WW1 aircraft flight modeling as mentioned in the developers “Brief Room Episode 3” video

[LukeFF]

Let's please step away from using phrases like "making excuses" if you all want this topic to remain open.

[J2_Trupobaw]

On 3/26/2024 at 8:28 PM, Holtzauge said:

 

I have not looked at the 225 Daimler (Can you post a power versus altitude chart for the engine you have in mind?) but in order to give the Albatros the quantum leap it needs (due to its poor P/W ratio) the engine would have to be really good and provide much better altitude performance than even the Mercedes D.IIaü because even that engine is not enough to bring it back to being competitive against for example the S.E.5a and SPAD XIII.

 

When it comes to the drag of wires, the profiled solid rods or "RAF-wires" as they are known, were really good in reducing drag while the round wires the Germans used were bad and had caused a lot of drag. We had a big discussion about the Pfalz D.XII's performance over at The Aerodrome forum where this was brought up that you can find here:

 

https://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/showthread.php?t=75796&highlight=wire

 

The Entente planes still had much higher density of wires than German scouts (except Pfalz D.XII, which was hated by German ground crews for that reason). While optimised drag of single RAF rod is often cited, the fact that Albatros had much fewer wires (and Fokkers had none) is often overlooked.

[BMA_Hellbender]

On 3/27/2024 at 5:43 PM, LukeFF said:

Let's please step away from using phrases like "making excuses" if you all want this topic to remain open.

 

I don't think "excuse" is necessarily a dirty word here, especially since not trusting data willy-nilly is a perfectly valid reason for the devteam to not go through with FM changes to avoid a repeat of 2014. It's great to hear that the final hurdle is likely going to be cleared in that respect also, and I'm thrilled about the upcoming FM review of the Airco DH.2 already.

 

Edited April 17, 2024 by =IRFC=Hellbender

[Holtzauge]

On 4/17/2024 at 6:15 AM, =IRFC=Hellbender said:

I don't think "excuse" is necessarily a dirty word here, especially since not trusting data willy-nilly is a perfectly valid reason for the devteam to not go through with FM changes to avoid a repeat of 2014. It's great to hear that the final hurdle is likely going to be cleared in that respect also, and I'm thrilled about the upcoming FM review of the Airco DH.2 already.

 

I was positively surprised that there was a whole dev blog (#361) dedicated to FC and I’m looking forward to see what kind of FM updates the developers have in mind. So I’m cautiously optimistic at this time. But as they say, the proof is in the pudding, so we’ll just have to be patient and wait and see. 

[Holtzauge]

The last post here ended on a hopeful note, waiting to see what the future was holding in store for us. But given it’s now been more than six months and FC 4 has been released, it’s now time to sum up where we stand.

 

And I’m sad to say I’m disappointed: The stated goal of Il-2 Sturmovik is to do FM’s that are within 5% of know data. And in the video in the OP, the developers are asked if they plan to do anything about the FC FM’s based on the data in my book.  And in this video the developers had every opportunity to instead say that no, all you are going to get are the same old FM’s, but you will be able to fly the RoF planes in FC. But instead, they said that they cannot do anything based on my book, because the data there is not verifiable to them. I then did a simplified Excel spreadsheet model in which the calculations can be followed step by step and which you can see in the posts above. And I have not seen that the developers challenge this or its conclusions.

 

I gladly became a founder for both FC 1 and FC 2, in order to fund moving the aircraft from Rise of Flight to FC. And now even FC 4 has been released, and there has been every opportunity to address the FM’s of the aircraft released in FC 3 and FC 4 and bring them in line with the 5% goal, which we can now conclude has not been done. In fact, the recently release of the DH 2 and Albatros D.II are sad examples of this, with one being 21% better than expected in turn performance, while the other is 21% worse, i.e. way off target.

 

And we can always argue about what has been promised or not, but I honestly expected more, and not that aircraft with known FM issues were just ported to FC. Especially seeing that each FC module costs $79.99, i.e. totaling a whopping $320. So I really think we are entitled to updated FM’s. Because paying $320 just be able to fly the old RoF aircraft FM’s in FC is outrageous. Sure, that is just my opinion. But I stand by it.

[LukeFF]

7 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

In fact, the recently release of the DH 2 and Albatros D.II are sad examples of this, with one being 21% better than expected in turn performance, while the other is 21% worse, i.e. way off target.

 

We also stated that there was no time with this update to have a look at the Albatros flight models. 

 

7 hours ago, Holtzauge said:

So I really think we are entitled to updated FM’s.

 

Sorry, no, that was never part of the planned releases of FC. When Volume 1 was announced it was explicitly stated that players should expect no more than the original flight models ported over. That some have been updated since then (which should show that we want to make things right) have only come about because there has been sufficient time freed up for our engineers to look at them.

[No.23_Starling]

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

We also stated that there was no time with this update to have a look at the Albatros flight models. 

 

 

Sorry, no, that was never part of the planned releases of FC. When Volume 1 was announced it was explicitly stated that players should expect no more than the original flight models ported over. That some have been updated since then (which should show that we want to make things right) have only come about because there has been sufficient time freed up for our engineers to look at them.

When you do get a chance to assess the Albatros series it would be worth examining Mr @Holtzauge’s new DII modelling as per the adjacent post, both on turn ability and speed/climb.

[giftgruen]

On 11/30/2024 at 2:57 AM, Holtzauge said:

And we can always argue about what has been promised or not, but I honestly expected more, and not that aircraft with known FM issues were just ported to FC. Especially seeing that each FC module costs $79.99, i.e. totaling a whopping $320. So I really think we are entitled to updated FM’s. Because paying $320 just be able to fly the old RoF aircraft FM’s in FC is outrageous. Sure, that is just my opinion. But I stand by it.

 

No, dear Holtzauge. This is not just your opinion.

 

In addition, most of us probably also spended money for WW2 parts of the series, so in summary it's more than 320.

 

While I completely understand that a game producer needs to focus development ressources and cannot fullfill all wishes of the community,

some clear flaws should be addressed in a better way.

 

To be honest, I personally don't care at all if the dev team accepts your book and/or excel, or corrects the 'wrong' stuff in another way.

The actual combination of planeset with flight models plus an notoriously stupid AI in summary gives an user experience that is simply not good.

And - that's not enough for hundreds of Euros.

 

I am in the quite happy personal situation that I dont care really much about 80 Euros for a computer game. So I bought FC4 and - like you - also was disappointed.

Yes. Paris is cool. But what to do with an EIII whose only huntable opponent are balloons ? What to do with a DIII that acts identically wrong as DII or DV ?

 

What I learned here from 'maintaining the customer base' since FC1 is simply: As soon there is another computer game available with WW1/WW2 in VR ( if ever ) - for sure I will have a serious look and switch over.  

[Zooropa_Fly]

On 11/30/2024 at 10:57 AM, Holtzauge said:

And we can always argue about what has been promised or not, but I honestly expected more, and not that aircraft with known FM issues were just ported to FC. Especially seeing that each FC module costs $79.99, i.e. totaling a whopping $320. So I really think we are entitled to updated FM’s. Because paying $320 just be able to fly the old RoF aircraft FM’s in FC is outrageous. Sure, that is just my opinion. But I stand by it.

 

As Luke pointed out again, all that was promised for FC was a 'port' of RoF. This was made clear before anyone had the chance to part with any money for it.

They might have been able to sell for slightly reduced prices if  there had been mass demand for FC, and I don't believe that has been the case.

I expect it paid the bills, but little more.

 

As Klug pointed out they're probably glad to get shot of it so they can concentrate on Korea.. followed by the PTO.

Plus it looks like the Albie's will be getting some attention in the future so it's a case of waiting. But if and when they're done, it'll be something else.. ad infinitum.

You kind of said the quiet part out loud with the word 'entitled'. You're not, I'm not, we're not. We all got what we paid for and nobody pointed a gun at anybody's head.

Nobody can ignore the fact that FC has never come close to being the success RoF was for several years.

It's why, as a non-VR user, I would have preferred the development time to have been spent making RoF the absolute best it could be within the limitations of that game engine. If they'd done that I think the ww1 player base would be much stronger than it is now.

But that horse has bolted from the stable, lived its life, and has probably now passed on.

 

 

21 hours ago, giftgruen said:

In addition, most of us probably also spended money for WW2 parts of the series, so in summary it's more than 320

 

I'm in that category, but since the ww1 scene never really took off in GB - I have had my monies worth out of ww2.

And no - you can't lump the cost of any ww2 modules onto FC and claim it's part of the price.

Again, nobody pointed a gun to your head to buy any ww2 stuff.

 

 

I remember back in RoF when anyone complained about the FM of their airplane - they were swiftly reminded that it's not what you fly, it's how you fly it.

There was a player in particular who had me (in a Dr1) on toast every time in a Hanriot HD2 (yes the one with floats).

Not because I was a crappy noob, because he was probably the best virtual pilot I ever came across in ww1.

 

Aspire to be better pilots and enjoy what you've got, is my advice. 

[No.23_Starling]

3 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

 

As Luke pointed out again, all that was promised for FC was a 'port' of RoF. This was made clear before anyone had the chance to part with any money for it.

They might have been able to sell for slightly reduced prices if  there had been mass demand for FC, and I don't believe that has been the case.

I expect it paid the bills, but little more.

 

As Klug pointed out they're probably glad to get shot of it so they can concentrate on Korea.. followed by the PTO.

Plus it looks like the Albie's will be getting some attention in the future so it's a case of waiting. But if and when they're done, it'll be something else.. ad infinitum.

You kind of said the quiet part out loud with the word 'entitled'. You're not, I'm not, we're not. We all got what we paid for and nobody pointed a gun at anybody's head.

Nobody can ignore the fact that FC has never come close to being the success RoF was for several years.

It's why, as a non-VR user, I would have preferred the development time to have been spent making RoF the absolute best it could be within the limitations of that game engine. If they'd done that I think the ww1 player base would be much stronger than it is now.

But that horse has bolted from the stable, lived its life, and has probably now passed on.

 

 

 

I'm in that category, but since the ww1 scene never really took off in GB - I have had my monies worth out of ww2.

And no - you can't lump the cost of any ww2 modules onto FC and claim it's part of the price.

Again, nobody pointed a gun to your head to buy any ww2 stuff.

 

 

I remember back in RoF when anyone complained about the FM of their airplane - they were swiftly reminded that it's not what you fly, it's how you fly it.

There was a player in particular who had me (in a Dr1) on toast every time in a Hanriot HD2 (yes the one with floats).

Not because I was a crappy noob, because he was probably the best virtual pilot I ever came across in ww1.

 

Aspire to be better pilots and enjoy what you've got, is my advice. 

Just one thing - not all players are old vets of RoF, and ideally we’d want lots of players totally new to WW1 aviation. They likely want a newer sim that supports VR and still under some kind of development. They’re right to expect value for money vs worth other products. 
 

It is also worth remembering that the work of @Holtzauge and others could be used for another future and new sims, perhaps one more like Rise of Flight not piggybacking off another set of higher priority products. It’s not impossible that 1C might come back to early aviation several years down the line.

[giftgruen]

On 12/2/2024 at 3:25 PM, Zooropa_Fly said:

 

As Luke pointed out again, all that was promised for FC was a 'port' of RoF. This was made clear before anyone had the chance to part with any money for it.

They might have been able to sell for slightly reduced prices if  there had been mass demand for FC, and I don't believe that has been the case.

I expect it paid the bills, but little more.

....

On 12/2/2024 at 3:25 PM, Zooropa_Fly said:

 

I'm in that category, but since the ww1 scene never really took off in GB - I have had my monies worth out of ww2.

And no - you can't lump the cost of any ww2 modules onto FC and claim it's part of the price.

Again, nobody pointed a gun to your head to buy any ww2 stuff.

 

 

I don't mind at all if something was ported from RoF or invented from new.

Also, I dont mind at all if Luke pointed out something in a forum.

 

For me, FC1-4 is a Steam game I bought since I was interested in WW1.

FC1/2 gave me the idea that something really funny could rise up here.

 

But this was not the case. Alle the flaws from FC1 still exist in FC2/3/4. More planes. Same game. 

 

If some Flightsimulation-Buddy asks me if he should spend 300 EUR for this series, my answer clearly is:

Only if you are an absolute Vintage-Freak. If not - dont do it.

 

FC is simply implemented without any love to the scenery.

NoOne will be catched by this game in the way it is impemented, only some Vintage-Freaks like you and me.

WW1 means: knights of the sky.  This is another storyline than WW2. Better: It could be another storyline.

In a "Knights-of-the-sky" Simulation I want to have a "Knight-of-the-sky" feeling.

FC in Singleplayer mode is not able at all to give this feeling. 

 

Yes. It is not a commercial access because - for singleplayer usage - it is more or less boring.

And MP ... hey - how many players are out there in MP ? Enough for commercial success ?

 

While the WW2 parts offer some action and speed, the WW1 parts miss this, but forget to tell 'another story'

So,in the end, it's the company that placed this series witout another idea than "porting something from A to B".

The market tells them: This is not enough.  Just what I say.