DM update impressions

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

I get the point about it being bad for developers to read the forum in cases where you get one or two forum users who are obsessive and manage to lobby unwise changes into the flight and damage models (a couple forum users from Rise of Flight come to mind). But on the other hand, if there is broad consensus on the forum that something is amiss, it usually helps if the developers look at it. It may not represent the total experience of the community, but if you have numerous users who are repeat customers saying "this is a problem", it's worth fairly immediate investigation. The biggest items that would help are fixes to the wings/DM (a longstanding issue) and release of the new map (to help bring in new players or bring back ones who got bored).

[ST_Catchov]

Incorporating FC into the GB series seemed such a good idea at the time. From an overall sales perspective. But it has had its obvious downsides from a player perspective. I think(?) they're gonna look into the FC DM (particularly wings) post Normandy/drop tanks but this statement from Jason isn't exactly comforting. It's an old post sure. Has anything changed since?

 

I guess if there isn't some kind of separation between WWI and WWII then it seems it will always be problematic.

 

Damage Model Comments Dec 16 2020

 

I am aware some of you are not totally satisfied with the current damage model as it pertains to WWI. We recently overhauled our entire damage model for the engine and making further changes to it for WWI will also affect WWII. This requires some thinking and more study, but at this moment I cannot make further changes to just WWI. I see this as a long-term project to somehow change only WWI damage modeling. Even so, there are mixed opinions on this issue. Just because there are some vocal critics out there, does not make the loudest voice correct. As usual, we would need to study the issue further before any more changes are made.

[mb339pan]

It was better to upgrade to RoF, instead I read about old and already seen problems with the previous sim, amen

[Trooper117]

On 9/22/2022 at 3:46 AM, ST_Catchov said:

I guess if there isn't some kind of separation between WWI and WWII then it seems it will always be problematic.

 

Yes Catch... My ideal solution would be to for them to bite the bullet and make the FC a complete separate entity, this would allow for DM and FM to be a strictly WWI affair without any influence on the WWII sim side of things... that's about as likely as me becoming the Kings batman!

I still can't believe that there was no forward planning on the effects of integrating  FC into a WWII setting, and if there was, why was this allowed to happen in the first place...

[SYN_Vander]

7 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

 

Yes Catch... My ideal solution would be to for them to bite the bullet and make the FC a complete separate entity, this would allow for DM and FM to be a strictly WWI affair without any influence on the WWII sim side of things... that's about as likely as me becoming the Kings batman!

I still can't believe that there was no forward planning on the effects of integrating  FC into a WWII setting, and if there was, why was this allowed to happen in the first place...

 

Totally disagree. This is not about some technical problem because multiple aircraft types share the same code base. By that principle we should have a separate sim for every aircraft: The Me-262 is totally different from the I-16 etc.

 

It's simply about priority & time allocation for Flying Circus. For start, it would help if there were (more) beta-testers focusing on Flying Circus.

[Trooper117]

Why did the dev's write this then?

 

''We recently overhauled our entire damage model for the engine and making further changes to it for WWI will also affect WWII.''

[SYN_Vander]

11 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

Why did the dev's write this then?

 

''We recently overhauled our entire damage model for the engine and making further changes to it for WWI will also affect WWII.''

 

Because it is followed by:  This requires some thinking and more study,   so priority & time. Only if you can secure more dedicated resources to such a project it would be a good idea. But right now the benefits of a shared code base (cloud technology, aircraft codes to name a few) far outweigh the costs. 

Edited September 23, 2022 by SYN_Vander

[Trooper117]

I know I can be a bit thick at times Vander as I am getting older, but there is no getting away from the fact that having this shared WWI and WWII coding has created problems that have no easy fix... some parts benefit both genres, such as terrain and the clouds, aircraft codes etc, some though do not.

I'm not suggesting for one minute that the team are slacking in any way, but as priorities go, FC appears to be lower down on the list.

Yes, perhaps I'm being too simplistic in wishing for a stand alone FC away from the WWII side, but as usual we will have to wait to see what the powers that be come up with...

 

[SYN_Vander]

Well I'm looking from IL2 product perspective. As a WW1 flying enthusiast I do agree that we need more focus on Flying Circus. Looking outside the box, a dedicated team with WW1 as single focus would of course be better for us as customers, provided they can make enough money to realize their plans.

Edited September 23, 2022 by SYN_Vander

[No.23_Starling]

They fixed the CL2. It’s great now in terms of DM. If they can fix the cl2 they can fix the Dva. The fact that they haven’t either means they think it’s fine or they don’t think it’s a priority at all. Compare that to the hotfixes for the me210 after launch. Ww2 is where the money is at. Ww1 needs a dedicated dev team 

Edited September 23, 2022 by US103_Rummell

[CAFulcrum]

Regardless of hypothetical sniping issues or the dispersal model I think it's a whole lot more realistic now the pilots don't take 5 hits to knock down.  It feels a lot closer to ROF/what you'd expect in most situations and matches historical records a little better, especially wrt rear seat gunners.  FC was frankly ridiculous and felt broken before this change.  I expect the planes to take a lot of hits but not the pilots.  The only thing that seems off to me is the size/puffiness of the hit sprites, they seem a bit too brite/arcady.

 

Also I think one of the issues with sniping/accuracy is how smoothly everything flies at low speed.  There isn't any random buffeting or air breakup behavior that should make high alpha and slow speed maneuvering super dangerous, instead you can basically just throw aircraft around the sky if you 'aim' the aircraft into a stall correctly.  With the WWI planes all existing in this lower speed envelope its especially noticeable -- not that I expect them to be lethargic tumblers like the planes in WWII at low speed, but they shouldn't just knife edge sideways either.  Being able to use that to pull off swing around shots is not at all realistic but I think that is an issue for WWII aircraft as well.  I'd rather see them fix that then 'split the FM up' between two teams.

[ST_Catchov]

Bandaids. It does not cure the disease.

[No.23_Triggers]

On 9/23/2022 at 11:04 PM, US103_Rummell said:

They fixed the CL2. It’s great now in terms of DM. If they can fix the cl2 they can fix the Dva. The fact that they haven’t either means they think it’s fine or they don’t think it’s a priority at all. Compare that to the hotfixes for the me210 after launch. Ww2 is where the money is at. Ww1 needs a dedicated dev team 

I actually completely forgot about that...

[BlitzPig_EL]

Gents, as in all things, follow the money.  If simulated WW1 combat aviation had the number of players that WW2 had then a completely separate dev team for it could be justified.  However, that is not the case, and I'm as guilty as most about it.  Well over 90% of my virtual seat time is in WW2 birds.  Why?  It's not that I don't enjoy flying the old kites, but most of our guys (the few that are left flying at all) are either ambivalent about WW1 or absolutely have no use for it.  I don't like lone wolfing, so I stick mostly to WW2.  Even WW2 virtual aviation is spiraling down.  How can we get new blood into this hobby when so many younger folk haven't a clue about any history before the 1980s, and moreover don't give a rat's behind about history at all?

 

*SIGH*

 

I'll try to fly on this side more, I'm sure some of you need a good target drone.   

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

6 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Gents, as in all things, follow the money.  If simulated WW1 combat aviation had the number of players that WW2 had then a completely separate dev team for it could be justified.  However, that is not the case, and I'm as guilty as most about it.  Well over 90% of my virtual seat time is in WW2 birds.  Why?  It's not that I don't enjoy flying the old kites, but most of our guys (the few that are left flying at all) are either ambivalent about WW1 or absolutely have no use for it.  I don't like lone wolfing, so I stick mostly to WW2.  Even WW2 virtual aviation is spiraling down.  How can we get new blood into this hobby when so many younger folk haven't a clue about any history before the 1980s, and moreover don't give a rat's behind about history at all?

 

*SIGH*

 

I'll try to fly on this side more, I'm sure some of you need a good target drone.   

Valid point for sure regarding the money aspect.  But I'd wager I'm probably not the only person who bought some of the ww2 releases primarily to support the company.  Its the WW1 planes that brought me here, and are 95 percent of my interest in flight sims. The WW2 stuff is cool, but to be honest, I rarely use it.  MY Purchase of the WW2 content was primarily just to support the genre, and the Developers.

Edited October 2, 2022 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

11 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I'll try to fly on this side more, I'm sure some of you need a good target drone. 

Great.  During Sundays EU evenings there is plenty of us at Flugpark. 

[No.23_Starling]

12 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Gents, as in all things, follow the money.  If simulated WW1 combat aviation had the number of players that WW2 had then a completely separate dev team for it could be justified.  However, that is not the case, and I'm as guilty as most about it.  Well over 90% of my virtual seat time is in WW2 birds.  Why?  It's not that I don't enjoy flying the old kites, but most of our guys (the few that are left flying at all) are either ambivalent about WW1 or absolutely have no use for it.  I don't like lone wolfing, so I stick mostly to WW2.  Even WW2 virtual aviation is spiraling down.  How can we get new blood into this hobby when so many younger folk haven't a clue about any history before the 1980s, and moreover don't give a rat's behind about history at all?

 

*SIGH*

 

I'll try to fly on this side more, I'm sure some of you need a good target drone.   

I wonder how the Rise of Flight sales compared when it was a stand-alone title? I suspect much better. A shared engine makes sense but I wonder if sales would do better with a dedicated content production team, marketing budget etc. A WW1 sim embedded in a WW2 flagship with a Russian name isn’t that noob friendly nor instinctive to access, and feels more like a mod.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

2 hours ago, US103_Rummell said:

I wonder how the Rise of Flight sales compared when it was a stand-alone title? I suspect much better. A shared engine makes sense but I wonder if sales would do better with a dedicated content production team, marketing budget etc. A WW1 sim embedded in a WW2 flagship with a Russian name isn’t that noob friendly nor instinctive to access, and feels more like a mod.

100 percent agree

[Guest deleted@83466]

My impression of RoF is that they basically ditched it in 2014, so that they could devote themselves fully to GB.  Maybe I’m wrong, but I gathered that the only practical way for development to continue on a very niche WW1 game was under the aegis of GB.

[DBFlyguy]

I enjoy Flying Circus, it introduced me to a period of air warfare I wasn't really familiar with.  Flying a WWI fighter in this game in VR is second to none as far as gaming experiences go.  But it's clear as day, doing Flying Circus, Great Battles and Tank Crew as one big shared game was not a wise decision for several reasons. Now, all three games are suffering because there just isn't enough time/staff to dedicate to fixing the unique issues that come up with the different genres. Personally, I've always thought Tank Crew should be abandoned to allow for the devs to focus solely on making sure FC and GB the best air combat games they can be where there is a true gap for those products to fill. 

 

Tank Crew is never going to be what they are hoping it will be unless maps are completely redone from the ground up to attract the type of people who are used to dedicated ground combat games with purpose built high quality ground combat focused maps like Squad, ARMA, Post Scriptum, Hell Let Loose, Gunner Heat PC, etc... the maps are just one thing all of the competitors have huge legs up over Tank Crew.

 

They are stretched too thin and its showing more and more....you can't be everything to everybody, no matter how much you want to be.

Edited October 2, 2022 by DBFlyguy

[BMA_Hellbender]

RoF as developed by NeoQB was a bloated and malfunctioning behemoth, but to its merit it gave us the Digital Nature engine, which in turn evolved into the Digital Warfare engine (IL-2 GB). Under new management 777 was able to keep RoF afloat with a thinly veiled F2P model and a core team of developers who introduced new airplanes, Dogfight mode, Offline mode, Career mode and finally the ill-fated Channel map, which split the community into the haves and the have-nots (and those who had good hardware and those who didn't, since it enormously taxed systems at the time).

 

In the meantime 777/1C understands that you've got to follow the money: classic hardcore combat flightsims are a niche market, but those willing to make the thousands in hardware investment to enter that niche are probably okay spending more than a couple hundred bucks on the actual sim itself. This is why the present model works so well for WW2. It kind of works for WW1, too, just on a much smaller scale. So what we have isn't bad, though the lack of a dynamic campaign/career for single player is clearly holding it back.

 

For multiplayer we already have an insanely dedicated community. Every time I return to the game when real life gives me a break, I'm reminded of that, and the devs better remind themselves of this as well. In my eyes we're a wing DM update and a few FM revisions (D.IIIaü engines, N28) away from true greatness.

[J2_Trupobaw]

17 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

 

 

For multiplayer we already have an insanely dedicated community. Every time I return to the game when real life gives me a break, I'm reminded of that, and the devs better remind themselves of this as well. In my eyes we're a wing DM update and a few FM revisions (D.IIIaü engines, N28) away from true greatness.

Semiesquiplane Albies should trade energy retention in turn for speed and climb, too. Otherwise you are right  .

[No.23_Starling]

11 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Semiesquiplane Albies should trade energy retention in turn for speed and climb, too. Otherwise you are right  .

And have the right engine for late 1918, alongside the compressed Hispanos

[US103_Baer]

On 10/3/2022 at 9:39 PM, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

For multiplayer we already have an insanely dedicated community. Every time I return to the game when real life gives me a break, I'm reminded of that, and the devs better remind themselves of this as well. In my eyes we're a wing DM update and a few FM revisions (D.IIIaü engines, N28) away from true greatness.

 

Yes! I think so too. I mean Trupo's right too, the Albie (and PD3) FMs do need a tweak. 

With the above, and the new Recon mechanics working in MP, we're well in the way to a very workable sim platform that could last for ages, and allow the devs to focus on releasing revenue-earning planes and maps to fill it out. 

 

Mission makers would have so much to work with and the sim's ROI should continually improve.

[Magics]

Pilots in WW1 flew in ruthless and unimaginable conditions that we as simmers will never experience. They were taught to fly these planes in a specific way, what to do and what not to do. Some pilots never made it to the battlefield. They died during training when a control surface snapped and they became a metal and meat pie. We are much more fortunate when it comes to flight time.

 

Whether simmed perfectly or not, we have infinite lives in a videogame. No radiator that blows up in your face and scalds you, no fear of death, no loss of government property, no fuel costs, ammunition costs, no family you need to get back home to. All there is an experience to be had, a score to keep, and some people, an ego to uphold. 

 

We can play the same exact scenario with an AI to practice gunnery hundreds of times a day and perfect our aim that we don't even need a sight picture. 

 

What I'm trying to say, is that people are sharing concerns of long range sniping and presenting 'solutions'.. why is it a problem? Is it because it is not factual through physics or is it just not fun for the receiving end? 

 

When I first picked up the game and got to my peak skill wise, I was hitting transverse targets at long range without adjustment and without sights. Granted, after a year and half hiatus, I'm relearning this again. 

 

My point is, some pilot in WW1 didn't get to practice the opportunity to shoot a moving air target far away on a massive potential scale like we can. When comparing their reality to ours, there's a disconnect. 

 

[AcidBath]

Excellent post above.  To continue the thought, WWI pilots packed their ears with wads of cotton to protect their hearing from the engine noise before donning their flight helmet.  They could hear effectively nothing, which is nothing at all like the cockpit experience we have in FC.  Though it's quite easy for us to emulated that...does anyone get that hardcore with this sim?

 

Edit: though not exactly the same situation, the same goes for BoX other than radio comms.

Edited December 8, 2022 by AcidBath

[Trooper117]

Sound has always been a weak point of the BoX series...

[Zooropa_Fly]

14 hours ago, Magics said:

no loss of government property

 

 

Forum line of the year for me.

 

S!

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

On 12/7/2022 at 8:56 PM, Magics said:

 

What I'm trying to say, is that people are sharing concerns of long range sniping and presenting 'solutions'.. why is it a problem? Is it because it is not factual through physics or is it just not fun for the receiving end?

To answer your question, most likely the latter.  Good post, glad you are getting back in the cockpit.

[BMA_Hellbender]

On 12/7/2022 at 9:56 PM, Magics said:

Pilots in WW1 flew in ruthless and unimaginable conditions that we as simmers will never experience. They were taught to fly these planes in a specific way, what to do and what not to do. Some pilots never made it to the battlefield. They died during training when a control surface snapped and they became a metal and meat pie. We are much more fortunate when it comes to flight time.

 

Whether simmed perfectly or not, we have infinite lives in a videogame. No radiator that blows up in your face and scalds you, no fear of death, no loss of government property, no fuel costs, ammunition costs, no family you need to get back home to. All there is an experience to be had, a score to keep, and some people, an ego to uphold. 

 

We can play the same exact scenario with an AI to practice gunnery hundreds of times a day and perfect our aim that we don't even need a sight picture. 

 

What I'm trying to say, is that people are sharing concerns of long range sniping and presenting 'solutions'.. why is it a problem? Is it because it is not factual through physics or is it just not fun for the receiving end? 

 

When I first picked up the game and got to my peak skill wise, I was hitting transverse targets at long range without adjustment and without sights. Granted, after a year and half hiatus, I'm relearning this again. 

 

My point is, some pilot in WW1 didn't get to practice the opportunity to shoot a moving air target far away on a massive potential scale like we can. When comparing their reality to ours, there's a disconnect. 

 

Now I really want radiator scalding to be modeled in along with better soundscaping. The fact that you can hear other planes over your own engine noise is a longstanding issue that is separate from sniping.

[HagarTheHorrible]

12 hours ago, J5_Baeumer said:

To answer your question, most likely the latter.  Good post, glad you are getting back in the cockpit.

Yes, it is the latter, but it is strongly informed by the former.  Should the developers ‘simulate’ the world, of WW1 air combat, as it was, with all it’s frustrations and quirks or should they simulate it without all, or few, of the real world limitations ?
 

Flight simulation developers go to inordinate lengths to try and produce simulated aircraft that perform as closely to their real world counter parts as possible and in a realistic way, but it really is all for naught if the second part of the equation is not as seriously considered and real world limitations aren’t similarly applied.  Certainly, any, design choices are going to be imperfect, but they should, even if through ‘fudging’ try to replicate what was, and not just what the limitations of a computer game can impose.  It’s a bit like the old Hawker Harrier debate, “Oh, it’s slow, and can’t keep up with modern jets”.  It didn’t need to, what they had failed to appreciate was that it wasn’t the speed of the ‘aircraft’ that counted, it was getting a sight picture.  The speed ‘and reach’ of the missile did the rest.  The same can equally be said of WW1 air combat,  if a pilot can ‘reach’ out and ‘touch’ an opponent at a far greater distance than was actually the case then that changes the whole dynamic of the fight, and consequently, you simulate nothing, you just have a game, with quirky ‘horses’ weapons.

 

Obviously I don’t need to remind you of the shambles that was the ‘wings debacle’ , in which a game coding / design limitation, led to a totally avoidable travesty of simulated WW1 dogfighting, not to mention the ‘bizarre’ fact that it also made the game far less satisfying, and enjoyable, to play.

[US41_Low]

Why was the pilot DM changed? I suppose it would make more sense if gunnery wasn’t all laser beams. 

[kendo]

8 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

Yes, it is the latter, but it is strongly informed by the former.  Should the developers ‘simulate’ the world, of WW1 air combat, as it was, with all it’s frustrations and quirks or should they simulate it without all, or few, of the real world limitations ?
 

Flight simulation developers go to inordinate lengths to try and produce simulated aircraft that perform as closely to their real world counter parts as possible and in a realistic way, but it really is all for naught if the second part of the equation is not as seriously considered and real world limitations aren’t similarly applied.  Certainly, any, design choices are going to be imperfect, but they should, even if through ‘fudging’ try to replicate what was, and not just what the limitations of a computer game can impose.  It’s a bit like the old Hawker Harrier debate, “Oh, it’s slow, and can’t keep up with modern jets”.  It didn’t need to, what they had failed to appreciate was that it wasn’t the speed of the ‘aircraft’ that counted, it was getting a sight picture.  The speed ‘and reach’ of the missile did the rest.  The same can equally be said of WW1 air combat,  if a pilot can ‘reach’ out and ‘touch’ an opponent at a far greater distance than was actually the case then that changes the whole dynamic of the fight, and consequently, you simulate nothing, you just have a game, with quirky ‘horses’ weapons.

 

Obviously I don’t need to remind you of the shambles that was the ‘wings debacle’ , in which a game coding / design limitation, led to a totally avoidable travesty of simulated WW1 dogfighting, not to mention the ‘bizarre’ fact that it also made the game far less satisfying, and enjoyable, to play.

 

Sorry, this may be a low blow, but if you're going to seriously try to model those 'real world limitations', can I point out that the most glaring example would be pilots in MP being in constant coummunication with each other, warning of enemies on their six, and co-ordinating attacks in ways that have no comparable basis in WW1 reality.

 

Talk about 'reaching out and touching' at far greater distance than the reality.

 

If you're really serious about simming over gaming then get rid of the comms  (in WW1 at least) and practise your hand signs and wing waggling.....!

[HagarTheHorrible]

1 hour ago, kendo said:

 

Sorry, this may be a low blow, but if you're going to seriously try to model those 'real world limitations', can I point out that the most glaring example would be pilots in MP being in constant coummunication with each other, warning of enemies on their six, and co-ordinating attacks in ways that have no comparable basis in WW1 reality.

 

Talk about 'reaching out and touching' at far greater distance than the reality.

 

If you're really serious about simming over gaming then get rid of the comms  (in WW1 at least) and practise your hand signs and wing waggling.....!

It is most certainly imperfect, (It would be wonderful to think that people could be trusted to fly without comm’s as server, and style of play, demanded).

 

That doesn’t mean that the developers should be given carte blanc to ignore things, that might produce ahistorical outcomes, even if the strongest evidence against is mostly anecdotal, which they can influence.

Edited December 12, 2022 by HagarTheHorrible