Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Why the Albatros and Pfalz speeds can never be fixed.


  • Please log in to reply
235 replies to this topic

#201 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 11 February 2013 - 04:35

Image
  • 0

#202 Pimpin

Pimpin
  • Posts: 1066

Posted 11 February 2013 - 07:11

Any news regarding when we can expect a faster Albatros that is closer to real life specs?

Probably never.

I might be able to convince 90% of you that our Albatros D.Va is a really D.V with a 160hp engine, but as one former RoF virtual pilot told me recently:

Hi, I got an answer from Petrovich that there probably wont be any FM revisions due to tight scedule for BOS

:xx:
:(
If thats the case then its what quite a few of us feared.
  • 0

#203 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 11 February 2013 - 08:06

Thank you all, guys for your attention to FM

Hi everybody, and thanks a lot for your attention to FM!

Granted, that was some time ago :)
  • 0

#204 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 11 February 2013 - 09:11

Any news regarding when we can expect a faster Albatros that is closer to real life specs?

Probably never.

I might be able to convince 90% of you that our Albatros D.Va is a really D.V with a 160hp engine, but as one former RoF virtual pilot told me recently:

Hi, I got an answer from Petrovich that there probably wont be any FM revisions due to tight scedule for BOS

:xx:

Yeah but we were also told that "probably" the view distance, dispersion and wind bug issues wouldn't be fixed. Same goes for Lewis gun re-load animations and Aldis implementation a while ago. I seem to remember being told an RFC NP17 was unlikely….

That gives me hope still :) I'm also convinced some sort of community FM project could help.
  • 0

#205 Haggart85

Haggart85
  • Posts: 135

Posted 12 February 2013 - 03:20

Any news regarding when we can expect a faster Albatros that is closer to real life specs?

Probably never.

I might be able to convince 90% of you that our Albatros D.Va is a really D.V with a 160hp engine, but as one former RoF virtual pilot told me recently:

Hi, I got an answer from Petrovich that there probably wont be any FM revisions due to tight scedule for BOS

:xx:

Yeah but we were also told that "probably" the view distance, dispersion and wind bug issues wouldn't be fixed. Same goes for Lewis gun re-load animations and Aldis implementation a while ago. I seem to remember being told an RFC NP17 was unlikely….

That gives me hope still :) I'm also convinced some sort of community FM project could help.

+1 to all this! :)
  • 0

#206 =III=Flav

=III=Flav
  • Posts: 1128

Posted 13 February 2013 - 07:21

That feeling you get when Gav uses a meme you made a long time ago and forgot about.
Thank you Gavagai, not only for that, but for your continued efforts in attempting to convince 777 to make RoF the great WW1 combat flight simulation it could be. I hope they take note, unlikely as it may seem.
  • 0

#207 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 13 February 2013 - 15:27

I'm glad you enjoyed it.

As for making RoF the great WW1 combat sim it could be, it's just a matter of 777 doing the right thing. If the flight models are supposed to be technical masterpieces, as Loft suggests, then the Albatros D.Va and Pfalz D.IIIa fall far below that standard. If flight models are subjective, as Jason says, then it begs the question why they subjectively chose to make the German scouts so slow (and unable to stall).

For goodness sake, it's time to stop stonewalling and pretending that everything is fine: these issues make multiplayer scenarios and historical events a joke. I am reminded of this scene:

Image
  • 0

#208 Nrohtnalu

Nrohtnalu
  • Posts: 267

Posted 14 February 2013 - 22:00

You're so right, with the current FM for Albatros and Pfalz D3 the Sim is a plain Joke when you compare it to the detailed FM of most Entente aircraft…well, except the N28 and Pub…and it just took me a few weeks to find that out. The intitial "wow" factor of RoF is wearing off quite fast, especially for primarily german aircraft flyers.
  • 0

#209 Lieste

Lieste
  • Posts: 226

Posted 15 February 2013 - 01:19

Oh, I don't know…

I still get the "Wow" factor…



Followed by backing away slowly, and lots of head shaking, and disbelief "What were they thinking???".
  • 0

#210 NattyIced

NattyIced
  • Posts: 175

Posted 17 February 2013 - 04:17

Historical events where the German squadrons remain behind their own lines and engage other scouts only when forced to, or when they outnumber their opponent?
  • 0

"Now comes a matter that I want to discuss with you: Our aircraft, quite frankly, are ridiculously inferior to British [aircraft]. The [Sopwith] Triplane and 200hp SPAD, as well as the Sopwith [Camel] single-seater, play with our [Albatros] D.V. In addition to having better-quality aircraft, they have far more [of them]. Our really good fighter pilots are lost in this manner. The D.V is so far surpassed by and so ridiculously inferior to the British single-seaters that one cannot begin to do anything with [the D.V]. But the people at home have brought out no new machines for almost a year, [only] these lousy Albatroses, and have remained stuck with the Albatros D.III [types], in which I fought in the autumn of last year." - Manfred von Richtofen


#211 J5_Rumey

J5_Rumey
  • Posts: 1180

Posted 17 February 2013 - 09:47

NattyIced you are not contributing in any positive way at all, to me you are just a troll so I have added you to my ignore list. I will enjoy not hearing anything from you ever again. So happy we have that function. :S!:

Back to topic.
  • 0

#212 Catfish

Catfish
  • Posts: 1508

Posted 17 February 2013 - 12:46

Historical events where the German squadrons remain behind their own lines and engage other scouts only when forced to, or when they outnumber their opponent?

So you say this (^) is historically correct ? Or the other way round ?
No joke i really do not know what you want to say - happens often with your posts :D
  • 0

#213 Laser

Laser
  • Posts: 1611

Posted 17 February 2013 - 13:09

My translation (perhaps because i agree with that interpretation) - the FM can be fixed until the cows come home, RoF won't be more realistic because you will have to 'fix' the player mentality, because let's be honest people doesn't play like their lives *really* depend on it. And of course afterwards they will have everything else to blame so … back to FM discussions (or other) which will exist forever.

MvR: Lothar, i think Anthony … tricked us.
LvR: And why so, Manfred?
MvR: The Dr.1's FM is porked.

:P
  • 0

#214 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 17 February 2013 - 13:22

Yes its silly to think that flight models even matter in a sim that prides itself for its accuracy, in the first place.
  • 0

#215 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 17 February 2013 - 16:09

My translation (perhaps because i agree with that interpretation) - the FM can be fixed until the cows come home, RoF won't be more realistic because you will have to 'fix' the player mentality, because let's be honest people doesn't play like their lives *really* depend on it. And of course afterwards they will have everything else to blame so … back to FM discussions (or other) which will exist forever.

MvR: Lothar, i think Anthony … tricked us.
LvR: And why so, Manfred?
MvR: The Dr.1's FM is porked.

:P

You are way off base here. It's not the people who lose the most who are complaining. It's people like Peter Zvan and Huetz. My goodness, do you realize that?
  • 0

#216 Uwe_W.

Uwe_W.
  • Posts: 143
  • LocationFresno, CA

Posted 17 February 2013 - 19:21

So why doesn't someone change it?
We have mods, so why dosen't someone change the FM to better suite the aircraft?
  • 0

#217 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 17 February 2013 - 20:20

So why doesn't someone change it?
We have mods, so why dosen't someone change the FM to better suite the aircraft?

You can't mod the FMs.
  • 0

#218 Uwe_W.

Uwe_W.
  • Posts: 143
  • LocationFresno, CA

Posted 17 February 2013 - 21:20

So why doesn't someone change it?
We have mods, so why dosen't someone change the FM to better suite the aircraft?

You can't mod the FMs.

Well I'm fairly new here, but I have to ask, why?
I believe they said the same about IL2 did they not?
  • 0

#219 sturmkraehe

sturmkraehe
  • Posts: 967

Posted 17 February 2013 - 21:38

That'S because for IL2 all "mods" are based on an illegally leaked and hacked code of an abandoned project. This is not the case of Rof (fortunately!!!!!). The "mods" of IL2 basically killed the IL2 community off.
  • 0

#220 Uwe_W.

Uwe_W.
  • Posts: 143
  • LocationFresno, CA

Posted 18 February 2013 - 00:03

Oh don't give me that tired old line. Its just not true.

No the question is just a technical one, are the FM files inaccessible?
  • 0

#221 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 18 February 2013 - 00:15

Yes, they are inaccessible.
  • 0

#222 Uwe_W.

Uwe_W.
  • Posts: 143
  • LocationFresno, CA

Posted 18 February 2013 - 00:21

Too bad.
  • 0

#223 sturmkraehe

sturmkraehe
  • Posts: 967

Posted 18 February 2013 - 00:47

Well I'm fairly new here, …

vs.

Oh don't give me that tired old line.

I could not resist. And please tell me what is not true. Do you call me a liar?
  • 0

#224 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 18 February 2013 - 07:01

Jason on FM changes

http://riseofflight.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=35760&start=70
  • 0

#225 Laser

Laser
  • Posts: 1611

Posted 18 February 2013 - 11:51

Wow

Let me clarify. Yes the FMs should be fixed, if RoF is to be uber-cool. So is the AI. But.

As long as this doesn't happen, continuously complaining about FMs shows *something more*, *something other* about those who do it each and every day (i'm not sure the *good* RoF pilots do it often, i rather see other people echoing them endlessly).

Flying is so much more than that. Combat flying, even so. The FM data may be wrong for some planes, but not the 'meat' of it, the feeling of flying. When referring to Manfred & Lothar above, i meant they didn't have the luxury to choose their own mount, more than you have. If the planes were weaker, they would fly in packs, meeting the enemy only in advantageous situations. (yes i know you know that). And as we are not real ww1 aces, is it so hard to look at the planes we have also not 'the real ones', and deal with the situation at hand? You know how the planes fly, choose your plane and tactic for that mission, according to the RoF world, not the (impossible to achieve in fact) past real one. Is the desire to 100% gluing yourself to the Great War period, sane?

So, yes i also think the FMs should be fixed (the AI too), but grieving every day about it shows something extra. It's like when some wake up every day and can't live through the day because of the "RoF FM issues".

And believe me, if these FMs are 'fixed' (…), the same people will move to the next planes, in a matter of weeks. The quest for perfection *never* ends, and no matter how small, the motive will be amplified to the same size as it is now. And this amplification is as subjective as it can be.
  • 0

#226 hq_Jorri

hq_Jorri
  • Posts: 14143

Posted 18 February 2013 - 14:43

The good RoF pilots have mostly stopped flying RoF because of his issue. The ones who remain agree.
  • 0

#227 Browning

Browning
  • Posts: 635

Posted 18 February 2013 - 16:13

Jason on FM changes

http://riseofflight.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=35760&start=70


I suppose that answers 'Why the Albatros and Pfalz speeds can never be fixed.'

It's demoralising.
  • 0

#228 Mogster

Mogster
  • Posts: 3919

Posted 18 February 2013 - 17:34

Wow

Let me clarify. Yes the FMs should be fixed, if RoF is to be uber-cool. So is the AI. But.

As long as this doesn't happen, continuously complaining about FMs shows *something more*, *something other* about those who do it each and every day (i'm not sure the *good* RoF pilots do it often, i rather see other people echoing them endlessly).

Flying is so much more than that. Combat flying, even so. The FM data may be wrong for some planes, but not the 'meat' of it, the feeling of flying. When referring to Manfred & Lothar above, i meant they didn't have the luxury to choose their own mount, more than you have. If the planes were weaker, they would fly in packs, meeting the enemy only in advantageous situations. (yes i know you know that). And as we are not real ww1 aces, is it so hard to look at the planes we have also not 'the real ones', and deal with the situation at hand? You know how the planes fly, choose your plane and tactic for that mission, according to the RoF world, not the (impossible to achieve in fact) past real one. Is the desire to 100% gluing yourself to the Great War period, sane?

So, yes i also think the FMs should be fixed (the AI too), but grieving every day about it shows something extra. It's like when some wake up every day and can't live through the day because of the "RoF FM issues".

And believe me, if these FMs are 'fixed' (…), the same people will move to the next planes, in a matter of weeks. The quest for perfection *never* ends, and no matter how small, the motive will be amplified to the same size as it is now. And this amplification is as subjective as it can be.

The Hurricane and Spitfire/ME109 is a good analogy for the Camel/DR1 and Albatros issue.

For everyone that suggests it doesn't matter imagine a WW2 sim where the Hurricane was faster than the Spit or 109, just imagine…. Its that basic.

It seems clear that mistakes were made early on that would take large resources to correct now, that's a huge shame, but without a Delorian there's not much we can do.
  • 0

#229 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1892

Posted 18 February 2013 - 17:45

Delorian…maybe we've been going about this the wrong way… :p
  • 0

#230 gavagai

gavagai
  • Posts: 15542

Posted 19 February 2013 - 01:36

And believe me, if these FMs are 'fixed' (…), the same people will move to the next planes, in a matter of weeks. The quest for perfection *never* ends, and no matter how small, the motive will be amplified to the same size as it is now. And this amplification is as subjective as it can be.

Just like the never ending gunnery debates since 1.026?
  • 0

#231 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1892

Posted 19 February 2013 - 04:27

haha, maybe we should start one for ol times sake
  • 0

#232 J5_Rumey

J5_Rumey
  • Posts: 1180

Posted 20 February 2013 - 08:27

Yes gunnery was chewed and chewed and finally fixed. Most people seems really happy with the new gunnery. I know for a fact that I am.

So now people are chewing the next glaring defect the FM's. Anyone who says people should just be quiet and happy with what we have, just is misinformed. Or dare I say it, likes the "status quo" and are afraid of loosing their unrealistic advantage, UFO or having to relearn to fly a more realistic FM.
  • 0

#233 Kwiatek

Kwiatek
  • Posts: 680

Posted 20 February 2013 - 18:10

Yes gunnery was chewed and chewed and finally fixed. Most people seems really happy with the new gunnery. I know for a fact that I am.

Rate of fire was fixed yes but not gunnery in general. Still long range shoting 300-500 are too accurate in ROF. What i read that vibration from rotary engine was so high that shoting above 100m was only waste of ammo. Planes with inline engines should be more accurate but in ROF it doesn't metter. I was frequenlty hited by rotary planes when i was runing in my Se5a in 300-500 distance. I also could hit escaping planes in such distance. So still gunnery is quite accurate in ROF at longer distance :(
  • 0

#234 sturmkraehe

sturmkraehe
  • Posts: 967

Posted 20 February 2013 - 18:56

I am not sure about this issue as you might as well have been hit by a spray'n'pray priest who just showered your plane with his abundand amount of ammo with one bullet in 100 actually hitting you.

But let's go back to the Alb and Pfalz discussion please.
  • 0

#235 JoeCrow

JoeCrow
  • Posts: 4150

Posted 20 February 2013 - 19:48

Yes gunnery was chewed and chewed and finally fixed. Most people seems really happy with the new gunnery. I know for a fact that I am.

So now people are chewing the next glaring defect the FM's. Anyone who says people should just be quiet and happy with what we have, just is misinformed. Or dare I say it, likes the "status quo" and are afraid of loosing their unrealistic advantage, UFO or having to relearn to fly a more realistic FM.

You may be right and the FMs may indeed be wrong but you must consider that there are those of us who like the challenge of flying againt them. I may have missed it somewhere along the line but I have yet to see fully revised performance charts proposed by anyone for any suspect FM. The term 'too fast' is meaningless to an aeronautical engineer but 'underpowered' (for example) does mean something. The problem as I see it is that the proponents of FM review have never got their act together with a fully detailed alternative FM revision other than continually publishing piecemeal stats and insulting any who dare to disagree. It's no way to win an argument even if you are right.
  • 0

#236 Nrohtnalu

Nrohtnalu
  • Posts: 267

Posted 20 February 2013 - 20:43

Yes gunnery was chewed and chewed and finally fixed. Most people seems really happy with the new gunnery. I know for a fact that I am.

Rate of fire was fixed yes but not gunnery in general. Still long range shoting 300-500 are too accurate in ROF. What i read that vibration from rotary engine was so high that shoting above 100m was only waste of ammo. Planes with inline engines should be more accurate but in ROF it doesn't metter. I was frequenlty hited by rotary planes when i was runing in my Se5a in 300-500 distance. I also could hit escaping planes in such distance. So still gunnery is quite accurate in ROF at longer distance :(
fire at the ground and you see a shotgun like dispersion of 15m "spray radius" at 300m…that's far from "accurate at long range"…at 400 m slight manouvers stop the probability of beeing hit…if you just go on straight a few round might hit you still.
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users