FC3 & FC4 official announcement + planesets + release date FC3

[BMA_Hellbender]

4 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

It was during beta testing , I believe. @=IRFC=Hellbender can say more.  I can't understand why

 

The Airco DH.2 did outturn the Fokker Dr.I (obviously also the Fokker Eindecker) during an open beta (so no NDA-breaking leaking of an unfinished FM) and it was indeed pointed out to the devs that this was odd. So yes, in a purely horizontal flat turn the DH.2 was the best performing machine in RoF at one point, if the opponent didn't add a vertical element to his turn. The official explanation for the DH.2 FM change is that a slightly heavier version was modeled instead with a larger and heavier fuel tank, but that ended up making it pretty terrible across the board, even with low fuel. For the record: the honour afterwards went to the Sopwith Pup, at least until RoF 1.034.

 

Anyway, in my humble opinion the DH.2 needs to at least outturn the Albatros D.II, otherwise Hawker vs. von Richthofen would have lasted 20 seconds, not 20 minutes. I'm afraid that also has to do with the RoF Albatros D.II's turn rate being exaggerated, even if it was indeed the best turning Albatros of the war (it was a biplane, after all, not a sesquiplane), as well as its speed and climb being on the low side. This brings us back to the fact that the entire Albatros family (D.II, D.III and D.Va) needs to be looked at.

 

By way of example: according to @Holtzauge's data, the FC Albatros D.Va is too slow, doesn't climb fast enough, but has an exaggerated rate of turn, even though the speed at which it performs best in a turn is indeed quite low, meaning it has a smaller turn radius than the S.E.5a and Nieuport 28, but that still doesn't allow it to outturn either of them (at sea level -- it's a different story at high altitude with overcompression).

 

 

EDIT:

 

As for why this is the case with the Albatros fighters in spite of them having thicker wings than Entente machines which should give them higher CLmax, this is also explained in detail in the book, but it boils down to the fact that their leading edges are in now way as optimised as they are on the Fokker Dr.I, D.VII and D.VIII. So thick, yes, but not in all the right places. This is probably where the RoF devs got things wrong in the very beginning.

 

Pictures say more than words.

 

Fokker Dr.I: thick wings with round leading edges (but chord too short with inefficient triplane design)

 

 

 

 

Fokker D.VII: quite thick wings and quite round leading edges

 

 

 

 

 

Fokker D.VIII: very thick wings and very round leading edges, and most efficient monoplane design

 

 

 

 

Nieuport 28: thin wings and sharp leading edges, without knowledge of the added value of round leading edges (combined with thick wings) that are more efficient when the stagnation point moves with speed, this was still understood to be the most efficient design by Entente at the time

 

 

 

 

 

Albatros D.Va: thick wings but sadly also sharp leading edges, basically the worst of both worlds

 

[No.23_Starling]

27 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

 

The Airco DH.2 did outturn the Fokker Dr.I (obviously also the Fokker Eindecker) during an open beta (so no NDA-breaking leaking of an unfinished FM) and it was indeed pointed out to the devs that this was odd. So yes, in a purely horizontal flat turn the DH.2 was the best performing machine in RoF at one point, if the opponent didn't add a vertical element to his turn. The official explanation for the DH.2 FM change is that a slightly heavier version was modeled instead with a larger and heavier fuel tank, but that ended up making it pretty terrible across the board, even with low fuel. For the record: the honour afterwards went to the Sopwith Pup, at least until RoF 1.034.

 

Anyway, in my humble opinion the DH.2 needs to at least outturn the Albatros D.II, otherwise Hawker vs. von Richthofen would have lasted 20 seconds, not 20 minutes. I'm afraid that also has to do with the RoF Albatros D.II's turn rate being exaggerated, even if it was indeed the best turning Albatros of the war (it was a biplane, after all, not a sesquiplane), as well as its speed and climb being on the low side. This brings us back to the fact that the entire Albatros family (D.II, D.III and D.Va) needs to be looked at.

 

By way of example: according to @Holtzauge's data, the FC Albatros D.Va is too slow, doesn't climb fast enough, but has an exaggerated rate of turn, even though the speed at which it performs best in a turn is indeed quite low, meaning it has a smaller turn radius than the S.E.5a and Nieuport 28, but that still doesn't allow it to outturn either of them (at sea level -- it's a different story at high altitude with overcompression).

 

As for why this is the case with the Albatros fighters in spite of them having thicker wings than Entente machines which should give them higher CLmax, this is also explained in detail in the book, but it boils down to the fact that their leading edges are in now way as optimised as they are on the Fokker Dr.I, D.VII and D.VIII and on the Siemens-Schuckert D.IV. So thick, yes, but not in all the right places. This is probably where the RoF devs got things wrong in the very beginning.

 

Bennett’s calculations have the DH2 out-turning the Dr1 too. It’s still much slower, climbs worse, and poor up high. The wing loading calculations concur (just part of the engineering story but an important factor).

 

Guttman in DH2 vs Albatros DI/DII

One of many sources quoted on the relative performance:

 

The DH2 doesn’t dominate anything in RoF, nor can it match the DII in any quality.

 

Demodelling of these FMs would be new planes for me, as they don’t resemble the engineering nor sources.

[Enceladus828]

5 hours ago, Russkly said:

If somehow we could merge the WOFF game and the GB/FC flight simulator, then IMO we would have combat flight sim Nirvana.

ROFL times a million, that can never happen. WoFF is based on the CFS3 game engine. 

[LukeFF]

24 minutes ago, Enceladus said:

ROFL times a million, that can never happen. WoFF is based on the CFS3 game engine. 

 

It was just a hypothetical statement, nothing more.

[No.23_Triggers]

6 hours ago, ACG_Ginger said:

Can we  say that IL~2 is now just RoF 2 ? Nothing new just recycled.  We need some fresh idea's, we were flying this plane set 10 years ago.

 

8 hours ago, Russkly said:

 

As a game WOFF is exceptional, and the AI is best in class; as a flight simulator, less so.

 

If somehow we could merge the WOFF game and the GB/FC flight simulator, then IMO we would have combat flight sim Nirvana.

Yeah, honestly IL2 graphics / FM complexity coupled with WoFF's overall experience + their incredible AI would make for a hell of a game. Chuck in Co-op and it might just be the best hypothetical WW1 era game to hit the market...

[ST_Catchov]

4 hours ago, No.23_Triggers said:

Chuck in Co-op and it might just be the best hypothetical WW1 era game to hit the market...

 

And hypothetically we'd get a decent Se5a FM. ?

[dburne]

11 hours ago, ACG_Ginger said:

Can we  say that IL~2 is now just RoF 2 ? Nothing new just recycled.  We need some fresh idea's, we were flying this plane set 10 years ago.

 

 

Yep sure seems that way.

Best of luck to FC3 and FC4. I will pass on those myself as my interests are elsewhere at this time.

[Guest deleted@83466]

 

1 hour ago, dburne said:

 

Yep sure seems that way.

Best of luck to FC3 and FC4. I will pass on those myself as my interests are elsewhere at this time.

 

[BMA_West]

23 hours ago, Russkly said:

 

As a game WOFF is exceptional, and the AI is best in class; as a flight simulator, less so.

 

If somehow we could merge the WOFF game and the GB/FC flight simulator, then IMO we would have combat flight sim Nirvana.

 

Considering the bad blood between WOFF and ROF since the early days (say 2010) ...

[J2_Trupobaw]

On 4/1/2023 at 2:48 AM, ST_Catchov said:

My understanding is the DH2 was superior in performance to the EIII which, along with the N11, ended the "Fokker Scourge". So we need early war pushers, monoplanes and obsolescent kites as fodder for the EIII. ? Yeah?

N11 ended Fokker Scourge, at Verdun. But even then there was no massacre of Eondecker pilot despite superior numbers of N.11, and cases of Eindecker pilots defeating N.11s were not unheard of. Like the time Guynemer jumped Boelcke and ended up wounded and disengaging.

 

The notion of D.H.2 ending Fokker Scourge was much less based on actual encounters. Introduction of D.H.2 coincided with relocation of most  Fokkerstaffeln to Verdun and D.H.2s spent early months virtually unopposed. It was especially prominent during early Battle of Somme where RFC enjoyed complete supremacy; not quality of aeroplanes was required there because the Germans had 30 Eindeckers (out of 200ish airframes total) in the area and refused to bring in reinforcements. The RFC sources refer to early Somme as "our finest hour", to Germans it was "that horrible time our planes were busy elsewhere". Once Germans brought reinforcements in form of Jastas 1-5, some of them still equipped with Eindeckers, and started actially fighting back, the supremacy of D.H.2s suddenly ended.

[No.23_Starling]

29 minutes ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

N11 ended Fokker Scourge, at Verdun. But even then there was no massacre of Eondecker pilot despite superior numbers of N.11, and cases of Eindecker pilots defeating N.11s were not unheard of. Like the time Guynemer jumped Boelcke and ended up wounded and disengaging.

 

The notion of D.H.2 ending Fokker Scourge was much less based on actual encounters. Introduction of D.H.2 coincided with relocation of most  Fokkerstaffeln to Verdun and D.H.2s spent early months virtually unopposed. It was especially prominent during early Battle of Somme where RFC enjoyed complete supremacy; not quality of aeroplanes was required there because the Germans had 30 Eindeckers (out of 200ish airframes total) in the area and refused to bring in reinforcements. The RFC sources refer to early Somme as "our finest hour", to Germans it was "that horrible time our planes were busy elsewhere". Once Germans brought reinforcements in form of Jastas 1-5, some of them still equipped with Eindeckers, and started actially fighting back, the supremacy of D.H.2s suddenly ended.

There’s plenty of examples of inferior planes getting the better of newer types. MvR was shot down with a holed fuel tank by an FE8 on 6 March 1917, and later received a head wound from an FE2b gunner, forcing him to land a second time (see Guttman, Pusher Aces of WW1). I find no historical evidence to your statement of the DH2 being driven from the skies by Eindeckers in the books of Guttman and Franks, and plenty of kills registered by the RFC on them. Can you cite your sources please and paste excerpts?

 

These arguments are pointless without data or modelling, which is why I’d love to see @Holtzauge model the DH2 and EIII/IV. I suspect the Eindeckers might have had the edge in dive performance, not to mention firepower with a belt-fed gun. Anyone have good test data on both types? Guttman gives performance data on the DH2.

[No.23_Starling]

NB John Oliver Andrews driving off and shooting up Immelmann’s Eindecker in his DH2 on 27th April 1916 during one of his early combats makes for interesting reading (see Wyngarden, Early German Aces of WW1).

[No.23_Starling]

Also, we don’t know for sure that it was Boelcke who wounded Guynemer that day, and if he did the latter was caught with his guard down engaging a two seater. See below from Guttman, N11 vs Fokker Eindecker. 

[ST_Catchov]

10 hours ago, US103_Rummell said:

I’d love to see @Holtzauge model the DH2 and EIII/IV

 

Yes please. I know he wants to go WWII where (maybe) sales could (possibly) be better. Perhaps. But we are nice people here who enjoy the finer things in life and very intelligent, if that counts. I mean, essentially WW1 rules over that other one.

[BMA_Hellbender]

22 hours ago, US103_Rummell said:

There’s plenty of examples of inferior planes getting the better of newer types. MvR was shot down with a holed fuel tank by an FE8 on 6 March 1917, and later received a head wound from an FE2b gunner, forcing him to land a second time (see Guttman, Pusher Aces of WW1). I find no historical evidence to your statement of the DH2 being driven from the skies by Eindeckers in the books of Guttman and Franks, and plenty of kills registered by the RFC on them. Can you cite your sources please and paste excerpts?

 

These arguments are pointless without data or modelling, which is why I’d love to see @Holtzauge model the DH2 and EIII/IV. I suspect the Eindeckers might have had the edge in dive performance, not to mention firepower with a belt-fed gun. Anyone have good test data on both types? Guttman gives performance data on the DH2.

It’s highly questionable that the Eindecker would out perform the DH.2 in any meaningful way. The main merit of the Eindecker is that it came first with its synchronisation gear and was highly successful in a time when the British and French mainly flew unarmed or gunbus type two-seaters.

 

Central fighter pilots would have built up considerable experience with the Eindecker by the time the DH.2 was fielded, so it’s no surprise that edge in performance the DH.2 gave was not enough to immediate turn the tide, especially when you consider how the German strategy was to deploy and relocate scouts en masse along the most active parts of the line, whereas British and French pilots were a lot more spread out.

[No.23_Starling]

27 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

It’s highly questionable that the Eindecker would out perform the DH.2 in any meaningful way. The main merit of the Eindecker is that it came first with its synchronisation gear and was highly successful in a time when the British and French mainly flew unarmed or gunbus type two-seaters.

 

Central fighter pilots would have built up considerable experience with the Eindecker by the time the DH.2 was fielded, so it’s no surprise that edge in performance the DH.2 gave was not enough to immediate turn the tide, especially when you consider how the German strategy was to deploy and relocate scouts en masse along the most active parts of the line, whereas British and French pilots were a lot more spread out.

I’m with you, but the case for FM revisions is made easier with half decent modelling to suggest how they should be fixed. 
 

I was reading in Guttman’s book on the N11 last night of a case where a German pilot fitted an interrupter gear to a captured French scout and added the Maltese crosses so he could fly it! That firepower made a difference, hence the N17 changes.

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

Sort of sucks that we have to wait for the end for one of the most successful Central scouts. Swap the Alb DIII for either the DII or Hanriot.

[BMA_Hellbender]

5 hours ago, J5_Klugermann said:

Sort of sucks that we have to wait for the end for one of the most successful Central scouts. Swap the Alb DIII for either the DII or Hanriot.

Personally I would have no problems with them delaying the Hanriot, the fact that it’s coming at all is great. I am however legally obliged to inform you that you are now blacklisted by the most Illustrious Order of Belgian Chocolateers (in Exile).

 

Anyway, I feel the same about the Pup, so let’s just say we’re both excited about FC4.

[Trooper117]

Being cynical, I think the Pup and the Alb DIII have been put into FC4 to ensure people buy it.

Those aeroplanes are favourites and must have's for early 1917.

They are much needed for the career now... it could be 18 months to 2 years before we will see them in an early 1917 Bloody April scenario.

 

[TAIPAN_]

1 hour ago, Trooper117 said:

Being cynical, I think the Pup and the Alb DIII have been put into FC4 to ensure people buy it.

Those aeroplanes are favourites and must have's for early 1917.

They are much needed for the career now... it could be 18 months to 2 years before we will see them in an early 1917 Bloody April scenario.

 

 

Kind of true that they need to spread the popular aircraft out.

 

However Bloody April as I remember it from ROF cannot be the same without the Pup & D.III. 

 

Career won't even be the same, unless they at least appear as AI enemies. 

 

If they can't be swapped, I'd suggest they release these two as the first release for early access. 

[ST_Catchov]

1 hour ago, Trooper117 said:

Being cynical, I think the Pup and the Alb DIII have been put into FC4 to ensure people buy it.

 

^It's a fair enough assessment and cunning like the fox. But that's the way it is.

 

However, the proposed FC3 Alb/Halb DII, Re8, Fe2b and the French crates are good and much needed. Swings and roundabouts.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

2 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

Being cynical, I think the Pup and the Alb DIII have been put into FC4 to ensure people buy it.

Those aeroplanes are favourites and must have's for early 1917.

They are much needed for the career now... it could be 18 months to 2 years before we will see them in an early 1917 Bloody April scenario.

 

Inclined to agree.  But i don't blame them.

[ST_Catchov]

10 hours ago, J5_Klugermann said:

Sort of sucks that we have to wait for the end for one of the most successful Central scouts. Swap the Alb DIII for either the DII or Hanriot.

 

Waddaya whining about. You got the Stuka! 

[J2_Trupobaw]

Found a better shot of Albatros B, @ST_Catchov :). I actually forgot I once made a youtube channell.

 

 

[DakkaDakkaDakka]

I'm super excited to see more of the Nieuports return. Plus the Alb D.III and D.II. Good times!

[Chris65]

On 3/30/2023 at 4:39 AM, Trooper117 said:

It's good that the WWI side of things will go on to near completion of the RoF plane set... not sure on the plane selection for release of FC3 and 4. It seems that at least a couple are arse about face. 

People are already saying that they are getting weird match ups in career with planes that just shouldn't be there... the stock reply from officialdom is they are 'stand ins', and if you want a proper match up go to the late 1918 career???

If we have a career start in April 1917 there should be the correct aeroplanes to fly and fight against surely?... anyway, that's my minor gripes. The rest seems to be all good.

 

I was about to purchase FC2 until I read this and you are correct, players would really be limited to when they can fly or else face planes that don't belong.  When I played Red Baron 2 I always played 1916-1917, never 1918 so for FC1&2 to really limit players to 1918...pass.  Glad I read your post.

[Avimimus]

I do really think that there needs to be a Premium edition of these modules with one or two completely new aircraft (to motivate people to upgrade from Rise of Flight).

 

I'd propose an early war two-seater be added for each side (possibly French for Entente - as they only have one two seater, while the British have six or seven) for the 1916 module:

 

There are also some other really interesting aircraft form the 1917 era that could be added - Airco DH.5 and Spad XII both come to mind for the 1917 module.

[jollyjack]

Or this; has only 2 engines, so it must be allowed to join the club  ...

 

[DD_Ben]

any word on if we will get the seaplanes back at all kinder missing my felixstowe

[Zooropa_Fly]

13 hours ago, DD_Ben said:

any word on if we will get the seaplanes back at all kinder missing my felixstowe

 

We'll need to get the sea first !

[JG4_Moltke1871]

3 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

We'll need to get the sea first !

Including the channel map ?

[LufberyJAA]

I'm pretty easy-going. I played the hell out of the original Red Baron, then Red Baron II, and then upgraded it to RB3D. I was a member of a flight sim message board on Delphi, then joined The Areodrome forum where we discussed the Sims endlessly and generated wish lists for what we would like in an improved version. 

 

We debated flight models, propeller torque, p-factors, and wishes for accurate cockpits, and fuel tank placement, and so forth.

 

Things got better when a few people released some really good WWI planes for the MS Combat Flights Simulator 2. It was neat dogfighting Camels and Dr.1s in planes that were more accurate than RB3D. It was strange to do it over Wake Island, however. ?

 

Anyway, kids and my computers being older and not able to play the latest games, plus what seemed like a lull in flight sim development for a while conspired to get me out of this hobby for a long time. 

 

About 3 years ago, I bought Flying Circus I and the bulk of my wish list from 20 years ago is filled! I pre-ordered FC Ii, and will order 3 & 4. I know that this isn't a perfect sim, but it is nearly so. Yes, I would love to see the Nieuport 28 tweaked a bit, yes the AI is sometimes goofy, but this is an amazing game!

[Trooper117]

You might want to buy RoF, (Rise of Flight), bigger plane set, channel map with sea planes and the graphics are still good. The career side is quite well fleshed out.

[BMA_Hellbender]

39 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

You might want to buy RoF, (Rise of Flight), bigger plane set, channel map with sea planes and the graphics are still good. The career side is quite well fleshed out.

 

I have nothing against good old RoF, but unless you can buy it heavily discounted during a sale, I would somewhat recommend against it.

 

It runs on legacy 32-bit code meaning it will never be able to address more than 2GB of memory (4GB with large address awareness), meaning you can very easily run into the infamous "out of bones" integer overflow error, especially when multiple planes are breaking apart. You'll never have any issues flying a quick mission, but if you want to fill the skies with planes as we do in FC -- and while a modern PC can technically handle it -- the game cannot.

 

Still, seaplanes such as the Felixstowe make RoF a title "for the ages". We're unlikely to ever see it in a sim again (at least not until AI generated sims take over), in much the same way that we haven't seen a WWI sub sim since 1914 Shells of Fury.

[Zooropa_Fly]

Damn I miss my Felixstowe.

 

[Todt_Von_Oben]

3 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

Damn I miss my Felixstowe.

 

You got FLAKKED!  But look on the bright side; that's gonna make a real nice houseboat!