Flying Circus Future

[ST_Catchov]

21 hours ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

 

At the very least, I hope they can make adjustments to the Se5 ....

 

About time someone raised this again. I've been waiting .... 😀

 

It feels like we have the underpowered 150hp plodder Se5 in-game instead of the 200hp Viper Se5a we are supposed to have ..... or it's the prop pitch yada yada etc. Woeful energy retention and acceleration when flying this girl becomes very evident, very soon. Fly to her strengths they say. Okay, boom without zoom followed by running away. That's about it.

 

Someone did say the Se5a's FM was spot on, and it was only that the German crates over-performed that made it look bad. And then they advocate for improving the FM's of said German crates. Figure that one out? 

 

It doesn't really matter though except as a topic of conversation. The Devs are unlikely to revise any FM's apart from those they have already announced for FC4 (DH2 and Pup).

 

The real opportunity for FM makeovers comes when they remake WW1 in their new engine. 😃

 

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

16 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

Someone did say the Se5a's FM was spot on, and it was only that the German crates over-performed that made it look bad. And then they advocate for improving the FM's of said German crates. Figure that one out?

No sir, haven't quite figured that out either...

[LukeFF]

On 8/16/2024 at 7:32 PM, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Well, lots of wise words, research, documents,  etc..  We can hope the devs will take note and take a good look at it all with open minds.

 

At the very least, I hope they can make adjustments to the Se5, Dolphin, Spad 7, and N28.   They should be premiere scouts in thier respective periods, and they are not.   They each have serious FM deficiencies of one form or another (excessive speed loss in a turn, fluttering wings in a dive, slow climb, overall poor performance in some cases, etc..)   Concerns regarding these aircraft have been raised many times.  Hopefully they can take another look.

And please wash those dirty windscreens...

 

Well, one of those planes is undergoing an FM review right now, so I'll leave it to you all to figure out which one it is. 😀

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

35 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Well, one of those planes is undergoing an FM review right now, so I'll leave it to you all to figure out which one it is. 😀

Good news indeed.   

35 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

 

Edited August 21, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[JG4_Moltke1871]

55 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Well, one of those planes is undergoing an FM review right now, so I'll leave it to you all to figure out which one it is. 😀

My guess is the N28 because there was a lot of complaints about that flight model.

So @LukeFF, can we have the hope that also a or some German plane(s) FM‘s from older FC volumes get some love? 
…. I ask for a friend…. 😎

[LukeFF]

33 minutes ago, JG4_Moltke1871 said:

can we have the hope that also a or some German plane(s) FM‘s from older FC volumes get some love? 
…. I ask for a friend…. 😎

 

Sure, but there are no promises being made that something will happen with those planes, given the priority of Korea. 

[Trooper117]

N28 getting put right at last... thanks very much!

[JG4_Moltke1871]

22 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Sure, but there are no promises being made that something will happen with those planes, given the priority of Korea. 

That means so far nothing in work.

Thanks for that information 😉👍🏻

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

20 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

N28 getting put right at last... thanks very much!

Not necessarily.   Actual plane getting a FM review is still unknown. 

And it was only mentioned as a "REVIEW".   They have not yet indicated that anything will come of it.  

[Trooper117]

1 hour ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Not necessarily.

 

I'm allowed to hedge my bets... ever since RoF's days, and now here, the N28 has been constantly asked for an update above any of the others in my book, so as far as I'm concerned it's the most likely.

[LukeFF]

Alright, I kept you guys guessing long enough. 😄 Yes, it's the Nieuport 28 undergoing an FM review. 

[US103_Baer]

On 8/18/2024 at 8:08 AM, ST_Catchov said:

Someone did say the Se5a's FM was spot on, and it was only that the German crates over-performed that made it look bad. And then they advocate for improving the FM's of said German crates. Figure that one out? 

 

'Improve' FMs can mean 'correct' them.

Read the book guys. Seriously.

@RNAS10_Mitchell

 

 

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

14 hours ago, US103_Baer said:

'Improve' FMs can mean 'correct' them.

Read the book guys. Seriously.

@RNAS10_Mitchell

It's possible they could make the planes I DIDN'T mention fly worse I suppose.   But I was hoping they would look at the planes I DID mention,  and correct the issues i actually talked about.  A bit confused by your comments to be honest. Seriously. 

[BMA_Hellbender]

11 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Alright, I kept you guys guessing long enough. 😄 Yes, it's the Nieuport 28 undergoing an FM review. 

 

That is great and unexpected news!

 

I'll be very excited to try it out and see to what degree it corresponds to how Stu Goldspink described its handling when I had a chance to do a Q&A with him at the WWI Aviation Heritage Trust. He said it was a far more maneuverable "wild ride" than the Albatros (D.III or D.Va, I don't remember), although the Nieuport 28 was notoriously difficult to roll, as with all Nieuports.

 

On top of that, there is now a fully restored Nieuport 28 at the American Heritage Museum in Massachusetts. Did the devs get in touch with them, by any chance?merican Heritage Museum in Massachusetts

 

 

Edited August 23, 2024 by =IRFC=Hellbender

[ST_Catchov]

14 hours ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

14 hours ago, US103_Baer said:

 

'Improve' FMs can mean 'correct' them.

Read the book guys. Seriously.

@RNAS10_Mitchell

 

 

It's possible they could make the planes I DIDN'T mention fly worse I suppose.   But I was hoping they would look at the planes I DID mention,  and correct the issues i actually talked about.  A bit confused by your comments to be honest. Seriously. 

 

You're both right. For example, at 3k the Dva turns like an uber kite while the se5a turns and climbs like a slug. Ok, the Dva could be a little faster. A "correction" would be nice. Check it out.

 

 

As for the poor old N28, yeah it's good news and features in the above. I must say the current Dev team do seem more open to improving FC than previous management. I suspect the RoF blood still runs strong in them.

[Trooper117]

8 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

 

That is great and unexpected news!

 

I'll be very excited to try it out and see to what degree it corresponds to how Stu Goldspink described its handling when I had a chance to do a Q&A with him at the WWI Aviation Heritage Trust. He said it was a far more maneuverable "wild ride" than the Albatros (D.III or D.Va, I don't remember), although the Nieuport 28 was notoriously difficult to roll, as with all Nieuports.

 

On top of that, there is now a fully restored Nieuport 28 at the American Heritage Museum in Massachusetts. Did the devs get in touch with them, by any chance?merican Heritage Museum in Massachusetts

 

 

 

That's a great little clip HB... many thanks!

Will it eventually get the weight of a couple of MG's fitted I wonder, and what difference would that make to the handling characteristics of the real thing!

[LukeFF]

12 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

On top of that, there is now a fully restored Nieuport 28 at the American Heritage Museum in Massachusetts. Did the devs get in touch with them, by any chance?

 

Not sure about that, sorry. 

 

9 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

I suspect the RoF blood still runs strong in them.

 

We also have a newly trained engineer on board now and I think this was project given to her. With the Nieuport 28 is has something to do with a revised airfoil. 

[ACG_Bussard]

12 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

On top of that, there is now a fully restored Nieuport 28 at the American Heritage Museum in Massachusetts. Did the devs get in touch with them, by any chance?merican Heritage Museum in Massachusetts

Unfortunately, this Nieuport 28 crashed last year in September during a landing approach and was damaged: 

 

One of the last surviving WWI-era Nieuport 28 crashes (aerotime.aero)

 

Unfortunately, I know nothing about its current fate.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

1 hour ago, ACG_Bussard said:

Unfortunately, this Nieuport 28 crashed last year in September during a landing approach and was damaged: 

 

One of the last surviving WWI-era Nieuport 28 crashes (aerotime.aero)

 

Unfortunately, I know nothing about its current fate.

Poor bugger probably tried to turn in it...😉

[Jackfraser24]

I'm excited for the release of Flying Circus Vol.IV in what I believe I heard will be in September. 

[ST_Catchov]

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

We also have a newly trained engineer on board now and I think this was project given to her. With the Nieuport 28 is has something to do with a revised airfoil. 

 

Finally, Olga gets off the support desk. Goodonya darl.

[LukeFF]

3 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

Finally, Olga gets off the support desk. Goodonya darl.

 

Catherine 🙂

[BraveSirRobin]

On 8/22/2024 at 10:48 PM, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

That is great and unexpected news!

 

I'll be very excited to try it out and see to what degree it corresponds to how Stu Goldspink described its handling when I had a chance to do a Q&A with him at the WWI Aviation Heritage Trust. He said it was a far more maneuverable "wild ride" than the Albatros (D.III or D.Va, I don't remember), although the Nieuport 28 was notoriously difficult to roll, as with all Nieuports.

 

On top of that, there is now a fully restored Nieuport 28 at the American Heritage Museum in Massachusetts. Did the devs get in touch with them, by any chance?merican Heritage Museum in Massachusetts

 

‘Probably not.  That is the Collings Foundation.  They crashed a B-17 a few years ago.  Maintenance issues.  They can be unpleasant to deal with.

[US103_Baer]

On 8/23/2024 at 11:31 AM, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

It's possible they could make the planes I DIDN'T mention fly worse I suppose.   But I was hoping they would look at the planes I DID mention,  and correct the issues i actually talked about.  A bit confused by your comments to be honest. Seriously. 

 

  There are forum threads/posts here by @Holtzauge and @US103_Rummell that summarize some conclusions of the formers excellent book on the subject of WW1 aircraft performance and compare them to FC aircraft performance. 

 

It's very clear that issues exist across the board with most planes in Sustained Turn, which as i understand it, points to induced drag modelling issues.  Ie they sus turn too quickly and for too long, especially as altitude increases. However the variations aren't consistent hence the competitive balance between planes is distorted. Some planes like the SE5a had older FM reviews which brought them closer to historic performance but others like the Albs haven't. 

 

So where does the problem lie? With the planes you mention or the ones you don't? 

Both I guess, but if you did bring the SE5a in line with with Anders numbers it would be quite a small improvement (iirc) in turn and maybe a tad slower speed. However the Alb DVa would still not lose energy fast enough (sus turn too well) and yet be too slow in level flight, so it remains unbalanced against ALL of its competitors, and used in an unhistoric manner.

 

Is great the Devs are reviewing the N28, it's so hopeless now that no-one flies ilt, so it might be like getting a new plane. 

But the fundamental issue i describe above remains. @Holtzauge did post a direct comparison between the N28 and DVa which highlights the gap in turn perf and what contributes to it.

 

Essentially Anders has provided a solid data set across the range of FC1 planes and it might've even helped get these recent FM reviews. Who knows, with more persistence we may get more outliers and problem planes done, but getting all of them aligned with a consistent approach and data set would surely be the right solution. 

Edited August 24, 2024 by US103_Baer

[No.23_Starling]

30 minutes ago, US103_Baer said:

 

  There are forum threads/posts here by @Holtzauge and @US103_Rummell that summarize some conclusions of the formers excellent book on the subject of WW1 aircraft performance and compare them to FC aircraft performance. 

 

It's very clear that issues exist across the board with most planes in Sustained Turn, which as i understand it, points to induced drag modelling issues.  Ie they sus turn too quickly and for too long, especially as altitude increases. However the variations aren't consistent hence the competitive balance between planes is distorted. Some planes like the SE5a had older FM reviews which brought them closer to historic performance but others like the Albs haven't. 

 

So where does the problem lie? With the planes you mention or the ones you don't? 

Both I guess, but if you did bring the SE5a in line with with Anders numbers it would be quite a small improvement (iirc) in turn and maybe a tad slower speed. However the Alb DVa would still not lose energy fast enough (sus turn too well) and yet be too slow in level flight, so it remains unbalanced against ALL of its competitors, and used in an unhistoric manner.

 

Is great the Devs are reviewing the N28, it's so hopeless now that no-one flies ilt, so it might be like getting a new plane. 

But the fundamental issue i describe above remains. @Holtzauge did post a direct comparison between the N28 and DVa which highlights the gap in turn perf and what contributes to it.

 

Essentially Anders has provided a solid data set across the range of FC1 planes and it might've even helped get these recent FM reviews. Who knows, with more persistence we may get more outliers and problem planes done, but getting all of them aligned with a consistent approach and data set would surely be the right solution. 

Spot on. The performance gap between the SE5 and Albatros is more due to the Alb turning too well.

 

If the N28 is brought more in line with @Holtzauge’s modelling then it should match the Dva and Diiia in turn with the current flight models for the German birds, but won’t out turn them

until their FMs have also be tuned.

 

As a rule several of our German FMs today mean a better turn but poorer speed and climb.

 

If I were the devs I’d go after the speed and turn fixes for the main German planes next. That would make an enormous difference. Anything else would be gravy.

[riseofmike2001]

In future will there be more options for start dates in FC career? Like ROF it was great because you could choose whatever date you liked and this allowed you more access to planes. I hate not being able to consistently fly the Snipe for example as I need to survive nearly the entire year of 1918 to fly it. Apologies if this has already been answered. 

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

3 hours ago, US103_Baer said:

 

  There are forum threads/posts here by @Holtzauge and @US103_Rummell that summarize some conclusions of the formers excellent book on the subject of WW1 aircraft performance and compare them to FC aircraft performance. 

 

It's very clear that issues exist across the board with most planes in Sustained Turn, which as i understand it, points to induced drag modelling issues.  Ie they sus turn too quickly and for too long, especially as altitude increases. However the variations aren't consistent hence the competitive balance between planes is distorted. Some planes like the SE5a had older FM reviews which brought them closer to historic performance but others like the Albs haven't. 

 

So where does the problem lie? With the planes you mention or the ones you don't? 

Both I guess, but if you did bring the SE5a in line with with Anders numbers it would be quite a small improvement (iirc) in turn and maybe a tad slower speed. However the Alb DVa would still not lose energy fast enough (sus turn too well) and yet be too slow in level flight, so it remains unbalanced against ALL of its competitors, and used in an unhistoric manner.

 

Is great the Devs are reviewing the N28, it's so hopeless now that no-one flies ilt, so it might be like getting a new plane. 

But the fundamental issue i describe above remains. @Holtzauge did post a direct comparison between the N28 and DVa which highlights the gap in turn perf and what contributes to it.

 

Essentially Anders has provided a solid data set across the range of FC1 planes and it might've even helped get these recent FM reviews. Who knows, with more persistence we may get more outliers and problem planes done, but getting all of them aligned with a consistent approach and data set would surely be the right solution. 

All good and valid points.   However,  imo, we will not get a revision of FM's of that magnitude.   Lucky if they revisit 1 or 2 aircraft.   Which leads to the question,  which 1 or 2 aircraft need love the most?

 

To be clear, it would be great if they reviewed all the FM's, but I don't see that happening.   Would love to be wrong on that.  Of course the flip side of that is, would they invest the appropriate amount of time to ensure it's right?   Or would we just wind up with different problems?

FC is winding down, and I doubt they will devote serious resources to it at this point.  

Edited August 24, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

4 hours ago, US103_Rummell said:

Spot on. The performance gap between the SE5 and Albatros is more due to the Alb turning too well.

 

If the N28 is brought more in line with @Holtzauge’s modelling then it should match the Dva and Diiia in turn with the current flight models for the German birds, but won’t out turn them

until their FMs have also be tuned.

 

As a rule several of our German FMs today mean a better turn but poorer speed and climb.

 

If I were the devs I’d go after the speed and turn fixes for the main German planes next. That would make an enormous difference. Anything else would be gravy.

I could live with that approach.   I guess it depends on how much effort they want to spend on this old game, and where they want to spend it.    I just hope that whatever they do, is thoroughly tested.  I'm of the opinion,  whatever they do will be the last efforts spent on FC.  So let's hope they, are allowed to do the homework, put in the effort, and get it right. No small task I'm sure.

Edited August 24, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[Holtzauge]

It will be very interesting to see how the Nieuport N28 performs in-game after the update: Because while it certainly stands out today when it comes to the in-game turn times and energy retention, what do you tune it to? To be closer to historically correct? Or to be more in-line with the other in-game scouts in a relative sense? Because if you look at turn times in general, and especially at 5 km altitude in particular, the in-game turn times are much more optimistic than those predicted in my book. However, I’m guessing it will be the latter, and it will therefore be quite interesting to see how the developers chooses to stack the N28 in relation to the other machines. Can’t say I see any obvious way of doing it? Because if you look at the in-game and simulation turn time comparison @US103_Rummell posted here, the order is quite different in these columns. And while I think everyone agrees that the N28 should move up in the in-game turn performance pecking order, just how far up should it go? So unless you fix both the absolute values and the order to be more in line with historical data, just where do you place it in relation to the other scouts in-game as is?

 

 

Edited August 24, 2024 by Holtzauge

[LukeFF]

As I mentioned back on the previous page, the refinements being made are in relation to the airfoil, which should make it perform like the real-world plane did.

[=IRFC=Tunes]

You guys are gonna love the FM revision.

 

That is all.

[Dr1falcon500]

On 8/12/2024 at 7:44 PM, LukeFF said:

 

It's seven planes:

 

Central Powers:

 

Albatros D.III

Fokker E.III

Roland C.IIa

 

Entente:

 

Airco D.H.2

Sopwith Pup

Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter

Sopwith 1 1/2 Strutter Bomber

Seven planes? The 1 1/2 Strutter models were sold as one plane in Rise of Flight. If that's the logic the late model Albatros DII could have been made as a separate plane. When FC was announced the claim was that all RoF planes would be included. That now seems to be at the developers' discretion.

Edited August 24, 2024 by Dr1falcon500

[LukeFF]

23 minutes ago, Dr1falcon500 said:

When FC was announced the claim was that all RoF planes would be included. That now seems to be at the developers' discretion.

 

That is not true at all. This is the text of the original announcement:

"Flying Circus will finally give our loyal and patient Rise of Flight customers a new way forward into the future! Our eventual goal is to essentially re-build ROF inside of the Sturmovik universe and give WWI all the latest technology like VR, 64bit, DX11 and improved visuals. We will start by focusing on re-furbishing ten of our existing WWI airplanes and providing a partial map of France to fly and fight over. Subsequent Flying Circus products will further expand content and we’ll work to integrate Flying Circus into our Campaign and Career systems over time. Volume I is merely the first important step and it will be a lot of fun! If Flying Circus proves popular we can eventually fire up the Great War assembly line and break out the canvas and timber once again to make some new crates! Guynmere, Fonck, Coppens, McCudden, Bishop, Rickenbacker and von Richtofen shall fly again 100 years later! "

Nothing in there says we would include all planes from ROF. Goals and reality are often two different things.

[ST_Catchov]

FM's aside, I'd like to see the spectacular crashes toned down a bit, like more crumple and less madly spinning fuselages like the Tassie Devil in Looney Toons. It's way over the top.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I'm  happy that devs did FM revision. Good thing and maybe in the future other airplanes would be upgraded to modern / GB standards - especially those made first for ROF  especially by devs  that no longer work in current company. If I remember correctly even An.Petrovich didn't work with  firsts planes.

31 minutes ago, ST_Catchov said:

FM's aside, I'd like to see the spectacular crashes toned down a bit, like more crumple and less madly spinning fuselages like the Tassie Devil in Looney Toons. It's way over the top.

Also something is wrong with fires, engine fire seems ok but fuel tank is hard to ignite even with low fuel on most planes and if it's burning , it can burn for hours without explosion. 

 

Looks like only Camel can start fire on fuel tank. 

https://youtu.be/_oKHLN7OYJ0?si=EpTskJbnNaW6bbvW

 

 

This is what I'm talking about, low fuel, you can't ignite full tank only engine.

 

https://youtu.be/Rlrnz7_mKcw?si=Da1BC55Y_7eZQL_k

Edited August 25, 2024 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[No.23_Starling]

On 8/23/2024 at 10:57 AM, LukeFF said:

Not sure about that, sorry. 

 

 

We also have a newly trained engineer on board now and I think this was project given to her. With the Nieuport 28 is has something to do with a revised airfoil. 

Excellent news! When we compared the FC models to @Holtzauge’s modelling the N28 had one of the biggest deltas.

 

If they have time to address a couple of other earlier FMs we identified the DVa, DIIIa (turn and speed/climb) and the Dr1 (speed) as the next area of concern. See original post below.

 

If those were amended it would make a massive difference, although the DII and DIII would likely also need eyes-on as they share characteristics of the later DVa.

 

 

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

You and others have certainly done the homework.   Appreciate the time spent.  Would sure like to see that path addressed. As you said "if they have time".   I sure hope those in position to "make it happen",   say "Let's get it done.  It will build our reputation,  and forge stronger bonds with our loyal customer base".

 

They have been slow to fix issues and unwilling/reluctant to look into various reported issues reported by veteran members of the community at times.

 

But for the most part, in the end they have fixed reported issues, and resonded to legitimate reports.

 

I hope the leadership there see's that this is a legacy product.   No one else is currently pursuing this genre.  The final product will be thier legacy.   I urge them to invest the time, polish this gem up to its potential.   Set the bar high and proud.   

 

I appreciate the job the developers have done with this game.   I love it.  Thanks for all your efforts!

 

Let's all hope this gets finished properly.. Cheers

Edited August 25, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[BMA_Hellbender]

17 hours ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

I hope the leadership there see's that this is a legacy product.   No one else is currently pursuing this genre.  The final product will be thier legacy.   I urge them to invest the time, polish this gem up to its potential.   Set the bar high and proud.

 

I think it's quite the opposite. This shouldn't be about leaving a legacy, it's about getting customers excited again about a product that was very much beloved to begin with.

 

Even if other developers are not actively pursuing WWI at present, it doesn't mean that they can't be fighting for flightsimmers' buy-in to their ecosystem. There's never been a time in gaming history in which flightsims have been making more money, simply because people who are into the hobby and have disposable income have a lot of it to dispose of. This is no longer a genre that thrives on Timmy with a $20 joystick getting his mom to grab Red Baron 3D from the shelf in the supermarket.

 

So in my opinion, if the devs are showing a willingness to revise the FMs and it brings people back, that's a whole lot of potential customers for FC Vol. IV and -- more important by far -- visibility for IL-2 Korea. In that respect, fixing the N28 (and Airco DH.2) makes a lot of business sense. I agree with @US103_Baer and @US103_Rummell above that there's a pretty long an exhaustive list of things that could be improved, and most of it will depend if people indeed are flocking back to Rise of Fl-- excuse me... Flying Circus, or not.

 

In the end I'm just grateful to the devs for doing this, and I hope this puts the sim on a trajectory where all WWI FMs will eventually be of the same quality as the Sopwith Snipe and Siemens Schuckert D.IV, which currently have a lot of trouble competing with the older, less refined FMs.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

That would be great.   I'd be among the 1st to purchase additional volumes.   But I think they've been pretty clear that this engine is done.  I'd love to be wrong on that, and/or I'd love to see them redevelop/port/etc the existing content in the new version of the engine, and then add more.  Instant purchase here.

 

Time will tell I guess.

Some people have stated they'd not buy it again in the new version engine.  I'm not one of them.  

Edited August 26, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[Zooropa_Fly]

I hate to be Scrooge again (honest) - but I really don't think there are droves of ex-players waiting in the wings, champing at the bit to return pending a couple of FM tweaks.

There may be a handful - but in the big picture it's nothing that's going to make any difference at this stage.

 

And I'd be truly shocked if the Devs were to re-do WW1 in the new engine.

Enough people wouldn't pay again for FC - no way enough will pay a 3rd time.

 

I still maintain that overall, WW1 participation would be much better if the time spent on FC had been allocated to RoF.

Obviously FC is built on a better engine and there's the VR crowd.. but even with its limitations, RoF could have been made much much better.

 

All Hamilton Academicals now of course !