1. A manual. I mean a real manual, that is updated as the sim is updated. It's great to have new features, but frustrating to have to guess how to use them. Artillery spotting?? Multi-player server icons?? Owners of the sim should not have to be subjected to "help" from the "helpful" posters on various forums instead of having access to a manual.

2. Flight leader streamers. Once the flight breaks formation, it's impossible to tell who is the flight lead. (Scarves flapping in the wind? Bah. That's Hollywood, and a waste of system resources to implement. Despite recent "improvements," RoF started out as a combat sim, not a movie-making tool.)

3. More sensible AI behavior in Career Mode. (E.g., flight leaders abandoning mission objectives to chase high alitiude bombers all over the map that they can't possible catch, or flying directly into cloud banks and zero visibility.)

4. Louder machine guns! I've never flown a real WWI fighter aircraft, but I have to think that when your ear is 6 inches away from any machine gun, it's going to get your attention quite a bit more than the 'tat tat tat' you hear in the sim.

5. Career mode maps on Earth, rather than the lifeless planet we currently fly over. Again, I wasn't alive in 1917, but I've seen pictures. Aerodromes had cars and trucks and other aircraft in/around the hangars. Towns and villages had cars, people, cows, trains, boats, etc. Flying a number of missions over the past week, the only indication of life (aside from the flare shooter at the 'drome) I came across was one train that was stuck/derailed. Engine was on the tracks but cars were in the grass. Other than that, any other signs of life must have been single-celled organisms that cannot be seen from the air.

Aces in your squadron
Get rid of lens flare
Ai improvements
Bigger furballs in campaigns
More ground unit activity

Love to see the original Hangar menu come back. The one with your aircraft rotating at the edge of the open hangar doors. That was by far the most beautiful opening to any game I have ever seen.

1)Monocles.
2)Snuff box 'power ups', which enable the pilot to momentarily perceive reality in 'snuff-time' and gain an edge on the foe.
3)Monocles with frikkin lazers.
4)Ability to drop 'terror pamphlets' on the Huns, telling them their wives have ran away with French trapeze artists and onion sellers, and their bratwursts have been poisoned with strychnine.
5)Monocles with experimental 'reflector sight' tech. And dual lazers.

Seriously though, give some German planes actual flight models (Albs, PfalzDIIIa,....Might fly them then) as opposed to being RC aircraft on rails. The Se5a revision can only make sense in this context as well as other fixes. Otherwise, you effectively have a LOMAC SU-25 frogfoot 'AFM' (advanced flight model)type plane, and it suffers badly by comparison.

I actually really like the Se5a revision (despite it being arguably less effective), and feel it is probably fairly accurate. I was initially appalled by the loss of zoom, but when I looked at the gap/chord ratio arguments amongst others relating to drag on the Se5a airframe, they were quite persuasive. The problem (and its a big one) is not the Se5a revision, its that IMO others are far from being accurate. Then someone will say 'oh we don't have the data'. Ok, then extrapolate and take your best guess.....which should have been done in the first place. The rigour and harsh scrutiny must be applied equally.

The Myth of Teutonic 'Uber-Tech' (sadly perpetuated by some) must also be expunged lol. No one can tell me that they can defy the laws of physics.....many have no accelerated stall behavior whatsoever for example. BS. If they were that good, the Se5a's might as well not have bothered turning up. I don't recall reading many Se5a pilots for example writing in their memoirs

'We approached a flight of Albatri at co alt and decided to as per usual dive like biotches....with dundee cake dribbling down our legs. Without at least a 1000 metre advantage our machines were as much use as a chocolate fireman. Every time we met Albies on equal terms, we shat our pants and had to run away.'




In fact, the absolute converse was true. This is not (as of yet) reflected. Before anyone mentions mannocks rules, they were intended as advice for raw recruits....To err on the side of caution, keep mistakes to a minimum and keep them alive. Something he cared passionately about. Se5a's could mix it very easily with albs in those conditions according to every source I have read.

I think some people need to accept that there were marked imbalances throughout the war on both sides in terms of capability. Passing to and fro. This is well documented. I'd hate to think that things are being 'mitigated' because in Luft-testing sorry beta testing it was found that one aircraft was somehow 'unfairly' (lol) better. I suspect this was the case with the Airco DH2, certainly. All I ask for is some intellectual honesty, because naming no names, the obvious leaning of some (with the devs apparent ear) in favour of a Certain Side is palpable.

And yes the Camel should be slowed down, as should the DRI and its ludicrous effectiveness at mid and especially high alt curbed. In reality, the DRI was an absolutely ineffectual non-entity in WWI, a POS that would more often than not kill its own pilot by spontaneously falling to bits of its own accord. Such a source of Clown-like embarrassment they cut production of them with unerring haste. This is hardly reflected in game.

Oh, and did I mention I f*cking hate the DRI? LOL! Just thought I'd clear that one up in case there was any misunderstanding. This is also called honesty. Others might also do well to admit to certain 'prejudices', too. Just because they are there, it doesn't mean you have to act on them.

Nevermind eh.

Biggles: while your arguments have some merit they are IMHO taken to a degree that is just the opposite extreme of "luftwhiner". I read them and feel that you have a point but the tone makes me think "why bother". In the same sense that some will never be satisfied with anything other than complete Teutonic dominance, I get the feeling that any loss of any SE5a to the likes of an Albatros or Pfalz will be viewed as damning condemnation if the flight model.

On the DRI: It had the second best victory/loss ration in the GAS after the Fokker D.VII. It was a very capable aircraft in the right hands. It was not an easy crate to master and therefore not as valuable as something like the D.VII or the SE5a. The Germans produced very few, so its importance does not in any way match its reputation. However, if you knew what you were doing it was a pretty good plane to mix it up.

On the Alb D.Va: I have read some pretty good comments on how to improve the FM. In particular, look into the roll rate. I wouldn't mind seeing aileron effectiveness looked at across the board. These crates were known for requiring rudder. Not being a real pilot or an aerospace physicist I accept that my opinion is just that.

On the Pfalz: The data is all over the map on this one. This plane is almost certainly not as bad as some - particularly Allied - accounts make it out to be. It could almost certainly do much better than the 103 MPH reported on a war weary, captured example. OTOH it didn't set any speed records either, except maybe straight down. It was an odd bird. Older ones suffered from fuselage warp that could badly impact performance. How well your Pfalz performed seemed to some degree dependent on how drunk the workers were the night before they built it or how often it had been left out in the rain. Best info that I have seems to be a bit slower than the Alb DVa, a bit less climb than the Alb, a bit better in turn rate and roll than the Alb, and much more sturdy in a dive. Like the Alb, a competent aircraft that was behind the curve by late 1917.

I do agree with this: if a neutral minded pilot prefers the Alb or Pfalz over the SE5a there is probably something wrong .

Hehehe, hello Patrick (cheers for the great Campaign generator too btw). Please don't mistake my 'tone' for any form of malevolence or spite lol....I'm usually laughing heartily round here and don't take what I write too seriously. I know I don't. Your point that there is the 'luftwaffler' Entente equivalent is duly noted and agreed upon, but I assure you I am not one of them. I rarely moan but sometimes you just have to say your bit.

Being a wee bit facetious about the DRI, yes it had good initial success (mainly due to an handful of extremely talented fliers...Brothers Richtohofen, Weizl, Voss, Jacobs et al) but as you'll know was rapidly and severely outclassed by later Entente designs. This is not reflected in the sim at all, and neither are its key flaws (particularly structural unreliability...in game it is a flying tank) as well as the aforementioned speed and mid-high alt performance. Yes, you can cause wing shedding but its easy to avoid once you know how and not massively problematic anyway.

That said, these flaws aside it is by far one of the better FMs in the sim IMO. My point that its influence on the airwar was negligible still stands. I would be interested to see a source for your K/D ratio statement? (not that I doubt it mate). Reason being I think the knowledge that it was so outclassed would have been learned 'the hard way' resulting in heavy losses. The Sop Tripe had a high K/D too, but could not last the course so it proves little IMO. Claims are also a subject of debate on both sides lol.

Point being, IMO a legend was forged due to some great pilots and an 'iconic' appearance which does not really reflect the reality of its impact overall. Or lack thereof.

Don't have much time atm mate, but briefly yes I agree with the Alb roll suggestion. I would also agree with many others that they need to be a tad faster.


Cheers.

At present, ROF feels like it has two FM's from two completely different games: Rowans Flying Corps for the Entente and Red baron II for the Huns if you will.

IMO they are very nearly there with some of the entente planes (SE5, N17, Spads) but the entente have their fair share of UFO's too (pup, F2b III, too fast camel vs too fast Dr1, TIE fighter alb DII/palz DIII).

Biggles is right though when flying the revised SE5 online you need to treat the hun stationary scouts as the historical pilots treated the DR1 - the never, ever turn, one pass and run away brave Sir Robin approach. Certainly helped people like Fonck in WW1 and Hartmann in WW2 to survive and rack up kills. Less effective in ROF though when you can get sniped at from @500m with alarming regularity...

One side effect of Hun FM revision I am looking forward to is that it might push the action up from the rediculous down in the weeds furballs that dominate online even on the 'realistic' servers.

1. AI
2. AI
3. AI
4. AI
5. AI

Note my definition of "AI" is broad and includes, roughly, "all BS things enemy planes do". Some is their gunnery, fore and aft, some is the way they fly (deck diving), some is the pilot body having a larger hitbox than a Gotha even in a Camel, some is the relative FMs of the planes being mismatched so historical tactics like "plane X could outdive plane Y" or "plane A could outclimb plane B" fail miserably instead of working, but it all boils down to "my experience fighting the AI in the cockpit." Even a few of these being mitigated would help greatly ie I could put up with imbalances in plane performance if I wasn't being tracked by heat-seeking bullets.
Other flaws bother me either with far lower frequency or to a far lesser degree...so much so that if just the things I mentioned previously were straightened out to an acceptable degree I could live with every other flaw in ROF, gladly.



The Jedi Master

I generally fly German, but any unfair FM advantages that their planes may have are mitigated by my lack of flying ability, so maybe I just don't notice how good they really are . When I took the SE5a up it - also in combat against the plane - it did seem that the wings popped too easily for what was known as a pretty solid aircraft. FM wise the SE5a does seem to be pretty fast though.

Back on topic: one simple solution for sniper AI ... the AI should never open fire at > 100 yards. That was considered long range in WWI. If human accuracy (or lack thereof) is too difficult to model then just don't let them shoot from unrealistic ranges.

Between vibrations in the plane, general condition of those gun barrels, quality of the bullets, etc, I would think dispersion of the rounds would make the guns horribly ineffective farther out than that, and make things like the "vertical Cobra snapshot to the belly" that's knocked down many of my planes completely impossible.



The Jedi Master

For some unknown reason, I find the Pfalz AI a far better shot than any other plane's. I could count at least a half dozen times when I have been shot down or wounded by an upside down pfalz which has stalled in a verticle manuouver and is falling past me. I wonder if its because the Pfalz the most viceless handling that the AI is able it use it so well

Agreed. Every time I see the AI attempt one of those vertical, Cobra-like snapshots I just shake my head.

1. Slip indicator added to the Simple Gauges.

2. "Name Tags" separated from "Icons" (I'd like to set up a server with "icons/tell tale arrows" OFF, but player "Name Tags" ON).

3. Aircraft wings/structure to obscure/hide "Name Tags".

4. Online Coms system to have more channels (similar to Aces High - Text Radio).

5. Ability to have game recognized "Squads" (similar to Aces High - Squads).

Possible, but I still make the point that the problem is the sniper AI more than the Pfalz FM. The AI should not me making that shot in ANY plane. Try flying against Camels. They are pretty good at that maneuver too.

Regardless of the opponent, it's the same issue. I try proper tactics against a slow, maneuverable plane - get above it and maintain the alt advantage - and the last thing that I see is my opponent falling away in a full stall as the the screen fades to black.

Too many MiG-29/Su-27 pilots flying for the AI in ROF.



The Jedi Master

An easier Mission Editor for us who ain't so bright.

And the chance to score with French chicks after a winning flight.

(If by chance you got the rhyme and hoped it would soon be ended

Just be sure that on my part that rhyme was unintended)

A French pilot was wrote that after going out to diner with the legendary ace Georges Guynemer, when Georges collected his coat, the pockets were stuffed with phone numbers and pieces of jewellery from French ladies...

Man, why can't we have that in ROF... lol

Spoon

That's your card/drivers. I don't have this issue.



1. More LIFE in the campaign. Static aircraft on the ground, crews, more aircraft in the air, etc, etc, etc.
WWI was famous for big fur balls - so where are they?

2. Proper "Gunsight Vew" key mapping implemented for all aircraft. IL2 did it - it's not that hard.

3. Ability to land, rearm and refuel.

4. Ability to land, rearm and refuel.

5. Ability to land, rearm and refuel.

I can understand how having things like cars driving around, activity at aerodromes or in cities, infantry in no mans land and bigger fur balls could create problems with performance but there could be sliders or settings (off, low, medium, high) for these options.