Wing shedding flight tracks thread

[Missionbug]

For me the wing fix should have top priority, F.C. has and will lose players because of this defect, more importantly the longer it persists the worse will be the reputation for F.C. as a bugged module.

 

The fuel system of a 109 has not been a issue so far except to the purists, it certainly will not have lost the series players.

 

Take care and be safe.

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.

[Dakpilot]

11 hours ago, Missionbug said:

For me the wing fix should have top priority, F.C. has and will lose players because of this defect, more importantly the longer it persists the worse will be the reputation for F.C. as a bugged module.

 

The fuel system of a 109 has not been a issue so far except to the purists, it certainly will not have lost the series players.

 

Take care and be safe.

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.

 

True 

 

But it is not just the fuel system for the 109, it is a rework of the whole fuel system for all aircraft, much like the introduction of markings/numbers "only" for the P-51. 

 

Fuel system upgrade/update has been in the plans for a very long time 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[Missionbug]

True enough Dakpilot, however, I think wing shedding still should be the main priority for the team, add on fuel tanks and any other fixes to aircraft systems in general will be nice but they are hardly a necessity compared to having your wings fall off even when you sneeze, certainly the biggest immersion killer I think and something that can and will cause immense damage to this particular module as far as the player base is concerned.

We have managed with many problems in game since its inception, fuel and marking issues have been there a long time, this to me is even worse than the furor over the concrete tail of the 109, that you could live with, wings coming off at the merest touch from a few bullets no, these were high tech of their day, wood and linen built by craftsmen and women to the highest standard, it could be argued they were better made than some things flying today, they just did not fall apart in real life as they do in F.C.

 

Jason has said it is on the to do list thankfully but their priority's seem odd to my way of thinking, many can and do walk away from F.C. because of it and that is very sad because there were great hopes for this genre when it was ported from R.O.F to a more modern system.

 

Anyway, I wait patiently for a fix, it is rare I fly these days but I do look forward to firing up F.C. again when this is sorted out.  Talking of patience you reminded me Dakpilot, where is that C-47, has that be shoved to the back of the queue?

 

Take care and be safe.

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.

Edited February 13, 2022 by Missionbug

[JGr2/J5_Hotlead]

This is encouraging news indeed! Hearing it (1) acknowledged and (2) put on the development calendar is a huge deal. I’m more than willing to wait. ? 

 

However, fixing another 1-2 planes and calling it good won’t do. The entire system needs a look/overhaul for FC. New planes coming out suffer from the same issues too (think of the N.28 / Pfalz D.XII). Fixing the actual system (rather than a few planes) will not only fix FC 1 & 2, but it will fix the modules not yet created like FC 3 & possibly 4. I think the engineers understand this, which is why it’s put on a waiting list behind some of the projects they have been working very hard on for a long time. It makes sense to finish those things before they dig into this issue.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

1 hour ago, JG1_Hotlead_J10 said:

This is encouraging news indeed! Hearing it (1) acknowledged and (2) put on the development calendar is a huge deal. I’m more than willing to wait. ? 

 

However, fixing another 1-2 planes and calling it good won’t do. The entire system needs a look/overhaul for FC. New planes coming out suffer from the same issues too (think of the N.28 / Pfalz D.XII). Fixing the actual system (rather than a few planes) will not only fix FC 1 & 2, but it will fix the modules not yet created like FC 3 & possibly 4. I think the engineers understand this, which is why it’s put on a waiting list behind some of the projects they have been working very hard on for a long time. It makes sense to finish those things before they dig into this issue.

Agreed.  

[Yours_truly_Ace]

Decided to fly for the German side for once just to test the D7F and Dr. 1. 
Wow! I could finally get some kills like I could before in the Camel prior to the change of damage model.
No wing breakage, and it feels like the Dr. 1 can take 1000 bullets before getting damaged. Same with the D7F.
I really felt sorry for the poor Camels and Spads as their wing fell off after just a few bursts into their wings.

If they don't fix this soon, it will be the end of FC. 

And before anyone says "but you been over 2 hours on the server": I did bombing missions before many people came to the server. 
I hate shooting AI. It's boring.

 

 

[SeaW0lf]

The Dr.1 has its problems as well. It does start shaking pretty fast and she tends to lose part of the wing, which is a common occurrence - to see Dr.1s spinning around missing parts of the wing. I am a regular Dr.1 flyer and it is as awful as the Sopwith Camel at the moment in Flying Circus. Different planes, different problems.

 

So I don't think it is a matter of singling out some planes and excusing others, because then the result will be more problems on top of problems. Not to mention that people who fly these notoriously criticized planes will feel attacked, which is not a good solution either to have people fighting on the forum for peanuts. The fix should be overall in my opinion, perhaps find a common math or something. Then some planes will be more durable, others not so much, but something that we can relate and say it is pretty close to what it should be, not the way it is now.

 

The original damage model was a good base to start adding failures and stuff (with moderation). I’m not sure why the so radical departure from it, including [especially] the shaking.

 

Anyways, let’s see what happens next.

[JGr2/J5_Hotlead]

Finally got around to uploading tracks from two Sundays back:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/aufigu5oth9y8ns/AACtao96zGHeS4Qskstz4ViDa?dl=0

 

Track 1:

- 00:01:01: A friendly Pfalz D.XII takes some hits and loses his wings. To be fair, this one did take a few good hits in a row. To me however, it seems that the majority of the bullets struck his top left wing and it was the right wing that abruptly peeled off.

 

Track 2:

- 00:02:49: A friendly Pfalz D.XII gets a few rounds from an Se5a and has his wings fold while turning. IMHO, box spar wings should be able to withstand that sort of stress unless every bullet hit a critical spar. I'm wondering if the game is giving too great a probability to having wing hits impact a critical spar?

 

Given the current dangerous times people in Eastern Europe are living in, I'm totally willing to wait on a fix for now. I just hope the dev team is able to stay safe and to continue earning a living for their families. ?

[SeaW0lf]

This is a bit old, from February, but it is an indicative of how things are.

 

From the parser, I got what appear to be a couple hits from a two-seater flying over my airfield. I was parked, getting a coffee, did not see it. A minute later, when I came back, I took off normally and went on about my business. I did not notice any shaking or nothing. Then, when I engaged the AI from the balloon and a Fokker, my wings folded in a downwards turn or something. Can't check the track because it is useless now in my platform (they do get old pretty fast). 

 

I was baffled when I saw the parser, because I got no hits while dogfighting. For a while I thought it was the flak. No, just a couple hits that went unnoticed before I took off. 

 

The track might be wrong, but it is from the same day and named "killerWings", so it has to be it. In case not, I have the parser as a proof.

 

Now, whenever I hear a single 'pop', I have to behave as if I lost a couple struts, because otherwise I will go down like a wingless pigeon.

 

 

KillerWings01-2022-02-28.zip

[JGr2/J5_Hotlead]

Track from last Sunday on Flugpark:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/fd2mxadcgerszsk/AACbTenZ4IYHkkByBNl61HcEa?dl=0

 

00:02:00 - A friendly D.XII loses wings in a dive after taking bullet hits. What it striking is how abruptly whole sections of the wing pop off, as if they were spring-loaded.

[JGr2/J5_Hotlead]

Track from this morning on Flugpark:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/h1b346aylksaedk/AABN0yfH3o3IGIQ7VOvQXuesa?dl=0

 

00:00:25 - I attack a Sopwith Camel and get a few hits into his left wing. The wing disintegrates as he levels out from his turn.

 

[ST_Catchov]

Good work Hotlead ! That'll learn 'em.

 

I love the Camel. She's cute yet pugnacious. Just like a woman .... but she breaks just like a little girl.

 

 

[SeaW0lf]

So here’s another case of wing folding (track attached).

 

I got 2 hits on the tip of my right wing at the start of the fight at 6.000ft or something. Considering the position, at the very end of the wing, I would disregard those (left side of the print). And then I got 5 hits on my left wing at the end of the fight (right side of the print), when I started to make a defensive turn on the deck. I lost my wings. I do these defensive turns all the time and usually downwards, not in a level flight in this case.

 

My airspeed was of 125mph, instead of the regular 115mph in level flight, since I had leveled after a dive.

 

*Edit / Disclaimer: the print is just to show that the right wing was hit on the tip, since I think the art should correspond to the correct location of the hitbox. I know the art has random number of hits. The number of hits are shown in the parser.

 

 

 

 

Maybe it was contextual, my fault, a freak accident, but these freak accidents were never freak, they happen every time you get those random hits unless you dial everything down [if you are able to].

WingFolding-2022-04-17.zip

Edited April 18, 2022 by SeaW0lf

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

I got 2 hits on the tip of my right wing at the start of the fight at 6.000ft or something. Considering the position, at the very end of the wing, I would disregard those (left side of the print). And then I got 5 hits on my left wing at the end (right side of the print), when I started to make a defensive turn on the deck. I lost my wings. I do these defensive turns all the time and usually downwards, not in a level flight in this case.

 

My airspeed was of 125mph, instead of the regular 115mph in level flight, since I had leveled after a dive.

 

 

You can't count the number of hits by looking at the bullet hole textures, because the dynamic damage decals haven't been applied to the Camel yet. They're still just generic textures at this point indicating a certain level of damage.

[SeaW0lf]

19 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

You can't count the number of hits by looking at the bullet hole textures, because the dynamic damage decals haven't been applied to the Camel yet. They're still just generic textures at this point indicating a certain level of damage.

 

I know. The right wing has three bullet holes and I said it got 2 hits. The left wing was just a coincidence. The parser is showing it [or the devs can check the track / hitboxes]. I just posted the print because at least the art should be at the correct location of the hitbox. I edited the report explaining that.

Edited April 18, 2022 by SeaW0lf

[JGr2/J5_Hotlead]

Track from this morning on Flugpark:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/479t9euwpiil9c2/AADgxXsHhJRcTWaWC_ViAbBla?dl=0

 

I attack an Se5a. His wings disintegrate while in a straight dive away from me.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

On 4/18/2022 at 6:54 AM, LukeFF said:

 

You can't count the number of hits by looking at the bullet hole textures, because the dynamic damage decals haven't been applied to the Camel yet. They're still just generic textures at this point indicating a certain level of damage.

even with DVD not all bullets wholes would be shown to count, there are limits as how many there are displayed. But for sure that is level I damage decals skin and on that visual dm level, loaded turn should not be as  fatal as it's now. But that what everyone complains for years now , fix the god damn fragile wings.

[JGr2/J5_Hotlead]

Track from yesterday on Flugpark:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/o4kkmr5t1ptp6vc/AABrfHOh9rBAtEGGvblj8stia?dl=0

 

00:00:18 - Friendly Dr 1s attack a SPAD 7. The SPAD's wing peels off in a shallow dive.

 

Also witnessed two other instances of SPAD 7 wing-offs without getting tracks of them.

Edited May 30, 2022 by JG1_Hotlead_J10

[Todt_Von_Oben]

6 hours ago, JG1_Hotlead_J10 said:

Track from yesterday on Flugpark:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/o4kkmr5t1ptp6vc/AABrfHOh9rBAtEGGvblj8stia?dl=0

 

00:00:18 - Friendly Dr 1s attack a SPAD 7. The SPAD's wing peels off in a shallow dive.

 

Also witnessed two other instances of SPAD 7 wing-offs without getting tracks of them.

 

Possible lack of coordination due to clumsy use of a twist stick?  With players flying a wide variety of equipment, it's hard to say where any fault actually lies.   

 

That said, I've been known to say I haven't had the wing-off problem but over the past few weeks I've been test-flying Zoo's new maps and the SPAD 13 is one I've been evaluating.  In 26 sorties with that plane, there were two instances that didn't seem right.

 

I caught a couple rounds both times, but nothing bad.   And I'll admit I pulled up a little hard on the first one; but no harder than I do flying anything else and I didn't think the wings should have come off. 

 

The second time I took a couple bullets to the wing and was in a medium-banked turn (well-coordinated with my pedals and not honking on the stick at all) and the wings broke.  That one had me shouting "OH COME ON!!!"

 

I'm also seeing a couple hits to, say, a bots right wing resulting in a CATO of the left.  Hmmmm....

 

As an afterthought: most of the time, no problem.  In contrast, there have been times (like, attacking a GV) in the SPAD where my wings, fuselage, and engine got badly shot up, some struts got shot-through, and I was wounded; yet it all held together long enough to finish the fight and RTB.

 

Your mileage may vary; and that's the fact to remember. 

 

With an undefined variety of equipment and flying styles in use, no benchmark for testing exists and therefore the validity of examinations made under those conditions (and the credibility of assumptions arrived at thereby} is speculative at best; not empirical at all.

 

Any faults this sim may have are eclipsed by what's great about it.   I don't see anything that would cause me to quit flying FC or suggest that anyone else should, either. 

 

Accordingly, based on what I do see, threads like this one are more about cyber-socializing than substance.  I always take that into consideration and wouldn't be surprised if the Devs do, too.  If not, I think they should.

 

Prosit!    ?

 

 

 

 

Edited May 30, 2022 by Todt_Von_Oben

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Offline play is very different than online play.   While your observations are worth noting,  I think if you spent more time on the Flugpark multi player server, you'd experience a lot of wing shedding.   .02

[Todt_Von_Oben]

-

59 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Offline play is very different than online play.   While your observations are worth noting,  I think if you spent more time on the Flugpark multi player server, you'd experience a lot of wing shedding.   .02

 

Actually, all the flying I've been doing has been online.  But you may have something there.  I was checking FR's of flights on Zoos maps, a couple of those random sites down toward the bottom of the list, plus Flugpark Lens and Bapaume maps and actually yesterday i was wondering if maybe there wasn't something about the Flugpark maps that causes or at least contributes to these problems? 

 

I only recently learned how to get a server online; I don't know anything about how to make a map or any of that.  But I sometimes think I'm seeing differences in how the bots fly on various server's maps.  I'm still looking into that but sometimes it does seem that way.  Thanks for reminding me.

 

But my point was not about that but about the validity of these techno discussions.  Here it is again:

 

"With an undefined variety of equipment and flying styles in use, no benchmark for testing exists and therefore the validity of examinations made under those conditions (and the credibility of assumptions arrived at thereby} is speculative at best; not empirical at all."

 

Edited May 31, 2022 by Todt_Von_Oben

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

36 minutes ago, Todt_Von_Oben said:

-

 

All the flying I've been doing has been online. 

At the flugpark, where the battles are intense?   Do you fly under a different name?  Don't recall seeing you there is why I ask.

 

It's not just "online".  It's the nature of the combat. The skill of the human opponent that lands the hits, and forces the sometimes more extreme maneuvering.

 

Not try to pick on you brother.  But unless your in that arena, you don't really experience the same thing that MANY others are experiencing first hand (and rightfully complaining about) 

 

We are trying hard to get the devs to address this issue.  Post that say, "no problem here", don't help.

Edited May 31, 2022 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[Todt_Von_Oben]

1 hour ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

At the flugpark, where the battles are intense?   Do you fly under a different name?  Don't recall seeing you there is why I ask.

 

 

Well, let's see.  I got into ROF in the 90's and everything since; first flew with J5 in either late 2004 or early 2005; have flown FC since day one and Flugpark since it started; I fly it any time I want to AND I can make its maps available to others on a private server.  Lately, we've flown the latest Lens and Bapaume maps.  And yes, I have seen some intense battles.  LOL!

 

But again, you are missing the point of my post.  This is the last time I will try to explain; miss it again and I wash you out.

 

"With an undefined variety of equipment and flying styles in use, no benchmark for testing exists and therefore the validity of examinations made under those conditions (and the credibility of assumptions arrived at thereby} is speculative at best; not empirical at all."  

 

There might be problems; from what I've seen lately they may even be specific to certain maps and servers; I'm still researching that for my own information. 

 

But we can't know any of this for certain for several reasons:  (1) Most users aren't active in this Forum; (2) the active membership is comprised of people of all ages and from all walks of life,  from all around the World, using equipment ranging from twist sticks and TIR to VR and pedals; oftentimes flying by two diametrically opposed styles; and there's no way to know what other esoteric factors might have affected and personal observations made under those non-specific and uncontrolled conditions. 

 

So there is no benchmark for testing here; that makes all observations at best questionably subjective and not objective in any sense of the word.  And that's a fact.

 

 

 

Edited May 31, 2022 by Todt_Von_Oben

[=IRFC=Gascan]

I understand your point Todt, but I find I must disagree with it. The results seem consistent enough to me that I can still draw a general picture of which planes can take a hit and keep maneuvering and which ones can't. It also seems consistent enough to rule out the hardware/joystick/rudder pedals being used. I have seen how pilot experience affects things: some of the best guys have found maneuvers that minimize the stress on the machine after it gets damaged, allowing them to keep fighting. That doesn't change the problem: some maneuvers can help keep a Camel, SE5, or Albatros alive longer after getting hit, but those same maneuvers aren't needed in a Pfalz D.III or a Bristol. Some planes can shrug off hits that severely limit other planes.

Also, PVP is much more stressful than flying against the AI, which may mask some of the issues that are being noticed in PVP.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

 

"But again, you are missing the point of my post.  This is the last time I will try to explain; miss it again and I wash you out."

 

Agreed.   I am missing your point.   And I'm totally ok with you "washing me out".   Honestly don't care for your attitude anyway.   The point of this thread was to bring attention to a problem with the DM.  You seem to want to fight that effort because you haven't seen it offline,or in limited online play  .02

 

 

Edited May 31, 2022 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[Todt_Von_Oben]

38 minutes ago, gascan said:

I understand your point Todt, but I find I must disagree with it. The results seem consistent enough to me that I can still draw a general picture of which planes can take a hit and keep maneuvering and which ones can't. It also seems consistent enough to rule out the hardware/joystick/rudder pedals being used. I have seen how pilot experience affects things: some of the best guys have found maneuvers that minimize the stress on the machine after it gets damaged, allowing them to keep fighting. That doesn't change the problem: some maneuvers can help keep a Camel, SE5, or Albatros alive longer after getting hit, but those same maneuvers aren't needed in a Pfalz D.III or a Bristol. Some planes can shrug off hits that severely limit other planes.

Also, PVP is much more stressful than flying against the AI, which may mask some of the issues that are being noticed in PVP.

 

No, I don't think either of you are trying to understand me and that's okay.  

[IckyATLAS]

On 4/18/2022 at 4:51 AM, SeaW0lf said:

Maybe it was contextual, my fault, a freak accident, but these freak accidents were never freak, they happen every time you get those random hits unless you dial everything down [if you are able to].

From what I see, that was a tight turn after being hit, that made a dynamic wing stall. Now this kind of stall is very brutal on wings and the structure. If you also have been hit say on some structural element, no problem to shed parts. Nothing abnormal here at least to me. 

[=IRFC=Gascan]

1 hour ago, IckyATLAS said:

From what I see, that was a tight turn after being hit, that made a dynamic wing stall. Now this kind of stall is very brutal on wings and the structure. If you also have been hit say on some structural element, no problem to shed parts. Nothing abnormal here at least to me. 

If you try the same thing with a Pfalz D.III or a Bristol after similar damage, it is much less likely to cause a failure. Perhaps the wings really were very weak after getting hit. So why do some planes not fall to pieces under similar circumstances? Why does the Bristol stay together when the Dolphin and SE5 fall apart? I'm not really aware of any particular differences in construction of the wing spar and flying wires that could account for such a difference. Why does the Albatros break up when the Pfalz D.III can keep on trucking along? Fly a Pfalz and there is no need to change your maneuvers when you get shot (unless it get the pilot or engine). Keep up the same high energy, high-G maneuvers and you get very different results from plane to plane.

[IckyATLAS]

11 hours ago, gascan said:

If you try the same thing with a Pfalz D.III or a Bristol after similar damage, it is much less likely to cause a failure. Perhaps the wings really were very weak after getting hit. So why do some planes not fall to pieces under similar circumstances? Why does the Bristol stay together when the Dolphin and SE5 fall apart? I'm not really aware of any particular differences in construction of the wing spar and flying wires that could account for such a difference. Why does the Albatros break up when the Pfalz D.III can keep on trucking along? Fly a Pfalz and there is no need to change your maneuvers when you get shot (unless it get the pilot or engine). Keep up the same high energy, high-G maneuvers and you get very different results from plane to plane.

I have not compared the various planes but here only somebody who is expert (and I am not) about the way these various planes where built could answer regarding their relative structural robustness. Normally bullets would go through these wood and tissue planes with no much damage except when they luckily hit some important wooden structural elements, tension cables, or the engine or best the pilot. How all this is modeled and simulated is hard to say.

[US103_Baer]

18 hours ago, IckyATLAS said:

I have not compared the various planes but here only somebody who is expert (and I am not) about the way these various planes where built could answer regarding their relative structural robustness. Normally bullets would go through these wood and tissue planes with no much damage except when they luckily hit some important wooden structural elements, tension cables, or the engine or best the pilot. How all this is modeled and simulated is hard to say.

Sorry to say,  but there are some forum threads you need to read. The result of which is this very thread itself. 

Asked for by the Devs to provide examples of  unacceptable post-damage wing-offs.

 

The Devs have admitted the issue and fixed it with the CL2, possibly as a kind of test.  They will address the rest after the drop tank/fuel system development is complete. 

 

Edited June 2, 2022 by US103_Baer

[ST_Catchov]

On 6/2/2022 at 11:43 AM, US103_Baer said:

The Devs have admitted the issue and fixed it with the CL2, possibly as a kind of test.  They will address the rest after the drop tank/fuel system development is complete. 

 

And so we wait ....

 

[JGr2/J5_Hotlead]

On 5/30/2022 at 5:29 PM, Todt_Von_Oben said:

Your mileage may vary; and that's the fact to remember. 

 

With an undefined variety of equipment and flying styles in use, no benchmark for testing exists and therefore the validity of examinations made under those conditions (and the credibility of assumptions arrived at thereby} is speculative at best; not empirical at all.

 

Hey Todt! I’ve been off the forums intermittently, so I haven’t been able to respond til now. Thanks for sharing your thoughts! 
 

For everyone here, Todt is a multiplayer dogfight aficionado, with many hours on the Zoo Wings server, so he definitely has a decent amount of stick time. So, he has some experience to back him up. Like all the rest of the posters here, his points definitely bear consideration. ?

To answer the quote above, I think Todt raises a good point. Everyone has different hardware and different styles of flying. What I find interesting though is that even though the FC community has a large array of setups, a large portion of the community feels wing shedding on certain types is an issue. I’ve heard this from CH pilots, Thrustmaster pilots, Logitech pilots, Microsoft FFB pilots, even homemade joystick pilots.
 

To me it seems like a large slice of the multiplayer community does feel this is an issue and that it’s not relegated just to a few specific control types. Your mileage may vary, of course, and I’m not dismissing Todt’s experiences. His experiences are valid and part of the bigger picture. But when a large part of the community’s mileage looks to be approximately the same, I feel it’s worth taking notice of.

 

On 5/30/2022 at 5:29 PM, Todt_Von_Oben said:

Any faults this sim may have are eclipsed by what's great about it.   I don't see anything that would cause me to quit flying FC or suggest that anyone else should, either. 

 

I agree; this sim has a ton going for it! That’s why I recommend it to everyone I can. (I just pointed another person to FC this morning, actually.) Warts and all, FC is a really good product. I think if the wing-shedding issue is resolved FC will have even more going for it. 

 

On 5/30/2022 at 5:29 PM, Todt_Von_Oben said:

Accordingly, based on what I do see, threads like this one are more about cyber-socializing than substance.  I always take that into consideration and wouldn't be surprised if the Devs do, too.  If not, I think they should.

 

Prosit!    ?

 

 

While I appreciate you sharing your opinion, I do not appreciate you saying that my thread is more about “socializing than substance.” It’s very dismissive of my (and a large part of the multiplayer community’s) viewpoint. It also dismisses hundreds of hours of historical research and game testing, which to a large portion of the community indicates a discrepancy in how the game portrays damage on some types. Finally, it dismisses the fact that the devs mentioned they would look into the wing shedding issue after they finished work on drop tanks and that they asked for flight tracks as the primary source of evidence; hence this thread.
 

I like you, Todt. I always have. ? Even though I don’t agree with all of your conclusions here, I’m willing to dialogue about them without dismissing them all as a way for you to scratch the “socialization itch”. I’d appreciate it if you extended me the same courtesy.

 

Ultimately, we’re on the same team. We love the sim! And we both want what’s best for it. I think that’s something we can both get behind. Here’s to a long and successful future for FC! ? 

Edited June 7, 2022 by JG1_Hotlead_J10

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

On 6/3/2022 at 10:07 PM, ST_Catchov said:

 

And so we wait ....

 

 

 

[US41_Low]

DM has been fixed. Thank you devs. Just wrapping up these threads.