Flying Circus Future

[=IRFC=Gascan]

I've seen the current infantry implemented in several missions, and haven't been particularly impressed. They can be hard to spot from above and are difficult to kill if used as an objective. They also can cause a lot of damage, and don't use tracers like the AA MG's do, so you can't follow the shots back to the origin. Pretty sure they are resource-intensive, too, making it hard to have large numbers of them running across no-man's-land without a large performance hit. I would love to see some WW1 infantry, but I think it is probably more important to update certain flight models, make some new planes (especially early-war 2-seaters for both sides and a 1918 German recon bird, as well as a Fokker D7 with the Mercedes DIIIau engine), properly implement the in-game photo recon, observation recon, and arty missions into MP, and improve the front lines.

The Albatros and planes based on that original flight model are common topics of discussion in my flights on discord, especially their lack of speed and overly-optimistic turning performance. A review of the flight model for the DH-2 has already been mentioned, and I believe the Nieuport 28 is also being looked into. I would love to see the Albatros (D.Va, D.III, D.II, Pfalz D.IIIa, etc) get a review next, since they are so common.

Now that we have the Fokker E.III, players will quickly find that it will struggle to hunt the airplanes that are in the game, making a BE2 (and German equivalent, to be hunted by the Nieuport 11 and DH2) a notable hole in the lineup. Other significant holes include a late-war German recon bird (the DFW is a 1917 plane that is very fragile and vulnerable to 1918 planes, while the Halberstadt is supposed to be a ground attacker) and a mid-level Fokker D7 (better than the current vanilla but less capable than the D7F) would really fit in nicely with the late-war gameplay.

The single-player missions have some fun (though not perfect) photo recon, observation, and artillery missions that would be welcomed by multiplayer two-seater pilots. While mission editors have been able to get them working, there are still significant technical difficulties with them, since they were not intended for MP, and a proper implementation would be welcome. Last I heard from an MP test, the photo recon will make alert messages to all planes in the server, including the enemy team. The artillery tool and the photo tool overlap each other and show up for all planes equipped with a special mission, meaning that one tool blocks the other one if both are attempted at the same time. And I believe there was something that prevented you from having more than a single one of each type of mission per side. These could add so much to MP, but cannot be used properly right now.

Finally, some changes to the front lines would be very nice to have. Mostly I really want to be able to turn off the ambient artillery. Add in a concentrated artillery barrage and some poison gas elements that could be placed over areas of intense fighting, and the front line would really pop. Improvements to the details would be nice for low-flying ground attack missions that would be done by late-war Sopwith Camels and Halberstadts, although high altitude dogfighting and recon probably won't notice the change. Some variations in the front line based on date would be nice. The front lines shifted a bunch during certain events, like establishing the Hindenburg Line, the Spring Offensive, and the 100 Days Offensive. In some cases these shifts go far beyond the "mud" currently on the map, making it more difficult for mission designers to make certain historical missions.

I've still got hope for the future of WW1 combat flight simming. FC4 is a big part of it, but there are other things I would rather see than infantry.

[JG4_Moltke1871]

8 hours ago, =IRFC=Gascan said:

I've seen the current infantry implemented in several missions, and haven't been particularly impressed. They can be hard to spot from above and are difficult to kill if used as an objective. They also can cause a lot of damage, and don't use tracers like the AA MG's do, so you can't follow the shots back to the origin. Pretty sure they are resource-intensive, too, making it hard to have large numbers of them running across no-man's-land without a large performance hit. I would love to see some WW1 infantry, but I think it is probably more important to update certain flight models, make some new planes (especially early-war 2-seaters for both sides and a 1918 German recon bird, as well as a Fokker D7 with the Mercedes DIIIau engine), properly implement the in-game photo recon, observation recon, and arty missions into MP, and improve the front lines.

The Albatros and planes based on that original flight model are common topics of discussion in my flights on discord, especially their lack of speed and overly-optimistic turning performance. A review of the flight model for the DH-2 has already been mentioned, and I believe the Nieuport 28 is also being looked into. I would love to see the Albatros (D.Va, D.III, D.II, Pfalz D.IIIa, etc) get a review next, since they are so common.

Now that we have the Fokker E.III, players will quickly find that it will struggle to hunt the airplanes that are in the game, making a BE2 (and German equivalent, to be hunted by the Nieuport 11 and DH2) a notable hole in the lineup. Other significant holes include a late-war German recon bird (the DFW is a 1917 plane that is very fragile and vulnerable to 1918 planes, while the Halberstadt is supposed to be a ground attacker) and a mid-level Fokker D7 (better than the current vanilla but less capable than the D7F) would really fit in nicely with the late-war gameplay.

The single-player missions have some fun (though not perfect) photo recon, observation, and artillery missions that would be welcomed by multiplayer two-seater pilots. While mission editors have been able to get them working, there are still significant technical difficulties with them, since they were not intended for MP, and a proper implementation would be welcome. Last I heard from an MP test, the photo recon will make alert messages to all planes in the server, including the enemy team. The artillery tool and the photo tool overlap each other and show up for all planes equipped with a special mission, meaning that one tool blocks the other one if both are attempted at the same time. And I believe there was something that prevented you from having more than a single one of each type of mission per side. These could add so much to MP, but cannot be used properly right now.

Finally, some changes to the front lines would be very nice to have. Mostly I really want to be able to turn off the ambient artillery. Add in a concentrated artillery barrage and some poison gas elements that could be placed over areas of intense fighting, and the front line would really pop. Improvements to the details would be nice for low-flying ground attack missions that would be done by late-war Sopwith Camels and Halberstadts, although high altitude dogfighting and recon probably won't notice the change. Some variations in the front line based on date would be nice. The front lines shifted a bunch during certain events, like establishing the Hindenburg Line, the Spring Offensive, and the 100 Days Offensive. In some cases these shifts go far beyond the "mud" currently on the map, making it more difficult for mission designers to make certain historical missions.

I've still got hope for the future of WW1 combat flight simming. FC4 is a big part of it, but there are other things I would rather see than infantry.

A lot of construction sites , that's true. Which ones get addressed and which ones don't we will see, unfortunately I fear most won't. But just as we have some mechanics like photography in single player which are missing online (unfortunately) it would be good to have at least two soldier models so that the server hosts can create a realistic environment. How resources are for an intensive infantry attack is anyone's guess. Don't they already work in the Normandy missions? Of course infantry would be hard to spot but good training in navigation should make it possible to find the target area on the map. Any problem in the world could be solved with bombs and hit infantry with strafing will improve the aim. If it's too difficult for someone to find their target without a tracer they could always turn on the icons (in single player)

Talk about resources I noticed in single player there is a huge performance drop when mission-relevant messages comes in or I make a recon picture. That would also be an important construction site.

It happens in any Module, hopefully it will be addressed and a solution would be found to reduce it.

Anyway, I fully agree the development of planes that fill some gaps should have always priority!!!
However, having two more soldier models in the game could be a very nice finishing touch😉

Edited September 11, 2024 by JG4_Moltke1871

[US103_Baer]

On 8/27/2024 at 12:32 PM, LukeFF said:

 

If anything for WWI is made in the revised IL-2 Series engine it will be created essentially from scratch because of the significant changes being made to the rendering code, among other things. No ports.

Yeah, after seeing the latest Briefing video (Brief Room Episode 9: What's New?)  the rationale behind this statement seems pretty clear now.

Can recommend watching it for anyone with an eye on future FM dev

Edited September 12, 2024 by US103_Baer

[BMA_FlyingShark]

To be quite honest, I don't see them making everything from scratch all-over again.

What we have in regards to WWI now will probably be it for the next few decades to come I'm afraid.

 

Have a nice day.

 

[Trooper117]

2 hours ago, FlyingShark said:

To be quite honest, I don't see them making everything from scratch all-over again.

What we have in regards to WWI now will probably be it for the next few decades to come I'm afraid.

 

Have a nice day.

 

 

Yes, my thoughts entirely... if they ever do FC again most of us will probably be brown bread... ⚰️💀

[BMA_FlyingShark]

I see some sad face reactions on my previous post (the one above Trooper's one), I hope in the first place I'm wrong with the statement I made there, it's just that I don't have high hopes on anything of the old sims being rebuild into the new one for quite some time.

I'd love no more than getting the FC (and also the BoX) content being rebuild for the new engine and make it mergeable like with this series. I just don't see it happening any time soon.

 

Have a nice day.

 

[Enceladus828]

They’ll never rebuild the Western Front as a starting series in the Korea engine but there’s nothing saying that there cannot be a successor/continuation of FC in the Korea engine starting with the Eastern and Italian Fronts, followed by others before coming back to cover the Channel Map with Zeppelins and the pre-1916 Western Front. RoF was profitable enough to later include the Channel and Tarnopol maps and if the devs had the time and resources to continue work on RoF or train new developers then we could have seen more Russian and Austro-Hungarian planes along with some more two-seaters like the BE.2c and Rumpler… and maybe even a Romania or Italian Front map.
Flying Circus has shown to be profitable enough to get 4 Volumes so if development was to be continued in the Korea engine it would still be profitable. Obviously it won’t happen immediately after FC4 is released because the engine is still under construction but after Korea is released the devs could contract Ugra to do another WW1 series.

[Trooper117]

No, FlyingShark is right the first time... we've got what we have got, and that's your lot!!!

There's FC, RoF, WoFF/BH&H2, plus First Eagles perhaps, but that's it... it's a box of birds lads, nothing else on the horizon for WWI.

WoFF is still developing and soldiering on with new stuff on the way. 

RoF has been bowled out for further development, but it's still a good game to fly.

Don't know if First Eagles is still going, probably not.

And FC?... possibly might get a nudge after FC4, but who knows?

 

Will there be someone in the flight sim developing world that sees there is a big void, and that needs filling with a fresh look at WWI aviation?

Doubtful, very doubtful... but if it does transpire, if I'm not pushing up daisies, I'm in... 

[JD007]

20 hours ago, Enceladus828 said:

They’ll never rebuild the Western Front as a starting series in the Korea engine but there’s nothing saying that there cannot be a successor/continuation of FC in the Korea engine starting with the Eastern and Italian Fronts, followed by others before coming back to cover the Channel Map with Zeppelins and the pre-1916 Western Front. RoF was profitable enough to later include the Channel and Tarnopol maps and if the devs had the time and resources to continue work on RoF or train new developers then we could have seen more Russian and Austro-Hungarian planes along with some more two-seaters like the BE.2c and Rumpler… and maybe even a Romania or Italian Front map.
Flying Circus has shown to be profitable enough to get 4 Volumes so if development was to be continued in the Korea engine it would still be profitable. Obviously it won’t happen immediately after FC4 is released because the engine is still under construction but after Korea is released the devs could contract Ugra to do another WW1 series.

Indeed, there is no reason why they cannot still produce content for the Flying Circus series as well, given that it is popular and there are so many features that we would like to see added to it.

 

Rise of Flight  was a great WW1 simulator but is not as nice looking these days as Flying Circus. I would definitely like to see the Eastern Front and the Channel Map with the Seaplanes brought into Flying Circus. The Italian Front would be a good idea too and Zeppelins too, if they are possible with this engine.  

Edited September 13, 2024 by JD007

[Russkly]

It will be fascinating to see what uptake the Korea series gets.

 

It is doubtless a fairly niche theatre, and while the new engine will drive sales from players not necessarily hugely interested in that particular conflict per se, I wonder whether it will prove more popular (and therefore more profitable) than WW1 or WW2, which one would imagine are the go-to conflicts for combat flight sims (and indeed the majority of wargames full stop).

 

Bold call from 1CGS.

 

Even if the follow up to Korea is a focus on WW2 Pacific operations, which would seem to be a theatre that attracts many people (as per Jason Williams' new project), if Korea doesn't deliver the ROI that 1CGS and its investors demand, they could end up with a financial hole that doesn't allow them to pursue other potentially more lucrative development projects.

 

I wish them luck, largely because they have delivered countless hours of joyful combat flight simming over the last couple of decades, and without them, there's little else out there for those interested in the genre.

[Trooper117]

I think you will find that Korea with all it's new features in the new engine, will open the door to many that have been waiting for a successor to 'Mig Alley'... and I don't think it's a bold call... I think it's the right call. If they just tried to do a carbon copy of WWII GB but better, that would have been more of a risk.

I certainly needed a break away from WWII for something new... and thankfully we got it!

[Aapje]

I agree. Simply having something that has not been done recently is itself going to be a big draw.

[Zooropa_Fly]

17 hours ago, JD007 said:

given that it is popular

 

Define popular ?

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

2 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

 

Define popular ?

Popular,  big draw,...?   The real question is will it be profitable.   Which then sets up the question,  more profitable than FC or another WW2 theater?

 

Of course we probably will never know the answer to that. Apparently the powers in charge believe so.  It's thier call, thier choice, their company.   Let's all hope it the answer is yes.

I'm still on the fence with it.   Definitely not my 1st choice for a new game/theater.  But, I'll likely give it a shot. If for nothing else, to at least support a developer of a combat flight sim.

[Jackfraser24]

On 8/27/2024 at 4:32 PM, LukeFF said:

 

Question. Have the dev team shown any interest in doing a Flying Circus Vol.V? Would they be interested in doing a Channel map? I wonder this because a good portion of people seem very keen for one.

[Trooper117]

50 minutes ago, Jackfraser24 said:

Have the dev team shown any interest in doing a Flying Circus Vol.V? Would they be interested in doing a Channel map? I wonder this because a good portion of people seem very keen for one.

 

If you have been following this thread you will know the answer to your question... anything after FC4 is yet to be determined. That's from the horses mouth... 

[Jackfraser24]

39 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

 

If you have been following this thread you will know the answer to your question... anything after FC4 is yet to be determined. That's from the horses mouth... 

Sorry

[Trooper117]

Lol!... don't be sorry, there is nothing to be sorry about... 

[Jackfraser24]

7 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

Lol!... don't be sorry, there is nothing to be sorry about... 

I believe that a Channel map would be very well liked among players. I envision them covering Southern England, Northern France, Southern Netherlands and Western Belgium. They would cover cities like London, Dunkirk, Calais,  Brussels, Ghent, Antwerp and Lille. They’d also make zeppelin bombers as well as heavy bombers planes to reach enemy cities and bomb their infrastructure and industries (no disrespect meant to the lives lost). I’d buy a WWI channel map. Wouldn’t you, the reader?

Edited September 16, 2024 by Jackfraser24

[Trooper117]

I'm not sure if you are aware, but RoF (Rise of Flight) had a Channel map... and if one was to come over from RoF in the future, it would probably be this.

 

[Jackfraser24]

13 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

I'm not sure if you are aware, but RoF (Rise of Flight) had a Channel map... and if one was to come over from RoF in the future, it would probably be this.

 

I’m aware. I’d say it will probably be significantly bigger though in order to include cities like London and Brussels for Zeppelin strikes.

Edited September 16, 2024 by Jackfraser24

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

1 hour ago, Jackfraser24 said:

I believe that a Channel map would be very well liked among players. I envision them covering Southern England, Northern France, Southern Netherlands and Western Belgium. They would cover cities like London, Dunkirk, Calais,  Brussels, Ghent, Antwerp and Lille. They’d also make zeppelin bombers as well as heavy bombers planes to reach enemy cities and bomb their infrastructure and industries (no disrespect meant to the lives lost). I’d buy a WWI channel map. Wouldn’t you, the reader?

 Instant buy here.

[BraveSirRobin]

1 hour ago, Jackfraser24 said:

I believe that a Channel map would be very well liked among players.

Oddly, it wasn’t.  When the Channel map showed up in the Wargrounds rotation the server emptied.

[Trooper117]

It's not all about multi player... 

[BraveSirRobin]

14 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

It's not all about multi player... 

 

Still provides at least some indication of how popular it was.  The other indicator is that they have no plans to add it to GB.

[Jackfraser24]

1 hour ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

Still provides at least some indication of how popular it was.  The other indicator is that they have no plans to add it to GB.

Well I guess flying slow planes over the English Channel is very boring.

[Enceladus828]

1 hour ago, Jackfraser24 said:

Well I guess flying slow planes over the English Channel is very boring.

He’s just trolling you Jack, the Channel Map in FC would be really fun, especially with the Felixstowe 

[Jackfraser24]

1 hour ago, Enceladus828 said:

He’s just trolling you Jack, the Channel Map in FC would be really fun, especially with the Felixstowe 

Honestly, I think it would be popular for several reasons.

• It would be a completely different scenery to the Western Front map.
• WWI naval warfare which would make things even more interesting for FC. I’m talking battleships, u-boats and dreadnoughts.
• An opportunity for boat planes and zeppelins

[BraveSirRobin]

17 minutes ago, Jackfraser24 said:

Honestly, I think it would be popular for several reasons.

• It would be a completely different scenery to the Western Front map.
• WWI naval warfare which would make things even more interesting for FC. I’m talking battleships, u-boats and dreadnoughts.
• An opportunity for boat planes and zeppelins

Why do you think the developer has no plans to make this map?

[=IRFC=Gascan]

What works in MP doesn't always work for SP, and vice versa. The guys from No 10 / Jasta 18 were able to make an amazing MP event using the Normandy map, set in a fictional 1918 where Operation Michael got all the way to the English Channel and Germany is now launching major air raids into England. There was a mission during the day and a mission at night. This was pure bliss, an absolute thrill ride from start to finish. However, it worked as a special organized MP campaign, not on an open server. From the developer standpoint, it would take a lot of new assets to make the Channel map work in WW1 (whether converting RoF assets or making new ships, u-boats, towns, etc), and significant development to make zeppelins. Though it would be spectacular, and I'd love to see those floating behemoths, I doubt it will happen. Hope for the best, be prepared for FC4 to be the last.

 

 

[Zooropa_Fly]

The Channel map in RoF was laggy as hell.

Ok that was on NFF, but that map had issues other maps didn't have.

It was effectively unusable for me in the ME.

Yes the ME wasn't / isn't stable - but again issues unique to that map.

 

It may be missing some area that was in the RoF map, but there is the Normandy map featuring the Channel.

 

I just can't see this being done because six people on the forum say they'll buy it.

This 'future of fc' thread has 9 pages in two and a half years - the Normandy map release thread had 29 pages in a month.

 

If the devs ever get ahead of schedule in the future, maybe there'll be one or two collector planes to come.

But I'd say outwith that, FC will be pretty much done after FC4.

That's been stated in a slightly diplomatic manner. 

Edited September 17, 2024 by Zooropa_Fly

[Jackfraser24]

1 hour ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

The Channel map in RoF was laggy as hell.

Ok that was on NFF, but that map had issues other maps didn't have.

It was effectively unusable for me in the ME.

Yes the ME wasn't / isn't stable - but again issues unique to that map.

 

It may be missing some area that was in the RoF map, but there is the Normandy map featuring the Channel.

 

I just can't see this being done because six people on the forum say they'll buy it.

This 'future of fc' thread has 9 pages in two and a half years - the Normandy map release thread had 29 pages in a month.

 

If the devs ever get ahead of schedule in the future, maybe there'll be one or two collector planes to come.

But I'd say outwith that, FC will be pretty much done after FC4.

That's been stated in a slightly diplomatic manner. 

We’ll have to wait until further notice.

Edited September 17, 2024 by Jackfraser24

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Assumptions:

 

RoF was successful enough, that FC1 was created and published .

 

FC1 was successful enough, that FC2 was created and published. 

 

FC3,and FC4 same story.  So regarding popularity, it seems this developer had a successful run with WW1 flight simulation. 

 

.........................

 

I certainly wonder what this product line might have done with a marketing effort?

If one existed,  I certainly didn't see it.

 

In a casual conversation with Jason Williams,  I asked him if he still had some love for WW1?  He replied "absolutely", or something very close to that.  That of course is not a promise to revisit the era, or anything close, but it gave me a little encouragement that MAYBE,  the future might include a WW1 sim from another publisher.   To be sure, WW1 flight sims are a niche market, but so are others. 

 

I've purchased many flight sims over the years featuring various theaters and periods.  So far, nothing captures my attention,  and interest as much as WW1.  I hope someone picks up the desire to keep WW1 aviation sims going forward in the near future.   And, btw..the channel map played very smoothly on my computer. 

 

Cheers

 

Edited September 17, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[Trooper117]

37 minutes ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

btw..the channel map played very smoothly on my computer. 

 

Same for me!

[Aapje]

FC saved costs in that they developed one map over 4 modules, and reused flight models and probably assets developed for RoF. It's hard for me to come up with anything but FC5 on the same map, that won't be much more expensive to develop.

 

 

[Enceladus828]

15 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Why do you think the developer has no plans to make this map?

I dunno the devs will have to divert considerable resources away from Korea to check on the FC4, Odessa and Karelia maps and aircraft and add them to the AQMB as well as create the pilot careers, a considerable amount of work that will otherwise delay Korea that they don’t want to repeat again? 
 

That’s my 2 cents on this based on what Luke has said; would love this to be corroborated by the devs or a clearer explanation than simply “we have no plans to” because when you think about it, that’s a rather vague statement that’s up for interpretation.

Edited September 17, 2024 by Enceladus828

[Enceladus828]

5 hours ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

FC3,and FC4 same story.  So regarding popularity, it seems this developer had a successful run with WW1 flight simulation. 

Exactly. The reasoning imo that people say there is a lack of interest for FC stems from the fact that there have only been 2 FC4 DDs whereas for FC1-3 the aircraft were released in EA and had many DDs dedicated to them. There was enough interest for RoF to keep it going for 6 years and add many more planes and two maps before the devs reluctantly ended work on it. As you have declared with FC there is interest for more WW1 planes and maps in either FC or the Korea engine… and far beyond just six people.

 

4 hours ago, Aapje said:

It's hard for me to come up with anything but FC5 on the same map, that won't be much more expensive to develop.

The Channel Map would be much easier to make than the Tarnopol map because most of that area is already depicted in the BoN map, just need to add the towns of Felixstowe and Colchester to name a few and the Belgian ports and towns as well as making that part look how it did in the mid 1910s. Of course all this is still a considerable amount of work but easier for Ugra than bringing over the Tarnopol map or making a Gulf of Venice or Romania map.

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

 

Edited September 17, 2024 by J5_Klugermann

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

5 hours ago, Enceladus828 said:

 

 

The Channel Map would be much easier to make than the Tarnopol map because most of that area is already depicted in the BoN map, just need to add the towns of Felixstowe and Colchester to name a few and the Belgian ports and towns as well as making that part look how it did in the mid 1910s. 

Plus, a lot of it is water....RoF channel map looks to be approx 50% water.  That's a lot less ground, cities,  roads, etc. to model.  Maybe cities are more dense, etc.?   but still less ground surface .  Assuming they could reuse some textures from Normandy map?   I get the impression this could be among the easiest maps they made?

Edited September 17, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[BraveSirRobin]

6 hours ago, Enceladus828 said:

There was enough interest for RoF to keep it going for 6 years and add many more planes and two maps before the devs reluctantly ended work on it.

Yes, he was so “reluctant” that he eventually started an entirely new combat flight sim company that is developing a game that … checks notes…. is not a WW1 flight sim.  
 

Seriously, comments like that should probably need some sort of citation.