What more work will be done on FC?

[Holtzauge]

3 hours ago, US103_Baer said:

 

@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.

 

 

Yes, I remember that DM well: The wings fell off when you coughed and the controls locked up if you looked at them! Jokes aside, if the situation with the WW1 FM’s ever changes, either initiated by the developers themselves, or through the efforts of the community, I will of course try to help out to the best of my abilities. 

 

 

[LukeFF]

Speaking of new things for FC: new FE2b gunner animations ?

 

[Guest deleted@219798]

50 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Speaking of new things for FC: new FE2b gunner animations ?

 

I hope it won't be like RoF with the gunner's feet nailed down while the plane tilted around wildly and dived at 60 degrees without falling out. More super human and unlikely unrealistic efforts from gunners?

Edited November 3, 2023 by kestrel444x500

[ST_Catchov]

4 hours ago, kestrel444x500 said:

I hope it won't be like RoF with the gunner's feet nailed down

 

It doesn't look like that from the image supplied by Luke.

 

But we also do need a swivel mounted forward firing gun mounted in the front of the gunner's nacelle.

Edited November 3, 2023 by ST_Catchov

[Guest deleted@219798]

So 

6 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

 

It doesn't look like that from the image supplied by Luke.

 

But we also do need a swivel mounted forward firing gun mounted in the front of the gunner's nacelle.

No, all the gunner had holding him in the plane was his grip on the handles of his gun. In RoF I've seen Fe-2b's turn completely over then go into a terminal vertical dive, the gunner still stood there firing away. Or the plane doing steep banking turns and dives. In these situations the gunner would either sit down and strap in or be tossed out. In RoF it was very unrealistic.  I hope that won't be repeated in FC.

[Trooper117]

From the horses mouth... what it was like to use the Lewis gun in an Fe.2b.

 

The arrangement was described by Frederick Libby, an American ace who served as an F.E.2b observer in 1916:

When you stood up to shoot, all of you from the knees up was exposed to the elements. There was no belt to hold you. Only your grip on the gun and the sides of the nacelle stood between you and eternity. Toward the front of the nacelle was a hollow steel rod with a swivel mount to which the gun was anchored. This gun covered a huge field of fire forward. Between the observer and the pilot a second gun was mounted, for firing over the F.E.2b's upper wing to protect the aircraft from rear attack ... Adjusting and shooting this gun required that you stand right up out of the nacelle with your feet on the nacelle coaming. You had nothing to worry about except being blown out of the aircraft by the blast of air or tossed out bodily if the pilot made a wrong move. There were no parachutes and no belts. No wonder they needed observers.

 

[ST_Catchov]

10 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

From the horses mouth... what it was like to use the Lewis gun in an Fe.2b.

 

The arrangement was described by Frederick Libby, an American ace who served as an F.E.2b observer in 1916:

When you stood up to shoot, all of you from the knees up was exposed to the elements. There was no belt to hold you. Only your grip on the gun and the sides of the nacelle stood between you and eternity. Toward the front of the nacelle was a hollow steel rod with a swivel mount to which the gun was anchored. This gun covered a huge field of fire forward. Between the observer and the pilot a second gun was mounted, for firing over the F.E.2b's upper wing to protect the aircraft from rear attack ... Adjusting and shooting this gun required that you stand right up out of the nacelle with your feet on the nacelle coaming. You had nothing to worry about except being blown out of the aircraft by the blast of air or tossed out bodily if the pilot made a wrong move. There were no parachutes and no belts. No wonder they needed observers.

 

 

Precisely. We need two guns (not apparent in the image from @LukeFF). And the gunner should be modelled with two large balls.

[=IRFC=Gascan]

In RoF, the gunner had a single Lewis that was swapped between the front mount and the back mount using a key (I think it was Change Weapon Position). The same is true for the default rear gun for the Handley Page: there are two mounts for a Lewis gun, but it can only be installed on one side at a time. When you change weapon position, it swaps the position from one side to the other. My understanding is that this was not the common practice for either aircraft. Also worth noting that the HP usually only had a single dude in the back who could swap between both sides and the belly gunner, although on occasion more gunners would be carried (including one time where a fully loaded HP tried to intercept Gothas returning from England).

I think the current method gets the job done for gameplay purposes. 

[ST_Catchov]

12 hours ago, =IRFC=Gascan said:

In RoF, the gunner had a single Lewis that was swapped between the front mount and the back mount using a key (I think it was Change Weapon Position). 

 ........

I think the current method gets the job done for gameplay purposes. 

 

It's a good point Gascan. That seems to be the path the devs are taking in FC ....

[NO.20_Krispy_Duck]

RoF stock had the 2 separate guns or the add-on offered the dual gun turret ring. A good pilot and gunner combo with the turret ring set up was pretty deadly in RoF. The FE2b is one of the planes I look forward to in FC. The 2-seater element is under emphasized and the single seat fighters are over-emphasized.

Edited November 6, 2023 by NO.20_Krispy_Duck

[DD_Arthur]

On 11/4/2023 at 12:37 PM, Trooper117 said:

From the horses mouth... what it was like to use the Lewis gun in an Fe.2b.

 

The arrangement was described by Frederick Libby, an American ace who served as an F.E.2b observer in 1916:

When you stood up to shoot, all of you from the knees up was exposed to the elements. There was no belt to hold you. Only your grip on the gun and the sides of the nacelle stood between you and eternity. Toward the front of the nacelle was a hollow steel rod with a swivel mount to which the gun was anchored. This gun covered a huge field of fire forward. Between the observer and the pilot a second gun was mounted, for firing over the F.E.2b's upper wing to protect the aircraft from rear attack ... Adjusting and shooting this gun required that you stand right up out of the nacelle with your feet on the nacelle coaming. You had nothing to worry about except being blown out of the aircraft by the blast of air or tossed out bodily if the pilot made a wrong move. There were no parachutes and no belts. No wonder they needed observers.

 

I had to read this twice to try and fully appreciate what these men did….and how the hell did they change drum on that second Lewis??

[ST_Catchov]

"Our experienced gunners became expert with the rear Lewis gun, firing over the top plane and sometimes taking chances and firing between the planes. I have never been able to understand why some of the observers were not lost overboard. Standing high on the strengthened sides of the nacelle, clinging to the gun on the high extended mounting, straining into all sorts of positions in order to fire a burst at an enemy behind, how they stayed with the aircraft has always been a puzzle."

 

Second Lieutenant C.F. Horsley, 18 Squadron, RFC

 

Large heavy balls as ballast surely must have helped. There is no doubt that these men were the true heroes of the air offensive over the lines supporting the ground forces against overwhelming odds from all quarters. It is impossible to truly imagine the mental strain and abject fear suffered by these men from those whose life is played out in a video game.

 

 

[Trooper117]

I'll say this, the first time I did a parachute jump was from a Cessna 182. The exit was far from simple... you had to pull yourself out and grab hold of the strut supporting the wing, then shuffle along a thin metal plate still holding on to the strut until you were clear of the tail. When your left foot was at the end of the metal plate with your right foot trailing in fresh air, you would look in at the despatcher and when you got a thumbs up you would launch yourself off backwards in a stable star position...

I did 10 jumps like that and each time I had to climb out under that wing was frightening... I didn't worry about the actual parachuting, that was the easy bit.

 

But when you think about those observer/gunners in the Fee, with no parachute, nothing to hold them in, and one false move would mean death, plus having to operate a machine gun and hold off an enemy, that is true bravery.

Me, even if I cocked things up, or fell off that metal step, or had bad exit, I at least had a parachute, no, two parachutes, because I had a reserve if the main one failed.

Looking back, there is no comparison... I only had to control fear, if it all went Pete Tong, then I would probably survive. The chaps in the front seat of the Fee had no such comforts... hats off to em!

[JFM]

Those Fee obs faced a far greater danger of being shot to death than falling/being thrown out. Also, they were made of far sterner stuff than many give them credit for today. From No. 20 Sqn obs William Cambray: “On one occasion I was with a new—but good—pilot who had not previously been in a fight. A Hun dived down from our rear and I could see his tracer bullets going under us as I stood up to [fire] over the tail. I signaled to the pilot to throw the machine about to get rid of him, but to my surprise he only did a simple aerodrome-style turn. On returning to the aerodrome I asked my pilot in no uncertain terms why he had not thrown the machine all over the place. ‘I was afraid I’d chuck you out’, he answered. I replied that it was my job to stay in.”

 

 

[ZachariasX]

On 11/8/2023 at 10:09 PM, DD_Arthur said:

how the hell did they change drum on that second Lewis??

In a very careful manner.

4 hours ago, JFM said:

I replied that it was my job to stay in.

Being shot at by machine guns probably sets other dangers into a new perspective. But not losing it over the prospect of having to do it again and again is truly something.

[No.23_TaxDollarsAtWork]

They should consider adding more content.

 

The Italian theater is very interesting with the sea planes both sides used there or at least give us a Ansaldo A1 Balila

 

I'd love for something like a super SE5/SPAD

[JG4_Moltke1871]

1 hour ago, No.23_TaxDollarsAtWork said:

They should consider adding more content.

 

The Italian theater is very interesting with the sea planes both sides used there or at least give us a Ansaldo A1 Balila

 

I'd love for something like a super SE5/SPAD

In my opinion they can complete the whole WW1 planeset, ALL WW1 aircraft! See in this List Central/Entente aircraft.

 I would buy ALL!! Plus Zeppelins ?

Maybe a crazy idea but NOTHING is impossible ?

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_aircraft_of_World_War_I

[No.23_Starling]

4 minutes ago, JG4_Moltke1871 said:

In my opinion they can complete the whole WW1 planeset, ALL WW1 aircraft! See in this List Central/Entente aircraft.

 I would buy ALL!! Plus Zeppelins ?

Maybe a crazy idea but NOTHING is impossible ?

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_aircraft_of_World_War_I

I’m still of the opinion that fixing a lot of the current FMs would amount to new content. The N28 in particular.

[JG4_Moltke1871]

27 minutes ago, US103_Rummell said:

I’m still of the opinion that fixing a lot of the current FMs would amount to new content. The N28 in particular.

Of course ?

please don't take my post too seriously……or maybe yes? ?

[ACG_Bussard]

1 hour ago, US103_Rummell said:

I’m still of the opinion that fixing a lot of the current FMs would amount to new content. The N28 in particular.

FMs aren´t imo the only issue. I would also like to add the improvement of the Western Front Map, in particular the representation of the (pale and outdated) NML. More could certainly be done.

[No.23_Starling]

1 hour ago, Bussard* said:

FMs aren´t imo the only issue. I would also like to add the improvement of the Western Front Map, in particular the representation of the (pale and outdated) NML. More could certainly be done.

And AI. If the WoFF devs can do what they do with 20yo technology surely this could be improved. Probably the #1 blocker for new players who will mostly be single player gamers

[Russkly]

All interesting input, guys, but Luke's made it abundantly clear that there will be no further work done on FC's FMs, DM AI or Career Mode.

 

Let's face it: FC is now simply a cash generator for the new project.

 

I think we just need to accept that reality and be thankful (or not) for what we already have and what we will receive as advertised from FC3 and FC4.

 

 

[Zooropa_Fly]

So, apart from the : flight models ; maps ; bots ; ballistics ; windscreens.. everybody's happy. 

 

[ACG_Bussard]

On 11/18/2023 at 5:05 PM, Russkly said:

Let's face it: FC is now simply a cash generator for the new project.

 

I think we just need to accept that reality and be thankful (or not) for what we already have and what we will receive as advertised from FC3 and FC4.

 

This is exactly my fear that Flying Circus will share the same fate as Rise of Flight when IL-2 Great Battles was released: once again the stepchild incompatible with the new project. Unloved and underserved.

 

Let's hope it doesn't turn out that way. Fingers crossed. ?

[Trooper117]

Well, it's been stated they have a much bigger team and all is flying ahead as planned... but apparently not big enough to help us out.

[Rick_Rawlings]

Unfortunately, I won't be buying any more modules until the AI is addressed, it's abysmal. If you want to charge for an AI module, I'd buy that. Or open it up to modders. 

[No.23_Starling]

4 hours ago, Rick_Rawlings said:

Unfortunately, I won't be buying any more modules until the AI is addressed, it's abysmal. If you want to charge for an AI module, I'd buy that. Or open it up to modders. 

I’ve wondered whether 1C would consider opening it up to a third party after the new project releases. Team Fusion have done amazing work for the once abandoned Cliffs of Dover and are now full commercial partners.

 

Imagine what the developers of Wings Over Flanders Fields could do for the content with their time and dedication.

[=IRFC=Gascan]

Yes please! There is so much good stuff here that just needs time and dedication to improve. If 1C are busy with WW2 or other new projects, letting a group of modders do things could make a world of difference.

Right now, MP is the only thing to do in FC due to the AI. I don't complain about it because I haven't bothered with it for years. When I first started, I tried a coop campaign with my brother using PWCG. I gave up after only a few flights because the AI was such a failure. By then I knew enough to fly in MP and have never looked back. As things stand, the AI is only good for bounce practice in a training server.