What more work will be done on FC?

[Russkly]

The point of this thread was not to discuss previous messaging/marketing and certainly wasn't intended to imply mis-selling.

 

It was purely about the future, not the past, and now @LukeFF has provided the answer on which each of us may now base his or her purchasing decision.

 

Disappointing it may be; overpriced it may seem; but at least we now know what FC3 and FC4 will and won't bring us.

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

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

Previously we were push away from FM changes because the argument was - show us the data, now when community has it in the book made  by professional author, who also offered assistance , time and resources are holding us - really?  I'm not sure about that. It feels like there is no will to do any FM changes and  the new politics is not to said anything because it's the same as making promises which sometimes devs fail to deliver.

Wy have the data , now we  can only  make a pressure hoping that someone form devs  would at last said  if  they gonna try to make those FMs changes or not. 

 

 

I have come to the same place. The new flight data book has a lot to offer, while for a long time the reply was not having enough data. Now that data is being offered, including an ably done book by a member here and another member's compilation/comparison using the book data, the answer is that it's a time and resource problem. "Disappointing" is a good description.

 

Someone mentioned a partnership with someone who would do it as a possible solution, which I like. Team Fusion has done wonders for Cliffs of Dover (and they're still at it). I'd love to see a similar partnership with someone who would work on the AI, FM, and DM for Flying Circus. But I won't hold my breath for now.

Edited October 30, 2023 by NO.20_Krispy_Duck

[Red_Von_Hammer]

22 hours ago, Russkly said:

The point of this thread was not to discuss previous messaging/marketing and certainly wasn't intended to imply mis-selling.

 

It was purely about the future, not the past, and now @LukeFF has provided the answer on which each of us may now base his or her purchasing decision.

 

Disappointing it may be; overpriced it may seem; but at least we now know what FC3 and FC4 will and won't bring us.

Absolutely, people reading this know what FC3 and FC4 will and won't bring us, and it was good of you to bring it up.
As for me, I'm a simple man, I see WW1 sim I buy ?

I'm thinking about people watching someone's video on Youtube, like Growling Sidewinder, or RoF/RB3D veterans looking to get back into the game.
They'll see a store page (whether that be on IL2 shop or Steam) that states "from the creators of Rise of Flight", "re-imagined" and "detailed physics model & performance of aircraft".
Right now, said store page carries no mention at all regarding entirely or partially re-using the very flawed core mechanics that caused people, once they actually read up on these aircraft, to leave Rise of Flight.

Luke states he believes Jason made that bit (re-using RoF mechanics) "clear" when making the "FC Announcement", and, that was years ago.
Why should anyone be happy and content with this?
Problem #1> Said announcement is simply not conducive with current marketing (as I've repeatedly illustrated), so:
Why was it left alone for so long?
Problem #2> Jason isn't here any more.
Or was Luke's statement on Jason's announcement coined that way because we are to assume Jason still has responsibility for FC?
I know Jason green-lit FC3 & 4, but so far as I was led to believe that was the end of his reach.


If there is on-going/sporadic work on improving those core mechanics to the same standards as accorded WW2 modules = Understandable, have a nice day.
If not, (presumably) hundreds, if not thousands of people have been (however unintentionally) led into buying mislabeled products = Ok, again, cool, we, us, here, now know what to expect, but still not ... ideal?..

Any way you cut'n slice it, it's kinda hard to get away from.
To be cringe and use a real-life anecdote for game-related things (I might as well have a gander): You're sold a new car right of the show-room, but they cut cost on tires which are 10 years old.
Not great.

Edited October 31, 2023 by Red_Von_Hammer

[LukeFF]

I had a dig through the archives to see what Jason said back when FC was announced on November 17, 2017. Some of this is copy/paste, since the announcement topic is now hidden:
 

Quote

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

 

The post from Jason is somewhere out there (unless he deleted it ?) about the FMs being as-is for FC. Well, there is one post I did find, but it's from the beta testing forum, and that one's different. ?

 

Actually...

 

 

And, bam, found it. ? 

 

 

[Guest deleted@83466]

Catchov, I hear there is a “new” Beatles song coming out on Thursday, so not all hope is lost.

[simfan2015]

Why not simply be grateful that FC3 and FC4 will see the light of day !?

I, personally, never expected this be possible because of the next-gen title development.

If FC3 and FC4, together with the newly announced collector planes wll surface I expect

 IL-2 GB (as well as CloD and DCS) will surely to be able to keep me more than busy until the GB successor is there.

 

 

Edited October 31, 2023 by simfan2015

[Red_Von_Hammer]

18 hours ago, LukeFF said:

I had a dig through the archives to see what Jason said back when FC was announced on November 17, 2017. Some of this is copy/paste, since the announcement topic is now hidden:
 

 

The post from Jason is somewhere out there (unless he deleted it ?) about the FMs being as-is for FC. Well, there is one post I did find, but it's from the beta testing forum, and that one's different. ?

 

Actually...

 

 

And, bam, found it. ? 

 

 

Precisely, all of those posts are 6-7 years old, you had to go dig for them, and the announcement is even older.
My patronage is beyond question, I'm just at a loss that recurring & new customers alike are expected to go on archeology expedition for it.
And if'n they do, I can see them coming to the same conclusion when comparing "not needed" and "not necessary" with this:

And this:
As stated on the webstore.

I remember the Camel + Pfalz thread, and stated there that I'd like historical performance, but that I wouldn't mind lower than historical speeds so long as it's comparably the same rate for all aircraft, and we'd just have to make do.
But they're not at the the same rate, then there's severe discrepancies for Alb DVa (which top speed & turn rate deviates from the Baron's own account, stating it was neigh on useless) N28 (turnrate, not that it saved it from retirement IRL but at least enabled guys like Rickenbacker to stake their claim) and Dr.1 (as has been brought up many times) as well.
Discrepancies that Wikipedia articles currently has better bottom-line accounts about, compared to a fairly curt "not necessary".

 

Edited October 31, 2023 by Red_Von_Hammer

[Red_Von_Hammer]

5 hours ago, simfan2015 said:

Why not simply be grateful that FC3 and FC4 will see the light of day !?

That makes it seem like a lot of people here said they wouldn't buy either.
I believe the words used were "each of us may now base his or her purchasing decision".
Not informing new customers that they're getting outdated core mechanics that aren't up to snuff/inline with what's come to be expected from modern & expensive sim titles = Different matter.

 

5 hours ago, simfan2015 said:

I, personally, never expected this be possible because of the next-gen title development.

To take one from Luke's book, FC Volume's 3 & 4 were announced a long time ago.

 

5 hours ago, simfan2015 said:

If FC3 and FC4, together with the newly announced collector planes wll surface I expect

 IL-2 GB (as well as CloD and DCS) will surely to be able to keep me more than busy until the GB successor is there.

They've always released what they said they'd release, I'll grant them that much, but by my own experience, and Luke's admission, we shouldn't expect them to do much more than that ?
Not to say I wouldn't want you to have fun with multiple titles, good on you.
Unfortunately we aren't all the same, and for those that prefer WW1 and know a bit about those planes, FC comes across as less than ideal, given the price point.
If the entirety of FC was just a 40 dollar sideshow then it would have been a different story.

[Hartsblade]

I guess part off the question regarding the FM's for FC is that the original info share by Jason is all well and good, but that info is now 5 or 6 years old and Jason isn't here any longer, so people want to know what are the current management team's plan?

 

People want the current management's view on the project, without shifting the focus to decisions made 6 years ago by someone that no longer represents the company.

[simfan2015]

@Red_From_Hammer who wrote "...for those that prefer WW1 and know a bit about those planes, FC comes across as less than ideal,..." 

I have to admit that I know little about the WWI era airplanes, I simply 'assume' the FM is perfect as it is, as well as all the other details.

I fully understand the experts here may have doubts about the FC authenticity and I take your word for it.

But still ... I simply enjoy GB for what it is to me personally ... a nice game as well as a history lesson in my case.

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, Hartsblade said:

I guess part off the question regarding the FM's for FC is that the original info share by Jason is all well and good, but that info is now 5 or 6 years old and Jason isn't here any longer, so people want to know what are the current management team's plan?

 

People want the current management's view on the project, without shifting the focus to decisions made 6 years ago by someone that no longer represents the company.

 

The current management's viewpoint is the same as that of Jason's: no FM updates are planned, for the reasons I've explained. 

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

One thing says it's a re-imagining, something else says it's only a slight improvement. Then we have that all the flight models are not being re-done, but then at times we have revisions to them, some of which are good and some actually worsen the situation (there was that whole broken controls thing, which eventually was fixed). There was interest in the book as a possible source, then later on there is no interest. It seems like the story changes to whatever suits at a given time. I tend to think that with new data and information available, particularly given the amount of work people put into the book and comparisons, it warrants another look. It was a good faith effort to try to help.

 

But this is all getting into dead horse territory now and what's done is done, as they say. It's not that it's a bad game, it just seems like a lost opportunity is all.

Edited October 31, 2023 by NO.20_Krispy_Duck

[Red_Von_Hammer]

4 hours ago, Hartsblade said:

I guess part off the question regarding the FM's for FC is that the original info share by Jason is all well and good, but that info is now 5 or 6 years old and Jason isn't here any longer, so people want to know what are the current management team's plan?

 

People want the current management's view on the project, without shifting the focus to decisions made 6 years ago by someone that no longer represents the company.

That's indeed part of it, but mainly that it deviates from current marketing which basically makes it out to be up to date with current info, recently learned data, and actual pilot testimony (including living pilots of current examples going so far as using original WW1 engines) on these planes.
Which couldn't be further from the truth.

 

2 hours ago, simfan2015 said:

@Red_From_Hammer who wrote "...for those that prefer WW1 and know a bit about those planes, FC comes across as less than ideal,..." 

I have to admit that I know little about the WWI era airplanes, I simply 'assume' the FM is perfect as it is, as well as all the other details.

I fully understand the experts here may have doubts about the FC authenticity and I take your word for it.

But still ... I simply enjoy GB for what it is to me personally ... a nice game as well as a history lesson in my case.

"Red From" That's great ?
Didn't say you knew nothing, but sadly you'd be betting the wrong horse assuming the FM's (major part of flying these planes) are good as is.
I have nothing against you enjoying the game as is, I'm right there with you.
Just so long as you know that the FM's (the bit about flying these planes) is not an accurate representation ?
For all purposes they gave up on WW1 when they found a new pet project with WW2, where the FM's, to give an example, reflect the Mustang actually turn'ish with the 109 (a neigh on first in simulators).
Of course that's not to state the contrast in FM accuracy was intentional, as Luke highlighted they just figured it was good enough and then that's it.
Now they're stuck with the horse they backed. < While that's not ideal, it's not my main concern.
My main gripe is they balk at going through with it, new customers being unaware, given the current marketing of FC.
 

 

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

The current management's viewpoint is the same as that of Jason's: no FM updates are planned, for the reasons I've explained. 

Yes yes, but what about customers being unaware, given current marketing, for reasons I have explained (not to repeat but apparently it's necessary)?
You said you'd take a look at data if it were provided, so people took time, money and effort out of their day and provided it for you.
Then you skate out with statements made by CEO's and employees that are no longer with you.
Ok, cool, so remove 
Because that's literally no longer your stance, and replace with "Physics model and performance of aircraft taken from Rise of Flight and does not accurately portray actual aircraft performance" because that's literally your stance, per your outright admission.
That way returning & new customers alike are informed, it's the bare minimum they're legally owed, and it just doesn't get simpler than that.

[LukeFF]

54 minutes ago, Red_Von_Hammer said:

Yes yes, but what about customers being unaware, given current marketing, for reasons I have explained (not to repeat but apparently it's necessary)?
You said you'd take a look at data if it were provided, so people took time, money and effort out of their day and provided it for you.
Then you skate out with statements made by CEO's and employees that are no longer with you.
Ok, cool, so remove 
Because that's literally no longer your stance, and replace with "Physics model and performance of aircraft taken from Rise of Flight and does not accurately portray actual aircraft performance" because that's literally your stance, per your outright admission.
That way returning & new customers alike are informed, it's the bare minimum they're legally owed, and it just doesn't get simpler than that.

 

Well, first off it wasn't me who said they would look at the data. ? That all happened long before I came on board as CM on June 1 of this year.

 

Second, no promises were ever made that flight models would be updated. It's been that way since Day 1 and has been repeated (often!) throughout the life cycle of FC's development. 

 

And, finally, I'm not in charge of marketing, so if they want to change how FC is advertised, that's their call, not mine.

[BMA_Hellbender]

2 hours ago, Red_Von_Hammer said:

Ok, cool, so remove 
Because that's literally no longer your stance, and replace with "Physics model and performance of aircraft taken from Rise of Flight and does not accurately portray actual aircraft performance" because that's literally your stance, per your outright admission.
That way returning & new customers alike are informed, it's the bare minimum they're legally owed, and it just doesn't get simpler than that.

Playing devil’s advocate here: detailed doesn’t mean historically accurate. It means nothing, really. I don’t know how an FM could not be detailed. All planes can be flown, at least.

 

Take the worst one of the bunch: the N28. You can’t say that it’s not possible to fly said machine, it just doesn’t handle anywhere close to historical reports or those of current pilot reports flying replicas (I’ve had the chance to speak with two myself).

 

For me the stance from the devs is clear: they will fix things when the evidence is overwhelming that something is broken. Just a few examples:

- The weak wings DM

- The control surfaces getting stuck DM

- The Fokker D.VII turning invisible at a distance with fuselage damage

- Several engine overheating and overcooling issues

- Most recently the FFB issues

I think it’s important we keep respectfully pointing out issues to them, but also allow them to prioritise whatever they feel is worth spending development time on. It’s up to them to make the sim profitable, not us.

 

On the other hand, I have never actively recommended this sim to anyone. When flightsims come up in casual gaming conversation, I tend to mention the two big ones almost everyone knows about (the civil aviation one and the military one), and then also « a Russian WWI/WWII sim you probably haven’t heard about ». If you’ve found your way here and you’re still here after some time, then it means you’re probably invested enough to see past certain issues. If the issues with the sim get to you: take a break. In the meantime if you’re not into real flying yet, for the love of God do so. It’s an investment you will not regret.

 

And finally if you find the bar is set too low for FC, then by all means raise it the only way capitalism gets things done better than any other system: foster competition on the WWI multiplayer flightsim market.

[Red_Von_Hammer]

1 hour ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

Playing devil’s advocate here: detailed doesn’t mean historically accurate. It means nothing, really. I don’t know how an FM could not be detailed. All planes can be flown, at least.

 

Take the worst one of the bunch: the N28. You can’t say that it’s not possible to fly said machine, it just doesn’t handle anywhere close to historical reports or those of current pilot reports flying replicas (I’ve had the chance to speak with two myself).

 

For me the stance from the devs is clear: they will fix things when the evidence is overwhelming that something is broken. Just a few examples:

- The weak wings DM

- The control surfaces getting stuck DM

- The Fokker D.VII turning invisible at a distance with fuselage damage

- Several engine overheating and overcooling issues

- Most recently the FFB issues

I think it’s important we keep respectfully pointing out issues to them, but also allow them to prioritise whatever they feel is worth spending development time on. It’s up to them to make the sim profitable, not us.

 

On the other hand, I have never actively recommended this sim to anyone. When flightsims come up in casual gaming conversation, I tend to mention the two big ones almost everyone knows about (the civil aviation one and the military one), and then also « a Russian WWI/WWII sim you probably haven’t heard about ». If you’ve found your way here and you’re still here after some time, then it means you’re probably invested enough to see past certain issues. If the issues with the sim get to you: take a break. In the meantime if you’re not into real flying yet, for the love of God do so. It’s an investment you will not regret.

 

And finally if you find the bar is set too low for FC, then by all means raise it the only way capitalism gets things done better than any other system: foster competition on the WWI multiplayer flightsim market.

 

Hey HB!
And absolutely, gotta keep it respectful.
I've not sweared or cussed at anyone, I've also commended Luke for the great job he's been doing in keeping these forums that way and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Further, I agree with most of what you say, and the first thing I pointed out was that they do fix bugs, incl weak wings (which forever-slept RoF), FFB, and engine issues.
"Most" however... sadly does not mean all
Us here know what we're in for, as I mentioned earlier I'm a loyal customer despite knowing what I'm in for, nor would I be playing FC if I weren't having fun.
But, not what I'm on about here, I'm on about those that outright don't know what they're in for due to the marketing of the game
 
I'm not sure I'd classify the 28 as the unflyable one of the bunch, as much as the N.17, which is civilized enough until about you get into contact with a decent pilot, then it becomes something less of the "nimble machine" it's historically described as, and more a devils rotisserie that aids the enemy in forever-sleeping you ?

Also of note, there's a bit of a contrast to flying a plane, and flying it at the razors edge, taking advantage of a plane's historical abilities to come out on top.
Let's take the 28, and imagine.. say.. you're a brand new customer, you've read about Rickenbacker's exploits, you've read about the N.28 on Wiki, it's your favorite WW1 plane.
"Ok so it wasn't as fast but it could at least turn" more or less sums up the N.28 in broad strokes IRL, as most of us can agree with.
With that in mind and after a lot of practice against maybe not the greatest A.I, you take the N.28 up against players on you know which server, fast forward a bit and we all know what happened... giggedy  
You then go back to the webstore, and sure enough:
You go "huh.. ? ", then you A) Dig around on the forums, find this thread, or you go on a rampage, either way you find out why it was that you got trounced by that D.Va.
At that point, wouldn't you say you wish you were informed things might be.. somehwat.. "icky".. before you made your purchase ?  
 

Edited October 31, 2023 by Red_Von_Hammer

[US103_Baer]

To be fair,  the marketing for RB3D probably stated 'detailed, realistic flight models'.

 

[Red_Von_Hammer]

14 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Well, first off it wasn't me who said they would look at the data. ? That all happened long before I came on board as CM on June 1 of this year.

Hmmm.. So when you, 1C's CM and outward persona, imparted quotes of, and practically defending, what ex-CEO's and employees have been saying, as not just 1C's but also your (given your position) final go/no-go on FM's, that does not go for the data?
Strikes me as oddly peculiar.. And before you say it, don't look at me, you had an out:

On 10/30/2023 at 5:28 PM, Red_Von_Hammer said:

Not demanding you do go dig it up

Sorry, among my (probably many) vices, I can't help pouncing when something seems a little odd, for better or worse (this is probably the latter).
But yes, ok, fair enough, my mistake ?
 

14 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Second, no promises were ever made that flight models would be updated. It's been that way since Day 1 and has been repeated (often!) throughout the life cycle of FC's development.

If not for a lot of "maybe's" coming across as good as promises (for which there's certainly precedence), I'd be with you 100%.
Let's take the data for example, and, to be clear and fair this time: I'm not saying you personally had anything to do with that, and I'll try my best to refrain from framing it as if you did ?

1C were once again taken serious enough that several of the most talented elements of this community (which you found yourself policing after the fact), took time, money and effort, outta their day to:
1) Build a simulation.. check.
2) Write a book.. check.
3) Testing the data... check.
Rather than rave about on forums (a.k.a more or less what I'm doing here).
And then what happened?
A) 'So, we took a look at the data and even if we wanted to, we couldn't use it because X-Y-Z, could you adjust and test for that so we can cross-check?'
(Note I said, "even if we wanted to", as no mention was made at the time to act on it)
B) 'Nope sry not interested leeeerooooy jenkins lololol'.*

Option B) Is more or less what happened**.
Seemingly (seemingly being key word here) because someone wanted to save calories and a buck.***

No effort was made halfway to tell said people not to bother putting their time, money and effort into it, and if'n it were = Again, different story, I'd be with you 100%.
Their work just... wasn't given the time of day or proper accolades it deserves.
As a result, Holtzauge got bummed out and FC has lost a valuable resource, which never should have happened.

RoF & FC's airplane FM's are simply not representative of their IRL counterparts, it literally doesn't take much more than all of 10 minutes googling 3 of the worst offenders, Nieuport 28, Albatross D.Va and Fokker Dr.1 to make that observation.
 

I mean, if I had a nickel for every time 1C made inaccurate FM's for a WW1 sim, I'd have two nickels.
Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice. Right??

That data (and further testing, 1C need but ask) means 1C's got something warranting attention.
Worst case scenario for 1C is to be sporting enough to spend all of 30 minutes to look at data found by customers, see here:

And show equal sportsmanship in giving this enormous effort the deserving and acknowledging response it deserves.
Of course none of the above is at all to be confused with something far fetched like 1C looking at it, going all "whoaaa", and rewriting an entire core mechanic of the sim.
We're talking about some sets of numbers for 2 planes, and Ctrl+C - Ctrl+V'ing the FM for another to make this game into something that:
We can all at least be reasonably happy with and 1C doesn't have to look over the back of their shoulders for the rest of their days (figuratively speaking, in so far as keeping customers).
And that's that.

As for the *'s, I figure pre-emptive is better than getting booted back to the log-in menu, that said "we're all used to risks, herr general", so I haven't ruled out the possibility.
*) & **) "Nope sry not interested leeeerooooy jenkins lololol'" and "Option B) Is more or less what happened." are my loose takes on a.. not unpopular interpretation & opinion of 1C's current stance.
If 1C did look at the data, obviously it would have been a different story.
***) As far as "save calories and a buck" goes, beg to inform I instantly headed that off with "seemingly" as key word.
You know where I'm going with all this: I wouldn't be the first to come out and say what it all looks/seems like.
However, what something looks/seems like is not to be interpreted as someone stating that's how events actually transpired  

 

14 hours ago, LukeFF said:

And, finally, I'm not in charge of marketing, so if they want to change how FC is advertised, that's their call, not mine.

Hmmm, a tricky one.. But, in for a dime, in for a dollar, I'll roll the dice:
Of course I'm not implying you are in charge of marketing, but 1C's Community Manager and 1C's Marketing Department is all part of 1C.
Much like I'm a part of the Community, you liaise between it and 1C, correct?
As part of the Community, I'm suggesting it might be prudent of you to liaise this with them in order that they might be afforded the opportunity to make said call  
If not.. I mean.. cool, won't pester you any further ? 
 

3 hours ago, US103_Baer said:

To be fair,  the marketing for RB3D probably stated 'detailed, realistic flight models'.

And here I thought I was done... They keep pulling me back in! ?
First off, nice fight in the Pfalz D.12 a few days ago (assuming that was you receiving & responding to enthusiastic potshots from a Camel below).
And to what do we compare that flight model marketing, Baer?    ?
Compared to Red Baron 1? Dawn Patrol? Wings of Glory? Flying Corps?
Certainly wouldn't have been a faulty claim ?

Or compared to RoF, FC, wikipedia, all the data available on the internet these days, or Holtzauge's simulation & book, none of which existed yet? ?
But I'll humor you, let's say we did compare them, and omitted RB3D's campaign to be extra super safe:
RB3D was modded so unexplainably beyond the original visions and scope of it's creators, including but not stopping at DM's and FM's.
In short, (and as most RB3D veterans here can attest to) we could have as close an approximated WW1 bird, compared to it's opponent, as was possible at the time, if we wanted to.
And if we didn't like anything we didn't "Yay, nay, maybe, maybe not, who knows" for neigh on 14 years, we simply changed it.
If we didn't like a specific mod in a online tournament, we went with one we liked.
How many of those luxuries does FC accord it's players?

RB3D with all it's mods were/are/can still being flown on 3rd party meta servers, and it doesn't stop there, RB3D's creators (when asked by CW mod's creator, vDM) said they've been cool with it all along.
Comparatively, RoF DM/FM mods were deleted when the RoF forum was moved here, over-all they've been pretty selective with what they brought over.

FC has the same DM as RoF, gun dispersion along with less hitboxes was the culprit, and as I've said: Kudos to 1C for fixing the bug in FC.
But what about rolling back that RoF update & returning it's Dr.1 to pre-pre-nerf? Not saying they're required to, their game, but returning RoF to the enjoyable title it was, for what it was (cash cow for GB), for the few that still play it, that might be categorized as "fair".

Of course I'd love nothing more than them stuffing it to me, by meeting the community half-way on this by seeing to some numeric values for all of 3 planes, in the face of two more FC volumes+ collectors planes being rolled out.
The time they spend going back and forth on it could be spent just.. doing it, considering what little time they purportedly have to waste on FC.
Dr.1's over-all FM (use pre-pre-nerf RoF one), Alb DV.a's top speed & turning rate, N.28's turning rate..
1/4ths to none of that is likely to happen despite many options laid out in that regard.
Thus, 1C outright doesn't have much of anything on the OG's.

And before anyone asks:
"fine, why ain't you in RoF then?" Soon as they roll back their mistakes, sure, I'll see you on the flightline there.
"fine, why ain't you in WoFF BH&H II then?" Oh but I am there

But where Multiplayer?
"Why ain't you in RB3D then?" Been a while

But I'll DM the meta's  

Edited November 1, 2023 by Red_Von_Hammer
Typo's & Corrections.

[ST_Catchov]

43 minutes ago, Red_Von_Hammer said:

1C were once again taken serious enough that several of the most talented elements of this community (which you found yourself policing after the fact), took time, money and effort, outta their day to: ....

 

Thanks, but to be fair, it wasn't just me. I had help and I acknowledge that.

 

15 hours ago, LukeFF said:

The current management's viewpoint is the same as that of Jason's: no FM updates are planned

 

Yes, but plans change. It's called 'continuous improvement'. So, reading between the lines, it becomes obvious that Gavrick will be revising the Se5a FM. 

[BMA_Hellbender]

11 hours ago, Red_Von_Hammer said:

Hey HB!
And absolutely, gotta keep it respectful.
I've not sweared or cussed at anyone, I've also commended Luke for the great job he's been doing in keeping these forums that way and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Further, I agree with most of what you say, and the first thing I pointed out was that they do fix bugs, incl weak wings (which forever-slept RoF), FFB, and engine issues.
"Most" however... sadly does not mean all
Us here know what we're in for, as I mentioned earlier I'm a loyal customer despite knowing what I'm in for, nor would I be playing FC if I weren't having fun.
But, not what I'm on about here, I'm on about those that outright don't know what they're in for due to the marketing of the game
 
I'm not sure I'd classify the 28 as the unflyable one of the bunch, as much as the N.17, which is civilized enough until about you get into contact with a decent pilot, then it becomes something less of the "nimble machine" it's historically described as, and more a devils rotisserie that aids the enemy in forever-sleeping you ?

Hey Red!

 

The N17 is a finicky beast, but it gets the job done against 1916 types such as the Halbestadt D.II and Albatros D.II. Always add a vertical element to your turn and conserve your energy as much as possible.

 

Don’t try this against a Fokker Dr.I, however. The Dr.I (while it technically shares the same engine with the N17, copied by the Germans) is a much more refined cantilever wing design, and in fact outputs slightly more horsepower as well (around 120hp). Ideally we’d need a Nieuport 23, 24 and 27 to stand up to it. Instead we got the Hanriot. In the Hanriot you want to keep your speed up and outclimb the Dr.I at a safe distance before you boom ‘n zoom it.

 

11 hours ago, Red_Von_Hammer said:

Also of note, there's a bit of a contrast to flying a plane, and flying it at the razors edge, taking advantage of a plane's historical abilities to come out on top.
Let's take the 28, and imagine.. say.. you're a brand new customer, you've read about Rickenbacker's exploits, you've read about the N.28 on Wiki, it's your favorite WW1 plane.
"Ok so it wasn't as fast but it could at least turn" more or less sums up the N.28 in broad strokes IRL, as most of us can agree with.
With that in mind and after a lot of practice against maybe not the greatest A.I, you take the N.28 up against players on you know which server, fast forward a bit and we all know what happened... giggedy  
You then go back to the webstore, and sure enough:
You go "huh.. ? ", then you A) Dig around on the forums, find this thread, or you go on a rampage, either way you find out why it was that you got trounced by that D.Va.
At that point, wouldn't you say you wish you were informed things might be.. somehwat.. "icky".. before you made your purchase ?   

You’ve just described me, circa 2009, when RoF and the N28 were first released.

 

I quickly found my way online with the N28, but for whatever reason hadn’t really bothered to fly the SPAD XIII, Albatros D.Va and Fokker D.VII much (the other original world wide release planes). When I found it extremely hard to have any kind of success I just assumed that I was awful at handling the N28. By the time the Camel was released a few months later, which does handle like a rotary, I became part of the newly formed IRFC and the rest is history.

In the end it’s the community that kept me around, not so much the sometimes rather strange decisions that happen on the devteam. I’m sometimes surprised why not more Americans are up in arms about their first fighter, though I fear some have simply given up and left. But the sim is still around, and new people keep finding their way here, even if we we’ve lost people along the way due to similar frustrations.

 

P.S. You should join IRFC, was a pleasure flying with you the other night. You’re poised to get better in a two-seater than I ever was.

[US103_Baer]

@Red_Von_Hammer it was just a throw away remark about not taking marketing claims too literally.  Not meant as any more than that. 

I'm definitely in the camp of aligning the FMs with Anders remarkable data, and have suggested ways this might have been achieved  commercially in other threads.  

 

No,  I've never flown the D12 online. 

Edited November 1, 2023 by US103_Baer

[Holtzauge]

@Red_Von_Hammer: I not only appreciate your kind words and vote of confidence, but also that you acknowledge the hard work that some of the other forum members put into testing so we could compare the in-game results with the simulation data. In addition, I believe it’s just the kind of passion and engagement your posts contain that’s needed if we are ever to see a change. 

 

Speaking of changes in the FM: There are actual precedents when this has happened before in Il-2: And IMHO two key elements have been instrumental when this was achieved before:

 

1) That there was data supporting the argument.

 

2) That the community made its opinion heard and did not resign and give up.

 

With regards to point one, there is not only the simulations and data in my book, since the community has posted a lot of anecdotal evidence and data from other books over the years, first in the RoF forum, and now here. All of which I think it would be fair to say are rather well aligned with the simulations and the claims in the book.

 

And when it comes to my book, I’m not claiming this is the gospel truth and the final word on WW1 aircraft performance, since there are probably many things that could be improved. There always are. However, I do believe it’s a step closer to the truth about how these planes really behaved IRL. Again, all things can be improved on, and I’m perfectly willing to discuss this with the developers and explain why I have arrived at the conclusion I have, and how I have done the verification of the FM models I use. But all that is already explained in the book which they already have. I thought a good starting point would be for them to read my book, so I sent them one free of charge this spring already. However, it’s now fall, and repeated offerings to help with FM modeling have gone unanswered which is why I have come to the realization that the chances of a dialogue are slim. This is also why I have dropped the idea of modeling more WW1 aircraft such as the ones in FC3 & 4, and instead moved on to a new book project on the Bf 109E versus Spitfire Mk 1 during BoB.  Partly because this is something that has a larger audience, and partly because there is a more lively discussion in WW2 forums (not only here!) when it comes to flight models. So not only is there a larger customer base for such a book, but also the potential for more interesting forum discussions.

 

When I had published my book on WW1 aircraft performance, I naively thought that I would have to police the forums to avoid the book contents being posted on-line. Little did I anticipate that it would be completely the other way around! And yes, I am taking a swipe at the WW1 forum community: The esprit and drive that was there in the RoF days is apparently gone and resignation seems to reign supreme. And unfortunately, just as in all other walks of life, If you are not passionate and willing to fight for something, then you probably don’t deserve it either. Harsh but true.

 

But to end on a more positive note, I too have to chip in on what @Red_Von_Hammer said before about our new moderator, who I have to agree with is the best we’ve seen so far. First of all for allowing discussions like this to take place at all, and secondly for seeing both sides on the coin and being fair and loyal to the developers as well. So keep up the good work @LukeFF!

 

 

[BMA_Hellbender]

@Holtzauge (I’m not going to quote your entire post)

 

I’m saddened to hear that you’ve dropped the idea of modelling more WWI planes and surprised that you cite the 1CGS devs disinterest as your primary motivation. Unless you had a prior agreement with them I hope you realise that them using your data was only ever a possibility, not a certainty. The data you have produced remains valid to whomever is interested enough to build a sim around it.

 

Almost like clockwork a new WWI flightsim seems to emerge every 20-30 years (data before 1990 is a bit hazy), so we’re certainly due a new one in 2030-2040, perhaps with your data and yourself taking a more prominent role. What I’m mostly missing with the departure of Jason is a clear vision and roadmap for the future for FC. It also seems like the devs don’t actually play their own sim, at least not the WWI part with the usual multiplayer crowd, but we may not be privy to all their comings and goings.

 

Edited November 1, 2023 by =IRFC=Hellbender

[Holtzauge]

26 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

@Holtzauge (I’m not going to quote your entire post)

 

I’m saddened to hear that you’ve dropped the idea of modelling more WWI planes and surprised that you cite the 1CGS devs disinterest as your primary motivation. Unless you had a prior agreement with them I hope you realise that them using your data was only ever a possibility, not a certainty. The data you have produced remains valid to whomever is interested enough to build a sim around it.

 

Almost like clockwork a new WWI flightsim seems to emerge every 20-30 years (data before 1990 is a bit hazy), so we’re certainly due a new one in 2030-2040, perhaps with your data and yourself taking a more prominent role. What I’m mostly missing with the departure of Jason is a clear vision and roadmap for the future for FC. It also seems like the devs don’t want actually play their own sim, at least not with the WWI part with the usual crowd, but we may not be privy to all their comings and goings.

 

No, 1CGS devs disinterest was not the reason per se: I was simply at a fork in the road: With the book on WW1 aircraft performance done, what to do next? If you ever looked at my homepage, you will see that WW2 aircraft has always been my main interest, and that I put this aside temporarily to do the book on WW1 aircraft.

 

However, now that that is done, it’s time to return to WW2! What could have changed this was if there had been an interest to do FM work on the WW1 kites on behalf of the developers, and a drive behind it in the community to make it happen. Then it would of course have been fun to be a part of that. But now that that looks distant, it’s back to WW2 again, which was actually the plan all the time. In fact, I’m already 190 pages into my book on the Spitfire Mk 1 versus Bf 109E during the Battle of Britain.

 

So leave all this silly string bag stuff behind you @=IRFC=Hellbender, and come over to the dark side: Heed the siren song of whining Merlin superchargers and the clattering of high compression DB 601's! 

 

 

Edited November 1, 2023 by Holtzauge

[ZachariasX]

6 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

clattering of high compression DB 601's!

Clattering? You mean the substandard low nickel valves?

[Holtzauge]

6 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Clattering? You mean the substandard low nickel valves?

 

Ah yes, but that was German wartime quality! Listen to these Swedish made DB 605's sing!

 

 

[ZachariasX]

6 minutes ago, Holtzauge said:

Ah yes, but that was German wartime quality! Listen to these Swedish made DB 605's sing!

That's not the missing nickel, that is the timing.

[LukeFF]

Guys, I will only add this at this point: the big driving factor in revising any of the flight models is time, and there just plainly isn't enough of that right now. Rebuilding any given flight model is an effort that would take on average two weeks, and that's not factoring in the time for beta testers to look them over. So, for all the planes you want fixed, it's anywhere from 2 to 3 months to revise them all and then push them out to the public. It's not for lack of interest or lack of data that this work hasn't been undertaken, you have my word on that. ?

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 hour ago, Holtzauge said:

So leave all this silly string bag stuff behind you @=IRFC=Hellbender, and come over to the dark side: Heed the siren song of whining Merlin superchargers and the clattering of high compression DB 601's! 

I was a WW2 (Pacific) guy before I ever took an interest in WW1, at least in multiplayer. I think that’s where I’ll be heading again with Jason’s new sim, if it ever comes to fruition.

[Holtzauge]

46 minutes ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

I was a WW2 (Pacific) guy before I ever took an interest in WW1, at least in multiplayer. I think that’s where I’ll be heading again with Jason’s new sim, if it ever comes to fruition.

 

See, there is hope for you yet!

[No.23_TaxDollarsAtWork]

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Guys, I will only add this at this point: the big driving factor in revising any of the flight models is time, and there just plainly isn't enough of that right now. Rebuilding any given flight model is an effort that would take on average two weeks, and that's not factoring in the time for beta testers to look them over. So, for all the planes you want fixed, it's anywhere from 2 to 3 months to revise them all and then push them out to the public. It's not for lack of interest or lack of data that this work hasn't been undertaken, you have my word on that. ?

Not even the newer FMs? the SSW D4 is 10kmh faster or more at most places in its specifications
ingame
sl- 203
1K- 198
2K-186
3K-176
4K-170
5K-163

That needs to be looked at, either the specs are wrong

[ST_Catchov]

4 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Rebuilding any given flight model is an effort that would take on average two weeks, and that's not factoring in the time for beta testers to look them over. So, for all the planes you want fixed, it's anywhere from 2 to 3 months to revise them all and then push them out to the public.

 

So? We've been waiting for years! 3 months is nothing. Get to it.

[BMA_Hellbender]

19 minutes ago, ST_Catchov said:

So? We've been waiting for years! 3 months is nothing. Get to it.

I would sell collector variants of planes we already have (e.g. Albatros D.Va 200hp, Nieuport 28A, Fokker F.I, Bentley Camel) requiring minimal 3D model rework and then revise the existing FM while you make a new one for the variant.

[Red_Von_Hammer]

10 hours ago, US103_Baer said:

@Red_Von_Hammer it was just a throw away remark about not taking marketing claims too literally.  Not meant as any more than that. 

I'm definitely in the camp of aligning the FMs with Anders remarkable data, and have suggested ways this might have been achieved  commercially in other threads.  

 

No,  I've never flown the D12 online. 

Absolutely fair enough, there's probably an event or two in everyone's life where they took marketing claims a bit too seriously.
As has been mentioned before, community efforts appear to have dabbed off a bit, not like I'm one to talk, seeing how sporadic my activity is.
Sorry for lobbing you in with the "off-dabbers".
I got far too carried away with that, which can't be swept under the rug.

Must have been someone else in the D12, there was a point at which there was more than one D12, and more than one US103 on the hun side that evening.
You guys know a thing or two about energy fighting, and we got into some good scraps ? 

 

6 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

I was a WW2 (Pacific) guy before I ever took an interest in WW1, at least in multiplayer. I think that’s where I’ll be heading again with Jason’s new sim, if it ever comes to fruition.

@Holtzauge The PTO is much the same, lacking data (especially for the Japanese warbirds), I'd be willing to say your efforts are certainly needed there too.
I remember flying a online PTO mod in ETW, incidentally with the guy that made it, was good fun looking for those carriers!
Didn't want to quote your whole other post, my rantings are over so, trying to keep it short now, but it really is sad how the WW1 community appears to have dabbed off just that bit too much.
For it's faults, the RoF community was at least lively and engaged, I guess people just kind of gave up.
And for good measure, +1 in regards to @LukeFF's tenure here, I wish him nothing but the very best and I hope he knows he has but to ask anything in form of assistance from most anyone here and he'll certainly have it.

 

 

11 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

Hey Red!

 

The N17 is a finicky beast, but it gets the job done against 1916 types such as the Halbestadt D.II and Albatros D.II. Always add a vertical element to your turn and conserve your energy as much as possible.

 

Don’t try this against a Fokker Dr.I, however. The Dr.I (while it technically shares the same engine with the N17, copied by the Germans) is a much more refined cantilever wing design, and in fact outputs slightly more horsepower as well (around 120hp). Ideally we’d need a Nieuport 23, 24 and 27 to stand up to it. Instead we got the Hanriot. In the Hanriot you want to keep your speed up and outclimb the Dr.I at a safe distance before you boom ‘n zoom it.

 

You’ve just described me, circa 2009, when RoF and the N28 were first released.

 

I quickly found my way online with the N28, but for whatever reason hadn’t really bothered to fly the SPAD XIII, Albatros D.Va and Fokker D.VII much (the other original world wide release planes). When I found it extremely hard to have any kind of success I just assumed that I was awful at handling the N28. By the time the Camel was released a few months later, which does handle like a rotary, I became part of the newly formed IRFC and the rest is history.

In the end it’s the community that kept me around, not so much the sometimes rather strange decisions that happen on the devteam. I’m sometimes surprised why not more Americans are up in arms about their first fighter, though I fear some have simply given up and left. But the sim is still around, and new people keep finding their way here, even if we we’ve lost people along the way due to similar frustrations.

 

P.S. You should join IRFC, was a pleasure flying with you the other night. You’re poised to get better in a two-seater than I ever was.

@=IRFC=Hellbender I have tested the N17 against a certain D.II with a certain gun on it, flown by a certain pilot.
And I'm not sure I share everyone's optimism on the N.17.
Then I grabbed that same D.II with the same gun, and got a 21 kill streak (sry to everyone I blew out of the sky), @Smigol made a video on it, goes a little something like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2039wUtBw6A&ab

Of course, not to detract from the fact that when I fly the N.17 in any other setting, such as Ad Astra, it isn't doing too badly, and this was before FFB & Overcooling fix:

So I could certainly be skewing data, and in one case of the Flugpark server,
I've never outright called anyone out on using the D.II 20mm, and I haven't seen anyone else lodging complaints about it's use on the Flugpark Discord.
I've already got a lot of experience with overwing guns, and for all intents and purposes, it seems people are happy with it's presence, nothing can be said to be broken, I don't see the need to change it.
Also has to be said, it takes a bit to get maximum lethality out of it, Smigol practiced with it a lot.
According to Wikipedia, it was a one off, never combat tested, and that account is taken from a book titled Flying Guns of World War 1, which costs 100-160 dollars on ebay/amazon, can't rightly state I'm keen on spending that much money on a book, so I don't want to skew any data with my limited personal experience.

2-seaters really aren't my fortè, it's just years of experience using overwing guns, I look at gunners as sort of the same thing), picture below for illustration:

Stems back to when I had a bit of fun with a friend in two-seaters a while back, so I was more or less tapping into a lost skill, @=IRFC=Artun is a great gunner too.
None-the-less I really do appreciate the compliment.
 Surprised you'd want me in IRFC given what you've seen me do/say here ?
I'm still at odds which squadron to join, I also like the lone-wolf, sort of maverick getting peddled-between-squadrons thing I've been doing so far  
 

2 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

I would sell collector variants of planes we already have (e.g. Albatros D.Va 200hp, Nieuport 28A, Fokker F.I, Bentley Camel) requiring minimal 3D model rework and then revise the existing FM while you make a new one for the variant.

... Until this popped up as I was typing, this is not only the best suggestion so far, I'll buy them all as part and parcel of the course and join IRFC for good measure.

 

7 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Guys, I will only add this at this point: the big driving factor in revising any of the flight models is time, and there just plainly isn't enough of that right now. Rebuilding any given flight model is an effort that would take on average two weeks, and that's not factoring in the time for beta testers to look them over. So, for all the planes you want fixed, it's anywhere from 2 to 3 months to revise them all and then push them out to the public. It's not for lack of interest or lack of data that this work hasn't been undertaken, you have my word on that. ?

@LukeFF That one comment alone paints a clearer picture of "inner workings" than what I've had in mind up until now.
Obviously I'm not too keen on FM progress as years have passed, some time of which could have at least been devoted to adjusting top speeds if nothing else.
And while you are 1C's CM, at the same time, you can't be blamed for FC's shortcomings.
I can't stress enough how thankful I am for the work you're doing here, a test in patience and sanity no doubt!
To substantiate that: Back in the RoF days, one admin/dev actually lost it and exploded, I'd quote what they said but I think I'll play it safe, suffice to say they were relegated to permanent dev-duties from then on.
I'll keep nagging if and when the opportunity presents itself, but there should be no reason for my insanity to peck at your sanity ?

Edited November 1, 2023 by Red_Von_Hammer

[=IRFC=Tunes]

6 hours ago, Red_Von_Hammer said:

@=IRFC=Artun is a great gunner too.

Gunner? I hardly KNOW HER!


Edit: Albatros DII with a Becker gun is cute - but it shouldn't really be considered in any serious comparison of the airplanes. Without the upward firing capability, the Alb DII starts to suffer in the vertical against the ol' Noop. 

Edited November 2, 2023 by =IRFC=Artun

[Red_Von_Hammer]

5 minutes ago, =IRFC=Artun said:

Gunner? I hardly KNOW HER!


Edit: Albatros DII with a Becker gun is cute - but it shouldn't really be considered in any serious comparison of the airplanes. Without the upward firing capability, the Alb DII starts to suffer in the vertical against the ol' Noop. 

"Hardly" being the key word there!

As for upward traverse that's more or less what I found as well, not to be confused with those instances the N.17 just doesn't want to play nice, which sadly... isn't rare lol.

[Holtzauge]

11 hours ago, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

I would sell collector variants of planes we already have (e.g. Albatros D.Va 200hp, Nieuport 28A, Fokker F.I, Bentley Camel) requiring minimal 3D model rework and then revise the existing FM while you make a new one for the variant.

 

This is a good idea and it has already been suggested as one of the ways of financing an update of the FM’s.

 

Another is to do a “realism pack” and “resell” us the content we already have. Sure, a good counterargument to this is that we already paid for “detailed FM’s” and should get it for free, but remember that the FM’s we are getting are from RoF and quite dated by now. And while I have no interest in FC3 and 4 as things stand today, I would on the other hand be quite willing to pay for such a module.

 

But any one of these two routes would solve the problem and would be OK with me anyway.

 

Finally,  I know I’m beginning to sound like broken record, so this is the last time I’m going to say it: Changes in the Il-2 FM’s before (at least in the WW2 part) have been driven by the forum community. But as long as the members are SUFFICIENTLY content with what they are getting, it makes no sense for the developers from a business perspective to do anything at all. But that is it, I’m done. I won’t mention it again. Scouts honor. I’ll now stop my pestering about what I think the forum community should do and return to the Dark Side of WW2 FM’s!

 

[BMA_Hellbender]

1 hour ago, Red_Von_Hammer said:

"Hardly" being the key word there!

As for upward traverse that's more or less what I found as well, not to be confused with those instances the N.17 just doesn't want to play nice, which sadly... isn't rare lol.

 
The original pre-review N17 FM in early RoF was borderline unflyable, definitely unlandable without breaking wings. What we have now isn’t perfect but any perceived issues against the Albatros D.II are a product of the Albatros FM that is too maneuverable (but also too slow) and the Minengeschoss meme-cannon.

 

N17 vs. Halberstadt D.II is about as good as it comes.

[Riderocket]

i hope to see some more FC Collector planes, especially older 1916/1917 ones.

[US103_Baer]

 

@Holtzauge I'm sure you recall the community's outcry over how DM changes had terribly impacted FC. Years of complaints and data presented. Whole Squads leaving the game citing the DM as the reason. There was 1 dev response, which made the situation even worse. Sorry but many of us lost all hope that our voices mattered during that time. 

Yes, eventually the the DM was fixed. But it took a org change and departure of key dev staff to make it happen. 

 

I don't think FC ever recovered from the DM debacle tbh. Which speaks to the importance of FM/DM to players. 

 

However I can well imagine a revised FM bring part of the FC modules port to the new game engine. Like VR and graphics were the reason to get FC after RoF. 

Potential for same process with WW2 modules too, so possible opp for you there?

Either way, I believe there will be FM reviews at some point when it suits the dev team, and using the data from your model/publications is clearly the best way forward for them.