FiF - Flying Circus planeset round?

[J2_Trupobaw]

Hey,

With Flying Circus not far from preorders, I think we could help build up the interest in BoX community and get ourselves FiF participants at the same time. I propose next edition of FiF uses free planes, and FC planes, and that we advertise it on BoX forums.

 

Clirification: - next time we do FiF in RoF, we could use the very same planes that will be available in BoX when Flying Circus comes, and advertise FiF at BoX forums. Since RoF is free to play and two of FC planes are free in RoF, BoX pilots will be able to come and join without spending a penny. The double effect will be to make a promotion/demonstration of what Flying Circus content will be like for BoX crowd, and get more players for FiF.

German planeset:
Albatros D.Va
Fokker D.VII (Mercedes)
Halberstadt cl.II 200hp

Entente planeset:
Spad XIII
Sopwith Dolphin
Bristol Falcon II
Limited number of Breguets as altitude bombers (Brisfit bombsight sucks). 

The planeset is intended to not leave free planes outperformed (and thus, give new visitors a fair chance). In addition, we could buy some gift planes (especially two-seaters) and split gift codes between red and blue team, so that new people joining tournament and assigned to team can get a plane.

 

It will also be sort of sendoff party to these planes because, once FC comes, they will be less lkely to revisit in RoF and appear in FC.

Thoughts?

[IRFC Hawkeye]

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....

[J2_Trupobaw]

could you explain what's meant by "FC planes"

 

Planes that will appear in Flying Circus volume 1 on BoX.

To rephrase, my idea is - next time we do FiF in RoF, we could use the very same planes that will be available in BoX when Flying Circus comes, and advertise FiF at BoX forums. Since RoF is free to play and two of FC planes are free in RoF, BoX pilots will be able to come and join without spending a penny. The double effect will be to make a promotion/demonstration of what Flying Circus content will be like for BoX crowd, and get us more players for FiF.

 

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....

 

Dolphin is only superior if you manage its spin of death and Spad, well, is superior when played right. 
Fokker D.VII is the fastest GErman plane with no BMW engine (and BMW planes are overkill against everything else).
 

[Kliegmann]

Funny you bring that up at this time, cause I'm actually in the final stages of a BoX tourney that will be hosted by JG 1.  I'm still going to do 1 or 2 in-house tests, then I'll be opening it up for a Server/Game stress test.

[Butzzell]

S!

 

Very good idea.  

 

Uhmmm, the Bristol, Dolphin and SPAD XIII are the fastest planes in the game. I think maybe the D7 should be the D7f ? Also add some DFW.

 

 

German planeset:
Albatros D.Va                   18
Fokker D.VII (BMW)         14
Halberstadt cl.II 200hp       2 Arty, 2 Prison rescue

DFW                                   3 Recon, 8 Bomber, 2 Spy

Entente planeset:
Spad XIII                          14
Sopwith Dolphin               18    
Bristol Falcon II                   3 Recon,   2 Prison rescue 
Breguets                             8 Bombers,  2 General Capture, 2 Arty

Sopwith Camel                  2     Trench attack

[Etzel]

If allies have Camels, the centrals need DrIs, otherwise there will be shitstorms   

[Kliegmann]

Well the Camels are really only for the trench attack mission, so there's only 2

[J5_Gamecock]

If allies have Camels, the centrals need DrIs, otherwise there will be shitstorms   

 As far as I'm concerned, you can keep 'em both.  

 

 

Never did get the hang of them dang twisty planes.

[IRFC Hawkeye]

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.

[Butzzell]

Camels are for Trench attack.  Only 2.   No need for Dr.1

[Vonrd]

Anybody know if the FMs will be teleport-ed over as is? I doubt that they have the time or inclination to do any more tweaks.

[Kliegmann]

Heres my take on it.  The new engine is NEW.  Very different from what they originally started with.  If they tried to port over the planes as is, they wont fly.  So yes there is gonna have to be changes and tweaks

[Vonrd]

So... prepare to read lots of whining on the FMs. (I think the basis of all the FMs are based on the ROF FMs).

 

Looking at the forum and the announcements it seems that they really are taking pains to research the flight engineering data that is available to code the algorithms for the FMs... the problem is that the data is 70 to over 100 years old and suspect in accuracy to say the least.

 

We'll still get some tool insisting that it's ALL WRONG and insisting that it be changed to represent the TRUE historical reality. What really matters IMHO is playability with relative comparisons to how the planes performance relates to each other. I'm sure it's a delicate balancing act for the Devs and it seems they get way too much grief for their efforts. 

[IRFC Hawkeye]

So... prepare to read lots of whining on the FMs. (I think the basis of all the FMs are based on the ROF FMs).

 

Looking at the forum and the announcements it seems that they really are taking pains to research the flight engineering data that is available to code the algorithms for the FMs... the problem is that the data is 70 to over 100 years old and suspect in accuracy to say the least.

 

We'll still get some tool insisting that it's ALL WRONG and insisting that it be changed to represent the TRUE historical reality. What really matters IMHO is playability with relative comparisons to how the planes performance relates to each other. I'm sure it's a delicate balancing act for the Devs and it seems they get way too much grief for their efforts. 

 

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.

 

[Shadepiece]

I think it might be refreshing to go into FC knowing full well that they'll be developed in a way to reflect the spirit of the aircraft rather than a full blown study sim. As much as I would like to have that I think it would be incredibly difficult for the devs to come up with the resources.

 

I say better to accept a historically authentic recreation from the outset. I think will allow me to ignore the very loud nay-sayers as I happily and blissfully fly through the skies above WWI France!

[J2_Trupobaw]

They have learned from the RoF forum experience and made much better rules for BoX forum. Basically, either research your point and make a well-justified case on developer assistance forum, or don't be whining.

[IRFC Hawkeye]

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.

[Shadepiece]

I completely agree with you, Luftritter, and that is exactly what I meant when I was talking about the "spirit" of the aircraft. I know the idea of pilot accounts is very subjective and definitely not something that is set in stone however, it seems like the only thing that we have when looking at these WWI birds.

 

The historical data is old and possibly not very accurate as Vonrd stated. That's why I think pilot accounts are actually incredibly valuable in getting the feel of the aircraft correct. I do believe that the devs will do a good job. They have definitely demonstrated a higher competency than other devs in this niche genre.

[J5_Gamecock]

 It was my understanding from the interview w/Jason that the FM's would be ported over "as-is", at least initially.  What differences the game engine make I do not know.

[IRFC Hawkeye]

 It was my understanding from the interview w/Jason that the FM's would be ported over "as-is", at least initially.  What differences the game engine make I do not know.

 

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.

[IRFC Hawkeye]

....The historical data is old and possibly not very accurate as Vonrd stated. That's why I think pilot accounts are actually incredibly valuable in getting the feel of the aircraft correct. I do believe that the devs will do a good job. They have definitely demonstrated a higher competency than other devs in this niche genre.

 

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    

[Kliegmann]

In BoX the DM is based on a component system.  What that means for ROF I'm not exactly sure.  I am also not sure how detailed that component system is.  ie: When rounds hit the engine, does it damage the cooling system, or individual parts of the system.  I do know that the wing has multiple components, ie: the Wing-Root, structural ribs and spars, ect.  A good way to knock down an IL 2 is to fly under it and put rounds into its coolers under the fuselage.  In contrast the current ROF DM is a box system - do enough damage to THIS box and the engine oils and quits working, do enough damage to THAT box and the wing comes off.

[Shadepiece]

As a lot of you will come to find out I am an absolute damage model fanatic!! I believe Rise of Flight is underrated in many ways in the community and the DM is no different. I really like the damage model in RoF, and I really hope that FC will improve upon that with some significance. After all, the reason we fly combat flight sims is the whole damage other aircraft part.

[Shadepiece]

In BoX the DM is based on a component system. What that means for ROF I'm not exactly sure. I am also not sure how detailed that component system is. ie: When rounds hit the engine, does it damage the cooling system, or individual parts of the system. I do know that the wing has multiple components, ie: the Wing-Root, structural ribs and spars, ect. A good way to knock down an IL 2 is to fly under it and put rounds into its coolers under the fuselage. In contrast the current ROF DM is a box system - do enough damage to THIS box and the engine oils and quits working, do enough damage to THAT box and the wing comes off.

We should have a conversation soon on these particulars! I find it incredibly interesting.

[Butzzell]

Is this plane set OK?

German planeset:
Albatros D.Va 18
Fokker D.VII (BMW) 14
Halberstadt cl.II 200hp 2 Arty, 2 Prison rescue

DFW 3 Recon, 8 Bomber, 2 Spy

Entente planeset:
Spad XIII 14
Sopwith Dolphin 18
Bristol Falcon II 3 Recon, 2 Prison rescue
Breguets 8 Bombers, 2 General Capture, 2 Arty

Sopwith Camel 2 Trench attack
 

 

 

There are a couple of things to think about. 

Not a lot of room for progression to phase B.

New guys flying SPADS and Albs