Nieuport 17 and Albatros D.II impressions

[Guest deleted@219798]

21 hours ago, LukeFF said:

@Trooper117, per the producer, the Late model is not planned to be added to FC.

The late and  early model Albatros DII are sufficiently visually different as to warrant inclusion of both. This is something of a slap in the face for those of us who love the Albatros and World War One German planes in general. Only 2 German planes in Volume 3, I thought at least there would be two DII models, but no. No explanation from the developers, just, "not planned". Full plane set from RoF? No not really.

[Holtzauge]

Nice to see some sparks of interest and passion in the WW1 flight sim community at last because lately it has seemed more DOA than anything else….

 

As I said before, I offered my help with FM work already in February when I sent the developers my book. In addition, I bumped my PM thread with the them in late August, again offering to help with FC Vol III and IV work. But I got no response. Some would consider that rude, but since I’m such a magnanimous and modest fellow I let it slide. Jokes aside: As far as I know the developers say they aim to be within 5% of historical data for all Il-2 FM’s but many WW1 aircraft FM’s deviate a lot more than that. And I have been part of a lot of discussions in the WW2 part of Il-2 and the deviations we see here for the WW1 scouts would cause an uproar if it had been about a P-51, Me-109, Fw-190 or Spitfire FM.

 

But the WW1 sim crowd seems to be a more timid lot, standing there, cap in hand, heads bowed, content with the ported RoF FM’s they are served. No jingling of any brass whatsoever! 

[No.23_Starling]

On 10/2/2023 at 6:04 PM, J5_Baeumer said:

After years of defending developers and even maintaining a sense of community when everyone else seemed to throw up their hands and walk away,  I suspect that more and more Central WW1 players are getting fed up with the entire plane development process and developer decisions.  We hear a lot from Entente players who seem to even be involved in testing.   No late model DII but instead an early version. 

 

In the hopes of dispelling any opportunity for suggesting that a pattern of inherent bias exists within the halls and cubby holes of designers, and developers and testers, most of whom seem connected either through history or theough association with Entente factions flying entente planes, and in light of the apparent disregard for actual scientific and anectotal evidence that is supplied to them, it would be helpful to see more transparency in the beta testing and decision making process that currents might appear as consistently benefitting one faction at the expense of the other unnecessarily.

 

If this isnt a historical sim, what is it?

I thought your squad included testers? Maybe check with them first? The fault is clearly the older FMs which have been ported over wholesale.

 

On 10/2/2023 at 8:51 PM, J5_Matthias-Sch27b said:

 

Then there should have been no change to the stall mechanics for the D.II as were mentioned in the starting post of this thread.  So clearly the model as imported became different through the import process.

Look - I'm not saying that the ROF model was historically accurate, and I'm not saying it needs to be godlike (in fact I'd rather the entire Albatross line get fixed to be a more compromise and historically accurate B&Z option but we've been told that's off the table.  But this is now a discernable and concerning pattern.

We got an Alb D.V instead of an ROF D.Va - with an underpowered engine as a result
We got the ROF engine on the Fokker D.VII which has long been controvetial because once again it's considered an underpowered version.
We got a Pfalz D.III instead of an ROF D.IIIa - with an underpowered engine as a result
Now we got an "early " Alabtross D.II which somehow despite assurances the model was transferred over verbatim, and historical accounts documenting the superiority in terms of climb speed, comes out of the FC pipeline inferior to the N17 it was literally built to defeat?

Can the devs really not see the already huge performance gaps that they're exacerbating with these decisions?

As for the engine variants, all the Hispano Suiza powered planes also lack their high compression 1918 variants too (Spad, Dolphin, SE5a non-Viper etc). Totally agree with you on the Albatross series being modelled as this all-rounder rather than an energy fighter.

That being said, @Holtzauge’s models for the Dva and Diiia aren’t that flattering either, and the over-compressed Mercedes Diiiau won’t be a panacea. If we are going to get into historical accuracy debates then it’s worth remembering that until the DVII came along both sides anecdotally considered everything but the Dr1 to be inferior to the main Entente types. MvR famously disliked the Dva and thought the Dr1 too slow. It’s hard to balance multiplayer servers in a vacillating arms race.

 

Until Il:2 Top Gun comes out the FMs will remain similar to their RoF incarnations.

On 10/2/2023 at 9:51 PM, Holtzauge said:

Nice to see some sparks of interest and passion in the WW1 flight sim community at last because lately it has seemed more DOA than anything else….

 

As I said before, I offered my help with FM work already in February when I sent the developers my book. In addition, I bumped my PM thread with the them in late August, again offering to help with FC Vol III and IV work. But I got no response. Some would consider that rude, but since I’m such a magnanimous and modest fellow I let it slide. Jokes aside: As far as I know the developers say they aim to be within 5% of historical data for all Il-2 FM’s but many WW1 aircraft FM’s deviate a lot more than that. And I have been part of a lot of discussions in the WW2 part of Il-2 and the deviations we see here for the WW1 scouts would cause an uproar if it had been about a P-51, Me-109, Fw-190 or Spitfire FM.

 

But the WW1 sim crowd seems to be a more timid lot, standing there, cap in hand, heads bowed, content with the ported RoF FM’s they are served. No jingling of any brass whatsoever! 

Follow the money on that one. Lots more people want to fly Spitfires than SPADs, though goodness knows why

Edited October 3, 2023 by US103_Rummell

[Trooper117]

5 hours ago, LukeFF said:

As has been said before, these planes are being ported over with their flight models from RoF as-is. 

 

That hasn't worked though... look at the D.II in RoF, it came 'with' the D.II late with the better radiator, but now Han confirmed that's not going to happen...

[Holtzauge]

Regarding the Albatros D.II to the D.Va and the Pfalz D.IIIa, sure, those will take a hit if more realistic FM’s are introduced.

 

But that is how it should be: They are all heavy and underpowered and even though their heavily cambered wing profiles may look good on paper, they don’t translate to the good turn rate some seem to expect.

 

Takes too much space to go into the details here, but I explain why in my book. The only engine that can “save” them is the BMW engine which they never had. The Mercedes D.IIIaü does improve things a bit but nowhere near to the extent they need.

 

If someone wants to dig deeper into this, check out the threads at The Aerodrome forum: The Mercedes D.IIIaü only adds a minor improvement on top of the D.IIIa engine. Sorry, but there it is.

 

OTOH, moving on to more realistic FM’s, the Pfalz D.XII would step up and close the gap to the Fokker D.VIIF which even with a realistic FM will still stand head and shoulders over the rest. So it’s not all bad for Central even if the Nieuport 28.C1, S.E.5a and SPAD S.XIII would see improvements in turn rate.

 

@US103_Rummell:  Maybe it is time to publish your “mother of all spreadsheets” covering FC plane comparisons? A lot of work and effort went into that both from you guys who tested it and my simulations. And it does give a good picture of where we stand. Maybe start a separate thread on this?

 

Finally, about why WW2 FM’s get TLC and WW1 ones don’t: There is of course a much bigger WW2 sim population but looking at the old RoF forum, there was a lot of good discussions going on there by a lot of knowledgeable people sharing good intel, but people just seem to have given up now.

 

And as the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. And while I’m in no way advocating for any “violence” in the forum, as long as the community remains “happy” with what it gets, I predict no FM updates will be done either. I think we all realize that FM engineers are a finite resource. And right now someone else is kissing the pretty girl while the WW1 simmers are the wallflowers. 

[No.23_Starling]

1 hour ago, Holtzauge said:

Regarding the Albatros D.II to the D.Va and the Pfalz D.IIIa, sure, those will take a hit if more realistic FM’s are introduced.

 

But that is how it should be: They are all heavy and underpowered and even though their heavily cambered wing profiles may look good on paper, they don’t translate to the good turn rate some seem to expect.

 

Takes too much space to go into the details here, but I explain why in my book. The only engine that can “save” them is the BMW engine which they never had. The Mercedes D.IIIaü does improve things a bit but nowhere near to the extent they need.

 

If someone wants to dig deeper into this, check out the threads at The Aerodrome forum: The Mercedes D.IIIaü only adds a minor improvement on top of the D.IIIa engine. Sorry, but there it is.

 

OTOH, moving on to more realistic FM’s, the Pfalz D.XII would step up and close the gap to the Fokker D.VIIF which even with a realistic FM will still stand head and shoulders over the rest. So it’s not all bad for Central even if the Nieuport 28.C1, S.E.5a and SPAD S.XIII would see improvements in turn rate.

 

@US103_Rummell:  Maybe it is time to publish your “mother of all spreadsheets” covering FC plane comparisons? A lot of work and effort went into that both from you guys who tested it and my simulations. And it does give a good picture of where we stand. Maybe start a separate thread on this?

 

Finally, about why WW2 FM’s get TLC and WW1 ones don’t: There is of course a much bigger WW2 sim population but looking at the old RoF forum, there was a lot of good discussions going on there by a lot of knowledgeable people sharing good intel, but people just seem to have given up now.

 

And as the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. And while I’m in no way advocating for any “violence” in the forum, as long as the community remains “happy” with what it gets, I predict no FM updates will be done either. I think we all realize that FM engineers are a finite resource. And right now someone else is kissing the pretty girl while the WW1 simmers are the wallflowers. 

Not a bad idea. I was thinking of showing the data for the DXII including your model, the FC tests, and the data from the Second Fighter Competition which gives speed and climb for all the major engine variants. 
 

If you’re happy it might be worth me uploading the raw data in .CSV for the community to play with too?

[Holtzauge]

32 minutes ago, US103_Rummell said:

Not a bad idea. I was thinking of showing the data for the DXII including your model, the FC tests, and the data from the Second Fighter Competition which gives speed and climb for all the major engine variants. 
 

If you’re happy it might be worth me uploading the raw data in .CSV for the community to play with too?

 

Sounds like a good idea and I have no objections to distributing the raw data either. The more people who take an interest in this and get engaged the better.

[ZachariasX]

16 hours ago, =IRFC=Artun said:

This is just the byproduct of the new engine.

The Siemens-Schuckert "review" of the stall behaviour shows that such can be changed at leisure in FC.

[=IRFC=Tunes]

You’re comparing ported FMs with one that they engineered from scratch (with waaaay more drag effects modeled than the RoF ports).

[Holtzauge]

26 minutes ago, =IRFC=Artun said:

You’re comparing ported FMs with one that they engineered from scratch (with waaaay more drag effects modeled than the RoF ports).

 

Well they still did not add enough drag at high Cl's like in turns did they? Because the SSW D.IV's turn rate is still around 17.5 s at 5 km altitude when both my simulations and historical data says around 21 to 22 s.

 

And to add some background information about recent FC FM's built from scratch: The developers were offered help with the SSW D.IV FM as well. But they (the junior FM developers involved) discounted that input and then declined further discussions. And I no longer see any reason not to give my account of what happened then because I have tried to take this via PM's and off-line but to no avail. And since it's now being given the silent treatment those here in the forum who are interested have a right to know what went down and the current state of affairs.

 

Finally, I wrote a whole book about WW1 aircraft performance which contains all info that's needed to update the FC FM's and I'm now prioritizing working on a WW2 book. This is why I'm saying it's now up to the community if you want to get things done. However, if things start to move on the WW1 aircraft FM front, I will of course help out with input. But it takes two to tango. Always has, always will.......

[JG4_Moltke1871]

21 hours ago, J5_Matthias-Sch27b said:

We got an Alb D.V instead of an ROF D.Va - with an underpowered engine as a result
We got the ROF engine on the Fokker D.VII which has long been controvetial because once again it's considered an underpowered version.
We got a Pfalz D.III instead of an ROF D.IIIa - with an underpowered engine as a result

Please excuse my nooby question, I just try to understand. I am no expert, I only can compare some datas I found in wiki and in the game description.

 

I found the difference between Pfalz D.III+Albatros D.V/ PfalzD.IIIa+Albatros D.Va is the Mercedes D.III 160 PS/D.IIIa 180 PS.

Following the specifications we have the D.IIIa+D.Va with the stronger engines. Is there any nuance I dont know? What is the reason you think we have early models?

 

On 10/2/2023 at 12:46 AM, LukeFF said:

per the producer, the Late model is not planned to be added to FC.

This is disapointing. There was always talked about convert ROF to FC 1:1.... Why we only get a more poor version of the Albatros D.II?

Edited October 3, 2023 by JG4_Moltke1871

[TG-55Panthercules]

4 hours ago, JG4_Moltke1871 said:

This is disapointing. There was always talked about convert ROF to FC 1:1.... Why we only get a more poor version of the Albatros D.II?

 

Well, TBH I don't think it was ever really talked about porting over the RoF planes exactly 1:1 - for example, the RoF float planes apparently aren't planned to come over to FC (boo!), and there are already a couple of new planes in FC that weren't in RoF (yay!).  But I agree, it is disappointing that we're not likely to get the late version of the Albatros D.II.  But I would certainly be OK with that result if it means that maybe they can spend that time instead adding some early 2-seater(s) that are sorely missing from the FC lineup.

[Guest deleted@219798]

5 hours ago, TG-55Panthercules said:

 

Well, TBH I don't think it was ever really talked about porting over the RoF planes exactly 1:1 - for example, the RoF float planes apparently aren't planned to come over to FC (boo!), and there are already a couple of new planes in FC that weren't in RoF (yay!).  But I agree, it is disappointing that we're not likely to get the late version of the Albatros D.II.  But I would certainly be OK with that result if it means that maybe they can spend that time instead adding some early 2-seater(s) that are sorely missing from the FC lineup.

The flying boats and seaplane were part of the Channel Map add on so probably won't happen. As for extra 2 seaters while that would be good to see, the developers are more likely to trot out what will sell, fighters. The impression I get is once all the RoF planes are released there won't be much else. The developers don't really care about WW1.

[Trooper117]

8 hours ago, kestrel444x500 said:

The developers don't really care about WW1.

 

You are probably right... they do want to milk the cow for all it's worth though until they start getting income from the new 'project'...

[JG4_Moltke1871]

On 10/2/2023 at 9:51 PM, J5_Matthias-Sch27b said:

We got a Pfalz D.III instead of an ROF D.IIIa - with an underpowered engine as a result

After read Rummel‘s threat “flight model benchmarking” I think I understand better. Thanks for inspiration ?

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

On 10/3/2023 at 10:06 AM, Holtzauge said:

 

Well they still did not add enough drag at high Cl's like in turns did they? Because the SSW D.IV's turn rate is still around 17.5 s at 5 km altitude when both my simulations and historical data says around 21 to 22 s.

 

And to add some background information about recent FC FM's built from scratch: The developers were offered help with the SSW D.IV FM as well. But they (the junior FM developers involved) discounted that input and then declined further discussions. And I no longer see any reason not to give my account of what happened then because I have tried to take this via PM's and off-line but to no avail. And since it's now being given the silent treatment those here in the forum who are interested have a right to know what went down and the current state of affairs.

 

Finally, I wrote a whole book about WW1 aircraft performance which contains all info that's needed to update the FC FM's and I'm now prioritizing working on a WW2 book. This is why I'm saying it's now up to the community if you want to get things done. However, if things start to move on the WW1 aircraft FM front, I will of course help out with input. But it takes two to tango. Always has, always will.......

 

I appreciate your work and your efforts trying to translate the work into something tangible in the FC flight models. If I were running the project, I'd love to have someone like you as a consultant for flight modeling. Frankly, I'd want to hear from anyone with real flight experience in these aircraft and from someone like you with hard data to complement the people who are actually flying. But it seems like a missed opportunity at hand.

Edited October 4, 2023 by NO.20_Krispy_Duck

[US103_Baer]

9 hours ago, NO.20_Krispy_Duck said:

 But it seems like a missed opportunity at hand.

Couldn't agree more.  Looking at the modeled performance numbers and trying to translate that in my head to how differently you'd have to fly and fight, results in quite a change. 

 

Turn fighting would move away from gamey yank n banks to more considered use of optimal speeds and energy management.  BnZ could be affected too as the zooms will likely net smaller altitude gains. Diving away will be more tricky initially as the acceleration and dive speed deltas aren't as great. 

Altitude performance does change dramatically, especially for some aircraft, so that would become even more tactically useful than it is now. 

 

It could transform the sim and create a benchmark for all flight sims going forward. That would be a seriously good marketing opportunity.

 

 

Edited October 5, 2023 by US103_Baer

[Gunfreak]

On 9/26/2023 at 11:35 AM, Trooper117 said:

Right, so no hope in getting FM sorted in any of the known RoF aeroplanes, they will just be ported over as is?

Not a good selling point for potential buyers...

Not when they take full price for those ports. Had FC3 cost 10 bucks it would be fine. But when you're paying full new game++ price, I would expect more than straight up ports.

WW1 needs a new full game with someone taking the realism seriously.

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

Not when they take full price for those ports. Had FC3 cost 10 bucks it would be fine.

This.

[Holtzauge]

2 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

Not when they take full price for those ports. Had FC3 cost 10 bucks it would be fine. But when you're paying full new game++ price, I would expect more than straight up ports.

 

You know I have to say I agree with this.

 

And as I remember it, the first Flying Circus FM's we had in game behaved quite differently from those in RoF. For example, as I remember it from those first initial flights in early FC the gyroscopic effects were much less pronounced than in RoF and that the decision to only port RoF FM's came later.

 

Sure, I'm not a 100%. Maybe I'm misremembering. Maybe others who have better memories remember it differently. But one thing I can say with certainty:

 

If it had been clear to me from the beginning that the only thing that was going to be done was to update the visuals and then port over the RoF FM's as is then I never would have pre-ordered Flying Circus Volume I. I pre-ordered Volume  II only because I was still hoping that things would change and that it would help fund FM work.

 

Maybe this is on me and I did not read the fine print then so be it.

 

But I can say this with certainty: If I had understood from the beginning that the only thing that was going to be done is a straight port I would never have pre-ordered anything because I value FM fidelity and no amount of bells and whistles on the graphics is going to change that.

[Zooropa_Fly]

The Devs were very up front right from the start about FC being a 'port' from RoF, it was never in any small print.

As it is, a couple of planes were 'un-nerfed' and there's a couple of new ones not in RoF - so that's a bit of a bonus.

 

Personally I'm almost surprised we're getting FC 3 & 4, so maybe we should be grateful they're 'completing' the series.

To suggest the new modules should cost ten bucks.. is a bit hopeful. RoF for the last couple of years perhaps.

 

As great as the work and research a lot of you put in, and I know nothing of it - I hope you enjoy it !

Because I can't see any serious ww1 work being undertaken for a long time.. if ever.

Sounds like the new project will be taking up most of the available resources for the foreseeable.

And I'm not convinced that there's enough demand to justify it anyway.

 

Certainly back in the day, no two crates were the same - so any calculations have to be some kind of estimated average performance of whatever metric.

GB is a bit of a 'jack of all trades'.

It's not a pure simulator that teaches how to fly, but from real world pilots' comments down the years, I'm prepared to believe it simulates most things very well.

It's essentially a 'game', so there's always going to have to be compromises on the sophistication of the modelling, especially on crates that often no longer exist.

 

Consider all your chips pissed on !

 

S!

 

[Trooper117]

14 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

Personally I'm almost surprised we're getting FC 3 & 4, so maybe we should be grateful they're 'completing' the series.

 

Well they aren't 'completing' the RoF series are they... they are leaving planes and maps from the series behind.

They are also short changing their customers, 10 aeroplanes in FC 1 and 2, but only 8 in FC 3... plus as myself and others have stated, where is the D.II late with improved radiators?... Han reckons it's not on the cards.

[ZachariasX]

It is quiet clear that the in FC, the aircrtaft modules behave differently than in RoF when the absolute parameter values for an aircraft module are left the same. This means that EVERY plane has to be adjusted in terms of FM when being ported to FC. When they say "it is a direct port", then that doesn't mean copy-paste, it is a creation of a new FM with the goal to match the performance figures in RoF. If there is little money available to do the expensive thing, namely getting more accurate real world flight data, then this makes sense.

 

But that is not the situation. They say they are well funded and staffed, yet still they adhere to making old errors again for a new product. Yes, they have been badly burned by "The Patch" and, as a severe and well earned case of PTSD, shy away of ever trying to cater the forums wishes. Yet I think they have been presented with good data for free, also from pilots who actually fly some of the the aircraft, yet it is discarded and not included in a full price product. This is especially distressing as some of the FM parameters were affected due to balancing issues in RoF with only a partial plane set then released. It simply has no place in FC.

 

I do recognize Hans effort for his comunication about the non communicatable, but in Master Yodas words, "Deep the digging for this niche was."

[LukeFF]

Guys, once again, it's not just a matter of resources, but also time: you're asking the team to commit to up to a year's worth of time (their words, not mine) to update all of the old flight models. And then what happens when inevitably there's a group of people who like the change in Plane A but not Plane B? We're right back at square one. 

 

The team is confident in their methodology to get things right, but until some large gap opens up in their schedule there's just not the time for that. Besides the planes still being made for IL2 GB, there's all the work going into the new planes for the new project, and I can tell you that's a large load of work.

 

Jason once (probably more than once, actually ?) said it best: you cannot expect the team to engage in endless flight model revisions.

[BMA_Hellbender]

29 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Jason once (probably more than once, actually ?) said it best: you cannot expect the team to engage in endless flight model revisions.

One revision every 10+ years is not an endless amount. The reason the team can get away with it is because there is nowhere for the customers to go if they want to fly a current gen WWI flightsim, especially online.

[No.23_Starling]

24 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

One revision every 10+ years is not an endless amount. The reason the team can get away with it is because there is nowhere for the customers to go if they want to fly a current gen WWI flightsim, especially online.

There’s also an engineer who has literally written the book on it (which they posted to Moscow for free) and is willing to share parts of his model and reams of primary data in multiple languages used to tune it, not to mention support the team directly in their spare time.
 

This isn’t a fanboy crying about their favourite plane using anecdotal memoirs.

[Holtzauge]

36 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

One revision every 10+ years is not an endless amount. The reason the team can get away with it is because there is nowhere for the customers to go if they want to fly a current gen WWI flightsim, especially online.

 

True. There is no competition. But if one modeled aircraft deviates being 30% slower and another being 30% better in turn than IRL? Are you then really flying a WW1 simulation? Or are you really just pitting flight model X against flight model Y in skins depicting WW1 aircraft?

 

8 minutes ago, US103_Rummell said:

There’s also an engineer who has literally written the book on it (which they posted to Moscow for free) and is willing to share parts of his model and reams of primary data in multiple languages used to tune it, not to mention support the team directly in their spare time.
 

This isn’t a fanboy crying about their favourite plane using anecdotal memoirs.

 

Well given that I know that you have read my book from cover to cover I really appreciate those words of confidence Rummel! Спасибо!  

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

One revision every 10+ years is not an endless amount. The reason the team can get away with it is because there is nowhere for the customers to go if they want to fly a current gen WWI flightsim, especially online.

 

Yes, well, not to go around in circles, but the team has made their decision and is sticking with it. ?

[Guest deleted@83466]

Flying Circus, The Movie

Han:  “Close the watertight doors.”

LukeFF: “But sir, there are still men in the engine room!”

Han: “I’m ordering you to close the doors NOW, or we’re ALL doomed!”

<clang>

Hellbender, Rummell, Zooropa:  “aaaaahhhhh…blupblupblup…”

 

?

[BMA_Hellbender]

39 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

Flying Circus, The Movie

Han:  “Close the watertight doors.”

LukeFF: “But sir, there are still men in the engine room!”

Han: “I’m ordering you to close the doors NOW, or we’re ALL doomed!”

<clang>

Hellbender, Rummell, Zooropa:  “aaaaahhhhh…blupblupblup…”

 

?

 

My favourite scene:

 

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

18 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

Not when they take full price for those ports. Had FC3 cost 10 bucks it would be fine. But when you're paying full new game++ price, I would expect more than straight up ports.

WW1 needs a new full game with someone taking the realism seriously.

 

Agree.

 

Planet of the Apes the Musical sums my feeling up... "Oh my God, I was wrong... it was a port all along".

 

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by NO.20_Krispy_Duck

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

If devs just try to do what they say - that they games are always about historical accuracy and authentic flight simulation and if any MF flaws to be corrected must  provide solid evidence, if that book published by Holtzague is not enough , what is....

 

[Russkly]

13 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Yes, well, not to go around in circles, but the team has made their decision and is sticking with it. ?

 

I am disappointed.

 

Undoubtedly it is my oversight not to have understood that there would not be further FM improvements once the port over from RoF was done.

 

Holtzauge's and others' empirical research into the RL FMs indicates that we have some significant gaps, and for USD80 a pop for each FC module, I would have hoped for better.

 

I would not have pre-ordered FC3 had I realised this, and I will not now be ordering FC4, because every time I fly one of the 'problem children' I will know that the plane does not behave like its real-world version would have.

 

Add in the much-documented AI deficiencies and I'm feeling like 1C is not really showing its FC customers much love, which saddens me as an avid WW1 aviation fan.

 

I wonder if the FC franchise could be sold off to another company (OBD for example), which could continue the optimisation? That would provide funding for the 'new project' and allow FC to flourish as I believe it could/should and not remain the poor child cash cow that it currently seems to be.

 

FC in VR is the best combat flight sim experience I've ever had, but what's the point of all the new a/c and pretty maps, if the planes don't actually perform as they did IRL?

 

A personal opinion only.

[No.23_TaxDollarsAtWork]

4 minutes ago, Russkly said:

 

I am disappointed.

 

Undoubtedly it is my oversight not to have understood that there would not be further FM improvements once the port over from RoF was done.

 

Holtzauge's and others' empirical research into the RL FMs indicates that we have some significant gaps, and for USD80 a pop for each FC module, I would have hoped for better.

 

I would not have pre-ordered FC3 had I realised this, and I will not now be ordering FC4, because every time I fly one of the 'problem children' I will know that the plane does not behave like its real-world version would have.

 

Add in the much-documented AI deficiencies and I'm feeling like 1C is not really showing its FC customers much love, which saddens me as an avid WW1 aviation fan.

 

I wonder if the FC franchise could be sold off to another company (OBD for example), which could continue the optimisation? That would provide funding for the 'new project' and allow FC to flourish as I believe it could/should and not remain the poor child cash cow that it currently seems to be.

 

FC in VR is the best combat flight sim experience I've ever had, but what's the point of all the new a/c and pretty maps, if the planes don't actually perform as they did IRL?

 

A personal opinion only.

I am feeling the same way

[Guest deleted@219798]

You have to wonder about the developers attitude to FC exhibited in this and other threads. Very much "take it or leave it" with little or no explanation to their customers about anything. The developers seem to regard FC as the adopted child who's an embarrassment and needs attention that Daddy is unwilling to give. Perhaps Daddy secretly hopes that kid will get lost in the park. Maybe selling off FC to somebody who believes in it is a good idea. Does IC believe in FC. FC has the potential to be perhaps the best WW1 flight sim, but that won't happen with IC's attitude.

Edited October 6, 2023 by kestrel444x500

[Gunfreak]

This is why the DCS snobs look down on IL2. 

Oh look developers admitting they don't care about realism at all. Realism too much work.

[Trooper117]

We have to be realistic about this chaps... our expectations are never going to be met.

FC will keep going to help with some much needed income going into the company, and along with the other bits of promised GB stuff.

My feeling is that after FC 4 WWI will go straight into file 13 and that will be the end of it... they will then be fully committed to the new project.

We've been given the official line by the community manager, so I guess it's endex after FC4.

(I would happily like to be wrong though)...

[Russkly]

14 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

We have to be realistic about this chaps... our expectations are never going to be met.

FC will keep going to help with some much needed income going into the company, and along with the other bits of promised GB stuff.

My feeling is that after FC 4 WWI will go straight into file 13 and that will be the end of it... they will then be fully committed to the new project.

We've been given the official line by the community manager, so I guess it's endex after FC4.

(I would happily like to be wrong though)...

 

Unfortunately, I think you're spot on, @Trooper117 - FC is a cash cow to help fund the new thing.

 

Makes absolute sense from a business perspective, and it's a sensible approach to milk USD320 out of FC fans over the four modules, but it leaves me feeling a little hollow.

 

It might make sense for 1C to spin FC off to another developer/publisher once FC4 is done and the revenue stream has dried up.

 

I hope so, because otherwise, as you say, FC will be dead.

 

It's still a great product, let's be clear, but it could be astonishing in the right hands.

[ST_Catchov]

Well, I've come too far now to quit and I'm gonna see it through. I'm never, ever gonna quit 'cause quittin' just ain't my schtick! Right on. Get down. Oh yeah.

 

What follows is a heartfelt ode to the Se5a. I'm never, never gonna give you up girl. Let's get it on Devs!  Forget about IL2: Top Gun. That's just ridiculous.

 

 

And besides, I purchased FC3 'cause I'm looking forward to Benders' Hanriot HD.1 first impressions thread.

[Trooper117]

29 minutes ago, ST_Catchov said:

And besides, I purchased FC3 'cause I'm looking forward to Benders' Hanriot HD.1 first impressions thread.