout at 10 g in FC @=IRFC=Hbender posted was really something. The wings stay on and see how little speed it loses in the pullout. Amazing energy retention! Bet they would have loved to have a plane like that back in WW1! ;)

 

About the requirement for dive resistance (Oberdruck fall D)  @Monostripezebraposted: While it may look like 8 g it’s actually a 3 g requirement: You can see that (page 283) in the much better copy of the same table in NACA report 143 translated to English.

Edited by Holtzauge
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

Wow, that Pfalz D.IIIa pullout at 10 g in FC @=IRFC=Hbender posted was really something. The wings stay on and see how little speed it loses in the pullout. Amazing energy retention! Bet they would have loved to have a plane like that back in WW1! ;)

 

To be fair, the meter only goes up to 10.0G. Someone should measure the instantaneous G in Tacview.

 

GN0Y2eE.jpg

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

Why exactly would gun stoppage lead to fewer sales? It happened for real, constantly.

 

Cylinders randomly breaking-free from some rotaries also occurred, but I wouldn't advise putting that in the game either.  In the past, introducing random equipment failure has itself proved a failure.

 

 

13 hours ago, =IRFC=Hbender said:

Anyway, you could extrapolate this and ask yourself what exactly does lead to more sales?

 

The only active way to increase sales is via marketing, and there's no budget for that.  However one can prevent loss of potential sales by ensuring no-one reads about deal-breaking features.

 

On 4/12/2021 at 6:22 AM, Diggun said:

the guns won't unjam until you've given your pc a good whacking

 

A few years ago, for a period of about an hour,  I had visions of RoF players all over the world smashing their computers to pieces.  It's funny I can't seem to remember why...

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Cylinders randomly breaking-free from some rotaries also occurred, but I wouldn't advise putting that in the game either.  In the past, introducing random equipment failure has itself proved a failure.

 

I agree wholeheartedly. Random failures in games is not something that I want to see. The vast majority of players are very loss-averse. See how players responded to Blizzard in World of Warcraft when they implemented a penalty to experience and loot for players who stayed online too long. Players were only happy when it was rebranded as a "rested bonus" instead of a penalty for bingeing the game. Random failure feels like the game is taking away something and punishing them for no reason. Historical or not, the majority of players are likely to be very disgruntled over it. Instead of random failures, it should be player-inflicted, like battle damage. If I get shot to pieces, it is probably because the other player either outflew me or I made a major mistake. That is much more palatable than the game punishing me for no reason whatsoever. Even that can be handled poorly. See how we respond to control loss: even if it happened historically, it has driven players away. I haven't seen No.20 squadron in weeks, and they clearly said the reason is control loss.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

Cylinders randomly breaking-free from some rotaries also occurred, but I wouldn't advise putting that in the game either.  In the past, introducing random equipment failure has itself proved a failure.

 

If developers added this feature I'd turn it on for sure. Same for jamming guns, structural failures due poor manufacturing/materials, low quality fuel etc. Besides me, probably more people would enjoy the extra realism. If it's optional and disabled by default, nobody will complain anyways.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, VilsonFarias said:

 

If developers added this feature I'd turn it on for sure. Same for jamming guns, structural failures due poor manufacturing/materials, low quality fuel etc. Besides me, probably more people would enjoy the extra realism. If it's optional and disabled by default, nobody will complain anyways.

 

Despite the fact that the features in question would be very easy and quick to implement, they have far more important things to do, and in the light of the source of this thread, I don't hold-out much hope for those.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gascan said:

 

I agree wholeheartedly. Random failures in games is not something that I want to see. The vast majority of players are very loss-averse. See how players responded to Blizzard in World of Warcraft when they implemented a penalty to experience and loot for players who stayed online too long. Players were only happy when it was rebranded as a "rested bonus" instead of a penalty for bingeing the game. Random failure feels like the game is taking away something and punishing them for no reason. Historical or not, the majority of players are likely to be very disgruntled over it. Instead of random failures, it should be player-inflicted, like battle damage. If I get shot to pieces, it is probably because the other player either outflew me or I made a major mistake. That is much more palatable than the game punishing me for no reason whatsoever. Even that can be handled poorly. See how we respond to control loss: even if it happened historically, it has driven players away. I haven't seen No.20 squadron in weeks, and they clearly said the reason is control loss.

But World of Warcraft is no simulation. In an e-sport game. Yes. Thats bad. In a game getting me as close to 1918 as poosible I want it. Certain things were unreliable back then. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is really great that they are considering engine variants.

 

It'd be good to have engine variants for the S.E.5, Camel, and Strutter someday... mainly the weaker engined variants which are a bit slower in order to have more balanced dogfights (yes, I'd fly the S.E.5 more if it was a bit slower)! I think the Strutter would actually be the highest priority - as it'd produce a relatively slow Allied two-seater (something which is completely lacking except for the F.E.2b). But a lot of these comments apply to FC3 obviously (not F.E.2, Strutter etc. in the currently announced plans)!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be up for true machine gun jams. Other sims have modeled them in the past, and there was no outcry about said feature. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
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...