A couple questions - I'm considering buying FC

[rotagen5]

OK I'm a huge fan of combat flight sims and especially WW1 stuff, but I haven't truly bonded to a good one since Forgotten Battles.

 

I bought Rise of Flight with high hopes and even purchased some new german aircraft but I lost interest pretty fast, in fact all "modern" combat sims generally bore me so I am gun shy.  The whole industry lost the plot.  The old games like Jane's WW2F, RB3D, and CFS2 had one thing in common, the Adrenaline rush factor during dogfights.  Now you get "gee isn't that pretty" games that end up being drudgery to me, nothing customizeable, and I never get that "death grip" on the joystick excitement.....

 

So here are my questions: The price is out of my range right now with our failing economy, but...I'm considering.

 

1. OK newbie here, what do the FC "volumes" represent?  In other words are II and III simply add-ons and you have to buy the 1st volume?  or are they full games?

2. Is the Damage Model as difficult as the "Rise of Flight" one?  ... please compare the games in this regard, putting 5000 bullets into a plane before anything happened bored the heck out of me... also, can we modify the  Damage Model ?

 

Thanks for your info.

[BMA_Hellbender]

3 hours ago, rotagen5 said:

OK I'm a huge fan of combat flight sims and especially WW1 stuff, but I haven't truly bonded to a good one since Forgotten Battles.

 

I bought Rise of Flight with high hopes and even purchased some new german aircraft but I lost interest pretty fast, in fact all "modern" combat sims generally bore me so I am gun shy.  The whole industry lost the plot.  The old games like Jane's WW2F, RB3D, and CFS2 had one thing in common, the Adrenaline rush factor during dogfights.  Now you get "gee isn't that pretty" games that end up being drudgery to me, nothing customizeable, and I never get that "death grip" on the joystick excitement.....

 

So here are my questions: The price is out of my range right now with our failing economy, but...I'm considering.

 

1. OK newbie here, what do the FC "volumes" represent?  In other words are II and III simply add-ons and you have to buy the 1st volume?  or are they full games?

2. Is the Damage Model as difficult as the "Rise of Flight" one?  ... please compare the games in this regard, putting 5000 bullets into a plane before anything happened bored the heck out of me... also, can we modify the  Damage Model ?

 

Thanks for your info.

 

1. FC1 > FC3 > FC2 > Collector Planes
 

2. Aim for the man, not the machine

[Dr1falcon500]

If you found the damage model in Rise of Flight too difficult, I'd say it's time you gave up. Rise of Flight was wrecked because some people complained it was too hard to shoot down planes. So wings were made weaker and could be shot off at 250m making it very unrealistic. If you want to shoot down a plane without using 5,000 bullets try getting closer, less than 100m. Not much use blasting away at 300-400m, you're not firing 20mm cannons.

[Zooropa_Fly]

Re damage models, it's not so much that its tough in Rof - far from it. 

More likely you're using the default dispersed shooting mode, rather than the check box for 'improved gunnery'.. which is actually effectively shooting straight. 

I've shot down 18 bots with a thousand Dr1 rounds, once upon a time anyway - so not that hard. 

I mean you can throw your goggles at an SE5 wing and it's off !

 

Of course I'd like to see you give the devs some cash, but in all honesty, if you think RoF is that bad, then I don't think FC is significantly different to make it worth your while. 

 

S! 

[VonS]

5 hours ago, rotagen5 said:

[...] The old games like Jane's WW2F, RB3D, and CFS2 had one thing in common, the Adrenaline rush factor during dogfights.  Now you get "gee isn't that pretty" games that end up being drudgery to me, nothing customizeable, and I never get that "death grip" on the joystick excitement..... [...]

 

If you prefer tight-knuckle dogfights of yore, permit me to recommend heavily-modded First Eagles 2 and/or the WoFF series - both are old-school flight sims that have excellent AI and will give you plenty of challenging dogfight possibilities.

 

First Eagles 2 shines with "rolling" single missions that give lots of variety. WoFF is the gold standard for full campaigning. Both sims are similarly priced, around 40 USD or so, although First Eagles 2 is a one-time purchase since all of the available mods (on the CombatAce website) are free, while the WoFF series, whenever a major upgrade is released, requires a purchase (minor updates are free for WoFF, by the way).

 

First Eagles 2 is no longer being updated (since 2010) - so no need to worry about mods breaking. ? In terms of FM fidelity, FE2 is stronger in that department than WoFF because it uses more extensive data tables for the FMs, although both sims benefit (I think) from the FM tweaks packages that are available for them. WoFF since about the UE edition onwards (circa 2016-7) has, generally speaking, decent FMs - I'm not concerned by them too much and wouldn't describe them as flying on rails. (Also worth keeping in mind is that, sometimes, the flying-on-rails effect may be more historically realistic, depending on aircraft type.)

 

Graphics-wise, depends on what you like more: cockpits are wonderfully detailed in WoFF, less so in FE2; external aircraft details are usually similar but more consistently good in WoFF since many models in FE2 have not been updated in years by third-party modders; in terms of terrains, it's largely a personal choice - some simmers prefer the subdued terrain look of FE2, stock or modded, while others prefer the happy fields and meadows, and tree details, of WoFF - I like both for various reasons. (See screenshot threads on CombatAce for FE2, and on SimHQ for WoFF, for representative pics.)

 

Modded moderately, RoF has also become a good, respectable third WWI sim for me (since about 2020) and is now permanently on my hard drive - although I won't say anything more about RoF if you haven't warmed up to it. (Can't comment on FC since I don't have that series.)

 

Cheers & good WWI-sim purchasing choices to you,

?

 

[Aapje]

6 hours ago, rotagen5 said:

1. OK newbie here, what do the FC "volumes" represent?  In other words are II and III simply add-ons and you have to buy the 1st volume?  or are they full games?

All the IL-2 Great Battles games use the exact same game engine. Once you buy a volume on their website, you get the game engine plus the content for that volume. Note that this is different if you buy from Steam, where you need to get Battle of Stalingrad before you can use the other volumes, including FC.

 

The FC volumes share the same map, so after you get one, the others merely add planes. For the WW II volumes, each one has a different map as well as new planes.

 

They regularly have sales, where you get large discounts, at least on the older content. During the last winter sale, FC1 got 75% off, FC2 got 50% off and FC3 got 25% off. The next sale should be in 1 or 2 months, judging by the past. You can then get FC1 at least for a much more modest price.

 

6 hours ago, rotagen5 said:

2. Is the Damage Model as difficult as the "Rise of Flight" one?  ... please compare the games in this regard, putting 5000 bullets into a plane before anything happened bored the heck out of me... also, can we modify the Damage Model ?

It all depends on where you hit the plane. It is realistic for the fabric of the wings to take minimal damage from regular bullets, but the engine and pilots can't take too many holes in them. The wing roots are also more sensitive to damage. It is possible to mod the damage model. All kinds of settings for the sim are just values in files that you can change.

[Flying_Anchor]

15.02.2024 в 22:35, rotagen5 сказал:

please compare the games in this regard, putting 5000 bullets into a plane before anything happened bored the heck out of me

You can shoot down 7-8 ai planes with 2 MGs 500 rounds each. Look at the flying circus AI problems topic. 

[Duckman]

On 2/16/2024 at 12:18 AM, Zooropa_Fly said:

More likely you're using the default dispersed shooting mode, rather than the check box for 'improved gunnery'.. which is actually effectively shooting straight. 

 

Is this a commonly held opinion? I'm always intrigued by realism debates.

[Zooropa_Fly]

I've no real world ballistics experience, so take this with a pinch of salt if you like !

But as I understand it, the 'improved gunnery' is close to normal shooting and is how the game was originally.

 

The problem in question was with the damage model - wings falling off way too easy and the like.

The 'quick fix' solution was to give the game it's current bullet dispersion, i.e. making it harder to hit the enemy.

The original dispersion was retained in the game as 'improved gunnery'.

 

Zoom right in, in a parked SE5 and watch the dispersion as you fire - it's pretty wild !

 

Many say the best realism in RoF is combining 'improved gunnery' with one of the DM mods (can't remember which off hand), and an AI mod.

 

S!

[rotagen5]

Thanks for all the replies I need to read them all but the first one cracks me up... "One man pleasure's another man's Pain..." Molly Hatchet.

 

The first reply convinced me to try updating ROF which I haven't touched in probably 8 years... also if the FC developers share the first replier's attitude, no doubt the game will be drudgery..without any ability to mod the important specs. Look, there's a big difference between civilian flight sims and combat ones, and the most important difference is called adrenaline/endorphins.  There's no rush from chasing a few planes around for a half hour and slowly chewing on the wings like a mouse.

 

If I want to look at  a pretty fokker I can install a nice one into one of the MS civilian sims, or look at a nice photo or digital representation online.

 

I actually know how the myth started, there was a report of a pilot landing his plane in WW1 with something like 200 bullet holes in it... Luck is a random thing.  Meanwhile there are plenty of reports of wings failing with a single well placed round through a wing strut, or a pilot with 3 bullets through his chest from one quick encounter.. and YES, I do get close and I'd say easily 50% of my rounds hit the target, I don't waste bullets.

 

Look folks, we're talking highly flammable doped canvas wrapped around wood under extreme G-forces, surrounding a hot motor with moving (and often leaking) gas and oil.

 

If you want an eye opener and you want to experience pure adrenaline, try the good old Jane's WW2F with ACD (advanced combat designer) 30 flights at near proximity 50% enemy... that AI doesn't mess around they will slice you to bits.  Nice long lasting flame and ground fires too.  I'm sorry, if I'm spending 90 bucks on a game that can't be added to in terms of content, I want what I want.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

On 2/15/2024 at 1:35 PM, rotagen5 said:

OK I'm a huge fan of combat flight sims and especially WW1 stuff, but I haven't truly bonded to a good one since Forgotten Battles.

 

I bought Rise of Flight with high hopes and even purchased some new german aircraft but I lost interest pretty fast, in fact all "modern" combat sims generally bore me so I am gun shy.  The whole industry lost the plot.  The old games like Jane's WW2F, RB3D, and CFS2 had one thing in common, the Adrenaline rush factor during dogfights.  Now you get "gee isn't that pretty" games that end up being drudgery to me, nothing customizeable, and I never get that "death grip" on the joystick excitement.....

 

So here are my questions: The price is out of my range right now with our failing economy, but...I'm considering.

 

1. OK newbie here, what do the FC "volumes" represent?  In other words are II and III simply add-ons and you have to buy the 1st volume?  or are they full games?

2. Is the Damage Model as difficult as the "Rise of Flight" one?  ... please compare the games in this regard, putting 5000 bullets into a plane before anything happened bored the heck out of me... also, can we modify the  Damage Model ?

 

Thanks for your info.

Dust off your copy of ROF and give it another shot.  There's a learning curve, but if you stick with it, you'll get better.  Practice off line until you can fly without pulling your wings off , not stall everytime you try and turn, and can shoot down planes on occasion.   At that point, you should start getting better at a quicker pace.  If you do that and find it enjoyable,  get FC1 on sale,  and give it a go.  

 

Ps.  There are several good youtube videos to help you along the way.  Requiem, and Colonel Ninny are 2 amazing video makers that come to mind.  Very good stuff to help a new pilot.  

 

Camel and Dr1 are harder to master, so maybe start with an Albatros, Pup, Spad, or Pfalz 

 

https://youtu.be/sWx_MU3gEU0?si=LOvLsrAGufpQJjSc

Edited March 28, 2024 by RNAS10_Mitchell

[Todt_Von_Oben]

4 hours ago, rotagen5 said:

 I'd say easily 50% of my rounds hit the target, I don't waste bullets.

 

No need to estimate; we can know for sure.   If you get FC and fly MP, the Flugpark stats include the player's marksmanship accuracy percentage.

 

S!

Edited March 28, 2024 by Todt_Von_Oben

[Zooropa_Fly]

And of course in RoF your shooting stats are displayed..

 

Spoiler

AS THEY BLOODY WELL SHOULD BE

 

Rota - If you're able to hit at a rate of 50%, you'd be the top marksman in the game.

 

S!

[ST_Catchov]

Mine's 78% but I don't like to brag.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm really great at Golf too. Win everything.

Edited March 28, 2024 by ST_Catchov

[jollyjack]

RoF, yeah, all those nice 3rd party mods like Vander's artillery pulling horses etc, float planes, and that Muromets flying chicken pen; still not announced with FC4.

[Zooropa_Fly]

51 minutes ago, ST_Catchov said:

Mine's 78% but I don't like to brag.

 

We're not counting dirigibles here.

[ST_Catchov]

50 minutes ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

 

We're not counting dirigibles here.

 

Changing the rules eh. SAD!

[=IRFC=Gascan]

17 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

Mine's 78% but I don't like to brag.

 

I'm really great at Golf too. Win everything.

 

Women fear him, men want him, fish want to be him.

(that's how the quote goes, right?)

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

1 hour ago, =IRFC=Gascan said:

 

Women fear him, men want him, fish want to be him.

(that's how the quote goes, right?)

Almost.?

[BMA_Hellbender]

On 3/27/2024 at 11:09 PM, rotagen5 said:

Thanks for all the replies I need to read them all but the first one cracks me up... "One man pleasure's another man's Pain..." Molly Hatchet.

 

The first reply convinced me to try updating ROF which I haven't touched in probably 8 years... also if the FC developers share the first replier's attitude, no doubt the game will be drudgery..without any ability to mod the important specs. Look, there's a big difference between civilian flight sims and combat ones, and the most important difference is called adrenaline/endorphins.  There's no rush from chasing a few planes around for a half hour and slowly chewing on the wings like a mouse.

 

If I want to look at  a pretty fokker I can install a nice one into one of the MS civilian sims, or look at a nice photo or digital representation online.

 

I actually know how the myth started, there was a report of a pilot landing his plane in WW1 with something like 200 bullet holes in it... Luck is a random thing.  Meanwhile there are plenty of reports of wings failing with a single well placed round through a wing strut, or a pilot with 3 bullets through his chest from one quick encounter.. and YES, I do get close and I'd say easily 50% of my rounds hit the target, I don't waste bullets.

 

Look folks, we're talking highly flammable doped canvas wrapped around wood under extreme G-forces, surrounding a hot motor with moving (and often leaking) gas and oil.

 

If you want an eye opener and you want to experience pure adrenaline, try the good old Jane's WW2F with ACD (advanced combat designer) 30 flights at near proximity 50% enemy... that AI doesn't mess around they will slice you to bits.  Nice long lasting flame and ground fires too.  I'm sorry, if I'm spending 90 bucks on a game that can't be added to in terms of content, I want what I want.

 

I find this a strange thread and a strange reaction to my initial reply to the OP.

 

What we have now, since the second major DM update, is a compromise: it is still possible to critically damage an aircraft through sustained damage to load bearing parts or, in rare circumstances, disable an aircraft with a (few) well placed round(s). Snapping elevator cables comes to mind. Good luck landing without them. Since the sim doesn't model random failures or poor construction/maintenance, which would have been the main cause of a part failing catastrophically after sustaining little to no damage, we have the next best thing: all our planes are built perfectly, some a bit too perfectly (*cough* Pfalz D.IIIa *cough*) and our pilots are disabled after taking a (few) well placed round(s).

 

It's true that it leads to pilot sniping, but the alternative is "spray and pray" since you're otherwise equally likely to disable a plane through hitting it anywhere. Historically speaking that was simply not the case. Ace pilots would come in very close and aim for the pilot to secure a kill.

 

 

So what exactly do you want?

 

• Do you want something that is more realistic? It's likely not possible with the current technology.
   
• Do you want something that is more "fun"? As you've said yourself, that is highly subjective. I'm all for giving consumers options, but it's certainly not the main goal of this sim to cater to every possible DM variation that people might want to experience. Personally I'd like my single Vickers to shoot pink tracers and cause tiny nuclear explosions when they hit, but that's just me.

[Dr1falcon500]

I have no idea what the OP wants. I'm fairly sure this is the same bloke that commented on one of my FC videos a couple of months back. Comment was very similar to here, how RoF damage model is impossible drudgery, he also said that FC DM might be more reasonable from vid. Really looks to me that he just wants to rant.

[PatrickAWlson]

I find that real WWI gunnery tactics work well with RoF and FC.  Get close.  Shoot at the meat puppet sitting in the hole in the plane.  I am not a good shot so firing at point blank is pretty much the only way I'm going to hit anything anyway.  Still, that's how it was usually done in real life.

[Davesax1965]

I think my answer to the OP is "do you want a game or a simulation? "

Games programming - what you're trying to do is keep the "adrenaline rush" going in the player. This is normally at the expense of realism - it's "immediate cheap thrill" time. With a simulation, the "thrill" comes from immersion into the subject. There may be extended periods where nothing happens, then, whoops, hit by AAA and lose an elevator. 

 

The problem with modelling WW1 air combat is that, if done correctly, it's actually very difficult and has a steep learning curve. You can't just throw a plane around the sky if the flight model has been correctly programmed - unless you want a short trip downstairs into a muddy puddle in No Man's Land. It takes time to master flying, combat, if accurately modelled, is, if anything, more difficult than any other time period, mistakes are more costly and then we get to gunnery, which is something which takes a long time to get the hang of. A lot of aces expended hundreds of rounds of ammo to down an opponent. There were some exceptions, such as Fonck, but in general, don't expect to get a dozen easy kills every mission. 

Thing is, the satisfaction of getting one kills in a realistic simulation is much higher than getting 10 kills in a "video game". For me, anyway. 

So whilst it's difficult to see what exactly the OP wants, I'd say that if he didn't enjoy RoF, he probably won't enjoy FC for the same reasons. Even more so, I should expect.