PDA

View Full Version : Poll of having a WW-1 sim ....



womenfly
05-17-2005, 08:41 AM

womenfly
05-17-2005, 08:41 AM

buz13
05-17-2005, 08:42 AM
Nice to see that we all agree.

stathem
05-17-2005, 09:38 AM
Big http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif up from me : I'd love a crack at that.

Keep an eye out for a book called "Goshawk Squadron"; it's a novel but it seems to ring very true.

Finkeren
05-17-2005, 11:43 AM
I have wanted a good realistic ww1 flightsim for a long time, but it seems that the market for such a game is somewhat limited.
It's nice to see you take an initiative Womenfly. I don't remember seeing you arround for a while http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Atomic_Marten
05-17-2005, 12:53 PM
I'm in for it.
I have not voted because I do not really care about form of that 'possible' sim (add-on, stand alone etc.).

LEBillfish
05-17-2005, 01:56 PM
Actually, there is much, much, much more info out there on it then you realize....Check with the RedBaron3d community for proof of that.

I even recall a guy there who visited the Fokker factory, and wrote up and entire paper and how to including pics on "How to make an exact replica prop/mechanical screw" just as they had done way back when.

and lets see Northflap Grubbin claim copyrights to that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

What would really be tough though is building a campaign generator as "accurate" and intensive as RB3d's was.

Doug_Thompson
05-17-2005, 02:20 PM
I'd buy it, either stand alone or add-on. I'd like the flight model to be as accurate as possible -- which would get many players "killed." Those birds were glorified kites with an engine in them. Very dangerous, even when not getting shot at.

harryklein66
05-17-2005, 02:40 PM
look here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://memorial.flight.free.fr/

Cold_Gambler
05-17-2005, 02:51 PM
Another stand-alone (or add-on if necessary) accurate FM vote here!

Loved Red Baron II... a decade ago. It'd be interesting to see what could be done with the powerful graphics and speed of today's computers.

Tooz_69GIAP
05-17-2005, 03:58 PM
WWI sim would rock!! I was woefully disappointed about the discontinuation of Knights Over Europe.

karost
05-17-2005, 11:16 PM
Red Baron is a top class of WW-1 sim prototype for a long time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

but our voice just only 15-20% of total flight sim market , who like:
- 100% FM ( not compromise )
- accurate DM ( keep all damage report in logfile so I can see I was shoot into my head or my bud from what bullet ... like TW ) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
- 100% ONLINE dinamic
- record off/on line track
- dinamic offline career


So how about 80% for our friends like ?
Quak-WWI version for fun for sure..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S~

blue_76
05-18-2005, 12:51 AM
yes! WW1 flight sim as a stand alone with 100% FM accurate. I'd love that, probably more so than pacific fighters or fb! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Sturm_Williger
05-18-2005, 03:17 AM
You never know - with things like this happening...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4547873.stm


This might create an interest in WWI and lead to the resurrection of KoE or somesuch.

Hoping !

RAF_Loke
05-18-2005, 03:30 AM
To have accurate planes they just have to look at Red Baron 3D. Even if it's a 6 year old sim they are still the most accurate planes ever made for a WW1 sim.

Of course we need a Standalone accurate WW1, the Il2+FB+AEP+PF world is a perfect platform to make such a sim.
And again Oleg and his team has a uniqe chance to add the Russian side to the WW1 avation history.

Like this Lebed XII, which is a Russian build version of an 2 seat Albatros.

http://wio.ru/ww1a/gal/lebed12.jpg

Jatro13th
05-18-2005, 08:10 AM
I'm in it with all I've got!!!
Never had the chance to get to know how the WWI planes behaved!
God, those things must have been real pilot killers!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Blutarski2004
05-18-2005, 08:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by karost:
Red Baron is a top class of WW-1 sim prototype for a long time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

but our voice just only 15-20% of total flight sim market , who like:
- 100% FM ( not compromise )
- accurate DM ( keep all damage report in logfile so I can see I was shoot into my head or my bud from what bullet ... like TW ) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
- 100% ONLINE dinamic
- record off/on line track
- dinamic offline career


So how about 80% for our friends like ?
Quak-WWI version for fun for sure..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S~ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Karost,

Agree. Red Baron was a GREAT flight sim franchise and really showed the way for future generations of sims - track recording, dynamic campaign, MMP, career tracking, tactical command, customized paint schemes. It was a sad day when Dynamix went down.

As far as 100 pct accurate FM's are concerned, I'm not sure that we have sufficient data to confidently say that any FM for a WW1 a/c is 100 pct correct. But I do agree that we can get FM's sufficiently close to reflect the important tactical differences between the different a/c. In my mind that would be the most important thing.

Another drawback to 100 pct correct FM - Does anyone really want to have to remember to hand pump the oiling system in their Albatros D.V every ten minutes? Not me. House-keeping stuff like that do nothing to improve the sim experience.

And I have a feeling that a really good WW1 flight sim would attract a lot more than 15 pct of the flight sim market.

avimimus
05-18-2005, 08:18 AM
There was a poll. It succeeded and Oleg said that he would do it. What stopped it from succeeding is Oleg required there to be five or six 3rd party aircraft and only two materialized.

Still if you keep it up it may happen in a few years.

F19_Ob
05-18-2005, 08:32 AM
Yeah...addon would be great and the landscapes are best at low level with the map-trees enabled.
Landscapes and the feeling of flight is also better with planes with less than half the speed of ww2 fighters. Its possible to turn around trees or buildings.
It can be done now with the J8 gladiator aswell when throttle idled.

The slow speed brings a new dimensoin of enjoying this game. WW2 planes are really too fast for interacting with groundobjects the way it can be done in a ww1 set.


nice thread http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

x6BL_Brando
05-18-2005, 09:40 AM
I would love to see a WW1 add-on, and I would happily pay for it. It would be exciting (to fanatic WW1 buffs like myself) to experience as fully realistic a simulation as possible, too, but a degree of another kind of reality would also be involved.

That is to say, if the FM was very real then it would probably act as a deterrent to all but the most diehard of said buffs! Well-read fans of the dawn of aeronautical combat will know just what I mean, I think. I can't see the creators of the sim doing it for nothing - but you only have to see the remarks of new recruits to the WW2 flightsims to know that they would never cope with the intricacies of launching a kite with a big rotary engine tied to it.

The truth is that, once the punters start 'dissing' a new product, the chance of commercial success is heavily limited. Personally I would love to see it. Imagine the FR takeoff......

The ground crew swings the plane into the wind and a mechanic prepares for his first swing at the airscrew. Meanwhile the pilot runs through his instrument checks and settings, whilst the observer (usually the Officer of the pair) makes sure his camers plates are safely stowed and that the Lewis is securely fixed to the Scarrf-ring mount and so on. Eventually the engine bursts into throbbing life --- segue to the groundcrew holding back the plane with the tailskid in the air until max revs are attained. Providing the engine doesn't choke out then everyone starts running and pushing and eventually the old stringbag staggers into the air - and starts its incredibly slow climb to a safe height for crossing the front.

Harassed by buffeting Archie, the old bird waddles on to its target....the observer bends down to the task of peering through the viewfinder and exposing the heavy glass plates. This is the vulnerable time....while the pilot concentrates on holding the plane straight & level...and the observer's attention is elsewhere. But a Fokker Eindecker has appeared from a cloud unnoticed, and is climbing steadily up in the blind area behingd the massive elevators. Just too late, the interceptor is detected.....but the bullets that will tear through the unprotected floor of the spotter are already on their way through the air. They arrive before the observer has time to warn the pilot, who is killed instantly. The passenger makes a futile effort to right the plane, but a fractured fuel line creates a fireball that burns all the way to the ground http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif The observer, not wishing to burn to death, jumps from the blazing wreckage and falls 10,000 feet to his death. (No parachutes in the Great War)

And that's that. It's only taken three-quarters of an hour to get to this event, and it's just ended in a non-productive and ignominious death. Somehow I don't think that it will appeal to the " I wannit now", instant-gratification crowd. No matter that the majority of kills, even by the great aces, were gained because the quarry never saw or heard a thing - or that the number of kills in Camels was rivalled by the number of deaths on takeoff or landing....most people will be expecting to launch straight into the tight and hectic furball that makes up the exciting vision of WW1 aviation. (usually only a small fraction of the average airtime)

What I'm trying to say is that I can't see a FR, 100%-modelled WW1 sim making it onto the market and holding the average players attention. Can you imagine the uber-whingers?

"The top-wing keeps falling off of my Albatross! Oleg has porked it, waaa waaa!" LOL

womenfly
05-18-2005, 01:46 PM
My 2 cents so far....

x6BL_Brando...I loved reading what you said and I agree with all you stated, " not enough data for 100% FM" or " I wann-it now, instant-gratification crowd."

However, if we were to just get a 75% accurate FM from real data and the rest from similar vintage aircraft or replicas €¦ it would still be the best WW-1 sim out there and how much fun would that be?

To fly around in your Camel with your scarf waving in the hazy dewy dawn morning on patrol over no-mans land looking for the Hun .... or trying franticly to get your Nieuport's gun to bear on the tail of a circus colored triplane while in a lufbery circle ... Simply exhilarating ... !

"There was a poll. It succeeded and Oleg said that he would do it. What stopped it from succeeding is Oleg required there to be five or six 3rd party aircraft and only two materialized.

Still if you keep it up it may happen in a few years."...... avimimus, keeping the faith .. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

<span class="ev_code_PINK">P.S. Thanks to all that have polled and commented so far. This has turned out to be a great thread as F19_Ob stated ... lets keep it going that way with more excellent comments and views on this topic. Thanks again.</span>

Maggi_4
05-18-2005, 01:58 PM
S!
I would like to fly a sim in early cold war. In the 50s and 60s the missles I guess not so effective like present days, so it wouldn't be a 'radar fight'. Jets and Coffee grinders would fight hand by hand against the enemy's prop planes and early jets. Anyway, now I don't wish anything, just concentrate on 4.0 Maddox Gameshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sorry for terrible english

womenfly
05-18-2005, 02:14 PM
<span class="ev_code_PINK">Thanks for the comment Maggi_4, but lets all please keep on topic, okay ....</span>http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

FoolTrottel
05-18-2005, 04:22 PM
Just a thought... Shouldn't it be easier to model a WWI aircraft than a later aircraft?

Just for the simplicity of 'm?
Them birds had less parts, less performance (no need for high speed loss-of-control-modeling, no need for high-altitude-flight-modeling....)

Construction was very simple ...

Though, engine modeling could be more complex, ('Blip' the engine) as well as torque modeling (Wanting to turn a Camel to 9 o'clock? Better do it turning 3 times 3 o'clock .. cos of engine torque .... okay, could be the other way 'round here!)

Oh, and I would love it! I remember Flying Corps, where I would try and land a Camel, oops, going way to fast.... need to slow down.... no flaps! Ah, rudder left ... stick right... side slipping all the way... slowing down.... wether it was correctly modeled I do not know.... but it seemed to slow me down a lot more than a plane in Il2 does.....

(Seems to me now, them sideslip lines I just type have done no good to the point I was trying to make here... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif )

Have Fun!

Doug_Thompson
05-18-2005, 04:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by avimimus:
There was a poll. It succeeded and Oleg said that he would do it. What stopped it from succeeding is Oleg required there to be five or six 3rd party aircraft and only two materialized.

Still if you keep it up it may happen in a few years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

****. If I knew how to draw a model I'd do three or four WWIs by myself, if that's what's holding this up.

I understand that expensive software is needed, along with time and talent. One out of three (time) ain't bad.

LuckyBoy1
05-18-2005, 04:47 PM
Actually, sure, the hard data isn't always clear on these older planes, but I think a fairly serious effort on flight modelling can take place here.

My big worry is that the gamer crowd will just steal this game as well. UBI, please protect the copies of your products better so we can continue to get game development.

ST__Spyke
05-18-2005, 06:50 PM
if you want WW1 just fly around in some biplanes in PF the J8A and U-2 fly similar to WW1 aircraft, other than that id take my 400 mph 190 any day http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

RAF_Loke
05-19-2005, 12:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ST__Spyke:
if you want WW1 just fly around in some biplanes in PF the J8A and U-2 fly similar to WW1 aircraft, other than that id take my 400 mph 190 any day http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ST_Spyke: Been in several WW1 alike battles using biplanes only, but it still ain't the same.
Have BTW made several WW1 skins for the I-153.
And I'll take a S.E.5a any day instead of any Spit or what ever http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

stathem
05-19-2005, 04:58 AM
xl_Brando,

all the things you level (in a very nicely written piece btw http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif) at WW1 avaition can be true of WW2 aviation - number of aircraft lost through take off/landing accidents, unreliablity, been killed before you knew what hit you, etc.

I've had loads of non-productive and ignominious deaths flying this sim.

blue_76
05-19-2005, 11:42 PM
that is the whole point to a ww1 sim.. unreliable aircraft, difficult maneuvering, faulty guns and code of honor pilots.. that is the whole attraction. its a challenge and that is what life is all about, i wouldn't have it any other way.

Sturm_Williger
05-20-2005, 03:35 AM
Well, the original Red Baron got me into flight sims and I have a weak spot for WWI in general.

Does anyone know what software one needs to do said 3d modelling ( I've never done anything like that, but why not explore ? )

I don't think it will be quite as boring as made out by x6BL_Brando - in the first placem, you're more likely to be in the Eindekker than in the recon plane ( we all wanna shoot stuff down mostly, right ? ).

I think it would be massive fun to try and haul a protesting stringbag around the sky. Plus, think of the damage model - most hits tear fabric and snap spars, but nothing vital. I can hear the gunnery whines now ( "I put all my ammo into him, bits were flying off - then when I ran out, the observer gave me the finger !" ).

Most Full Switch flying in IL2 already potentially emulates x6BL_Brando's scenario - you spend ages getting some alt and not getting lost - then someone you didn't see shoots you down.

There is no downside to a WWI flight sim. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

PS : RAF-Loke - would you mind emailing me those WWI I153 skins ? baneman1-at-yahoo dotcodotuk. I'm in the middle of creating a WWI scenario for some mates and proper ( as close as ) skins would add a lot. Thanks

x6BL_Brando
05-20-2005, 05:46 AM
I'm sorry if I seemed to imply that it would be no fun! I'm certain that Oleg's team could make a fine job of the maps and eye-candy and so on that would capture the imagination, and graphically portray the very different landscape that was the Great War. I'd even fly the spotter if I knew that the rest of 6BL (No.6 Sqn,RFC, The Black Lions, that is http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) were sitting above in their Avro's!

I can't agree that there is enough similarity between WW1 and WW2 flying to offer what most Great War fans are seeking. The inter-War advances in aviation were enormous, and the durability & performance of combat aircraft went up by a factor of, er, a big thing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif There is a really 'pioneering' edge to the Early years of that conflict, far more marked than in WW2. I don't mean there wasn't innovation in the latter - hydraulic turrets, metal skin, monocoque construction and top of it all perhaps, radar - but the similarities seem outweighed by the differences.

I once had the privilege of riding a flat-tank BSA motorcycle of 1910 vintage in a prestigious veterans' rally. (My next-door neighbour had fallen ill, but it was very important to him that the bike should be at this rally). At the time I owned a 50's flat-twin BMW and a Triumph Trident, and had 1000's of hours of riding experience. I had owned a Matchless despatcher's bike from WW2, along with several side-valve Beezer's from the same period....but I was never prepared for the Edwardian experience!

First off, it had nothing you would recognise as a carburettor! Instead it had a very small-bore copper pipe that dripped the fuel onto an evaporation tray mounted next to the naked inlet tract!! This was shielded (more or less) by a beautiful, hand-wrought cover. It was started by pedalling to get the back wheel spinning, with the bike on it's stand, and then engaging the 1st or second of the three Sturmey-Archer gears that were (sometimes) available to get the engine spinning. Eventually the beast would come to life in a cloud of, yes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, castor-oil smoke! Mmmmm!

That was just the beginning. It was a long time ago, and I don't recall all the tweaking and twiddling that was necessary to get the 500cc single puttering at a regular beat. I know it took about around ten minutes before it was ticking sweetly - and I mean ticking. Like most vehicles including aircraft, of the era, it had exposed pushrods and valve-gear which gave off a pronounced chatter; a kind of Morse code that the wise rider paid constant attention to. Launching was a challenging technique. The clutch was a primitive thing, very prone to breakage and mostly unused. A running start was generally favoured, and the ability to match speed against revs while 'crashing' the gearbox was paramount.

I'm sorry to go off-topic to my other hobby http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Anyway, I eventually rode this belt-driven, rod-braked, hand-oiled little gem all the way to the Finish line stopping only once, to light the acetylene-carbide headlamp, at an average speed of twenty-three and one-half (very Imperial) miles per hour http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Nothing of great importance fell off, despite the horrible bumpiness of the solid rubber tyres, and my behind was cushioned by the sprung, moulded leather seat.

I'll stop it! The point is the huge difference in performance and the necessity for a wholly antique method of operation to be modelled if the sim is to truly capture the age of the horseless carriage. Otherwise it's as if I had just joined the rally on a modern 50cc moped. My average speed and horsepower might have been the same, but twist 'n go has a wholly different flavour....

Heck, even though the IL2 series has had to be dumbed down quite a lot, I can't imagine Oleg letting us get away with 'twist 'n go in a WW1 sim bearing his name, can you? And then you come back to whether a large enough customer base could be found to make it profitable?

I tend to agree with Luckyboy's caution about the gamester element too. If the absolutely vital elements like hand-pumping the oil are ignored, and the engine-killing result, then you would easily end up with an arcade-game consisting of brightly colored birds spinning up and down in ever-decreasing circles. I already left one of those behind a long time ago.

x6BL_Brando
05-20-2005, 05:58 AM
BTW....I have a faily large collection of WW1 era skins for the I-153, the Glad and the U2VS, even the TB3) which I downloaded from IL2 skins. I'm happy to pass these on to anyone (except I'm not sure who created them) and I have also written around a dozen missions for biplaners. I've tried to give a periond flavour to them, and make them a lot of fun too....some of them do that.

brando@willowdene.co.uk if you're interested. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Anyone is very welcome open them in FMB - just remove my name if you plan to add in a YP80! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

F19_Ob
05-20-2005, 06:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ST__Spyke:
if you want WW1 just fly around in some biplanes in PF the J8A and U-2 fly similar to WW1 aircraft, other than that id take my 400 mph 190 any day http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The early planes in the sim are fun but even they are modern and powerful compared to most ww1 planes in general. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

With a headwind many of them would almost stand still in the air because they were so light.
I've seen film fotage where that happened low over an airfield.
It looked like one could jump up and grab it in the air. That is what I call lift. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Pig_Mac
05-22-2005, 05:30 PM
just recalibrate your throttle to give max 20%, and fly a gladiator. WWII airplanes keep my pants moist, WWI planes dry them up.

MS_Siwarrior
05-23-2005, 03:09 AM
It would be nice to see, but imagine the whiners complaing about how they can't shoot anything down with only one gun http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

heywooood
05-23-2005, 06:37 PM
...moist pants?.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

The real fun of WWI flying is the cold April air at 12,000 ft at 5:30 am trying not to freeze to death whilst hanging almost still at 80kts and hoping you have an altitude advantage over the enemy planes you are looking for...

Playing cat and mouse among the clouds and trying to squeeze every possible advantage from their billowy mists and shadows, hoping to spy the enemy before he sees you...
Hoping your cheezy Le Rhone doesn't **** out once you finally spot their somewhat larger formation escorting a scout plane below you.
Hoping they dont have as many experienced pilots among them as you do.
Hoping they dont see you dropping down on them from a sunward position in time to turn toward you and fire their guns.
Hoping your rickety guns will fire when you do finally pull the trigger and that you will not catch fire today please god dont let me burn to death up here.

And finally - after the fray is over and your gas, bullets and altitude are gone...hoping to figure out which way is home without a GPS or a radio before either the gas or your luck runs out.

There are flying examples of a few WWI planes from Old Rhinbeck in NY and in other places - and some drawings and illustrations can be found that accurately depict the construction and relative strength of some of these airframes.
If only a simulator could capture the rest of it...reading Eddie Rickenbackers' autobiographical accounts will get you close to what it was like.

x6BL_Brando
05-24-2005, 03:41 AM
'moist pants'? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

They would certainly occur very shortly after a burst of accurate fire from the cold-eyed kid in the bright red triplane rips the tailplane from your Spad. The brass-hats back at GHQ would not permit the use of parachutes in combat, to ensure that the aviators would fight and not bail out if they got into trouble. But they weren't thinking of you in your Spad - young, vibrant and ready to fight again - if only you could jump out of this crippled kite and float to the ground to fly again! I think your pants would get pretty moist about then!

(It seems hard to imagine a time when High Commands could make such cynical orders. Dubious rules are bred in war though, and this was an era when shell-shocked troops found behind the lines were tied to posts and shot pour mieux encourager les autres, despite the fact that they were in the worst stages of post-traumatic stress. It was a savage conflict, marred by the stupidity of generals whose experiences in colonial warfare left them wholly unsuited to command forces in the first 'high-tech' world war.)

Despite the the frailty and relative slowness (A Mustang is pretty weak compared to an F-16, no? Another unfair comparison) of the early aircraft, it's important to get this relativity thing straight. Not just the period part....as in how a WW2 warbird would rack up against a 14-18 biplane....but the comparison of how a Camel would come off against a DVII, given pilots of similar abilities. Most of the manouevres like the hammerhead and the Immelman turn were invented in the skies over Flanders - and it was all 'bleeding-edge' stuff. Boelcke's Dicta is still the basis of the combat fighters' Bible.

Like I said, it was a savage conflict. Much tighter dogfights, with dozens of aircraft occupying a much smaller radius of combat - if that doesn't get your pants moist in the sense that seems to be meant, then it's probably the fault of a dessicated imagination. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WWMaxGunz
05-24-2005, 04:59 AM
The only WWI planes that would fly anywhere near as post 1930 biplanes are the Fokker DVII
and Fokker DrI with the thick Gottingen wings that only began to approach the successful
Clark-Y wings that changed aviation very much. Most all of the rest of those WWI planes
had extremely nasty stall and stall onset characteristics due to very flat, thin wings and
no twist. And THEN you get a host of other characteristics depending on plane. Just because
you see biplane models in IL2/FB/etc doesn't mean you have WWI type planes at all.

Given the recent notice of Blazing Angels game using a licensed IL2 engine, I have some hope
that a 3rd party could license the same to make a WWI PC sim that wouldn't have to go as far
in assuring perfect cockpit modelling as IL2 and get something made. If it could have and
make use of the log files and interactivity that made fbdaemon possible in order to run a
campaign engine (and possibly allow 3rd party same) then it should be able to shine without
taking forever to get made.