It's airship time

[AOB]

I cannot wait for the Movie 

[TempestV]

😅

Here you go. Cover your eyes when the Germans ditch 'ballast'🙈

 

Edited January 1 by TempestV

[Avimimus]

19 hours ago, LukeFF said:

ROF and FC's timeline begins in September 1916, when the older types like the BE2 and E.III were being phased out - not to mention, the initial focus was 1918. That makes for about ~23 of the games simulated 27 months taking place outside of late 1916, so that alone means a lot of aircraft to model.

And let's please not forget the BE2 in retrospect was a truly awful design. 🙂 I'm not exactly confident it would sell well to justify the cost of development (just my opinion - I don't have a final decision in what's made and what's not).

 

Hey Luke! That isn't actually entirely accurate. The B.E.2 remained in service with some British front-line units until May 1917. If I recall correctly some of the aircraft still serving in 1917 were also the earlier c/d variants (mixed in with the e/f)!

 

I think the main argument for it is now that it downed half of the Zeppelins shot down by aircraft during the war, with the main argument against it being it was, as you put it 'a truly awful design'. When thinking of it as an AI only aircraft, the main argument is that 3500 were made and that they occur very often in the kill lists of German pilots... so are important for making realistic 1916 (and early 1917) careers.

 

As for pushing the timeline back to September 1915 - it could actually be done reasonably well with a very small number of aircraft. By September the production line for the Fokker Eindeckers were being upgraded so that new builds were essentially E.III (the E.I/E.II/E.III designations appear retrospective), so we can use the E.III. One only really needs a slower two-seater for both sides that was active by mid-1915, and the Morane-Saulnier N... three aircraft in total. I think a more ideal 1915 module would consist of five aircraft - but it can be done with just three!

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

2 hours ago, Avimimus said:

main argument against it being it was, as you put it 'a truly awful design'

That is not an argument. This was very stable plane, build in great numbers to do it  service. 

[Flashy]

23 hours ago, LukeFF said:

ROF and FC's timeline begins in September 1916, when the older types like the BE2 and E.III were being phased out - not to mention, the initial focus was 1918. That makes for about ~23 of the games simulated 27 months taking place outside of late 1916, so that alone means a lot of aircraft to model.

 

Well I dont know who made the decision to exclude half of the war right off the bat, and what the rationale for that could have possibly been, but it seems like a pretty silly design decision which needs to be re-evaluated.. As others have said, move the time frame back.. beginning of 1916 at the minimum, but 1915 is even better.  

23 hours ago, LukeFF said:

And let's please not forget the BE2 in retrospect was a truly awful design. 🙂 

 

The B.E.2 was not a terrible design, it was actually a very good design which met all of the requirements for a military aircraft for its time - it was slow, stable, easy to fly, very rugged and easy to maintain in the field, with a good field of view for the observer who sat in front - all perfect qualities for an observation or artillery co-operation aircraft.  In 1912 when it was designed, people didnt seriously entertain the idea that planes would be fighting each other in the air, so there was no need for an aircraft to have defensive armament at that stage. The only reason it got such a bad reputation was because the technology and nature of the air way changed so quickly once the war started, and it was soon hopelessly outclassed.. and the qualities that made it such a brilliant observation platform also made it totally useless as a fighter, but that is hardly the plane's fault..  The other problem was it stayed in service way past its useful life simply because the British didnt have anything to replace it with. The early 2-seater aircraft on both the German and French sides were equally unsuited to combat, but they were withdrawn from service pretty quickly when the tide started turning against them.. the B.E.2 had to simply soldier on because there wasnt anything else available.. 

Edited January 1 by Flashy

[Avimimus]

Okay, to be fair to the B.E.2 - I agree with you. It was a very good design in many respects and was pretty close to an 'ideal' plane in 1912. Compared to the 1916 'C-types' it lacked an effective defensive (or offensive) armament, was too stable, was slow, and could only carry a meaningful bombload if it was been flown with a single crew member... so if we're looking at the situation in 1916-1917 it certainly was no longer ideal. But I get the point the two of you are making.

 

Interestingly, the RNAS also kept using the Caudron G.IV in daylight raids into 1917 (over a year after France had moved them to night-bombing only)!

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, Flashy said:

Well I dont know who made the decision to exclude half of the war right off the bat, and what the rationale for that could have possibly been, but it seems like a pretty silly design decision which needs to be re-evaluated.

 

You have to remember that Rise of Flight was initially developed by a team called NeoQB, a very small group of guys (some of whom are still around now), so the project had a narrow scope by necessity from the start. 

 

September 1916 was also chosen as the starting date because that's when you really start to see on the German side the move away from the really small, kinda ad-hoc formations to the first Jastas. Yes, I know everyone here just wants to see more and more aircraft and the timeline moved back, but right now there just isn't the time for that. 

[ST_Catchov]

4 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Yes, I know everyone here just wants to see more and more aircraft and the timeline moved back, but right now there just isn't the time for that. 

 

As FC (and GB) will continue to be popular into the future, and well after the Korea release, I expect this to happen. In fact, I demand it, as a well-respected member of the community.

[Avimimus]

9 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

As FC (and GB) will continue to be popular into the future, and well after the Korea release, I expect this to happen. In fact, I demand it, as a well-respected member of the community.

 

Haven't we already decided that the Gulf of Venice/Isonzo is definitely going to happen? We don't need to place demands or challenge people to duels - just create our own alternative reality my good sir!

 

14 hours ago, LukeFF said:

You have to remember that Rise of Flight was initially developed by a team called NeoQB, a very small group of guys (some of whom are still around now), so the project had a narrow scope by necessity from the start. 

 

September 1916 was also chosen as the starting date because that's when you really start to see on the German side the move away from the really small, kinda ad-hoc formations to the first Jastas.

 

To be fair though - those were also mixed Jastas - so they should logically have the Fokker D.II to accurately represent them!

 

September 1916 rules out the Morane-Saulnier N (withdrawn over the summer) and Morane-Saulner L - but the Caudron (in RNAS service) and the B.E.2c were still in use. There would still have been slower variants of the F.E.2b in service as well. So there is still potential to add a slower two-seater for the Fokker E.III to hunt.

 

Also, since you mention NeoQB - they started developing three aircraft Airco D.H.9, Rumpler C.IV, and Roland D.VI... so there is still room for growth within such a narrow scope!  The Rumpler C.IV would actually be a very good addition for the new intercept mission logic (to go with the Airships)...

 

14 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Yes, I know everyone here just wants to see more and more aircraft and the timeline moved back, but right now there just isn't the time for that. 

 

I'll take this as the gentlest way of letting us know that you see no indication that the airship will be the nucleus of a new module.

 

You'll have to forgive us for our enthusiasm and needing an excuse to talk about WWI aircraft - especially as this may be the beginning of a long drought. Thank you for letting us know what is likely though!

[Trooper117]

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

especially as this may be the beginning of a long drought.

 

There is nothing like a good old long slog... it makes one grind on, knowing the goal is far away and many will fall by the wayside. It sorts out the men from the boys, the wheat will be kept but the chaff will be discarded, only the strong, the determined will get to the end... every man an Emperor!

[LukeFF]

7 hours ago, Avimimus said:

I'll take this as the gentlest way of letting us know that you see no indication that the airship will be the nucleus of a new module.

 

You'll have to forgive us for our enthusiasm and needing an excuse to talk about WWI aircraft - especially as this may be the beginning of a long drought. Thank you for letting us know what is likely though!

 

Pretty much, yes. Believe me, I wish it were different as well, but what is planned for World War is what was recently announced. 

[Enceladus828]

With all due respect, a Zeppelin is not going to have anywhere near the impact that an AI B-17 would so what’s really the point of releasing it as a standalone? Is development time for a BE2c or Rumpler C.IV longer than an AI Zeppelin?

[ST_Catchov]

12 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Haven't we already decided that the Gulf of Venice/Isonzo is definitely going to happen?

 

Yes we have. And I'll challenge anyone to a duel wot says otherwise.

[Avimimus]

22 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Pretty much, yes. Believe me, I wish it were different as well, but what is planned for World War is what was recently announced. 

 

Thanks. Always great to have clarity!

 

17 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

Yes we have. And I'll challenge anyone to a duel wot says otherwise.

 

I'll be your Second.

 

19 hours ago, Enceladus828 said:

With all due respect, a Zeppelin is not going to have anywhere near the impact that an AI B-17 would so what’s really the point of releasing it as a standalone? Is development time for a BE2c or Rumpler C.IV longer than an AI Zeppelin?

 

I think this is a case of someone really wanting to develop and implement the physics to allow an airship... rather than a case of someone who sat down to calculate which aircraft is easiest to add. In my opinion, it is good to have enthusiastic devs - and it is really good for game engine development to have projects which are driven partly by interest, rather than just immediate commercial value. I suspect it is a passion project. Maybe the developer behind this decision will get interested in a B.E.2c afterward... who knows?

 

I also suspect that the flight model / damage model programmers are largely 'all hands on deck' for Korea, and they will then be very busy preparing the Odessa/Karelia aircraft for release - so there probably isn't a gap... and it is worth noting that, even if Ugra (or another third party) created a 3d model, the implementation of the physics is still being done entirely in-house (and so directly competes with Korea and Odessa/Karelia). I wouldn't be surprised if the flight model for an airship is substantially different enough that a core physics programmer is building it rather than one of the FM/DM people. Anyway, if there is ever a gap where less FM/DM programming is required, it might allow something like a Roland D.VI at least (which I suspect would sell relatively well)... I wouldn't rule it out entirely. But it makes a lot of sense it isn't happening right now.

[Flashy]

On 1/1/2025 at 8:45 PM, LukeFF said:

 

You have to remember that Rise of Flight was initially developed by a team called NeoQB, a very small group of guys (some of whom are still around now), so the project had a narrow scope by necessity from the start. 

 

September 1916 was also chosen as the starting date because that's when you really start to see on the German side the move away from the really small, kinda ad-hoc formations to the first Jastas. Yes, I know everyone here just wants to see more and more aircraft and the timeline moved back, but right now there just isn't the time for that. 

I respect that, at the beginning, a small outfit like NeoQB had to keep the scope very narrow (and that may very well have saved them from going under), but even by 2010/2011 when 777 was involved, I think the scope could have been expanded. And these days, with the success of IL-2 and all its modules, I really dont see why they have to stick to a scope that was created by a tiny team of a few guys back in 2007.. But I also do totally hear the point about profitability - this isnt a charity after all... 

 

I still think a Flying Circus Vol V with late 1915 and early/mid 1916 plane set and maybe a channel map would sell well enough to justify its development cost.. but the bean counters at 1C are probably the only ones who could actually answer that...

 

 

[Avimimus]

 

Okay, now for something completely different...

We're getting a German airship, but we'll probably not get a British one... which means German pilots don't get to fly airship intercepts.

We're also getting a German airship without a home defence B.E.2 to shoot it down...

 

My bad idea - solve both problems with a Sea Scout B.E.

 

 

They were:

- Mass produced

- Successful

- Well armed (bombs and a defensive machine gun)

 

One was even tested successfully in France!

 

This way we get our B.E.2c cockpit and fuselage modelled as a mere byproduct of getting an airship made. Everybody wins!

[Enceladus828]

1 hour ago, Flashy said:

I still think a Flying Circus Vol V with late 1915 and early/mid 1916 plane set and maybe a channel map would sell well enough to justify its development cost.. but the bean counters at 1C are probably the only ones who could actually answer that...

I agree too that there should be an earlier plane set but at this point the devs have moved onto a new engine and would rather focus efforts on more interesting places like Korea and the Pacific (New Guinea or the Philippines are my bets) than WW1. We also have to remember that FC is mostly being done by a 3rd party who does work for other games like DCS and they have to be willing to do it. Maybe Ugra would rather make content for the Korea engine after FC4 or they're taking up other tasks. I might be over thinking this but remaking FC planes from RoF for a 3rd party is much easier said than done and making one from scratch like the Snipe and SS D.IV is an even greater task so they would probably only do 2 or 3 non-RoF planes at a time.

[Canvas25]

7 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

Okay, now for something completely different...

We're getting a German airship, but we'll probably not get a British one... which means German pilots don't get to fly airship intercepts.

We're also getting a German airship without a home defence B.E.2 to shoot it down...

 

My bad idea - solve both problems with a Sea Scout B.E.

 

 

They were:

- Mass produced

- Successful

- Well armed (bombs and a defensive machine gun)

 

One was even tested successfully in France!

 

This way we get our B.E.2c cockpit and fuselage modelled as a mere byproduct of getting an airship made. Everybody wins!

 

One of the great reasons for being on this forum - a real wealth of knowledge from some very well read people. 😁

 

[Avimimus]

Interestingly, the B.E.2c derived Sea Scouts could fly at 2/3rds the speed of the regular B.E.2c and had a heavier payload (including a heavier bomb load) with a much longer range and endurance! I suspect that the normal B.E.2c was more manoeuvrable though (in addition to being 50 percent faster).

[Davesax1965]

To be quite honest, I can't see the point of an AI Zeppelin in the game. 

As a lot of posters have said, the argument is that if you're going to have one, you need an early war aircraft such as a BE2c otherwise it's really a turkey shoot. All an L or P class Zeppelin / Shutte Lanz is is a big fat sitting duck when matched against any of the current aircraft in Flying Circus. Perhaps the DH2 is the only realistic opponent, but there were incidents when Zeps were brought down by three (47 round ?) drums of Lewis gun ammo fired from hundreds of feet below. Zeps were also popped off with single Cooper (?) bombs dropped from above. 

I can see a lot of point in a player controlled Zep, though. Although a Zeppelin is a huge inflammable target, it's bristling with guns. Up to 8, if I recall, although some crews flew without guns as the decrease in weight meant they could outclimb aircraft of the day. Naval zeps used MG08's, Army zeps used Parabellums. A player controlled Zep would offer a lot better experience, as you've got multiple guns to control - the flight controls of zeppelins are a bit weird and it might require some additional work to control climb and ballast, etc. Plus you have navigation at night, avoiding AA guns. Although I'm not sure if the current AA guns in FC have the vertical range to hit a zeppelin. Flying at night, with no clear idea of where you are and avoiding flak and searchlights would be great. 

One great addition would be a spy basket. This was a gondola which was lowered beneath the cloud base. An observer with a telephone and map would relay navigation instructions to the zeppelin hiding in the clouds above. Not a job I'd volunteer for. 

All in all ? AI zep ? Well, after a few missions, you'd get bored of merely blowing them out of the sky. Player controlled zep ? Tons of fun in multiplayer. However, resources, time, possible audience etc etc etc. 

There's really an entire new game to be had if you model a playable Zeppelin properly. Plan and execute your bombing missions, put a crew together in multiplayer - throw in a BE2c or Bristol Scout as an opponent, just use the standard map instead of the Channel map. Add in a damage control section, similar to Tank Crew... 

But we know we're going to get a big fat AI target which goes boom after a bit, and after it's gone boom half a dozen times, it'll get boring. 

 

[Davesax1965]

Just a final passing thought. 

When not disabled by AA, most Zeppelins shot down over the UK were as a result of a single aircraft, usually armed with a sole Lewis gun. Big a Zeppelin may be, but they really weren't a very tough opponent. The only advantage they had was the ability to outclimb most early planes. "It's a turkey shoot". 

Inevitably, a lot of players are going to pitch an entire squadron of aircraft against them. How long the novelty of that lasts is debatable. 

Big bomber ? I'd prefer a Lancaster.

 

Edited January 5 by Dick_Scratcher

[Trooper117]

2 hours ago, Dick_Scratcher said:

But we know we're going to get a big fat AI target which goes boom after a bit, and after it's gone boom half a dozen times, it'll get boring. 

 

This... 

[Davesax1965]

There is so much potential there for a proper, innovative "Zeppelin game". Obviously cost is a factor, but I think a very large proportion of FC owners would buy into it. After all, a Zep is probably the ultimate target for a WW1 flight sim freak. Having shot them down in WoFF2, Red Baron and RoF via a mod..... it gets boring shooting big slow, vulnerable AI targets. 

However. If you think of it as "Gotha Raid Plus"  where you're actually piloting a Zeppelin on a raid, with all kinds of management / multiplayer options, it gets much, much  more interesting. And novel.  

One comment earlier was that "these would be long missions" - well. The original Channel map in RoF lead to long Gotha missions. Just start nearer the target. 😉

That brings me onto another suggestion - Skip to waypoint.

Back in the old days, in games such as First Eagles and some of the Rowan ones, you could press a hotkey (CTRL-W, how sad I remembered it) and "skip to the next waypoint." The game merely calculated what was going on around you, and you either arrived at the next waypoint or, if there were enemies present, the time skip was halted and you were left to deal with the changed situation. 

I'm just wondering if this could be implemented in FC / etc as an option ? It's very pretty and scenic spending hours flying around to the next waypoint, but I'm old and impatient. 😉

Edited January 6 by Dick_Scratcher

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, Dick_Scratcher said:

I'm just wondering if this could be implemented in FC / etc as an option ? It's very pretty and scenic spending hours flying around to the next waypoint, but I'm old and impatient. 😉

 

At this point, no, don't count on it. 

[=IRFC=Gascan]

14 hours ago, Dick_Scratcher said:

That brings me onto another suggestion - Skip to waypoint.

Right now you can use the time compression (up to 8x, I believe) to speed things up. Use autolevel or even autopilot to head to the next waypoint.

[Flashy]

On 1/5/2025 at 12:03 PM, Dick_Scratcher said:

To be quite honest, I can't see the point of an AI Zeppelin in the game. 

As a lot of posters have said, the argument is that if you're going to have one, you need an early war aircraft such as a BE2c otherwise it's really a turkey shoot. All an L or P class Zeppelin / Shutte Lanz is is a big fat sitting duck when matched against any of the current aircraft in Flying Circus. Perhaps the DH2 is the only realistic opponent, but there were incidents when Zeps were brought down by three (47 round ?) drums of Lewis gun ammo fired from hundreds of feet below. Zeps were also popped off with single Cooper (?) bombs dropped from above. 

 

 

As much as I welcome any new FC content, I must admit the inclusion of a zeppelin into FC at this stage is a bit odd.. It would make far more sense as part of a 1915/1916 plane set as you say, and also on a channel map with London.. The Zeppelins were widely used for naval patrol missions over the north sea (this was actually their main role) and, while its true there were still isolated Zeppelin raids on both Paris and London as late as 1917, the Zeppelin was very much a 1915/1916 weapon at best. Even planes from early 1916 would be capable of shooting them down relatively easily.

 

But still, I'm keen to see what they do with it.. I really enjoy the night missions in both RoF and Il-2, so I will be happy to try the Dh2 or Strutter vs a Zeppelin raid over Paris..

Edited January 7 by Flashy

[Avimimus]

7 hours ago, LukeFF said:

At this point, no, don't count on it. 

 

I'll add that it is one of the features I missed most - from the old Red Baron I came (and also Ef-2000)... the ability to skip to waypoint (or skip to the ingress to waypoint)...

[Avimimus]

On 1/5/2025 at 10:03 AM, Dick_Scratcher said:

As a lot of posters have said, the argument is that if you're going to have one, you need an early war aircraft such as a BE2c otherwise it's really a turkey shoot. All an L or P class Zeppelin / Shutte Lanz is is a big fat sitting duck when matched against any of the current aircraft in Flying Circus. Perhaps the DH2 is the only realistic opponent, but there were incidents when Zeps were brought down by three (47 round ?) drums of Lewis gun ammo fired from hundreds of feet below. Zeps were also popped off with single Cooper (?) bombs dropped from above. 

 

[...]

 

Although I'm not sure if the current AA guns in FC have the vertical range to hit a zeppelin.

 

[...]

 

throw in a BE2c or Bristol Scout as an opponent, just use the standard map instead of the Channel map.

 

 

(1) They were a lot less vulnerable early on due to aircraft having difficulty climbing fast enough and high enough to intercept and due to a lack of incendiary bullets for the Lewis gun:

- Taking out a Zeppelin by bombing it with rankin darts or firing a martini-henry rifle at it would be much more of a challenge. Similarly getting into position with a draggy load of short-range Le Prieur rockets wasn't guaranteed.

- By the fall of 1916 incendiary rounds are appearing in reasonable quantities, although early models had reliability issues, and the situation changes. The fall of 1916 is also when the B.E.2c shoot down half of the Zeppelins which were shot down by aircraft during the war.

(2) Some engagements involved multiple aircraft attacking airships. This seems to have been pretty common as anti-airship patrols were often flown in pairs. We also mainly know of successful interceptions. It would take a much deeper dive into records to get an idea of how many airships survived attempted attacks.

 

(3) So far as I can tell only two Airships were successfully hit by air-to-air bombs during the war. That still represents about 1/7th of airship losses involving enemy aircraft though.

 

(4) Several airships were destroyed by ground based or naval based artillery guns. These claimed at least half as many airships as air-to-air combat did.

 

(5) Airships were destroyed by a D.H.4, a navalised Sopwith Camel, and a navalised Sopwith Pup. So variants of three flyable aircraft succeeded in destroying airships - albeit not over France. I'm not aware of a Bristol scout ever successfully attacking an airship. A B.E.2c or even one of the French aircraft used for anti-airship patrols, even if they never actually short down an airship, would make logical sense (e.g. Farman F.40).

 

I agree with the general idea that airships will be pretty vulnerable to 1917/1918 aircraft - although I don't think shooting them down will get boring.

 

P.S. Being able to deselect incendiary ammo in early war aircraft would be a clear gameplay benefit, but I doubt it will happen. I wonder if mission settings or triggers could be used to do this?

[Flashy]

Thanks @Avimimus Very interesting info there about the incendiary ammo not being available until later in 1916 - I didnt know that! I also think giving us the ability to deselect incendiary ammo would be a good option. That should at least allow us to represent early 1916 time periods when it comes to Zeppelin hunting

[Davesax1965]

On 06/01/2025 at 16:23, LukeFF said:

 

At this point, no, don't count on it. 

Yeah, I can imagine there'd be some serious development questions regarding the game mechanics. 😉

Someone above mentioned the "skip to waypoint" feature in EF2000. I just remembered one mission where I was shot to ribbons by a SAM, fuel leak, dropped all the external munitions, gained altitude, powered down and glided back to base using "skip to waypoint." 

When the game plonked me back, I lined up with the runway, dropped flaps and gear and at that point, got bingo fuel. I laughed so much that I crashed just before the runway. Just shows there's a lot to model with "skip to waypoint", and there'd be a shed load of code revision. Nice idea, but.....

 

 

Some more on .303 incendiary rounds here. Approved in July 1916.

https://sites.google.com/site/britmilammo/-303-inch/-303-inch-incendiary

Trail of smoke out to 1000 yards. 😉 Wish I'd had some of them in my long gone shooting days. 

Edited January 8 by Dick_Scratcher

[Davesax1965]

Bit chilly out today in Northern England. 

This would have been a bit chillier, and a job I certainly wouldn't be sticking my hand up to volunteer for. Forward and rear gun positions on a Zep. I expect you'd need warm gloves and a a scarf at the very least. Oh, and no fear of heights or sitting atop a giant inflammable bomb. 

Of course, there's the gondola gunners as well. I can't imagine trying to take out a Zeppelin with a salvo of Le Prieurs - 100 to 150 yard range for the rockets, whole forest of machineguns pointing at you..... 

Another aside. My old granny, born in 1910, swore blind that as a child, she'd looked up and seen "the Zeppelin" caught in searchlights. Given that there were no Zep raids directly over northern Manchester, she'd either been on the gin from an early age or seen some form of balloon. 😉
 

Edited January 8 by Dick_Scratcher

[TempestV]

Toss up-Food was better and you didn't serve in a muddy trench.

At 0.22

 

[PatrickAWlson]

On 12/31/2024 at 6:04 PM, Enceladus828 said:

But what other planes are there to go with the BE2c and the Morane in that timeframe? Caudron G.IV, Bristol Scout, and Albatross or Aviatik C.I... I'm not sure how well known the Vickers F.B.5 and 9 are.

 

For 1916 there's Paris and Nieuport 11s.  Pilot Officer James Patrick Page, on load the French Air Force, reports a Ded Zeppelin.  

[Davesax1965]

The problem with "early war" aircraft, as a companion / opponent for a Zeppelin is..... really, not much happens in the air in WW1 before mid 1915. I can't imagine anyone wanting to fly unarmed reconnaissance missions in a Rumpler Taube in 1914. You might as well buy MS Flight Simulator as air combat in 1914 was almost non-existent. 

By 1915, things are getting slightly more interesting, note "slightly", as you can now buzz around slowly and painfully in a limited selection of aircraft who rely on wing warping and non synchronised guns. By "guns", I mean that service rifles are being slowly replaced with machineguns. A few fire through the propellor arc (Roland Garros etc) but since you can't synchronise an open bolt machinegun such as a Lewis or Hotchkiss, the few aircraft set up to do this have "deflector plates" on the propellors to deflect any bullets which hit the prop due to bad timing. It was reckoned that 5% of all shots fired in a non synchronised setup would actually hit the prop. (I asked if prop damage could be modelled on the old RoF forum, due to the fact that an engine could literally be torn off it's mounts by having the prop damaged, incidentally.) 

So, before, say, July 1915, you have a limited number of choices. You can simulate getting the SMLE or Mauser out when an enemy plane appears - and you'll probably never hit it, you can throw darts or bricks at it, good luck with that one, you can have a side mounted Lewis gun like Lanoe Hawker had on his Bristol Scout (and hope your opponent just flies in a straight line to the left of your machine) or you can have a Lewis or Hotchkiss firing through the propellor arc with the problem of it being exceptionally dangerous. (Oh yes, and keep feeding the stripper clips into the Hotchkiss. Plus. 47 round drums for the Lewis at this time. )

All in all, not much fun. There are some early pusher designs which got rid of synchronisation problems by having the gunner in front of the pilot, but - two seaters, slow, subject to a lot of drag and poor handling. The Morane Saulniers are probably worth modelling, though. Plus the often discussed BE2c, which has a life (as a sitting duck) well into the later war.

It's only when the Fokker E1 comes on the scene with a synchronised MG08 firing through the propellor arc that WW1 aviation becomes, well, playable. Without extreme boredom. Plus, if you're actually trying to replicate things properly, there was very little flying done during the early war years. It's only later that you get large numbers of aircraft patrolling the various fronts and what we classically recognise as WW1 aviation. 

So the Zep - essentially a weapon of the early war, is redundant very quickly: this is why the Germans stopped spending huge amounts of money on building them. Is it worth modelling a number of period early war opponent aircraft ? I'd say no.

Huge dumb AI target which goes boom and no valid opponents - or ones actually worth flying ? The logic escapes me. 😉
 

Edited January 9 by Dick_Scratcher

[PatrickAWlson]

@Dick_Scratcher Mostly agree with you.  Still, there is some value to it.  We have Paris.  We have the FE2b which can stand in for a Farman.  It might be fun to chase down a Zep one time early in the war. 

 

I do an alternate career mode called PWCG. I will probably set up home defense squadrons for the French, British, and Germans.   The French could start as early as mid 1915 flying against Zeppelins.  These squadrons would fly night missions against HPs, Gothas, and Zeppelins.  Mission frequency would be much lower than front line units, probably only one mission per month.

 

[No.23_Starling]

4 hours ago, Dick_Scratcher said:

The problem with "early war" aircraft, as a companion / opponent for a Zeppelin is..... really, not much happens in the air in WW1 before mid 1915. I can't imagine anyone wanting to fly unarmed reconnaissance missions in a Rumpler Taube in 1914. You might as well buy MS Flight Simulator as air combat in 1914 was almost non-existent. 

By 1915, things are getting slightly more interesting, note "slightly", as you can now buzz around slowly and painfully in a limited selection of aircraft who rely on wing warping and non synchronised guns. By "guns", I mean that service rifles are being slowly replaced with machineguns. A few fire through the propellor arc (Roland Garros etc) but since you can't synchronise an open bolt machinegun such as a Lewis or Hotchkiss, the few aircraft set up to do this have "deflector plates" on the propellors to deflect any bullets which hit the prop due to bad timing. It was reckoned that 5% of all shots fired in a non synchronised setup would actually hit the prop. (I asked if prop damage could be modelled on the old RoF forum, due to the fact that an engine could literally be torn off it's mounts by having the prop damaged, incidentally.) 

So, before, say, July 1915, you have a limited number of choices. You can simulate getting the SMLE or Mauser out when an enemy plane appears - and you'll probably never hit it, you can throw darts or bricks at it, good luck with that one, you can have a side mounted Lewis gun like Lanoe Hawker had on his Bristol Scout (and hope your opponent just flies in a straight line to the left of your machine) or you can have a Lewis or Hotchkiss firing through the propellor arc with the problem of it being exceptionally dangerous. (Oh yes, and keep feeding the stripper clips into the Hotchkiss. Plus. 47 round drums for the Lewis at this time. )

All in all, not much fun. There are some early pusher designs which got rid of synchronisation problems by having the gunner in front of the pilot, but - two seaters, slow, subject to a lot of drag and poor handling. The Morane Saulniers are probably worth modelling, though. Plus the often discussed BE2c, which has a life (as a sitting duck) well into the later war.

It's only when the Fokker E1 comes on the scene with a synchronised MG08 firing through the propellor arc that WW1 aviation becomes, well, playable. Without extreme boredom. Plus, if you're actually trying to replicate things properly, there was very little flying done during the early war years. It's only later that you get large numbers of aircraft patrolling the various fronts and what we classically recognise as WW1 aviation. 

So the Zep - essentially a weapon of the early war, is redundant very quickly: this is why the Germans stopped spending huge amounts of money on building them. Is it worth modelling a number of period early war opponent aircraft ? I'd say no.

Huge dumb AI target which goes boom and no valid opponents - or ones actually worth flying ? The logic escapes me. 😉
 

You should take a look at Wings Over Flanders Fields for their early war content. There’s novel aircraft like the Bristol Scout complete with obliquely firing Lewis, the Morane with deflector plates, Be2s with your gunner up front. I actually find the early war to be really fun just for the challenge.
 

What also helps is being able to do different kinds of traditional 2 seater recon missions. Some of our MP server teams of put in cool stuff like contact patrols and artillery spotting - you need that too, not only for early war. 
 

As for the quietness of the front till late 1916, WoFF allows you to crank up the encounter rate so you nearly always encounter the odd recon etc. Then again you can set it to historical and rarely see another plane. Either way this would need much more investment in SP content. I’d recommend getting WoFF to experience early war and the best campaign out there (and AI).

[PatrickAWlson]

5 minutes ago, US103_Rummell said:

You should take a look at Wings Over Flanders Fields for their early war content. There’s novel aircraft like the Bristol Scout complete with obliquely firing Lewis, the Morane with deflector plates, Be2s with your gunner up front. I actually find the early war to be really fun just for the challenge.
 

What also helps is being able to do different kinds of traditional 2 seater recon missions. Some of our MP server teams of put in cool stuff like contact patrols and artillery spotting - you need that too, not only for early war. 
 

As for the quietness of the front till late 1916, WoFF allows you to crank up the encounter rate so you nearly always encounter the odd recon etc. Then again you can set it to historical and rarely see another plane. Either way this would need much more investment in SP content. I’d recommend getting WoFF to experience early war and the best campaign out there (and AI).

 

 

I can see both sides of the argument.  In a vacuum I would say yes, bring on 1915.  However, there is opportunity cost.  I would much rather see the holes in the current lineup, especially two seaters, filled. 

 

We're getting an AI Zeppelin.  People have been clamoring for one for 16 years so 1C is making one.  I would rather have 2 seaters in the 1916-1918 time frame, even if they were AI only.  But hey, I'll take whatever I get and do something with it.

 

[LukeFF]

Guys, let's please stay away from promoting competing flight sims here, thanks. 

[=IRFC=Gascan]

4 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

But hey, I'll take whatever I get and do something with it.

 

True. Too true. Both SP and MP will make do with whatever we can get our hands on.

At one point I did a tiny bit of experimenting with using the Tank Crew SPGs as a player controlled artillery, with a two-seater spotting the fall of shot. It was remarkably fun.

I also remember a major MP campaign (was it Operation Michael?) where some of the objectives weren't marked on the map, so we sent out a few scouts to locate them and report back the location. Keeping one eye on the ground and another eye in the sky to make sure I wasn't shot down was quite a challenge, but good fun.

It may not be every single mission in the MP rotation will have a zeppelin, but I'm sure mission designers will figure something out. I'm still gonna keep dreaming about 1916-18 two seaters (and proper MP implementation of arty spot and photo recon), but that doesn't mean I'm not gonna enjoy zeppelins.

[Flashy]

17 hours ago, Dick_Scratcher said:

The problem with "early war" aircraft, as a companion / opponent for a Zeppelin is..... really, not much happens in the air in WW1 before mid 1915. I can't imagine anyone wanting to fly unarmed reconnaissance missions in a Rumpler Taube in 1914. You might as well buy MS Flight Simulator as air combat in 1914 was almost non-existent. 

By 1915, things are getting slightly more interesting, note "slightly", as you can now buzz around slowly and painfully in a limited selection of aircraft who rely on wing warping and non synchronised guns. By "guns", I mean that service rifles are being slowly replaced with machineguns. A few fire through the propellor arc (Roland Garros etc) but since you can't synchronise an open bolt machinegun such as a Lewis or Hotchkiss, the few aircraft set up to do this have "deflector plates" on the propellors to deflect any bullets which hit the prop due to bad timing. It was reckoned that 5% of all shots fired in a non synchronised setup would actually hit the prop. (I asked if prop damage could be modelled on the old RoF forum, due to the fact that an engine could literally be torn off it's mounts by having the prop damaged, incidentally.) 

So, before, say, July 1915, you have a limited number of choices. You can simulate getting the SMLE or Mauser out when an enemy plane appears - and you'll probably never hit it, you can throw darts or bricks at it, good luck with that one, you can have a side mounted Lewis gun like Lanoe Hawker had on his Bristol Scout (and hope your opponent just flies in a straight line to the left of your machine) or you can have a Lewis or Hotchkiss firing through the propellor arc with the problem of it being exceptionally dangerous. (Oh yes, and keep feeding the stripper clips into the Hotchkiss. Plus. 47 round drums for the Lewis at this time. )

All in all, not much fun. There are some early pusher designs which got rid of synchronisation problems by having the gunner in front of the pilot, but - two seaters, slow, subject to a lot of drag and poor handling. The Morane Saulniers are probably worth modelling, though. Plus the often discussed BE2c, which has a life (as a sitting duck) well into the later war.

It's only when the Fokker E1 comes on the scene with a synchronised MG08 firing through the propellor arc that WW1 aviation becomes, well, playable. Without extreme boredom. Plus, if you're actually trying to replicate things properly, there was very little flying done during the early war years. It's only later that you get large numbers of aircraft patrolling the various fronts and what we classically recognise as WW1 aviation. 

So the Zep - essentially a weapon of the early war, is redundant very quickly: this is why the Germans stopped spending huge amounts of money on building them. Is it worth modelling a number of period early war opponent aircraft ? I'd say no.

Huge dumb AI target which goes boom and no valid opponents - or ones actually worth flying ? The logic escapes me. 😉
 

I dont necessarily agree with you because there is so much more to WW1 flying that just getting into combat with other aircraft. In fact, if you have ever played a 2-seater career, you really dont want to see any enemy aircraft on your missions because you dont have much hope of beating them in a fight, and its pretty crappy to spend an hour or more flying to the target, only to be killed by a enemy fighter who you couldnt do anything against. Try flying an "iron-man" 2-seater career and you will see how your mentality around this changes pretty quickly..

 

But all the traditional 2-seater mission types can still be done in unarmed machines from as early as 1915: contact patrol, reconnaissance, artillery spotting, bombing raids, zeppelin attacks etc. There are still major gaps in this games' representation of the ground war (no decent infantry or horse-drawn supply columns or the ability to have a lot of objects on the ground etc) so that does limit what can be done, but its still possible to create 2-seater missions that are quite fun. (and yes, I would LOVE a Taube 🤣)

 

I also quite like the idea of offset Lewis guns on a Bristol Scout.. trying to shoot down unarmed German 2-seaters with that could be good fun. And we already have sidearms (revolvers and pistols) in the game which you can use to take pot shots at enemy aircraft, so why not expand that a bit with the inclusion of rifles and sidearms for the observer.. I think that could be good fun if implemented decently. There is a youtube video of someone shooting down a C-47 in IL-2 with his sidearm, and its hilarious..

 

And then obviously once the Morane Saulnier N (bullet), Parasol and Fokker E.1 get on the scene, then fighter jocks will also have something to play with and the whole aerial combat thing starts to ramp up..

 

TL/DR if its done well by someone who is passionate about representing the state of the air war in 1915/1916, it could be a great career experience with lots of interesting mission types and different planes to fly..