Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 3 votes

ROF Feedback to Flying Circus


  • Please log in to reply
325 replies to this topic

#281 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 05 December 2017 - 15:10

But why there is an elevator? Perhaps you are talking about cruise speed (that you mentioned before). If the test is made with WEP, let's say 1350rpm on a rotary engine, will 20-30 pounds in between pilots make any relevant difference if they all will have to compensate with elevator? In a Camel for example we are talking about 1-2% of the total takeoff weight and this if we only take into consideration cruise speed. 

 

Because otherwise it sounds like an excuse to accept any numbers the developers comes up with. 

Yes, any increase or decrease AOA will effect drag and airspeed, how much is the question.

 

P.S. you should have quoted JoeCrow  :icon_lol:  


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#282 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2412
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 05 December 2017 - 15:27

Even extremely detailed study sims such as those in the DCS series, and simulators for professional use, work "by the numbers".

 

But then you would need a 120 pound difference in between pilots to get to e meek 1% of the take-off weight on a P-51. Kind of pointless to even regard it, right? You are going to find such a difference in between some strawweights and heavyweights in general.

 

Yes, any increase or decrease AOA will effect drag and airspeed, how much is the question.

 

P.S. you should have quoted JoeCrow 

 

I'll fix the quote, but the argument stands. I don't think it is relevant and is a bit pointless regarding the game because it applies to all aircraft and has nothing to do with nerfings and FMs that need fixing (which is another story).


  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#283 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 05 December 2017 - 15:37

 

 

 

I'll fix the quote, but the argument stands. I don't think it is relevant and is a bit pointless regarding the game because it applies to all aircraft and has nothing to do with nerfings and FMs that need fixing (which is another story). 

In a way your right,( the nerfings and FMs) but remember what happened the Sopwith Tripe, adding 2% of takeoff weight,(two guns,same ammo) turned it into a slug.


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#284 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2412
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 05 December 2017 - 15:49

In a way your right,( the nerfings and FMs) but remember what happened the Sopwith Tripe, adding 2% of takeoff weight,(two guns,same ammo) turned it into a slug.

 

Edit* - I am doing quick math here (working) and mixed kg with lb, but the belt of 250 rounds is 22lb, so you have 33+22+22=77lb, which is 5% of the take-off weight.


  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#285 Zooropa_Fly

Zooropa_Fly
  • Posts: 1338

Posted 05 December 2017 - 15:52


As for the flightsim and the joystick, I've said this before: Microsoft killed them. They killed the mainstream joystick by discontinuing the Sidewinders in 2003 (and Force Feedback along with it - DirectInput was superceded by Xbox compatible XInput), and they delivered the killing blow by not developing a sequel to FSX. We'll just pretend Microsoft Flight never happened, what a plane crash trainwreck.

 

 

I think the fact that you can hardly buy a decent joystick is very telling.

There's one company that seems to make a good one, but naturally they are expensive and limited so supply is an issue.

As for the 'high street' top end :- the Warthog despite being great when it's working properly, plus some tweaking and an extension piece, is despite appearances , underneath it all, a fragile piece of over priced crap.


  • 0

".. and they'll send you home in a pine overcoat, with a letter to your Mum,

    Saying find enclosed one son one medal and a note, to, say, he, Won".


#286 US103_Furlow

US103_Furlow
  • Member
  • Posts: 382

Posted 05 December 2017 - 15:56

In a way your right,( the nerfings and FMs) but remember what happened the Sopwith Tripe, adding 2% of takeoff weight,(two guns,same ammo) turned it into a slug.

Additional Vickers gun is 33lbs, 500 extra rounds of 303 is almost exactly 29lbs. Plus weight of links, additional synchronizer gear, and additional ammunition box and belt feed chute going to take a wild guess 15lbs more. Total: 77lbs extra.  A little math puts this at 6.9% of empty weight and almost 5% of loaded weight.


  • 0

#287 US103_Furlow

US103_Furlow
  • Member
  • Posts: 382

Posted 05 December 2017 - 16:03

oops didn't see Seawolf's post, he probably has better numbers than me.


  • 0

#288 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 05 December 2017 - 16:08

Additional Vickers gun is 33lbs, 500 extra rounds of 303 is almost exactly 29lbs. Plus weight of links, additional synchronizer gear, and additional ammunition box and belt feed chute going to take a wild guess 15lbs more. Total: 77lbs extra.  A little math puts this at 6.9% of empty weight and almost 5% of loaded weigh

 

oops didn't see Seawolf's post, he probably has better numbers than me.

 

Nope your' is spot on,but did they test it with a 1000 rounds?


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#289 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2412
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 05 December 2017 - 16:09

Additional Vickers gun is 33lbs, 500 extra rounds of 303 is almost exactly 29lbs. Plus weight of links, additional synchronizer gear, and additional ammunition box and belt feed chute going to take a wild guess 15lbs more. Total: 77lbs extra.  A little math puts this at 6.9% of empty weight and almost 5% of loaded weight.

 

No you are right, I am doing quick math here (working) and mixed kg with lb, but the belt of 250 rounds is 22lb, so you have 33+22+22=77lb, which is 5% of the take-off weight.


  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#290 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2412
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 05 December 2017 - 16:11

did they test it with a 1000 rounds?

 

Sorry my mistake. The game list both ammo belts (don't play ROF for ages). I working and doing math as well (not really good  :icon_e_biggrin: ).

 

It will be around 5% of the take-off weight. 


  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#291 =HillBilly=

=HillBilly=
  • Posts: 5605
  • LocationSouthern Ozark Mountains

Posted 05 December 2017 - 16:15

Sorry my mistake. The game list both ammo belts (don't play ROF for ages). I working and doing math as well (not really good  :icon_e_biggrin: ).

 

It will be around 5% of the take-off weight. 

All's good, my math was a little off too.

Attached Files


  • 0

     So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

 
 


#292 J2_Trupobaw

J2_Trupobaw
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 4149
  • LocationKraków / Poland

Posted 05 December 2017 - 16:36

 

 

Are we all just fooling ourselves? Have we gotten so precious about flight models and historical accuracy and mandatory expensive peripherals that we've completely painted ourselves into a corner, and have only a small number of similarly pedantic people to play with?

 

This is what I believe is happening. Also, more complex FMs -> more complex net traffic -> smaller MP capacity.
 


  • 1

Forum moderator.

Deputy Staffelführer, Jasta 2 ''Boelcke'' http://jasta2.org

“Now now,” Akua chided. “Personal attacks are the mark of failed argument. If you’ve no counterpoint to offer, such flailing only serves to shed further light on your incompetence.”


#293 J2_Bidu

J2_Bidu
  • Posts: 1121

Posted 05 December 2017 - 16:57

As for the 'high street' top end :- the Warthog despite being great when it's working properly, plus some tweaking and an extension piece, is despite appearances , underneath it all, a fragile piece of over priced crap.


Damn. I own one. I thought it was a sturdy piece of over priced quality. Still, no disappointment so far. But yeah I did get me a decent backup just in case.
  • 0

#294 J2_Bidu

J2_Bidu
  • Posts: 1121

Posted 05 December 2017 - 17:00

This is what I believe is happening. Also, more complex FMs -> more complex net traffic -> smaller MP capacity.


Depends on how they distribute the processing load between client and server. Your client end could be processing loads of s**t and still just sending over basic position/speed info.
  • 0

#295 Zooropa_Fly

Zooropa_Fly
  • Posts: 1338

Posted 05 December 2017 - 17:53

Damn. I own one. I thought it was a sturdy piece of over priced quality. Still, no disappointment so far. But yeah I did get me a decent backup just in case.

 

We all have our own experiences, and hopefully you'll not have any problems with yours.

But 5 sticks and about 8-9 replacement bases later.. I struggle to endorse them these days !

 

:icon_e_salute:


  • 0

".. and they'll send you home in a pine overcoat, with a letter to your Mum,

    Saying find enclosed one son one medal and a note, to, say, he, Won".


#296 Ice_Age

Ice_Age
  • Member
  • Posts: 1583
  • LocationTrudolyubiye

Posted 05 December 2017 - 18:02

If you'll indulge me in the brief subject drift that you started:  The only problem that I ever had with the Warthog was where the teamspeak push-to-talk feature ended up wearing out the 4-way thumb switch, but other than that I got years of service out of it.  I think something like that would have happened to any joystick.  Other than that, I've found no problems with the Warthog's durability, and I'm a big fan of it.

 

I don't know if this is where you were originally going with this, but I think Flight Sim hardware is as much a part of Flight Sim, as rackets are a part of tennis, or clubs are a part of golf.  If anyone wishes to see a combat flight sim where things like joysticks, rudder pedals, and throttles are largely unnecessary, than I think they are desiring something other than a combat flight sim, imo.


  • 0

#297 JoeCrow

JoeCrow
  • Posts: 4145

Posted 05 December 2017 - 19:26

But then you would need a 120 pound difference in between pilots to get to e meek 1% of the take-off weight on a P-51. Kind of pointless to even regard it, right? You are going to find such a difference in between some strawweights and heavyweights in general.

 

 

 

You are correct of course. But you also have to consider that to maintain any airspeed above cruise-speed requires that the 1% needs to be multiplied by the inverse aerodynamic forces of lift and drag (the L/D ratio). That takes it up to 3% of thrust. To actually increase the maximum level-flight speed it requires multiplying a second time (cubed) which takes the additional thrust required up to 9% for a mere 1% of additional weight. That is the cube-law rule of aerodynamics. It takes an awful lot of thrust to increase the maximum level-flight speed because most of the thrust required is consumed by the inverse forces of lift and drag. Once you reach cruise-speed most of any additional thrust is diverted into excess lift and the plane will climb if you do nothing about it with the stick. An aircraft, left to its own devices, will always attempt to return to cruise-speed and it will do that by climbing or diving as necessary (if left to itself).

 

The thrust/weight ratio is the physical force and the lift/drag ratio is the inverse aerodynamic force (hence the cube-law rule).

 

I'm not sure that I've made that very clear?

:icon_e_salute:


  • 0

#298 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2412
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 05 December 2017 - 23:35

You are correct of course. But you also have to consider that to maintain any airspeed above cruise-speed requires that the 1% needs to be multiplied by the inverse aerodynamic forces of lift and drag (the L/D ratio). That takes it up to 3% of thrust. To actually increase the maximum level-flight speed it requires multiplying a second time (cubed) which takes the additional thrust required up to 9% for a mere 1% of additional weight. That is the cube-law rule of aerodynamics. It takes an awful lot of thrust to increase the maximum level-flight speed because most of the thrust required is consumed by the inverse forces of lift and drag. Once you reach cruise-speed most of any additional thrust is diverted into excess lift and the plane will climb if you do nothing about it with the stick. An aircraft, left to its own devices, will always attempt to return to cruise-speed and it will do that by climbing or diving as necessary (if left to itself).

 

The thrust/weight ratio is the physical force and the lift/drag ratio is the inverse aerodynamic force (hence the cube-law rule).

 

I'm not sure that I've made that very clear?

:icon_e_salute:

 

I'm not an engineer, but I still think you are downplaying it too much to assume that cruise speed and max speed are not so different. An increase from 1100rpm to 1350-1400rpm will give you a speed boost nonetheless. I never saw someone say that it scales 100%, but I never saw someone say that it does not scale at all either.


  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#299 Hellshade

Hellshade
  • Posts: 786

Posted 06 December 2017 - 01:55

 a dumpster fire

 

That's a good description for pretty much any forum thread that you inject yourself into.   


  • 2

#300 BraveSirRobin

BraveSirRobin
  • Member
  • Posts: 6356
  • LocationHackistan

Posted 06 December 2017 - 02:20

That's a good description for pretty much any forum thread that you inject yourself into.   

 

Ouch, the WoFF PR rep doesn't like me.  How will I get over that?


  • 0

The toughest part of my job is dealing with incompetent clowns who think they're good at their job.

Free Plank!

 


#301 JoeCrow

JoeCrow
  • Posts: 4145

Posted 06 December 2017 - 08:09

I'm not an engineer, but I still think you are downplaying it too much to assume that cruise speed and max speed are not so different. An increase from 1100rpm to 1350-1400rpm will give you a speed boost nonetheless. I never saw someone say that it scales 100%, but I never saw someone say that it does not scale at all either.

My powers of description are at fault here. The forces are relative to airspeed which is itself relative to the forces (inverse). That will give you a scale. I seem to have given the impression that it is not so. The relative difference between cruise-speed and maximum level-flight speed is that an aircraft can be  trimmed for various cruise-speeds, although most (but not all) WW1 aircraft do not have in-flight trim and the in-flight cruise speed is 'fixed'. This does not generally apply to WWll aircraft.

 

We are getting into territory beyond the capability of a simple forum post here so I attempted to 'simplify' it. If you are interested in cutting through the jargon I can thoroughly recommend this as a classic 'bible'. :https://www.goodread...tick_and_Rudder. It does a far better job of explaining aerodynamics and the forces of flight than I can. It is also a good read.

 

Cheers. :icon_e_salute:


  • 1

#302 Hellbender

Hellbender
  • Posts: 3321
  • LocationMadrid, Spain (originally Brussels, Belgium)

Posted 06 December 2017 - 08:58

My powers of description are at fault here. The forces are relative to airspeed which is itself relative to the forces (inverse). That will give you a scale. I seem to have given the impression that it is not so. The relative difference between cruise-speed and maximum level-flight speed is that an aircraft can be  trimmed for various cruise-speeds, although most (but not all) WW1 aircraft do not have in-flight trim and the in-flight cruise speed is 'fixed'. This does not generally apply to WWll aircraft.

 

I still don't fully agree here.

 

Trim is not some magical device which removes forces from the equation, it's just a simple help to the pilot, and even some (pre-)WWII planes such as the I-16 don't have it. A WWI pilot would have "trimmed" his plane using brute force by applying pressure on the control column. The most extreme example in this case is the Fokker Dr.I, which requires constant forward stick at every power setting to maintain straight and level flight, and hence cruise speed.


  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#303 J2_Trupobaw

J2_Trupobaw
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 4149
  • LocationKraków / Poland

Posted 06 December 2017 - 09:29

WWI planes have adjustible stabilisers, which unlike trim change the "rigging" of the plane.


  • 1

Forum moderator.

Deputy Staffelführer, Jasta 2 ''Boelcke'' http://jasta2.org

“Now now,” Akua chided. “Personal attacks are the mark of failed argument. If you’ve no counterpoint to offer, such flailing only serves to shed further light on your incompetence.”


#304 JoeCrow

JoeCrow
  • Posts: 4145

Posted 06 December 2017 - 22:50

I still don't fully agree here.

 

Trim is not some magical device which removes forces from the equation, it's just a simple help to the pilot, and even some (pre-)WWII planes such as the I-16 don't have it. A WWI pilot would have "trimmed" his plane using brute force by applying pressure on the control column. The most extreme example in this case is the Fokker Dr.I, which requires constant forward stick at every power setting to maintain straight and level flight, and hence cruise speed.

I'm afraid that you have got that completely wrong. The Dr1 requires force because it is trimmed for cruise-speed and not maximum level-flight speed. The elevator is a device for changing the angle-of-attack and interfering with trim. That is why the pilot is required to use force to level the Dr1 if speed rises above cruise-speed. Remember that we said that a 2000lb aircraft requires 2000lbs of lift for level-flight, no more and no less? Well, lift is proportional to airspeed , so what happens if lift rises above 2000lbs? The plane climbs yes? This is what happens with the Dr1 and it has nothing to do with the elevator. The trimwheel is designed exactly to remove these forces from the joystick by changing the angle-of-inclination of the horizontal-stabilizer and not the elevator. The elevator is a device that works by interfering with trim by manually changing the angle-of-attack. It does not alter the aircraft's trim. The Dr1 cannot be trimmed for maximum airspeed in level-flight because it has no stabilizer trim (unlike the Se5a for example). Altering the elevator curve in ROF merely trims the joystick itself and removes these forces, it does not alter the aircraft's trim. Remember that an aircraft is trimmed for airspeed and not its flight attitude. The elevator changes the flight attitude (angle-of-attack).

Cheers.


  • 0

#305 Hellbender

Hellbender
  • Posts: 3321
  • LocationMadrid, Spain (originally Brussels, Belgium)

Posted 06 December 2017 - 23:12

I'm afraid that you have got that completely wrong. The Dr1 requires force because it is trimmed for cruise-speed and not maximum level-flight speed. The elevator is a device for changing the angle-of-attack and interfering with trim. That is why the pilot is required to use force to level the DR1 if speed rises above cruise-speed.

 

Okay, please start a different thread about this, since we're obviously just talking alongside each other at this point, and it's really adding nothing to the Flying Circus discussion.

 

Can a mod (well, the mod) maybe split the relevant posts?

 

 

P.S. I don't doubt your knowledge of aerodynamics, I just think we have a different notion of what trim entails (vs rigging etc.)


  • 1

J5_Hellbender


#306 Arty_Effem

Arty_Effem
  • Member
  • Posts: 852
  • LocationR E S I G N E D 13/6/2018 veryuseful.info/rof

Posted 07 December 2017 - 02:00

You can simulate multithreading in a single core, but you have the core limitation, when people will need to go for higher clocks or even overclock.

 

Which seems to return us to my original point, namely it's all dependent upon the efficiency of the code.


  • 0

#307 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2412
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 07 December 2017 - 02:30

Which seems to return us to my original point, namely it's all dependent upon the efficiency of the code.

 

Coconut runs on an i3 and the core goes above 100% running two servers of 16 players max. Imagine that on an 80+ plus (packed) server and then multiply it by six, which is the rumors people are talking about the new dserver. It might not fit in a dual core code. And who knows what kind of drawbacks you have when cramping several threads in one single core, interrupting the cycle of alternate taks so that all tasks can be done by the same core? 

 

IIRC, I think Star Citizen (or another new game) is creating a dserver for 400 players. They don't need to go that far, just to finish the one they are making is enough. If they can optmize the code and bring six times the data in the same single core, fine, but I still think it won't be the same as having two or more cores sharing the tasks.


  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#308 1PL-Husar

1PL-Husar
  • Posts: 557

Posted 07 December 2017 - 05:41

In last interview with Jason guy is saying that dserver cpu utilisation never exceed more that couple of dozen %. He is complaining about dserver lack of reliability. Those intelligence was supposedly gathered during years of running dserver.
  • 0

34zg6jd.jpg


#309 J2_Bidu

J2_Bidu
  • Posts: 1121

Posted 07 December 2017 - 07:52

And who knows what kind of drawbacks you have when cramping several threads in one single core, interrupting the cycle of alternate taks so that all tasks can be done by the same core?

 

It has been called Microsoft Windows for a few years, now.

 

(yeah, just an example, and not too good at that)


  • 0

#310 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2412
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 07 December 2017 - 12:46

Here is a thread on dservers.

 

https://forum.il2stu...erver-hardware/

 

There is the Coconut guy saying it can go over 100% running two servers and another guy from Australia (The Unprofessionals server) saying he's thinking to OC his i7-6700K to give him "just that little bit more oomph", which means the code might suffer from lack of IPC or parallelism -- in the sense that even a server using 30% of the core needs overclocking to speed the process and give it a smoother operation. The OC trick is an old palliative that people have being using for ages to compensate the lack of parallelism and optimization I imagine, not just to get more 'space' in the core.

 

I'm no programmer, but the quest for multithreading is ancient by now.


  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#311 Hellbender

Hellbender
  • Posts: 3321
  • LocationMadrid, Spain (originally Brussels, Belgium)

Posted 07 December 2017 - 15:29

What about on the user side of things?

 

Can you imagine a dogfight server with 80+ people in the same furball?

 

The distances at which dogfights happen are MUCH smaller than in WWII, meaning you will reach your maximum number of objects at high LOD much quicker. Add in a collision or two with bits of wings and fuselage everywhere, and we're going to have massive "out of bones" buffer overlows popping up left and right, not to mention that the fights themselves will be slideshows even on overclocked I7 8700Ks with SLI'd GTX 1080Tis.


  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#312 GrahamshereGT

GrahamshereGT
  • Member
  • Posts: 1876
  • LocationDeroche,Britsh Columbia,Canada

Posted 07 December 2017 - 18:40

What about on the user side of things?

 

Can you imagine a dogfight server with 80+ people in the same furball?

 

The distances at which dogfights happen are MUCH smaller than in WWII, meaning you will reach your maximum number of objects at high LOD much quicker. Add in a collision or two with bits of wings and fuselage everywhere, and we're going to have massive "out of bones" buffer overlows popping up left and right, not to mention that the fights themselves will be slideshows even on overclocked I7 8700Ks with SLI'd GTX 1080Tis.

Kind of like what we get when more than 10 in the NFF server?


  • 0

#313 JoeCrow

JoeCrow
  • Posts: 4145

Posted 07 December 2017 - 19:30

Okay, please start a different thread about this, since we're obviously just talking alongside each other at this point, and it's really adding nothing to the Flying Circus discussion.

 

Can a mod (well, the mod) maybe split the relevant posts?

 

 

P.S. I don't doubt your knowledge of aerodynamics, I just think we have a different notion of what trim entails (vs rigging etc.)

I agree. it's easy to gradually drift off-topic and sometimes meanings do get confused.

Cheers.


  • 0

#314 Hellbender

Hellbender
  • Posts: 3321
  • LocationMadrid, Spain (originally Brussels, Belgium)

Posted 07 December 2017 - 23:45

Kind of like what we get when more than 10 in the NFF server?

 

Pretty much.

 

But in VR!


  • 0

J5_Hellbender


#315 J2_Trupobaw

J2_Trupobaw
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 4149
  • LocationKraków / Poland

Posted 08 December 2017 - 13:27

In NFF-like enviroment using head mounted display will even make sense  :P .


  • 0

Forum moderator.

Deputy Staffelführer, Jasta 2 ''Boelcke'' http://jasta2.org

“Now now,” Akua chided. “Personal attacks are the mark of failed argument. If you’ve no counterpoint to offer, such flailing only serves to shed further light on your incompetence.”


#316 Surfimp

Surfimp
  • Posts: 1035
  • LocationSanta Barbara, CA, USA

Posted 08 December 2017 - 17:38

Did 40 vs 40 dogfights ever even happen IRL?

 

That sounds like an absolute cluster####. Can you imagine the sheer number of collisions?

 

I hope we get to see it... one frame at a time :D :D


  • 0

Founding Member, SPADaholics Anonymous


#317 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2412
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 08 December 2017 - 18:58

Did 40 vs 40 dogfights ever even happen IRL?

 

That sounds like an absolute cluster####. Can you imagine the sheer number of collisions?

 

I hope we get to see it... one frame at a time :D :D

 

 

I lost count of how many aircraft in the middle of the account  :icon_e_biggrin: EDIT: I'm not knowledgeable about squadrons, but I think the German Jagdgeschwader were about 8 and the British about 12 (some say it could go to 18). He was flying a formation of 23 aircraft, and then the British must have had two squadrons that day. Jagdgeschwader 1 joined after, as well as two other British squadrons, so I imagine it was a furball of about 80 scouts -- 23+7ish+23ish+12ish+12ish=77/80ish+ planes.
 
 
[August 2018] Archie's cloudlets mount into the blue sky. English bombing squadrons are on their way (...) the telephone rattles again; we are to take off in squadron formation. All the three Staffels together. I am to lead them. What more can I want today? Off! I head the formation with seven machines. Staffel 23 has nine serviceable machines and flies on my left, while the seven of the 32nd are on my right. Twenty-three machines, and all German.
 
What a splendid picture all these glittering machines behind me make! They seem to be standing still in mid air; the only sign of motion I can see is a slight swaying up and down. They are peaceful ships on a huge ocean. The activity at the front has increased. Machines are positively swarming there. Suddenly I see flashes from circling wings; Jagdgeschwader 1 is fighting over yonder. We hasten to join in, but a large English formation comes up on our right and tries to get across. So it's up to us to block their way!
 
Squadron meets squadron. Our numbers are about even. Each man picks out an opponent and the turns begin. The result is a mad whirlpool. Another English squadron joins in, and yet another. Round and round we go. I keep an eye open to see we do not drift too far over the lines. A bright flame shoots out somewhere; then smoke begins to rise. A machine is burning -- an English machine. One of ours goes down in a spin, then flies homeward. Badly hit, perhaps.
 
Jagdgeschwader 1 comes along from southward to join us. Now a real aerial battle is in progress. An Englishman goes down in a spin and crashes. Another English machine takes fire and drifts through our midst in most eerie fashion. But when it has dropped about one thousand metres, it explodes and shivers into burning fragments.
 
The turns continue until I am almost giddy with them. Then the English machines gradually emerge from the dogfight and disappear into the western sky. [Wings of War: An Airman's Diary of the Last Year of World War I by Rudolf Stark]

  • 1
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#318 closed_accont

closed_accont
  • Member
  • Posts: 382

Posted 12 December 2017 - 11:35

Weel, continuing the feedback...

what I do like in ROF:

-Balloons I do like the balloons system on ROF, but it should have more defensive fire near ground.

What I would like to have in ROF:

-Getting a kill on MP
I think the score process could be reviwed, I see some problems in the one we have now in ROF.

First I do believe if the pilot don't land at an friendly airfield should be considerated as downed and if some enemy hit any bullet on him should be credited as a kill. (perhaps it should be an parameter setting to be actived by MP server admin)

Second, I don't like the last bullet hit is the one that takes the kill and the nasty behaviour it produces in MP enviroment.  I do believe the guy who hit the higest amount of bullet hit should be considered for the credit. (same idea of shared kills can be considered as well)severely damage and make it to home alive... no kill should be granted.

-Defensive machine guns on the deck.
At lower altitudes on enemy side land, I think we should have lot of active fire from the ground, like MGs shooting. it should be very unaffective and rarely gives any damage to the aircraft, but its primary function is to give the enemy position to the defensive aircraft on patrol... higer altitude... more safe it should be.

-Scorting a bomber/recon AI
A kind of mission where pilots can act as a scort to 2seaters and get points if it makes back home.

-player disconectionIf any player get booted from the game for any reason, his plane should be consider as an AI and still flying (performing emergency land? keeping on patrol in the area? going immediatly to home?) even going down is better than the plane just disapear after been pursuited half map along.

-MP score
If the mission had a side winner, all the pilots should get a bonuses over their overal score by own achievments and flying time.
  • 0

#319 FlyingShark

FlyingShark
  • Posts: 1941

Posted 12 December 2017 - 12:10

I hope they'll implement individual plane control profiles like here in Rof, something that BoX series is really missing.

 

:icon_e_salute:


  • 0

You can vote my post up by clicking the green arrow on the right.


#320 Hellbender

Hellbender
  • Posts: 3321
  • LocationMadrid, Spain (originally Brussels, Belgium)

Posted 12 December 2017 - 14:08

-Balloons I do like the balloons system on ROF, but it should have more defensive fire near ground.

 

I do hope we'll have balloons (I like how they can act as early radar), but it may only come in a later volume of Flying Circus.

 

The placement of defensive fire around them is really up to the mission builder.

 

 

-Getting a kill on MP

I think the score process could be reviwed, I see some problems in the one we have now in ROF.

First I do believe if the pilot don't land at an friendly airfield should be considerated as downed and if some enemy hit any bullet on him should be credited as a kill. (perhaps it should be an parameter setting to be actived by MP server admin)

Second, I don't like the last bullet hit is the one that takes the kill and the nasty behaviour it produces in MP enviroment.  I do believe the guy who hit the higest amount of bullet hit should be considered for the credit. (same idea of shared kills can be considered as well)severely damage and make it to home alive... no kill should be granted.

 

The scoring wil likely be identical to BoX.

 

I don't necessarily agree that you should land at a friendly airfield to be credited a kill. You should definitely land on your own side (and survive the landing), but the Streak mechanic already acts like that. BoX also only awards 50% of the score if you make an emergency landing anywhere on your side, rather than a proper landing at an airfield. 0% if you crash.

 

As for the last bullet, well, it's either that or you'll have people putting a few bullets into as many planes as they can, hoping they eventually get a kill for one of them. It will displace the problem, not solve it, and cause frustration with the pilots who do stay on a single target. Target crowding and shoulder shooting is definitely bad form and should be bannable (up to a certain degree), but enforcing this lies in the hands of server admins.

 

 

-Defensive machine guns on the deck.

At lower altitudes on enemy side land, I think we should have lot of active fire from the ground, like MGs shooting. it should be very unaffective and rarely gives any damage to the aircraft, but its primary function is to give the enemy position to the defensive aircraft on patrol... higer altitude... more safe it should be.

 

Good idea, but again entirely up to the mission builder and maximum number of objects on the map.

 

 

-Scorting a bomber/recon AI

A kind of mission where pilots can act as a scort to 2seaters and get points if it makes back home.

 

If we eventually get a few recon two-seaters like the DFW and RE8, then I'm all for it. Again it's up to mission builders, mostly.

 

 

-player disconectionIf any player get booted from the game for any reason, his plane should be consider as an AI and still flying (performing emergency land? keeping on patrol in the area? going immediatly to home?) even going down is better than the plane just disapear after been pursuited half map along.

 

I like this idea, but I don't think it's technically viable. Spawning in AI is also very taxing on servers.

 

At least if you've put a few bullets into him, and he disconnects, then you should be credited the kill. It's the so-called rage(quit)kill.

 

 

-MP score

If the mission had a side winner, all the pilots should get a bonuses over their overal score by own achievments and flying time. 

 

This is my personal opinion, but I stopped caring about score when the RoF leaderboards went down (sometime around 1789) and I haven't cared about them since. Score is important during a mission, but carrying your history over with you is pretty much pointless, especially when you consider how easy it is to set up your own passworded dedicated server and grind yourself to the top by farming AI and ground targets all day long.

 

Some stats like gunnery and flight time are interesting to keep track of for your personal development, and even building up a streak can be fun and challenging, but measuring a pilot's ability in one single number really just turns the game into a pissing contest (and I'm using the less offensive term here).


  • 0

J5_Hellbender



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users