-Hawkeye-

Exactly. This is why I think it's important to never look at just one pilot's account; instead, an over-all perception based on all of the pilot's opinions that are available, along with plane-vs.-plane statistics (losses, shoot downs, etc.) that may support an opinion. For example: I've read that Pfalz aircraft were almost always considered more sturdy and strongly built, than their German competitors. It's also known that they used twin-spars on their lower wings as well as the upper, which is more resistant to twisting forces. In addition to that, the D.XII was purported to have been a very good diver; in fact, that was their standard maneuver and method of attack, considering their lack of exceptional maneuverability. Although SPAD and D.XII pilots never flew each other's planes, they did use similar tactics. Yet, in RoF, the D.XII is probably the only plane I know that will quickly self-destruct, due to wing flutter that occurs beginning at a certain speed, which it reaches very easily in a dive. Conversely, the V-strutter Albs, built with single-spar lower wings and which were famously KNOWN to have suffered from wing flutter at excessive speeds, DO NOT suffer from that problem in RoF. Wing flutter is a characteristic by which the affected wing begins to twist back and forth like a vibration, and ultimately self-destructs. It's based on speed alone, not excessive forces caused by pulling up (although that would obviously aggravate the problem). This is exactly how the V-Strutter Albs SHOULD behave, and how the Pflaz D.XII SHOULD NOT behave. Based on accounts on both sides, the Pfalz D.XII should probably be at least as good a diver as the SPAD XIII is. An account like that could be one in which an Entente flight leader reported a group of D.XII's that attacked them by diving down on them from high altitude, blew through their formation, and escaped east, and they were unable to catch them. That would support a high dive speed capability. Anyway, just common sense like that, to support general aircraft characteristics

With regard to what Kliegmann already said about the flight engine being all new, perhaps what they mean is that the data that they've settled on in RoF is going to remain exactly the same (physical dimensions, movement angles, airfoil shapes, weights, horsepower at altitudes, etc.) That stuff could remain true, and still flight characteristics could seem quite different between the two sims, due to the different flight engines....or perhaps not! Kind of wondering about how the DMs will work in FC....whether they will work significantly different than RoF. That alone can make or break a plane. Imagine an S.E.5a that you couldn't pull up very hard, without the wings breaking! Stuff like that.

If you're unhappy with the spring tension adjustment range, it's possible to change the spring to one with a different wire diameter and/or different winding diameter (same length). Many good hardware stores stock a wide variety of springs, and they don't cost much. You can take your original spring with you for comparison. I changed mine out for a lighter spring. For centering, I used the most defined cam profile available. I found the center detent action much less defined than what I was used to. You get accustomed to the new feel with time, of course. The amount of travel lock-to-lock is a lot. I set the pedal width to less than the full width. It still provides a LOT of accuracy, but gives you somewhat faster rudder response that way. The physical adjustability of the MFG's is awesome! Also, the DIView software is great, too. You can see ALL of your controllers (even keyboard and mouse) actions, for testing and analysis. Also it is cool that the Crosswinds apparently never need any kind of calibration, as far as I can tell. I think that might be because they use Hall Effect sensors instead of potentiometers. They just work perfectly, all of the time.....at least for me, in RoF. Enjoy!

It seems like a great idea to put in all the best possible physical data, and just accept whatever comes out of their flight engine as being correct. However, I think they put too much faith in how wonderful their flight engine is; either that, or the data they're using to put into it....or a combination of both. I hope they will see the wisdom of incorporating some means of adjusting things, if in extreme cases, the results of their efforts just don't seem to align with history. There are many examples of that with what originally was produced for RoF. One was the standard Fokker D.VII. What should have been a better plane than the Albs, due to a superior wing airfoil, was actually far inferior in actual use; a big part of that was (and is, as far as I'm concerned) that the Albs are too good, too easy to begin with. Luckily, they saw their (apparent) error, and adjusted it. So now, it's better than it once was; but I think there are few who would say that it's better than an Alb D.III / D.Va. So, IMHO, that superior, innovative wing airfoil is still not having the effect that it should....the D.VII should be a better turner than the Albs, stall at a slower speed, and have better high altitude climb and performance (if you go high enough, perhaps it does). Bottom line, I hope they don't just plug in the numbers and take whatever come out as being perfect, if it turns out that there are what appear to be glaring differences between what they produce, and what was supposed to have been with the real planes in WWI. FMs and DMs in most cases probably need to be fine tuned, just to get them in the general ball park of what the planes were purported to have been.

No worries; as you can see by the current RoF forum, they'll get objective, unbiased feedback, based upon a large sample of reliable data, and also real life pilot descriptions and impressions.

Cool!

Sure would be fun to fly on the same side as this guy, rather than against him all the time

The Dr.1 is of very limited use; probably as it should be....even though that may make a lot of people unhappy. A well trained group of Albs will have little trouble with a limited group of Camels; however, a well flown, larger group of Camels is very hard to mess with, no matter what you're fighting them with. A well flown pair of Dr.1's is almost impossible to find, let alone a larger group of them. Even so, even a Camel can run away from them.

Best not to clean your screen at all with it powered on, though; kind of like trying to clean automobile windows in direct sunlight. Heat makes things evaporate too fast and leave residues. Before you've turned on your screen at all (not a warm one you've just turned off), start with a mild commercial screen cleaner. Use a wet towel and a separate dry one. After that's dried, repeat the process using plain water as a finish; same process, one wet, and one dry. It should end up looking perfect Then you could go to the "whitedisplay.com" site to check it every which-way, after you're done

I found him! I found him!! (that friggin' Trupobaw) Seriously, could you explain what's meant by "FC planes" to us non-forum followers? Perhaps it is the initial plane set that will be released in FC? If that was the case, my first thought is, with regard to FiF, we'll be stuck with that very limited plane set for probably a long enough time with FC, if the plane model production rate of RoF was any good example; do we want to extend that drought by using the very same planes while we're still using RoF for FiF? That question being posed (hopefully on a correct assumption), I personally like that plane set, one reason being that the standard Fokker D.VII is hardly ever used. However I think these potential new participants might get an unpleasant taste of how superior the SPAD XIII and even Sopwith Dolphin is to that plane....

Nicely done, brothers! Salute!

Thanks, I wanted to see what their definition of "cheat" was; now I understand. Personally I'm pretty happy that RoF is as secure as it is. As others have said, there's nothing that will kill a sim or game faster than the revelation that players have figured out how to cheat. The memory of RB3D is still fresh in my mind, where players could alter any aspect of any airplane's perfomance with impunity; and server ops or event organizers had little choice other than to ignore the ones who were doing it. So at least it appears that in RoF they've figured out how to give themselves certain advantages in SA or possibly airplane controls management, they still can't change how an airplane performs....unless I'm mistaken.

I think it might be useful to point out to all participants very clearly that FiF basically doesn't allow ANY weapons mods AT ALL, except in very rare and specific cases that are clearly identified. In other words, if you have any kind of weapons mods at all, you're almost guaranteed to be wrong; and since the few mods that are allowed are not REQUIRED, you're far better off to lack one, as opposed to carrying one you're not supposed to have. Since it's hard to imagine that you wouldn't realize you were carrying a completely different kind of armament at some point early in your flight, an accidental oversight should be dealt with by immediately RTB, before coming into contact with any enemy and subsequently having an effect on the session; certainly you would never purposely engage anybody.

Yeah, I also would like a link to whatever OP started all this. I stopped following that forum long ago, and the response chain to the post linked above is a perfect example of why. It never ceases to amaze me that the most prolific and enduring posters there are the same ones who's motives seem to be nothing less than the destruction of RoF. It's been that way since the beginning, and they promise to continue that right into BoX, and the coming FC. What's hard to understand is why the developers undertake making sims at all, considering what they see posted on their forums, which must in their minds represent the thinking of all of us. Anyway, it's hard to find or filter stuff there, so I'd appreciate some help. Thanks!

Awesome photo-realistic cockpit, terrain and objects! Too many buttons for me, though!

Instead of "reducing an axis to zero", you can just uncheck the box for any axis. The six boxes can be clearly seen in the post above. I only use the yaw, pitch and tilt axis; then I have the zoom mapped to a 4-way hat on my joystick, right by my thumb. Whether you use any kind of dead zone in the middle or not, you should try to have your speed set fairly high. Moving your view around slowly causes everything you see to be blurry while it's in motion, and you won't see small details or far away objects. Instead, you should "glance" quickly to each section of sky you want to view, the way a bird's head moves. Stopping at each section keeps everything in focus, then you glance to the next. This is what your own eyes do, without you ever thinking about it. To see a great example of TIR used in this way, watch any of Barton's videos. RoF has a lot of great capabilities for using fixed or saved views in conjunction with TIR. To see a great example of that, see any of Hotlead's videos. S!

I use Shadowplay to record; if you want external views of engagements, you can use the in-game record, then use Shadowplay to record the playback while you manipulate it to see all the views you want to see. You won't have voice from TS that way, but you can dub in narrative onto it later with the editor. I use "Videopad" editor, which seems pretty user friendly and and has good help features. It has a "free" version which you could use to see what it's like, but it won't let you save any of your work until you buy it for around $50. These other guys have far more experience, and I don't really have anything to compare to; but as a beginner, I was able to figure it out. One thing to remember about YouTube is that it uses your Google account name and won't let you change it unless you change your Google account name. Best to create a whole another separate Google account to use for YouTube only using your gaming name or whatever. PS- Shadowplay is part of the "nVidia Experience", which is linked to your nVidia drivers. If you don't have an Nvidia GPU, you'll have to use Fraps or something like that to record mp4

Well done, fellas!

Lot of LOL's in that one! Did you even have any deaths? Amazing!

Excellent job done by all; congrats, well done!

Nice! Do they look different now than the old white ones I have? I heard they were going to update them; they were asking customer opinions a long while ago.

I'm glad. I apologize for using a sledge hammer to pound in a tack. To everybody else: logic is a great thing, but there are more tactful ways of using it than I did. Even though I believe the logic is sound, it's not worth offending anybody even the tiniest little bit. Also, as of late, I can see now that I'm far in the minority in my opinions concerning response curves; so I need to stop pushing them. To everybody, I surrender, without any hard feelings at all. My goal was to help others improve in RoF, but I went about it in the wrong way. S! (that emoji is supposed to be humility)

What you're saying is true. The curves are just an attempt to regain what is lost by translating the real plane into a sim. It's little different than using zoom to view things within the sim, which many think is cheating; but it's just another attempt to regain some of the capability that is lost through looking through a box who's field of view is far less than the human eye can see in RL. You're a good fellow Trev. No offense intended. S!

That's a common misconception. Response curves don't change the flight model one little bit; neither do they change in any way what the control surfaces are able to do in the game, unless you want to count something silly like somebody who limited a control surface more than the game's allowed movement by making it taper off before it reached 100%; that would amount to pure ignorance. Basically you can set your stick's spring center point to be at a certain spot within the range of the control's movement inside the game; and you can affect how quickly the game reacts to your stick's actual movements. You can slow them down or speed them up in a continuously variable manner within the range of any axis; but you can never make them go farther than the game allows, nor change the surface area of the control, or anything like that. Whatever is fully up, down, left or right in the game is the same for everybody no matter what. There is no magic altering of a plane's FM. Some sticks have physical trim wheels integrated into them. That's one aspect of what you can do with response curves; but you're also able to accelerate and decelerate how fast it gets to 100%. It's no different than if you move the stick very slowly and accurately, or move it very fast. It just enables you to have greater control by choosing where in the range of movement you want that kind of control. I know plenty of people who insist they like the controls completely linear; that's cool, but all that really means is that you've grown used to that and don't want to change. That's cool too. But everybody should realize that the whole reason that controllability exists, why it was created, is because although all of the plane's control surfaces areas and angles of movement exactly duplicate the real planes, we can't duplicate the control column that was actually used to move those controls, and were maybe 5 times longer than we use, if we're using a standard gaming joystick (that doesn't include sims where modern jets basically use a short joystick because they were fly-by-wire or hydraulically boosted). That makes every control movement you move 5 times faster, and 5 times less accurate, because the distance your gaming joystick actually moves is far less (consider the arc of the two different lengths), for the same amount of the airplane's control surface movement. It's like if you grabbed the control column in the real plane only 1/5th of the way up from the floor, and tried to control the plane that way, leaving out the increased physical movement difficulty. So if you think the way that the plane responds to an entirely linear response curve is more correct, you're wrong; it's way jumpier and more sensitive. Also, if you just happen to prefer flying straight and level with your stick in some half-pushed forward and slightly off center position to make the plane fly straight and level, and having your stick push against you all the time unless you're in a loop, that's your right too; but you don't have to. Also if you want to let go of your controls while in a spin and have your plane do unpredictable things, you can have that too; or you can have it settle to a neutral attitude, and work it from there. IMHO for the reasons listed above, you're actually flying the plane in an unnatural way compared to how the real plane would have reacted. Unfortunately the response curves can only mitigate the problem, but can't completely cure it. The only true cure would be to have a joystick that was exactly the same length as the real one was, and have your seat height off of the floor exactly the same, all that; and even then, the physical difficulty aspect of moving the controls would still be completely lost....the resistance of the plane's control surfaces against your own movements.

Crap, won't be home for his one. Always a fun scenario!